Chefelf.com Night Life: Batman Returns - Chefelf.com Night Life

Jump to content

  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2

Batman Returns Grill a Movie

#16 User is offline   Vwing Icon

  • Soothsayer
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 657
  • Joined: 31-October 03

Posted 10 May 2004 - 08:26 PM

I agree that the interaction was the best thing about the movie, because, again, it drew on the issue of duality that SHOULD have played a bigger role in this movie. Unfortunately, it soon just becomes sexual innuendo, a bit of which is humorous, but most of which is not. Penguin I still think is just a ridiculous, overly-grotesque character. Fine, play on his need to be love a little, but if I remember correctly, most of the movie focused more on Schrek giving him advice and him killing people needlessly than it did on Penguin's need to be loved. So yeah, some of the CONCEPTS are good, but there is no execution.

I still think Batman Forever is a more enjoyable film than this, and that Batman and Robin, while as bad, is at least light badness.
0

#17 User is offline   Just your average movie goer Icon

  • -
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,140
  • Joined: 10-April 04
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 11 May 2004 - 03:08 AM

Finally, this movie has become the hot topic it is supposed to be!

I will side with Vwing in saying that this movie is so dark, grotesque and horrible that it is offputting to almost everyone.

I also think there has to be a moment of light in the movie as well.... but not for reasons of contrast. For me, Tim Burton needed to provide me with one compelling reason why the few decent people left in Gotham City didn't just give up and leave town (or commit suicide).

If a city was truly that awful, I think the federal government would quarantine it from contact with the rest of the country and then level it to the ground with a continual aerial bombardment.

Okay - and now onto comparisons with Batman Forever and Batman and Robin. Okay, Batman and Robin truly sucked - but it wasn't nasty and horrible. Batman Returns truly sucked as well but it WAS ALSO nasty and horrible. It is worse than Batman and Robin.

Okay, onto Batman Forever. This movie gets a hard rap from most people. I know that it wasn't the best and near the end of the movie as the Riddler took centre-stage, the whole movie fell apart and become cartoonish and ridiculous. And Two-Face, who was a fun villain for me, got reduced from being a highly dangerous criminal who had the city in fear - to being the Riddler's silly little side-kick.

But it had merits. The movie opened very well in spectacular fashion. The scene at the circus was a very powerful scene and some of the humour in there was quite fun as well. And guys, there was Drew Barrymore in lingerie! Did you all happen to forget that? If you liked nothing else, then.... anyway..

Gotham City, although it was too bright and colourful, again looked like a modern city and its general populace were nicer again.

Batman Forever was a bit dumb, granted. But it was a lot of fun for the most part and visually, there was a lot of eye candy (and not just Drew Barrymore and Two-Face's other girlfriend).

Any flaws in the movie probably come from the fact that the movie was trying too hard to be fun and comical.

But why was it trying so hard to be so light-hearted, fun and comical, you might wonder?

It was because Batman Returns was so dark and awful, that most people never wanted to see another Batman movie again.

And I have to say that I was VERY apprehensive going into the cinema to see Batman Forever on account of Batman Returns, and while I was disappointed that we no longer had Michael Keaton playing the title role, I enjoyed the movie quite thoroughly on my first viewing.

On repeat viewings, the movie's stupidity wore me down a bit too much (and most of this is Jim Carey's over the top silliness and the poor character sketching of the Riddler in general).

But I DID enjoy this movie at least once.

I didn't even enjoy a moment of Batman Returns.
0

#18 User is offline   Esco Icon

  • Henchman
  • Pip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 97
  • Joined: 08-December 03
  • Location:Northern suburbia, IL
  • Interests:I love playing baseball, fishing, spending work day ripping on the SW prequels, hanging out with my wife, going to church, working out, writing music, producing music, watching movies, going for long walks (with wife), hanging out with friends.

Posted 11 May 2004 - 06:38 AM

JYAMG,

you must have had a bad time watching Batman Returns! It cant be that bad?
Anways, I'll just give my thoughts on this movie, instead of trying to defend it so much.
I have almost always been a fan of dark films. I dont know what it is. I'm not a gothic person-or even suicidal, but I've always been attracted to dark flicks.

I remember watching this flick and thinking that I hated what they had done with the Penguin, but I loved what they did with Batman. I have never been a big comic reader, but from all reports, this Batman was true to the comics.
A misunderstood, misguided life who's a hero yet a curse. This idea was fleshed out well in this movie. It was hinted at in the first film, but in BR its shown fully.
I could have done wihout the whole Penguin backstory. It's so preposterous, that
it took me out of the moment.
So again, I can see why you dont like it, but I hope you can see how I can.

oh, and for the record, Batman Returns and Batman Forever are unforgiveable.
NO redeemable qualites whatsoever. just MHO.
0

#19 User is offline   Just your average movie goer Icon

  • -
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,140
  • Joined: 10-April 04
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 11 May 2004 - 07:33 AM

Maybe there might have been something in it that I missed. I only saw it once but I have no intention to do so again. It just seemed horrible with not a single virtue to save it.

I still believe Batman Forever was as over-the-top in its cartoon silliness as it was because it was trying to overcompensate for the nastiness of Batman Returns.

It couldn't save the franchise but I don't believe it was responsible for killing it.
0

#20 User is offline   Supes Icon

  • Sunshine Superman
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,334
  • Joined: 30-October 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney, Australia
  • Country:Australia

Posted 11 May 2004 - 11:11 PM

The thing that appalled me the most about this film was more to do with the character of Batman himself. I'm a big fan and reader of the comics. In this film Batman effectively kills one of the circus thugs.

It's the scene where there is a fight and the big guy has a couple of stciks of dynamite (like the acme version from the cartoons). In the ensuing battle the thug suddenly realises that Batman has attached the bomb to his belt. Batman then throws him down a set of stairs (or something like that), walks away and behind him we see the explosion.

BATMAN NEVER KILLS!!!!

This is something that the comics have established for over 60 years. He cherishes life above all else and would even sacrifice himself to save a criminals life. This representation just misses the point by so far and Burton should have known better.
Luminous beings are we... not this crude matter.
Yoda
0

#21 User is offline   Just your average movie goer Icon

  • -
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,140
  • Joined: 10-April 04
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 12 May 2004 - 12:30 AM

Hmmm.... maybe he just didn't like Circus performers. I mean, who does?

Although since you mention it, he seemed to enjoy it actually. I remember him smiling as he pointed out the bomb before kicking the guy down the stairs.
0

#22 User is offline   Supes Icon

  • Sunshine Superman
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,334
  • Joined: 30-October 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney, Australia
  • Country:Australia

Posted 12 May 2004 - 01:01 AM

QUOTE (Just your average movie goer @ May 12 2004, 12:30 AM)
Although since you mention it, he seemed to enjoy it actually. I remember him smiling as he pointed out the bomb before kicking the guy down the stairs.

Exactly!

Batman is vicious and violent and is not above causing serious bodily harm. But he will not kill & he certainly will not smile while doing it.
Luminous beings are we... not this crude matter.
Yoda
0

#23 User is offline   Just your average movie goer Icon

  • -
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,140
  • Joined: 10-April 04
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 12 May 2004 - 04:32 AM

When I read your previous post, I initially thought but he killed another person in the original movie besides the Joker.

The guy in question was that big bald black guy who mercilessly beat Batman to a bloody pulp in the Cathedral.

Batman really had no choice but to knock that guy off or he would have died and so would a lot of other people because the Joker would have got away again.

But he could have just beaten the circus freak up and left him in a gutter for the cops to take him away.

And Batman doesn't use any explosives unless they are Batman special patented shiny, black explosives.
0

#24 User is offline   Supes Icon

  • Sunshine Superman
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,334
  • Joined: 30-October 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney, Australia
  • Country:Australia

Posted 12 May 2004 - 09:43 PM

QUOTE (Just your average movie goer @ May 12 2004, 04:32 AM)
When I read your previous post, I initially thought but he killed another person in the original movie besides the Joker.

The guy in question was that big bald black guy who mercilessly beat Batman to a bloody pulp in the Cathedral.

I did have an issue with that scene also, but we weren't grilling Batman the Movie biggrin.gif That scene did seem to be more of an oversight, but I still take exception to any scene where Batman is responsible for the death of someone. The only way I will wear this is if it's accidental and completely unavoidable.

But that's just me and my puritanical view of The Batman.
Luminous beings are we... not this crude matter.
Yoda
0

#25 User is offline   Just your average movie goer Icon

  • -
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,140
  • Joined: 10-April 04
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 13 May 2004 - 03:55 AM

I'd say Batman can be forgiven for killing the thug in the cathedral. If he wanted to save Vicky Vale, get the Joker or just live to see the sun rise the next day, then he reallly had to kill that guy. In his weakened state, I don't think Batman was really capable of knocking anyone unconscious and leaving them for the police.
0

#26 User is offline   Lord Aquaman Icon

  • Legend
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,976
  • Joined: 19-November 04
  • Location:Atlantis
  • Interests:Movies, comic books, some mythology... basically anything that's larger than life.
  • Country:United States

Posted 18 December 2004 - 05:50 AM

QUOTE (Just your average movie goer @ May 13 2004, 01:55 AM)
I'd say Batman can be forgiven for killing the thug in the cathedral.  If he wanted to save Vicky Vale, get the Joker or just live to see the sun rise the next day, then he reallly had to kill that guy.  In his weakened state, I don't think Batman was really capable of knocking anyone unconscious and leaving them for the police.


That scene always bugged the hell out of me. I know he just barely survived a plane crash, but watching Batman, one of the most famous comic book characters, get a royal and humiliating ass whooping from a guy who looks like Ray Charles on steroids just plain sucks... and after getting his ass kicked he goes and beats the crap out of the Joker! I mean how do you go from getting your ass kicked by Ray Charles on steroids to beating the crap out of the Joker?! It was like watching "Superman II" when Superman foolishly gives up his powers to be with Lois and then gets his ass kicked in the diner, but that's another scenario.

A friend of mine, however, once "explained" that it was actually a "brilliant strategy" by Batman to let the Ray Charles thug "wear himself out by letting him repeatedly slam his fists into the kevlar body armor of the bat-suit".

I'm reminded of 2003's "Daredevil" when a miscast Ben Affleck gets his ass kicked by an ultra-vanilla Jennifer Garner - actually getting stabbed in the shoulder - and then somehow he overcomes his injuries to drag himself to a church that has to be halfway across New York and then chases Colin Farrell all through the church, leaping around like a big red CGI frog and then tossing Colin out the window.

As for "Batman Returns"... well, let's just say that Tim Burton should not direct sequels. Originally, "Batman Returns" was going to be a "more direct sequel" to the first film in that it was going to feature the return of Vicki Vale and tie up any loose threads we had there with the romantic arc and other miscellaneous story nuggets from part 1, but Tim Burton decided he didn't like the idea of a "direct sequel" so he tried to make it as INDIRECT as possible (even though there are references to Vicki's character). Also in earlier drafts they were going to introduce Robin/Dick Grayson (even though I'm pretty sure DG had become Nightwing by that point and that the Robin moniker had gone to Tim Drake) and they were going to feature the return of Harvey Dent, who was supposed to be played again by Billy "Lando Calrissian" Dee Williams, who signed on the first movie with the understanding that he would eventually play Dent as Two-Face, and the movie was supposed to end setting up Two-Face to be the villain in part 3, but all this was rejected by Tim Burton (and as we all know, Williams contract was later bought by WB so they could cast Tommy Lee Jones as Two-Face for #3). Another little nugget of the story was that Bruce Wayne was supposed to be losing his motivation to be Batman, seeing as how he had killed the Joker, who the movie blamed for killing his parents, and seeing as how that nicely fills out the "revenge" aspect of Batman's goals, it was supposed to fill Bruce with a lingering doubt about continuing his peculiar night-time existence as Batman.

On the whole, the Batman films always had this little problem with "style over substance" and not focusing very much on the title character. Even in the first film Batman took a back seat to the Joker, but that was okay because the first film's job was supposed to INTRODUCE you to the Batman universe and then subsequently build upon it with each sequel. For the most part, the sequels served more as spotlights for the villains, with Batman merely boiling down to being "the enforcer" of justice.

"Batman & Robin" suffered from having no clear sense of purpose - was it a touching story about family values (ie Bruce's relationship with Alfred), was it a comedy, a drama, escapist art? We may never know... plus I think audiences were annoyed with the constant changing of the actor in the Batman role, going from Michael Keaton to Val Kilmer to George Clooney, and George only got the role because Joel Schumacher thought his chin looked good in the bat-mask.
I am the Fisher King.

I'd like a qui-gon jinn please with an obi-wan to go.
0

#27 User is offline   barend Icon

  • Anchor Head Anchor Man
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Crappy News Team
  • Posts: 11,839
  • Joined: 12-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nieuw Holland
  • Interests:The Beers of Western Europe, Cognac, and constantly claiming the world would have been a better place if Napoleon had won.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 19 December 2004 - 09:13 PM

Quote

1. Gratuitous violence -


if there's anything i hate...
it's movies based on violent comic books, where the hero just judo flips people on their back and says "hey, i barley even messed up my 50s hair do... now don't worry folks, i flipped him on his back... i'm sure he'll wait quietly for the cops to show up, in the meantime, i'm off..."
nope... con-artists and liquor store robbers go to jail...
supervillans who can't be touched by the law get pushed off tall buildings, electrocuted or desimated by a thosand penguin mounted missles...
and supervillans who don't kill people or act violently towards them are hardly supervillans...

i mean what supervillans should we have?
The Jaywalker
The Litter Bug
The Whinger

?
so, nop... violence good!!!
PG-13? well you're definatley right there... M at least.

Quote

2. Gotham City, aka HELL, USA -

the original comic books were darker than a goth kids home photo lab-darkroom on a day he got dumped by his imaginary girlfriend and decided to make the place a little blacker...

most events of batman series occur at night time... so It works for me...
I liked getting to see the sets in the light of day in the first one but...
i had no problem here...

Quote

3. The Penguin -

i also thought this was an intersting angle to take... same as the joker... no just some asshole in make up... but a mutated psycho freak is always good...

Quote

4. The Plot -


what? there was some great excuses to have these characters exist...
two badguys, a vengfull girl, and batman in a complicated (yet simple enough for any kid to follow) story...

it wasn't that riduculous... it had a bit of a fairy tale feel tpo it, but i liked that...

Quote

5. Max Schrek -

rich jerk gets comeupance... whats not to like?
christopher walken, just to spice it up...

Quote

6. More than One Villain -


catwoman wasn't really a villan... she just thought she had a common enemy with the penguin...
and shrek was caught up in it...

Quote

7. Duality -

i thought this was one of his better works...


Quote

8. The music -

well, there was no 'partman' by Mr.AFKA Prince... but it did the job

Quote

9. Catwoman -

yum.

Quote

10. The Penguin's Penguins -

cute and launched missles...

11. The ending -
i don't know... it was an ending... mellow.gif

------------------------

Vwing... you deserve a better defence than that, but i am at work looking after the phones, while the rest of my work are at a resteraunt having fun at the X-mass end of year doo... while the one jerk who stayed back is making me run up down our fucking minas tirith steps every five fucking minutes to the photo copier... oh look here he comes again
FUCK FUCK FUCK!!!

sorry... didn't mean to drag you into that personal hell... sorry...

back to work...
it's nice to be loved! :angry:

This post has been edited by barend: 19 December 2004 - 09:15 PM

0

#28 User is offline   Lord Aquaman Icon

  • Legend
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,976
  • Joined: 19-November 04
  • Location:Atlantis
  • Interests:Movies, comic books, some mythology... basically anything that's larger than life.
  • Country:United States

Posted 20 December 2004 - 10:25 AM

I'm with Barend; Gotham City was always set up to be a darkly lit cesspool.
I am the Fisher King.

I'd like a qui-gon jinn please with an obi-wan to go.
0

#29 User is offline   Vwing Icon

  • Soothsayer
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 657
  • Joined: 31-October 03

Posted 20 December 2004 - 04:30 PM

I'm not saying Gotham should not be a bad town. Of course, it must be dark, it must be, well, gothic. But as I said, there is a difference between a bad city, or a city with bad parts to it, and HELL. Why would anyone live in Gotham if on literally every street corner there's someone ready to kill/rob/rape you? It has to walk the fine line between cesspool and civilized metropolis. In the first Batman, Burton did that very well, showing us the Gothic parts of the city and the dark parts, but countering them with scenes of, first of all, DAYTIME to counter the darkness (because like I said, you have to have at least a bit of light to act as a counterpoint to the darkness), and just people going about their everyday lives without being killed/robbed/raped. Gotham City in Batman Returns is just a ridiculous characiture of Gotham City, and would be funny if it weren't so horrible.

As for gratuitous violence, there is a difference between violence in a comic book movie or that type of movie (for example, I do not consider Kill Bill to have gratuitous violence) and violence that is gratuitous. First of all, Batman doesn't kill unless absolutely necessary. In Returns, he kills thugs on a whim, even smiling. Second, is it really necessary to show the ice princess fall to her death, among many other things? I realize you say it's in the plotline of them accusing Batman of murder, but you know what, it's a stupid plot line! Plot lines should not be based on gratuitous violence.

The Penguin is a disgusting character, who we no sympathy for whatsoever. Even Joker we kinda liked a bit cause he was human but psychopathic. But the Penguin is just an animal. It would have been much better and more interesting had they just made him the high class criminal with a disfigurement.

And the other stuff I just disagree with you on smile.gif
0

#30 User is offline   barend Icon

  • Anchor Head Anchor Man
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Crappy News Team
  • Posts: 11,839
  • Joined: 12-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nieuw Holland
  • Interests:The Beers of Western Europe, Cognac, and constantly claiming the world would have been a better place if Napoleon had won.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 21 December 2004 - 12:51 AM

once again i have to point out that if i were a super hero who had lost his parents at an early age...

i'd kill anyone that looked at me funny...

(who was a bad guy)...

you're not much of a vigilanty/superhero if you trip a rapist over ans say "there there, the police will be here to collect you soon" then not even call before leaving...

even then...
the reson this hero exists is because the police are completely useless...
these criminals are back on the streets in no time...

yep... they'd call me 'the evescerator' or the 'mutilator' or 'horribly violent dude'

even the penguin in 60s show was a bit of a psycho...
0

  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2


Fast Reply

  • Decrease editor size
  • Increase editor size