Subject: Retrospective: Batman Returns (1992)

From: Eric Walker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 19:39:40 -0000

Reposting a review first written in 1992.

Many are the ironies of Hollywood, where true genius is overlooked and
boring mediocrity is worshipped at the altar.  The latest example of
these ironies is Tim Burton, the twisted genius at the helm of "Batman
Returns."  Yes, I think "genius" may be the operative word here,
because Burton is one of those truly unique filmmakers who we're going
to look back upon, years from now (not many years, though), and nod
wisely when we talk of the "Tim Burton school of filmmaking."  This
guy's got talent, he's got vision, he makes movies that he can
definitely call his own.

But the irony here is that the "Batman" movies, which are going to be
his biggest box-office hits, are not really his movies. Let me put it
this way: Tim Burton, and his screenwriter, Daniel Waters, have taken
a so-so Hollywood sequel and made an above-average movie from it.
They've done with this movie what 20th Century Fox wanted to do with
"Alien3," and on the whole they've succeeded. "Batman Returns" is an
entertaining, enjoyable, often funny movie, despite a silly,
fragmented story and a star who is completely lacking in charisma and
screen presence.  It has the same weaknesses that plagued the first
film, but it also has the same strengths, and this time the strengths
outweigh the weaknesses.

First the strengths.  As with all of Tim Burton's movies, the scenery
and sets are mind-blowing.  Setting this movie in winter at
Christmastime immediately made me think of "Edward Scissorhands" on a
much bigger budget.  The Penguin's underwater grotto is the best Evil
Villain's Hideout haven since Lex Luthor's lair in the first
"Superman" movie, and Wayne Mansion, which we see more of this time
around, is obviously taken directly from Xanadu in "Citizen Kane,"
complete with a huge roaring fireplace and big, empty rooms that
reflect the empty life of their owner.  These two sets stand out from
the general weirdness of the movie, and they're a sight to behold.

And the characters themselves?  As you've probably heard, Michelle
Pfeiffer steals the entire movie as Catwoman.  When she dresses up in
that sleek black leather suit, the hormone level in the audience rises
noticeably.  Not only can she hold her own with Batman in a fight, but
she's equally believable as she begins to fall in love with Bruce
Wayne.  She's pictured here as a mirror image of Batman - a mousy, shy
exterior with a raging demon underneath.  And that whip!  In her own
words, "I am Catwoman - hear me roar!"  (I wouldn't mind playing with
this kitty myself.)

Danny DeVito's Penguin is a delightful monster as well, the tragic
figure who wants to get back at the world for what it's done to him,
and who allows himself to be used by Christopher Walken's evil
businessman Max Shreck because he has his own secret plan in the
works.  He throws himself into the role, and I think he put a better
job in as the Penguin than Jack Nicholson did as the Joker. But desite
all these pluses, there's still the problem of Michael Keaton.  What
problem?  The problem that as Bruce Wayne, and as Batman, he's as
stiff as a board.  He's boring, he mumbles too much, and his spotlight
is continually stolen by the villains.  I just can't work up any
emotions at all for this guy.  I felt that Keaton was woefully miscast
in the first movie, and he suffers in the role even more here.

It doesn't help that the action scenes are probably the weakest part
of the whole movie.  "Variety" magazine has said that at his heart,
Tim Burton is not an action movie director.  I agree whole-heartedly
with this.  In fact, we don't get that much action at all until the
climax of the movie, but that's okay because the characters cast a
spell of their own, without any gratuitous violence to keep the
audience awake.  The scenes of Batman battling the Penguin's goons
seem to have been put into the movie simply because the movie had to
have a few fight scenes in it.  Maybe Tim Burton should get himself a
second director like Sam Raimi or John McTiernan to handle the fights
in the inevitable third "Batman" movie, because he just can't do them
himself.  This is why I call the success of the "Batman" movies
ironic.  They're not the type of movies that Tim Burton truly excels
at, but they're what Hollywood wants, and apparently they're what the
public wants.  So for most people, Tim Burton will be best known as
the director of "Batman."  (One might say the same thing about Martin
Scorese and "Cape Fear.")

(These complaints about the fight scenes, however, do NOT apply to
Batman's battle with Catwoman.  I want MORE!  <pant-pant-pant!>
<chuckle>)

--
			First Online Church of "Bob"
			  http://www.modemac.com/

==========
X-RAMR-ID: 35372
X-Language: en
X-RT-ReviewID: 1179243
X-RT-TitleID: 1039328
X-RT-AuthorID: 1470