Batman - was it not good?

[Jimmy Higgins]

So, I was online checking reviews on the quality of the 4K transfer for Batman... the first Michael Keaton one. I saw there were complaints about color saturation, but dynamic range was improved. But what caught me by surprise was that they started the review noting that the film really wasn't that great, not awful, but definitely lacking.

I was stunned. Couldn't believe it. Wait... the Tim Burton one? They note that the movie was two dimensional and the characters lacked any character and Batman is flat. Now, I am seeing this movie at the age of 12 or 13 originally, and honestly, I can't remember the last time I saw the film. So it is possible there is adolescent attraction to the film that wouldn't survive future viewings. But I had thought the movie was liked overall. Reading this guys review, I pondered whether this was a post-Marvel universe issue. But when I went to Rotten Tomatoes I was seeing similar complaints back when the movie was released.

Now of course, movies don't need to be liked by critics for a viewer to like it. My household loves Sherlock Gnomes and I'm uncertain why it was panned. But I had always thought Batman was regarded as a high level action film. There weren't many back in the day. You had Superman, Superman II, and kind of Superman III, with the IV'th movie's master film being launched into the sun (ironically). And there was Batman. Obviously the movie was successful. So is this a critics issue or are there many people that had problems with Batman when it came out?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't remember anybody having problems with it. It was a Batman movie and it had Batman in it. What more would anyone be looking for? It was kind of cheesy and silly, sure, but it was a comic book movie in the 1980s, so there wasn't some kind of second choice about that or expectation that it would be somehow different. It was great for what it was.

Edit - I just checked out some of the old reviews of it and it seems to have gotten some lower scores because people felt that it was too dark at times, which wasn't what they were expecting from a comic book movie. I guess things change.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Only thing I remember regarding concerns was the PG-13 rating was highly controversial. That was probably when PG-13 was merging into R-13.

 

[ZiprHead]

The only thing I remember is the "Michael Keaton is playing Batman?" dust up. I was one of them but it turned out great.

 

[James Brown]

The Michael Keaton Batman violated the "Batman tries not to kill anyone" rule, possibly a throwback to the Comic Code Authority era. I remember being surprised by that.

But since the only Batman prior to this was the campy 1960s television show or Super Friends, this movie elevated Batman to new heights of gritty realism that every director since has incorporated.

 

[Hawkingfan]

The only problem with the 1989 Batman was that they killed off the Joker without there being much character development, story line, or conflict with Batman. It was much too soon and anti-climactic.

 

[James Brown]

The only problem with the 1989 Batman was that they killed off the Joker without there being much character development, story line, or conflict with Batman. It was much too soon and anti-climactic.

Good point. That was another new development. Killing off the villain in each movie. And that standard still largely holds today. The MCU has been able to modify it a bit (not killing off Loki or Thanos) but only because the character had something in the works for a future movie.