Batman Returns [2-Disc Special Edition]

i think you start calling it batman begins mid way through by mistake.

Thanks for catching that Dorfhombre. It's been fixed.



- Josh

In your "Extras" section of your review for "Batman Returns", you write, "Have you ever wondered what happened to Robert Urich? Well, apparently he???s hosting special features of movies. At least he was back in 1992."

Robert Urich died on April 16, 2002. Cancer took his life.

Through the 1990's, Robert Urich acted in many television programs, including roles on both "The Lazarus Man" and "The Love Boat: The Next Wave".

I thought you might like to know...

sad.

you know, i think i like this one better than the first one, but not as much as batman begins. is anyone with me or am i alone?

I have to say I like Burton's first installment just a little better than his second. "Batman Returns" is a pretty decent flick on its own, but there were a couple corny moments that just didn't do it for me. Nevertheless, it's still a good, dark delivery from Burton.

As of this year, "Batman Begins" is hands down the best Batman to ever come along. The whole realistic approach is what works for me, and in my opinion, "Begins" just can't be beat. As much as I love Burton's work, I have to give the upper hand to Nolan.

I think there are some major corny moments in the first burton installment as well, but like batman returns, they are hardly distracting. I know most people prefer his first to second, but I think the added level of macabre makes it a small cut above the first. I noticed that the violence and macabre elements in these two were really startling in comparison to the recent superhero movies. Throughout batman I thought I could see moments of studio pressure, but I think this is because there was a certain amount of expectation, and the studio must have made him include many elements he might have opted out of, like maybe prince???s music, which I have never cared much for in that movie. But batman returns never elevates to the standard level of Hollywood fun, it always remains dark and subdued. It is nasty in a way which I think burton brought more to the second because the studio was more willing to give burton artistic control.

And I agree, I think batman begins is better, but because the style fits the material better, and in a way in which the audience can latch onto.

Thanks for your pointing that out, Coelacanth. I had no idea Urich had passed away. I corrected the Extras section.



- Josh

"Batman Begins" is great, I love it. But, "Batman Returns", in my own humble opinion, is the best of all.

I really enjoy "Batman", but this is how I see it:

Batman - "Studio" Batman Movie

Batman Returns - "Burton Unleashed" Batman Movie

Besides, the first one feels dated in some parts to me, like the Prince songs. *Cringe*

Imtheelectricpanda,

I agree with you on quite a few of your points. Prince... hmm... he was cool back in the day, but, that day has passed. Consequently, Madonna should come to this realization as well.

However, the first "Batman" had Jack Nicholson! That guy has been around a long time, and he's an amazing actor! I don't think anyone could have better portrayed "The Joker", than Nicholson. The man just has a way of doing "crazy" like no one else. If you can't tell by now, I'm a fan.

I also felt that "Batman" was a little darker in a way. After all, we did see "The Joker" plumet to his death from a skyscraper. I felt "Batman Returns" was a little more tame. However, they're both Burton films, so I'm happy with them.



- Josh

Yeah, it does have Nicholson, which is big points for me. Man's a genius. My favorite performance from him is in "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest". Gotta love the 70's. I do love both of the films, but whenever I watch the first Batman, it feels more of an "80's" movie, whereas Batman Returns has more of a timeless feeling to it.

That's all I'm saying.

Batman gets points for having Jack in it, but loses some for it's dating.

Batman Returns is, I agree with you, tamer in what it shows, but a plot to kill all of the first born children with rockets (albeit, shooting them off of penguins), I would think that's much more sinister, and much more "Burton-esque".

Since, I am such an avid Burton fan, I love many of his films (except for Corpse Bride, couldn't stand it), I just think the second Batman lingers more to his style and I enjoy it more for that.

It's November 1st! I turn fifteen in 28 days, yay!

I think, perhaps because of nostalgia's sake, that this is my fave Batman film (even better than Begins). The whole atmosphere of darkness and foreboding was so chilling from beginning to end (Parents throw their child into a sewer in the first five minutes). The musical score was SO perfect, especially the themes for Catwoman's transformation and the Penquin's death. And how is Joker plummeting a reason for the first film to be darker? The Penquin hit the water and his lungs exploded, causing his face to ooze blood. The Penquin's deep-seated childhood dilemmas and the kidnapping of all the children of Gotham was a very creepy touch. Elfman's music and Burton's visual style (Gotham, Batmobile) will always be superior to Nolan. The interplay between Catwoman and Batman was priceless (the making out while hiding scars, the double entendres during their fight scenes), especially after they discovered each other's identities. The ambiguous ending in which Bruce sees the shadow and he drives away, once again alone and at Christmas with the Catwoman looking over, gives me shivers every time (another scene with great music). Don't get me wrong, I still love Batman and Begins (Forever and Robin can go straight to hell), but I will always have a special place for this one. I seriously get passionately angry when someone criticizes this film, for it seems that Batman and Begins are universally liked. But not this one, perhaps of it being too dark. As before mentioned, I really believe that Burton was given the reins on this one and he made it extremely well, if not as mainstream or to everyone's taste. Excellent film all the way around.

TGP,

Burton actually went into "Returns" hesitantly. He didn't really want to do it at first, but as things started to come together, and when he got Pfeiffer and Keaton on board, things just started to flow for him.

I think what a lot of people do (especially "these kids today" ;) ) when they analyze older films, is they contrast and compare the film by today's standards, which isn't giving the film it's due credit. You have to judge a film against others of it's day, and in the time it was made. If you judge a film that was made nearly 14 years ago, against the most recently released films, there are going to be all kinds of technological improvements, that "may" make the film better, as well as many other variables. The sad thing to me is, the younger generation (generally speaking) seem to judge a film based solely on "cool factor", or CGI. Nevermind script, direction, acting, set and costume design, artistic merit, or just plain old, good story telling.

In any case, I like both of Burton's contributions to the "Batman" series. They are fun movies; and whom could do better to bring the dark comic to life, than 'the king of dark', Tim Burton?

;)



- Josh

I thought Ozzy was the King of Dark? No wait, Ozzy is the Prince of Darkness. Sorry, my mistake.

Tim

Speaking of Nicholson and The Joker:
Nicholson hammed it up pretty well, and his over the top performance certainly commandeered the film. A good fit for that Batman film overall. As for the best choice for The Joker...maybe. Maybe not.

In watching Batman Begins on DVD, I noticed one of the inmates of Arkham who (though I don't think it is him), reminded me a great deal of Noah Taylor (Almost Famous, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory). Now this would be a pretty inspired pick for The Joker.

I'll call Chris Nolan to see if he's already started readings...

Sean (...palm readings that is...)

Amazing how come Tim Burton could make 2 movies of the same character so different to each one.

The first one works so well because it doesn't feel that much like a super hero movie, like BATMAN BEGINS, but BATMAN more so.

BATMAN RETURNS in my opinion has the most replay value of the 2 since it is much more action oriented and the pacing is quicker. Not that I mind that in BATMAN as the pacing is perfect... for the type of movie it is. But since RETURNS has so much more going on for it you can just sit at anytime and watch it; as opposed to BATMAN where the movie takes it time in driving you in.


And I'm very glad Tim Burton decided to use The Penguin and not Schumacher. He just gave the character the "upgrade" it needed. And Dany deVito's perfomance is amazing as well, and the same goes for the character design.

Maybe the first Batman was slow in the beginning because Burton was trying to create a build up of the back story and characters? Laying that first footstep in the pavement for a series (I imagine) can be quite daunting. I'm sure Burton was just trying to make sure he got it right.

As for "Returns", I agree, deVito was amazing, but I think if you're going to compare deVito and Nicholson, it's going to come down to preference. Personally, I'm a fan of Nicholson's performance over deVito's in this case.

A films "replay" value, again comes down to preference, I think.

Both films are excellent, however.



- Josh

Sorry to be repetitive here, I didn't realise a review existed for this film until I went to post mine. At any rate, here it is:
Another Batman, another sequel, this one adding nothing and using almost nothing of the rich tapestry of characters and history in the Batman franchise. 1992 Batman Returns marks Tim Burton???s second, and last (?), outing in the Batman franchise (although he served as an executive producer for Batman Forever), and what a shame. Burton???s Batman films, which now, after Nolan???s Batman Begins could be considered shallow and outdated, are not without their charms. First of all, Burton practically created the gothic look of not only Batman, but influenced the visual design of pretty much every film after it. Batman Returns presents more of the same from Burton, only this time he knows what he???s doing much more. Set in a parallel version of New York, with all its crime and sin, Gotham City serves as the backdrop for Batman???s second battle with the nefarious super villains running rampant across its streets. Offering not one, not two, but three villains (Max Shreck does count) Batman???s time gets stretched a little thin. Not only does he have a freakish penguin man (Penguin, nightmarishly portrayed by Danny DeVito) hell bent on murdering the children of Gotham, but a billionaire tycoon (Max Shreck, performed slyly by one of Hollywood???s best actors Christopher Walken) seeks to make the hideous monstrosity the new mayor, thereby increasing his powerful corruption over the city. Throw in Michelle Pfeiffer as the slinky (and extremely kinky) Catwoman with strange romantic ties to Batman and you???ve got one hell of a confusing plot.
Not that it matters anyway, the real meat of the film is found in the elaborate sets and terrific action sequences. The sets, while massive, do lack a sort of refinement you???d hope to expect from a Tim Burton movie. They seem big only for the purpose of providing wide angle shots. In a way, I guess you could say they suffer from a lack of decoration. The action sequences, on the other hand, have no complaints from me. Although a little dated, at the time of release these were the best there were. Really, who could ever get tired of watching the Bat beat the crap out of some freakish circus folk (those clowns got what they deserved). Sure some of the gadgets are like what you???d see in a James Bond film (if it was designed with a bat motif), such as the batarang, which really serves no purpose and was only used to show off. At the time at least, everything you see was amazing special effects wizardry.
But let???s move on shall we?

The Bat
Yes, Keaton is back as Batman, and he???s better than ever. While in the first movie there was some trepidation (ok, sure loathing on the fans part) as to whether Keaton could pull the characters of Bruce Wayne and Batman off, in this film we already know he can do it. Basically, he???s just refining his character with more nuance and intrigue. Thankfully, the backstory of his parents was left basically to the side lines for this film. While some fans disagreed with this lack of motivation, I say what???s the point? We???ve heard it a million times his parents were killed and we know why he???s doing what he???s doing, and if we don???t, we shouldn???t be beaten over the head with it, this isn???t a psychological profile here. Did we ever find out why Micheal Myers killed people? Why Hannibal ate people? NO! And its not really necessary to repeat it anyways (although Hannibal Lector ate people as a result of Nazi soldiers killing and eating his sister in 1945, but let???s not get technical here). Most importantly though, we watch this movie to see the Batman, and in this movie he looks just as cool as before. With the suit this time going for a deep navy blue, rather than pitch black of the first film, it allows for a nice contrast the film noir aspect of the sets. While the suit has undergone some changes from the last movie that I???m not too happy about (namely the abs being replaced with layers of plates) the whole thing seems to fit so much better.

The Cat
Perhaps the most inspired choice of casting in the film, Michelle Pfeiffer plays the lonely and pathetic secretary and sexy, feline Catwoman to perfection. Comic book movies allow for some great overacting (as was the case with Jack Nicholson as the Joker) and Ms. Pfeiffer is so totally into her role as Catwoman that you can???t help but root for her and hope that she and Batman will hook-up. I especially enjoyed the more pronounced love story elements in this film. While in the first film it was more of an afterthought, here the most interesting aspect of the film is the relationship found between Selena Kyle with Bruce Wayne and Catwoman with Batman. This allows for some terrific moments including the one where they both discover their identities. Of particular interest to note is her costume. While the more recent Catwoman film completely destroyed any allure for the character, and pretty much turned her into a slinking whore with clothes sent through a blender, the custome for the Batman Returns is subtle and alluring without a lot of glitz and pizzaz. It just goes to show you that you don???t need a lot of accessories to have a great costume. High gloss black really helps too.

The Penguin
Ah yes, Danny DeVito?? normally I don???t care too much for Mr. DeVito as an actor, but here he plays the hideous and disgusting Penguin so well that I almost have trouble remembering I???m watching an actor. From the annoyed snorts to the disgruntled groans, to the green/blue spit: Danny DeVito is the Penguin. The fat suit really helped to make him this pathetic and lonely creature frustrated with the world. I always get a little sad when he starts addressing his Penguin troops in a Patton-esque way, preaching and screaming to them his frustrations with Gotham and how miserable his life turned out.

Your enjoyment of this film will ultimately come down to whether or not you enjoy dark films. Hardly for the faint of heart, Burton???s Batman Returns is a terrific sequel and an excellent stand-alone film in its own rights.

The Video
Enhanced for 16:9 T.V.s, the transfer of Batman Returns is spectacular. For a film nearly 15 years old, this print is devoid of grain, with only the occasional speckle, object delineation and colour are excellent. The blacks are bold and the colours are never murky. No edge halos either. This is the best the film has ever looked and is a joy to watch. A perfect transfer.

The Audio
Ok, the audio on the other hand, isn???t that great. It comes with both English 5.1 Dolby Surround and DTS. I listened to the DTS and was less than thrilled. Sound field immersion was a little flat, dialogue was sometimes flat and the whole thing felt front heavy. My subwoofer was almost never used and when it was the bass was too soft. All in all this is only serviceable. Nothing worth mentioning, and in fact I sometimes found it detracting from the experience.

The Extras
Finally, what I???ve been waiting 13 years for! There is so much here that I myself almost found it too much. While not as packed as the Batman special edition DVD, this DVD offers a plentiful roster of supplements for any fan.

The commentary by director Tim Burton is good. Not great however, as he is fairly meek. After a little while he gets into it, and thankfully never says what???s happening on screen. He also refrains from using the simple ???I liked that scene??? approach. Still, the video documentaries are where you should head for your movie info.

The Bat, The Cat, and the Penguin (21 minutes and 47 seconds) is your standard cast and crew montage of vintage interviews. Extremely promotional in nature featuring only 1 candid behind the scenes shot. Narrated by Robert Ulrich with lots of silly cameos of someone in a catsuit. Feel free to skip this one.

Shadows of the Bat: the Cinematic Saga of the Dark Knight Part 4: Dark Side of the Night (30 minutes and 10 seconds)?? holy shark chomping deputized Batman???s with shark repellent Batman! What a long name, and isn???t 2 colons just bad grammar? Anyways, this program features a bevy of new and vintage interviews with most of the cast and crew of the film. Good information pops up here, nothing too heavy as it is merely a recollection of the film. As it stands I found it enjoyable learning about all the inside workings of how the film went down, as well as the director and other crew members reactions to the reception of the film. Decent enough, but leaves you salivating for the documentary gallery to come.

The Heroes and Villains profile galleries which break up into the following:
Heroes:
Batman (3 minutes) is an analysis of what the filmmakers were trying to achieve with their interpretation as Batman for this film.
Alfred (3 minutes and 45 seconds ???surprisingly enough) dissects Alfred???s role in both the film and the comics. Features two interviews with Michael Gough.
Villains:
Penguin (4 minutes and 22 seconds) talks about the reasons behind the grotesque nature of the character as well as the similarities between Batman and Penguin.
Catwoman (4 minutes and 25 seconds) explains the changes between the character in the comics and the film.
Max Shreck (2 minutes and 12 seconds) mentions an interesting deleted subplot between Penguin and Max. Other than that it does little more than say that Max is evil and rich. Lots of vintage footage of Chris. Always a plus.

Also included is the Beyond Batman Documentary Gallery, which breaks up into as follows (and lemme just say my mouth dropped when I first selected this icon and was greeted with all these features):
Gotham City revisited: The Production Design of Batman Returns (11 minutes and 20 seconds) the production designers explain how they wanted to make Gotham City look different from the first Batman while still echoing that style. It also makes mention of the troubles of shooting a winter city in the middle of summer, the troubles of Penguins layer, stylistic choices of Selena Kyle???s apartment, Wayne Manor, the Batcave, the city rooftops and finally, Shreck???s store. Some more production artwork and behind the scenes footage would have been appreciated, but good enough as a mere examination of the sets.
Sleek, Sexy and Sinister: The Costumes of Batman Returns (13 minutes and 23 seconds) details the design choices of the new Batsuit (that ugly art-deco thing) as well as its construction. Penguin???s costume and the fat suit is also mentioned. The evolution of Catwoman???s costume is also described. Very fascinating stuff here. Suprisingly enough, Max Shreck and the Ice Princess??? costume is also mentioned. Red Triangle Circus gang is also touched upon.
Making up the Penguin (8 minutes and 8 seconds) examines the progression of the Penguin with a look at the Academy Award nominated Make-up.
Assembling the Artic Army (9 minutes and 27 seconds) is a fairly interesting piece which looks at not only the penguin wrangling, but the creation and usage of animatronic penguins. I thought the penguins looked fake, despite Stan Winston???s constant declarations of how terrific they looked. Still, a lot of effort went into them. If that weren???t enough penguins, they even had digital penguins. Could it be possible the filmmakers were a little too obsessed with penguins? Well, at least penguins with miniature rocket launchers strapped to their backs is always adorable.
Bats, Mattes and Dark Nights: The Visual Effects of Batman (11 minutes and 30 seconds) is perhaps my most favourite of all the docs. With only 130 Academy Award nominated effects shots, the brilliant visual effects artists managed to bring the world of Gotham to life. Featuring one of the best explanations of matte photography, with plenty of fascinating trivia about CG bats and penguins, this is a great featurette.
Inside the Elfman Studio: The Music of Batman Returns (11 minutes and 18 seconds) examines Danny Elfman???s work on the film. I found the music of Batman Returns to be a mixed bag. Basically the only parts I like about it are the rehashes of Danny Elfman???s original and brilliant theme. While the music is not a total loss, and certainly the new material of this score is inventive, it just struck the wrong chord with me. Particularly the circus themed music. Very macabre and weird.
While all the supplements before the gallery were mostly about what people hoped to achieve with certain characters and the deeper symbolism and nuances of the film, these documentaries merely list the facts of how and why certain things were achieved. Definitely worth watching.

We also get a Face to Face music video by Siouxsie and the Banshees (fairly good music video with the usual collection of film clips. I don???t know if I???ll ever listen to the song again, but it was fairly decent, the song that is) and the film???s theatrical trailer (2 minutes and 28 seconds) which suffers from one too many puns (???the purrrrrfect enemy??? was really pushing it) and lousy sound effects. A rather lame trailer.

While on I???m on the subject (are you tired of reading yet?), the menus were pretty lame too, they were simply a freeze frame image with the font of the text matching nothing about the movie. Seeing as how the same design was implemented on all four Batman film DVD???s, I was a little disappointed.

Overall:
So which one is better? Batman or Batman Returns? In my honest opinion it???s the latter, offering the more rounded out love story, better action and equally brilliant set design. While the initial shock and awe of our first true sighting of Batman and his Batmobile as found in the first Batman film has worn off, Batman Returns is still the one that I keep ???returning??? to (forgive the pun). I???ve seen it more times than is humanly healthy, but I plan to continue doing so. This terrific DVD package will only make it all the more enjoyable. Highly recommended.

Video 10/10
Audio 6/10
Extras 8/10
Film Value 8/10

onijay,

is the video really that good? i was watching my single-disc versions of "batman" and "batman returns" a few days ago, and i was shocked at how much print damage there was--lots of dust, lots of holes, and lots of mosquito noise.

eddie

I was expecting it to suck, but I was constantly (and pleasantly) suprised. Maybe it's becuase my expectations were low after the murky Batman DVD, but ya, other than the occasional white speckle (I only noticed 4) it was phenomenal.