I don't care if people liked Michelle's version of Catwoman or Danny's version of Penguin, this movie was simply awful. Myself and some friends went to see it, all excited because the first Batman with Keaton was so cool. We walked out of this one scratching our heads, trying to figure out WTF we just watched. It was bad. REAL bad.
Bad script, muddled scenes, lousy plot and a lot of meaningless side plots that went nowhere.
Batman Returns sort of feels like the first movie on acid or what would happen if Tim Burton's ego and imagination weren't kept in check.
shareRight! It was a HUGE mistake to let Tim Burton have complete creative control. They didn't let him do that with the first one and it was a fun movie, even if somewhat quirky.
Movies like Nightmare Before Christmas and Edward Scissor Hands are more in line with Burton's talents. He can't do to Batman what he does in those movies.
I think that Tim Burton and company forgot that superhero movies are at their core, about the clear cut battle between good vs. evil. Ang Lee made the same mistake with his Hulk movie, which felt like more of an introspective, cerebral art movie than a escapist, popcorn movie. It seemed like with at least the Penguin, he wanted to have his cake and eat it too. He wanted us to cheer for is downfall yet at the same time, view him as a tragic figure. Take for instance, when we're supposed to feel sad when Penguin dies and his little pet penguins hold a make-shift funeral for him. To Burton, the gruesome and grotesque villains like Danny DeVito's Penguin were the real main characters, unlike Batman. It's as if he wanted Penguin to be some sort of anti-heroic underdog, who was unfairly treated like an outcast because of is physical appearance and the fact that his parents abandoned him.
shareIt's as if he wanted Penguin to be some sort of anti-heroic underdog, who was unfairly treated like an outcast because of is physical appearance and the fact that his parents abandoned him.Well, that's mostly true, isn't it?
All bets were off in wanting to feel sympathetic towards Oswald Copplepot when he as an infant, he already demonstrates his homicidal tendencies by killing the family cat. Yet, Burton seems to want us to think that his parents abandoned him primarily because of his mutated appearance.
shareMy theory is that being locked in a cage as an infant psychologically damaged the infant Oswald, as it would most likely do with any very young child.
Also bear in mind that the first thing Oswald heard as he entered the world were the screams of his horrified parents. He never knew any love from an adult his entire life. Of course he became a homicidal monster!
I had that idea too. He was born into wealth but forced to live in a sewer. This might impact him. A BIG hole in the film is how he learns how to talk despite being raised by the penguins. And where he gets the clothes to be adult. Presumably he meets up with the red triangle gang and they help raise him?
shareTim Burton on Returns didn't have people (such as Jon Peters, Peter Guber, and Sam Hamm) who would tell him that his more oddball or demented (if you want to call them that) concepts shouldn't be used. The 1989 movie was relatively grounded in reality (it didn't feel like a twisted, black comedy/geek show like Returns). Of course, with Burton getting more creative control, Batman Returns had to become more stylized (not that it isn't a bad thing as long as there's still a reasonable degree of substance).
shareThe first Batman sucked, this one didn't. Different strokes dude. You must like movies that are controlled and censored by Hollywood know-it-alls.
shareI hated the first one, but loved this one. Different strokes, I guess.
Jack Nicholson destroyed the first film, but the second one rocked. I’m with you, Modica. If he wants to think it was “awful,” with a “meandering” script, that I followed easily, and “wasted” scenes that I never noticed, well, then, that’s fine, even if he never specified why and how the narrative meandered (did it exceed his attention span?) or how, and which, scenes were wasted (again, attention span). I don’t need everyone to agree with me, do you? There are folks I don’t want to agee with me.
shareNot everyone has to agree with me, but I am so glad it was made. About half of Tim Burton's movies I like and the other half I don't like. I think the studios have something to do with that, because left on his own, the product seems much better than other times when there is possibly studio interference. Batman Returns, Ed Wood and Sweeney Todd are my favorite Tim Burton movies.
shareI always felt the first one was more fun and better action movie: better set pieces, larger stakes, and just more of a blockbuster feel.
Returns def feels like Burton went, well full Burton. The action sequences weren't as good, the finale felt weak, and Batman had even less screen time and barely an arc in this film. Though the Joker had massive screentime in the first film, Batman still had an arc and challenges he had to over come.
This one felt like a movie that featured Penguin. I think it was Ebert who said film felt more "mean" spirited. Idk I enjoy this film as a piece of art it probably is better than the first, but the first Batman felt grand.
Leonard Maltin also thought that Returns was too nasty, mean-spirited and nihilistic.
shareThis post gives the impression that it was written over 20 years ago but the guy only had the balls to post it now.
I think I'll try that. I'll see Glass, write a negative review about it and post it in 2046.
Well seeing how it was 1992 when the movie came out, not a lot of people were posting on the internet. But since you put so much effort into your reply and I don't wish you to feel cheated out of being a douchebag, I told people that Batman Returns was shit in 1992.
Chew on that Stoney.
uh, ok then. To each their own. You didn't like it, others did.
sharehttp://www.yourstupidminds.com/2015/02/podcast-batman-returns-1992.html
Your Stupid Minds returns to the well of goofy comic book movies; this time, it's that movie that you never think about but remember being sort of good: Batman Returns! It's the Ghostbusters 2 of a new generation! It's also the return of academy award favorite Michael Keaton to the podcast. Was his performance in Birdman better than Jack Frost? You tell us!
Join Chris, Nick, and returning guest Vincent Goodwin as we address the wall-to-wall strange choices that helped propel Batman Returns to the #3 spot of the 1992 box office (oh wait, it completely coasted on the success of Batman, the #1 film of 1989)! Together, we answer the tough questions like: what happens in this movie? Who is the main character? Why does the Penguin act the way he does? What is Penguin's plan? What is Catwoman's plan? How many press conferences can one mayor throw in the same plaza? Why isn't Gotham constantly dealing with recall elections?
You and your friends sound like retards
It's been like 25 years and you barely made this thread. You should have figured the movie out by now. Just admit that you're a child and barely saw it for the first time. It's a good movie with elements of satire, political commentary, and a logical continuation of Burton's original Batman movie
Yeah, it's weird af. But that is par for the course with Burton. This was in a time when the term "superhero movie" meant less than jack shit.
Just saying "Bad script, muddled scenes, lousy plot and a lot of meaningless side plots that went nowhere." also means less than jack shit
You are a veteran poster on here (I think). You should hold your criticism to a much higher standard. Expand on every single part of that sentence. What were the bad elements of the script? What made the scenes so "muddled"? Why was the plot lousy? What meaningless sideplots are you referring to, and how do you believe that they didn't find any resolution?
Your thread is objectively worse, compared to all other internet threads ever, than Burton's Batman Returns is, compared to all movies ever :)
Nah. It sucked.
share