I tend to a student of the school of thought that the original is always the best. More often than not that is the case, with cover songs, TV shows, and of course, movies.
The original “Batman” movie opened up in the summer of 1989 and a group of friends and I saw it in the theatre right after the 6th grade. It immediately became one of my favorite movies.
I got the VHS tape for Christmas that year and watched it into the ground. That movie spawned 3 sequels throughout the 1990s and eventually the more popular “Dark Knight” films currently running.
But without a doubt, the original is still the best.
I’ve never read one comic, so I go at it from a movie standpoint alone. Everyone already knows the plot; Batman is good, the Joker is bad. The Joker tries to take over the city, Batman stops him etc etc.
For this review, let’s not focus on the plot, not the plot…the presentation. The special effects (while entertaining for the time) just don’t stand up to movies of today, just 20 short years later (the gunshots sound like pre-recorded blasts from an old John Wayne western), though the cryptic backdrop of Gotham City is dark and brooding with a haunting score and superb visuals (picture Manhattan meets London while tripping on acid).
What makes the original “Batman” supersede all the others is the acting.
Let’s start with the caped crusader himself. Michael Keaton is well known as a comedic actor, with “Mr. Mom,” “The Squeeze,” and of course, “Beetlejuice.” Keaton takes the role of billionaire playboy Bruce Wayne by the wings, and is able to portray a much more relatable (and thoroughly likable) protagonist than later versions. Keaton is charming and smooth as Bruce Wayne, someone thrust into fortune yet still seems like a down to Earth guy you would want to have a beer with. What is not always known at first mention of his name – Keaton is a terrific actor, and carries the role in a way that later Batmen are simply unable to do.
Unlike smug pretty boy George Clooney, Keaton is completely likable as Bruce Wayne and still believable as the caped crusader. The character dons the suit because it’s a duty that he’s self appointed to do, as opposed to a muscle bound jock like Val Kilmer who does it because he’s the toughest guy in town anyway, or the heartthrob and over-actor, Christian Bale.
The knockout female role belongs to Kim Basinger as the photographer Vicki Vale. Basinger, simply put, is beautiful, and carries a certain maturity to the film that later on screen females can’t match – Alicia Silverstone, Katie Holmes, etc.
Less integral characters, such as reporter, the obnoxious (pun intended) Alexander Knox (Robert Wuhl) offer great comic relief – upon first meeting Vicki Vale Knox proposes marriage within 60 seconds. When she politely declines, he downgrades his offer to “will you buy me lunch?”
Perfectly cast as the role of on-the-take scumbag detective Lieutenant Eckhardt is William Hootkins, who reeks of despicability and though only on screen for two scenes, the mesmerizing Jack Palance as the crime boss Carl Grissom. I remember watching as a kid and being thoroughly hypnotized by Palance’s performance as the ruthless don who sets up Jack Napier, his “number one guy,” and subsequently (and inadvertently) creates the Joker.
Of course, the entire movie revolves around the Joker – portrayed by iconic megastar Jack Nicholson. Seldom does an actor command the respect and notoriety as Nicholson, who is not a Hollywood A-lister, he’s a Hollywood A+lister.
Nicholson has been nominated for 12 Academy Awards (most for any actor, and second all time only to Meryl Streep). Nicholson still commands one of the highest salaries to appear in a movie and is always the top billed in the credits (even going ahead of Keaton in Batman, a rare feat for the villain of a film). That, along with the quirky scheduling demands that afford him more time off that anyone else on the set and an ability to create his own lines, are all well worth the price. In return you get one of the greatest actors of all time, and he will always dish out a truly remarkable performance. Heath Ledger’s Joker portrayal in “The Dark Knight” was stunning but make no mistake about it – Heath Ledger is not Jack Nicholson, and there is no debate.
The comparisons of the 2 characters have been going at it for 4 years when “The Dark Knight” was released. One of the more common themes is the darkness of the characters – Heath’s Joker considered to be far more dark a character than Jack’s. But is it? Heath Ledger’s Joker tends to be more insanity driven; wicked because of extenuating circumstances in his life while Jack’s Joker is just plain evil, murdering a hoard of characters for no reason at all (his own sidekick and number one guy Bob, Eckhardt, Bruce Wayne’s parents to name a few) and tries to take over Gotham City by slaughtering countless amounts of innocent people (poisoning beauty products, dispensing fatal gas from parade balloons). Even the disfigured face that Jack supports is a much more gruesome a site than Heath’s.
The movie itself is a bit corny and highly outlandish, but then again, it’s based on a comic book which is another reason it is far more superior to the newer Christopher Nolan movies that try to be more realistic in nature and end up seeming more absurd. In the 1989 film, it’s far more plausible that a man dressed as a bat is waging war with a man like the Joker – it’s not supposed to be realistic, a theme lost on the more special affects-driven films of today.
Nerds who know the comic book panel for panel will bellyache about this or that (those types will always complain about something) but to the layman, the original “Batman” is a truly great film, and one that stands on its own (and compared to its sequels) it should.
– by Matt Christopher
