The thing that struck me was how much better than the rest Batman was. Of the four, it’s the only only I went back to the cinema to see again, though one of the things I recall about it now is how hyped it was, and yet the tiny amount of marketing Lucasfilm seemed to put into Indiane Jones and the Last Crusade (out at around the same time) didn’t stop it from being a better film. All the same, I bought the t-shirt, the crappy Prince album, and loved the movie. Burton’s vision of Gotham was spellbinding. Jack Nicholson was in top form, and Michael Keaton made for a gritty, hard-boiled Batman.

Batman Returns, though good fun in places, took too long to get going. The scene with all those penguins wandering out of the zoo with rockets strapped to them was an excellent idea. It was still top class compared with he two cartoonier Schumacher efforts. Batman Forever wasn’t bad, though I imagine more could have been done to rein in Jim Carrey’s gurning. Finally, Batman and Robin was one of those rare occasions when I’ve wanted to get up and walk out of the theatre halfway through. Dire, although when I caught it again more recently I felt it wasn’t as terrible as all that. I agree about Uma, mind. Bet that particular effort isn’t prominent on her CV…

As I mentioned I was a really Big fan of ”Batman Returns” before and did like it for all the reasons you mentioned, I also liked how dark it was, I didn’t mind that at all. But watching these Films back to back I felt it was lacking the epic kind of feel the first one had. As a Burton film it would be a favorite of mine, that and “Edward Scissorhands”, but as a Batman Film I think it fell short of it’s potential.

I think Burton had the perfect balance of his vision and of Batman in the 89 film but the pendulum swinged too much towards Burtons ideas in the second. I felt disappointed that he didn’t build on what he had done in the first Film. It also kept Batman as too much of a backround character. By the second film I’m wanting to know more about what makes him tick.

“Batman Forever” tapped into the more colourful comicbookish Batman. It also delved into Bruce Wayne’s psyche a little more which I liked. There was a lot I didn’t like but I came away with a bigger feed than “Batman Returns”. There’s something about it that appeals to the wider Audience much like the Spider-man films do now. I gave it a higher rating because I think it really put Batman back on the Rader again. Unfortunately it went too much the other way also when it came to the sequel.

Burton’s somewhat demented vision made for the best translation of the character’s darkness and pessimism. Those qualities are why Batman has always appealed to me much more than other comic book heroes and why Schumacher’s films seem so ridiculous.

The odd thing is that I’d agree with your assessment of Batman Forever. You’ve listed most of the problems I have with it, even if you seem to have enjoyed it more than I did. It just doesn’t feel like Batman to me whereas Burton’s films do.

Great work, though.