CNN.com - Review: Welcome return for 'Batman' - Jun 15, 2005

People are liking the new Batman movie. CNN.com pretends that this is news. The last Batman film, according to the article, stumbled drunkenly through theatres in 1997, and "it was a bad time for the Caped Crusader, whose movies had started out so promisingly."

Dear CNN,

Hi. I saw you pointing me out in your Batman article. Thanks for the publicity.

Sincerely,
The Bleeding Obvious

Let's all just try to remember what we liked about the first two Batman films that the second two lacked completely. Batman and Batman Returns were both richly textured with a dark atmosphere and strong characterizations. Batman Forever and Batman & Robin had goofy, cartoonish cinematography and nipples on the costumes.

You heard me. The Dark Knight's turkeys were done, dude.

Granted, granted: When Batman fights the Riddler, the Riddler has to be utterly and completely demented: a raving lunatic concealed under the thin, peeling veneer of a well-mannered banking executive. The Riddler is poised and precise one second, and laughing hysterically the next. First he's calm and then he's rolling on the floor clutching his sides. He's got to be over the top in a way that Jim Carrey can do. He probably did a very good job with the character. I wouldn't know because I refused to watch the film on the grounds that they used the wrong Harvey Dent.

But Tim Burton directed the first Batman films, and he did something magical: he made The Penguin creepy. Not just "Mommy, what's wrong with that man?" creepy, but deep-down creepy. The kind of thing that stays with you when you're home alone and you wonder if you're being watched. The Penguin was never stupid, but he was never really, really crafty the way he was in Batman Retuns. Danny De Vito's performance was spot on, and this continued with everyone else in the cast.

By the time it got to Batman Forever, Burton had gone onto other things and Michael Keaton decided that the angsty, brooding Bruce Wayne wasn't his style anymore. So, if I recall correctly, Val Kilmer came in and made Bruce this hunky airhead who was totally in control of his inner demons and basically just dimpled around Gotham looking pretty. Yawn.

Batman needs his angst. Batman needs his anger. And if you take that away, nothing can fill the void. Not nippled hardsuits, not special effects, not bitchin' Batmobile designs. The producers of the last two Batman movies forgot this, and in doing so, they took a page from the old 1966 Batman series. They asked themselves, "Hey. What if we made Batman fun?"

If you're still wondering what the "secret formula" to a good Batman movie is, there you have it.

Batman isn't fun. It's perfectly OK to watch the Caped Crusader take on goofy sixties villains like Egghead for half an hour on The Family Channel every now and then, but if you're going to invest two hours in a single storyline, Bruce Wayne had better fuckin' be tormented.

I think this new Batman film will work, and I think it will do so because it focuses so completely on the psychosis. Yes, people want to see the cape and the cowl and the Batmobile. These are all essential elements to make a popular Batman movie. But to make it a quality picture as well, you have to appease the film critics and the comic book nerds alike by actually giving people motivation. (Except The Joker. He doesn't need motivation for his actions. Ever.) It may be Christian Bale in a costume, but to the audience, it's Bruce Wayne under that mask, and it's Bruce Wayne throwing that batarang, and it's Bruce Wayne trying to metaphorically undo his past. And when you divide the motive out of the equation, you are, essentially, lobotomizing the whole idea.

And that's what Batman Forever and Batman & Robin were. Lobotomized. They tanked at the box office because the fanboys were not appeased. So, I guess, Hollywood has learned its lesson (for now), and bee-dub is back to doing what he does best. Being dark and obsessive. Bravo.

Like anybody needed a CNN article to tell them that.