Christian Bale Sweats More Testosterone Than Michael Keaton Has In His Whole Body

I mean, come on. Here's a thought process for you: who would be a great actor to play Batman, the intense avenger of the night? I know, how about Mr. Mom! Almost all of the Batman casting was terrible in the first four Batman films (along with everything else about them). Since that time, the only film casting that has been that level of bad came when they cast Ben Affleck in every movie that Ben Affleck has been in. But it wasn't just the casting, almost everything was bad. Until Christian Bale and Christopher Nolan came along and reminded us that Batman is and will always be the greatest hero of all time. But I'm not here to talk about how great Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are, because they speak for themselves. I'm here to rip on all of those guys that screwed up from 1989-1997. This is the first installment in the unofficially titled trilogy: "Why the First Four Batman Movies Suck."

To begin with, I actually think the first Batman film is pretty good (but I can't include that in the unofficial title, it just wouldn't work). Obviously its quality decreased by half the very second the teaser trailer for Batman Begins came out (more like the casting news) but it still retains a lot of quality. Jack Nicholson's Joker still holds up really well in light of Heath Ledger's unparalleled performance. It's different, but it's quite well done and certainly the best part of the movie. Tim Burton is a great director, and there are some excellent scenes in the film, especially when the Batplane is silhouetted against the moon. In addition, Danny Elfman's score for the first two films is truly incredible, and the Batman Theme remains one of my favorite pieces of music. But they royally screwed up a lot of stuff too. And Batman Returns has no Jack Nicholson, and thus no redeeming value. I'd like to tell you all about both films in painstaking detail, but sadly that will have to wait for the book version. Instead, I'll just harp on some key points.

First off, they broke Batman's only rule. Batman kills people in these movies. But, as Tim Burton said in one of the behind-the-scenes documentaries: "Why do everything the way that it's done in the comics? Why not do your own thing?" Exactly! Why remain faithful to something that's been around for fifty years? (now seventy) Why go with the tried and true? Instead of following the guidelines of something that will be remembered long after the dust has left the bones of Michael Keaton's great-great-great-great grandchildren, why not just make up some stuff? Like this whole killing thing. Instead of having Batman refuse to become as bad as the man who murdered his parents, let's just forget that he has a psychosis so strong that it caused him to dress up like an overgrown mammal and beat up criminals on a nightly basis. And when he kills people, he shouldn't feel remorse. He should just smirk, as if to say, "Heh, I'm cool like Stallone. I just blew up that guy! Being Batman is sweet!"

Nightmares. It gives me nightmares that Batman kills people in those movies. If there's one rule you don't break, that's the rule.

And they let Kim Basinger into the Batcave. How did she weasel her way into that one? Probably not with her acting talent. Now, if they truly developed the Catwoman character (as in the total opposite of either Pfeiffer or Berry's performances) then I could probably buy that he would eventually let her into the Batcave. Because they have a lot in common, and he might someday trust her with his secret identity. But instead, they let Vicky Vale in. And why? Basically because she's blonde and hot (though I never liked her much). Scratch that, Alfred let her in, because I guess he thought if Batman had a ladyfriend in the Batcave then maybe he wouldn't be so upset anymore. Of course, then Batman might cease to exist, allowing the Joker, the Penguin, and even relative unknowns like Calendar Man to overthrow the city. But, the Batcave could use some redecorating so I guess none of that matters.

Interlude: I can't get a whole paragraph out of this, but the Batsuit looks like it's made of plastic. Which it probably was. Better than the bat-nipples, but still.

And as much as I love Tim Burton, his stuff isn't really "dark." It's kind of fake dark. Funhouse dark, if you will. Meaning that yes it's a dark story, but it's also very stylized and tough to take seriously. Which really works for Edward Scissorhands, The Nightmare Before Christmas, and even Sweeney Todd. But not for the character of Batman. I feel like Mr. Burton really doesn't understand the character. Because he figures, "oh he has a silly costume, and he lives in a fake city. So obviously it's not supposed to be taken seriously." Well sure, back when pot-bellied Adam West was hamming it up and Batman in the comics was beating up communist vampire aliens. But by the time the 80's rolled around, Batman had changed. The writers really started to examine the character psychologically. He no longer even resembles Bruce Wayne, he's completely consumed by Batman. He was formed by childhood trauma, festering rage, and fear. He's a truly dark character, who is in many ways every bit as mentally distorted as the supervillains he hunts down. Now that's a dark story, and it should be taken seriously. Instead, they chose to have one guy in a silly costume hunt down another guy in a silly costume, toss in some special effects, cast a blonde chick, and gave themselves a summer blockbuster.

But it didn't make 158 million dollars on its first weekend, not even with inflation!

Ahem, anyway, let's move on to the second of Tim Burton's outings: the incredibly inferior Batman Returns. First off, I hate when movies have "returns" in the title. That's pretty much like saying, "We wanted to call the movie Batman but that title was already taken by the first movie we made." A major problem with this movie is that Batman is barely in it. It's mostly about Catwoman and the Penguin. So, in addition to being non-creative, the movie isn't even aptly titled. Instead of Batman Returns, it should be called Penguin and Catwoman Arrive. Well, okay, but at least do the characters correctly! The Penguin is supposed to be a guy who would be a part of high society if not for his distorted appearance. Which means that he takes out his rage on aristocrats by stealing their artwork and statues and stuff. Not by dropping their children into toxic soup! That's ridiculous! Even the Joker wouldn't go that far. And he also outsmarts Batman at one point by putting a device on the Batmobile that allows him to control it. The only person that could ever outsmart Batman would be a clone of Batman (even then maybe not). And Catwoman is an environmentalist who takes things a little too far. She's certainly not a dominatrix chick. And she's also not supernaturally born, as she is in this movie where she falls from the top floor of a building and is revived by cats purring around her. Apparently we've been doing it incorrectly for years, instead of using medicine to treat people we should just get a bunch of cats to frigging purr around them.

As though that wasn't enough, Catwoman fries Christopher Walken by kissing him with an electric cable in her mouth. He's burnt to a crisp, but she comes back in the final scene. Because cats have nine lives! Get it? HA! It's funny! Man that was terrible. And for the little bit of time that Batman is in the movie, he's strapping bombs to bad guys, using corny one-liners, and yes, using an admittedly sweet Batmobile. His costume is better, but still bad. And all the stuff that was wrong with the first one is wrong with this one.

Which brings me to the main point: Michael Keaton. He's easily my second favorite Batman after Christian Bale, but that's because George Clooney's performance is only slightly above what Carrot Top's might have been. Keaton isn't a terrible Batman, he doesn't carry much intensity (the costume doesn't help) but he's not exactly silly either. And he doesn't really have too many muscles (certainly more muscles than me, but the Taco Bell chihuahua can make the same claim). Really he's just kind of there. Very stoic, kind of emotionless. So, his Batman performance is quite mediocre. The music is really what makes the character, without it the performance is almost wooden. But like I said, it was pretty good until Christian Bale came along. What I really have a problem with is his portrayal of Bruce Wayne. And this isn't entirely his fault, it's also the fault of the screenwriter (Sam Hamm I believe his name was, I'm sure he's a nice guy, but come on Sammy, you're killing me) and Mr. Burton. These people all thought that Bruce Wayne should be very misanthropic and uncomfortable at parties. They figured he should be hiding in the shadows at all times, and seem indifferent toward his guests. So basically, he plays a billionaire who hates crowds and humanity in general, who likes to be in the shadows, who collects weaponry, and who has a mysterious/nonexistent social life.

HE MIGHT AS WELL HANG A NEON SIGN ABOVE HIS HEAD THAT READS: I'M FREAKING BATMAN!

Bruce Wayne IS the secret identity. It took so long for anyone in Hollywood to realize what the fans knew all along. Bruce Wayne is the act, a persona who died in the alley with his parents. Bruce is everything Batman would have been: a womanizing socialite who's more interested in buying half the town than reading about the crime rate, let alone lowering it. That way, no one suspects that he's really the polar opposite. So when Keaton is walking around with a confused look on his face as Vicky Vale talks to him, and when he acts alone in a crowded room, he's doing everything exactly wrong.

I realize that people have an emotional attachment to the first film, because it was the best one for a long time. I have an attachment to it for the same reason, even if I didn't see it in theaters. I have fond memories of watching it with my dad, and I still enjoy a lot of aspects of it, especially Danny Elfman's immortal Batman Theme. But after years of really watching and analyzing the animated series (still the best representation of all of the characters), reading some of the major comics from over the years, and especially after Christopher Nolan's two films, it's really not a great adaptation. Not bad, but not great. And if I was around at that time (or around and not an infant I should say) and the only Batman in the media until that point was Adam West, I would've welcomed it as a breath of fresh air too. Batman Returns just straight up sucks though. Seriously, it's like Superman III bad.