Why I think this film is off.
-
shango7200 — 9 years ago(November 07, 2016 06:53 PM)
This film IS off. Seems incomplete and scenes seem jumbled and re-directed. The ending seems VERY OFF. The gag with the "Laughing bag" must have been a WTF? with kids. The Laughing Bag was a novelty item from the 70s they would have no clue what that device was.
The scene when the Joker says that the character (played by Jeri Hall) "Jumped out of a window" was completely WTF?
Oh- the Prince music MUST have been some kind of Warner Brothers deal like "One hand washes the other" even though Prince was sorta loosing popularity by then ?
This movie was OFF !
"In every dimension , there's another YOU!" -
darkzero — 9 years ago(November 11, 2016 12:08 AM)
Your perception is off.
I was only 10 when I first saw this film, and I knew exactly what a laughing bag is.
Granted, millennials, dumbed down by modern media, who think time began in the year 2000, may not know what it is.
The scene when the Joker says that the character (played by Jeri Hall) "Jumped out of a window" was completely WTF?
Joker is supposed to be a WTF character.
Oh- the Prince music MUST have been some kind of Warner Brothers deal like "One hand washes the other" even though Prince was sorta loosing popularity by then ?
Yes, the Prince soundtrack was a forced commercial tie-in by WB, but it still somehow works. It's sparingly used (only in two scenes, really, both times as source music) and fits the Joker character.
"In every dimension , there's another YOU!"
Perhaps in another dimension, you actually get and appreciate this film.
Originality needs a reboot. -
d_myerss — 9 years ago(November 20, 2016 03:18 PM)
In the opening when we first get a look at Gotham up close with the soon to be mugged family, you can hear the chorus just about, almost as though its playing from someone's car or something like that.
Also 'Vicki Waiting' is played during the party at Wayne Manor, though off the top of my head, I can't remember if its just an instrumental.
I think it fits really well with the movie, personally. -
amormortua — 9 years ago(November 20, 2016 11:14 AM)
Sure, it's a product of its time. With all the flaws and all. You need to know that WB was very close to bankruptcy at the time, very probably the amount of product placement had something to do with that fact.
But out of many directors who had been hired to tackle Batman in live action, Burton (Furst, Elfman, Pratt etc.) is clearly the only one who understood this character and his world so well, with a great taste. He understood that this is a comic book, and comic books don't comprise of words, books are comprised of words (Nolan movies, especially TDK and TDKR), but mainly the pictures represent the content of a comic book. Its the atmosphere, color, tone, the imagination which brings a particular story to life.
Batman is an image, not a word or an idea. Because of that, it will be the Burton movies (and some bits from Snyder) which the audience 30-50 years from now, will be lookin at with admiration. -
spencermalley935 — 9 years ago(November 20, 2016 11:18 AM)
Burton (Furst, Elfman, Pratt etc.) is clearly the only one who understood this character and his world so well,
Clearly not, especially with the sequel, Batman Returns. Burton took way more liberties with the character than Burton ever did.
it will be the Burton movies (and some bits from Snyder) which the audience 30-50 years from now, will be lookin at with admiration.
The 89 movie may have a special place in history but it will never beat the Nolan films in terms of being remembered for sheer quality of storytelling which is on the whole way more important than atmosphere of visuals. -
TMC-4 — 9 years ago(November 23, 2016 11:04 PM)
https://www.reddit.com/r/fixingmovies/comments/4v385q/fixing_batman_1989/
In short, make it the story of how Batman rises above being a revenge-driven killer and becomes an icon for justice. At the start of the film, Batman is established as a psychotic vigilante whos willing to drop muggers off a building if it gets crime off the streets, leaving survivors only to spread the word. His one rule isnt never take a life; its never again. He has no idea who killed his parents, so he projects his thirst for revenge on every poor criminal who gets in his way. This culminates in him intentionally throwing Napier into the vat of chemicals at Axis (despite Gordons pleas that they can end the mob rule if Napier is in police custody).
Thus, the Joker is born as a reaction to Batmans brutal attempts at ending crime. As in the original film, Napier is established as a psychopath reigned in only by the promise of inheriting Grissoms kingdom and a burning thirst for the respect and admiration of others. When Grissom betrays him, he snaps and takes what he wants by force. He and Batman are both just living out their own fantasies: Bruce killing his parents murderer and Napier finally being worshipped for the genius that he is.
But Napiers crimes are constantly either overlooked or attributed to Batman. He realizes he needs an ultimate art piece to gain the spotlight. He pores over reports of massacres and murders until he finally finds a gag worthy of it. Two chemicals that were used in a civil war, one of which caused muscle spasms in the lungs, the other the horrific constriction of facial muscles. If someone were to combine the two: Smilex. But only two people know the chemicals used: the articles author and photographer. The author was killed before the article was published, but the photographer is in Gotham. Its the Corto Maltese article Vicki Vale shot for in the beginning of the film.
So, the Jokers interest in Vale is not part of some bizarre love triangle, but he wants to interrogate her to figure out the formula. Except when Batman comes to her rescue, he notices a connection between the two and tries to use Vicki to get to his nemesis. When he visits her apartment, he poisons her, forcing Batman to find a cure and save her life. In the process, Batman figures out the patterns behind the Smilex poisonings and warns her. She takes the combinations to the press, resulting in Batman being declared a hero. He now realizes that his end goal should be saving as many lives as possible, instead of just ending lives he considers unworthy. The confrontation in the apartment is also where he starts to finally figure out that Napier is his parents killer.
Now, I know that most people hate that change, but I feel like it works well with the story theyre trying to establish. The only fix I would make is to establish that Napier was too extreme. Show that Grissom only wanted him to scare the Waynes, to get them to support Grissom either politically or financially. Except Napiers obsession with his own reputation wouldnt let him back away from killing such a celebrity couple. Just like Batmans obsession led to him disfiguring Napier.
At the climax atop the cathedral, Batman realizes that his totalitarian attitude is only making things worse. He refuses to kill the Joker, and instead intends to leave him for Gordon to find. The Joker could still die similar to the film (but make it clear that its because he was too stubborn to let go of the helicopter; Batman only intended to restrain him), but I think it works best if he lives. He could lose his grip on the ladder (but the gargoyle stays steady), leaving him dangling over the edge of the cathedral. At first hes furious at Batman for ruining his exit, but then the police searchlights focus on him and he starts laughing: hes finallyliterallystolen the spotlight from Batman (allowing Bruce and Vicki to escape the police barricade).
Either way, the Joker has been stopped and Batman has been reborn into a hero that can inspire the people to do better. The revelation of the Batsignal is accompanied by his vow to deliver criminals to the judicial system, and to protect lives.
Obviously my fix doesnt cover every plot hole or problem with the movie. Im mostly aiming at centering the major theme of the movie and creating more of an arc for Batman. Let me know what you think and what else you would improve on! -
residentevil6901 — 9 years ago(January 25, 2017 12:47 PM)
I thought the character interactions were fine but I'm with you on the Prince music. I do like Prince but think it's totally out of place here. At least Danny Elfman had a score to do and it wasn't ALL Prince music through the whole movie.
-
Gobiastia — 9 years ago(February 03, 2017 04:07 PM)
- Character interactions
So many scenes feel just so weird. And I can't really point out what exactly is wrong. Is the acting just not that good or were the actors just not right for the roles (I'm talking about Keaton and Bassinger)? There are also just moments that feel completely out of place.
Like when Bruce 'loses it'.
It feels like it should have been an more important, somewhat dramatic moment, but instead it feels forced and off.
That was an embarrassing moment.
- Character interactions
-
ranc1 — 1 year ago(September 23, 2024 04:13 PM)
The last time I watched this movie was in 1990.
As I remember - the music was off.
Prince is okay but his music don't fit in here.
And the whole set up was off and I could not put my fingers on it.
The violence perhaps - Joker killing people with poisonous gas in public - it is the year when my social anxiety broke out and seeing people hurt in public - in what was suppose to be a kids movie - did not sit well with my social anxiety. -
AnthonySocksss — 1 year ago(September 25, 2024 10:31 PM)
Batman 1989 is just boring. Keaton is a boring Bruce Wayne and too small and jewey for the role. Nicholson is a good Joker but he mostly just plays his Nicholson schtick. Kim Bassinger and Keaton also don’t have much chemistry. This is one case where Batman Returns far outshines the original.
Melton1 Wanted for Pedophilia:
https://i.ibb.co/6cnPmJVr/IMG-0830.jpg
https://m.youtube.com/shorts/Zjxk307CND0
