good@pixar.UUCP (Craig Good) (06/26/89)
BATMAN
A film review by Craig Good
Copyright 1989 Craig Good
I haven't had this kind of fun at a movie since RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK
It's not that BATMAN is anything like that film, but my emotional reaction was
similar. There's nothing quite like seeing a big film with an opening-night
crowd at a big theatre. The crowd and I ate it up.
Tim Burton gets a lot of credit for the outstanding design work, and also
for staying in control of his players. A project of this size has buried many
a good man, and just ending up alive, let alone triumphant, is a worthy
accomplishment. Burton doesn't talk down to the audience or spoon- feed plot
points to us. My faith in animators as directors is stronger than it's ever
been.
The look of BATMAN is pure eye candy. This is some of the best art
direction I've ever seen. It's on par with that of BRAZIL and BLADE RUNNER.
Shot after shot I found myself opening my eyes wide, just trying to drink it
all in. Books are stories told with words, and movies are stories told with
pictures. The pictures in this movie are poetry. There are images I'm never
going to get out of my head -- and I don't want to try.
Michael Keaton, in whom I had doubts, was dead on target as Bruce Wayne.
The risk Burton took with this controversial bit of casting paid off in spades.
I actually bought Wayne as a playboy millionaire -- with some very serious
emotional problems bubbling below the surface. The emotional scars of the
event that warped young Bruce are clearly present even before the details are
revealed in the film. (Comic book readers know what that event is already).
As Batman, Wayne doesn't so much take on another personality as he buries
his own. He becomes almost more machine than man, as I could reasonably expect
from someone who felt compelled to put on a costume to fight crime. Batman
isn't so much a good guy as he is an anti-bad guy. Revenge, of the calculated
sort, is clearly one of his major motivators. Another motivator is style. I
think one of the keys to the Batman character's success is that we all secretly
wish we could do what he does. Who wouldn't want to fight evil using awesome,
intimidating aesthetics and superior technology as weapons? Face it. Being
Batman could be way cool.
Jack Nicholson triumphs as the other side of the same coin: The Joker. He
manages to do three things which I might have thought mutually exclusive, any
one of which is difficult for even good actors to achieve. First, he is right
out on the edge without losing control. Compared to The Joker, his character in
THE SHINING was a calm, trustworthy and compassionate soul. Second, he is
genuinely funny. He not only gets all the best lines, he makes jokes with his
body language. Third, and particularly impressive in combination with number
two, he is viciously, maliciously, deeply evil. I mean that given the choice
between spending time with The Joker and hanging out with Frank Booth (BLUE
VELVET) I'd be at Frank's place with bells on.
One of the happiest accidents to befall the production was Sean Young's
broken leg. I think Kim Basinger did a much better job than Young would have
as Vicki Vale. I'm very much enjoying the current trend away from dumb women
in movies. Vale is, of course, a mere mortal (there is, after all, room for
only one super hero in this movie) but an intelligent one. She may need
rescuing now and then, but she's quite capable of helping. While slightly
bothered at first by her relationship with Bruce Wayne, I came to realize how
important it was to knowing Bruce's character and providing a window into his
emotions. It also never hurts to have someone to rescue. I think a key to
Batman can be found by paying attention to who else he rescues in the film.
I must also single out the editor for some praise. The pace is taut,
shocking or flowing depending on what is needed. Some of the scene transitions
are a real gas. In spite of Prince's somewhat disappointing songs, which are
fortunately only a tiny part of the movie, the music is satisfying and
supportive of the action. In typical Tim Burton fashion, some off-the-wall
music adds spice to a few key sequences. One of The Joker's henchmen carries
around a boom box which plays everything from Prince to an elevator arrangement
of "Beautiful Dreamer."
The Batmobile and Batplane, which are mercifully never called such in the
film, are stunning. Burton has a talent for mixing the right amount of cartoon
physics into his live action, and he applies it well to both the vehicles and
other key shots. The sense of motion in BATMAN is clearly born of animation,
and that's a very good thing.
I know they were nervous, but I've got to hand it to the execs at Warner
Brothers for even allowing this film to get made. It is not the sort of thing
one expects from Hollywood these days. I can only dream of the day when Terry
Gilliam gets the kind of support Tim Burton has managed to muster. The studio
bigwigs can relax now. BATMAN is going to be pulling down the bucks by the
bucket. See it soon. See it with a big crowd.
--Craig
...{ucbvax,sun}!pixar!goodkramer@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Steve Kramer) (06/26/89)
BATMAN
A film review by Steve Kramer
Copyright 1989 Steve Kramer
executive:Benjamin Melniker
producers Michael Uslan
director: Tim Burton
starring: Jack Nicholson
Michael Keaton
Kim Basinger
warning: spoilers abound...
I warned you...
It's hard to know where to start on a supposed blockbuster film such as
this. It's been hyped up so much on rec.arts.movies it's ridiculous, and
there's been lots of controversy about whether or not Keaton would be able to
fulfill the role of the Dark Knight respectfully enough that it wouldn't be a
laughable thing. In my opinion, at least, Keaton did a very good job,
bordering on excellent. However, in all honesty, I would have to say this is
*definitely* Nicholson's movie. Both actors did an excellent job of
captivating the attention, but Jack exuded an irresistible magnetism during his
parts that didn't allow my attention to waver at all.
The beginning of the movie starts us off in Gotham City, which looks
busier than New York City during rush hour. A family walks down a street
together, heads through a seamy alley, and gets mugged by a gang of hoodlums.
The hoodlums go to a nearby rooftop to count out their loot, and one begins to
express his fear about the mysterious creature that's been haunting the night
lately: the "Bat." Apparently many of the 2-bit hoodlums in the city have been
plagued by the same vision, leaving the ambulance attendants who pick up the
nervous wrecks, as well as the policemen, in an utter state of confusion. The
Batman has of course noticed this mugging and proceeds to stealthily "glide"
down upon them, a spooky sight if there ever was one for a criminal. They
shoot him, and "Bat" falls down ... only to rise again in a few seconds,
sending the thieves into an utter state of terror. After Batman dispatches one
of them, he dangles the other over the edge of a rooftop while the blubbering
thief pleads for his life. The "Bat" says that he will not kill the man, but
that he wishes him to give a message to his friends that He is out there. The
thief asks in a tremulous voice who he is, and the 2 simple words "I'm Batman."
send the theatre into spontaneous cheering and clapping.
From then on we cover the newspaper angle a bit and discover Ms Vicki
Vale, a la Kim Basinger. She is the staff photographer for a major magazine
and has come to Gotham to find out more about this mysterious Bat. Ms
Basinger does an excellent job as Ms Vale, displaying her professionalism and
street-smartness as well as her personal side.
Michael Keaton, as Bruce Wayne, does a very believable job of how Bruce
Wayne could actually be after the trauma of his parents being killed. He is
first seen during a charity bash he is hosting, and his mansion looks as big as
a fabled English castle. Wealthy beyond belief, he seems initially quite
cheerful and lighthearted, but as the movie progresses, we see more of the real
Wayne: serious, concentrated, and locked inside a world of his vow: to stop
crime. Ms Vale's initial opinion of Mr. Wayne before having met him is a
vain, egocentrical playboy; after having met him, however, is another matter....
And of course, Jack Nicholson. Jack begins as Jack Napier, a very
powerful criminal apparently, pulling capers in the city, paying police
kickbacks to keep them off his case, and seems to be an underling of a crime
boss, Grissom, who is played by Jack Palance. Grissom apparently decides Jack
has outlived his usefulness and cleverness to him, and asks him to personally
supervise the robbery of a chemical plant. After Jack and company leave to
plan said robbery, Grissom telephones the police and tips them off to it. In
the ensuing police shootout, the criminals almost escape, except who should
show on the scene but Batman (what a surprise). Batman corrals the majority of
criminals quickly and almost nabs Jack, except for the fact that as he nabs
Jack, Jack's right-hand man nabs Commissioner Gordon, along for the sting, and
threatens to blow his brains out. After Batman lets him go, Jack kills a
police lieutenant (the one who he had paid the money kickback to), and the
Batman comes back to apprehend him. Jack fires a bullet, it bounces off
Batman's body armor and shatters a nearby gauge, which send shrapnels of glass
into Jack's face, at which point Jack falls over a railing and Batman catches
him. Unfortunately, Jack happens be over a chemical tank loaded with
chemicals, apparently part of which is a nerve gas the government had banned
from use some years back. Whether it was Batman's conscious decision, or
whether he could not hold on, we cannot say; but Jack falls into the chemical
tank ... and later arises. He goes to a back-alley surgeon who tries to doctor
him up as best he can, but he cannot undo the nerve damage Jack has suffered
to his face: it has fixed his face in an unalterable grin. Going a little
nutso at this point, the Joker is born.
The movie is fraught with battle, murder and spectacular special effects;
interspersed with the secondary storyline, which is the developing relationship
with Bruce and Vicki, and as it turns out later, the Joker. Apparently the
Joker has developed the hots for Ms Vale as well and means to make her his
own. The interaction between the 3 is very well done; especially with the
Joker's twisted insanity. One of the funniest parts of the movie is when the
Joker is in an art gallery with his goons, on the way to Ms Vale. One of
them is carrying a boom box (with, of course, the Batman soundtrack inside!
:^), and watching the Joker and his goons caper and dance about is worth the
price of admission itself. The battle scenes are quite well done, with martial
artists, climatic fist-fights, and the wonderful array of gadgets the Batman
has, including the Batcave (complete with real live bats, the only question is,
who did he get to construct it?), the Batplane (a marvelous collection of
gadgets inside a sleek stealthy plane in the shape of (what else?) a bat), and
of course, the fabled Batmobile. Some of the effects with the Batmobile were
done with computer graphics, I'm convinced, like the Batmobile's shields to
protect it from harm. It's quite a stunning piece, as are the rest of Batman's
gadgets. However, it is the acting (which it should be in all good movies)
which gets the movie it's excellent rating. The final battle between the Joker
and the Batman is quite impressive, and proves Batman to be a mere mortal after
all; in fact, in some places, Batman gets out of his inevitable death by sheer
luck. And as we find that Batman "created" the Joker (SPOILER!),
we discover the Joker has also, in effect, "created" the Batman. In the
interests of leaving this movie a bit of a mystery, I'll leave it for you all
to watch.
Give this one 4 to 4.5 out of 5 stars. Excellent movie, and possibly the
best "blockbuster" movie of the summer. Go see it. Today. Now.
[ Steve Kramer-Always go out with a :^)| "Those toys. Where does he get those ]
[ kramer@tramp.colorado.edu | wonderful toys?" Nicholson, "Batman" ]
[..!(ncar.nbires)!boulder!tramp!kramer | internet: kramer@tramp.colorado.edu ]leeper@mtgzx.att.com (Mark R. Leeper) (06/26/89)
BATMAN
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1989 Mark R. Leeper
Capsule review: A triumph of visual imagery over story
for the music video generation. Ironically, Keaton is better
as Batman than Nicholson is as the Joker. The art design is
superior but just about everything else is pedestrian.
Better than the television series or the serials, not as good
as the comic. Rating: 0.
"[The] mind craves [images], and, of late more than ever, the
keenest experimenters find twenty images better than one,
especially if contradictory; since the human mind has already
learned to deal in contradictions."
Henry Adams, 1907
Excuse the pretentiousness of starting a review with an 82-year-old
quote, but Adams might very well be talking about BATMAN, whose images,
often contradictory or of clashing styles, far overpower the flyweight story
that binds them together. BATMAN is a triumph of visual imagery over story.
While Jack Nicholson is the top-billed star, his character is paper-thin and
just as flat. We are down here to the level of villains whose biggest
crimes can be explained only by nastiness. Nicholson apparently was chosen
not because he had a single responsive chord for the man behind the famous
face, but because both are known for their smirking. Nicholson does not
even look the part. His face is not thin and angular enough and his non-
angular body is better suited to playing the Penguin. Of course, it is a
pity that the original model for the Joker is well past the point where he
could have played the part. Conrad Veidt, best known for playing Col.
Strasser in CASABLANCA and Cesar in CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI, played the
title role in THE MAN WHO LAUGHS, a poor wretch whose face is twisted into a
perpetual rictus grin. His nightmarish look was reportedly the real
inspiration for the Joker so he looked the role. Nicholson can be a decent
actor but he lacks range and in spite of all the fuss and expectation,
Michael Keaton is much better cast as Batman than Nicholson is as the Joker.
Keaton, first of all, looks the part of Batman. That is not all that
surprising if you realize what you are seeing is two eyes, a perpetual
frown, and a chin. Everything else is plastic shell. Any actor with a chin
and reasonable musculature could have looked good in the Batman suit.
Keaton's role was a little more demanding when he played the man behind the
mask--he is not a character out of Dostoevsky, understand, but his role did
require a little acting and while he was neither superior nor memorable, he
was at least equal to the role. Surprisingly, Michael Gough played against
type as a sympathetic Alfred the butler (sort of a Batman's batman!). At
one point he does severely overstep what the original Alfred would have
done, but that is a script fault, not Gough's failing.
The story, what there is of it, gives us an origin for the Joker, a
touch of one for Batman, and one fiendish though not very coherent scheme by
the Joker which is, f course, foiled by Batman. I will not say much about
the Joker's scheme, but it involves chemical contamination. The Joker makes
the part about chemical contamination quite public, but apparently Batman is
the only person to do a chemical analysis of the contaminated products. (To
judge how likely that is, the Berkeley ellness Letter reports, "The smoke
from a single cigarette contains about 100 times more cyanide than did the
two grapes from Chile that were impounded by government officials in March."
Any idea how many chemical labs got involved in analysis after that tiny
level of contamination was found? How likely do you find it that only
Batman would do a complete chemical analysis of the Joker's product?) The
plot also concerns what must be the world's tallest cathedral. At a minimum
it looks to be at least fifty stories tall. That does not make for a
believable story, but it is there for visual style more than credibility.
In the quote above, Adams talks about contradictory images, and that is
precisely what BATMAN offers. There are wide mood swings from somber, dark,
and brooding, to just exactly the sort of tongue-in-cheek campiness that the
producers have long promised would *not* be in this film. Scenes of the Joker
dancing Mardi Gras fashion to songs by Prince in front of cheering crowds
are not classic Batman style by any means. And when Batman laments, "This
is not exactly a normal world," this is not exactly a Batman sentiment.
Also, one wonders how many worlds Batman has seen. Again and again the
story stops--literally stops--in a time-out for a visual image. One of the
most ridiculous of these has the Batplane break off a confrontation with the
Joker so it can fly above the clouds and be seen outlined against the moon,
looking like an aerial bat-symbol. If the script gives no explanation, the
cheer of the audience does. Logic is less important than the visual image.
BATMAN is an art designer's film all the way. Gotham City is a highly
stylized New York City with the art deco of the 1930s and the futuristic
feel of Fritz Lang's (not Superman's) Metropolis. It is a collection of
dark somber streets seen only at night or under overcast skies. This is a
film without sunshine. To tie Gotham to the present, the mayor of the city
was cast not for any acting ability, but because he looks like Ed Koch. In
spite of the beautiful visual design for the city, the eye still rebels
because of the matte paintings and building models that are just not
convincing as being anything but mattes and models. That is not a serious
fault in a film with a strong story, but when a film's strongest suit is its
art design, it becomes very important to execute those designs flawlessly.
Finally, a word about the music. Danny Elfman has written a decent
score, but choosing Prince to write the songs, apparently for the nihilism
of his previous work, was as big a blunder as choosing Nicholson for his
smirk. Director Tim Burton claims to be a fan of Batman comic books, but it
seems to me they were better than his film. I have to give the film a
neutral 0 on the -4 to +4 scale. I guess I did not expect better, but I had
hoped for it nonetheless.
Mark R. Leeper
att!mtgzx!leeper
leeper@mtgzx.att.comboberg@june.cs.washington.edu (Bruce Oberg) (06/26/89)
BATMAN
A film review by Bruce Oberg
Copyright 1989 Bruce Oberg
I think I made a mistake by rereading THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS this week.
While watching BATMAN, I kept being distracted by things that were missing. A
few gaping plot holes, and an almost total lack of tension, mystery, or danger
in the film keep me from being able to recommend it (not that I think there's
anyone who hasn't already decided to see it eventually). It tries to be dark,
but ends up just being dim, with too few ideas to flesh out the gadgets and
confrontations.
Not that there isn't a lot to like in here. Jack Nicholson is spectacular
as The Joker. He sparkles in every scene -- partly because he's given every
good line in the script and partly because Jack is Jack. In the end this is
really his movie, since we see more of how and why The Joker operates than we
see of the Caped Crusader.
This is perhaps my biggest gripe with the film. We just don't learn
enough about The Batman. Sure, they fill in (and take some liberties with) his
history, but the extent of his skills and motivation are left relatively
untouched. It's even more distracting given Writer Sam Hamm's and Director Tim
Burton's pre-hype comments about "fleshing out his character" and "putting him
at risk." Michael Keaton's Batman just doesn't hold my interest, and not
because he's played poorly. The script just doesn't give him very many
interesting things to say or do. Bruce Wayne, on the other hand, is done very
well. When Keaton is allowed to move his head and show some expression, he's
completely believable as a concerned and disturbed millionaire playboy.
Combine this with a pleasantly subtle portrayal of Alfred by Michael Gough and
just about every scene within Stately Wayne Manor rings true.
Another selling point is the impressive art direction by Anton Furst. I
like his neo-gothic vision of Gotham City; it's big, dark, and oppressive,
while never smacking of BLADE RUNNER. Besides, it goes well with the nice
reworking of all the Bat-stuff. The Batcave, Batwing, and Batmobile and the
rest of Batman's paraphernalia are appropriately black and slick; none of the
blue and grey from the comics. Burton's direction is unobtrusive; a few
interesting segues here and there, but nothing that grabbed me like some of the
things in BEETLEJUICE. The orchestral score by Oingo Boingo's Danny Elfman was
fittingly apocalyptic when it needed to be, and the songs by Prince were kept
in the far background (shame too -- the few I heard on NPR were *hot*).
Commissioner Gordon and Harvey Dent are given scant attention, which would
have been okay if the filmmakers hadn't tried to fill the space with two
unsatisfying new characters: some newspaper reporter who's name I can't even
remember and, of course, Kim Basinger as photojournalist Vicki Vale. I didn't
buy Vale's relationship with Wayne/Batman for one second. For being the
centerpiece for most of the movie's confrontations, her character's motives are
never very clear. Also, the film too often slips into "Damsel in Distress"
mode; ruining claims that she's a tough, independent reporter. Worst of all,
the *key* scene between her and Batman is never shown.... All of a sudden,
something is very different (you'll know what I mean). Ugh.
In most cases, a good villain makes a good thriller (e.g., DIRTY HARRY, TO
LIVE AND DIE IN L.A.). However, BATMAN is not a thriller. It ties some so-so
action sequences together with a nice look and an off-the-meter performance by
Jack Nicholson. I might go back to see it again at a cheap matinee, but with
all the dramatic potential that The Batman has, I'll probably stay disappointed.moriarty@tc.fluke.com (Jeff Meyer) (06/26/89)
BATMAN
A film review by Jeff Meyer
Copyright 1989 Jeff Meyer
[Spoilers in final section]
Between all the hype and anticipation surrounding this movie, I've heard a
good deal of discussion about whether the new film will be "true" to the Batman
character. That was not one of my concerns when entering the theater. Over
the last 50 years, Batman's gone through any number of conceptual revisions:
he's been the grim spooky loner created by Bob Kane; the gimmicky detective
with the boy sidekick; the TV camp buffoon; and the obsessed, driven vigilante
who is probably over the edge of sanity. My feeling was this: Tim Burton could
do damn near whatever he wanted to do with the character, as long as he made
the film work.
With that said, this film is a mess. A visual treat of a mess, but still
a mess. If it was meant to lean towards satire/spoof, it's not nearly funny
enough. If it's meant to hold together as drama/action, the characters are
cardboard, and the plot is pockmarked with holes towards the end. In any case,
the script and dialogue (with the frequent (but not continual) exception of
Jack Nicholson's Joker) isn't exceptional to entertain on it's own; it usually
keeps moving (the major exceptions are the scenes which seem tailor-made to be
used for the Prince MTV video for BATMAN), but it's all over the place. The
conclusion suffers through Siskel & Ebert's "handy stupidity" theory, where
people act ridiculous to keep the plot moving. And there were so many
sequences that seemed either unclear or muddled that I wondered if a lot of the
film had been cut down from the original length, or that some of the footage
just didn't come out, and they had to make do with what they had.
As to the acting, Michael Keaton looks *damned* uncomfortable. I still
think he could have made a decent Batman, because he has shown the ability to
throw out a lot of intensity in his previous roles. Here, though, it's
monotone -- a stoic obsession that barely filters through his costume. He's
given a few opportunities to escape this as Bruce Wayne, but it's almost as if
he were still playing it in costume. Jack Nicholson is fun to watch here, and
he is definitely given the lion's share of good lines in the film, but this is
not the "exceptional performance" I've been reading about in film magazines.
It's over the top, and he's definitely having fun with it, but it's on the same
par as John Lithgow's Dr. Emilio Lizardo. Kim Bassinger plays her usual
damsel-in-distress character; she ends up looking almost as strange as Batman
and the Joker. The other characters (outside of Alfred) aren't given much room
to move in; Billy Dee Williams, as DA Harvey Dent, is the only law enforcement
official who appears to have his act together. (And, if there's a sequel and
he follows the comic book scenario, he won't be working for the DA's office for
long. :-) ) Jerre (sp?) Hall walks in and out, and Jack Palance can still
hiss like a sunuvagun. My favorite bit character was Bob, the Joker's chief
henchman, who played the repo yard mechanic in REPO MAN. Oh, well.
The visuals in this film, though, are gorgeous, and almost make up for the
rest of the film. Gotham City is a dingy fantasyland, Wayne Manor is a
moribund crypt of vengeance, and the Batcave is lovely. This is not a
surprise; visuals and miniatures have always been Burton's strong suit, with
his background in animation. There's a scene with the Batmobile approaching
the Batcave which is very well orchestrated between camera, music and visuals.
The music by Danny Elfman is somewhat tinny at times -- almost like BEETLEJUICE
over again. I can't stand Prince, but even if he was Peter Gabriel, the
backdrop of the Joker's music video escapades wouldn't have helped.
So, what's the verdict? Some of my disappointment could be put down to
over-advanced hype, but I think most of it has to be laid at Burton and Hamm's
door. I'd put this on a par with INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM: a
roller-coaster ride (but with better effects, and a tolerable, over-blown
ironic/tragic air). No depth whatever. If you like a visual movie well
enough, go see it (and see it in 70MM for that reason); otherwise, go find SAY
ANYTHING or FIELD OF DREAMS at your local repertory theater.
SPOILER COMMENTS FOLLOW:
Overall, I thought the first half of the film was slow, but held together;
the last half faster, but started to fall apart early on. On the good side,
the introduction of Batman on the roof I liked; and the drive with Vale to the
Batcave was great. And the visuals of the Batplane over the city were a
pleasure to see -- the entire art direction kept the brooding feel glued on.
A few complaints/comments (I'm more amused than anything by this stuff):
Query #1: Where exactly *are* the Gotham City Police during the Joker's
balloon/money hoo-haa? As far as I see, these guys only appear after they're
all holed up in the church.
Query #2: Why does Vale try to drive off without letting her reporter friend in
the car? Never figured that out. (Not to mention why he throws himself on the
hood of the car -- I'd put that down to "stupidity providing plot
opportunity".)
Query #3: It's just barely explained that the Joker is trying to make people
believe that his white-face is makeup -- why is this? Is the flesh-makeup his
"secret identity."?
Character Concept Problem: OK, I can buy Batman with guns, but firing missiles
into a crowded street? Attempting to murder the Joker in cold blood?
(Punching him over the edge of the cathedral.) Blowing up the gangsters
headquarters with them still in it? I guess this is a Batman whose first
interest is definitely vengeance, over justice or protecting the innocent.
Judge Dredd in a Batman costume... Perhaps it was Burton's intention, but I
felt that Batman, while not portrayed as a villain like the Joker, is portrayed
as a fairly negative character. Fine -- but that doesn't jell with him posing
for his legendary shot in the final scene of the movie.
More on Nicholson: Yes, there were some funny lines, but some of it (like the
TV commercials) became tedious fairly quickly. Like Keaton, I thought he could
have done a better job with a better script. I'll be curious to hear how much
this film deviated from the early revisions of the script by various netters
who read it.
The Ending: So, Vicki Vale gives up her award-winning career as a hostage, err,
I mean a photographer, to be the Batman's lover? (Licking her lips in the back
of the limo.... I guess Alfred's kind of immune to odd behavior by then.)
Well, she does have a thing about bats.... (I did like the bit between them
about "trying to love one another" -- had a certain sadness that the movie
could have used more of. Made me wonder if the ending had been changed to make
for a "happy" conclusion.) Also, the police are awfully quick to turn over to
Batman's side at the end; but then, they were basically straw men throughout.
There are probably more glitches if I thought about it, but I'll leave it
at that. Overall, I wished they'd cut much of the background hooplah that went
on during Prince's songs, and spent the time filling in some of the gaps in the
film.
Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer
INTERNET: moriarty@tc.fluke.COM
Manual UUCP: {uw-beaver, sun, hplsla, thebes, microsoft}!fluke!moriarty