Tim Burton's 1989 "Batman," (see previous review) was a bigger success than even it's major supporters had ever dreamed possible. Though it comes off as a little dated today, at the time of it's release it's visual style was so new that action fans generally overlooked it's semi-stiffness as an action film; and likewise comic fans were (by and large) so relieved to see the character and medium treated with such refreshing respect and seriousness that they generally overlooked it's numerous flaws as an adaption. By the time "Batman Returns" went into production, the public demand for superhero films had already spawned a myriad of imitators (which we'll get to.) It ALSO spawned a huge surge of interest in all-things-Batman from the mainstream public, a good deal of whom had little knowledge of the character and universe aside from the self-parody Adam West series of the 1960s. This series, of course, was suddenly popular in syndication again.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. A sequel to the mega-grossing "Batman" was a foregone conclusion from the getgo. Burton and Keaton's mutual return was cemented early-on, which left the public and the press all asking one question: Who's the next villain?

This has been a problem that has plagued the Batman character almost since his inception: Being, aside from his costume, essentially human with no special powers or gimmicks of his own, he's often overlooked in favor of his "rogues gallery" (read: an individual superhero's roster of recurring personal-foes.) Of course, much of THAT is due to the Batman mythos simply having one of the most solid and broad base of baddies in all of comic book history. Of all other comic heroes, only Dick Tracy and Spider-Man can boast a "who's who" of evil as extensive.

Here's the problem with that: So much attention is given to the villians, most of whom are played as grandiose maniacs to contrast to Batman's brooding "straight man," often those working on the franchise outside the comic-world tend to concentrate efforts on realizing the villains and treat Batman more as a place-holder in between evil acts. This happened in the 60s series, which is indeed best remembered for the high-camp antics of recurring guest villains as played by veteran character actors like Burgess Meredith (Penguin), Ceasar Romero (Joker), Julie Newmar-Lee Merriweather-Ertha Kitt (Catwoman), Frank Gorshin (The Riddler), etc. So it's not entirely surprising that the trend manifested so quickly in the film series. Already, "Batman" had set a template (stylistic director, Elfman or Elfmanesque score, big-name superstar hamming it up in villain role) by which all superhero films felt obligated to follow... even it's own sequel.

Generally speaking, in the post-"Batman 1989" culture, Batman-villain knowledge splits into two divergent strains: Strain #1 being people most-familiar with the main baddies of the 60s series and #2 being people most-familiar with the baddies via the comic mythology. Though connected at the base level, these two strains had radically different ways in which they jointly looked forward to the future of the "Batman" movie franchise.

Strain #1 was mainly wondering whether we'd see Riddler, Penguin or Catwoman in the sequel and, more importantly, who was going to play them. For Strain #1, it was a non-issue that the villain roles should follow the footsteps of the 60s series (and, to an extent, Nicholson's Joker) as being little more than a chance for celebrtities to graft their "default persona" onto a roughly-equivalent Batman character. In other words, they would have been looking forward to seeing "Robin Williams 'do' The Riddler" as opposed to seeing "a proper film treatment of The Riddler."

Strain #2 ALSO agreed it would be cool to see Riddler, Penguin or Catwoman in the sequel, but they were also salivating at the prospect of seeing screen-versions of famous Batman characters those only familiar with the TV show had never heard of, like Killer Croc, Poison Ivy, Two Face, The Mad Hatter, Man Bat and Ras Ahl Gul. (To be fair, Hatter DID make it into the series once.) Also, they tended to be more concerned with seeing justice done to the characters themselves as more than an easily paycheck for a psuedo-slumming celebrity. A great deal of Strain #2, also, was LESS concerned with the villain question and more interested in ..GASP!.. the growth of BATMAN as a character in the "Batman" movie.

Strain #3 was Warner Bros., the studio producing the film who had their own set of interests. WB owned D.C. comics, the publishers of "Batman," and had just been shown that there was a potential GOLDMINE to be made off the translation of D.C.'s gallery of heroes into film franchises. Right then, "Batman" was the icon of this new direction, so making sure it wasn't just a one-time thing was high on WB's priority list. It was imperitive that "Batman Returns" do all the right things that "Batman" did, just bigger and better.

Since Tim Burton and his warped cinematic visual-sense was now so well-known it was beinged discussed at the dinner tables of folks who think "asthetic" is what you get before an operation, he'd now be allowed an even more all-encompassing control of the film's look and tone. This would prove to be both a blessing and a curse, as Burton's design tastes would turn this into the most visually-impressive of the entire series; yet his eagerness to mesh his own thematic fetishes into the "Batman" universe would yield a scattershot storyline populated by characters who's motivations are as murky as Gotham's alleyways. Finally, Burton's dark sense of humor permeats the entire film, resulting in what is also the darkest and most-disturbing of the series.

Back on the villain-front, the words "stunt-casting" suddenly come into play. For the uninitiated, "stunt-casting" is the practice of putting an actor into a role "no one" would ever guess them for with the intent of getting people into theaters out of curiousity. (i.e. Tom Hanks as a cold-blooded killer in "Road to Perdition" or Tom Selleck as a gay tv reporter in "In & Out.") In theory, the film is keeping the "secret" that the actor is actually great in the role as a surprise for the audience, but WB would come to forget that "actually good" part in the 3rd and 4th sequel. In "Batman Returns" the stunt-cast actors are diminuitive comedian/actor/director Danny Devito as The Penguin and demure Michelle Pfieffer as Catwoman, respectively two of Batman's more-legendary foes.

Catwoman, as character, is among comic book lore's most enduring "bad girl" sex symbols, a cat-burglar in a skin-tight cat costume who functions as both nemesis and romantic interest for Batman. Wrapped in a stiched-together black dominatrix equivalent on the "cat-suit" concept, Pfieffer had the most immediately-talked-about role in the film. Like many early characters, the comic Catwoman lacks a definative origin tale, so the film provides one: Plain-jane secretary Selina Kyle survives a deadly fall, is nursed back to health by alley cats and wakes up as a schizophrenic, sex-crazed psycho who even goes so far as to carry a bullwhip (the film's subtlety kinda goes out the window along with Selina early on.) Her relationship with Batman is, of course, unabashedly fetishistic.

Of all the "Batman" movie villains, Danny DeVito's Penguin is the most sharply-divergent from his comic roots. The "classic" Penguin is a short, chubby criminal mastermind named Oswald Cobblepot who dresses overly well, speaks ultra-proper English and carries tricked-out umbrellas for weapons. The movie Penguin is the hideously-deformed child of wealthy aristocrats tossed into the sewers by mom and dad in the ghastly opening scenes (This is one of the darkest and most disturbing films ever to get a mere PG13 rating) and raised by a displaced colony of zoo penguins. He acts more birdlike than human and commands an army of criminals dressed like a German 19th Century circus. In other words, someone's fascination with Elephant Man-style "freak" analysis has been awkwardly grafted onto a character vaugely approximating The Penguin. DeVito has a blast and looks awesome in the makeup, and the resulting character -while basically The Penguin in name only- is nothing if not interesting.

A 3rd (!) villain is provided by Christopher Walken as an evil mogul named Max Shreck (ha ha) who's trying to play all sides against eachother and essentially functions as an SGC (Subplot Generating Character.)

Keaton is back as Batman, of course, and... well, truthfully one can't say much because he doesn't get to DO much. Batman here is a co-star in his own sequel, as the plot mainly concerns the shifting loyalties and infighting between Penguin, Catwoman and Shreck. The most interesting thing Keaton is given to do is act opposite Pfieffer in the romantic subplot. The Batman-Catwoman love affair is one of comic lore's most well-known relationships, and the film knows that it has to get it in there. Sadly, this potentially interesting plot-thread is squashed between so many others it becomes just another loose end.

What pulls all this together and leads to a sequel which, in the end, is superior overall to the original is Burton's sure hand. Adaption-weirdness and scatterbrained-plotting aside, the style and tone make this an unfortgettable peice of genre filmmaking. Burton took his carte-blanche opportunity and ran with, creating the most imaginative and darkest of the whole series.

That very darkness got it into trouble, though. This was a SCARY movie, and probably should have garnered an R rating. Parents of young bat-fans were especially bothered by the subplot involving a mass-murder of Gotham's children, illustrated in a hellish montage of Penguin's demonic-clown flunkies snatching babies from their cribs. WB would take dire steps to ensure the next films had a lighter touch.

"Batman Returns" opened almost as big as "Batman," and the franchise power was cemented fully. Shortly after it's release, Paul Dini and Bruce Timm unvieled "Batman: The Animated Series," originally concieved as a companion to the films; it would soon grow to become known as perhaps the greatest non-comic Batman adaption ever produced.

UP NEXT: "Batman Forever."

Recommended:
Yes

Viewing Format: DVD
Video Occasion: Better than Watching TV