Where does the campy 1966 "Batman" movie fit in among the grim and gritty "Dark Knight"
films of the 21st century?
Keep watching, because the answer awaits!
You could make a case that 2005's "Batman Begins" is a more practical starting point
for a neophyte than 1989's smash hit "Batman" by director Tim Burton.
There's a solid basis for that argument, and it has to do with character motivation.
In 1989's "Batman," eventual Joker Jack Napier murders young Bruce Wayne's parents in front
of him.
Traditional versions of Batman's origin depict nervous, incompetent, anonymous mugger Joe
Chill gunning down poor Thomas and Martha Wayne.
That might sound like a trivial change, but it actually makes a significant difference:
By removing the randomness and mundanity from Batman's foundational violence and attributing
it to a major supervillain, Burton makes Batman's vendetta about a specific evil dude rather
than the abstract concept of crime.
So why is 1989's "Batman" the place to start?
It's simple: this version set the standard for the plethora of superhero blockbusters
to follow.
Between its record-breaking box office returns and the corresponding merchandising bonanza
that followed, "Batman" was everywhere during that final year of the '80s.
We are still feeling the ripples its enormous splash left in the cinematic marketplace.
Thus, it makes sense to watch this "Batman" before "Batman Begins," because without the
former, the latter would have never been made.
If you start with 1989's "Batman," then your best bet for sustained continuity is the path
laid out by the '90s Batman movie timeline.
That makes your second stop Tim Burton's follow-up: 1992's "Batman Returns."
This sequel marks Michael Keaton's second outing as the Caped Crusader and also boasts
Michelle Pfeiffer and Danny DeVito delivering quintessential performances as Catwoman and
the Penguin, respectively.
With its dark fairy tale aesthetic and emphasis on damaged outcasts, "Batman Returns" probably
has more in common with other Tim Burton projects like 1990's "Edward Scissorhands" than most
other superhero movies.
It's certainly too macabre for small children, which is why there was such a huge backlash
after Warner Bros. deployed misleadingly kid-friendly marketing, including McDonald's Happy Meals toys.
But as long as you keep the kiddies away from this flick, you'll have a great time.
You will, however, notice a major departure in tone once you move on.
Burton and Keaton both left The Caped Crusader behind following "Batman Returns," and the
decision-makers at Warner Bros., rattled by the backlash, decided Gotham City needed to
get a lot less gothic.
A more accurate title for 1995's "Batman Forever" might be "The Bright Knight Returns."
Fans have been describing Joel Schumacher's [SHOO-mah-kur] pair of Batman movies as torturous
viewing experiences for years.
They're certainly a lot more colorful and less serious than either Burton movie — and,
as a certain cultural critic once asked,
"Why so serious?"
1995's "Batman Forever" was a commercially successful film, though reviews were mediocre at best.
It is also utterly consumed by the all-encompassing black hole of kinetic absurdity that is mid-'90s Jim Carrey.
Fresh off mega-star turns in 1994's "Ace Ventura: Pet Detective'' and "The Mask," Carrey's relentless,
rubber-faced Riddler devours this movie, much to the chagrin of co-star Tommy Lee Jones.
Carrey told Norm MacDonald that Jones was very upfront about his disdain for him.
"He went like to hug me, and he said, 'I hate you!'
And Jones wasn't the only cast member having a rough time.
Effectively immobilized by his heavy Batsuit, Val Kilmer left the Batman franchise after
"Batman Forever" in order to work on movies where he got to act instead of just fill a
rubber costume.
Still, "Batman Forever" is entertaining, and an important step in the Dark Knight's cinematic evolution.
Notably, it marks the first time Bruce Wayne's introduction to Dick Grayson is captured on
the silver screen.
While the movies are more expensive and, in theory, designed for a broader audience, the
most influential version of Batman from the '90s is undoubtedly "Batman: The Animated Series."
This 1992 cartoon takes its tonal cue from the Burton films while presenting a thoughtful,
emotionally mature, kid-friendly iteration of Gotham City.
So why did Warner Bros. think they had to make Batman a grinning goofball to appeal
to children when their own TV show, based on the same intellectual property, made a
strong case to the contrary?
Who knows.
But we live with the result: 1997's "Batman and Robin."
"Batman and Robin" combines the intellectual development of "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers"
with the camp of the 1960s "Batman" TV show, but - not as good as either.
Basically, the plot entails George Clooney's Batman almost breaking up with Robin because
Dick Grayson is visibly pushing 30 and makes no sense as a "Boy Wonder."
Meanwhile, Arnold Schwarzenegger, occupying the villain spot as Mr. Freeze alongside Uma
Thurman's Poison Ivy, deploys a deadly array of absolutely terrible ice puns.
It is groan-worthy.
It is tiresome.
But if you get some friends together who are down to laugh at a low point in Batman's history,
it can be pretty fun to hate-watch.
After "Batman Forever" and "Batman and Robin" have conditioned you into processing a campy
Caped Crusader, you should be more receptive to the wholesome hijinks of Adam West and
Burt Ward in 1966's "Batman: The Movie."
Essentially a feature-length episode of the 1960s television series, this flick is defined
by a massive villain team-up: The Joker, the Penguin, Catwoman, and the Riddler are all present.
"Batman: The Movie" also includes Shark Repellent Bat Spray, a dehydration device that reduces
its victims to powder, and a sequence in which our hero declares,
"Some days, you just can't get rid of a bomb!"
While there are certain rules Batman always has to follow to remain a coherent character,
adhering to grim humorlessness and brutality are not necessarily among them.
If the Joel Schumacher films are bad, it's because they rely too heavily on commercialization
— not because they let Batman smile every once in a while.
The mid-'60s live-action Batman endures as a positive example of a family-friendly Bright Knight.
Galvanized by a need to course-correct for the empty-headed neon flamboyance of "Batman
and Robin," Warner Bros. tapped Christopher Nolan — then known for directing psychological
thrillers like 2000's "Memento" and 2002's "Insomnia."
With Nolan at the helm, they would pull Batman back to his gritty, street-level roots.
2005's "Batman Begins" marks the start of a new timeline: Events that unfold in the
Burton and Schumacher movies never occurred in this iteration of Gotham City.
Christian Bale's Bruce Wayne transforms from self-destructive rich kid to ninja trainee
to terrifying urban protector with nary a Bat-credit card in sight.
The performatively immortal Raʼs al Ghul doles out his master plan more like a megalomaniacal
Bond villain than any literal or figurative clown.
The closest thing to camp comes in the form of Scarecrow: a living haunted house prop
with a vicious streak.
Scarecrow steals his share of scenes in "Batman Begins."
He could've been the breakout Gotham villain of his generation had it not been for the
arrival of an even more deranged update of a Batman enemy in the follow-up film.
If you're going to watch just one Batman film, it should be 2008's "The Dark Knight."
Not only is this thematically rich sequel to "Batman Begins" widely considered the greatest
Batman movie, but many believe it's the best superhero movie of all time.
Christopher Nolan — along with brother Jonathan Nolan and prolific screenwriter David S. Goyer
— delivers a psychological action thriller for the ages.
Heath Ledger set the precedent by which live-action supervillains continue to be judged.
Christian Bale, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Aaron Eckhart, and Gary Oldman crank out stellar performances
as well, though they're all instantly overshadowed.
Ledger's Joker is simply too spectacular to be ignored.
"You want to know how I got these scars?"
Tragically, and famously, Ledger passed away at the age of 28 before "The Dark Knight"
was released.
He went on to win the Academy Award for Best Actor in a Supporting Role for his work as
The Joker.
In order to examine 2012's "The Dark Knight Rises" for what it truly is, we have to push
a mountain of critical discourse aside.
Every possible opinion about "The Dark Knight Rises" has been debated at length.
Is it the best Batman movie ever?
Is it the worst Batman movie ever?
Is it in between?
The fact is, anything following "The Dark Knight" was always going to feel like a tiny
bit of a let-down.
If you accept that, however, you'll realize this film has a lot to offer.
Bale is as strong a Batman as ever, going out on a definite high note.
As for the villains, Anne Hathaway adds a world-weary sense of snark to Catwoman's classic
moral ambiguity that works like gangbusters.
And then there's Bane.
Tom Hardy's genuine presence as the masked baddie is irresistible, even if you can't
always understand what he's saying.
Generally speaking, most people agree that Joel Schumacher's version of Batman wasn't very good.
Most people also agree that Christopher Nolan's version of Batman was very good.
But there's no consensus on the most polarizing Batman of all, as tons of fans both love and
hate Zack Snyder's take on the Dark Knight.
Whatever your personal take on Batfleck happens to be, it's safe to say 2016's "Batman v Superman:
Dawn of Justice" is where the Caped Crusader gets real weird.
After observing that Superman can level an entire major city whenever he feels like it,
Batman devises a plan to put the Man of Steel in the ground.
Or maybe Lex Luthor manipulates Batman into going after Superman?
We're still not entirely clear on the plot of "Batman v Superman," which received infamously
terrible reviews.
What is clear is that Ben Affleck is doing his best to play a Batman who has lived long
enough to become the villain.
If your purpose in this endeavor is to watch every Batman movie, then the 2017 edit of
"Justice League," overseen by director Joss Whedon, and 2021's "Zack Snyder's Justice
League," the re-edit released on HBO Max, both do the trick.
These two films tell essentially the same story and are equally relevant to Batman's
overall place in the pop cultural universe.
But if time isn't a factor, since the "Snyder cut" is literally twice as long as Whedon's
two-hour "Justice League," we think even the most adamant Snyder critics would probably
admit his take is better.
Whedon's film has its moments, but it ultimately amounts to a bland exercise in pushing a handful
of intellectual properties through the market-demanded motions.
Meanwhile, the Snyder cut is a maximalist cataclysm of R-rated action-fantasy lunacy.
2017's "Justice League" is a corporate product; it is not art.
The Snyder cut is also a corporate product ... but maybe it is art?
Either way, one thing is absolutely certain: there's definitely more Batman stuff in the
Snyder cut, just as there is more of literally everything else.
"The Batman" opened to generally positive feedback and appears as though it will more
than likely produce a sequel or two.
However, for right his second, it's a provisionally standalone film whose identity within Batman's
film oeuvre has yet to fully take shape.
But even though it's the most recent movie and thus logically the last one you should
watch, there are actually a few different options for placement of "The Batman" in your
movie marathon.
From the standpoint of its central character's evolution, "The Batman" could fit before the
Burton/Schumacher series.
Though it's not an origin story in the traditional sense, Robert Pattinson's depiction of Bruce
Wayne is a hero who's a little underbaked.
He only starts growing into a hyper-competent crime smasher resembling the guy from 1989's
"Batman" at the movie's conclusion.
Then again, since culture and world events of the 2000s heavily inform Nolan's trilogy,
maybe it makes more sense to watch the movies in their real-world release order, as "The
Batman" director Matt Reeves infuses sentiments of the 2010s and early 2020s into his Gotham
City saga.
We do not recommend watching "The Batman" immediately before or after the 1966 "Batman"
because the tonal clash between Paul Dano and Frank Gorshin's interpretations of the
Riddler may cause the viewer some internal whiplash or psychic damage.
Gorshin's Riddler never successfully kills anybody, while Dano's Riddler kills a whole
score of folks in nasty ways.
No word though on how Tommy Lee Jones feels about either of their performances.
Check out one of our newest videos right here!
Plus, even more Looper videos about Batman are coming soon.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel and hit the bell so you don't miss a single one.