Iron Man (2008)

Overall: A+
Cast: B+
Plot: A+
Special Effects/Stunts: A
Similarity to Comic: A+
Director: Jon Favreau
Comic Company: Marvel
Stars: Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Jeff Bridges
Rating: PG-13
See the IMDB page
See the Rotten Tomatoes page

I went into this movie with absolutely no expectations, literally I remember seeing it for no other reason than I was bored and needed to waste time.  What I ended up seeing is one the best superhero movies ever made and one of the major reasons I began following comic book movies so closely.

The Good: Well for one almost nobody outside of true comic book nerds knew much of anything about Iron Man, and if we had heard of him we thought the concept must be pretty lame and/or impossible to do in an entertaining way for modern audiences.  We were all very wrong.  This movie set the foundation for the rest of the Avengers movies and launched a competition between Disney and Warner Brothers to see which company could outdo the other with comic book based movies, we all won from the outcome.  The special effects are ahead of their time.  Lets not forget that Spider-Man was made in 2002 and it's effects were little above that of the power rangers movie.  The plot was equally as exciting and believable and they played this movie as close to the book as I've ever seen.

The cast was outstanding.  RDJ is the perfect actor for the role of Iron Man AND Tony Stark, not many actors can pull off both the hero and the alter-ego as well as he did.  Another great casting choice was Jeff Bridges.  He plays protagonists and antagonists so well that hes perfect for a role where he's a friend that betrays the protagonist.  Terrance Howard did a good Rhodey and Gwyneth Paltrow is a charming Pepper.  Even all of the supporting actors did a wonderful job and it adds to the character of the film as a whole.

The Bad: Not a whole lot to put in this section.  I think maybe the small details in the technology throughout the movie were a bit unbelievable.  Tony makes a energy device in a cave while being held captive and none of the captors are aware that he did it?  Then they watch him build a super suit killing machine thing and they just go ahead and let him finish?  THEN he blasts off and flies a hundred feet in the air and crashes in his Steel suit and is okay enough to stumble around the desert until an American helicopter that just happens to be carrying Rhodey just happens to fly over him and just HAPPENS to recognize him and land?  They might have pushed that one just a bit.

The timing in this movie seemed a little rushed in places.  For example after he's rescued he starts building the Iron Man suit.  The plot progresses about two movie days and all of a sudden he has designed and fabricated an entire state of the art killing machine suit by himself in his own basement garage?  It would take a team of geniuses and a lot of time to come up with that.  These are only small details though, they do not really detract from the movie at all.

The Interesting: Of all the comic book heroes to spark comic book movie gold who would have thought it would be Iron Man?  This movie really did start a phenomenon.  People that aren't even that into superheroes love this movie, it has a 93% Rotten Tomatoes rating for crying out loud.  I just wonder why Spider-Man, or Superman, or Batman didn't do this well?  They just found the perfect cast and threw them together in the perfect formula of writing and directing and story lines and it happened.

The armor in this movie looks incredible.  In every Iron Man comic book I've seen the armor always looks very rigid and uncomfortable and robotic.  The costume designer and CGI technicians really did a good job making the armor look human and modern and sleek.  It didn't act robotic in the movie, I wouldn't have even doubted that there was a man inside if I had seen it in real life.  Kudos to the creators of the armor in particular.

Conclusion: This is easily one of the hands down best super hero movies of all time, if you get nothing else from my blog than at least get this; see Iron Man.

Man of Steel (2013)

Overall: B-
Cast: C
Plot: A
Special Effects/Stunts: A
Similarity to Comic: B
Director: Zack Snyder
Comic Company: DC
Stars: Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Russell Crowe
Rating: PG-13
See the IMDB page
See the Rotten Tomatoes page

When I saw this movie in the theater I fell asleep, I thought maybe it was a fluke so I bought the blu-ray and the next two times I watched it I also fell asleep.  When I was finally able to stay awake for the whole thing I realized one thing; I do not like this movie.

The Good: Well it has the best special effects of any Superman movie to date.  The CGI was almost perfect, which couldn't have been easy considering most of the film was shot using a handheld camera.  The fight scenes were incredible, definitely better than anything previously done with Superman.

I liked how they brought back a tweaked version of the plot from 'Superman II'.  I liked how they pieced together Superman's back story while progressing the rest of the plot.  The actor who played General Zod was pretty good, and there were two or three scenes where he was absolutely terrifying.  Russel Crowe did a decent job too, but his part was entirely too small.

The Bad: This movie was full of good ideas done poorly.  I liked the action scenes, and I liked the effect of the handheld cameras, but I did not like how they were used together.  Most of the movie was hard to follow with all of the flashbacks and all of the separate plot lines, and when something important or dramatic happened the music or intensity of the acting wouldn't change at all.  The film was about an hour longer than it should have been and most of it was honestly pretty boring, aside from the two or three really cool fight scenes.

The thing that bothered me the most about this movie was the bad casting.  Henry Cavill wasn't bad, but he lacked the charm and wit that Superman usually has.  Amy Adams didn't look or play the part of Louis Lane very well, and she seemed more interested in the story of Superman than the crazy stuff happening all around her.  The chemistry between them either seemed forced or non-existent.

The Interesting: There was no kryptonite, at all.  This is the first Superman movie to not have it, and why?  Wouldn't Zod, who is Hell bent on killing Superman get his hands on the one thing that's his weakness?  Even Jor-El never mentioned it when he was explaining to Superman where he came from.  In fact the only time Superman showed weakness was when he was in Zod's ship and adjusting to the atmospheric change, which should have also happened when he flew into space, right?  Speaking of flying, how did he not now he could fly until Jor-El said he needed to push his limits?  If I was super, the first thing I'd try to do is fly!

So Superman kills Zod by breaking his neck, cool, except that doesn't make any sense.  How could they have gone through that entire last fight scene and not break his neck already?  Or, how could he survive that entire fight scene and then something as simple as breaking his neck kill him?  If you can get punched through buildings and cars you should be able to walk away from a broken neck.  And why does Superman kill him on purpose like that?  That's not a very Superman-ish thing to do.

Conclusion: This movie had so much potential, but it didn't capitalize on any of it.  All of the hype and build up left me disappointed, just like every other Superman movie.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

Overall: B+
Cast: B+
Plot: C
Special Effects/Stunts: A+
Similarity to Comic: A
Director: Marc Webb
Comic Company: Marvel
Stars: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Jamie Foxx
Rating: PG-13
See the IMDB page
See the Rotten Tomatoes page

I was very excited about this movie when it was announced, and it totally delivered.  But then it kept going and it ended all too quickly and left me wanting more, and not in a good way.

The Good: The one things that separates this from other superhero movies is the special effects and action sequences.  They are hands down the best I have ever seen.  The shots of Spider-Man flying through the air, falling from the sky, dodging bullets, and flipping around cars are absolutely breathtaking.  The CGI is nearly perfect and the transitions to real actors are seamless.  I don't know how much money they spent on computer effects but they were worth every single penny.

The actors were decent in this film, no better or worse than the last one, but there is a big difference.  There is a chemistry between Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield that almost makes you believe they are in love in real life.  I don't know if it was all the acting, the writing, the editing, or a combination of all of them but I was blown away by how real their love felt.  Jamie Foxx did remarkably well as Electro and brought real emotion to his obsessive and compulsive character.  A good show from the actors across the board.

The Bad: This movie had a good ending, but then it kept going.  After Spider-Man defeated Electro they should have wrapped things up and saved the Goblin for the next film.  INSTEAD they had Spider-Man fight the Green Goblin for about two minutes and then the pace of the movie changed completely.  Gwen dies and Peter becomes a recluse and then two minutes after that he's back and goes out to fight the Rhino and then right before that fight goes down (which I was very much looking forward to) the movie ends.

I gave this movie a bad plot rating not really because of the story lines but because they went into what feels like the beginning of the third movie and then rushed out of it to close it out.  It made the entire second movie feel like a build up to the third.  Don't get me wrong, I'm terribly excited to see the next movie now, but I feel cheated by the second one.

The Interesting: Spoiler alert; Gwen dies, as I previously mentioned.  I don't really know how to feel about it.  It creates drama sure, but I was just starting to like Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield together and now what?  Are they going to put Mary Jane into the next movie?  Will Gwen's character still have an effect on Peter in the next movie?  They kind of wrapped that all up pretty quickly, so it wouldn't really make sense to me, but it could happen.

How does nobody know who Spider-Man is yet?  All it would take it for one person to see Spider-man take a selfie for the Bugle and see the little "Photo by Peter Parker" caption at the bottom.  And Gwen literally screams "Peter!" at one point in time and alludes to his identity as he's in costume throughout the movie.  Seriously all it would take is a burnt out private eye in the right place at the right time and Boom!  Secret identity spoiled.  Also, I really want to see J. J. Jameson, but I kind of don't.  I don't think it could be done any better than it was done in the earlier Spider-Man movies by J. K. Simmons.

Conclusion: This film is good, it could have been better, but it's easy on the eyes and very exciting.  Very few superhero movies are in the same class as this one.

Thor: The Dark World (2013)

Overall: B+

Cast: A+
Plot: C+
Special Effects/Stunts: A+
Similarity to Comic: A
Director: Alan Taylor
Comic Company: Marvel
Stars: Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston
Rating: PG-13
See the IMDB page
See the Rotten Tomatoes page

The Thor movies are incredibly consistent.  They have great actors, mesmerizing special effects, and questionable lines.  This one was just as good and just as ridiculous as the first.

The Good: One thing I appreciate about the Thor movies is that they kept the cast exactly the same.  Not a single character was replaced by a different actor or killed off unnecessarily.  On top the that, the cast itself is top notch.  Chris Hemsworth is the perfect Thor, Natalie Portman was spectacular as usual, and even all of the supporting characters were there and did fantastic jobs.

The idea of Thor is very abstract and unrealistic.  It is a hard story to sell to fans who like realistic superhero movies (if there is such a thing) such as 'The Dark Knight' trilogy or 'Man of Steel'.  The writers of Thor have had to come up with ways to keep people engaged in what truly is a ridiculous movie series.  The best way they have found to do this is to make the movies funny.  The first Thor movie was hilarious, but 'Thor: The Dark World' takes it to another level.  At times it almost feels as though you're watching a comedy instead of an action movie.  This is by far the funniest movie Marvel has put out to date, and I approve.

The Bad: The problem with the Thor movies is that while they can cover up some of the obnoxious themes with comedy, they cannot cover up the weird plot lines that way.  What we have here is a movie that is set in a complicated, enormous, unfathomable universe that's made up of nine realms and contains countless creatures, worlds, and scientific ideas that we cannot understand.  There is no possible way to explain all of that in one single movie and have it make sense.  The writers then chose to dumb down the universe base the main plot on a single Asgardian bedtime story (similar to what happens in the Hellboy movies).  As a result everything we see is fantastic but also doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  The viewer can follow the movie, but is left asking a lot of questions and doesn't quite "get it".

My only other complaint is that Thor himself seems like kind of a lame superhero.  He just kind of flies around and throws his hammer at things, he doesn't have any other powers, he's not particularly clever, and his hammer is what seems to do most of the work anyway.  I just think Marvel could have put a little more thought into this particular Avenger.

The Interesting: I was surprised they didn't have some kind of plot line going between Thor and Sif.  They used her in all of the previews and built up the early scenes like she was interested in being with Thor, and made viewers think she was jealous of Jane, but then nothing ever happened.  Maybe they're just saving that drama for the next Thor movie, but it didn't make a whole lot of sense in this one.

I think this movie had a lot of plot holes on the scientific level.  The most frustrating was how they talked throughout the entire movie how the realms were going to align and it was going to destroy Earth and this and that.  I have a couple questions; If the realms align and Earth is at risk, shouldn't Asgard be at risk too?  Or all of the other realms?  How come the characters are only concerned about Earth here?  And on top of that, how can all of that alignment be stopped simply by putting up little energy pillars around a couple square blocks?  Call me stupid, but absolutely all of the science in this movie seemed impossible.

Conclusion: Despite the plot issues I found this to be an absolutely fantastic movie.  Marvel has done a good job transitioning all of it's heroes to the big screen, but perhaps they have done the best with Thor.

The Dark Knight (2008)

Overall: A+
Cast: B+
Plot: A+
Special Effects/Stunts: A+
Similarity to Comic: A
Director: Christopher Nolan
Comic Company: DC
Stars: Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Aaron Eckhart
Rating: PG-13
See the IMDB page
See the Rotten Tomatoes page

The Burton Batman films set a great precedent and a foundation for all future Batman movies, the Schumacher films had their own unique charm too, 'Batman Begins' was good but definitely had a different feel to it that set it apart from the others, but this, 'The Dark Knight', is a totally new breed of Batman film.

The Good: Oh gee just let me think of one or two things that I like about this movie, how hard can that be?  Apparently super hard.  I liked the cast, I liked the costumes, I liked the stunts. I liked the action, I liked the plot.  But you know what I liked the most?  Heath Ledger.  We've all heard about how good he did and how sad it is that he died, but I liked him in this movie for a different reason; nobody thought he could do it and he proved them all wrong.  Do yourself a favor and look up articles that were released about the casting of this movie before it came out.  All people could talk about was how they cast Ledger all wrong and how this person could do better or how that person should have got the role and what does Ledger do?  He gives the performance of his life.  It's so good that you can hardly recognize him, and he shut those people up dang quick.

The hidden gem in this movie is the often overlooked Aaron Eckhart.  He played the modern Two-Face role pretty darn good.  We saw him go from golden boy to pubic enemy number one and not because he just decided to be evil one day or got in some weird accident and wanted vengeance like almost every other villain, but he turned evil for very human reasons.  He loved Rachel, he loved her so much that it killed a part of him too when she died.  He didn't care about how he looked, he simply wanted revenge for her, not him.  Eckhart portrayed that beautifully.

The Bad: I really am starting to dislike Christian Bale as Batman AND Bruce Wayne.  His voice is over the top, he doesn't look great in the Batsuit (although the new suit is an improvement from 'Batman Begins'), and as Bruce Wayne I get the impression that he's trying too hard to hide something, like any other character in the movie would be able to see right through him.

I also wasn't a really big fan of Maggie Gyllenhaal.  I can't tell if I just don't like her as an actress, if I don't like the character in general, or if I don't like the fact that they changed actresses between movies for the same character.  It's probably a mixture of all three, but I whatever the case, she bugged me.

The Interesting: No new famous Bat vehicles?  The batmobile turns into a bike, neat, but that's all we get, a batbike?  Batman is famous for his vehicles, and the new version of the Batmobile was a little too different for me anyway.  I mean come on even 'Batman Forever' had the batmobile, the batboat, and the batwing in it.

Again with love interest.  You'd think that someone like Christopher Nolan would want to show Batman for who he is in the comics.  He changed so much about the franchise but he couldn't allow Robin in his movies and always had to make Batman love some new made-up hollywood character?  I don't understand, just give the people what they want.

Conclusion: This movie is a nearly perfect piece of film, and that's that.

Batman and Robin (1997)

Overall: A+
Cast: B+
Plot: A+
Special Effects/Stunts: B
Similarity to Comic: D
Director: Joel Schumacher
Comic Company: DC
Stars: George Cooney, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Alicia Silverstone
Rating: PG-13
See the IMDB page
See the Rotten Tomatoes page

So many things have been said about this particular Batman film, and most of them are bad.  "But if most people hate this movie, why are you giving it an A+ overall rating Tom???" is probably what you're wondering, and the answer is simple; I don't care what people say, this is a fantastic piece of film and superhero movie critics are too bloody picky.

The Good: So many good things!  The costumes are top notch, Mr. Freeze's suit couldn't have been any cooler (pun intended), and Poison Ivy's outfits were to die for (last pun, I promise).  The special effects were also a big step up from the previous Batman films and that made for more intense action sequences.

One major thing I liked about this movie is that it used Batman's and Robin's relationship in a way that built drama.  Everyone thinks Batman and Robin are superhero and sidekick and everything between them is just gravy.  Anyone who has actually read the comics or knows anything besides the basics of Batman knows that Dick Grayson and Bruce Wayne had some serious problems with their partnership and that's ultimately what led to Dick Grayson going solo and becoming Nightwing.  This movie shows the struggles of their relationship well and takes full advantage of it.

The Bad: Well Bane is obviously not done right in this movie.  Then again I don't think he was done right in The Dark Knight Rises either.  This film portrays him as being simply a thug that obeys all of the commands of Poison Ivy.  Bane is so much more than that in almost every other Batman interpretation.  The thing that bothers me the most is that it could have been an easy fix!  Poison Ivy can use her pheromones to control men, all they had to do was show her blowing them at an intelligent Bane and Boom! Comic continuity issue solved, but they didn't.  Bane is highly intelligent, ruthless, and plans all of his moves in advance.  The Dark Knight Rises version is very much like the true Bane, except the true Bane uses Venom (another thing that would have been so easy for them to add into THAT movie, but I digress).  A good interpretation of Bane lies somewhere between 'The Dark Knight Rises' and 'Batman and Robin', maybe someday we'll get to see him.

Another major comic continuity error is that Batgirl is Gordon's daughter, not Alfred's niece.  All things considering they wrote her into the plot pretty well, but why they chose to do that in the first place baffles me.  It almost would have made more sense to make an entirely new character for Batgirl, but instead they used Barbara and just gave her the completely wrong background, why?

The Interesting: Robin's suit in this movie is Nightwing's suit from the comics.  Was that supposed to be foreshadowing or did they just like that suit better? I like the suit personally, but I also really liked robin's suit at the end of 'Batman Forever', which was more true to the comics and didn't confuse me.

Speaking of being confused by suits; at the end of the movie when Batman, Robin (Nightwing?), and Batgirl all drive out to fight Freeze, the suits they are wearing all came out of nowhere and are ice themed?  If they had some special purpose or function it would have been nice to get an explanation, or were they just cool suits the director wanted to throw in there?  They were pretty awesome, but again, why?

Conclusion: So this movie has some major continuity errors, so maybe the cast wasn't nearly as good as it was in 'Batman Forever', so maybe George Clooney's face looks weird in the Batsuit.  All problems aside this movie is exceptionally entertaining and gets my vote as the best Batman movie Of. All. Time.

Batman Forever (1995)

Overall: B+
Cast: A
Plot: A
Special Effects/Stunts: B
Similarity to Comic: B+
Director: Joel Schumacher
Comic Company: DC
Stars: Val Kilmer, Jim Carrey, Tommy Lee Jones
Rating: PG-13
See the IMDB page
See the Rotten Tomatoes page

Batman forever is a fantastic movie.  I can't count how many times I've seen this movie or how many more times I will watch it in the years to come.  It is truly a classic, and although it is not regarded as one of the best Batman movies of all time, it definitely should be.

The Good: They finally got the cast right! After sitting through some flat performances in the last two Batman movies this one always comes as a surprise.  Every single actor is colorful and completely committed to their character.  Jim Carrey fits his role perfectly and I honestly doubt anyone will ever play the Riddler better than he did.  Tommy Lee Jones acts like the perfect bipolar maniac that is Two-Face and his ability to switch from normal to crazy in the blink of an eye is rivaled only by Jack Nicholson as the Joker in the 1989 film.

Val Kilmer.  Enough said.  This guy, who hadn't had a noteworthy role since playing Iceman in Top Gun (another great film), seemingly comes out of nowhere and delivers one of the best Batman performances ever.  Although he doesn't play the best Bruce Wayne, he got enough camera time as the Dark Knight to make up for it.  Aside from the cast the makeup and costume work was incredible in this film as well, and the continuity to the comic books is nearly spot on in many scenes.  Oh and the Batmobile is awesome.

The Bad: I don't have a whole lot to say in this section.  I don't remember Dr. Chase Meridian being such an important character in the comics, and even in this movie she just kind of shows up and starts throwing herself at Batman, claiming first that she has a romantic interest in him then saying that she just wants to study him because any man that runs around in a bat costume must be off his rocker.

Commissioner Gordon was played by the same terrible actor.  I don't know if it was the directing, the writing, or the acting, but the Gordon they portray in these movies destroys what Gordon really is in the comics.  He is not written in as a partner or an ally, but merely a dumb fat guy yelling at his cops, or an obstacle Batman has to dance around in the fight scenes.  Come on, Gordon deserves better than that.

The Interesting: I found it interesting that the comic continuity was spot on for things like Two-Face's origin story and Robin's origin story, yet they just kind of threw Dr. Meridian in there for no other reason than to be a love interest for Batman.  Why does Batman HAVE to have a love interest in every single movie?  One of the things that sets Bruce Wayne apart from other heroes is that he prioritizes and puts the city of Gotham before his love life almost every single time.  Hollywood simply can't grasp that.

The first Batsuit with nipples made it's debut in this film, the Robin suit also had nipples. I don't like it nor do I dislike it, I'm just curious as to why a rubber superhero suit has to have nipples?  I'm not the only one thinking that am I?

Conclusion: This movie is definitely not my favorite Batman movie of all time, but it's definitely number two or three.  It's very underrated and incredibly significant.

Batman Returns (1992)

Overall: B
Cast: C+
Plot: B
Special Effects/Stunts: C
Similarity to Comic: B
Director: Tim Burton
Comic Company: DC
Stars: Michael Keaton, Danny DeVito, Michelle Pfeiffer
Rating: PG-13
See the IMDB page
See the Rotten Tomatoes page

This movie was more of the same from director Tim Burton, it was abstract, dark, and off the wall.  It was true to the franchise but it wasn't anything mind blowing, it was simply a slightly better movie than the first.

The Good: The cast was almost as dreary as it was in the first film, except this time they didn't have Jack Nicholson to hold them up.  They did have Danny DeVito though.  He was hardly recognizable in his fantastic Penguin makeup and costume but he also played the character to perfection.  He was slimy, gross, and repulsive in every way and it was fantastic.

Unlike the first film this one was not so clean cut.  They expected to make more Batman films following this one, which is what led to this movie following the comic story lines much better.  Batman and Catwoman actually have a fling of some sorts and the Penguin had it out for Bruce Wayne as well as Batman, so I can't really complain about comic continuity very much.

The Bad: In what universe does someone like the Penguin have a chance at winning an election for public office?  I know this movie was supposed to be more abstract and less realistic but nobody in their right mind would vote for a mutant like the Penguin.  Even with Christopher Walken's character backing him I still can't see how his evil plan had any chance of working, a real villain would have come up with something else.

I might be in the minority here but I think Michelle Pfeiffer was a terrible Catwoman.  Catwoman is supposed to be pretty, seductive, and on the fence as to whether she's a hero or a villain.  Pfeiffer was none of those things, she played Catwoman like she was a nutcase.  No man in the universe would touch her with a ten foot pole given all of the crazy vibes she was throwing out.  She was also trying to kill Batman for the entire movie, there was no shred of an ethical dilemma in her character at all.  Bad casting choice, enough said.

The Interesting: This is two movies in a row that Batman has shared his secret identity with his love interest, although I guess it was kind of by accident this time, but still.  I though Batman was supposed to be trying to keep his identity a secret, but Michael Keaton went two for two.  Both times it has been written into the script well though, so it is what it is.

This film was funnier than the last one.  It had more jokes, more innuendos, and even things like the props seemed to have a little humor thrown in.  I'm not sure if the humor added to the feel of the movie or detracted from it, but it was there.

Conclusion: This movie is an improvement from the last, but it's still in the same mediocre category.  I've seen better movies, but at least it wasn't as bad as the early Superman movies.

Batman (1989)

Overall: B-
Cast: C
Plot: B
Special Effects/Stunts: D
Similarity to Comic: D
Director: Tim Burton
Comic Company: DC
Stars: Michael Keaton, Jack Nicholson, Kim Basinger
Rating: PG-13
See the IMDB page
See the Rotten Tomatoes page


This movie is everything it should be, unfortunately it's also a few things it shouldn't be too.  Overall I found it to be a decent version of the classic Batman origin story, and considering the era in which it was made it couldn't have been much better visually.  Still, it lacks some key components and has a few plot holes, but nothing is hard to overlook as this movie provided a blueprint for many of the Batman films that followed.

The Good: Most of the good things about this movie come straight from the director; Tim Burton.  Although the film is flawed, he made the first Batman movie that followed dark themes and gritty cinematography.  When this film came out on VHS its said that it had been lightened from the version that was shown in theaters, because the main complaint from viewers was that it was so dark they had trouble seeing what was going on.  Tim Burton made this film from an idea, and that idea has stuck to this day.

The other major positive about this movie is Jack Nicholson.  The cast is otherwise under animated and poorly chosen, but having Nicholson as the Joker is simply one of the greatest casting moves of all time.  He was high on cocaine for the majority of the filming, which adds to the legitimate and consistent feeling of insanity he brings to every scene he's in.  Heath Ledger did a fantastic job playing the Joker in 'The Dark Knight' but when one watches this movie they get the feeling that Jack Nicholson is the Joker, which makes all the difference.

The Bad: Well I've already said it; the cast.  Other than Mr. Nicholson nobody else seems to bring their A-game to the movie.  Michael Keaton was dreadful as Bruce Wayne as well as Batman and Kim Basinger seemed to just not care what was going on around her for the entire movie.  The actor who played Jim Gordon made him seem more like an incompetent bumbling idiot than a wise street cop gone administrator.  And Billy Dee Williams might as well of had his Lando costume on because he certainly didn't portray Harvey Dent correctly.

So lets say you can get past a bad cast and the 80's special effects, what else could go wrong?  The basic Batman plot lines of course.  Batman is NOT in love with Vicki Vale and the Joker did NOT kill Bruce Wayne's parents.  I almost got the feeling that the producers weren't planning on making a sequel so they decided to dumb down the entire franchise into one clean little movie so people weren't left asking questions.  The problem with that strategy is that when you DO make a sequel, nothing else is going to line up.

The Interesting: The bat gadgets.  I don' think any other Batman movie has him use so many gadgets or show the Batmobile having so many toys.  I was a fan.  I think the gadgets and technology Batman possesses are a huge and underrated part of his talents and it's seldom shown to such an extent in the films.  Was it all believable?  No, but they tried, and that's the important thing.

Guns!  We all got so used to the idea that Batman doesn't use guns that when the Batmobile showed me it's cannons and machine guns I almost had to do a double take.  Not only did the Batmobile have them but the Batwing did too, and he even shot at people!  This is the kind of Batman I wouldn't mind seeing more of in the future.

Conclusion: This movie is from 1989, it does not have great special effects or a great cast and it certainly isn't the origin story we're all used to hearing.  But what this movie does have is spunk, action, and some ridiculously crazy guy fighting a dude in a rubber suit who can't move his neck.  Overall it's worth watching as long as you know what you're in for.