Which one is better: Batman (1989) Vs Batman Begins (2005)

Apr 17

Two radically different approaches for the dark knight: an 80s pulp take or a gritty and colorless 2000s adaptation? Tim Burton’s “Batman” (1989) and Christopher Nolan’s “Batman Begins” (2005) have plenty of fans who praise the directors’ trademarks and stylistic choices and simultaneously several detractors for exactly the same reasons. Both paved a cinematic road for Batman to dominate the movie screens for at least a decade bringing back thunderous box office receipts and critical acclaim. In this ultimate face/off, we compare the two films across their story, presentation, hero, villain, cast, soundtrack, action and timeless value. Let’s begin shall we?

Budget/Box Office

Critical reception

1. Story

Tim Burton’s grandiose Hollywood feature boasts all the necessary ingredients of a hero’s traditional story: the mysterious protagonist, the typical love interest and the notion of killing the bad guy and save the world. Burton doesn’t have any surprises relying heavily towards the delicious conception of his villain - the Joker - which clearly Burton prefers than his “boring” good counterpart. It is an enjoyable but albeit predictable journey. On the other hand, Nolan who co-wrote the screenplay for his grittier reboot, ignored the formulation of his antagonists and focused instead exclusively on Batman’s birth putting forward a nice prologue in a Nepal-inspired set piece. The Brit is keen to explore the meaning behind Batman’s myth and symbolism interweaving Freudian threads to a story of good vs not-so-bad-evil analyzing efficiently shades of morality and vigilantism giving his blockbuster more intelligence.

2. Presentation

Both films were responsible for creating their own school of visuals for the franchise’s subsequent entries. Burton’s style showcased a gothic, grandiose production design: Batman’s city is influenced from a combo of Ridley Scott’s bleak futuristic L.A. in his “Blade Runner” (1982) and the art deco style which rightfully won the 1990 Oscar in that category. Consequently, the film is not tied to a specific era with its anachronistic and pulpy depiction of its heroes and villains making Burton’s visuals the go-to aesthetic for the Dark Knight. Sixteen years later, Nolan favored a stripped down approach to these proceedings, de-saturating the cinematography, flashy costumes and functional impracticality. Gotham looks like a blend of modern-day Chicago and New York lacking a distinct look, and Batman is more like a modern day ninja. The emphasis on real locations is admirable but ultimately reducing Batman’s landscapes to the limitations of our modern world proves to be an anemic creatively choice.

3. Hero

Michael Keaton remains the ultimate Batman. He portrays Bruce Wayne’s social awkwardness to perfection with a hint of vulnerability hiding himself publicly as the titular and disturbed vigilante. While he does not have a towering physique, he makes up for it with oozing mystique and menace under a superb Batman voice that says just the right amount of stuff; his blue eye steely look is enough to make criminals soil their pants. More of a dirty fighter than a force of nature, he outmaneuvers (way) larger opponents and frequently breaks the divine rule of the source material among fans: not letting people die. Thou shall not kill is a command that he obeys. Although Christian Bale is a convincing Bruce Wayne (despite some struggle in his supposedly mid 20s scenes), he exhumes natural charisma and aristocratic panache. His imposing physicality is ideal for a role that requires a lot of fighting but his husky Batman voice is way OTT causing now unintentional laugher (“Sweaaaaaar to meeeeee!“).

4. Villain

Jack Nicholson’s Joker was the main selling point of “Batman”, a permanent part of pop culture ethos. Tending to overshadow the whole movie, his Clown Prince of Crime is a deadly mobster with an origin story tied directly (sacrilege!) to Bruce Wayne. Nicholson undergoes several costumes changes and murder puns amidst excellent make up and delicious black humor. Yet he is less of a physical or intellectual threat and more of an one-punch theatrical antagonist who needs to be stopped. In his reboot, Nolan debuted three lesser known villains. Cylian Murphy as Scarecrow and Tom Wilkinson as Carmine Falcone are efficient although they serve more as glorified minions for Liam Neeson’s all powerful Ras’al Ghul. Neeson relies on quiet mentor appeal and does not fall into the stereotypical evil mastermind aura. Instead his stoicism and pragmatism gifts his relatable villain depth and interesting points of view. He is simply much more interesting than a murdering and yelling (and entertaining) maniac as well as being capable of kicking Batman’s ass when the occasion calls for it.

5. Cast

Burton had Kim Bassinger, Pat Hingle, Michael Gough, Billy Dee Williams and Jack Palance. Overall it’s a good cast but not one that screams star power besides the thunder that Nicholson brought to his role. Sure Bassinger is stunning in her outfits and Gough and Palance bring acting gravitas in the limited interactions with the rest of the crew. In “Batman Begins”, Nolan gathered an exceptional team of Oscar nominated and awarded thespians: Cylian Murphy, Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman, Michael Caine, Liam Neeson, Tom Wilkinson, Ken Watanabe, a dream team for every director to be able to work with in any type of movie. The weakest link is a confused Katie Holmes as an unbelievable Assistant District Attorney. Yet even her presence is not enough to derail the reboot. Sure Burton has a titan on his side (Nicholson), but Nolan has plenty of giants at his corner to back him up.

6. Soundtrack

Excluding the outdated and shoehorned Prince songs, Danny Elfman’s sensational score is the de facto musical cue for the dark knight. Instantly memorable from the get go, Elfman’s work is hypnotic and lyrical relying on pure, traditional orchestra instead of era-related synths and drum work. The same thing cannot be said unfortunately for the collaboration of Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard in “Batman Begins”. This marriage is marginal ok at best but features some of the worst Zimmerisms. While Howard does a serviceable job for the quieter parts, Zimmer cranks up the production with electronic cues, oozing brass and flat-sounded drums resulting in a monotonous sound across the album. The absence of clear and distinct themes restricts any dramatic flair. This is an accurate musical reflection of Nolan’s blunt cinematic style which could be a good fit for certain stories but not for comic book ones.

7. Action

Burton definitely tries in his first blockbuster output - but the action staging in not his strongest suit. There are some fights (incorporating a few, random and cool martial arts moves back when Hollywood was fascinated with exotic moves) and set pieces scattered throughout that remain enjoyable and funny as Burton likes to include a few doses of dark humor including a fun climax at the top of a cathedral. Yet, none of these scenes can be described as a truly spectacular action set piece the way latter movies unfolded. That is not the case with Nolan. A bigger budget meant more creative freedom to put the Dark Knight in unique circumstances. Nolan embraces practical effects instead of poor mid-noughties CGI and this works in his favor. Despite a sloppy and manic execution (the average length of a shot is 1 second something) which obscures most of the supposedly 16 fights throughout the film, his car chase has solid stuntwork and the explosions look good.

8. Revisit

One is 36 years old and the other 20 years old. After the passing of more than 3 decades, how do these films stand against time? Are are products of their era with outdated antics or they bear more value than you can think of aging like fine wine? Frankly, both have elements that for better or worse do related them to their respective cinematic eras. Burton is guilty for using Prince’s songs, an attempt to purely appeal to more people, his action scenes are simply block-punch when others in Hong Kong were creating masterpieces and some special effects are obvious toys(!) especially in crystal clear 4K. Nolan is a bigger offender arresting his film in the mid noughties by insisting on the use of the then existing technology: phones, cars and more look like ancient relics. Combined this with Bale’s ridiculous Batman and that frantic editing, and you know exactly when this film was made.

Verdict: No one. Both films are great for different reasons in this final battle scoring four points each. So it all comes down to preference. While Burton’s “Batman” shook the pop culture landscape in 1989 with a billion dollars in receipts (adjusted for inflation) and a third of Nolan’s production budget, that does not mean it does not fall prey to the most important judge of them all: time. So it all comes down to what you prefer: a dark, gothic and more operatic adaptation without relying much on the source material? Or a take that leans heavily on realism deprived of flashy moments?

George Karystianis http://www.filmmining101.com