Some people have requested that I post some old dvd reviews of mine.

Last fall, I watched all the Batman movies. The full list is as follows:

BATMAN (1943 serial)
BATMAN AND ROBIN (1949 serial)
BATMAN (1966)
BATMAN (1989)
BATMAN RETURNS
BATMAN: MASK OF THE PHANTASM
BATMAN FOREVER
BATMAN AND ROBIN
BATMAN BEGINS

I only watched theatrical movies. MASK OF THE PHANTASM was included, because it was released theatrically. There are a some other animated Batman films that went directly to dvd, and I decided to skip these.

For now, I'll just post on the first serial. I'll note the original date of each review.

I originally wrote this on October 22, 2005

(Some people requested that I post all this here. Honest!)


just watched the first seven chapters of the 1943 serial. I'll have to watch the remaining eight tomorrow.

I'm getting dizzy watching these things. That's partly because they weren't meant to be watched in rapid succession. When you do, the repitition of the standard formula becauses more obvious: As each chapter opens, Batman escapes the death trap. He changes to Bruce Wayne. The villain - from his elaborately hidden lair - now comes up with a new plot. Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson learn of the plot and rush to stop the villain's henchmen. They change to Batman and Robin and then fall into a NEW death trap. The chapter ends. Then, a new chapter opens and the whole thing starts all over again. That's all pretty standard for the movie serial format, though.

There's certainly much to mock, if you're in the mind to do so. Batman's costume is horrible - it's ill fitting, his belt is ridiculously large, his bat ears are floppy and his trunks are pulled up above his waist. His cape and cowl seem to change color - being completely black in some shots and much lighter in others! William Austin plays a swishy, bumbling Alfred who serves mostly as comic relief. The villain - a Japanese mad scientist - is played by J. Carroll Naish, who doesn't look the least bit Japanese. Choreographed fight scenes are frequent, and you can understand why the 1960's BATMAN tv show found these an easy target for parody (You can mentally picture the "Bam! Pow!" effects as you watch the serial.).

That's all probably being a little harsh, though. After all, those old movie serials were all hastily put together and filmed on the cheap for the Saturday matinee kiddy crowd. Simply put - they are what they are.

Underneath the cheese, the 1943 BATMAN still provides some fun old-fashioned derring-do. Lewis Wilson isn't a bad Batman if you can look beyond the goofy costume. Douglas Croft is actually fairly likeable as Robin (I'd have settled for "not too annoying."). Shirley Patterson plays Linda Page, a pretty standard Golden Age super hero love interest.

There's enough enjoyment here to hold my attention, at least. We'll see how it all pans out tomorrow.

....and I originally wrote this on October 23, 2005:

I did finish the first serial, but I had to watch it in spurts. The main problem is that the plot just goes in circles until the last chapter. Then, we get a hasty resolution that could have been tacked on at any time.

I did make it through, though! Hoo-ray!

Some trivia/comments/questions about the original 1943 serial:

*Commissioner Gordon does not appear. Instead, we get a police chief named "Captain Arnold."

*Alfred does appear but as I noted, he serves mainly as comic relief. Question: Wasn't the comic book Alfred still fat and clean shaven in 1943? This Alfred is thin with a mustache - resembling the later version (more so than any screen incarnation of the last forty years, in fact.). Did the comic book Alfred lose weight and grow a mustache as a result of the first serial - or this happen much earlier or later?

*Batman's love interest is Linda Page, who is identified in one chapter as "Bruce Wayne's fiancee." Did this character ever appear in the comics?

*Batman is consistently called THE Batman throughout the serial (not that that's suprising. I'm just noting it.).

*This Batman does not have a batmobile. Instead, he drives around in Bruce Wayne's car. In some scenes, Bruce and Dick change costumes in the back of the car while Alfred drives! Yet...apparently, no one ever witnesses these scenes - or manages to put two and two together. Go figure.

*The Bat Cave is repeatedly called "the Bat's Cave." The Bat's Cave proper seems to be just one room that Batman uses to interrogate prisoners. It's bare save for an old desk and a couple chairs - and the bats that fly around. An adjoining room houses the crime lab. Bruce and Dick access the crime lab and the Bat's Cave via a grandfather clock. They walk through the clock, though, rather than push it aside, as they do in the comics.

*Lewis Wilson isn't a bad Batman, all things considered. Douglas Croft is probably the most competent screen Robin that I've seen. He even manages to save Batman a few times.

Now, it's on to the 1949 serial! I don't expect to finish that today, but I'll try to watch a few chapters, at least.

Thenk yew kindly, sir.

Encore! Can we have (in a future thread) yer X-Men animated series, etc?

I haven't seen the X-Men animated series.

I did watch the 1990's FANTASTIC FOUR animated series a couple months ago. I could probably find my comments on that.

I've been watching that. Is Brian Austin Green the punk from 90210?

Yeah.

He was voice of the Human Torch during Season One. He was replaced by Quentin Flynn for Season Two.

The comic book Alfred lost wait to look more like the serial incarnation.

Thanks for the clarification, Jacob (Kevin also knew the answer to this.).

Here's my review of the second serial. I originally wrote this on October 23, 2005:


I just finished the first disk of BATMAN AND ROBIN, the 1949 serial. It's easier to sit through then the first serial, I'd say. It, too, has a plot that goes in circles, but it does vary the formula a little more. The villain's identity is a mystery (although the solution would seem to be obvious, unless they're throwing us a major red herring), and there's another mystery involving a radio announcer. The film quality is also better and the costumes look much better, as well (although the bat-ears still look kind of silly.).

Even so, the second serial isn't necessarily better as a whole. In some ways, it's even easier to mock than the first. This serial is played straight, but some parts aren't too far removed from the later, farcical tv series. Batman and Robin are always deadpan serious - bringing to mind the exagerrated seriousness of Adam West and Burt Ward. As in the series, Batman's utility belt seems to have every gadget whenever he needs it (In one scene, he pulls out a miniature respirator and an acetylene torch.). As in the 1943 serial, there are choreographed fight scenes galore, and they're not dissimilar to the ones that the tv show later played for laughs. The gadgets used by the mad scientist villain are also often laughable. (The villain has a gadget to control cars by remote car. He can't see the cars that he controls, but he drives them perfectly anyway!)

Once again, Batman has no batmobile. This sets up one of the funnier scenes, as Vicki Vale asks Batman if Bruce Wayne knows that Batman has borrowed his car!

Yes, Vicki Vale (played by Jane Adams) is the love interest in this one. As in the comics, she suspects Bruce Wayne of being Batman but isn't able to prove it.

Commissioner Gordon is present in the second serial, and he's played by Lyle Talbot. We get a serious Alfred this time (played - according to IMDB - by Eric Wilton) but alas, he's mostly in the background (so far, at least.).

Batman is played by Robert Lowery and Robin by John Duncan. Over all, I preferred Wilson and Croft from the earlier serial. Lowery and Duncan are fine, but as I noted, they're too serious. Lowery is also a little too foppish as Bruce Wayne, imo. Duncan is an older Robin than Croft. He seems to be about the age of the Burt Ward Robin - a boy in his late teens, rather than early ones.

A follow-up to the above. I originally wrote this on October 24, 2005:

I did it! I finished both serials!

Man, it is exhausting to watch them all, too!

I have to say that the second serial (BATMAN AND ROBIN) is definitely better than the first. It moves faster, the film quality is better, the costumes are better, and the acting is a little better. The villain's identity is kept a mystery until the end, and that holds your interest a little more. The second serial also isn't as concerned with giving Bruce Wayne almost as much screen time as Batman. (The first serial suffers from this, as Batman and Robin are constantly changing clothes.)

Still...the first serial does have a great Golden Age feel to it. There are a few lurid pulp-type details - such as the villain who hangs out in an amusement park tunnel of horror and turns people into "electronic zombies!" Batman is also a darker figure in the first serial, intimidating criminals and having an uneasy relationship with the police. While the costumes in the first serial are kind of laughable, the director does manage to keep Batman and Robin draped in their capes a good deal of time. This, of course, also adds to the notion of the Batman as a shadowy creature of the night.

The second serial was released in 1949, and it, too, does a generally reflects the comics version of the time. This is the Batman of the post-war Era - one who's more refined and noble. In a sense, he's kind of a Dick Tracy in a costume, as he works directly with the police to solve the crimes. John Duncan plays an older Robin - and in some ways, the second serial is sort of a straight version of the 1960's tv show.

Lewis Wilson and Robert Lowery were both surprisingly good as Batman. This is especially true of Lowery, who seems to be a good actor and manages not to look dumb in the costume. Douglas Croft gets my vote as the best screen Robin ever, and Duncan isn't bad either.

I was kind of curious as to what happened to all the first two Batmans and Robins, and I looked them up on the imdb. Lewis Wilson, the first Batman, died in 2000. Surprisingly, he was younger than Lowery, and was only 23 years old when he played Batman ( http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0933754/ )! in contrast, Robert Lowery was 39 when he played Batman. Lowery died the day after Christmas in 1971 ( http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0523225/ ). Douglas Croft, the first Robin, died in 1963 at the age of 37 ( http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0188465/ ) . The imdb gives no information on how he died at such a young age . John Duncan, the second Robin, was still alive as of 2003 and looking forward to his 80th birthday ( http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0242001/ ).

Next up: The 1966 movie, starring Adam West and Burt Ward!

More "Bat-Trivia!"

Lewis Wilson was the father of Michael G. Wilson, executive producer of many James Bond movies. His ex-wife married Albert "Cubby" Broccoli; Michael and his half-sister Barbara gradually took over most of the producing of the Bond films from Broccoli in the 1980s.

Robert Lowery was a baseball player with the Kansas City Blues, as well as a boxer and football player. He began acting on television in the 50s and appeared on many episodes of various western and Private eye-type series.

Douglas Croft was 16 when he played Robin in the first serial, whereas John Duncan was 26. So it's no wonder that he seemed a much older Robin. Croft often played the main character as a boy in the beginning of his films. In various films, he "grew up to be" to be James Cagney, Gary Cooper, and Ronald Reagan.

As for Duncan, his last film role was as a slave who gets beheaded in "Spartacus." As Bob said, he's still alive, living in Kansas with a wife who's forty years younger than he is.

Is that the same Michael Wilson who was blacklisted during the McCarthy Era? (THAT Michael Wilson wrote the screenplay for HIGH NOON.)

I'm assuming that it's probably two different Michael Wilson's, but I don't know for sure (and I'm too lazy to search the imdb right now. )

Gotta be a different guy. Unless Michael G. was some kinda child prodigy...

Phooey.

Another good story ruined by pesky facts!

I originally wrote this on Oct. 25, 2005:


BATMAN (1966)

If you haven't seen this movie for awhile, then it might be worth another look. Much of the dialogue is downright hysterical, and I had forgotten a lot of it. I love it, for example, when Commissioner Gordon discovers that the Catwoman, Penguin, Joker and Riddler have teamed up. He says, "The sum of the angles of THAT triangle are too monstrous to calculate!" I LOVE that line!

There's also a lot of stuff going on in the background that I had either forgotten or just never noticed. In the villains' hideout, there's an emblem reading, "United Underword: Today Gotham City; Tomorrow the World!" Each villain has his or her own section of a bookshelf. A sign on the Riddler's reads, "Riddles: Private!" and the Penguin has a stash of "Penguin food!" Then, there's the scene where Batman discovers a bomb in a bar. He holds up the bomb and the whole bar evacuates - except for two very large woman who continue to sit at a table and eat as if nothing has happened!

Underneath it all, you can perhaps see some bits of baby boomer anti-establishment sarcasm. All the authority figures (including Batman) are ridiculously straight-laced and either incompetent (such as the Admiral who sells an atomic submarine to a "Mr. P. N. Gwin") or a bit pompous. There's perhaps the feeling that the then-current generation had inherited a mad world it never really wanted. Witness the delegates to "the United World" who never stop bickering - even when they're dehydrated by villains and "rehydrated" later (I loved the scene where the Russian delegate bangs his shoe on the table!). In one scene, we see the back of the President, sitting in his chair. Although never named, this President is obviously Lyndon Johnson. He speaks in an exagerated Texas accident while patting his beagles on the head! Sometimes, you almost empathize more with the villains of the movie. They don't seem truly menacing and in a sense, they're more like pranksters thumbing their noses at the craziness of the world!

...but now, I'm overanalzying. The bottom line is: This is a funny movie.

The 1989 Tim Burton film is up next.

<< Douglas Croft is actually fairly likeable as Robin >>

I really like Douglas Croft as Robin. He brought some, much appreciated, 'fun' to the role.

Best Batman movie.

Ever.

I tend to agree with you. It tries to accomplish something different from the others, and thus, I think it has to be judged differently. Overall, the 1966 movie is VERY clever. Some of the humor is even a little subtle. The fact that there are signs on everything, for example (There's a sign on an abandoned elevator that reads, "Abandoned elevator."). The actors don't point stuff like that out, but if you stop and think, you'll notice a lot that's very funny. Meanwhile, to many kids, it's all just a standard adventure movie, and they can enjoy it on that level.

I wrote this on Oct. 27, 2005:

I just watched the 1989 Batman movie. I think it's still a pretty entertaining film, and some fans are probably too hard on it. I agree that BATMAN BEGINS is a better movie over all, but I think that the first Burton film does have some things over it. I think it moves at a much faster pace, for example. (It does run a little long, though, and could have stood to lose a few minutes.) Elfman also contributed a really terrific score (Unfortunately, I can't say that I'm much of a Prince fan, but ...ah, well. You can't win `em all.).

I subscribe to the argument that Bale is a better Bruce Wayne, but Keaton is a better Batman. Basically, I agree with what Rick Lundeen has said - that Keaton just conveys the right attitude much better than...well, than anyone else who's played the role, really (imo, of course.). Admittedly, I can see this much better in retrospect than I could in the 90's. Keaton's wrong for the part physically, but I think that he puts in a great performance. Burton does do a great job of lighting the costume so that Batman is mostly in the shadows much of the time (although - yes, it is a little bothersome that he can't turn his neck! If they could only have done something about that little detail.).

Burton does get the character wrong, though. Bruce Wayne shouldn't be as socially awkward as he appears here. (Nolan - and Bale - get Bruce Wayne right, I think.) Still, I'd argue that Keaton did a great job with what he was given. In the end, I'm happy to accept Burton's version as an "alternate take."

Burton's animation background really shows here. His BATMAN isn't campy, but it does have a "cartoon atmosphere" in some ways. Burton's Gotham City set looks cartoonish to me (I prefer Nolan's more understated Gotham City), although it is sort of wonderous to behold. Also - a few characters seem caricatured, particularly Eckhart, the crooked cop (He always wears a dirty trench coat) and the reporter Knox (an annoying character, btw. Why is he even in this film?).

Nicholson's a great Joker. You laugh at his lines, but he's disturbing, nonetheless, as he should be. Yeah, he chews the scenery, but I'd argue that the part calls for it.

Nicholson has the most quotable lines. It occurred to me that one line in particular has really engrained itself into popular culture. That line would be "Where does he get those wonderful toys?" The film has other memorable lines, but that's the one that I still hear quoted the most often.

When this movie first appeared, it was a sensation. At that time, though, super hero films were still very rare - and this was one with a big budget and big name stars! Time has caused it to lose some of its luster. Even so, I think that it's still an enjoyable popcorn moobie!

Am I the only person who has noticed that when this scene comes up, its not complete?
On EVERY version of Batman I've seen, the scene goes like this:
Batman swoops in, picks up Vicki, and swings/slides out the door on a batline. when they burst thru the door, he turns and it looks like he throws something back into the museum, then there is a jarring Jump Cut to Jack saying "get those wonderful toys!" Its as if there was a bad edit, that cut off part of the dialogue (and the scene that shows whatever was thrown back into the museum). I've seen the VHS version, the Theatre version, the TV version, even one of the early DVD versions, and I have YET to see/hear the whole line "Where does he get those wonderful Toys?"
Check it out, you'll see what I mean!