FrogGlace In other words,this film is a surreal ride.

Senteur As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

KnotStronger This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

Lachlan Coulson This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

Pjtaylor-96-138044 'Batman Returns (1992)' is worse than its predecessor solely for its lack of Jack Nicholson's 'Joker', who was perhaps the only part of the first flick that provided any actual interest or entertainment. His presence is keenly missed as the replacement villain simply spews saliva and waxes lyrical about his penguin parentage and other misfortune, a weirdly wishy-washy waste of an iconic villain who's usually dapper exterior would've fit much better with the 'running for major' plot he's placed into here. It's also actually this film that starts to take the nose-dive into camp curiosity, something furthered exponentially by its neon-infused follow-up 'Batman Forever', as there are just too many oddly out-of-touch elements to cohesively gel with the originally Gothic yet relatively grounded take that this universe prided itself on, elements not just limited to the bile-brewing buzzard as you'd expect. The piece is still just as dull as before, but sadly also lacks the interesting punch of its clown prince of crime. 5/10

Ian (Flash Review)This felt similar to me from the original Batman movie with Keaton, Nicholson and Basinger, which was great thanks to worlds only Tim Burton can create and the wonderful score only Danny Elfman can dream up. DeVito was stellar as the visually repugnant Penguin living in the gruesomeness of Gotham City's sewers. He is the core of this film as he tries to learn who his parents are and why he was discarded soon after birth as well as being respected by the city he lives underneath with a political scheme accompanied by Max Shreck (Walken). Additionally, we learn how Catwoman (Pfeiffer) comes to be and she later joins Penguin in attempting to foil and frame Batman. So lots of fun characters in a realistic-feeling world, free from much(?) CGI, giving this movie an honest and gritty atmosphere. Keaton is the best Batman in my opinion and his dialog, along with the others, have amusing double meanings at times. This is a well-written, directed, scored, acted and visually creative movie with fun energy and tension. A classic Hollywood success.

alexanderdavies-99382 I remember when "Batman Returns" was released in the summer of 1992. The notices weren't overly positive. After seeing the film at the cinema, it isn't difficult to understand why. "Batman Returns" was issued straight onto video after the box office takings were disappointing. I was glad to see Michael Keaton, Michael Gough and Pat Hingle again and Danny DeVito was a reasonably effective Penguin villain. The film's drawbacks, are that the script is pretty moronic and the film sets are too restricted in that they are all within the confines of soundstages instead of being on location. The whole film looks artificial. Tim Burton's direction is good but it's hampered by the production values. Michael Keaton is less business-like this time as the Caped Crusader and that annoyed me. Michelle Pfeiffer is irritating more than alluring as Catwoman. She can't hold a candle to Julie Newmar's unique portrayal. Christopher Walken is over the top as business tycoon Max Schreck. There are some good action scenes which go some way toward redeeming "Batman Returns" but the negatives outweigh the positives for me.

ElMaruecan82 "Batman Returns" is by no means a bad movie. In terms of action, set-design, scoring and acting, there's nothing to envy from its predecessor of1989. Yet something was lacking, definitely. Whatever it was, I was so turned off that I'd rather explain why the original was so good instead."Batman" had that Gothic atmosphere that fitted the tormented mind of Bruce Wayne, billionaire, vigilante and misfit, and the noir tone of the film fitted a city where organized crime reigned supreme; but had it been just an exercise in style and design, "Batman" would've been poisoned by its own depressing mold, the film worked because it had an antidote, a grinning psychopath played by Jack Nicholson, a Joker who, as far as characterization went, was no joke.I said in the review of the first film that Nicholson's Joker scared me because of the way he enjoyed killing and made every homicide, an art, something fun actually. What it reveals about the performance doesn't need to be over-analyzed, you could tell Nicholson had fun playing the Joker, and that fun was communicative without making his actions any less impacting. The Joker, played by a deliberately over-the-top Nicholson was a histrionic bastard intoxicated by his own flamboyance and yet making the whole film a real macabre dance between organized crime and the Dark Knight.Keaton wasn't too present in the picture but his investigation on the Joker's action and the interludes with Kim Basinger were actually the moments we could catch our breath between two Joker's scenes. Now, to put it simply, Keaton isn't any more present in "Batman Returns", which makes the title a bit misleading, he's even a rather tertiary character, but the villains in the film could have made his absence unnoticeable except that they were as much in need of a psychotherapy as Bruce Wayne himself. The film got too psychological and dark for its own good.There is basically one villain too many, and I guess that is Max Shreck, Christopher Walken as the evil businessman who wants to control Gotham City through electric power. He doesn't have many shining moments, except for throwing his secretary Serena Kyle (Michelle Pfeiffer) out of the window once she unmasked her evil project, he does look good in an odd sexy way, but he's never as impacting a presence as Danny De Vito playing the Penguin or Pfeiffer as Catwoman, which is the height of irony since he's the actor most used to play creepy guys. You would think De Vito and Pfeiffer would spice up the film a little and "have fun" like good old Jack, but they're actually victim of the plot's intricacy.Indeed, "Batman Returns" feels more like an assemblage of many subplots that were certainly mouth-watering on the paper: Schrek's s plans, the penguin's quest to find his parents echoing Wayne's own trauma (he was abandoned an orphan child and was raised by penguins, living in the sewers for three decades), Serena Kyle seeking revenge against Shreck and criminals of male persuasion. There's also something interesting in the ambiguity governing the so-called villains, the Penguin wants to be loved by Gotham City community, Catwoman is a vigilante but her actions are often antagonistic to Batman, not to mention the romance growing in subtext.To make things even more complicated, you have Christmas in the backdrop, the City undergoes many assaults from the Red Circus Triangle, and many love or hate triangles from one character to another make the plot quickly derail. The original "Batman" had one villain, not the subtlest plot but that was enough, by trying to make many antagonists and make them as three-dimensional as possible, the film went in too many directions, creating a Rubik-cube of a plot, without the colors to make the final result look good.Indeed, each of these stories, was depressing as hell, there was something fun in Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman but like the Penguin, like Bruce Wayne, they were characters turned to the past, to the initial struggles of their human counterpart while the Joker was from any trauma. The only villain with a focus on the future was Schreck but he could only be underused, and so was Batman.In the end, you have a Christmas movie whose action sequence provided nothing new once you enjoyed the original but whose tone is so dark and depressing you might enjoy the film for the actors, the atmosphere, but you wouldn't think of watching it again.