I've enjoyed this movie ever since I was a kid and I still do. I also liked Batman forever back then but the real difference is that THIS movie didn't date when I grew up. I did notice a few scenes in this film that didn't make any sense like: 'Hhmm... the crowd is angry. Hey! Where did they get those tomatoes from?' Then I thought: 'who cares? This movie is not 100% serious anyway!'

The original Tim Burton Batman was great as well but it was a bit cheesy at some parts and I didn't like all the actors. This movie improved on almost every aspect with a wonderful cast, a more Gothic style and no involvement of Prince.

Nowadays, many fans of the Christopher Nolan movies dislike Burton claiming that the Nolan movies are more serious and therefore more loyal to the comics. I don't think this is entirely true: -There has never been an adaptation of the original concept of Batman which was a vengeful criminal killer with a gun. -Batman has taken many forms over the years peeking its silliness in the 60's (and a bit with Batman & Robin). A director is free to choose what kind of Batman he's going to portray as long if it's good.

My opinion: Batman doesn't necessarily have to be serious. It's about a man in a rubber suit with pointy ears. Burton managed to create a perfect balance between the silliness and the darkness surrounding the whole idea.

I just recently watched the Nolan movies and I love those ones as well (especially The Dark Knight). There's simply something about this movie that interests me more. Nolan's goal was to give the character much more depth and in doing so, he looked for an explanation of nearly every aspect of Batman. That's a bit too much for me, I'm a bigger fan of the more abstract version of Batman. The Burton movies are more theatrical and centered around the atmosphere.

My conclusion is that you shouldn't compare the Nolan with the Burton movies. They're just different and it's up to you to decide which one you like better. My respect is for both directors.

There were a lot of things that were excellent about this movie, like the cinematography and the performances, though it isn't as good as the first film. Michael Keaten is suitably brooding as the Dark Knight, better than George Clooney in Batman and Robin (considered as the worst out the franchise)though he is overshadowed by the villains, namely Danny DeVito as the Penguin, who looked as though he was having a ball, and brought a sense of sadness and grotesquesness to the role. Christopher Walken was effective also as Max Schrek. Stealing the show, with her flawless delivery of not-so special lines, is Michelle Pfeiffer as the sexy and manipulative Catwoman. The film looks lovely, with the sets and effects, and Tim Burton directs with detail. However the film does drag, and while there are some intelligent lines from the villains, the script could have been developed a little more. All in all, a dark and entertaining film. Whereas Batman Forever is funnier and more fast paced, Batman Returns is darker, but just lacks the sophistication of the first film. 8/10 Bethany Cox.

I think Tim Burton's BATMAN movies have dated really badly since their release. I disliked the first film so much so that I never got around to watching this sequel until now, by which time I've been spoilt by the Christian Bale movies. Burton's movies are a cross between the campy tone of the 1960s TV series and the dark seriousness of the Nolan trilogy, but they fall down on both counts.

BATMAN RETURNS comes across as a surreal comedy more than anything. That's the only way you can explain the ultra-poor acting of Michelle Pfeiffer as the silliest Catwoman ever; I think even Halle Berry was better than this. Pfeiffer's acting is so grating and hammy that I'm surprised she wasn't nominated for a Razzie award. Danny DeVito is better; he's hammy, yes, but his costume is a character in itself and I think Burgess Meredith would have been proud.

Elsewhere, we have a sprawling plot focused around massive set-pieces but a general feel of padding/sleepwalking in between the noisy bits. Keaton's Batman is a bore, overshadowed by the flamboyant villains. Christopher Walken's here, but he gives exactly the same performance as he did in A VIEW TO A KILL, so if you've seen that film you don't need to bother with him in this one. BATMAN RETURNS as a whole has a silly, set-bound, anything-goes style feel to it and you get the impression that Burton's heart wasn't really in it. You know what? Mine wasn't either...