>tim burton did a good job with batman, but for the most part,
>it was kind of incomplete. first off, he focused more on the
>joker/batman rivalry from its beginnings than batman actually
>being the caped crusader. nicholson gave a masterful
>performance as the joker, but keaton never quite fit as
>batman. (yeah, i know burton chose keaton beause of his eyes,
>but the rest just didn't fit)

I thought Keaton was the best Batman, at least until Bale came along. I reluctantly put Keaton second to Bale.
(I keep wanting to call him Bateman since he was so great in American Psycho)


>batman begins, however, had a fuller storyline. the focus was
>gotham city being overran by crime to the point where nearly
>every cop, judge, or district attorney was corrupt. that
>bruce wayne's parents were killed was an effect of a corrupt
>city. that made bruce an avenger against crime, something
>gotham didn't have a shortage of. plus bruce learned that in
>order to understand crime, he had to understand the criminal
>life. that's what always gave batman an advantage over his
>foes. overall, "batman begins" was just a better movie from
>beginning to end.

Agree with all of this except the last line. Fuller storyline yes, focus on the city and not the Joker/Batman dynamic yes, corruption and crime yes, understanding criminals yes.

I still think it was cheesy to have him become a criminal to better understand them, and also to study with murderous ninjas. I loved the movie, but those were things where I sorta inwardly cringed a little bit. The villains in Begins cannot even begin to fuck with Nicholson's Joker. That, combined with the nostalgia factor, pushes Batman ahead for me. It was just so damn cool - a badass villain, cool gadgets, some quotables... It's very close though. Begins may be a better movie, but I probably enjoyed Batman more.
(though it's hard to fairly compare since I saw Batman as a kid vs Begins as an adult)