on par with Batman 1989? Are you nuts?

Rating: 9/10 (30 June 2005)

Nolan's version was absolutely satisfying, like the perfect meal. Well worth the money. I was hoping for good and got great. Who could ask for more from Hollywood. Burton's, on the other hand, "Hollywoodized" the Joker (made him actually funny), made every important character 2-dimensional, including Batman. Was anyone actually afraid of Michael Keaton? Adam West had more muscles. At least he was meant to be funny. The only saving grace was Micheal Gough, as Alfred. At least he was true to the comic books. And isn't this what these movies are based upon? Hamm and Watters both failed miserably at bringing Gotham to life.
It all starts with the writing. David Goyer is a fan first, a writer second, and it shows. I hope more executives realize this and remember to develop a story first. I'm sure many fans out there hope that Warner Bros. and DC realize that they have something special here and will do their best not to screw things up. If you think what I wrote was junk. I dare anyone to see Begins and then watch Burton's Batman right after. Rate the screen characters head to head. I rest my case.
signed, a real Dark Knight fan