Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Batman (1989)
Batman Returns (1992)
Batman Forever (1995)
Batman & Robin (1997)

is that it?

The "entire" GOOD Batman movies in the saga...

Batman (1989)


is that it??

yep, 'fraid so...

and the point is...?

What about the 1966 classic?

yeah

Classic???????????????????? You just call it that 'cause it's old. Let's face it....that is not what Batman is supposed to be.
These are the ones that are good:

Batman (1989)
Batman Returns (1992)
Batman Begins (2005) it's going to be awesome

the 1st Batman flim was the very best but everything started to go bad after Batman Forever was made.

I hope Batman Begins is gonna help redeem the series.

that would depend on wether they will or will not put nipples on the bat costume.

nice sig mc pee!

I think everyone is leaving out Batman Mask Of The Phantasm which was released in theatres.

right back at yah! swank

Yep. Best Batman movie made, so far.

I liked Batman returns but the franchise went way downhill after that. Mask of the Phantasm is the Batman movie I watch the most out of all of them though.

I just bought Mask of the Phantasm at a thrift shop today. I have heard much about it, and I do agree that the franchise did go downhill, but I think Batman Forever was an okay entry. It had its camp moments thanks to Jim Carey and Tommy Lee Jones.

actually contrary to what so many people think,Batman forever was the very best even though it was bad in areas as well.ALL the batman movies sucked BIG TIME but Batman 89 sucked even worse because michale keaton was such a horrible casting choice for the role because he was so physically wrong for the part.Thats why batman forever is the only halfway decent batman movie made because Val Kilmer made a much better batman because he at least physically fot the role of bruce wayne which michael keaton did not.I agree though that BATMAN BEGINS needs to be great to make up for this nightmare franchise.

As I just said,those Batman movies suck even worse than BATMAN FOREVER did.

acting ability is a hell of a lot more important than physical traits. keaton played bats and bruce perfectly imo (personality wise), the first two movies were really great, and nobody has come close to nicholsons portrayal of the joker. 3 and 4 bordered on insulting imo.

Doesnt matter if the acting is good,if the person doesnt even come close to fitting the role then that person should not be cast.Ive always felt Kilmer was by far the best because not only was his acting good in that movie and prior to that I never liked Kilmer as an actor but he surprised me in this film.Not only did he do a pretty good acting job,but he is everything Bruce wayne is suppose to be that Keaton was not.Handome,atheletic build,and a full set of hair.

kilmer, good actor? u kidding me, sure he was physically better, but his portrayal of bruce was amateurish compared to keatons.

No.Actually Kilmer came closer to how Bruce wayne acts than Keaton did.Bruce wayne doest go around acting like a bumbling idiot who cant remember where things are in the mansion like keaton did.Bruce is calm around the women which Kilmer was.

i thought kilmer was a ****, he had no dark side, keaton did. keaton made jokes, thats why it looked like he didnt know where anything was. kilmer may have been good with the ladies, but he had no depth. keaton did imo.

No dark side? what? how about when he was telling Chase about how he became batman? looked like he was telling his dark side then.

one scene, that wasnt even that good, keaton had a bigger one. parker keaton is one of those 50/50s, some people love him, some people hate him as bats, its perfectly fine, i can agree to disagree.

I hate to sound contrite but Val Kilmer was more a Bruce Wayne than Michael Keaton. I liked both protrayals and went to theaters to see both versions when they came out. But Kilmer is my ideal Batman and will remain so unless Christian Bale overtakes him in the next installment.

I think it is safe to say that whether you like Keaton or Kilmer, that George Clooney was THE worst of all?

(edit) Kilmer displayed enough dark side to get the point across.

Finished watching Batman:Mask of the Phantasm, and it is bloody brilliant. Especially the revelations with the Joker. Definitely worthy to be included with the live action entries in the 90s film franchise.

Im just thankful for the new Batman Begins and that Tim Burton has nothing to do with it because this looks like a Batman movie that will finally please ALL Batman fans.Im glad they got Nolan as the director because unlike Burton,he seems to care about making the best casting choice possible for the role of Bruce wayne-"Burton cast Keaton only because he felt comforatable working with him" because Bale not only is a good actor but he also pysically fits the role and it seems that the people who liked Burtons Batman movies dont have a problem with him in that role and neither do the batman fans such as myself who dont like Burtons Batman movies have a problem with Bale.so hopefully this will be the batman movie that pleases ALL Batman fans.

I didnt like any of the actors who played batman in the movie. But surely val kilmer was a much better bruce wayne than michael keaton. Not only he looked more as bruce wayne is than keaton, his acting was closer to the comics character , not the clark kent wanna be that keaton bring us. If an actor isnt credible in a role, it ruins the concept of the character and the movie , and that was the problem with keaton, who is a very good actor, but a very bad choice as batman. And his dark side? we couldent see any dark side or light side, because the burton movies were all about the joker , catwoman and the freak penguin. Batman and bruce wayne arent enough developed as characters.

I agree with bakerboy, Kilmer was a better Bruce Wayne than Keaton. Keaton played him as being distracted and absent minded all the time, and that was a turnoff for me.

respectfully playing devil's advocate here....

"distracted" and "absent-minded"....if you led a dual life, you'd be distracted as well. i think those bits are part of why so many liked keaton in the role. what DIDN'T make sense to me, though, was the public side of bruce wayne, especially in that first movie. if i remember right, vicky vale asks al knox to go look up "the file" on bruce wayne. he finds a file with one or two small clippings in it. excuse me? this guy is supposed to be 1. Handsome. Chick magnet. 2. Wealthy beyond compare. 3. President of a Large Corporation. 4. Heterosexual. 5. Single. this means PAPARAZZI, or however you spell it. like what was going on in the third movie. he's a coverboy, and the girls want him. that wasn't what was portrayed in the first movie (maybe not much in the second, but i don't remember that one as well). in the first movie, there was no file on him. in the third movie, it was ...well, paparazzi. this is more to do with the writing and directing than the actors, though.

No one has mentioned Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker (2000). I found that movie to be very imaginative, why are people overlooking it?