Review: Batman vs. Two-Face

Adam West vs. William Shatner

By Chris Sabga

Release Date: October 17th, 2017 – U.S.

Rating: PG

Genre: Animation, Action, Comedy

Running Time: 72 minutes

Director: Rick Morales

Writers: Michael Jelenic, James Tucker

Cast: Adam West, Burt Ward, William Shatner, 

Julie Newmar, Jeff Bergman, Sirena Irwin, 

Thomas Lennon, Lee Meriwether, William Salyers, 

Lynne Marie Stewart, Jim Ward, Steven Weber, 

Wally Wingert 

In the 1960s, Adam West's Batman and William Shatner's Captain Kirk were two of the most iconic characters in all of television. In "Batman vs. Two-Face," a sequel to the wonderful "Batman: Return of the Caped Crusaders" set in the colorful "Whap! Pow! Bang!" universe of the 1960s "Batman" show, West and Shatner are together at last – terrible TV movies notwithstanding – as both best friends and archenemies. Thanks to the powers of animation, they haven't aged a day since the '60s.

At the beginning, we are introduced to Dr. Hugo Strange's latest invention: a device that sucks out and isolates the evil from Gotham's super-villains. What could possibly go wrong? With a quack like Strange at the helm, it doesn't take long to find out. Things go awry – because of course they do – and undefeated lawyer Harvey Dent (who bears a striking resemblance to a young William Shatner) is transformed against his will into the villainous Two-Face. I was not expecting that in the first five minutes of the film.

After rehabilitation and plastic surgery, Dent is allowed to practice law again. However, the former legal ace is now reduced to being the assistant to the assistant district attorney. It's quite a fall from grace – and a ready-made formula for a super-villain origin story. Or is it? When Two-Face (Shatner) inevitably resurfaces, Batman (West) refuses to believe his "old chum" Dent is the man behind the dual identity this time – despite the repeated protests of a jealous Robin (Burt Ward).

"Return of the Caped Crusaders" featured such a memorable rogues gallery of villains – The Joker, The Penguin, The Riddler, and Catwoman – that any sequel would be hard-pressed to top them. While Shatner's Two-Face is a more-than-worthy adversary, he's not the only one who makes an appearance. "Batman vs. Two-Face" dips deep into the lore of '60s Batman show and trots out a couple of suitably corny c-level baddies: the felonious pharaoh King Tut (Wally Wingert) and the literary lout The Bookworm (Jeff Bergman). If you didn't just smile, you've never seen the magical TV series all of this is based on.

(And if you're a fan of the other villains, don't worry: there are several cameos and a surprising deleted scene – hidden in plain sight on the Blu-ray – featuring arguably the most popular criminal adversary in Gotham City nowadays.)

Adam West and Burt Ward have never sounded better. Julie Newmar's Catwoman also returns in a reduced role (along with another cat-related surprise I won't spoil). Shatner is surprisingly restrained in his voicing of Two-Face – if you were expecting his usual long pauses and various Shatner-isms, they're not really there – but he does a nice job of making Dent and Two-Face sound distinctive from each other.

Like "Return of the Caped Crusaders" before it, "Batman vs. Two-Face" feels like an extended episode of the old show – and that's exactly how it should be.

Which movie is better? I slightly favor the first because I remember feeling so so giddy with glee watching a reunion unfold before my very eyes that I never thought would be possible. But I've heard from Bat-fans who prefer this one. Either way, you're going to have a great time.

In one of the extras, Burt Ward revealed that he and Adam West have been submitted to "The Guinness Book of World Records" as the only two actors who have worked together over the span of 50 years. "Batman vs. Two-Face" ended up being Adam West's final role before his death at the age of 88. The very end of the credits features a touching text tribute to the "Bright Knight" that is guaranteed to make even The Joker shed a tear or two. These are special films, and we're lucky to have them.

• Review: Batman: Return of the Caped Crusaders

Reflecting on 25 Years of Tim Burton's Batman

Michael Keaton's Iconic Take on the Caped Crusader is Now a Quarter of a Century Old

By Chris Sabga

On June 23, 1989, Tim Burton's dark, gritty, and visually stunning re-imagining of Batman flew onto the silver screen with the impact of a Batarang whizzing overhead.

I was only ten years old then, and it would be my first experience with the Caped Crusader.

Even at such a young age, I was familiar enough with Michael Keaton to know that he was somewhat of an odd fit to portray a superhero. I had no idea, though, just how controversial the casting choice really was at the time. Picture that same scenario in the internet-era: Everyone involved would have been crucified instantly in 140 characters or less on Twitter – just we saw last year with Ben Affleck. But these were much simpler, more innocent days – at least for me – and I had no qualms about giving Keaton a chance. Actually, I didn't even think about it that way at all – Keaton had nothing to prove to me. I just wanted to see a really cool-looking, fun movie about a powerful man who "turned into a bat" and had an array of wonderful "toys" at his disposal.

Two hours later (126 minutes, to be exact), I was smitten.

Despite whatever doubts people may have had, Michael Keaton was absolutely phenomenal in the tricky dual role of the billionaire playboy Bruce Wayne and the cowled crimefighter Batman. However, every great hero needs a great villain – and they didn't come any better than Jack Nicholson's manic but magical and magnetic take on The Joker. The casting of such a respected Oscar-winning name like Nicholson sent a strong Bat-signal to the industry that this version of "Batman" would be more than just your typical superhero summer popcorn flick.

The strange sensibilities of director Tim Burton – who was then known primarily for "Pee Wee's Big Adventure" and "Beetlejuice" – provided another invaluable asset. He brought a warped, off-kilter aesthetic to the project that was perfect for Batman, The Joker, and Gotham City as a whole. But Burton's "Batman" was far from a weird arthouse experiment. It was cool.

Stylistically, the film was and remains a masterpiece. The striking sets of Gotham City, the bold black sheen of the Batmobile, and the colorful and crazy costumes of Batman and The Joker all came together to create a distinct visual world. The fusion of Batman and Tim Burton was nothing short of a work of art – literally.

The only thing I didn't like was that Nicholson had been given top billing over Keaton. Yes, Jack was the bigger star, but why was the villain's name ahead of the hero's? It rubbed my kid-self the wrong way. (Actually, it bugs my adult-self too!) Maybe it was my strong sense of justice? (Either that or extreme OCD.)

Regardless, I had Bat-fever that summer. And I wasn't the only one. A whole new generation of children and adults alike fell in love with The Dark Knight. Batman was once again relevant.

I collected the trading cards, pined for the toy Batmobile, and generally just couldn't get enough of anything Batman.

Then I discovered Adam West.

It's certainly true that Michael Keaton, Jack Nicholson, and Tim Burton all owe Adam West an enormous debt of gratitude – but I would not have found West without Keaton, Nicholson, and Burton.

From 1966 to 1968, Adam West played Batman (along with Burt Ward as his sidekick, the "Boy Wonder" Robin) for three seasons on television and one feature film. West's version of the Caped Crusader was the complete opposite of what would come later. It was lighthearted, comical, colorful, and blissfully cheesy. Words such as "pow" and "zap" would appear on the screen during fights. I adored it.

The villains were the best part. In addition to The Joker (played gleefully by Cesar Romero, whose bushy mustache poked out of his facepaint), I was also introduced to many other larger-than-life evildoers – including Catwoman (Julie Newmar, Lee Meriwether, and Eartha Kitt all stepped into the role at different times), The Penguin (Burgess Meredith), The Riddler (Frank Gorshin), Egghead (created specifically for the show and portrayed by Vincent Price), and too many others to name.

In 1992, Burton and Keaton reunited for a sequel, "Batman Returns," that I didn't enjoy nearly as much. A new director (Joel Schumacher) and a new actor (Val Kilmer) came together for 1995's "Batman Forever," which I actually enjoyed – possibly because of significantly lowered expectations. The stunt casting of Jim Carrey as "The Riddler" was a different story though. It seemed perfect on paper but did not translate well on-screen. The less said about the 1997 follow-up, "Batman & Robin," the better. George Clooney and Arnold Schwarzenegger played Batman and Mr. Freeze respectively, and the entire franchise was – nope, I won't give in to my basest instincts and write "put on ice," "frozen," or any other temperature-related pun. Schwarzenegger had been a favorite of mine, and Clooney would become one, but this was not exactly their hottest outing. (Sorry!)

It would be eight more years before Batman would don the cowl and cape again for yet another reboot (Christopher Nolan's "Batman Begins" in 2005 with Christian Bale). And so it continues, from Bale to Ben and whatever lies beyond.

From comic books, movies, TV shows, toys, and more, Batman has carved out an immortal legacy that will forever stand the test of time.

But, for me, it all began in one small, dark movie theater in 1989.

• Ben Affleck is the New Batman: The History of the Dark Knight

Ben Affleck is the New Batman: The History of the Dark Knight

The Caped Crusader Through the Ages

By Chris Sabga

It's official: Ben Affleck is the new Batman! Based on the nuclear reaction, you'd think the world has gone up in flames. Gotham City may have though.

Affleck is a great director and a decent actor, but I'm having a very hard time picturing him as Batman. After all, his last foray as a superhero – in 2003's "Daredevil" – wasn't exactly a success. Daredevil is an incredible character – a blind man who uses his disabilities to his advantage – but the film was as mediocre and mundane as they come. Affleck certainly doesn't deserve all of the blame for that, but nothing about his performance as Daredevil convinced me that he could tackle the role of the even more iconic Batman.

Bruce Wayne, yes. Batman, no.

Affleck certainly has the looks and charm to portray the billionaire playboy Bruce Wayne, but the daring, deadly Dark Knight is another story entirely. In that regard, Affleck seems like another George Clooney (1997's "Batman & Robin").

Clooney has repeatedly poked fun at himself for one of the biggest disasters of his career. It's clear that Affleck either didn't seek his advice or chose to ignore it. I can only hope this isn't just a "paycheck role" for Affleck. That would be doing the character and franchise a great disservice.

Reportedly, Affleck's Batman will be an older, wiser, grizzled veteran to Henry Cavill's Superman. There's only one problem with that: Despite an eleven-year age difference, Affleck doesn't look any older than Cavill. Of course, that's nothing a little makeup and hair-dye can't take care of.

Truthfully, I like Ben Affleck, and I'm rooting for him to surprise us all. In order for that to happen though, he is going to have to learn from history. Seven other men put on the cape and cowl before him for live action adaptations of "Batman."

Lewis G. Wilson: Batman (1943 – Serial)

Robert Lowery: Batman and Robin (1949 – Serial)

Raise your hand if you thought Adam West was the first actor to portray Batman on-screen. I certainly did. But two others came before him: Lewis G. Wilson was the first Caped Crusader in 1943, and Robert Lowery followed in his footsteps six years later in 1949. Both serials are readily available on DVD, and episodes can also be found on YouTube.

Adam West: Batman (1966-1968 – TV Series), Batman (1966 – Movie)

Fun, outrageous, and completely campy – Adam West's Batman was a cartoon come-to-life. Generations of Bat-fans grew up on West's version, and it remains just as beloved today as it was when it first aired all the way back in 1966. For over 30 years, West's zany take on Batman was the most famous televised version of the character. But the door was definitely open for a more serious interpretation of the Caped Crusader. That finally happened in 1989.

Michael Keaton: Batman (1989), Batman Returns (1992)

At the time, people must have had serious doubts about Keaton's ability to become Batman. On paper, it seems like something that shouldn't have worked at all. By all appearances, Keaton wasn't suave enough to be Bruce or tough enough to be Batman – and yet, somehow, he pulled it off spectacularly. Perhaps the same will be true of Affleck? It helps, of course, that everything else was so perfectly realized. Gotham City came alive – transformed into a dark, atmospheric, stunning metropolis for this movie. Jack Nicholson was brilliant and manic as The Joker; funny, serious, and downright creepy – often all three at the same time. And all of Batman's amazing "toys" – such as the Batmobile – completed the effect. But none of that would have mattered if Keaton himself wasn't equipped for the task. The sequel, "Batman Returns," wasn't nearly as good, but Keaton remains one of the best to ever wear the cape and cowl.   

Val Kilmer: Batman Forever (1995)



If Adam West's Batman had a baby with Keaton's and then they performed an abortion, you might get something like "Batman Forever." Val Kilmer was hardly an extraordinary Bruce Wayne or a great Batman, the villains are barely memorable (Jim Carrey's version of The Riddler has nothing on Frank Gorshin), and the movie is so garish and off-the-rails. Despite all of that, I have a soft spot for it anyway. It's a mess, but an endearing one – to me at least. The same, however, cannot be said for the film that put the Batman franchise on ice for almost a decade.

George Clooney: Batman & Robin (1997)



Where to begin with this wretched train-wreck of a movie? Clooney is an adequate Wayne but can't pull off Batman at all. I fear the same fate will befall Ben Affleck. But at least Affleck won't have to contend with Bat-nipples. Clooney's suit was designed with this "effect" presumably to enhance his "sex appeal," but all it did was make him look like a cloaked clown. Arnold Schwarzenegger is absolutely abysmal as Mr. Freeze – the less said, the better. Neither of their careers took a hit, but Batman retreated to the Batcave until 2005.

Christian Bale: Batman Begins (2005), The Dark Knight (2008), The Dark Knight Rises (2012)



Just as a darker tone was necessary for 1989's "Batman," the same was true when Christopher Nolan was tasked with rebooting the franchise for 2005's "Batman Begins." Over the course of three movies, Nolan and star Christian Bale never wavered from bringing a grittier, more true-to-life Batman to the screen. Instead of a campy Sunday morning strip like the Adam West TV version or a live action comic book like Keaton's 1989 film, this was a far more plausible, down to earth, serious take on Batman. Gotham City finally looked like a real city that real people could live in.

After three exhausting mega-blockbusters, Christian Bale has understandably decided to move on. That brings us back to the current situation – to Ben Affleck.

Ben Affleck: Batman vs. Superman – AKA Man of Steel 2 (2015)



Affleck does have a few major elements working in his favor:

Unlike the other seven Batmen who have preceded him, he does not have to carry an entire TV show or film all by himself – "Superman" Henry Cavill will be sharing the load.

Superman and Batman appearing together in the same movie is a massive event. That "gimmick" alone will alleviate some of the pressure from Affleck – much like Mark Ruffalo had an easier time stepping in for Edward Norton as Bruce Banner in "The Avengers" because he had to share the screen with so many others.

Because the movie will not be focused solely on Batman, the man behind the mask isn't quite as important as it normally would be. That doesn't mean Carrot Top could suddenly play Batman and all would be well, but even if Affleck is ill-suited to the role, he is by no means a bad actor.

Still, I'm skeptical and wary. I can't help but think that there were better options available.

Even Affleck's best friend, Matt Damon, would have been preferable – not ideal either, necessarily, but I can sort of picture it.

Since the character is supposed to skew a bit older, my dream pick: Daniel Day-Lewis. There was probably no chance in hell of that happening, but you know you want to see it!

Out of the plausible candidates available, it's hard to really say. Mel Gibson is probably too old now – and he's box office poison for obvious reasons – but he wouldn't be bad, talent-wise. If his Bat-suit had nipples, would they be sugar tits?

Casting a virtual unknown or respected foreign actor – similar to Henry Cavill in "Man of Steel" – might have been the best bet. But since I'd personally want an American actor to play Batman again (I realize neither Gibson or Day-Lewis fit the bill in that regard, but they can pull off the accent convincingly), I'm forced to admit that there aren't too many viable candidates for the role.

If I'm backed against a corner and have to pick someone right now, I'll go with Liev Schreiber.

He's dapper enough to pull off Bruce Wayne and more than tough enough to stalk the streets as Batman.