This film was released simultaneously with the same series with the same cast. This is not the first film adaptation of Bats’ adventures. In the '40s, there were two cheap black and white shows. But if it was serious enough, then here the film about the Dark Knight turned into a comedy.
In the story, Batman and Robin confront a whole four villains: Joker, Catwoman, Riddler and Penguin. With the help of some device they are trying to seize power over the world.
Batman has the most ridiculous costume out there. Well, Robin, as always, is just a funny partner who does not play a special role in the plot. For Adam West, who was taken from cocoa advertising, and Bert Ward, the roles became iconic, but in these images they remained.
The film itself is bright, colorful and funny. Fight scenes where animated inserts appear with sounds like 'BAP' or 'ZWAP'. In general, the film to a certain extent cult and sold out on quotes and parodies. The villains, despite the caricature, are quite canonical and are played by quite famous actors of old Hollywood Cesar Romero (Joker) and Burgess Meredith (Penguin). Well, good Catwoman played by Lee Mereviser, who tries to seduce Bruce Wayne, posing as a Soviet journalist.
6 out of 10
To regard the debut full-fledged "Batman" as a moral and instructive film (the first goal of the "superhero" movie), would be very, very stupid. Therefore, inquisitive seekers of the classical genre, with the hope of something worthwhile, can come across a very dangerous and lengthy “mina”. Well, in general, looking at these surrealistic footage of the fight against the “sea predator”, the logical chains of the protagonists and various “bat things”, it will be equally foolish to think that this is an accident. If not, this is probably the most incompetent picture of half a million dollars in the history of Hollywood. But you don’t want to think about it, so let’s pretend that the first option is correct.
From the point of view of the content, the plot does not shine with special uniqueness. Failures in favor of terrifying (in the bad sense of the word) action scenes, make the run of the heroes of West and Ward devoid of meaning, rationality and high-quality acting. And in general, it is still unclear whether the film is a parody, which creates some discomfort.
The lifeline at all this “retuse party” is humor, which takes place to be very funny. But this is not enough – a long “wheel” of the narrative movement stretches too long, tediously, exhausting the very essence in the first half. For the series, the format is quite successful, but in the movie with his cockroaches Lesley Martinson got in vain - neither experience nor technique the director lacks. In the end: a beautiful farce that turns into a terrible movie.
5 out of 10
I think a lot of Batman fans have heard of the 1966-1968 comedy series with Adam West. A series that was clowning, absurd, farce, but that’s why it was funny and funny. And so I decided, I mean, somehow get acquainted with the full-length film of 1966. I was in the mood, extremely well, I was expecting to see a really carb-absurd funny movie about Batman in the style of "Hot Gun" or "Cosmobols". But in fact, I have to say that Batman 1966 is not the funniest comedy I've ever seen.
There was only one funny episode in the whole film - at the beginning with the shark, where:
Robin, give me my bet aerosol anti-sharks!
It was really very funny to tears, especially this shark, which is so, you can see, it's a rubber toy that you wonder if it was intentionally done?
But what happens then can be described in one word – boring! A villainous quartet of Joker, Penguin, Riddler and Catwoman want to take over the world, and Batman and Robin must stop them. And it's not funny at all. During the film, the characters do something, the villains do something (I didn’t remember what it was) but none of it is funny, there is nothing funny. Even a fight on a submarine, which is supposed to be fun, is not fun. Everything in the film is so boring that by the middle I wanted to turn it off. There are only a couple of funny moments: like running around with a bomb or how Bruce Wayne saves Miss Kitka. But they're just funny and they don't stretch, and they're also long. For example, Wayne saves Kitka, but one minute it's funny how he doesn't know who she is, but that moment lasts 10 minutes and he's just annoying. Also with “when you have to get rid of a bomb, there’s always nowhere to put it,” Batman runs around with this bomb and runs and runs for so long that you want to say, “You can’t just run away from the boat and throw it into the sea?”
And in the end, the film generally turns into some kind of thrust, as Batman and Robin cure politicians, turn them back into people, look at them, politicians swear, and the characters just stand and watch it all so boring and not a bit funny that it seems that the creators just did not care what they do.
And what struck me as a complete lack of humor was the Joker's fusion character. In fact, there are two villains: the Cat and the Penguin, but the Joker he does almost nothing important, he just stands next to and silently participates in what is happening, while not joking, or crooking. It's weird, you have a clown character in a clown movie based on a clown series where he's always been funny and cool, it would seem, in the film he should be the main dynamo of humor. But in fact, he doesn't do anything, just stand up or fight silently. Seriously, you're still complaining about "Suicide Squad" Joker leaked? In "Batman" in 1966, this is even more done.
And I know it's reckless to look for logic in a movie like that, but still. And why is it that Batman and Robin are the only ones who are saving politicians in the end, and the rest of the world is just watching why some scientists or other people won’t help them?
Conclusion: Batman 1966 is not funny, not interesting, boring and dull. And it is especially not clear why in this film such a small role is assigned to the Joker, who should be a universal leader, but in fact he is just a secondary extra.
1 out of 10
The villains Joker, Catwoman, Mystery Man and Penguin team up to take over the world with a device that pulls moisture from people. On the way they become Batman and Robin.
When I sat down to watch this film, I did not expect to see a masterpiece of world cinema. Imagining a medium-handed action movie (for the 60s), I was very surprised to see the comedy. No, the filmmakers clearly didn't count on it. Just after so many years, the action on the screen looks so ridiculous and comical that if any serious subtext was, it went nowhere. A variety of bet gadgets are certainly present everywhere, but for example, bet aerosol sharks I saw for the first time. And a lot of brain-explosive gadgets of this kind, from which only laughter takes. The joke “How can you sell submarines to those who don’t even leave an address” is also a lot. I would like to talk about the method of deduction. As many people know, Batman is primarily a brilliant detective who solves the most complicated cases. The same film took his detective skills to a new level. Looking at how Batman and Robin solve mysteries, you involuntarily wonder about the normality of the filmmakers.
-What does a turkey do when flying upside down?
- He's eating a lot of air!
- Exactly
Or this puzzle:
What weighs 170 grams, sits on a tree, and is very dangerous?
- Sparrow with machine gun!
-Definitely
Given the year the film was released, I was expecting to see something from the category of “bad Russians.” That's basically what happened. The creators decided why to make a cat Russian, which in moments of discontent goes to the native language. There are also some references to Russia, in the form of restaurant musicians playing "Black Eyes" and knocking at the end on the table boot.
The actors did pretty well. Resemblance to comic book characters is above minimal. The only thing that did not like is that the actor playing the Joker did not shave off his mustache, and makeup was applied over them. It was very conspicuous. Did such a big-budget film, for those times, not have enough money for a razor? Well, the inscriptions “Bang” appear, etc. during fights, to remind the viewer that this is still a comic book, in my opinion, superfluous.
The rest is quite an interesting and funny film. It’s good to watch a boring winter evening.
P.S. For the offer of Robin during the chase to call a taxi – separate applause!
6 out of 10
Bullshit! There's no rush. Mitek will bring vodka now, the teddy bear will play balalaika, after that Mitek will go down again for a vodka, and only then we will start to hurry, but only when we are hung over. What? Don’t say anything, turn on the movie in the tenth minute. I beg you, turn on the tenth minute, Lord. Comrade Kitanya Irinya Tatiana Karenskaya-Alisova (without comment) from Moscow Pravda! I couldn’t get over it for a long time.
At first glance, we have a real comic book (bright and colorful), but this is only at first glance. I know this is one of the first Batman movies. I understand that the movie was very popular in the United States. First came the series, and after it made this film, but I try to trust my inner feelings, so the review burns against a gray background. Too much, guys. It's literally too much. Take a few salads (Stick 5) and stir. Crazy movie!
You start watching Batman with your mouth open. Twenty minutes later, you close your mouth to the lock, and twenty minutes later you start to go crazy. When will this whole bacchanalia be over? I wasn’t particularly interested in making this movie, but I did watch a documentary about the series. Almost all the actors from the series moved to a full-length film. Each episode of the series lasted 20-30 minutes. The movie runs 100 minutes or more! That's not a lot for this kind of acid.
In the ’60s, few people got into the comic book genre. The directors have experimented, but Martinson’s sense of proportion is failing. One series and a whole movie, there is a difference. Some moments can be safely cut out of the picture, because they do not affect the plot. The plot is a sausage cut that changes itself when someone eats a piece. Martinson just took and stuffed on the submarine (!) four famous villains (Penguin, Joker, Cat and Riddler), who constantly plot Batman and Robin.
There are days when a bomb has nowhere to go!
(About the 63rd minute of the film)
I specifically highlighted that phrase. The moment with the bomb is a cult. Even that old documentary (which I watched late at night on TV) talked about him. Batman is running around with a bomb and people are walking around. It's a really great moment (with meaning). Of the villains, I liked Penguin the most. I thought he beat everybody, but I love old Burton's Penguin a hundred times more. There's nothing to say.
Add here rubber sharks (Spielberg wound on a beard), Bat aerosol against rubber sharks, Bat helicopter, Bat staircase and a huge number of things with the prefix Beth. In the end, you get the American (I emphasize this word) classics. Despite the magical inscription at the very beginning that allegedly the filmmakers express their gratitude to the fighters against international crime (the 60s such 60s). And dedicate the movie to all those who love adventure, it will be difficult for the Russian (I emphasize this word) viewer to love these adventures.
What Batmen! We have Yurka Detochkin stealing cars! Get out of the car, I said...
P.S.
If you love everything strange and unusual, then this movie is for you. Why did they write that? I love it so much, but somehow I miss my heart.
6 out of 10
“Adam West—the best!”, “Adam West,” voiceover of the video game “Lego: Batman”
We express our gratitude to the international crime fighters who have set a brilliant example that has inspired us. In addition, this film is dedicated to everyone who loves adventure and loves to escape from reality into true entertainment, who prefers the strange, ridiculous and fun in everything. If we forgot to mention those who prefer something else, then we apologize!
In the wake of the tremendous success caused by the adventures of the most daring comic book hero in history, called Superman, the publishing house National Publications (later renamed DC) provided its artists and screenwriters with the elaboration of the image of another iconic character who was supposed to compete with a guest from Krypton. Among the many fictional characters that appeared on the sketches, the management of the publishing house most liked one Batman, or Bruce Vane. Created by Bob Kane and Bill Finger, the mysterious avenger in a bat mask combines the features of iconic heroes of the past, delicately balancing on the verge of law and disorder. Inspired by the appearance and habits of Zorro, Kane and Finger sent Batman to the fictional world of Gotham, the gloomy city opposite the famous Metropolis, in which Superman administered justice. Batman’s first appearance in the comics was in May 1939. Not wanting to risk the money to print a new series of graphic novels, entirely devoted to the absolutely unknown masses of the Knight of Gotham, the publishers placed Batman in the collection "Detective Comics", where he proved himself in the best way.
Having firmly consolidated his position on the front of the fight against crime, over time Batman won not only his own series of graphic novels, but also managed to get to the screens in the rather famous series of the sample of 1943. However, the version of “Batman” with Lewis Wilson and Douglas Croft stayed on the air not as long as the creators wanted, and the subsequent few years later “Batman and Robin” did not live up to expectations due to the completely apathetic mood of the producers in relation to the project. However, the comics about Batman did not cease to replenish the shelves of stores and the return of the hero to the set was only a matter of time. And such a significant event occurred in 1966, when the air appeared ironic Batman and Robin in pretentious costumes, casting the serious tone of the narrative and the drama of the story aside in order to play theatrical comedy with a constant cheerful positive.
Viewers weary of the grim omens, tragedy and tension permeating the popular culture of the end of World War II embraced a kaleidoscope of charming madness starring Adam West with a benign smile on his face. The creator of the 1966 adaptation, William Dozier, gained unlimited access to the DC archives, transferring the most entertaining ideas of Bob Kane and Bill Finger from paper pages to film, thereby maintaining a serious interest in what is happening. In particular, Batman of the 60s pleased true connoisseurs of the extraordinary biography of the superhero, since the series contained many references to details that were inherent in the unique atmosphere of Gotham City and formed the appearance of the Dark Knight as he for the most part is still. The somewhat monotonous structure of the plot did not become an obstacle to the successful broadcast of the first season, and in the break between the shooting of the main project, the producers decided to release a feature film of the same name in a wide theatrical rental, serving as a link between the already released and only preparing segments of the series. Without further surprises, all the leading actors of the original series returned to their roles with the exception of Catwomen Julie Newmar, and in the director's chair was the television craftsman Leslie H. Martinson, who shoots far from outstanding, but quite digestible productions.
The plot of “Batman” of the sample of 1966 unfolds in the unchanged Gotham, where there is still a rampant crime, with which the helpless police, led by Commissioner Gordon and Batman (West), the last hope of law enforcement, fight as much as they can. The fight against gangsters and thieves of all stripes takes almost the entire free time of Batman, known to the world under the guise of the respected billionaire playboy Bruce Vane. Relying on the help of loyal teammate Dick "Robin" Grayson (Bert Ward) and butler Alfred (Alan Napier), the Gotham City defender never shies away from the duty of honor, snapping out of place every time the cherished Bat Signal appears in the sky. Another emergency call that occurred in broad daylight did not bode well for Batman and Robin, as the object of attention of the mysterious villains was Commander Schmidlapp (Reginald Denny), a mediocre captain and concurrently a brilliant scientist whose innovative invention can bring the entire planet to its knees. And it is quite natural that to get to the destination safe and sound yacht Schmidlapp will not allow. Too much opportunity is able to give her valuable cargo, which dishonest invaders will not miss.
Continuing the ironic mood of the series, Leslie H. Martinson decided not to change the successfully working formula, returning to the screens comedic madness with a proper sweep. To attract audiences to theaters, producers needed to double the spectacle, carefully craft the script, and pose a real threat to Batman, no matter how comical. The story of the abduction of Commander Schmindapp in itself does not cause much admiration, but the sharpness of the plot reaches the necessary point when a united team of super-villains finally realizes that together they have a much better chance of defeating the eternal enemy than alone. In fact, the performance of a united front of Catwoman, Penguin, Riddler and Joker became the main feature of the full-length Batman, for which he can forgive some of the absurdities that betray the critically outdated mood of the film. Long before DC decided to release the ambitious Suicide Squad, Leslie H. Martinson released his version of the popular idea as part of the adventures of one of the most respected comic book heroes ever.
The filmmakers felt that the characters of Batman and Robin were already very clearly described in the first season of the series, and therefore in the theatrical sequel it will be much more interesting to consider the eccentricity of relations between the opponents of the Man in the Mask. If we reject the schematic explanation that the team of male villains is led by Catwoman (although in reality this is a very controversial point), the audience’s attention is stolen without a shadow of embarrassment by the willful Penguin, a true master intriguer with strong willed qualities. Against his background, the Joker himself pales in the performance of Cesar Romero, to whom the filmmakers forgot to prescribe at least one truly memorable joke. Not particularly impressive and presented variation of the Riddler, presented in the frame solely to fill the space. As for the Catwoman, whose role passed to the charming Lee Meriweather, the attractive forms and seductive grace of the actress save the character from the fate of cardboard decoration, designed to become a puppet in the hands of the Penguin.
In the end, I want to say that the full-length Batman is difficult to evaluate as an independent work. The film looks like an overstretched episode of the series, which is why there are frankly unnecessary moments in the plot, reducing the degree of pleasure from watching this crazy capito hailed from the 60s.
6 out of 10
There's an operetta. It's called the Bat. And there is such a stable DC character - Batman. People know Batman as a dark hero no less gloomy and, most importantly, a serious film adaptation. And not just one.
Leslie H. Martinson's 1966 film is more suited in nature to something not serious than something noir. That's what the picture says. From costumes to atmosphere.
Shot on the wave of the first season of the series of the same name, the film was to complement from a marketing point of view and promote the second season. It was all interchangeable and worked. But it was then. Time passed, it went... It's gone. Different times, different manners. Today, to perceive the hero as he showed Martinson and Co. can only be a milestone of the classics of cinema. And perhaps not otherwise. It's a little frustrating. But at the same time, this very time dictates its realities.
So... Now it is clear why they equipped and detached every single villain at that time in a single film and made an alliance of them. By capturing the world, what would you think! Penguin, Joker, The Mystery and The Catwoman, along with the "change" pirate extras are located on a submarine with pinguatuning.
So far, everything fits in. In addition, the eyes eat colorful scenery and bright colorful costumes. That's how it feels today. Viewers of our day. However, Adam West - the performer of the leading role - literally revolutionized the Batman comics! But let’s face the truth today. Bat's clothes are fucked up. About Robin and do not want to talk. Dick Grayson by Berth Ward re-dressed in a stuffed garden. No, seriously! What was Robin for here? His role is only seen as "bring-send."
Okay, I'm going to point to the antagonist attire. Batman's enemy cosplay is archaic. Somewhere too cartoonish. Like the mystery man. By the way, The Riddler was played by Frank Gorshin. Somewhere neutral and unquestionable - as, for example, the performer Joker - Cesar Romero. Somewhere understandable and forgivable, like the penguin Burgess Meredith. And somewhere (here - attention!) is truly outstanding!!! Oh, this Catwoman! You're in your claws pulling this whole mess. Bravo, Lee Mereviser!
Let's move on to development. In the world of Gotham, Miss Kitka tries to lure Batman through Bruce Wayne. That under the (apparently) hastily sewn mask is hiding Bruce Wayne. Bruce does not know who this Kitty is, not to mention the rendezvous of Beta with the Cat. And yes, I was disarmed in the beginning by a shot where even parents don’t know who is hiding behind Robin’s mask.
The villains conceived with the help of a freeze-gun, a charge of dehydrating UN leaders, to seize them and demand $9 (nine) billion. But insidious villains get in the way of Batman and Robin (well, finally, somehow involved Robin)!
The penguin captains, the Riddler shoots riddles into the sky, the Catwoman (with Russian roots) drives the operation, and the Joker is the reason for revealing himself to other generations.
We see: a good plot, unimportant costumes, the absurdity of situations and a facepalm epic file scene, in which there was a brutality wall on the wall with intersperses of “BOOM!” and similar...
So, stupidity is mixed with corrupt naivety. Pleasant to the eye shots (like light spotlight with the sign of a bat in the sky) and sick-headed scenes ("Sometimes the bomb just has nowhere to go!", - only music from the Benny Hill Show was missing).
But I want to end with the positive. He's definitely here! As I watched it, I remembered my childhood. So hopeless, so beautiful as this movie. Yes, the film “old man” in our time with you with numerous released other adaptations of “Batman”. But then it was a breakthrough. The audience then saw the bat-mobile, and the bat-plane and many, many other bat-mobiles. The Bat Cave, again...
That's the movie. I think we can meet him. First of all, a fan of the franchise. To find out where it all started. But other viewers will not be disturbed either. And I have it all. (And so many...).
Gotham and his heroes. And his villains... (I want the suit to sit)
No, I wasn't wrong. I was consciously looking for the part of Bamen that I could say started it all. I decided to ignore the Batman and Robin series. Worse? Well, I'm not a comic book fan, but I guess I should. I just started watching it all to get to know and broaden my horizons.
Having got acquainted with the Batman universe in absentia, I learned, for example, that Catwoman is the passion of Batman. But the main motive for watching the film of 66 was the desire to look at Joker performed by Cesar Romero.
The role of the main defender of Gotham performed Adam West (a funny name for fans of "Griffins"). Friend and associate of the Man-bat - Robin performed by Bert Ward.
As for the film itself:
The four mighty alliances: Penguin, The Riddler, The Joker and The Catwoman have united to take over the world. No more, no less. And Batman and Robin will try not to let them. That's all.
And if the plot still drags on. The actors, too, then in everything else - keep me seven. The movie is damned and monstrously puppet. The characters are very childish. Costumes are like a gay party. Catwoman Doesn't count. She's good. This is Lee Meriviser. The scenes are inherently stupid. The characters are smooth-brained. Honestly, if I were five years old, I would drink this movie! That’s probably what the creators did 50 years ago.
I'll note that something has been done well. Some scripted moves, for example. Special effects? Well, fire me right away. A toy (rubber?) shark simply kills. Why and who needed this scene? So I started watching because of the Joker Cesar Romer. And the Joker dissolves. He's not very important. If I didn’t know Heath Ledger, I wouldn’t remember Romero. The whole blanket is pulled by a cat woman. But I'm happy about that, to be honest.
The film, however, is very important! It's a living monument!!! I can even praise him. And there's a reason. But the final action scene just chops everything down to the root again. So ... the best thing is to average my opinion. And go to the same hero, but not Leslie H. Martinson, but Tim Burton.
5 out of 10
The villains Joker, Catwoman, Mystery Man and Penguin team up to take over the world with a device that pulls moisture from people. On the way they become Batman and Robin.
When I sat down to watch this film, I did not expect to see a masterpiece of world cinema. Imagining a medium-handed action movie (for the 60s), I was very surprised to see the comedy. No, the filmmakers clearly didn't count on it. Just after so many years, the action on the screen looks so ridiculous and comical that if any serious subtext was, it went nowhere. A variety of bet gadgets are certainly present everywhere, but for example, bet aerosol sharks I saw for the first time. And a lot of brain-explosive gadgets of this kind, from which only laughter takes. The joke “How can you sell submarines to those who don’t even leave an address” is also a lot. I would like to talk about the method of deduction. As many people know, Batman is primarily a brilliant detective who solves the most complicated cases. The same film took his detective skills to a new level. Looking at how Batman and Robin solve mysteries, you involuntarily wonder about the normality of the filmmakers.
What does a turkey do when flying upside down?
- He's eating a lot of air!
- Exactly.
Or this puzzle:
What weighs 170 grams, sits on a tree, and is very dangerous?
- Sparrow with machine gun!
- Definitely
Given the year the film was released, I was expecting to see something from the category of “bad Russians.” That's basically what happened. The creators decided why to make a cat Russian, which in moments of discontent goes to the native language. There are also some references to Russia, in the form of restaurant musicians playing "Black Eyes" and knocking at the end on the table boot.
The actors did pretty well. Resemblance to comic book characters is above minimal. The only thing that did not like is that the actor playing the Joker did not shave off his mustache, and makeup was applied over them. It was very conspicuous. Did such a big-budget film, for those times, not have enough money for a razor? Well, the inscriptions “Bang” appear, etc. during fights, to remind the viewer that this is still a comic book, in my opinion, superfluous.
The rest is quite an interesting and funny film. It’s good to watch a boring winter evening.
P.S. For Robin's offer to call a taxi - separate applause!
6 out of 10
The villains Joker, Catwoman, Mystery Man and Penguin team up to take over the world with a device that pulls moisture from people. On the way they become Batman and Robin.
When I sat down to watch this film, I did not expect to see a masterpiece of world cinema. Imagining a medium-handed action movie (for the 60s), I was very surprised to see the comedy. No, the filmmakers clearly did not count on it. Just after so many years, the action on the screen looks so ridiculous and comical that if any serious subtext was, it went nowhere. A variety of bet gadgets are certainly present everywhere, but for example, bet aerosol sharks I saw for the first time. And a lot of brain-explosive gadgets of this kind, from which only laughter takes. The joke “How can you sell submarines to those who don’t even leave an address” is also a lot. I would like to talk about the method of deduction. As many people know, Batman is primarily a brilliant detective who solves the most complicated cases. The same film took his detective skills to a new level. Looking at how Batman and Robin ponder puzzles, you involuntarily wonder about the normality of the filmmakers.
What does a turkey do when flying upside down?
- He's eating a lot of air!
- Exactly.
Or this puzzle:
What weighs 170 grams, sits on a tree, and is very dangerous?
- Sparrow with machine gun!
- Definitely
Given the year the film was released, I was expecting to see something from the category of “bad Russians.” That's basically what happened. The creators decided why to make a cat Russian, which in moments of discontent goes to the native language. There are also some references to Russia, in the form of restaurant musicians playing "Black Eyes" and knocking at the end on the table boot.
The actors did pretty well. Resemblance to comic book characters is above minimal. The only thing that did not like is that the actor playing the Joker did not shave off his mustache, and makeup was applied over them. It was very conspicuous. Did such a big-budget film, for those times, not have enough money for a razor? Well, the inscriptions “Bang” appear, etc. during fights, to remind the viewer that this is still a comic book, in my opinion, superfluous.
The rest is quite an interesting and funny film. It’s good to watch a boring winter evening.
P.S. For Robin's offer to call a taxi - separate applause!
6 out of 10
Before us is the oldest film about one of the most famous superheroes in the world. I watched this version before watching more famous Batman movies. Few people know about this film, but nevertheless it is the very first adaptation of comics about a man-bat, and therefore deserves attention.
At first glance, the film seems primitive and stupid. The special effects of the 1966 film are silly. But it's not about the effects, it's about the plot and the meaning of the film. The first 10 minutes are not interesting. The main characters are not the superheroes we are used to seeing in modern comic book adaptations - mutated people and using their abilities for the benefit of the people, but ordinary people dressed in costumes. The main character Batman in the costume of a bat, the main villains - one with a drawn question mark on the costume (Man-mystery), the other in a mask with cat ears (Catwoman), and others. By the way, as far as I know, Catwoman in the 2004 film is not a villain, but a superheroine. I haven’t really seen that movie yet. Let’s talk about the action of this film. If you don’t turn off the movie after the boring first 10 minutes, you can see a pretty interesting story. True, because of these costumes something resembling theatrical production, but still interesting. Even primitive. This is a normal story about the struggle between good and evil in the person of the heroes I have already named, and some others. There are no special effects here, but in 1966 it was pretty good. The decisive fight of superheroes against villains looks, surprisingly, very impressive.
So we see the simplest adaptation of comics, shot not so bad as it seems at first glance. Could a comic book adaptation be highly intelligent? It is now we see the adaptation of comics with sophisticated special effects (old and new series "Spider-Man") and amazing stories about the origin of superheroes (as in "X-Men" and "Fantastic Four"). In this film, the main task was simply to show people what the comic looks like in the video. And it did quite well. Watch only for fans of comics, in particular, fans of Batman.
8 out of 10
Perhaps, I will take my review to the positive, but immediately it is worth saying that this film should be watched either by true Batman fans or in a very good mood, which was in my case.
Of course, in 1966, there was no technological capability that current directors have available, and yet I think the film could have been made more interesting and smarter.
At the very least, the plot could have been made more intelligible, since it is a kind of pun, as if the first ten minutes wanted one thing and the next one wanted another. The characters are not worked out at all, the villains look like some clowns, and Batman and his assistant Robin are not far from them. .
I don’t know, maybe this film was originally planned as a comedy (although they even said about the action movie in the genre), because I laughed a lot, even where there seemed to be a serious moment.
The scenery is impressive in the negative sense of the word - everything is unnatural, plastic and unnatural, Batman's equipment is kind of ridiculous and funny. Yes, and Gotham itself turned into an ordinary American city and lost ... or rather, has not yet acquired the gloomy and criminal atmosphere that Tim Burton and Chris Nolan later created.
Well, this film is a classic of Batman, the beginning of the path to becoming this character, so I will not judge this creation very harshly. I laughed, had relative pleasure and had enough of it.
5 out of 10
When I was a kid, I thought Tim Burton’s Batman (1989) was the very first movie about the Dark Knight of Gotham. Only later did I find out I was wrong. It turned out that the first feature-length film about this DC Comics superhero was Leslie Martinson's 1966 Batman. Before that, only series were shot about Batman (even the film itself was shot to increase the rating of the eponymous series, which was released at the same time). I didn’t watch the entire 1966-68 series. But to understand, I needed a few series. So the full-length film from the series is almost no different.
The main characters of the film - Batman and Robin is confronted by an insidious four in the person of the Joker, Penguin, Catwoman and Riddler. Among the advantages of “Batman”, as a film adaptation of comics, I note the external similarity of screen villains with literary. Although there were shortcomings. For example, when the face of the Joker was shown close-up, you could see a mustache under the makeup, which probably the actor Cisar Romero refused to shave.
The main drawback of this insidious four is poor acting. I don't want to call each of them a terrible actor. Just in this film they simply overplayed and brought their game to the absurd. Therefore, very quickly began to irritate the Joker (who often had fun and joked, than did not resemble a criminal), and Penguin (who made quacking sounds and with this intonation tried to speak the text), and Riddler (who constantly ran, jumped and behaved like a madman). But Catwoman, on the contrary, liked her manner of speech, as well as her beauty (not surprising, since actress Lee Meriweather won the Miss America contest in 1955). But as a serious rival of Batman and Robin, she looked weak.
If I had seen this movie as a child, it would have been a different experience than it is today. Unfortunately, this picture against the background of the dilogies of Burton, Schumacher and the Nolan trilogy simply pales. And all because of primitiveness, absurdity and humor. Even in the series of the 40s, Batman did not look like a comic character running around with a bomb in his hands and not knowing where to put it. I really liked Adam West as Batman. In contrast to such ridiculous enemies, as well as Robin (who constantly yells, instead of calmly speaking), West looked decent as the Dark Knight.
I don’t think you should take this comic book comedy seriously. Perhaps most viewers will agree with me that only Burton, Schumacher and Nolan’s films featured the best Joker, Catwoman, Penguin and Riddler. But then, in 1966, the audience was satisfied with this film, without special effects and logic.
6 out of 10
Wow, so I watched that same 1966 Batman. I started watching as if I was going to have a tough test. Batman is my favorite superhero, and this film offered to look at his favorite superhero at a time when his own nose is sticking out from under his mask; when his eyebrows are painted on the mask for some reason; when there is no question of any armor, since his suit consists of fabric and plastic. Besides, Robin's around. In beige tights. Damn Robin. In bloody tights. Would a normal Batman fan watch that? Well, maybe I would. Get to the root, all right. But would a normal Batman fan like that?
The villains are a separate song. A penguin that makes sounds average between quacking and grunting, and the Joker, who might not be here at all, because he had almost no influence on the plot. The Joker doesn't affect the plot. Fans of Batman such a phrase can appear only in a terrible dream. Catwoman and Riddler are more or less successful - she has claws and a relationship with Bruce Wayne, he has a green suit with question marks and quite interesting riddles.
But Batman is not a serious movie at all. And I don't think it's even a parody, because I don't think there was much to parody at the time. Before that, Batman was only the very first series of 1943, but the authors would hardly parody it. Superman classic appeared later, in the 70s, before that was only again in the 40s. There's no room for parodies. And yes, most importantly, why all my preliminary judgments fell to dust: 1966's Batman is a very colorful and, surprisingly, funny movie. And it is funny not because it is old, unmodern, but because the authors wrote it this way. It is funny thoughtfully, not from the height of modern cinema. Batman, running aki chick with a bomb over his head and still can’t put it anywhere – it was really funny. Not to mention the shark. "Throw me the bet aerosol anti-sharks!"
By the way, there are all devices and vehicles with the prefix "bet". “Get in a bat bike, get to a bat car, take it to a bat helicopter, take it from a bat helicopter to a bat boat.” The climax of bat devices came at the very beginning when Batman asks Robin to drop a rope bat ladder from the bat helicopter. I also thought it was the translators who were doing this. But when this rope staircase turned around, and a piece of paper with the inscription “bat staircase” was glued to it, I realized that the authors approached the names of devices very thoughtful and responsible.
In general, it turned out to be such a banal colorful film, sometimes funny. Cartoon villains, plastic scenery and colorful costumes of the characters fade far into the background against the background of the overall cheerful atmosphere of the film. It’s a pity that except for the shark in the opening scene and Batman’s run with the bomb, there were no more fun moments as such.
Four villains led by Penguin Man team up against Batman. He will have to face Catwoman and the Joker. And it's going to be Robin's help.
Now, this movie looks very interesting. Of course, it cannot be compared to the films of Burton and Nolan. But this experience must be taken into account, including the audience.
I could hardly imagine a movie where Robin would run with Batman in colored shorts and Joker would be a secondary character. The film, of course, has a lot of amazing things for the modern viewer.
Unlike the paintings of Nolan and Barton, Batman of the sample of 66 does not claim much. It's an easy comedy with comic book characters.
The filmmakers probably wanted to show the villains ironically. However, now looking at the weak playing Joker, unwittingly comparing him to Nicholson or Ledger, it is very difficult to look at. As for Catwoman, the actress playing her - in my opinion, does not pull.
In the end: Against the background of paintings by Burton and Nolan, this movie is certainly impossible to watch. But thanks to this film you can appreciate the talent of Tim Burton, who saw in such an ordinary story (the film turned out to put it mildly - below average) - what we all know as the story of Batman.
4 out of 10
There are a lot of movies about Batman. Many of them have been forgotten. I believe that this picture is worth seeing in order to learn the vision of the director of those years, how they represented the image of Batman, Alfred, Robin and a whole pack of various villains that the Batman confronted.
And it will be interesting to watch it in the first place, because there is a large group of villains, which was not in any modern comic book, as well as classic costumes in which all these characters appeared in the painted version.
What else is remarkable about this picture? This riot of colors, everything is very bright, the trend of time, the 60s, is felt in everything. In accordance with this, the characters are also bright and memorable, they can be remembered not only by costumes, but also by their behavior. They are original and unique, and also radically different from their modern presentation. The creators of the film did not bother with any realism in action and logic and, I am sure, perfectly understood that the film was made based on a comic book, that it simply cannot contain some realism, cruelty, etc., what the modern viewer requires and here it is impossible to disagree with them. The plot is also very attractive, which is almost absent in this film, but it becomes simply unpredictable the next twist that will be thrown out by the villains or the main characters, although it is the heroes, Batman and Robin, who act in a straight line like tanks. It’s very funny to watch and hear how all sorts of bat things are constantly mentioned, and they have them for every occasion of life, even against sharks. The most excellent is the ending, it breaks any patterns, and its madness will plunge into a long binge of any art house director.
Conclusion: if you have a free hour and a half of time and you want to cheer up yourself and friends, then the film is definitely worth watching, which laughs much better than any modern comedy, and the plot makes strange twists that no Bond or Bourne dreamed of.
6 out of 10