You know, I sometimes think its odd that for all of my professed love for heroes and comic book characters, I've actually read very few comic books. No, my love of superheroes comes more from television and movies than it does the printed word.

So for me, the first indication that Batman could be anything more than just the campy television show didn't really come until Tim Burton's "Batman" movies. I think that's why I loved the movies so much then but have grown to not appreciate them as much in the coming years.

But I'll explain more on that come later when I talk about Nolan's "Batman Begins." The first thing that comes to mind when I think of Tim Burton's "Batman" is the summer of 1989. You know you've hit the jackpot when a single movie can define a summer. "Star Wars" and "Jaws" defined their summers. "The Matrix" was the summer movie of 1999 (sorry fellow SW fans, but The Phantom Menace" defined the summer in a kind of bad way). "Spiderman" was huge, but I don't know that it completely dominated the pop culture in the same ways as the above movies.

I definitely place "Batman" in that category. People forget that there really wasn't much between in the way of big popcorn entertainment at the movies in the years between "Return of the Jedi" and "Batman." The mid- to late-eighties were all about cheesy movies with Patrick Dempsey and a mulleted John Travolta.

But I remember everyone getting hyped up for "Batman." I saw it with my family in Dallas. I saw it with my family in Houston. I saw it by myself. I saw it with friends. I quoted it. I purchased...I had my parents purchase me the t-shirts. Bootleggers were selling fake Batman gear everywhere. You (almost literally) couldn't turn a corner without seeing the bat symbol emblazoned on a t-shirt. Hell, I even purchased the uberly cheesy Prince soundtrack album. I thought I was getting the Elfman score, not the Prince album. Not that I'm bitter or anything.

The movie itself is pretty good. I'm not sure that it's held up well, but it's definitely a worthy movie. It was really revolutionary in its style and epic scale. Everything in the movie seemed very gothic. It felt like a cool, stylized version of a story that's basically a detective-like noir piece. It felt like it was set in the modern day, but it also had a very distinct style, in the clothes and set-design in particular, that set it the 1940's and 1950's.

Jack Nicholson really stole the show. For the universe that Tim Burton set up, Jack Nicholson was the only person who could have really pulled off the Joker without making it seem too overly campy. The make-up was great and really emphasized Nicholson's more manic traits. Nicholson was so good in this role that they could have called this movie "The Joker" and it wouldn't have been that out of place.

Kim Bassinger and the dude that played Knox were largely useless for the movie. The character...Knox...he almost makes the movie unwatchable now.

Michael Keaton was pretty good as well. People kind of forget how great Keaton used to be, but he did some pretty good work here. His Batman was a lot stronger than his Bruce Wayne, who always seemed a little too goofy to be the uber serious Wayne.

Extra points for that super awesome final shot with that great Danny Elfman music blaring in the background. If the most iconic shot of Superman is him hovering over the world, Batman standing above the city is his equivalent. Iconic stuff.

"Batman Returns" was an okay follow-up. I found it to be a little too weird for my tastes...almost like they put the first movie on steroids. Burton's stylistic choices were more pronounced than they were in the original. I've never been a big Danny Devito fan, but I think he did okay in the role. Michelle Pfeifer was great as the Catwoman. I think "Batman Returns" held up better than the original, but I find the original to be a superior movie and movie going experience. And compared to what came after, "Batman Returns" is "Citizen-fucking-Kane."