There is a misconception of the 1943 Batman movie serial starring Robert Lewis that it is terrible and the worst adaptation of Batman ever made.
This is actually false. That dubious honor belongs to the 1949 follow up serial Batman and Robin which starred Robert Lowery as the Caped Crusader.
Batman creator Bob Kane seems to misremember the films stating that the second serial was the better of the two and Lewis Wilson being out of shape in the role of Batman.
As a matter of fact it was Robert Lowery who was completely unsuitable in the role of Batman. Apparently, he was so out of shape that they actually had to give him oxygen between takes.
As a matter of fact, the 1943 serial is the only time on film or on television where the actor playing Robin the Boy Wonder is actually relatively close to the age the character was in the comic book. Douglas Croft was 16 when he played Robin.
Johnny Duncan was 26, Burt Ward was 19 and Chris O'Donnell was 25 when they played the character in their respective adaptations.
It's true the 1943 Batman has the dubious honor of being racist and very politically incorrect by today's standards with the key villain being Japanese stereotype. But you have to keep in mind when this film came out it was at the height of WWII and not too long after Pearl Harbor.
The film is very low budget. So don't expect to see mind-blowing special effects or acting of Shakespearean caliber. Heck! There's not even a Batmobile in the film. Then again, Batman doesn't actually have a "Batmobile" in his first comic book appearance.
But we forget that films weren't created to be realistic. They were created for people to escape reality. There was a great deal of bad stuff going on in the world at that time, so you'd save up your pennies and escape into the world of fantasy that Hollywood created.
It really has only been in the past few decades this push for gritty realism in both the subject matter of the movies as well as the special effects.
At that time the country was both getting out of the Great Depression and there was a war going on across the pond. Films had to be made quickly. And as cheap as possible.
Movie serials satisfied both needs.
The film is very low budget. So don't expect to see mind-blowing special effects or acting of Shakespearean caliber. Heck! There's not even a Batmobile in the film. Then again, Batman doesn't actually have a "Batmobile" in his first comic book appearance.
But we forget that films weren't created to be realistic. They were created for people to escape reality. There was a great deal of bad stuff going on in the world at that time, so you'd save up your pennies and escape into the world of fantasy that Hollywood created.
It really has only been in the past few decades this push for gritty realism in both the subject matter of the movies as well as the special effects.
At that time the country was both getting out of the Great Depression and there was a war going on across the pond. Films had to be made quickly. And as cheap as possible.
Movie serials satisfied both needs.
That aside, it may not be Christopher Nolan or even Tim Burton. But it's a fun watch. This is less the brooding Dark Knight style Batman but more of the swashbuckling action/adventure style version of the character.
Which is actually something I wouldn't mind seeing the character return to. Maybe not as low budget as the serials. But maybe something a little more of a James Bond with a cape and less of the tortured soul.
If you're a fan of Batman or a film history buff, I would definitely give this film a try. Despite the low budget and production flaws, you might find it to be a lot of fun to watch.
