I have to say I like the 1989 the best of any Batman movies.
I've seen it more times than I could possibly count (largely due to how long its been around). I've re-watched with each new Batman movie in recent years, so I certainly don't have nostalgia glasses.
To counter some of Bob's points;
Franchises weren't as intentional back in the day, not they way we see them these days at least. A successful movie didn't guarantee a sequel, thus things couldn't linger the way we allow them today. This is why it makes sense that The Joker killed Wayne's parents, it allowed the whole story to be tied nicely in a bow and provide Batman with some additional motivation -- it's also responsible for what is, in my opinion, one of the best movie quotes of all time, "have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight,".
Jack Nicholson as the Joker made sense in that it got adults at the time at least some what interested in the movie. The same case could be made for the all Prince soundtrack (which I'm shocked Bob didn't mention), Prince was huge and brought a ton of attention the movie might not have received otherwise. Had it not been for the popularity of these individuals it's impossible to say whether the movie would have had the success, and influence, that it did.
The most frequent gripe about Batman is that it wasn't a Batman movie, but a Joker one (as Bob pointed out). The thing is Batman/Bruce Wayne simply isn't a very interesting character, never really has been as far as I'm concerned. He simply doesn't have personality traits that make other superheroes great; the alcohol and ego issues that define Tony Stark, the sense of awkwardness that comes with Steve Rogers, even the perfect boy-scout mentality of the all-powerful Clarke Kent is more dynamic.
This is one of the reasons that through most of Batman's existence he's had Robin. Robin is interesting (yes, all of them). Moreover, Robin allows Wayne to be more than just a brooding, obsessive crime fighter: he makes him human. Nolan attempted to do the same via Rachel Dawes --and failed miserably if you ask me. And for what it's worth is there anyone that could argue The Dark Knight wasn't every bit, if not more, of a Joker movie than Burton's Batman?
Moving on...
The Joker has never picked the most discreet locations for hideouts, yet for some reason Batman never seems to just head straight to Amusement Mile or the abandon candy factory. So Burton's Batman being just as oblivious as the rest doesn't seem like a huge issue.
The "heavy handed rips on the cosmetic industry" is fitting for the more clown-esc portrayals of the Joker. I recall an episode of the animated series where he creates/promotes "Joker Fish", like his foray into cosmetics it's just the kind of nonsensical humor one would expect from such a character.
The thing about the Joker is that sometimes he's funny haha, other times he's funny hehe. What I'm saying is that his certain variety of crazy is by no means consistent. His sanity (or lack there of) runs the entire gamut: one day he's a maniacal sadist that loves to make people suffer the next the next he's the clown with an affinity for puns that does it all for the lulz. I think Burton's Batman did a better job than most at showing the Joker in this light, even if Nicholson hammed it up a bit.
I'd keep going but this is long as is...
