Batman Forever gets unfairly paired with Batman and Robin

[union_jak]

Bruce had a business meeting with Max Shreck in Returns

 

[Gexmeister]

Bruce had a business meeting with Max Shreck in Returns

Yeah, I actually remembered that after I wrote the post

I'm a little embarassed I forgot since I'm a huge fan of Batman Returns....

 

[The Batkilt]

Perhaps. He's a good director but, then again, a lot of the really bad ideas (e.g. nipples etc) were his idea and he has stated that ultimately, he takes responsibility for the films. He keeps talking about Batman: Year One in hindsight, stating that he would have preferred to make this kind of film. I don't know how serious he really is about this because it just sounds like something you say to fans to try and convince them you were on their side all along.

I respect that he refuses to put the blame on anyone else. Most directors would find someone else to blame.

I'm not sure how serious he would have been about Year One, but he has said it for years. I don't doubt he was a fan of the comics but then again judging by the colour scheme and tone of his Batman films I'd hazzard a guess he quite liked the 'lighter' (for lack of a better word) Batman films. If he had directed a Year One adaption and treated it with the same seriousness as most of his other films it could have been great, but I'm not sure if he would have done.

At least "Batman Forever" gave us an excuse to parade Drew Barrymore in white lingerie.

That it did! t:

 

[Zephyr Alexian]

Batman Forever was enjoyable.

A great film? No.
Flawless? Absolutely not.
But, a fun watch? Yes.

That about sums it up.

I thought it was funny when Nygma hit his boss over the head with the coffee pot and yelled: 'Caffeine'll kill ya!'

 

[TLH]

Pretty much.

Batman Forever is pure entertainment IMO. I can't ever recall watching it and being bored or put off by its direction -- and it even showed signs of brilliance in a few rare instances. I would never group it in with Batman & Robin...I don't think many people could. Batman Forever at least had some character development, a decent enough script, and some fairly good performances. It also wasn't the plunge into total ridiculousness that B&R was.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Batman Forever was pretty good IMO. I liked the whole subplot of Bruce's fathers journal and what it meant to him. The relationship between Bruce and Chase was pretty good too.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Batman Forever had fantastic potential, it really did. I urge you to read Peter David's novelisation, and then imagine it onscreen - it would be one of the best superhero movies ever.

 

[SheldonLevene]

Nicole Kidman looked really hot in this film...Only time I ever considered her hot...

I feel the same way. I typically don't find her terrible attractive save BF.

 

[TLH]

She definitely was yummy in BF, especially wearing just bedsheets.

 

[Two-Face]

Batman Forever had fantastic potential, it really did. I urge you to read Peter David's novelisation, and then imagine it onscreen - it would be one of the best superhero movies ever.

That cover looks like sticker cover, the one I had as a kid.

 

[Greg]

At least "Batman Forever" gave us an excuse to parade Drew Barrymore in white lingerie.

You know, something that came to my mind a few months ago, if Sugar was his "good side" why the living heck was she so happy helping him in his evil schemes and basically becomes Riddler's henchwoman later on. wtf.

 

[Greg]

Batman Forever had fantastic potential, it really did. I urge you to read Peter David's novelisation, and then imagine it onscreen - it would be one of the best superhero movies ever.

I had the one Alan Grant wrote. How did PAD write Harvey?

 

[TMC1982]

You know, something that came to my mind a few months ago, if Sugar was his "good side" why the living heck was she so happy helping him in his evil schemes and basically becomes Riddler's henchwoman later on. wtf.

Come to think about it, you do have a point. The whole "villain's henchwoman/girlfriend has a shread of humanity/decency" angle was really first done in the Superman films with Eve Tessmacher. Instead, Sugar/Drew is just window dressing with nothing to work with.

 

[El Payaso]

You know, something that came to my mind a few months ago, if Sugar was his "good side" why the living heck was she so happy helping him in his evil schemes and basically becomes Riddler's henchwoman later on. wtf.

"Sugar" wasn't the good side. As many things in the film it was a mere decorative element. "The guy's called TWO-Face, makes sense giving him two girls."

In any case, I prefer Spice.

 

[tekken]

i thought batman forever was pretty good. i thought the way they introduced robin was okay too. if he had looked just 1 year younger, i think i might have liked it more...and with spiky hair. haha.

just something i made up; like what my versions of batman and robin would be on a batman forever-like movie. not too dark, not too campy. i would take out all the crazy lights though...that was just too much.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Good job, I like it.

 

[TLH]

Cool looking Robin. And I hate Robin.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Hear me on this:

Whenever people talk about the Schumacher films, they always talk about how crappy and lame they were.

Of course,that assertion is true for Batman and Robin.

However, Batman Forever was so much a better film. Sure, it was still campy and all but it was entertaining and a box office success (for those who even remember the summer of '95).

I just think that it gets a bad rap because of Batman and Robin and that's just unfair.

It's not completely unfair. I think more people liked Forever than not, but it did pave the way for B & R. Had Forever not been so commercially successful, Schumacher wouldn't have had carte blanche to do whatever he felt like, unimpeded. I feel like B&R took everything good about its predecessor & ran it into the ground, and took everything that was wrong with it and magnified it 1,000 fold. But we helped it along. If I'm not mistaken, I think Forever actually pulled down more money than Returns, which is more popular among fans.
But I'm actually watching Returns right now-the one so many fans loved-and I see a very high level of campiness in that film as well. The Penguin & his gang were just silly, & Batman did so many stupid things, he did so many comedic things-he was ineffective in so many regards throughout the movie. Don't get me started on the useless cops & bad dialogue. The actors' performances were good but everything else was pretty much crap. And yet, fans defend this movie to the death. It's funny to me what fans will praise & what they'll bash.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Batman Forever is interesting. On one hand it is a campy mess, more similar to Batman & Robin than the more serious Batman films. On the other hand, I felt it was the only film prior to Batman Begins to actually get the Batman character right. Flawed for sure, but the positives outweigh the negatives.

That's how I saw it for the most part. The whole thing w/his dad's journal gave it some redeeming value. At least it didn't have Batman making jokes, announcing himself to the villain & backing down against Robin.
"Bruce, you're never gonna win this argument."
Say WHAT?

 

[Hell-Scorpion]

Batman Forever because its frustrating in many ways....

-you get an opening where you begin thinking that the film will be great even if the tone is lighter....that illusion doesnt last beyond the first few minutes though

-you get a decent Bruce Wayne and Batman and hints that there is a dark angle to the story (the whole book thing) and you find that particular portion of the story cut out and left hanging like an incomplete..this is made more annoying since the story keeps making half hearted efforts to follow that plot.

-you have the possibility of great visuals that either dont make sense or appear incomplete......batman jumps off roof to batmobile below, as he falls the cape opens up to slow his decent only to have the cape become tangle and ruin the whole effect towards the end........Later you have Two-face leaving a party with batman climbing after him which is fine except that in the following scene two-face is about to go into the sewers and batman is on the roof for some silly reason.

-next they add Robin, not too big a deal except that Robin looks huge standing next to batman...

it just goes on and on.....jim carrey doing the same schtick he was doing at that point only dressed as a batman villain etc etc....

yes its certainly watchable and it isnt the complete failure that Batman and Robin was......

as a matter of fact I know of many people who saw this film as kids and hold it in high regard as far as being their intro to the character....in that angle alone it succeeds.

The red book thing was originally a large part of the plot, the deleted scenes on the recent Batman Forever two disc version clears it up and provides a darker mood.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Yes Forever is treated unfairly because of B&R. It was good but the villains were ridiculous. Also, nipples, horny Chase Meridian, neon lights, and the fact that Batman let Two-Face die in the end (better than Burton's who is a straight up killer).

For a flawed movie its pretty enjoyable, in fact i rate it above B:Returns which is by far my worst Batman movie. Simply because it wasnt a batman movie.

I treat B&R as a joke, or a live action Brave and the Bold if you like. Bat-credit card, bat ice skates, silver batsuit, Clooney playing himself, and of course.... ICE PUNS. B&R is a very [BLACKOUT]cool [/BLACKOUT]movie. Dont give it the [BLACKOUT]cold [/BLACKOUT]shoulder.

 

[3atman]

In all actuality, it's not even a "bad" movie, it's just average. There are parts that make you want to stab your face off. Like Kilmer's smile, ANY scene with Carey (I absolutely hate his performance), anytime two-face laughs (why is a guy with so much vengeance in his heart and half his face burnt laughing about anything?) but the basic story, some of the action sequences, Kilmer besides the smile, most of O'Donnel's stuff were all pretty solid.

Two-Face's opening speech was really really good, his "luck" speech. I think that Schu mixed camp and darkness about as well as anyone could have given the circumstances. Maybe the nipples just didn' translate like he thought they would, but all in all I think you can find something good to cancel out anything bad and that averages out to an average film.

Mr. earl, how is BR not a batman movie? I think the scene where Bruce goes to a masquerade dressed as himself (the real mask) is about as much of "that is Batman" as I've ever seen as far as subtle symbolism goes in Batman movies.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Its Burton doing one quintessentially burtonesque movie, filled with monsters, nightmare fuel, grimdark, and some crazy plot, but with batman characters running around.

Jett from Batman On Film has written a huge essay on why BR sucks, and while i hate that guy, i agree with what he says about it. Look it up.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Batman Forever had fantastic potential, it really did. I urge you to read Peter David's novelisation, and then imagine it onscreen - it would be one of the best superhero movies ever.

That was an enjoyable read.

 

[El Payaso]

A mediocre Batman movie.

Enjoyable? Sure. I myself did enjoy it. But too many things are wrong in it. Nipples, butt-shots, disgusting Two-Face, the Riddler's riddles (which points merely to his own identity?), an air-headed shallow love interest (with Batman claiming it's the "first time" he falls in love), an annoying Robin that appears just to be made a bait instantly.

The only redeeming thing that many fans seem to find is the 'repressed memory with giant bat' side of it. Which is good. But that's it.

B&R only showed that Schgumacher was more about the razzle-dazzle than the core of the characters.