The one thing Batman and Robin did right...

Optimus_Prime_

Superhero
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
5,667
Reaction score
1
Points
31
...Yes, IMO, there is one thing about the movie that was good (aside from being the openning act to Batman Begins), they got the Alfred/Bruce relationship perfect. Those were even the only good scenes in the whole movie. Of course it couldn't have happened without Michael Gough (R.I.P :csad:)
 
I suppose it was a touching moment but IMHO with Michael Keaton it would've had a much more emotional impact seeing him grieve over Alfred.
 
thats true, but I'm really glad Keaton didnt do Batman Forever and Batman & Robin (as they stand now)...

I agree though, I really liked the Alfred-emotional aspect of Batman & Robin... And Schwarzenegger is legend.

My favorite "awful" part of the movie is when Bruce gets asked if he ever plans to marry... "I uhh... oh... uhh...err..."
 
Absolutely. The Bruce/Alfred scenes are little masterpieces in a sea of cinematographic nightmare.
 
I suppose no movie is 100% terrible.
 
I always did enjoy the cinematography in those Schumacher films.
 
I always did enjoy the cinematography in those Schumacher films.

I don't know. I love the cinematography when there is no Neon stuff. But when there is neon i think is God awful...
 
I think the neon and the general over-the-top nature of the films made it unique on its own, there was something very 90s-decadent about it all, like some kind of surreal pop-cultural explosion. When compared to the way the Adam West series handled the 60s' counter-culture aspect, I think we can find an interesting and evolving spirit shared between the two worlds.

The Alfred/Bruce thing felt out of place with the rest of the movie. It was shoe-horning a sense of tragedy that didn't belong there. This was never meant to be a tragic film, though I have to say that YES Michael Gough and George Clooney really pulled the scenes off well. The impossible comparison with the Fries family was just pathetic in my opinion. It gave Mr. Freeze a redeeming aspect, yes, and I suppose that worked when you think that both Batman and his arch enemy are both trying to save a loved one, what fails miserably is the logic that a) this film didn't need to put Batman and Freeze on the same ground, b) if Freeze stopped trying to save his wife half-way through, and c) if the grandiose conflict between Batman and Mr. Freeze is seen as an ultimate form of battle where the two individuals are fighting to save their loved one, it is Batman whose role as a 'saviour of a beloved' that falls short, because he never fought Freeze to save Alfred, he fought Freeze because... well, according to Batman Forever because he chooses to. Freeze on the other hand doesn't do that.

In the end, the movie would've been better off without the entire angle. I remember reading somewhere that it was a way to bring something directly from the 50s-comics, I think they replaced Aunt Harriet with Alfred from the comics (a period where Bruce and Dick were grieving the loss of Harriet or some such, or maybe it was how they explained in the 60s series how 'Harriet is sick and upstairs' perpetually). But in the end, in the context of the story Schumacher thought he was telling, it would've been better off without Alfred trying to die on us.

Besides, doesn't it mean that now he'll need to live on giant crystals and an ice suit?
 
the name is freeze, learn it well, for it will be the chilling sound of ya doom haha always gives me a good laugh
 
or a CHILL down your spine :p

(wait, is that the ONLY pun he forgot to use coz i can't remember it being said in the film? :D)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"