What is worse, B&R or SMIV?

[Mace Dolex]

Superman IV at least benefits from having Christopher Reeve and he delivers a good performance despite the bad script, even Gene Hackman, Jon Cryer and Nuclear Man are tolerable since I first saw it at age 11 so it holds a nostalgic spot for me but I could tell it wasn't a good film.

Batman & Robin doesn't even attempt to be good or exciting and the first 10 minutes is just wretched over the top CGI sets with action that isn't going nowhere, Clooney either didn't care or didn't get good direction on how Batman should behave but what do you expect when Joel Schumacher is directing and he's directed good films in the past.

Arnold is just in it for the paycheck for while his ice puns are funny they do get old after awhile that sometimes I find myself watching the movie dubbed in Spanish just to sit through the entire movie.

 

[Lord]

After all those years Batman & Robin became more entertaining than before, and in least there was put some efort into it, while S IV had the director not caring at all about the movie

 

[EliteF50]

SMIV was worse, imo.

 

[Sloth7d]

This is a no brainer. B&R was campy on purpose. SMIV was horrible incidentally. If you love the Adam West Batman, B&R can be a movie you like. There's no incarnation of Superman that justifies SMIV. It was just a bad bad story.

 

[Lord]

This is a no brainer. B&R was campy on purpose. SMIV was horrible incidentally. If you love the Adam West Batman, B&R can be a movie you like. There's no incarnation of Superman that justifies SMIV. It was just a bad bad story.

 

[Fudgie]

B&R was worse because it was following movies which made Batman a dark and serious character.

 

[Kyle Rayner]

It's baffling that no matter what Batman and Superman will always be Warner Bro fall back. Either the film makes millions or flop they will always receive a much better treatment than a Wonder Woman, Aquaman or Flash film...smh.

 

[BrollySupersj]

I genuinely like Superman IV. There I said it, I LIKE that movie. Despite the many many many flaws, it still has Reeve, Hackman, and Kidder giving great performances, and I think it has the best music of the entire series. Being the first Superman movie I saw like...100 times before I saw I,II, or III, the kid love for IV never left. So I like it, don't care what anyone else says.

Batman and Robin sucked though.

 

[Kyle Rayner]

I genuinely like Superman IV. There I said it, I LIKE that movie. Despite the many many many flaws, it still has Reeve, Hackman, and Kidder giving great performances, and I think it has the best music of the entire series. Being the first Superman movie I saw like...100 times before I saw I,II, or III, the kid love for IV never left. So I like it, don't care what anyone else says.

Batman and Robin sucked though.

SMIV was much better than SMIII, Richard Prior!?!?!? WTH!!!

 

[Smylex]

B&R - but tbh I think I hate foever even more if thats possible :-/

 

[Indy Flash]

Batman and robin.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

This is a no brainer. B&R was campy on purpose. SMIV was horrible incidentally. If you love the Adam West Batman, B&R can be a movie you like. There's no incarnation of Superman that justifies SMIV. It was just a bad bad story.

Exactly.


Batman & Robin is atleast what Schumacher intended it to be. He atleast had the ability to make the movie he wanted to. And atleast it its technically well made (cinematography, production values, sets).

Superman IV is NOT EVEN A FINISHED MOVIE. It's about two thirds of a movie, missing atleast two significant subplots, that had it's budget cut in half. Many of the uber-cheap effects could not even be completed in time.

 

[Thoix]

Without a doubt Batman & Robin, but it might have been more disappointing since Batman Forever was better than Superman III. Superman IV is a bore and a terrible movie, where Batman & Robin can at least be enjoyable while making of fun of it. Not exactly a good argument, but I do in fact enjoy Batman and Robin in that way.

 

[batlovescatDC]

SIV, imo. The only reason I say that is that I think Uma Thurman's performance as Poison Ivy and Chris O'Donell's stint as a Nightwing-esque Robin was actually pretty damn good and it's a shame it had to get squandered by the rest of the movie being so ****ing horrible.

I still say if it wasn't for B&R sucking ass we would've probably seen a Nightwing movie back in the late '90s and I think Chris would've actually killed it. He was great as Nightwing, but bad as Robin... if that makes any sense.

 

[Batman Beyond]

This is actually a hard one. I'm going with SMIV for several reasons:

1. It looks like actual effort was put into B&R (sadly)

2. B&R could be played for laughs

3. At least the special effects doesn't look like it was done by a 12 year old in B&R

I voted for B&R, because parts of SIV I still like better than many parts of B&R, which has Alfred as its asset... But damn, those are fine reasons to have picked SIV instead!

 

[jb007]

I'm not a fan of either film. Their both unwatchable.

 

[CConn]

Superman is way worse.

B&R actually had decent production values. You could tell money went into it.

Superman IV looked like a late 80s TV miniseries.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

One thing that B&R can legitimately claim is that it has fantastic cinematography.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

I still say if it wasn't for B&R sucking ass we would've probably seen a Nightwing movie back in the late '90s and I think Chris would've actually killed it. He was great as Nightwing, but bad as Robin... if that makes any sense.

Not my ideal Nightwing, I think someone else could have been better. But I believe the reason Chris seems more like Nightwing than Robin is because his Dick Grayson was more argumentative with Bruce rather than being a "kid sidekick".

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I voted for B&R, because parts of SIV I still like better than many parts of B&R, which has Alfred as its asset... But damn, those are fine reasons to have picked SIV instead!

I try. t:

 

[BABABOOOOOOOEY]

the real answer is.....

superman returns