Coffee_in_the_Clink

I have mixed views coming out of this one. "Napoleon" was my most-anticipated film of the year. Ridley Scott has indeed produced a superb spectacle here. The cinematography is absolute class, and writer David Scarpa deserves credit, along with Scott, for managing to fit so much into a relatively short runtime, considering the film is covering events from the mid-1790s right up to the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. The narrative, historically speaking, is decent.

The battle scenes, of course, are tremendous. The Battle of Waterloo is absolutely breath-taking, gorgeous and terrifying. Phoenix is incredible as Napoleon. Unfortunately, the tactician that Napoleon was plays second fiddle in this film to his love of Josephine and his turbulent relationship with her. Far too much time is devoted to it and it becomes very monotonous, and I felt it brought the film down a bit. But overall, I appreciated Phoenix's portrayal of Napoleon, and the battle scenes are worth the price of admission alone.

I do not understand the hatred for this film, and that is coming from me watching it back-to-back with its Schumacher counterpart "Batman Forever". "Batman and Robin" is the superior of the two, in my opinion, and I really found it to be enjoyable. Sure, it is cheesy and camp as hell, but it has a better storyline than "...Forever" and two better-looking villains in Poison Ivy and Mr. Freeze.

George Clooney replaced Val Kilmer as Batman and Chris O'Donnell reprised his role as Robin. O'Donnell toned down the attitude in this one, so I did not find him as irritating as he was in "...Forever". I'll say it, Clooney makes a decent Batman and Bruce Wayne here. Better than Kilmer's indifferent performance in "...Forever." Michael Gough reprises his role as Alfred and there are a few emotional scenes that are surprisingly well-done. Uma Thurman and Arnie are very enjoyable to watch.

"Batman and Robin" is not a terrible movie, and does not deserve its reputation. It is by no means a good movie either, but I would rank it above "...Forever" any day of the week.

Warner Brothers decided to change the look of the Batman films following "Batman Returns", and signed up Joel Schumacher to direct. Tim Burton stayed on as a producer, and what followed was nothing short of a travesty.

In "Batman" and "Batman Returns" Tim Burton had rendered Gotham City as a sinister gothic stage. The villains Joker and Penguin were dark and wicked and although Michael Keaton is my least favourite Batman, he was nevertheless a decent portrayal of the Dark Knight. All of that was changed for 1995's "Batman Forever". Schumacher renders Gotham as it would appear in the comic books of the 1960s - flashing neon lights, bright colours and vividly flamboyant - it is a treat for the eyes that eventually becomes exhausting and headache-inducing.

This time around Batman (Val Kilmer, in a portrayal of Batman that is neither bad nor good) is up against Two-Face (Tommy Lee Jones) and the Riddler (Jim Carrey). Jones is completely miscast and his Two-Face is hard to take seriously. Jim Carrey, true to form, becomes extremely irritating before long and adds to the nausea of the neon lights. Just as irritating is the Robin portrayed by Chris O'Donnell, who we are introduced to in what is probably the best scene in the film in a well-choreographed trapeze performance in the circus. For what it is worth, I think this is worse than "Batman and Robin", its much-maligned successor.