Batman & Robin

Unfairly maligned by just about everyone, I saw this at the cinema and am not ashamed to say I enjoyed it. It's the only BATMAN film to retain the pure comic book camp of the 1960s TV show, with funny humor throughout - mainly thanks to guest stars Thurman and Schwarzenegger - and a light, colourful atmosphere.

Generally considered one of the worst things ever brought to the screen, Batman & Robin is very fun. When people say this movie is terrible, I agree but they never acknowledge the redeeming qualities, which are what make this movie bad. Doesn't make much sense? Arnold delivers cheesy puns and one-liners galore, they do suck but are hilarious at the same time. George Clooney does such a bad job, you can't help laughing. Everybody is so over-the-top and cheesy, you have to laugh. That may be why Chris O'Donnell's and Silverstone's careers were pretty much ruined after this: gets recognized for Scent of a Woman; breaks out in Batman Forever; then gets screwed in this. Silverstone does some music videos, breaks out in Clueless, then gets screwed by this. All other actors pretty much had their feet firmly planted. The set design and special effects were actually well-done. But people criticized this portion for being too weird-looking and overly-extravagant. Maybe they were, but doing all that the way Schumacher did is extremely difficult. Plus it saves us from the bad story and bad acting. I did say the acting is funny, but after a while it gets to be too much. It starts off fun, but eventually gets boring since there is no good plot or characters. It just keeps going until you have enough. I know that two hours isn't very long for a movie, but in this case, it was. Just take twenty minutes away and it would have been better.

2/4

I loved it as a kid, because I didn't know any better and years of nostalgia has keep it close to me. I'm not saying it's a good movie by any means, but the bright colors and characters cheesiness is what I loved about it, and never got Joel Schumacher fascination with bat nipples, but I digress. It has always been a guilty pleasure for just like Batman Forever is, and I think i always will.

Back in the day, I felt disappointed when I watched it in theaters and I really disliked the movie for many reasons: it wasn't dark like the first two (same thing for "Foverer"), the dialogues ("chicks dig the car") the over-the-top silly acting, the props (batmobile, suits, weapons, etc), the goofy villains... However I loved the color palette and cinematography - it's pure Schumacher of course.

Over the years I have watched it again several times and when the BluRay came out I watched it more in depth and finally it happened: I like the movie now. Why? How? Well, nowadays I feel like I'm watching a "modern" take on the 60's TV series and it really makes sense to me for the very same elements I mentioned before: goofy villains, lots of colors, over-the-top cheesy acting, family-friendly overall tone. Gradually I started enjoying the movie in this context and I can say that I like it for what it is.

Unfortunately, this was the latest entry in the "comic-style" franchise.

I won't try and argue with anyone that says this movie is bad. It has a horrific script rife with far too many moments more interested in selling action figures than making sense. Arnold puts in the most camp performance as Mr. Freeze possibly ever that almost completely ruins what should be one of the most dramatic characters in the Batman lore.

George Clooney as Bruce Wayne isn't believable, Chris O'Donnell's Robin feels old and tired at this point after his kind of fresh feeling introduction in Batman Forever, the effects seem cheap and theme parkish (probably didn't help that Six Flags was really pushing live shows based on these movies back then) and so on and so forth.

If you were looking for a serious Batman movie, this totally missed the mark.

But what if, what if we just misunderstood what this movie was trying to do? What if the campiness, cheesiness, and ridiculousness was the entire point. What if instead of expecting The Dark Knight we should have been expecting Sharknado? Does it have any appeal as an expensive B movie satire?

In my opinion, it does. This movie is a BLAST to watch from the perspective that it's to be made fun of. Arnold Schwarzenegger's one liners become almost iconic when viewed from the lense of "what would be the dumbest, corniest, thing that could happen right now in this scene." Uma Thurman's over the top cringe worthy Poison Ivy is actually hilarious when you know what this actress is actually capable of when she's given a good role to work with. Bane looking something like a theme park mascot is impossible to take seriously when you've seen later, more serious versions of the character.

In short, for 1997 when this movie came out, and for a variety of marketing reasons, people didn't get that this movie was supposed to be a joke. People still had Tim Burton's Batman movies in their head they weren't expecting to go full Adam West.

That's a definite failure of the movie, to fail to make sure the audience understood what you were trying to do. But I think, 20 years later we can finally look back on this movie as being misunderstood in its time. It's suffered I think more than enough for the crime of being a joke that no one got. I think it's time people tried for a moment to rethink what this movie was.

If you still think this movie was the worst thing ever even after I've said my piece, I'm still not going to argue with you. I'm just going to smile as I agree with you.