Batman Forever

Is it silly? Yes, but it's intended to be a silly more kid friendly Batman movie and it does that great, but people hate on it for being silly. Don't listen to those reviews its actually a pretty nice movie. Is it a masterpiece? Not really, but if you're okay with a more wacky, light hearted over exaggerated Batman with a silly tone, it should be okay. I haven't seen Batman and Robin yet at the time of me making this but when I do I'll make a review.

I liked the first two batman movies, they were very, very dark, broodish and more in line to the actual dark comic book style. Burton is an amazing director and brought the best out of Keaton(when batman was out he became the coolest man around - and now he's not even given an eyelid!).

So what went wrong with this film. Was is Schumacher? Apparantly Keaton had doubts over wanting to do another Batman movie and after meeting Schumacher dropped out. It is amazing that such an actor can be put off a film such as this. But after seeing the film I can see why.

The film starts off pretty well, a helicopter crash into a statue of libery look-a-like - with Batman trapped inside, struggling to get outside before it crashed and blew up - it kinda took me back to old James Bond movies. The background song "Kiss from a Rose" provided by Seal is romantically well placed - but it isn't in the same OTT style as the film - unlike the U2 version.

The film lacks anything other than a flimsy plot of revenge. Batman (played by a boring, Val Kilmer) plays master to a vengeful Robin who wants revenge on a flat villan, Two-Face (underplayed by Tommy Lee Jones), who is working with the Riddler - played by an OTT Jim Carrey (I personally would have gone for Robin Williams, but I guess Williams is too old - he's probably fits "the Mad Hatter" rather than the Riddler).

I know Carrey was payed MegaBucks to carry this flimsy film, but this is no reason to make him the only star of this film. Why, when Carrey gets all the minds off tv-zombies, doesn't realize Batman's true identity sooner is beyond me.

Carrey's character is never explained properly, why is eccentric? OK - he never got praise for his work, but if you didn't get praise for your job you don't come crazy and wear green spandex overnight do you?

This film is pretty poor compared to the previous versions, Nicole Kidman although looking pretty - figures out Batman's true identity far too quickly. She's supposed to be head strong, but instead comes across as a dasmel in distress.

Overall I suggest you return to the old versions. And I would suggest avoiding the PAINFUL Clooney version: Batman and Robin.

Overall: 4/10

Batman Forever may be the most unfairly criticzed super-hero film ever made. It's sandwiched between the fandom of the Burton and Nolan films while simultaneously blamed for leading to Batman and Robin. If you compare it to the darker and more gothic Burton films and are disappointed Keaton isn't still playing Batman, of course you're not gonna enjoy it. If you compare it to the more serious neo-realism of the Nolan films, again you're not gonna enjoy it. What is it you ask? Batman Forever essentially plays out like a live action cartoon and it does this very well. If you watch it through that lens instead of judging it for what it's not you'll find that Batman Forever actually has superior continuity and pacing than any other Batman film except maybe the 1966 version. This is coming from someone who's favorite film is Batman 1989 and a big Tim Burton fan. It honestly baffles me to hear people rave about how great Batman Returns is and then go on to bash Batman Forever. While Returns has a ton going for it, it really suffers from the same core problem as Batman and Robin; the director getting too cute with creative control. All Joel Schumacher did was set out to make a fun super-hero film with something for everyone to enjoy and I honestly think he succeeded with Forever. With Batman and Robin he went too flamboyant just like Burton went too zany and weird with Returns. The first time around both directors got it right testing the waters with their own respective styles. Everything in the film is very cartoonish and if you appreciate it from that perspective it's really quite masterful in a lot of subtle and not so subtle ways. Although Batman The Animated Series was largely influenced by the Burton movies Forever really seems like it's bringing that onto the big screen with real actors and real sets which is quite a feat. Schumacher just added more color and neon which honestly is a welcome change from the stark art deco gothic flavor present in Returns. Nothing wrong with that flavor in Returns, it's just that Burton went all in and we didn't necessarily need more of the same. Batman Returns actually has considerably different art direction from Batman 1989 yet you rarely hear fans complain about that difference or even acknowledge it.

Nicole Kidman is perfectly cast as Chase Meridian and I like Chris O'Donnell as Robin even though he was probably a tad old. Everyone criticizes Val Kilmer for being too bland compared to Keaton but honestly the latter wouldn't have worked at all in the film the way it was done. Since Tommy Lee Jones and Jim Carrey are both such strong personalities a more stoic Kilmer contrasts that well. Batman Forever really is Jim Carrey's vehicle though. You watch Batman Forever for Jim Carrey the same way you watch Batman 1989 for Jack Nicholson.

I must admit that I was biased before I'd even seen this movie back in 1995. I was biased because I just didn't expect it to be any good due to the absence of Michael Keaton.

When I did watch it I thought it was okay. Val Kilmer did his best as Bruce Wayne although he just looked a bit too young to play a millionaire playboy-but he did do a good job.

Finally we saw the debut of Robin. I thought Robin's costume was cool-it was updated for the 1990's.

Once again the villains stole the show. Jim Carrey (a truly funny man) made a great Riddler and Tommy Lee Jones made a superb Two Face.

Nicole Kidman made a great love interest for Batman but I would have liked to see more interaction between them in the film.

Whilst I think the first two Batman films were the best, I have no problem in recommending this film to any Batman fan.

Some people talk about "the stick of straw that broke the camel's back", meaning when something reached the tipping point. So when did the Batman franchise go bad? Well, "Batman Forever" was getting silly, but it still had Jim Carrey to steal the show as The Riddler ("Batman and Robin" had about as many good qualities as a barrel of toxic waste). Personally, I don't know why they had to have Batman (Val Kilmer) going through therapy; remove that and he still would have been a cool superhero with neat gadgets. Tommy Lee Jones wasn't bad as Two-Face. Nicole Kidman and Chris O'Donnell, as Dr. Chase Meridian and Robin, respectively, didn't really add anything.

Overall, the point is that when Joel Schumacher took over directing, the franchise went downhill. Part of the problem was that while Tim Burton created an eerie Gotham City that looked like New York in the 1940s, Joel Schumacher created a Gotham City that looked like it was trying too hard to be "Blade Runner".

So, the franchise starting getting stale with this one, but Jim Carrey kept the movie from being unwatchable. As Edward Nygma, one of Bruce Wayne's employees, he had some great lines. In the movie, Nygma proposes a device that rests atop TV sets and reads peoples' minds, but Wayne rejects it, considering it too dangerous. Thus, Nygma becomes The Riddler, and he's the best character in the movie.