बैटमैन फॉरएवर

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

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.

Bruce Wayne and his young ward Dick Grayson tackle crime as Batman and Robin. When villains Two-Face and the Riddler team up to take over Gotham City by beating Batman, the dynamic duo find themselves in a battle for the city.

This third of the series rings the alarm bells early when the credits tell us that Burton is out and thoughtless crowd pleaser Schumacher is in! If that's not bad enough Keaton is replaced by Val Kilmer. The story to this makes the first two films look like Shakespeare. Here the script is pointless and any character development is thrown out the window. The story is little more than an excuse for two things, 1 - big action scenes and 2 - big hammy performances from whoever is playing the villains this time. As such it doesn't do anything new. The main loss is the loss of darkness - Schumacher maximises the audience by making it kiddie friendly and losing any edge the original had.

The action scenes are all OTT and mere spectacle, but they lack tension and excitement and it's really hard to care. Outside of the spectacle we are left with the performances. Carrey is good if you like his brand of mugging, but he does get tiresome in his cartoon character role. Jones is wasted as Two-Face and is forced to sit in the shadow of Carrey's ham. Kilmer is a non-entity, Batman comes second to the villains and the attempts to give him a character are ham-fisted and clumsy. Kidman is a stupid love interest and there is no chemistry between her and Kilmer. O'Donnell is OK but did we need a Robin?

Overall this is a step away from the comic book and a leap towards the camp 1960's Batman. Schumacher takes what should be a dark, almost disturbing story of a man who is not too far removed from the super-villains he must catch and turns it into a childish ill-formed Happy Meal. Terrible.

What I can say about Batman Forever is that it is getting too much hate. It is definitely not a good movie but it just isn't as bad as everyone is saying.

One of the things that ruins this movie is the awful script. While the plot is not that bad, the script is just plain awful. It's filled with unfunny and dumb jokes and poorly written dialogues. I'm aware that this movie is comic based and so I shouldn't expect much from it but this horrible script makes it look more like a parody.

The casting was also not very good. Val Kilmer as Batman was ok (if compared to Michael Keaton), Jim Carrey also did a quite good job as the Riddler. But Tommy Lee Jones's portrayal of Two Face was terrible. Two Face is a character that suffers from split personality, but the movie didn't show that. Tommy Lee Jones was playing a role that was closer to the Joker. All these "insane acts" that he was doing throughout the movie made me think that this is actually the Joker who for some reason got half of his face burnt.

Of course there are many reasons why you might enjoy this movie. The plot is not bad and even interesting at some points. If you are a fan of Jim Carrey movies you'll surely like Batman Forever not only because of the unique performance that only Jim Carrey can give but also because this movie is way more colorful than other Batman movies.

For conclusion I can say that Batman Forever is a kid friendly movie that is excellent if you have time to waste. It is definitely not a good movie but still doesn't deserve to be called the worst

Batman Forever lacks the outright depressing, darkened mood of the first two. Good! After Batman Returns I didn't know how much more decadent they could get, with so much lack of lighting I was having a hard time just WATCHING the movies. As far as Batman himself I am happy to say that Val Kilmer is NOT Michael Keaton or Adam West. They were ok for the job but were just too wooden and monolithic for their actions. With Kilmer we get a much more fluid Batman who doesn't seem to lag around like Keaton's did. Speed is what he does best...and he does it! The supporting protagonists do the meager, ok job they need to keep this film acceptable. It is nice to see Dick Grayson ditch that sickeningly awful "Robin" outfit a la 1966 and get a REAL superhero suit. THE VILLAINS! No Batman movie would be complete without them! Tommy Lee Jones is ok as Two-Face and his presence holds on until Jim Carrey--master of dancing around and acting like the modern, much cooler Jerry Lewis--slides in as the Riddler. Like Nicholson in the first, Carrey holds our attention with his shenanigans (even if they annoy us) and make the movie a bit more fun. That's the whole point. When we go to a Batman movie, we aren't expecting "The Godfather" or "Citizen Kane". We want to be entertained to the MAX and this movie does just that with a hint of glitz and a lot more style than Batman 2 did. Remember how it took over half an hour for us to get around to observing Keaton as Bruce Wayne in that one? I think these two are tied for second. By all means avoid Batman & Robin! You will be utterly disappointed with George "ER" Clooney, Arnold "Jingle all the Way" Scwarzenegger, Uma "the Avengers" Thurman, and everything else in that piece of garbage.