Batman Forever

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 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.

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.