he wasn’t the problem with that movie
There is a kernel of a truly great movie hidden inside Batman & Robin. Unfortunately it’s buried under a mountain of shit. The result? Pure corn.
I call it the Nipple Batman, and I enjoyed it too.
So many good cast members completely wasted
Clooney Batman was great, he fit right in the role IMHO, too bad he was in Batman & Robin, but I could easily see him doing what Keaton did, or even Pattinson.
When I saw that movie I was disappointed. Everyone in my life would always tell me how terrible it was and I shouldn’t watch it, then when I actually did watch it it turns out the movie is actually just a gigantic love letter to Adam West’s batman and is one of my favorite batman movies and I’m upset I listened to The Average Idiotic Movie Viewer and didn’t watch it sooner.
The problem is that it’s supposed to be a sequel to the Tim Burton movies and it just doesn’t work on that front.
Neither does Batman Forever but that one is treated a lot better.
deleted by creator
Because Batman Forever is a sequel to a Tim Burton movie.
Batman & Robin is a sequel to a sequel of a Tim Burton movie.
The level of camp/silliness increased for each film.
As a standalone film, it was fine. In the era it came out in, it didn’t work.
Tommy Lee Jones acting like a sugar addicted child was more emotionally scarring than any other movie I have ever seen. And I am including liveleak videos in this.
Dinner dinner dinner dinner Batman!
Both of the Joel Schumacher films are fun if you don’t take them seriously. They’re not perfect by any means, but I’ll throw them on every few years and have a good time. I can’t even remember the last time I watched the Burton films, besides clips of “Love that Joker”
I think you just have to judge them for what they are, not hyper gritty neo noir anti hero or the gothy expressionist dark serious tone, but more of a campy fun 60s Adam West bman style everyone just going really hammy.
Batman Returns is in my holiday movie rotation.
I really liked George Clooney as Batman.
But I also liked Pierce Brosnan as James Bond so I’m probably wrong.
Pierce Brosnan was great as James Bond. Goldeneye probably saved the franchise from oblivion. He got shit scripts after that, but he was right for the role.
Also, Dalton’s first movie as Bond is highly underrated.
Please elaborate on the Brosnan part? I think he fit the role well, and I think GoldenEye is one of the best Bond movies. That being said, I wouldn’t call myself a Bond connoisseur.
I don’t think any of the Bonds were bad in the role. They all bought their own thing to it.
Some of them got some dogshit plots and scripts though, and frankly Brosnan’s may have been even worse than Dalton’s. Goldeneye is at least goofy and fun, a return to the Moore era. The rest were irredeemably bad.
Say what you like of Clooney Batman, but it was the most memorable. I think of the bat credit card more than I would like.
They must have had a Visa/MasterCard/whatever product placement in mind that fell through, and then they did the scene, anyway.
it’s such a fucking good joke too
“good thru: FOREVER”
Gothcard is pretty on point too.
Such a good joke all the Nostalgia Critic could do was repeat “A BAT CREDIT CARD???” like it wasn’t hilarious.
I just want to know who approved nips on the suit
Bats are mammals, if it didn’t have nipples he can’t be Batman.
“With Val Kilmer’s suit in Batman Forever, the nipples were one of those things that I added. It wasn’t fetish to me, it was more informed by Roman armor — like Centurions. And, in the comic books, the characters always looked like they were naked with spray paint on them — it was all about anatomy, and I like to push anatomy. I don’t know exactly where my head was at back in the day, but that’s what I remember. And so, I added the nipples. I had no idea there was going to end up being all this buzz about it.”
- Jose Fernandez, costume designer and sculptor
Would have been funnier if he was like “what are you talking about those were just Clooney’s nips”
I’ve never seen or heard anyone ever answer for the design choices and this makes perfect sense. Always thought Schumacher was having his fun like Tarantino does with feet.
It’s cool to see the person that made that decision just own it.
“Yeah I like nipples so I put them on there.”
Thanks for the quote. Also from an appropriate user handle haha.
No more ridiculous than abs on the suit.
There were probably long meetings about nip or no nip.
Val Kilmer.
There was something about that movie (uma Thurman) that no Batman movie after was able to do (it was uma Thurman). I haven’t seen the movie in years, but I remember empathizing with the villains in a way that modern movies just don’t want you to (it may have just been uma Thurman but I remember feeling bad for mr freeze too). I might just be queerer than other people but the level of camp felt genuine. I don’t dislike other Batman movies, but that one felt fun to watch the way old comics were fun to read.
mr freeze and poison ivy are definitely the most sympathetic of the main cast of batman villains. as in, their motivations make more sense than like… calendar man.
Poison Ivy is like Magneto. It becomes harder and harder every year to say they’re wrong.
I assume Calendar Man had a mental illness like OCD that manifested around dates due to the fact that his parents named him Julian Gregory Day.
And if someone has a mental illness in Gotham, you can bet a billionaire in S&M gear is there to beat the shit out of them.
I assume Calendar Man had a mental illness
Pretty much every batman villain is mentally ill in someway or another, and it’s probably easier to list the ones that aren’t. That’s why they end up in Arkham “Asylum”.
The ones that aren’t mentally ill are disfigured. And at this point, you can probably count out the only ones left.
Ra’s Al Ghul
Catwoman
Hush
Also Jim Carrey having so many consecutive bad days at work he loses his fkin mind, I felt that.
Funnily enough, out of modern superhero movies, I think MCU got me to empathize with a villain the most. It was Thanos, who had a legitimate reason for reducing the population of the universe and didn’t even want to discriminate.
I’ve grown bored with the MCU and haven’t seen any of the newest films, but Infinity War was actually great.
Legitimate reason? Really?
That was the one thing that removed my ability to even try to suspend any disbelief in the fantasy. Like I couldn’t even think of him as more than a one-dimensional caricature, let alone empathize with him. I was okay with Thanos just being some powerful guy seeking powerful objects to become more powerful. I might even sympathize, not empathize, with that. It was evil to be sure, but understandable. But, as soon as they revealed what he actually wanted to do with that power the whole thing just fell apart completely and became a total farce.
It was just bad logic that doesn’t hold up to any scrutiny. Like why didn’t he just double the resources? Why did he think the universe wouldn’t just eventually return to pre-snap populations, because it’s not like he also slowed population growth?
I don’t know why the movies got the direction they did for his motivation but in the comics Thanos is trying to impress Death who he is in love with. It makes more sense than just getting rid of half the people for supposed resource scarcity.
Exactly. It’s a nonsense motivation. What was he going to do? Come back every couple of decades and snap again?
Compare to Mass Effect’s genophage. That’s a plan. Horrible, but at least it makes sense.
Population control is an ineffective solution to a nonexistent problem, but that thread of misanthropy, woven into the worldview of most who think #thanoswasright, is based on misinformation. Knowledge is the cure.
The thing about Thanos though is that he is also a good example of what happens when a powerful figure is only surrounded by “yes” folks. Because his idea is, ultimately, stupid. Killing half of all life in the universe doesnʻt really change anything substantial because you wind up with the same problems: If you have 100 people and 50 cows or fruit trees or whatever, and you snap half of those, you still wind up with the same ratio. Now itʻs 50 people fighting for 25 cows or fruit trees or whatever.
The Infinity Stones basically make Thanos close to God. He could do anything. He could have doubled the resources of the universe, he could have created an entirely new form of resource.
In some ways this is in keeping with his characterization in the comics, where he has a habit of getting in his own way. But I kinda wish that Endgame, like in the Infinity Gauntlet series, would have revealed that he was actually trying to woo Death (which could have been represented by Hela) and so his supposed altruism is actually self-serving. Regardless, he does stand as a good representative of charismatic villains that garner sympathy while also being singularly focused on a really bad idea rooted in the villainʻs own self-assurance and ability to gather acolytes through a kind of “reality distortion field” effect.
They actually brought lady death into the canon with Agatha all along, played by April ludgate herself. I’d kill half the universe to impress April.
Thatʻs right! But at the time of Endgame, weʻd only seen Hela. I could definitely see someone snapping half the universe away for either of them lol.
I think my big issue with the MCU, is that they don’t even try to make the flaws logical. Before the snap, thanos has all of the infinity stones and can bend reality. He could have done any other kind of random macguffin BS other than remove half of all people. If the avengers could look into the future and envision the one reality where they defeated Thanos, Thanos could’ve done the same but for whatever heuristic he was attempting to optimize. I know the villain in Black Panther gets a lot of hate for having an unsympathetic side just tacked on, but unfortunately it’s quite historically accurate to have people pushing for some kind of enlightened revolution that haven’t quite done all of the work to unlearn things themselves. I do think that the fact that he was written that way and isn’t a real person is a valid argument as to why it’s a poor defense, but it’s suggested that MLK cheated on his wife and prominent figures in the Black Panther party did abuse women. So, I’m a bit torn on that, but between Thanos and whatever the hell was happening in falcon in the winter soldier, I still think the villains and the heroes could use some work.
Just to be clear, I don’t think it takes away from the movies being great. I also really like infinity war, I just don’t that I was on board with everyone’s motivations all the time.
Edit: I responded to this comment from my inbox, and now I’m seeing that you already have replies saying that Thanos really isn’t understandable. I wasn’t trying to pile on, I just also believe that.
Hey, I agree that Thanos was stupid as hell. If he really wanted to save the universe, as an all powerful god at the point where he’s got all the infinity stones, he could’ve done something about reproduction rates, or resources being regeneratable… I just meant he’s the only one I’ve been able to empathize with recently. There’s so many villains who just want power for the sake of it, or to end the world. Thanos wanted to do what he thought would save the world. Was it stupid? Sure. But his goal was not.
I heard him tell a story about the time he had a close call with guys with machine guns on one of his foreign aid missions, and found himself on his knees with his hands in the air. He said he was worried that they’d figure out that they were safe, and start to let them go, and then recognize him, and say “YOU PUT NIPPLES ON THE BAT SUIT!” and shoot him anyway.
It was reminiscent of the older silly Batman stuff and I liked it! I’ll die on that hill!
keaton was the best, but clooney was up there.
batman & robin was probably the closest a mainstream comic book movie has ever been to the tone of the source material.
The Schumaker films had good casting. Clooney, Kilmer, Thurman, Jones, and Carrey were all great for their roles. They just happened to be cast in terrible films.
i mean, the films perfectly captures the camp of the batman characters, which i’d say makes the films good.
i hold that the best modern version of batman is The Brave and The Bold.
I saw Batman Forever when I was 6 years old and I loved it. It was made for kids.
I like Pattinson’s Batman the best. Although the movie itself went bad in the second half by resorting to cliche Hollywood spectacle.
Christian Bale
Counterpoint: “Batman voice”
Christian Bale is a great actor, but I think he was the worst Batman.
I like Christian Bale’s, Bruce Wayne, I do not like his Batman. If you could take just the Bruce Wayne and combine it with say Clooney or Pattinson’s Batman, that would be ideal.
nah
I think I have a poor view of Christian Bale, not because of his acting but because the 3rd movie was so bad- which doesn’t have anything to do with how he represented Batman.
I hold to Affleck being the best all around portrayal of the character, just saddled in relatively mediocre films. That said, I really liked Pattinsonʻs take and the film overall (and I do sympathize with your take on the second half; it feels a bit bloated for the kind of “street-level” Batman they had going).
This is the first time I’ve read someone dislike the second half of the Batman. Kinda shocked to hear it reduced to “Hollywood spectacle” given the clear ties to the movies main themes and character arcs. It also was a nearly-perfect final act for a Batman movie imho with it not revolving around one villain Batman needs to physically beat up like most of the previous films.
The problem I had was the entire movie had the Riddler fighting corruption for “the little man” and being a counterpoint to Batman’s work. Then at the end The Riddler, without warning, turns into a Marvel Villain ™ where he floods an entire city killing many “little men” he spent his life protecting.
I think there’s an interesting conversation to be had here but I’m not certain I’m going to do it justice via text; let me try.
I think what’s happening here (with your comment and actually the other one responding to yours) is the failure to separate the underlying motivation and intent of the Riddler and the Riddler’s mental state or actions.
The Riddler in The Batman stems from inequality and corruption and systemic failures. We can empathize with that concept and we can understand how it drives him to become who he is in the movie. But I think him coming from that place does not necessarily mean he’s “fighting corruption for the ‘little man’” as you said. In fact, I think the movie goes out of its way to show us that he’s less interested in helping people and fixing the system and more interested in hurting people and damaging the system. He kills the corrupt ~judge/politician in the beginning (sorry if I get details wrong or close to right, it’s been a few years and my movie memory isn’t what it used to be) and leaves a boy without his father - or maybe orphans him. He propagates some of the issues that made characters like himself and Batman.
He straps a bomb to a corrupt cop which I’d argue inherently endangers more than just the person “who deserved it”. He firebombs Alfred, an arguably innocent bystander in everything. He plans a partial flooding of the city and the assassination of the mayoral candidate (at least) while riling up extremists to go out and hurt people. He isn’t doing these things to weed out corruption or to help people, he’s doing these things because they make him feel good. He’s hurting the people who “hurt him” but in reality he’s cultivating the same environment that made him.
And I think the movie gives both Batman and Catwoman as counter examples to the Riddlers methods. Catwoman came from a similar background of hardship and systemic failings and instead of specifically violently hurting people, she steals from people to help abused women (and immigrants if I’m remembering correctly). She’s not making the system better but she’s helping people like an Anti-Hero. She’s trying to kill the mob boss like the Riddler does with who he blames, but she’s not cultivating an armed extremist militia and she’s taking care of people she relates to.
The Batman is even more interesting IMHO because he actually falls into the same trap as the Riddler at first, he’s hellbent on hurting bad people to the point that it’s doing more harm than good. Then the climax of the film is realizing he can’t be Vengeance, he can’t be what the Riddler is and what the Riddler promotes in his goons, he has to be Hope™. He has to help people, he lights the flare and leads people to safety.
That’s the central arc of The Batman, going from being interested in vengeance - in the easy solution, in the thing that makes small changes you can justify but that don’t help the people that don’t change the system that may even hurt everyone - to being interested in change, in leading people, in taking care of orphans, in not creating more kids without father’s.
The Riddler may have come from a place of systemic injustice but he was a serial killer interested only in vengeance, he wasn’t robin hood, and he was that way from the beginning of the film. I thought the third act really spelt that out in a way I really enjoyed. I don’t think he was ever protecting people, I think he was always obsessed with hurting the people that hurt him.
Of course, it’s Batman, we need to see Batman dress like a Bat and be a billionaire and justify not doing like… World changing philanthropy with just his money, that’s part of the fantasy unfortunately. But I hope in the sequel we see more of Bruce Wayne being the character I enjoy (and what they’ve set up nicely in this first film) of someone who does what the Batman can’t. Reinstate funding, do public projects, revitalize industry - all that shit real billionaires should do (before funding politicians to tax themselves out of existence) and that provide a real sense of Batman AND Bruce Wayne being heroes.
Yes I agree with your analysis. His methods were bad which was the dichotomy between Batman and Riddler. Neither we’re doing the boring work of philanthropy or social work because it’s a super hero movie. But I disagree that Riddler was so different from Batman from the very start. Riddler and his followers weren’t portrayed as suicidal maniacs bent on mass murder until the very end when Riddler floods the city. Instead the first half was Riddler kills bad guys and Batman doesn’t. It didn’t need the Hollywood disaster ending.
Did the Riddler think he was gonna die? Did his henchmen? I didn’t get that vibe. And I think the Riddler was interested in the theatrics of his work from the get go, getting captured, the riddles (obvi lol), etc. I feel like going out on a big bang was always within character. And although he may have started by targeting the corrupt, I think his natural progression towards just targeting the wealthy or the “not like him” made sense. The Riddler killing many people via the flood felt natural to me but maybe I need to rewatch it.
As for his followers, we don’t get a ton of screen time with them but the movie was very effective at evoking the right wing twitch/forum/podcast vibe of a deep dark rabbit hole - so maybe I’m projecting - but I 100% can see random people who think the Riddler’s form of violence is cool or admirable being willing to dehumanize the people in the arena enough to commit mass murder. Idk, it’s the disciple vs the leader dilution of the message or intent. And I’d still argue that the intent was never to improve things or be consistent, it was to make people hurt the way he did and justify it however he could.
Thanks for reading all my shit lol, hopefully you got something out of this :D
Did his henchmen? I didn’t get that vibe.
The henchmen were right in the middle of the flood and continued to fight Batman. Ironman 3 was more realistic when a goon dropped their weapon and said they didn’t even like the job.
Because the Riddler actually had a valid point regarding the corruption infecting the city’s elites. If the scriptwriter had followed this chain of thought, Batman would have ended up fully siding with the Riddler and potentially giving all his money away to fund social progress and equity.
Obviously instead the Riddler went mental and Batman gets to keep his wee belt.
