Batman Forever

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.

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.

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.

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.

Its overplayed by the allstar cast but it also have some of the best moments "script wise" in the bat-film history. Its colorful but also dark and I actually had a nice time watching this.

I was entertained. Nowdays its rare.