Oh yeah, I’m going to do it. If anyone remembers a while ago I did a list of what I thought were some of the most underrated comic book movies. A lot of people were pissed off that I had "Batman Forever"" at #2 and Spider-Man 3" at #1, but that’s a another story. Some people mistook me for saying "Batman Forever" was better than "Mask of the Phantasm" which was also on the list. If you really had read the article, then you would have read that I thought it was more underrated than Phantasm, not better than it. Thinking back I wish I had but "Batman Returns" on that list, since it is generally liked by the fans but not by others. Oh well. I’m now going to do something controversial and defend the third Batman film "Batman Forever."
SERIES BACKGROUND
Now I’m going to be blatantly honest about something. The masses of fellow comic book fans will want to draw and quarter, crucify, set me and the cross on fire, and then clone me and do it to me again fifteen times over. I will give an extremely controversial view I have, and if you have a problem with it and want to attack me; screw you. How somebody likes or enjoys a film is based on opinion not fact. I enjoy all of the Burton/Schumacher films for various reasons. Whether it be the fact that they’re legitimately good or a guilty pleasure that I have a lot of childhood memories and works as a tongue-in-cheek Batman of the 60’s throwback kids film (specifically talking about B&R with that one if you couldn’t tell). Plus, could you honestly tell me you don’t have any guilty pleasure films? You’re lying if you say you don’t have any. Anyway all fans like the 1989 original directed by Tim Burton. It is considered a classic comic book film. It had great performances and was very well done. Definitely my favorite of the originals and tied with "The Dark Knight"" and Mask of the Phantasm" as my favorite Batman movies. The second one that was also directed by Tim Burton was a great movie. It was tonally darker than the original, and had a much more Burton feel to it". The villains were dark and complex and you (or at least I) felt bad for both of them. After "Batman Returns" received a lot of backlash from parents, the studio fired Burton and hired Joel Schummacher to helm the third film, "Batman Forever." A financial success, but I find to be unfairly mistreated by most Batman fans. I’m going to go through this by category.
And before you read, I want to pose a question to you:
Do you dislike this movie for itself, or do you lump it with the following film? Learn to separate the films from each other. And don’t let your lingering hatred of Joel Schumacher blind you.
And remember this is a defense of Batman Forever not Batman & Robin
BATMAN
Michael Keaton gave a great performance as Batman. He was dark, edgy, and intimidating. Probably still the most intimidating. To me he is tied with Christian Bale as the best live-action acto to have played the characters. They are both closely followed by Val Kilmer, who gave a very underrated performance. I think the reason most fans hate on him was the fact he wasn’t Michael Keaton. While he wasn’t better than Keaton, there were aspects of the Bruce he played that were more like the comic version.
1. He doesn’t kill. And no, I’m not saying that I hated the fact he killed in the Burton films. I was fine with that. He killed in the very early comics. But for most of his run he’s had one rule, and this is his first movie where he implemented it. The only person he does kill is Two-Face. That seemed like a kill or be killed situation. He had them at gunpoint while they were on a ledge with rocks and water below. So even if his armor saved him from the shot, he’d still have fallen to a watery grave. And he would’ve killed Robin (who had an exposed head) and Chase (who wasn’t wearing any body armor).
2. We got to see more of the businessman side of Bruce. In the first film there was a vague reference to the fact, and in 'Returns' we saw a business meeting with Max Shreck about his power plant. Here is the first time we even hear the term Wayne Enterprises and see it.
3. We also get to see the billionaire playboy side of Bruce Wayne. The beginning of the circus scene did a really good job at showing it. As well as when he went to Edward Nygma’s party. In the first film he seemed sort of reclusive but wasn’t so much so that he couldn’t hold a party at his house. In the second he did seem very reclusive. Of course I’m talking about the scene towards the beginning of the film where he was just sitting alone in a dark room waiting for the signal to appear, making it seem like that had become his whole life at that point. But here he’s much more of a public figure.
And as I said I don’t think he was better than Keaton, but those things were nice to see added that were parts of his character in the comic. Another thing I like that they did was that they had Bruce dealing with his memories around the events of his parents murder at the hands of Jack Napier. We saw that Bruce had these pains in the previous two, but he didn’t really try to confront them until this film.
And something about this film that people sometimes overlook is the fact that Batman is still generally in the shadows. A scene that irks fans in the following film is when Batman went to the Wayne Enterprises Flower Ball in costume as a celebrity. A big scene people use against the Schummacher films. But in this one he as Batman still wasn’t very out in the public and was mainly in the shadows. Though there was the news footage where he was in the courtroom dressed as Batman. But I’m pretty sure that was from the comics anyway, so it should be forgivable.
And I do think Val did a good acting job in the film as both Bruce Wayne and Batman, even if he did have a few lines like “I’ll get drive through” and “It’s the car right, chicks dig the car.” Some said he felt wooden--I didn’t really see that. He played the pained hero very well. As I said he’s topped by Keaton and Bale, but way ahead of Adam West and George Clooney. He gave a very solid and vastly underrated performance.
ROBIN
I forget who said it, one of the comic book writers said that even though Batman can appear without Robin they’ll never be separated permanently, or something to that effect. This was another performance I think is underrated, even more so than Kilmer’s: Chris O’donnell as Robin. Yeah he was getting whiny in the next one, but just look at his performance in this film and you’ll see it isn’t half bad. Yes he had some angst, but not too much and it was warranted it in this film. I think it was a wise decision to go with an older Dick Grayson. Because while a kid Robin works in the comics, it would be harder to take seriously on the big screen. I liked how they developed him into becoming Robin, and didn’t fully become Robin until the climax of the film.
I want to make a note about how great the sequence where his family is murdered was. We got to see them as the Flying Grayson’s (thumbs up for referencing the comic Robin costume with their uniforms) and then Two-Face came in and threatened everyone’s lives with a bomb. It was really cool to see the Grayson’s take the initiative and try to save everybody by trying to stop the bomb. It showed how noble they were and kind of made their deaths seem more tragic. When he decided to save Two-Face’s life rather than kill him. That showed good character growth.
TWO-FACE
All right haters, here’s one that I’m going to give some leeway on. Two-Face is a very dark and brooding character in the comics while he’s much more springy and laughs a lot in this film. Many compare him to the Joker. Though I don’t remember the Penguin of the comics being a deformed baby that was thrown into the sewer who became the extremely vulgar and psychotic leader of a circus themed gang of criminals. Nor was Catwoman a meek secretary who was thrown out of a window by her boss and then became Catwoman with the main motive of attaining revenge. That is of course unless I missed something. Sorry, that was cruel. I do understand that with Penguin and Catwoman it was Burton wanting to add his own artistic spin. While with Two-Face it may have been the studio wanting a lighter villain since they wanted this film to be more family friendly. Anyway moving on.
I’ve got to say that I thought that their introduction for him was perfect. It was very fitting to begin with showing his flipping the coin. His speech about luck was also very good. When I first saw the scene where they show the scarred side of his face for the first time, it really did freak me out. Although shortly after that is when he becomes much more cartoony.
I do want to make a note about comparing him to Aaron Eckhart’s Two-Face. Most people acknowledge that Eckhart was the superior Two-Face. Tso me it seemed like with both version they were really playing up different sides of Two-Face’s character. Eckhart’s really played up his luck and chance side more. Though they had Two-Face flip the coin in this film, he didn’t always heed it. The most notorious being when he kept flipping the coin until he got the result he wanted. I understand the joke they were going for, but it was pretty out of character. The side of Two-Face this movie plays up more is the dramatic sense of his duality. They play up the fact that there are two sides of him, even referring to himself in the plural. They may have been hinting that with Eckhart in the scene where he was showing a darker side while intimidating Thomas Schiff (the insane Arkham escapee he captured) with his coin and threatening to kill him. He wasn’t going to kill him, since the coin was still double sided at that point. He did seem to show a dark side that he didn’t show again after the acid bath. The explanation really is that it was just his own anger, and not a fully created other personality inside of him. So when you think about it, both epitomized a different part of Two-Face’s character.
Tommy Lee Jones: Duality
Aaron Eckhart: Chance
You could also say that this version’s back story was a bit more like the comics with the acid in the face during the trial of Sal Maroni. That would be nit-picking. And I myself don’t always care if they change around back stories too much.
I actually really liked the controversial twist in the ’89 film where they had it turn out to be the Joker who killed Bruce’s parents. That seemed very fitting. It was cool that they had Two-Face as the killer of Dick Grayson’s parents, and brother who was made up for the film. I just thought it was interesting to have one of the main comic villains do it. It also made sense for story reasons. If they had used Tony Zucco as in the comics, he would have had to have been made central to the story. It wouldn’t have made sense to just introduce him to kill Robin’s parents and then disappear.
Then there’s the situation with the actor. Many people are bothered by the fact Harvey Dent went from being African-American to Caucasian. It’s just Hollywood recasting to use a more popular actor. Heck, he could’ve gotten plastic surgery for all we know. Am I saying they should’ve replaced Billy Dee Williams?, No, I think people need to get over the whole race thing.
Of course one of the main things is the portrayal of the character. As I mentioned, he was much more cartoony and laughed a lot. I honestly can see why fans would be upset about that, and with the constant coin flipping scene. I still enjoyed his performance, and it wasn’t as cheesy as Arnold Schwarnegger’s Freeze. I don’t know, maybe it was just because it was Tommy Lee Jones. Again I don’t blame you for disliking it.
RIDDLER
No matter your feelings on how the villains were portrayed in all of the films, you’ve got to admit that they for the most part had spot on choices for actors (barring Schwarzenegger). Jim Carrey was a good choice for the Riddler. There’ve been complaints about the portrayal of the Riddler. This is another one I do kind of get, not as much so as with Two-Face. The main reason they decided to give him the springy personality was to make him like the Frank Gorshin version from the 60’s show. That tactically made sense since it was the most iconic portrayal of the character. And Carrey himself said he based his performance off Gorshin’s. That irked a lot of fans. Though he did a similar performance to the Riddler of the 60’s show, he did seem to be playing a more demented and slightly darker version. For instance,the scene where he killed his boss Fred Stickley. He did have some great lines including, “Caffeine will kill ya,” and “Your entrance was good…his was better.” Beyond this there’s not really anything else to say about this one.
CHASE MERIDIAN
A character that was created for the film. She was originally going to be played by Rene Russo, while Keaton was still on board. She was replaced with Nicole Kidman when Kilmer was cast.
I thought the character was interesting. I didn’t really mind that they made a new character. They also made her pretty important to the plot with her helping Bruce dealing with the visions of his past. Apparently, she had a crush of the Riddler. Just as a side note, did anyone else notice that as a pattern? Joker was pretty much the same with Vicki, and Penguin with Catwoman. To get back on track: her personality and the way she acted towards Batman was interesting. Nicole Kidman played the character well, and looked gorgeous the whole time.
ALFRED & COMMISSIONER GORDON
These are only characters who appeared in all four films played by the same actors. I always really liked Michael Gough as Alfred. He was a wise sweet old man, who was very nice and grandfatherly. He could also say what needed to be said. He always seemed to have a lot of heart. And I’ll be honest, I thought Gough’s best performance as Alfred was in the fourth film. He had more time on screen, and had some great scenes in it including when he’s talking to Bruce, “You both follow the same star but follow a different course.” Later the scene where he talked to Bruce about how Batman was really a way of trying to control and stop death itself. But now I’m getting off track. This is about 'Forever.' Anyway, Gough was great in all of the films including this one. He had some funny scenes, as well as a few good heart to heart scenes with Bruce and Dick. A lot of people say they thought Michael Caine is better than Gough. I love Michael Caine as well. His Alfred was different. His Alfred was much tougher and funnier, and more hands on with helping Bruce. Like Keaton and Bale, and Nicholson and Ledger; to me the two Michael’s are tied.
Gordon never played a big part in the original four films. The biggest probably being his role in the first. Pat Hingle did his job well enough in them. Many people thought that this was an incompetent Gordon, but I don’t really see where they’re going with that until the fourth one. Even in that one the biggest scene where he seems like that is while he’s being drugged. I don’t think he was played poorly in these films. He was just not in them enough. I’ll obviously side with the majority on the fact that Gary Oldman is better as Gordon. He plays the role very well, and gets the screen time he deserves.
Anyway that’s it on the big vets of the series.
TONE
A lot of people don’t like the drastic tonal change from the Burton films. If you think about it, it was about as close to the tone of the ’89 film as 'Returns' was, just in the other direction. Even then, I think this movie still retained enough darkness. In reality none of the films had the same tone, and each following film had a drastic tonal change. That’s one of the things I did find kind of interesting about these movies. I better not get off topic. Anyway another thing people don’t like was all the neon. I think with the Riddler it worked. It just seemed to fit him. And the rest is really a matter of opinion. Overall the tone was pretty serious. Take out some of the villain scenes and the remaining scenes were done very seriously. Like I said the scenes with Bruce coping with his past, his speech later in the film with Dick, and some others. And camp I’m pretty sure means exaggerated or out there not necessarily light. Many people accuse this one of being campy, but it's not overly campy and wasn't the only serious Batman film to have those kinds of moments. While 'Returns' was dark, the ending with the radio controlled rocket packed penguins was as, and probably more, out there than anything in this film. Don’t get me wrong I love 'Returns,' but I’d be lying if I didn’t say that.
There actually were darker scenes including Two-Face’s escape from Arkham that were cut because they were felt to be too inappropriate for kids. Some scenes from the director’s cut were released on the 2-Disc Special Edition DVD, but I’d like the full director’s cut to be released since a total of forty minutes were deleted. If Donner could release his cut of "Superman II," it shouldn’t be too much to ask for this. I want to see how dark it really was intended to be.
MUSIC
The Danny Elfman Batman theme is legendary and still my favorite. I don’t think that Elliot Goldenthal’s was half bad either. Yeah it was less dark, but felt a bit more heroic.
LOOSE CONNECTIONS
All of the original Batman films acted pretty isolated from each other except for a few references in each film. They don’t connect together as much as the Nolan films do. The connections I find in this one are some of the most interesting. My favorite is Dick talks to Bruce and says, “Your parents weren’t killed by a maniac,” and Bruce replied, “Yes they were.” That line was so chilling because you think back to the scene from the original film where Jack Napier killed Bruce’s parents.
I also find Bruce’s speech to Dick really interesting. When he’s telling Dick about how killing Two-Face won’t make the pain go away and will only make it worse, that he’ll just go seeking out another face until revenge has become his entire life. This can be applied to the previous films. In the first film he killed very little and at the end managed to kill his parents’ murderer like Dick plans to do with Two-Face. What Bruce said about it not getting rid of but strengthening the blood lust also works. If you remember in the second movie he killed a lot of his enemies. Many more than the first where as, earlier he just killed a few. He showed no qualms about it, and as said even earlier, he became extremely reclusive and alone with Batman and revenge being his entire life. So even if they didn’t intend it, the speech really does fit with the previous films.
I have a theory on why he stopped killing. In my mind it was the discovery that Selina Kyle was Catwoman that gave him the change of heart. It was the fact that he learned somebody he cared about was a criminal, but still not an evil person--a tortured soul like him. If the change wasn’t immediate, he did almost kill Penguin towards the end of the film. It was when he finally wrapped his mind around the Catwoman fact that he finally decided it was wrong to kill. And yes as said earlier he did kill Two-Face, but I’ve already said my piece on that scene earlier.
There was also a nod to Catwoman when Chase mentioned wearing skin tight vinyl and a whip.
STORY
And then there’s the story. The last three Batman films all had pretty convoluted stories. They balanced out the characters’ screen time very well. Some say that the villains had more screen time than Batman. Many people have said that about all four films actually. While I’ve never taken a stopwatch to the film, I don’t think that was the case. I might actually see that more in Returns than this one, but I never really bought it for any of them.
Anyway the plot is structured like the two other sequels. There’s a tragic villain who’s already been established (Penguin/Two-Face/Mr. Freeze) who joins forces with a villain who’s created with boss issues (Catwoman/Riddler/Poison Ivy). Like 'Returns' one of the villains’ main goals is revenge, while the other has a more grand plan.
FILMS AREN'T BLACK AND WHITE
Something I’ve noticed is when it comes to something like a comic book film, if there’s a few things that a fan doesn’t like, they’ll choose to hate the whole thing. And I see that with this film. Most of the complaints are against the lighter, yet not extremely light, tone and how they wrote the villains. Ignoring the good performances and aspects of the film, I don’t try to do that. A FILM CAN HAVE FLAWS BUT STILL BE GOOD. Nuff said.
BIASED FEELINGS
There are a ton of biased feelings towards this film because of the film that followed due to the fact that they had the same director. Come on, guys, take it as ITS OWN FILM. This is not "Batman & Robin"" this is "Batman Forever." As I said earlier I want you to really ask yourself if you truly hate this film for this film, or your feelings for Schummacher and the next movie.
And guys, it’s been thirteen years. Let the grudge go. Bury the hatchet. What’s done is done. Stop treating Schummacher like he killed your family. The studio forced him to make "Batman & Robin" the way it was, and it would’ve been the same no matter which director made it. He, in all reality, is a good director. You’d see that if you’d actually watch some of his other films including "The Lost Boys, A Time to Kill," and others. Just let go already! And think about this. If "Batman & Robin" hadn’t ended the original series, we probably wouldn’t have "Batman Begins" or "The Dark Knight." Now can’t you take one bad movie for the existence of two great ones, especially the masterpiece called The Dark Knight?"" In a way we could say we owe Schummacher for them. So please, drop the vendetta’s against Schummacher and go against people who actually deserve it.
WHAT I RECOMMEND
Most fans have just shunned this movie and haven’t watched it in a long time or are avoiding it because of word of mouth. I say watch it again, or for the first time for some, and remember everything I said…
*Remember that it isn’t Batman & Robin.
*Don’t expect as dark of a film as the previous two. Take it for what it is, not what it isn’t.
*Look at the movie as a whole, not just the parts you don’t like.
*And remember: JUST TRY AND HAVE SOME DAMN FUN!