Why Batman Forever is Awesome

Hit the jump for a fun, light hearted read about why I like the despised Batman film.

Editorial Opinion
By GuardianDevil - Mar 23, 2014 01:03 AM EST
Filed Under: Batman
Quite possibly the worst comic book movie of all time, easily the worst Batman film so far. Filled with butchered, hammy versions of classic villains. A stupid plot that makes no sense, too many butt and boob shots of Batman, basically a walking toy commercial. The film that would be remembered as Joel Schumacher screwing up Batman in our minds forever, the film filled with flat acting and a poor excuse of a Robin. The film that pulled Batman down to the bottom, what's worse is that he had a nipple suit.
 photo image_zps398ebc36.jpg
THAT film, is Batman and Robin. The 1997 sequel to the film I'm going to talk about today. I think in all of the rightful anger directed towards Joel Schumacher for ruining Batman and giving us what might possibly be the all time worst comic book movie. Sometimes we as fanboys tend to forget that Joel Schumacher made a perfectly watchable and enjoyable Batman flick before he took the franchise to comic book hell. Batman Forever was Schumacher's first stab at the Batman franchise, and frankly it is not as bad as people make it out to be. I think the image of the horrendous sequel ruins this movie in our minds. I am here today to shed a little light on why I actually really liked it and thought it made for some good, fun entertainment featuring my favorite superhero. I'd beg of you to please remember that this is for the most part, an opinion piece. Don't forget that as you are reading if, and please, please do not butcher me at the end. Batman Forever was in many ways, an apology. An apology to kids and parents everywhere, for ruining Batman's image in their minds. Batman Returns was the film's predecessor, and although that was a fantastic movie too it wasn't well received by audiences. Especially by all the kids who bought into the extensive toy campaign. Batman Returns left hundreds of children crying after seeing how dark, gruesome and scary the movie was. Warner Brothers, then decided to give director Tim Burton the boot. And hire a director that would make it up to the kids and parents and make more money. That man was Joel Schumacher...I really like what Joel Schumacher attempted to accomplish in mixing light and dark. I found it to be dark, serious and dramatic in the places where it needed to be while also being bright, fun and campy where it needed to be. Much unlike it's sequel which turned out to be an unnecessary camp fest.
 photo image_zpse0918e76.jpg
The primary reason I really like this movie is the casting. One of the many disappointments of the film Batman Forever was the replacement of the beloved Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne also known (by night) as Batman. Personally I actually was a big fan of Michael Keaton's famous portrayal of Batman. Even though Batman himself was the weakest point of both of the previous films, Micheal Keaton still gave his all and delivered one of the best comic book movie performances of all time. So yes, Val Kilmer replacing him is a definite disappointment. But even so, I have always liked Val Kilmer as an actor and truthfully I actually felt he played this role quite well. Of course he's still no Michael Keaton, not even a Christian Bale but he's decent in his own goofy way. As far as the acting goes, I thought Kilmer did an excellent job with what he was given. But outside of that, this version of the Batsuit is flat out terrible and that alone is one of the film's greatest flaws. While I dig the darker shade of black it tried to go for, I don't like the boobies they added on to the chest of the suit. If it was a girl, I woulda loved it. But on a guy? Gross.... Another great pro to this movie in my opinion is the villains. While they were not GREAT necessarily, and not as good as previous and future Batman movie villains but I did like them a lot for what they are. Jim Carrey for one thing, is an outstanding actor. The dude is a pure whack job and he excels most at playing himself. In Batman Forever, Jim Carrey gives an excellent performance as the Riddler. He plays himself, but he himself is the epitome of whack job. Which is exactly what he needed to be in this case. Jim Carrey's Riddler is gloriously insane, beautifully wacky and weird and the guy acts like he just doesn't give a frick. I also enjoyed seeing Tommy Lee Jones' over the top antics as the villainous Two-Face. Tommy Lee Jones is an excellent actor, and even though he receives hate for this role I actually liked it a lot. He feels like he should've been playing The Joker, he acts like The Joker, in fact they should've just had him be The Joker and make the movie a reboot. But even so, Tommy Lee Jones' doesn't feel like Two-Face at all. He feels like the Joker to me, I loved his performance. His over the top campiness was just wonderful, like Dafoe's Green Goblin. Of course in some films campiness is detrimental but not here. Two-Face is one of the best parts of this movie.
 photo image_zps91d9c949.jpg
The casting of Chris O'Donnell as Robin isn't bad, but he could've been way better. Michael Gough has always been great as Alfred Pennyworth. But where the movie shines the absolute brightest, is in the casting of Nicole Kidman as Chase Meridian. The psychologist who inadvertently falls in love with both Bruce Wayne and Batman at the same time. Nicole Kidman's character is wonderful, and arguably the best thing about this film. But outside of the casting, the slightly larger focus on Batman's character makes this movie more watchable. The difference between Joel Schumacher's first take on the character, and Tim Burton's previous two is this. Tim Burton's films focused mainly on the villains, Burton himself stated that he kept the focus off of Batman and put the majority of the focus on to the antagonists of the stories. Burton claimed it as an artistic choice because personally he viewed Batman as less interesting than his villains. He believed that Batman himself is rather uninteresting, what Burton did was artistic. He flipped the tables a little bit, he made Batman the "villain" of the story whilst making The Joker, Catwoman and The Penguin the "heroes" of the story. I think he did a really good job and should be commended, as all three of those villains were excellent characters as well as great adaptations. Jack Nicholson, Michelle Pfieffer and Danny DeVito. It doesn't get better than having those as your classic Batman villains. But even so, many Batman fans were somewhat disappointed. Because Batman IS the most interesting character in fiction. At least in my humble opinion that is. Batman Forever was quite different and it was good for a change to put the greater focus on the character of Batman himself. Think about it, Batman, Batman Returns and The Dark Knight are EXCELLENT movies and among my favorites. But they aren't necessarily great Batman movies...if that makes any sense at all. All three of those films are fantastic but also in all three of them the character of Batman himself is greatly diminished and is the weakest part of the films. But thank God, there is another side to that coin. On the other end of things Batman Begins purely as a film is as good as if not better than all three of those. But it puts the biggest focus on the character of Batman himself. Which is why for me personally it is my favorite Batman movie as well as my favorite comic book movie of all time. Then there is another section, which is where we'll find The Dark Knight Rises as well as Batman Forever. Films that on a technical level may not be AS good as the rest, but are still pretty good on their own. They also are great Batman movies but not necessarily great movies. The Dark Knight Rises has issues as a film, but as a Batman film is excellent. Sure there are plot holes but the Batman element of it is great. It's all about his character like the first Nolan Batman film. Batman Forever is a film in that vein. While it may not be quite as excellent as Batman Begins or The Dark Knight Rises. But Batman Forever differs vastly from it's two predecessors in the way that it actually has a major role for the character of Batman. It actually looks (at least a little bit) into his character and shows us why he is who he is and why he must always be who he is. Now read that again, and let it sink in. It looks at flashbacks into Bruce's past and how he became the man and the hero he is. He sees the parallel of his own experience with that of Dick Grayson. How Bruce saw his both of his parents die before his eyes. And how that drove him to become who he is today. He sees what Dick Grayson could potentially have in the future, he could have sadness or he could have greatness. Which is why Bruce attempts to help young Grayson in every way he can. I like how the movie is looking into Batman's character and is explaining why he must continue in his life of crime fighting. Why he must carry on....Forever. While this may not be excellent, or as great as most of the other Batman films. But personally I found it rather moving.
 photo image_zps89db2fca.jpg
Moving on, I found the score by Eliot Goldenthal to be really awesome and fun although the previous one by Danny Elfman is still superior. I thought the score helped the general tone of the movie like I said before. It was dark and melancholy when it needed to be, but fun and campy when it fit the scenes. The cinematography was excellent and I loved the flashy visuals. The movie was different than every other Batman film, it seemed vibrant, it felt fun, kid-oriented but still can appeal to adults. I still would not call the movie great, but I would call it good. The action in my opinion was a strong point...my favorite is the opening fight scene against Two-Face thugs. The car chase was pretty awesome too... So, in the end. Batman Forever isn't what I'd call GREAT. It isn't even close to being perfect and it does have a lot of issues, especially the suit for Batman. It is filled with flaws but as a whole I recognize it as a flawed but still fun and exciting popcorn film featuring my favorite hero and two of my favorite villains. So, when you think of Batman Forever....
 photo image_zps00cea367.jpg
Forget this... And remember this...
 photo image_zps60584c43.jpg
Lol, I just had to. Please, this article is intended to be relatively light hearted. Remember it is an OPINION piece, so do not tear me apart for this!! Thanks for reading, if you dislike or like this film, express your view in the comments. But please, do be civil about it!
BANE And DEATHSTROKE Live-Action Movie In Development At DC Studios
Related:

BANE And DEATHSTROKE Live-Action Movie In Development At DC Studios

Hayden Christensen Responds To BATMAN Rumors And Explains Why Darth Vader Would Beat Thanos
Recommended For You:

Hayden Christensen Responds To BATMAN Rumors And Explains Why Darth Vader Would Beat Thanos

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

superherofan21
superherofan21 - 3/23/2014, 2:17 AM
I'm glad there's at least SOMEONE else who'll defend this movie. Personally, I love this movie. Sure, it's not nearly as good as Batman 1989, but at least the story of this movie TRIES to explore something interesting about Batman. It kinda sucks that a scene that involves the subplot of Thomas Wayne's red book was taken out of the theatrical version. It's on the deleted scenes in the DVD, though. That scene was the most important to Batman's character arc of choosing to be both Bruce Wayne and the Caped Crusader. Besides that stupidly removed scene, the whole thing really is a good movie. The acting isn't bad, the action is alright, and the story and themes are probably the best out of the original Burton/Schumacher series. I still rewatch it from time to time.
gamecreatorjj
gamecreatorjj - 3/23/2014, 2:36 AM
Best of the old 4. '89 and Returns were not Batman films, and the characters were nothing like the comics. As silly as it was, Batman didn't kill, wasn't a reclusive maniac, and the Riddler was actually pretty good (not the ideal Riddler, but there could have been worse). That being said the use of neon and Two-Face were horrible, but that was more of Lee's performance than anything.
GuardianDevil
GuardianDevil - 3/23/2014, 2:49 AM
@gamecreator
Really?? I though that Returns and '89 were way better. Though Forever was still really good...

Personally I think Batman '89 is actually one of the best comic book films ever made, even today.
HOTSHOT
HOTSHOT - 3/23/2014, 2:56 AM
"THAT film, is Batman and Robin. The 1997 sequel to the film I'm going to talk about today."

Hehe, that was unexpectedly funny.

Although I don't find this movie to be as bad as the it's *shivers* sequel. It's still not a GREAT movie. Robin was an incredibly annoying character when he should've been sympathetic. Hell, by the end of the film, he turned out to be another damsel in distress. Making his character come off as completely useless. His obnoxious "I wanna be popular" attitude made him sound like a total.....DICK.

As for Nicole Kidman, I found that scene where she turns on the Bat Signal just to get some sexy times with Batman to be about as useful as the rest of her character. She was great eye candy though.

Rubber nipples: Not gonna say more about that.

Villains: Acting wise? Great. Jim Carrey stole the show and Tommy Lee Jones brought his own flair to his character. However, Story wise? They were both pretty generic villains and nothing special.

Val Kilmer was a pretty darn good Bruce Wayne. Not the best, but not the worst.

My opinion, too many unnecessary characters and a cheesy plot made the movie come off as too cornball for my taste...and not in the good ol' Adam West way.

It's not terrible, but it's not the Batman that we deserve, need....or want. 5/10.
HOTSHOT
HOTSHOT - 3/23/2014, 3:18 AM
" the characters were nothing like the comics. As silly as it was, Batman didn't kill,"

Someone didn't read the original Detective Comics. Batman was a gun slinging murderer for ages.

JorEllinator
JorEllinator - 3/23/2014, 5:02 AM
@HOTSHOT
That was less than a year of Batman's history. It had been fifty years at the time. Are you really going to point to 1 of 50 years of history to justify him killing? He stopped using guns when Robin turned up, Batman debuted in May '39 and Robin in April '40 so, yes, that is less than a year.
JorEllinator
JorEllinator - 3/23/2014, 5:03 AM
Oh, and it IS the best of the original four, since it is the only true Batman movie of the four.
HOTSHOT
HOTSHOT - 3/23/2014, 6:45 AM
@Jor, I'm not justifying anything. It's just the statement that Batman NEVER killed in the comic books that I'm correcting. Either way, I loved the 89 film. It's sequel was okay.

HOTSHOT
HOTSHOT - 3/23/2014, 7:27 AM
Dawww shucks. Thanks, Wesley :)
Tainted87
Tainted87 - 3/23/2014, 7:41 AM
@HOTSHOT
It's like when someone points to the old Doctor Who, which is completely and utterly unavailable to most people, to try to make a statement.

At any rate, this is a brave attempt to defend a movie that truly isn't all bad.

I think it wasn't really honest to itself, however, unlike Batman Returns or even Batman and Robin... the two villains, for example, tried to emulate others.
Two-Face, back then, was my absolute favorite Batman villain, thanks to TAS. He was sympathetic, he still had a side that cared, and Harvey was still in there. The other side: Two-Face, was an angry psychopath.
Tommy Lee Jones tried to be like Jack Nicholson, and it failed. It was a bad performance, coming across as over-the-top, not altogether dangerous considering it's just posturing, and the funky faces he made when over-enunciating things. Was it Tommy Lee Jones, or was it Schumacher who demanded it? I think it was both, considering we've never seen him do something like that again.
All of his loony tunes aside, Two-Face was treated less as a conflicted bad guy, but as a blood-thirsty maniac who never once showed Harvey's side (not talking about the archive footage of his attack in the courtroom). I remember being very impressionable at the time, being very open to a lot of things I definitely wouldn't be today, but THAT didn't sit well with me.

I think all kids my age at the time, LOVED Jim Carrey, and he knew and reveled in that. Here's a bit of trivia that you might be aware of, considering the community we belong to...
Jim Carrey's father had just died from a battle with cancer. Off-set, he was a wreck, and his co-stars saw that he was borderline depressed. But when he was working, he gave us the zany over-the-top performance everyone had come to expect from him, while emulating Frank Gorshin's Riddler from the 60s. Nowadays, I really wonder what could have happened had Robin Williams been the Riddler, since they were both popular among children in the mid 90s. But then I also wonder, would the version I'd liked to have seen been completely different from the direction they wanted? Probably so, given how Two-Face turned out.

I liked Val Kilmer too, and I thought he's a seriously underrated actor who's let himself go lately. I think he's the best Bruce Wayne, not exactly the best Batman though. As for the stunts in the movie, they're among the best in all of the Batman movies. A lot of it is ruined by the overuse of neon, but if that was removed, and if the scenes were reenacted today, we'd be getting a whole different environment. Remember when Spider-man came out, and people were commenting on how the bridge scene copied off of Riddler's trap at the end? Also, if you get past the neon and the glowsticks in Dick's scene where he fights off the gang, it COULD have been an awesome scene, and ends on a high note when Batman shows up and he starts wailing on him.
"It should've been YOU!!!"

I definitely agree about Nicole Kidman, damn was she sexy there. They totally played up the eye candy on that one, and I loved her interactions with Bruce. Cheesy, of course, but still fun. The attempted psychological analysis is, well, attempted, and it really doesn't leave much of an impact. Bruce was brooding to begin with, he's brooding afterwards. I think they're trying to dig deeper, but hit a few thick roots and pipes.
Wolf38
Wolf38 - 3/23/2014, 7:42 AM
I generally agree. Batman Forever has the best story of any of the Burton/Schumacher films and the cast is great. It is IMHO very close to being an excellent (almost approaching great) film if one takes into account the deleted scenes that explained the story better and would have made it darker overall.

My favorite part is the Robin story arc. I think that Chris O'Donnell is perfect, and that the origin for the character really could not have been done better in the context of this film.

The one thing that I would change is Two-Face. Tommy Lee Jones is fine as an actor, but the portrayal of the character is way too over the top, theatrical and campy. Even as a kid, I knew that because of Batman: The Animated Series. The Dark Knight's version really exposes Batman Forever's version as a waste of Harvey Dent, IMHO.

But overall, I think that Batman Forever was a really good effort. All of the neon/day-glo and techno-inspired musical elements, and the wild Batmobile...it was forward-looking and very cool at the time.

I do think that there's interesting symmetry to Burton and Schumacher. Batman 89 is successful, which leads to Burton going overboard on the quirky aspects of that film, resulting in a too-dark Batman Returns (good film, but still). Batman Forever is successful, which leads to Schumacher going overboard on the quirky aspects of that film, resulting in the too-campy Batman & Robin. Which thankfully lead to the eventual Batman Begins.
gamecreatorjj
gamecreatorjj - 3/23/2014, 11:04 AM
@jj63 I jsut really hate how they protrayed Batman and the Joker, and their relationship. Burton completely missed the point.
gamecreatorjj
gamecreatorjj - 3/23/2014, 11:06 AM
@ Hotshot, and in superman's first appearance, all he had was super strength, and his enemy was a strong woman, but if we got a Superman movie, like that today, we'd go nuts. Batman DOESN'T kill. Ever.
Lhornbk
Lhornbk - 3/23/2014, 1:36 PM
Ok, first of all, Superman IV & Ang Lee's Hulk are tied for worst cbm ever. And yes, Batman Forever is exactly as bad as everyone says it is. It is worse than Batman and Robin. Jim Carrey does play himself, not the Riddler. Which is exactly the wrong thing to do. And Two-Face is horrible. He's not supposed to be another Joker, he's supposed to be his own character. He's played as some sort of cariacture of a villain, not the way Two-Face should be played. The plot is just beyond stupid. The suit is terrible, which you acknowledge. Quite frankly, Kidman and Robin are the only redeeming qualities of the movie, and no, they're not enough to save it.
Wolf38
Wolf38 - 3/23/2014, 3:03 PM
@Lhornbk, how do you feel about Schwarzenegger as Mr. Freeze? Even criticizing Batman Forever, which can reasonably be done, saying that it is worse than Batman & Robin is really going far.

Also, Ang Lee's Hulk is imperfect and understandably divisive, but it's nowhere near the worst.
Tainted87
Tainted87 - 3/23/2014, 3:29 PM
Lhornbk just lost all credibility.


Connelly's Betty actually gives two f*cks, Bruce actually makes the heroic sacrifice that makes him the Hulk, and General Ross isn't an incompetent asshole.

Sometimes I hate CBM fans.
Arrow96
Arrow96 - 3/23/2014, 3:38 PM
Fun read! I actually agree completely with you on this one, I really did enjoy Batman Forever quite a bit, it has it's share of flaws but overall it's a fun, entertaining movie.
Tainted87
Tainted87 - 3/23/2014, 3:42 PM
I'm actually starting to see what you mean there. The more I think of it, the more I feel that it's Smallville and not a focused effort on the GCPD. I mean sure, Batman Begins had Gordon in Gotham when Bruce's parents were murdered, so it's not like it's a big deal that they're not following Year One continuity, but Ben McKenzie just.... doesn't emit any type of Jim Gordon for me. Add to the fact that Bullock is going to be in it this early on, that all the bad guys are going to be in their 20s... it just feels cheap.

I've lost interest. I'm cool with you wanting to watch Gotham burn.
HOTSHOT
HOTSHOT - 3/23/2014, 6:21 PM
@gamecreatorjj, I see what you mean. But for some reason, Batman killing in 'Returns' never really bothered me because in THAT universe, I don't think they actually addressed that whole 'no killing policy'. I was actually more concerned over Batman murdering Joker. Years later, it's vice versa.

And I'm probably alone on this one but I'd actually find a movie where Batman learns not to kill to be quite interesting.
BatmanHeisenberg
BatmanHeisenberg - 3/23/2014, 7:41 PM
I hate this movie, and I hate the sequel more. B&R and BF can die in a [frick]ing whole. I recommend we burn every copy in existence, and destroy every site and computer that contains the movies, and then dump all the ashes in a goddamn volcano, and then nuke the volcano, and shit on the nuclear wasteland, and then leave the planet and erase everyone's [frick]ing memory of that shit [frick]ing excuses for films. Wait, no. Calling these excuses for a film would be elevating it to that level. [frick] THESE FILMS!
gamecreatorjj
gamecreatorjj - 3/23/2014, 8:15 PM
@tainted87 I agree, Ang Lee's Hulk is vastly underrated.
gamecreatorjj
gamecreatorjj - 3/23/2014, 8:17 PM
@HOTSHOT I feel returns did it best, because at the end you see Batman get that character change, he somewhat sees the error of his ways after seeing how cruel Catwoman is to Max Shrek
HOTSHOT
HOTSHOT - 3/23/2014, 9:02 PM
@gamecreatorjj, Good eye. I didn't think of it that way. Guess I'll rewatch it.
MarvelmaniaVII
MarvelmaniaVII - 3/23/2014, 9:08 PM
Batman 89 and returns were decent for there time...but I never thought I'd see the day where we regard the garbage of Batman Forever as a good Batman film...ftw.
ThunderKat
ThunderKat - 3/23/2014, 10:24 PM
This was the warm-up for "Batman & Robin." Kilmer's suit eventually got bat nipples. Chris O'Donnell's poorly scripted part and over-acting were painful.

Jim Carrey was ridiculous. His mind device was a blender! Tommy Lee Jones was a watered down Joker at best.

The cheeseball lines were spoken throughout.

It was a perfectly good waste of a few good actors.
CorndogBurglar
CorndogBurglar - 3/24/2014, 11:29 AM
@ GameCreator

In Final Crisis, didn't Batman try to kill Darkseid? He didn't succeed, but his intent was there.
gamecreatorjj
gamecreatorjj - 3/24/2014, 10:39 PM
@corndog, that is true, and I would be okay with that, but only if it is built up over multiple stories. Batman killing, and using a gun to do it, that's a sign that shit has gotten real. Like really real. Like only once real.
View Recorder