One of the last three reviews I'll be making! Originally set for a June 2022 release (recorded back in February), but after a lot of schedule changes, it's finally here!
I think the silliness of mr freeze in the movie makes some sense. He’s feeling joy from the excitement of finally getting to see his wife as he remembered. Basically. He’s getting ready to smile for his wife. Is this idea dumb, yes, but it fits
No. Look, I'll be clear: I'll never take people who think Forever is worse than And Robin seriously, because at least Forever had vision. There was character growth, there were good ideas, it felt like things had at least come full circle in that film, the humour was genuinely funny, and the action is well choreographed without being ridiculous. Batman and Robin... Nuh-uh. There's nothing there other than the shame Joel Schumacher and co. rightfully felt when they were making it.
I respect your opinion and all, but this is the antithesis of what the video tries to say, but with all the gusto of someone who thinks they can “prove” their opinion by simply being a contrarian.
I like all four films. Forever and Robin are not that bad. Batman: Triumphant is actually called Batman: Unchained and they consider Harley Quinn for that one. Nicholas Cage was considered to play Scarecrow in Unchained. Before Batman Forever came to be, Paul Reubens (Peewee Herman) were considered to be the Riddler.
Nah, I disagree with you. The Riddler was fun. I agree with you on Two Face, but The Riddler had a reason for being the way he was, he'd absorbed so much brainpower he'd lost his mind. He was brilliant but chaotic, and you had no idea what he was going to do next. Mr Freeze and Poison Ivy were just annoying, goofy, and had no reason to be that way. How are we supposed to believe Viktor Frieze is mourning his wife and lamenting his transformation into a being unable to bear human touch, when he's leading a toe-tapping rendition of "I'm Mr Snow", IN BUNNY SLIPPERS?! Then there's Barbara. They didn't even attempt to have Alicia Silverstone talk in a British accent, and it's nine kinds of creepy that her uncle made her a suit complete with boob enhancements, buttcrack, and high heels.
Forever is the better movie because it's actually about something - Batman trying to stop Robin becoming a vengeful murderer like he became after his parents death. It's an actual follow up to the Burton films, whereas B and R is basically a completely unrelated movie. Also, Ivy and Bane were butchered way worse than Two Face. The goofy version of Riddler and Two Face were the predominant versions outside of the animated series, with a lot of the famous Two Face stuff coming from The Long Halloween, a comic that came out after Forever.
I've heard the original cut of Batman Forever was longer and handled the balencing act of tones pretty better in the final film. Apparently, Warner Bros wanted to make sure only families would see this.
I think something that gets lost in today's lense is that Batman 89 was one of the biggest things that made the mainstream realize Batman could be a serious character. This, the animated series, and Dark Knight Returns changed public perception of Batman. And then.... Batman and Robin is supposed to be the SAME character as Keatons Batman. And no. Just no. I understand where Trevor is coming from, but I like Forever more since at least it TRIED to carry on from the previous movie, even though it doesn't work at all. Batman and Robin just threw it all in the trash can.
The trajectory of the films was supposed to be a vengeful, revenge-driven Bruce in Batman '89 and Batman Returns, evaluating why he does things the way he does in Batman Forever (which is more apparent in the deleted scenes of that film), and then him becoming a more mellowed out crimefighter by the time of Batman and Robin. Unfortunately, studio meddling turned what could have been two serious films into two of the more maligned Batman movies.
In your recap of Batman Forever, you basically describe how I felt about Nightmare on Elm Street 2010 remake. They had tried to have their cake and eat it too. Instead of going fully into a new area of exploration they tried to bring in a homage to the original NoE film.
My issue is The Riddler has always been my favorite Batman villain and even though I love Jim Carey in other movies I felt like he was not the right person and the script was not set up for The Riddler. The Riddler is best when he is serious with slight sass. This version felt like the joker. The Riddler is best done almost like a villainous version of Batman not like a knock off of Joker.
While I love Batman and Batman Returns, Batman Forever has always been a guilty pleasure of mine. As for Batman & Robin, I’ve had a complicated relationship with that movie. When I was younger, I enjoyed it, but when I learned that it was despised, I just hopped onto the bandwagon because hating it was still the cool thing to do. However, in recent years, I’ve come to enjoy it in a so bad it’s good way (like The Room of superhero movies).
Honestly, I never liked Joel Schumacher's 'Batman' movies. The one good thing I'll give 'Batman Forever' is how Bruce explains to Dick how vengeance leads to A life where you keep killing people. Other than that, it set the groundwork for 'Batman & Robin', and we all know how that turned out.
Robin is my favorite character in most versions of Batman. I always feel the series is missing something in entries where he's absent, though it's not _as_ severe as Sonic without Tails.
He was meant to play Joker in '89 but they screwed him over and got Nicholson instead but promised him a part as Riddler in a future movie. Then when it came to that film they screwed him over again and got Jim Carrey. A similar thing happened to Billy Dee Williams who played Harvey Dent in '89 and was supposed to play Two Face in a sequel but got replaced by Tommy Lee Jones; fortunately he way able to play Two Face in Lego Batman as a cameo
All I remember as a kid who watched Batman forever was feeling sorry for Mr Freeze with his sad story and the movie being bonkers outside of that. That was all my childhood mind took from that movie as worth remembering. As an adult watching it, this movie felt almost as disjointed as the 90s version of Island of Dr Moreau. Like there were multiple ideas and characters that had just been mashed together.
People can say whatever they want about Batman and Robin, it's a more enjoyable Batman movie than The Killing Joke. I'd prefer watching something laughably bad rather than pulling my hair out in frustration.
I've heard several people say that no one wants to be Robin as a general concept. I don't think this is true. People did look up to Robin. The reason? If a kid was reading the comics he could get the idea that he could potentially be Batman's sidekick one day. Who wouldn't want to work beside Batman? - at least subjectively. Objectively, working beside Batman would be a death sentence.
I don't ever really hear people say that The Dark Knight Rises is a BAD movie, moreso that it just didn't live up to the hype it got and wasn't as good as The Dark Knight.
From what I've gathered by talking to friends, Dark Knight Rises is a 7/10 where as The Dark Knight is more like a 9.5/10 Still good, but it's got flaws you can't ignore.
There was a neat TH-cam video I saw about how a good portion of Batman Forever was cut by the studios. It was supposed to be a psychological examination of Batman that explored why he killed people in the previous two movies and why he felt the need to continue being Batman after he killed the Joker, his parents' murderer. I don't know if the full Schumacher cut of the film would've made it one of the best Batman movies since Two-Face and The Riddler are still over-the-top cartoon parodies of The Joker and Mad Hatter, but I can't help but feel it would've improved it.
I personally disagree, Batman Forever is a WAY more tolerable film than Batman and Robin. I didn’t mind Jim Carey as The Riddler, but Two Face in the film was absolutely horrible and a huge disrespect to the character. However, the film still had its character moments especially in the deleted scenes. Batman and Robin, is a two hour toy commercial and it’s villains are WAY worse and it has little to no story at all. It killed the franchise for over 10 years, and most of all, B&R is Fucking Boring imo. Outside of all the cringe worthy moments, it’s so boring I can’t stand to watch it.
I really enjoyed Nicholson's Joker. He had this dark rage and insanity boiling just beneath the surface, like a proto version of Heath Ledger's Joker. So many absurdly bad and unlikely things happened to him one after the other, it broke his mind and turned him into a dangerously unhinged nihilist. He became bent on wreaking chaos, the same absurdist things that befell him, while trying to pretend to still be calm and civilized in order to lull his enemies into a false sense of security before he unleashed his inner rage.
For me, it's a middle of the road sequel. It does have genuine good stuff but there is a lot of stuff that holds it back. For years, it was considered the most underrated Batman movie of the series but in retrospect, it's far from even that. Batman Forever had the right ingredients but it's like someone pissed in the recipe. It misses the mark on it's tone than Batman & Robin because it's so inconsistent tone wise, It doesn't know if it wants to be kiddy or gritty due to the battle of the studio meddling the production and Schumacher wanting it one way or another. And it misses the mark on the villains completely. Gone are the emotionally compelling villains and instead replaced with generic as hell kids movie villains and they are the bread and butter of Batman's stories. Bruce's psychological issues is good and further develops his character that Keaton's sorta lacked but you can't treat this like an average MCU film where you have a good hero but the villain sucks. The villain has to be the bread and butter in a Batman movie, otherwise you lack any tension or engage the audience, just with flashy eye-candy to distract your children for an hour. Batman Forever isn't a bad thought, it's just disappointing and that hurts a lot more than if it was just a bad movie; to see the potential put to waste.
Whoever said Richard Prior had no business in s Superman film is full of it. 3 is the only one I remember most of out of the Reeve films, and I haven't seen it in over 30 years. From how ill-informed people were about hacking, to drunken Kal-El, to complete assimilation by computer- that was the best Reeve Superman, even beating out the cold war paranoia solar-powered Captain Planet villain in 4 (which was hilarious even at the time). I can only remember Zod kicked ass in 2, but can't remember the reign of terror. In 1, I can only remember the earth reversing rotation scene. Arnold was perfect for Freeze- all considering the cheesy over-the-top plot. Bane as a brainless idiot and Ivy being generic seductress were mostly forgettable. Like I can only remember the Bat Credit Card scene because it's a meme, I always forget the context. Carry was decent as the Riddler, though mostly Jim Carry through it. Jones was Jones playing Two Face. They had far better on-screen chemistry than Arnold and what's-her-name, as at least I can remember Carry and Jones in two scenes together hamming it up. I can only remember Ivy being terrified of Arnold at the end- but I can remember a lot more of that movie, though admittedly almost entirely Arnold's scenes. I can remember a ton more from Batman and Returns, the actors had chemistry and it showed.
There is NO WAY Batman Forever is worse than Batman and Robin. It may have brought in the flamboyant themes that defined the latter film, however it managed to be a decent movie despite it not being the dark and serious film its director wanted to make. After the Batman Returns fallout, Warner Bros demanded the next Batman film be as kid friendly as possible. That order is the reason Michael Keaton stepped away from the film. Tim Burton being pushed out was also a factor however I think Keaton would have stayed on if the script maintained the tone set by the previous films.
It fucking bugs the absolute HELL out of me that Tommy Lee Jones would have been a PERFECT Two-Face! He wasnt given a good script that plays to the character's strengths and he wasnt taking it seriously. It fucking blows balls
In defense of the tone in spider man 3, that was to display how much control Peter was losing to venom. It might not have been perfect there but it was leagues better that in Batman forever
The Tonal Shift isn’t badly written at all, it’s shows how the reality that you’re hurting people hits hard, especially after the delusions of self confidence and joy
Man, I always feel cheated. Batman forever was meant to be much darker than what we got. Search for the audiobook to know what I mean. For now, in the book/audiobook on TH-cam, Harvey was Gotham’s leading DA and was Batman’s friend, helping to clear his name of the whole Penguin situation from Batman returns. After that, Batman asked Harvey to meet him on a rooftop. Harvey wanted to retire and settle down but Batman didn’t let him, saying that they are two sides of the same coin. Batman promised Harvey that as a reward for staying DA, Batman would protect him NO MATTER WHAT. We all know what happened after that and Two Face was sent to prison for Two years until he escaped by killing a prison guard, by getting him to play double or nothing, where Two Face’s coin landed on the bad side and he said nothing means you don’t even get to live. Throughout the book, Batman feels guilty about what happened and at the circus instead of saying I’m Batman was going to say something he had mentioned to Dent at the rooftop and actively tries to stop Harvey by throwing a gun to his head, hoping it will distract him from flipping the coin at the circus. Not only is Batman sympathetic to Harvey but Two Face follows his coin much more in this version, not minding when the good side turns up. He even tried to kill Riddler at one point after Face thought that he had successfully killed Batman. The infamous coin toss scene is still in there but as Face clearly explains “For each time Batman and chase pass me, it’s a new chance to kill him, requiring a new toss”. Finally, Face dies differently and it was Dent that chooses the death. After the “you’ve always been a good friend” line, Harvey flips and Batman still feeling guilty only uses something to knock the coin off tangent. Face catches it but before he can flip again to see what is the accurate result, Robin says he acts as though the coin is making the decisions for him and asks him to flip for himself. Face does and WITHOUT looking at the outcome smiles at Robin, says “you owe us one sunny!” and kills himself, making as what Batman says is the first real decision he’s made in years
Both movies are utter shit. Even if they were made today, they didn’t have the comedic delivery like the MCU has. A dark gritty Batman seems to work, and it’s a classic example of don’t fix it if it’s not broke. The studios were definitely wrong to think other wise about Batman Returns, I personally love the dark knight trilogy more, but Michael Keaton and Christian Bale comparing is like apples and oranges. It’s all about preference and being happy to have both great sets of films. Real quick I have to disagree with Val Kilmer’s Bruce Wayne/Batman, he used the same voice and personality for both alter egos just like Clooney, I’d say they both did a terrible job or were not fit for the roles.
for me, the joel schummacher era was the worst off all, so i hate this two movies.They are good examples of how producers tried to take the darker tone because they wanted to "sell more toys" and ruined a beloved caracther.
It's just a shame that Joel gets the blame cuz he was just delivering what they asked. And really, his duology fits as basically a more action packed version of the Adam West show, the colors really bring that comic book vibe.
First, my favorite Batman villain is the Joker (the Riddler rating a fairly close second). I remember well the scuttlebutt about BATMAN RETURNS. Seemingly everyone but me was saying it was "too dark." I believed - at least at the time - that this accusation was unfair. If you think about it, BATMAN RETURNS is to BATMAN (1989) what INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM is to RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK; both BATMAN RETURNS and THE TEMPLE OF DOOM took the "franchise original sin" of "too much" horror, gore, and overall darkness in their predecessors and emphasized them much more. (Don't forget, BATMAN showed a man literally getting roasted alive and RAIDERS showed a man chopped up by propeller blades.) Besides, I actually believe BATMAN RETURNS to, in some ways, be LESS dark than the '89 film. I pointed out to my parents and anyone else who would listen that the plot of the sequel is essentially less morbid and nihilistic. Jack Nicholson's Joker simply wanted to kill people throughout the entire film, while the Penguin had the more civilized goal of running for mayor. I'm not saying he and Max Shreck were not evil, but at least they came up with a clever scheme, and one that was more understandable than mass murder. When it comes to BATMAN FOREVER, meanwhile, I've always defended the film. I saw it as a young teenager, and while I noted the campy aspects, I still considered it a dark film.
I remember watching Batman and Robin on The Hub years ago and... it wasn't insufferable, I made it through okay, I've definitely seen worse, and even then I hardly considered Batman and Robin to be worst movie ever material. Of course it's not good, but I take it DC fans are far more dramatic than most other fans.
@@worthybutter2004 I’m just saying, Batman and Robin seems like a typical bad film, not a worst ever bad film. I didn’t know if it was DC fans or others perpetuating that.
The Dark Knight Rises is not hated. It’s actually very well liked by the majority of those who have seen it and it’s my personal favorite Batman film of all time. Thing is, the film was hyped up so much that a number of people had ideas of what the film should be about before it was released and so when not only does it follow The Dark Knight but does not live up to a number of peoples expectations people were disappointed. As time goes on, I’ve noticed a good chunk of people have changed their tune a bit on The Dark Knight Rises. I think because I saw it as part of the marathon of the trilogy in some theaters when it came out in 2012 is why I love The Dark Knight Rises as much as I do, as I got to see Bruce Wayne’s journey as Batman from the mind of Christopher Nolan and company from beginning to end over the course of 7 and a half hours, which included 15 minute breaks between films, so that being the way I saw The Dark Knight Rises was probably the best way. At least in my opinion, since you see it all from beginning to end and there’s a story shown throughout the trilogy all the while each film can be viewed on their own and there’s enough context given in the last two films that you can enjoy them on their own, though Rises really benefits if you see the first two first, especially since it comes full circle with Batman Begins and the League of Shadows returns and The Dark Knight gives even better context as to what happened with Harvey Dent and why Batman is hidden from the public for 8 years. Also, Christian Bale didn’t try hard to make the distinction between Batman and Bruce Wayne. He did a great job of performing the three personas if Bruce Wayne. Batman is where he channels his anger and pain, the playboy Bruce is where he essentially is aloof and is seen as a fairly competent business man that dates a lot of models and there’s the real Bruce that people close to him, such as Alfred, Fox, Rachel and later Selina, Blake and Gordon get to see, which I’ve not really seen any other actor do nor has it really been written where Bruce Wayne has three main personas done in live action. The big criticism I’ve always seen is his Batman voice, which people say it was good in Batman Begins, yet bad in the last two and that takes away from his performance for some people apparently, yet it’s not at all his fault as to why he sounds the way he does in the last two films. Nolan wanted Bale to sound darker than he did in Batman Begins as in his mind, the more Bruce Wayne is Batman, the darker he’ll sound, but Bale wouldn’t be able to do that without constantly losing his voice, which he actually did the first time he was Batman for a full day of shooting Batman scenes on Batman Begins. So Bale used his voice from Batman Begins in all three films, but in post production, Nolan and his editing team, likely sound editing, took every line of dialogue Bale said as Batman and put an effect on those lines where it sounds very dark and growling. People blame Bale, yet this bit of information has been floating around for a few years. I remember seeing an article somewhere around 2018. Can’t recall which website nor did I bookmark it since it got some traction for awhile before other things became the topic of discussion.
Tommy Lee Jones was 100% an atrocious choice for the role Two-Face. Batman Forever is supposed to take place in the same universe as the Tim Burton films, so it would make more sense for Billy Dee Williams to take the role, since he played Dent in 89. Also Jones just going all ham, ruining the whole point of the character just makes it worse. Making him a bombastic gangster who wants things to go his way and practically making him Joker 2.0 JUST DOESN’T WORK! Luckily, Billy finally got his chance to play Two-Face in The LEGO Batman Movie in 2017, 28 years after the first Burton film.
I think Carrey's performance as Riddler could make sense, if Tommy Lee Jones hadn't been trying to out-Jim Carrey Jim Carrey. The script still would have been garbage, but if they were dead set on having a Joker style giggly maniac... yeah, a Gorshin-style Riddler is a fine enough choice. In 90's, Carrey would be the guy to hire to do that. Whether it was Tommy's idea to act like that or Schumaker told him to try and match Jim's energy, Two-Face is a just a terrible Joker fill-in on paper, and Jones definitely doesn't do the character any favors with his performance. I will say, I don't know if Jones really only acted like that to spite Carrey, but I have DEFINITELY heard Jim himself tell the story in an interview of meeting Tommy Lee Jones at a restaurant either before or early on during production - Tommy basically fake greeted him, leaned in close and told him he hated him. Carrey is a bit of a nut, but doesn't strike me as an outright liar. I'm sure the story has some truth to it.
In the 66 Show there is an Atomic Pile , and if its Still in universe cannon then The Batman Forever Batcave Could maybe have one or a newer version of one going on? So when after The Riddler Blows up the Batcave , In Batman Forever here , He in theory would Have caused a huge Meltdown and area of destruction and radiation.
Batman Forever isn't that bad. I also liked Batman 66. Scarecrow in begins isn't bad but there was no reason to reboot the series. just move it forward. and Green Lantern wasn't horrible le either not so bad they needed to reboot at least. Super Man returns was better then Man of Steal too. the animated films are all good too. Even Killing Joke's not a big deal if you never read the comics and know nothing about the characters. For this Riddler acts just like the TV show Two Face I n ever saw before so I couldn't judge best way to do two face would be to have shows Harvey and Bruce as friends in an earlier movie Also Dark Knight's Joker isn't joker either but I don't see two face as "Joker" He could be better but that's only after seeing other versions
I think Batman Returns is pretty bad. They treat Penguin like a complex villain even though he's really simple, and the businessman character like a simple villain, even though he's complex. That, and I'll never buy Penguin being made into a politician.
4:57 You LIKE Robin being an adult!? Thats my biggest problem with both movies! I love Robin being Batman's son, adoptive in the case of Dick, Jason, and Tim. Its the dynamic that made me love the Batman franchise!
17:18-17:29 While I can understand where you are coming from with this impression given how bloated the film is with its content, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with the sentiment. For one, the montage of Peter enjoying the symbiote is its own scene separate from the date at MJ's restaurant scene and it ends with a cut to Flint Marko (aka Sandman) recovering after his fight with Spider-Man. Secondly, I think the restaurant scene manages to ease a viewer into the two tones it has. It starts like how you would expect it to go: wild and over the top based on Peter impressing the customers and upstaging MJ with his dance moves, with the music just as bombastic to match the mood. After he says "Now, dig on this", the music simmers down, as does his moves, just as he invites Gwen to dance. The music is in sync with the intimate mood between the two of them and their dancing eases more and more from the sporadic choreography from before until Peter slow dips Gwen towards MJ. The music coming to a stop and effectively ruining the romantic moment Gwen thought they were having. This is what sets the awkward tension in the atmosphere and continues to build that uncomfortable tone, signifying that something tense and horrible is going to occur as Peter's confrontation with the security unfolds and once he hits MJ in the process, the next frame holds on him as he comes to his senses and is in shock of his actions, just as much as the audience should be.
It is dumb that they paired Mr Freeze and Poison Ivy in the same movie as they don’t really match and really feels like two different movie ideas in one but like with Two-Face and Riddler, the pairing for the movie are entertaining and both actors do they’re best with the script given to them
I agree that Batman Forever sucks and I wanna give a piece of my mind: (big-butt comment comin' up) Introduction: I never was too keen on the "What's more/less faithful to the comics" arguments because they tend to be very subjective (besides the comics change all the time so this argument works if the movie in question is trying to adapt a specific comic and failing, like "The Killing Joke") and try to judge and appreciate the Batman films on their own merits as movies (and "The Killing Joke" still works as a pretty lackluster animated movie too). I love the Burtonverse duology, they are not perfect, there are some things in 1989 I wish were a bit more flashed out in places and Batman Returns can feel like a bit of a hot mess with all the different storylines that go on and some things remaining unresolved (Shreck's son is still alive, is he gonna carry on the energy-stealing plant plot?), but even with their imperfections I find myself deeply immersed in their German Expressionism visuals and the larger-than-life, melodramatic approach and occasional dark campiness. The Nolan Trilogy and the recent "The Batman", while absolutely NOT without merit, just failed to grab me the way the Burtonverse films did. Now onto the two Joel Schumacher films. These days I adore "Batman & Robin" as a so bad it's good film, I'd rather watch this movie every day of the week and have a BIG laugh at the silliest stuff in it, give me this type of "bad" movie instead of the Snyderverse, which is pretentious, nonsensical, joyless, misguided and dull ON TOP on being bad, and with a fandom so annoying and cult-like it gives the most diehard death threats-happy Nolan fanboys a run for their money. A lot of "modern" bad blockbusters just made me so much more mad and miserable than "Batman & Robin" ever did, I just look at it and feel like "Man, do people still get mad at the Bat Credit Card after seeing the miserable and frustrating clown shows the Alien, Jurassic Park, Terminator and Star Wars and most modern DC Comics movies have become?" Batman Forever makes me pretty mad nowadays. On paper, this could've been the BEST out of the original Batman flicks series while also being more "comic accurate" (again, whatever the hell that means anyway), but what kills all the potential... is as you said the awful EXECUTION: 1= Two-Face is suddenly white (great job not letting a black man getting a major role in a comic book film, Joel...) and his crazy giggling manchild persona just doesn't work with the Harvey Dent we met in 1989. It's lazy writing, he should've taken himself a little more seriously so that The Riddler can bounce off of him, instead of being a PAIR of screaming giggling manchildren villains. 2= I never cared about Batman killing because the Burtonverse films never paid attention or addressed it... but this movie decides to DO that, and Batman ends up being a hypocrite by telling Dick not to kill Two-Face but intentionally causing his death. How is this an improvement over Keaton's Batman? At least he wasn't a hypocrite. Either have Batman follow through with his new No Kill rule and have him capture Two-Face, or have Two-Face die in another way if he MUST die. It's especially annoying because in his final moments Two-Face momentarily sobered up and addressed to Bruce as his friend... and then he got tricked into falling to his death. Personally this is worse and MORE annoying than Keaton's body-count. Also Kilmer's Batman is an idiot for entering into a mind-reading machine where everyone can see his secret. A-Are we still seriously meant to think THIS is good but the Bat Credit Card is insulting to the character? 3= Commissioner Gordon is somehow more pointless and inept than he was in the previous films. At times he gave off the vibes of the Mayor from Powerpuff Girls, just standing around stating the obvious like a clueless idiot, he doesn't question the suicide note and edited security tape and really doesn't get anything done, and he and his men are so inept they allow Chase Meridian to mess with the Bat signal. 4= Oh god, Chase... How I bloody loathe her. -_- Again, _on paper_ the idea of Bruce having a psychiatrist love interest sounds interesting, but how did the execution kill this good idea? By making her a Fanservice girl (they actually cast Nicole Kidman for her looks and rejected an older actress for being "less attractive"... that says ALL you need to know about the priorities the makers had for this godawful character), she's a doctor yet she unprofessionally gets personal with a client and all her "clever psychiatrist observations" are just STATING THE OBVIOUS or saying things Bruce already knows... and then in the end she just becomes a damsel in distress. And I'm meant to buy into the romance she has with Bruce... who decides to STOP BEING BATMAN for her. Seriously??? I'm meant to believe this personified eyecandy who is boring and inferior in every way to Vicki Vale and Michelle Pfeiffer's Selina/Catwoman is SO good Bruce would hang up the cape for her?!? This is sooooooo bad... forget the Bat Credit Card, this is such an insult to thinking brains... -_- Positives? I actually don't mind Chris O'Donnell's Robin, I can forgive his whiny moments since he's mourning the death of his family, and I did like how they explained the look of his costume, basing it on the circus uniform he and his family wore, it's nice and neat IMO. And I guess I kinda like how The Riddler is kind of a proto-Syndrome from "The Incredibles" in being this embittered fanboy who turns to loathe his idol, though unlike Syndrome I didn't really get what Nygma's endgoal was gonna be AFTER his petty revenge on Bruce... some Spy Kids villain reject scheme about sucking people's brains to become a big brain or some stuff...? Meh And yes, I know the movie has deleted scenes. No, they don't really fix the issues I have with the film even if they were kept. "Batman & Robin" is just goofy silly fun, "Batman Forever" is a depressing and annoying waste of potential, it's inferior in almost every way to the previous Tim Burton films, and therefore I genuinely dislike it.
My favorite of the 2 discussed is Batman Forever, because I love Jim Carrey and it was my first Batman film after Batman ('89). My favorite live-action Batman film is Batman Returns. My favorite Batman villain is The Riddler.
In interviews videos etc around I have heard there is a 3 hour version or more of Batman Forever and I think recently I heard of it being Put around in Theaters too .
Both films were directed by Joel Schumacher and I prefer Batman forever because Val kilmer did a great Batman. George Clooney was George Clooney. Now Tommy lee Jones to me was doing the warden Guy in Natural born Killers PG 13 version. Now when I originally saw this I was a big Jim Carrey fan at the time. And kinda rooted for him. And I felt Joel kinda was the retro 60s campy TV series in Batman forever. But both films is turn off your mind popcorn movies.Burton and Nolan Batman movies were darker in tone. Keaton and Bale were the best Batmans. With Kilmer a good third. I can't finish that last one with Twilight guy.
A lot of people get that scene of Two-Face flipping his coin over and over again wrong he's not doing it to get the option he wants he's flipping it so many times for each person in that house
8:04 i wouldn't call batman and robin a homage to the 60s show because 1 the 60s never an over emphasis on neon and shit 2 the 60s also never tried to get you to take it seriously and put some sort psychological focus quite like the shumacker films attempted to do to try and somewhat stay true to the burton film's continue the theme of duality and the psychological brooding gothic shit as sequels while also failing at it completely giving off a bizzarly inconsistent tone and not doing it well either and 3 the 60s show was actually funny
I really like Scarecrow from Batman Begins. That being said, I am not familiar with the character whatsoever, so I believe you that it was not a good adaptation of the character. I still can't help but love it though.
I do agree with you that it was a bad movie. But I disagree about Jim Carrey and Tommy Lee Jones. Tommy Lee Jones despised Jim Carey's style of humour - even telling him so when they first met - so to claim that Tommy Lee Jones was just a second Jim Carey in the movie is nonsense. I also don't think that Jim Carey was playing himself. Yes it had his distinct style of humour. But as an actor, he has taken every single role very seriously when getting into character. I guarantee you that he had a method to the madness of how he envisioned playing the Riddler. Even though I don't like the movie, I do like the acting of both the villains. They took what was given to them in the script and went all out with it.
I think robin in batman forever needs to be a bit younger then again Val kilmar s batman is the right age but Chris O'Donnell being in his mid twenties it's just a stupid Idea
YES!!! I ACTUALLY AGREE!!! Months ago I decided to do a marathon on these four films and here’s my opinion: Batman 1989: 7/10 Batman Returns: 9/10 Batman Forever: 3/10 Batman & Robin: 5.5/10 But there is of course reasons why I prefer Batman & Robin and even felt like it should have been considered as a better movie than Batman Forever. Let’s talk about Batman & Robin for a moment. Arnold had the body to play as Arnold and fact the Mr. Freeze armor was pretty tight, in fact I can say that the costumes in Batman & Robin were great and original. There’s people who says that George Clooney’s Bruce Wayne is alright, but honestly I thought he was a great Bruce Wayne as he does give me a HUGE Bruce Wayne vibe. The Batman part of George Clooney, not too bad, could have been better but I kind of really don’t care about it. As that, Uma Thurman nailed that role of Poison Ivy and like what most people say: Poison Ivy was probably the best character in that movie. Batman & Robin has some cringe moments in fact super cringe, like whenever you see the characters put on their gear and weapons, why do you have to see their butts? What’s with the butt shots? As that, Mr. Freeze had some puns that were just cringe and it’s not Arnold’s fault that he has an accent BUT with his accent, some of the puns just sound kind of cursed. But the jokes were cursed that I just laughed in a cringe way, I wasn’t entirely cringe cringe, in fact there were some puns that I actually did laugh. But I will admit that Bane actually does sucks. Like, Bane immediately just followed Poison Ivy when she told him to go and you know those kisses that Poison Ivy give that makes people fell in love with her and do things for her? I noticed on screen that she never does that to Bane, so is Bane just royal to her or she has give Bane those kisses but off screen though? Bane must have follow her either she flirted with him off screen, or she’s just a beautiful girl and there’s no reason for him to not do her a favor? Or, considering that Poison Ivy killed the scientist that kidnapped Bane, and Bane was happy about it and wanted to show her his respect? But there has been no explanation about this, and plus Bane just says random words and his defeat was terrible. In fact, they made Bane in this movie, a skinny American serial killer, where Bane was originally a very muscular Mexican wrestler. Then for the plot, eh, bad but I will admit that there were some logical sense to it. Now let’s go to Batman Forever, and Jesus Christ, it is a mess. The costumes just looked like they were made for little kids, The Riddler’s character was just too confusing to follow and Tooth Face was just THERE. Literally Val Kilmer was a shitass pisscock Batman, he literally does not have the body for Batman as literally he looks like Val Kilmer dresses up as Batman… oh wait. Even his Bruce Wayne wasn’t good, he did not felt like a Bruce Wayne, he just felt like… Val Kilmer. All the jokes and puns were way to cringe and most of those were just put there for no damn reason. Literally, the Riddler for no reason danced when his boss was looking at that TV project of the Riddler’s like why. Literally the first half of the film was just all crazy that I could not tell what was going on at all. We literally got this therapist chick who has a relationship with Batman that… their relationship was just rushed and had no meaning to it. Like it was only the second half where it was getting better with getting to know Robin/Dick Grace but even then, it did had some moments that were just like “what”. But it was just until the last goofy moment of The Riddler in that film that was just not needed like he could have said “It was Bruce Wayne”, and the therapist replied “Nice theory, but I know who Bruce Wayne is” but nope the Riddler had to shout that he’s Batman. Then the film ended as it was just… a mess. So overall, Batman & Robin was less corny, less cringe and had some common sense to it meanwhile, Batman Forever was way too corny, way too cringe and had no common sense. Batman Forever was too disappointing that it’s not a BATMAN film it’s a BADMAN film (see what I did there). But anyway, I agree that Batman & Robin was better and thank you for your time reading this.
I... sort of agree with this? Both are pretty poor flicks, but at least Batman and Robin fully embraced the camp while Forever felt like it was caught between trying to be a serious psychological drama and a Jim Carrey film. I had a lot more 'wtf' moments watching Forever than I did the latter film.
I think it’s weird to call a movie worse than “x”. What makes a movie bad? Is it something that is clearly meant to be a kids commercial with no real thought out into it? A movie that is just embarrassing g to watch? Or a movie whoose message is fucked up? Or is it something that is BOORRING. I think a living that is just not interesting. Batman and Robin is stupid, very boring at times, and an insult to kids’ imagination. However, it’s also memorable. Arnold and uma clearly love being there-being all corny. How many lines can you quote or get drunk and watch? That’s Batman and Robin. A movie so bad that you like having friends watch it. Batman forever? Not so much. I guess Jim Carey but he’s is not the riddler-hell he is not the 1960s riddler who had a charm to it. It’s just Jim Carey acting like the joker. There so my two things we remember the movie for-that famous gif, and the extras saying dumb lines. Batman Returns is an embarrassing bad movie that showed Burton dosnt care about Batman. And the more I watch it, the less interested I am in it especially when Batman TAS became the dominant version and the campy Batman 1960s looks more fun. Batman 1989 May technically be the best live action Batman of the pre Christopher Nolan series but that Batman KILLED people, and did not use any of the supporting cast members aside from Vicky vale well.
I have a very mixed opinion of Jim Carey. He can be very, very good but he can also be very, very bad. I agree that his Riddler isn't very good but then his Riddler is very much Jim Carey incarnate. Jim Carey does it in film after film all too often. Raping the screen with his mugging and over the top Jerry Lewis impersonation. For example I found his character in Dumb and Dumber to be extremely annoying and in desperate need of termination. We have seen this all before from Jerry Lewis and in the worst Danny Kaye spastic antics. I don't find it funny. Fortunately when Jim Carey is under some sort of control he is very good. Like in The Truman Show. Sadly though all too often he plays characters that are, too me, extremely annoying and in need of death.
anyways even though I'm not really that big of a batman fan anymore I'm just gonna do a minor ranking of the original batman film series 4 batman and robin 3 batman forever 2 batman and 1 batman returns
In all honesty I find Batman and Robin a lot more enjoyable than almost any of the marvel movies coming out nowadays. It’s that much of a guilty pleasure. Prove me wrong but not all of them by any means.
I didn't like Batman Forever 1. The doctor is supposed to be an elderly woman [Leslie Thompkins], 2. Dick Grayson is an only child plus Dick's parents where killed by Tony Zuko not Two-Face. 1989 Batman is the better film all of the others didn't age well after Batman Returns. It was nice to see Robin in the films other than the classic TV series movie. The gripe I also have with Barbara "Pennyworth" in the movie. She's supposed to be the daughter of James Gordon. Bane is terrible in both Batman & Robin and Dark Knight Rises.
One of the last three reviews I'll be making! Originally set for a June 2022 release (recorded back in February), but after a lot of schedule changes, it's finally here!
Didn't know that Batman Forever's somewhat worse than Batman & Robin until I saw this video you made.
Okay .... You made your point
i am not gonna lie, tommy lee jones trying to be a comedy version of two face is the worst part of the movie.
@@rafaelbrites3607 Can't balme the guy
@@thefantasticretroreviewer3941 but i don´t. i blame on the producers of the film.
But does Batman and Robin have BABY I COMPARE YOU TO A KISS FROM A ROSE ON THE GREY?
EXACTLY!! No joke here, I still have the soundtrack on cd, and it’s bloody amazing.
I think the silliness of mr freeze in the movie makes some sense. He’s feeling joy from the excitement of finally getting to see his wife as he remembered. Basically. He’s getting ready to smile for his wife. Is this idea dumb, yes, but it fits
No.
Look, I'll be clear: I'll never take people who think Forever is worse than And Robin seriously, because at least Forever had vision. There was character growth, there were good ideas, it felt like things had at least come full circle in that film, the humour was genuinely funny, and the action is well choreographed without being ridiculous. Batman and Robin... Nuh-uh. There's nothing there other than the shame Joel Schumacher and co. rightfully felt when they were making it.
I respect your opinion and all, but this is the antithesis of what the video tries to say, but with all the gusto of someone who thinks they can “prove” their opinion by simply being a contrarian.
@tyrannosaurusallen3703 yep, that's what disagreeing with a video is chum.
you clearly didn't watch the video
@@jlong908uh no he's essentially going out of his way to say his opinion is wrong
I like all four films. Forever and Robin are not that bad. Batman: Triumphant is actually called Batman: Unchained and they consider Harley Quinn for that one. Nicholas Cage was considered to play Scarecrow in Unchained. Before Batman Forever came to be, Paul Reubens (Peewee Herman) were considered to be the Riddler.
no their bad
Nicholas cage would be a perfect scarecrow
@@jessicapinkman-xm2eg they're all awesome.
Nah, I disagree with you. The Riddler was fun. I agree with you on Two Face, but The Riddler had a reason for being the way he was, he'd absorbed so much brainpower he'd lost his mind. He was brilliant but chaotic, and you had no idea what he was going to do next.
Mr Freeze and Poison Ivy were just annoying, goofy, and had no reason to be that way. How are we supposed to believe Viktor Frieze is mourning his wife and lamenting his transformation into a being unable to bear human touch, when he's leading a toe-tapping rendition of "I'm Mr Snow", IN BUNNY SLIPPERS?!
Then there's Barbara. They didn't even attempt to have Alicia Silverstone talk in a British accent, and it's nine kinds of creepy that her uncle made her a suit complete with boob enhancements, buttcrack, and high heels.
Forever is the better movie because it's actually about something - Batman trying to stop Robin becoming a vengeful murderer like he became after his parents death. It's an actual follow up to the Burton films, whereas B and R is basically a completely unrelated movie. Also, Ivy and Bane were butchered way worse than Two Face. The goofy version of Riddler and Two Face were the predominant versions outside of the animated series, with a lot of the famous Two Face stuff coming from The Long Halloween, a comic that came out after Forever.
Okay I just rewatched Batman and Robin and I agree with the video now
theme's don't translate to good storytelling
I've heard the original cut of Batman Forever was longer and handled the balencing act of tones pretty better in the final film. Apparently, Warner Bros wanted to make sure only families would see this.
I didn't know fans hated The Dark Knight Rises, i simply thought that it was seen as the weakest in the trilogy and that Bane was the best part.
I personally hated the trilogy of the Dark Knight movies
@@trevorjenkins2176 They are my favourite but I respect you
@@ThierryRocksTV same here!
I think something that gets lost in today's lense is that Batman 89 was one of the biggest things that made the mainstream realize Batman could be a serious character. This, the animated series, and Dark Knight Returns changed public perception of Batman. And then.... Batman and Robin is supposed to be the SAME character as Keatons Batman. And no. Just no. I understand where Trevor is coming from, but I like Forever more since at least it TRIED to carry on from the previous movie, even though it doesn't work at all. Batman and Robin just threw it all in the trash can.
I agree.
The trajectory of the films was supposed to be a vengeful, revenge-driven Bruce in Batman '89 and Batman Returns, evaluating why he does things the way he does in Batman Forever (which is more apparent in the deleted scenes of that film), and then him becoming a more mellowed out crimefighter by the time of Batman and Robin. Unfortunately, studio meddling turned what could have been two serious films into two of the more maligned Batman movies.
In your recap of Batman Forever, you basically describe how I felt about Nightmare on Elm Street 2010 remake. They had tried to have their cake and eat it too. Instead of going fully into a new area of exploration they tried to bring in a homage to the original NoE film.
My issue is The Riddler has always been my favorite Batman villain and even though I love Jim Carey in other movies I felt like he was not the right person and the script was not set up for The Riddler. The Riddler is best when he is serious with slight sass. This version felt like the joker. The Riddler is best done almost like a villainous version of Batman not like a knock off of Joker.
Jim Carey would’ve been a great Mad Hatter IMO.
Jim carrey was too funny to be the riddler
While I love Batman and Batman Returns, Batman Forever has always been a guilty pleasure of mine. As for Batman & Robin, I’ve had a complicated relationship with that movie. When I was younger, I enjoyed it, but when I learned that it was despised, I just hopped onto the bandwagon because hating it was still the cool thing to do. However, in recent years, I’ve come to enjoy it in a so bad it’s good way (like The Room of superhero movies).
Honestly, I never liked Joel Schumacher's 'Batman' movies. The one good thing I'll give 'Batman Forever' is how Bruce explains to Dick how vengeance leads to A life where you keep killing people. Other than that, it set the groundwork for 'Batman & Robin', and we all know how that turned out.
Would you have tolerated the two films, if the titles were switched to fit their respective themes?
Robin is my favorite character in most versions of Batman. I always feel the series is missing something in entries where he's absent, though it's not _as_ severe as Sonic without Tails.
I felt the same way about Robin until Batman 1989 showed audiences the dark knight is actually more effective working solo.
@@1977TA For a given value of "more effective"
“That’s not scarecrow; that’s SACKBOY!”
- Trevor, 2023.
Really?
Worse than Batman & Robin?
I'll just go along with it.
When are we getting the Kite-Man cinematic universe, DC?
How about condiment man?
Hell yeah.
@@Sweetestsadist Or Calendar Man? cannot forget him
Clock King
Robin Williams was meant to play the riddler?! Now that’s something I haven’t heard of before.
I hear about that a LOT!
He would’ve been awesome.
He was meant to play Joker in '89 but they screwed him over and got Nicholson instead but promised him a part as Riddler in a future movie. Then when it came to that film they screwed him over again and got Jim Carrey. A similar thing happened to Billy Dee Williams who played Harvey Dent in '89 and was supposed to play Two Face in a sequel but got replaced by Tommy Lee Jones; fortunately he way able to play Two Face in Lego Batman as a cameo
@@Tomversal yeah strange how things work out sometimes. Warner Bros being greedy too I have to say.
I love Batman Forever and Batman and Robin but Forever is my second favorite solo Batman movie behind Returns
As AVGN once said (though it was about the SNES game) “Batman Forever, it sucked back then, and it sucks forever”
All I remember as a kid who watched Batman forever was feeling sorry for Mr Freeze with his sad story and the movie being bonkers outside of that.
That was all my childhood mind took from that movie as worth remembering.
As an adult watching it, this movie felt almost as disjointed as the 90s version of Island of Dr Moreau.
Like there were multiple ideas and characters that had just been mashed together.
People can say whatever they want about Batman and Robin, it's a more enjoyable Batman movie than The Killing Joke.
I'd prefer watching something laughably bad rather than pulling my hair out in frustration.
I've heard several people say that no one wants to be Robin as a general concept. I don't think this is true.
People did look up to Robin. The reason? If a kid was reading the comics he could get the idea that he could potentially be Batman's sidekick one day. Who wouldn't want to work beside Batman? - at least subjectively. Objectively, working beside Batman would be a death sentence.
I don't ever really hear people say that The Dark Knight Rises is a BAD movie, moreso that it just didn't live up to the hype it got and wasn't as good as The Dark Knight.
From what I've gathered by talking to friends, Dark Knight Rises is a 7/10 where as The Dark Knight is more like a 9.5/10
Still good, but it's got flaws you can't ignore.
there are plenty of people who said that
There was a neat TH-cam video I saw about how a good portion of Batman Forever was cut by the studios. It was supposed to be a psychological examination of Batman that explored why he killed people in the previous two movies and why he felt the need to continue being Batman after he killed the Joker, his parents' murderer. I don't know if the full Schumacher cut of the film would've made it one of the best Batman movies since Two-Face and The Riddler are still over-the-top cartoon parodies of The Joker and Mad Hatter, but I can't help but feel it would've improved it.
I personally disagree, Batman Forever is a WAY more tolerable film than Batman and Robin. I didn’t mind Jim Carey as The Riddler, but Two Face in the film was absolutely horrible and a huge disrespect to the character. However, the film still had its character moments especially in the deleted scenes. Batman and Robin, is a two hour toy commercial and it’s villains are WAY worse and it has little to no story at all. It killed the franchise for over 10 years, and most of all, B&R is Fucking Boring imo. Outside of all the cringe worthy moments, it’s so boring I can’t stand to watch it.
Nicholson shoulda played the Riddler, Carey shoulda been the Joker.
I really enjoyed Nicholson's Joker. He had this dark rage and insanity boiling just beneath the surface, like a proto version of Heath Ledger's Joker. So many absurdly bad and unlikely things happened to him one after the other, it broke his mind and turned him into a dangerously unhinged nihilist. He became bent on wreaking chaos, the same absurdist things that befell him, while trying to pretend to still be calm and civilized in order to lull his enemies into a false sense of security before he unleashed his inner rage.
@@WobblesandBean His performance was far too restrained.
Jim Carey would’ve been a great Mad Hatter IMO.
@@roberttreacy8271hell. yes. for jim carrey, mad hatter is perfect for him. cadtoonish. crazy. sometimes creepy. it works.
For me, it's a middle of the road sequel. It does have genuine good stuff but there is a lot of stuff that holds it back. For years, it was considered the most underrated Batman movie of the series but in retrospect, it's far from even that. Batman Forever had the right ingredients but it's like someone pissed in the recipe. It misses the mark on it's tone than Batman & Robin because it's so inconsistent tone wise, It doesn't know if it wants to be kiddy or gritty due to the battle of the studio meddling the production and Schumacher wanting it one way or another. And it misses the mark on the villains completely. Gone are the emotionally compelling villains and instead replaced with generic as hell kids movie villains and they are the bread and butter of Batman's stories. Bruce's psychological issues is good and further develops his character that Keaton's sorta lacked but you can't treat this like an average MCU film where you have a good hero but the villain sucks. The villain has to be the bread and butter in a Batman movie, otherwise you lack any tension or engage the audience, just with flashy eye-candy to distract your children for an hour. Batman Forever isn't a bad thought, it's just disappointing and that hurts a lot more than if it was just a bad movie; to see the potential put to waste.
Whoever said Richard Prior had no business in s Superman film is full of it. 3 is the only one I remember most of out of the Reeve films, and I haven't seen it in over 30 years. From how ill-informed people were about hacking, to drunken Kal-El, to complete assimilation by computer- that was the best Reeve Superman, even beating out the cold war paranoia solar-powered Captain Planet villain in 4 (which was hilarious even at the time). I can only remember Zod kicked ass in 2, but can't remember the reign of terror. In 1, I can only remember the earth reversing rotation scene.
Arnold was perfect for Freeze- all considering the cheesy over-the-top plot. Bane as a brainless idiot and Ivy being generic seductress were mostly forgettable. Like I can only remember the Bat Credit Card scene because it's a meme, I always forget the context. Carry was decent as the Riddler, though mostly Jim Carry through it. Jones was Jones playing Two Face. They had far better on-screen chemistry than Arnold and what's-her-name, as at least I can remember Carry and Jones in two scenes together hamming it up. I can only remember Ivy being terrified of Arnold at the end- but I can remember a lot more of that movie, though admittedly almost entirely Arnold's scenes. I can remember a ton more from Batman and Returns, the actors had chemistry and it showed.
Spider-Man 2 is better than Spider-Man 1 change my mind
Spider-Man 3 is better than Spider-Man 2.
@@ethancoolbro18gamer86 spider man two and three are both better than spider man one.
@@sherbear95spooky hell no
I think most people would agree with you there
@@joeytheslimeboi8900 I don't. I actually think Spider-Man 2 is the worst of the trilogy.
Did you just insult one of the best batman films out there. That pisses me off
There is NO WAY Batman Forever is worse than Batman and Robin. It may have brought in the flamboyant themes that defined the latter film, however it managed to be a decent movie despite it not being the dark and serious film its director wanted to make. After the Batman Returns fallout, Warner Bros demanded the next Batman film be as kid friendly as possible. That order is the reason Michael Keaton stepped away from the film. Tim Burton being pushed out was also a factor however I think Keaton would have stayed on if the script maintained the tone set by the previous films.
I mean, to be fair, neither can hold a candle compared to the 1989 Flipino movie Alyas Batman en Robin.
It fucking bugs the absolute HELL out of me that Tommy Lee Jones would have been a PERFECT Two-Face! He wasnt given a good script that plays to the character's strengths and he wasnt taking it seriously. It fucking blows balls
In defense of the tone in spider man 3, that was to display how much control Peter was losing to venom. It might not have been perfect there but it was leagues better that in Batman forever
The Tonal Shift isn’t badly written at all, it’s shows how the reality that you’re hurting people hits hard, especially after the delusions of self confidence and joy
@@j.j.hector735 thank u for summing up what I thought I said
uh no it wasn't that's just a pathetic excuse
@@jessicapinkman-hd4bw it was my best explanation. And I still think it holds.
Man, I always feel cheated. Batman forever was meant to be much darker than what we got. Search for the audiobook to know what I mean. For now, in the book/audiobook on TH-cam, Harvey was Gotham’s leading DA and was Batman’s friend, helping to clear his name of the whole Penguin situation from Batman returns. After that, Batman asked Harvey to meet him on a rooftop. Harvey wanted to retire and settle down but Batman didn’t let him, saying that they are two sides of the same coin. Batman promised Harvey that as a reward for staying DA, Batman would protect him NO MATTER WHAT. We all know what happened after that and Two Face was sent to prison for Two years until he escaped by killing a prison guard, by getting him to play double or nothing, where Two Face’s coin landed on the bad side and he said nothing means you don’t even get to live.
Throughout the book, Batman feels guilty about what happened and at the circus instead of saying I’m Batman was going to say something he had mentioned to Dent at the rooftop and actively tries to stop Harvey by throwing a gun to his head, hoping it will distract him from flipping the coin at the circus.
Not only is Batman sympathetic to Harvey but Two Face follows his coin much more in this version, not minding when the good side turns up. He even tried to kill Riddler at one point after Face thought that he had successfully killed Batman. The infamous coin toss scene is still in there but as Face clearly explains “For each time Batman and chase pass me, it’s a new chance to kill him, requiring a new toss”.
Finally, Face dies differently and it was Dent that chooses the death. After the “you’ve always been a good friend” line, Harvey flips and Batman still feeling guilty only uses something to knock the coin off tangent. Face catches it but before he can flip again to see what is the accurate result, Robin says he acts as though the coin is making the decisions for him and asks him to flip for himself. Face does and WITHOUT looking at the outcome smiles at Robin, says “you owe us one sunny!” and kills himself, making as what Batman says is the first real decision he’s made in years
Both movies are utter shit. Even if they were made today, they didn’t have the comedic delivery like the MCU has. A dark gritty Batman seems to work, and it’s a classic example of don’t fix it if it’s not broke. The studios were definitely wrong to think other wise about Batman Returns, I personally love the dark knight trilogy more, but Michael Keaton and Christian Bale comparing is like apples and oranges. It’s all about preference and being happy to have both great sets of films.
Real quick I have to disagree with Val Kilmer’s Bruce Wayne/Batman, he used the same voice and personality for both alter egos just like Clooney, I’d say they both did a terrible job or were not fit for the roles.
for me, the joel schummacher era was the worst off all, so i hate this two movies.They are good examples of how producers tried to take the darker tone because they wanted to "sell more toys" and ruined a beloved caracther.
It's just a shame that Joel gets the blame cuz he was just delivering what they asked. And really, his duology fits as basically a more action packed version of the Adam West show, the colors really bring that comic book vibe.
First, my favorite Batman villain is the Joker (the Riddler rating a fairly close second).
I remember well the scuttlebutt about BATMAN RETURNS. Seemingly everyone but me was saying it was "too dark." I believed - at least at the time - that this accusation was unfair. If you think about it, BATMAN RETURNS is to BATMAN (1989) what INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM is to RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK; both BATMAN RETURNS and THE TEMPLE OF DOOM took the "franchise original sin" of "too much" horror, gore, and overall darkness in their predecessors and emphasized them much more. (Don't forget, BATMAN showed a man literally getting roasted alive and RAIDERS showed a man chopped up by propeller blades.) Besides, I actually believe BATMAN RETURNS to, in some ways, be LESS dark than the '89 film. I pointed out to my parents and anyone else who would listen that the plot of the sequel is essentially less morbid and nihilistic. Jack Nicholson's Joker simply wanted to kill people throughout the entire film, while the Penguin had the more civilized goal of running for mayor. I'm not saying he and Max Shreck were not evil, but at least they came up with a clever scheme, and one that was more understandable than mass murder.
When it comes to BATMAN FOREVER, meanwhile, I've always defended the film. I saw it as a young teenager, and while I noted the campy aspects, I still considered it a dark film.
5:14 comic book ROOTS(rimshot) 🥁
I remember watching Batman and Robin on The Hub years ago and... it wasn't insufferable, I made it through okay, I've definitely seen worse, and even then I hardly considered Batman and Robin to be worst movie ever material. Of course it's not good, but I take it DC fans are far more dramatic than most other fans.
"Far more dramatic than most other fans"? Well, that's a bold statement to make.
@@worthybutter2004 I’m just saying, Batman and Robin seems like a typical bad film, not a worst ever bad film. I didn’t know if it was DC fans or others perpetuating that.
The Dark Knight Rises is not hated. It’s actually very well liked by the majority of those who have seen it and it’s my personal favorite Batman film of all time. Thing is, the film was hyped up so much that a number of people had ideas of what the film should be about before it was released and so when not only does it follow The Dark Knight but does not live up to a number of peoples expectations people were disappointed. As time goes on, I’ve noticed a good chunk of people have changed their tune a bit on The Dark Knight Rises. I think because I saw it as part of the marathon of the trilogy in some theaters when it came out in 2012 is why I love The Dark Knight Rises as much as I do, as I got to see Bruce Wayne’s journey as Batman from the mind of Christopher Nolan and company from beginning to end over the course of 7 and a half hours, which included 15 minute breaks between films, so that being the way I saw The Dark Knight Rises was probably the best way. At least in my opinion, since you see it all from beginning to end and there’s a story shown throughout the trilogy all the while each film can be viewed on their own and there’s enough context given in the last two films that you can enjoy them on their own, though Rises really benefits if you see the first two first, especially since it comes full circle with Batman Begins and the League of Shadows returns and The Dark Knight gives even better context as to what happened with Harvey Dent and why Batman is hidden from the public for 8 years. Also, Christian Bale didn’t try hard to make the distinction between Batman and Bruce Wayne. He did a great job of performing the three personas if Bruce Wayne. Batman is where he channels his anger and pain, the playboy Bruce is where he essentially is aloof and is seen as a fairly competent business man that dates a lot of models and there’s the real Bruce that people close to him, such as Alfred, Fox, Rachel and later Selina, Blake and Gordon get to see, which I’ve not really seen any other actor do nor has it really been written where Bruce Wayne has three main personas done in live action. The big criticism I’ve always seen is his Batman voice, which people say it was good in Batman Begins, yet bad in the last two and that takes away from his performance for some people apparently, yet it’s not at all his fault as to why he sounds the way he does in the last two films. Nolan wanted Bale to sound darker than he did in Batman Begins as in his mind, the more Bruce Wayne is Batman, the darker he’ll sound, but Bale wouldn’t be able to do that without constantly losing his voice, which he actually did the first time he was Batman for a full day of shooting Batman scenes on Batman Begins. So Bale used his voice from Batman Begins in all three films, but in post production, Nolan and his editing team, likely sound editing, took every line of dialogue Bale said as Batman and put an effect on those lines where it sounds very dark and growling. People blame Bale, yet this bit of information has been floating around for a few years. I remember seeing an article somewhere around 2018. Can’t recall which website nor did I bookmark it since it got some traction for awhile before other things became the topic of discussion.
Tommy Lee Jones was 100% an atrocious choice for the role Two-Face.
Batman Forever is supposed to take place in the same universe as the Tim Burton films, so it would make more sense for Billy Dee Williams to take the role, since he played Dent in 89.
Also Jones just going all ham, ruining the whole point of the character just makes it worse. Making him a bombastic gangster who wants things to go his way and practically making him Joker 2.0 JUST DOESN’T WORK!
Luckily, Billy finally got his chance to play Two-Face in The LEGO Batman Movie in 2017, 28 years after the first Burton film.
I think Carrey's performance as Riddler could make sense, if Tommy Lee Jones hadn't been trying to out-Jim Carrey Jim Carrey. The script still would have been garbage, but if they were dead set on having a Joker style giggly maniac... yeah, a Gorshin-style Riddler is a fine enough choice. In 90's, Carrey would be the guy to hire to do that. Whether it was Tommy's idea to act like that or Schumaker told him to try and match Jim's energy, Two-Face is a just a terrible Joker fill-in on paper, and Jones definitely doesn't do the character any favors with his performance.
I will say, I don't know if Jones really only acted like that to spite Carrey, but I have DEFINITELY heard Jim himself tell the story in an interview of meeting Tommy Lee Jones at a restaurant either before or early on during production - Tommy basically fake greeted him, leaned in close and told him he hated him. Carrey is a bit of a nut, but doesn't strike me as an outright liar. I'm sure the story has some truth to it.
Batman & Robin was a terrible film but the one good thing about it was Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy
I think they're both fun. Batman can be fun sometimes
In the 66 Show there is an Atomic Pile , and if its Still in universe cannon then The Batman Forever Batcave Could maybe have one or a newer version of one going on? So when after The Riddler Blows up the Batcave , In Batman Forever here , He in theory would Have caused a huge Meltdown and area of destruction and radiation.
Batman Forever isn't that bad. I also liked Batman 66. Scarecrow in begins isn't bad but there was no reason to reboot the series. just move it forward. and Green Lantern wasn't horrible le either not so bad they needed to reboot at least. Super Man returns was better then Man of Steal too. the animated films are all good too. Even Killing Joke's not a big deal if you never read the comics and know nothing about the characters.
For this Riddler acts just like the TV show
Two Face I n ever saw before so I couldn't judge
best way to do two face would be to have shows Harvey and Bruce as friends in an earlier movie
Also Dark Knight's Joker isn't joker either but I don't see two face as "Joker" He could be better but that's only after seeing other versions
I think Batman Returns is pretty bad. They treat Penguin like a complex villain even though he's really simple, and the businessman character like a simple villain, even though he's complex. That, and I'll never buy Penguin being made into a politician.
It is?!
4:57 You LIKE Robin being an adult!?
Thats my biggest problem with both movies!
I love Robin being Batman's son, adoptive in the case of Dick, Jason, and Tim. Its the dynamic that made me love the Batman franchise!
I agree with you on the first 2 - to me, Batman Returns surpassed its predecessor.
17:18-17:29
While I can understand where you are coming from with this impression given how bloated the film is with its content, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with the sentiment. For one, the montage of Peter enjoying the symbiote is its own scene separate from the date at MJ's restaurant scene and it ends with a cut to Flint Marko (aka Sandman) recovering after his fight with Spider-Man. Secondly, I think the restaurant scene manages to ease a viewer into the two tones it has. It starts like how you would expect it to go: wild and over the top based on Peter impressing the customers and upstaging MJ with his dance moves, with the music just as bombastic to match the mood. After he says "Now, dig on this", the music simmers down, as does his moves, just as he invites Gwen to dance. The music is in sync with the intimate mood between the two of them and their dancing eases more and more from the sporadic choreography from before until Peter slow dips Gwen towards MJ. The music coming to a stop and effectively ruining the romantic moment Gwen thought they were having. This is what sets the awkward tension in the atmosphere and continues to build that uncomfortable tone, signifying that something tense and horrible is going to occur as Peter's confrontation with the security unfolds and once he hits MJ in the process, the next frame holds on him as he comes to his senses and is in shock of his actions, just as much as the audience should be.
I remember During an interview Bob Kane Admitted his Favorite Movie Batman Was Val Kilmer.
Considering How he is Built I am surprised they just didn't Have Arnold instead as Bane.
It is dumb that they paired Mr Freeze and Poison Ivy in the same movie as they don’t really match and really feels like two different movie ideas in one but like with Two-Face and Riddler, the pairing for the movie are entertaining and both actors do they’re best with the script given to them
I agree that Batman Forever sucks and I wanna give a piece of my mind:
(big-butt comment comin' up)
Introduction: I never was too keen on the "What's more/less faithful to the comics" arguments because they tend to be very subjective (besides the comics change all the time so this argument works if the movie in question is trying to adapt a specific comic and failing, like "The Killing Joke") and try to judge and appreciate the Batman films on their own merits as movies (and "The Killing Joke" still works as a pretty lackluster animated movie too).
I love the Burtonverse duology, they are not perfect, there are some things in 1989 I wish were a bit more flashed out in places and Batman Returns can feel like a bit of a hot mess with all the different storylines that go on and some things remaining unresolved (Shreck's son is still alive, is he gonna carry on the energy-stealing plant plot?), but even with their imperfections I find myself deeply immersed in their German Expressionism visuals and the larger-than-life, melodramatic approach and occasional dark campiness.
The Nolan Trilogy and the recent "The Batman", while absolutely NOT without merit, just failed to grab me the way the Burtonverse films did.
Now onto the two Joel Schumacher films. These days I adore "Batman & Robin" as a so bad it's good film, I'd rather watch this movie every day of the week and have a BIG laugh at the silliest stuff in it, give me this type of "bad" movie instead of the Snyderverse, which is pretentious, nonsensical, joyless, misguided and dull ON TOP on being bad, and with a fandom so annoying and cult-like it gives the most diehard death threats-happy Nolan fanboys a run for their money.
A lot of "modern" bad blockbusters just made me so much more mad and miserable than "Batman & Robin" ever did, I just look at it and feel like "Man, do people still get mad at the Bat Credit Card after seeing the miserable and frustrating clown shows the Alien, Jurassic Park, Terminator and Star Wars and most modern DC Comics movies have become?"
Batman Forever makes me pretty mad nowadays.
On paper, this could've been the BEST out of the original Batman flicks series while also being more "comic accurate" (again, whatever the hell that means anyway), but what kills all the potential... is as you said the awful EXECUTION:
1= Two-Face is suddenly white (great job not letting a black man getting a major role in a comic book film, Joel...) and his crazy giggling manchild persona just doesn't work with the Harvey Dent we met in 1989. It's lazy writing, he should've taken himself a little more seriously so that The Riddler can bounce off of him, instead of being a PAIR of screaming giggling manchildren villains.
2= I never cared about Batman killing because the Burtonverse films never paid attention or addressed it... but this movie decides to DO that, and Batman ends up being a hypocrite by telling Dick not to kill Two-Face but intentionally causing his death. How is this an improvement over Keaton's Batman? At least he wasn't a hypocrite. Either have Batman follow through with his new No Kill rule and have him capture Two-Face, or have Two-Face die in another way if he MUST die.
It's especially annoying because in his final moments Two-Face momentarily sobered up and addressed to Bruce as his friend... and then he got tricked into falling to his death. Personally this is worse and MORE annoying than Keaton's body-count.
Also Kilmer's Batman is an idiot for entering into a mind-reading machine where everyone can see his secret. A-Are we still seriously meant to think THIS is good but the Bat Credit Card is insulting to the character?
3= Commissioner Gordon is somehow more pointless and inept than he was in the previous films. At times he gave off the vibes of the Mayor from Powerpuff Girls, just standing around stating the obvious like a clueless idiot, he doesn't question the suicide note and edited security tape and really doesn't get anything done, and he and his men are so inept they allow Chase Meridian to mess with the Bat signal.
4= Oh god, Chase... How I bloody loathe her. -_-
Again, _on paper_ the idea of Bruce having a psychiatrist love interest sounds interesting, but how did the execution kill this good idea? By making her a Fanservice girl (they actually cast Nicole Kidman for her looks and rejected an older actress for being "less attractive"... that says ALL you need to know about the priorities the makers had for this godawful character), she's a doctor yet she unprofessionally gets personal with a client and all her "clever psychiatrist observations" are just STATING THE OBVIOUS or saying things Bruce already knows... and then in the end she just becomes a damsel in distress.
And I'm meant to buy into the romance she has with Bruce... who decides to STOP BEING BATMAN for her. Seriously???
I'm meant to believe this personified eyecandy who is boring and inferior in every way to Vicki Vale and Michelle Pfeiffer's Selina/Catwoman is SO good Bruce would hang up the cape for her?!? This is sooooooo bad... forget the Bat Credit Card, this is such an insult to thinking brains... -_-
Positives? I actually don't mind Chris O'Donnell's Robin, I can forgive his whiny moments since he's mourning the death of his family, and I did like how they explained the look of his costume, basing it on the circus uniform he and his family wore, it's nice and neat IMO.
And I guess I kinda like how The Riddler is kind of a proto-Syndrome from "The Incredibles" in being this embittered fanboy who turns to loathe his idol, though unlike Syndrome I didn't really get what Nygma's endgoal was gonna be AFTER his petty revenge on Bruce... some Spy Kids villain reject scheme about sucking people's brains to become a big brain or some stuff...? Meh
And yes, I know the movie has deleted scenes.
No, they don't really fix the issues I have with the film even if they were kept.
"Batman & Robin" is just goofy silly fun, "Batman Forever" is a depressing and annoying waste of potential, it's inferior in almost every way to the previous Tim Burton films, and therefore I genuinely dislike it.
My favorite of the 2 discussed is Batman Forever, because I love Jim Carrey and it was my first Batman film after Batman ('89). My favorite live-action Batman film is Batman Returns. My favorite Batman villain is The Riddler.
Jim Carrey wasn't in Dodgeball?
Right? He showed an image of Justin Long when he said that. Are we missing a joke or something?
If Batman And Robin were somewhat serious the villains should have been played by Patrick Stewart and Julia Roberts
In interviews videos etc around I have heard there is a 3 hour version or more of Batman Forever and I think recently I heard of it being Put around in Theaters too .
Wait, isn't batman supposed to be dark and scary???
Whoever said they didn't like this definitely don't know a thing about batman...
My favorite version of The Riddler is from the 2004 Batman cartoon voiced by Robert Englund A.K.A Freddy Krueger.
As a lifelong Human , Storyteller , Movie , comic book Fan I find Thor 4 and Antman 3 were both possibly the worst movies ever made , just my opinion.
Both films were directed by Joel Schumacher and I prefer Batman forever because Val kilmer did a great Batman. George Clooney was George Clooney. Now Tommy lee Jones to me was doing the warden Guy in Natural born Killers PG 13 version. Now when I originally saw this I was a big Jim Carrey fan at the time. And kinda rooted for him. And I felt Joel kinda was the retro 60s campy TV series in Batman forever. But both films is turn off your mind popcorn movies.Burton and Nolan Batman movies were darker in tone. Keaton and Bale were the best Batmans. With Kilmer a good third. I can't finish that last one with Twilight guy.
A lot of people get that scene of Two-Face flipping his coin over and over again wrong he's not doing it to get the option he wants he's flipping it so many times for each person in that house
8:04 i wouldn't call batman and robin a homage to the 60s show because 1 the 60s never an over emphasis on neon and shit 2 the 60s also never tried to get you to take it seriously and put some sort psychological focus quite like the shumacker films attempted to do to try and somewhat stay true to the burton film's continue the theme of duality and the psychological brooding gothic shit as sequels while also failing at it completely giving off a bizzarly inconsistent tone and not doing it well either and 3 the 60s show was actually funny
I really like Scarecrow from Batman Begins. That being said, I am not familiar with the character whatsoever, so I believe you that it was not a good adaptation of the character. I still can't help but love it though.
I was starting to like this channel. But no. “Batman Forever,” is a masterpiece.
To each their own.
@@mediamementosofficial 🙂
.....Dodgeball?
Whoops. Got it confused with Rubberface.
Aliens 1986 is better than alien 1979
I do agree with you that it was a bad movie. But I disagree about Jim Carrey and Tommy Lee Jones.
Tommy Lee Jones despised Jim Carey's style of humour - even telling him so when they first met - so to claim that Tommy Lee Jones was just a second Jim Carey in the movie is nonsense.
I also don't think that Jim Carey was playing himself. Yes it had his distinct style of humour. But as an actor, he has taken every single role very seriously when getting into character. I guarantee you that he had a method to the madness of how he envisioned playing the Riddler.
Even though I don't like the movie, I do like the acting of both the villains. They took what was given to them in the script and went all out with it.
I think robin in batman forever needs to be a bit younger then again Val kilmar s batman is the right age but Chris O'Donnell being in his mid twenties it's just a stupid Idea
Bat Credit Card
Go away, Critic.
I’m guessing this is another Shrek the Third vs Shrek Forever After situation.
I’ve re-watched Batman and Robin so many times, yet I have no desire to watch Forever. It’s a fun movie. A good movie, no, but really fun.
THANK YOU! Batman Forever is SOOOOO much worse than Batman and Robin! I’ve been saying that for years!
YES!!! I ACTUALLY AGREE!!!
Months ago I decided to do a marathon on these four films and here’s my opinion:
Batman 1989: 7/10
Batman Returns: 9/10
Batman Forever: 3/10
Batman & Robin: 5.5/10
But there is of course reasons why I prefer Batman & Robin and even felt like it should have been considered as a better movie than Batman Forever.
Let’s talk about Batman & Robin for a moment. Arnold had the body to play as Arnold and fact the Mr. Freeze armor was pretty tight, in fact I can say that the costumes in Batman & Robin were great and original. There’s people who says that George Clooney’s Bruce Wayne is alright, but honestly I thought he was a great Bruce Wayne as he does give me a HUGE Bruce Wayne vibe. The Batman part of George Clooney, not too bad, could have been better but I kind of really don’t care about it. As that, Uma Thurman nailed that role of Poison Ivy and like what most people say: Poison Ivy was probably the best character in that movie. Batman & Robin has some cringe moments in fact super cringe, like whenever you see the characters put on their gear and weapons, why do you have to see their butts? What’s with the butt shots? As that, Mr. Freeze had some puns that were just cringe and it’s not Arnold’s fault that he has an accent BUT with his accent, some of the puns just sound kind of cursed. But the jokes were cursed that I just laughed in a cringe way, I wasn’t entirely cringe cringe, in fact there were some puns that I actually did laugh. But I will admit that Bane actually does sucks. Like, Bane immediately just followed Poison Ivy when she told him to go and you know those kisses that Poison Ivy give that makes people fell in love with her and do things for her? I noticed on screen that she never does that to Bane, so is Bane just royal to her or she has give Bane those kisses but off screen though? Bane must have follow her either she flirted with him off screen, or she’s just a beautiful girl and there’s no reason for him to not do her a favor? Or, considering that Poison Ivy killed the scientist that kidnapped Bane, and Bane was happy about it and wanted to show her his respect? But there has been no explanation about this, and plus Bane just says random words and his defeat was terrible. In fact, they made Bane in this movie, a skinny American serial killer, where Bane was originally a very muscular Mexican wrestler. Then for the plot, eh, bad but I will admit that there were some logical sense to it.
Now let’s go to Batman Forever, and Jesus Christ, it is a mess. The costumes just looked like they were made for little kids, The Riddler’s character was just too confusing to follow and Tooth Face was just THERE. Literally Val Kilmer was a shitass pisscock Batman, he literally does not have the body for Batman as literally he looks like Val Kilmer dresses up as Batman… oh wait. Even his Bruce Wayne wasn’t good, he did not felt like a Bruce Wayne, he just felt like… Val Kilmer. All the jokes and puns were way to cringe and most of those were just put there for no damn reason. Literally, the Riddler for no reason danced when his boss was looking at that TV project of the Riddler’s like why. Literally the first half of the film was just all crazy that I could not tell what was going on at all. We literally got this therapist chick who has a relationship with Batman that… their relationship was just rushed and had no meaning to it. Like it was only the second half where it was getting better with getting to know Robin/Dick Grace but even then, it did had some moments that were just like “what”. But it was just until the last goofy moment of The Riddler in that film that was just not needed like he could have said “It was Bruce Wayne”, and the therapist replied “Nice theory, but I know who Bruce Wayne is” but nope the Riddler had to shout that he’s Batman. Then the film ended as it was just… a mess.
So overall, Batman & Robin was less corny, less cringe and had some common sense to it meanwhile, Batman Forever was way too corny, way too cringe and had no common sense. Batman Forever was too disappointing that it’s not a BATMAN film it’s a BADMAN film (see what I did there). But anyway, I agree that Batman & Robin was better and thank you for your time reading this.
What killed the dinosaurs, the ice age!
Batman 4 is trying to be like the 60s show but with none of the charm.
That thumbnail…
I... sort of agree with this?
Both are pretty poor flicks, but at least Batman and Robin fully embraced the camp while Forever felt like it was caught between trying to be a serious psychological drama and a Jim Carrey film.
I had a lot more 'wtf' moments watching Forever than I did the latter film.
I think it’s weird to call a movie worse than “x”. What makes a movie bad? Is it something that is clearly meant to be a kids commercial with no real thought out into it? A movie that is just embarrassing g to watch? Or a movie whoose message is fucked up? Or is it something that is BOORRING.
I think a living that is just not interesting. Batman and Robin is stupid, very boring at times, and an insult to kids’ imagination. However, it’s also memorable. Arnold and uma clearly love being there-being all corny. How many lines can you quote or get drunk and watch?
That’s Batman and Robin. A movie so bad that you like having friends watch it.
Batman forever? Not so much. I guess Jim Carey but he’s is not the riddler-hell he is not the 1960s riddler who had a charm to it. It’s just Jim Carey acting like the joker. There so my two things we remember the movie for-that famous gif, and the extras saying dumb lines.
Batman Returns is an embarrassing bad movie that showed Burton dosnt care about Batman. And the more I watch it, the less interested I am in it especially when Batman TAS became the dominant version and the campy Batman 1960s looks more fun.
Batman 1989 May technically be the best live action Batman of the pre Christopher Nolan series but that Batman KILLED people, and did not use any of the supporting cast members aside from Vicky vale well.
Was saying Jim Carrey was in Dodgeball a joke?
I like the Experimentation with new Editing Styles we have been seeing here lately
I have a very mixed opinion of Jim Carey. He can be very, very good but he can also be very, very bad. I agree that his Riddler isn't very good but then his Riddler is very much Jim Carey incarnate. Jim Carey does it in film after film all too often. Raping the screen with his mugging and over the top Jerry Lewis impersonation. For example I found his character in Dumb and Dumber to be extremely annoying and in desperate need of termination. We have seen this all before from Jerry Lewis and in the worst Danny Kaye spastic antics. I don't find it funny.
Fortunately when Jim Carey is under some sort of control he is very good. Like in The Truman Show. Sadly though all too often he plays characters that are, too me, extremely annoying and in need of death.
anyways even though I'm not really that big of a batman fan anymore I'm just gonna do a minor ranking of the original batman film series 4 batman and robin 3 batman forever 2 batman and 1 batman returns
Sonic 06 is better than Sonic Boom.
Honestly, both movies are Godfather 1 and 2 compared to something like Catwoman or It's Morbin Time.
Honestly I've yet to see why Catwoman is considered the worst movie of all time, at most it's just a typical bad film.
In all honesty I find Batman and Robin a lot more enjoyable than almost any of the marvel movies coming out nowadays. It’s that much of a guilty pleasure. Prove me wrong but not all of them by any means.
Glad you like the scarecrow🫡
what about the adam west batman movie from the 1960s
2:30 why was trevor callling the scarecrow sackboy oddly funny
I didn't like Batman Forever 1. The doctor is supposed to be an elderly woman [Leslie Thompkins], 2. Dick Grayson is an only child plus Dick's parents where killed by Tony Zuko not Two-Face. 1989 Batman is the better film all of the others didn't age well after Batman Returns. It was nice to see Robin in the films other than the classic TV series movie. The gripe I also have with Barbara "Pennyworth" in the movie. She's supposed to be the daughter of James Gordon. Bane is terrible in both Batman & Robin and Dark Knight Rises.
I don't agree with this take, but I appreciate the contrarian POV.
Subjective and objective opinions both should say Forever is the better film.
No
Yes.
@@mediamementosofficial Batman Forever is the 2nd best of the series.
The first being Batman Returns.
@@MediaLoverChris02 That’s subjective. Though I do love Batman Returns too.
Disagree, it gave us Val Kilmer while B&R gave us George "I'm not even gonna try" Clooney
i already said this shit a great many years ago all the fucking time i changed my mind at one point however