Every film that has ever been nominated for an Academy Award in any category. Enjoy!
Courage now, truth always...
The Dark Knight of Gotham City confronts a dastardly duo: Two-Face and the Riddler. Formerly District Attorney Harvey Dent, Two-Face believes Batman caused the courtroom accident which left him disfigured on one side. And Edward Nygma, computer-genius and former employee of millionaire Bruce Wayne, is out to get the philanthropist; as The Riddler. Former circus acrobat Dick Grayson, his family killed by Two-Face, becomes Wayne's ward and Batman's new partner Robin.
Looks like I'm in the minority when it comes to this film. I actually really enjoyed Batman Forever. Sure it's over the top, silly, and has no real substance. But I had a surprisingly good time watching it. I enjoyed the heck out of Jim Carrey as The Riddler and Tommy Lee Jones as Two-Face; even though they were both cheesy. However, I can totally understand why someone would not like this film.
"Was that over the top? I can never tell."
Batman Forever is more of an extension of Burton's two Gothic tragedy pieces than many realize, both in their joyous, external depictions of internally traumatized villains and in the continuous back and forth progression of campy banter. Schumacher, while hired to veer the series back into kid-friendly territory, also understood that after Batman Returns, an eerie, haunting exploration of various wounds and fetishes, nothing could top it. Instead director Schumacher and Michael Keaton replacement Val Kilmer shake an already strange depiction of Gotham City and infuse neon sights, homoerotic overtones, and an icy pitch-black layer of overblown goofiness to mix with Burton's original character foundation.
It is in many aspects…
"Does anyone else feel like a fried egg?"
sublimely tacky, but there's very little here that doesn't have precedent in Burton's installments, and it's inarguably just as technically polished, as if the old TV show had, like, $18,000 papier-mâché rocks and state-of-the-art miniature work. i'm no longer able to see this as intrinsically awful, even if i don't particularly care for Schumacher's approach (also i think a lot of the supposedly legendary awfulness is some ugly "no homo" bullshit).
if they ever put Schwarzenegger in something like this, i might never stop laughing.
An almost-offensive step backward from Tim Burton's excellent "Batman" and "Batman Returns," Joel Schumacher's "Batman Forever" expunges the franchise's authentic darkness, weight, and soul in exchange for neon colors, overwrought silliness, and superficial spectacle. Reducing Bob Kane's cape and cowl wearing crime fighter and his shadow-concealed heroism to a plastic, studio-scrubbed superhero works in terms of building a crowd-pleasing antidote to Burton's elegant esoterica, but it does not create anything with depth or resonance. Still, Schumacher's film is committed to its new direction and is able to entertain despite its frustrating emptiness.
Beginning with winky one-liners and scenery-chewing characters, "Batman Forever" instantly begins down a new tonal path. It is, once again, an operatic superhero outing, but the narrative eschews…
Riddle me this: How can such a formidable movie like Batman Returns be followed by such a piece of overacted crap? Whilst I recognize that Joel Schumacher's Batman films are low hanging fruit when it comes to mockery, I must say Batman Forever fully deserves it. Let's break down its inherent shittiness by spotlighting the awfully characterized parade of over-the-top idiots Schumacher tortures the audience with in order to highlight what I hated most about this film (Hint: Its the characters, I'm not the fucking Riddler)
*Speaking of him, let's start with the aforementioned Riddler (sigh). Granted the Riddler is a problematic character. His shtick of leaving hints in form of riddles is…
Much like everyone has their own James Bond movie, the one they fondly remember from childhood, most people roughly 30 & under doubtless have their own Batman movie and, without question, Batman Forever was mine. After at least a decade since last watching this, I was immediately transported back to the 13 year old callow youth mesmerised in the cinema as Elliot Goldenthal's rousing Bat-theme blasted in as the names of Val Kilmer, Tommy Lee Jones et al raced at us across the screen in typically overblown theatrical fashion, in many ways setting the tone for everything that follows. I loved Batman Forever when I was 13. Do I love it now? Maybe a little. Do I think Joel Schumacher made…
In the murky depths of his audio-commentary for St. Elmo's Fire, recorded in the year 2000, Joel Schumacher said this (emphasis mine):
"...but, you know, I think there's too much expectation sometimes in characters in movies to have perfect behavior, and I find it quite boring myself. I don't know anyone who has perfect behavior. I know people who pretend they have perfect behavior. I'm much more interested in our strengths and our weeknesses combined. I think we are strong and weak at the same time, I think we're terrified and courageous, I think we are selfish and unselfish, and you know, I can go on and on, as many more intelligent, more interesting people than me have said in…
Director Joel Schumacher stepped in to take over the Batman franchise after Tim Burton's previous efforts, subtracted itself highly from the tone of those films, and brought in a more zany and over-the-top feel with "Batman Forever", which probably wasn't for the better. While there are some good elements of the story here and there, it's unfortunately overshadowed by a messy and overblown fest of corny puns and set pieces. It's overly silly and cartoonish, the character development is weak, the writing feels like something straight out of a bad campy television show, and some of the action sequences look poorly orchestrated. As for the performances, Val Kilmer is pretty mediocre as Batman but not bad as Bruce Wayne, Chris…
After discussing with a friend whether this or Batman & Robin was better, the mood hit me to revisit this one over the weekend. I probably hadn't seen it since I bought the DVD in the early 2000s. Verdict: I think he may be right that Batman & Robin is the more watchable of the two.
On the one hand, I think Batman Forever is a better film than Batman & Robin overall. The plot is more coherent and the dialogue is not quite as stupid; not that it takes much. Plus I really enjoyed Nicole Kidman's performance.
On the other hand, while I just about bought Kilmer as the Bat, there was a lot of Bruce Wayne in the film and Kilmer…
Jim Carrey is fun as Riddler but Tommy Lee Jones is awful. For a movie meant for children it earns its PG-13 rating with violence and sensuality. Plan by Riddler to overtake all the brains in Gotham with his TV device sure gets implemented quickly and is very silly. It needed to be developed more but instead we get lots of shouting, lame action and Nicole Kidman spouting 90s era pop psychology. The whole movie is silly and special effects look really bad.
I don't understand why this one gets so much hate. It's awesome.
I actually enjoy Batman Forever more now than I did when I was in my childhood.
It's abserdly over the top and heavily invested in its self commercialisation but there is a lot of fun to be had with Batman Forever.
While not to everyone's taste, Gotham is painted as a mess of cultures all exploding onto a gothic canvas. This version of Gotham is FAR better than what would come next in Batman & Forever.
Val Kilmer isn't a brilliant , nor great Batman but his Bruce Wayne is where he really shines. For one of the first times in Batman picture, the psyche of Wayne is explored and Kilmer does a good job of presenting the internal conflict of…
Man Tommy Lee Jones is a bad Two Face.
The only good thing you'll get out of watching this film is Val Kilmer's Batman. Everything else is actually complete trash.
Terrible movie. Tries to stay in Burton universe for the first half, but at the same time mimics the old TV show style. For some reason features two identical villains, with Tommy Lee Jones doing a horrible version of .. two-face? Introduces a bratty 20something [who looks about 35] behaving as a 15 year old, who in 2 minutes screen time becomes untolerable and yet somehow is supposed to be character we care about/root for?
Kilmer is probably the only OK part of the movie.
i know -- you don't agree
Not sure whether or not I'll have the time to do all of these as I have three assignments due…