|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Nov 19, 2018 22:19:56 GMT
I always liked it and still do. I prefer it over Begins and Rises.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2018 22:21:05 GMT
I actually think this movie gets too much credit as it is. Re-watching it a few years ago, it struck me just how boring it is, in spite of all its quipiness and bright, flashing colors. It's like a big cup of fizzy nothing. Its only redeeming quality is the Nicole Kidman upskirt shot. The psyche of Dr Chase Meridan analyzing Bruce Wayne, he sees a Bat in the Roarshach ink blot and she says, "it's just an ink blot, you see what you want to see. You are the one with a thing for bats." Talking about his duel nature, it dives into some interesting themes. If the villains had been better, I'd put it above Burton's Batman films. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 19, 2018 22:25:40 GMT
Now I do think this scene is kinda cool (even though it never made it in the final cut):
|
|
|
|
Post by Anonymous Andy on Nov 19, 2018 22:44:47 GMT
Now I do think this scene is kinda cool (even though it never made it in the final cut): I like this scene too, but it's just too batshit (!) crazy for this kind of film. |
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Nov 20, 2018 4:04:18 GMT
I can only speak for myself, but to me Batman Forever was decidedly average fare compared to what came before. I saw it as a kid and, while I enjoyed it, even then I realised that it lacked the artistry of the Burton movies. Those had opened up a window into a far darker, more adult conception of Batman and his world than I'd ever experienced prior to that and I fell utterly in love with them.
Forever, by contrast, was just an occasionally fun, overly campy popcorn movie. The sets were often lurid, Tommy Lee Jones' performance as Two-Face nauseating (compare that with how Two-Face was depicted in the then-contemporary Batman: The Animated Series) and Kilmer, though a good choice for Batman, lacked Keaton's easy likeability. The film does have its positives - notably containing some really catchy 90s pop hits - but overall it's a doggedly average slice of cinema.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Nov 20, 2018 4:10:48 GMT
Interesting defence. I don’t mind Chris O’Donnell as much in here, but he was still whiny at points. But yeah, Kidman is kinda hotter than Basinger and Pfieffer. Kidman is hotter, but she doesn't feel like a real person. Basinger's Vikki Vale felt much more believable to me. As did Pfieffer's stressed-out Selina Kyle before she became Catwoman. Plus that Catwoman is pretty much iconic now. Kidman's character was just kinda meh. |
|
|
|
Post by kingkoopa on Nov 20, 2018 4:24:48 GMT
I'm torn on it.
I really liked the exploration of Bruce's duality. Seeing it reflected in Robin and Two-Face. Carrey's Riddler was like the little cartoon devil on your shoulder. Don't know if it was deliberate, but I really appreciated him never holding or fire a gun. He only fought with his brain...which Batman mostly does as well (in this telling).
Chris O'Donnell was great. He was a little too old to be the Robin I (and probably a lot of other viewers) expected, but he really gave it his all on a character that nobody was sure was going to translate on-screen.
Elliot Goldenthal's score was perfect. Matched the aesthetic, was just as good as Elfman's theme, but brought a different flavor to it. Like a Dr. Pepper vs. Mr. Pibb scenario. Both good, both a little different.
Now for the bad...
Did not like Kilmer as Batman. Like him as an actor, but I don't think they knew what to do with Batman/Bruce in this. His Bruce is good, his voice is good, but something about him is off. Also, it's nitpicky, but come on Bruce, get better frames for your glasses.
Didn't care for the new Batmobile. Or the relentlessly shiny gadgets. Poor Alfred probably got MacGregor's syndrome (BR joke) from exerting himself polishing all that stuff.
More serious observation, "Batman Returns" made things get real adult, real suddenly. I think the pendulum swung the other way here and tried to lighten the mood. So the tone got a little murky...they replaced the nuance of Two-Face with the cackling of Snidely Whiplash. It just seemed like nobody was completely sure of the tone of this movie, but they knew it had to not be something terrifying to be associated with a McDonald's Happy Meal.
Shumacher himself has done several interviews on this and BR and is remarkably candid about his vision, what was expected of him, and how it all went down. The neon lights got irritating real quick, but the guy was trying to create his vision rather than just imitating the style of Burton's first two.
TLDR. Confusing, but kind of mistaken movie. It's way better than BR, but it doesn't seem totally sure of the lane its trying to drive in. Sounds mega-pretentious...but what can I do
PS. Absolutely unbelievable brass playing on this soundtrack. Some of the cues have a bit of the 60's peppered in. Big band trumpet sound that could burn the hair off a goldfish.
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Nov 20, 2018 6:03:45 GMT
B+
It is my fav Batman of the 90's foursome. I like not love it. I treat it like a true to form comic book story for pre-teens. It's not quite Tim Burton, it's not garbage like B&R either.
Sure it's a bit dry, so what. Jim Carrey is great fun, Riddler even gets to break into the Batcave. Kilmer is fine. O'Donnell is okay. TL Jones has his moments.
It has a ton of Batman/comic tropes like escaping a safe vault, being buried alive, car chase, boat, plane, etc. Sure it tries to check a lot of boxes, at least it does so gracefully without taking itself too seriously.
Kidman at her finest, keeps things somewhat adult & on the level.
I think it might've had a more accepted legacy without B&R to destroy Batman as we knew it, until Nolan.
|
|
|
|
Post by OrsonSwelles on Nov 20, 2018 6:15:56 GMT
5.4 on IMDb: it's actually overrated.
|
|
|
|
Post by James on Nov 20, 2018 10:12:30 GMT
Interesting defence. I don’t mind Chris O’Donnell as much in here, but he was still whiny at points. But yeah, Kidman is kinda hotter than Basinger and Pfieffer. Kidman is hotter, but she doesn't feel like a real person. Basinger's Vikki Vale felt much more believable to me. As did Pfieffer's stressed-out Selina Kyle before she became Catwoman. Plus that Catwoman is pretty much iconic now. Kidman's character was just kinda meh. So true. I don’t get the whole thing where Kidman is all lustful over Bats. |
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Nov 20, 2018 22:44:13 GMT
People are looking at it through Dark Knight colored glasses and unfairly limping it with "Batman and Robin". I'm afraid I have to disagree. The movie may not be quite as bad as Batman and Robin, but it's clearly where the hokey corniness that became Batman and Robin began.
I don't think its underrated or unfairly lumped. I think its rated appropriately and very fairly lumped, imo. The best I can say about the movie is that Val Kilmer was ok. Batman and Robin took the franchise even lower still.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Nov 21, 2018 5:26:40 GMT
Kidman is hotter, but she doesn't feel like a real person. Basinger's Vikki Vale felt much more believable to me. As did Pfieffer's stressed-out Selina Kyle before she became Catwoman. Plus that Catwoman is pretty much iconic now. Kidman's character was just kinda meh. So true. I don’t get the whole thing where Kidman is all lustful over Bats. I can believe that there would be women out there with a thing for Batman, in fairness. However, Kidman's character is supposed to be a highly intelligent and professional psychologist. And what does she do? Just throws herself at him in the most OTT way imaginable. It's just silly. |
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Nov 21, 2018 16:02:54 GMT
So true. I don’t get the whole thing where Kidman is all lustful over Bats. I can believe that there would be women out there with a thing for Batman, in fairness. However, Kidman's character is supposed to be a highly intelligent and professional psychologist. And what does she do? Just throws herself at him in the most OTT way imaginable. It's just silly. What? Something silly in a comic book movie? I'm shocked. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2018 23:35:24 GMT
So true. I don’t get the whole thing where Kidman is all lustful over Bats. I can believe that there would be women out there with a thing for Batman, in fairness. However, Kidman's character is supposed to be a highly intelligent and professional psychologist. And what does she do? Just throws herself at him in the most OTT way imaginable. It's just silly. But seeing Kidman in bed wearing nothing but a thin sheet is not silly. |
|
|
|
Post by janntosh on Nov 21, 2018 23:47:35 GMT
That's not true. It was loved by audiences at the time. Very high grossing film, awesome soundtrack, it was quite popular. Then Batman and Robin came out and people started lumping it with that film. There are people to this day who mix them up and say "what's the difference, it's Joel Shumacher" but there is a huge difference. Was it really "loved" by audiences at the time? It has a 40% on Rotten Tomatoes and 53% on IMDB, which leads my to believe audiences were mostly "meh" on it. It did fine at the Box Office, but it still did less than Batman 89 and just because it did well at the time doesn't mean audiences necessarily loved it back then (Pocahauntus made more money that year and that's one of the more forgettable 90s Disney films). Even as a little kid that loved the Burton Batman films, I remeber thinking Forever was just rather dull. As for "awesome" soundtrack, eh I guess "Kiss from a Rose" was an OK song, don't really remember the other songs. Or are you talking about the score (that's considered something else) There was no Rotten tomatoes or IMDb rating back then. It was definitely better liked than Batman Returns and made more than that movie. People mistakenly claim the decline of the franchise stated with Forever but objectively it started with Returns which disappointed |
|
|
|
Post by James on Nov 22, 2018 1:30:16 GMT
I can believe that there would be women out there with a thing for Batman, in fairness. However, Kidman's character is supposed to be a highly intelligent and professional psychologist. And what does she do? Just throws herself at him in the most OTT way imaginable. It's just silly. What? Something silly in a comic book movie? I'm shocked. Well not to say most comic book movies aren’t meant to be silly, but that stuff with Kidman is one of the things in this movie that made it went off the rails with the silliness. |
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Nov 22, 2018 5:35:29 GMT
I can believe that there would be women out there with a thing for Batman, in fairness. However, Kidman's character is supposed to be a highly intelligent and professional psychologist. And what does she do? Just throws herself at him in the most OTT way imaginable. It's just silly. What? Something silly in a comic book movie? I'm shocked. Exactly. Alas, because it's on film, it immediately & always gets directly compared to Batman '89 & TDK trilogy. I've The Batman Chronicles Vol. 1 the reprint of Batman's first comic appearances... & I'm not discarding it because my copies of Year One & TDK Returns are on my same shelf. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2018 11:49:09 GMT
5.4 on IMDb: it's actually overrated. I'd rate it a 7.2 My Ratings 1. The Dark Knight 9.1 2. Batman 8.8 3. The Dark Knight Rises 8.5 4. Batman Forever 7.2 5. Batman Begins 7.0 6. Batman Returns 6.7 7. Batman and Robin 2.5 |
|
|
|
Post by OrsonSwelles on Nov 22, 2018 14:20:29 GMT
5.4 on IMDb: it's actually overrated. I'd rate it a 7.2 My Ratings 1. The Dark Knight 9.1 2. Batman 8.8 3. The Dark Knight Rises 8.5 4. Batman Forever 7.2 5. Batman Begins 7.0 6. Batman Returns 6.7 7. Batman and Robin 2.5 TDKR 8.5? Forgetting the hype (and near greatness) of TDK, Rises was a HUGE letdown and a poor movie to boot, as is usual for part 3s of a trilogy. Are you sure you didn't mean to type 5.8? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2018 7:23:51 GMT
Not the best but not the worst either. I personally don't mind this movie and have watched it a few times and it and 'Batman & Robin' despite how bad the latter was are the two closest live action movies we have had to being real adaptions of Batman with two of the Bat Family members but none of the live action movies have done a great job of adapting the comic books and I will take the animated movies and Arkham games over all of them. Until we have had Batman movies where he is the World's Greatest Detective, a team leader with the likes of Batgirl, Nightwing, The Spoiler, Orphan, Red Robin, Batwoman, Bluebird, Red Hood, Azrael, Batwing etc helping him and fighting villains like Clayface, Killer Croc, Firefly, Mad Hatter, Lady Shiva, Hush, Deathstroke, Anarky, Hugo Strange, Poison Ivy (at her full power), Man Bat, Solomon Grundy, Black Mask, Great White Shark etc we haven't had a proper Batman franchise. 
|
|
