And I stress, it\'s only my opinion.
Not going to lie, I was really looking forwards to BvS, but David Goyer can't write to save his life. I LOVE Batman & Robin, and I'll take it over BvS any day!!
Everyone rags on it, but honestly, it's campy and silly nature kinda reminds me of the Adam West Batman series, which is where the live action version of Batman began. It's like homage.
I love Batman & Robin, and I always will.
BvS was not great by any means, but even at its worst, it's still eons better than Batman & Robin.
_____________________________
I'm a heavy metal maniac.
Metal = best form of music ever
I know it's considered a terrible film, but I wouldn't hesitate to watch it again if I had the opportunity.
Maybe it's just me, but the nostalgia from seeing this originally in the theater on opening day back in 1997 probably has something to do with it. I rated this film a 5/10 because it wasn't that bad. It was a silly little popcorn flick at the most.
I partially blame Joel Schumacher for adding on the "bat nipples" and such, but most of it is on Warner Bros. for rushing this to begin with. They wanted it to be more like the original Batman (1966) series and appeal to a younger audience, and this is what they produced.
Plus, Joel directed a few episodes of House of Cards (2013) and it turned out to be awesome, so it seems like the studio's problem more than anything.
I remember seeing Batman Forever (1995) as well a few years prior and thought it turned out excellent. It wasn't too campy and Val Kilmer was actually superb in his portrayal of the character.
As for Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)...eh, well, just another bad director and an abundance of CGI, but that's to be expected nowadays. I'd give it the same rating.
Batman & Robin is a terrible film.
With that being said, its very much entertaining and have a great nostalgic feeling in it.
Also have a tremendous rewatchable value.
And I saw both Forever and this on their opening day. So, I relate to what you mean.
As for Joel, the blame shouldnt be mainly on him, but more on the studio.
The studio insisted for kid friendly Batman and rushed production to sell toys. That's the main reason the filn turned out the way it did.
The nipples though, was his idea.
The funniest thing I see people knocking Batman & Robin as a bad movie for, is the nipples. The reason I find it hilarious is because those same nipples were on Val Kilmer's Batman costume in Batman Forever. Yes Joel added them in his movies but they were there for both. However the people that love Forever and slam B&R use the nips as a big problem of why it's bad forgetting they weren't only in B&R. I personally don't get what the whole problem with it is. No it doesn't serve a purpose except to maybe make a foe stop and think, why are there nipples on Batman's suit? But it doesn't distract me at all from the movie. B&R in my opinion is a decent film worth re-watching with the first 3 other originals every once and a while.
BvS on the other hand is bad but not as bad as Man of Steel which should have the honor of worst film ever made. I saw it in theaters and have only ever been able to watch MoS 1 more time since, it is that hard to sit through with all of its problems. And unfortunately BvS suffers because all of the failures of MoS were carried forth into BvS. Cavill as Superman is terrible and the entire time looks like he is so constipated that he could kill you. That is not Superman at all. And he has no talent. Batman is the brooding self loather that has the menacing look to him not Superman. Affleck did a good job as far as I'm concerned. But the entire problem boils down to Zack Snyder. He should have fixed the glaring problems from MoS and had the time to do it but no he carried them over and then some.
Watching MoS in theaters all I could think was why is this person supposed to care 1 bit about us? My POV is it's because the Kents instill within him a profound sense of good and the highest of moral standing. And then he learns he was sent here by his real parents to save humanity and to inspire Hope. In MoS he was sent here to either destroy us if he wants to and rebuild Krypton or maybe not meh it his choice. And in the scenes with the Kents there was nothing that showed them teaching him to be a good person whatsoever. All I kept thinking was if someone watched this movie not knowing anything about Superman and it's supposed to be an origin story, they will know nothing about why he chooses to do what he does. Except maybe out of a rebellious attitude towards both his real parents and adopted parents. And the tornado scene were people living in tornado alley and should know better tell everyone to get under the overpass. That was it for me. Everyone should know that that is the worst possible place to go in a tornado and you will die if you do. So the impact of Papa Kent dying in place of Clark showing his powers is not at all profound when you know he was a moron for telling anyone to go under there. I could dissect every scene from MoS for why it was bad but I won't. Hell I enjoyed Superman Returns much more than MoS and it was much better IMO but they grounded all plans to carry on after it didn't do so well. They should have done the same after MoS and rebooted it again without Snyder.
If my opinion is thought of as wrong voice your opinion on how I may be wrong. We might agree lol
I agree. I'd said as much in another thread, but wasn't really sure because both are awful, but they are so different they are hard to compare, but I happened to watch B&R again this weekend, and I found it to be slightly less awful than I remembered (though still awful) and definitely better than BvS which was a nonsensical snoozefest.
shareI for one very much like both films.
share