I haven't seen this movie in over 20+ years and I remember liking this movie back in high school, I thought it was entertaining and flowed very well.
shareThis movie is actually really good for what it is; a Saturday-afternoon comic book extravaganza. Plus Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy will greatly increase any heterosexual male viewer’s libido.
shareNIPPLES & HOCKEY...NUFF SAID.
shareYou have not seen it in 20 years.
Try watching it again and come back and post.
https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Batman-Robin-so-bad/answer/Timothy-Christian-Liu-1
The overall campy and silly tone of the film.
The Bat-nipples on the suits. Enough said.
Mr. Freeze’s ice puns and horrible one-liners. This is also one of the main reasons why this film became The Room of superhero movies - those ice puns were so bad that they were unintentionally hilarious and surprisingly quotable.
Uma Thurman’s extremely over-the-top portrayal of Poison Ivy, as well as an extremely dumb and terrible version of Bane.
Chris O’Donnell’s whining throughout the film. It became extremely irritating after a while.
George Clooney being miscast as Batman/Bruce Wayne. Do not get me wrong, the man is an amazing actor, but he was just totally miscast as he was not able to play these characters in a convincing manner.
The horrible jumping physics. Seriously, throughout the film’s action scenes it seemed like everyone was wearing an invisible propeller that allowed them to jump at extreme heights easily.
“The Bat-nipples on the suits. Enough said.“
No, not enough said. An extremely minor detail does not ruin an entire film. If The Godfather or Apocalypse Now had batnipples for two seconds, I guess it would render those two movies awful, right?
Frankly, this movie isn’t great. But it’s far from being an unredeemable 1/10 disaster, and I despise rabid fanboys who hate a movie because of one single abstract detail that wouldn’t affect the film if it were removed. Batnipples is one of the biggest “who the fuck cares?” abstract details ever.
Arnold and Uma weren't playing villains so much as they were playing caricatures of what the filmmakers would want you to think a comic book villain would behave like. They pretty much played "Superfriends" versions of those kind of characters. Uma Thurman was virtually playing Poison Ivy like Mae West mixed with a drag-queen without seemingly a shred of irony. Hell, Nicole Kidman actually played a better Poison Ivy in Batman Forever, even though she was actually supposed to be one of the good guys.
sharePeople just wanted Michael Keaton back.
share^ Partly this.
It was just tonally different to what had gone before. It felt more like the 1966 Batman series than the 1989 Michael Keaton one. I loved the 1960s Batman series, but the movies had made the correct decision not to go that way. Even Batman Returns wasn't quite as camp as this. It just wasn't what people wanted in a Batman movie in 1997.
At the same time, I think there were other faults with the movie. I always thought Clooney was miscast as Bruce Wayne/Batman. And I think the character of Bane was wasted. He was a bad-ass in the comics, he literally paralysed Batman. In this he's just some strong hechman. You could argue that the Dark Knight Rises wasn't great either, but here the way they used Bane was almost criminal. Can you imagine they had The Joker in it, but he was subservient sidekick to a main villain? This felt almost as bad, albeit with a lesser known villain.
I watched Batman and Robin on TV years after seeing it at the cinema. And enjoyed it for what it was. A harkback to the camp version of Batman that's meant to be funny rather then dramatic. But that's not the sort of movie a lot people enjoy.
Yes, Clooney was definitely miscast. And Bane was underitilized that's true too. But I guess with that many villains in one movie they were doomed from the get go anyway. That's why I'm quite worried about the new Batman movie. It has so many villains as well.
shareIt often seems to be the way with super hero movies. The first they establish the character (or new set of actors if it's a reboot) and bring in one of the famous villains. In the sequels, they feel they have to have at least two of the villains in order to ramp up the excitement. It doesn't always work, the story can suffer from it being too clustered. Tobey Maguire's Spiderman 3 was another example of too much going on. (And in the process, Venom was wasted.)
I agree with the new Batman movie, it seems they're jumping straight in and introducing everybody at once. I had the same thought that it was a risk.
Hopefully they do it in such a way that some of the villains are side-characters or more minor in the first one, but establishes them enough that they can be in the sequels without too much exposition. But I imagine that'll be hard to pull off.
I don't hate it. It was unintentionally funny which is quite rare in Hollywood films. I'd say it was a real camp movie, not some intentionally designed campiness like Toxic Avengers, etc. Its second to only Batman Returns in the Burton-Schumacher batman films. Those who hate it are probably same people who think Burton's first Batman is the best of the series.
I rank the films:
1. Batman Returns
2. Batman & Robin
3. Batman
4. Batman Forever
3 ja 4 are quite bad and I have no desire to see them again. Danny Elfman's score for the first film deserves honorable mention, though.
[deleted]
Frankly, because like others have said it wasn't very good. Casting Arnold Schwarzenegger as Mr. Freeze was a dumb idea. I like Arnold but come on! He is not at all like a scientist! Putting Bane in the movie to just be Poison Ivy's Henchman was dumb. I could go on and on but it just isn't that good. Neither was Batman Forever. And all this because WB gave into the demands of a bunch of Parents who probably never read a Batman comic from the 70s and onward after they had become darker for the first time since the 40s. There was also the cartoon at the time that I watched which was also not the same tone as Batman Forever or Batman & Robin.
share