I think the real problem with this film was, it was aimed more at kids than adults, and the adult fans just assumed it would be made more for them when it actually isn't. (That's what Christopher Nolan's films are for). I mean, you have kids between ages 8 and 13 watch this, and they think it's great. It's like a live-action cartoon, similar to the cheesy 60s Batman series.
But try and take it seriously as an adult, and you'll hate it and be miserable. It frankly is not a serious film and probably never was meant to be.
I was 8 when "Batman Forever" came out, and my brother loved that too. Being a kid, I wasn't aware of just how cheesy that film was, though it certainly made us all laugh. "Batman and Robin" came out when I was 11, though by then, I was starting to notice something "wrong" about it, but we liked it enough watch it and "Forever" on repeat a few times.
It's like power Rangers. It came outwhen I was 10. We knew it was super cheesy and kind of lame, but we watched it anyways because it was just entertaining enough to keep us coming back.
Yep, my brother and I watched Power Rangers as well. I even posted recently about watching that movie in theaters when it came out. The nostalgia factor helps a lot when watching an older film you loved as a kid, but made the adults cringe.
I was an adult when Batman & Robin was released. I came out of that cinema hating it. I'd loved the Burton films, really enjoyed Batman Forever, but I loathed this with a passion and still do.
Yep, that was the intention. Though the studio maintained a lot of desire to make the film even more kid friendly and merchandise driven than even BF, I would blame Schumacher for the excessive focus on the 60s tone, the questionable casting choices, and the endless costumes and toys.
You don't have to make the entire production a kiddie fest by showing off endless stylistic products and having a pun said every 20 seconds. Clooney even said he didn't want to put in the role seriously because of how ludicrous the tone was, which was actually probably in Schumacher's best interest.
What's worse that you got Akira Goldsman the writer of Lost In Space one of the worst movie remakes of an old TV show, later Transformers 5 and The Dark Tower, he has show runs Titans and many new Star Trek, you get that writer and knowing what we know now what do you think is gonna happen.
Eehh, it was ok. I don't see the need to continually apologize for it (like George Clooney does). It wasn't all that bad.
I thought the alter ego of Poison Ivy (don't remember her name - maybe Pamela?) had some funny moments.
The casting of ALicia as Batgirl, well it may not look good in retrospect, but it made perfect sense at the time. She was huge at that point.
As for the DYnamic Duo - what was the problem with Val Kilmer? Why replace him with George Clooney? I never understood that. Chris O'donnell was annoying in both Bat films he did.
Arnold was good casting for the time period.
You know, like I said, it was ok. Unless you absolutely have to have the dark, serious, menacing Batman tone. If you don't mind a bit of silliness - then this one is all right.
I liked Alicia Silverstone as Batgirl, though I'm unhappy to have found out that she is an absolute bitch IRL, who is still riding high on the ego she got from "Clueless," even though she hasn't really been in any major films in over 30 years.
Val Kilmer refused to play Batman again because he discovered when the kids came to see him on set, they didn't really come to see him, they came to see the character, and he realized it didn't matter who was in the suit, the kids weren't gonna care either way. Val Kilmer (like Alicia) is also an absolute douchebag in person, despite playing lovable characters, and he got fed up when he realized nobody cared about him playing the role as much as they cared about the character. There's even an interview he did about that.
George Clooney was okay in the role, but he's probably the weakest Batman actor of the group. It's like, he did his lines and did the role adequately, but nothing he did really stood out. He didn't have the same strong emotions and deep issues shown in other versions of Batman.
Poison Ivy was originally known as Pamela Eisley, though she didn't originally start out as a nerd in the comics. In fact, she was not only a scientist, but a model and worked in the beauty products industry, which was her cover until she started poisoning people and turning into a bioterrorist.
I actually liked Chris O'Donnel as Robin, because he was hot-headed, daring, and had way better suits than the original Robin ever did. Plus he was cute at the time.
Arnold was an interesting choice for Mr. Freeze, and made that specific version of the character very unique compared to the comic book version. He actually had a heart and a sense of humor, in addition to being deliciously evil at the same time. You wouldn't find such an interesting character in the original Mr. Freeze at all.
Yeah, in fact the humor and good ending is what saves this film in the end.
Yeah, Silverstone - she has faded away big time. She had a couple of C level movies on Hulu. She hasn't aged well. Not much of an actress either. Red hot in 1997, though.
Wow - is that real reason Kilmer didn't show up for "Batman and Robin"? Man, just a tad self absorbed. You'd think he'd want to do the movie for the children.
Sorry, don't care for George Clooney, in any role.
Aahh yes, Pamela Eisley. Yeah, she was funny. Uma Thurman was fine in this role.
Can't join you on O'Donnell.
I thought Arnold, in 1997, was a good choice for Mr Freeze.
Yeah, to your last sentence, as long as you don't take Batman too seriously, "Batman and Robin" is worth a look.
I was 15 in the summer of 1997 and it just felt off to me seeing Batman & Robin in theaters. It was made to sell toys and even then I was probably too old for it.