I've seen B&R three times. The first time was that horrible weekend when it came out. That would have been the only time except it came with the SE DVD's so I saw it again with the Schumacher commentary and another time without it when I was bored. Hopefully I will never see it again. >:(
Honestly? I saw it 4 times in theatres. Watched about 6 times on VHS, once on SE DVD. I have watched the special features quit afew times though.
3 times i can remember 1st was when it came out at the movies, 2nd time was wayyyy back when i was in year 10 history and last day of term and like 7 people showed up so our teacher put on a vhs of it...she must have really hated us, and last time was start of this year and frankly i don't want to watch it again for a good long time.
Once in the cinema.
Around 10 times on VHS (got a free TAS VHS with it - Cat & the Claw). However I found that the PAL VHS had a lot of distortion in the sound especially in the bassy (not sure if that is the correct adjective) areas. I took it back and had it replaced - sound was still the same.
Once on SE DVD (half with commentary).
I remember going crazy for that movie when it came out in 1997. I saw it twice in the theatres. I watched it well over 20 times from 1998-2001 until I got older and realized it was a terrible Batman movie. I haven't watched the special edition on DVD. But I did watch the special features. I saw the film on HBO about 3 months ago though.
I refused to watch it because I heard it was awful. Then one night it was on TV. And I was disgusted, embarressed and angry! What a terriable film to the Batman series! I couldn't believe it. It easily went down for me, as the worst film I had ever seen - the worst ever made. I swore I'd never watch It again.
Since in the last year my opinion of Forever had mellowed, I was sitting one night a few months ago and B&R was on. I thought, I'll give it another watch. And you know what, my opinion was still the same and I remembered why I swore not to watch the film ever again!
It is pure sh1te! lol
So twice, twice too many!
Ive seen it quite a few times actually, atleast 15 or 20!
Did anyone have a gut feeling that B&R was going to be the disaster that it was BEFORE it came out?
Before I first saw Forever, I thought that it was going to be terrible but to my surprise it was good(IMO) though not as good as the first two and it was definitely a big step down.
When B&R was on it's way out I thought that it was going to suck but I said to myself "remember Forever!" but I couldn't help but feel it was going to be stupid. The one line that really made me think it was going to be awful was when Batman said "This is exactly why Superman works alone!"
I know what you mean, i remember i saw the preview for Forever and thought this doesn't look to good but it turned out to be a good. And then i saw B&R and thought this looks bad, but hey Forever look bad but was good so this might be.....i was wrong.
Thats weird cause Im the opposite, when I saw the Forever trailer I thought it was going to be great, it was fresh, new and looked like a comic book on screen. The only problem I had was that Keaton was not playing Batman.
A few times, just for the sheer comedy of it all.
Once in theaters. Twice on VHS. Twice on DVD (the SE). And the majority of it once on TV years ago when the chick I was dating at the time insisted on watching it. She was laughing and making fun of it the whole time. She had a ball.
When I watched the SE DVD not long after TDK came out, it became a little easier to watch. Now that we've got B89, BR, MOTP, BTAS and TDK either on DVD or very soon, it's easier to accept B&R for what it is and enjoy it as the non-Batman Batman movie. It'll never be my favorite, it'll never be any good and I doubt I'll watch it again for years... but when I do, it won't be the painful experience it always was because of the overall stronger showing Batman has now on DVD.
For whatever it's worth, a completely different ex-g/f adores B&R... which I guess is why we're not together anymore. I don't date stupid people.
Batman and Robin is one of only 2 bat films I've seen in theatres (the dark knight is the other)
Even at age 14 I thought it wasn't that great; it got too silly and was too unrealiztic (the sky surfing). And at the time Forever was my favourite batman film.
I had caught glimpses of it on TV but did not see it again in its entirety until around 2004. My friend steve really likes Batman Begins, we used to get him going saying Batman and Robin was way better, Clooney was better than Bale etc. Last year i rented it for one of my friends who'd never seen it (but enjoys the Nolan films) andthinks Arnold is unintentionally funny so we watched it over some drinks and had a laugh (he knew of the pranks I pulled on my other friend and finally saw why. )
I saw B&R once in the theatre and about a dozen times on VHS/DVD/Blu-ray. It's hilarious, especially if you've got a group of mates over and you've got nothing to do.
Many a time, actually love the film in all honesty.
Far fewer times than Batman Forever!
Once in the theaters. Once on VHS. Once on the barebones DVD. 2-3 times with commentary on the SE DVD.
That's about it.
I saw it in theatres and I swear to god I loved it at the time. So much so when I got home I got out my Batman figures (including "Ice Blast Mr Freeze") which was precisely I guess what Warner Bros wanted me to do! lol I was 9 at the time and I couldn't understand why the next film wasn't being made. I had no internet then, didn't visit fan sites or magazines so I had no idea of the magnitude of the backlash.
I do watch it on dvd especially if I'm having a Bat movie saga. Unlike some I have no trouble tolerating it. I still don't understand to this day how things went so bad. Batman Forever ignited the planet and yet just 2 years later things completely fell apart. What did the filmmakers do wrong? The tone, design and feel of the movie was pretty much the same.
I seriously do not think however this is the worst film ever made. And it's bad sure but not the baddest. Let alone worst comic book movie ever. More so than Steel, Howard the Duck, Supergirl and Superman IV?
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Fri, 14 Dec 2012, 12:29
I had no idea of the magnitude of the backlash.
Me neither...to a certain extent. However I was of the opinion that the series was on a downward slide by the time B&R came out. I had just started university and gotten access to the internet. Batman websites were non-existent as far as I could see.
It's not the worst movie of all time even for comics (catwoman, steel, ghost rider 2, superman 4, the original captain america are all worse) but it deserves a nomination for biggest let down among comic fans; catwoman was clearly meant to capitalize on halle berry and the costume and steel on Shaqs popularity at the time, ghost rider 2 was nearly considered B grade and supes 4 and cap had low budgets.
This one was on the heels of a successful franchise with one of the top 3 comic characters. There's no reason it had to be so terrible; it was all about greed and failure; warner brothers only caring about merchandizing and Schumacher failing to deliver a proper characterization.
The only comic film which is comparable was spider-man 3 although perhaps it had the reverse effect; heavily anticipated but hated immediately mainly due to the extremely weak second act (brutal acting by Macguire, emo/crying Peter Parker) and the most popular villain being brought in and killed. Now five years later people accept it for what it is and enjoy the climactic final fight which is one of the best comic endings.
Yes I was highly furious with Spider-man 3. I think my anticipation of seeing Venom overshadowed my appreciation of what they did elsewhere in the movie. Now I enjoy it but I left the cinema with a bad feeling at the time. The problem with that movie was juggling an insane amount of major characters from Gwen and Captain Stacy to the resolutions of Harry Osborn and the introduction of Sandman and Eddie Brock. Too many ideas. I think Sam Raimi never liked Venom and chose to focus on Sandman as much as possible. That's understandable but Venom wouldv'e given the film a unique new look. Because he was reduced to cameo status he was never fully explained in the depth the character needed (and the audience wanted). This situation shows what an excellent writer Chris Nolan is. He used Two-Face in the same capacity in The Dark Knight and yet pulled him off far more effectively. I was not disappointed with his featured appearance in the finale because the set up had been done so well throughout the rest of the film.
The reaction to Batman and Robin for me was duplicated when I personally saw things like The Fantastic Four and Hulk movies. Appalling in equal measures.
My defense of Spider-Man 3 is two parts- (1) as most people say it's too big, how many action movies can credibly be accused of having too many good ideas? (2) Peter's dark side is more of a really poorly lit side... hence the dancing and showboating. He's not even really evil, he's just a jerk. Yeah, maybe he cries too much in the movie, I'll ride with that, but there's a lot to enjoy about Spider-Man 3. Perfect? Maybe not but I find it more watchable than basically any of Nolan's Batman movies. Yeah, that's right, I said it.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 18 Dec 2012, 16:57
My defense of Spider-Man 3 is two parts- (1) as most people say it's too big, how many action movies can credibly be accused of having too many good ideas? (2) Peter's dark side is more of a really poorly lit side... hence the dancing and showboating. He's not even really evil, he's just a jerk. Yeah, maybe he cries too much in the movie, I'll ride with that, but there's a lot to enjoy about Spider-Man 3. Perfect? Maybe not but I find it more watchable than basically any of Nolan's Batman movies. Yeah, that's right, I said it.
Absolutely. Spider-Man 3 is excellent. It did something new, whereas the reboot was more of the same mehness. Give me too many ideas any day of the week. I really liked the movie starting with Spider-Man being loved. At some point in time, NYC would either hate the guy or celebrate the fact their city has been saved multiple times. The latter happened for a brief time, and I buy it. Peter's 'dark side' is endearing and exactly what I imagine Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker to be like when exposed to pure evil. That's his idea of being bad - asking for more cookies and dancing up the street without inhibitions. A geek with a good heart unchained.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Tue, 18 Dec 2012, 12:34
This situation shows what an excellent writer Chris Nolan is. He used Two-Face in the same capacity in The Dark Knight and yet pulled him off far more effectively. I was not disappointed with his featured appearance in the finale because the set up had been done so well throughout the rest of the film.
I have to disagree with you. I know Nolan intended for Harvey to be the "heart and soul" of the picture, but he comes across more like an after thought. In addition there is no inkling of conflict within him during the latter scenes, and the coin comes across like even more of a gimmick than it ever did in BF (and it was very poorly handled in that film as well). Harvey and Eddie are VERY comparable as well due to the fact that they are unnecessarily dumped (i.e. killed) with very little fanfare from the directors and little to no remorse from our heroes. At least with Eddie, his descent into villainy had a slightly stronger foundation and his actions as Venom seem more in keeping with the established character (minus the unimpressive Venom voice). Nolan's Harvey never really felt like the comic book character come to life.
It's funny how things turn out.
Actually I knew beforehand that my life's purpose in 1997 would be to perform the Sub-Zero fatality on the one responsible for this. Back in the pre-internet days (at least pre-internet when it comes to easy access to information and communities) film magazines in print were a much bigger deal than they are now. They were a source for news, as well as for what we considered "informed opinions", they were our access to cinema. The most widely read film magazine where I live was, and stilll is, ΣΙΝΕΜΑ (CINEMA), and their staff were largely fans, or at least admirers, of Tim Burton. They ripped Batman Forever apart (something that I have to admit influenced my own opinion for many years), and their Batman & Robin coverage before the film came out was largely cynical with a "We know it will suck, let's see how much" tone.
Some things never change. In a recent Summer 2012 feature they did on all thing Batman, they still said good things about B'89, hailed Batman Returns as a masterpiece, and still ripped the two Schumacher films apart. Is it an official party line?
With that said, I've watched it too many times to admit, its a safe choice when we need some brainless fun, we put it once a year. Was Alan Moore right when she put certain words in Silk Spectre's mouth, talking about how the past and its less "savory" aspects work as you grow up? Maybe. It's also a lot of fun, Arnie is hilarious, and there's also this Batman/Conan connection with his participation in a Batman film (in the abominable but entertaining Conan the Destroyer 1984, the future Mr. Freeze has the future Bob the Goon, Tracey Walter, as a comedic sidekick).
On the subject to the above discussion, I think some often maligned films like Spider-Man 3 and X-Men 3 or Wolverine have nothing on Batman & Robin - none of them set out to deliberately make a joke out of their main character!
It still counts as a Batman. If the 60s show does, this does too. That show had joke versions of Mr. Freeze too (he first appeared with that name in the show). Ivy was still true to the basics, just exaggerated. The only "real" problems were Batgirl's origin and Bane. Bane was basically one of Ivy's plant zombies in a Bane mask, an "in name only" appearance.
/end of rant
I've come around quite a bit on B&R too. Good? Eye of the beholder. But it's aged better than its predecessors in that B89 was always fondly regarded, BR was underrated but it has improved in the last ten or so years and Forever has diminished significantly. Meanwhile, B&R was monkey vomit on celluloid that has slowly built up some credibility. Not much but it's not quite the completely hollow and vacuous experience people thought. It's FUN. Maybe the Nolan movies have gotten to me but I find I really miss fun Batman films. And B&R definitely scratches that itch.
Besides, it has several unassailable truths- Batman never kills anybody, there's no distracting and unnecessary love interest (go back and watch it, Julie is a non-entity) and no extraneous characters find out Batman's secret identity... all things that the other films, particularly the Nolan ones, cannot claim. Confront a fan with that and watch him make a "you just kicked me in the balls" face as he tries futilely to think up a rebuttal.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 28 Dec 2012, 16:40
I've come around quite a bit on B&R too. Good? Eye of the beholder. But it's aged better than its predecessors in that B89 was always fondly regarded, BR was underrated but it has improved in the last ten or so years and Forever has diminished significantly. Meanwhile, B&R was monkey vomit on celluloid that has slowly built up some credibility. Not much but it's not quite the completely hollow and vacuous experience people thought. It's FUN. Maybe the Nolan movies have gotten to me but I find I really miss fun Batman films. And B&R definitely scratches that itch.
Besides, it has several unassailable truths- Batman never kills anybody, there's no distracting and unnecessary love interest (go back and watch it, Julie is a non-entity) and no extraneous characters find out Batman's secret identity... all things that the other films, particularly the Nolan ones, cannot claim. Confront a fan with that and watch him make a "you just kicked me in the balls" face as he tries futilely to think up a rebuttal.
Your last part hit the nail on the head; every one of the first 3 film had the same subplot rehashed; villains find out wayne is Batman, Bruce falls in love and has to save his love interest as Batman. The only character who finds out Bruces secret through the course of the film is Barbara. Compare that to batman forever in which Dick, Chase, Two Face, and the riddler all find out or the dark knight rises where everyone and their grandmother find out.
I always found it interesting that even though The Penguin sees Bruce's face at the end of Batman Returns it is questionable if he even knows who the hell he is. He never meets Bruce Wayne or appears to have any such knowledge of him. So I think Oswald is a rare case of yes seeing the man behind the mask like everyone else but the info is quite useless when you don't know their name lol
This might also be the case with The Joker. Although Batman dramatically announces to him he's the murderer of his parents The Joker seems to take it as a put on almost. Let's not forget he's a raving lunatic. It's questionable if Jack even remembers killing his parents. So I think there The Joker isn't quite getting what Batman's referring too.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sat, 29 Dec 2012, 21:00
I always found it interesting that even though The Penguin sees Bruce's face at the end of Batman Returns it is questionable if he even knows who the hell he is. He never meets Bruce Wayne or appears to have any such knowledge of him. So I think Oswald is a rare case of yes seeing the man behind the mask like everyone else but the info is quite useless when you don't know their name lol
That's one of the aspects I liked about the Burton movies. Wayne is the opposite of Tony Stark. He's not on magazine covers, he's not dating movie stars and he's certainly not racing in the Grand Prix. Most people wouldn't recognize him if they met him.
Quote from: riddler on Fri, 28 Dec 2012, 23:58Your last part hit the nail on the head; every one of the first 3 film had the same subplot rehashed; villains find out wayne is Batman, Bruce falls in love and has to save his love interest as Batman. The only character who finds out Bruces secret through the course of the film is Barbara. Compare that to batman forever in which Dick, Chase, Two Face, and the riddler all find out or the dark knight in their rises where everyone and their grandmother find out.
Yep. TDKRises is especially egregious since it never even bothers to explain how Bane knew Bruce is Batman. Bruce had only been operating as Batman for, what, a month tops before Ra's died? Am I to suppose that Ra's texted Bane Batman's secret identity during that interval? It's ridiculous.
Your forgetting Bane was in league (taking orders) from Talia. And she certainly knew who was to blame for her father's death. Bane no doubt inherited the information from her. Okay we didn't see where she was during Batman Begins but she was around somewhere. Surely she was filled in at undisclosed points by Ra's himself.
A little imagination is all you need folks. Don't suffer from "Total Nolan exposition syndrome". Try a dose of "Burton imagination" instead for plothole headaches lol
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sun, 30 Dec 2012, 20:12Your forgetting Bane was in league (taking orders) from Talia. And she certainly knew who was to blame for her father's death. Bane no doubt inherited the information from her. Okay we didn't see where she was during Batman Begins but she was around somewhere. Surely she was filled in at undisclosed points by Ra's himself.
Hm. So the master of exposition needs us to use our imagination? Maybe fill in a few blanks by ourselves? I'd accept that if he hadn't spent at least 10 minutes of screen time telling us where Bruce got most of his equipment in Batman Begins.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sun, 30 Dec 2012, 20:12A little imagination is all you need folks. Don't suffer from "Total Nolan exposition syndrome". Try a dose of "Burton imagination" instead for plothole headaches lol
That's a burden he put upon himself. As far as I'm concerned, criticizing Nolan for not filling in relevant plot points is a completely valid criticism.
One time in one of my city's theaters and i was pissed off at paying to see it as i was suffering through it as it was beyond terrible and the franchise died.
But seeing it on special edition blu-ray is funny with the commentary as i own the boxset on blu-ray and glad Schumacher apologized for it.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 31 Dec 2012, 05:19
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sun, 30 Dec 2012, 20:12Your forgetting Bane was in league (taking orders) from Talia. And she certainly knew who was to blame for her father's death. Bane no doubt inherited the information from her. Okay we didn't see where she was during Batman Begins but she was around somewhere. Surely she was filled in at undisclosed points by Ra's himself.
Hm. So the master of exposition needs us to use our imagination? Maybe fill in a few blanks by ourselves? I'd accept that if he hadn't spent at least 10 minutes of screen time telling us where Bruce got most of his equipment in Batman Begins.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sun, 30 Dec 2012, 20:12A little imagination is all you need folks. Don't suffer from "Total Nolan exposition syndrome". Try a dose of "Burton imagination" instead for plothole headaches lol
That's a burden he put upon himself. As far as I'm concerned, criticizing Nolan for not filling in relevant plot points is a completely valid criticism.
Saw this just now. Superb rebuttals, colors.
About five times. I only watch it if I catch it on TV on lazy days. I have the DVD as part of my Batman boxset but never actually popped it on!
Repeatedly. Seen it as much as any other film I enjoy. Enough to almost quote the whole thing...
I've probably watched this movie from beginning to end about four times since I first saw it in maybe 1998. All but the most recent time were in the late 90's (mainly because I like Uma Thurman and her performance) and I finally watched it again either this year or last year. But I've watched pieces of it many times. It's easily the worst of the old Batman series but I don't think it's the worst movie ever made like some people might think it is. Not even close.
Quote from: JokerMeThis on Thu, 4 Jul 2013, 03:48
I've probably watched this movie from beginning to end about four times since I first saw it in maybe 1998. All but the most recent times were in the late 90's (mainly because I like Uma Thurman and her performance) and I finally watched it again either this year or last year. But I've watched pieces of it many times. It's easily the worst of the old Batman series but I don't think it's the worst movie ever made like some people might think it is. Not even close.
I think I've only seen this film from beginning to end about twice. Once was at the cinema when it was first released and another time on TV when I was pretty much watching it ironically in a Mystery Science Theatre way with a friend enjoying and commenting on all its many flaws. However, I've probably seen snatches of the film on TV many several times, but I tend to only get through two or three scenes before trying to find something better to do with my time.
I do agree with JokerMeThis that as bad as it is, it is not the 'worst film ever made'. As far as comic-book movies alone go, 'Spawn' and the 'Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles' sequels are far worse IMHO.
a few times. i didn't know there was going to be a quiz on it later so i didn't count lol.
I'm not miserable or unhappy when I watch this movie. Even when Uma isn't on the screen. I think it's fun. If people can enjoy the Adam West Batman movie and TV show why can't they enjoy this movie? I don't think it's a great movie but I don't think the Adam West Batman movie is a great movie either. I think they're just light and fun.
I've probably seen it about five to six times. I liked it at the time, but knowing what I know now I probably wouldn't enjoy it if I saw it today.
I think it could've been a lot better if it tried to at least retain the balance of light and dark that Batman Forever did and explored Bruce Wayne's psychology like it did. Maybe it could've explored Dick Grayson's psychology a little too so we could learn more about his character. Perhaps this could've replaced the whole Barbara/Batgirl character.
Also, reduce the puns and jokes by about half. Give us more about Victor's tragic back story. Also, we should've seen more of Pamela's life before she becomes Poison Ivy like we saw some of Selina Kyle's life in Batman Returns before she becomes Catwoman.
One thing Batman and Robin did great was the Alfred being sick story. Those were some great scenes he and Bruce had.
Quote from: JokerMeThis on Tue, 9 Jul 2013, 06:08I think it could've been a lot better if it tried to at least retain the balance of light and dark that Batman Forever did and explored Bruce Wayne's psychology like it did.
I think it did explore Bruce's psychology, just not in the context of BF's darkness. BF resolved a lot of Bruce's issues so it made sense to go with a much lighter tone for B&R.
Plus, Schumacher wanted to sell more action figures.
Quote from: JokerMeThis on Tue, 9 Jul 2013, 06:08Maybe it could've explored Dick Grayson's psychology a little too so we could learn more about his character. Perhaps this could've replaced the whole Barbara/Batgirl character.
Two themes Schumacher developed in the movie were the concept of family and accepting and trusting one another. It makes a lot of sense to introduce someone new to push those themes further.
Plus, Schumacher wanted to sell more action figures.
Quote from: JokerMeThis on Tue, 9 Jul 2013, 06:08Give us more about Victor's tragic back story.
Um, that was his primary motivation for the movie. We see the beginning of his freezing, we see the cause of it, we see the aftermath of it and we see the resolution of it.
Quote from: JokerMeThis on Tue, 9 Jul 2013, 06:08Also, we should've seen more of Pamela's life before she becomes Poison Ivy like we saw some of Selina Kyle's life in Batman Returns before she becomes Catwoman.
Maybe it's just because I wasn't hip to pre-Ivy Pamela but I thought we got enough. There was a story to tell, after all.
Plus, hey, Schumacher wanted to sell more action figures.
EDIT- Over the years, I've come to really respect B&R. No, it's not the "Dark" Knight but it tells a fairly good story in a fairly engaging way with some fairly solid action sequences. It's almost entirely devoid of the darkness of previous and subsequent films but I don't think that's always a bad thing. I realize there's a middle ground between this and TDK but I think Batman should always be accessible to children; B&R is more than TDK. So there's that.
My issue with Batman & Robin has less to do with the story. Like colors states, the film did partly deal with Dr Fries' tragic backstory. However, the tone was completely wrong. To go from a potentially touching scene of Fries/Freeze replaying home videos of his life with his beautiful wife before her illness to an annoying flip and poor one-line 'I hate it when people talk during the movie' was incredibly jarring and immediately destroyed any attempt at pathos for this potentially complex villain
Three times. Each time it got worse to the point when I couldn't watch it again for a fourth time.
Once in the theater and probably only five or six times on DVD until recently. However, my grandson is now old enough to start finding topics that he likes. Batman & Robin is very appealing to him and that's easy to understand, with it's bright colors and wild looking characters. So he needs almost a daily dose of B&R for about 30 minutes. So there's no telling where that viewing count would be for me now. But of course those are partial viewings without any real intent to watch the material so much as let my grandson get his fill. Thank God the toys are still relatively cheap. He enjoys the little figures Kenner made from the movie.