BF poll

[The Joker]

Batman Forever was basically a attempt (a successful one at that given the box office) at making the Batman franchise more kid friendly and certainly more lighter in it's approach, which WB felt was getting questionable following Batman Returns. Hence, WB gently letting Burton go, and Schumacher taking his place in the director's chair.

The film is also very much a product of it's time. As I remember that particular summer of 1995 very vividly, and it certainly did seem like that the approach Shcumacher and company took with Forever definately appealed to a large number of people. If even for just that short period of time. Though of course it did feature Jim Carrey (who was a very much in demand actor at that time coming off of Ace Ventura, The Mask, and Dumb and Dumber), and I'm sure the soundtrack didn't hurt matters either (yeah, Seal's "Kiss from a Rose" was played EVERYWHERE ... or it certainly seemed like it did!).

As far as my positive/negative feelings on Batman Forever, I like it alright. It definately had more of a camp vibe about it than the previous Burton efforts, though at the same time it's certainly a more darker film than that of Batman & Robin. Unfortunately, key scenes involving the red book were excised from the final product, and I truly believe that those scenes being omitted ultimately hurt the film conveying the reason why it was Batman Forever in the first place.

Val Kilmer, to his credit, was a decent Batman I felt. Not great, but not bad either. I would have loved to see what he could have done with a better script. As far as performances in the film, his is the least of my concerns.

Tommy Lee Jones performance of Two-Face was much like Gene Hackman's with Lex Luthor in the late 1970's. Which was that of a villain that would have fit right in with the rogues gallery of the Adam West tv show. Clearly, it was written that way, so I can't fault TLJ for that. Though one can imagine that if Two-Face was conveyed as much more serious, and somber in tone, while Carrey's Riddler was the hyper wacko, it might have flowed better. Instead, Two-Face in Forever is a lame knock off of the Joker. And that just didn't cut it.

Jim Carrey as the Riddler was about what everyone expected. Jim Carrey playing Jim Carrey. Only it was in a Batman movie. Being that Frank Gorshin's Riddler was, and probably still is, much more familiar to the general public than the comic book/TAS version of the Riddler, I can see why this type of approach was taken.

Nicole Kidman as Dr. Chase Meridian certainly provided the sex appeal that the Burton/Schumacher films typically went for in the love interests. It's also about the only movie I found Nicole Kidman very attractive. Ok ... she was hot in Eyes Wide Shut as well.  

Chris O' Donnell as Robin was ok. Even if he was a bit too old by the time 1995 rolled around. I remember watching Batman Forever for the first time, and thinking his rebellious attitude, and arguing with Bruce reminded me alot of Jason Todd's time as the 2nd Robin in the comics (yeah the one Joker killed and all he got was a t-shirt!).

Overall, I like Batman Forever alright. The film hasn't aged all that well, but I felt it was a decent attempt (not a solid one though) at taking the franchise into another direction. And I think it touched, if even just for a moment, what audiences at that time wanted to see. Unfortunately for WB, the franchise got carried away with itself by 1997, and the writing was definately on the wall at that point.

[Batmoney]

Batman Forever is just straight up entertaining, I can't deny it. If you watch that film, it might not be the best Batman film, but you won't be bored in my opinion.

[Catwoman]

i just don't like when the batmobile gets blew up cause that car was sexy. i'd like to pose in a bikini that lit up like the riddler's jacket next to that car at night. mmmm.

[johnnygobbs]

I think The Joker pretty much nailed it.  I might disagree with a few of the details (for instance, I was pleasantly surprised by Chris O'Donnell's work as Robin) but overall, the verdict is spot on.

I'm also of the opinion that whilst I would have preferred another Burton Batman film, I do believe that Schumacher was capable of making a better Batman film than Warner Bros' brief allowed.  Look at The Lost Boys or Flatliners for the type of Batman film Schumacher could and should have made.

[The Dark Knight]

i just don't like when the batmobile gets blew up cause that car was sexy.

My reaction was similar to Carrey's in that scene.

Kilmer's Batcave being blown apart is my favourite scene in the film. Now, I absolutely hate it when the villains enter the Batcave, let alone destroy it, but here, I couldn't care less. I'm slightly crazed, cheering every explosion. Go! Destroy that Schumacher cave!

"You might think of it as... therapy."

[thecolorsblend]

Batman Forever was basically a attempt (a successful one at that given the box office) at making the Batman franchise more kid friendly and certainly more lighter in it's approach, which WB felt was getting questionable following Batman Returns. Hence, WB gently letting Burton go, and Schumacher taking his place in the director's chair.

BF was more successful than BR in the realm of merchandising and so forth but it WAS NOT more profitable in terms of box office dollars in the US for sure and maybe internationally too (although I'm too lazy to check the latter figures).  There's this myth out there that BF scored much higher bank than BR but it's not true.  Taking each film's budget into account, the two films grossed pretty much the same amount.

[phantom stranger]

How many of you guys liked it when you were kids (assuming that was when you first saw it)?

I remember being underwhelmed by the film back in 1995 but EVERYONE loved it. Even on the internet I had a hard time finding people who were bashing it. Of course that was back in the dark ages before this site came to be.

I remember there was one Batman related site I would visit that said something to this effect after B & R came out:

"So now we have two sets of Batman films, each by a different director with his own unique style."

I remember thinking, "No, we don't have that at all. We have one set of Batman films and another set of...well, whatever that was supposed to be."

It wasn't until 2008 when we had two sets of Batman films to compare.

[The Dark Knight]

BF was more successful than BR in the realm of merchandising and so forth but it WAS NOT more profitable in terms of box office dollars in the US for sure and maybe internationally too (although I'm too lazy to check the latter figures).  There's this myth out there that BF scored much higher bank than BR but it's not true.  Taking each film's budget into account, the two films grossed pretty much the same amount.

Correct colors.

And anyway, box office shouldn't come into it. A film is either good, or not. Higher box office does not equal a better film. It means nothing.

[Paul (ral)]

How many of you guys liked it when you were kids (assuming that was when you first saw it)?

I saw it when i was about 17, went along with my dad and sister.  I loved it.  I phoned friends and told them to go see it. I was a big Jim Carrey fan, had felt a little dissappointed by BR and had next to no exposure to the comics.

Things change...

[The Joker]

BF was more successful than BR in the realm of merchandising and so forth but it WAS NOT more profitable in terms of box office dollars in the US for sure and maybe internationally too (although I'm too lazy to check the latter figures).  There's this myth out there that BF scored much higher bank than BR but it's not true.  Taking each film's budget into account, the two films grossed pretty much the same amount.

Unfortunately for the point you were trying to make, that's NOT what I was talking about.

Batman Forever was extremely successful in taking the franchise into another direction. Which was again definately lighter, and more kid friendly than it's 1992 predecessor. It's not about which one made what and which made more profit. Such a shift in direction and star (Kilmer replacing Keaton being the biggie) could have easily resulted in lesser box office. But did it? Not really. Actually, it did very well considering the gamble WB and Schumacher were taking, which is (and it should be painfully obvious by now) exactly why Batman & Robin was put on the fast track.

How many of you guys liked it when you were kids (assuming that was when you first saw it)?

I was there opening day, and yeah I did.