There isn't a serious movie within Batman & Robin

[Slash Man]

Batman & Robin wasn't and will never be a serious film - that's not to knock it, but it was made with different intentions than the previous films. People lump the Schumacher films together, but Batman Forever took a serious premise and made it more accessible through jokes and family-friendly content. Batman & Robin was a different beast altogether. There's always been talks of proposed "directors cuts" and "fan edits", and it's definitely feasible for Batman Forever; Tim Burton specifically brought in Schumacher to follow in his style, and that was his intent before the studio guided him into another direction. But Batman & Robin was always silly and lighthearted and there's no way to salvage together a serious cut that never existed in the first place.

Let me switch gears and talk about where this movie shines. It's basically a tongue in cheek parody of superhero movies and comics in general. Just like the Dark Knight Returns, this movie took the concept of Batman and took it to comical extremes - in polar different directions, mind you. People compare it to the 60s series a lot, and I don't think that's a completely fair assessment. They both have a more lighthearted view of the character, but 60s Batman drew directly from the kitsch factor of the contemporary comics of the time whereas Batman & Robin went more for a parody approach. It almost makes sense when you consider that the original Batman is a classic that could never be duplicated. Why not just have some fun with the concept?

Another similarity with the 60s series is that it provides appeal to kids through action and humor for older audiences. It delivers on action with impressive choreography and effects that aged well enough. Arnold was also the perfect man for the job when it came to delivering action and witty cracks.

The only area where the film really failed was with moments that felt too serious, namely with Alfred. Michael Gough is a seasoned actor that we got to know and love during the duration of the series. He plays a heartbreaking role, but it feels out of place in an otherwise goofy movie. The rivalry between Batman and Robin, and Bruce's love interest are other low points that don't serve the essence of the film.

I still don't get all the hate. People talk about it like it's a "so bad it's good" movie, but all the laughs and absurdity were all intentional.

[The Laughing Fish]

The only area where the film really failed was with moments that felt too serious, namely with Alfred. Michael Gough is a seasoned actor that we got to know and love during the duration of the series. He plays a heartbreaking role, but it feels out of place in an otherwise goofy movie.

I feel the opposite. He gave the film some depth and warmth, and was the best actor in the film. Yes, the film may have been goofy, but it would've been far worse off without him.

I still don't get all the hate. People talk about it like it's a "so bad it's good" movie, but all the laughs and absurdity were all intentional.

Put it this way, in light of all the overrated crap that's being hailed as "fun" entertainment i.e. most MCU films nowadays, I think B&R deserves a second look.

[Slash Man]

I feel the opposite. He gave the film some depth and warmth, and was the best actor in the film. Yes, the film may have been goofy, but it would've been far worse off without him.

It's tough to say because he's an actor that could portray that kind of depth... but none of his costars could measure up to that. Maybe Keaton could actually give him something to work off of. Though to be clear I agree that Michael Gough offers a rare glimpse at genuineness in the film, but in the grand scheme of things, it feels out of place IMO.

Put it this way, in light of all the overrated crap that's being hailed as "fun" entertainment i.e. most MCU films nowadays, I think B&R deserves a second look.

This is actually very relevant in light of the breakout success of Thor: Ragnarok. The Thor series received relatively lukewarm reviews prior, and Ragnarok completely reinvented the series, and many peg it as a full-on comedy. Compare to the fact that the Batman series was beginning to show signs of fatigue (more so creatively since Batman Forever was a box office smash with decent reviews). It was the exact same turn of events, just with a vastly different outcome.

Interestingly, Chris Hemsworth was not a comedic actor prior to the shift in tone, but still won audiences over. Sorry to say, but George Clooney didn't have the same trust from the audience, nor the comic abilities to back up his role here. Two great Bat-actors of the past that come to mind are Adam West and Keaton again. Adam West was the unsung straight man in the face of the zaniness of his surroundings. Keaton could pull of either the straight man or the comic part. With comedy in mind, Schwarzenegger was a perfect casting choice having already successfully broken into comedy roles in the 90s while still being a bona fide action movie legend.

[The Laughing Fish]

It's tough to say because he's an actor that could portray that kind of depth... but none of his costars could measure up to that.

I reckon that's a bit harsh. Say what you will about Clooney's performance overall, but I thought his acting during those moments Gough are quite strong. If B&R's tone was different, Clooney might've made a much better Batman. I reckon he thrives in playing humourous roles if he's starring in a black comedy or ensemble piece i.e. Burn After Reading and Ocean's Eleven.

This is actually very relevant in light of the breakout success of Thor: Ragnarok. The Thor series received relatively lukewarm reviews prior, and Ragnarok completely reinvented the series, and many peg it as a full-on comedy. Compare to the fact that the Batman series was beginning to show signs of fatigue (more so creatively since Batman Forever was a box office smash with decent reviews). It was the exact same turn of events, just with a vastly different outcome.

Interestingly, Chris Hemsworth was not a comedic actor prior to the shift in tone, but still won audiences over. Sorry to say, but George Clooney didn't have the same trust from the audience, nor the comic abilities to back up his role here. Two great Bat-actors of the past that come to mind are Adam West and Keaton again. Adam West was the unsung straight man in the face of the zaniness of his surroundings. Keaton could pull of either the straight man or the comic part. With comedy in mind, Schwarzenegger was a perfect casting choice having already successfully broken into comedy roles in the 90s while still being a bona fide action movie legend.

Actually, the first Thor film was released with pretty good reviews when it first came out. But over time, fans tend to think it's lukewarm; most say it's either middle of the road or one of the weakest MCU films. I disagree. I still think it's the best of the Thor standalones, and it's one of the MCU's underrated. Yes, it has its share of comedy, but it was sincere when it needed to be.

I've only seen some scenes of Ragnarok, and it was enough to make me lose interest in seeing the film altogether. Turning Thor into a complete buffoon and more of a Star-Lord clone wasn't what I had in mind of the character going forward in the MCU. I thought the slapstick humour worked in the first film as a fish-out-of-water scenario everytime he's on Earth, but it shouldn't be the only thing that defines him.

Unfortunately, Thor along with nearly the rest of the MCU is being celebrated for becoming a parody of themselves. Which was the exact opposite of people's reaction to B&R 21 years ago.

[Slash Man]

I reckon that's a bit harsh. Say what you will about Clooney's performance overall, but I thought his acting during those moments Gough are quite strong. If B&R's tone was different, Clooney might've made a much better Batman. I reckon he thrives in playing humourous roles if he's starring in a black comedy or ensemble piece i.e. Burn After Reading and Ocean's Eleven.

Not to knock his acting chops, but for me it boils down to chemistry and familiarity. Clooney has since proven himself as a worthy leading man, but even amongst A-list stars, onscreen chemistry isn't always a given. The fact that there was to be more of an emotional tone was hurt by the fact that Batman was recast as a new actor.

[thecolorsblend]

I reckon that's a bit harsh. Say what you will about Clooney's performance overall, but I thought his acting during those moments Gough are quite strong.

Clooney is one of those actors who seems to do well with lighter roles. Everybody says he could've played a more serious Batman but, with all due respect, I have no idea what movie in his filmography gives them that impression. The roles of his I think of most readily tend to be something other than grounded and seriously dramatic. And even in more serious material like The Perfect Storm or Solaris, he's not doing anything that dozens of actors couldn't do just as well.

[Slash Man]

Giving it another watch, I probably nitpick too much. The fun and enjoyment overshadows any out of place moments. And Clooney makes for a fine Bruce Wayne. He's really smug yet believable as a millionaire playboy. A stark difference from the lovable weirdo played by Keaton and the tortured soul played by Kilmer.

[The Laughing Fish]

Clooney is one of those actors who seems to do well with lighter roles. Everybody says he could've played a more serious Batman but, with all due respect, I have no idea what movie in his filmography gives them that impression. The roles of his I think of most readily tend to be something other than grounded and seriously dramatic. And even in more serious material like The Perfect Storm or Solaris, he's not doing anything that dozens of actors couldn't do just as well.

Clooney might be known for playing charismatic, lighter characters for most of the time, but I have seen far more serious films where he was more than capable of delivering dramatic performances, i.e. The Peacemaker and Syriana.

Clooney makes for a fine Bruce Wayne. He's really smug yet believable as a millionaire playboy. A stark difference from the lovable weirdo played by Keaton and the tortured soul played by Kilmer.

I agree with this. One can say whatever they want about his take on Batman, but as Bruce Wayne, I thought he was fine. He's perhaps more charismatic than any other actor in the franchise in that particular part.

[Wayne49]

Personally I think this movie would carry an entirely different reputation had Schumacher given Batman the same duality the previous ones had.  There was never any transformation from Bruce Wayne to Batman when he donned the cowl and I think that was jolting to audiences. In Batman Forever you had Val Kilmer giving a pseudo-Keaton performance in the beginning before he started finding his own take on the role. I think that was done purposely to allow audiences to transition from Keaton to Kilmer.

But in B&R there was no transition at all. He was just Clooney masked with no distinguishing qualities to differentiate himself from the role. And given Clooney has such a distinct vocal quality, that made the concept of no one recognizing Wayne and Batman as the same person well past absurd. I know we give Clark Kent and Superman an easy pass for co-existing under more absurd reasons, but Batman has always had a theatrical presence that allowed audiences to except the outfit he wears (excluding the obvious comedic intent of Adam West). So to just suddenly strip the character of that quality, especially in the 90's when so much was riding on films like this, was a costly decision for Schumacher.

But even with all that being said, I am totally fine with the film as presented. Visually the movie holds up exceptionally well. In some cases even better than later entries. If there is a happy consistency to a film that remains blacklisted by some fans, it's that Schumacher never strayed from giving the movie the visual appeal that distinguishes his movies from the rest. Without question both of his films scream a comic book quality that many of the others can't achieve because they're too busy being " serious" and "dark".  And, for me, that gives his movies more watch-ability than say BVS or Justice League.

In fact I find considerably more camp in those last two entries than I do in the Schumacher films, because they take the concept to ridiculous levels of seriousness that ultimately undermines the story. That's why it's become the butt of jokes in films like Deadpool 2. Wade Wilson says, " Sorry I was late. I was fighting a caped bad-ass, only to discover his mom was named Martha too." CLASSIC.

At the end of the day, I think some fans need to take a step back and give a closer examination to themselves than some of these films they bash with bizarre levels of resentment. Because no matter how you color it, the concept weighs on the idea of a man dressing up to look like a bat with a ton of style points a bat doesn't have. While that notion certainly offers a wide canvas to explore a number of psychological and social themes, there is also an inherent fantasy quality that is likely more universal to it's appeal. No one will care what his personal struggles are if there is not a visual payoff in the form of his costumed presence.

Batman & Robin certainly speaks to many of those qualities that cater to the inner child in all of us that watch these movies. Perhaps the Joker was right when he said, " Why so serious?" Sometimes I think it's healthy to drop that veil of pretentiousness and just let these character breath on a very primal level that services the inner child and nothing of greater pursuit.  Perhaps the day has finally arrived to cut the shackles from this film and let it be said nothing is truly wrong here.

[The Laughing Fish]

Perhaps the Joker was right when he said, " Why so serious?" Sometimes I think it's healthy to drop that veil of pretentiousness and just let these character breath on a very primal level that services the inner child and nothing of greater pursuit.

Not only is the nature of the Joker's quote ironic, the irony is TDK is a movie which not only shares a lot of problems people have complained about BvS in terms of pretentiousness and darkness, but is even worse in comparison if you stop and think about it. And yet, I see a lot of people cherishing the movie and get very upset if somebody offers legitimate criticism against it. But whatever, let's ignore its problems and persist dumbing down a particular scene from another movie for a cheap laugh to perpetuate a lazy popular consensus.