What do you actually LIKE from the Schumacher films?

[thecolorsblend]

I was more disappointed by Forever than I was with Batman and Robin, but that was because the gap in quality between Returns and Forever is obviously far greater than the gap between Forever and its sequel.

I would agree with that.

There were a few attempts to add a relevant and serious sub-plot to the main action, with respect of Bruce Wayne's guilt over the murder of his parents, which in many ways got to the heart of why he became Batman to begin with.

I think much of the same can be said for B&R's plot, re: Alfred's illness.  In fact, whatever redeeming value the movie has, it's in those scenes.

One major gripe I've got with BF is the general cartoonishness of the performance.  I think the Riddler can be done in a variety of different ways but Two Face is a pretty serious villain.  He doesn't sit around cackling, dance around like an idiot, etc.  In fact, Two Face is so bad in BF that I have to laugh when people say TDK's version is better.  To me, it's like running in the Special Olympics and bragging about being faster than your competition.  Yeah, sure, TDK's Two Face is better but given how lousy the competition is, it's nothing to talk smack about.

Although I'm not the biggest fan of Kilmer

Do you mean Kilmer as Batman?  Or Kilmer as a film actor?  If it's the first one, I can understand.

But I wouldn't be able to understand not having (at the very bare minimum) a grudging respect for him as a performer.

[johnnygobbs]

With Batman and Robin, the whole Alfred's illness sub-plot was tangential to the main story, whereas the sub-plot in Forever, regarding Bruce Wayne's guilt over his parents at least tried to get to the heart of why he became Batman and thus, owned something to the original comics.  On the subject, I was actually rather irritated by the sub-plot regarding Alfred contracting 'McGregor's Syndrome'.  Disregarding the whole contrived nature of having him suffer from the same illness Mr Freeze is seeking to find a cure for, I found it a cheap means of trying to develop some sentiment in an otherwise overly-camp and facile film.  I also didn't care for the way it was used to introduce 'Barbara Wilson' as Alfred's niece (not Commissioner Gordon's daughter).  Besides, if Alfred is Barbara's uncle, how old were her parents when she was conceived?  Alfred looked about 60 years older than Barbara.

As for Kilmer, to be honest I was referring to him as an actor.  He was OK in Tombstone, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and Heat (although he was still the worst thing in that movie), but other than that I can't say he's particularly impressed me in much.  On the plus side, he made a marginally better Bruce Wayne than Clooney.

Out of interest, what is your opinion of Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent?  I think we can both agree that Tommy Lee Jones was hideous in the role, but I was genuinely impressed by Eckhart's perfomance in TDK.  In many ways, his character was the centre of that film IMO.

[The Joker]

One major gripe I've got with BF is the general cartoonishness of the performance.

If we're talking about villains of Batman Forever, then Tommy Lee Jones' portrayal of Two-Face should be the only one that would come across as a huge let down for fans of that character. With Jim Carrey, everybody and their grandmother knew what they were getting when his name was announced as being attached to play the Riddler in Batman Forever. And Carrey delivered just that. A cartoonish performance. No surprise there I'm afraid.

 

I think the Riddler can be done in a variety of different ways but Two Face is a pretty serious villain.  He doesn't sit around cackling, dance around like an idiot, etc.  In fact, Two Face is so bad in BF that I have to laugh when people say TDK's version is better.  To me, it's like running in the Special Olympics and bragging about being faster than your competition.  Yeah, sure, TDK's Two Face is better but given how lousy the competition is, it's nothing to talk smack about.

Good grief.

To say Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent/Two-Face is better than Tommy Lee Jones' version, or vice versa, is like saying a banana is better than a giraffe.

They are two totally different things. I can't even begin to seriously compare the two, as they are absolutely nothing alike. Though it is amusing to read fanboys (usually die hard Nolan fanboys at that) actually bring this up as if it's some sort of major win for The Dark Knight. 

[The Dark Knight]

Everyone knows that Clooney is capable of giving great performances but he just didn't seem to care when he played Batman, and simply phoned the performance in.  

Although I'm not the biggest fan of Kilmer at least he got the dark broodiness of Batman

This I agree with.

Clooney was just miscast, period, bad script or not. He doesn't have the capability to be truly threatening, with that gravel filled voice. Can you see Clooney pulling off the whole "swear to me!" line in Begins? I think not. Clooney just doesn't have an inherent darker edge, which is so necessary.

Of the bat-actors besides Bale, Val Kilmer had the most potential to truly succeed, but was let down by Joel Schumacher as director (they didn't get along during Batman Forever due to Schumacher's lack of guidance and other things). Kilmer had the edge, the good looks, and the body mass for the role, but he just came across as wooden sometimes. Given a decent director and script, I'm sure he would've done a great job.

[johnnygobbs]

Kilmer had the edge, the good looks, and the body mass for the role

I completely agree with that statement.  I could imagine him putting in a great performance as Bruce Wayne with a stronger script/ better direction.

[thecolorsblend]

This thread seemed like the best match since this is about both Schumacher films. I say that because this thread is sort of ancient and I wouldn't normally resurrect it like this but what I have to say probably doesn't merit a thread all by itself.

My fanboy muse has settled on Batman lately. Among other things, that has included the Joel Schumacher movies... and the commentaries thereof. Not sure how many of you have listened to Tim Burton's commentaries but he goes through some pretty good trivia, stories and memories. Maybe typical of Burton, his remarks are a bit rambling and unfocused at times but that just gives them authenticity.

The Schumacher commentaries... eh. Let's just say he breaks a few commentary rules:

* Tell, don't show. We can watch the movie too so we don't need a description of what's occurring on screen. The only reason anybody puts on a commentary is to get stuff they can't get just by watching the movie. To be fair, Joel does remember to make with the thoughts and recollections ("oh yes, this was the day Nicole Kidman bought Starbucks coffee for literally EVERYBODY on the set!", "Uma had considerable input on her hair, wardrobe and makeup designs, and a lot of the character's aesthetics are due to her," "I lost my father when I was four and it's just one of those things that never leaves you") but it doesn't happen as often as I personally might've wanted.

* Tell, don't watch. There are lengthy gaps in each commentary as the movie plays through. Accurate or not, it gives the impression that he has nothing to say. It could be that he hadn't seen these movies in years and didn't have much time to prepare as he was gearing up to do some other movie... but years later, nobody is going to remember that. All people will think is "damn dude, Schumacher kept his mouth shut a lot during his 'commentary'!

In fact, the scatter shot nature of each track makes me wonder if he even had an interviewer prompting him and asking questions. Usually, any commentary has a rhythm and flow to it that his simply lack. Either there was no off-mic interviewer, the interviewer really sucks at his job or... maybe there wasn't one at all.

I've read conspiracy theories that Joel pretty much lost his enthusiasm for Batman films when Kilmer dropped out of B&R to do The Saint. By that point, he was contractually obligated to direct the movie so he had no choice but to continue. When people suggest that his heart truly lies with Batman Forever... well, I find it easier to believe now. It's bolstered by the fact that he ends his commentary before B&R is even finished! He at least stuck around until the closing credits for Batman Forever.

Overall, I think his commentaries for both movies are worth checking out... but just barely. None of this is to bash on the guy. Some directors are in their element when they do commentaries (Francis Ford Coppola, Zack Snyder, PT Anderson, Kevin Smith; I can pretty much recommend any commentary I've heard them do) while others just aren't comfortable with the process (Mel Brooks, Paul Verhoeven, Sam Raimi, arguably George Lucas). Can't hate on Schumacher for giving it his best shot, esp when he likely got jacknothing in terms of compensation for his time. Just wanted to put this out there.

[The Laughing Fish]

Not sure how many of you have listened to Tim Burton's commentaries but he goes through some pretty good trivia, stories and memories. Maybe typical of Burton, his remarks are a bit rambling and unfocused at times but that just gives them authenticity.

Burton comes across as timid though. My favorite part of his commentary for the first film was when he talked about the time he kept demanding too many takes from Jack Palance, and Palance would say "I've made a hundred movies, how many have you made?" and Burton described how intimidated he felt, as if his whole world shrunk.

About Batman Forever, I think the saddest thing about it is if it didn't have so much camp, the bad attempt at comedy apart from two or three scenes, and bad acting (especially Jones, who looked liked he was supposed to copy Nicholson's Joker but came across as a typical Power Rangers villain instead), I think it would have been a much better film. Because I can't help but feel inside it there is a good film there that just happens to be poorly told.

[riddler]

Not sure how many of you have listened to Tim Burton's commentaries but he goes through some pretty good trivia, stories and memories. Maybe typical of Burton, his remarks are a bit rambling and unfocused at times but that just gives them authenticity.

Burton comes across as timid though. My favorite part of his commentary for the first film was when he talked about the time he kept demanding too many takes from Jack Palance, and Palance would say "I've made a hundred movies, how many have you made?" and Burton described how intimidated he felt, as if his whole world shrunk.

About Batman Forever, I think the saddest thing about it is if it didn't have so much camp, the bad attempt at comedy apart from two or three scenes, and bad acting (especially Jones, who looked liked he was supposed to copy Nicholson's Joker but came across as a typical Power Rangers villain instead), I think it would have been a much better film. Because I can't help but feel inside it there is a good film there that just happens to be poorly told.

Forever could have been better than either Burton film if Schumacher was more on target; mainly he got two face totally wrong, I think if that character were portrayed more seriously, it would have allowed Carrey to flourish more in his natural comedic role. I did think robin was handled perfectly.

[The Laughing Fish]

Not sure how many of you have listened to Tim Burton's commentaries but he goes through some pretty good trivia, stories and memories. Maybe typical of Burton, his remarks are a bit rambling and unfocused at times but that just gives them authenticity.

Burton comes across as timid though. My favorite part of his commentary for the first film was when he talked about the time he kept demanding too many takes from Jack Palance, and Palance would say "I've made a hundred movies, how many have you made?" and Burton described how intimidated he felt, as if his whole world shrunk.

About Batman Forever, I think the saddest thing about it is if it didn't have so much camp, the bad attempt at comedy apart from two or three scenes, and bad acting (especially Jones, who looked liked he was supposed to copy Nicholson's Joker but came across as a typical Power Rangers villain instead), I think it would have been a much better film. Because I can't help but feel inside it there is a good film there that just happens to be poorly told.

Forever could have been better than either Burton film if Schumacher was more on target; mainly he got two face totally wrong, I think if that character were portrayed more seriously, it would have allowed Carrey to flourish more in his natural comedic role. I did think robin was handled perfectly.

Agreed. If Two-Face was portrayed seriously, it could have brought balance to the film. It felt like they were so desperate to avoid any controversy like in Returns that they had to be "comical" as much as possible. Then again if the film at least had real wit, I wouldn't have mind if it took a lighter tone, but like I already said they tried too hard to be funny.

Another problem with the film is Val Kilmer as the lead. I know a lot of people claim that he would have been acting better if he had a better script. See, that might have been the case if he never came across as a prima donna. When I watched him as Batman, I never got the feeling Kilmer ever wanted to be in the film, apart from getting paid of course.

[BatmAngelus]

As an addendum to my posting on the second page, here are my other thoughts after rewatching Batman Forever a few weeks ago:

- Not only did Schumacher present Arkham and the GCPD rooftop for the first time, but I think he presented the best film versions yet.  They both felt like they leaped from the comic book pages.  His Arkham is the twisted, nightmarish haunted house.  The GCPD rooftop is large and spacious.

- The main "Panther" Batsuit: The cowl, the suit, the cape.  The shots of Batman swooping down, cape outstretched.  The action scenes.  They all looked great on Kilmer.  So what if it has nipples?  You can easily watch the movie without noticing them.  I like the Burtonsuits the best, but the "Panther" suit here is a close runner-up.

- Kilmer's Batman: While I agree that Kilmer's Bruce Wayne comes off as wooden at times, I don't have any issues with his performance as Batman.  "You need help, Harvey."  "I see without seeing.  To me, darkness is as clear as daylight.  What am I?"  While he adopted the whispery voice/stoic attitude that Keaton did, I think Kilmer pulled off playing the more talky version of the Dark Knight that the movie required.  Out of the WB Batmen, I'd rank Kilmer right below Keaton (my #1).

- The Goldenthal score: I remember sitting in the theater as a kid, about to watch a Batman film on the big screen for the first time.  I had watched B89 constantly on VHS at home and was expecting the Danny Elfman score to kick in through the theater speakers when we saw the Warner Bros. logo.  Imagine my surprise when a completely different theme started playing!  I was bummed out.

Still, today, I think Goldenthal's music was the perfect match for the films and a worthy successor to Elfman's, since he was also able to go from the action themes to the darker, more depressing music for the flashbacks to the weird, wonky, bombastic villain motifs.  They just don't make scores like this anymore.

- Public Bruce Wayne: To me, the Schumacher films share my preferred representation of the public Bruce Wayne: still a playboy, but also a responsible businessman, a philanthropist, and a public figure.  As I said in my earlier post way back, this was the first time in the series that we saw Wayne's company.  We also see him on magazine covers.  He's donated money to the charity circus.  He gives full benefits to Stickley's family even though he wasn't on the company's insurance plan.  This is very much like the Bruce Wayne that I grew up with in BTAS and the one I like the best.

- Adding to the Riddler mythos: I've never been that impressed with Riddler's origin in the comics.  In the versions I've read, he just jumps to the conclusion that "I'm a genius!  I could take on Batman!  So I'm going to become a criminal!"  Forever could've easily just adopted that and it might've fit the tone and world that Schumacher created, but the writers chose a smarter route.  Since Two-Face already had a vendetta against Batman, they had Riddler's origin involve Bruce Wayne instead, essentially flipping the comic origin so he wanted to challenge the man behind the mask.  Sure, the Black Mask origin did the "This time, the villain hates Bruce Wayne" take already and the animated series did the "disgruntled employee wants revenge" take right beforehand, but I think the movie version gave Riddler more of a proper motivation to try to be the best and the smartest man in the world (or at least better and smarter than the idol who rejected him).

It also gave an explanation why Riddler would wear a costume.  In the comics, Edward doesn't have a double life nor reason to wear the green and purple, but here, he has a secret identity just like Bruce, and it makes sense for him to have a disguise since his crimes are funding his business.  And while the red wig (originally purple in the first draft) might seem unnecessary at first and part of the film's flamboyant style, I think it helped to make Riddler less recognizable as Edward Nygma.  Compare how Carrey looks as Riddler vs. how he looks as Nygma at the party and you can understand why no one in the story would recognize one as the other.

- Adapting Robin's origin: Yes, Dick Grayson is much much older when he becomes Robin than he is in the comics, making it odd for Bruce to adopt an adult to stay with him at Wayne Manor. 
But looking past that, it's still a pretty faithful take on his origin, with elements of Jason Todd and Tim Drake appropriately sprinkled in, and it's one of the best parts of the movie.  It's also, ironically, one of the darker, more grounded elements of this film.  Don't believe me?  Take the scenes between Dick and Bruce in the Batcave talking about revenge and killing.  Then compare them to any scene with the over-the-top villains and Chase Meridian always trying to get "under [Batman's] cape."  For a character often blamed for lightening up the mood or requiring too much suspension of disbelief, I don't think he committed either crime here.