The Mego Museum needs your help!
The Mego Museum needs your help!

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Batman & Robin appreciation thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • MIB41
    replied
    Batman & Robin has taken quite the journey with me. To say I've been to hell and back would not be too far removed from describing that reflective evolution. As a piece of movie making product, it deserves all the battering it gets. Never mind the treatment debate. Look at the glaring mistakes made by the director - Sloppy camera angles that show all the wire work; back cranking the video to place Robin back underwater with the vines; The icicles visibly wobbling; and the impossibly bad origin of Batgirl that demands you accept a costume as the only reason for her inclusion. And let's not even get started on how horrible Alfred is at keeping Batman's secret - But that actually goes as far back as the first Burton film.

    When I first saw B&R in theaters, I hated it. If I could have converted the master film to flammable nitrate stock, I would have lit the match. In retrospect I think the public DESERVED this film since they rewarded Schumacher with the huge success of Forever. Turning the Batsignal into a flirtation device and letting Dick convert the Batmobile into a hoopty car while he screamed, " Whoa look at my love machine bae-bae" was every bit as neglectful to Batman lore as anything B&R did. Perhaps even more so.

    Now I'll be the first to say, we can only take the premise of a guy dressing up as a bat to fight crime (with bat-themed weapons) only so serious. So the fact that Schumacher decided to have fun with the premise never bothered me entirely. But what changed my view about this film over time (mostly through forced watching) were my kids...and now my grandson. They love this movie (and ONLY this movie from that period). At first, I just took it as a basic lack of understanding for the material (on their part). But what I began to realize was maybe the misunderstanding resided more on my side. I started to see what the kids were loving that older crowds wouldn't or couldn't accept - the look and innocence of the film.

    While the movie is a treacherous ride on the brain, it's very easy on the eyes. It's an all out attack on the sensory nerves. And that's what kids experience. In many ways it's a beautiful looking picture. I like the soundtrack and I love the lighting, even when it's ill-served in some scenes. The heroes and villains are over-the-top, but even they can make up and help each other at the end. So thematically it's really a positive feeling movie throughout. It's truly a comic book come to life (just with really bad writing ). So I give it loads of style points these days for maintaining a tone consistently throughout the whole film.

    When I've had a tough day and my grandson comes in and says, " Batman! Batman!!" I smile and sit down to put the movie in. And he watches it all the way through with an immense interest and love for everything going on. When Robin screams, "Cowabunga!" he screams right along with him. When some of my older kids are over, they'll sit down (if it's on) and watch some of it too and reflect on how many warm memories they have about it. They clearly understand it's an absurd film these days, but that doesn't rob them of the great memories they had when they were kids. Kind of sounds like our hobby doesn't it? So who am I to criticize a film that I've watched entertain and bring smiles to more than one generation in my own family?

    So these days, I accept the film on it's own terms. Watching it now brings a smile to my face, because I understand I hold someone in my lap who is so happy when he watches it. And whether he watches it every day or only once a week, I can take that ride right along side him and I'm happier for it each time. So fundamentally there must be something there that speaks well to kids and to the kid in some of us as we get older. So it's clearly a film that will endure for generations ahead of us. And if the reasons were because it made them feel good, I think that's a good reason to continue on.
    Last edited by MIB41; Jul 1, '14, 12:45 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • PNGwynne
    replied
    Originally posted by jds1911a1
    I guess [Arnold] was better than the recently departed Eli Wallach.
    Wha!? That's just crazy talk!

    Seriously, though, I loathe B&R, which is bizarre I guess because I love the TV show so much. Nothing in it worked for me--not the "story", casting, art direction or costumes.

    I do see how it could be perceived as a '66 redux, but for me it lacked homor and style--it crossed that fine line between camp & kitsch.

    And gods, Batgirl was awful.

    Leave a comment:


  • jds1911a1
    replied
    Originally posted by jwyblejr
    I can't believe I'm saying this but I liked this version of Bane better than Nolan's version.
    I'll give you that but for me it's like a comparison of hitting a thumb with a hammer or smashing a finger in the car door I don't really like either experience

    I love batman 66, I found batman forever bad and Batman and Robin was terrible. Sorry but Arnold's freeze wasn't nearly as good as George Sanders let alone the campy over the top Otto Preminger performance. I guess he was better than the recently departed Eli Wallach

    A prime example that effects and villain massing can't make up for a poor story, kind of like Spiderman3 and Amazing Spiderman 2

    Leave a comment:


  • Earth 2 Chris
    replied
    ^I actually got to attend one of Dixon's famous "Dixonverse Dinners" in Chicago back in 2005. Dixon said the movie was horrible, but it bought him a house, so there you go.

    Chris

    Leave a comment:


  • palitoy
    replied
    Originally posted by Earth 2 Chris
    Neither Bane is close to the comics, although I think the DKR version was a bit closer. Either way, Chuck Dixon and Graham Nolan got nice checks out of both flicks.
    I remember reading how they were treated really well.

    Bane provides a few laughs in the film, although I guess the character isn't supposed to be a moron.

    Leave a comment:


  • Earth 2 Chris
    replied
    Neither Bane is close to the comics, although I think the DKR version was a bit closer. Either way, Chuck Dixon and Graham Nolan got nice checks out of both flicks.

    Chris

    Leave a comment:


  • EMCE Hammer
    replied
    I didn't even remember Bane was in it.

    Leave a comment:


  • jwyblejr
    replied
    I can't believe I'm saying this but I liked this version of Bane better than Nolan's version.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nostalgiabuff
    replied
    I can't watch this one either, but I will say, the kids always love it. my little girl loved this one because it had Poison Ivy and batgirl. she watched my VHS copy many, many times

    Leave a comment:


  • warlock664
    replied
    This movie was so bad, I nearly got up and left the theater halfway through it. I haven't revisited it since that initial screening, and I can't imagine ever wanting to. I said the same thing at the time about it being a big screen update of the TV show:it wasn't a compliment then, and it isn't now (though I do appreciate the TV show out of nostalgia). Joel Schumacher nearly destroyed the superhero movie genre.

    Leave a comment:


  • jimsmegos
    replied
    I have tried to like this film numerous times but it always ends up on the negative side. The look is fun but the acting is so terrible by all parties and the story is just stupid. Not campy, stupid. The biggest point of it being terrible for me is the way they handled or should I say slaughtered Batgirl. Alfred's niece?

    Leave a comment:


  • Hedji
    replied
    I love camp. Love it. I enjoyed this film first time I saw it. But then after subsequent viewings I found it is headache inducing. It is a LOUD film. I think it has something to do with the score. Goldenthal does this blaring high trumpet warble that really hits a nerve. Ultimately, I don't come back to this one much.

    Leave a comment:


  • palitoy
    replied
    My kid enjoyed it, so i purchased the VHS for him many moons ago.

    I had no problems with Batman Forever dipping it's toes into the camp pool after the overly gothic nature of "Returns" but this one doesn't work for me. It could have been a lot of fun but Clooney is no West.

    Leave a comment:


  • Earth 2 Chris
    replied
    Yeah, but it's DUMB. The 66 series was cleverly written, this is not. The cast and crew were totally on board with the "play it so straight it's funny" approach to the TV series. George Clooney apologized for the movie. That means he didn't get it. It shows.

    Plus, it's just lazy. Structurally, it's a beat-for-beat remake of the previous film, Batman Forever, with Schumacher let loose to go nuts with his over-the-top flare.

    It's fun to pick at, but that's about it.

    Chris

    Leave a comment:


  • madmarva
    replied
    It really was a big budget version of the TV show, but not executed as well, imo. I think the expectation among comic fans was for a more serious tone, or at least a tone that more closely resembled the comics or even the cartoons of the day.

    As for the general public, I'm not sure it was nostalgic enough about the camp craze of the 60s to care much about it reliving it.

    But, I don't think I've watched it again since seeing it in the theater. With a little distance and no expectations, I might find it more fun and less painful, lol.
    Last edited by madmarva; Jun 26, '14, 9:53 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
😀
🥰
🤢
😎
😡
👍
👎