While the individual's comment seems radical at first glance, he is not far from truth. Let us not kid ourselves, and please who is still drinking the koolaid over the Nolanman? Please, the first is simply just boring [this is the worst thing a movie can do is be boring, even crazy Shumacker is watchable], the second was better when it was called Heat.

There are the Kool-aid drinkers, then there are people who seem to enjoy sprinkling cyanide into any beverage around, whether it's in a Batman cup or not.

Yeah, sorry, I can't agree that Batman Forever or Batman and Robin were good films. BF was better, but not by much. B&R was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. The only movie I ever considered walking out of.

The Nolan films trilogy has great energy, and are really about something. Were they perfect? No, but I could watch that trilogy every week of my life and be entertained. It's funny when folks here will talk about the shortcomings of those movies, but will not admit every moment of the Schumacher films was pretty weak. They don't feel like Batman movies at all. Just a lot of flash and bad acting all around.

Mercy? I'm afraid my condition has left me cold to your pleas of mercy.

Adorable

Yeah, the coffee shop scene between Batman and Joker is classic.

I know that The Dark Knight Rises was about a woman with daddy issues but what was The Dark Knight about?

Yeah, but TO DIE FOR didn't have Don "The Dragon" Wilson!

I'll have what she's having!

Yeah, when Joker started faking orgasm, I almost puked. At least I heard they left the money shot on the cutting room floor.

They probably should have kept it in a coffee shop instead of putting it in an official interrogation room under ruthlessly bright lights. It not only highlights how silly Batman's costume looks, and how silly the voice is- it makes the hierarchy of Gotham Government and Law Enforcement look like a bunch of tools for letting someone whose identity they don't know and apparently can't fathom, have direct access to a major wanted terrorist.

Very, very best as an actress but as a looker ---

Practical Magic says you're wrong!

Billy Bathgate, where we get to see if the carpet matches the drapes.

Finally! A laundry service that delivers!

Bumping since last week was the 25th anniversary and Schumacher has passed.

I still love the movie. 89 and Forever are my favorites from the original 4. I was 10 years old when 89 came out and made me a huge fan of Batman and comics in general, and 16 when Forever came out and I feel that carried my love of comics and the characters in to adult hood.

As I stated in the Schumacher thread, revisionist history now lumps Forever in with the failure of Batman & Robin. But in no way was this a failure. Like 89, 95 was the Summer of the Bat again. A crowd pleasing film, after Batman made a cameo in Returns, a killer soundtrack, popular music videos and tons of merchandising. The film gave us more Bruce Wayne as a character than the previous movies did, and I thought Val was great in the role. Still the best lips for the cowl. O'Donnell was great as a hipper Robin, something the character needed for media, and was already experiencing in the comics. And Carey and Jones hamming it up, was a great contrast to Catwoman and Penguin.

It's a shame that the film is no longer recognized for the hit that it was.

So with all that said, who is still a fan?

I seem to remember liking it when I saw it in the theater, but Jim Carrey would prevent me from ever watching it again.

Still a fan here... watched it within the last year.

Riddler/Two Face are great in it.

It's still fun but not as good to me as I was 14 when it was released. The Riddler and Two Face are fun together as the villians. Batman and Robin could have been a better movie if it wasn't rushed into production.

Just a few of my many problems with Batman Forever:

1.Chris O' Donnell was too old for the part of Robin. Been great if they could have found a Tom Holland type actor back in the day.

2.Way too much Jim Carrey! You could tell he wanted to play the Joker instead of the Riddler.

3.Val Kilmer is just there to collect a check. Makes for a very forgettable Batman.

4. Same with Tommy Lee Jones as Two Face. The movie should have focused on Harvey Dent.

5. Too much of a homage to the campy Batman tv show.

6. Bat Nipples!

7. McDonald's product placement.

^ I agree with all of those except #4. Tommy Lee Jones knew exactly what movie he was in and played the shit out of Two-Face. He hammed it up to perfection.

I think Riddler and Two-Face are in no way as compelling as Penguin and Catwoman. Those are easily the best-written characters in the series, especially Catwoman. Jim Carrey stepped out of a Saturday Morning Cartoon and neither villain is as dark or disturbing as they need to be. I get they were going for a lighter take, but I don't feel they pull it off very well. It's a shame they never went with Robin Williams.

But I do think Kilmer is pretty serviceable as Bruce Wayne, just not given anything to do, which is a shame. You can tell they had a lot more for him (and I know there are deleted scenes), but it's unfocused. Does he regret killing in the past? Is that part of why he wants to quit being Batman? Is he finally looking to find a sense of normalcy with Dr. Meridian? Does seeing Dick Grayson yearn for vengeance make him realize how destructive his own crusade is?

I do think the production design is top-notch, though and especially great at showing how Gotham seems to be further descending into madness. Like you could tell me the Joker gas from 89 had poisoned the water supply and induced a high-functioning psychosis in the populace and I'd totally buy that.

EDIT: RE: Kilmer collecting a check, I wonder what order they filmed the scenes in, since from the way he tells it, he realized he didn't want the role part way through filming.

Also, Jones telling Carrey, "I cannot sanction your buffoonery" might have made the entire production worth it.

Never thought about that, but I like it.

Batman Forever was a hit at the time, but I think it was riding on the coattails of the first two Burton films. Even Batman Returns was criticized at the time for being more campy, and Forever took it even further. I saw it was a kid and was immediately disappointed.

No Keaton, no Billy Dee Williams, it felt like a reboot. Carey and Jones were like two hammy Jokers in one film. It was overkill.

People talk about the excess of the 80s but this was onscreen 90s excess, to the extreme! Even the comic books were more restrained with their visuals.

I hated how it didn’t feel like a real city, but more like Fritz Lang’s Metropolis.

Chris O’Donnell was unnecessary, and this grown man needing to be adopted by Wayne was just weird. It works in the comics because he’s a kid. Frank Miller remixed the idea to show how disturbed Batman really is to use a child to help him with his “war on crime.” All that is lost with O’Donnell as Robin.

And why have the trend of two villains for every film? Just because of Batman Returns? Everything in that film got a shot of steroids for Batman Forever. The campiness, the silent film cityscape, the two over the top villains, the colorful city, the silly bat gadgets.

Out of all of Batman's rogue gallery, the Riddler is probably the weakest character story and motivation wise. Besides a much needed costume update, even the animated series couldn't do anything really unique with him. Killer Croc, Mad Matter and Clock King had more rememberal episodes. But because Riddler was a big part of the campy 60's show, of course he was going to play a large role in Batman Forever.

Now that you mentioned it, that part was just plain fricking weird.