It's important to remember that Joel Schumacher, by his own admission, was a Batman fan. Had he had his way, he might have adapted the seminal comic book story, Batman: Year One. Alas, that's not what was made. For what he delivered in 1995, Batman Forever is not a bad film, and looks incredible. It's the most comic book looking version of Gotham City with its fascistic architecture, neon lights and colorful alleyways. There's a darkness to the city that looks more like something out of a mid-1990's music video on MTV than the dirty, mysterious, expressionistic metropolis that Burton gave us in 1989. So, yes! Gotham looks like the Gotham that was appearing in the comics of the mid to late 90's: colorful, overblown, and big. The other sets all feel very much like Batman to me, and the "Forever batmobile" was my favorite as a kid (since I was teen however, I lean hard to the '89 Burton-mobile).
The costumes were quite good for their time as well. The batsuit known as the "Panther suit" was a sleek and sexy update from the first Keaton suit. But then rubber nipples were added. They make no sense, are garish, homo-erotic and unnecessary. They add nothing to the film at all... except unintentional humor. "Tee-hee, Hee-hee! Look at those nips, oh my god!" My point is, the Panther suit, sans the nipples, was quite good. Robin's costume is the closest to the Neal Adams Tim Drake design that we are likely to ever see in a major Hollywood production... again, it looks great, sans the nipples, though it coukd have been a little less metallic and shiny. The "Sonar" suit was reminiscent of many of Batman's alternate costumes over the years in the comics. The villain costumes are also excellent. As far as aesthetically, they are striking, pretty accurate to the source material and fit the overall look of the film... even if the Two-Face makeup could have been redesigned to look more realistic.
The acting is quite over the top, at least in the cases of the villains and, if the script had been less ham-fisted, more thoughtful in its approach and played with more drama, the overall film would have been much better. The problem comes in the fact that the movie is incapable of juggling its tones. It wants to be serious and dramatic but is also far too campy and loud. Where I think the film shines is in its drama. I think Kilmer was an excellent Batman and a thoughtful, charming Bruce Wayne. His performance shows that he understands Batman. Chris O'Donnell was as good as the script called for. I believed him as Robin and bought his trauma. Overall, I enjoy the film and think if Jim Carrey and T.L. Jones (both very capable actors) had the opportunity for more serious performances, had the drama outpaced the humor, this film would be highly regarded today. This film had potential.
Batman and Robin is an entirely different animal. Rather than dissect it completely, all I can offer is what I like about it and, perhaps offer some suggestions to what might have improved it. I think, like its predecessor, the film is great looking. The cinematography is tight and it feels like a dark comic book movie, in places. Most of the film is a fever dream, an acid trip. This comes down to a bad script. Mostly.
George Clooney's sincerity as Bruce Wayne proves that he could have been a better Batman than he was. I'm not sure that his acting range would have allowed for a "Dark Knight" type of grim avenger, but with a better script, and a better suit, he could have done better. Chris O'Donnell's performance feels phoned in, but it's consistent with his portrayal of Dick Grayson in the previous movie. I always liked the Nightwing inspired costume too. Barbara, as played by Alicia Silverstone is wrong. But, I'm a fan of Babs Gordon in the comics. Sometimes, I feel like if she dyed her hair red and had given a less wooden performance, she could have been great... that is, IF she had been Jim Gordon's daughter. Then again, I'm not sure if she is a good enough actress to tackle the brainy, determined Commissioner's daughter from the comics. The villains were great looking, but the acting was bad. Uma Thurman looked like Ivy but her performance was dreadful... she's a better actress than what the script called for. Arnold Schwarzenegger as Freeze, again, he looked the part and his suit was awesome. The performance however, and the numerous sight gags and ice puns, were not what a Batman film needed. Bane, well, it wasn't the character from Knightall. He wasn't cunning or strategic, just more of a hulking brute.
I think Schumacher is a great director who was gifted with talented actors. The studio, the scripts by Akiva Goldsman, and the insistence to tone down these films into pop-oriented summer entertainment is what hurt these films. I really enjoy Batman Forever and I think it deserves a better legacy. Batman and Robin has some amazing looking scenes and shots. Aesthetically, it's not really that bad. Even the plot is decent. But too many one-liners, too much camp and the over-the-top nature of the film make this one of the worst films of all time. Had the stars aligned, had Schumacher been given more control and a better script, Batman and Robin would not be a bad movie.
No comments:
Post a Comment