"Forever" is the best Batman Film.

[NewMaxFranklin]

Not that it's a good film, mind you. It's ok at best. All the others are just bad.

"Forever" rises above the rest mainly because it blends a sense of fun with the action and macabre stuff. Also, Jim Carrey made a great "Frank Gorshen"-esque Riddler. I thought it was alright on the script level. Though I wish they would have left out Two Face and focused on the Riddler, or vise versa. The movie's a little crowded.

"Batman" is not Batman. It's the Joker's movie. It deals with how the Joker became the Joker and his relationship with Batman. Batman is essentially a suporting character. Both Bruce and Batman are dull and flat for most of the film. The Viki Vale character is a Lois Lane rip-off. Plus the movie drags a lot, especially during the endless Prince #'s. I found the whole film grim and joyless, with inept fight's.

"Returns" is even more dismal than Batman. I hated what they did to Selena. She's not a theif, just someone driven wacko who commits random acts of violence. The Pengin is grotesque for every moment he's on film, while the plot seems to want him to be a sympathetic character. Why is Bruce attracted to the freaky, sunken-eyed Selena? And the fightscenes acutally got worse. Why can Selena fight as well as Batman? And why can't Batman fight better overall? More importantly, why does Batman have less screentime than the villians, again?!

At least Batman and Dick kicked some real arse in "Forever." And the goons were actually afraid of Batman. Before this film they would want to attack Batman all the time. Also, gasp, Bruce's duality was adresses. In the other films he semed to be the same guy in and out of costume. Monotone and dull, just sort of passing through the movie.

I can't be the only one who didn't like th efirst two Batfilms. Can I?:confused:

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

I liked the look of the first two films better, but I do agree that Forever was overall more fun to watch than the other two, both of which often felt dismal and freakish to me.

And...I'm almost ashamed to say, but I liked the Adam West and Burt Ward 60s film better than the Burton ones.

[Trent Lane]

sorry, i gotta disagree. joel schumacher ruined batman as far as i'm concerned. the dark, grim look of the first two movies is what batman's all about. too bad tim burton didn't keep doing these flicks, cause they would have been a lot better. the only fault i have is that 'returns' looks too much like a set and not a real city, but aside from that it's a great movie. joel's "bright" gotham was goofy as all. oooh, but the street gangs with black light paint on made up for it. that and chris o'donnell (i'm not going to refer to him as robin cause he sucked in this role, as he does in many of his movies) driving the 'batmobile' (another lame redesign for this movie) around w/o a costume or anything just trying to pick up some women. and nicole kidman's character was ten times worse than 'vicki vale' could ever be. well, that's my opinion on that, i'll stop before i start to totally tear apart that thing called 'batman & robin'... now that's a terrible movie no one should have been subjected to...

[Nightwing]

I didn't care about the plot and/or character holes found in Batman89, because I knew I wouldn't find anything MOTP quality, plus this movie had the mood I wanted. So I think, despite all efforts, it still stays topside on my list.

I've felt all along that Batman Forever hasn't gotten the credit it should have (which is just a smidge more than it's gotten, but whatever :) ). Some just say "it sux" because it wasn't like the first one or complaints of that nature. I thought the overall mood was too light, when thinking of the villains who participated specifically, but it was still really cool.

I would have liked the batsuit look back to the armor though. But not too much, because we don't want a big oaf of a Batman lugging himself around. Maybe there's a happy medium?

[joker]

Originally posted by NMaxFranklin
I found the whole film grim and joyless

thats what batman is. i thought the first 2 were by far the best. i dont know what your talking about batman being a secondary chacter. he was the most prominet person in the movie....as much as id like to be joker the main chacacter........well any way, i thought returns was very good also but 1 was just so much better. forever and batman and robin were to ubbeat and fun and bright. the both sucked.

[Trent Lane]

Originally posted by joker


thats what batman is. i thought the first 2 were by far the best. i dont know what your talking about batman being a secondary chacter. he was the most prominet person in the movie....as much as id like to be joker the main chacacter........well any way, i thought returns was very good also but 1 was just so much better. forever and batman and robin were to ubbeat and fun and bright. the both sucked.

thank you, that's kinda what i was trying to get at but this was a lot better than my explaination. i pray the next one, if it ever gets made, goes back to the dark and gritty look of the first film...

[Salvor]

Originally posted by joker
thats what batman is. i thought the first 2 were by far the best. i dont know what your talking about batman being a secondary chacter. he was the most prominet person in the movie....as much as id like to be joker the main chacacter........well any way, i thought returns was very good also but 1 was just so much better. forever and batman and robin were to ubbeat and fun and bright. the both sucked.

I agree! This is one good summary of why the last two films suck! And on the other hand, the first two ones are obviously outstanding... both visually and in terms of script.

[NewMaxFranklin]

My "grim and joyless" comment didn't come off as I'd intended. I meant, I didn't have any fun watching it. Brooding characters can be cool. But Batman was flat and dull.

As for the Vicky Vale/ Chase comparison. Chase seemed more fleshed-out to me. She, at least, inspired some change in Batman/Bruce. Adressing his duality. Case seemed smart and confident, while Vicky was ditzy. I couldn't see Batman going for her. I could see him being attracted to Catwoman or Chase. Though obviously tacked-on, Chase was more effective than Vicky, in my opinion.

I also think Kilmer made a more confident, charming, Bruce. Keaton played him as more of a Joe Schmo. I watch Keaton's Bruce and think "He's a playboy/millionair?!" He seems more like the guy you say "hey" to, but don't find interesting enough to engage in conversation.

Kilmer has a "holier-than-thou" attitude, that works as Bruce. In the back of his mind, he knows he's Batman. He's "the man." Keaton's Bruce is awkward, asside from the "You wanna get nuts? Lets get nuts," moment in Vicky's appartment, when he goes nuts. Which, I also think is uncharacteristic of Bruce. Bruce is detatched; vain, but easygoing. Batman is nuts. And Bruce would never give someone reason to suspect he's Batman. Never.

[Trent Lane]

got to disagree again. kilmer was too 'prissy' for the bruce wayne character. keaton was and is the only batman. clooney would have been better if he wasn't forced to recite the goofiest lines ever..."Hi Freeze, I'm Batman!" who introduces themself to an adversary?! point, kilmer was probably the worst of the three even though he was in the third best movie. that's right, i say even clooney was better than kilmer!

[jackal]

You guys need your friggin heads examined! This movie SUCKED! Val Kilmer is like a dead fish, they kill the character of Batgirl, Make two Face seem like some dime store gangster, and Batman and the batmobile are so exagerated it is a joke! I personally would like to forget this movie even exists. The first two Rock!!

[jackal]

And I think the one with George Clooney and Arnold is even worse ! This one I watch with one eye closed! ha ha ha!!!!!!!!!

[James Harvey]

I almost cried through that one. I was sorta embarrassed to be in the theatre when I saw the flick.

[Joker85]

While I thought that Batman Forever was OK, I think that it is nowhere near as good as the first 2. Chasa sucked, Kilmer lookd like he would rather be dead than making the movie, and I absolutely cannot stand Jim Carrey. Words can't describe my HATE for him!!! Two Face wasn't given any depth(or screen time for that matter). It just wasn't a good movie.

[virtual_alfred]

I didn't even like the first Batman movie much. I was glad it was a hit, because it really revived Batman in popular culture and there was a ton of new Batman merchandise to buy. Most importantly, it paved the way for BTAS.

But Batman was too stiff. He couldn't run, he couldn't turn his head, he couldn't fight. He chooses to strafe the Joker from the Batplane, then is taken down with one shot.

The other movies were worse. Except perhaps the Adam West Batman movie. It succeeded in being what it wanted to be -- a fun, campy romp. I love the scene when Batman can't get rid of the bomb.

Ahhh... but I know that nobody here will agree with any of this.

I ran a Batman survey "greatest movie of all" on my web site. It included the animated movies, too. The interesting thing was that the total votes for all animated movies equaled the total votes for all live-action movies.

You can check out the results (and vote if you want) here:
Gotham City Surveys (http://www.gothamcityusa.com/surveys)

[James Harvey]

I didn't like how Batman tried to gun down the Joker in the first movie. Shoots some missilles at the guy, then tries to gun him down with the Batwing's machine guns. That whole scene just didn't feel right. But, hey, it did make him popular.

Anyone notice how crappy the comic adptations are of the movies?

[watsonlives]

almost all comic adaptations are crappy. those that are ok are not as good as the books they are based on. The problem comes from two areas. every director wants to make his own stamp in his own distinctive style on the character. It's not about good story, it's ego primping on the resume. The first two Batman movies are perfect examples. even though I like these movies there is so much of Tim Burtons personality dripping over every scene that the characters are not realy true to what they should be. The other problem comes from the fact that the companies that control the movies see them as nothing more than toy comercials. Have you read any of Kevin smiths complaints about when he wrote a proposed script for Tim Burtons superman? (thank God it was canceled.) They wanted him to give Braniac a gay robot assistant and Luthor a pet alien dog!

[Nightwing]

I agree with Franklin completely except for disliking Keaton's Batman and Bruce Wayne. Keeping in mind the fact that monstor fan man Tim Burton made the movie, I just saw that scene in Vicky's appartment as a whole set up by Bruce to get himself and Vicky out of the present danger, so he could have time to regroup and/or suit up.

I also didn't like the whole guns and missles thing in Batman89, but again, thinking in the mind of Tim Burton, and the fact that those violent events caused by Bruce happened just after he found out that The Joker was the one who killed his parents I guess it can be excused.

I don't accept much of the second movie at all, because yes dark and grim is Batman, but those two movies (moreso the second) depicted him as some bat-monstor, instead of a bat-man. For example, the first movie where Batman attacks the two hoodlums in the beginning, gets shot, then rises up and spreads his cape. It was cool, but it wasn't the intelligent, slick dectective that we know and love from Mask of The Phantasm.