on 23 January 2015
I remember watching this when I was younger and being able to enjoy it, though never as much as the animated series or tim burtons versions. Watched it again recently to relive those days and my god has it dated, and in a bad way. If you can sit through two hours of really bad puns, acting and fight scenes then go right ahead as this is the movie for you. As mentioned, the acting is bad. However, if I had to choose the one actor who was the soul one to bring something to the film, dare I say it, it would be Arnie as mr.freeze! His dialogue when talking about his wife has the only shred of emotion in the entire film. So to end this review, yes it has the comedy of batnipples, yes it has the horror of bad puns and acting, but if you like really cheesy pun filled bat nippled bad acted poorly choreographed choke full of Clooney uninterested and robin being dull robin then this is for you.
on 3 June 2014
I don't think I really need to clarify exactly just how much this film isn't representative of Batman or it's comics that one little costume addition summed it up perfectly, nipples on the Batsuit....what a farce.
on 23 December 2013
This is by far the worst ever batman film. I so disappointed with the special effects that you just tell was fake and George Clooney as batman REALLY!!! This was by far Arnold Schwarzenegger cheesiest ever role by far and should of never done this film. Apart from that it's actually not a bad film to watch and if you have the other batman films you will need this one to complete the box set.
on 30 September 2011
WARNING!! Review May contain spoilers...
Oh dear. I'm trying to get words onto the screen about precisely how awful this film is, without dirtying it with swear words or offensive slander. Okay, here it goes. Batman & Robin is the last in the Batman series began in 1989 with the Tim Burton directed Batman. This is film is unrecognisable in comparison. After the fun-meets serious angle director Joel Schumacher took on Batman Forever, Batman & Robin takes it too far, making audiences laugh (or cry) at it, not with it.
Three heroes versus Three villains is basically all the plot you get. The heroes are led by Bruce wayne/Batman, with George Clooney replacing Val Kilmer as the third actor to play the role in this series (The other being Michael Keaton). Clooney is good as a seemingly over his pain Wayne, but terrible as the Dark Knight. Chris O'Donell reprises the role of Dick Grayson/Robin, Wayne's partner and ward. O'Donell again does the best with what he has script wise, again playing the character well. Alicia Silverstone completes the trio as Barbara Wilson/Batgirl, who goes through the film annoyingly delivering the awful lines she's been given. The villains are headed by Arnold Schawarzenegger, who plays Victor Fries/Mr Freeze, who makes the most awful one liner's immaginable. Uma Thurman plays Pamela Isley/Poison Ivy just as badly, while the third villain, strongman Bane, played by Jeep Swenson, who has no lines and no purpose other than to growl occasionally and hit things.
Also, for the love of all that is sacred who's decision was it to put Nipples and bums on the Batsuits? It just makes film look as silly as it is. If you want a Bat-Film that is camp, funny and good, look else where and get the 60's Batman film with Adam West and Burt Ward. Still an attrocity to the genre, it's perhaps best summed up by what Joel Schumacher shouted before every scene was shot: "Remember, everyone, this is a Cartoon!!!".
on 26 September 2005
I'm not going to lie to you.. I hate this film. I think it's an insult to the complete Batman mythology, nay, cinema itself.
But whats interesting to note is that without it, we probably would never have gotten "Batman Begins", at least not in its
current form. What this film did was show film makers how NOT to do a Batman film.
If this film hadn't have gotten the critical and commercial hammering that it so rightly deserved, then Hollywood would
most likely have hammered out another Bat-Flick, complete with the lunch boxes, socks, bed covers, etc, etc.
Another angle to look at the film from is that it is actually a great film for kids. You have your ott action sequences,
bright colours, menacing villains (for a 5-9 year old..I am not scared of a walking fridge man), and in that sense,
I'm happy this film exists, because as much as I love 'Begins', its not a film for everyone. So to have various incarnations
of a much loved character on the big screen is wonderful, as it can be enjoyed by so many age groups.
Warners really have provided a great package for this film, complete with commentary, documentares, music video's, etc.
So, I will be happy to own this film with the other 3 entry's in the franchise, and close the door on that era in the Batman Film Saga..just as another opens with 'Batman Begins'..
on 8 February 2012
That was a question posted by someone else on an Amazon forum I stumbled across once, and I myself provided an answer to that question. Anybody who has seen that forum will have likely seen my answer, but if you haven't I'll provide it for you right here. But first I'm gonna put on a surgeon's mask, grab a scalpel and dissect this 1997 movie release.
Batman and Robin (played by George Clooney and Chris O'Donnell respectively) team up to battle two more villains with sick, twisted, cartoonish plans to take over Gotham City; Mr. Freeze (Arnold Schwarzenegger) who hates any temperature above liquid nitrogen cold, and Poison Ivy (Uma Thurman) a seductive plant life lover who's always in a please-lay-me-down-on-the-bed-and-rip-my-knickers-off kind of mood. Rounding off the cast is Batgirl (Alicia Silverstone) and Alfred (Michael Gough). Having watched the movie from start to finish a few times it's clear to see why so many critics and movie-goers hated this Dark Knight offering so much.
Firstly there's not much of a plot, and what is there is super cheesy. The acting is super melodramatic, even by comic book super hero standards; it has very little in the way of emotional impact (apart from Mr.Freeze's back story); and there's a high level of "campness" in both the character costumes (with some unnecessary butt shots) and the set structures. I'd say the camp levels were about 10,000 times worse than in Batman Forever. I heard that the director, Joel Schumacher, went down that avenue because he wanted to pay tribute to the Batman 60's TV series. That's all good and well, but not everyone grew up in 60's and is familiar with that kind of thing.
George Clooney was a poor choice to play Batman. He just doesn't provide the same emotions to the character that Val Kilmer did in Batman Forever. As Bruce Wayne he just looks gormless, no emotions at all, and you usually have to go on his lines as to how he's feeling at any given time. Meanwhile Chris O'Donnell's Robin/Dick Grayson character is still young and reckless, but with the parents-murdered angle done and dusted in Forever you can't help but wonder what his purpose in this movie is. Is he just there to give Batman someone to talk to? Surely not.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is not so bad in his role as Mr. Freeze. Even though he's a villain you do feel a little bit sorry for him regarding the circumstances of how he became what he is, and why he's doing what he does; and considering that it took SIX HOURS to apply the appropriate make up each day, high respect is due for Mr.Schwarzenegger for showing so much patience with the character. Most of the one-liners in Batman & Robin lack punch, but Freeze arguably has the best ones. The best of the bunch is when he says to Bane "No matter what they tell you, Mr.Bane. It IS the size of your gun that matters."
Poison Ivy -played by Uma Thurman- is initially intriguing. But after a few lines she does start to annoy with her over seductive personality. So much so you'll be desperate to kiss the woman just to shut her up, even if it means you popping your clogs in the process. Worse still there's absolutely no chemistry between Ivy and Freeze when they team up, not like Riddler and Two Face in Forever. Jim Carrey and Tommy Lee Jones were like brothers who really understood one another. Arnie and Thurman are more like strangers on a bus who can't wait to get away from each other.
Then we have poor Alicia Silverstone. Young, attractive, still riding somewhat high on the success of 1995's Clueless...and then she walks into B&R as Alfred's niece, Barbara. She looks good in her Batgirl costume, and the fight scene with Ivy suggests that she might make a good super heroine. Unfortunately Batgirl shows up far too late to make a big positive impact on the movie.
There's so much wrong with Batman & Robin, and yet...the movie's camp nature is still amusing at times...maybe even entertaining, and that brings me back to the question of "Batman & Robin. Is it really THAT bad?" My forum answer was as follows:
"It depends on what you're looking for. If you're looking for a good laugh and don't mind a little (or rather a LOT) of camp, then it's actually a decent movie. But if you're looking for a dark and serious storyline, and tense scenes where you find yourself gripping on tightly to your armchair, then yes it is terrible."
I'm going to leave Batman & Robin with a score of 3-Stars. If you like a bit of a laugh at camp stuff then upgrade the score to 5-Stars. But if you want Oscar winning material then thump it down to 1-Star. Sorry, but that's as low as it will go.
on 24 February 2012
If you ever wanted to know how to kill the greatest superhero and a successful movie franchise then just watch this. It really begs the question of what the hell were good old Joel and co thinking!
The series was great under Burton and Batman Forever was at least half-decent (thanks to Val Kilmer), but this is horribly bad. I mean it's so camp it's unbearable. Mr Freeze says an ice pun every time he opens his mouth, 'Ice to see you' being a highlight, and has his henchmen sing christmas songs for gods sake (Is that meant to be threatening). Poison Ivy is just a massive bore, only there to make Batman and Robin argue abit. Then theres Bane. Bane is suppose to be a meance not just physically but mentally too, but here hes just a big idiot who does what Ivy asks and acts like a retard in general.
The cast should be embarassed. Clooney is horrific, on potential batmen he's at the bottom so it's also the castings fault, i mean when hes batman hes just George Clooney with a mask on. Theres no threat, mystery or tragedy about him. O'Donnell is playing the angry teenager here and is very irritating. Uma Thurman is normally very good, but shes a bit over the top here and it doesnt work. Then Arnie. Whoever thought he'd be a good Mr Freeze is nuts (The 'body chiseled from a glascier' idea is ridiculous). He can't act at the very best of times so casting him as someone whos suppose to be cold and tragic is crazy, if anything Arnie should have been Bane. Silverstone is useless too. Shes a poor excuzse for an actor and serves hardly any purpose.
The sets are so stupid. Long gone is the wonderful gothic work of the first two films, this follows Forever yet goes even more extreme. Theres Flurescent buldings, Giant naked statues and More glow gangs were ever you look. How can batman lurch in the shadows in a city so bloody bright! The costumes aren't worth mentioning (Bat nipples ~ Cringe). There seems to be some attempt to make Batman too camp. Close up shots of Batmans arse as hes getting changed, The terrible fight scenes (Hockey with a diamond - JESUS WEPT!) and the infamous bat credit card scene.
It's a good job that Nolan and Bale came along to save Batman. Avoid this at all coasts unless you want to waste 2 hours of your life!
on 12 March 2015
I love Batman but this movie is terrible its bad its bad its really really bad, but the 2 disc version of this movie well worth getting for the extras where the director even applogise for tje movie.
on 12 March 2011
I saw this film when I was 7 years old... it was boring and strange then, and it's got no better.
Clooney just isn't Batman... Robin is annoying and pointless... Mr Freeze- Arnie just doesn't do him justice I'm afraid and the character's persona is laughable... and Poison Ivy, although I am not a fan of Thurman, comes across as quite convincing. The biggest disappointment is the pointless and boring character of Bagirl.
All in all, a bad mixture of villains, poor acting from almost everyone, an embarassingly ridiculous story line and just not Batman as we know it. I recommmend either the Adam West Batman (At least you're supposed to laugh at that!) or Batman Returns... don't get this!
I know it's a controversial view, and I am probably inviting the opprobrium of the Burton fans upon my head, but I thought Joel Schumacher's first Batman film was a pretty decent affair, managing to blend the darkness and the campness effectively to provide a good solid entertainment. So why did it all go so terribly wrong for this, his second (and perhaps mercifully) last Batman film? A film so bad that its main star (Clooney) apologised to fans for it.
First of all the script. It's just TOO campy, with too many bad jokes that make it seem more like a `60s Adam West episode rather than a continuation of Burton's dark vision. And this really hurts the film. Where there could have been great characterisation - Freeze has great potential with his devotion to his wife - it is ruined by bad jokes. Where it should have been dark, gothic horror (the creation of Bane and Poison Ivy) we are fobbed off with a third rate cartoon style that would have embarrassed the `60s series. Secondly is the plethora of characters. We now have 3 villains and three heroes to concentrate on, and as such none of them get proper screen time and it comes off as feeling like a mess and certain characters are just not used to potential (Bane is criminally mistreated here, and the whole Batgirl strand seems little more than an excuse to repeat the Michelle Pfeiffer `cute chick in leathers' role. As such no-one really makes an impression, certainly not on the heroes' side. I never thought I would say this, but Arnold Schwarzenegger walks away with the acting awards! Managing to convey some of the dark potential of Freeze. He also seems to be the only one who is having any fun. Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy is pretty dire, though that is more through bad direction than her ability.
In all a terrible effort, especially after the majesty of Burton's originals, and the good solid fun of Schumacher's previous effort. 1 star only.