Batman Forever vs. Batman and Robin - Page 8

BATMAN REDIALS: NO ONE'S HOME

ok, I'll stop.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelM 

I don't like RETURNS, even though it's fashionable in these parts to elevate to the front line of the franchise. I think there are a lot of neat parts, but the movie utterly fails to cohere. And while I agree with Sebastian - it's a horrible Batman movie - I think it's the closest Burton came to getting the character. The title character once again gets completely sidelined for, what, 1/3 to 1/2 the movie? I agree Keaton is terrific in it. I just wish Burton knew how to tell an actual fucking story and wasn't so afraid of the main character. I think there's a great Batman movie buried in there, but I don't think it's even a good movie, let alone a good Batman movie. It is better than the '89 film, but I feel like that's damning with faint praise. 

 

 

And even though I just can't give the Burton films props like others here, I agree with Sebastian, as I wrote above. Keaton really rocks the role here. Too bad he was in a guest star in the film.

I have a confession: I've never made it all the way through Batman Returns.  Do I have to burn my movie geek card now?  

... I mean I'd have to make one, then burn it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrBananaGrabber 

I have a confession: I've never made it all the way through Batman Returns.  Do I have to burn my movie geek card now?  

 

... I mean I'd have to make one, then burn it.

Nah nothing that extreme. In my own anecdotal experience the love for Returns isn't all that widespread beyond CHUD. You should give the whole thing a shot though.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nexus-7 

Nah nothing that extreme. In my own anecdotal experience the love for Returns isn't all that widespread beyond CHUD. You should give the whole thing a shot though.
 

 

This is very true. Although if you do like it you get to be in the very special CHUD BATMAN RETURNS LOVER CLUB. We meet every year on the steps of city hall dressed as penguins with missiles on our backs. You can't be in the club Michael, sorry.

For a movie that gets a lot of flack for sidelining Bruce / Batman, Batman Returns has his date with Selina Kyle, which is brief, but very well written and one of my favorite Bruce Wayne moments of that series of films. 

Also, though I don't wish to derail, but I have nowhere else to put this...I watched Ang Lee's Hulk for the first time in awhile. I've always liked the film and defended it, but frankly, it's a better, more competent and controlled film than Batman Begins, and easily one of the best superhero films ever made. It's three biggest issues are texturing issues with the titular character, Connelly having maybe one too many scenes of weepery, and that fucking terrible Velvet Revolver song during the end credits.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny 

For a movie that gets a lot of flack for sidelining Bruce / Batman, Batman Returns has his date with Selina Kyle, which is brief, but very well written and one of my favorite Bruce Wayne moments of that series of films. 

 

Also, though I don't wish to derail, but I have nowhere else to put this...I watched Ang Lee's Hulk for the first time in awhile. I've always liked the film and defended it, but frankly, it's a better, more competent and controlled film than Batman Begins, and easily one of the best superhero films ever made. It's three biggest issues are texturing issues with the titular character, Connelly having maybe one too many scenes of weepery, and that fucking terrible Velvet Revolver song during the end credits.

I've seen Lee's HULK exactly once, and that was not under ideal circumstances. I need to give it another spin, based on the love it gets in these parts.

Ang Lee's HULK is a clusterfuck of tone. And for me, the editing choices, while creative, served nothing but distraction (and oddly highlighted the most mundane events--80,000 different angles of a helicopter landing, but Hulk's rampage through the underground military facility is mostly relegated to a small box in the corner? WTF, Ang, WTF.)

Without going into too much detail, I've talked to an industry guy who told me that the editing choices on Ang Lee's HULK was a pretty last minute choice.  Lee had a cut that was over 4 hours and had the bright idea of the comic book transitions to keep as much of the material as he could.

Considering how wrong-headed that creative choice came across, I don't doubt the story.

Batman Returns also has Walken as Max Schreck. One moment he's the most genuinely threatening villain in any Batman movie thus far. The other moment, he's adorably stupid ("And Bruce... why are you dressed up like Batman?")

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Clark 

Ang Lee's HULK is a clusterfuck of tone. And for me, the editing choices, while creative, served nothing but distraction (and oddly highlighted the most mundane events--80,000 different angles of a helicopter landing, but Hulk's rampage through the underground military facility is mostly relegated to a small box in the corner? WTF, Ang, WTF.)

I think sprucing up the mundane was part of the point, keeps the eye and the mind active through expository sequences, establishing shots, and gives you a sense of geography. It also leads to one of the funniest death scenes in the past decade. Also, for me, the oscillating tone is much easier to take in when not surrounded by restless moviegoers who don't know what to make of the picture (something that marred my first viewing).

I don't see how you can argue that HULK isn't a tonal mess. It's one part belabored ponderousness, one part goofy colors and weird transitional wipes and Hulk dogs and cloud Noltes. It's a fucking mess and is in no way as successful of a film artistically as BATMAN BEGINS. You might like it better (though for the life of me I can't see how), but it's flaws are egregious. It is better compared to the equally ponderous and equally wrong-headed SUPERMAN RETURNS. 

Agreed. I usually give the film a go once a year & my conclusion is always the same: Hulk is a hollow 2 hour exercise in the wringing of melodramatic blood out of a one-dimensional superhero orange.

I found the editing and action scenes to be the one part of HULK that really worked. I rewatched the film recently and thought they were excellent

I'm honest with myself though, I really can't work up any "love" for Nolan's Batman films at all.

Ang Lee's attempt to graft genuine emotion and drama into something that's patently unreal is very bold, and I think, beautiful in that boldness. I don't see a film made up of disparate elements, I see a film that uses comic book imagery  / modern FX technology to create a tableau of abstract human emotions (again, the only thing holding all the Hulk scenes back is a distractingly cartoony character rendering). Is it ponderous? I don't know, I definitely felt that more with an audience, but at home on my own, it just moves better. When I say it's better than Batman Begins, I be no means mean to say that Batman Begins is a bad or inferior film, but I do think that it has several more odder, clumsier moments than Ang Lee's picture. If anything, the difference is that Nolan understood his audience better and gave them just enough credit, while Ang Lee overestimated and misunderstood what his audience was willing to accept in their summer entertainment.

Edit: Also, before anyone thinks to accuse me of being contrarian, I will once again state that I have always liked the film, it's just that my recent viewing sharpened some of those initial feelings about it.

I'll take a million Old Man Expositions in Begins over that intellect-insulting coda slapped at the end of Hulk. "Hey, honey, it's your bastard of a father. Yeah, remember when we nuked your boyfriend last year? Well, there's no way he survived, right? But if ...WHAT IF HE DID?" *cut to Banner STILL ALIVE, but talking SPANISH!*

Really? A scene shows that Betty and her father are now closer*, and that they as characters have a feeling that what they've gone through isn't completely finished is insulting? Banner speaking Spanish at the end is insulting? Seems to me that that final scene shows that he's acclimated himself to being on the run, doing his "lonely man" thing.

*The movie takes pains to show that Ross is not an asshole, just a guy trying to be a father and a soldier, and who is really fucking frustrated by the pitfalls of both jobs. It even juxtaposes him against Talbot (the soldier half) and David Banner (the father half) to make it especially clear. The coda shows that Ross has, unlike Banner Sr., apparently won that hard one battle of an understanding between a parent and their child. Banner Sr. was doomed to failure as a parent because he could never see his son as anything but a reflection of himself, a vessel for what he wanted.

Ooo, a discussion on Ang Lee's Hulk. I fucking love this movie. Probably the craziest big budget movie to come out of Hollywood in the last decade. I still remember coming out of the theatre completely blown away the first time I saw it. I was just about to exclaim to my friends what I thought when they both burst out in a torrent of hatred I'll never forget. Because of it's toxic reputation I didn't give it another shot for a few years, but when I did if anything I liked it even more than the first time. I've seen it countless times since then and it just keeps on getting better. Not only is it better than Begins(which isn't all that hard anyway), it's probably the best comicbook movie ever made. In 20 years everyone will...well....probably still feel the same, but still I believe I'm right in saying that. It also features Danny Elfman's best work in the last 20 years(his Planet of the Apes title music excluded). He's gone into quite the slump since then sadly. The fact that a studio will never take a chance on anything this weird ever again after it under-performed saddens me to this day. How many movies can say they ended with the hero fighting an abstract idea? Not many. How anyone can prefer the bland DTV looking piece-of-shit reboot with Ed Norton is beyond me.

Edit: Shit. How could I forget to mention Nick Nolte in this thing? You have to raise the movie's rating by two stars just for him. Easily the most unhinged hilarious supervillain performance ever. Unlike most of his ilk, he also just looks like he's having fun the entire movie. His reaction to getting powers always brings a smile to my face. It's neck and neck between Ledger and him for best supervillain to me.  

I made a hulk movie thread:

http://www.chud.com/community/t/141520/the-hulk-series-of-purple-pants-and-daddy-issues#post_3252125

And Batman and Robin looked just as cheap as Forever.  I think moreso.  There was a stop-motion lizard in it for goodness sake!

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny 

Really? A scene shows that Betty and her father are now closer*, and that they as characters have a feeling that what they've gone through isn't completely finished is insulting? Banner speaking Spanish at the end is insulting? Seems to me that that final scene shows that he's acclimated himself to being on the run, doing his "lonely man" thing.

 

*The movie takes pains to show that Ross is not an asshole, just a guy trying to be a father and a soldier, and who is really fucking frustrated by the pitfalls of both jobs. It even juxtaposes him against Talbot (the soldier half) and David Banner (the father half) to make it especially clear. The coda shows that Ross has, unlike Banner Sr., apparently won that hard one battle of an understanding between a parent and their child. Banner Sr. was doomed to failure as a parent because he could never see his son as anything but a reflection of himself, a vessel for what he wanted.

The coda's setup is perfunctory at best. The phone call exists simply to put a question mark on their "The End", and the awkward way the conversation steers to "Hey, what if HE DIDN'T DIE" just makes me roll my eyes. For a film that gets lauded as bucking the norm and being daring, it's such an obvious, rote way to set up your sequel. And while I like your reading on Ross' character, I wish the movie had actually given us enough moments to support it. 

Quote:

By my count? One too many. HULK is an interestingly ambitious failure. Not surprised it's succeeded in finding some followers to drink the green kool-aid, but it's still a failure in too many other aspects. And I don't care that Nolte LITERALLY chews the scenery (get it?) and turns into a giant jellyfish-cloud. It felt like watching a homeless deranged Nolte reciting Will S on a street corner. While that sounds like fun, I don't want that in my comic book movie about a monster that smashes things when he's pissed.

I say this every time HULK is brought up but..

In an alternative universe HULK (minus the origin part) would have made a kickass sequel to The Incredible Hulk.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the tone of HULK (with the exception of the dogs, that just plain didn't work),  it's the bloat, it's too long and trying to do too many things.

The origin, Ross and Betty, Daddy Banner, Josh Lucas, Stan and Lou's cameos etc. I don't think either films are perfect but TIH had a forward momentum that HULK really needed.

Also, Sam Elliott absolutely kills as Ross. He was sorely missed in TIH.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Stockslivevan 

But yeah, the SWAT guy who was riding with Gordon incognito "is that a bazooka? I didn't sign up for this!" was annoying and almost pulled me out of the flick. Anyway, I just want to take the opportunity to say that only Bruce Timm's ever truly GOT Batman, all across the board. Nolan comes close, but not quite as graceful.

If The Joker had shot and killed him, I sense the applause would have been even louder than the for the semi-truck flip/Batpod wall flip.  Seriously.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oafley Jones 

 

Same here, I found that for the most part, the humour was a significant improvement over BB.  The first tumbler sequence has some awful elements; for example 1) where the security guard checks his coffee after the tumblers crashes through the security barrier - I mean who has ever actually done that?  2) The broadly comic reactions shots from the cops - with the exception of "he's driving on the roof top" cop, who's the only one who plays it straight- are horrible in every way.  I think the lack of Goyer really helped TDK, although to give him his credit the newpaper headline in BB was great.

Speaking of that chase, it always irritated me at the start of that sequence when Batman pancaked that cop car with the two cops inside.  The space was not so tight that he had to drive over that car with those officers inside.  He could have driven right past it.  And Gordon's total lack of reaction as he watches two police officers possibly being crushed to death is baffling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike's Pants 

I say this every time HULK is brought up but..

 

In an alternative universe HULK (minus the origin part) would have made a kickass sequel to The Incredible Hulk.

 

I don't think there is anything wrong with the tone of HULK (with the exception of the dogs, that just plain didn't work),  it's the bloat, it's too long and trying to do too many things.

 

The origin, Ross and Betty, Daddy Banner, Josh Lucas, Stan and Lou's cameos etc. I don't think either films are perfect but TIH had a forward momentum that HULK really needed.

 

Also, Sam Elliott absolutely kills as Ross. He was sorely missed in TIH.

Co-signed.

Halfway through Batman Returns.  Damn it's a cold movie.  It honestly sounds like there's a window open in every scene.

I'll just leave this here...

Batman 89 is an iconic classic and my only problem with it is that Keaton played Wayne when Alec Baldwin would have been ultimate. Batman Returns is shit and no better than the Schumacher atrocities but people give it a pass for the over-saturated Gothic look and feel which is ironic as most people shit on Burton for employing that style in almost everything he does. Batman Forever and Batman and Robin are both fucking trash with B&R tipping the scale into outright brain imploding mental retardation. The ONLY good thing I have to say about either is that Stephen (Lethal Weapon 1 & 2) Goldblatt's photography is gorgeous.

I like Nolan's movie's more than I love them. I think he made a great movie with The Dark Knight mainly because of it's theme's and subtext but neither that nor Batman Begins truly feels like a BATMAN movie. Probably because of Nolan's fixation with "realism" which translates into dull photography and boring production design. Gotham never feels like GOTHAM CITY. The best Batman movie would be one with the style of Burton's 89 flick mixed with Nolan's scripting. I'm looking forward to TDKR but I'm just not excited over it. Avengers and Prometheus have my money before Batman.

Once TDKR's is out, I hope that they leave Batman alone until 2019 when it will be the characters 70th anniversary and Batman 89's 20th. I would FUCKING KILL to see a Batman movie/trilogy done in the noir style of Sin City. Black & White with only the villains in color.     

Quote:

Originally Posted by VideoDead 

Batman Returns is shit and no better than the Schumacher atrocities 

WHA....!?

Sorry, man. That's the cold, hard truth. Batman Returns is not a good Batman movie. It's a fine Tim Burton movie, though.

Bu... but... "no better than the Schumacher atrocities"?

I have a love for Batman Forever, but is Batman Returns really "no better" than Batman and Robin? When was this decided? Where was I when you all agreed this?

Batman (1966) = Diabetes

Batman (1989) = Dinner at McDonalds

Batman Returns = Severe Frostbite

Batman Forever = Gangrene

Batman & Robin = Cancer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Art Decade 

Batman (1966) = Diabetes

 

Batman (1989) = Dinner at McDonalds

 

Batman Returns = Severe Frostbite

 

Batman Forever = Gangrene

 

Batman & Robin = Cancer

Well played

It's hardly gospel truth.  A fair few chewers prefer Returns to '89 for being more unabashedly a Burton movie that happens to include superfreaks.  My impression is that it's mostly people that like Batman as a character* but aren't wild about Nolan's super-serious take** but still don't like Schumacher's dayglo carnivals***. 

*Which would be everyone

**Which is mostly people who still have love for their juvenile entertainments but find it embarrassing when those entertainments try to act mature

***Again, pretty much everyone

People on this board relentlessly shit on Burton's style and Returns has everything they complain about. It's just not a good film, either as a Batman movie or a Tim Burton one and it has all of the problems that Schumachers movies did. Too many villains. Puns and quips instead of actual dialogue. Cartoonish characterization and stories. Batman 89 at least feels like something resembling a drama with a bit more weight to the proceedings. But Returns tips everything into stupidshitland.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VideoDead 

People on this board relentlessly shit on Burton's style and Returns has everything they complain about. It's just not a good film, either as a Batman movie or a Tim Burton one and it has all of the problems that Schumachers movies did. Too many villains. Puns and quips instead of actual dialogue. Cartoonish characterization and stories. Batman 89 at least feels like something resembling a drama with a bit more weight to the proceedings. But Returns tips everything into stupidshitland.

I'm forced to agree with your assessment of RETURNS. Production-design wise, I love it; it's probably my favorite Batsuit (although I'm one of the few who really digs the TDK suit, and it's a close call for me). The Red Triangle gang is a great touch - both Burtonesque and very comic-book-y. RETURNS, as I've said before, is a very good example of the parts being far greater than the sum. It doesn't cohere at all, and despite having a better take on Batman, he's MIA for far too much of the film. 

I don't think the '89 is any better - worse, in fact. Broken as RETURNS is, BATMAN '89 has not aged well and is a remarkably boring film these days.

It's hard to be objective about Batman '89 because it's wrapped up in the warm Kevlar blanket of nostalgia.

I wouldn't have it any other way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Art Decade 

It's hard to be objective about Batman '89 because it's wrapped up in the warm Kevlar blanket of nostalgia.

 

I wouldn't have it any other way.

I understand. It remains a warm spot in my memory, too, because of the hype and anticipation (which, for me, wouldn't be eclipsed for nearly 20 years until TDK came around - it too Batman to beat Batman!). The build up and release of the '89 film was fairly unprecedented for a whole generation. It was the first time I had read or heard about people paying to see the trailer for a film and then leaving before the feature played (I remember reading numerous reports of this happening for the '89 film. Hell, I can still recall the release date: 6/23/89. (And I didn't look at IMDB!)

However, without that warm blanket.....it's not a good film. At all. Not a good Batman film, not a good action film, not a good film. Deeply, fatally flawed. We owe a LOT to it, for sure - although I'd argue we owe at least as much to Singer's first X-MEN film and the success of BLADE in 1998 for the current decade+ "renaissance" of comic-based films. But on its own...nope, not good.

It took 15 years but we finally got the fucker.

Why do I imagine Clooney saying, "Cuff me," as Christian Bale stands at the back of the crowd, flustered in his attempts to announce he's actually Batman?

THINGS ARE WORSE THAN EVER IN SUDAN!

I think it's totally possible to love Returns and the Nolan movies(TDK is my second favorite Batman movie). A lot of the strikes against Returns that VideoDead mentioned are the very reasons I love it. Almost every line of dialogue in that movie is a one-liner, and it's aged FAR better than Batman '89. And yeah, it's a really snazzy Burton movie, even if it's not a great Batman movie and turned him into a mass-murderer of clowns. The only thing in Batman '89 I hold in higher regard over Returns is the amazing set design and the fact that the soundstages don't feel like soundstages. Returns made Gotham feel far more confined and small.

Love TDK.  Love Returns.  I even get a sick kick out of Batman & Robin! 

Batman Forever though?  That shit's unbearable!  Hahahaha

Batman 89 is a huge part of my childhood, but it's not a film I revisit anymore. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nexus-7 

The only thing in Batman '89 I hold in higher regard over Returns is the amazing set design and the fact that the soundstages don't feel like soundstages. 

Amazing set design, I'll grant you, due to its highly subjective nature. But the only scenes that don't feel ridiculously like soundstage work are the early scenes inside Wayne Manor. The street chases especially feel confined (don't we see the same block, over and over?) and interior.

Batman 89 still has the best score out of all the films, right up there with John William's Superman. I LOVE the Nolan movies but Burton got the iconography of Batman that no live-action film has yet to surpass.

I slightly prefer the Returns score myself, but maybe that's because it has more variety and I really like the Selina/Catwoman stuff, and there's more variety overall. Also, I wasn't a big fan of the Prince stuff from the first film, and using that as the Joker's music for the most part seemed like a waste of potential Elfman greatness. I also owned the Returns score on tape, then later on CD, so maybe I'm biased.

Both scores are great though, don't get me wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

I even get a sick kick out of Batman & Robin! 

Batman Forever though?  That shit's unbearable!  Hahahaha

 

Back on topic, I still find comments like this surprising. I loved "Batman Forever" as a kid, and while I realize now how stupid most of it is, I still think it has its moments and is far from the almost unwatchable debacle "Batman & Robin" is.

I still like Jim Carrey in "Batman Forever" and find a lot of his lines and scenes entertaining. More importantly, I liked Kilmer as Batman/Bruce Wayne more than Michael Keaton. In the '80s/'90s Batman movie series, I think Kilmer was the first actor cast as Batman who was actually chosen because he was right for the part.

Keaton got it because he was buddies with Burton from "Beetlejuice" and Clooney got it because he was 'hot' at the time, kind of an 'It' guy in movies as he was just breaking into film after a successful run on TV.

I think Kilmer should also get some credit for the fact that Batman creator Bob Kane preferred him over Keaton too. Not that I'm saying what the creator says should be taken as gospel. After all, Gene Rodenberry had some pretty lame ideas when it came to Star Trek and disapproved of a lot of things Star Trek fans loved. Still, I think Kane's approval warrants giving Kilmer more praise than he tends to get for the role.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Naisu Baddi 

Quote:

 

Still, I think Kane's approval warrants giving Kilmer more praise than he tends to get for the role.

No, it doesn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Naisu Baddi 

Quote:

 

Back on topic, I still find comments like this surprising. I loved "Batman Forever" as a kid, and while I realize now how stupid most of it is, I still think it has its moments and is far from the almost unwatchable debacle "Batman & Robin" is.

 

I was actually not all that 'against' Forever until I watched it again with some friends last year.  Oh god... it was torture.  It's a movie where things just keep happening, but not really.  Jim Carrey's schtick was no longer all that entertaining.  Maybe it would've been if it wasn't turned up to max power the whole way through.  It just grated.

Now obviously, this applies to Batman & Robin too.  But for some reason, I go easier on that one because THAT was the one that got hated at the time.  Forever was liked when it came out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelM 

I understand. It remains a warm spot in my memory, too, because of the hype and anticipation (which, for me, wouldn't be eclipsed for nearly 20 years until TDK came around - it too Batman to beat Batman!). The build up and release of the '89 film was fairly unprecedented for a whole generation. It was the first time I had read or heard about people paying to see the trailer for a film and then leaving before the feature played (I remember reading numerous reports of this happening for the '89 film. Hell, I can still recall the release date: 6/23/89. (And I didn't look at IMDB!)

 

However, without that warm blanket.....it's not a good film. At all. Not a good Batman film, not a good action film, not a good film. Deeply, fatally flawed. We owe a LOT to it, for sure - although I'd argue we owe at least as much to Singer's first X-MEN film and the success of BLADE in 1998 for the current decade+ "renaissance" of comic-based films. But on its own...nope, not good.

Sir, I owe you a Coke.

I watched Batman '89 last night and you are correct - it is not a good movie. The sheen of nostalgia has faded enough for me that I can see it for what it is - a strenuously pointless slog.

Michael Keaton is great in the few scenes that he's allowed to speak, Elfman's score is unequivocally brilliant, & Anton Furst brought his A game but the script is shit and Nicholson, iconic as he is, tries but fails utterly to keep the ship afloat with his charisma. The direction isn't bad & it's pretty damn great for a 28 year old ex-animator (imagine if WB gave Lauren Montgomery a shot at the big leagues today - it wouldn't happen). The major problem with the film is that it has no story to tell. Nothing to say. Other than being a daisy chain of iconic moments, the film is terribly dull.

Love that Goddamn score though.