Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
22 of 24 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Special Guest Villain: Joel Schumacher, March 24, 2008
You know you're in trouble when "Batman & Robin" (1997) turns out to be less entertaining than the low-budget 1949 serial. Director Joel Schumacher deserves the blame for this comic-book fiasco and remains the Ultimate Bat Villain. George Clooney gives it his best shot as the Dark Knight, but has the misfortune of appearing in the all-time worst Batman movie.
|
|
|
61 of 73 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Thank your Saints that movies can't produce odors..., May 27, 2006
How to review one of the five worst movies ever made?
I could say that Batman and Robin plays less like a superhero movie and more like an episode of Queer Eye for the Hero Guy; but that doesn't quite capture the true level of putrid that this film reaches.
I could say that Alicia Silverstone (playing Batgirl, if you can believe it) and spandex pants are not friends; but that might seem a little too snarky.
I could say that Joel Schumacher's "direction" is so non-existent and Akiva Goidsman "writing" so abysmal that the entire film never even manages to reach the quality of the average high school talent show; but that doesn't give enough credit to talent shows.
I could point out that all the flashing neon that assaults the viewers during nearly every scene (and from nearly every Bat device that the "stealthy" Dark Knight uses) causes severe eye strain before the movie is half way through; but most viewers lost their vision when their eyes were poked out by the huge, hard nipples on the Batsuit, and the rest of the viewers either turned it off or committed suicide before the halfway mark anyway.
I could say that Arnold Schwarzenegger, George Clooney, Chris O'Donnell, Uma Thurman, and Alicia Silverstone all turn in the worst performances of their entire careers (and with Silverstone that's really saying something); but that might be too obvious since none of them ever mentions this film at all, even when asked about it.
But instead of saying all that I think I can sum it up best like this:
Not since "Manos: The Hands of Fate" (the worst film ever made) have I ever actually felt myself aging second by second while watching a movie until I watched Batman and Robin.
I have no doubt that this movie plays on a continuous loop in hell.
|
|
|
18 of 20 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Abysmal, July 16, 2005
This is a film made by people who interpret the Batman mythology as nothing more than a noisy, flourescent spectacle, occasionally intercut with obligatory scenes of saccharine moralizing to provide some semblance of a "story". But, this is really just a movie about dressing up in flamboyant costumes and doing flamboyant things, and then talking about how important all of this flamboyance is. It's also about puns. Lots and lots of puns. If this is what excites you about comic book/superhero tales -- if this is all you believe they can offer -- then this movie is for you. If you can only engage fictional fantasy universes, such as the Batman universe, on the most superficial levels of bright, flashy kineticism, then your minimal investment in this movie may likely be rewarded. If you often find yourself defending movies you like to friends, family, and co-workers by saying, "Hey, it's just a movie!", then you'll be quite satisfied with Batman & Robin, because it is very much just a movie.
Although it may also be possible to enjoy Batman & Robin as a kind of low brow parody of the genre, all those sugary scenes about family and trust are delivered with such absurd conviction that they belie any claim that the movie is meant to be a parody only; the filmmakers are actually quite serious when they portray a whining sidekick named Robin who is upset that he doesn't have his own Robin-symbol to be flashed in the sky.
So, it's really just back to the flashing colors. I think this is the most flourescent movie I have ever seen. I'm all for bold colors in film/photography to evoke certain moods. But, I think there's a difference between saturation and flooding. Tim Burton's Batman movies made good use of strong, often super-saturated colors (The Joker's wild purple and green themes, for instance). The Schumacher movies look quite different, however, especially this one. Batman & Robin is often awash in garish Slurpee-tones; entire scenes are bathed in harsh blues, greens, and reds. It's not just the character's costumes, or bits of the set. The whole frame is often completely drowned in gaudy monotones that become almost uncomfortable to watch after a while. Again, this sort of technique makes it nearly impossible to engage in the drama of the film on any level other than pure spectacle.
All of this might have been OK, however, were it not for the endless problems related to the plot, the acting, the dialogue, and characterizations (most of which are addressed in the other reviews here). At the core of these problems is Batman himself, and it's not George Clooney's fault. This "character" was simply written to be utterly dull by being utterly perfect. This version of Batman is meant to inspire pure adulation. Gone completely are those pesky issues of duality that haunt Bruce Wayne/Batman, the endless doubt and uncertainty as to whether or not he really is a "hero" for what he does. Gone are those tricky issues of justice vs. vengeance. This is a PG-James Bond in a batsuit.
Thankfully, a movie called Batman Begins has been released, which puts those more complicated themes very much at the center of the Batman drama again. Batman Begins is fascinating for all of the reasons Batman & Robin was not. The greatest contribution Batman & Robin likely made to the series was to teach all future Batman filmmakers how not to make a Batman movie.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
DVD ~ Val Kilmer
DVD ~ Steven Brill
DVD ~ Michael Keaton
on 
