On rewatch, Batman from 1989 is great and somehow still underrated, Batman Returns from 1992 is fun and crazy maybe a bit overly long, Batman Forever from 1995 is worse than you remember and similar to Batman and Robin in 1997. And Batman and Robin is... yeah, awful.
I'm watching these cause I am showing my girlfriend the films of Christopher Nolan, and it is intersting to view Batman Begins through the lens of "this is in reaction to where Batman had gone" as well as its cool to watch Forever and Robin cause its like "this is why the franchise sat there in squalor for almost 10 years after very quick sequels."
Batman and Robin brings in George Clooney to star as Batman, Arnold Schwarzenegger as Mr. Freeze, Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy, and Alicia Silverstone as Batgirl. The movie is gracefully 30 minutes less that Batman Forever, but it really camps it up, it does add nipples to the Bat-Suits, and it lets everyone chew the scenery as much as they should desire, which lets be honest here, lots of them wanted to.
I always wonder when these came out how many people were comparing it to the 60s TV show. At this point off the air for almost 30 years, is it safe to say that it wasn't in the public consciousness, especially considering the movies had always at least a little bit been aimed at children? That said I don't give this movie as much of a hard time as others, leaning into the kids stuff seems obvious at this point, being a good ten years before Iron Man and the MCU. We forget just how sneered upon these ideas and genres were at this point.
My point is not, though, that this is good, it is that this is understandable, but do I like it. no. It is too much and it's too bad to be so bad its good. I'll give it a 1.5.
No comments:
Post a Comment