Jasonic's Favorites: Batman Forever
Hello, and good evening, Internet!
For clarification, this is not my favorite Batman movie rather Batman is one of my favorite characters and I wanted to review his theatrical movies by release so as to study the evolution of Batman in cinema. That said, Jim Carrey is also one of my favorite movie stars and I quite like the Riddler as a villain!
Released in 1995, Batman Forever was a product made as a result of backlash against the initially divisive, but now beloved Batman Returns. With Tim Burton taking a backseat as producer, he was replaced by director Joel Schumacher who opted for a more lighthearted tone and aesthetic for this film and its sequel, Batman & Robin. Michael Keaton would have reprised his role as Batman before reading the film's script and believing that Schumacher's vision "sucked" compared to what Keaton had done before and ultimately the actor was replaced by Val Kilmer. The film had a great box office run and warranted a sequel, however, it received generally mixed reviews due to its lighter tone, more cartoonish aesthetic, and goofy acting performances from newcomers such as Tommy Lee Jones's Two-Face. Despite that holding the film back for some, it has its fans with aspects such as Jim Carrey's performance as the Riddler, great production design, and a well done, but not deep character study of whether or not Batman should be Batman forever -- hence the title. The film also gave us the only so far proper big screen adaptation of Robin plus his origin story, finally bringing the character and the classic dynamic duo to the limelight again so long after the Adam West Batman show had ended in the late 60s. Many often compare this movie and its sequel to the Adam West show tonally and I can certainly see why though we will get into that later. All that said, does Batman Forever actually hold some merit despite its shortcomings and lack of a mainstream following from fans? Let's put on our bat cowls, rev up the Batmobile, and drive right into why I think a lesser film like Batman Forever is okay if not decent for what it sets out to be!
*SPOILERS for an almost 30 year old movie!*
The movie is in the same continuity as the Burton/Keaton duology and picks up a while after Batman Returns; it opens with a hostage situation where Bruce Wayne/Batman (Val Kilmer) is introduced to criminal psychologist, Dr. Chase Meridian (Nicole Kidman), before defusing the situation orchestrated by Harvey Dent/Two-Face (Tommy Lee Jones). Blaming Batman for half of his face being scarred by acid, Two-Face attempts to kill Batman, but his efforts are proven fruitless time and again due to Batman's survival. Meanwhile at Wayne Enterprises, eccentric inventor, Edward Nygma (Jim Carrey) has invented a device that beams television signals directly into people's brains and idolizes Wayne himself, demanding immediate approval. When Bruce rejects Nygma's offer due to the ethical implication of manipulating people's minds, Nygma is heartbroken and goes to work in completing the device against his abusive supervisor's will, killing the latter when he threatens to report Nygma to the authorities. Nygma thus resigns from the company and plots revenge against Bruce by sending him riddles, the content of which Bruce is able to deduce quite easily while also getting Chase's perspective that the sender of the riddles is psychotic. Upon introducing himself and getting to know her, Bruce takes Chase to the Gotham Charity Circus where the famed Flying Graysons perform to the crowd's amazement before Two-Face's gang sabotages the show, putting everyone in danger with a ticking time bomb. When the youngest son of the Graysons, Richard "Dick" Grayson (Chris O'Donnell), goes for the bomb to toss it away before it explodes, he is unable to save his family from being gunned down by Two-Face as the latter escapes. Mourning his family with a desire for revenge, Dick accepts staying with Bruce at Wayne Manor with Alfred Pennyworth (Michael Gough) offering him excellent service, but Dick repeatedly turns him down. All the while, Nygma, now under the persona of "the Riddler" becomes inspired by Two-Face's work and bargains a deal to team up with him to kill Batman while also commit robberies to steal a fortune in order to start a company that puts his invention on the TVs of every home in Gotham and beyond. With Chase in love with Batman, Dick discovering Bruce's secret, and Riddler and Two-Face plot to uncover said secret, Bruce's duality will be put to the test and Gotham will never be the same.
While it is the same franchise as the Burton films, the fact that Schumacher tonally overhauled Batman starting with this one led to this movie's plot being a lot more campy and cartoonish as one could probably tell by reading that plot summary. Though it does have slightly darker and intriguing bits and pieces such as the deaths of Robin's family, the intellectual and romantic relationship between Bruce/Batman and Dr. Meridian, and the flashbacks of Bruce's trauma of the night/week his parents were murdered, it is easily balanced out with a lot more lighthearted, even cartoonish elements. For instance, gone is the gothic dystopian aesthetic of the Gotham in the Burton films and in comes a much more extravagant, neon-lit Gotham with the bank building at the start being lit up in green, Gotham possessing its own Statue of Liberty that's damaged in Two-Face's first (actually second) attempt to kill Batman, and Riddler's broadcast station he later builds resembling something out of Nickelodeon Studios -- credit to Nostalgia Critic for making that joke first. The streets of Gotham are also lit up in neon by night and even the criminals that Robin attempts to stop on his own are coated in neon facepaint and lights on their clothing; this creates a sense of tonal dissonance between this first of two Schumacher Batman movies and the old Burton ones, giving it sort of a soft reboot feel. As much as I can easily defend the decision on Schumacher's part to go with a lighter tone and aesthetic for a Batman movie, I do not entirely agree with it since I, personally, feel like Batman should be darker. In my opinion, the original comics, the Burton films, Batman: The Animated Series, The Dark Knight movies, and just about every Batman product beyond that have proven that Batman works best in a darker, edgier world in which the main glimmer of hope and heroics is Batman himself. I will not outright diss this movie for going to a more lighthearted tone and aesthetic because while I do not entirely agree with this movie's direction, I will say that the brighter aesthetic and fun, campy scenes do put me in a good mood and almost wanting more. Had I watched this movie and Batman & Robin as a kid, they likely would have movies I watched over and over again because of the colorful aesthetic, the campy tone, and less adult stakes of villains simply wanting to kill the hero and conquer the world. It may be a hot take, but I almost want to watch this movie again as a pick-me-up.
Most of the lighthearted, campy, even comedic tone of this movie comes from some of the acting; Val Kilmer is almost nobody's favorite live action Batman and I agree, however, he does pull off well one aspect of Batman that most other actors almost don't: the differentiating tones of Batman's voice. Something that Batman: The Animated Series established more clearly at the time of this film's release was the differentiating tones between how Bruce talks when he's himself and how he talks when donning the cowel. That's the one redeeming aspect of Kilmer's performance otherwise I don't find him to be the most compelling of Batman's endless portrayals due to his flatter and unconvincing line deliveries -- almost like he's just playing himself. Nicole Kidman's Chase Meridian, while an interesting idea for a character on paper, unfortunately comes of just as flat as Kilmer in her performance as most of the time she has just a blank expression during her line deliveries despite her intriguing psychological explanations for things. As a result of this, I almost don't care for her being in danger alongside Robin at the climax because her character idea intrigued me, but her performance failed to captivate that. Chris O'Donnell as Robin, on the other hand, wasn't as bad as many made him out to be -- people hated him more in the following movie, but we'll get to that later; I thought he was the most normal take on Robin in cinema, origin and all, and his obsession with revenge against Two-Face for murdering his family is understandable from a writing and personal perspective. His acting, however, leaves something to be desired; the aspects of a good Robin character are there, but apart from a few line and facial expression deliveries, I didn't find myself truly captivated by his performance and saw him as just another obsessive wannabe sidekick with a reluctant ward/mentor -- the comical reference to the Adam West Batman with his line "Holy rusted metal, Batman!", however, got a good chuckle out of me. If anything truly makes this movie campy, however, it's the acting of its major villains; Tommy Lee Jones's Two-Face, as I mentioned, gets some flak for his over-the-top deliveries and comical facial expressions he performs as Two-Face and it seems most of the time like he's trying to emulate Jack Nicholson's Joker. Even then, there are moments such as toward the beginning when talking to the captured guard and he sounds darker and gruffer as most versions of Two-Face are and the more aesthetic aspects of his character's duality, while campy, ties into the movie's themes of duality it tries to portray. The best actor in the movie, however, is, of course, Jim Carrey as the Riddler; as a fan of this man since childhood, I think he goes all out with his comical antics and inflections such as prancing around when orchestrating his plans and growling when he declares himself a "god" at the climax. I have seen many of his iconic roles from the 90s and beyond and I think the Riddler is one of them as it saves this movie from tanking in the acting department.
One aspect this movie dpes better over the Burton films is the action; whereas Burton is not the greatest action director with stiffer fight scenes to compliment a Batman in a stiffer suit, Shcumacher surprisingly makes greater and better choreographed fight scenes despite that. The opening fight scene among others has Batman performing actual martial arts against people, managing to exchange blows with various criminals in a way that looks like an actual fight. Little touches such as his cape flaring out with his punches and kicks exemplify Batman's power and agility and almost make it look like he's hitting or stunning people WITH his cape -- an element that the Batman: Arkham games (which I'm a fan of) would incorportate into their gameplay. Even the incorporation of Robin's acrobatics when he fights criminals while "pretending" to be Batman makes the fights look more like a dance than anything; sure it was pretty standard for film fights around this time (mid-90s/early 2000s) to resemble dances and traits like this are what make some action fight scenes like this a joy to watch. In addition to the ground fights, this movie also has some pretty enjoyable Batmobile action after the circus sabotage; with Two-Face's goons chasing down Batman through an alleyway that leads to a dead end, Batman then grapples the Batmobile upward to allow him to climb the building wall, ticking off Two-Face after his third -- perhaps fourth -- attempt to kill Batman in this movie. With Two-Face's relentlessness to kill Batman on top of the clever Batmobile action, it made for arguably the most fun scene in the movie. Being what it is, this film does not have the full obligation of being a darker, more brooding Batman film and gets to have that kind of fun, which is one benefit it has over the darker, more realistic fight scenes of later movies like The Dark Knight films and The Batman. As with any version/interpretation of Batman, each has their pros and cons; on one hand, you have the more lighthearted, campy tone of this movie's fight scenes to bring a smile to your face; on the other, you have the dark, intense fight scenes of later Batman films that, for some, may be hard to watch, but all in all, what you enjoy better comes down to preference and I enjoy both styles for what they do well.
One way this movie tries to innovate is in the costuming and visual effects department; I mentioned before how Schumacher's new Gotham differentiates from Burton's by being coated in neon in a lot of shots and it gives the movie a vibrant feel in a way that would appeal more toward kids -- the goal of this movie, for that matter, was to be more kid-friendly and sell toys. As it stands, Batman's costume has a much more "sculpted" look to it, giving him a shredded physique in the suit with the added infamous detail of "Bat nipples" that haters of this movie love to trash on. Unlike Michael Keaton's Batsuit, Kilmer actually shuffles between different suits at different points, donning a silver one with sonar capabilities by the end; it's very cool when the hero can both switch up his look and enhance his equipment in any superhero continuity and that gives this movie points in the innovation department. This film, being from 1995, also sees an early onset of CGI shots in places; being the same exact year as Toy Story (also the year I was born), the CGI shot establishing the location of Wayne Enterprises above the city's dam is understandably dated, but honestly I give them props for trying something new in that era aside from just matte paintings. Even by today's standards, the visual pizazz of Riddler's broadcast station doesn't look terribly bad and even the part where the electronic hologram from said station draws a Riddler question mark around the Bat signal fits the neon aesthetic of this film from that era. Despite getting some flak from fans, I honestly didn't find Riddler or Two-Face's costume choices all too underwhelming; at least in his first appearance in the full Riddler getup, Jim Carrey dresses the part well with the hat, cane, and all, resembling full well the Riddler I know from other media as well as my Riddler Halloween costume I have. His outfits do get a bit more extravagant and fancy as he goes until by the end he looks like the Riddler merged with David Bowie as far as hairstyle and the fact that he wears a white and green, more sparkly Riddler suit. While I see what they were going for with Two-Face's look given the campy tone of this film, I almost don't buy that Two-Face's purplish pink scarred half of his face is supposed to be burnt off. Sure, the movie was child-friendly, but it looks more like a campy cosplayer dressed as Two-Face rather than a hideously deformed Two-Face. Whatever the case, it was an okay attempt for the time and these looks for the villains, Batman, and even Robin's final suit succeeded where Batman Returns failed to sell toys and McDonald's Happy Meals.
Despite getting flak from fans and even myself in some cases, I honestly don't find Batman Forever to be the most terrible film, much less Batman film in existence. Even with its visual and tonal departure from Burton's film, it's got a fresher aesthetic for 90s film nostalgia lovers, good characters on paper despite flatter, cheesier acting than what I'm used to (save for Jim Carrey), a boatload of good action/fight scenes, and some decent for the time visual effects and costuming. Seeing as this ended up being a better financial success at the time over its predecessor, it was only fitting that Joel Schumacher made one more Batman film after this, which would go onto become both his and THE most infamous Batman film of all time. Although this film is often lumped together with Batman & Robin with people thinking it's just as terrible, it's still pretty evident that even despite its flaws, this film has an audience -- even if it's more of a cult following -- and even I would watch it on a bad day over it's sequel. Of course, we will get to that sequel in due time, but for now, I will say that Batman Forever is an okay if not decent attempt at breathing new life into Batman cinema and is still an enjoyable film at the end of the day. For that matter, I give it a C- and recommend it to those who are curious about the Batman films after Burton, but before Nolan.
Thank you all for reading and I'll see you in the next review!
Comments
Post a Comment