|
OldTennisCourt posted:Edit: Actually isn't there a film that does take a sharp left turn into brutal horror after an entire film of wacky comedy? I remember reading about a film, I believe it may have been Italian, that was essentially like a fun road movie sex comedy with two girls that just ends with them being horribly murdered. It's not what you're thinking of but this is sort of how I describe Takashi Miike's Audition to people. The movie straight up lies about what genre it is for about half the running time.
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 14:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 20:20 |
|
|
OldTennisCourt posted:I think this is the main reason why Batman and Robin is better. B&R just says "gently caress it, let's go whole hog" and fully becomes a campy insane cartoon. Batman Forever still has remnants of a serious film in it that just clash so badly with Jim Carrey being an annoying rear end in a top hat. It feels so weird and I honestly think a lot of it comes from Carrey's performance. He's just so over the top while everyone else is so god drat blah. The only person who's trying besides him is Tommy Lee Jones and he was just relegated to become Riddler's assistant part way through. I would like B&R more if it was 15-20 minutes shorter, maybe even 30. The main bulk of the movie is actually good to serviceable, but things get really awful with all the limp melodrama surrounding Alfred.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 18:27
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:I would like B&R more if it was 15-20 minutes shorter, maybe even 30. The main bulk of the movie is actually good to serviceable, but things get really awful with all the limp melodrama surrounding Alfred. Back in the day when I would seek out fan-edits of stuff there was someone who did just that with B&R. They added in a few deleted scenes but took out a bulk of stuff. I never watched it so I don't know if it worked but I would be curious to see how it plays. I think the idea that 'Forever' is worse is a stance they take on WHM as well and while I thought they were mad at first hearing them describe the film makes me realise that actually yes, it's incredibly boring. I always thought Kilmer was alright though, certainly as Bruce Wayne. He seems to understand there's nothing 'fun' about that character, but the film clearly doesn't care about that at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 18:53
|
|
|
CaptainHollywood posted:A good way to see Batman and Robin is thinking it's just an adaptation of the 60's show. Batman & Robin is my favorite Batman movie, which is not to suggest that I like it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 19:06
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:Back in the day when I would seek out fan-edits of stuff there was someone who did just that with B&R. They added in a few deleted scenes but took out a bulk of stuff. I never watched it so I don't know if it worked but I would be curious to see how it plays. The idea that Bruce Wayne talks up Batman all the time and then acts super shifty and obviously evasive when he's called on it would be amazing to see in a film. That should have happened in B&R. "What? Batman, no ahahaha why, heh why uh would you think I'm Batman, I mean I'm obviously not Batman what a crazy idea hahaha"
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
Pick posted:Batman & Robin is my favorite Batman movie, which is not to suggest that I like it. I would sentence you to review it at your earliest convenience, but I would like you to save yourself for the stuff you hate absolutely.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
Whoaaaa whoa whoa guys back it up. Have we actually come full circle to a point where Batman and Robin is considered to be a movie with merits? The film is close to unwatchably stupid and corny and not even an inkling as clever as the 60's show was. Its an ugly, incoherent and unforgivably stupid movie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 19:43
|
|
|
Nutsngum posted:Whoaaaa whoa whoa guys back it up. Have we actually come full circle to a point where Batman and Robin is considered to be a movie with merits? The film is close to unwatchably stupid and corny and not even an inkling as clever as the 60's show was. Oh god it's not really good, haha no. If the movie were 90 minutes of just Schwarzenegger doing stuff it would be amazing. The only point I would like to make is that it is still better than Batman Forever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Chris O'Donnell is a vapid heartthrob here that is supposed to sell tickets to teenage girls. Given how clumsily he's written in and the character is handled, this becomes the inescapable conclusion. Robin shows up and immediately irritates everyone, including the audience. Not even the script cares that his entire family is dead. His kung-fu laundry hanging is one of the few redeeming features of the movie, at least. OneThousandMonkeys posted:I would like B&R more if it was 15-20 minutes shorter, maybe even 30. The main bulk of the movie is actually good to serviceable, but things get really awful with all the limp melodrama surrounding Alfred. That and Mr. Freeze's wife were easily the biggest mis-steps in the movie. The backstory of Freeze as a lost soul trying to revive his dead wife and stripped of his humanity in the process worked really well in the cartoon and in future incarnations, but it totally clashes against the campy tone of B&R.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
Nutsngum posted:Whoaaaa whoa whoa guys back it up. Have we actually come full circle to a point where Batman and Robin is considered to be a movie with merits? The film is close to unwatchably stupid and corny and not even an inkling as clever as the 60's show was. It's definitely not as funny as the TV show is, but it is funny as hell.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
Batman and Robin doesn't belong in the "was it really that bad" thread. Yes, it was really that bad. It has zero redeeming qualities, and unintentionally being amusing is not merit. It is the unfortunate byproduct of what happens when you combine studio franchise milking with a queen director who thinks everything should look and play like homoerotic theater on steroids. It is a dismal stain on the careers of everyone involved, and it was made by a team of people who hate you and want you to suffer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 20:56
|
|
|
Slim Killington posted:Batman and Robin doesn't belong in the "was it really that bad" thread. Yes, it was really that bad. It has zero redeeming qualities, and unintentionally being amusing is not merit. It is the unfortunate byproduct of what happens when you combine studio franchise milking with a queen director who thinks everything should look and play like homoerotic theater on steroids. It is a dismal stain on the careers of everyone involved, and it was made by a team of people who hate you and want you to suffer. I wish it was like you're describing it, actually. Your description makes it sound way more fun than it was. I can't defend it even as trash, because to me at least it's way too lifeless to qualify as good camp. Too often it feels like Arnold is the only one having a good time. It's a wet dishrag with some glitter on it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
Yeah, I still prefer Batman Forever over Batman and Robin. What other people see as campy and decent, I see as cringe worthy. It is a pretty painful movie for me to sit through. I will voice my support for the first GI Joe movie. While it had some pretty bad parts, it also felt like an extension of a kids cartoon show. The entire Eiffel Tower scene is awesome. But, the sequel was terrible. All of the fun that the first one seemed to be having was removed and it felt like they switched to serious business for most of the movie and it wasn't til the end that they realized that the whole premise was silly. The only redeeming thing about that movie was seeing Cobra Commander in his classic outfit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:What other people see as campy and decent, I see as cringe worthy. I agree with this. The 60s show was campy, Batman & Robin was just stupid. It's also boring as hell... yes, Arnold's puns are great, but you're better off watching a Youtube compilation of them because then you don't have to sit through Alicia Silverstone and Chris O'Donnell trying to out-bland each other.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
I think B&R lacks the sheer dedication that the 60s series had. The series was a weird psychedelic happening where they decided to make a deliberately ludicrous and stupid show and play it completely straight. Schumacher and his cast didn't quite commit to that extent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 01:32
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:I think B&R lacks the sheer dedication that the 60s series had. The series was a weird psychedelic happening where they decided to make a deliberately ludicrous and stupid show and play it completely straight. Schumacher and his cast didn't quite commit to that extent. I feel the same way. I think good camp needs to be played completely straight or else it becomes a little too wink-wink and gets muddled in with parody. B&R has those fun ludicrous moments (every scene with Arnold) but it's mixed in with an overlong script that goes nowhere for long stretches. While we're on the subject of camp/parody, Eight Legged Freaks has a 48% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and I remember loving it as a teenager. I think it's a necessity in any self-aware bad movie for a character to say the title of the movie, and this doesn't disappoint. Also, this was filmed in Arizona and my substitute economics teacher played one of the waitress extras who gets eaten by a spider near the end!
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 03:20
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Oh god it's not really good, haha no. If the movie were 90 minutes of just Schwarzenegger doing stuff it would be amazing. The only point I would like to make is that it is still better than Batman Forever. I guess my fundamental issue is that I think Batman is stupid, so I'd rather watch a stupid movie about Batman than a... well, differently stupid movie about Batman (the rest of them).
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 03:34
|
|
|
I watched Batman & Robin for the first time only recently and really I would rather watch Batman & Robin again than Batman Returns, which is an ugly, mean spirited, miserable movie. So, yeah I think it is the second "best" of that little Batman movie era. Arnie and Uma just nail it and the tone works for me with Batman. It is also all worth it for that great bit where they reverse the film to make Robins head go back underwater, just amazing. Batman Forever sounds terrible though. But I agree with Pick in that I think that Batman itself is intrinsically poor. (Though The Dark Knight was hit out of the park for sheer perfect execution).
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 06:39
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:I think B&R lacks the sheer dedication that the 60s series had. The series was a weird psychedelic happening where they decided to make a deliberately ludicrous and stupid show and play it completely straight. Schumacher and his cast didn't quite commit to that extent. Funnily enough, had they commited to this kind of thought and wrote the movie as a comedy played straight it would still have bombed. Then it would have become "cult" a decade later and discussed favorably in threads like these. Ive really gotta see Batman Forever again to see if it is as bad as you guys say. My childhood nostalgia makes me remember it as a decent Batman that was more comic book like.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 06:52
|
|
|
For years I thought Batman Returns was the best of the Batman movies, but a few years ago I tried to give it another watch and found myself feeling it was overrated and wasn't really all that good. I can't really put my finger on a specific thing that bothered me, but I do think it wasn't the peak of the Burton-series as I often thought, but probably the start of the decline. A lot of the things that the Schumacher-directed films did might almost be a result of where Burton had already put the series by Returns: Multiple villains camping and vamping it up, Bat-branding all over the place, Batman being more visible, even more stylized look, etc. However, the sad thing is that it also has probably what I feel to be my favorite moment in any of the live-action Batman movies: The Bruce/Selina dance. Out of this movie with so much style, it feels like the one thing that feels like it could have been part of a more serious Batman movie. All that being said, I wonder how much the Burton-series would have been different if he'd stayed in the director's chair for the next 2 films. One popular rumor had been that Burton initially wanted to do his films as a trilogy where Bruce would decide at the end of the third movie he didn't need to be Batman, anymore. However, that arc really feels like it fits more with the story to the unproduced Sam Hamm script for Batman 2, where Bruce is starting to lean towards the fact that he, as Bruce, can actually do something to help Gotham more and in a way that Batman can't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 07:31
|
|
|
Pick posted:I guess my fundamental issue is that I think Batman is stupid, so I'd rather watch a stupid movie about Batman than a... well, differently stupid movie about Batman (the rest of them). That's what Batman: The Movie is for!
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 07:46
|
|
|
The best part about Batman: The Movie was how Batman worked out which villains were involved. That was amazing. "And it all adds up to a very disturbing riddle." "Riddle? Riddle-er!" 
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 07:53
|
|
|
BioEnchanted posted:The best part about Batman: The Movie was how Batman worked out which villains were involved. That was amazing. And the crime was at sea. Sea, c is for cat, Catwoman. Forever was a weird mesh of camp and serious, it didn't help that both villians were Joker knockoffs (not the characters in general, but Jones' and Carrey's performances). Killer soundtrack.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 09:54
|
|
|
One of the best parts of the movie is right after the "Can't get rid of a bomb!" sequence, where Robin laments that Batman put his life in danger to spare a bunch of people in a bar, and Batman says, "They may be drinkers, Robin, but they're still human beings." 90% of the people involved in this film's production probably went for the scotch as soon as the day's shooting was done, and they know it, and the audience knows it, and everyone laughs at the sheer absurdity of Batman and Robin's moral righteousness. It's actually kind of brilliant- instead of trying to engage the youth by trying to act all rebellious and hip, the people making the show made everything as square as possible, and that made them hip. What I'm saying is that they are forerunners of Paul Verhoeven.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 15:37
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:One of the best parts of the movie is right after the "Can't get rid of a bomb!" sequence, where Robin laments that Batman put his life in danger to spare a bunch of people in a bar, and Batman says, "They may be drinkers, Robin, but they're still human beings." 90% of the people involved in this film's production probably went for the scotch as soon as the day's shooting was done, and they know it, and the audience knows it, and everyone laughs at the sheer absurdity of Batman and Robin's moral righteousness. It's actually kind of brilliant- instead of trying to engage the youth by trying to act all rebellious and hip, the people making the show made everything as square as possible, and that made them hip. Holy poo poo I'd watch a Paul Verhoeven Batman movie. Edit: Here, have the most annoying scene in Batman Forever http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md32bKo0ZDg OldTennisCourt fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Apr 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 16:14
|
|
|
And here's the best line from the film. http://youtu.be/ll8c1UmwD0Y
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 21:36
|
|
|
BioEnchanted posted:The best part about Batman: The Movie was how Batman worked out which villains were involved. That was amazing. The fact that most of Catwoman's super criminal uses are seduction and sweeping up dehydrated goons makes me die every time. Also someone make a ska band called Ballpoint Banana.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 21:50
|
|
|
The weirdest part of Batman Forever was Tommy Lee Jones completely misreading the character of Two-Face. It was like Jones saw what Carey was doing and wanted to do it too. He was supposed to be a tragic character but he was just a second rate Joker ripoff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 00:59
|
|
|
Madkal posted:The weirdest part of Batman Forever was Tommy Lee Jones completely misreading the character of Two-Face. It was like Jones saw what Carey was doing and wanted to do it too. He was supposed to be a tragic character but he was just a second rate Joker ripoff. The acid also somehow burned all of the melanin in his skin away too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:The acid also somehow burned all of the melanin in his skin away too. Maybe it was from the same vat that made the Joker.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 03:44
|
|
|
Nutsngum posted:Whoaaaa whoa whoa guys back it up. Have we actually come full circle to a point where Batman and Robin is considered to be a movie with merits? The film is close to unwatchably stupid and corny and not even an inkling as clever as the 60's show was. I know I've said this before, on these forums for sure, but Batman & Robin is getting a surprising amount of defenders nowadays. It's to the point where I'm wondering if its because people are becoming contrarian to how popular Nolan Batman is when they are going back to the low points of the Burton-Schumacher series and trying to re-interpret them or whatever. I really don't want to sound like I'm knocking those people but when we're talking about a film as broken and bloated and misguided as B&R then I need to say something strong. I agree with everyone that said Batman Forever is really weird because it wants to be campy but still has pieces of a more serious script embedded in it. It's no secret WB wanted the film to be lighter and more kid-friendly after Returns. The original script was pretty dark and serious (for its time, anyways) if anyone gets a chance to read it. There were pretty mature subplots like the red book subplot and anytime Bruce talked to Robin about the concept of revenge. Then you'd get poo poo like neon glowstick gangs and the Batmobile driving up walls and the Batwing being shot out of the sky by a giant blender. It's a really strange movie because there is this tug-of-war that the studio ultimately won. I rewatched it not too long ago and my opinions remained the same with every rewatch: It's not a bad movie but there's nothing special about it. Also, totally unrelated but Batman Returns becomes a much better watch if you pretend The Penguin is something Frank Reynolds is doing on the side.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 05:45
|
|
|
Madkal posted:The weirdest part of Batman Forever was Tommy Lee Jones completely misreading the character of Two-Face. It was like Jones saw what Carey was doing and wanted to do it too. He was supposed to be a tragic character but he was just a second rate Joker ripoff. It probably doesn't help that the film went about sort of making Two-Face all evil, all the time, too. I know the comic has even played a bit loose with Two-Face justifying even a 'good' flip towards doing something evil, but this movie seemed to make him do that all the time. Was there actually any of his coin flips in the movie that he didn't try to use as an excuse to do evil? Heck, I think there was even a scene where he was unhappy with the result he got so he kept flipping the coin until he got the one he wanted, which sort of betrayed the tone of what his schtick was. You can keep the cartoony vibe of the film AND have the coin flips stick to something that hints more and more at Harvey's decent nature and Two-Face's evil one. Take the early bank hostage scene. Harvey could have had several hostages, flipping his coin at each one, telling them what he was flipping for on each on. Even with the tone of Forever, it could have added a lot of suspense to it. "Heads, I let you go. Tails, I kill you." One by one, as he moves down the hostages, every one comes up heads. Subtly, more and more of Harvey's nice guy personality comes out with each flip. He's increasingly gentle and polite, helps a woman to her feet like a gentleman, etc. Finally, getting to the last person, he's almost sympathetic and caring, even apologetic towards his victim about having to put them through this formality. Tails... And Evil Harvey jumps back in charge with a vengeance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 05:50
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:It probably doesn't help that the film went about sort of making Two-Face all evil, all the time, too. I know the comic has even played a bit loose with Two-Face justifying even a 'good' flip towards doing something evil, but this movie seemed to make him do that all the time. Was there actually any of his coin flips in the movie that he didn't try to use as an excuse to do evil? Heck, I think there was even a scene where he was unhappy with the result he got so he kept flipping the coin until he got the one he wanted, which sort of betrayed the tone of what his schtick was. As bad as Two-Face's characterization is, he wasn't just reflipping over and over again. Every time Batman got near him he would flip the coin. Batman comes near, he flips, then lets Batman get away, repeat until he finally flips the side that lets him shoot Batman. I think that bad editing made that scene a lot dumber than it was.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 05:57
|
|
|
Improbable Lobster posted:As bad as Two-Face's characterization is, he wasn't just reflipping over and over again. Every time Batman got near him he would flip the coin. Batman comes near, he flips, then lets Batman get away, repeat until he finally flips the side that lets him shoot Batman. I think that bad editing made that scene a lot dumber than it was. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 08:42
|
|
|
Once the Burton era was done, and given the villains that were used, I wonder if they just used the wrong pairings, or perhaps to say if 'better' pairings would have been possible. I think Two-Face would have likely worked better with a costar-level female foil/coconspirator. The animated series seemed to do some pretty good work with tying Dent into Ivy's origin, and I could imagine he'd be similarly good paired with Catwoman in a film considering Selina's dual personalities of meek and mild and Catwoman's wild and dominating. Robin Williams apparently was teased to be Riddler for a LONG time until Jim Carrey's star went on the rise and he was scooped up to take the role. I wonder how the franchise would have fared in film three had Williams actually been able to negotiate a contract to be in the film. I think it would have been around the time he was trying to branch out into more serious work, so it's possible he wouldn't have played his Riddler like the Joker as Carrey ended up doing, which might have also affected how his costars performance would have been in response. Heck, even though he was never used but rumored to have been in Batman 5, putting Scarecrow together with Ivy in a film seems like it would have been better film team-up than Freeze/Ivy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 09:13
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:Once the Burton era was done, and given the villains that were used, I wonder if they just used the wrong pairings, or perhaps to say if 'better' pairings would have been possible. Honestly Robin Williams would have been just as bad. You said it yourself that the studio wanted the film to be campy. When you get Robin Williams in the film, even if at the time he was branching into serious stuff, the studio is going to expect and maybe even demand that he be the clown and all we'd get is maybe a little less physicality from Riddler but the same amount of lovely annoying humor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 13:43
|
|
|
If nothing else Batman chat got me to binge about 45 minutes of Seal on Youtube.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 19:43
|
|
|
Calico Heart posted:
My favorite part of that movie was playing "find the laser pointer"; whenever they wanted the cat to look somewhere there was always a little red dot shining on a pair of shoes or whatever. Also on scenes where the cat needed to stay in place it would magically gain a leash basically tying it to a deckchair. Really wonderful movie and I wish I had the fortitude to watch the whole thing; unfortunately, I just told myself I'd watch it until they said the movie's title so I only got about 40 minutes in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
Justin Godscock posted:I know I've said this before, on these forums for sure, but Batman & Robin is getting a surprising amount of defenders nowadays. It's to the point where I'm wondering if its because people are becoming contrarian to how popular Nolan Batman is when they are going back to the low points of the Burton-Schumacher series and trying to re-interpret them or whatever. I really don't want to sound like I'm knocking those people but when we're talking about a film as broken and bloated and misguided as B&R then I need to say something strong. I don't think anyone really thinks that B&R is good. Just that there's joy to be found in its badness. Both it and Batman Forever are legitimately bad, but B&R is joyfully so - so it makes it the more entertaining watch. At least it's tonally consistent. Forever is kind of a mess in that regard: It's partly serious, partly camp and Val Kilmer being a tortured hero really doesn't work when contrasted with the fuckton of neon that Schumacher employs. Batman Forever is what happens when a film maker fights with a studio, Batman and Robin is what happens when the studio and marketeers take over and the director stops giving a poo poo (See also; Spider-Man 3).
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 22:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 20:20 |
|
|
Vhak lord of hate posted:My favorite part of that movie was playing "find the laser pointer"; whenever they wanted the cat to look somewhere there was always a little red dot shining on a pair of shoes or whatever. Also on scenes where the cat needed to stay in place it would magically gain a leash basically tying it to a deckchair. The plot continues to go nowhere for almost the entire duration, then the cat gets hit by a car and is almost immediately resurrected by a magic collar. The injured cat is hilariously lazy... they just kind of put some gauze on top of it and called it a day. Also, be on the lookout for cat food everywhere as well. When they needed the cat to be somewhere but not look too interested in anything, that's what they used, and it's blatant. DrVenkman posted:I don't think anyone really thinks that B&R is good. Just that there's joy to be found in its badness. Both it and Batman Forever are legitimately bad, but B&R is joyfully so - so it makes it the more entertaining watch. At least it's tonally consistent. Forever is kind of a mess in that regard: It's partly serious, partly camp and Val Kilmer being a tortured hero really doesn't work when contrasted with the fuckton of neon that Schumacher employs. sethsez fucked around with this message at 07:54 on Apr 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 07:48
|
|