You will be hard-pressed to find a more vocal proponent of filmmakers having to respect a comic book's source material in order to make a creatively successful comic book film than me. When I look at a comic book film, I look at what to expect from the character and the plot and how the filmmakers and actors intend to keep to the mythology of the characters that have already been created.
With Joel Schumacher's BATMAN AND ROBIN, Warner Brothers Studios basically decided that aside from the most basic of characteristics, EVERYTHING in this film is up for grabs. And in that anarchy, Schumacher, stars George Clooney, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Uma Thurman, Chris O'Donnell, and Alicia Silverstone somehow ended up creating what I think is easily the most entertaining of all of the pre-Nolan Batman films.
If you watch some of the special features on this disc, or listen to the commentary track, one of the first things that Schumacher admits is that they had no script, and not just before they started shooting, but WHILE they were shooting. The studio's mission was to create as many toys to sell to young boys and girls as they possibly could, hence some of the most ridiculous action set pieces ever committed to celluloid. They wanted a glowing Batmobile, a sleek Redbird (Robin's motorcycle), a bizarre tank for Mr. Freeze... and they wanted to sell toys and action figures for girls too, hence the inclusion of Batgirl and Poison Ivy. So they called Akiva Goldsman, who is inexplicably an Oscar winner (for writing A BEAUTIFUL MIND) since he's one of the biggest hacks in Hollywood, and they gave Schumacher somewhat free reign as far of the look and feel of some of the sets. It's obviously hearkening back to the Adam West/Burt Ward BATMAN television show era at points, but has some incredibly bizarre and over-the-top set design that includes seemingly dozens of statues throughout Gotham City that stand well over 100 feet. The film's budget was around $125 million, suggesting that they wanted to go VERY big, or they might as well have not even bothered. Well, Schumacher didn't seem to want any of that budget to go to waste, and of course, that included Schwarzenegger's salary for the film, which was in the $25 million range. This was pretty much the death-knell of his big-budget career aside from the final TERMINATOR film he appeared in.
This film was also the death-knell of the BATMAN franchise for a few more years, so whatever your thoughts on this film might be, you should be thankful it exists merely because it ushered in the age of the Nolan DARK KNIGHT films after it seemed like nothing could revitalize this franchise.
Truth be told, this is not a particularly good film, and it's an awful Batman film in terms simply of the zeitgeist of even 1997. When the soundtrack to the film is populated with songs by R.E.M. and Smashing Pumpkins, this is a sign that people weren't looking for a zany, fun comic book caper, but that's not necessarily the reason this film was a commercial failure, but to be certain, it was a big reason. And people had been whining since Tim Burton left the franchise anyway. They wanted their Batman to be not just dark, but RELENTLESSLY dark. While some of what Burton did reflected the current era of the comic in terms of design, it failed completely in character. And while Schumacher didn't exactly improve the status of the franchise, he did add enough sensibility to allow yourself to be entertained by his efforts (even if it's unintentional and/or groan-worthy like so much of the terrible dialogue in this film). The film, while still being dark (or underlit, in some cases), has an added element of pop to the picture. You're not just looking at grimy and dilapidated alleyways and ultra-gothic set design as was the case in almost every frame of Burton's directorial efforts. There's a conspicuously heavy use of neon in both this film as well as BATMAN FOREVER, which brought Schumacher to the franchise, as well as an over-use of blacklight.
The performances range from decent (Michael Gough as Alfred, who, with Pat Hingle as Commissioner Gordon were the only two actors who stuck around for all four of the original films) to silly (Clooney, who, according to legend did actually play the character of Bruce Wayne as gay) to downright awful (Everyone else...). But they're really only awful if you look at them as three-dimensional characters. This film is a huge cartoon, and like most kids cartoons, the surface of the character is all you get. Also, if you look at the surface, there is literally no reason for this film to be rated PG-13. It has no more violence than you would see in a Bugs Bunny cartoon, it has no profanity, it has no nudity, but the reasoning for that PG-13, other than the obvious marketing ploy to get the kids and their parents in the seats, is as far as the character of Poison Ivy is concerned, as played by Uma Thurman (who obviously saw a few Mae West films in order to find her character), her dialogue is packed with obvious and totally ridiculous double entendres. There's a fairly high amount of sexuality in this film in regards to Ivy, particularly in her character's psuedo-strip tease when her character is first revealed in Gotham's Botanical Garden benefit. There also seems to be an undercurrent of homoeroticism throughout the film with the presence of Poison Ivy to create the rift in the "partnership" of Batman and Robin, as well as Bruce's fiancee Julie Madison (supermodel Elle MacPherson, whose role, while being a nice nod to Bruce's first love in the comics, was little more than a cameo) to offset the old argument of Batman and Robin being, as Dr. Fredric Wertham once put it in his 1950's cryptofacist interpretation of comic books SEDUCTION OF THE INNOCENT, the "ultimate homosexual fantasy relationship".
And then, there's Silverstone as Barbara/Batgirl. The inclusion of the character, again, was more to sell toys and give some fan-service than to give a good reason for the character to exist in this world, but the casting of the character could not have been more moronic. Let me get this straight: Instead of being the daughter of Commissioner Gordon, she's Alfred's niece whose mother is British; she grew up in England AND went to a British boarding school, yet somehow, she's an American teenager. How does that work? But then, if someone was to actually offer a logical explanation for ANYTHING in this film, I'd be either very impressed or very suspicious.
So after all this, why do I still rate this film 5 out of 5 stars? Because of everything I've just written. This film is so gloriously excessive, so delirously goofy, so amazingly awful that it seems to me that there is a microscopic element of subversiveness to the whole production. They seemed to want the franchise to die off. Really, how could anyone be expected to turn in wuality work when the whole film is being dictated by the studio suits and the merchandising people?
No one involved could seriously have watched this film and said to themselves, "This is some of my best work" and still be considered sane. Schumacher and company went so far off the rails into self-parody and self-destruction that no one could really have seen themselves getting a lot of Hollywood work after this film, which also brings a level of anarchic glee for me. It'd be another few years until Clooney found his breakout role; Schwarzenegger went into politics for some reason; Thurman smartly kept her friendship with Quentin Tarantino alive and still remains a mainstay of independent cinema; O'Donnell is trying to keep some kind of career solvency alive through television and Silverstone is really nowhere to be found. Schumacher continues making films, but they're largely regarded as hacky, and that's not unfounded, but he's still in the business.
BATMAN AND ROBIN is really kind of a perfect example of how not to make a Batman film, but still ends up being the most entertaining film of all of the pre-Nolan Batman films. That either speaks volumes about this film, or about its predecessors.
Enjoy fast, free delivery, exclusive deals, and award-winning movies & TV shows with Prime
Try Prime
and start saving today with fast, free delivery
Frequently bought together
This item: Batman & Robin (DVD)
$8.20
Get it as soon as Friday, Mar 7
Only 12 left in stock - order soon.
+
$9.99
Get it as soon as Friday, Mar 7
Only 1 left in stock - order soon.
+
$14.29
Get it as soon as Friday, Mar 7
In Stock
Total price: $00
To see our price, add these items to your cart.
Choose items to buy together.
Customers who bought this item also bought
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
Akin to 60s TV show. Campy and fun -unlike the other overrated and pretentious installments
This installment is in the spirit of the sixties TV show: campy and full of fetishistic kicks.Uma Thurman's legs on full display, and Alicia Silverstone is quite fetching as Batgirl. An enjoyable return (in spirit) to the 60s babes who starred in the TV series.George Clooney got a lot of flack for this one. Why? I dunno. I thought he did a good job balancing the camp and "straight" dialogue. Besides, it all comes down to the chin, anyway. (His performance recalls the late Adam West - a good thing, if you ask me.)Batman, and other Superhero movies (I guess that's 99% of theatrical releases nowadays) based on comic books - when did adults start to take them seriously? Ugh.This is not the dreary, overrated Batman movie - more comicbook than the dreaded (ugh) graphic novel.If you like the Christopher Reeve's Superman, or the vastly underrated Dick Tracy, you'll dig this one. Cartoonish - in the best sense of the word.
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
- Reviewed in the United States on March 26, 2014
- Reviewed in the United States on August 31, 2024
- Reviewed in the United States on August 9, 2024
Top reviews from other countries
-
- Theo LawrenceReviewed in the United Kingdom on July 15, 2024
One of the best Batman movies!
-
-
Joan Gili MorenoReviewed in Spain on October 31, 2023
Batman y Robin edición coleccionista
-
