Batman & Robin - 25 years later

[Qonundrum]

https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/25-thoughts-i-had-while-rewatching-1997s-batman-robin

Rather fun article! Will address some points made just for a thrill, but there's nothing to disagree with as such...

- First off: Who did Arnold Schwarzenegger threaten to get top billing? He's the first name in the credits before George Clooney (who's actually Batman in this movie, bat nips and all).

The same person that compelled Gene Hackman to get his name over Christopher Reeve's in 1978's Superman? (But Gene was a bigger name and Reeve was fairly new... and the belief that big names attract audiences was held to greater effect at the time...) But Clooney was a big name too. One can still argue the most established name gets the top billing, regardless of the titular character?

- I know everyone's still got Bat-nipples jokes 20 years later, but we can we talk about the pretty gratuitous crotch and ass shots for both male superheroes? Are they off to fight crime or a 2-for-1 night at the Blue Oyster?

Callout to "Police Academy" movies? LOL. And didn't Batgirl's costume be free of above-waist adornments? The ancient Romans would not be happy... but they didn't need to wear rubber suits...

- Can we talk about Batman showing up to arrest Freeze by breaking through a skylight and then surfing down a replica of a Brontosaurus? What is this, The Flintstones?

Batman 66 would be envious... or embarrassed

- Good thing Batman and Robin have blades hidden in their boots that they activate by clicking their heels Wizard of Oz-style, since all of Mr. Freeze's henchmen are ice hockey players. Maybe the NHL has a crappy retirement plan.

Wouldn't be out of place in Batman 66

- Mr. Freeze escapes on a rocket set to launch into space and then jets to freedom, leaving Batman and Robin behind. So of course they surf back down into Gotham on the rocket's emergency doors, because that's totally how that works.

Batman 66 did worse things!

- Robin's recklessness leads him to getting shot with a freeze gun, so obviously Batman has to let Freeze go in order to save the Boy Wonder, which seems incredibly counterproductive and like poor decision-making for a superhero.

-Reminder: THIS GUY got top billing.

- For someone whose previous job experience is "acrobat," Robin sure seems to have a lot of issues with Batman coming to his rescue.

By the 1990, surely that knowing a character's predefined attributes and-- unless Robin, being new to the trade, was scared in flight-or-fight mode, then being captured might make sense. He knows how to flip, but unlike Batman he doesn't know how not to flip out.

- Pamela Isley starts out as a mild-mannered researcher trying to develop a way for plants to defend themselves and then winds up murdered by her male colleague when she uncovers his corrupt goal to create an army of super soldiers. Because apparently things have always been the WORST when you're a woman working in a STEM field.

The plot is so bizarre it teams up two villains that can't possibly begin to coexist, much less make any plausible agreements over which areas beyond the equator they will reign over. But it's still nice to see other than "the big four" villains get some screen time. They were on the right track but needed another rough draft...?

- Um, why doesn't Alfred's niece have a British accent?

Or a mishmash, depending on how long she lived in the States. But wasn't she ferried over from England? (much less any good reason as to WHY, apart from letting us know Alfred keeps a photo of someone he wanted to be with that he also felt was way too young at, if I remember correctly, an age that was still too young. Maybe as an adult... I don't know. Plenty of variables and to be honest, the writers I felt were trying to throw anything in. If using the feel of Batman 66, throwing in a love story isn't going to work no matter what any conditions are. Unless it's Catwoman and those episodes purrfectly show why.

- For someone who says she's deathly afraid of motorcycles, how does Barbara just happen to pack both a motorcycle helmet and a motorcycle jacket so she can sneak out of Wayne Manor to go drag racing? Actually, who cares. Get it, girl.

Hidin' an alter-identity? But then where did she get the motorbike from? Wouldn't be Bruce's... I love the movie for the puns so I'll watch it again but I hope the bike isn't Bruce's! That's just dim, and even Batman 66 wouldn't be so absent.

- Batman and Robin decide to host a charity auction to lure Mr. Freeze out into the open. As Batman and Robin. Which makes absolutely no sense, considering Bruce Wayne's family diamonds are what's being auctioned off, but I've given up trying to understand this movie.

No puns about the family jewels?!

-Batman pulls out a Bat-credit card that NEVER EXPIRES. I HAVE SO MANY QUESTIONS, but namely: How did he apply for his own credit card without a Social Security number? WHO ACCEPTS A BATCARD?

:facepalm:

- Turns out Bruce has known all along that Alfred's sick, so I guess he's less of a jerk. Conveniently, the fictional disease Alfred's dying from is also the same disease that Mr. Freeze was trying to develop a cure for to heal his wife. HMMM, METHINKS THAT WILL RESOLVE ITSELF.

Not sure B-66 would try this stunt. Maybe in season 3.

- "Men: the most absurd of God's creatures" - a line that Poison Ivy literally drops that had me seal-clapping in the midst of this crazy-bananas movie.

Irony? It is a crazy script (in both bad and good ways!)

- In spite of several known criminals at large, Gotham puts on another star-studded event, because focusing GCPD resources on security for said event is definitely wiser than, you know, fighting actual criminals.

I think they let Batman do the weird cases, but during the midst OF a big case but not as a trap?!

- Alfred's on his deathbed yet also finds the time and energy to make Barbara her own Batsuit. Take that, Martha Stewart.

Alfred's giving but that is too much. Mixed in with the "I'm dyiiiiiiiiiiiiiing plot point" and not even B66 would try anything as hokey.

Can you believe this was meant to kick off a whole new series of movies? Actually, if you watch Suicide Squad immediately after this, both movies make a little bit more sense.

Wish Batman Forever kicked off the series, it hit all the right notes. B&R just stumbles everywhere, with little to no care in the script. Maybe it's trying to be camp, or uber-camp, but if they're aiming for a new series then I think they were doing too much at once rather than focusing.


Bonus!

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Sparkle Fabulosa]

Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy is why I like this movie.

 

[JD]

I actually did enjoy B&R when I watched it a few years ago, just as a ridiculous, campy, goofy fun time. I remember someone, somewhere, possibly here, called it a big budget version of Batman '66, and I think if you approach that way, it works a lot better.

 

[Gaith]

It's an hour of goofy fun, followed by forty minutes of eye-rolling drudgery. In other words, a more pleasant experience than Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Rises.

 

[Tosk]

I have nothing good to say about this movie.

Even though I really disliked Batman Forever (and still do), I somehow still found myself in the cinema for Batman & Robin (back in the days where there were very few superhero movies, so you took what you could get). Less than five minutes in, I was very angry at myself. It was a very "Oh no, what have I done?." moment. Fool me twice, shame on me.

 

[RandyS]

It hasn't been 25 years yet.

 

[Tosk]

I think Cutie mistook the "25 Thoughts..." headline for 25 Years.

 

[Aragorn]

The same person that compelled Gene Hackman to get his name over Christopher Reeve's in 1978's Superman? (But Gene was a bigger name and Reeve was fairly new... and the belief that big names attract audiences was held to greater effect at the time...) But Clooney was a big name too. One can still argue the most established name gets the top billing, regardless of the titular character?]

It's all contractual. Who gets top billing, where the name goes on the poster, where the depiction of the actor goes on the poster. Brando actually had top billing for Superman. Flight of the Intruder, for example, the lead actor was actually billed third after Danny Glover and Willem Dafoe because he was unknown.

The internet outrage over Danai Gurira not having her name on the top of the Avengers: Endgame poster, followed by the outrage that she's only in the movie for three minutes, was hilarious.

 

[Greg Cox]

Saw the movie once, on opening day. That was enough.

And I really, really wanted to like the movie. I remember I stubborn held up hope that it would improve until I hit the Bat-credit card scene, at which point I realized there was no saving the movie.

Haven't seen it since.

 

[Aragorn]

All four Batman movies came out this week on 4K UHD Blu-ray, even Batman & Robin. Best Buy was plentiful for all of them. I have a feeling a couple of them will just sit there collecting dust.

 

[The Wormhole]

The same person that compelled Gene Hackman to get his name over Christopher Reeve's in 1978's Superman? (But Gene was a bigger name and Reeve was fairly new... and the belief that big names attract audiences was held to greater effect at the time...) But Clooney was a big name too. One can still argue the most established name gets the top billing, regardless of the titular character?

IIRC, the billing was a major point of contention on this film, and in the end no one was really satisfied. One of the main sticking points against George Clooney being billed first was at the time he was still considered a TV actor, as ER was what he was famous for. Though he had been in movies already, he'd never been the lead in those movies, and someone established in movies like Arnold Schwarzenegger wasn't going to be listed as second fiddle to a TV actor who'd never been the lead in a movie before. Clooney allegedly fired his agent over this

What became especially problematic was the movie's poster. Schwarzenegger is listed top and centre while Clooney is listed below and to the left in deference to the fact that he is the first of the fact he is playing the first of the movie's two titular characters. Schwarzenegger allegedly didn't like this, feeling it made it look like Clooney's name is in fact first, and supposedly fired his agent over it.

I think Chris O'Donnell, Uma Thurman and Alicia Silverstone also had issues with their billing. O'Donnell because he's pretty low for being another of the movie's two titular characters, Thurman and Silverstone because they were already in a number of movies in which they were either the lead or second billed, and here they were much lower. Though the three of them at least didn't take it out on their agents.

 

[Enterprise is Great]

Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy is why I like this movie.

She's the only reason why I even own this movie. It's really the worst Batman movie.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

"Everybody chill!"

This movie is goofy as fuck, but in a good way. I love Arnold as Mr. Freeze (ice puns, included. In fact, I quote his puns as often as I can in real life). I really loved Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy. I absolutely hated Bane.

George Clooney was okay as Batman. I wouldn't have minded seeing how he could do in a better movie. Chris O'Donnell's Robin was a crybaby most of the movie. Alicia Silverstone was okay as Batgirl.

I guess that sums up my feeling on it. It's okay. It has a pretty kickass soundtrack that I still listen to and keep in the car. Smashing Pumpkin's "The Beginning is the End is the Beginning" and "The End is the Beginning is the End" are awesome songs. Kind of weird that Jewel's "Foolish Games" also came from this movie

 

[suarezguy]

I think it's a decidedly very bad movie (though with a lot of potential and a few moments) but also very, very far from the worst ever made.

Agreed Thurman as Poison Ivy was pretty good, at least compared to every other element, eventually also too over-the-top but not as much and more enjoyable than the others, fun evil seductress, much more enjoyably and effectively comical/OTT than Arnold Mr. Freeze (and the comic book character Poison Ivy has usually been pretty broad), Arnold Mr. Freeze the puns felt really thrown-in and at odds with his origin and motivation. Though, yeah, OTOH Ivy teaming up with Mr. Freeze was a really bad story.

Agreed Robin felt too jerky and Batgirl OK but also too thrown-in.

Probably a big part of why B66 often worked while B&R didn't was that in B&R, Thurman aside, the actors didn't seem to be having fun with the roles or making them fun (Arnold a little but even he often felt like the humor was just obligatory), more like they either had contempt for the material or knew they were going too far and that it didn't fit with what Batman had become including in the recent films.

 

[Tosk]

Kind of weird that Jewel's "Foolish Games" also came from this movie

It didn't, they just wanted it on the soundtrack. (It's not even in the actual film itself.) The song originally came out two years earlier.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I saw the movie when it came out. It's a superhero movie that seemed stupid and silly in an era where superhero movies were expected to be stupid and silly. Just nothing about it worked.

Even dumber than the very base simplistic comic book boilerplate story was that forced story about Batman and Robin fighting.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Like JD says, it's a big-screen version of Adam West's Batman with a 90s cast, budget, and production values. Ratchet the expectations down to that level, and it's entertaining.

Also, I crushed hard an Alicia Silverstone at the time, even if she's dreadful in this.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

My theory from what I've read is that the studio wanted another movie because it had to feed the beast because it had a big franchise and Schumacher is like "OK, sure.". I know movies are made to make money but I don't sense that there was any more than that driving this one creatively. So what we see thrown on the screen is whatever ideas someone thought up that might be "entertaining" just thrown at the wall with abandon.

I think the first two Batman movies were Tim Burton's interpretation of the comic books brought to life. His Gotham was not meant to be a place that you could find in the real world but was a fantastical rendition of those four color worlds. Superhero films and shows up until that time generally tried to capture that to one degree or another (The Incredible Hulk maybe being an exception).

So back to Schumacher, I think his movies are his take on Burton's take on the comics. He didn't bring his take on the comic books, he gave us his take on the Burton movies. I think he got caught up making a copy of a copy even if that wasn't his conscious intent. So he takes Burton's already stylized Gotham and exaggerated villains as the base and cranks it all up to 11 and ends up too far divorced from the source.

It's all neon, chrome, black rubber, smoke, mansions, mechanical gadgets and hammy big star villains doing one-liners and um, what are we adapting again? The Batmobile that wowed us in 89 can't even keep its big fins from flopping in the breeze now and batsuits have nipples because they're chasing after that first fix so hard and just throw in anything they think audiences might find entertaining. What a credit card? That's funny, throw it in!

I'm lumping both Schumacher movies in here, not just B&R, I just think they tried to duplicate what Burton did without really getting it. Though in his heart I think he was truly trying to make sure everyone was entertained.

 

[Galileo7]

The one Batman movie that one viewing was more than enough.
Batman & Robin

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[kirk55555]

I don't really like the comparisons of this movie to the 66 Batman, because they don't really feel all that similar to me. They're both goofy, but they feel like different types of goofy to me. Maybe its because Batman & Robin feels more like a farce somehow, while Batman 66's goofiness feels more natural? Or maybe its because B&R's Robin is angsty and obnoxious, while a lot of the side stuff is just weird and lame (like basically everything with Batgirl, especially stuff like that waste of time race scene).

I don't think Batman & Robin is very good, but I watch it occasionally because it is the entertaining kind of bad, and its one of those "I had the VHS as a kid and watched it a lot" types of nostalgic movies for me. But, I think the biggest difference between B&R and Batman 66 for me is:

I genuinely like Batman 66, and I only get enjoyment from Batman & Robin because of how astonishingly bad it is. Those are very different types of entertainment.