Worst Third Superhero Movie

[Too Much Fun]

Schumacher is actually a very talented director. His litany of impressive work contrasts with the two Batman films he directed which make me think he was definitely pressured by the studio. I mean, how you go from directing movies like The Lost Boys, Flatliners, A Time to Kill and then direct two flashy, campy films is beyond me. He may never wanted to direct an adaptation of Batman: Year One but I definitely think had he been allowed to, he could have delivered a dark Batman film.

Don't forget "Falling Down" - An excellent movie with one of Michael Douglas's best performances. I can't resist defending Val Kilmer whenever people put down his performance in "Batman Forever". I think he always gets overlooked because people have this nostalgic attachment to Keaton and Clooney has gone on to prove himself as one of the most dependable American actors with a great career, but I think Kilmer did a really good job. Batman creator Bob Kane even liked him as Batman more than Michael Keaton and I agree with him. I also liked his Bruce Wayne more than Michael Keaton's.

I thought Keaton acted too weird as Bruce Wayne, like that scene where he says, "you wanna get nuts?". People have defended it as Wayne trying to be heroic and save Vicki Vale in the only bumbling way he could without giving away that he's Batman (kinda like Christian Bale acting like an ass insulting people at his party or allegedly trying to catch the traffic light in his car), but I don't buy that. I just saw it as Keaton playing his quirky persona that he'd established in "Beetlejuice" rather than doing something organic to the character.

Val Kilmer should have played up the carefree millionaire persona more (he was pretty much serious the whole time, whether he was Wayne or Batman, aside from that weird moment where he smiles as Batman and the "drive thru" line), but I thought he fit the part more than Keaton overall. The only real wink link in "Batman Forever" acting-wise was Tommy Lee Jones, who simply had very little to work with given how his character was written.

 

[Captaindemotion]

I much prefer Kilmer to Keaton or Clooney in the Batsuit. Bale is still my favourite Batactor but of the previous 3 actors from the previous 4 movies, I think only Kilmer manages to capture the right balance of playboy, avenger, orphan and carer.

Keaton's is a good performance but it's an Elseworlds take on Batman - I've never envisaged Batman as a balding, absent-minded everyman. Clooney's grinning and hammy take is only marginally more credible than Adam West but much less enjoyable.

 

[Whofan]

I remember an interview (From Cinescape?) that Joel said he wanted BF to be more like the animated series, and that was his inspiration. Although Batman Forever was cartoonish, BTAS although a cartoon was fairly dark and dramatic, which Joel's stuff wasn't.

That being said, I find it kind of funny that for merchandising purposes Mattel pretty much turn Batman into Iron Man-a suit for every ocassion.

 

[Anwar]

Bruce Timm said that he like Batman Forever, I believe.

 

[Too Much Fun]

You can see a lot of connections between Schumacher's movies and "Batman: The Animated Series". Mr. Freeze's back story in "Batman and Robin" was obviously taken from the one invented for that series (albeit without the resonance), but a more subtle connection is between the backstory "Batman Forever" created for The Riddler and the one given to The Mad Hatter in the animated series.

Like Jim Carrey's Riddler, The Mad Hatter was a meek scientist working for Wayne who turns into a villain in a scheme for revenge (not against Wayne, though). There's also a great moment in an episode of "The New Batman Adventures" called "Legends of the Dark Knight" where a bunch of kids are talking about Batman and one kid wearing a feather boa with long blonde hair talks about he loves Batman's rubber suit and thinks the Batmobile can drive up walls. It seemed to just be mocking Schumacher, but I think in the commentary Timm clarified that he liked "Batman Forever" and it was more of an affectionate tease/homage to the director.

Like I said, I think "Batman Forever" did a lot right and had its heart in the right place. It had a good story and good arcs for most of the characters. It just had a horrible tone, some really lame production design, a few scenes that were way too silly, and a wretched depiction of Two-Face.

 

[Anwar]

The funny thing is, almost all of Mr.Freeze's lines in his origin episode are really awful and silly if someone read them normally. But it's Ansara's emotionless tone that gives them resonance.

So it was really a case of the right actor, not just the writing (and the story really isn't all THAT great).

 

[Too Much Fun]

I don't think you're giving the writing there enough credit. I thought there was a poetry to his lines that deserves some kudos. It's an intriguing idea that they might not have been as effective coming from another actor, but even though "Batman and Robin" and "Heart of Ice" have the same story for Mr. Freeze, the reason it doesn't have any weight in the movie is not just because of the actor playing Mr. Freeze.

"Batman and Robin" didn't just miscast the character, they gave it much worse dialog. Compare Mr. Freeze's laments in the series to Arnold saying something like "My passion thaws for my wife alone". Now THAT'S an awful line. Yeah, animated Mr. Freeze had lame lines too (including his "That's MR. Freeze to you!" and his one-liners about vengeance being a dish best served cold, the icy touch of vengeance, etc.), but he also had some really poignant monologues, like when he would talk to the globe statue representing his wife and his description of what he's been denied forever that he would kill for.

It's not my favourite episode of the series, but I think the simplicity of the story and the way the character was written helped it become of the most moving and involving ones just as much as Ansara's performance. I agree that the performance really sells it, but I don't think it would have worked as well as it did without the solid story construction and dialog that I saw in it.

I think both Schumacher movies prove that it's a combination of writing and acting that made the best animated series stories work, and because those movies were so inept in terms of tone and characterization, they couldn't translate some of the great ideas of the animated series to the big screen without them losing most of their power. I also forgot to mention that Robin's back story in "Batman Forever" is almost identical to how it was portrayed in "Robin's Reckoning", but again they simplified it by skipping Robin's growth from childhood to adolescence and Batman spending years hunting down his parents' killer (and of course, making it Two-Face). Since the story was rushed and Two-Face was such a one-dimensional ham of a character, Robin's whole quest for revenge on him lacks the depth it had in animation.

Still, I prefer the more immature rehashes of stories from animation in "Batman Forever" over how "Spider-Man 3" changed stories and characters in terrible ways. I didn't really mind what "X-Men: The Last Stand" did with the cure story, but the way they dumbed down the Phoenix Saga (something else I'm familiar with from animation) sucked. The cure and Phoenix story lines were both interesting enough to be cool premises all on their own. Putting them both together and rushing them in order to make that possible was a mistake. In a way, all of these movies bastardized comic book/animation story lines for movie audiences, but I don't think any of them did that as poorly as "Spider-Man 3" did with the way it bungled the Symbiote arc.

 

[Silvercrest]

There's something ironic about Two-Face being referred to as one-dimensional.

Something I keep thinking about: Despite how badly the character was written in Batman Forever, the way he was defeated was exactly right. For a character who's so totally obsessed with duality and the number two, the best way to mess him up is to offer him multiple options. (Same thing that messed him up in the Arkham Asylum graphic novel.) Sure, all the heroes had to do was get him off-balance any way possible, but symbolically it works.

 

[Anwar]

It was the same way Batman defeated him in the animated series: They were in a casino and Batman threw a bow of identical quarters at Dent after he flipped the coin so it got lost in all the rest. He had this incredible mental breakdown and was left howling and weeping on the floor.

 

[Silvercrest]

Man, I really need to get the DVD sets. TAS, TNBA, Batman Beyond, Superman, and Justice League. All I have so far is a few eps here and there. Mostly castoffs from video stores going out of business.

 

[Anwar]

The Superman series was really good, I especially loved how they weren't afraid to give it such a downer ending. And it was VERY important at building up the greater animated universe that was fully fleshed out in Justice League and JLU. In fact, the entire JLU series wouldn't have happened if not for the events that took place in the Superman show.

 

[Too Much Fun]

There's something ironic about Two-Face being referred to as one-dimensional.

I didn't even realize I did that. Very astute. And Anwar points out yet another idea "Batman Forever" took from the animated series. I am dismayed that despite all my defending, "Batman Forever" still has more votes than "Spider-Man 3". Shame on you voters. I'll take campy fun over clumsy, lazy, boring writing any day.

 

[Anwar]

Well, I sort of can understand why they did what they did. They wanted Peter to hate Sandman so much he'd want to kill him (WITHOUT the suit influencing him to do it), and really the way his character is written the only way you can have him feel that way is to kill someone he REALLY cared about. Merely injuring them isn't enough (The Goblin hospitalized May in the first movie and it wasn't enough to anger Peter). And the only ones he's close enough to are May, Harry and MJ. They weren't going to kill any of them so Ben was their only choice.

This is sort of an issue I had with the movies, how they cut back on his supporting staff. I mean, we could've seen him have (or try to have) relationships with Deb Whitman or (civilian) Felicia Hardy, or just introduce Gwen in the second film (along with Brock).

Of course, if MJ saw Peter with Deb, Gwen or (worse) Felicia at the party where her engagement was then she'd have a slightly easier time getting over Peter. But that could add to the drama since Peter would have more than one choice.

 

[Captaindemotion]

Reviewing the topic, I do think that Blade Trinity deserves to escape winning the uncoveted title for Ryan Reynolds' performance and delivery of his one-liners alone. 'Cock-juggling thundercunt' is almost certainly the greatest insult in the history of cinema.

 

[Dream]

Yesterday, I saw a lady buying the first four Batman movies on dvd. I was tempted to tell her how she shouldn't waste her time with Batman Forever and Batman and Robin, but I chickened out. Let's hope she sees Burton's Batman movies first.

At least the movies were supercheap at $5 each.

 

[Mr Light]

$5 each?! Isn't the Batman 4 pack selling for $9 at Target?

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

It made Bobby Drake, one of the most sympathetic & likeable characters from the first two movies, into an asshole who cheats on his girlfriend.

I dunno. I think his flirtations with Kitty were pretty innocent, even if perhaps they were leading towards something else.

I had to go with BLADE 3 just because it had one of the worst Draculas ever . . . .

2004 was simply THE year for bad Draculas. It also had Richard Roxburgh's mad whiner in Van Helsing. I'm not sure if that's better or worse than Dominic Purcell in Blade Trinity simply not acting at all.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

Personally, I never really bought that Schumacher wanted to direct a film version of Batman: Year One. I think he was just trying to save face by telling the fanboys what he thought we wanted to hear (In my case, that would be, "I will be personally paying back anyone who bought a ticket to this monstrousity and I am now legally prohibited from ever directing anything ever again." But that's just me).

Schumacher is actually a very talented director. His litany of impressive work contrasts with the two Batman films he directed which make me think he was definitely pressured by the studio. I mean, how you go from directing movies like The Lost Boys, Flatliners, A Time to Kill and then direct two flashy, campy films is beyond me.

Phone Booth is enough to redeem Schumacher for me.

Well, WB didn't really market or advertise either Batman Begins or The Dark Knight to kids. I don't remember seeing McDonald's Happy Meals for either film. I think they learned their lesson after Batman Returns.

More's the pity. Batman Begins and Dark Knight were both good films and it's great that they're characterizing Batman well, but I still think it's a shame they're making Batman movies that you can't take a six-year old to.

I think you could take a 6 year old to Batman Begins without much problem. The Dark Knight is more iffy since Two-Face's scarring is pretty gruesome.

 

[Greg Cox]

I had to go with BLADE 3 just because it had one of the worst Draculas ever . . . .

2004 was simply THE year for bad Draculas. It also had Richard Roxburgh's mad whiner in Van Helsing. I'm not sure if that's better or worse than Dominic Purcell in Blade Trinity simply not acting at all.

Good point. Roxburgh was pretty terrible, too.