Unlike a lot of the other authors on this site, I have never been into comic books. Just never clicked with me. This extends to comic book movies—there are simply too many of them. Too many origin stories, too many troubled alter-egos, too much…cartoony stuff. You know?
I know Hollywood is out of ideas, but they need to stop parading out dudes in tights for every other action movie. I’ve avoided more comic book movies than I’ve seen lately: haven’t seen either of the Iron Men, any of the X-Men, the Fantastic Fours, either Hulk, the 2005 Superman. You name it, I’ve missed it. (I did see the first two Spider-Man movies, but I rooted against what’s-his-name and Kirsten Dunst both times.)
But I’ve always loved Batman. I was 12 when the original came out in the summer of 1989, and I got hooked. I was amazed at The Dark Knight as everyone else seemed to be, and I’ve enjoyed the other films in between. And one that I don’t hear talked about anymore is 1995’s Batman Forever. I think that’s a shame: it’s a fun movie, and a sequel which doesn’t deserve to be forgotten.
Plot: Batman (Val Kilmer) is dispatched to deal with Two-Face (Tommy Lee Jones), the half-scarred/half-normal former D.A. who decides his victim’s fates with a flip of the coin. Two-Face is trying to heist a bank, which is oddly situated high up in a tall building. Anyway, Batman rescues a security guard and stops the hold up, but Two-Face escapes. Watching all of this along with Commissioner Gordon is Dr. Chase Meridian (Nicole Kidman), eminent psychiatrist—and Meridian clearly likes what she sees. In the pants.
Meanwhile, there’s a weirdo working on brain technology at Wayne Enterprises by the name of Edward Nygma (Jim Carrey). His device is able to beam entertainment directly into people’s heads—and take stuff out as well. Bruce Wayne, responsible businessman that he is, tells Nygma that he’s not interested on ethical grounds. Nygma doesn’t take kindly to that. He kills his supervisor, makes it look like a suicide, and goes out on his own.
Then the crap really hits the fan because Two-Face pops up again. He hits the circus this time, leaving young, heroic acrobat Dick Grayson (Chris O’Donnell) an orphan. Wayne takes the kid in at stately Wayne Manor, but doesn’t tell him he’s really Batman. He doesn’t tell Meridian either, who really likes Batman but seems lukewarm when he’s not wearing his cowl. And Mr. E. Nigma uses his brain device to get rich, become The Riddler and join forces with Two-Face.
That’s a lot of plot, and there’s more I haven’t outlined. One criticism of the Batman franchise is that they cram too much into each film. I won’t dispute that—I’ve never gotten Robin and didn’t find him to be necessary here—but I found the mix to be pretty good. The second Batman movie, Batman Returns, was judged to be too boring, too dark and too violent. Director Joel Schumaker made this one a lot brighter, faster and overall more entertaining. He also made it less realistic and full of more comic-book-movie corny dialogue. Can’t have everything!
For this film at least, the style works. (It would fail the next movie in the series, Batman and Robin, which some consider to be among the worst movies of all time.) A big reason it works here is Jim Carrey as The Riddler. In 1995, Carrey was at his zenith, riding on the success of Ace Ventura: Pet Detective, The Mask and Dumb and Dumber. His kooky brand of rapid-fire pop culture comedy fits this film perfectly—I don’t know who else you would want playing the witty, socially-awkward villain with a question mark cane.
The same couldn’t really be said for Tommy Lee Jones as Two-Face. He has a ridiculous outfit, unrealistic purple scarring on half his face (compared to Aaron Eckhart’s, certainly) and seems out of place as a wacky Batman villain. Carrey delivers his silly quips and he’s being fun and ironic. Jones does the same thing and he’s just being silly.
Still, the combination of Two-Face and The Riddler works well. Carrey is the funny brains and Jones is the intense muscle. And if you think about it, the role of Batman/Bruce Wayne demands all of those things—comedy, brains, drama and action. Val Kilmer does ok with it. He isn’t spectacular, but he is decent at the patented Bruce Wayne brooding and complicated relationships, and doesn’t have a laughable Batman voice like Christian Bale. (Has anyone ever truly nailed every aspect of this role? Did Michael Keaton really do it? Could Robert Downey Jr. have done it? Johnny Depp with a hair cut?)
I don’t know—I do know that Batman movies are more about the villains than Batman (or his cronies or lady friends). I loved The Riddler and tolerated Two-Face. The movies are also about sheer spectacle—entertaining visuals, incredible gadgets, sweeping music and lots of fun action. Batman Forever delivers all of that.
Entertaining Scenes:
- Batman (Val Kilmer) falls into Two-Face’s (Tommy Lee Jones) trap at the bank. Somehow, Batman and a security guard are locked into a huge flying bank vault which is incidentally filling up with acid.
- Nicole Kidman, Batman/Bruce Wayne’s potential love interest, sends out the bat signal. She throws herself at Batman as cartoonishly as possible, and since it’s too early in the movie, he resists. Why don’t I have a wacked-out hot blonde doctor’s stalking me?
- Jim Carrey, a lab rat who is about to become The Ridder, talks to the police about Ed Bagley Jr.’s suicide at Wayne Enterprises. Funny homicidal stuff.
- The circus is in town, and so is Two-Face. His plan to blow up all of Gotham City’s rich people is thwarted, but at a heavy price for acrobat Chris O’Donnell.
- Unfortunately, the Batmobile drives UP a building. Entertaining, but stupid.
- Two-Face is chilling at his pad with his ladies—one of which is Drew Barrymore—when The Ridder shows up.
- O’Donnell steals the Batmobile and runs into a day-glow version of West Side Story. Rough.
- Why the hell does Gotham City’s elite continue to attend ritzy parties? They all get held up by the bad guys! Batman wouldn’t have to protect these fools so much if they stopped making themselves easy targets like this.
- Kidman finally get to kiss both Batman and Bruce Wayne, and chooses between them.
- The final battle. Among other things, The Ridder throws grenade duckies while doing his Ace Ventura/The Mask shtick. A few good scenes in The Riddler’s lair.
- The very end. Very cool, I thought.
I think Batman Forever is ranked a solid second in the original ‘90s Batman movies, and I enjoyed it more than Batman Begins, so third overall. But arbitrary numbers don’t matter—I recommend this forgotten sequel from a bygone era. It’s a good superhero movie for someone who doesn’t like superhero movies.
Thanks everyone! Comments? Ideas for sequels for me to cover? Pyramid schemes you’d like to tell me about? Write in!
Similar Posts:
- [Clip] Batman: Under the Red Hood
- [Audio Drama] Batman: the Complete Knightfall Saga
- The State of the Super Hero Movie
- The Dark Knight Rises Casting Scoop
- [Review] Batman: Under the Red Hood (2010)
- R.I.P., Michael Gough
- Netflix Fix: Best of Watch Instantly 7/30 – 8/06
Popularity: 3% [?]
Batman Forever http://www.popbunker.net/2010/08/batman/... |
I loved this sequel also. I can’t say that I’ve seen the newest Batman sequels but when the Batman Forever movie came out I was a kid and I thought the Riddler was entertaining. It was kind of dark but I still rank it higher than any other sequel. As for the other comic-related movies out there…WOW!! I liked the Spider Man movies but it did take me forever to watch them. ( I just saw the first and second last year ) I just saw Kick-Ass and can say I would never ever watch it again. I wouldn’t want you to waste your time rating that piece of garbage.
I will support your right to like this movie, but I just can’t. It was the beginning of the Schumacher Travesty that destroyed the franchise, and it was just silly. I did enjoy Kilmer as Bruce Wayne, but that’s about it.
Also, it was Chris O’Donnell who played Dick Grayson, not Jerry O’Connell.
Pretty much this.
Thanks, Elwood, but they’re all pretty silly to me.
This movie was actually my introduction into the Batman movie franchise, it being the first one I ever saw. I remember thinking at the time that Jim Carrey was brilliant for the role of the Riddler, and he played that character to the hilt. Honestly, other than Dark Knight it’s the only Batman movie I’ve seen and enjoyed. The other ones I barely even remember at all, though I’ve seen every one that has come out since Batman Forever and even went back and watched the movies that came out prior to that…
Like yourself I was also introduced to the franchise this way, and until it was mercifully rebooted, it was the only one that I could stand to watch in it’s entirely. And how bad is it that Batman is drowned out by the villain? Is this because Carrey was over the top, or that Kilmer was practically invisiable?
I agree about comic book movies — they’re either totally excellent or totally horrible. There is usually very little in between. Normally there is so much back story that is hard to put into one movie. I have to be honest, I haven’t seen this movie in a long time. I do remember enjoying it, but I would be interested to see what I thought of it so many years later. I did think Val Kilmer made a good Batman because he’s already kind of dark and twisty and brooding *without* being in character.
I agree that Batman Forever was fun comedy and was a pretty accurate representation of who Batman was while still allowing the supporting cast shine. I was never a fan of the prior Batman, other than having Michael Keaton as Batman. It was far too dark for me and I will always remember when The Penguin died in the green gooey messy way that he did. As a small child I had nightmares about it.
Then again, I didn’t enjoy another Batman outing until Batman Begins. I wasn’t a fan of Val Kilmer as Batman but he was in his heyday coming out of Real Genius and following it up with The Saint. The Riddler absolutely made the movie for me and aside from Heath Ledger as the Joker, no other villian, in my opinion, has been played as well.
As for your review, I always love how you convey the main plot points but also make it enjoyable to read. Your tone very much mirrors the responses I have throughout the movie and I always have a good laugh!
I prefer the earlier Batman movies done by Tim Burton (although they are campy…well, so are comic books). I understand why people didn’t like Batman Returns because of it’s darker themes, but that’s exactly why I like it. The new Batman franchise is waaaay darker than the previous movies, and that isn’t stopping critics from raving!
Great post…looking forward to more!
The movie gave us Bat-Nipples and Bat-Cock.
I suppose, if one looks at this film as a parody of comic book movies it has more merit. However, I am uncertain whether Schumacher intended it to be a parody.
This is where the franchise went off the rails. The real problem I have with this movie is not the fact that it was silly and preposterous, but that it serves as a paragon for the 90′s “blockbuster blitz” from which film still suffers. The real problem with a movie like this is that it made money and encouraged Hollywood to continue to churn out mindless scripts based on previous material bolstered with too many A-List actors and over-the-top effects to hide the fact that there is “no there, there.”
If this movie had flopped (along with a few others) we wouldn’t be in the same, dreadful place that film making is right now.
2010 is being seriously considered as one of the worst years for film ever. The roots of this lie in the 90′s when the blockbuster directive took over like an errant meme inside every execs head (many of said execs having no experience and being post_bull market refugees from Wall Street.) What we got is nearly twenty years of the cinematic equivalent of the E! channel. In fact, E! debuted in 1989, so there.
At any rate, this film helped to secure a formula by which studios would pack in serious actors and big effects toward the purpose of making an action film blockbuster with little to no actual content. This trend continues, though Hollywood is beginning to realize that people do not go to the movies in droves to see 20 million plus stars.
Further, the movie epitomizes another juggernaut in the form of tie-ins and bad, smarmy soundtracks. I remember that summer, all you heard was Seal and that bad U2 song. And I LIKE U2.
The issues with this film continue to be the issues with most major Hollywood action efforts. It is loud (really, day-glo cyberpunk motorcycle gangs?), mindless and crammed with enough distractions that the producers and director hope you won’t notice the essential lack of content, interesting camera shots, intriguing action or character development.
I’d rather see a making of documentary of Batman Forever in which Val Kilmer loses his shit on Shcumacher than I would see this film again.
I understand what you are saying, but in many ways the big star, little brains blockbusters in the 90s led to a split in the film industry – a ying and yang effect. We still get The GI Joes and Transformers that realize box office plunder, but without the obnoxious mainstream movie market and the general disenchantment of movie-goers looking for a little more, I am not sure if movies like Moon, District 9, Black Dynamite, and other moderately budgeted good to amazing movies would have been able to get off the ground. There are SOME people looking to do better and original work that will never be found in the mainstream market (unless the filmmaker in question is named Christopher Nolan).
With the success of Avatar last year, there is little question that execs will be greenlighting all kinds of tech-slut crap movies, but hopefully that will continute to propel the undergrowth of the inventive movie makers that are out there doing work.
The success of Tranformers ROTFL will gaurentee that the Batman Returns formula will continue to be re-cycled as well. In the end it may all be for the better. Once inventive and quality goes major studio, the inventivness and quality of the work will quickly degrade to ill-conceived and glossy. Turning major profits on mentally unstimulating movies may well be a needed evil so some of the more risky brands floundering as genre and sub-studios to the majors and distributors can afford to barely profit, break even, or occasionally take a loss on a film.
Same for the generic romcoms. No one thinks those are good movies, but they attract a certain film-goer, generally turn a tidy profit, and stack the book enough so some more risky properties can be produced. Same goes for derivative comedies, actioners, and the ridiculous treacle-filled productions like Eat Pray Love.