|Horsecock Johnson, M.D. |
No "Holy Rusted Metal"?
Gem? Nope, this movie is a bore, B&R is a funny disaster, mostly because of Mr Freeze, this thing is tedious to watch. Jim Carrey doesn't help things one bit.
Shame on you, Tommy Lee Jones. All you do in this movie is laugh at Jim Carrey's stupid jokes. And he's not even that special! DeVito had rocket penguins. ROCKET PENGUINS.
A lot of people will tell you this movie isn't very good.
They're right. It's horrible.
|Caminante Nocturno |
Jim Carry's little dance at 3:08 sums up the entire movie.
|Koda Maja |
Tone down the fucking score a bit.
I put to you that, now that we have the insanely good Nolan flicks, we are allowed at last to look back on the Schumacher Batman films as being loving homages to the 60's TV show's rimshot parade of wackiness and camp.
Indeed, what better era to make such a film that the peak of 90's hollywood schlock? I'm not joking! I think they've become sort of genius as time as gone on.
The Nolan films are good, why they get nerd rage is beyond me. What exactly do you guys want in a Batman movie?
Yeah, I can't imagine how anyone could not enjoy the Nolan Batman films.
Also the term 'insanely' almost always is the prefix to an ill wrought idea.
I guess I would concede that they're entertaining but implausible and generally insubstantial superhero movies. I thought the Nolan flicks did a fantastic job of making me care about all the characters and their problems and what was happening to them and their world. This is almost never the case in superhero media, be it a comic book or a movie or a TV show. The only other examples I can remember are the Agent X series, which was an utterly delightful farcical romp of a comic series, and Bruce Timm's animated stuff.
We want Batman to be dark and brooding and impressive. Nolan managed to do that, and do so in an extremely entertaining way. Schumacher failed spectacularly on all counts, but he also did so in an extremely entertaining way (in Batman & Robin moreso than here). When I say "insanely good", I guess I mean "really, really enjoyable."
Batman started as a gritty detective vigilante, with a damn gun of all things.
I saw the Schumacher movies in the theatre, because I was too young to see the Burton ones. It had a profoundly negative effect on the rest of my life.
Meh...these movies really aren't any worse or better than what they promised, I still never got the nerd rage over them. A comic book movie that looks and feels like a comic book is kind of nice once and awhile rather than people constantly trying to "re-imagine" them into something gritty and realistic and something that takes itself so seriously. They obviously were going for the mood of the TV show rather than the Burton films (which I thought were pretty mediocre, frankly) and I can dig that. They're not great movies by a longshot, but eh...comic book movies should indulge their silly pulp nature once and awhile.
By the time this movie came out, there had not been a single Batman comic for at least thirty years that shared the tone of this film. This movie does not "look" or "feel" like any Batman comic book in our lifetimes. As for Batman, he's been a dark and gritty character for far, far longer than he has was ever a campy character.
I could not sit through this movie when I first watched it. Now, thanks to you, I feel like I have.
This film was my first ironic discovery, before I even really got into MST3K. I would yammer on to friends about how dreadful it is, how all the parts are woefully miscast, how it looks like how Skittles taste. I grew out of it, of course, but this was the first taste for me of the adult I'd eventually become: a cultural fecalphile.
I think the biggest problem with the Schumacher films is that they can't decide what they want to be. If you want to be a silly homage to the 1960s TV series (which I've always loved), go all out and be an actual homage to the 1960s TV series, without the bat-nipples and fucking neon everywhere. Put Batman in the old-school blue suit, put Robin in tights, and bring back Officer O'Hallerhan and Aunt Harriet. But NO! Joel has to try to combine the two imaginings of Batman, giving us a complete mishmash that tries to please everybody while pleasing nobody.
And Val Kilmer is the shittiest Batman. Duller than dirt!
|John Holmes Motherfucker |
Something weird just hit me. Only now do I realize that I prefer the Schumacher to the Nolan versions. And I know that's objectively insane, the Nolan films are much better, but I never really get the urge to see the Nolan films more than once. I've seen "Batman and Robin" three times. They're ridiculous, but they're fun.
Everybody seems to love talking about or watching disasters. That's where Schumacher's films shine, and that's why they haven't been forgotten.
Nolan's films are better, except for the part where batman is always the character that just doesn't work, and them being so damn long and feeling artificially "gritty'd up". You don't have to make your film edgier and grittier to make them stand out from Schumacher's -- you just have to make it not be a flaming schoolbus full of clowns crashing head-on into a car full of puppies and kittens and babies while both vehicles plummet to the bottom of electrified rattlesnake-filled ravine.
Yeah, say what you will about this trainwreck today, but you know you loved this movie just as much as everyone else when it came out.
It's kind of like Ninja Turtles III was as a kid. You told yourself it was awesome and convinced yourself that you liked it, but deep down you knew it was a horrendous godawful piece of shit and it took you until years down the road to admit it.
Both this thing and TMNT III bored the hell out of me as a kid.
I hated this movie when it came out, and stop pretending that you were so smart as a kid.
This is the worst fucking thing I've ever seen.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|