I always thought Val Kilmer was a very good Bruce Wayne/Batman, and although I like Batman Forever, I still would have loved to have seen Kilmer in a more serious Batman movie. I think that if you picture Val Kilmer in the Dark Knight Trilogy (basically the same type of performance that Christian Bale gave, but with Kilmer instead), those movies would still work equally well and Kilmer could have portrayed a very vulnerable Wayne and tortured/dark Batman in Nolan's take.
People unfairly bash "Batman Forever" now, because they associate it with the poorly-executed sequel, "Batman & Robin". Yes, both entries had the same director, but there's one crucial difference: the WB execs deliberately constructed "Forever" as a movie, and the sequel as a commercial.
I agree and I have no memory of Batman and Robin and I have more memory's of Batman Forever and it's my favorite Batman movie par none I love Jim Carry but at first I didn't think he would do a good job as The Riddler I thought he would be a great Joker because he's a comedian and what do you think of clowns comedy. But I was wrong big time he was great at The Riddler and from what I have heard he based he's performance from The Frank Gorson Riddler from the 1960s Batman series and I do agree Tommy Lee Jones as Two Face is a lot like The Joker in terms of being funny I really didn't like Jake Nicolson's Joker he was a little too dark and creepy for my liking (and before you ask if I like Mark Hamel as the Joker definitely I adore him as the Joker he's so funny as the Joker) but the rest of Batman Forever is great even Robin making a reference to the Bert Ward version of Robin is great. I just don't look at reviewers to decide what to watch I decide myself and if I like it well I'll buy it.
I don't hate this film and never unfairly bashed it but over Returns, never but it's decent if you never seen Keaton's films before, for the record here's my list: 1: Batman 2: Batman Returns 3: Batman Forever 28: Batman and Robin
batman forever is meant for mainstream viewing. Batman returns was more art house. When Ebert says batman forever is better than returns, he means it was more fun.
@@IWantToMature85He means that Batman Returns had more style then substance. It looked visually beautiful but didn’t have an interesting story. I kinda share Ebert’s opinion on it. “Returns” doesn’t really feel like a Batman movie. It felt more like another Tim Burton movie that just so happened to have Batman in it. The action was lacking and more emphasis was put on the villains being the main protagonist while Batman acted as a side character on what should’ve been his own movie.
If you look back to the Batman comics you will see that Batman Forever captured the essence of the Batman comic books better than pretty much any Batman film to date, it stayed true to the comics for the most part. Although it might be a little too campy and light in some scenes, you can't deny there were also many good scenes that really captured the darkness of Batman/Bruce Wayne as well as his trouble with duality and how he was tormented by the memories of his parent's murder. Also, the Robin character was done very well and his backstory held true to the original comics. I don't see how anyone could say that Batman Returns is better film than Batman Forever. And the reason why Batman Forever was light and campy in some scenes is because the original comics were light and campy in some parts. Joel Schumacher himself has said he drew inspiration directly from the Batman comics from the 40s & 50s and was going for a living comic book style and theme, and in this regard he succeeded.
Anyone who has read a majority of comics would say no. The very best batman stories are way different from this crap film. It's poorly written poorly acted, gotham looks like a giant disco club, Batman does not act like batman. Even the Dick Sprang era of comics were better than this
And no the first few years of batman comics were in line with the burton films. Very dark even after they added robin. Hell in the early 40s they had the original clayface who was originally a serial killer. So no. You have no clue what you are talking about.
Each Batman film is comic book accurate in their own way: Burton Films: Golden Age of Batman (dark and brooding + killing) Schumacher films: silver age of Batman (campy and fun) Nolan: modern age of Batman/year one (grounded, serious, and realistic) Snyder: modern age of Batman/the dark knight returns (older and badass)
Seal's music in general is excellent. Can't get enough of his first two albums. Eagerly awaiting the remaster of "Seal II" this summer (with demos and bonus tracks galore). Seal was already a successful artist (eg. Crazy, Killer), but yes, this film (and Kiss from a Rose) changed everything for him.
***** Sure it's focused: It's about three lonely, wounded souls. Stilted? DeVito and Pfeiffer sure go to pretty deep places (Keaton is just Keaton of course, but then again, that's why he's awesome). Gross? You bet. But that only makes it way more visceral than Forever.
Batman Returns is not a Batman movie. Its your typical emo Burton crap that for some strange reason, has some guy in a batsuit in it for a couple minutes at a time.
***** Batman Forever is a glossy piece of shit Hollywood Joel Schumaker candy flick with no soul. Batman Returns is a true work of art by a great filmmaker. It also captures Batman as a dark badass character far more than the colorful cartoonish crap than we see in Forever.
***** Not so much for Burton but I respect the character of Batman as the dark vigilante so much to prefer Forever to Returns. That would be a slap in the face of everything I love about Batman. Hey maybe you prefer a gay colorful Batman. Schumaker would love you.
***** Well again I prefer my vision of Batman to be dark and gothic and gritty. So making Penguin a mutant freak that kills, I had zero problems with. It's not how I would have done with the character but he was more intriguing than any villains in Forever. All Carey was doing as the Riddley was play his usual frantic self. And Tommy Lee was doing a bad Joker rip-off. As for Kilmer, he just didn't have the gravitas to pull it off. He was so stiff and had no personality as Wayne.
Re-watched it recently and found Jim Carrey's performance painful. I remembered him being pretty good when I saw it at the cinema, but looking back on his performance now? Time has not been kind...
Nowadays I'm so incredibly used to superheroes being crossed with film noir that it actually surprised me to hear Ebert say that as if it were a neat idea.
Batman Forever, as silly as some parts are, it's still a pretty enjoyable film to watch, in my opinion. I even love that song "Kiss From A Rose" too on the soundtrack.
+Patrick Lange well despite the outrageous batman and Robin you give Joel some credit because unlike Tim burton he has read batman comics and batman forever is a very entertaining movie
Biggest negativities about the film •Robin was too old. I don't want to hear about the age thing. Kids can be cast in these movies. Look at "Kick Ass" •The corniness started to creep into the film. This was the bad one liner's • Not enough of a backstory/history of Harvey Dent & Brice Wayne's friendship and what happens when Dent becomes Two Face.
Agree. I loved Catwoman. Pfeiffer ruled in that picture. I don't understand why the Batman movies had to have more than 1 villain. I think that was a mistake. The first movie just had the joker - enough movie time to build the story and characters.
Forever was certainly more ACCESSIBLE than Returns. For Batman or comic book fans it’s clearly not as good as that though, Returns has an incredible feel and music but does have its flaws - lack of Batman actually being in it for one. I much prefer Returns but Forever is a better popcorn flick for the casual audience.
batman: 8/10 batman returns: 7/10 batman forever: 6/10 batman and robin: 2/10 batman begins: 9/10 the dark knight: 10/10 dark knight rises estimation score: 20/10
@@alcarbo8613Yep. People call it flawless but it's silly and not credible from the beginning. Joker gets away with WAY too much and timing of his plans are so precise, so exact, the only way they would make sense is if the intended victims willing participated in those bombings.
Batman Forever sets its stall out from the very opening shot- it's a bright, breezy, energetic film with the occasional dark moment and snappy dialogue. Producer Peter MacGregor-Scott said they wanted a more hip and happening film for the MTV generation and in that regard the film can be considered a success. In some ways, each of the Warner Bros first four Batman films seem to be a reaction against their predecessors - the 1989 film was deliberately trying to avoid the campiness of the TV series, Returns wanted to be more arty, Forever more lighter and energetic and then Batman & Robin was basically about selling toys. There's a very good film that exists as an extended cut somewhere- why Warners don't release it and make some more money for old rope is beyond me.
"Very Good" is definitely wishful thinking. More like, a slightly more coherent, slightly more substantial film. The good version died when the suits at the WB decided that they didn't want Burton's vision.
batman forever is a fun movie, not as dark as some of the others and a little more kid friendly but still really fun and one of my personal favorites out of all the batman films
Well it'S true, i mean Batman may be gayer in this but they do get so many things right, like throwing criminals into the assylum, Batman doesn't kill and they dig deeper down into why Bruce Wayne became The Dark Knight.
Batman Forever absolutely sucked. And this is coming from a very impressionable 8 year-old Batman fan in 1995. Would have loved to see Gene Siskel's takes on the Christopher Nolan films after enduring the mid 90s Batcrap we got.
Forever was the first real live action Batman film I saw, after watching little bits of Animated Series at a very early age, I first watched Forever at the age of 4 and it further enhanced my love of Batman, it was my introduction to Jim Carrey and he's been my favourite actor ever since. On a side note, whereas the Burton films and the Nolan films are way better than Forever, I can honestly say that I still love it and consider it better than the shitbomb that is Batman & Robin!!!
I want to write that my name is Josh Tate and i'm writing that the year 2024 will be Batman's 85th anniversary year and 35th anniversary of Tim Burton's 1989 Batman film.
Ebert lost credibility as a reviewer the moment he claimed Batman Forever was better than Batman Returns. Like, it's an opinion thing, but as far as opinions go, that one's about as close to objective as you can get!
I don't know, this is subjective and all, but I'm still shocked to see people have that opinion. Maybe its cus I first saw it as a kid (and maybe its cus Catwoman in that movie was probably my very first crush lol) - But I still love Returns every bit as much as the first. I don't hate Forever as much as some people (I have a healthy appreciation for camp, so i can dig that aspect), but it just was such a departure after how dark the first two movies got.@@ricardocantoral7672
I actually liked this one. I'm not a big comic book movie fan but I really enjoyed this movie. As a matter of fact, I tend to enjoy the ones people hate. Except Spiderman 3. I'm with the crowd on that one. But, back to this movie, I liked it a lot and I'd watch it again. But then again, I loved the 1960s TV show too...
I enjoyed this movie as a kid and still do to this day. I will admit that it's definitely not the best in the series. The Dark Knight is the best in my opinion. I really enjoyed Jim Carrey's performance and all the other actors did well. The music was good and the comic book atmosphere I liked. Tim Burton did produce this film and he did give it the amount of character development a Batman film needs.
This one I clearly remember seeing more than the other Batman films released before or since Batman Forever. I liked it then and still do now. Just my opinion though.
@Mr1131988 no Robin Williams was originally cast as the Riddler and Michael Keaton was meant to come back as Batman but those both fell through and they were replaced by Val Kilmer and Jim Carrey
People who don't like this Batman, or even Batman & Robin, fail understand what the Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher got all along. That these are films based on cheesy comics and should not be taken seriously. It's actually today's DC films that have lost their way in trying to pretend that they are based in a real world where we would accept batman as a real person. If you go back to the 1989 Batman, you can see that Tim Burton never expect us to take his film seriously, because the people in the film questioned the existence of Batman at every turn. Especially Alexander Knox as played by Robert Wuhl. His character never buys in because we were never supposed to either. It's why the 1960's Batman are they way they are. Because believing in the premise itself is dumb and therefore we should never forget what they really are. Films based on comics. This is why the 2000 batman's, although fun to watch, but hard to reproduce. Because we are forced to believe that we would accept a Batman and not find the idea to be stupid. Maybe I could say this all better, but hopefully you get what I mean. Bottom line, the 1960's fully understood it and the next four were much closer to what they should be then what we have now. Yes, including Batman & Robin.
Val Kilmer was the best Bruce Wayne. He was excellent at showing what effect the superhero life was having on Bruce. A better Two-Face and Riddler and this would've been an awesome movie. The villains were too silly.
I wouldn't say best, but I would say that he gets more hate for Batman Forever than is really deserved. I rank him as the third best onscreen Batman, as he did give the character some depth, in a film that had little in it. I still think Clooney was the worst all around Batman, even though his Bruce Wayne was ok.
I enjoyed this movie, and I'm not ashamed to say it. However, I do agree with Siskel; in that you don't really remember much after a few hours. However, if you're a little kid that's curious about Batman, and you're not ready for the dark stuff (Nolan & Burton), this would be a good intro to the Batman franchise. It introduced me to the Batman franchise, and even if I already saw films like Silence of the Lambs and The Terminator, I liked it, and I'll need to re-watch it in the future.
People keep saying that Nolan was the first to go into the psychology of Batman. Wrong. Watch the deleted scenes on the BATMAN FOREVER blu-ray, Schumacher definitely was first to that trough, only too bad WB made Joel cut the film only to never let him release an alternate cut on the DVD re-release back in 2006.
Batman returns is way better then this movie. But if you thought that this was bad. Batman and robin make this one look like an movie of the year contender.
Oh yes it is, Returns felt like a stageplay that just had accidentally been recorded, and nothing added up + Burton got so many things wrong in that film. Batman Forever may be cheesy but it's definitely closer to the source material oh and Batman doesn't kill for once one very important thing about his ethics.
They’re talking about how impressive it is that Batman Forever juggles five characters. Little did they know a comic book movie would come out years later with 70 something characters and somehow it would be very evenly balanced
@SLPIFan I agree there entirely. Batman Returns was indeed very neat, but it was missing elements that made the original so interesting. Forever is up with the original in my opinion.
I 100% agree with the both of them. Though it’s a pretty entertaining movie to watch, it really doesn’t leave much of an impact. Thankfully, Batman would get the his rightful justice on the big screen much later (NOT BATMAN AND ROBIN!!)
I will always love Batman 1989 and Batman Returns 1992, BEST. Batman Forever was a great cinematic watch at the theater, and later when I watched it on vhs, I realized that the themes of Bruce Wayne's catharsis (i.e. the journal of Thomas Wayne being discovered by Bruce during their funeral, and his discovery of the cave and the giant Bat-Demon that haunts his dreams) were actually pretty DARK. Having discovered recently that there had been ALOT of story that emphasized THIS, that was CUT out of the movie, I'm really hoping that we get an Extended Director's Cut of Batman Forever, because I feel it would balance out all the ridiculousness of the rest of the circus act stuff.
I always felt that the two villans were completely done wrong. The Riddler is suppose to be a kind of cocky smart ass, who is dressed in a nice green suit and tie... in this he's... well, Jim Carrey in pajamas. Two Face is suppose to have that really dark side, but also switch between good and bad because of his schizophrenia. Tommy Lee Jones, as much as I love the guy just played him like The Joker, no switching in between. If they played the charecters right, and that deleted scene wasn't..
I prefer Tim Burton's previous two Batman films, Batman Forever is colorful but isnt as dark and brooding as the previous films. It was the beginning of the end of the Batman franchise at the time
Ebert was spot-on with this review. Not a great movie, but certainly not a bad movie. It had its good points and bad points. Of course, the Nolan Batman films got the Batman character right.
I really like Batman Forever. I may be one of theonly ones, but its cool. It has a great plot, great action, great villains, emotional times with Bruce Wayne, awesome funny scenes, a hot girl in the picture in Nicole Kidman. Disagree but this was my favorite of the non Christopher Nolan Batman films. I've just always considered this one to be quite entertaining. Val Kilmer was no Keaton, but he did the job well. Anyway, my rank of the six Batman films 1. TDK 2. BB 3. BF 4. B 5. BR 6. B&R
@anxresi I didn't say it's the most stupid thing a critic have said - I said it was the worst thing I MYSELF PERSONALLY have heard. I can claim that as much as I want.
completely agreed. I feel that tommy lee jones was just the wrong choice. he was just a case of getting a star to be in the movie. a darker actor would of been better. ive always felt mickey rourke could be a great two-face.
This is certainly not the best Batman movie ever made, but I did enjoy this one very much. The best one is The Dark Knight, in my opinion. I liked the comic book atmosphere, the action was good, the music was nice, and since Tim Burton produced this one, he did add the psychology of emoting with the characters despite the fact that this one is different from his films and Nolan's.
You know, a LOT of movies today are like that. You enjoy it while its there, but is does not deserve to be in a personal collection. A LOT of movies are like that today and if Siskel and Ebert were around TODAY, the film industry would have remained on its toes not to rip off people as they have in this decade.
If you're looking for a film that actually has interest in and focus on the character of himself and not having almost all the time given to the villains than yes I can see why one would consider FOREVER to be better. (Personally, I like both for different reasons)
I recently watched Batman and Batman Returns, so then I put Batman Forever in my BluRay Player (I have a set of all four which was given to me for X-Mas) and I could not even bring myself to press play! So yes, Batman Returns is a hell of a lot better than Forever!
But of course we had to wait until 2005 until we finally got somewhat of a real Batman movie, with batman being the main focus point!:). Let's hope that the next rendition will be R-rated.
As soon as Robin entered, it effed up the series. Val's Batman suit at the beginning was fantastic as was casting Val who also had a slight edge to his psych . That opening scened Batman look was simple, dark, agile, he was great. But then... midway, they fancy up the costume with all kinds of adornments and vents... take the edge out of it, then it become cheese. Ugh. Too many villains and characters.
didn't have a problem with Val Kilmer as Bruce Wayne/Batman -- or Nicole Kidman as the Sexy Chase Merridian my problems with the movie were this.. 1. Robin was done all wrong- he ( Dick Grayson/Robin ) was much younger when he met Bruce Wayne ( i believe around 12 -13 )..if you cant follow the comic right then DON'T ADD THE CHARACTER IN THE MOVIE. 2. Should of done a backstory on Harvey "Two Face" Dent to explain why Bruce is obsessed with saving him 3. Keep the suit dark.. like its meant to be
They're very different in their focus and theme but about the same level of meh imo. BR was dark and moody almost drowning out the campy, while BF was a day-glow action campy thing. I remember liking them both, but edged back to liking the Burton flick better in the end. But Batman Begins still stands out for me. Ra's Al Ghul effect I suppose.
Anybody ever consider that Schmacher was working under the guidelines that he had to make a " kiddie " friendly Batman film for Warner Bros?? They told him to make a Batman film for children, and in that sense, it pretty much delivers on every level. He went way too far with Batman & Robin which was just a rushed and neon drenched mess, but Batman Forever is alot of fun. Drew Barrymore & Debi Mazar as " Sugar n Spice " ..yes please :) Nicole Kidman looked pretty hot too!
Not one of my favorite of all the Batman pictures, but I give Val credit for doing Bruce/Batman justice. TLJ was pretty amusing at points and just get rid of Jim Carrey. A shame that Val has now let himself go.
Did you watch them recently before posting these scores? Just asking because having rewatched them all recently I was surprised to find that of the two worst ones ("Batman Forever" and "Batman and Robin") I actually thought "Batman and Robin" was the better of those two. While Jim Carrey's painful performance just made me groan every time, I found Schwarzenegger's one-liners oddly appealing. There's something enjoyably naff about Batman and Robin while Batman Forever takes itself too seriously.
I noticed when I was watching this... Jim Carrey's not really The Riddler, is he? He's the Joker. Even Two-Face... they're really camping it up, aren't they? I know after "Returns," they wanted to "lighten it up" for the kids. A lot of them were traumatized by "Returns." Schumacher seemed to have been re-creating the '60's Adam West show with this film. At least with the villains. Gotham isn't gothic anymore here. Gotham is the futuristic LA from Blade Runner!
Val Kilmer is still great as Bruce Wayne / Batman. And I still think Jim Carrey is great as The Riddler. He could be darker, and more serious with a better screenplay and under better direction.
I've got to admit, I found this movie pretty enjoyable. Didn't like the campy Batman and Robin that followed, but I liked this one, liked it even better than Batman Returns.
I thought the movie was okay, but that's about it, it's good for kids i would say but it never comes cloose to be as good as Christopher Nolans Batman films
Ebert: "Batman is the most fascinating and mysterious of all the comic book super heroes...he deserves more and better."
Nolan: "Challenge accepted."
... and BOY did he deliver with his fantastic Trilogy .
@@أحمدالجهني-ي4ط Facts
Ebert was a big fan of that trilogy. He gave Batman Begins and Dark Knight 4 stars (his highest rating) and gave Rises 3 out of 4.
True story
And then he made three shitty movies.
I always thought Val Kilmer was a very good Bruce Wayne/Batman, and although I like Batman Forever, I still would have loved to have seen Kilmer in a more serious Batman movie. I think that if you picture Val Kilmer in the Dark Knight Trilogy (basically the same type of performance that Christian Bale gave, but with Kilmer instead), those movies would still work equally well and Kilmer could have portrayed a very vulnerable Wayne and tortured/dark Batman in Nolan's take.
True, but Christian Bale would still be better.
People unfairly bash "Batman Forever" now, because they associate it with the poorly-executed sequel, "Batman & Robin". Yes, both entries had the same director, but there's one crucial difference: the WB execs deliberately constructed "Forever" as a movie, and the sequel as a commercial.
I agree and I have no memory of Batman and Robin and I have more memory's of Batman Forever and it's my favorite Batman movie par none I love Jim Carry but at first I didn't think he would do a good job as The Riddler I thought he would be a great Joker because he's a comedian and what do you think of clowns comedy. But I was wrong big time he was great at The Riddler and from what I have heard he based he's performance from The Frank Gorson Riddler from the 1960s Batman series and I do agree Tommy Lee Jones as Two Face is a lot like The Joker in terms of being funny I really didn't like Jake Nicolson's Joker he was a little too dark and creepy for my liking (and before you ask if I like Mark Hamel as the Joker definitely I adore him as the Joker he's so funny as the Joker) but the rest of Batman Forever is great even Robin making a reference to the Bert Ward version of Robin is great. I just don't look at reviewers to decide what to watch I decide myself and if I like it well I'll buy it.
I don't hate this film and never unfairly bashed it but over Returns, never but it's decent if you never seen Keaton's films before, for the record here's my list:
1: Batman
2: Batman Returns
3: Batman Forever
28: Batman and Robin
No people bash forever cause it sucks regardless of it's sequel
The only thing I like about Batman Forever is Jim Carrey. I think he is a pretty good Riddler, but other than that the movie was garbage!
This movie was panned when it was new. This movie always ducked, regardless of the next one.
Haven't seen this movie in a long time, but as a young teen I do remember liking "Batman Forever" a lot.
As a kid I used the find the Tim Burton ones bleaker and scarier but I appreciate them more now as an adult, especially the original.
This is a good movie in many ways and portrays Batman very powerfully.
batman forever is meant for mainstream viewing. Batman returns was more art house. When Ebert says batman forever is better than returns, he means it was more fun.
Can you explain what you mean by art house?
@@IWantToMature85He means that Batman Returns had more style then substance. It looked visually beautiful but didn’t have an interesting story.
I kinda share Ebert’s opinion on it. “Returns” doesn’t really feel like a Batman movie. It felt more like another Tim Burton movie that just so happened to have Batman in it.
The action was lacking and more emphasis was put on the villains being the main protagonist while Batman acted as a side character on what should’ve been his own movie.
If you look back to the Batman comics you will see that Batman Forever captured the essence of the Batman comic books better than pretty much any Batman film to date, it stayed true to the comics for the most part. Although it might be a little too campy and light in some scenes, you can't deny there were also many good scenes that really captured the darkness of Batman/Bruce Wayne as well as his trouble with duality and how he was tormented by the memories of his parent's murder. Also, the Robin character was done very well and his backstory held true to the original comics. I don't see how anyone could say that Batman Returns is better film than Batman Forever. And the reason why Batman Forever was light and campy in some scenes is because the original comics were light and campy in some parts. Joel Schumacher himself has said he drew inspiration directly from the Batman comics from the 40s & 50s and was going for a living comic book style and theme, and in this regard he succeeded.
Anyone who has read a majority of comics would say no. The very best batman stories are way different from this crap film. It's poorly written poorly acted, gotham looks like a giant disco club, Batman does not act like batman. Even the Dick Sprang era of comics were better than this
And no the first few years of batman comics were in line with the burton films. Very dark even after they added robin. Hell in the early 40s they had the original clayface who was originally a serial killer. So no. You have no clue what you are talking about.
Each Batman film is comic book accurate in their own way:
Burton Films: Golden Age of Batman (dark and brooding + killing)
Schumacher films: silver age of Batman (campy and fun)
Nolan: modern age of Batman/year one (grounded, serious, and realistic)
Snyder: modern age of Batman/the dark knight returns (older and badass)
@@RShadow12 best comment here of all. 👍💯
There is no directors cut of this movie
Kiss from a rose exploded Seal's career that year.
Was a big fan of him since "Crazy" in '90. Loved that '94 album and "Human Beings."
Michael Eyob the whole soundtrack for this movie was awesome. U2 and The Flaming Lips songs were also great among others.
The Offspring and Method Man contributed killer tracks as well!
Seal's music in general is excellent. Can't get enough of his first two albums. Eagerly awaiting the remaster of "Seal II" this summer (with demos and bonus tracks galore).
Seal was already a successful artist (eg. Crazy, Killer), but yes, this film (and Kiss from a Rose) changed everything for him.
@irwinator2019 i saw Seal talk about how the movie changed his life talking about the late director, really beautiful
I loved "Batman" and "Batman Returns" but I won't even have the other two in my house.
It's NOT a better movie than Batman Returns!!!! No way, no way, no way!
***** Sure it's focused: It's about three lonely, wounded souls. Stilted? DeVito and Pfeiffer sure go to pretty deep places (Keaton is just Keaton of course, but then again, that's why he's awesome). Gross? You bet. But that only makes it way more visceral than Forever.
Batman Returns is not a Batman movie. Its your typical emo Burton crap that for some strange reason, has some guy in a batsuit in it for a couple minutes at a time.
***** Batman Forever is a glossy piece of shit Hollywood Joel Schumaker candy flick with no soul.
Batman Returns is a true work of art by a great filmmaker. It also captures Batman as a dark badass character far more than the colorful cartoonish crap than we see in Forever.
***** Not so much for Burton but I respect the character of Batman as the dark vigilante so much to prefer Forever to Returns. That would be a slap in the face of everything I love about Batman. Hey maybe you prefer a gay colorful Batman. Schumaker would love you.
***** Well again I prefer my vision of Batman to be dark and gothic and gritty. So making Penguin a mutant freak that kills, I had zero problems with. It's not how I would have done with the character but he was more intriguing than any villains in Forever. All Carey was doing as the Riddley was play his usual frantic self. And Tommy Lee was doing a bad Joker rip-off.
As for Kilmer, he just didn't have the gravitas to pull it off. He was so stiff and had no personality as Wayne.
Re-watched it recently and found Jim Carrey's performance painful. I remembered him being pretty good when I saw it at the cinema, but looking back on his performance now? Time has not been kind...
Nowadays I'm so incredibly used to superheroes being crossed with film noir that it actually surprised me to hear Ebert say that as if it were a neat idea.
"Yet I do think it's better than the previous one, 'Batman Returns'"
Hell no
Nope. Just like the terminator movies only 1 & 2 were significant. Until Nolan came around.
Batman Forever, as silly as some parts are, it's still a pretty enjoyable film to watch, in my opinion. I even love that song "Kiss From A Rose" too on the soundtrack.
Me too, i remember as a kid kiss from a rose was the top song for a little bit
Honestly who doesn't?
How can Ebert like this more than the Burton's Batmans?
let's be honest batman returns was a bit down beat and it wasn't better than the 1989 batman film
demarcus pittman I never said that it was better than the 1989 movie. I know it wasn't, but it was still much better than Batman Forever!
+Patrick Lange well despite the outrageous batman and Robin you give Joel some credit because unlike Tim burton he has read batman comics and batman forever is a very entertaining movie
I would pick Batman returns over Batman and robin
And Batman forever
I never cared for Chris O'Donnell as Robin.
Who gives a fuck?
So hard to do Robin well though, the 1960s version is stuck in pop culture and nobody wants to be a sidekick.
He was far too old for the role.
Biggest negativities about the film
•Robin was too old. I don't want to hear about the age thing. Kids can be cast in these movies. Look at "Kick Ass"
•The corniness started to creep into the film. This was the bad one liner's
• Not enough of a backstory/history of Harvey Dent & Brice Wayne's friendship and what happens when Dent becomes Two Face.
Ebert thought Batman Forever was better than Batman Returns? Tells you everything you need to know about that hack.
this will never be better than batman returns
shut up cinder......forevers better than penguins raising a human mongaloid baby......TOASSTY!!!!
Agree. I loved Catwoman. Pfeiffer ruled in that picture. I don't understand why the Batman movies had to have more than 1 villain. I think that was a mistake. The first movie just had the joker - enough movie time to build the story and characters.
Forever was certainly more ACCESSIBLE than Returns. For Batman or comic book fans it’s clearly not as good as that though, Returns has an incredible feel and music but does have its flaws - lack of Batman actually being in it for one. I much prefer Returns but Forever is a better popcorn flick for the casual audience.
Yes, Tommy Lee Jones Two-Face very Joker-like. But just listen to the lines he has. How would you deliver those lines?
hey he signed the check
Though it was in 'Batman Forever', I liked the fact that they finally put Robin in one of the movies.
batman: 8/10
batman returns: 7/10
batman forever: 6/10
batman and robin: 2/10
batman begins: 9/10
the dark knight: 10/10
dark knight rises estimation score: 20/10
The Dark Knight is perhaps the most overrated film in modern history
@@alcarbo8613Yep. People call it flawless but it's silly and not credible from the beginning. Joker gets away with WAY too much and timing of his plans are so precise, so exact, the only way they would make sense is if the intended victims willing participated in those bombings.
2:33 Was that over the top? I can never tell.
Batman Forever sets its stall out from the very opening shot- it's a bright, breezy, energetic film with the occasional dark moment and snappy dialogue. Producer Peter MacGregor-Scott said they wanted a more hip and happening film for the MTV generation and in that regard the film can be considered a success. In some ways, each of the Warner Bros first four Batman films seem to be a reaction against their predecessors - the 1989 film was deliberately trying to avoid the campiness of the TV series, Returns wanted to be more arty, Forever more lighter and energetic and then Batman & Robin was basically about selling toys. There's a very good film that exists as an extended cut somewhere- why Warners don't release it and make some more money for old rope is beyond me.
"Very Good" is definitely wishful thinking. More like, a slightly more coherent, slightly more substantial film. The good version died when the suits at the WB decided that they didn't want Burton's vision.
I had a very similar reaction to Superman Returns. I liked it, but I wasn't thinking about it much after I saw it.
batman forever is a fun movie, not as dark as some of the others and a little more kid friendly but still really fun and one of my personal favorites out of all the batman films
better than batman returns?! seriously wtf
Siskel and Ebert sometimes got on their high horse about certain films. If you know what I'm talking about.
I quite agree with'em. Batman Returns was over the top in many ways, while Forever was much more enjoyable and easy to watch
This is what happens when you are secretly gay.
Well it'S true, i mean Batman may be gayer in this but they do get so many things right, like throwing criminals into the assylum, Batman doesn't kill and they dig deeper down into why Bruce Wayne became The Dark Knight.
navylaks2 That whole “Batman shouldn’t kill” crap is overrated............
I was Supposed to See 'Batman Forever' in Theatres back in 1995 but did not I was Too Young
Batman Forever absolutely sucked. And this is coming from a very impressionable 8 year-old Batman fan in 1995.
Would have loved to see Gene Siskel's takes on the Christopher Nolan films after enduring the mid 90s Batcrap we got.
Wrong.
Jim Carrey was just being Jim Carrey, not the Riddler. That was the main reason I wasn't too fond of this Bat film.
Forever was the first real live action Batman film I saw, after watching little bits of Animated Series at a very early age, I first watched Forever at the age of 4 and it further enhanced my love of Batman, it was my introduction to Jim Carrey and he's been my favourite actor ever since.
On a side note, whereas the Burton films and the Nolan films are way better than Forever, I can honestly say that I still love it and consider it better than the shitbomb that is Batman & Robin!!!
With the two set batman forever and batman and Robin it's like having one good batman film and one lousy one.
I want to write that my name is Josh Tate and i'm writing that the year 2024 will be Batman's 85th anniversary year and 35th anniversary of Tim Burton's 1989 Batman film.
Ebert lost credibility as a reviewer the moment he claimed Batman Forever was better than Batman Returns. Like, it's an opinion thing, but as far as opinions go, that one's about as close to objective as you can get!
I would say Returns is better than Forever but they both have many issues regarding the narrative of those films.
I don't know, this is subjective and all, but I'm still shocked to see people have that opinion. Maybe its cus I first saw it as a kid (and maybe its cus Catwoman in that movie was probably my very first crush lol) - But I still love Returns every bit as much as the first. I don't hate Forever as much as some people (I have a healthy appreciation for camp, so i can dig that aspect), but it just was such a departure after how dark the first two movies got.@@ricardocantoral7672
Ebert also thought Home Alone 3 was better than the first 2.
"Remember people, it's a CARTOON!''
If memory serves, that quote was used by Schumacher on the set of the sequel, "Batman & Robin"...not "Forever".
I actually liked this one. I'm not a big comic book movie fan but I really enjoyed this movie. As a matter of fact, I tend to enjoy the ones people hate. Except Spiderman 3. I'm with the crowd on that one. But, back to this movie, I liked it a lot and I'd watch it again. But then again, I loved the 1960s TV show too...
I enjoyed this movie as a kid and still do to this day. I will admit that it's definitely not the best in the series. The Dark Knight is the best in my opinion. I really enjoyed Jim Carrey's performance and all the other actors did well. The music was good and the comic book atmosphere I liked. Tim Burton did produce this film and he did give it the amount of character development a Batman film needs.
The original comics Batman was "solo" before getting Robin.
This one I clearly remember seeing more than the other Batman films released before or since Batman Forever. I liked it then and still do now. Just my opinion though.
Forever is a fun movie that has many flaws. Returns is by far better.
@Mr1131988 no Robin Williams was originally cast as the Riddler and Michael Keaton was meant to come back as Batman but those both fell through and they were replaced by Val Kilmer and Jim Carrey
People who don't like this Batman, or even Batman & Robin, fail understand what the Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher got all along. That these are films based on cheesy comics and should not be taken seriously. It's actually today's DC films that have lost their way in trying to pretend that they are based in a real world where we would accept batman as a real person. If you go back to the 1989 Batman, you can see that Tim Burton never expect us to take his film seriously, because the people in the film questioned the existence of Batman at every turn. Especially Alexander Knox as played by Robert Wuhl. His character never buys in because we were never supposed to either. It's why the 1960's Batman are they way they are. Because believing in the premise itself is dumb and therefore we should never forget what they really are. Films based on comics. This is why the 2000 batman's, although fun to watch, but hard to reproduce. Because we are forced to believe that we would accept a Batman and not find the idea to be stupid. Maybe I could say this all better, but hopefully you get what I mean. Bottom line, the 1960's fully understood it and the next four were much closer to what they should be then what we have now. Yes, including Batman & Robin.
I literally just farted
jim carrey was good in this might be worth watching cause of him as riddler! I think they meesed up on twoface though
Val Kilmer was the best Bruce Wayne. He was excellent at showing what effect the superhero life was having on Bruce. A better Two-Face and Riddler and this would've been an awesome movie. The villains were too silly.
I've seen cardboard show more emotion than Val Kilmer in Batman Forever
I wouldn't say best, but I would say that he gets more hate for Batman Forever than is really deserved. I rank him as the third best onscreen Batman, as he did give the character some depth, in a film that had little in it. I still think Clooney was the worst all around Batman, even though his Bruce Wayne was ok.
When Bob Kane was alive, he said his favorite Batman was Michael Keaton, but his fave Bruce Wayne was Val Kilmer.
Thing is there are lot of scenes that were cut and reassembled out of order that would have made it a better movie
Still my favorite pre-2000 super hero movie.
I enjoyed this movie, and I'm not ashamed to say it. However, I do agree with Siskel; in that you don't really remember much after a few hours. However, if you're a little kid that's curious about Batman, and you're not ready for the dark stuff (Nolan & Burton), this would be a good intro to the Batman franchise. It introduced me to the Batman franchise, and even if I already saw films like Silence of the Lambs and The Terminator, I liked it, and I'll need to re-watch it in the future.
People keep saying that Nolan was the first to go into the psychology of Batman. Wrong. Watch the deleted scenes on the BATMAN FOREVER blu-ray, Schumacher definitely was first to that trough, only too bad WB made Joel cut the film only to never let him release an alternate cut on the DVD re-release back in 2006.
Batman returns is way better then this movie. But if you thought that this was bad. Batman and robin make this one look like an movie of the year contender.
Oh yes it is, Returns felt like a stageplay that just had accidentally been recorded, and nothing added up + Burton got so many things wrong in that film.
Batman Forever may be cheesy but it's definitely closer to the source material oh and Batman doesn't kill for once one very important thing about his ethics.
They were right about this movie not being good for kids I saw a mother and father leave with children
They’re talking about how impressive it is that Batman Forever juggles five characters. Little did they know a comic book movie would come out years later with 70 something characters and somehow it would be very evenly balanced
You can't balance that many characters. They are simply reduced to bein colorful ciphers bouncing around the frame.
@SLPIFan I agree there entirely. Batman Returns was indeed very neat, but it was missing elements that made the original so interesting. Forever is up with the original in my opinion.
I 100% agree with the both of them. Though it’s a pretty entertaining movie to watch, it really doesn’t leave much of an impact. Thankfully, Batman would get the his rightful justice on the big screen much later (NOT BATMAN AND ROBIN!!)
I will always love Batman 1989 and Batman Returns 1992, BEST. Batman Forever was a great cinematic watch at the theater, and later when I watched it on vhs, I realized that the themes of Bruce Wayne's catharsis (i.e. the journal of Thomas Wayne being discovered by Bruce during their funeral, and his discovery of the cave and the giant Bat-Demon that haunts his dreams) were actually pretty DARK. Having discovered recently that there had been ALOT of story that emphasized THIS, that was CUT out of the movie, I'm really hoping that we get an Extended Director's Cut of Batman Forever, because I feel it would balance out all the ridiculousness of the rest of the circus act stuff.
Batman returns is so silly…it’s aged poorly … I mean penguins with bombs?
I always felt that the two villans were completely done wrong. The Riddler is suppose to be a kind of cocky smart ass, who is dressed in a nice green suit and tie... in this he's... well, Jim Carrey in pajamas. Two Face is suppose to have that really dark side, but also switch between good and bad because of his schizophrenia. Tommy Lee Jones, as much as I love the guy just played him like The Joker, no switching in between. If they played the charecters right, and that deleted scene wasn't..
I think Ebert overlooked the exploration of Bruce's character in the film. I think BF develops Batman/Bruce Wayne more so than either Keaton films.
I prefer Tim Burton's previous two Batman films, Batman Forever is colorful but isnt as dark and brooding as the previous films. It was the beginning of the end of the Batman franchise at the time
Siskels review is exactly how i feel when i watch a marvel movie
Ebert was spot-on with this review. Not a great movie, but certainly not a bad movie. It had its good points and bad points. Of course, the Nolan Batman films got the Batman character right.
I really like Batman Forever. I may be one of theonly ones, but its cool. It has a great plot, great action, great villains, emotional times with Bruce Wayne, awesome funny scenes, a hot girl in the picture in Nicole Kidman. Disagree but this was my favorite of the non Christopher Nolan Batman films. I've just always considered this one to be quite entertaining. Val Kilmer was no Keaton, but he did the job well. Anyway, my rank of the six Batman films
1. TDK 2. BB 3. BF 4. B 5. BR 6. B&R
2:30 - :35 he's supposed to be The Riddler.
i liked jim carrey as the riddler! best part of movie by far is when he is destroying the batcave!
what ebert said about the batman movies missing the point is what makes nolan's batman movies that much better
i regret to say, that you are right, even though it was a great movie, it waasnt as good as the dark knight
@anxresi I didn't say it's the most stupid thing a critic have said - I said it was the worst thing I MYSELF PERSONALLY have heard. I can claim that as much as I want.
completely agreed. I feel that tommy lee jones was just the wrong choice. he was just a case of getting a star to be in the movie. a darker actor would of been better. ive always felt mickey rourke could be a great two-face.
@2:14 what siskel states is my recollection (except a few) about every action movie ive seen in a looong while.
This was my favourite as a child and is still my favourite to this day
@Emapten read the last line, Batman 1 is my favorite of all of them
This is certainly not the best Batman movie ever made, but I did enjoy this one very much. The best one is The Dark Knight, in my opinion. I liked the comic book atmosphere, the action was good, the music was nice, and since Tim Burton produced this one, he did add the psychology of emoting with the characters despite the fact that this one is different from his films and Nolan's.
You know, a LOT of movies today are like that. You enjoy it while its there, but is does not deserve to be in a personal collection. A LOT of movies are like that today and if Siskel and Ebert were around TODAY, the film industry would have remained on its toes not to rip off people as they have in this decade.
Comparison between Batman Forever and Batman Begins
Your entrance was good, his was better. Difference; showmanship
@ScarletRaider513 what about batman 1?
Its a popcorn flick that kids loved and still do. Me included.
If you're looking for a film that actually has interest in and focus on the character of himself and not having almost all the time given to the villains than yes I can see why one would consider FOREVER to be better. (Personally, I like both for different reasons)
The only thing I really liked about this movie was Val Kilmer. He and Christian Bale rank as my favorite actors to play Batman
@thewarrior007 You can tell from all his reviews he would have loved them, especially Dark Knight.
I recently watched Batman and Batman Returns, so then I put Batman Forever in my BluRay Player (I have a set of all four which was given to me for X-Mas) and I could not even bring myself to press play! So yes, Batman Returns is a hell of a lot better than Forever!
But of course we had to wait until 2005 until we finally got somewhat of a real Batman movie, with batman being the main focus point!:).
Let's hope that the next rendition will be R-rated.
As soon as Robin entered, it effed up the series. Val's Batman suit at the beginning was fantastic as was casting Val who also had a slight edge to his psych .
That opening scened Batman look was simple, dark, agile, he was great. But then... midway, they fancy up the costume with all kinds of adornments and vents... take the edge out of it, then it become cheese. Ugh.
Too many villains and characters.
Returns tried to be a serious Batman story and fell short. Forever didn't try to be a serious story and was self aware and succeeded at that.
@CreepyBastard55
Compared to 'Batman & Robin', 'Batman Forever' was gold.; I recommend watching 'Batman Forever' over that, personally.
@SLPIFan "much better viewed as a Tim Burton movie," the perfect review in just seven words.
I love Batman forever but it’s not better than Batman Returns!
@TheStanbabe because of all the bright colors??
@Emapten read my comment again, Batman 1 was my favorite and best in particular to the franchise.
2:00-2:06 Same can be said with Marvel's equvalent of The Dark Knight, Moon Knight.
Moon knight sucks
I like Batman and Robin
didn't have a problem with Val Kilmer as Bruce Wayne/Batman -- or Nicole Kidman as the Sexy Chase Merridian my problems with the movie were this.. 1. Robin was done all wrong- he ( Dick Grayson/Robin ) was much younger when he met Bruce Wayne ( i believe around 12 -13 )..if you cant follow the comic right then DON'T ADD THE CHARACTER IN THE MOVIE. 2. Should of done a backstory on Harvey "Two Face" Dent to explain why Bruce is obsessed with saving him 3. Keep the suit dark.. like its meant to be
They're very different in their focus and theme but about the same level of meh imo. BR was dark and moody almost drowning out the campy, while BF was a day-glow action campy thing. I remember liking them both, but edged back to liking the Burton flick better in the end. But Batman Begins still stands out for me. Ra's Al Ghul effect I suppose.
Anybody ever consider that Schmacher was working under the guidelines that he had to make a " kiddie " friendly Batman film for Warner Bros??
They told him to make a Batman film for children, and in that sense, it pretty much delivers on every level.
He went way too far with Batman & Robin which was just a rushed and neon drenched mess, but Batman Forever is alot of fun.
Drew Barrymore & Debi Mazar as " Sugar n Spice " ..yes please :)
Nicole Kidman looked pretty hot too!
Not one of my favorite of all the Batman pictures, but I give Val credit for doing Bruce/Batman justice. TLJ was pretty amusing at points and just get rid of Jim Carrey. A shame that Val has now let himself go.
Did you watch them recently before posting these scores? Just asking because having rewatched them all recently I was surprised to find that of the two worst ones ("Batman Forever" and "Batman and Robin") I actually thought "Batman and Robin" was the better of those two. While Jim Carrey's painful performance just made me groan every time, I found Schwarzenegger's one-liners oddly appealing. There's something enjoyably naff about Batman and Robin while Batman Forever takes itself too seriously.
I noticed when I was watching this... Jim Carrey's not really The Riddler, is he? He's the Joker. Even Two-Face... they're really camping it up, aren't they? I know after "Returns," they wanted to "lighten it up" for the kids. A lot of them were traumatized by "Returns." Schumacher seemed to have been re-creating the '60's Adam West show with this film. At least with the villains. Gotham isn't gothic anymore here. Gotham is the futuristic LA from Blade Runner!
it was much better than Shumachers second attempt. But the 1990's Batman films became all about the villains.
This was a fun and entertaining popcorn movie for 1995 but it was and is very forgettable.
Val Kilmer is still great as Bruce Wayne / Batman. And I still think Jim Carrey is great as The Riddler. He could be darker, and more serious with a better screenplay and under better direction.
I've got to admit, I found this movie pretty enjoyable. Didn't like the campy Batman and Robin that followed, but I liked this one, liked it even better than Batman Returns.
+Jero Briggs I never liked Chris O'Donnell as Robin. He was a bit of a pain.
Yeah, same here.
I thought the movie was okay, but that's about it, it's good for kids i would say but it never comes cloose to be as good as Christopher Nolans Batman films