Batman and Robin was, by far, the worst of the four Batman movies.
Ever since Joel Schumacher took over the saga from Tim Burton, the entire essence of Batman has over gone a face lift (keep in mind that plastic surgery is bad). Danny Elfman has left to make way for a new composer, Elliot Goldenthal. Neon "Yes, We're Open" lights were placed on the all of the machine guns. Blacklighting and strobe lights were too excessively thrown in, turning the last two movies into what looked like rides at Disneyland. Two new actors have since played the Caped Crusader. Two new sidekicks have also been added. For the new movie, they added a snowcone-maker to the front of the Batmobile (Did you see it? The little rainbow swirly thing?)
I liked the decision to fill Michael Keaton with Val Kilmer. Kilmer is a great actor, and he fit the Bruce Wayne/Batman role very well. When I heard about George Clooney, I said, "Great, bring him on." Clooney was good, too, but no one else says so, and I think that it's because he was held in "check" by the horrible writing in Batman and Robin.
What got me to see the movie was the all-star cast. (Chris O'Donnell, the young, reckless, horny sidekick, Robin, Uma Thurman, the "love goddess"* with the venomous kiss, Poison Ivy, Arnold Schwarzenegger, the icy supervillain Mr. Freeze, who I believe was the best casting choice in the movie, and Alicia Silverstone, Batgirl, oh and of course the aforementioned George Clooney.) Most of the actors in the movie played their roles very well. They played their parts nearly flawlessly, except Arnold, who seemed to forget towards the end of the movie that he was immune to emotions. Alicia Silverstone just didn't make herself out to be a hardcore, all out fighting girl. Sure, there was a reference to a Judo class, but that was all. She made herself out to be a flower girl that loved her uncle and her country. If that was all a facade, I certainly missed it. The major problem was, Akiva Goldsman, the screenwriter, decided to throw in quotes from seemingly anywhere she could find, to make the movie "heart-warming." Bad idea. He also did not take care to keep certain parts of the movie consistent with later scenes. All this really brought the movie down.
*On the animated Batman TV series, where Poison Ivy originated, Poison Ivy was NOT a love goddess, no matter how beautiful the character was. She was simply an environmentalist turned bad, trying to "liberate" the world. She controlled plants, and had them do her bidding. True, there was one episode where she had a poison kiss, but that was due to the toxic lipstick she wore. Of course, Batman eventually found the antidote in the end :-)
Problems:
Mr. Freeze leaves his frozen chamber in Arkum Asylum. He falls to the floor, hacking and choking. Later, the full heat of the sun is focused on him, without his helmet. This heat is so strong, it melts huge chunks of ice off of buildings. Freeze barely gives out a cry.
Horny Robin really got to me. "Please say you're looking for me." "Chicks dig the car." He stands, gaping, as he looks at Poison Ivy. Sure, that was the character that was written for him and he played it well, I just didn't like the character.
Bane, the huge super-strong henchmen was a bit foolish. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Bane smart in the comics, planning bank robberies and things like that?
Mr. Freeze's big plan: Freeze Gotham and hold it for ransom. Collect billions of dollars to fund research. Freeze's plan was eventually deemed a good cause I guess, because at the end, billions of dollars were given to this mass murderer (Yes, he killed a lot of people, I timed the 11 minutes throughout the movie) to continue his research.
Obviously Batman and Robin didn't tell authorities about Freeze and Ivy's team up to try to destroy the world, because later the partners were placed in the same cell.
The list goes on and on.
On final analysis, I truly feel anyone who sees the movie without reading any of the reviews for it is wasting their money. $6.50 for this movie that cost millions of dollars to make is worse than $90 for a pair of Oakley's that cost $2 to make.
-Ethan Kaplan
Send comments to: oswald@conspirators.net
http://www.conspirators.net/oswald
6/20/97