Batman and Robin Worst Movie Ever !

[Ator the Invincible]

Originally Posted by thedarkangel1975

Batman and Robin is tied with the Adam West Batman movie IMO as the worst.

BLASPHEMY! The Adam West Batman movie is pure gold! The scene with the rubber shark is one of funniest things I've ever seen in my life. The little sign that says "Bat Ladder" that hangs off the ladder is just the icing on the cake! How's the blu of that movie look, btw? I haven't upgraded my DVD as of yet.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Ator the Invincible

BLASPHEMY! The Adam West Batman movie is pure gold! The scene with the rubber shark is one of funniest things I've ever seen in my life. The little sign that says "Bat Ladder" that hangs off the ladder is just the icing on the cake! How's the blu of that movie look, btw? I haven't upgraded my DVD as of yet.

It's suppose to be great on the PQ side of it. I am getting it as soon as the price goes down a little. For some reason Future SHop as it at $32. I love Adam West 's Batman but 32$ is just a bit too much for me.

[Ator the Invincible]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I love Adam West 's Batman but 32$ is just a bit too much for me.

Definitely. I got the DVD for $5. I'll stick with that until there's a significant price reduction on the blu. I'd probably upgrade if it reached $15 or so.

[assydingo]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

It's the the worst movie ever, it's not even the worst comic book movie ever.

If you want to see some real bad movies take a look at Mars Need's Women or Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter. I swear you will think Batman & Robin is like Cecil B DeMille The Ten Commandments after watching those

leis >o

at least I could finish it. superman 3 I wasn't able to.

[Blu As Hell]

Originally Posted by Crim122

Proud to say I have never seen it.

You are a lucky man.

[ixlegitballinxl]

first for me, eh

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by Ator the Invincible

BLASPHEMY! The Adam West Batman movie is pure gold! The scene with the rubber shark is one of funniest things I've ever seen in my life. The little sign that says "Bat Ladder" that hangs off the ladder is just the icing on the cake! How's the blu of that movie look, btw? I haven't upgraded my DVD as of yet.

So you find that stuff funny, but you don't find "Ice to meet you" to be funny?

It's all pure cheese. Have a sense of humor about it and you'll realize Batman & Robin is good for more than a few laughs (even if some of those laughs are at how freaking stupid it is). No, it's not the Batman most of us like to see, but it is reasonably entertaining regardless.

[pjasonOH]

It was a big flop for Warner's,barely making back it's $100 million+ budget,and no wonder the series was put on hiatus for eight years.

While I can't stand this film as a whole,I think that out of the entire cast,George Clooney was the one that actually did a decent job with what he was given.He could have made a pretty good Batman/Bruce Wayne in a better movie.

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by Ator the Invincible

BLASPHEMY! The Adam West Batman movie is pure gold! The scene with the rubber shark is one of funniest things I've ever seen in my life. The little sign that says "Bat Ladder" that hangs off the ladder is just the icing on the cake! How's the blu of that movie look, btw? I haven't upgraded my DVD as of yet.

you mean Adam We he lost pieces to his light bright

[tommyboy81]

Originally Posted by Toxa

This Movie is not good at all
It's the worst Batman ever made with Bat forever

and off course the best of :

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=r6epsG...eature=related

Always wondered why they had blades under there shoes. Guess they figured one day they would go ice skating.

[Ator the Invincible]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

So you find that stuff funny, but you don't find "Ice to meet you" to be funny?

Exactly. The Adam West Batman show was satire, and so was the movie. It was intentionally meant to be campy and laughable. It was making fun of the old Batman serials from the 40s.

Batman & Robin was a sequel to Tim Burton's Batman. And it failed miserably as part of that series. Imagine if the third entry in Nolan's series was done in this style. It might be funny, but it would fly in the face of the previous films in the series and ultimately destroy the franchise. Again.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by pjasonOH

It was a big flop for Warner's, barely making back it's $100 million+ budget

No, it was not a flop. It was commercially successful-- it just wasn't as large of a success as the previous films had been. It was heavily panned by critics and such, but bad reviews don't make a film a flop; failing to return on the invested capital does that.

and no wonder the series was put on hiatus for eight years.

It was NEVER on hiatus. It was in development hell. They had another film lined up to begin production, but when this one was critically panned and was not a huge success, they cut that plan and got to work on a new one. A lot of ideas were looked at (including a Batman/Superman feature), but they eventually went with a reboot instead. I personally think it would have been kind of cool to see a Batman Beyond picture, but I know most folks would probably be very upset by that sort of thing.

While I can't stand this film as a whole,I think that out of the entire cast,George Clooney was the one that actually did a decent job with what he was given.

Given the tone of the movie, I'd say that Chris O'Donnell, Uma Thurman, and Arnold Schwarzenegger delivered essentially what they needed to. Alicia Silverstone is the only one that grates me the wrong way, but I'd say that even her performance was in line with what the movie "expected".

He could have made a pretty good Batman/Bruce Wayne in a better movie.

He's got the acting chops, but to be honest, I don't like the look of him. I much rather would see Bruce Wayne have a look like Christian Bale or Val Kilmer gave him.

Originally Posted by tommyboy81

Always wondered why they had blades under there shoes. Guess they figured one day they would go ice skating.

Always wondered by he had shark repellent. Guess they figured one day they'd be attacked by sharks.

Why is it so difficult for everyone else to draw parallels?

Originally Posted by Ator the Invincible

Exactly. The Adam West Batman show was satire, and so was the movie. It was intentionally meant to be campy and laughable. It was making fun of the old Batman serials from the 40s.

Batman & Robin was a sequel to Tim Burton's Batman. And it failed miserably as part of that series. Imagine if the third entry in Nolan's series was done in this style. It might be funny, but it would fly in the face of the previous films in the series and ultimately destroy the franchise. Again.

The idea of the fact that it "ruined" the series is not valid. Batman Forever took the turn down that path long before this one took it to the extreme.

It fails as a sequel to Burton's films, because these are not Burton's films. They are not even good attempts to mimic the style of the previous films. Schumaker did what he wanted with it.

I don't even see how anyone can put Batman Forever and Batman & Robin in the same category as Batman and Batman Returns. As far as I'm concerned, they're not even direct sequels. Really, how can you look at Forever and claim that it looks at all like a direct sequel? The stylistic look is completely changed, the tone is completely different ("Holey Rusted Metal, Batman!"), and the protagonist- in addition to being played by someone new- is a completely different personality as well.

Just look at the Schumaker films as separate from the Burton films and get a little perspective.

[thedarkangel1975]

I always seperate the Batman and Batman Returns from Forever and Batman & Robin. Two totally different styles.

[Ator the Invincible]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

I don't even see how anyone can put Batman Forever and Batman & Robin in the same category as Batman and Batman Returns. As far as I'm concerned, they're not even direct sequels. Really, how can you look at Forever and claim that it looks at all like a direct sequel? The stylistic look is completely changed, the tone is completely different ("Holey Rusted Metal, Batman!"), and the protagonist- in addition to being played by someone new- is a completely different personality as well.

Just look at the Schumaker films as separate from the Burton films and get a little perspective.

That's fine and all, but the fact is Schumaker's movies are direct sequels to Burton's. Just because Schumaker screwed them up doesn't change that. Several actors were carry overs, and originally Michael Keaton was supposed to return too. It's a single series, albeit one with 2 conflicting creative visions. There were even plans at one point to make a fifth movie in the series with Jack Nicholson reprising the Joker during Scarecrow induced hallucinations. The failure of Batman & Robin derailed those plans and eventually led to the franchise being rebooted instead.

Personally, I liked Batman Forever. I don't think it was any goofier than Batman Returns, just much lighter. Batman & Robin went way too far and lost me completely.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by Ator the Invincible

That's fine and all, but the fact is Schumaker's movies are direct sequels to Burton's.

Would you say the same about Superman Returns and the Christopher Reeves pictures?

Because that's roughly how I think of how the films are related. A few overlapping elements (although nothing concrete), and yet plenty of things which contradict and make no sense.

Just because Schumaker screwed them up doesn't change that. Several actors were carry overs, and originally Michael Keaton was supposed to return too.

Actors don't matter. If they did, Batman Forever and Batman & Robin wouldn't come together so well. And yeah, Michael Keaton was set to return, but Mr. Burton was also supposed to be returning. Burton not returning turned the film in the direction it did, not Keaton choosing to stay away from it.

It's a single series, albeit one with 2 conflicting creative visions. There were even plans at one point to make a fifth movie in the series with Jack Nicholson reprising the Joker during Scarecrow induced hallucinations.

Doesn't matter, because it didn't happen. There simply is not a strong overarching continuity between the films as they actually are. Batman Returns makes direct reference to Vicki Vale from the first film, and Batman & Robin has a semi-hidden reference to the Riddler and Twoface, but do either of the Schumaker films reference directly the events of the Burton films? Is the drastic change in the look of Gotham explained? Really, the only things that I can think of that binds them together are a few minor characters being played by the same actors, the time frame of release, and the fact that the studio sells them bundled together in a single "collection".

Personally, I liked Batman Forever. I don't think it was any goofier than Batman Returns, just much lighter. Batman & Robin went way too far and lost me completely.

I agree pretty much. Forever did that sort of tone with a much better balance. It also helped them having Riddler and Twoface played manic like that, because I don't know if the tone shift would have worked without these characters portrayed in the way they were. I mean, look at what they did to Mr. Freeze in attempt to make a humorous villain.

[gocougz05]

I'm a batman freak! Grew up loving the caped crusader and when I saw this movie I was pissed. It is garbage! I really hate the nipple bat suit! I just hope that Christopher Nolan keeps on going with the batman series because he's doing a remarkable job. My fav of the older ones is Batman Returns, but I think Nolan could make the penguin 10 x better! I'm not knocking DeVito's penguin, I'm just thinking Nolan would make him so much darker and disgusting! It'd be sweet to see!

[TheDarkKnight821]

A few months ago, I tried to sit down with a bunch of buds and enjoy this with a big open mind and a mindset to have fun with it.

Well lets just say we couldn't even make it past the museum scene without turning it off. lol

I like to pretend this Batman movie never exists.

[dadkins]

Certainly not great, but not the worst movie ever.
I think that title still belongs to Gigli.

Noteable mention for dog #2: Glitter.

[TheDarkKnight821]

I hate that part where Gordon comes over the mini tv in the batamobile at the beginning.

[pjasonOH]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

No, it was not a flop. It was commercially successful-- it just wasn't as large of a success as the previous films had been. It was heavily panned by critics and such, but bad reviews don't make a film a flop; failing to return on the invested capital does that.

Okay,flop is not the right word,but it was certainly a financial dissapointment for Warner's considering the size of the budget and the amount they spent on advertising.Plus,as you said,the movie didn't do nearly the business of the previous films.

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Given the tone of the movie, I'd say that Chris O'Donnell, Uma Thurman, and Arnold Schwarzenegger delivered essentially what they needed to. Alicia Silverstone is the only one that grates me the wrong way, but I'd say that even her performance was in line with what the movie "expected".

Alicia Silverstone's Batgirl was one of the most pointless characters I've seen in a movie.She has absolutely nothing interesting to do.
I guess that's one of the problems of trying to cram too many characters in a movie.




I'm not a film critic by any stretch,and I believe there are such things as movies that are "so bad they're good".
In my opinion this one is just bad.