Taking place some time after Batman Returns (it's not explicitly state though), the Dark Knight (now played by Val Kilmer) continues to protect the streets of Gotham City from the criminal underworld, now taking on two new foes. The first of which is Harvey Dent aka Two-Face (Tommy Lee Jones), a former District Attorney for Gotham turned criminal madman after a mobster through acid onto the left side of his face, leaving him horribly scarred. Dent blamed Batman for failing to stop the mob attack, and as a result went insane, developing a split personality and deciding the fate of his victims by flipping his special coin. Batman's second enemy arrives in the form of the brilliant though completely insane Edward Nygma aka The Riddler (Jim Carrey). Nygma was once an employee of his idol, Bruce Wayne, but when Wayne himself rejected Nygma's invention, a brain manipulating entertainment device, he took it personally and vowed revenge on the billionaire philanthropist. Taking on the mantra of The Riddler, he leaves clues and puzzles for Wayne to solve all while causing havoc on the city streets with Two-Face. Meanwhile, Wayne romances Dr. Chase Meridian (Nicole Kidman), a psychiatrist who helps Wayne conquer his tragic past as well as his struggling identities. All while this is happening, Wayne takes in a young man named Dick Grayson (Chris O'Donnell), a circus acrobat whose family was murdered at the hands of Two-Face. Bent on revenge, Grayson soon discovers the secret of Batman and becomes determined to join him in his mission of protecting the city.
Eeesh... it's easy to see why so many superhero films prefer to include only one villain. When you throw more than that into the mix, the plots feel so cluttered and messy that it becomes next to impossible to actually tell a coherent story... and this is no exception. 
It's really too bad, since this is honestly the closest a Batman movie has ever truly tried to explore the darker themes and psyche of Bruce Wayne and his alter ego. Dr. Meridian helps understand why he took on the mantra of Batman, why he feels the need to protect the city, and to deal with the fear and anger he has been facing since witnessing his parents' deaths. The interactions between Wayne and Grayson have their moments too. Wayne sees a lot of himself in the young Grayson, a young man determined to get revenge on the psycho that killed his family is all too familiar for Bruce. It is this, along with his previous status as a lone crime fighter, that he remains reluctant to take in a partner. By the time Grayson takes up the mantle of Robin, it's a pretty cool result. This is actually some pretty interesting stuff. When the movies decides to focus strictly on these aspects, it's actually pretty good. You really get a feel for the pain both Bruce and Dick face in their struggles and it makes for a decent movie.
It's really too bad, since this is honestly the closest a Batman movie has ever truly tried to explore the darker themes and psyche of Bruce Wayne and his alter ego. Dr. Meridian helps understand why he took on the mantra of Batman, why he feels the need to protect the city, and to deal with the fear and anger he has been facing since witnessing his parents' deaths. The interactions between Wayne and Grayson have their moments too. Wayne sees a lot of himself in the young Grayson, a young man determined to get revenge on the psycho that killed his family is all too familiar for Bruce. It is this, along with his previous status as a lone crime fighter, that he remains reluctant to take in a partner. By the time Grayson takes up the mantle of Robin, it's a pretty cool result. This is actually some pretty interesting stuff. When the movies decides to focus strictly on these aspects, it's actually pretty good. You really get a feel for the pain both Bruce and Dick face in their struggles and it makes for a decent movie.
Unfortunately, when the movie breaks away from the Bruce/Dick/Chase storyline, it becomes damn near unbearable. While it had basically become a staple of the Batman movies by then to focus more on the villains than the title character, this time it's even worse. In the first movie, while it focused too much on the Joker, that movie at least had the benefit of Jack Nicholson's enjoyable (if flawed) performance to carry the movie. In Batman Returns, the Penguin's disturbing subplot may have seemed out of place for a Batman film, but it at least was an intriguing look at a tragic and disturbed character (in any other movie, it might have been pretty good). Here, the villains have the unfortunate quality of being both boring AND annoying, and believe me that's no easy feat. It's not like there wasn't material to work with here either. Two-Face was one of the comics' most interesting and tragic foes, a once passionate cruasder for good fallen by the hands of the criminal underwold. A character with a split personality has all kinds of interesting "Jekyll and Hyde" possiblities, but the movie never goes there. Instead, he's relegated to an over-the-top cackling villain with no depth or any real determinate personality. The Riddler isn't much better. Like Two-Face, he has also been resorted to more of a punch line, spitting out stupid one-liners and chewing the scenery. The riddles and puzzles he's constantly leaving make no sense and contribute little to the plot. Oh, and about those one-liners... THEY ARE PAINFUL!!! This movie has some of the lamest and dumbest dialogue I've ever heard, even by comic book standards, they're just embarrassing. The only thing positive I can say about it is that the lines aren't quite as painful as to what would come in the next film (but I'll save that for the next review). Eeesh... what a wasted opportunity. So much potential resorted to cheap jokes and dull characters.
The cast kind of corresponds to what I had written in the above paragraphs. The actors are really only as good as the characters are written. Val Kilmer isn't half bad as the new Caped Crusader. 
While the script has a few interesting character beats, it doesn't have quite enough to truly let Kilmer sink himself in the role, but for what he was presented with, he does it well. Nicole Kidman isn't too bad either. While her primary job is as a love interest and (at one point anyway) damsel in distress, she makes the most of what she was given. At the very least, she makes some contributions to the plot here and there and wasn't there exclusively for sex appeal (though there's plenty of that too). Chris O'Donnell sells his role as Dick Grayson adequately, as you really do feel the pain he's going through coping with the loss of his family. He is a little older than the traditional Robin (in most interpretations, Grayson was around 10-12). Once he actually becomes Robin, he isn't really much of a superhero, but then again he was just starting out. Overall, these actors aren't too shabby.
Now, as for Tommy Lee Jones and Jim Carrey... ugh. Jones is an excellent actor, and with an Oscar under his belt, he was a potentially great choice for Two-Face (not that this matters, but the role was originally contracted to Lando Calrisi-- I mean... Billy Dee Williams, who played Dent in the first movie). Unfortunately the script doesn't give him a damn thing to do except cackle hysterically and do, what is essentially, a lousy Joker impression. This is a major letdown, especially when you consider just how interesting of a villain Two-Face was in the comics and other adaptations. Jim Carrey as the Riddler... oh God! Jim Carrey was one of Hollywood's biggest stars at the time, so there's no wonder why Warner Bros wanted him to be in this film. Unfortunately, his portrayal of the Riddler is pretty much Ace Ventura if he were a villain. He brings his trademark comedic schtick to this role, and even for a character that's been portrayed as a bit over-the-top before, increases it to 11. He's neither funny nor is he threatening, instead he's just grating! He chews so much scenery that he completely steals the show... only in the worst possible way. It's like he felt the need to one-up everyone, resulting in a performance that's as annoying as it is infuriating. It's really a shame that these villains fail so miserably, especially considering the promising back-stories and actors.
In terms of technical execution... I'm kind of torn here. Like I mentioned, most of the Gothic elements from the previous two films have been replaced here in favor of a colorful campy style. Ultimately, that boils down to an aesthetic preference, but personally, I just found it to be an ugly and very questionable choice.
The original went with a noir-themed aesthetic because the style was previously used in film to illustrate themes of corruption, crime, and gritty anti-heroes who teetered on the edge of darkness themselves (which is basically Batman in a nutshell). This colorful neon-heavy style was clearly an effort to give it more of a comic book come-to-life feel but that kind of aesthetic only works on the pages of a comic... as a live action film, it just looks weird and unpleasant. The action scenes have their moments, but I can't think of many truly stand-out stunts or money shots to separate this flick from the barrage of big budget blockbuster that swarm theaters every summer. That's not to say that the action scenes are bad, actually most of serve the movie just fine, they just either ring to similar to the previous Bat-flicks or other action movies. As for the costumes... this was the first movie to introduce the infamous appearance bat nipples on both the Batman and Robin costumes. It's something fans love to mock... and yeah, they are kind of strange. That's mainly since don't serve much of a purpose or function, and just add to the odd choices for this movie. So the technical execution is hit and miss... the production values are high, but the odd directorial choices are very distracting.
So that's Batman Forever... and it's not very good. I can't quite call it terrible, since the movie actually does have a few interesting moments. Still, they just don't make up for cheesy dialogue, annoying villains, and bizarre art direction. Watching it... there's just no denying that this film sold out too much of the comic's darker themes in favor of more a more kind friendly and marketable blockbuster. Though, if there's one compliment I can offer to this film, it's this... what would come next would make this one look like a masterpiece!
My Score: 2 out of 5!
While the script has a few interesting character beats, it doesn't have quite enough to truly let Kilmer sink himself in the role, but for what he was presented with, he does it well. Nicole Kidman isn't too bad either. While her primary job is as a love interest and (at one point anyway) damsel in distress, she makes the most of what she was given. At the very least, she makes some contributions to the plot here and there and wasn't there exclusively for sex appeal (though there's plenty of that too). Chris O'Donnell sells his role as Dick Grayson adequately, as you really do feel the pain he's going through coping with the loss of his family. He is a little older than the traditional Robin (in most interpretations, Grayson was around 10-12). Once he actually becomes Robin, he isn't really much of a superhero, but then again he was just starting out. Overall, these actors aren't too shabby.Now, as for Tommy Lee Jones and Jim Carrey... ugh. Jones is an excellent actor, and with an Oscar under his belt, he was a potentially great choice for Two-Face (not that this matters, but the role was originally contracted to Lando Calrisi-- I mean... Billy Dee Williams, who played Dent in the first movie). Unfortunately the script doesn't give him a damn thing to do except cackle hysterically and do, what is essentially, a lousy Joker impression. This is a major letdown, especially when you consider just how interesting of a villain Two-Face was in the comics and other adaptations. Jim Carrey as the Riddler... oh God! Jim Carrey was one of Hollywood's biggest stars at the time, so there's no wonder why Warner Bros wanted him to be in this film. Unfortunately, his portrayal of the Riddler is pretty much Ace Ventura if he were a villain. He brings his trademark comedic schtick to this role, and even for a character that's been portrayed as a bit over-the-top before, increases it to 11. He's neither funny nor is he threatening, instead he's just grating! He chews so much scenery that he completely steals the show... only in the worst possible way. It's like he felt the need to one-up everyone, resulting in a performance that's as annoying as it is infuriating. It's really a shame that these villains fail so miserably, especially considering the promising back-stories and actors.
In terms of technical execution... I'm kind of torn here. Like I mentioned, most of the Gothic elements from the previous two films have been replaced here in favor of a colorful campy style. Ultimately, that boils down to an aesthetic preference, but personally, I just found it to be an ugly and very questionable choice.
The original went with a noir-themed aesthetic because the style was previously used in film to illustrate themes of corruption, crime, and gritty anti-heroes who teetered on the edge of darkness themselves (which is basically Batman in a nutshell). This colorful neon-heavy style was clearly an effort to give it more of a comic book come-to-life feel but that kind of aesthetic only works on the pages of a comic... as a live action film, it just looks weird and unpleasant. The action scenes have their moments, but I can't think of many truly stand-out stunts or money shots to separate this flick from the barrage of big budget blockbuster that swarm theaters every summer. That's not to say that the action scenes are bad, actually most of serve the movie just fine, they just either ring to similar to the previous Bat-flicks or other action movies. As for the costumes... this was the first movie to introduce the infamous appearance bat nipples on both the Batman and Robin costumes. It's something fans love to mock... and yeah, they are kind of strange. That's mainly since don't serve much of a purpose or function, and just add to the odd choices for this movie. So the technical execution is hit and miss... the production values are high, but the odd directorial choices are very distracting.So that's Batman Forever... and it's not very good. I can't quite call it terrible, since the movie actually does have a few interesting moments. Still, they just don't make up for cheesy dialogue, annoying villains, and bizarre art direction. Watching it... there's just no denying that this film sold out too much of the comic's darker themes in favor of more a more kind friendly and marketable blockbuster. Though, if there's one compliment I can offer to this film, it's this... what would come next would make this one look like a masterpiece!
No comments:
Post a Comment