Makeshift Python wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 2:15 amHowever, with BATMAN RETURNS that's where the camp got cranked up.
The thing is it's morbid camp, which is an extension of the Joker's campy undertone in the first film.
It's very macabre, which I have no doubt was a lot of Daniel Waters' work. The Penguin even makes a joke about sodomy, and this is a film marketed towards kids eating Happy Meals.
I was never freaked out over the film as a kid (I was 5 when it came out). The only bit that may have irked me was when Catwoman literally slashed a man's face with her claws. Kinda surprised WB allowed that.
Batman and Robin is a guilty pleasure of mine. I rather enjoy watching Arnold ham it up as Mr. Freeze. I love the aesthetics of the film as well. Gotham City is like an MC Escher painting. The music by Elliot Goldenthal is a favorite of mine as well.
B&R is a huge guilty pleasure to me as well, same with BF. I really dig those movies, if I can headcanon them as a parallel timeline, which is really easy.
In fact, they may have been better received if some dialogue was tweaked, just a little, that didn't imply this was set in the same universe. Oh well, live and learn.
Batman forever is simply tainted because of Batman and Robin. I very much enjoyed it. It's pretty much like The Matrix in terms of action strengths and playthrough, just with less exposition and obviously not as profound.
No, the villains are very much over-the-top and wasted in their roles. Mr. Jones' 2-Face is just Mr. Nicholson's Joker, same as Mr. Riddler. And I'll add that Mr. Schwarzenegger's, um... Mr. Freeze is one of his better performances. He's a villain who has clear motivations that are understandable, not just mugging at the camera. There is the hope Mr. Freeze can be better and do good.
I also never got the complaints this movie is gay. I mean, I can see the subtle innuendo and undertones, sure, but is that inherently a bad thing? I don't think so.
I wouldn't even call BF a guilty pleasure, it's actually good for what it sets out to be. B&R not so much, but it's balls to wall crazy so it's hard not to find it entertaining on some level. Like when John Glover was acting out being poisoned.
"BWWWWEEEEEEEHHH"
I do think B&R is a more ugly looking film. Which is weird because it has the same cinematographer as FOREVER and that looked pretty amazing (even earning an Oscar nom). Seemed he was trying to replicate the colors of BATMAN 66 more with lots of purples and it just looks more garish than anything under his style.
Batman and Robin I can't even watch without changing it. I have tried many times before, either from boredom to giving it a second chance.
Batman Forever really did set up the movie but they cranked it up to a 12.
For me, movie Batman was always the Keaton Batman at the time. The Burton direction is what I felt Batman should be and that was as a kid who never read the comics and the only other media I had was the animated show. Which maybe reinforced it.
I did watch the 60's Batman and did enjoy it as a kid. But I did seperate the two.
McAvoy wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 4:11 am
Batman and Robin I can't even watch without changing it. I have tried many times before, either from boredom to giving it a second chance.
Batman Forever really did set up the movie but they cranked it up to a 12.
For me, movie Batman was always the Keaton Batman at the time. The Burton direction is what I felt Batman should be and that was as a kid who never read the comics and the only other media I had was the animated show. Which maybe reinforced it.
I did watch the 60's Batman and did enjoy it as a kid. But I did seperate the two.
60s Batman was practically another character unto its own. The fact that the costume and car were so different helped.
Burton's Batman, and through it, TAS are what captured the character perfectly without him going into obsessive psychopath territory.
