3,5 I don't understand why this film is so overlooked. It is a totally crazy film, a psychedelic and continously over-the-top (acting, cinematography, narrative) "object" that today would be impossibile to even think about. Honestly, I prefer the madness of Schumacher style than the impersonal and flat Nolan's Batman.
Caught somewhere between the Expressionist aesthetic of the Tim Burton films and the day-glo camp of Schumacher's own follow-up, "Batman Forever" is a nigh unwatchable Frankenstein's monster of a superhero film. Jim Carrey, oft-criticized for playing the Riddler as a Living Color sketch, is one of the few entertaining aspects of the movie considering he's the only one who appears to be having fun with the material.
I recently skimmed through bits and pieces of this film after having not seen it since I was eight. It was terrible back then and it's terrible now. Easily one of the worst films I've ever seen. Practically intolerable.
I enjoyed this very much when I was ten. I don't any more and it has dates terribly. The script has no understanding of the source material and ruins The Riddled and especially two face who comes across as Joke lite. Val Kilmer could make a decent Bruce Wayne but is underserved by this film. Is there a good way to make Robin work on film?
The child in me remembers seeing this and liking it then, so I'm giving it 3 stars. I was right about Sega Channel back then and I was probably right about this. 9-year-old me was on point, motherfuckers.
It's a tolerable Batman film that successfully combined the stone, steel, and sconces of Tim Burton's Batman with a kitchy neon makeover. In order to appreciate Batman Forever, one must be either 5-12 years old, or a modest admirer of the Adam West era of Batman when plot was inconsiquential, the dialogue was vapid, and the suspense was cheaper than the price of your popcorn.