Batman & Robin (DVD) Superstars George Clooney and Arnold Schwarzenegger face off as the coolest--and the cruelest--villain to ever stalk Gotham City comes after its courageous caped crusaders, Batman & Robin. When the evil Mr. Freeze (Schwarzenegger) teams up with toxic Poison Ivy (Uma Thurman) to freeze Gotham City and destroy its residents, the end appears near for superheroes Batman (George Clooney) and Robin (Chris O'Donnell). But with the arrival of Batgirl (Alicia Silverstone), the dynamic duo becomes a transcendent trio in this fourth episode of the blockbuster theatrical series. Review: The Light Knight. - When Bob Kane introduced Batman to the world in 1939, he introduced a dark, brooding vigilante who was just as likely to kill his prey as arrest them. This Dark Knight would last untill the introduction of Robin... In 1940. That's right, Batman's "dark" period lasted about eleven issues, something "purists" seem to forget. Kane and Finger may have created a dark brooding figure, but they sure seem to have enjoyed the more lighthearted Caped Crusader a lot more, seeing that this version of The Dynamic Duo would last through to the 1970's. Even then, when the wonderful Denny O'Neil took the series in a more mature, detective oriented direction, it wouldn't be untill Miller's Dark Knight Returns that the "dark" Batman would be viewed by fans as the "true" Batman. But the simple fact is, there is no "true" Batman. Batman has been interpreted many different ways over the years, each with their own pros and cons. Adam West's Batman is not The Dark Knight's Batman is not The Lego Movie's Batman, yet they are all undeniably Batman. And it must be said that Batman in the comics has spent far more time with bigger than life villans and cheesy puns and one liners than without. This movie doesn't spit on the image of Batman as so many would have you believe, it embraces one of the many views of the Batman, one perhaps sadly neglected in our cynical and jaded times. Frankly, I find the Batman of this and "Forever" to be closest to the source material. Tim Burton's Batman was fun, but also a psyco killer. Nolan's Batman tries too hard to be "realistic", something a man in a bat suit can never fully achieve. Not to mention the fact that the timeline of "Rises" seems to say Bruce was Batman maybe a year and a half total. This I find less forgivable than a Bat-Credit card. In this movie, we have a Batman who's been Gotham's protector for years. The citizens seldom see him, but know he's out there and sleep better for it. The police know they can rely on him (perhaps too much) and criminals fear him. He operates in the shadows, but will come into the limelight when it's in his city's interests. This may not be the gritty Batman of the 90's on, but it is Batman nonetheless. A lighter knight, but as entertaining in his own right despite, or even because of that lightness. It's often reported that director Joel Schumacher would remind the actors "Remember everyone, this is a cartoon." Usually this is given as a sign that the film was doomed to fail. But for most of his history, and clearly the part of Bat history this draws from, Batman WAS a cartoon. A glorious, irreverant and most of all FUN cartoon. I've read comics from the 40's, 50's and 60's, and I can easily see the museum ice skating scene, the rocket surfing escape and even the chairity ball battle taking place there. Even Bruce Wayne's girlfriend in this one is Julie Madison, harking back to the 40's Golden Age comics. Somebody did his homework! If this movie's reputation has kept you away, open your mind and give it a try. If you have not seen it in ages because it wasn't the "real" Batman, take a look at the Dark Knight Detective's long, rich history and give Batman and Robin another chance. Review: How can a film be so awful and so great at the same time? - You will be hard-pressed to find a more vocal proponent of filmmakers having to respect a comic book's source material in order to make a creatively successful comic book film than me. When I look at a comic book film, I look at what to expect from the character and the plot and how the filmmakers and actors intend to keep to the mythology of the characters that have already been created. With Joel Schumacher's BATMAN AND ROBIN, Warner Brothers Studios basically decided that aside from the most basic of characteristics, EVERYTHING in this film is up for grabs. And in that anarchy, Schumacher, stars George Clooney, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Uma Thurman, Chris O'Donnell, and Alicia Silverstone somehow ended up creating what I think is easily the most entertaining of all of the pre-Nolan Batman films. If you watch some of the special features on this disc, or listen to the commentary track, one of the first things that Schumacher admits is that they had no script, and not just before they started shooting, but WHILE they were shooting. The studio's mission was to create as many toys to sell to young boys and girls as they possibly could, hence some of the most ridiculous action set pieces ever committed to celluloid. They wanted a glowing Batmobile, a sleek Redbird (Robin's motorcycle), a bizarre tank for Mr. Freeze... and they wanted to sell toys and action figures for girls too, hence the inclusion of Batgirl and Poison Ivy. So they called Akiva Goldsman, who is inexplicably an Oscar winner (for writing A BEAUTIFUL MIND) since he's one of the biggest hacks in Hollywood, and they gave Schumacher somewhat free reign as far of the look and feel of some of the sets. It's obviously hearkening back to the Adam West/Burt Ward BATMAN television show era at points, but has some incredibly bizarre and over-the-top set design that includes seemingly dozens of statues throughout Gotham City that stand well over 100 feet. The film's budget was around $125 million, suggesting that they wanted to go VERY big, or they might as well have not even bothered. Well, Schumacher didn't seem to want any of that budget to go to waste, and of course, that included Schwarzenegger's salary for the film, which was in the $25 million range. This was pretty much the death-knell of his big-budget career aside from the final TERMINATOR film he appeared in. This film was also the death-knell of the BATMAN franchise for a few more years, so whatever your thoughts on this film might be, you should be thankful it exists merely because it ushered in the age of the Nolan DARK KNIGHT films after it seemed like nothing could revitalize this franchise. Truth be told, this is not a particularly good film, and it's an awful Batman film in terms simply of the zeitgeist of even 1997. When the soundtrack to the film is populated with songs by R.E.M. and Smashing Pumpkins, this is a sign that people weren't looking for a zany, fun comic book caper, but that's not necessarily the reason this film was a commercial failure, but to be certain, it was a big reason. And people had been whining since Tim Burton left the franchise anyway. They wanted their Batman to be not just dark, but RELENTLESSLY dark. While some of what Burton did reflected the current era of the comic in terms of design, it failed completely in character. And while Schumacher didn't exactly improve the status of the franchise, he did add enough sensibility to allow yourself to be entertained by his efforts (even if it's unintentional and/or groan-worthy like so much of the terrible dialogue in this film). The film, while still being dark (or underlit, in some cases), has an added element of pop to the picture. You're not just looking at grimy and dilapidated alleyways and ultra-gothic set design as was the case in almost every frame of Burton's directorial efforts. There's a conspicuously heavy use of neon in both this film as well as BATMAN FOREVER, which brought Schumacher to the franchise, as well as an over-use of blacklight. The performances range from decent (Michael Gough as Alfred, who, with Pat Hingle as Commissioner Gordon were the only two actors who stuck around for all four of the original films) to silly (Clooney, who, according to legend did actually play the character of Bruce Wayne as gay) to downright awful (Everyone else...). But they're really only awful if you look at them as three-dimensional characters. This film is a huge cartoon, and like most kids cartoons, the surface of the character is all you get. Also, if you look at the surface, there is literally no reason for this film to be rated PG-13. It has no more violence than you would see in a Bugs Bunny cartoon, it has no profanity, it has no nudity, but the reasoning for that PG-13, other than the obvious marketing ploy to get the kids and their parents in the seats, is as far as the character of Poison Ivy is concerned, as played by Uma Thurman (who obviously saw a few Mae West films in order to find her character), her dialogue is packed with obvious and totally ridiculous double entendres. There's a fairly high amount of sexuality in this film in regards to Ivy, particularly in her character's psuedo-strip tease when her character is first revealed in Gotham's Botanical Garden benefit. There also seems to be an undercurrent of homoeroticism throughout the film with the presence of Poison Ivy to create the rift in the "partnership" of Batman and Robin, as well as Bruce's fiancee Julie Madison (supermodel Elle MacPherson, whose role, while being a nice nod to Bruce's first love in the comics, was little more than a cameo) to offset the old argument of Batman and Robin being, as Dr. Fredric Wertham once put it in his 1950's cryptofacist interpretation of comic books SEDUCTION OF THE INNOCENT, the "ultimate homosexual fantasy relationship". And then, there's Silverstone as Barbara/Batgirl. The inclusion of the character, again, was more to sell toys and give some fan-service than to give a good reason for the character to exist in this world, but the casting of the character could not have been more moronic. Let me get this straight: Instead of being the daughter of Commissioner Gordon, she's Alfred's niece whose mother is British; she grew up in England AND went to a British boarding school, yet somehow, she's an American teenager. How does that work? But then, if someone was to actually offer a logical explanation for ANYTHING in this film, I'd be either very impressed or very suspicious. So after all this, why do I still rate this film 5 out of 5 stars? Because of everything I've just written. This film is so gloriously excessive, so delirously goofy, so amazingly awful that it seems to me that there is a microscopic element of subversiveness to the whole production. They seemed to want the franchise to die off. Really, how could anyone be expected to turn in wuality work when the whole film is being dictated by the studio suits and the merchandising people? No one involved could seriously have watched this film and said to themselves, "This is some of my best work" and still be considered sane. Schumacher and company went so far off the rails into self-parody and self-destruction that no one could really have seen themselves getting a lot of Hollywood work after this film, which also brings a level of anarchic glee for me. It'd be another few years until Clooney found his breakout role; Schwarzenegger went into politics for some reason; Thurman smartly kept her friendship with Quentin Tarantino alive and still remains a mainstay of independent cinema; O'Donnell is trying to keep some kind of career solvency alive through television and Silverstone is really nowhere to be found. Schumacher continues making films, but they're largely regarded as hacky, and that's not unfounded, but he's still in the business. BATMAN AND ROBIN is really kind of a perfect example of how not to make a Batman film, but still ends up being the most entertaining film of all of the pre-Nolan Batman films. That either speaks volumes about this film, or about its predecessors.
| Customer Reviews | 4.5 out of 5 stars 4,878 Reviews |
R**E
The Light Knight.
When Bob Kane introduced Batman to the world in 1939, he introduced a dark, brooding vigilante who was just as likely to kill his prey as arrest them. This Dark Knight would last untill the introduction of Robin... In 1940. That's right, Batman's "dark" period lasted about eleven issues, something "purists" seem to forget. Kane and Finger may have created a dark brooding figure, but they sure seem to have enjoyed the more lighthearted Caped Crusader a lot more, seeing that this version of The Dynamic Duo would last through to the 1970's. Even then, when the wonderful Denny O'Neil took the series in a more mature, detective oriented direction, it wouldn't be untill Miller's Dark Knight Returns that the "dark" Batman would be viewed by fans as the "true" Batman. But the simple fact is, there is no "true" Batman. Batman has been interpreted many different ways over the years, each with their own pros and cons. Adam West's Batman is not The Dark Knight's Batman is not The Lego Movie's Batman, yet they are all undeniably Batman. And it must be said that Batman in the comics has spent far more time with bigger than life villans and cheesy puns and one liners than without. This movie doesn't spit on the image of Batman as so many would have you believe, it embraces one of the many views of the Batman, one perhaps sadly neglected in our cynical and jaded times. Frankly, I find the Batman of this and "Forever" to be closest to the source material. Tim Burton's Batman was fun, but also a psyco killer. Nolan's Batman tries too hard to be "realistic", something a man in a bat suit can never fully achieve. Not to mention the fact that the timeline of "Rises" seems to say Bruce was Batman maybe a year and a half total. This I find less forgivable than a Bat-Credit card. In this movie, we have a Batman who's been Gotham's protector for years. The citizens seldom see him, but know he's out there and sleep better for it. The police know they can rely on him (perhaps too much) and criminals fear him. He operates in the shadows, but will come into the limelight when it's in his city's interests. This may not be the gritty Batman of the 90's on, but it is Batman nonetheless. A lighter knight, but as entertaining in his own right despite, or even because of that lightness. It's often reported that director Joel Schumacher would remind the actors "Remember everyone, this is a cartoon." Usually this is given as a sign that the film was doomed to fail. But for most of his history, and clearly the part of Bat history this draws from, Batman WAS a cartoon. A glorious, irreverant and most of all FUN cartoon. I've read comics from the 40's, 50's and 60's, and I can easily see the museum ice skating scene, the rocket surfing escape and even the chairity ball battle taking place there. Even Bruce Wayne's girlfriend in this one is Julie Madison, harking back to the 40's Golden Age comics. Somebody did his homework! If this movie's reputation has kept you away, open your mind and give it a try. If you have not seen it in ages because it wasn't the "real" Batman, take a look at the Dark Knight Detective's long, rich history and give Batman and Robin another chance.
T**B
How can a film be so awful and so great at the same time?
You will be hard-pressed to find a more vocal proponent of filmmakers having to respect a comic book's source material in order to make a creatively successful comic book film than me. When I look at a comic book film, I look at what to expect from the character and the plot and how the filmmakers and actors intend to keep to the mythology of the characters that have already been created. With Joel Schumacher's BATMAN AND ROBIN, Warner Brothers Studios basically decided that aside from the most basic of characteristics, EVERYTHING in this film is up for grabs. And in that anarchy, Schumacher, stars George Clooney, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Uma Thurman, Chris O'Donnell, and Alicia Silverstone somehow ended up creating what I think is easily the most entertaining of all of the pre-Nolan Batman films. If you watch some of the special features on this disc, or listen to the commentary track, one of the first things that Schumacher admits is that they had no script, and not just before they started shooting, but WHILE they were shooting. The studio's mission was to create as many toys to sell to young boys and girls as they possibly could, hence some of the most ridiculous action set pieces ever committed to celluloid. They wanted a glowing Batmobile, a sleek Redbird (Robin's motorcycle), a bizarre tank for Mr. Freeze... and they wanted to sell toys and action figures for girls too, hence the inclusion of Batgirl and Poison Ivy. So they called Akiva Goldsman, who is inexplicably an Oscar winner (for writing A BEAUTIFUL MIND) since he's one of the biggest hacks in Hollywood, and they gave Schumacher somewhat free reign as far of the look and feel of some of the sets. It's obviously hearkening back to the Adam West/Burt Ward BATMAN television show era at points, but has some incredibly bizarre and over-the-top set design that includes seemingly dozens of statues throughout Gotham City that stand well over 100 feet. The film's budget was around $125 million, suggesting that they wanted to go VERY big, or they might as well have not even bothered. Well, Schumacher didn't seem to want any of that budget to go to waste, and of course, that included Schwarzenegger's salary for the film, which was in the $25 million range. This was pretty much the death-knell of his big-budget career aside from the final TERMINATOR film he appeared in. This film was also the death-knell of the BATMAN franchise for a few more years, so whatever your thoughts on this film might be, you should be thankful it exists merely because it ushered in the age of the Nolan DARK KNIGHT films after it seemed like nothing could revitalize this franchise. Truth be told, this is not a particularly good film, and it's an awful Batman film in terms simply of the zeitgeist of even 1997. When the soundtrack to the film is populated with songs by R.E.M. and Smashing Pumpkins, this is a sign that people weren't looking for a zany, fun comic book caper, but that's not necessarily the reason this film was a commercial failure, but to be certain, it was a big reason. And people had been whining since Tim Burton left the franchise anyway. They wanted their Batman to be not just dark, but RELENTLESSLY dark. While some of what Burton did reflected the current era of the comic in terms of design, it failed completely in character. And while Schumacher didn't exactly improve the status of the franchise, he did add enough sensibility to allow yourself to be entertained by his efforts (even if it's unintentional and/or groan-worthy like so much of the terrible dialogue in this film). The film, while still being dark (or underlit, in some cases), has an added element of pop to the picture. You're not just looking at grimy and dilapidated alleyways and ultra-gothic set design as was the case in almost every frame of Burton's directorial efforts. There's a conspicuously heavy use of neon in both this film as well as BATMAN FOREVER, which brought Schumacher to the franchise, as well as an over-use of blacklight. The performances range from decent (Michael Gough as Alfred, who, with Pat Hingle as Commissioner Gordon were the only two actors who stuck around for all four of the original films) to silly (Clooney, who, according to legend did actually play the character of Bruce Wayne as gay) to downright awful (Everyone else...). But they're really only awful if you look at them as three-dimensional characters. This film is a huge cartoon, and like most kids cartoons, the surface of the character is all you get. Also, if you look at the surface, there is literally no reason for this film to be rated PG-13. It has no more violence than you would see in a Bugs Bunny cartoon, it has no profanity, it has no nudity, but the reasoning for that PG-13, other than the obvious marketing ploy to get the kids and their parents in the seats, is as far as the character of Poison Ivy is concerned, as played by Uma Thurman (who obviously saw a few Mae West films in order to find her character), her dialogue is packed with obvious and totally ridiculous double entendres. There's a fairly high amount of sexuality in this film in regards to Ivy, particularly in her character's psuedo-strip tease when her character is first revealed in Gotham's Botanical Garden benefit. There also seems to be an undercurrent of homoeroticism throughout the film with the presence of Poison Ivy to create the rift in the "partnership" of Batman and Robin, as well as Bruce's fiancee Julie Madison (supermodel Elle MacPherson, whose role, while being a nice nod to Bruce's first love in the comics, was little more than a cameo) to offset the old argument of Batman and Robin being, as Dr. Fredric Wertham once put it in his 1950's cryptofacist interpretation of comic books SEDUCTION OF THE INNOCENT, the "ultimate homosexual fantasy relationship". And then, there's Silverstone as Barbara/Batgirl. The inclusion of the character, again, was more to sell toys and give some fan-service than to give a good reason for the character to exist in this world, but the casting of the character could not have been more moronic. Let me get this straight: Instead of being the daughter of Commissioner Gordon, she's Alfred's niece whose mother is British; she grew up in England AND went to a British boarding school, yet somehow, she's an American teenager. How does that work? But then, if someone was to actually offer a logical explanation for ANYTHING in this film, I'd be either very impressed or very suspicious. So after all this, why do I still rate this film 5 out of 5 stars? Because of everything I've just written. This film is so gloriously excessive, so delirously goofy, so amazingly awful that it seems to me that there is a microscopic element of subversiveness to the whole production. They seemed to want the franchise to die off. Really, how could anyone be expected to turn in wuality work when the whole film is being dictated by the studio suits and the merchandising people? No one involved could seriously have watched this film and said to themselves, "This is some of my best work" and still be considered sane. Schumacher and company went so far off the rails into self-parody and self-destruction that no one could really have seen themselves getting a lot of Hollywood work after this film, which also brings a level of anarchic glee for me. It'd be another few years until Clooney found his breakout role; Schwarzenegger went into politics for some reason; Thurman smartly kept her friendship with Quentin Tarantino alive and still remains a mainstay of independent cinema; O'Donnell is trying to keep some kind of career solvency alive through television and Silverstone is really nowhere to be found. Schumacher continues making films, but they're largely regarded as hacky, and that's not unfounded, but he's still in the business. BATMAN AND ROBIN is really kind of a perfect example of how not to make a Batman film, but still ends up being the most entertaining film of all of the pre-Nolan Batman films. That either speaks volumes about this film, or about its predecessors.
B**E
The Ultimate in Campy Action Batman Films. A Seriously Misunderstood Gem.
I honestly think that this movie is a completely misunderstood and under-rated CLASSIC and perhaps even masterpiece. I know that almost everyone in the world just stopped reading, but hear me out. When watching this movie you have to look at it as not only an intentional comedy, but also a grand throwback to the 1960's Adam West Batman series and movie, but with an updated production budget and look, still influenced by the two Tim Burton directed Batman films. The acting? Over the top with a large helping of cheese, just like 1960s series. The sets? Overblown, but they take their cue from the Burton films, just turned up to 11 and added an extreme amount of color. The script? Full of ridiculous one-liners and an almost unholy amount of puns, especially from Mr. Freeze, ALL there to clue you into the fact that almost nothing about this movie is really meant to be taken seriously, and let you decide to just sit back and enjoy the ride. Its bright, its loud, its exciting, its cheesy, its hilarious, and its a masterpiece of cinema. Take it for what it is, a comedy, and you'll find that this movie really doesn't deserve half the hate it gets. As somewhat of a tangent, I find it weird that people accept the ridiculous sets, acting, dialog, and action of the Tim Burton movies, especially Batman Returns, and yet claim THIS is the one that takes it too far. Penguin soldiers with rockets? Come on!
J**B
A good movie to watch.
I know that a lot of people say that this movie has bad acting and is not as good as the other Batman movies, but I find it okay. I like it for only a few reasons: Poison Ivy and Batgirl, my favorite characters in the film. They are both very beautiful, lovely, and attractive in this movie! Other than them, the film is okay, except for some unreasonable parts (when Mr. Freeze gets his men to sing the "Mr. Frosty" song after Poison Ivy awakens, which didn't make sense). The acting is alright, the music is good, but I think it would have been better with Joker and/or Harley Quinn in it. Still, it's a good movie for me to watch whenever I get bored on the weekends. If you're the kind of person who loves Poison Ivy and Batgirl for their gorgeous beauty, like me, then you'll enjoy seeing them in this movie. You'll find some parts that don't make sense or need some improvement upon, but nonetheless, you might get into this film or you might not. Don't expect the Joker to be in this because he's not, which is disappointing. Anyway, not the best Batman movie that came out in theaters, but still pretty good.
L**E
Movie Tyme
One of my favorites
J**L
Batman and robbin dvd
Good movie dvd
D**F
Holy female gaze, Batman!
This is pretty much nobody's preferred approach to Batman but I can't deny that if you get on its wavelength 'Batman & Robin' can be the guiltiest of guilty pleasures. It's hilarious and cheesy and utterly baffling in sometimes fascinating ways. Perhaps strangest of all is the way it appears to assume that everyone thought previous movie 'Batman Forever' was some kind of beloved masterpiece. 'Batman & Robin' isn't 'Batman 4' so much as it's simply 'Batman Forever 2,' like it's retroactively removing 'Batman Forever' from the prior series and starting its own. Cocaine? Am I nuts or are there a LOT of gratuitous shots here where Batman and Robin's capes drift upward to give us a view of their round rubber bat-butts, as well as thrusting their rubber bat-pecs at the camera, and driving across a massive naked male statue's chiseled muscles? Rather tellingly, in spite of Uma Thurman's sexiness being a plot point, the camera rarely seems to leer at her figure the way it does with our dynamic duo (I know about Joel Schumacher and all the "Ambiguously Gay Duo" jokes and all, but since Batman and Robin share zero sexual chemistry I wouldn't call this "homoerotic," just "male erotic" I guess). Cocaine? By the time the movie deigns to offer a little Batgirl cheesecake, I was honestly skeeved out enough by the camera operator's apparent pervertedness that I wasn't in the mood to join in and enjoy it. It's not the biggest deal but a lot of the shots feel sneaky enough that it comes off genuinely sleazy rather than just part of the cheesy fun. Cocaine?
J**S
Very unpopular opinion
This is my most favorites Batman movie ever. Likely because of all of the Villains. I mean really truly I promise you no Batman fan thinks there's a bad Batman they each brought their own version of him to the movie. This one has Ice Man, Bane, and Poison Ivy plus bat girl who is Alfred's niece. It's really good, I promise
Trustpilot
1 month ago
2 months ago
