The first film I decided to do a Twitter Commentary for is Joel Schumacher's bat-wank fest Batman Forever. The first thing I have to note is that I've seen this film a bunch of times and I like it less each time. Still, I won't simply stop after Batman Returns when going through the 90s series.
"Why's that?" I hear you cry. I'll tell you - it's simply because Batman kicks ass as a character and I'll watch any flick that features the Dark Knight. Still, as tragically bad as Batman Forever is, even the second worst installment features the odd glimmer of hope that maybe someone involved wanted to make a worthwhile movie. The only problem is that these hints get smashed to bits by brash colours, stupidly annoying villains and the character development that's taken place between this and its predecessor - which is pretty much the rape of Batman's previously seen personality.
Quite simply, Schumacher and co. have taken Tim Burton's model and chucked in the bin, taken a dump in said bin and set it on fire. Let's list some of my major gripes:
1. The tone. Gone is the dark, Gothic palette - it's been replaced by a psychedelic monstrosity that's one colour shy of causing epileptic seizures.
2. Batman himself. Remember how Michael Keaton was this silent, stoic type who just enjoyed nothing in his life to the point that even the idea of knobbing Michelle Pfeiffer seemed to piss him off? Well that guy is effectively dead. Val Kilmer's Batman is chatty, sociable and seems to just hate being alone. In fact, watching him and his rubber-bloody-nipples farting about on screen, I could hear Tim Burton and Michael Keaton getting ready to practice turning in their graves in about 40 or 50 years.It's worth noting that the Bats of of the first two films would never evolve into this cartoony pansy - he'd beat the batshit out of him. Still, at least Kilmer doesn't go too hammy with it. Small graces, eh?
3. Robin. Robin didn't actually annoy as much as what his inclusion in the film meant to the character of Batman. Keaton's Batman wouldn't tolerate a whiny, grumpy, ungrateful shit of a teenager for a second - but we have to believe Kilmer's would? It's bollocks.
4. The Villains. Are you fucking kidding me? Joker pied-pipered Gotham by offering money, Catwoman manipulated Batman with being all sexy and that, Max Schreck and Penguin were powerful politicians - they were all a threat to Batman. Two-Face seems delighted to have half his face burned off and seems preoccupied in pointing out the duality of things. Riddler on the other hand just turns into an annoying weed with a penchant for glitter and changing costumes every five minutes. Neither is a threat to Batman who should be able to knock them out with a big fat Bat-punch to their faces.
5. The Audience. Brilliant. We get 2 films aimed at 15-year-olds and over and the third installment is a PG. As such the violence is cartoonish and everything's a bit sweet and brightly coloured. Save your bright colours for Spider-man. Batman is the DARK Knight and lives in GOTHAM City. They're not ironic titles after all.
I'm bored of listing now because everything about the film annoyed me pretty much. So Joel was trying to make and homage to the sixties show. He should have been told "Tough-fucking-shit!". Just because it worked back then doesn't mean it works in the '95. The contrast between this and its predecessor is huge. So much so in fact that it's difficult to even see this as being the next installment at all - rather the film of a two film series. Sadly that's not to be as Pat Hingle and Michael Gough reprised their roles to give the series its only shred of continuity. Bet they felt proud about that at some point. Poor sods.
Nevertheless, go to my Twitter feed and see the first few Twitter commentaries I did for the film. I only covered the last ten minuted or so but I still had plenty to grumble about.
No comments:
Post a Comment