I was watching Batman 4 last night (a.k.a., Batman and Robin) and I recall the somewhat vicious hate-on for Schwarzeneggar’s character Mr. Freeze in the movie. Heck, I thought he was the one likable thing in it. Sure, the movie was stupid and incredible obnoxious, but I loved Mr. Freee. He had me rolling in stitches. He conducted a band of murderous but shivering hockey thugs in a rousing rendition of “Frost Miser”! And the fact that he pulled off those lame cold-based jokes with a straight face - hilarious.
OK, so it was in some ways symbolic what was wrong with the series. Really bad drama, piss-poor action, halfway decent comedy. But Schwarzeneggar himself can’t really be blamed for it.
If anyone, you’d go to the director and producer. But Clooney’s Batman and Alicia Silverstone’s (chubby) batgirl were incredibly annoying. The later was totally useless and adding precisely zip. Clooney was just awful, though. I could never understand how he got in as Batman. He can maybe pull off a halfway decent Bruce-Wayne-as-playboy, but totally lacks the menace or presence of Batman. Heck, he lacks the menace and presence of Alfred. I don’t know why Val Kilmer didn’t come back (maybe he saw the script and bailed). He was in some ways the perfect straight man for the Batman-as-parody.
You could also maybe point to Uma Thurman’s Poison Ivy, but the character was pretty ridiculous and not given much to work with, so I can let it slide. Bane isn’t worth mentioning.
I have to agree. The Freeze character and his lines were atrociously written (I don’t think he had a single line that wasn’t written as a catchphrase) was, but Schwartzenegger did about as good a job with it as was possible, and was definitely the least bad part of the film.
:: donning body armor, putting shield on right hand and mace in left before answering ::
I kind of like Batman & Robin. The opening action sequence --everything from the museum to the escape from the FreezeShip–rocks. Moreover, I thought both Clooney & Arnold acquitted themselves as well as was possible given the limitations of the material and the fact that Shumacker is from the anti-matter universe. Okay, Thurman and O’Donnell were horrible, and Silverstone, for some strange reason, remains entirely clothed the entire time, but it’s not as bad as it could have been.
By the way, I don’t think there’s any justification for calling it “Batman 4.” None of the movies were numbered, and given the radical shift in tone between Batman Returns & Batman Forever, you could quite reasonably say that Forever is a sequel to the Adam West film, not the Burton series.
By that time the entire franchise consisted of a couple of very limited things that don’t add up to Good Movie.
1> Cram as many villains into the picture for no apparent reason, giving none of them much of anything to do right.
2> The “Oooo look, we got REALLY BIG STAR X to play the part!” Hollywood problem. Who gives a fuck who you got for a part that has no reason to exist? That’s not art or entertainment, it’s Vanity.
3> Crappy Cliche’d Dialog that exists only for one-liners, trailers and clips. Doesn’t make a movie watchable or enjoyable.
4> Plot? We don’t need no stinkin’ plot! We got Arnold and George and Uma all looking pretty and spouting hilarious one-liners! What more do you want?
One villain is good.
Two villains are one-half as good.
Three villains are one-eighth as good.
Four villains are one-sixteenth as good.
Five villains are unwatchable.
Batman and Robin had four villains, including Vivaca A. Fox as “Ms. B. Haven.” Her name ought to count as an extra villain all by itself.
By way of rebuttal, I point to Superman II (either two, four, or five villains, depending on how you count) Batman Begins (two villains) and The Dark Night (two villains).
In some ways that’s the exception which proves the rule. Note that in the first two cases, the villains were effectively a team working on the same side. IN the Dark Knight,
Two-Face wasn’t even entirely a villain. Through msot of the movie Harvey Dent is a real hero, albeit one is a desperate situation. He only crosses the line when he cracks. He’s not so much a “villain” in that sense.
I’m apparently going to need a force field belt, then, because I can say, without qualification, that I think Batman & Robin is a fantastic movie. Better than Batman Begins.
I know that, technically, opinions can’t be wrong. Regardless, that’s an indefensible statement.
I agree that Arnold, the actor, was as good as he could have been. Arnold’s character, on the other hand, was so poorly written and conceived that I can’t help but blame anyone even vaguely associated with it, and by extension, the entire film.
Arnie did as well as can be expected with the material he got. Unfortunately, that material was 99 44/100% crap. That’s not Arnie’s fault (except insofar as he showed poor judgment in signing up for that movie).
Well, I didn’t much like Batman Begins, so I’m not sure how to react to that. No, scratch that. BB was boring in spots; B&R, after the amusingly silly opening sequence, was actively repellent.
I’ve loved Val Kilmer in several roles, but by most accounts, he’s a major prima donna and a royal pain to deal with. Before “Batman and Robin” came out, when Premiere magazine asked Joel Schumacher why Clooney had been given the role of Batman, he answered, “Val Kilmer was fired for being an asshole. End of story.”
As it turns out, Kilmer was lucky to be fired!
Schumacher gets to be remembered as the hack who destroyed a franchise.
I liked Batman Forever. Jim Carrey and Tommy Lee Jones are big names, but they worked with the roles very well. Then Batman & Robin proved Schumacher went off the deep end.
