Thus far, the worst thing about the movie: A-list bad guy actor typecasting. Okay, so it is an Arnold type of a movie, but it still doesn't make Arnold a very good pick for it, in my opinion. And why is Poison Ivy done exactly like Catwoman? Super sexy villain, super awkward before that?
Two consistent characters (by actor) throughout the series. Guess who? Alfred and Comissioner Gordon.
Wait, Barbara isn't Gordon's daughter, but Alfred's niece? With the Animated Series having kicked off, I can see how this movie would rise some Batfan hackles. Batman: the Animated Series gave the Batverse a Mr. Freeze that was worth his salt, with a real backstory and character depth (yea, the addition of Nora, his wife, to his concept, is a new thing). And then there's this movie, with Arnold's Freeze which, let's face it, isn't exactly Golden Globe winning material, the mixup of Barbara's backround for movie drama purposes and the rather ridiculously horrible Bane: no wonder fans were pissed. As for everyone else, well, I guess the somewhat homoerotic shots of the Bat codpiece could stir up teenage boys in the wrong kind of way. Bane atleast looks somewhat like Bane, whereas Freeze looks like... this.
Okay, so the biker thing is a kind of a what the hell -moment, but if you look at it as a movie, it's there to give character depth. As a Batman movie, B&R plays a "bit" odd: the bad guy's done with halfway in, and we end up watching a sort of a teenager drama. Then, about three quarters in, it turns into a superhero movie again. It's not very consistent, but moviewise, it's not that bad. It's especially not as bad as everyone's intent on making it out to be. It's not a spectacurarly good movie, but it's paced pretty well, you can follow it basically better than both of the Burton movies, and while it's not as good as Forever, it's a movie that I can watch without cringing (most of the time).
So, the movie is kind of stupid. In a pretty stupid way. But it's the Batman movie that gets all the bad rap, while the other three (mostly the first two) get nostalgic idolation. They're just as bad. Okay, you don't like neon lights. Personal preference. So, you really like gothic imagery. Personal preference. You think Nicholson's Joker is the best bad guy ever? Personal. Preference. You don't like the kind of cheesy special effects or the soundtrack? Those are actually, for the time, pretty damn well done, so shut it. So you don't like Arnold as Mr. Freeze, the rubber Bane or the rather humorous take? Okay, those I can accept, they are a corny kind of bad. My point? None of these make the movie that bad. Okay, the fight scenes are pretty bad, even for a Batman movie, and there's stuff like what looks to be the musical scene:
 |
| This year, it's Batman on Ice. |
Given, it's not a spectacular movie, and if it rubs you the wrong way, it's actually not very good at all, but it is not objectively crappy. It's not great, it's at best a pretty basic level of good, and it's worst part is the last 20 minutes of it, unless you like campy action scenes and quasi science with Batgimmicks. But there's no reason at all for all the rap it gets. The biggest reason for the kneejerks was probably that the kids who loved the early Batman movies had grown into their late teens or early adulthood and wanted the movie to be something like that reflected them (and let's face it, the Dawson's Creek level of "romance" there doesn't quite cut it), while the movie is still a kid's movie. Or it might be the early public rise of the internet era and hey, it's Joel Schumacher, we're supposed to hate him, right? But I'll get back to all, that later on. In the meanwhile, I give Batman & Robin a thumbs up for a campy movie night.
Prove me wrong, if you can.
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti