Thirty years ago, Joel Schumacher’s Batman Forever flapped its way into theaters.
The film proved to be something of a conundrum, though, since it was an undisputed financial success ($330 million+) but not as warmly received by critics and fans as Tim Burton’s Batman movies. Acclaimed film critic Roger Ebert summed up the sentiment well, writing, “Is the movie better entertainment? Well, it’s great bubble gum for the eyes. And younger children will be able to process it more easily.”
Unquestionably, you can smell the stench of the Warner Bros.’ marketing department all over Batman Forever, almost as if they puked out all the color over the aesthetic and knew barf would sell Happy Meals. Three decades after its release and the onslaught of superhero films that have come thereafter, you can’t help but look back at the film and think, “You know what? Batman Forever is actually quite fun and deserves its flowers.”
Val Kilmer was a better Batman than people give him credit for
When it comes to casting Batman in a film, there’s a cycle: Fans hate the chosen actor. They complain about it mercilessly before watching the movie. They finally watch the film and appreciate the actor. The actor gets recast. The fans rage again.
This happens. Every. Single. Time.
Michael Keaton wasn’t anyone’s first choice to be the Dark Knight, but he made sure that everyone sucked on those sour lemons after his brave and bold display. He became the Batman. Naturally, most fans were disappointed when Keaton followed Burton and departed the third film. There were numerous big names linked with the part, including Ethan Hawke and William Baldwin. In the end, though, Schumacher got his man: Val Kilmer.
Kilmer was something of an acting prodigy, having built up a reputation as being a generational talent at Juilliard and receiving rave reviews whenever he appeared in anything. Yet, he was also renowned for being extremely difficult to work with – something that would ensure he wouldn’t return to the Batcave again due to his clashes with Schumacher on set.
The behind-the-scenes issues aside, Kilmer excelled as both Bruce Wayne and the Caped Crusader. As Ebert pointed out in his review, the Batman movies at this time were all about the villains, and Batman Forever was no different with Tommy Lee Jones’ Two-Face and Jim Carrey’s Riddler having a ball and wreaking havoc in Gotham City. The baddies received the best lines and moments in the film, but Kilmer brought a quiet intensity to both facets of his character. Do yourself a favor and search out a few of the deleted scenes from the movie on YouTube to see how Kilmer was doing with his character what Christian Bale would later do in Batman Begins, but it was removed from the final version of the film.
Kilmer put in such a powerful performance that Batman co-creator Bob Kane called him the best actor to have put on the cape and cowl up at that point – even better than Keaton. “Michael did well with what he possesses physically, but Val’s more Batmanesque,” Kane told Cinescape. “He’s suave and laid back, and he personifies Batman and Bruce Wayne more than Michael, who frankly doesn’t have the chiseled characteristics I drew in the comic book.”
Kane’s praise didn’t stop here, as he added, “He’s more Valentino – he’s handsome in a movie-star way, where Michael Keaton is the boy next door. His derring-do deeds are very acrobatic, too; he does a lot of his own stunts.”
So, if Batman’s co-creator says this about Kilmer in Batman Forever, who are we to argue any differently?
The silly story shines because of the actors
Batman Forever‘s story is typical comic book movie fodder from the ’90s. Riddler teams up with Two-Face as he creates a device to get inside the minds of Gotham’s citizens and steal their secrets – including uncovering the true identity of Batman. It’s up to the Dark Knight and his new partner, Robin (Chris O’Donnell), to learn how to work together to defeat the rogues.
It’s also incredibly cheesy, as Carrey’s Riddler, in particular, hams it up whenever he can. Whether he’s thrusting into the air or creeping through the scene like a Tex Avery creation, there’s so much camp here that you half expected Adam West and Burt Ward to be revealed as the real Batman and Robin here.
While none of this is Aaron Sorkin or Christopher Nolan in its approach, there is a special Saturday morning cartoon quality to the film. It isn’t too dark nor too heavy on the brain, establishing itself as a popcorn blockbuster that’s always fun and never boring. The actors all knew their roles here, accepting the number one assignment: to entertain for the greater cause.
Obviously, the biggest test of the film is how it stands up 30 years later. Are there better superhero films out there? Sure. Is this the best Batman movie ever made? Nope. But is it still two hours of entertainment you don’t regret watching? Absolutely.
‘Batman & Robin’ made ‘Batman Forever’ look like ‘The Last of the Mohicans’ in comparison
For those who criticized Batman Forever for being too poppy and colorful, they weren’t prepared for what came next in 1997. Warner Bros. doubled down on everything it had done and released the extra-long toy commercial known as Batman & Robin. While Batman Forever had the marketing department in mind, Batman & Robin appeared like it was the marketers who wrote and directed it. It turned out to be gimmicky, noisy, and ultimately soulless. Also, it almost single handedly destroyed the comic book movie genre in totality, as no studio wanted to touch these properties for a few years thereafter.
As mentioned above, Batman Forever isn’t the greatest superhero film of all time, but it got a lot more right than it did wrong. Fun remained its core focus, and it features a number of unforgettable performances that we still speak about to this day. So, maybe it’s time that we put some respect on its name.
Leave a Reply