How many times have you seen B&R?

[thecolorsblend]

My defense of Spider-Man 3 is two parts- (1) as most people say it's too big, how many action movies can credibly be accused of having too many good ideas? (2) Peter's dark side is more of a really poorly lit side... hence the dancing and showboating. He's not even really evil, he's just a jerk. Yeah, maybe he cries too much in the movie, I'll ride with that, but there's a lot to enjoy about Spider-Man 3. Perfect? Maybe not but I find it more watchable than basically any of Nolan's Batman movies. Yeah, that's right, I said it.

[The Dark Knight]

My defense of Spider-Man 3 is two parts- (1) as most people say it's too big, how many action movies can credibly be accused of having too many good ideas? (2) Peter's dark side is more of a really poorly lit side... hence the dancing and showboating. He's not even really evil, he's just a jerk. Yeah, maybe he cries too much in the movie, I'll ride with that, but there's a lot to enjoy about Spider-Man 3. Perfect? Maybe not but I find it more watchable than basically any of Nolan's Batman movies. Yeah, that's right, I said it.

Absolutely. Spider-Man 3 is excellent. It did something new, whereas the reboot was more of the same mehness. Give me too many ideas any day of the week. I really liked the movie starting with Spider-Man being loved. At some point in time, NYC would either hate the guy or celebrate the fact their city has been saved multiple times. The latter happened for a brief time, and I buy it. Peter's 'dark side' is endearing and exactly what I imagine Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker to be like when exposed to pure evil. That's his idea of being bad - asking for more cookies and dancing up the street without inhibitions. A geek with a good heart unchained.

[gordonblu]

This situation shows what an excellent writer Chris Nolan is. He used Two-Face in the same capacity in The Dark Knight and yet pulled him off far more effectively. I was not disappointed with his featured appearance in the finale because the set up had been done so well throughout the rest of the film.

I have to disagree with you. I know Nolan intended for Harvey to be the "heart and soul" of the picture, but he comes across more like an after thought. In addition there is no inkling of conflict within him during the latter scenes, and the coin comes across like even more of a gimmick than it ever did in BF (and it was very poorly handled in that film as well). Harvey and Eddie are VERY comparable as well due to the fact that they are unnecessarily dumped (i.e. killed) with very little fanfare from the directors and little to no remorse from our heroes. At least with Eddie, his descent into villainy had a slightly stronger foundation and his actions as Venom seem more in keeping with the established character (minus the unimpressive Venom voice). Nolan's Harvey never really felt like the comic book character come to life.

[Azrael]

It's funny how things turn out.

Actually I knew beforehand that my life's purpose in 1997 would be to perform the Sub-Zero fatality on the one responsible for this. Back in the pre-internet days (at least pre-internet when it comes to easy access to information and communities) film magazines in print were a much bigger deal than they are now. They were a source for news, as well as for what we considered "informed opinions", they were our access to cinema. The most widely read film magazine where I live was, and stilll is, ΣΙΝΕΜΑ (CINEMA), and their staff were largely fans, or at least admirers, of Tim Burton. They ripped Batman Forever apart (something that I have to admit influenced my own opinion for many years), and their Batman & Robin coverage before the film came out was largely cynical with a "We know it will suck, let's see how much" tone.

Some things never change. In a recent Summer 2012 feature they did on all thing Batman, they still said good things about B'89, hailed Batman Returns as a masterpiece, and still ripped the two Schumacher films apart. Is it an official party line?

With that said, I've watched it too many times to admit, its a safe choice when we need some brainless fun, we put it once a year. Was Alan Moore right when she put certain words in Silk Spectre's mouth, talking about how the past and its less "savory" aspects work as you grow up? Maybe. It's also a lot of fun, Arnie is hilarious, and there's also this Batman/Conan connection with his participation in a Batman film (in the abominable but entertaining Conan the Destroyer 1984, the future Mr. Freeze has the future Bob the Goon, Tracey Walter, as a comedic sidekick).

On the subject to the above discussion, I think some often maligned films like Spider-Man 3 and X-Men 3 or Wolverine have nothing on Batman & Robin - none of them set out to deliberately make a joke out of their main character!

It still counts as a Batman. If the 60s show does, this does too. That show had joke versions of Mr. Freeze too (he first appeared with that name in the show). Ivy was still true to the basics, just exaggerated. The only "real" problems were Batgirl's origin and Bane. Bane was basically one of Ivy's plant zombies in a Bane mask, an "in name only" appearance.

/end of rant

[thecolorsblend]

I've come around quite a bit on B&R too. Good? Eye of the beholder. But it's aged better than its predecessors in that B89 was always fondly regarded, BR was underrated but it has improved in the last ten or so years and Forever has diminished significantly. Meanwhile, B&R was monkey vomit on celluloid that has slowly built up some credibility. Not much but it's not quite the completely hollow and vacuous experience people thought. It's FUN. Maybe the Nolan movies have gotten to me but I find I really miss fun Batman films. And B&R definitely scratches that itch.

Besides, it has several unassailable truths- Batman never kills anybody, there's no distracting and unnecessary love interest (go back and watch it, Julie is a non-entity) and no extraneous characters find out Batman's secret identity... all things that the other films, particularly the Nolan ones, cannot claim. Confront a fan with that and watch him make a "you just kicked me in the balls" face as he tries futilely to think up a rebuttal.

[riddler]

I've come around quite a bit on B&R too. Good? Eye of the beholder. But it's aged better than its predecessors in that B89 was always fondly regarded, BR was underrated but it has improved in the last ten or so years and Forever has diminished significantly. Meanwhile, B&R was monkey vomit on celluloid that has slowly built up some credibility. Not much but it's not quite the completely hollow and vacuous experience people thought. It's FUN. Maybe the Nolan movies have gotten to me but I find I really miss fun Batman films. And B&R definitely scratches that itch.

Besides, it has several unassailable truths- Batman never kills anybody, there's no distracting and unnecessary love interest (go back and watch it, Julie is a non-entity) and no extraneous characters find out Batman's secret identity... all things that the other films, particularly the Nolan ones, cannot claim. Confront a fan with that and watch him make a "you just kicked me in the balls" face as he tries futilely to think up a rebuttal.

Your last part hit the nail on the head; every one of the first 3 film had the same subplot rehashed; villains find out wayne is Batman, Bruce falls in love and has to save his love interest as Batman. The only character who finds out Bruces secret through the course of the film is Barbara. Compare that to batman forever in which Dick, Chase, Two Face, and the riddler all find out or the dark knight  rises where everyone and their grandmother find out.

[Bobthegoon89]

I always found it interesting that even though The Penguin sees Bruce's face at the end of Batman Returns it is questionable if he even knows who the hell he is. He never meets Bruce Wayne or appears to have any such knowledge of him. So I think Oswald is a rare case of yes seeing the man behind the mask like everyone else but the info is quite useless when you don't know their name lol

This might also be the case with The Joker. Although Batman dramatically announces to him he's the murderer of his parents The Joker seems to take it as a put on almost. Let's not forget he's a raving lunatic. It's questionable if Jack even remembers killing his parents. So I think there The Joker isn't quite getting what Batman's referring too.

[phantom stranger]

I always found it interesting that even though The Penguin sees Bruce's face at the end of Batman Returns it is questionable if he even knows who the hell he is. He never meets Bruce Wayne or appears to have any such knowledge of him. So I think Oswald is a rare case of yes seeing the man behind the mask like everyone else but the info is quite useless when you don't know their name lol

That's one of the aspects I liked about the Burton movies. Wayne is the opposite of Tony Stark. He's not on magazine covers, he's not dating movie stars and he's certainly not racing in the Grand Prix. Most people wouldn't recognize him if they met him.

[thecolorsblend]

Your last part hit the nail on the head; every one of the first 3 film had the same subplot rehashed; villains find out wayne is Batman, Bruce falls in love and has to save his love interest as Batman. The only character who finds out Bruces secret through the course of the film is Barbara. Compare that to batman forever in which Dick, Chase, Two Face, and the riddler all find out or the dark knight in their rises where everyone and their grandmother find out.

Yep. TDKRises is especially egregious since it never even bothers to explain how Bane knew Bruce is Batman. Bruce had only been operating as Batman for, what, a month tops before Ra's died? Am I to suppose that Ra's texted Bane Batman's secret identity during that interval? It's ridiculous.

[Bobthegoon89]

Your forgetting Bane was in league (taking orders) from Talia. And she certainly knew who was to blame for her father's death. Bane no doubt inherited the information from her. Okay we didn't see where she was during Batman Begins but she was around somewhere. Surely she was filled in at undisclosed points by Ra's himself.

A little imagination is all you need folks. Don't suffer from "Total Nolan exposition syndrome". Try a dose of "Burton imagination" instead for plothole headaches lol