Film Review: Batman Forever

"Batman Forever"

*** (out of ****)

The title "Batman Forever" (1995) isn't a declarative statement. An imposing threat to the villains of Gotham City - Batman will be here forever! Be warned! Instead it is a question. Remember because of the appearance of the Riddler character some of the movie's marketing placed a question mark behind the batman logo. We can interpret this as asking the question, will Batman last forever? Will Bruce Wayne continue to lead his dual life as Batman? Exactly how much longer can he go on and be willing to sacrifice leading a "normal life"?

It is an interesting question and is at the heart of what makes Batman/Bruce Wayne tick? Who is Bruce Wayne? Has he completely lost his identity to his own creation? Is Batman the dominate personality? Why does Bruce Wayne continue to go on as Batman, fighting crime, putting himself in danger? What is the end game? That even leads to a question of morality. Would it be the right thing for Bruce Wayne to step down as a defender of Gotham?

These are all important questions that, in theory, "Batman Forever" contemplates. Unfortunately, I feel these ideas were never well executed. Some readers will think I am a looney tune for saying this but a Batman movie that did a better job of addressing these conflicts was the animated movie, "Batman: Mask of the Phantasm" (1993). I understand some adults reading this may be shocked that I could suggest a children's animated movie could in any way surpass a live-action movie but first of all, "Batman Forever" kind of wants to be a live-action cartoon. Secondly, animation doesn't have to be limited and restricted to the confines of kiddie entertainment. Animation is one of many tools a filmmaker can utilize to tell a story. See the stunning "Waltz with Bashir" (2008) and "Grave of the Fireflies" (1988) as examples. "Mask of the Phantasm" hit at the heart of Bruce Wayne's inner conflict and the guilt he would feel for not fulfilling a promise he made to honor his parents. That alone is deeper than anything we see on the surface in "Batman Forever". 

"Batman Forever" of course marked the beginning of a new direction for the Batman franchise. Some say this was because of the "dark" nature of "Batman Returns" (1992) and news stories of parents complaining their children were scared. Warner Brothers wanted to lighten things up. As a result Tim Burton would not return as the director - Burton says at the indirect request of the studio - and was replaced by Joel Schumacher. Burton would instead serve as a producer. Michael Keaton would not return either. Val Kilmer would now don the cape. Forgive my language but this is all a lot of horseradish! People that want to go on and on about the "serious" nature of Burton's Batman movies need to rewatch them. There was a playful tone in "Batman Returns". The Penguin travels by a giant rubber ducky in the sewers of Gotham.

Both Danny DeVito and Michelle Pfeiffer got a lot of comedic mileage out of their interpretations of the Penguin and Catwoman. There was an inappropriate amount of sexual double entendres however. Think of all the "pussy" references that were made because of the name "Catwoman". The Batman franchise was already headed in a kid friendly direction. I've said it before and I will say it again, "Batman Returns" was not a serious, dramatic movie. If children were having nightmares from the movie, God help them. The world would only become a much more scarier place for them. I was nine years old when I saw "Batman Returns" in a movie theater with my father. I hated the movie but not because it scared me. I thought it was "too dark". Not dark in content. Dark in terms of lighting. I could barely see the images on-screen. For me, as a child, the best thing about "Batman Returns" was the trading cards I collected (I still have them).

Still whatever qualms Warner Brothers may have had about the direction of the franchise, "Batman Forever" should have alleviated them. The movie was a massive box-office hit that outgrossed "Batman Returns". Personally, I was 12 when the movie hit theaters and it was the first Batman movie I saw that I liked. I even saw it twice in a movie theater. I went crazy over the movie. I had a poster hanging on my wall, bought the video game for my Sega, collected the trading cards and bought the movie on VHS (all of which I still have)! I even dressed up as The Riddler that Halloween! If Warner Brothers wanted to get kids enthused about Batman it most certainly worked on me.

Over the years some have re-evaluated "Batman Forever" and claim the movie is better than the reputation that proceeds it. Many believe Joel Schumacher took the franchise away from the "serious tone" of the Burton movies and turned the movies into over-the-top kid friendly cartoons. I would agree with that assessment when discussing "Batman & Robin" (1997) however "Batman Forever" does retain some praise worthy qualities. The best of these qualities may be the visuals. For Burton's first Batman movie I wrote Burton was creating a visual representation of the disturbed mind of its two lead characters in the way Gotham was presented. In "Batman Forever" Gotham is much brighter but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Check out the opening sequence and a circus sequence. Schumacher's Gotham features a lot of neon lights but still has a futuristic quality a la "Metropolis" (1927) that Burton's film also had. Also look out for a visual motif involving eyes. We see this when a helicopter crashes into a billboard sign of an eye, the circus ring looks like an eye when shot from above and the movie fades in and out of close-ups of character's eyes. Sight and vision are important to the story.

While the movie's reputation suggests the performance are "too broad", I found I enjoyed Tommy Lee Jones' performance as Two-Face/ Harvey Dent - replacing Billy Dee Williams who played Dent in the first two movies. Yes it is an exaggerated performance indicative of the comical direction the franchise was headed in, I see as as Jones being committed to the character. He goes all out in his performance. Did I come away with any real understanding of the character on an emotional level? No. But as a visual presentation Jones hits it out of the park and has a lot of fun with the character. Jim Carrey on the other hand as The Riddler/Edward Nygma is just a bit too extreme by comparison. If someone believes Jones is working at a "10", Carrey hits an "11". For me Carrey's best moments are when he is playing Edward. This is a complete contrast to my feelings at 12. This was the first movie that made me like Carrey. We also see more of a story arc for this character than Two-Face. Maybe because Carrey was much more popular with a younger demographic than Jones.

As with the other Batman movies there is a female lead character meant to represent a possible path to a normal life for Bruce Wayne. A woman he could love, start a family with and put away the cape for. But the females are always placed in the middle with their competing affections being torn between Bruce Wayne and Batman, usually with Batman being the more interesting object of interest for them. Two of the women - Vickie Vale in the first movie and Dr. Chase Meridian (Nicole Kidman) here use their work as their own mask to justify their obsession. Vale was a photographer and Chase is a psychologist that sees Batman as an interesting case study. But makes very direct passes at the Cape Crusader. As much as I enjoy Nicole Kidman as an actress - I believe she is one of our finest working today - she isn't given enough in "Batman Forever" and comes across as the weakest character especially when compared to the other larger-than-life characters comprising the rest of the movie, competing for our attention. Chase comes across as more of a symbol than a character.

I've come across some internet comments stating "Batman Forever" has an erotic quality to it because of the relationship between Chase and Batman. Even former Chicago Sun-Times movie critic Roger Ebert seemed fixated on this notion. While it most definitely is present it takes up such a small portion of the movie. It is not the dominate theme of the movie. "Batman Forever" wants to explore the issues of duality, which is always a central concept to any Batman story. Duality also expands to the villains as well. This is perfectly illustrated with the Two-Face character and an inner conflict between good vs evil. There is the duality of the other characters too - The Riddler, Robin/Dick Grayson (Chris O'Donnell) and even Alfred (Michael Gough) who is more than merely a butler but also leads a secret life as Batman's assistant and confidant.

And yet I never felt the movie explores Bruce Wayne's duality in the most compelling, dramatic and thoughtful way it could have. Kilmer himself delivers a fine performance and was a suitable replacement for Michael Keaton. I suppose the best compliment I can pay Kilmer is to say, watching the movie I didn't once miss Keaton and think to myself, gee I wonder what Keaton could have added to this material. Kilmer makes the role his own but again I felt the material restricts him from truly being able to examine the dramatic components dealing with the character. He could have been more than capable of being a love interest to Chase as Bruce Wayne and deal with the struggles of letting go of the Batman identity. 

One interesting commentary the movie makes that is truly relevant today is a device Edward creates that has the ability to manipulate brain waves. It is simply called "the box" and seems to function the way a cable box does. It creates 3-D images, turning the viewer into a zombie like state as the brain waves somehow are transmitted to Edward. Social media and "smart" phones weren't created at the time but this is clearly a criticism of technology like cable and the internet. Edward even mentions he now has information like credit cards, social security numbers and even insights into people's sexual fantasies. And while "the box" can extract information from the brain it can also input ideas. Unfortunately, society has been all but determined to embrace and live up to the horrific future movies like this warned us we would become.

There was talk a few year ago of a #Schumachercut of "Batman Forever" much like the #Snydercut of "Justice League" (2017). This would have been a longer version - approximately 50 minutes - that according to Schumacher would have a more serious tone and explores Bruce Wayne/ Batman a bit more. Sadly there are no plans currently by Warner Brothers to release this version. Another version of "Batman Forever" that has floated around dealt with what might have been if Burton had stayed on as director. Billy Dee Williams would have continued to play Harvey Dent with the idea once turned into Two-Face he would be half black-half white - much like the animated version of the character. And Robin/Dick Grayson would have been played by Marlon Wayans. We kind of got to see this version in the comic book "Batman '89" series back in 2021 written by screenwriter Sam Hamm, which I have read. 

"Batman Forever" is not a great movie but it is not the disappointment so many sheep claim it is. As usual the general public really over does things and swings too far in one direction or another. The movie should have focused more on Bruce Wayne/Batman inner conflict, possibly eliminate one of the villains and given much more for the Chase character to do. Still this was a worthy follow-up to the Burton movies. It is a different style but that doesn't mean it is a weakness. Watch the animated Batman movie, "Mask of the Phantasm" as well.