Batman Forever (1997, DVD)

The answer: almost always.

Maybe there's something about the medium of comic books that doesn't translate well to the big screen. How, then, do we explain the successes of the comic book movies that DO work? Like "Superman," the first two "Batman" movies, the more recent "X-Men"...all of them worked well for a few reasons:

1) They were well written by people who cared about the characters.
2) They were directed by skillful directors who had both a visual flair for the extraordinary world of superheroes and were determined to make us feel something for the characters, both heroes and villains.
3) The acting was subtle enough to let us believe that these WERE real people, even if endowed with superpowers.

The third of the modern Batman films, "Batman Forever," breaks all of these rules at least once, and some of them a few times.

Proponents of "Batman Forever" usually say that it's better than the Burton Batmans (I and II) because it's brighter, more entertaining, and not as dark and brooding as the first two. And it DID do very well at the box office, easily beating "Batman Returns," and I think even beating "Batman" domestically. That said, I think this movie is a step backwards on the evolutionary ladder, and was "Batman Lite."

Joel Schumacher replaced Tim Burton as director, and when that happened, the guano hit the fan. Michael Keaton dropped out as Batman, Robin Williams dropped out as the Riddler. After various signings and re-signings, the cast was hammered out:

Val Kilmer: Batman/Bruce Wayne
Jim Carrey: Riddler
Tommy Lee Jones: Two-Face
Chris O'Donnell: Robin/Dick Grayson
Nicole Kidman: Dr. Chase Meridian

In 1995, when this came out, I still liked several of these people--Jim Carrey was still a somewhat new phenomenon, and I hadn't been subjected to "The Truman Show," "Me, Myself, and Irene," and "The Grinch" yet. I've never liked Val Kilmer, never will. The others are all okay, but have never done anything great in my eyes (Kidman was great in this year's Moulin Rouge...but that's six years away...)

Val Kilmer makes an okay Batman, but a pampered rich kid Bruce Wayne who's a little effeminate and doesn't generate any real sympathy for the character. He's playing a parody of Michael Keaton's performance in the first two films, and seems uncomfortable as both Batman and Bruce.

Jim, Jim, Jim. I'm still debating this one with myself (no one else cares...) about whether he's entertaining with his manic cavorting or just annoying. I had become too used to the Riddler in the comics, intelligent, subtle, scheming, but with a psychotic flaw that compels him to leave Batman clues to his upcoming crimes just as I'm compelled to make Fisher Price Little People (555 and counting...). The contrast between the comics and the movie is a HUGE gulf...especially when I've come to RESPECT the villain as a villain and as a criminal genius, and then Jim Carrey is bouncing around the screen like he's lost his Ritalin.

Tommy Lee Jones' Two-Face is even more of a travesty. He hams it up to try to equal Carrey's mania, but only ends up embarrassing himself and us. The best version of Two-Face I've ever seen is in the book "The Dark Knight Returns," where we see plainly that Harvey Dent's scars aren't really on his face, but on his soul. We see echoes of that even in "Batman: The Animated Series," which devoted several episodes to Two-Face's origins. In "Batman Forever," we see the acid thrown in Dent's face, but not WHY that would make a District Attorney into a villain. Two-Face gets the shaft.

Chris O'Donnell is passable as Robin...but it's kinda odd to see a twenty-something as someone who needs to become a Ward of the State, which is what Dick Grayson becomes after his family is killed in an act of Two-Face's terrorism. It WAS nice that they kept the circus as part of Robin's history, and even that they orphaned the poor guy like that...it would have seemed more appropriate to have a Robin about Eddie Furlong's age, or Elijah Wood. Someone who still NEEDED an adult caregiver, and who couldn't quite make it on their own--and someone who wouldn't conventionally be partnered with a superhero. O'Donnell is as big as Kilmer is, and it just doesn't jive with the Batman and Robin image.

Nicole Kidman is basically just eye candy, which she does very well--ostensibly, she's a psychiatrist whose dream/fantasy is to analyze Batman...and for the third movie in a row, we have a blonde chickie who is able to do what no one else has done for generations--figure out who Batman is. She doesn't offend me in this movie, but I would have rather had her be a straightforward character instead of a dumbed-down bimbo who becomes the bait for the villains' traps.

BUT, let me say this. You could have taken the same five actors, playing the same five characters, and had a MUCH better movie if it hadn't been written by Akiva Goldsman (other fine moments: Lost in Space, Batman and Robin, Practical Magic...) and directed by Schumacher. A better writer could have elevated the same storyline and made it a fine movie--all five actors are CAPABLE of better, but no one gave them the chance or challenged them to give their best performances.

Some of the visuals were interesting--especially for the time. I think that this 1995 movie was the first time Computer Generated backgrounds were used in a mainstream movie, and even though the city isn't as realistic, film noirish, or dark as the Gotham of Burton's films, it's still not just everyday Big City USA. Grotesque statues still dot and at times support the buildings, and Gotham still seems like a city that NEEDS a Batman. The neon gangs in the scene where Dick steals the Batmobile are still ridiculous, and the scene where the Batmobile drives up a wall is too over-the-top, but so much about this movie IS. Which can be fun, but for me...it just didn't work.

A few points of the plot bugged me: The Riddler reaching the Batcave and destroying it....shouldn't have happened. Two-Face dying at the end....shouldn't have happened. Chase Meridian finding out Bruce Wayne is Batman....shouldn't have happened.

After all of the things I've said I don't like about "Batman Forever," who am I still recommending it to? Well, it still has some decent action sequences that are fun to watch. And it's still Batman, and to a geek like me, a poorly executed Batman is still better than no Batman at all....until the fourth installment in the franchise. Stay tuned.