![Tyson hall west chester university](https://knopkazmeya.com/11.png)
It’s chockablock with self-absorbed characters who act but don’t interact, passing through the story and waving to each other across great emotional distances before the whole vehicle doesn’t end so much as it grinds to a halt. There’s even a kiss-and-make-up to McDonald’s in the opening scene, with Batman informing Alfred “I’ll get drive through”-a lovely little moment that fits conveniently into a raft of McCommercials.Īs a film, however-as a genuine movie, an artistic vision, a blend of screenwriter, director, cast and crew-it’s a mishmash. And for today’s movie-going audiences, why, that’s just fine. Cotton candy for the mind that dissolves if taste is applied. It’s a no-brainer, designed to be watched and not observed, seen and not thought about. And in this, Batman Forever succeeds admirably. So Batman Forever was conceived to rectify all the “excesses” that had gone before: to bring in a kinder, gentler, more McDonald’s-safe Batman. Whoever heard of grim and gritty Happy Meals? (Well, gritty, maybe…) McDonald’s, as I recall, was particularly upset. So, too, were licensees and parents who felt uncomfortable at the film’s tone and style. The underling wasn’t the only one whose nose was put out of joint. Tim Burton, having given Batman a dark, foreboding feel in the first film, went above and beyond in Batman Returns, stepping up the level of both sexuality and grimness (particularly with the Catwoman licking scene, the Penguin-bites-an-underling’s-nose-off scene, and the copious amounts of blood pouring from the Penguin’s own proboscis at one point). The Batman “franchise” took a direct hit with Batman Returns.
![batman forever movie review batman forever movie review](https://www.moviemem.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/BATMANFOREVERUS1SHADVKILMER.jpg)
The twofold purpose of Batman Forever is evident from practically the first scene, and that purpose would appear to be: To serve as damage control and to look good. So upon viewing Batman Forever, you must consider: What were they trying to put up on the screen? A film of daring, singular viewpoint? A dark, foreboding, ground-breaking endeavor that would redefine and reshape the way comic books are portrayed? James Cameron wasn’t trying to be Orson Welles (although Ed Wood was trying, but let’s not get into that.) When you consider a movie, one thing that should be factored in is: What were the movie makers trying to produce? It’s pointless to criticize Terminator, for instance, because it’s not Citizen Kane. Originally published July 14, 1995, in Comics Buyer’s Guide #1130
![Tyson hall west chester university](https://knopkazmeya.com/11.png)