Batman & Robin

I was right and wrong. It's not the worst superhero film ever. Not even close. But I also feel absolutely no need to be lenient.

We'll do this review in two parts. The first part will be me discussing in broader terms why the movie not only failed to be good, but failed to connect with viewers. The second part of the review will be me detailing everything I can remember was wrong with the film.

First off, I mentioned this is NOT the worst superhero film of all time. Spawn is. And it's not even close. Why is this movie better than Spawn? Well, Spawn was so incompetently written and directed, and the special effects were so terrible, those things actually made the movie hard to follow and incomprehensible. This is the worst Batman film. But there was no part of it I was confused by. It's relative dumbness and obvious nature automatically makes it better than Spawn.

But the movie is terrible. But I wonder where exactly all the vitriol is coming from. "Matt, it's terrible. Isn't that enough?" No. It really does not explain that level of hate. Plenty of movies exactly as terrible as this (or worse) have become very successful. What was the specific thing that stopped this terrible movie from finding an audience?

Here is my best guess. The movie is not made for a single person who would ever like it.

Scripts this bad, with performances this bad, and every other failing this movie has routinely find followings. Specifically I'm think of the live-action TV shows and movies on Nickelodeon and Disney Channel. You want to tell me Descendants is not as painfully cringe as this? You are either lying to me, or lying to yourself. The thing is, Descendants may be pure trash (and it is). But it's geared towards little kids who eat up pure trash with a spoon as if it were an ice cream Sundae. There is plenty of quality children's television and movies out there. But although most of that shit is well-regarded by kids, the REALLY popular stuff, that sells merch and starts fads is ALL garbage. Without exception. Some preschool stuff like Bluey and Sesame Street don't fit that mold, but once preteens graduate from toddler shows, the best loved stuff is always dreck. Without fail.

If this movie had been released with a PG rating, was a reboot unrelated to the previous films, and was hyped to death on kiddie networks, it would have done well. And all they'd need to do is take out those ridiculous molded S&M costumes, and gross Poison Ivy perviness. I will argue with my dying breath the script and performances to The Goonies are exactly this bad, dumb, and obvious. And that movie has a HUGE fandom. Why? Because it knew its audience and knew what they liked.

This movie has the intelligence of a Disney Channel kidcom and it's marketed as an PG-13 summer blockbuster. Anybody who WOULD like something this dumb and trashy is too young to see a movie this inappropriate. The film being terrible is almost besides the point. The actual problem is the film did not market itself to a specific demographic, and by not doing that, it alienated ALL of them. It's such an obvious mistake. But in fairness, out of all the shots I've seen taken at this movie, this idea of mine is not something I've previously read. Probably because for most people, terrible films are unacceptable, period, no ifs, ands, or buts. But terrible films exist. And many of the kiddie variety find major success. If this dumb script had been aimed at 7 year olds in appropriateness instead of just intelligence, it would have been a smash. Adults would hate it but adults hate ALL dumb crap kids love. Not because they don't understand it. But because it's crap. The movie did not need to be any better than it was to not have bombed. It needed to get rid of the S&M bondage stuff. This exact movie with a PG movie rating and sensibility would have been a trashy smash.

Let's get to as many of the things the film did wrong as I can remember. This were SO much bad stuff I will invariably miss a ton of stuff.

Arnold Schwarzenegger being billed first in the main titles automatically turned me against the film. And damn it Batman 89 did the same thing. If you bill an actor playing a Batman villain before the actor playing Batman, you don't actually give a shit about the project. You are just trying to sell movie tickets. And this is DC's entire problem, and the reason they cast Ben Affleck as Batman to begin with. But no. I'm not going to ever pretend Batman being billed as the second most important character after Mr. Freeze is anything but a failing.

The movie next transitions into a disturbing rubber fetish snap-on scene. The bat-nipples are gross enough. Has anyone ever pointed out how messed up the molded ass-cheeks are? What the hell is wrong with Joel Schumacher anyways?

The performances are all terrible. It's hard to believe Uma Thurman was ever in quality Oscar-nominated stuff like Pulp Fiction she is so bad here. Ah-nuld is bad as Mr. Freeze too, but what REALLY frustrates me is I kept asking myself, "Why isn't he playing BANE, and why isn't Bane the main villain in that scenario?" Arnie would have KILLED that role.

Robin is a completely annoying emo twerp. He's so freaking stupid it's outright damaging at this point. Chris O'Donnell is not as bad in the role as Titans' Brendan Thwaites. But he's the only other Dick Grayson actor who is close.

Vivica A Fox's career was quite humiliating in this time period. Like the stripper she played in Independence Day, I felt sorry for her.

It doesn't just bother me that Barbara gets into the entire secret Batfile by guessing a password. But that Alfred chose a password for THAT sensitive intel with just three letters. Worse, how was Uncle Wilfred supposed to open it if Barbara couldn't? Alfred never sent along the password himself, which you think he would have done for somebody he wanted to read that.

I love that somehow makes her a "computer expert" later in the film. I'd laugh but none of the jokes in the film are actually funny.

This next gripe goes for the Burton crap too, but I am very aware I am watching a production on a soundstage. I am not a person who demands realism in films in that way. But every single bit of footage looks like it was shot on a movie set. Because it was. There are no actual outdoor scenes and even the more "grounded" sets like Wayne Manor were clearly built on a stage because no location in real life actually looks like that.

Robin's rubber lips made me groan because it's stupider than the film needed to be. They could have just said Batman injected him with an antitoxin before his and Ivy's rendezvous and I'd not only buy it, I wouldn't think the movie is totally freaking dumb.

The screenplay is written by Akiva Goldsman. Goldsman co-created one of my favorite recent shows, Star Trek: Picard, but after this, I'm wondering why anyone ever bothered to hire him again. And yes, I see MUCH of the TV show Titans (which he also co-created and had a big hand in) in this movie's dumb dialogue, unlikable characters, and bad acting.

I thought Bruce's scenes with Alfred were kind of sweet and were a rare thing in the movie I liked.

But Alfred coincidentally has the same made-up disease as Nora Fries? A cynic would call that beyond unlikely. I just call it stupid.

Jason Woodrue (the Floronic Man in the comics) is in the movie, badly played by John Glover. It's weird I've never heard that pointed out before.

A lot of dance numbers and colorful choreographed fight sequences. I mentioned the film looks like a soundstage. A lot of the visuals look like the freaking Ice Capades.

So that's my review. In short, NOT the worst superhero film ever made. And the fact that it's terrible isn't its actual problem. It could have been a hit anyways if they had geared it towards little kids. They'd barely need to even change the script if they did that. 0.