Better than Batman and robin but still mediocre film. It tries too hard to combine Tim Burtons characters with their campy earlier versions. The result is unsatisfying movie thats more of a product than a actual piece of decent scripting!

When I first saw Batman Forever during its opening weekend at the Sony (now AMC Loews) Wayne 8 plex in NJ, I had a great time enjoying it with my dad and stepmom. I even bought the terrible video game and thought how hard it was to beat it despite having mortal kombat moves and graphics from the same developer and publisher. This movie was a big hit during the summer, only to be surpassed by Toy Story at the end of the year. The casting is perfect, with Val Kilmer in his only role as the Dark Knight, with Chris O'Donnell as Robin, who would go on to become Robin again in Batman and Robin, along with Nicole Kidman as Chase Merdian, as well as the guy who played the butler Alfred from the previous two batman movies. As for the bad guys, Jim Carrey is the Riddler and delivers an amazing performance, along with Tommy Lee Jones as Two-Face, the character of which makes a grand intro in The Dark Knight. Drew Barrymore also plays a role as one of the femme fatales. As for the pacing, it's pretty quick and easy yet a bit campy compared to the darkness of the 1989 batman and its sequel, Batman returns. The soundtrack is pretty good, with u2 and seal providing great songs at the end of the movie. The movie also was one of the first to have a website.

"Batman Forever" has all the makings of a great superhero film, the costume design are top notch, Gotham City looks great and the special effects never betray the fact that this was released in 1995, and I particularly adored the moment where the Bat-Signal became the dot under the Riddler's interrogation mark, all in flashy green. But I can also use a still frame of that moment to describe my general puzzlement toward the film. It's not bad enough to deserve a severe bashing but it's one of these cases where a film comes so close to being great that your disappointment almost amplifies the flaws. I could say that at least, this is no "Batman & Robin" but that wouldn't say much, would it? So, Burton became the producer and Joel Schumacher, although in another league of filmmaking, injected something fresh and unprecedented in a franchise that was getting maybe too dark and too gloomy for its own good. Batman is no jovial fellow but the problem when you overplay the noir tone is that you create a world where the notion of 'heroism' is totally relative. And when someone goes to such extents to save the world from crime, having to wear all these heavy costumes, and engineering the most sophisticated weapons, you've got to accept that there are positive motives behind it. At the end of "Batman Returns", I felt quite depressed, this was a movie where the villains were as misfit as the 'hero' and needed a great deal of psychotherapy. "Batman Forever" tends to get to the original format with a clearly defined hero and villain and still maintain a balanced psychological approach to Bruce Wayne. It's not all flash and no substance.And another mistake it doesn't commit is to overflow the film with villains like "Returns", this time, there are two bad guys, they're not on the same level than Joker, but together, they form a pair that is rather entertaining although a bit redundant, there's the maniac Harvey Dent two-Face played by Tommy Lee Jones and Edward Nygma aka the Riddler, a scientist played by Jim Carrey. They form a rather interesting duo except for one thing: they're equally crazy, and it's like each one tries to top the other, they're like the human versions of "The Lion King" hyenas or the weasels from "Who framed Roger Rabbi". On the other hand, Val Kilmer (a decent Batman) plays a low-key Bruce Wayne who meets journalist Chase Meredian (Nicole Kidman) with and without the costume. Well, she's obviously attracted by his leather counterpart but from his interactions, you can tell he's tempted to unveil a few of his secrets, the interactions work and prove that there's not a Batman movie with a good romantic love interest.But while Serena Kyle was also enigmatic on her own right and kind of stole Batman's thunder, Chase is that little anchor to Batman's status as a hero, even hinting at some sexual aspects of Batman, the movie generally pretends to ignore, there's a sort of self-awareness to appreciate in the film. Overall, I loved how it tried some new things while respecting a form of continuity with the previous Batman, and that includes another great performance from Michael Gough as Alfred. I guess it also gets right the encounter with Dick Grayson aka future Robin in a circus scene that has all the futuristic and baroque visuals you expect from a Batman film, spicing up the movie with a new young and rebellious protagonist who's the tumultuous Yin to Batman's yang. The Freudian undertones are subdued; we know there's something of a surrogate father in Batman with Robin, while he's also hooked to the memories of his parents' death and the conviction that he killed them somehow.But the film seems always at the edge of reaching something powerful without really getting to it, and I guess the blame is on the overuse of special effects and the villains that never find the right note. When Bruce and Grace's interview were disrupted by their entrance, I was bothered too and I didn't really care for the part where Riddler was throwing explosive balls. Sure the pyrotechnics did justice to the film's budget, but did it have more to prove on a less visual level? I seriously wish it would have tried to explore more in depth the personality of "Batman", especially from the perspective of a journalist. That's what makes "Batman Forever" a frustrating experience, moments of brilliance ruined by unexpected plot contrivances and too flashy visuals thrown at our faces.I will never understand what the purpose of that close-up on Batman rubber buttocks was supposed to inspire, what the writers thought when Grace came up with such a corny line as "Batman will come to rescue me" and the two villains venture so many times in cartoons' territory, especially with Carrey channeling both the Mask and Ace Ventura, that you have the feeling Bruce Wayne is really lost, as the only realistic man, caught in a live-action cartoon. Joel Schumacher is no untalented director, he got the budget, the right casting and the special effects but for some reason, he didn't create the right balance between the hero and villains' personality, so that the film often falls in the obvious trap and while being slightly better than "Batman Returns" never reaches the level of "Batman", it's a mixed bag, but with a few enjoyable moments.Again, it plays many leagues above "Batman & Robin", which explains why they went for a fourth movie, you know, the one too many.

Batman Forever was clearly targeted for the more younger audience, and it did a very good job at that. I remember watching this as a child, and I enjoyed every moment of it from start to finish. The film was entertaining. Robin was great, and the villains especially the Riddler was amazing. Honestly, it was the Riddler that stole the show, and had it not been for Jim Carrey's performance, the film would've lost a lot of limelight; in other words, it would've almost been bad as Batman & Robin. Jim Carrey literally stole the show. The film is overly criticised, but there's no reason for it – really! I'm surprised how the director managed to get actors such as Carrey, Clooney and Arnold to participate in a superhero film due to their status and calibre. All in all, Batman Forever is slightly underrated, and is a good Batman film. Fantastic to watch during the 90s.