Batman v Superman: The Amazing Snyder-Man 2

For almost 80 years the infamous characters have consistently appeared in pretty much every incarnation conceivable. Originally appearing as comic book characters, there have been thousands of graphic novels published since the 1930’s. Some darker than others…

There’s been TV series. Some camper than others…

Films. Some more intelligent…

Than others….

Video games. Some more playable….

Than others…

There’s been acclaimed animated series…

TV origins stories…

Re-imagining’s in Lego…

And an entire galaxy of books, toys, games, collectibles, films, TV shows, cartoons, parodies, clothing, comics, fan-fiction and more or less every conceivable piece of merchandise you could possibly comprehend. It’s safe to say, both characters are as prominent as Mickey Mouse, Marilyn Monroe or The Beatles in terms of pop culture iconography. As well as their cultural significance, their image and logos are as recognisable as Coca Cola or McDonalds.

So, when dealing with characters that have been around forever and presented in every format under the sun, isn’t it strange that the latest Batman v Superman film has had mixed reactions? I’m bemused as to why Zack Snyder hasn’t been able to produce a definitive film for Batman and Superman fans, that pleases everyone in the world ever. For shame. Let’s talk about the films.

Batman

Similarly to Superman there’s dozens of films. Dating back to the 1940’s a myriad of actors and voice artists have donned the cape and or occupied the recording studio. Batman’s been camp and zany, gothic and conflicted, dark, light, solo, as part of a duo, as part or a trio, as part of a team, old, young, short, tall, grounded in reality, disorganised within the realms of science fiction, played (or voiced) by Americans, Brits, Canadians and Irish actors and gone through more outfits and colour scheme changes than Lady Gaga. The bottom line is, there is no definitive Batman.

Being a Christopher Nolan fanboy, The Dark Knight series is my favourite incarnation of the character. I loved the realism, the intelligence, the characters, the twists and near enough everything about them. Despite all critical acclaim and positive reaction from the fans, I’ve still had many discussions with friends and colleagues who simply don’t like the films. They don’t like the way Bane is portrayed, as it’s so dissimilar to the comics. They don’t like the Batmobile, the story and a number of other elements. The way I see it, there isn’t a seminal text, be it a graphic novel series, an animated series or a film series. Christopher Nolan shouldn’t have to strive to replicate certain elements of the story, and shouldn’t have to abide by ‘rules’ laid down in previous works. He took a handful of characters and created his own vision and own story with them. Similarly with Tim Burton, Zack Snyder, even Joel Schumacher and anyone else who’s directed a Batman film. They shouldn’t have to apologise or answer to anyone for their efforts. I actually quite enjoyed Joel Schumacher’s Batman. If he wants to put nipples on George Clooney’s Batsuit, or have Arnold Schwarzenegger sat around in fluffy slippers reeling off puns, or have Jim Carrey don a green leotard and ginger wig running around shrieking then fair play. Why not? I mean, it’s naff, but it’s an enjoyable kind of naff. His films weren’t made to be taken seriously, and were meant to be seen the way I first saw them, as a kid. They were coluorful and loud, and stupid and in one ear and out the other. Nothing to be ashamed of there.

Thusly if Tim Burton wants to squeeze Michelle Pfeiffer into a bondage suit, cast Billy Dee Williams as a character that has been (up to that point) historically Caucasian and make Jack Nicholson dance around an art gallery to a Prince song wearing a purple beret…. I’m not going to stop him.

Selina, die hilflose SekretŠrin, einmal als aggressive Catwoman (Michelle Pfeiffer) und ganz normal. © RECHTEHINWEIS: – Honorarfreie Verwendung nur im Zusammenhang mit genannter Sendung und bei Nennung ZDF/Zade Rosenthal. Andere Verwendungen nur nach Absprache. ZDF – Bilderdienst, Tel. 06131-706100, E-Mail: Bilderdienst@zdf.de

Superman

Being from the U.K. I’ve always found Batman has had more of a presence. We’re perhaps too cynical for a hero who is (essentially) omnipotent, all good, usually gets the girl and has flawless chiseled features. If you know what I mean….

I’ve always loved him though. I can’t remember a time when I wasn’t a fan of Superman. From watching the 1996 animated series and flitting in and out of The New Adventures of Superman as a kid, I picked up all the Christopher Reeve films on the way. Then with the release of Superman Returns when I was in university, Man of Steel seven years later, and casually reading the comics and playing the video games I’ve never been without Superman. I love the films, even the latter two Reeve releases and Superman Returns. I remember Returns getting very mixed to negative reviews upon release, but I’ve always loved and championed it. Bryan Singer is a superb director, and it was wonderful to see a Superman film in the 21st Century. It managed to channel the charm and nostalgia of the Christopher Reeve films, without being too referential, and it’s one of my favourite superhero films of the decade. The same mixed reviews resurfaced with Zack Snyder’s Man of Steel, but again, I loved it. Granted the final battle sequence is slightly bloated and a bit too CGItastic, but the quieter moments, especially those with Kevin Costner are excellent.

Since the first (major) Superman film in 1978, there’s not been as much diversity in the character as there has with Batman. The six films that followed up to 2016’s Batman v Superman, have a pretty solid template for Clark Kent and Superman. He’s a big, good looking, sculpted man wearing the traditional suit and cape, and the thick rimmed glasses when incognito. He’s got extremely limited weaknesses, he strives for decency and justice, and he is in love with Lois Lane. Outside of that set framework, he’s not gone through as many image or personality shifts as the Dark Knight.

The main difference between the portrayal of the antagonists, is that Jesse Eisenberg needs to pick up the pace and secure at least two Academy Awards, to continue the tradition of the on-screen Lex Luthors.

So there it is. I like Batman, I like Superman…… And now…….

Batman v Superman

 

Let’s start with Zack Snyder. I’m kind of indifferent on him. I really liked Dawn of the Dead in 2004 and Man of Steel in 2013. Everything between that I can take or leave. 300 was okay. Watchmen was a bit overly long and lacking in any real depth. Sucker Punch… please. Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga’Hoole…. completely passed me by. I’ve absolutely no interest whatsoever in seeking that out for a viewing. Presumably, alongside some CGI’d owls, it features really ripped, scantily clad men. A recurring motif that he has adopted….

Fair play to him. If I looked like Henry Cavill, I would pretty much insist that I be allowed to run around in the buff.

To sum up, I don’t really have any loyalties to team Snyder.

I was hugely in favour of Ben Affleck donning the Bat-suit, from the very first announcement. Similarly when Disney announced their takeover of the Star Wars franchise, a bunch of fans took the piss and got annoyed about it. I was right behind the Disney Wars project from the get go. And wouldn’t you know it, it turned out to be an extremely wise decision. Despite all the mockery and reservations that emerged since the conception of ‘Bat-Fleck’, once again I was correct. As it is now widely regarded that Ben Affleck is a brilliant Batman, and one of the best things about the film. People were so quick to remember:

And so quick to forget:

As well as Affleck’s collaborations with Kevin Smith, Richard Linklater, his Oscar winning work on Good Will Hunting, his Golden Globe nominated performance in Hollywoodland, his critically acclaimed role in The Company Men and the fact he was “the bomb in Phantoms yo”. I’ve always championed Ben Affleck, and was very excited for his Dark Knighthood. Sure, he’s done some shite in his time, but what Batman hasn’t?

Henry Cavill was solid (literally) in Man of Steel. Amy Adams is one of my favourite actresses. I’ve enjoyed Jesse Eisenberg’s work in the past, and Jeremy Irons is Jeremy Irons. So there was definitely nothing underwhelming in the cast list. I was unfamiliar with Gal Gadot having never seen her Fast and Furious films, so the added excitement of a mysterious actress taking on such a seminal role was all in place to make Batman V Superman an incredibly enjoyable 151 minutes.

It was. It really was. I know the film’s been bashed around plenty by the critics, the would-be critics, the fans of the comics, the fans of the previous films and a vast chunk of the movie going public, but I had a thoroughly good time watching it.

It’s been accused of being cluttered, incomprehensible, overly long and humorless amongst other things. All I can say is, I found the story engaging. At no point was I lost or unable to differentiate between dream sequences and reality. I thought Ben Affleck was superb and his interactions with Jeremy Irons were some of the films finest moments. Granted it’s not as witty as Nolan’s Dark Knight series, but it didn’t need to be. It doesn’t necessarily have to contain humour or wit to be classed as successful. It has something else, which was the ‘awe’ factor. Throughout the film there were many moments that just got me excited. Batman’s hand to hand combat scenes (particularly in the desert sequence) are some of the finest in his cinematic history. I loved the courtroom segments with Superman. The re-imagining of the Batmobile, suit and Batcave. The tension building character interactions at Lex Luthor’s party. The Flash / Aquaman teasers. The score from Hans Zimmer and even the final showdown featuring the three Justice Leaguers tripple teaming a giant baddy.

I found the end section of Man of Steel a tad lethargic as he was whizzing around, smashing the heck out of Metropolis. It seemed to drag on and on and wasn’t too narritively satisfying or gripping. When the big beasty got released in Batman v Superman I assumed it would be a similar affair, however Snyder seemed to rein it in a lot more, and despite the fact he was dealing with a larger CGI budget and thrice the amount of protagonists, he handled it very well. I didn’t feel it was too weighty and I actually cared what was happening.

From what I can gather, the incomprehensible criticism seems to be that the films flits between characters and segments too rapidly, and is generally a bit all over the place. I actually loved this about the film. It reminded me slightly of Game of Thrones in the sense that it had a number of story threads running parallel to each other, and jumped back and forth between them. In the sesne of:

• Here’s a Batman bit
• Here’s a Superman bit
• Here’s a Lois Lane bit
• Here’s a Bruce Wayne and Alfred bit
• Here’s a Clark and Martha Kent bit
• Here’s a dream
• Here’s Batman again
• Here’s Lex Luthor
• Here’s Bruce Wayne and Diana Prince
• etc

I thought this was a great way to film, and helped keep the pace up. Any film that’s north of two and a half hours requires some commitment, but at no point was I bored. At no point was I checking my watch, and at no point did I think, “this is going on a bit”. When dealing with as many integral characters as BvS does, it’s bound to get slightly jumbled. But on a whole I think Zack Snyder did very well at keeping up the tempo of the piece and giving all of the characters ample screen time.

The only element of the film that I genuinely dislike, which appears to be a universal qualm, is Jesse Eisenberg’s Lex Luthor. I’m not saying that Eisenberg’s a bad actor, I like him in The Social Network, Zombieland, Adventure Land and The Village. I’m not saying that’s how Lex shouldn’t be played, as with anything it’s open to interpretation. All I’m saying is that he was tremendously annoying. Giddily giggling and shrieking his way around the screen like a coked up version of his Mark Zuckerberg character from The Social Network. In a film that took a darker and grittier approach to the DC Universe, Eisenberg’s Luthor seemed out of place, and would have perhaps been more appropriate in a Batman film of the mid sixties.

 

Conclusively, I liked Batman V Superman very much. After snotty initial reviews, I did go in to the film ready to be disappointed and ready to dislike it, however this wasn’t the case. Granted it’s not the best Batman film that’s ever been made. It’s not the best Superman film that’s ever been made. I’d even go so far as to say that it’s not even the best Zack Snyder film that’s ever been made. But what it is, is a perfectly entertaining and solid jumping off point for the Justice League franchise. It’s not as intelligent as The Dark Knight or as colourful and humorous as The Avengers, but it is it’s own entity. It’s not trying to replicate either of these projects, which I like. Bring on the rest of the League.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Best of the Worst – My Top 10 Critically Annihilated Films

Critical response is often integral in boosting a films cachet within a mainstream market. More low budget, and independent movies benefit enormously from a positive review in a respected publication. Awards from prestigious film festivals can also generate a wider interest and help launch the careers of unknown directors, actors and writers.

Some films, despite what the critics may think, are bound to succeed, in financial terms at least. With enough money, A-list stars and marketing buzz, a film can dominate the box office. This doesn’t necessarily mean it’s any good. Take for example, the Transformers franchise, the unnecessary sequels to Pirates of the Carribean, The Matrix and the cluster funk that was Spider-man 3. They, on a whole, got the living crap kicked out of them by critics. However, the sums added up, and overwhelming negative reviews did not alter the box-office takings one jot.

For this post, I have decided to explore certain titles, that struggled to gain a warm reception from both critics and audiences, and attempt to defend and reassess them. I’ve genuinely enjoyed every title on this list.

Using RottenTomatoes.com as a reference point, the film website collectively assembles critics reviews and audience reviews to give the film an overall percentage rating to decipher whether the film is ‘Fresh’ (60% or higher, positive reviews) or ‘Rotten’ (Below 60%).

The majority of the films on this list have scored lower than 20% critically and included in the list are two winners of the Golden Raspberry Award for ‘Worst film of the Year’, and two nominees in the same category.

Here’s my 10 selections of great crap movies. In reverse order based on their critical rating:

10. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Year: 2008

Starring: Harrison Ford, Cate Blanchett, Shia LeBeouf

The long awaited fourth installment in the cinematic Indiana Jones series, that no-one had really asked for or wanted. However, with the surge in revamps, reboots, rehashes and re-imagining’s happening, Steven Spielberg’s and George Lucas’s accountants forced them into the studio.

Chronologically sound, the film proceeds 1989’s Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (set in 1938) and picks up 19 years later in 2008, which lands us (within the narrative) in 1957.

This is the only film in my list, which actually gained a marginally positive critical response, coming out with an impressive 78% ‘Fresh’ rating. The only reason I’ve included it is because it’s one of the best examples of an existing fan-base turning against a project. Similarly to the Star Wars prequels, die hard fans of the original Indy trilogy will never consider the film a valid entry in the series. It is not surprising that the audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes deems the film ‘Rotten’.

I loved it. I saw it at the cinema upon release, and have since re-watched it on DVD. I embraced the heavily criticized science fiction element to the plot. I thought it was completely in-keeping with the series. Each previous film had appeared to encapsulated aspects of American consciousness of the time. E.g. the Last Crusade being set around World War 2. Temple of Doom opening in a 1930’s Hollywood musicalesque manner. Crystal Skull throws back to the sci-fi B-Movie genre of the time and America’s fascination with extraterrestrial activity and space exploration.

Shia LeBeouf aside, all the performances are solid. The classic, co-orientated stunt set pieces are really refreshing to see in a modern film, and the humour and tongue in cheek approach works as well as it does in the previous films. The plot is slightly more ludicrous than the others. However in terms rooted in logic, the chances of aliens leaving crystal skeletons on Earth are just as likely as a 700 year old knight using a holy grail to create everlasting life. Or the opening of a sacred ark causing spirits to escape and a Nazi officers face to melt off.

9. Mamma Mia!

Year: 2008

Starring: Meryl Streep, Pierce Brosnan, Colin Firth, Stellan Skarsgard

Adapted from the hit West End / Broadway musical, Mamma Mia! see’s a flimsy narrative crowbarred in to accommodate a wide range of ABBA’s greatest hits. We essentially see an array of award winning actors and actresses with minimal singing and or dancing ability, singing and dancing for 2 hours.

It’s rather profoundly brilliant. Being a big Pierce Brosnan fan, there was something quite aesthetically pleasing about watching him make a tit out of himself. He’s done some really interesting and obscure work since his time as James Bond, and Mamma Mia! is up there with the quirkiest.

The film’s rubbish, but it’s genuinely funny rubbish. The songs are indestructible, and watching an A-list cast basically doing drunk karaoke on a holiday abroad is strangely entertaining.

8. Daredevil

Year: 2003

Starring: Ben Affleck, Jennifer Garner, Colin Farrell

Attempting to emulate the success of Spider-Man and X-Men, Daredevil was released towards the beginning of the modern Marvel film adaptions. On paper it should have worked and been tremendously successful.

In retrospect, It’s often, overlooked, forgotten and is generally considered to be one of the worst comic book movies of modern times. I’ve always had a soft spot for the film. I’m a big fan of Ben Affleck and I enjoyed the darker, grittier approach the director took, particularly in the action sequences. It’s a lot more brutal than any of the comic book releases of the time, and to my knowledge is the only Marvel film to achieve a 15 certificate.

It appeared the world wasn’t ready for Daredevil to make it onto the big screen in 2003, and more light-hearted Marvel films such as Spider-Man, X-Men, Fantastic Four and Hulk seemed to tick the right boxes with audiences. It would be a few years before Christopher Nolan’s dark revamp of the Batman franchise reinvented the genre and inspired a more intelligent and grittier approach to adapting comics.

Based on the success of the recent Daredevil television show, there definitely is a market for the character, and Ben Affleck’s film was unfortunately a decade premature.

7. Showgirls

Year: 1995

Starring: Elizabeth Berkley, Kyle MacLachian, Gina Gershon

From the director of such modern masterpieces as Robocop, Total Recall, Basic Instinct and Starship Troopers, Showgirls was the second collaboration between screenwriter Joe Eszterhas and director Paul Verhoeven.

As a massive Verhoeven fan, I must say, it’s not his finest cinematic outing. Nevertheless, it’s a perfectly enjoyable piece of exploitation trash, that definitely pushed the boundaries of mainstream cinema in the mid 1990’s. It doesn’t attempt to take itself seriously, and with laughably terrible acting and dialogue merged with none-stop sex and nudity, the film is far from dull.

Picking up a record number of Razzie nominations, the film has now been established as something of a cult favourite, and has even been adapted into a 2013 off Broadway musical. It’s definitely gratuitous trash, but it’s perfectly enjoyable and entertaining gratuitous trash.

6. The Happening

Year: 2008

Starring: Mark Walberg, Zooey Deschanel, John Leguizamo

Wowing the cinematic world with his first major feature The Sixth Sense in 1999. M. Night Shyamalan was on a winning streak. Following The Sixth Sense with Unbreakable and Signs he was on the way to producing a very solid and impressive back catalogue. Wobbling slightly in 2004, The Village was a rather enjoyable movie, but wasn’t quite up to the same standard audience’s had come to expect from him as a  writer / director.

2006 saw the decline of Shymalan, upon the release of his fantasy flop The Lady in the Water. Not even I can find a decent word to say about it. This then brings us to 2008, and his next major release, The Happening. I initially approached the film skeptically, as I had no idea what to expect. He’d seemingly torched his own career with his last project, and there wasn’t exactly much buzz circulating his latest release.

I thoroughly enjoyed it. Yes, the dialogue was clunky and laughable in parts. Yes, there was gaping plot holes in the narrative. Yes, it’s not Mark Walberg’s finest outing in a lead role. But all these reservations aside, I feel it’s his finest release since Signs. There was genuine tension, scares and intrigue, and visually certain scenes, such as the people mysteriously falling from buildings, are fantastically filmed and stunning to watch.

5. Revolver

Year: 2005

Starring: Jason Statham, Ray Liotta, Vincent Pastore

Guy Ritchie’s third collaboration with Jason Statham got absolutely annihilated by critics upon release. Revolver isn’t often referred to when reminiscing about either Guy’s or Jason’s career, and along with Ritchie’s Swept Away is generally thought of as one of his weakest films.

Differing enormously from Lock Stock and Snatch (Snatch being, essentially Lock Stock with Brad Pitt). Revolver had more of a mystery / psychological element to it, and stylistically Guy Ritchie took a new approach, focusing heavily on lighting and camera filters.

Firstly, I like the film very much. It looks fantastic, His heavy use of colour creates a unique visual style that sets it aside from anything he’s done to date, and compliments the psychological undertones brilliantly. He achieves a dreamlike quality in his direction which adds to the mystery of the piece.

My main qualm with the film, would be the script. It’s undeniably pretentious. I don’t necessarily have a problem with pretentious cinema, as long as it can deliver the goods that it aspires to. The script for Revolver is just littered with pseudo-intellectual waffle, attempting to be profoundly philosophical. The fact is, the film doesn’t need to over complicate itself and definitely isn’t as clever as Guy thinks it is.

Fortunately I can watch the film and mange to zone out the cringe-worthy dialogue. The plot is genuinely quite interesting. It looks great. I’m a massive Jason Statham fan and find him very watchable in anything. Mark Strong is brilliant. Andre Benjamin is definitely in the top bracket of pop stars turned actors, and at least Guy Ritchie had a  solid effort at dabbling in something far removed from his comfort zone.

4. The Spirit

Year: 2008

Starring: Gabriel Macht, Samuel L. Jackson, Scarlett Johansson

After the success of 2004’s Sin City, Frank Miller followed up with his adaption of Will Eisner’s comic series The Spirit. With a co-directing credit on Sin City, Miller applied the same visual aesthetic, which creates a unique blend of live-action, animation and computer generated graphics. Again filmed in black and white, with hints of colour, The Spirit was set up to be the box-office shattering sister film to Sin City.

It bombed. Doing poorly at the box office, it was also hounded by critics and audiences, and I’ve never heard a good word said about it. To be honest, there’s not many people I speak with that have actually seen the film.

Perhaps it was down to the lack of a star in the leading role. Or the fact The Spirit isn’t a particularly recognisable character in the U.K. Or that it didn’t have the weight of Robert Rodriguez or Quentin Tarantino behind it. Whatever the reason. Audiences stayed away from this film in their masses.

I thought it was a very enjoyable. I’m slightly biased as my first exposure to it was at a midnight screening before it was released to the public. I’ve been to a few of these and have always had the smug satisfaction of exclusivity. I have since re-watched the film a couple of times on DVD, and I can’t understand why it’s been so violently dragged through the hedge. It’s not as good as Sin City, but the bar had been set incredibly high. Sin City was something of a seminal work in terms of design and not much has matched, or will match it in terms of the neo-noir genre.

One of the main criticisms of the film seems to be that the characterisation of The Spirit differs vastly from his portrayal in the comic strip. Having no prior connection to the character, this didn’t bother me in the slightest. It was Frank Miller’s adaption, and I thought he did a fantastic job.

3. Street Fighter

Year: 1994

Starring: Jean-Claude Van Damme, Raul Julia, Kylie Minogue

A very nostalgic one for me this. First seen (and recorded) on TV as a 10 year old circa 1997. My VHS copy went through a battering from repeat viewings.

One of the earliest video game film adaptions, Street Fighter was an action packed, albeit silly movie, that was sadly Raul Julia’s last. It’s essentially Van Damme Lite, as he kicks ass in a very wholesome, family-friendly kind of way. Along with his sidekicks, one of which being Kylie Minogue, who at 4 ft 11″ was presumably cast to stand next to 5 ft 8″ Van Damme to create the illusion he’s a giant of a man.

1994 was just too early to be adapting video games into films. The game was simply two characters beating the living daylights out of each other in 16 Bit. Not too much story to develop into a 90 minute movie. The film simply borrows the characters names and costumes and weaves a frothy narrative around them, turning Bison into some James Bondesque villain who wants to take over the world from his secret lair.

The film’s fluff. It’s pretty much just a bunch of actors, martial artists and Australian pop stars playing dress-up. Despite Van Damme being the lead, it’s definitely an ensemble piece, and it’s genuinely quite well balanced as the director impressively brings together a large amount of recognizable characters.

2. Freddy Got Fingered

Year: 2001

Starring: Tom Green, Rip Torn

A frequent entry on many ‘worst films of all time’ list. The Razzie winner of ‘Worst Picture’ 2001 scored only 11% on Rotten Tomatoes. I suppose the fundamental question you need to ask yourself is, “Do I find Tom Green’s shtick funny?”. If the answer is “No”. I can see why you’d adamantly hate this film.

Seeing this for the first time at the age of 14, I did indeed find Tom Green’s gross-out, immature, nonsensical, slapstick, crass humour very funny. I re-watched the film a couple of years ago, and there are still guffaws to be had. Not only at Tom Green. The sight of Rip Torn getting manically wound up is just plain funny.

It’s sloppy, and badly directed, and all over the place and doesn’t make any sense. But in a comedic era where post-American Pie frat comedies and by-the-numbers Adam Sandler / Ben Stiller pictures were dominating the American box office. It was quite refreshing to see a comedian, just think “screw all that. I’m just going to run around screaming a bunch of offensive nonsense, suckle a cows udder, swing a baby round by the umbilical chord, jerk off a horse and wear the skin of a deceased deer”.

And I applaud that.

1. Batman and Robin

Year: 1997

Starring: George Clooney, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Uma Thurman

Joel Schumacher’s second entry into the Batman franchise. Again partnering with Batman Forever screenwriter Akiva Goldsman, Batman and Robin was George Clooney’s first and indeed last donning of the bat-suit.

Bringing to life one of my favourite Batman villains, Mr Freeze. Played by one of my favourite action heroes Arnold Schwarzenegger, what’s not to like?

Well, it’s light-years away from Tim Burton’s 1989 Batman setup. Any kind of darkness, or moodiness or gothic  grittiness has been substituted for a neon-lit, camp, two hour long music video, with nippled bat-suits, bat credit cards, snow puns (so many snow puns) and an ensemble cast hamming it up to level pork.

For me, Chris Nolan’s Batman films are the definitive films. Anything prior to that, including Tim Burton’s revamps can’t help but look a bit dated and slightly cheesy. As enjoyable as Burton’s are, they’re so far removed from the intelligent realism Nolan managed to achieve. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. They’re Tim Burton’s take on Batman.

Which is why, Batman and Robin can’t be judged too harshly. Sure, it’s a bit naff. But, along with Batman Forever, it’s Joel Schumacher’s Batman. If he wants to turn Gotham city into a vibrant neon-clad gay club and have the protagonists running round in bondage gear, why the hell not?

Throwing back to the camp lighthearted 1960’s TV serial, isn’t such a lame idea. Despite all of Batman and Robin’s flaws, it’s far from dull. Everything’s snappy. All the frames are filled with colour, and stuff, and costumes and gadgets, and terrible dialogue, and terrible action set pieces, and more stuff, and flashier gadgets and more characters.

It’s ridiculous. It’s not to be taken seriously. It’s a pantomime. And I happen to enjoy pantomimes.