Batman & Robin is undoubtedly one of the worst comic book movies of all time that nearly derailed the Batman franchise and the superhero movie genre in general. But as Batman became a solid franchise with The Dark Knight trilogy and as the genre became a solid mainstay, the film is seen as a black sheep of DC’s legacy.
Regardless of anyone’s view of the movie, one cannot dispute its subsequent reception as a guilty pleasure. With that, here are five reasons why Batman & Robin is the perfect guilty pleasure and five reasons why it is plain terrible.
Guilty Pleasure: Over-the-Top Production Design
It is just ludicrous to ponder on Batman & Robin’s outrageous sets and line this up alongside Tim Burton’s first two Batman films. But this came after Batman Forever, so the production design is consistent, if not extreme, to that.
From the crazy Batmobile to Mr. Freeze’s not-so-subtle evil lair, from Poison Ivy’s hideout to the costumes, the production design is pure cannon fodder for nitpicking and riffing.
Terrible: Bane’s Characterization
Bane was described as a hulking figure with incomparable intelligence. And throughout comic book history, he is one of the few villains who is able to outwit and overcome Batman. This is depicted best in the Batman: Arkham series and The Dark Knight Rises with Tom Hardy as Bane.
However, in Batman & Robin, he was depicted as a former diminutive wrestler-turned-hulking super soldier that became Poison Ivy’s minion. And he only speaks in cartoony grunts and moves like a half-witted lackey. Truly faithful.
Guilty Pleasure: George Clooney as Batman
Audiences are mixed about George Clooney’s performance as Bruce Wayne/Batman. Taking Val Kilmer’s place after the latter is unavailable, Clooney is doing his best with the provided material, even though he was just simply playing himself in the role.
It is really distracting to see Clooney spout out lines like “This is why Superman works alone” and “Hey, Freeze. The heat is on”. Even with that said, Batman’s arc in this movie was nonexistent that Clooney is basically phoning it in.
Terrible: Rush of a Production
After the moderate success of Batman Forever on June 16, 1995, a sequel was immediately pushed. The studio brought back Joel Schumacher and writer Akiva Goldsman to pen a follow-up with an expected release date in June 1997. A sequel for a franchise usually has a three-year gap to ensure fresh ideas have been trotted out.
But for Batman & Robin, the two-year window really shows from the ludicrous plot and the tacky production design to appeal to the movie’s merchandising potential. That pains more.
Guilty Pleasure: Totally Campy Portrayal of Batman
When Joel Schumacher was commissioned to the sequel to Batman Forever, he wanted to pay homage to the 1966 Adam West Batman TV series. That explains the over-the-top style, the outrageous fight scenes, the leaps of logic, and the laughable dialogue, which reeks of camp.
It is no wonder that some viewers perceived Batman & Robin as canon to the Adam West TV show. The camp-style might be hilarious, but it caused for Batman not to be taken seriously until Christopher Nolan’s Batman Begins.
Terrible: Chris O’Donnell as Robin
Robin is the poster boy of superhero sidekicks. He has been a loyal confidante to Batman that there are moments where he can even prove that he is on the same level as the Caped Crusader. His first appearance in Batman Forever is decent, and Chris O’Donnell played him well.
But Batman & Robin is a different story. Robin was portrayed as a demanding sidekick who complains to Batman for belittling him and not answering his requests. And O’Donnell’s performance veers on cringe and unwatchable.
Guilty Pleasure: Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy
Uma Thurman is perhaps the only actor who gave a decent performance in Batman & Robin. And that says a lot. Even if her characterization is admittedly ludicrous – her transformation from Dr. Pamela Isley is too cartoony on paper – Uma gave it her all and sold well as a femme fatale villainess.
It is that balance of enjoyable camp and comic-book characterization that makes her performance kind of watchable and faithful to the comics. The only detractor is her stretchy suit and her questionable headdress.
Terrible: Joel Schumacher’s Direction
Joel Schumacher has been a mixed bag of a director. For every Tigerland and A Time to Kill, there is St. Elmo’s Fire and The Phantom of the Opera. But generally, he has been known as the notorious director of Batman & Robin. And his directorial hallmarks are present throughout the film.
There is a mention of his weird shots on the Batsuits and the unintentional homoerotic undertones. There is also the sloppy pacing, the poor execution of the action scenes, and the wonky dialogue.
Guilty Pleasure: Mr. Freeze’s Ice Puns
Schwarzenegger’s performance is undoubtedly a wrong fit for the character of Dr. Victor Fries, who has a more intriguing history in the comics. His over-the-top performance shreds every ounce of seriousness the movie tries to project.
Yet, the best takeaway from him, for better or worse, is his endless ice puns. Just the way Schwarzenegger dictates those puns in a jolly manner is truly laughable that even detractors would acknowledge is indeed funny. Striking of all, he is not the only character in Batman & Robin who gives cheesy puns.
Terrible: Squandering Mr. Freeze’s Storyline
In comic-book history, Dr. Victor Fries was formerly called “Dr. Zero” and had two live-action appearances on TV. When Batman: The Animated Series premiered his origin story episode “Heart on Ice”, Goldsman and Schumacher took inspiration from it and applied it to Mr. Freeze’s motives.
Taking inspiration from the acclaimed Batman series is not a bad idea. It is just hard to comprehend how his origin story would fit Mr. Freeze’s over-the-top villainy and ludicrous goals. The storyline was squandered to connect to Alfred’s sickness. That's simply a waste.