Am I the only one who thinks this is worst than Batman & Robin?
Okay this movie is atrocious its campy unfunny garbage someone please agree me.
shareOkay this movie is atrocious its campy unfunny garbage someone please agree me.
shareSome days you just can't get rid of a bomb!
---
Endeavor to persevere.
It's too difficult to compare this film with any of the later Batman films;
yes it's campy and goofy but that's what the fans wanted at the time. With a 1960's budget there's no way they could make a serious bat film even comparable to the modern ones.
In my honest opinion it's brilliant, as was the show. Intentionally bad seems like such a modern concept, but evidently that is not true. The bad dialogue, overacting, and complete lack of realism all around never ceases to amuse me. Absolutely love it!
---
Sad story. You got a smoke?
Sorry I dont agree 1966 batman series/movie had more heart adam west and burt ward are awesome as batman and robin
shareCamp
noun
1.
something that provides sophisticated, knowing amusement, as by virtue of its being artlessly mannered or stylized, self-consciously artificial and extravagant, or teasingly ingenuous and sentimental.
This is what the 1960's Batman is, and its why it's brilliant.
I gave both a 5/10 and Forever is the worst by far.
shareYeah, this is worse than Batman and Robin.
shareI think comparing this to the darker Batman movies is ridiculous and like comparing apples to oranges. They're very different movies. Batman: The Movie was a clear attempt at camp parody while the latter Tim Burton and Christopher Nolan movies treated their movies more seriously. Okay, Burton's movies did still have a camp edge to them but they weren't necessarily attempting to be poking fun at themselves. Nolan on the other did treat it very seriously. Doing so in terms of Schumacher's especially the second of the two that it is more fair. Considering he said himself he was more a fan of the colourful campness of sixties so inevitable comparisons could be made between them.
Anyway, to answer the OP's question I'd have to go with Batman and Robin being worse. I saw some of the 1966 movie years ago and although I never saw it all although did see it in it's entirety as a kid, it did look better than it's 1997 equivalent. The sixties version seemed to be be pretty good fun. As a one off film it's camp, self referential humour wasn't without it's appeal. However that's all it should have been and for some reason they thought that it was one that would have enough longevity for their TV series. Sure, it was a rating success and fan for a few seasons but I largely put that down to young boys and girls who wouldn't be in on the joke tuning in. I mean how long can you watch the same nods to ridiculous gadgets, hokey acting and cardboard characters before it all wore a bit thin.
'Batman & Robin' is better rather than the 1966 'Batman' worse.
shareI mean how long can you watch the same nods to ridiculous gadgets, hokey acting and cardboard characters before it all wore a bit thin.
I can't imagine being that wasted.
I don't give a f*@K about a troll who doesn't pay for his opinion telling me how to review movies.