As a spoof/comedy thing along the Adam West show's lines, it's not bad. I know what you mean: it is what it is. I mean, Batman has had so many versions from the early pulp-lite stories to the campy 50s stuff to the detective stuff in the '70s, the grit of the '80s Batman, and on and on it's gone. There's a Batman out there for everybody, no matter what the personal taste.
My problem with Batman & Robin isn't that it went campy, it's that it didn't really push that comedy envelope. If they wanted a campy, comic movie, they should have put in more jokes, and made the jokes they had cleverer. Think about Mel Brooks or the Zucker Bros. films. If they wanted a comedy, they should have made a comedy. The '60s series and film worked because they were always being silly and they had silly costumes and silly props and silly stories. Batman & Robin splits the difference, trying to make a motorcycle street race (?) thrilling, give poignant stories to Mr. Freeze and Alfred, and have decent character moments in the middle of the corny one-liners. You can't make Batman "cool" and campy at the same time. They conflict. So, as a result, B&R straddles the middle line and winds up not being enough of any one thing to really be great at either.
So, yes, it's okay, and it's not as heinous and unforgivable as fans pretend, but this wasn't a good cartoon-come-alive comic book movie. Dick Tracy took that strip's cornball universe and made it live and sing. B&R tried to run after too many goals and wound up going in circles.
reply
share