Advanced Search Beta »
Basic Search Fields
Batman Forever
User Score
5.2 out of 10

Mixed or average reviews- based on 65 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 31 out of 65
  2. Mixed: 18 out of 65
  3. Negative: 16 out of 65

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    10 out of 10
    Rate this:
    out of 10
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

  3. Characters remaining: 5000 out of 5000

view
per page
  1. grandpajoe6191
    Sep 19, 2011
    5
    "Batman Forever" is a movie that offers popcorn action and decent fun from Jim Carrey; basically you have to see the film as a ADHD in order to love the style.
  2. JamesT.
    Mar 2, 2006
    10
    The best of all five batmans jim carrey rules.
    • 2 of 4 users said yes
  3. crstfr
    Feb 1, 2011
    3
    If there is anything good to be said about this film, it is that it makes the first two Batman films seem better! The plot is easier to follow but loses a lot of the emotion that is behind the character of Batman which in retrospect, was covered well in the first two films. I could feel my respect for Tommy Lee Jones disappear but it has to be said that Jim Carrey was at least good at doing what he does best (which... I didn't say I liked). More accessible to a wider audience, but ultimately it crushes the spirit and distorts the world of Batman!… Expand
  4. JaredC.
    Aug 5, 2007
    10
    Hard Core and Superb.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  5. DanA
    Jan 30, 2008
    6
    What saves this movie is Tommy Lee Jones and Jim Carrey as Two-Face and The Joker. Jim Carrey is especially in place, while Two-Face's portrayal may be too psychotic, it's not nearly as bad as the Penguin or Mr. Freeze were.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  6. ManveerR.i
    Feb 18, 2006
    1
    Absolute rubbish Two - Face Was a joke, Robin was pathetic and Batman was cluless the only meancing villian was the riddler.
    • 0 of 2 users said yes
  7. [Anonymous]
    Oct 7, 2007
    7
    A loose, entertaining Batman blockbuster with a great cast. Cool gadgets, but writings gets a little clunky here and there.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  8. DZ
    Dec 1, 2006
    6
    Didn't mean much to my 8 year old mind when it first came out. These days, while it's slightly more watchable, it still fails to excite as much as some people might have you believe. The story is weak, the Prince songs are horrible (the same can't be said for the Elfman score though) and Keaton's rendition as the Dark Knight leaves a lot to the imagination. What I did enjoy about Keaton was his brilliant portrayal of the disturbed Bruce Wayne (one of my favourite scenes was his attempt at letting the cat out of the bag in Vale's apartment). Nicholson is wildly entertaining and his over-the-top antics are worth, at least, a single viewing.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  9. DaveH.
    Jul 15, 2006
    1
    Awful, the poorest incarnation of Batman ever conceived. Kilmer and O'Donnell are risibly miscast and every scene seems to fall flat on its face. Nothing is gripping, nothing is exciting, nothing is funny, but for a couple of unintentional chuckles, which says a lot for film that sets out to be self-consciously camp. Those looking for a kick from reading into its homoerotic subtext would do better to watch the marginally more bearable, but all together more kinky Batman & Robin. This film is an abortion.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  10. DaveB.
    Jun 23, 2007
    2
    Not the worst of the bunch, but I wonder what Joel Schumacher was thinking when he took over the franchise. Gotham was never to bright and lively and full of neon in the comic books. And ummmm DZ I think you are reviewing the wrong movie bud.
    • 0 of 1 users said yes
  11. Sam
    Dec 16, 2005
    8
    With its epic acting, plot, action, and emotion, Batman Forever is a classic for the ages. Oh wait, sorry, I was thinking of Batman Begins. Although it's not a great as Begins, it's still a fun movie. However, it started the worst Batman movie trend, thank god it only lasted for 2 movies. The plastic molded nipples, otherwise, it's a fun movie that shouldn't be taken TO seriously.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  12. FredBob
    Oct 21, 2006
    7
    I like the film but it just didn't have enough of a punch for me.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  13. TravisM.
    May 11, 2007
    8
    The most underated of all the Batman films.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  14. DeVr33z
    Aug 11, 2010
    5
    Better than Batman & Robin, but still a mediocre film. It tries too hard to combine Tim Burton's characters with their campy earlier versions. The result is an unsatisfying movie that's more of a product than an actual piece of decent scripting.
  15. SasquatchFelix
    Dec 16, 2010
    5
    Love Jim Carry love batman, but hate this movie i mean seriously he kills two face which compleley ruins the movie that's batmans only rule for those who are not batman fans
  16. MovieLonely94
    Oct 30, 2010
    9
    Tommy Lee Jones and Jim Carrey saved this movie from becoming a total disaster.
  17. nintendoid13
    Oct 18, 2010
    10
    I liked it. I understand a couple of those negative reviews though. I 'm a big Jim Carry fan so that's probably why I took to it right away. It was a little cheesy and after seeing Batman and Robin (which made me barf) it seems a lot better.
  18. asylumspadez
    Nov 27, 2011
    0
    This film is just so stupid. The script and overacting complete ruins the potential of this film, Not to mention that the entire film looks like you are on LCD.
  19. TheQuietGamer
    Mar 7, 2011
    9
    OMG!!!! Jim Carrey actually gave a truly good performance?!?!?! I was shocked that he actually did a good job, this has to be my favorite Batman movie ever, the acting is great as is the plot, this is a truly enjoyable movie for fans of Batman.
  20. ImUnavailable
    Jul 19, 2011
    5
    Though not as terrible as Batman & Robin, this movie is no gem. Val Kilmer's Batman is not as convincing as Keaton's, while O'Donnell's Robin fails to be likable. The Riddler is played by Jim Carrey, an actor who is synonymous with this movie. His character gets the most lines and screen time, with the Riddler essentially an extension of Carrey's comedy persona. His overbearing presence confines Two-Face (played by Tommy Lee Jones) into a secondary character, given no real personality of his own other than that of a glorified lackey. This movie is vibrant visually but lacks substance in terms of acting and writing.… Expand
  21. Halfwelshman
    Feb 16, 2012
    5
    Poor old Joel Schumacher - he'll be known for the rest of his life as "The man who killed Batman", though he earned that moniker in making Batman & Robin, not this installment. True, it's a very different take on the Dark Knight mythology from Tim Burton's previous brooding, Gothic adaptations - Schumacher adds a liberal dose of self-aware humour and in-jokes, and the whole film has a certain camp fun about it. It's almost like Batman and Batman Returns was the franchise in its moody teenage years, and all of a sudden it's decided to cheer up and have a little fun. Schumacher hasn't completely dumped Burton's ideas on the wayside though, and most likely due to Burton staying on as producer, the film continues to delve into Bruce Wayne's tragic past and complex psychology. These scenes could have been lifted directly out of either Batman or Batman Returns, and provide the film with a good emotional kick. Robin's origin story is also kept fairly dark and Burton-y, and the thematic parallels Schumacher and writer Akiva Goldsman draw between Dick Grayson and Bruce Wayne are dramatically effective. The casting for the film is a real mixed bag. Chris O'Donnell has the right rebellious attitude and confidence to play Robin, Nicole Kidman makes a feisty femme-fatale as sassy psychologist Chase Miridian, Michael Gough is reliable as always as Alfred, and Jim Carrey steals every scene he's in as a brilliantly batty Riddler. However, Val Kilmer is completely miscast as Batman, and even clever cinematography and editing can't hide the fact that he can't handle the stunts - he just looks fat and slow. The real turkey of the cast is, disappointingly, Tommy Lee Jones, who turns Harvey Two-Face, one of the most interesting and complex of Batman's rogues gallery into a simplistic, camp pantomime villain. We must also question some of the design changes in the film (nipples? why?) that are so jarringly different from Burton's mythos that they appear to not even belong on the same planet, never mind the same city. Gotham appears to have evolved at an alarmingly rapid rate from a city of seedy slums and gothic cathedrals to a very East Asian-inspired neon metropolis. Well at least the taxes from the hard-working citizens of Gotham appear to have been put to good use. Batman Forever is an incredibly uneven film. There are good performances (Carrey), bad performances (Kilmer) and ugly performances (Jones). Batman's back-story is further fleshed out in dark flashbacks, and the introduction of Robin is handled well, but there's also homo-erotic suiting-up montages and bat-nipples. The film as a whole looks expensive, in a top-of-the-line fairground attraction sort of way, but it lacks finesse, and consistency in tone. It's clearly not the best Batman film, but Forever is also by-no-means the worst (audiences would have to wait another two years for the franchise-killer). One thing I will say for Joel Schumacher's first foray into the Batman universe - it's inconsistent, certainly, but it's never boring!… Expand
  22. Spielberg00
    Sep 4, 2011
    4
    Suffering the "threequel effect" from beginning to end, BATMAN FOREVER is a tedious superhero movie. It now stars Val Kilmer as the titular character, a less believable Batman than even Michael Keaton, who was a hard one to take into mind. And along with the whole superficiality of the plot, the villains aren't all that great either. The three previous villains were the Joker (Jack Nicholson), Catwoman (Michelle Pfeiffer), and Penguin (Danny DeVito). Now, we have another duo, consisting of the Riddler (Jim Carrey) and Two-Face (Tommy Lee Jones). Unlike in BATMAN and BATMAN RETURNS, these villains are more silly and ridiculous than creepy. Just look at the DVD box--their outfits give away all the asininity. Should you see this? I wouldn't recommend it. If you do, will you like it? It depends if you can stand Jim Carrey in more than just comedy and drama.… Expand
  23. heyitsmegrif4
    Jan 3, 2012
    2
    This Batman movie is basically mocking itself by even existing. With stupidity and awful acting and a stupid villain who was horribly miscast along with weak action you have a spoof of a great superhero. I give this movie 25%.
  24. Psyco6
    May 9, 2012
    7
    Alot of people hate this movie but i really like it. It's a good movie to just sit and watch and you don't have to pay close attention to. It's not the best batman movie by any means but it is a movie i enjoy.
prev next
Page:
  • 1

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
51 out of 100

Mixed or average reviews - based on 23 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 10 out of 23
  2. Mixed: 11 out of 23
  3. Negative: 2 out of 23
  1. Chicago Sun-Times
    Reviewed by: Roger Ebert
    63
    There is no rhythm to the movie, no ebb and flow; it's all flat-out spectacle.
    Read full review
  2. ReelViews
    Reviewed by: James Berardinelli
    75
    It's lighter, brighter, funnier, faster-paced, and a whole lot more colorful than before.
    Read full review
  3. Rolling Stone
    Reviewed by: Peter Travers
    75
    Schumacher's method is to use a lighter touch, to stay closer to the cartoon that Bob Kane created for DC Comics in 1939 and to temper Burton's nightmare world with an accessible, brightly colored TV palette.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »