Shumacher is a good filmmaker with some great movies under his belt, namely Falling Down, Phone Booth, The Client, plus some others. He’s had his duds too, but it’s very unfortunate that his entire career has been blanketed by Batman & Robin.
shareTigerland was his best film imo, also The Lost Boys and Falling Down were entertaining enough.
His Batman films were fuckin atrocious though, especially the second one, Jesus what a pile of shit.
I think his rating is because he never got into a consistent "hit" groove, critically-speaking. He'd make a financial success like Batman Forever, but it got mixed reviews and his follow-up was dreadful.
Most of his films, I think, are a bit divided, opinion-wise. The Lost Boys, Phantom of the Opera, Phone Booth...they're not all universally liked, loved, or hated. I didn't really care for Phone Booth, but I liked the other two. I know people who LOATHE Phantom or think Lost Boys is tripe. I also really liked 8mm, but a lot of people definitively didn't. The Number 23 had good concepts, but was a mess.
In interviews, though, he comes off as really a sweet guy, and I like that he had the cajones to say, "I caved to studio pressure," and he took responsibility for B&R.
I agree with you. I was a kid when Batman Forever came out and loved it. It had Jim Carey and Robin and it just was great for me. Batman and Robin was fun and though I can pick it a part with everyone else, there's something endearing about it for me. I also loved Phantom of the Opera. There are things I could argue about as the live theatrical production can't be beat but I enjoyed it. I hope I find time to see some of his other films; they just never interested me like Batman and Phantom did. He always seemed like a good sport and it WAS sad that WB felt the need to pressure him to sell toys. But that's all history and I hope people remember him for all of his work and not just 1 movie.
shareI thought Batman Forever was "okay". It was like a 5 or 6 out of 10 type thing, which is how I think of "If you like this kind of thing, you'll give the film a 'pass'." So, I dig Batman and I like action movies, so I can tolerate it. But it was tonally messed up, couldn't decide if it wanted to be goofy or serious, and there were a lot of incongruities there. Even the type of comedy was weird. There are tonnes of jokes to be had with Two-Face as a character, but they just made him "wacky", which was what Jim Carrey was doing (was always doing), so that was weird. They stuck in femme fatale '40s type banter with Chase and Batman, but it wasn't really that witty. Then the plotting and casting was strange. Bruce is kind of adopting Dick - why? Dude's, like, 25. Give him some cash and offer him a place to stay, or set up an appointment with your psychiatrist friend Chase.
So, yeah, mixed bag.
B&R was goofy fun. It's camp-fest. So, if you're looking for a "so bad it's good", I'll go with that.
If people remember him for something, I kinda hope it's The Lost Boys. That was a great vampire movie.
Hadn't seen many of his films but anything with his name on it's a film I wouldn't like or simply not interested.
I don't think Forever or B&R being dark and gritty would've necessarily lead to a better film but I think it would've made a more fan pleasing one.
With Forever, I think they should have stuck with a more "Burton" universe as established by the previous two films in the franchise. Two-Face being darker, for instance, would have made him contrast more with the Riddler and given more bite and edge to the picture. Keeping Batman taciturn (as Keaton did) would have prevented corny lines that clash with the character. Batman can still be fun, but just...different fun.
B&R would have benefited from being campier. They should have pushed it into full Adam West territory. The film is 90% of the way there already, just make the costumes goofier and wink a bit at how stupid the plot is and the movie would be comic genius. It lacked a self-awareness that would have made it work.
Also some of the casting was distracting especially having Arnold which made it feel less of a Batman film and was made at a time where Arnold was at the end of his heyday.
B&R didn't make an effort to distinguish Bruce Wayne from Batman as with Michael Keaton, if you look at Keaton as Tim Burton pointed he doesn't look like a superhero he looks like a guy who would need to dress up like a bat for effect, same with Robert Pattinson he has his suit to make him look bigger, George Clooney doesn't have that Clooney is a stocky/flashy stary guy, he doesn't disappear in costume, when you have Bruce Wayne all stocky and speaks in a Stallone type voice and the head bobble thing he does it's a dead give away Bruce Wayne is Batman.
Yeah, and if they pushed the camp further, that's no problem. Adam West never distinguished between Wayne and Batman, not really, and it worked. You didn't have to "buy" it, there was nothing to buy.
Arnold is one of the better elements of the film because Arnold always knew how to be a little tongue-in-cheek. It's what made him a great action star. He was smiling the whole time, even while scowling, and it made those movies fun. So when it's cheeseball stuff like Predator, it's okay because Arnie is there to grin a little.
Even through he switches from wanting to do Year One to it's a comic book/cartoon.
shareI didn't know he wanted to do Year One. That switch might have been studio pressure, too. I still respect the man for taking responsibility for making a crummy movie. Some people just plug their ears after making bad pictures.
shareI refuse to believe his Year One would've happened anyway, a third and fourth movie in all likelihood were going to be sequels nothing more, Year One doesn't fit into the continuity of the Burton films and a bit too early to do a origin film soon after Returns. Schumacher was more of a studio or producer friendly guy than an auteur or a young hotshot director.
People associate him with the campiness of his films just because he was flamboyantly gay.
He wasn't always campy. He did 8mm, for instance, and I certainly wouldn't call that campy. Phone Booth and The Number 23 weren't campy. That said, his best films did have, uh... a certain amount of elan. Maybe that's connected to his flamboyance, maybe it's not. But I enjoyed Phantom of the Opera (musical theatre) and I think The Lost Boys (campy) is great, so... It's not a knock; it's what was working for him.
I don't think Year One would have happened. I do remember hearing that he was planning to use Scarecrow in the sequel and he did say he wanted to return to the darker roots of the series. It never materialised, though, so who knows what would or could have happened.
He probably had a cool, dark(er) Batman picture in him somewhere, he just never really made it.
Year One wasn't exactly a story that fans were dying to see as a movie. If you were to survey people who consider themselves real fans of 89 and Returns they would say a third movie should've had Burton and Keaton and Billy Dee Williams as Two Face.
A lot his films look colourful or cool clothing.
Him wanting to do Year One makes it feel like he was a few films behind to where people are with the series or many years too soon for a reboot.
I don't think darker would necessarily lead to a better film but I think it would make a more fan pleasing one.
The number 23 started great and turned bad. Flatliners started great but turned bad. Lost Boys started great and turned bad. Rinse, repeat (though some are pure shit, like his Batman movies)
shareThe Lost Boys has one of the best endings in movie history.
shareIt is only good when the kids are being funny and the setup with its iconic 80s feel. Then it descends into typical vampire tropes. It gets so ridiculous in the end. I eventually quit all vampire films due to how universally stupid they are. Blade 1, Fright Night, and Interview With a Vampire are the only good vampire movies IMO.
shareThen you haven’t seen Byzantium.
shareThat's true. I have not.
My personal ban on vampire film started with having finally had enough after Van Helsing. I accidentally saw a Russian vampire film after that because we liked the poster in our local art house theater. Was unaware it would be about vampires. It wasn't good but at least avoided the usual tedious tropes.
I agree he was a good director. Even his weaker films weren't that bad. I enjoyed his Batman films.
shareI really like Phone Booth, 8mm, Tigerland, Falling Down. I also liked A Time to Kill and actually thought Blood Creek was pretty enjoyable.
shareR.I.P.
shareI liked 8mm, but yes his Batman movies were pretty bad.
share