Film

Batman Forever

Name: Batman Forever
Genre: Action, Crime, Fantasy
Released: 1995
Cast: Val Kilmer, Tommy Lee Jones, Jim Carrey, Nicole Kidman, Chris O'Donnell

A vivid, theatrical Batman film that pivots hard toward gothic camp and psychosexual melodrama. Joel Schumacher's 1995 film trades Burton's darkness for neon excess, hosting two scenery-chewing villains and a rubber suit that bends like fashion. It's for anyone who finds melodrama fun, who loves committed overacting, or who missed the 1960s TV show's colorful absurdity.

TMDb rating

2.7

Should you watch it?

Watch it if you enjoy comic-book spectacle played for loud, cheerful excess, where a big neon set piece and a scenery-chewing villain matter more than gritty realism.

Skip it if you find bright, cartoonish camp wearing thin, or want a brooding Gotham; the tone swings between gags and melodrama, and it runs past two hours.

What it asks of you: Settle in for just over two hours of loud, busy scenes that pile on one another, with the lighter jokes and heavier family backstory sharing the same screen time.

Not sure? Find tonight's pick in a minute.

If you liked this

Batman & Robin1997

Schumacher's follow-up doubles down on everything Forever started: more neon, more camp, more Schwarzenegger puns. If you enjoyed the circus atmosphere and didn't mind the chaos, this is the logical extreme.

But It's widely considered one of the worst superhero films ever made. The plot barely exists and the tone is exhaustingly silly from start to finish.

The Mask1994

Jim Carrey unleashes the same anarchic, rubber-faced energy he brought to the Riddler, but here it's the entire movie's operating system. Psychedelic, fast, relentlessly committed to its own weirdness.

But If you think Carrey is exhausting in small doses, a whole film of him at full volume will feel like being screamed at by a cartoon for 100 minutes.

Dick Tracy1990

Warren Beatty's passion project shares Forever's love of garish primary colors, theatrical villainy, and treating the comic-book source as an excuse for visual excess rather than realism. It's a police procedural as acid trip.

But The plot is genuinely thin and the whole thing moves at a stately, almost dreamlike pace. Some find it beautiful; others find it boring.

Not sure tonight? Get a pick in a minute, starting from Batman Forever

The wildcard

Something you would not have found on your own.

Suspiria1977

Both films treat color and production design as primary storytelling tools, abandoning realism for a kind of heightened visual language where mood matters more than sense.

Dario Argento's Italian horror masterpiece shares Forever's obsession with vivid color as a character unto itself: lurid reds and greens and golds that drown the frame and create pure atmosphere. Like Forever, it prioritizes visual sensation over narrative clarity.

But It's surreal and glacially paced. If you want plot and character development, you're watching the wrong film. The violence is brutal and the English dubbing is distracting.

Barb Wire1996

A Pamela Anderson vehicle with comparable ambitions to Forever: campy, self-aware, determined to be sexier and more ridiculous than anyone asked for. The same era, the same refusal to take itself seriously.

But The action is poorly shot, the dialogue is clunky, and there's a gap between what it's trying to do and what it actually accomplishes.

Flash Gordon1980

Dino De Laurentiis's candy-colored sci-fi opus, all primary-colored sets and impossibly handsome people striking poses. Like Forever, it embraces the pulp source material as an invitation to theatrical excess.

But The plot is paper-thin and the acting is pitched at a very particular register that can feel unintentionally funny or genuinely annoying depending on your mood.

Showgirls1995

Released the same year, Paul Verhoeven's film shares Forever's commitment to melodramatic excess, sexual tension, and a total absence of ironic distance. Both are shameless in their ambitions.

But It's notorious for being poorly made, exploitative, and spectacularly vulgar. If that sounds awful to you, it will be awful.

Darkman1990

Sam Raimi's B-movie superhero film has Forever's theatrical energy and commitment to emotional melodrama wrapped around pulp action. It's scrappy, colorful, and genuinely fun without pretending to be something it's not.

But The effects are dated and the plot is repetitive. It's more interested in mood and character than narrative momentum.

The Shadow1994

Another Alec Baldwin comic-book adaptation with similar visual ambitions: art deco sets, heightened melodrama, villains who chew scenery, and a tone that sits somewhere between serious and pantomime.

But The plot lurches awkwardly and the whole thing never quite coheres. It's almost interesting but not quite satisfying.

Phantom of the Paradise1974

Both films pit a traumatized protagonist against an eccentric villain in a story where the villain's theatrical self-expression is the real subject of the film.

Brian De Palma's glam-rock horror film channels the same energy as Forever: theatrical, sexual, gothic, camp, overdressed, and genuinely committed to its own absurdity. Phantom and Riddler are cousins in their operatic villainy.

But It's slow, visually cluttered, and deeply weird. The plot is secondary to the atmosphere and style, which will infuriate people looking for a conventional narrative.

In a Violent Nature2024

Both films use practical costume and production design to make a grotesque figure (Two-Face, Riddler, the killer) visually expressive and almost sympathetic—the wound or trauma made visible as pageantry.

This Canadian slasher reframes the genre by centering the monster: a vengeful undead force animated by rage, shot in saturated greens and browns. Where Forever uses color and costume to externalize psychology, this uses them to make a killer beautiful.

But It's a horror film with graphic violence. If slashers aren't your thing, nothing here will convert you. The pacing is deliberate and it's more interested in texture than scares.