Greg McPhee wrote: Forever I didn't mind as much as I liked Kilmer as the character. O'Donnell too old for Robin, and Jones and Carrey far too over the top.

I liked Carrey. The problem was that Jones played Two-Face in the exact same way, so there was virtually no difference between the two bad guys.

My thoughts on the Batman movies...

Batman - I thought it was a good super-hero movie for the time it was made. Keaton was ok. Nicholson was dead-on for the Joker even though I would have liked to have seen what Willem Dafoe brought to the role.

Batman Returns - Keaton was so-so in this one. This is where the movies started going downhill IMO. Too many villains. Catwoman should have been the only one. The whole Penguin story with the sewers seemed out of place too. I agree it should have been Killer Croc with that origin.

Batman Forever - Kilmer was damned good in both roles. Carrey was good as Riddler. Tommy Lee was terrible as Two-Face. O'Donnel was too old for Robin. I always thought they should have cast someone like Johnny Galecki (from Roseanne) for that part. He was the right size and age.

Batman and Robin - 3 words.....TOO MANY VILLAINS. This is what killed the franchise. You have Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze and Bane. If the people involved in these movies would have went with ONE villain in all the movies we would have 8 movies instead of 4. The movies could have ended with Bane breaking Bats in half and setting up a 9th movie.

Batman Begins - Looking forward to seeing Bale in action. Hate the Batmobile. Looks like a tank instead of a car. And why is it necessary for Bruce Wayne to have some woman in the way? Yeah we all know he is a rich bachelor. We know he has a life outside the suit. But for a Batman movie to really work we need to see him out of the suit just in the cave, trying to figure out what he needs to do to take the villain out.

Look at how the Batman animated series played.(the one from the 90's) You hardly see him as Bruce Wayne.

In the Burton films Batman was portrayed as a creature of the night, the villains feared him.  In the Shumacher comedies Val and George were portrayed as clowns in a live action cartoon.  I'm a fan of Batman Returns and the Animated Series, Keaton didn't bother me as much as Val spewing lines like "The Car right chicks love the car." "Try fireman--less to take off."

I'm a fan of Val Kilmer and love his talent to get into a character, but I feel he was doing a Michael Keaton impersonation than going deep into the Batman. 

I have lightened my venom on Jim Carrey after Me, Myself and Irene and has appreciated his talent, but skipping BF.  The film disappoints me too much. 

 In 1995 everyone I encountered loved it because it was so funny and how BR sucked because it was too dark and too controversial (comic book monsters should not be focusing on drowning children someone told me.).  I'm glad that peoples' reactions have changed but the cash was flowing when the hit songs and the videos were hot.

I'm wondering if audiences liked BF during the summer of 95 because it was hip to like it.  Does hype influence these summer mindless juggernauts?  I believe this trend has sprung again.

I enjoyed both "Batman" and "Batman Returns"--especially as Tim Burton films.

As to the idea of Bruce Wayne seeking teachers on his road to becoming the Batman, it makes perfect sense to me.  Don't remember where I first encountered the notion, but I've always really liked it, as I thought it added some good stuff to an already excellent character.

What bothers me is that there was a perfect way to involve Bruce Wayne/Batman in a romance without it being forced, considering who the villain of the movie will be (Ra's Al Ghul): Talia, Ra's Al Ghul's daughter. It would have been perfect. Ah well...

As I said before:

Kilmer was very good. I think, (shock), better than Keaton.

Read the novel of FOREVER and see how good that movie could have been. I am being serious.

As for Chris Nolan's realistic approach. Fine. Don't forget that Batman is reality one step removed, i.e. fantasy.