_Batman & Robin_ is fun in exactly one way: Fun to laugh at. It's terrible, God is it terrible, but it's terrible in that right kind of way. Doesn't stop it from being terrible, but does make it worth watching. Joel Schumacher delivers us the final nail in the lid of Batman's coffin with none other than George Clooney in the guise of the Caped Crusader, probably the worst on screen Batman we'll ever see. Clooney was actually a pretty inspired choice if you're thinking solely about the billionaire playboy Bruce Wayne, but ask any Batfan and they'll tell you: the character's true identity is Batman, Bruce Wayne is just a mask he wears. Finally, this isn't a real complaint but something that I'm going to address anyway: The Batman movie with Batman and Robin is called _Batman Forever_, but the one with Batman, Robin and Batgirl is called just _Batman & Robin_? Go figure. _Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

**_Easily the best of the four_** Staunch fundamentalist fanboys have declared 1997's "Batman & Robin" to be a blasphemous blemish in the superhero's chronicling, but it's easily the most entertaining of the four Batman films that came out between 1989-97. Let's face it, all four of these flicks have the same cartoony tone. They were a couple rungs above the 60's TV series in campiness, but with better costumes and a super budget. And "Batman & Robin" was the most entertaining of the four. I'll admit that I'm not a big fan of the goofy/surreal style of these movies; I prefer Christopher's Nolan's raw realistic approach in the Dark Knight trilogy ("realistic" to a point, that is). It's just that "Batman & Robin" is the most entertaining of the earlier series. Which is why I never got the whole "Tim Burton's Batman is a masterpiece" mindset. Really? Not to me. It LOOKED great, but the story was tedious. Again, all four of these films have the same general cartoony tone and there's simply no validity to the position that Burton's "Batman" or "Batman Returns" are more serious/realistic in approach compared to Joel Schumacher's "Batman Forever" and "Batman & Robin." I've seen 'em all back-to-back and they each have the same colorful we're-not-taking-this-too-serious style. For anyone to enjoy these films you have to be willing to accept the comic booky world the filmmaker's hav…

This is the worse batman movie out of all of them. Besides Clooney, the acting was horrendous. No wonder why Clooney regrets being in this movie it sucked.

You know what? I quite enjoyed this. "Batman" (George Clooney) and his sidekick "Robin" (Chris O'Donnell) have to race to downtown "Gotham" to thwart the diamond-heisting plans of "Mr. Fries" - that's as in freeze not French - (Arnold Schwarzenegger) who is wreaking havoc so he can hopefully find a cure for a disease that has necessitated him keeping his beloved wife in stasis for years. Meantime, alter ego "Bruce Wayne" is at one of his company's many charity launches - this time for a giant telescope - when he encounters "Dr. Isley" (Uma Thurman) who demands that he help her in her quest to stop mankind from destroying the planet. Of course he is polite, but makes it clear that feeding and fuelling people is more important so she determines to take unilateral action. She's rather helped on that front by her megalomanic pal "Dr. Woodrue" with whom she has a bit of an altercation that sees her delivered of a new mono-syllabic henchman "Bane" (Jeep Swenson) and some new powers to manipulate the powers of nature. Scene set as she uses her new found skills to make just about everyone fall in lust with her and allies with "Fries" so both can destroy "Batman". Back at "Wayne" manor, the butler "Alfred" (Michael Gough) is feeling the early effects of the same disease that's debilitating "Mrs. Fries" but his visiting niece "Barbara" (Alicia Silverstone) seems to be way more than the d…