Editing Batman & Robin (film) (section)

===Critical response===
{{RT prose|12|3.8|97|Joel Schumacher's tongue-in-cheek attitude hits an unbearable limit in ''Batman & Robin'', resulting in a frantic and mindless movie that's too jokey to care much for.}}<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1077027-batman_and_robin|title=''Batman & Robin'' (1997)|website=[[Rotten Tomatoes]]|publisher=[[Fandango Media|Fandango]]|access-date={{RT data|access date}}|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201229181720/https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1077027_batman_and_robin|archive-date=December 29, 2020|url-status=live}}{{RT data|edit}}</ref> {{Metacritic film prose|score=29|count=21|ref=yes|access-date=January 31, 2024}} Audiences polled by [[CinemaScore]] gave the film an average grade of "C+" on an A+ to F scale.<ref name="CinemaScore">{{cite web|url=https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/fantastic-four-gets-worst-cinemascore-814137|title={{'}}''Fantastic Four''{{'}} Gets Worst CinemaScore Ever for Studio Superhero Movie|last=McClintock|first=Pamela|date=August 9, 2015|website=[[The Hollywood Reporter]]|access-date=May 10, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220530153910/https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/fantastic-four-gets-worst-cinemascore-814137|archive-date=May 30, 2022|url-status=live}}</ref>

Jay Boyar of ''[[Orlando Sentinel]]'' believed ''Batman & Robin'' to be the least distinctive chapter in the series, calling it a "bat-smorgasbord of action, camp, pathos, spectacle and whatever" and blaming its blandness on the studio's increased involvement in its production.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.orlandosentinel.com/os-xpm-1997-06-20-9706190244-story.html|title=Super Series Suffers from Bat-tle Fatigue|date=June 20, 1997|last=Boyar|first=Jay|work=[[Orlando Sentinel]]|access-date=November 1, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201126122931/https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-xpm-1997-06-20-9706190244-story.html|archive-date=November 26, 2020|url-status=dead}}</ref> In his "thumbs down" review, [[Roger Ebert]] of the ''[[Chicago Sun-Times]]'' found the film to be "wonderful to look at" although it had "nothing authentic at its core", criticizing its [[toyetic]] approach.<ref>{{cite news|first=Roger|last=Ebert|author-link=Roger Ebert|title=''Batman & Robin''|work=[[Chicago Sun-Times]]|url=https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/batman-and-robin-1997|date=June 20, 1997|access-date=November 12, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081216115418/http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F19970620%2FREVIEWS%2F706200301%2F1023|archive-date=December 16, 2008|url-status=live}}</ref> Writing for the ''[[Chicago Tribune]]'', [[Gene Siskel]], who gave positive reviews to the previous ''Batman'' films, also gave ''Batman & Robin'' a "thumbs down" rating, calling it a "sniggering, exhausting, overproduced extravaganza".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1997-06-20-9706200276-story.html|title=No. 4 {{'}}''Batman''{{'}} Strikes Out|date=June 20, 1997|last=Siskel|first=Gene|author-link=Gene Siskel|work=[[Chicago Tribune]]|access-date=September 14, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220429215245/https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1997-06-20-9706200276-story.html|archive-date=April 29, 2022|url-status=live}}</ref> While commending the film's visuals, [[Kenneth Turan]] of the ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'' called the film "indifferently acted" and "far too slick for even a toehold's worth of connection", believing that it "killed" the [[Batman in film|''Batman'' film series]].<ref>{{cite news|first=Kenneth|last=Turan|author-link=Kenneth Turan|title=Meanwhile, Back at the Batcave...|work=[[Los Angeles Times]]|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-06-20-ca-5024-story.html|date=June 20, 1997|access-date=November 12, 2008|archive-date=June 25, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170625015857/http://articles.latimes.com/1997-06-20/entertainment/ca-5024_1_batman-forever|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Desson Thomson|Desson Howe]] of ''[[The Washington Post]]'' disapproved of Schumacher's direction and Akiva Goldsman's script, calling it an "emptily flashy, meandering fashion show of a summer flick" and also believing that it should mark the end to the series.<ref>{{cite news|first=Desson|last=Howe|title={{'}}''Batman''{{'}}: Winged Defeat|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/movies/review97/batmanandrobinhowe.htm?noredirect=on|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|date=June 20, 1997|access-date=January 27, 2019|archive-date=September 16, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180916092921/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/movies/review97/batmanandrobinhowe.htm?noredirect=on|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Andrew Johnston (critic)|Andrew Johnston]], writing in ''[[Time Out (magazine)|Time Out]]'', remarked, "It's hard to tell who ''B&R'' is intended for. Anyone who knows the character from the comics or the superb [[Batman: The Animated Series|animated show]] on [[Fox Kids|Fox]] will be alienated. And though Schumacher treats the [[Batman (TV series)|Adam West version]] as gospel, that show's [[Camp (style)|campy]] humor is completely incompatible with these production values."<ref>{{cite magazine|last=Johnston|first=Andrew|date=June 26 – July 3, 1997|title=''Batman & Robin''|journal=[[Time Out (magazine)|Time Out]]|pages=70}}</ref> [[James Berardinelli]] questioned the "random amount of rubber nipples and camera angle close-ups of the Dynamic Duo's butts and Bat-crotches".<ref>{{cite web|last=Berardinelli|first=James|author-link=James Berardinelli|date=1997|title=''Batman and Robin''|work=ReelViews|url=http://www.reelviews.net/movies/b/batman4.html|access-date=November 13, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070605114555/http://www.reelviews.net/movies/b/batman4.html|archive-date=June 5, 2007|url-status=dead}}</ref>

In his review for the ''[[San Francisco Chronicle]]'', [[Mick LaSalle]] said that the film failed to "convincingly inhabit the grandeur of its art direction and special effects", criticizing George Clooney as "the big zero of the film", who "should go down in history as the [[George Lazenby]] of the series".<ref>{{cite news|first=Mick|last=LaSalle|author-link=Mick LaSalle|title=Batman Chills Out / George Clooney can't fill Batsuit, so Uma and Arnie save lightweight sequel|url=https://www.sfgate.com/movies/article/BATMAN-CHILLS-OUT-George-Clooney-can-t-fill-2834605.php|work=[[San Francisco Chronicle]]|date=June 20, 1997|access-date=September 16, 2018|archive-date=September 16, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180916060130/https://www.sfgate.com/movies/article/BATMAN-CHILLS-OUT-George-Clooney-can-t-fill-2834605.php|url-status=live}}</ref> While deeming Clooney "the most ideal Batman to date" in a physical sense, [[Todd McCarthy]] of ''[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]'' found the character uninteresting and Clooney "unable to compensate onscreen for the lack of dimension on paper". Conversely, he described Thurman and Schwarzenegger's performances as the villainous duo as the "highlights of the film", pointing out Thurman's "comic wit conspicuously lacking elsewhere in the picture".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://variety.com/1997/film/reviews/batman-robin-1200450193/|title=''Batman & Robin''|date=June 16, 1997|last=McCarthy|first=Todd|author-link=Todd McCarthy|work=[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]|access-date=November 1, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221014221230/https://variety.com/1997/film/reviews/batman-robin-1200450193/|archive-date=October 14, 2022|url-status=live}}</ref> Writing for ''[[Star Tribune]]'', Jeff Strickler criticized its "almost embarrassingly mundane" dialogue and called Schwarzenegger "wasted" in the role of Mr. Freeze and his character "drably written".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/11485606.html|title=''Batman & Robin''|date=June 19, 1997|last=Strickler|first=Jeff|work=[[Star Tribune]]|access-date=November 1, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150112201229/https://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/11485606.html|archive-date=January 12, 2015|url-status=dead}}</ref> [[Janet Maslin]] of ''[[The New York Times]]'' gave a more positive review and praised Thurman's performance as "perfect", comparing it to [[Mae West]]'s "[mix of] true femininity with the winking womanliness of a drag queen", but criticizing Silverstone and Clooney's performances.<ref>{{cite news|first=Janet|last=Maslin|author-link=Janet Maslin|title=Holy Iceberg! Dynamic Duo Vs. Mr. Freeze|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1997/06/20/movies/holy-iceberg-dynamic-duo-vs-mr-freeze.html|work=[[The New York Times]]|date=June 20, 1997|access-date=September 16, 2018|archive-date=September 12, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180912204252/https://www.nytimes.com/1997/06/20/movies/holy-iceberg-dynamic-duo-vs-mr-freeze.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Steven Rea of ''[[The Philadelphia Inquirer]]'' found Thurman at times "amusing" and similarly described her performance as "Mae West with moss".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.philly.com/1997-06-20/entertainment/25524919_1_batman-robin-batman-movies-bat-guy|title=Holy Bat-pics! It's Long, Loud, Pointless|date=June 20, 1997|last=Rea|first=Steven|work=[[The Philadelphia Inquirer]]|access-date=November 1, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141109235556/http://articles.philly.com/1997-06-20/entertainment/25524919_1_batman-robin-batman-movies-bat-guy|archive-date=November 9, 2014|url-status=dead}}</ref>