--- title: "Batman Forever: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/batman-forever/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/batman-forever" critics_score: 52 critics_reviews: 10 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Batman Forever (1995): what the critics said Critics' score 52 from 10 reviews: 4 positive, 2 mixed, 4 negative. The critics split almost evenly, and the divide runs partly along the calendar: the 1995 notices are cool, the later reappraisals warmer. The praise clusters around pace and look. Several find it faster and funnier than Burton’s films, and the neon comic-book production design is admired even by critics who dislike the result. Jim Carrey’s Riddler is the performance most often singled out, with Val Kilmer’s Bruce Wayne judged charming or at least acceptable. The reservations concern what all that colour is for. Many find the film loud and overloaded, with a perfunctory plot, overacting villains and a Batman who is never properly defined. The spread is wide. Den of Geek calls it the point where the rot set in for the series and objects to the addition of Robin, while Collider and Polygon argue it is underrated, Polygon adding that it is closer to the comics than Burton’s films. ## Radio Times — David Parkinson Rating 4/5. The critic finds it the funniest and fastest in the series thanks to its brisk pace and stylish effects, making for enjoyable popcorn entertainment despite shifting from the darker tone of previous films. [Read the review](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-750qiz/batman-forever/) ## The Guardian — Peter Bradshaw Rating ★★★★☆. 17 May 2019. The critic calls it an enjoyably camp iteration with a buff Val Kilmer as Batman. The film is noted for being a little wackier than its predecessors, perhaps closer to the 1960s TV version. [Read the review](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/may/17/batman-returns-forever-and-robin-tim-burton-review) ## Empire — Ian Nathan Fi1m's normalised score 55/100 (inferred from the text). 1 January 2014. The review sees Schumacher's take as flawed yet brilliant and messy but impressive, a camp Bat-flick that hasn't aged well. It praises the villainous double-act especially Carrey's energetic Riddler and the comic-book visuals, but criticizes the lack of restraint, plot logic, and cohesive characterisation. [Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/batman-forever-review/) ## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert Fi1m's normalised score 50/100 (inferred from the text). 16 June 1995. Ebert finds the film visually striking with clever one-liners and irreverence toward the material but notes that Batman remains undefined and the villains overact, making the spectacle wearying. He calls it good bubblegum for the eyes and lighter than prior entries, though the great Batman movie is still to come. [Read the review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/batman-forever-1995) ## The Independent Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 15 July 1995. The critic finds the film wholly boring and cynical, lacking the vision of Burton's entries despite better storytelling and brighter visuals. Schumacher replaces gothic gloom with commercial canniness, and while some performances and production design impress, the overall result is visual overload without narrative drive. [Read the review](https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/cinema-wholly-boring-batman-1591745.html) ## The New York Times — Janet Maslin Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 16 June 1995. Maslin views the film as an empty-calorie product focused on spectacle and gimmicks rather than cinematic merit, with flashy but messy direction that panders to teens. She notes Val Kilmer makes an acceptable Batman but highlights unwanted innovations like nipples on the suit. [Read the review](https://www.nytimes.com/1995/06/16/movies/film-review-batman-forever-new-challenges-for-the-caped-crusader.html) ## Time Out — TCh Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 16 July 2012. The review criticizes the film for feeling stale and self-conscious, with too many competing elements and a perfunctory plot, making predecessors seem more coherent. [Read the review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/batman-forever) ## Collider — Gregory Lawrence Fi1m's normalised score 85/100 (inferred from the text). 18 June 2020. The critic calls Batman Forever an underrated blast of joy that successfully balances silliness with serious themes of duality and trauma. They praise its bold neon aesthetics, virtuosic camera work, witty screenplay, and strong performances, especially Nicole Kidman's. [Read the review](https://collider.com/why-batman-forever-is-good/) ## Polygon — Isaac Rouse Fi1m's normalised score 80/100 (inferred from the text). 7 December 2025. The critic argues Batman Forever is the most underrated entry and more faithful to the comics than Tim Burton's films, crediting Schumacher for respecting origins, character relationships, and Batman's no-kill rule. They highlight Val Kilmer's charming Bruce Wayne and the film's blend of camp and stakes. [Read the review](https://www.polygon.com/batman-forever-underrated-tim-burton-joel-schumacher/) ## Den of Geek — Simon Brew Rating 1/5. 19 February 2009. The critic finds the film a shallow mess and the point where the rot set in for the Batman franchise, with underdeveloped villains and a major misstep in adding Robin. He singles out the overall lack of edge and control over the production for complaint. [Read the review](https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/batman-forever-blu-ray-review/) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/batman-forever.md