When Joel Schumacher's "Batman Forever" graced the silver screens in 1995, it swiftly ascended to become one of the year's most lucrative films, raking in over $336 million globally. But does Schumacher’s take on Batman truly deliver? The answer is somewhat convoluted. While "Batman Forever" garnered a degree of affection upon its release, it also received mixed reviews from critics. Certain elements of this 1995 cinematic venture are indeed commendable, such as its pioneering use of CGI with the first-ever digital double. Conversely, much of the film feels like an excessive and chaotic spectacle.

Looking back, the film's overwhelming success appears perplexing, as its flaws grow more conspicuous with time; the term "camp" can only justify so much before it stretches beyond its limits. Certainly, this form of entertainment resonated with a broad audience, including children who were the primary demographic for the film's tie-in toys. Its light-hearted, humorous tone significantly contributed to its widespread appeal. Nevertheless, this doesn't alter the fact that "Batman Forever" presents a challenging viewing experience, where impressive technical achievements clash with a glaring lack of depth.

It comes as no surprise that Warner Bros. promptly greenlit a Schumacher sequel, banking on its predecessor's performance. Regrettably, 1997's "Batman