Oh also, well, "Judge Dredd" was just not a very good movie. Not reprehensibly bad. Nobody involved should be sorry for making it, but not worth the price of a ticket. Swing and a miss.

In contrast "Batman & Robin" is terrible. Clooney said he didn't want friends and family to see it because he is rightfully ashamed to have done it. Sometimes an actor does good work but it's hard to see because the technicians are incompetent and the editor destroys their effort in the cut - however it's clear Clooney was not trying.

Alicia Silverstone has been in utter trash, some of which I have watched because I used to live with a guy who was obsessed with her - but it's notable that even the icky "technically this isn't pornography" stuff she did as a teenager is more competent than "Batman & Robin" for which she was presumably much better paid.

Joel Schumacher can do excellent work so why is "Batman & Robin" so awful? Did the Studio tell him nothing else matters so long as the branding is there because comic book fans will show up anyway? If so maybe it's partly their fault, but a good artist should have more pride in their own work than to do this.

I have more recently (well, this century) gone to a "live MST3K" type event where they screen the original film but talk over it. They warned us that "Batman & Robin" is too awful for this format to save it, but I didn't listen and yeah, long before the closing credits lots of people walked out because they were right and it's unsalvageable.