The Batman 2022

Despite Robert Pattinson being a little too quiet and emotionless as Bruce Wayne. It’s funny how much his Batman is alive. Though his Bruce Wayne does show the inner scars more of any other Bruce Wayne. It is a little too overdone where you could consider him emo Bruce Wayne.
After a few hundred more viewings, his Bruce will probably grow on me more. His Batman though definitely doesn’t need to grow on me however. He could possibly be the most bad ass.
Paul Dano and Colin Farrell are both equally ingenious as the Riddler and the Penguin. Though Dano is creepier and bone chilling at times. Farrell’s Penguin is like the mob boss we’ve been missing on film since DeNiro in the Untouchables.
While Zoe Kravitz is an excellent Catwoman as well. Who feels the more like the character jumped out of the comic pages. Than the Riddler I admit. Who’s look was changed a little too much. Though him being perfectly out of his mind does make up for that.
The 3 hour length goes so fast surprisingly since the story pulls in you. To learn more about the Riddler especially and who will his next target be. My only problem is that Batman/Bruce is mostly on a motorcycle throughout. Until he just suddenly has the Batmobile in one scene.
Other than that and Pattinson’s Bruce Wayne having to grow on me. The Batman was the most solid Batman film since the Dark Knight. It also might be the closest movie the Arkham video games. Which is a very good thing.

Here’s my “Quick and Dirty Review” of “The Batman.” Wow. Great story, beautiful visuals, and some of the most haunting and melodic scoring I've heard in a long time. You know those folks that say "why can't they make good comic book movies? One's where you care about the good guys and hate the bad guys and it all seems to actually matter and it's not just some dumb exercise in grandstanding morons punching each other for two hours?" Show them this movie. It's haunting and thoughtful and moving. There's the absolute bare minimum of "modern day" tropes and groupthink -- instead, you get a vigilante detective trying to solve an escalating series of gruesome and public murders. Everyone is great in this: Kravitz, Paul Dano, Peter Sarsgaard, a completely unrecognizable Colin Ferrell and Turturro. Serkis as Alfred is haunted by his failure to protect Bruce Wayne's parents, while Jeffrey Wright's Lt. Gordon is apparently the only cop in town who's not on the payroll of some crime lord or syndicate. But my standout was Pattinson, formerly Mr. Shiny Vampire, who brings something new and vulnerable and a little unhinged to the Caped Crusader. Everything here feels fresh and new: a grungy but logical bat cave, a saucy and completely realistic batmobile, the way the Batman uses fear and his ability to be anywhere as tools in an attempt to keep a lid on the bubbling, simmering cesspool that is Gotham City. 9 out of 10, in my Top 5 for 2022.

There were portions of this film that I truly enjoyed and portions that I could've done w/ out. Since there was much more good than bad, I'll start w/ what I liked:

1. Although not a huge Batman fan, I have seen all the movies, including some of the animated films, and I really appreciated the gritty, noir quality this film had. It lent well to the dark atmosphere that was necessary for this film.
2. I really liked that Batman wasn't portrayed as some superhuman character, b/c he's not. He's a great detective, in the vein of a Sherlock Holmes, and he's been trained in various fighting disciplines, but he's still just a man. He's not like other members of the Justice League, for instance, and I prefer that he not be portrayed that way. In this film, it was shown that he was able to be injured, as many of the fight scenes were fairly realistic, albeit for what they were. I also appreciated that his attire wasn't laden w/ every gadget in the world that he'd require to navigate any situation. He was more of a relatable superhero in this film b/c of this.
3. I am thankful that we didn't get the umpteenth edition of a superhero origin story. Unless the superhero isn't widely known, there's really no reason for that, and for someone like Batman, it'd been done to death.
4. I'm especially appreciative of the fact that Robert Pattinson spent practically the entire movie in Batman's cowl and cape. Far too many superhero movies are made w/out making use of the superheroes. It's really a travesty of filmmaking, and for a superhero movie, where I want to see someone doing fantastic things, I don't need 105 minutes of would-be drama and 15 minutes of superhero action. That doesn't appeal to me.
5. Finally, I enjoyed the relationship between Batman and Detective Gordon. In this film, they worked together as a team. Jeffrey Wright was excellent as Detective Gordon, and the two of them had an interesting co-existence. I also appreciated the way Robert Pattinson played Bruce Wayne, close to the vest but w/ that intensely visible, yet restrained, rageful anger underneath the surface.

As for what I didn't care for:

1. I felt that while this wasn't an origin story, it was still designed as a way to setup characters for future use. I felt that this film would have been a much more potent vehicle had it been viewed by the writer as a stand-alone feature, since it was outside canon.
2. B/c of this reason, I felt that the film dragged a bit in the middle and toward the climax, which I felt was rather anticlimactic. It wasn't a huge deal, b/c it was still a fine film, but I did feel that everyone could've been better served by making the film more streamlined.

This is in many ways the exact movie that The Lego Batman Movie made fun of.
So, I can totally understand if this film reads like self-parody to some (I'll admit, the gravely film noir detective voice over was a bit much, it's been parodied to death at this point), but I'd argue that it's overall a refreshing take on the character in a well thought out story that includes some excellent performances. Paul Dano, Robert Pattinson and Zoe Kravitz all nail their roles.
It's a typical Matt Reeves blockbuster in every sense. It's grounded, serious, and there's a strong emphasis on drama/tension, and less on action. The production and style of this thing are phenomenal. Excellent cinematography, which should be Oscar nominated (but probably won't), music, production value, costumes, directing, etcetera. It's grim, it's dark, it's gritty, but it doesn't feel like it's directed by a 16 year old edgelord either. I love how the colour palette of this film is restricted to black, grey, orange and red. It's perfect, taking clear influences from David Fincher films, neo noir detectives and '70s paranoia thrillers (maybe a hint of Marvel Netflix as well). I hope it reinvents the wheel for many blockbusters to come.
Its biggest problem are the pacing and the characters. I'm fine with defending longer films, but this isn't a smooth 3 hour ride. It holds its cards very close to the chest during the first half, to the point where it's hard to engage with and can get kinda boring. It's a lot of set-up, mood and atmosphere, and not much else. It doesn't really hook you with its characters or the dramatic intrigue of the story, as I didn't find this slow moving mystery compelling enough by itself (partially because it doesn't really engage the audience; you can't solve it by yourself). There's not even that much action to compensate, besides a few quick beats here and there.
It also relies too much on the cultural iconography of Batman and Catwoman that already exists in our current zeitgeist, and while I might know those characters as cultural icons, I don't know this Batman, or this Catwoman. It eventually gets there though, as The Riddler and Catwoman get a lot more interesting in their own right as the film goes along, but it takes a long time. I love that this Riddler is essentially re-imagined to be a radicalized 4 Chan incel , which feels very relevant for today. Still, we know very little about Batman by the end of it (besides his brooding indie rockstar behavior), which is mostly due to the general lack of Bruce Wayne in the film. Batman cannot be interesting without a good Bruce Wayne accompanying him. That's nothing against Robert Pattinson, he's very good in it, but the writing for his character is very one note. As a film, it would've benefitted a lot from a deeper dive into his psyche, because the emotional arc of his character doesn't feel earned by the end.
Still, these issues could easily be fixed in a sequel, it's a good enough foundation for a series of great Batman films.

7/10

"The Batman" is the latest installment in the long-running series of films based on the DC Comics character of the same name. Directed by Matt Reeves and starring Robert Pattinson as the Dark Knight, the movie offers a fresh and intriguing take on the iconic character.

The movie tells the story of a young Bruce Wayne as he begins his journey to become the legendary crime-fighter known as Batman. The story is well-written, with a mix of mystery and intrigue that keeps the audience engaged throughout the film. Pattinson does a great job as the brooding and intense version of Batman, bringing a new layer of depth to the character that we haven't seen before. The supporting cast, including Zoë Kravitz as Catwoman and Paul Dano as the Riddler, also give strong performances.

The film is visually stunning, with incredible set design and special effects that transport the audience to the gritty streets of Gotham City. The action scenes are well choreographed and thrilling to watch. The score, composed by Michael Giacchino, is also a standout, adding to the overall atmosphere of the film.

One of the highlights of the film is how it explores the psychological and emotional side of Batman as he navigates his way through the corruption and crime that plagues Gotham City, it shows a more human side of the superhero making it more relatable.

However, the film isn't without its flaws. Some of the plot elements feel a bit convoluted and some of the subplots don't get as much attention as they could have. Also, the story is a little bit darker that some of the other Batman movies, this could be a pro or con depending on the preferences of the audience.

Overall, I would give "The Batman" an 8 out of 10. It's a fresh and exciting take on the iconic character that offers a new perspective on the hero's journey. It's a well-made film with a great cast and impressive visuals, although it has some narrative issues. Fans of the comics and the Batman character should definitely check it out.

"The Batman" might not be a great film overall, but it's definitely the comic character's most convincing adaptation so far. We came to the point where there have been so many Batmovies that the audience's perception of the character is completely different from its comic counterpart. Matt Reeves' Batman is still aware of the expectations of the average moviegoers, but at the same time managed to take the character back to its roots as the world's best detective, offering us a slow-burning crime thriller where the real threat is the mob that pulls the strings in the filthiest and rainiest Gotham so far. Gritty and realistic without feeling pretentious, moody and stylized without getting cheesy. The Battinson hits hard when the situation requires, but we can see that after all, he is an insecure and tormented man in a ridiculous suit, a slave of his traumas and vices. And the best part is that we get all of this just by watching him in action, no need for pretentious dialogues or the same origin story all over again. The Bruce Wayne/Batman dichotomy has been strangely cut out, but it might be material for the sequels.

While the overall presentation is flawless, the plot and writing still need improvement. Like in "Batman Begins", the last thirty minutes suddenly raise the stakes to deliver an action-packed climax, but end up feeling strangely anticlimactic. It also felt like while essential plot points were often rushed, a lot of time got wasted spelling out things that were already crystal clear. Supporting characters don't get much screen time, and when something happens to them, it's hard to get emotionally involved. Still, it might be the first time I can't wait for the sequels!

A potentially great film being held hostage by its PG-13 rating and its messy, all over the places screenwriting.

By PG-13 I don't simply mean its visuals/goriness, but most importantly its dialogues, themes, and storytelling it tries to raise. Let me explain.

First, the dialogues.

The film opens with murder and Batman narrating the city's anxious mood. We get a glimpse of noir in this scene, but it soon falls flat due to a very uninteresting, plain, forgettable choice of words Batman used in his narration. Mind you, this is not a jab at Pattinson - Pattinson delivered it nicely. But there is no emotion in his line of words - there is no adjectives, there is no strong feelings about how he regards the city full of its criminals.

Here's a line from the opening scene. "Two years of night has turned me to a nocturnal animal. I must choose my targets carefully. It's a big city. I can't be everywhere. But they don't know where I am. When that light hits the sky, it's not just a call. It's a warning to them. Fear... is a tool. They think I am hiding in the shadows. Watching. Waiting to strike. I am the shadows." Okay? Cool. But sounds like something from a cartoon. What does that tell us about you, Batman?

Compare this to a similar scene uttered by Rorschach in Watchmen. "The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood. And when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. All those liberals and intellectuals, smooth talkers... Beneath me, this awful city, it screams like an abattoir full of retarded children, and the night reeks of fornication and bad consciences." You can say that Rorschach is extremely edgy (he is), but from that line alone we can tell his hatred towards the city, and even more so: his perspective, his philosophy that guides him to conduct his life and do what he does.

Rorschach's choice of words is sometimes verbose, but he is always expletive and at times graphic, making it clear to the audience what kind of person he is. Batman in this film does not. His words are always very safe, very carefully chosen, which strikes as an odd contrast to Pattinson's tortured portrayal of Batman as someone with a seemingly pent up anger. His choice of words is very PG-13 so that the kids can understand what Batman is trying to convey.

And this is not only in the opening scene. Throughout the film, the dialogues are written very plainly forgettable. It almost feels like the characters are having those conversations just to move the plot forward. Like that one encounter between Batman and Catwoman/Selina when she broke into the house to steal the passport or when Selina asked to finish off the "rat". They flow very oddly unnatural, as if those conversations are written to make them "trailer-able" (and the scenes indeed do appear on the trailer).

Almost in all crucial plot points the writers feel the need to have the characters to describe what has happened, or to explictly say what they are feeling - like almost every Gordon's scene in crime scene, or Selina's scene when she's speaking to Batman. It feels like the writers feel that the actors' expression just can't cut it and the audience has to be spoonfed with dialogues; almost like they're writing for kids.

Second, the storytelling.

Despite being a film about vengeance-fueled Batman (I actually like that cool "I'm vengeance" line) we don't get to see him actually being in full "vengeance" mode. Still in the opening we see Batman punching some thugs around. That looks a little bit painful but then the thugs seem to be fit enough to run away and Batman let them be. Then in the middle of the film we see Batman does something similar to mafias. Same, he just knocked them down but there's nothing really overboard with that. Then eventually in the car chase scene with the Penguin, Batman seem to be on "full rage mode", but over... what? He was just talking to Penguin a moment ago. The car chase scene itself is a bit pointless if not only to show off the Batmobile. And Batman did nothing to the Penguin after, just a normal questioning, not even harsher than Bale's Batman did to Heath's Joker in The Dark Knight - not in "'batshit insane' cop" mode as Penguin put it.

Batman's actions look very much apprehensive and controlled. Nothing too outrageous. Again, at odds with Pattinson's portrayal that seem to be full of anger; he's supposed to be really angry but somehow he still does not let his anger take the best of him. The only one time he went a bit overboard that shocked other characters is when he kept punching a villain near the end of the film. But even then it's not because his anger; it's because he injected some kind of drug (I guess some adrenaline shot). A very safe way to drop a parent-friendly message that "drug is bad, it can change you" in a PG-13 film.

And all that supposed anger... we don't get to see why he is angry and where his anger is directed at. Compare this to Arthur Fleck in Joker where it is clear as sky why Arthur would behave the way the does in the film. I mean we know his parents' death troubled him, but it's barely even discussed, not even in brief moments with Alfred (except in one that supposedly "shocking" moment). So... where's your vengeance, Mr. Vengeance? And what the hell are you vengeancing on?

Speaking of "shocking" moment... this is about the supposed Wayne family's involvement in the city's criminal affairs that has been teased early in the film. Its revelation was very anticlimactic: the supposed motive and the way it ended up the way it is, all very childish. If the film wanted the Wayne to be a "bad person", there's a lot of bads that a billionaire can do: tax evasion, blood diamond, funding illegal arms trade, fending off unions, hell, they can even do it the way the Waynes in Joker did it: hints of sexual abuses. But no, it has to be some bloody murder again, and all for a very trivial reason of "publicity". As if the film has to make it clear to the kids: "hey this guy's bad because he killed someone!" Which COULD work if the film puts makes taking someone's life has a very serious consequence. But it just pales to the serial killing The Riddler has done.

Even more anticlimactic considering how Bruce Wayne attempted to find a resolve in this matter only takes less than a 5 minute scene! It all involves only a bit of dialogues which boils down to how Thomas Wayne has a good reason to do so. Bruce somehow is convinced with that and has a change of heart instantly, making him looks very gullible.

And of course the ending is very weak and disappointing. First, Riddler's final show directly contradicts his initial goal to expose and destroy the corrupt elites. What he did instead is making the lives of the poor more difficult, very oxymoron for someone supposed to be as smart as him.

Second, the way Batman just ended up being "vengeance brings nothing and I should save people more than hurting people" does not get enough development to have him to say that in the end. Again - where's your vengeance? And how did you come to such character development if nothing is being developed on? And let's not get to how it's a very safe take against crime and corruption that closely resembles Disney's moralistic pandering in Marvel Cinematic Universe film.

Last, the visuals.

I'm not strictly speaking about gore, though that also factors in the discussion. The film sets this up as a film about hunting down a serial killer. But the film barely shows how cruel The Riddler can be to his victims. Again, back to the opening scene: we get it, Riddler killed the guy, but it does not look painful at all as it looks Riddler just knocked him twice. The sound design is very lacking that it does not seem what The Riddler done was conducted very painfully. Riddler then threw away his murder weapon, but we barely see blood. Yet when Gordon arrived to the crime scene, he described the victim as being struck multiple times with blood all over. What?

Similarly, when Riddler forced another victim to wear a bomb in his neck. The situation got pretty tense, but when the bomb eventually blow off, we just got some very small explosion like a small barrel just exploded, not a human being! I mean I'm not saying we need a gory explosion with head chopped off like in The Boys, but it does not look like what would happen if someone's head got blown off. Similarly when another character got almost blown off by a bomb - there's no burnt scar at all.

Why the hell are they setting up those possibly gory deaths and scars if they're not going to show how severe and painful these are? At least not the result - we don't need to see blood splattered everywhere - just how painful the process is. Sound design and acting of the actors (incl. twitching, for example) would've helped a lot even we don't see the gore, like what James Franco did in The 127 Hours or Hugh Jackman in Logan. In this film there's almost no tense at all resulting from those.

I'm not saying this film is terrible.

The acting, given the limited script they had, is excellent. Pattinson did his best, so did Paul Dano (always likes him as a villain), Zoe Kravitz, and the rest. Cinematography is fantastic; the lighting, angle, everything here is very great that makes a couple of very good trailers - perhaps one could even say that the whole film trades off coherency for making the scenes "trailer-able". The music is iconic, although with an almost decent music directing. And I guess this detective Batman is a fresh breath of air.

But all that does not make the movie good as in the end it's still all over the places and very PG-13.

Especially not with the 3 hours runtime where many scenes feel like a The Walking Dead filler episode.

If you're expecting a Batman film with similar gritty, tone to The Dark Knight trilogy or Joker, this film is not for you. But if you only want a live-action cartoon like pre-Nolan Batmans or The Long Halloween detective-style film, well, I guess you can be satisfied with this one.

"The Batman" is not a movie, it's actually just a four-part mini-series that is shown one after the other, in one piece, as a film. Just like "Dune" and many other new movies, that are unnecessarily long, tell the story extremely slow and seem to last forever. What's wrong with a 90 minute or at most 2 hour movie? What's wrong with a fast paced movie with lots of action? Why do movies suddenly have to be 3 hours long or more? This makes most movies boring. That goes for "Dune", "Tenet" and many others and it also goes for this movie "The Batman"! Had the film been an hour shorter, the simple story could have been told fascinatingly, as it should be in a movie. But now the film drags on like a soap opera, with long-winded shots of stares and boring dialogue that add nothing to it. Even the music, shamelessly borrowed from John Williams, cannot ad any to it. It can still be a good movie, when cut down to 90 minutes. In fact, only the last James Bond movie has managed to captivate the viewer for 3 hours, but all the other more than 2 hour films of recent times all bear the stamp of the HBO, NetFlix, Prime, Apple and Disney series: slowness, to keep the viewer streaming as long as possible, so they don't go to the competitor. For a 4 part miniseries I would have given "The Batman" 7 stars, for a 90 minute movie probably 8 starts, but now it deserves no more than 4.

This may be the Batman we deserved, but definitely not the one we need.

In another timeline it would have been pretty good. But did we really have to do a nth reboot/standalone Batman that tries to impose its own style ? Definitely not.

This is a death sentence to the DC-verse. Looks like they're giving up because they still weren't able to build a consistent universe even across so little movies. This clearly doesn't fit with the previous ones, and it is definitely too dark to build a universe around. What DC needs is to manage to make their movie part of something greater. And this clearly wasn't designed for that.

Now let's be clear, it is not a bad movie in itself, but that was not the movie DC, and we, needed right now.

And even the good parts are too excessively played on.

So what's good ? It's dark, very dark. It really builds its own style and atmosphere. Gotham really look the worst we've ever seen, but in a good way. The absolute full-on corruption of Gotham elites, all implicated in a grand scheme, potentially including Thomas Wayne is interesting. But it's too much, they did not have to also be drug addicts and implicated in call girls murders... Half the cops are also dirty, including top brass, but Gordon didn't even suspect anything ?

There is a lot of work on image, on camera work, etc.
But it's too much too. Rapidly you only see the work and not the result.

There are basically three kinds of shots in the whole movie.
1⃣, scenes where you can't see clearly what happens. Because it's either too far or too dark (from in the shadow, to full black momentarily lighted by gunshots), or too blurry.
2⃣, scenes shot in successions of extreme close-up. Not the into the action close-up, no. This, but then let's bring the camera still a bit closer, so that you can't see any context around the subject and even the subject doesn't quite fit into the frame. You know, to give an experimental/edgy feeling.
3⃣, a combination of both

This really cover 99% of the movie. It gives a distinctive visual style, and it gets ok results. But after a while it really is way too much in your face that that's what you see instead of the expected effect. And once you notice it (it really doesn't take long), that's basically all you can see in every single scene.

You're also warned early as the first minutes look more like an experimental movie than anything else. And the soundtrack is on the level. Lots of weird noise more than music.

The story is good, there's a good pace, a good progression,it's interesting to see Batman doing more detective work and a bit less of fighting. The Riddler's enigmas are good, not great.

The action is ok. Fights, car chase (though the way it was filmed it got very uninteresting very fast), gadgets. Expected, nothing crazy either.

What's less good ?

The characters.
I love Andy Serkis, but probably one of the worst Alfred ever.
Batman is actually pretty ok, even good, but I guess it's easier.
However Pattinson as Bruce Wayne sucks. At least they tried to match the character to him, it's not the usual billionaire playboy, more of a recluse emo teenager. That means is not badly acted, just that there's not a single moment where you think "that's Bruce Wayne I'm seeing"
Catwoman knows how to fight a bit, but mostly the character is a sexy sexist cliche from 30 years ago. There probably was a lot more to be done here.
The Riddler is pretty different from what we're used to. First he looks more like Bane than anything else. Despite his supposedly high intellect, he has clearly an inferiority complex (instead of the opposite). He engages physically with his victims and is prone to bursts of violence. Mostly a crazy pathetic loser, that probably gets a high from his number of tiktok followers, a bit of an incel mixed with a Jan 6 rioter. Pretty disappointing. (Note that Paul Dano is very good though, but crazy psychos are his thing)
Gordon is good though.
Penguin: good actin but useless.

Not sure where this is in the timeline, but it's pretty weird that basically all cops are against Batman except Gordon that even brings him on crime scenes. I mean, all the police is against it. How the hell do they let this huge ass signal in the sky, that seems to be on a lot ? Gordon does not have the authority to do that, or bring him on scenes.

It's supposed to be dark, and it is pretty violent, but none of the gruesome parts are ever shown. Not that we really need gore, but it is weird how it is totally ignored. A guy has supposedly his face eaten by rats, but we don't even see a rat. Alfred is involved in a explosion at a few centimeters distance and in the hospital he doesn't even have a burnt hair, let alone skin. This one is really weird. Real is shot in the chest and just walks around in water a few minutes later. Etc.

Not sure whether the Riddler's followers army is supposed to be a Jan.6 reference or not.

tl;dr: A very dark atmosphere and original visual style that could be good but are so very overplayed that they become a hindrance. An ok story with meh characters. As expected Pattinson works as Batman but is an horrible Bruce Wayne. Standalone movie that can in no way fit into the current or any future DCverse.

There's a lot to talk about with this film. I mean, how can there not be when it's almost three hours long.

First, I want to discuss two comps. One that might feel obvious, and another less so. That is Watchmen and Dune. There's superficial similarities, such as length, with all three of these films running 2.5+ hours. In the case of Watchmen, you could also point to the narration based on the journaling of a masked vigilante. On top of that, there's the excellent production design, costumes, and cinematography. But the reason I point to these films as comps has less to do with those things, and more to do with the overall approach. All three films are heavily atmospheric. Oozing with style. If I had to label the category, I would call them auteur blockbusters. This is a relatively uncommon pairing due to the fundamental conflict between the risk associated with a singular artistic vision and the expense associated with big budget productions. In the crowded superhero genre, there's a lot of films that feel made-by-committee. Marvel has a reputation for their second unit directors, who film the action sequences for every MCU film. I don't know how accurate that reputation is, but the MCU certainly feels like it's struggled against a same-y quality that results in some of their films not having a lasting impact. The fact that several auteur directors have joined and subsequently abandoned MCU projects (e.g. Edgar Wright with Ant-Man or Scott Derrickson with the Doctor Strange sequel) certainly seems supportive of this conflict. Meanwhile, The Batman (and Watchmen and Dune) feel like they went all in on a singular artistic vision and, for the most part, I think they were better for it.

Getting into the actual film, Robert Pattinson continues to impress in his post-Twilight career, making for both an excellent Batman and Bruce Wayne. That said, I was somewhat disappointed that we didn't get more of the latter. Thinking back to Batman Begins, Christian Bale's portrayal of the playboy billionaire got plenty of screen time, with numerous memorable and character developing scenes. By comparison, Robert Pattinson seems to spend most of his time in the mask. This isn't a major issue, as ultimately we're here to see the caped crusader, but I do wonder how things could have looked with a slightly more balanced ratio. I was also impressed with Paul Dano's Riddler. His costume was suitably creepy, his dialogue suitably psychotic, and his performance suitably chilling.

As for the story, it didn't exactly blow me away, but it gets the job done. For such a long film, the plot actually seemed to move pretty quickly, feeling very comic book-esque as it jumped from one clue to the next as Batman tries to solve Riddler's ultimate puzzle. While I generally enjoyed the detective work, there are plenty of instances where suspension of disbelief is threadbare as some questionable logical leaps take us from one location to the next. Also, the culmination of the story didn't really land for me. Exposition dumps came fast and loose toward the finale, in one instance with contradictory reveals seemingly coming back to back (i.e. a character gives devastating news in one scene, and the very next scene a different character says "nope, that was wrong"). Additionally, Falcone's ultimate villainy felt like something of a false-twist, making the whole rat investigation feel like it didn't go anywhere interesting. Luckily, none of these problems are egregious enough to drag down the solid foundation.

Speaking of the length, I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that the film was longer than necessary. It's jam packed with lingering shots, to the point where you could probably cut 20 minutes without losing a single line of dialogue or plot point. Now, that's not to say that I would recommend such extreme measures. There's merit in letting certain moments hang, and the cinematography alone justifies plenty of these shots. That said, I still think some were overdone and that prudent trimming could be justified.

Some quick final thoughts. While my typical anti-narration stance remains, I wasn't too bothered by its implementation here. In fact, I thought the opening monologue and set-up with the various criminals all afraid of a potential encounter with Batman was well executed. Finally, regarding the action, I thought the hand to hand combat through most of the film was excellent. However, I do think there were a couple non-hand to hand moments that got a little over the top, such as the Batmobile chase that culminated in ramping off of a truck (although I will acknowledge that the upside down follow up shot, with Batman silhouetted by the explosion as he approached the Penguin, looked badass). Additionally, the finale set-piece with all of the shooters in the stadium rafters was a bit questionable, as it had Batman taking a lot more direct gunfire than you'd expect.

Brain dump of thoughts... In the order they come out in.

• He's a decent enough Batman but a dreadful Bruce Wayne. (Did they not think having him look like a junkie with eyeliner on that we might scoff at it?)
• As Batman, he's Michael Keaton level. As Bruce Wayne, he makes Val Kilmer look good.
• Zoe Kravitz is Halle Berry. Stunningly attractive and the best casting in the whole film. She has stuff to work with here and she does very well with it. Shame the rest of the film doesn't match her abilities.
• The set design and set dressing is brilliant. They do a wonderful job of masking the city's identity and every inch of Gotham has been worked on. Bravo to all involved.
• The dynamic between Alfred and Bruce is one-sided. Serkis pulls his side off, Pattinson doesn't. Just a petulant teenager - how old is he exactly? The parents died 20 years ago and he would have been about 10... So why's he moping around.
• The story is very patchy. When it works its quite good and when it misses it is a stinker.
• The Riddler didn't work for me. Not frightening. He's a million miles behind Joker's intellect in The Dark Knight.
• Falcone and the Penguin were better. Though the 10 minute boring car chase with the penguin nearly had me asleep in my chair.
• John Turturro and Zoe Kravitz are the only two coming out of this film with praise when the dust settles.
• Jeffrey Wright didn't hold up as Gordon. No conviction. And Dano was more insane playing Brian Wilson than he is here as The Riddler.
• The score is overbearing and poor. It plays for what must be 99% of the film. It is used to create movement when what is on screen has been paced far too slowly. I checked my watch an hour in, many times until 2 hours in, and again at 2hr 20... That's not a good sign.
• The action sequences... Imagine Arrow on the big screen.

Overall, I'm not unhappy I saw it. It holds no rewatch value for me though. Far too slow, far too uninteresting when it had played out. And if they make a sequel, I'd catch it a few years down the line on TV I suppose.

6.5/10

When they said that this was a very different Batman movie from everything we had saw before, they really nailed it. It didn't felt like a Batman movie, but at the same time it felt like one of the most accurate one. This movie shows a more rough Batman, who is still learning and hasn't really figured it out yet. A true Batman Year Two. The gadgets are still somehow primitive and lack of all the shine that they got in any previous Bat movies (like a "techy-do-it-all gadget"). But it really makes more sense that at this point in his career it's still rough on the edges: The car, the "batarang" (more like a batknife), the flying suit, the cameras, even the graphook.

I know shit about cinema and photography and even that, i can say that it has beautiful shots and a really interesting photography, more that any of the previous. The fight scenes are really nicely done, really rough. It remained me to Batffleck's werehouse fight and even the Arkham games. I got a little dissapointed that there wasn't the classic white eyes (there was a rumor) or the "detective vision" (another rumor), but i guess that at least for this second one, it makes sense to not appear with the tech still in so early stage. I liked all the cast choices, and that nice hint in the end for the Joker, was a nice closing bow.

The plot remained me a lot to a series of quest in Arkham City i believe, where you are searching for a serial killer (i think it turns out to be Flamingo or Pyg, don't quite remember), but it gave the same vibe mixed with Seven: A big detective movie, where the detective happens to be The Batman.

I'm interested in see how or if, are they going to continue this, but i think they can build something quite nice around the character. A solid 8.5 for me.

To be honest, this is a really good movie. Hang on? So why did I only give it 2 out of 5 stars? Well, this is really personal but, to me, it is not a good Batman movie. I really had problems writing this review because it is a very good movie. I just did not like it as a Batman movie.

The movie is really dark, gritty and noir. Not really a problem. It works for some movies. But it is also quite slow at the beginning and the first quarter of the movie was actually boring. Remember, this is a three hour movie so a quarter is more than half an hour of “boringness”.

The “boringess” was broken up by a pretty cool car chase. Some people seem to not really like the batmobile and I have to say that it was not very inspired but it was not all bad either. Unfortunately the movie turned rather boring for a while again after that.

The movie tries to bring out more of the detective part of Batman than the previous movies, which is fine, but there is just too much moping around with Batman / Bruce Wayne walking around oozing sadness all around him.

Actually, this brings us to my main gripe with this movie. The choice of actor for the Batman is just wrong for me. He is more like a sad puppy than the Batman. The script that makes him mope around, have emotional outbreaks and, occasionally, being downright stupid like just staring dumbfounded when explosives go off in his face does not really help of course.

To me the Selina Kyle character had more charisma than the Batman, especially when the Batman was in his Bruce Wayne alter ego.

And I really, really dislike that twist about Bruce’s parents. That was such a lazy Hollywood writer hack thing to do just to create (unwanted) drama.

Then we have the Riddler. Compared to the charismatic villains that we have come to expect he is just a sad little psychopath with a bunch of equally sad fanatical internet followers.

Now, all of this would have worked great if it had been a movie about some, unspecified, vigilante. The movie is really well done. The detective story, the action (especially towards the end) and the noir setting would have worked great. Even at its three hour bloated length it would have been great although cut down to two hours or a bit more would have been even better. If it had not been a Batman movie!

It feels like the Batman universe got its own Watchmen remix, with Robert "Edward Cullen" Pattinson's emo boy Bruce Wayne in the spotlight, and I have so many issues.

First, I really wish the universe could get its own stories already, instead of remixing, for the umpteenth time, the characters' backgrounds, origins, roles, and by and large their looks as well. It's impossible to keep track of, and it's tiresome to re-learn every time a new movie comes along. As if the universe didn't have more than enough characters (some very colourful ones at that) to use.

Second, I'm not sure Batman needed a Watchmen remix, to be honest. The setup just doesn't work, especially when Batman doesn't even has his own companions (except for on-again-off-again Selina Kyle, ofc), and it's just the sole hero in a single city against a bunch of loonies, deep diving into his own past yet again. The length kinda fits (minus the ultimate cut), everything else though...

Third, I'm sorry but Robert Pattinson is just a weird choice. I didn't really get just how old Bruce is supposed to be here from the movie itself; and his characterisation sure doesn't help either, looking (and acting) like a bad stereotype of the emo teen - the rare one or two times when he isn't, he comes off an old man. And as Batman... this "slowmo" approach kills it. As if every step he takes is a struggle, and yet we're supposed to believe he's capable of all the stunts and fighting? There's no immersion.

Fourth, the ... tech, I guess? I'm so confused as to where we're supposed to be: in some parts, it looks like there's all the high tech computer stuff - and then in other parts it's like everything's almost analogue, not even digital. The range is really jarring here and only serves to further erode immersion. Especially the Riddler's little videos and some of his other stuff (hell, even his look) felt like they came from some 90s VHS movie. Absolutely bizarre.

Fifth, the rating indeed. I said it's a Watchmen remix with Edward Cullen - this is why. I'm sure I wasn't the only one to immediately be reminded of Rorschach's opening monologue: it feels like they tried very hard to imitate that... except it got utterly destroyed by sounding exactly like some inane rambling from Twilight. And, well, it is indeed that guy, from that movie, as it later turns out: in more ways than one. But that's not the only crime committed in keeping the rating this low. There's corruption, there's an outright den with all the bad guys, there's regular gangsters, there's this absolute mastermind of a psycho doing what he does, and... we barely get to see any of it, save for some explosions featuring a lot of fire because that's easy to make big and can conveniently cover up everything. Yet more immersion ruined.

To reiterate: I really wish Hollywood stopped trying to reboot and remix Batman (yet again, after, what? three movies in the previous attempt?), there's more than enough material to establish a foundation and work from there. But to add to it: I really wish Hollywood stopped trying to reimagine these universes in more "realistic" ways, too. There's no need for everything to be so gritty, for everything to have its root in reality, for everything to be politically correct and oh-so-woke. Especially when it comes to superhero flicks: these are meant to entertain, to let the viewer switch their brain off for a few hours and just enjoy a movie. If I wanted a documentary or some real life nonfiction drama, there's plenty of those to choose from.

It's a cracker, no doubt about it!

Matt Reeves did a great job with 2022's 'The Batman'. It's difficult not to compare this to other Batman films, though that's DC/Warner Bros. fault for featuring him so much in recent times. I'll get this out the way early: I'd say 'Batman Begins'/'The Dark Knight' are superior, not by much, which is a similar case for the character performances too.

Robert Pattinson is a terrific Bruce Wayne, though Christian Bale still edges him out in my eyes. Zoë Kravitz is probably the best Catwoman I've seen, though the rest - from the Riddler to Penguin to Alfred - have been portrayed better; aside from Commissioner Gordon, with Jeffrey Wright being excellent. Paul Dano is the least enjoyable performer, for me, here, I found his showing to be a bit 'meh' - effective, but meh. Barry Keoghan makes a cameo, I won't say as who, but I don't hold high hopes for him in that role; though, apparently it won't be anything that happens anyway. For the best!

Anyway... the above sounds way too negative - as I did thoroughly and absolutely enjoy this film, hence the very positive rating. The pacing is very good, the cinematography is brilliant (Gotham looks fantastically bleak!), the story is engrossing and the dialogue is on point. The scenes with Pattinson/Kravitz and Pattinson/Wright are my favourite moments. It's a film that I'd consider as 'outstanding'.

It'll be cool to see what Reeves does with this trilogy (should it happen, of course).