Trakt for iOS
Works on iPhone and iPad.
Review by Pradipa PR
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.
loading replies
Now this is a review. I applaud you sir.
Review by Jordy
VIP8Yeah I mean, it is very much that movie. If you want my unfiltered opinion: it's glossy & loud, it's discount Tarantino/Ritchie, it's engineered to be forgotten about almost instantly, it's very Youtube reviewer friendly, it’s edited for people with no attention span, it’s postmodern and cringy; it's all of that. It's aiming to be a 6, and I was kinda expecting it to hit that target given how much I was into David Leitch' previous directorial effort. Unfortunately, this is hampered by the fact that it very much feels like a product of the pandemic. I'm pretty sure everything was shot on sound stages, and you can really tell, because the effects are dogshit. The same goes for the action, most of it feels like it was choreographed based on what was possible for the day. It's a shame, because good visuals and punchy action are two of the key ingredients if you want to make this kind of movie work. Now, its biggest saving grace are the characters and some of the comedy. I think most of the characters are quite well done and colorful (props to the writing and actors), especially the duo played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Brian Tyree-Henry (again, even if they feel like they walked straight out of a Guy Ritchie movie). It did make me laugh occasionally, but there's also a lot of cringe in it, especially with its obnoxious use of bathos and cameos by people I didn't need to see. I'm also getting pretty sick of the Marvelization of movie dialogue, I could’ve sworn some of Pitt’s lines in this were written with Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool in mind. The story itself is a mess pretty much right from the start and completely flies off the rails in the third act (no pun intended). I'm not sure if that's due to the writing or editing though. In true Tarantino fashion it's told out of order, but here it doesn't enhance the experience in a positive way. I don't know, I'd wait for this to appear on streaming, it's only occasionally fun and not really worth of the big screen.
4/10
loading replies
@jordyep I thought this movie looked fantastic, so I don't know what kind of movies you are usually watching. This movie was everything I wanted it to be. David Leitch delivers once again.
It wasn't awful, but, I think I must be the only person in the world who didn't think it was great. There were times when breaking out into song mid-conversation without some sort of elaborate set-change didn't make sense, The 2 leads weren't exactly talented singers or dancers -- no wow numbers. The sets improved by the time the final number rolled around, but the singing and dancing remained an afterthought.
loading replies
@chaztv i respect your opinion and i think with this movie they were trying to bring an Original movie like no other ones that we are seeing right now, like "The Sound of Music" "Singin' in the Rain" kind of thing. so they weren't trying to make it like a concert or pop thing. so the voices doesn't matter, the only that matter is the message behind it! u gotta see the bigger picture to understand it. hope u get my idea, Thx!
Saw it at the Sneak Preview Night, and it was hilarious! Totally recommend it to both female and male alike. Whether you've seen the original show or not. I hadn't, but people seated next to me had, and they enjoyed it just as much.
loading replies
@lifeiscrazy this rating is funnier than the entire movie
I don't think I have ever been in love with a movie, like I'm in love with La La Land. From the first few seconds, till the very end. This movie had me and didn't let go. My english vocabulary is not good enough to express my love, heck, my dutch vocabulary is not good enough to express it. This movie is everything.
It is beautiful, happy, magical, romantic and I could go on for a little while longer but I won't. I wasn't expecting it to be this musical-y, but I mean, I love musicals so I'm not complaining. I think this is a great "musical" because there isn't non stop singing, so people who don't like musicals might like this one because it's more "subtle". I can only imagine how much practice went into all those dance routines and don't get me started on the impressive piano skills Ryan Gosling showed us.
Something that really impressed me as well was the way they filmed everything. It's a very creative and different way, which I really enjoyed and think makes this movie a great inspiration for those who love film and camerawork themselves. The build up and flashbacks and stuff were really cool as well. Yea I really enjoyed that. Also, the storyline, which does so much for a movie, was so great.
This is normally the part were I talk about the actors, but seeing that there were mainly only two actors and they were both amazing (I do think tho, that Ryan Gosling his character wasn't a very challenging one for him because we have seen him in roles like these before. Mixing it up with all the dancing, singing en piano playing though, you got something quite different and I loved it), I'm going to skip this part and say that you should watch this movie, do nothing more, just watch it, enjoyed it and love it.
loading replies
@1984goam I just watched the video, it was cool to see the references and how they thought everything out. I watched Gigi this weekend so it was cool to see La La Land and Gigi next to each other as well. Thanks for the recommendation, I really enjoyed it! :-D
It wasn't awful, but, I think I must be the only person in the world who didn't think it was great. There were times when breaking out into song mid-conversation without some sort of elaborate set-change didn't make sense, The 2 leads weren't exactly talented singers or dancers -- no wow numbers. The sets improved by the time the final number rolled around, but the singing and dancing remained an afterthought.
loading replies
@snworf i'm not trying to change anyone opinions i respect everyone set of mind, didn't debate either. i just explained the movie direction. and i don't expect anybody to change his views just becuz i said hey it's good. everyone is different in his unique way. network makes us appear what we fear inside, and trust me i'm nothing like u imagining me, just understand my point here and u'll get me.
It wasn't awful, but, I think I must be the only person in the world who didn't think it was great. There were times when breaking out into song mid-conversation without some sort of elaborate set-change didn't make sense, The 2 leads weren't exactly talented singers or dancers -- no wow numbers. The sets improved by the time the final number rolled around, but the singing and dancing remained an afterthought.
loading replies
@snworf i didn't compare them and i would never. beside u can't compare two different eras. this is the modern age, and i was trying to explain the way the director wanted it to go and still keep it modern in someway, that's all.
