The Batman trailer is here
- Thread starter Ezekiel
- Start date
I get why they did it. Keep him more mysterious, disturbing, and don't want to overuse him. Worked fine for me.
As someone absolutely done with superheroes I fully recommend it. Felt 100% driven by its own story instead of checking off certain boxes.
I know you're not one of those fakes and pansies online that always claim "I'm done with superhero movies!", only to go back and watch them like nothing happened. I can tell you the real deal. With that said, I'm not 100% done with superhero movies. I just make it to a point to watch what only interests me. If I miss out on a movie, or if I don't feel it is to my taste, no big deal.
Last edited:
The Batman Makes an Argument for Superheroes Worth Hearing
Matt Reeves' The Batman makes a compelling argument for superheroes seldom seen, the hero who inspires you to choose hope over nihilism.
www.escapistmagazine.com
A very nice movie, a lot of orange and dark contrast. Plenty of cinematic close ups and I always like to keep an eye on those. I like the comic inspirations that I could recognize like Long Halloween and this version of Riddler doesn't just take from Ledger's Joker and Kevin Spacey in Se7en but also is a lot like Hush, a character they actually mixed together with Riddler in the animated Hush movie, but in the film the characters meet for the first time. In a way it also breaks the movie Riddler because he's a bit too insane to be as functional as he's depicted here, so I dunno why Paul Dano took it so overboard. Scott Snyder's run of Batman: Eternal and Jeph Loeb in his books make it clear that most of Batman's rogues gallery are insane as hell, while Hush on the other hand is pathetic but smart and capable.
But the movie's a bit too long, to be honest. Kravitz' Catwoman has a plotline that is long and complex af in some of the comics, but here it gets super simplified and pushed to a conclusion of sorts as well. Though it's already a very manly film, and the audience in the theater reflected that too, funny enough (not a good date film either, these long ones never are), so they would've had to make her more involved in the main plot without cutting her screen time while cutting the runtime. A tall ask, maybe.
Some reviews say the film is humourless, but I found most of the dry wit and funny looks landing where they were supposed to.
But the movie's a bit too long, to be honest. Kravitz' Catwoman has a plotline that is long and complex af in some of the comics, but here it gets super simplified and pushed to a conclusion of sorts as well. Though it's already a very manly film, and the audience in the theater reflected that too, funny enough (not a good date film either, these long ones never are), so they would've had to make her more involved in the main plot without cutting her screen time while cutting the runtime. A tall ask, maybe.
Some reviews say the film is humourless, but I found most of the dry wit and funny looks landing where they were supposed to.
They're imbeciles who don't pay attention, and only finding everything "wrong".
Speak for yourself. We had more than a few couples in the early showing we went to at the AMC.
Seldom seen?The Batman Makes an Argument for Superheroes Worth Hearing
Matt Reeves' The Batman makes a compelling argument for superheroes seldom seen, the hero who inspires you to choose hope over nihilism.
Yeah, I have no idea what he was going on about in the beginning. That opening statement that doesn't make sense and is contradictory to what's been going on in superhero films for years. Even before The Batman.
Last edited:
Doesn't count when Superman, Wonder Woman, Captain America, Black Panther, Thor or Captain Marvel (Both of them) did it it seems.
Watched it last night.
Its obviously well made. The production values are very high. Its very well shot.
But, I didn't care for the movie.
For one, its long. This thing is 3 hours long, and really quite slow at times. Coming out of the cinema, it felt like I had just binged a TV show. It felt like I was in there for 5 hours.
This is definitely more of a Batman detective story, than a Batman action movie, but I didn't really care for the mystery, because if you have been exposed to any modern Batman story, it treads the same ground as a million Batman stories have explored in the past.
The film also lacks focus. Initially, the main plot is focused on The Riddler (who doesn't really appear, but sets things in motion), and then he takes a big back seat and disappears for a while, in favour of a corruption/mob story, and then he comes back for the finale. The Riddler is great, but IMO, criminally underused, and the dual-focus of the movie prevents either plotline being fleshed out.
And to be honest, I didn't really care all that much for this incarnation of the characters. Aside from The Riddler, no one really felt like they were doing anything interesting with the roles that they were given. There were no real standout performances. I definitely didn't feel like Batman and Catwoman had any chemistry, so it was especially awkward when they kissed.
There were also just some choices that I didn't really get behind. I know that Batman using his cape to glide around is a relatively new concept for the character, but it is something that just makes sense. So when this iteration of the character instead uses a full-body wingsuit, it just kind of looks silly. I also didn't really need the film to seemingly introduce The Joker, again. Batman has one of the most diverse and interesting selection of villains of any superhero, yet The Joker is focused on or alluded to so much, that it honestly feels like the franchise is running around in circles, even after a billion reboots.
In a word, I would probably describe the movie as "dull", which is honestly worse than being bad.
I honestly cannot remember much about the film, and I watched it less than 24 hours ago.
Its obviously well made. The production values are very high. Its very well shot.
But, I didn't care for the movie.
For one, its long. This thing is 3 hours long, and really quite slow at times. Coming out of the cinema, it felt like I had just binged a TV show. It felt like I was in there for 5 hours.
This is definitely more of a Batman detective story, than a Batman action movie, but I didn't really care for the mystery, because if you have been exposed to any modern Batman story, it treads the same ground as a million Batman stories have explored in the past.
The film also lacks focus. Initially, the main plot is focused on The Riddler (who doesn't really appear, but sets things in motion), and then he takes a big back seat and disappears for a while, in favour of a corruption/mob story, and then he comes back for the finale. The Riddler is great, but IMO, criminally underused, and the dual-focus of the movie prevents either plotline being fleshed out.
And to be honest, I didn't really care all that much for this incarnation of the characters. Aside from The Riddler, no one really felt like they were doing anything interesting with the roles that they were given. There were no real standout performances. I definitely didn't feel like Batman and Catwoman had any chemistry, so it was especially awkward when they kissed.
There were also just some choices that I didn't really get behind. I know that Batman using his cape to glide around is a relatively new concept for the character, but it is something that just makes sense. So when this iteration of the character instead uses a full-body wingsuit, it just kind of looks silly. I also didn't really need the film to seemingly introduce The Joker, again. Batman has one of the most diverse and interesting selection of villains of any superhero, yet The Joker is focused on or alluded to so much, that it honestly feels like the franchise is running around in circles, even after a billion reboots.
In a word, I would probably describe the movie as "dull", which is honestly worse than being bad.
I honestly cannot remember much about the film, and I watched it less than 24 hours ago.
Last edited:
I wouldn't be so abrasive. It's not a comedy film by any means
Of course there were some, but very very few compared to the previous movie I went to cinema for, No Way Home. The Batman just really doesn't feel like a movie you'd take your gf to. I can imagine myself rambling about DC comics for a couple of hours after the movie and subsequently never talking to that date ever again. Though I'll give you that we are not as comics crazy as Americans, not even close. For example the only monthly superhero comic book in circulation over here is Spider-Man.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to them adapting Court of Owls. Instead of being just street thugs and lunatics, Talons can keep up with Batman.
And yet whatever comedy bits are there, actually work fine within the movie itself, and don't feel out of place or out of tone. I'm abrasive, because you have so many people that are dead set against the movie and making all these false claims and criticism, yet almost none of them seem the movie or still have not. There's different strokes, for different folks, but I'm seeing a lot of bandwagon jumpers on the hate territory. In the painting, most of these people making is nonsense complaints are more abrasive than what I'm doing right now.
They said the same about Deadpool.
Understandable.
Just saw the Batman. Its...okay. Hell, I may even go so far as to say certain parts of it are great, maybe even fantastic. But there is one critical, overwhelming, almost unforgivable flaw in the movie.
Now another thing I've seen in reviews is this is a new Batman, you've never seen Batman like this before. Bullshit. This is Batman classic. Caped crusader out for vengeance solving crimes. This is a very safe and marketable Batman. It pushes no envelopes, takes no chances, but also offends nothing. Its a B+. Its solid. Didn't shoot for the A, but also worked hard enough it new it not only passed, its better than average. Its, and I say this as someone whose seen all the Batman movies, all the Batman cartoon shows, all the animated Batman movies and played all the Batman games including the SNES ones, a top-tier episode of Batman the Animated Series. Its hitting the same high-mark Batman did 30 years ago with the Animated Series. A good mark, don't get me wrong, and well above what DC has been doing of late, but this is more of a return to form Batman than a brave and bold new Batman.
Music was great though.
iTunes purchase of the soundtrack and add it to my running playlist/10
On thing I will give Robert Pattinson that he brought to the character that I don't think any other live action Batman has brought was the overwhelming feeling of yeah, this is a dude who would dress up like a bat. Like there is always this concept of is it better to be Batman the crime fighter, or Bruce Wayne the philanthropist with a billion dollars. Like even in the movie a mayoral candidate calls him out saying he's not spending any money to help the city. In one scene he's dressed at Bruce Wayne at a church, and with his head hung low and slumped shoulders, unkempt hair and dark eyes he just has this pouty faced boy look of "I need to dress like a bat and punch someone". Its great. He really does come off as a billionaire with parent issues who bought a bat costume and decided he could do a better job than trained detectives. and don't get me wrong, he actually does, but its very clear he has the mental capacity and psychological damage that would drive someone to dress up like a bat and fight mobsters rather than see a therapist and open some halfway homes and get a works project going to help at-risk children.
Its not the Riddler. They pulled a Iron Man 3 on us with a fake-out villain. He's not the Riddler, he's Hush. Or at least a more modern version of him. Which makes sense, the costume and serial killer vibe the trailers gave him didn't feel at all like a cowardly insecure man who just wants to prove he's smarter than Batman and functionally nothing else. They even show is in bright red letters in a duel picture between Thomas Wayne and Edward Elliot, the reporter who was killed, crossing out half of each name with the big word. HUSH. And what's Hush's real name? Thomas Elliot. And Hush is a master of disguise, in the comics through cosmetic surgery, in this one just through the mask and there being a cult of him. And in this one he has some sorta love thing going on with Batman where he's been waiting for him for years, despite this being only year 2 of Batman.
But the Riddler? Edward Nigma who just wants to prove he's smarter than the world's greatest detective? Nah, fake out villain. I noticed too in all the scenes they called him "Riddler" its either an isolated shot of a single character, or Batman has his back to camera and you can't see his mouth. I can totally see some Suit watching the dailies and going:
"Who the fuck is Hush? Sounds like what you tell a baby to go to sleep! We're not putting babies to sleep! We need action and excitement, like Jim Carrey. What was that character's name again?"
"The Riddler sir."
"Right, make this guy the Riddler."
"But sir that doesn't really go with the costume we made or the casting or the tone of the movie and we're not very good at writing riddles, so..."
"Oh, Im sorry, are you signing the checks?"
"No sir."
"Then make him the Riddler."
"Yes sir."
And they just did some post production reshoots and voice overs and boom, Hush is now the Riddler.
Robert Pattinson as Batman was good. Tolerable. Relied a little too much on walking slowly, and is somehow bullet proof. Best line of the movie was right at the beginning when talking about criminals being afraid of him lurking in the shadows, and he says he IS the shadows. Good line, good use of fear as a weapon. And fuck me running Batman is finally a detective!
Although I think DC has really shot themselves in the foot with this one. This is a solid Batman movie, and you're going to get your DCEU stink all over it? And worse, you're bringing in Keaton's Batman?! Has anyone watched that Batman in 30 years? Maybe compared to Adam West he was a good Batman, but holy fuck the '89 Batman is bad. He solves no crimes, stops no crimes, runs away in two of the three action scenes and throws I think like a dozen punches total. You're going to do Flashpoint with THAT Batman, and then reset the DCEU to include this new Batman. You don't think Aquaman and the Flash are going to look horrifically goofy compared to this? This is the problem with not really having a direction with your extended universe and making a handful of good movies.
But the Riddler? Edward Nigma who just wants to prove he's smarter than the world's greatest detective? Nah, fake out villain. I noticed too in all the scenes they called him "Riddler" its either an isolated shot of a single character, or Batman has his back to camera and you can't see his mouth. I can totally see some Suit watching the dailies and going:
"Who the fuck is Hush? Sounds like what you tell a baby to go to sleep! We're not putting babies to sleep! We need action and excitement, like Jim Carrey. What was that character's name again?"
"The Riddler sir."
"Right, make this guy the Riddler."
"But sir that doesn't really go with the costume we made or the casting or the tone of the movie and we're not very good at writing riddles, so..."
"Oh, Im sorry, are you signing the checks?"
"No sir."
"Then make him the Riddler."
"Yes sir."
And they just did some post production reshoots and voice overs and boom, Hush is now the Riddler.
Robert Pattinson as Batman was good. Tolerable. Relied a little too much on walking slowly, and is somehow bullet proof. Best line of the movie was right at the beginning when talking about criminals being afraid of him lurking in the shadows, and he says he IS the shadows. Good line, good use of fear as a weapon. And fuck me running Batman is finally a detective!
Although I think DC has really shot themselves in the foot with this one. This is a solid Batman movie, and you're going to get your DCEU stink all over it? And worse, you're bringing in Keaton's Batman?! Has anyone watched that Batman in 30 years? Maybe compared to Adam West he was a good Batman, but holy fuck the '89 Batman is bad. He solves no crimes, stops no crimes, runs away in two of the three action scenes and throws I think like a dozen punches total. You're going to do Flashpoint with THAT Batman, and then reset the DCEU to include this new Batman. You don't think Aquaman and the Flash are going to look horrifically goofy compared to this? This is the problem with not really having a direction with your extended universe and making a handful of good movies.
Now another thing I've seen in reviews is this is a new Batman, you've never seen Batman like this before. Bullshit. This is Batman classic. Caped crusader out for vengeance solving crimes. This is a very safe and marketable Batman. It pushes no envelopes, takes no chances, but also offends nothing. Its a B+. Its solid. Didn't shoot for the A, but also worked hard enough it new it not only passed, its better than average. Its, and I say this as someone whose seen all the Batman movies, all the Batman cartoon shows, all the animated Batman movies and played all the Batman games including the SNES ones, a top-tier episode of Batman the Animated Series. Its hitting the same high-mark Batman did 30 years ago with the Animated Series. A good mark, don't get me wrong, and well above what DC has been doing of late, but this is more of a return to form Batman than a brave and bold new Batman.
Music was great though.
iTunes purchase of the soundtrack and add it to my running playlist/10
On thing I will give Robert Pattinson that he brought to the character that I don't think any other live action Batman has brought was the overwhelming feeling of yeah, this is a dude who would dress up like a bat. Like there is always this concept of is it better to be Batman the crime fighter, or Bruce Wayne the philanthropist with a billion dollars. Like even in the movie a mayoral candidate calls him out saying he's not spending any money to help the city. In one scene he's dressed at Bruce Wayne at a church, and with his head hung low and slumped shoulders, unkempt hair and dark eyes he just has this pouty faced boy look of "I need to dress like a bat and punch someone". Its great. He really does come off as a billionaire with parent issues who bought a bat costume and decided he could do a better job than trained detectives. and don't get me wrong, he actually does, but its very clear he has the mental capacity and psychological damage that would drive someone to dress up like a bat and fight mobsters rather than see a therapist and open some halfway homes and get a works project going to help at-risk children.
Last edited:
I saw the movie yesterday basically as blind as you can get, I watched the trailer but that was it (I knew it was getting good reviews and one reviewer on Youtube I watch I knew liked it just based on the thumbnail but that's it). And this is a bad Batman movie. The 2 movies I think are most comparable are actually Logan and Joker. Logan in the sense that this movie gets off at disappointing you at just about every chance it gets, but Logan executed it amazingly well and The Batman did not at all. And Joker in the sense that it pulls a lot of aspects from other movies (like Seven, neo noir dective movies, seeding underground mob movies) and executes them all well individually but the same problem as Joker is that these elements don't actually work together in the movie itself to make a coherent thematic through-line. The movie actively hates Batman for most of the movie, which isn't something you can't do, but the movie is always trying to have its cake and eat it too as it has standard Batman scenes like the opening and the car chase but then shows Batman being basically the opposite for most of the movie (or at least most of the major pivotal scenes).
The inconsistency of everything is standard throughout the movie. The movie sets up that Batman is an established crime fighting vigilante and everyone is afraid of him and does this extremely well but then a couple bouncers don't give a shit that he's Batman. At times Batman comes off as a very experienced Batman and then at times, he's like Batman from Year One. One really weird thing about the movie is that I don't know if he's actually ever called Batman yet the main villain sends Batman letters saying it's for the Batman.
The movie is weird because all the pieces individually are good and very well executed. It's just like the writers/director were like we want to do all these cool things with Batman and never asked themselves if any of this works together. The ending is basically like "wouldn't it be awesome to have an ending to a Batman movie that's a kickass Tool song?" without actually setting that up throughout movie.
The inconsistency of everything is standard throughout the movie. The movie sets up that Batman is an established crime fighting vigilante and everyone is afraid of him and does this extremely well but then a couple bouncers don't give a shit that he's Batman. At times Batman comes off as a very experienced Batman and then at times, he's like Batman from Year One. One really weird thing about the movie is that I don't know if he's actually ever called Batman yet the main villain sends Batman letters saying it's for the Batman.
The movie is weird because all the pieces individually are good and very well executed. It's just like the writers/director were like we want to do all these cool things with Batman and never asked themselves if any of this works together. The ending is basically like "wouldn't it be awesome to have an ending to a Batman movie that's a kickass Tool song?" without actually setting that up throughout movie.
@SilentPony, They did not pull an Iron Man 3 on us. That's just you using a tin foil hat theory. This Riddler is a composite character of himself, Hush, and Scarescrow. I did notice the combined elements. There was no last minute replacement. Believe whatever you want, I do not care. I just wanted to point that out.
This is nothing new to Batman adaptions, as a majority of them had some kind of expy of either a more obscure character from the comics or a combination of the two. Batman '89 has done it. Batman: The Animated Series has done. The Dark Knight Trilogy has done it. And so on.
tvtropes.org
This is nothing new to Batman adaptions, as a majority of them had some kind of expy of either a more obscure character from the comics or a combination of the two. Batman '89 has done it. Batman: The Animated Series has done. The Dark Knight Trilogy has done it. And so on.
The Batman (2022) / Characters - TV Tropes
Character page for the 2022 film The Batman.Wayne Household Click here for his page.Alfred PennyworthPortrayed by: Andy SerkisThe Wayne family's loyal butler. Adaptational Attractiveness: Alfred in the comics is bald and has a somewhat elongated …
tvtropes.org
This movie is not an example of a composite character. Its not a composite character if you keep the character name, but change their appearance, motivation, backstory and actions. That's called "getting the character wrong".@SilentPony, They did not pull an Iron Man 3 on us. That's just you using a tin foil hat theory. This Riddler is a composite character of himself, Hush, and Scarescrow. I did notice the combined elements. There was no last minute replacement. Believe whatever you want, I do not care. I just wanted to point that out.
This is nothing new to Batman adaptions, as a majority of them had some kind of expy of either a more obscure character from the comics or a combination of the two. Batman '89 has done it. Batman: The Animated Series has done. The Dark Knight Trilogy has done it. And so on.
The Batman (2022) / Characters - TV Tropes
Character page for the 2022 film The Batman.Wayne Household Click here for his page.Alfred PennyworthPortrayed by: Andy SerkisThe Wayne family's loyal butler. Adaptational Attractiveness: Alfred in the comics is bald and has a somewhat elongated …
If they made a Batman movie where Batman's name is Bruce Campbell, he's an eccentric billionaire playboy philanthropist who flies around in a red and gold iron suit and solves puzzles with Scooby Doo, its not a composite of Tony Stark, Bruce Campbell, Shaggy and Batman. Its simply not doing Batman.
Thus with this one. Its clear, and reviewers and critics have said this, he's Riddler in name only. His backstory, personality, actions, motivations, appearance and even name are that of Thomas Elliot, Hush. They just called him the Riddler, because marketing.
He's not a composite of Scarecrow just because he uses fear. All of Batman's villains do that, because they're all reflections of his personality. Scarecrow specifically uses fear gas and phycological torture. The "Riddler" in this movie doesn't use either of those things, and isn't a trained psychologist. You might as well say he's a composite of Two-Face or Clayface, because both of those dudes scare people.
He is a composite of Riddler and Hush in that he's just the Hush character named the Riddler. You could say his use of riddles to tease Batman makes him the Riddler, except unfortunately Joker, Mad Hatter, Calendar Man, early Two-Face, and even Scarecrow tease Batman with hints and clues he has to figure out, some even rhyme. The Riddler was unique because he knew Batman's identity, which the interrogation scenes leaves up in the air, and doesn't care. He's just motivated to prove he's smarter than Batman; he wants to be seen as the world's smartest man.
They've done composites before, sure. The Dark Knight. Harvey Dent gets his face burned off by Sal Maroni in a court scene, using acid. In the Dark Knight they had Sal Maroni's goon pull a gun on Dent in a court scene, and then later he unleashes the Joker who burns half of Dent's face off. That's a composite because it keeps the main character, name, motivation and backstory, save the exact individual who did the burning, but it still involves a court scene, Sal Maroni, Harvey Dent and burning. But if they had taken Harvey Dent and made him a her, and she's a botanist who is driven crazy in a chemical accident and gets control of plants and is determined to rid the world of men, but we still call her Harvey Dent/Two-Face, that's not a composite. That's just getting the character wrong.
And that's the big flaw with The Batman. It just got the Riddler wrong. Hopefully they fix it in a later movie, because its a pretty glaring and obvious post-production change.
They did not get the Riddler "wrong". They did something different, and combined some elements. Deal with it, or don't. Not my problem. You do realize this version is more like a combination of the Zodiac Killer, the Killer from Se7en, and Jigsaw (Ironic as Riddler was doing games way before Jigsaw became a thing) as well? Don't answer that, rhetorical question. Also, it's an alternate universe and else-worlds. Not everything has to be "SUPER 1000% ACCURACY OR DIE!!!!!". You may not like it for being different, but it's there and most don't have a problem. Plus, as much as I like Jim Carrey, this Riddler is a better rendition of the character, than the Ace Ventura/Jack Joker wannabe from Forever. With or without the comparison.