I think this is the best Batman film ever. Others are good but this is the best. It's the most well rounded from top to bottom. You can argue others do certain aspects better but as a whole I think this one did good at not falling into the other films weaknesses.
shareI really loved the Nolan/Bale movies but you could certainly argue that Pattinson’s performance is the darkest and most interesting of any actor that ever took the role. I did quite like Keaton as well and I honestly wasn’t expecting to like him but he was good.
Pattinson is probably the best Batman, he’s brooding and seemingly disturbed and very comfortable with violence. He’s a very scary hero!
Pattinson's best work in this film is with the little, quiet moments. He tries to connect with the mayor's kid a couple of times, but is unable to do so; Bruce just doesn't know what to say to heal somebody. He is only vengeance. Well, at first... his struggle to make those connections is the core of The Batman, and one of my favourite parts of the film's themes and story.
shareGood point.
Pattinson is quite impressive in several very good thrillers.
The Rover, Devil All The Time, The Lighthouse, Lost City Of Z, Good Time…
He excels at playing really troubled guys or guys that get into bad trouble. It’s sort of impressive that he steered his career into darker terrain considering his good looks made him a teeny bopper icon who could have just settled for romantic roles and done fine.
I like this actor a lot.
I think it's clear that he's fought to escape the gravitational pull of the Twilight Saga for some time now, and I believe he has succeeded. I think The Lighthouse was one of the first things I actually saw him in (aside from the 4th Potter film, in which I didn't notice him at all). The Lighthouse has both actors doing amazing work, so when they announced him for The Batman, I was one of the few people who wasn't skeptical; I was fairly confident he could pull it off. He does a lot of interesting, risky work. It was nice, in this film, to see him do something so internal and deliberate and controlled.
shareHe is a fine actor.
I’ll watch his future work for sure!
Well said. I liken him to Johnny Depp in that after their breakout roles they could have taken the easy Hollywood route, instead they chose really interesting roles against type that stretched their acting chops. Respect them both.
Shame his one turn with Cronenberg, Cosmopolis, was what I’d rank as his worst. I think given a better script they could be a good team. I’d recommend High Life (2018) to sci-fi fans who can take a slower paced story.
High Life is really great. That's a deep story that doesn't force-feed the audience anything.
shareI can see you are a sci-fi fan who might appreciate but has likely seen these indie script and story-focused gems, but I’d feel remiss not mentioning them:
The Man from Earth (2007)
UFO (2018)
Also the writer/director team of Aaron Moorhead and Justin Benson has made a bunch of cosmic horror-adjacent indies that dip in to sci-fi/fantasy and don’t pander to their audience. Might as well start with their first feature Resolution (2012). They’re not violent or gory that I can recall. Cosmic horror is its own thing.
I have seen The Man from Earth. I actually got into a weird conversation on the moviechat boards about that one. Here: https://moviechat.org/tt0756683/The-Man-from-Earth/58c811ab2214d80b5cf6879f/Why-were-some-of-the-people-so-hostile-and-immature
The conversation is about half-way down. I could never figure out quite what WhoToTrust was trying to say...
UFO I haven't seen, but if you're listing it with High Life and TMFE, I'll try to track it down.
Cosmic horror is definitely appreciated. I haven't read a lot of HP Lovecraft, but what I have read, I have enjoyed.
I really enjoyed Arrival. I thought its messages about life - all that love and pain - were profound and moving. I also thought its investigation of what true first contact might look like was more creative and interesting than a lot of other sci-fi films. Also, the way language re-writes the brain and even affects our perception of time is real-life science, just blown way, way up like only great sci-fi can. It felt like I was watching classic sci-fi again.
You've probably seen Under the Skin? I really liked that one for a low-key, no-spoon-feeding sci-fi film.
Heh. I checked out the convo until it got too skinny. On my phone and reading one word per line gets old fast. Armchair QB opinion: one man’s swipe is another man’s off-handed comment. Happens.
Funny you mention Arrival, as UFO involves similar [albeit smaller] themes/discoveries except the language is mathematics [and logic and detective work]! Its budget is much closer to Man from Earth, so don’t expect any visual FX, but I’ve seen it five+ times, easy, and still find it thrilling and absorbing on script/performances alone. On Crackle, Roku and Prime rental, according to IMDb. Other options exist if you enjoy rum and sailing.
Only saw Under the Skin once and liked it but didn’t love it 6/10. Iirc, it was a bit style over substance, but it *has* been ten years. Might have to give it another shot, if just for ScarJo…
Yeah, I have different moviechat conversational tolerances depending whether I'm using a computer or phone.
Whenever conversations go awry like that, I like to see if I can bring them back around to understanding, if not agreement. Couldn't do it there.
As far as UFO is concerned, I don't need my sci-fi to have the best FX; I'd much rather have it employ great storytelling. Original series Star Trek is still great stuff (mostly - there are some clunkers) and it's not because of the convincing special effects...
I'd probably give Under the Skin a 7.5 or 8/10. So, I liked it a little more than you did. I thought it was a good example of sci-fi that didn't spoon-feed me anything. It's a great performance from Johanssen, too. It's also interesting because the "sex" and nudity in the movie is not titillating at all (for me, anyway).
Again: SPOILERS for people who stumble upon this...
You'd think Scarlet Johanssen seducing people and having a full-frontal scene would be, but it's not. Most of it is creepy, and the full-frontal scene was set up in such a way that it seemed extremely innocent to me. When she's looking in the mirror, it was as a being who was just getting to know a new version of herself, and it was exploration, and not sexual. She's done far more erotic work (Match Point, for instance) but not Under the Skin.
Yeah, UtS definitely skewed more towards creepy, which is what I liked about it. Also the decision to set it in (rural ?) Scotland, where I’ve been and love, added to the sense of alienation.
I liked Crimes and Misdemeanors, but never felt like I needed to see Match Point.
UTS is very creepy, yeah - at least at first. However, as the movie goes on and Johanssen's character becomes more unsettled, I found her story took on a really earnest, almost naive quality. I really found it quite touching.
Crimes and Misdemeanors is great. Match Point does follow a lot of the same themes, but it's basically a straight-up drama. I'm not saying there are zero laughs, but it's got no comedic sub-plot. It's a very unusual Woody film in that way, but it's one of my favourites. Excellent performances, tight script - really great movie.
I adore both Burton and Nolan's vision of Batman. However there are things about each vision I felt was a little lacking even though I adore both visions. With Burton I've never been a fan of him killing thugs randomly. It doesn't break Burton's vision but I do feel a big part of Batman is his compassion. Batman van be dark, light, depressing, hopeful. He's literally everything in one. Where as a character like punisher is just dark. Superman is just light. I feel Batman can play in many arenas. Also Gordon not really being a character and more of a stand in I was never a fan of. Not to slam Burton though he did a lot of great stuff. His Gotham city is wonderful, the music is awesome etc.
Nolan got tons right also. Love that Gordon became an actual character with impact on the story. The origins were done masterfully. It was a fresh take to see how he became Batman as the origins were only alluded to in the past. I like his character arc and growth. My issue with Nolan's films are it takes away the style to a fault I feel. Making it more grounded takes away the immersive nature of Gotham city. His best Gotham was in Begins. After that it just has the look of a real city. That's fine it just loses immersion I feel. Also the romances in the Nolan series aren't bad they are just a bit cold. I feel like since hd relies more on exposition it makes the relationships feel a little less natural. Also the combat in the Nolan series was sub oar in my book. Bales batvoice can be at times a bit overzealous. I think his voice was best on begins. I don't hate it but at times it feels a bit too forced.
The batman manages to have the strengths of Burton and Nolan. One it is realistic but still oozes style. It returns back to a gothic Gotham. One that's scary immersive but also feels real. Burton's while awesome does kind of feel like a set at times. It leans all in on the detective angle. The other Batman movies had detective elements but never committed to it like this one.
The style! Yes! Batman needs something other than glass-and-steel buildings. I felt like a lack of Gotham detail and panache really held back the visuals of The Dark Knight; a shame, considering how amazing that film is. I'm also with you on Bale's Batvoice. No surprise, really, but I think Kevin Conroy did the best work with the voice. I mean, he had to. He gives us three distinct voices: Bruce in public, Bruce in private, and Bruce as Batman.
And, yes, I loved the strong emphasis on detective work in Reeves' film.
I love the Dark Knight quite a bit. However yes losing the style does hold it back if you are a hardcore Batman fan. I also agree Conroy absolutely has the best voice hands down. I noticed all three just like you did.
Reeves's film is a detective film no other Batman movie was.
What I don't understand about TDK losing the style is that Nolan had it in BB. Okay, it wasn't as moody as The Batman or as gothic as Burton's films, but he still had a strange, nightmare world (especially with The Narrows) for Batman to exist in. Why did he change it? I have a bit of a theory that he was feeling a little restricted by making Batman movies. He was trying to do his own thing.
Reeves' film is the only Bat-detective film to date, yes. The others had some nods at it. I always liked those moments and wanted more of them. Batman '89 has him crack the Joker's chemical code (albeit off-screen) and Returns has him running down the Penguin's origins, piecing together Schrek's "power plant" plan, and using spy systems to sabotage his speech. The Dark Knight gave us bullet fragment analysis (a.k.a. CSI Gotham). But all of those moments are too small. I'm really glad they put a lot of detecting into The Batman. I did wish it was more effective, though, and had actually allowed the caped crusader to prevent, thwart, or stop the Riddler's schemes a little bit.
I'm still really partial to Batman Returns for my top favourite. However, I would put this film at No.2 or possibly No.2 tied with Batman '89.
Can you expand on your views? What weaknesses did it avoid, for instance?
My love for BR has many reasons. I love the performances across the board, but Keaton and Pfieffer are particularly great. The story is about their masks and personnae that they use to defend themselves (psychologically) both from others and even from their own selves. That's very interesting and strikes to the heart of the superhero psyche.
On top of that, BR has a great look. Its aesthetic is imaginative and really gives me the sense of being in a comic book in the best way. It takes advantage of cinema's strengths, but keeps its comic book roots intact.
The Batman has a great look as well, and I think its cinematography and production design are particularly strong. It's not quite as "gothic" as Returns, but it's all there.
Pattinson is the best to don the cowl since/excluding Keaton (and Conroy, if you count animation). What I loved about his work was actually similar to what I love about Keaton's work, which is how much they do with stillness. Taciturn heroes with "blank" expressions can be played so very well. Consider Robocop.
I much prefer Catwoman in Returns. Kravitz was okay, but I don't think her performance was as strong as Pfieffer's. In fact, I think Kravitz was one of the weaker performances in The Batman. That's not to say "bad". She just didn't hit the same level that Pattinson, Dano, Wright, and Turturro. I mean, who could?
I would have liked to see The Batman let our eponymous hero score a few more points, too. I like heroes dealing with and recovering from failures, but Batman made very few victories against The Riddler, and should have overcome more - I felt, anyway. Also, while I didn't mind the runtime too much, it is very long.
The only real weakness I see in Batman Returns is the missile-armed penguin horde. It's a little too silly for my taste, and doesn't line up with the rest of the film's tone. However, it's only one part of the climax, most of which is actually focused on the final showdown between Bruce, Selina, and Schrek. That finale is thrilling, captivating, character-driven goodness that is one of the best I've seen. It's dramatic, it's tragic, and it's just great.
My issue with Burton's is mainly due to Batman killing so willingly. Also Gordon really is a non factor in those films. Pattinson's Batman I feel has a more satisfying arc. He manages to still be dark while also having compassion. When you make Batman kill so willingly I think you take away a large part of the character. To me it makes him almost punisher like. I just feel Batman is much more layered than just the pissed off anti hero. Kravitz Catwoman I love and think she has tons of room to expand going forward. Her and Pattinson have great chemistry it reminded me of the animated series.
The batman avoided relying as much on exposition like the Nolan series I think. It also fixed my main issue with the combat in Nolan's series. In begins it's super choppy. It's reminiscent of the trend at the time. That trend being the Bourne series trend. Shake the camera and cut quick therefore it makes the fights look more intense. Then in the sequels especially Rises it wasn't good. The quick cutting went away but you saw how the fighting while not the worst just wasn't visceral. The batman fixed that I feel. The romance I think was also better handled here than in the Nolan series. Does it reach returns level of excellence in terms of romance eh debatable but it excels above Nolan I think in that aspect. Nolan's Gordon is probably still the best but Reeve's Gordon is also quite nice. Nolan has the best Alfred I think though. It will hard to best Caine, and Ledger. I feel both of them put a potent stamp on their character similar to Pfeiffer as Catwoman.
I think it's my favorite because even though I might like certain aspects better in other Batman films I don't hate anything in the Batman. Nothing falls totally flat for me. Where as in other visions certain things fall flat even though I love them still. Everything works for me. I have tons of highs and no lows with the batman. I will think that's why it strikes gold for me.
Gordon is no good in the Burton films. He feels, at times, like Burton might have mixed him together with Chief O'Hara from the '60s show. Pat Hingle did a very good job, but you're right to say that he wasn't in the films very much. It doesn't help that Hingle looks nothing like the comic book character, whereas Gary Oldman was almost the spitting image.
I hear you with the killing thing. I suppose it doesn't bother me because he didn't seem to be as indiscriminate or angry as the Punisher. I really do feel like there are a lot of layers to the Batman character in Burton's films, even if he does off the occasional goon.
Oh, goodness, I hate that shaky cam stuff. I didn't mind the dock fight in Begins, because it's shot almost like Batman is a horror movie monster. But in other fights, I didn't like it. The Bourne movies... I can't believe they won for things like Best Cinematography. That junk was terrible - like the camera man took a hit of acid and thought the camera was a magic eight ball or something. Then the editor had ADHD and cut the film every .06 seconds. Awful stuff. You're right: Nolan's action scenes weren't as thrilling as in The Batman.
What I loved about The Batman's action is that Batman gets hit. He's got to wear the armour because he knows he can't possibly block or dodge every blow, so he doesn't. It looked much closer to "real" street fighting (even though, of course, in real life he still probably would have wound up getting pulverised, fighting so many goons at once).
I liked the romance in The Batman, but I do feel it was better in Returns. I saw the two connecting more. They seemed like buddy cops in The Batman as much as lovers. They did work well together, but my personal opinion is that Keaton and Pfieffer had more chemistry.
For the supporting cast, I agree that Oldman was the top Gordon. I liked Phoenix's Joker, but that was a very different take on the character and I'm not sure it would work in an action film. Ledger was excellent. Caine's Alfred was used best, and Caine is always amazing. I do think Michael Gough was very good, though.
I'll agree that I don't think anything falls flat in The Batman. I can nit-pick it, but they are quibbles, not real complaints. The length, for instance (although I don't know what I'd cut!). There's a tiny flaw where they use the term "privilege," which felt like soapboxing to me. They'd written a good critique of Bruce's blind-spots as a rich person; there was no need to bring in the specific term. It's overwritten and obvious. Still, those are just small things. The kind of flaws one finds when a film is so good, one is reduced to finding errors in single words.
Yeah it is honestly both things which hinder Burton's Gordon. One he looks nothing like the character, two he is basically a hollow stand in who has no bearing on the plot. Oldman checks both of these boxes nicely.
He is not exactly like the Punisher it just I feel hinders the character a bit. I had this same issue with BVS Dawn of Justice. Although BVS Dawn of Justice is a garbage film for many other reasons. He has layers but I guess I just do not feel the growth to my liking the way Pattinson's Batman grows.
I did not mind the quick cut for the docks but it was overused throughout the rest of the film. We need to see what is going on during a fight scene. Luckily with films like The Raid that quick cut shaky cam trend is dying out. In the sequels the camera was pulled back but the fights always seemed a bit off. They lacked that feeling of like oh man I felt that punch ouch! The Batman gave us visceral feeling fights.
Yeah it displayed him taking blows. It is always fun to me when a character takes blows during taking on multiple opponents. It is why I loved Jackie Chan's fight scenes so much growing up. He does not just cream through a room of opponents without taking a blow you see him take a beating even though he is skilled. Nice part was though again nice wide shots no shaky cam or over editing. The choreography just felt better staged as well. I get that there are challenges because the it's hard to make Batman's suit mobile and facing off against multiple opponents is tough to film. I mean in real no matter how skilled someone is they can not take on a room full of 100 people. It is fun to watch but we all know it is a fantasy. The key is to make it fun, choreography it well and make it feel believable.
I feel as though in the Batman it is kind of like connecting over a common goal. In Returns it feels as though the mask hides their trauma. I feel both are good in their own way. Returns has more of that erotic heat but I feel the Batman feels a bit more Batman like to me. To me it felt more like the animated series.
Gough was quite excellent but I feel Caine edges it out. Same with Oldman and Ledger. Phoenix is quite good but in all honesty and this might just be me I feel Ledger is better at Joker because he is a better foil for Batman. As good as Phoenix and Nicholson are I like Joker to have more of a mystery. More of that terrifying force of nature. I am not big on being able to sympathize with Joker. It is not bad it is just how I like my Joker. It is why I prefered Ledger over Nicholson even though he was good.
The Batman is long but I do not mind it. I feel the movie earns it's runtime. A film like BVS Dawn of Justice does not earn it's runtime at all. Also since it is a detective story I feel the longer run time is kind of needed. You need to sit and ponder what is going on. Also the Batman has such a fun immersive environment I am more than happy to stay in and live in that world it is fun for me. Regarding the line. I mean eh yeah but I do think people made a mountain out of a mole hill on that to be honest. Oh look woke this movie sucks! Woke to me is a buzzword that I honestly am tired of since people have an itchy trigger finger. I mean I get it when it comes to stuff where that is the entire premise like Ghostbusters 2016, She Hulk, the new Star Wars etc. However to freak out over a line and say it tanks the entire film is jut dumb to me but to each his own.
Those are good distinctions. The eroticism is certainly jacked up in Returns - especially while they're masked. What I like in Returns - what really sticks the landing for me - are their connections as Bruce and Selina. They're almost timid with each other; they're thrown off because they aren't used to connecting with another person sans-mask. Yes, there's some co-dependant trauma healing (as you point out) but there's also real humanity there. I'm not saying The Batman doesn't have real humanity, I'm just saying, this is what's great about Bruce/Selina in Returns. For me, the biggest moment is at the party. They repeat each other's lines from earlier and realise at the same time what that means. Every time I watch it, I can *feel* the sadness they immediately have: this special thing is in complete jeopardy. I don't get as much of that in The Batman - that sense of doomed attraction.
I will give The Batman's relationship its due: they do build a mutual respect for one another, and it does feel like a good starting point to a relationship. I like that they learn from each other. She's learning to hold herself to a higher standard - improve her moral code - and he is learning to broaden his worldview and consider that not every criminal deserves a medieval ass-beating. That's nice. Hopefully they develop it in a logical, thoughtful, and mutually-beneficial way as the series continues. I watched a youtube video analysing romance in Hayao Miyazaki's movies, pointing out that love in HM's films is about people who build each other up. While I think HM is on another level and TB didn't quite get there, there is some of that in Reeves' superhero epic.
Caine beats Gough. Although, it would have been interesting to see what Gough could do with more material. I always feel that way about Phoenix as Joker, too. Like, of course his performance sticks with me more: he had a whole movie to himself. He got the lion's share of screentime, plus he didn't have to contend with Batman at all – not spotlight-sharing. Ledger impresses because he is in the film so little and does so much.
As to the runtime, yeah, I didn’t mind. It flagged very briefly for me, momentum-wise. (SPOILERS to anybody reading) After they nab Riddler and before the second phase of his scheme kicks in, I did feel like it was time to wrap it up. However, as soon as the second phase kicked in (so, like, five minutes later) I was right back into it, full commitment. The pacing is good enough that I didn’t notice the runtime but for that one moment. And, as you point out, you need that length to get in everything from the detective story to the relationship to Batman’s personal journey. Maybe there was a way to do that more efficiently, but heck, every scene is so good, what would I cut? The car chase? Pfft! No. I love that…
I don’t think the movie is “woke” at all – they don’t make everything black-and-white or preachy. It was just that one line that was a little eye-rolling for me. Again: I’m REALLY nitpicking to find flaws in The Batman. I’ve seen stuff far more “woke” and still liked it. So, yeah, it definitely didn’t tank the whole film for me. It was kinda like when Batman glides off the building and smokes himself off the overpass. I mean, he’d probably have killed himself at that speed – suit or no suit – but it didn’t wreck the movie for me; it just made my suspension of disbelief hop for a half-second. Again: I’m still ranking this film as my 2nd/3rd Bat-movie of all-time, and I’d almost certainly find room in my top-10 superhero films for it.
I totally can see why you prefer the Returns romance. I guess for me I like seeing the two work together. I enjoy the aspect of Catwoman where she is a constant rival throughout Batman's life. Seeing them each safe each other is fun and enjoyable. It still gives off the domed romance but you are correct Returns leans further into the doomed attraction. Having her be in other installments is actually quite promising. It vies you a chance to take and develop her places no Catwoman on screen has gone before.
I can agree it does not quite reach that level but my goodness does it get rather close I feel. I feel more effort and care was put into this than the romances in the Nolan series. I like that her dad abandoned her and her mom. It showcases Batman and Catwoman both now orphans but Kyle's is actually a bit darker and more tragic. Both mask that trauma in their own way. I guess this is where The Batman holds a little edge for me over Returns. Kyle in Returns is awesome but it feels like a person walked on her whole life suddenly snapping and transforming. Almost to me like an accelerated Walter White kind of transformation. A bit of a light switch. The timid girl who is walked on has had enough! Or maybe a better comparison would be to Michael Douglas's character D-fens from Falling Down. Excellently done but I feel Kravitz outlook is a bit more scaled back and real. Again not knocking Returns Pfeiffer's character is excellent. I guess the transition feels more gradual to me with Kravitz's Catwoman. Just my opinion. I think that is why White's transition is also great it is gradual rather than a sudden snap. I feel Pfeiffer's Kyle and Douglas's D-fens are similar to Walter White just a bit more of an accelerated process.
I think you can argue Phoenix's Joker performance against Ledger's. However I do not think Phoenix's Joker works as a well to a foil to Batman as Ledger's would. That make sense? It is why I give Ledger the edge.
Ledger does so much as you said with so little. I feel that is more difficult to do.
You nailed it. I mean it bumps a little after they arrest him. However it recovers so well I can overlook it.
Yeah it for sure makes my ten comic book films or superhero films. It might end up being my number 1.
It is more difficult in some ways. Then again, I don't want to knock out Phoenix's legs just because he got the script focused on him.
It recovers spectacularly; it's a bump, nothing more.
Well, I'll take a second to recognize that there's a difference between a comic book movie and a superhero movie, so those are almost two separate lists. Ghost World, for example, is a "comic book movie" and would contend for a top-10 slot if that were the list. Pure superhero is different.
My number one superhero movie is Logan. I think they did things with that movie that transcended further than most other superhero films. Other top-fives would include Batman Returns, Joker, The Batman, and (depending on my mood) Watchmen or Dick Tracy. I also really like The Crow, though... There's also Raimi's Spider-man films (first two, anyway) and... there's a lot. But I'd say Logan is still my No.1 for sure.
Yes, I like seeing them work together as well. While I prefer Returns, The Batman's relationship certainly has aspects to recommend it. I've said it elsewhere on these boards: Batman fans are spoiled for great films.
I thought Nolan's romances were okay. It doesn't help them that they don't get a lot of screentime. Rachel is in two movies, but she's played by two different actresses. The first film spends its time building Bruce's character (rightly so) so it doesn't have as much time to devote to Dawes. The Dark Knight has Harvey Dent, Batman, and the Joker, so Rachel still gets short shrift.
Catwoman and Miranda Tate have to split screentime in TDKR. There isn't enough time in that movie to get to everything. I thought Nolan did a good job of establishing Catwoman as a thief/femme fatale type, but didn't have much time to get her into a 100% believable relationship with Bruce. Miranda had more time for that, because the film wants us to invest a lot in that relationship.
So, I agree with your evaluation of Kyle's progression in both Returns and The Batman. Where we differ slightly is, of course, my preference. I don't have a problem with either "take" on Selina. I think that each version of the character suits each film quite well. That's one difficulty with comparisons: each take on Batman is done with a specific plot and tone in mind. For instance: Eartha Kitt was great as Catwoman, too, but why bother evaluating her relationship to Batman (non-existent) when Batman '66 wasn't interested in that?
Still, it's fun to compare, so off we go.
I think Phoenix's Joker would work well as a foil to Batman, but it would have to be a Batman that would fit into that world. The world of Joker felt more grounded than any other bat-film. It had more moral grey areas (not that The Batman, Nolan's films, or Burton's films haven't had plenty of nuance!) The portrayal of Thomas Wayne, for instance, was no where near the comics, but felt like a realistic look at a "good man". To that end, any Batman in the world of Phillips' Joker would have to be less of a paragon or hero and more of a grief-crazed man with severe issues. I'd love to see it, but it would be a very different Batman.
I get what you're saying with the killing thing. It doesn't bug me that much. I never saw BVS or Justice League, so I only ever saw Affleck Batman in Suicide Squad.
We're 100% in-agreement with the action scenes in The Dark Knight Trilogy: dock fight got away with it, the other fights weren't awesome. In fact, I can't even really think of them. When I think of Batman '89, I picture the goon gauntlet in the tower. Returns has Batman working his way through the Red Triangle Gang at the Christmas event. The Batman has that incredible fight in the subway - Batman's intro. But I don't really picture a fight scene in TDK because they aren't that stand-out. Great movie overall, though...
One of the best parts of The Batman's cinematography is how clear it is. It's almost pitch black, it's full of violence and chaos and motion, but I always know where everybody is (roughly) and what's going on in the fight. This raises the tension in the fight because I'm aware of the danger Batman is in. I can when something like a lead pipe is coming for him and get a thrill (that goon is toast!) or a shock (oh, no! He'll be knocked out!)
Jackie Chan is a good comparison. He was always human. Batman in The Batman feels human, and that's the appeal of the character. And both Chan and Reeves managed to make their fights fun and believable. I know that a person couldn't do what Battinson does in this film, but I buy it while I'm watching - and it's always fun (that gunfire-lit hallway fight!)
Yeah it does not break it that just hinders the experience a bit for me. I understand the killing thing not bothering someone though.
Yeah that is it. It is a great film but some of the fight scenes just are serviceable. I think where Nolan's strength lies is in his practical use of vehicles. I did enjoy the vehicle chases in the trilogy. I thought that was the area where it actually shined in terms of action. The combat though yeah I take the other films in that regard.
You nailed exactly why the cinematography is top notch.It is dark but well lit. It gives off such a strong vibe visually. I feel like the Batman lets scenes breathe also. One of my issues with Nolan's films if I am nit picking is the exposition overload at times. Le me feel the moment rather than tell me it. The Batman excels here I feel.
The gunfire hallway fight was outstanding. What a neat way to display style and give it such a Batman monster vibe. Well done to Greg Frasier here. He is an excellent cinematographer. Yep and exactly we all know it is a fantasy but I am able to believe what I am seeing, that is what matters. I am never taken out of the film.
Vehicle chases were much more memorable. The rooftop chase with the tumbler and the batpod in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, respectively, were both very good chase scenes. The batpod scene got to end with Ledger's "Hit me!" stuff, too. I don't remember a similar scene in TDKR, though. Rises was, I felt, a let-down ending for the trilogy. It was over-stuffed, kinda rambling... a lot of problems there. They didn't do as much with the batwing as they did with the other vehicles.
Maybe that's why I can say that The Batman runs long but I wouldn't cut anything: letting the scenes breathe more eats up time, but the experience is so rewarding that I wouldn't nix it at all. I agree with you where Nolan's films are talk-heavy sometimes. I don't need a three-minute conversation telling me how Bruce feels. I need one look - like Bruce rising to the signal in Returns or in The Batman Bruce staring at the mayor's son, yearning to help.
With that said, I do love the Nolan films (well... not so much Rises) and while they are talky sometimes, they also gave us great stuff like Ledger's Joker, Eckhart's Dent, and Batman interrogating Flass in BB.
Staying in the film is key. That's why the only time I really felt the length of The Batman was between "Act 3" and "Act 4". I felt like it was winding down. When it started to ramp back up, I was zapped out of the film briefly. Because Act 4 was so good, I got back in quickly enough.
I think Nolan holds the card for best batbike. I really enjoyed how he brought the batcycle to life. I thought the chase with the bomb was rather good. I like that it is practical as opposed to cgi porn like a lot of marvel films honestly.
Yep exactly. I love the signal look in Returns. I feel that sequence is the best use of the Bat signal in film history. Amen to the look at the mayor's kid! That was so great. A perfect display of show don't tell. It showcased the past of Bruce's trauma without having to show us the Wayne's getting killed for the millionth time.
Oh I adore the Nolan films. Honestly I think they edge out Burton for me. Even though I adore Burton as well. I think the supporting cast gives it the edge for me. Burton has better style for sure though. IDK lol ask me and a different day I might take Burton lol.
I agree bud. Solid points.
Nolan has the best batbike I've seen, but I can't think of another. Are we counting the street racing bikes in Batman & Robin? The detachable sidecar bike in Batman: The Movie? I didn't see the Affleck ones. Does he have a bike in those?
The practical effects are much better. CGI is great when used as a supplement to enhance or smooth out existing sequences and FX.
No argument: Returns nailed the Batsignal.
Bruce staring at the kid also sets up the ending. (SPOILERS! for any casual readers!) The big character arc for Bruce in The Batman was about his putting aside just being "vengeance" and actually trying to be a *hero*. His inability to provide hope along with fear - his inability to connect with people - is hurting his quest to elevate Gotham. When he learns to be a beacon as well as a shadow, he has come fully through his arc. That's what I loved about The Batman over anything else in the movie. We can gush over the choreo or cinematography or action sequences (I literally giggled like a giddy drunk when the Batmobile revved up) but, at the end of the day, Bruce's human struggles to connect with his humanity were what made the movie great - in my opinion.
Well, this is obvious given our conversation, but I rank Burton No.1, then Reeves. Nolan is not a distant third, but he is third, nonetheless. Again: spoiled for choice we are.
Overrated clap clap clap clap clap
shareI agree. This is the first Batman movie in which Bruce Wayne is believable. Keaton, Bale, and everyone else played him like a sane, slick, playboy who inexplicably dressed like a bat and hunted criminals at night. I don't think anyone who would actually go to such an extreme could be a normal, public figure socialite womanizer. This Wayne seemed like he could well be a virgin, which makes a lot more sense than the other iterations. Pattinson's Batman is content to be Batman 24/7, and only takes on any of Wayne's duties when Alfred forces his hand. That felt real.
I imagine there must be tiny problems here and there in this film, though I watched it twice in the first week it was in theaters and found none. It's as perfect a film as such a film can be.
I for once agree. This film to me is kind of the jack of all trades.
shareI'm not sure I'd call Keaton's version completely sane. My read of the character is somebody who is compartmentalizing and is oftentimes lost in his own use of masks to hide himself. He also is clearly putting on an act most of the time he's in public. Consider Batman Returns: when we first see Bruce, he's just sitting in his library, chin in hand, contemplating darkness when the Batsignal is activated and he rises from his lair. Later, in public, he has an almost bouncy, chipper demeanour while speaking with Max Schrek. Only with Alfred and, later, Selina does he come out of his shell.
Now, I did love Pattinson's performance, and I think it's great that they showed a more reclusive, awkward Bruce. This harkens back to a few comic book arcs where Bruce has trouble balancing his life. One of my favourite runs on the Batman comic deals with just this - also with Alfred encouraging Bruce to find that balance.
Keep in mind as well that Bruce in The Batman is in Year Two. Keaton's Batman has been working for longer (although he has still kept himself as a legend, I get the impression he'd been working on crime for years before the start of the film). Of course, this doesn't apply to Baleman, who is in Year One. I did enjoy Bale's performance, but not as much as the Keaton and Pattinson.
Really. Because hes Bearly Bruce Wayne in it. The hole point of Bruce Wayne is nobody would expect someone who so selfish would be so Selfless. Its like Superman, Nobody would expect shy dorky Clark Kent to be Confident Superman. I find plenty of problems with this movie. For One Pattinson Batman is totally incompetent. For a character that suppose to train his mind and body to peak of perfection and Worlds Greatest Detective. He need to start a pile up on the Highway. Because he doesn't know basic Spanish, didn't know what Carpet Tucker was and hes one step behind the riddler the entire time. I wouldn't put this movie over Nolan Films or the Adam West TV. Because at least Adam West Batman was actually a good detective.
shareEmo Batman is totally useless in this film. He did nothing except beat up a few thugs at the end and hang out with Kitty Girl.
shareI can’t say you’re wrong, though I still prefer Burton and Nolan’s firsts, this one could grow on me with a few more viewings. One thing it captures better than any imo was his using his detective skills more practically instead of just using a computer in the batcave.
shareYep exactly. It did not have detective elements it was a full fledged detective film.
shareI had never thought of it as such, but you have a valid point. If the haters had gone in to it without preconceived notions or even expecting a detective film, I wonder if their experiences/opinions would be different…
shareFrankly i didn't care about the detective stuff. Because This Batman was pretty bad detective. The guy caused a Pill up on the Highway. Because he didn't know Spanish. Im use to Batman cleverly outwitting the Bad Guys with his detective skill. That did not happen here. But in this, He two step behind the Riddler the entire time and the Riddler basically get most of what he wants. The movie makes a Big Deal about Hope when city been Flooded and who know how many people are dead. Well if i was in Gothem. I would be Hoping for better detective. Maybe Adam West. I pretty sure Adam West's Batman Record of getting the city Flooded is pretty low.
share