Batman

18485878990121

Comments

  • Posts: 9,847
    peter wrote: »
    Pattinson knocked it out of the ball park. I loved his presence in the suit (he looked like a three hundred pound monster); I also thought his Bruce Wayne was an interesting approach: he was still The Batman and seemingly had lost his identity as Bruce. The Bat was this guy’s comfort blanket. He had become the nocturnal beast (the touches with his sensitivity to sunlight and his pale complexion were subtly and beautifully executed). I think it may’ve been @DarthDimi who noted he forgot he was watching Pattinson. I had the same experience.

    The casting, sets, locations and the soundtrack (god that soundtrack!!!!), we’re all first class.

    However, I was disappointed… I didn’t think that this film with this story warranted a three hour run time. I’d be enthralled with certain scenes (and captivated by the lead character), but there were long stretches where I was feeling the length. There were subplots that weren’t necessary… Without spoiling anything, Turturro’s Falcone didn’t need two different sub plots… if I edit out one of these subplots (a specific one), nothing changes in the film other than making it tighter. Which leads me to…

    Selina Kyle…. Kravitz was lacking in my opinion. In fact, edit her out of the film and it doesn’t actually change anything again, other than tightening the story and the film’s run time.

    In the end this was a very mixed bag for me and thankfully Pattinson was beyond great and, to me, was the glue that kept me watching.

    I respectfully disagree I feel Catwoman worked extremely well and was integral to the plot.

    So let me go into more detail

    As to why I love this movie
    Ok wow 3 hours of film a lot to unpack

    I love how the film feels both realistic and a comic book come to life.

    The narration is amazing.

    I love Patterson I feel he is amazing in the role which I will be honest I was originally extremely skeptical of him hell it wasn’t till the second trailer in October that moved me straight to excited status.. and the film didn’t disappoint

    The fights were brutal

    The action was amazing

    There was horror elements that I wanted Batman to have for years. It’s ironic for a film about fear batman begins is way to clean and kind to be scary this film is scary and dark I love it


    I am nervous about the sequel as I really really don’t want the joker

    I want to see a mob war between Penguin and Ventriliquist


    I am going to see it again soon

  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,217
    I generally dislike voice overs but it worked really well here. The opening narration combined with the visuals was really chilling.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    I generally dislike voice overs but it worked really well here. The opening narration combined with the visuals was really chilling.

    Agreed. Very effective. It was pulpy and noirish… really loved the use of it.
  • Posts: 12,473
    Ranking the live-action films for the fun of it:

    1. The Dark Knight (2008)
    2. The Batman (2022)
    3. Batman Begins (2005)
    4. Batman (1989)
    5. Batman Returns (1992)
    6. The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
    7. Batman (1966)
    8. Batman & Robin (1997)
    9. Batman Forever (1995)
    10. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

    Haven’t bothered with Justice League or The Lego Batman Movie yet, but I probably will at some point for completion sake. I’m a big fan of my Top 6, consider 7 and 8 guilty pleasures, and dislike 9 and 10. Amazingly, several of the animated features are some of the very best in the franchise, such as Mask of the Phantasm, Return of the Joker, and The Long Halloween.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,188
    It’s kind of funny that voice overs aren’t used like this in most comic book films aside from maybe SPIDER-MAN. Given how thought bubbles are a staple in comics, you think they’d use it in more films.

    I think THE BATMAN used it in just the right amount and placement.
  • Posts: 12,473
    Revelator wrote: »

    Too awesome. I’d love to experience a memory like this!
  • Posts: 387
    The next voice-over narration in the sequel will be by Harrison Ford.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,420
    I really enjoyed the film overall. It's wedged with great scenes and really moves at a great pace considering the runtime. Great atmosphere, set pieces and music.

    Pattinson is great in the cape and cowl but his Bruce Wayne left a bit to be desired, which was surprising. It wasn't as much a Bruce Wayne story as previous iterations so it didn't make much difference in the end, but I always liked the duality of the character so it was a shame that it wasn't present.

    That's interesting: I've seen that elsewhere too- someone said The Batman is a better Batman film whereas Batman Begins is a better Bruce Wayne film. I certainly find that intriguing because generally filmmakers have usually found Wayne the more interesting character of the two, I suppose because Batman is so limited as a screen character. I will be curious to see this as a result.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Yes, very fine choice to focus on the Bat and that’s why I think they titled this, The Batman. As in THE Batman.

    I still find Selina’s story redundant, in my opinion because
    She wanted vengeance; vengeance on those who harmed and then killed her girlfriend. Vengeance on her father who abandoned her mother and herself. Narratively this is a teachable moment for Batman that vengeance is not the way, but being a beacon of light for the people was more valuable. However, in the climax, one of the incel copy cats is asked, “who are you?” And he answers: vengeance.
    Right then Batman knew that raw vengeance wasn’t enough and he dove off the scaffolding to save Gotham citizens from drowning. Lighting the flare and leading them to safety he learns, literally, that being a beacon of light trumps vengeance, therefore, narratively, it made Selina’s entire story as redundant. To me that one scene at the end was more powerful than all of Selina’s story (cut this out of the film you have a tighter story).
  • edited March 2022 Posts: 628
    The director, Matt Reeves, has mentioned that he wanted to make a Batman film in the vein of grittier 1970s American films such as TAXI DRIVER and THE CONVERSATION. He also seemed to have picked up on the influence of police thrillers from the same period, because I was reminded of the Philip D'Antoni-produced BULLITT (slightly earlier, 1968), THE FRENCH CONNECTION, and THE SEVEN-UPS, all of which, like THE BATMAN, have terrific car chases at their midpoint. Pattinson's Batman even has a souped-up retro muscle car that resembles Steve McQueen's Ford Mustang in BULLITT.

    I liked the movie, by the way.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,807
    Had to share this Hot-N-Ready (The) Batman Calzony ad. I saw it in English, likely better in Spanish.

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    peter wrote: »
    Yes, very fine choice to focus on the Bat and that’s why I think they titled this, The Batman. As in THE Batman.

    I still find Selina’s story redundant, in my opinion because
    She wanted vengeance; vengeance on those who harmed and then killed her girlfriend. Vengeance on her father who abandoned her mother and herself. Narratively this is a teachable moment for Batman that vengeance is not the way, but being a beacon of light for the people was more valuable. However, in the climax, one of the incel copy cats is asked, “who are you?” And he answers: vengeance.
    Right then Batman knew that raw vengeance wasn’t enough and he dove off the scaffolding to save Gotham citizens from drowning. Lighting the flare and leading them to safety he learns, literally, that being a beacon of light trumps vengeance, therefore, narratively, it made Selina’s entire story as redundant. To me that one scene at the end was more powerful than all of Selina’s story (cut this out of the film you have a tighter story).
    peter wrote: »
    Yes, very fine choice to focus on the Bat and that’s why I think they titled this, The Batman. As in THE Batman.

    I thought they mimicked the title change in the comics in the late 60s/early 70s when they made it more mature, dark and gritty.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited March 2022 Posts: 5,970
    Box Office: ‘The Batman’ Scores $128 Million, Second-Biggest Pandemic Debut

    https://variety.com/2022/film/box-office/the-batman-opening-weekend-second-biggest-pandemic-1235197193/

    This is domestic box-office only.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited March 2022 Posts: 4,343
    $248M globally.

    I'm betting on a $750M final that would be good but not great...
  • Posts: 12,473
    Also for fun, actor rank (live-action only again):

    1. Robert Pattinson
    2. Michael Keaton
    3. Christian Bale
    4. Adam West
    5. Val Kilmer
    6. George Clooney
    7. Ben Affleck
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited March 2022 Posts: 24,183
    1. Bale
    2. Keaton
    3. Affleck
    3. Pattinson
    4. West
    5. Kilmer
    6. Clooney

    Bale worked very hard; he was committed. A charming Bruce Wayne as well as an imposing Batman. Of all the actors, I rank him as the most talented and with the widest range of emotions. He was on fire as Batman, incredibly energetic and very dramatic as well.

    Keaton comes close. If Bale is my Craig, then Keaton is my Dalton. The man absolutely nailed it. He still is "my Batman". Bale was simply given more to do, which leaves him at the advantage. You understand my comparison with Dalton.

    Affleck is awesome and Pattinson is too. The latter plays a more distant, more elusive, less "social" Batman. We see less of his Bruce Wayne and what we see is a guy who seems lost in silent determination. Bale's Bruce Wayne did his best to keep the cover up, Pattinson's just doesn't go out unless he absolutely must. I like this take on Batman very much but, again, Bale was given more sides of his character to show off, which, again, puts him in the number 1 spot.

    West was charming. His Batman is the one I grew up with as a kid through reruns.

    I like Kilmer but Batman Forever wasn't about performances, only about BO performance. WB got greedy and lost track of the things that matter. Same with Clooney. His one saving grace in an otherwise peculiar (though enjoyable) film is that he, at least, got the joke. Talk About wasting good talent.
  • edited March 2022 Posts: 628
    1. Pattinson - I think he ranks the highest simply because he's the most effective at acting with his eyes, which is crucial considering how much time he spends in the costume; his is perhaps the first Batman film where the character is in nearly every scene. I had problems with THE BATMAN (mostly with the script), but Pattinson is definitely not one of them -- he makes interesting choices in the role and is consistent with them.

    2. Bale - Another fine performance, although sometimes his voice as Batman is unintentionally funny (Pattinson's voice, although at times reminiscent of Bale's, is the strongest and most believable). One of Bale's pluses in the role is the way he clearly delineates the differences between Bruce's public self -- the charming playboy -- and his private self, which is odd, troubled and even antisocial. I don't like the way he's almost pushed into the background in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, but that's the fault of Nolan and not Bale (who is excellent).

    3. Kilmer - In some ways his performance is the precursor to Bale's, because I think he really thought about the character's two identities and made some clear, intelligent choices. Too much of the film is given over to campy humor and Tommy Lee Jones's and Jim Carrey's hammy performances, but I think Kilmer is rock solid, and his interactions with Chris O'Donnell's Robin in particular are effectively conveyed.

    4. Affleck - I'm not normally a fan of this actor, but I like his older, humbled, more reflective take on the role in JUSTICE LEAGUE (both the theatrical and Snyder versions). I've never seen BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN and can't comment on the performance in it.

    5. Keaton - I love Michael Keaton, but I think his portrayal is confused (and confusing) in both of his Batman films, and he's very easily upstaged by his co-stars, particularly Jack Nicholson. I would argue that his best scene is in the first one, when he visits Vicki Vale in her apartment and tries to tell her that he's Batman -- it's a warm, funny, and surprisingly human scene that plays to Keaton's strengths with comedy. But too much of his work in the remainder of BATMAN and BATMAN RETURNS amounts to staring at people in an unnerving way, looking baffled, or trying to move around in what seems like a really heavy and uncomfortable costume.

    6. Clooney - Another actor I admire, it's just too bad that he walks through the role and probably never thought about it for more than two minutes. He's not terrible, merely coasting.

    *Adam West and Kevin Conroy were both great, but I find it weird ranking them with the others since West's performance was primarily humorous and Conroy's voice-only.
  • Posts: 328
    Just got back from seeing this. Wowza! What a great film. Everything was fantastic and I love how plausible the characters and Gotham were. I especially loved how Batman is regarded as some mythic bogeyman that has criminals paranoid with fear...and his first appearance where we see him slowly walking out of the shadows...what an introduction. 9/10
  • edited March 2022 Posts: 628
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I like Kilmer but Batman Forever wasn't about performances, only about BO performance. WB got greedy and lost track of the things that matter.

    With BATMAN & ROBIN, yes, but I think in BATMAN FOREVER Kilmer's Bruce Wayne/Batman is more defined than in either of the previous films. I never quite understood (or even believed) why Keaton's Bruce Wayne was driven to do dangerously heroic things, which I believe is the fault of Burton and the writers, who were more interested in the villains.

    With Kilmer's version there is at least an attempt to bring out the character's duality and humanity, mostly in his interactions with Robin and Nicole Kidman's psychologist (even though the latter's scenes are goofy at times).

    The film also doesn't shy away from Batman's benevolent heroism vs. the common interpretation of the dark knight as a violent, vengeful punching machine. When Two Face crashes a circus and demands that Batman reveal himself or he'll start killing hostages, Bruce, in the audience, immediately jumps to his feet and yells "Harvey, I'm Batman!"

    That's the character.
  • Posts: 387
    I just saw it, liked it a lot. Cons are this is a remake of Batman Begins, they just changed year one to year two and changed the bad guy.
    What bothered me is that we're revisiting falcone club again and again and again.
    These were the worst scenes of BB (which is a worst film anyway), but now it looks in my mind that Wayne is forever stucked in that underground club.
    I expect a lot of YT edits where different Waynes knock at the door and different bouncers answers once the Blu-ray is out.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    A remake of BB? Not at all, sir. This isn't about Batman setting up his "project" bit by bit, nor about Bruce Wayne learning the consequences of his nocturnal adventurous for his private life. Totally, both films are very different too. Also, the difference between year one and year two are enormous.

    As for the joke you are referring to, and one of the few chuckles we get in the entire film, the filmmakers simply follow the rules of a good gag without overdoing it.
  • Posts: 12,473
    I'm afraid I can't understand the criticism I've seen from some people saying the film isn't different enough. I found this film a perfect balance of familiar and new. No live action Batman before even came close to the amount of detective content, the reclusiveness of Bruce, the seediness of Gotham, and seamless blending of multiple genres - dominantly mystery that hadn't been done before. Sure, we've seen grittiness, darkness, no-kill emphasis, and other elements before, but they're still being executed differently. Batman Begins is a clear origin movie, and I never got that vibe with The Batman. Bruce may be young in this tale, but I feel like the film really never went out of its way to be an origin story, which is a great thing IMO. Year 2 IS a big difference from Year 1.
  • Posts: 328
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I'm afraid I can't understand the criticism I've seen from some people saying the film isn't different enough. I found this film a perfect balance of familiar and new. No live action Batman before even came close to the amount of detective content, the reclusiveness of Bruce, the seediness of Gotham, and seamless blending of multiple genres - dominantly mystery that hadn't been done before. Sure, we've seen grittiness, darkness, no-kill emphasis, and other elements before, but they're still being executed differently. Batman Begins is a clear origin movie, and I never got that vibe with The Batman. Bruce may be young in this tale, but I feel like the film really never went out of its way to be an origin story, which is a great thing IMO. Year 2 IS a big difference from Year 1.

    This.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,217
    Some more detailed thoughts after my second viewing.

    I had a good time with 'The Batman'. Tonally absorbing. Aesthetically incredible. There's a truly wonderful score by Michael Giacchino under all the admirable efforts to make it a detective story rather than a big, loud blockbuster. The supporting cast are all excellent: Colin Farrell in particular is having a great time as The Penguin (his Irish accent seeping through his pantomime Al Capone impression brought a big smile, and those prosthetics are stunning). There's a total humdinger of a car chase in the middle section that was worth the ticket fee all by itself.

    Pattinson? He's great while wearing the suit - which is thankfully the majority of the time - but for me fared less well when he was out of it; the attempts at Emo Bruce Wayne didn't work as well as I had hoped it would. One of the most enduring things about Batman/Bruce Wayne is that probing of where one begins and the other ends, but here they are one and the same from the get-go and I kind of missed it. This is a Batman story, not a Bruce Wayne one.

    The biggest compliment for last: despite the three hour runtime, the film absolutely zips along and it's never boring - and mercifully, there's no big CGI finale. It all feels very intimate and personal.

    Overall, a big win for DC and comic book films in general without being revolutionary; proving that there's still room for impressionistic and unique storytelling in the superhero genre. The fact that I felt compelled to see it a second time so soon is probably indicative enough of its value.
  • Posts: 3,327
    Watched it last night - superb! This is the closest I have seen to the Batman I read in the comics when I was young. Gotham continually raining, Pattinson's Batman easily the most badass ever, great soundtrack, gritty 70's vibe, down-to-earth creepy villains, no nonsense brutal action.

    This will be the blueprint for the next Bond film. I would put money on it (if I was a betting man!)
  • Posts: 9,847
    I still cant believe how good the movie was Like I feel like I dreamed the movie .... anyone else still o cloud nine a few days after watching it
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    Risico007 wrote: »
    I still cant believe how good the movie was Like I feel like I dreamed the movie .... anyone else still o cloud nine a few days after watching it

    I am still jazzed, @Risico007. Will see the film a third time tonight. Can't wait. There's so much there to enjoy! I'm currently looking forward to Farrell's performance the most.

    What I love about this movie is that it blends Fincher (Zodiac, Se7en) with '70s Scorsese (Taxi Driver) and '70s Coppola (The Conversation), both in terms of content as well as tone.

    Also, I cannot believe this film was scripted before Jan 6 of last year.
    A trigger-happy mob, spurred on through social media by a deranged madman to attack its own political structure, supposedly in the name of "doing good"... it's almost as if the film's villain was taking lessons from a real-world example.

    Tonally, THE BATMAN feels like it is set in the '70s as well as the darker '90s, but the actual threat is very much rooted in recent history. It wasn't even meant to be. It just happened that way.
  • Posts: 12,473
    I am very much still in disbelief at how good it is too. I’m almost scared to go again and not enjoy it as much haha, but I definitely have to catch it at least one more time in theaters. Burton and Nolan’s realizations of Batman have been so near and dear to my heart for so long that I didn’t think they’d have competition until this came out.
  • Posts: 628
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    What I love about this movie is that it blends Fincher (Zodiac, Se7en) with '70s Scorsese (Taxi Driver) and '70s Coppola (The Conversation), both in terms of content as well as tone.

    Although I can see the influence of the two Fincher movies and TAXI DRIVER (especially in the narration), I don't see anything of THE CONVERSATION in this movie.

    I think Reeves's starting points -- in addition to those mentioned above -- are Nolan's Batman movies (obviously), BULLITT (the car chase and procedural aspects), DIRTY HARRY (Scorpio Killer), DEATH WISH (the subway opening), THE FRENCH CONNECTION, and possibly even something like FREEBIE AND THE BEAN in the level of mass destruction during the car chase and the way that innocent bystanders are disregarded, even by the ostensible hero.
Sign In or Register to comment.