The Batman is a flawed but striking pop-noir blockbuster
Robert Pattinson goes goth in a superhero movie that's at least one great villain shy of greatness
Film Reviews Batman
In The Batman, Matt Reeves’ slick, overlong, majestically moody superhero spectacular, Robert Pattinson really puts the goth into Gotham City’s chief protector. His eyes slathered in mascara like Robert Smith (or The Crow, another nocturnal winged avenger), this version of the DC crime fighter zips around town on a motorcycle to the non-diegetic accompaniment of Nirvana’s album-closing downer “Something In The Way.” He also narrates the film in hushed voiceover that teeters, gargoyle-like, over the edge of self-parody. “They think I’m hiding in the shadows,” he whispers. “But I am the shadows.” These musings sound like diary entries—and it turns out that’s exactly what they are. At last: a Batman who journals!
The Bat is a limiting role for any actor. How much emoting can you really do with just your chin? Keaton, Bale, Affleck—they all had the secret identity to play with at least. In The Batman, we barely see Bruce Wayne with the cape and cowl off. When we do, he’s the same glumly laconic dude. Pattinson, returning to blockbuster duty a decade after playing a different creature of the night, squashes the essential duality of the character, erasing any real difference between Wayne and his alter ego. In doing so, maybe he gets at an essential insight about the ageless adolescent appeal of Batman—namely, that he’s something of an ageless adolescent himself, a guy so stunted by childhood loss that he exists in a permanent state of teenage angst.
The Batman exists in that state, too. This may be the broodiest of all cinematic takes on the Dark Knight, a version much more Gen X in its disaffection than the Bat-movies they made in the ’90s. It also may come closer to the experience of reading a Batman comic than any Batman movie before it. Reeves paces his epic almost like a limited series—you can practically identify the moments where one issue is breaking into the next—and he complements his sometimes episodic storytelling with a striking visual variety.
The director and his co-writer, Peter Craig, draw heavy inspiration from a particular Batman story, The Long Halloween, setting their movie during roughly the second year of Wayne’s moonlighting vigilante tenure, before most of the town’s goons have gone full rogue. As in that acclaimed story arc, there’s a serial killer on the loose—in this case, a version of The Riddler who’s knocking off prominent members of the city’s social and political elite. We’re a long way from the capering question-mark theatricality of Jim Carrey or Frank Gorshin: As played by Paul Dano, under a goggled steampunk anarchist getup, this deranged puzzle enthusiast has more in common with Jigsaw or the diabolical John Doe of Seven. Of course he fancies himself a kindred spirit to Batman. What lunatic worth his weight in themed weapons doesn’t?
There’s method to The Riddler’s madness. His murder spree is designed to publicly expose a web of secrets and lies, connecting the mob boss Carmine Falcone (John Turturro) to dirty lawmakers and lawmen, as well as Wayne’s late industrialist father (who, thankfully, we don’t have to see gunned down in an alley for the umpteenth time). That makes The Batman the rare Detective Comics adaptation to privilege actual detective work, with Reeves devoting as much time to crime scenes and clues as he does to well-orchestrated scenes of Batman beating the snot out of hoodlums. The mystery could use a knottier, more intricate architecture, though. Isn’t every Batman movie ultimately about the corrupt heart of Gotham? The revelations here might be less shocking than Reeves imagines, even for those who haven’t read the celebrated source material on which he’s loosely riffing.
The Batman has some of the rain-slicked neon dreariness of a David Fincher procedural, but it’s still set in an outsized comic-book world of good guys and bad guys. It’d be difficult to call any of these iterations of the characters definitive, even as most of them are played by first-rate actors. Zoë Kravitz brings an uncommon emotional realism to Catwoman, reimagined here as a nightclub waitress with a vendetta against the mob. The lack of va-va-voom campiness is less detrimental than the way the script jettisons this classic anti-heroine’s usual shifting allegiances and moral ambiguities. She’s nearly as on-the-level as a pre-promotion Jim Gordon (Jeffrey Wright)—and less interesting for it. And then there’s Colin Farrell as fellow Batman Returns heavy The Penguin, still a low-flying bird in Gotham’s criminal pecking order. Unrecognizable under mounds of Dick Tracy prosthetics and a goombah accent, Farrell is mostly a hoot. But it’s a glorified cameo.
As a work of multiplex visual art, of blockbuster eye candy, the film can be breathtaking. Reeves understands the graphic power of this graphic-novel material; he has an illustrator’s eye for exaggerated angles, previously demonstrated in the locked-vantage action sequences of his Let Me In and Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes. Here, he flexes that talent during a chaotic car chase that ends with an upside-down POV shot of Pattinson’s hero emerging triumphantly and terrifyingly from an inferno. Earlier, Reeves firms up Batman’s intimidating bona fides through a montage that keeps cutting to criminals glancing nervously into pockets of darkness, until the towering hero finally steps slowly and ominously out of one of them. And the film sounds even better, thanks to a remarkable Michael Giacchino score that alternates minimalist strums and imperial marches; it’s somehow in the same league as the operatic themes Danny Elfman once lent the franchise.
As The Batman creeps into hour three, it becomes clear that, for all its doomy pulp grandeur, the movie is missing something crucial, and that’s the gravitational pull of true infamy—the villainous magnetism of a Nicholson or a Pfeiffer or a Ledger. Its Riddler gets a great introduction, scouting his first victim with binoculars in the creepily voyeuristic opening scene. But the more we see of him, the less scary he becomes; Dano, who seemed like inspired casting on paper, can’t seem to find a consistent persona—even a consistent voice—for this master of enigmas. When the movie finally puts him and Pattinson face to face, it’s a pale imitation of a similar moment in The Dark Knight—all you-and-I-are-not-so-different bloviating. And giving the psychopath a QAnon-like internet following turns out to be little more than an easy explanation for how a lone-wolf killer amasses henchmen.
Still, the film sustains its seductive atmosphere—its hushed pop-noir cool—even as the story fizzles into a string of reveals and a curiously perfunctory climax. The Batman is as much a plot machine as the Christopher Nolan movies (the exposition could be stacked into twisting skyscrapers), but it moves differently, crawling and slinking over its extended running time instead of racing through it like a bat out of hell. And if we didn’t exactly need another Batman movie, there’s a charm to seeing one relatively steeped in the language of the original medium… even if a part of that language is a portentousness suitable only for tortured costumed orphans or goth kids of all ages.
335 Comments
the film sustains its seductive atmosphere—its hushed pop-noir coolyou can just ay gritty, we all know you mean gritty when talking about anything DC.
“Robert Pattinson goes goth”Goes? Wasn’t he already the worst kind of watered-down goth, emo?.“squashes the essential duality of the character, erasing any real difference between Wayne and his alter ego”Not great to hear, for longtime fans. I’ve always found it makes Batman seem more intelligent than those around him by playing the Bruce Wayne character well. It also sometimes allows him access to info he can’t get as Batman, when people drop their guard around the rich effete billionaire playboy. Some of the best detective stories of the 80s were based in this premise. Also, just eliminating the duality makes it seem like he doesn’t care enough to protect his secret identity.
.
“It’d be difficult to call any of these iterations of the characters definitive, even as most of them are played by first-rate actors……Dano, who seemed like inspired casting on paper, can’t seem to find a consistent persona—even a consistent voice—for this master of enigmas.”Yes, and I’ve heard Pattinson’s voice is all over the place, too.
Still going to go see this one, but these comments have only confirmed my primary concern about this version from the start, which was the casting.
Have you seen Robert Pattinson in any non-Twilight movies?
Yes, I’ve never seen a Twilight movie, so I’ve only seen him in non-Twilight films.And since I recognize this opening comment from every other online discussion I’ve seen about this movie, I should also note that I’m not here to argue with any representatives of the Robert Pattinson Fan Club.
I never said he was a bad actor. I just said most of the roles in this film are miscast, In My Opinion.So please don’t try to make me into one of the sides in that endless online discussion between his haters and zealots.
“Yes, I’ve never seen a Twilight movie, so I’ve only seen him in non-Twilight films.”So go ahead and name a single role in which he has played the ‘worst kind of watered-down goth, emo”.Come on. Just one.“So please don’t try to make me into one of the sides in that endless online discussion between his haters and zealots.”Who would ever say that about someone whose entire opinion of an actor is based on a role in a franchise that said someone proudly admits to never having seen?Ssurely that’s nothing like being a “hater”, right?By the way, have you come up with a single non-Twilight goth emo role that he played yet?Yeah, that is EXACTLY what I thought.
Well no, you said “Goes? Wasn’t he already the worst kind of watered-down goth, emo?” – So I think asking “Have you seen Robert Pattinson in any non-Twilight movies?” is a completely fair question, because that’s what you made it sound like. Didn’t seem like Jesse was trying to “make me into one of the sides in that endless online discussion between his haters and zealots” – though now that doth protest so much…
Sorry if that Emo comment applies to Twilight as well, I was talking more about him in interviews. But yes, I saw him in Tenet, the Cronenberg film, The Lighthouse, HP, and a couple others.
If — in the eyes of all the rabid Pattinson-stans — not seeing him in Twilight disqualifies me from having an opinion about his casting in this film just as much as seeing him in Twilight somehow did 5 minutes ago, then I apologize.
As I’ve already mentioned, nowhere above did I take issue with his acting ability. Only agreed with Dowd’s line about the miscasting in this film and said he was among them, in my opinion.
If people are so insane about him that even that sets them off, so be it.
So, the only two alternatives are “he’s the fucking worst” or “you have to be a rabid stan?”* I mean, I’ve barely seen him in anything, but just conceptually that seems messed up, like sticking people with only two wild extremes as choices always is.
*Which, ugh, “stan”… if there’s one truly bad thing to hold Eminem responsible for, it’s making that a thing.
So, the only two alternatives are “he’s the fucking worst” or “you have to be a rabid stan?”* I mean, I’ve barely seen him in anything, but just conceptually that seems messed up, like sticking people with only two wild extremes as choices always is.I have no idea? I explicitly went out of my way to say I didn’t think he was a bad actor, just that I think I’ll consider him one of the roles Dowd said was miscast (after joking that he seemed emo in interviews). Not sure how “extreme” that makes me. I wasn’t even drinking Mountain Dew when I typed it.
Well, you were accusing everyone who expressed disagreement with you of being “rabid stans” (ugh) where I didn’t really see anyone claiming that he was the best and dreamiest and you shut up, etc.
Nope, not what happened. Responded to two people who started with accusatory responses to my original post, so I mentioned endless threads elsewhere on this topic that I didn’t want to get drawn into (which this in fact became — go figure!) ; and I said to one that his first post started the same way those argument threads with rabid RP fans always start. And he did, in fact, end up telling me that if I disagreed with him then I “only cared about the comics” and that I was “wrong two ways”. There was no “accusing everyone”, because 95% of the people I interacted with on this thread were perfectly pleasant, and I reflected the attitude of those who were.
You shouldn’t even bother anymore. The poster is going to continue being passive aggressive in said arguments.It’s clear that they really have no intention of having a discussion. They posted something knowing it would be perceived as provocative, then decided to stonewall any attempts to have a meaningful debate.And they’re doing so by arguing in a manner that can only be described as ‘moving the goal posts’ . They’re just going to keep responding because they wrongly believe (having the last word = winning).It’s unfortunate as usually people on this site seem to enjoy a lively debate. I’ve never wanted to block someone so much. Ugh.
Lemme make sure I understand you correctly, “The Notorious J.O.E.” — you’re angry because I’m not interested in being further baited into a pointless circular “debate” over my own personal opinion of simply agreeing with Dowd about some of the roles being miscast? Wow.
Okay, got it.
p.s.: Hey, no hard feelings — if it’s any consolation, after that kind of hot take, I agree with you 100% that there should be a blocking function. *mwah!*
This response is exactly what I’m talking about. And the fact that you’re actively searching for responses not even directed to you furthers my point. You’re just arguing to argue…and being actively antagonist to boot.
Sweetie, I wasn’t “actively searching for” anything — your response was literally at the bottom of the page when I responded to the last person to reply to me — in the OP thread. That’s it.And I’m sorry if my asking for clarification of your slander of me was “antagonistic”. Pretty ironic stance, if you ask me.
And I’m sorry if my asking for clarification of your slander of me was “antagonistic”. Pretty ironic stance, if you ask me. Yeah, I seem to recall this particular poster *not* having been such a deliberate knob in the past. Bit’ve a shame.
I’m sure he didn’t used to be like this, which is the main reason I even bothered.
Yeah, this smacks of someone having had a bad day and deciding to get super defensive while *simultaneously* trying to save face *and* downplay both. It’s…yeah, very weird.
I’ve never wanted to block someone so much. Ugh. YOU LEAVE ME OUTTA THIS. 😀
Ha! Too late…you’ve been dragged in (however inadvertently). 😉
I think we desperately want a Robert Redford type again, a guy whose “heartthrob” phase and “serious actor” phase occur at roughly the same time, unlike the Markys Mark and Brads Pitt we have now. Pattinson is our best candidate for that, I guess, so he’s got loads of people pulling for him.
I was honestly curious, because I don’t know where “watered-down goth emo” enters into Good Time, Cosmopolis, High Life, or Tenet, among others. But it would semi-accurately describe his work in the Twilights. Moreover, I feel like this many Batmans in, if you’re still ringing the “only Kevin Conroy really nailed it” bell, then maybe you’re more interested in Batman comics than movies that interpret those comics—which is fine, but I’m glad the movies aren’t positioning themselves to please that demo!
???Sounds like you’ve got big important feelings for this topic and are a good deal more than just “honestly curious”. You’re willing to argue both sides regardless of what I say or haven’t said; since you’re actually arguing with all the folks you seem to believe I represent.
So I’m gonna let you debate yourself on this topic until you’re all tuckered out. Go ahead.
“Sounds like you’ve got big important feelings for this topic and are a
good deal more than just “honestly curious”. You’re willing to argue
both sides regardless of what I say or haven’t said; since you’re
actually arguing with all the folks you seem to believe I represent.”Some real Tiny Knife energy here.
What on earth?!Everything I’ve said has been taking issue with “watered-down goth emo” to describe Pattinson’s performances/persona. If you had only see a couple of Twilight movies, I’d say, eh, that makes sense as a description, but you’re wrong. But if you’ve only seen him in *other* movies, that description is even more inaccurate.
It seems like I’m arguing “both sides” but you’re actually just wrong two different ways.
If you had only see a couple of Twilight movies, I’d say, eh, that makes sense as a description…Everything you’ve typed since the standard opening “have you even seen X in anything other than Y”-snobbery of the rabid fan has just confirmed your opening gambit. As it stands, anyone who starts a conversation like that — assuming ignorance on the part of anyone who disagrees with them — starts off with two strikes. Lucky for me, I’m not really here for my opinion to “make sense” to you. After all, it’s my opinion. This is why they make different flavors of ice cream.
So you can sit there are obsess about everyone who must “be wrong two different ways” about chocolate and vanilla, if you like. While you’re “What on Earth!? ”-ing , I’ll be over here happily enjoying rational conversation with other folks whose opinions occasionally differ on matters of taste yet still realize that’s okay.
Damn dude, he wasn’t at any point trying to invalidate any of your opinions, he just asked a simple, good-faith question. You made a comment about Pattinson being a watered-down emo goth, and he wanted to understand where that comment came from; the source of that comment was unclear, and like Jesse, the only conclusion I could come up with was “it must be referring to the Twilight movies”, because he’s not emo in anything else. Somewhere buried inside all that intensely over-reactionary defensiveness was a perfectly fine answer, which is that you haven’t seen the Twilight movies and were actually referring to your perception of his real-life persona as you’ve seen in interviews. Okay great, asked and answered, no one is representing/defending some rabid fanbase, no one’s being condescending or snobby, and no one was mad or confused about anything until you decided to be super weird.
“You made a comment about Pattinson being a watered-down emo goth”.
Well, no. I made a joke about Emo itself being “watered-down Goth”.
While at the same time saying, “wasn’t Pattinson emo?” Also not an entirely serious comment, to anyone not on a hair-trigger level of defensiveness about Pattinson like the overwhelming majority of his fans have been since this film was cast. *coughcough*And none of that was even the main point of my comment, ironically — even though it’s the only thing this little lynch mob of Pattinson-stans has swarmed this thread over. My main point was agreeing with parts of Dowd’s review — in particular that many of the roles were miscast.
Funny how that all got lost in the Pattinson-fever, isn’t it….
But I agree with you that this entire overreaction by everyone who responded to me (and you should see the greys I’ve dismissed) has been “super-weird”, yes.
Well you’re not really agreeing with me, because I’m saying you’re the one over-reacting and being super weird, not everyone else.And I get the Pattinson line wasn’t super critical to the rest of your post and wasn’t entirely serious, but it’s still okay for someone to need clarification on it, without being automatically perceived as a Pattinson fan zealot, right?
Sure, Sadbert.
But I agree with you that this entire overreaction by everyone who responded to me (and you should see the greys I’ve dismissed) has been “super-weird”, yes. Holy FUCK they went full “precocious 12-year-old” on you. 😀
anyone not on a hair-trigger level of defensiveness about Pattinson like the overwhelming majority of his fans
Pattinson-stans
Pattinson-fever
Yes, other people are the ones bringing their weird baggage to this.
“until you decided to be super weird.”welcome to comic book fandom!
Yeah, like…framing “Have you seen him in other roles?” as snobbery is just a fucking odd tack to take.
“What makes you see Robert Pattinson as emo if not the Twilight movies, which are typically the reason he gets that characterization” seems like a pretty ordinary question for a discussion about an actor, so I’m not sure why you’ve wildly overreacted to it as some sort of attempted gotcha moment rather than just answering.
But that’s not what he said in his first comment, was it?
No. In his first comment he assumed you came to that conclusion because you’d only seen the Twilight movies, because that’s the extremely common reason people come to said conclusion.When you said that wasn’t how you came to the conclusion (because you hadn’t even seen the Twilight movies), he asked what was (because most of Pattinson’s other roles don’t typically fall under the category of “emo” so he wanted to know how you got there). There’s no contradiction or both-sides-ing there.
No.I’m not going to rehash this over and over again with someone who’s half-assed re-phrasing of the previous comments I responded to is a waste of time to unravel. His words are *right up there*, you can quote them directly.This is what he responded with first:
Have you seen Robert Pattinson in any non-Twilight movies?That’s it.For his second comment, no — he did not, “ask what was” — he fired off a misquote; first quoting me as if I’d said RP was a “watered down goth emo”. (Rather than what I actually said, that emo was watered down goth; and joking that RP had only ever seemed emo to me, not goth as Dowd had said.)
Then he fired off several halfhearted insults and non-sequiturs, claiming that “Moreover, I feel like this many Batmans in, if you’re still…” [names something I hadn’t said at all in my response to him] , then concluded I’m “…more interested in Batman comics than movies…” adding as a parting shot, “I’m glad the movies aren’t positioning themselves to please that demo!”That’s it. Exact quotes in italics, so you don’t have to keep transforming what he actually said into how you interpreted it. And if he’d stated all this as just his opinion, instead of as an insult to the intelligence of anyone who disagreed, saying “well then you’re just wrong two different ways”, well then that would’ve been civil, like most of the other responses. But that’s not what he did, so let’s not pretend.
This is all “just for the record”, because this is the last comment I’ll make on the ridiculous shitpost subthread his predictable response that’s been posted a thousand times elsewhere has generated:
Which was exactly what I said I was trying to avoid getting drawn into in my very first response to him — that’s where this should’ve ended.
You made a dumb comment about Pattinson being “emo” and then went to 11 the second someone said something about it. You’re right, all the words are up there to read, and yours are evasive and aggressive as all hell, as though you’ve been in this exact argument before and wanted to skip the normal back-and-forth and get to the fireworks factory immediately.
Keep on being weird about some actor, I guess.
Just let it go, Jesse. Reading their posts, it’s clear it’s a matter of someone coming into a room flinging shit, and then when everyone asked “Why did you do that?”, replied with “It was just a joke, why can’t you people take a joke?”.
Honestly, I’d say that the “only Conroy really nailed it” take is more about holding subsequent actors to an unfairly high standard, haha.Conroy’s performance wasn’t just imitating the comics – it was transformative in how people viewed the character.Particularly in Mask of the Phantasm – they show the moment when the voice he uses when he’s alone/with Alfred changes from “Bruce” to “Batman.” Conroy literally is *that much better* than anyone except maybe West and Bader.
Pattinson’s also great in Map to the Stars
This whole thread is the weirdest, consider rethinking your vibe
From what I’ve seen in Pattinson’s interviews, his hook into the character is that Bruce is fucking nuts, haha.…which is very much in his wheelhouse.
I almost wish he’d been a bit weirder in the movie; Keaton still reigns as the most genuinely eccentric-seeming Bruce Wayne, IMHO.
Haven’t seen it (obviously) but Pattinson’s interpretation sounded a little closer to TH White’s Lancelot – an unstable man who enjoys hurting people, and hates himself for it.
If you’re right, that’s unfortunate.To me, that’s not a hero.(Of course, I also didn’t like King’s interpretation where he posited that Bruce was just trying to commit suicide all this time. Apparently he wasn’t any sort of brave hero, trying to save people. Just suicidal. Ugh.)
Totally fair.“If I let myself kill even one of them, I know I’ll end up killing all of them” is my favorite answer to the Joker Question, but it doesn’t have to be everyone’s.
No, I don’t have a problem with that one, actually. It’s a more modern interpretation of “having a code against killing”. It just makes it ethical or practical, instead of moral.
…I can’t view Bats’ refusal to kill the Joker as moral, ethical, or practical. His refusal to use lethal force being pathological works for me.
Whatever works for each of us, I guess
This is right, except I’d go one further, and say that it’s not the refusal to use lethal force that’s pathological, it’s his need to save people. They do a nice job of bringing out that distinction in the animated adaptation of Hush.
I mean…I’m not sure he’s Deku on that front, haha.I think Batman loves beating up bad guys…and that scares him, which is why he doesn’t trust himself to kill any of them.
I think it’s a bit less enjoying beating up bad guys (although there are lots of takes on the character that deal with that part of him) as that he’s compelled to do it to save people. But being compelled to save people’s lives, he’s also compelled to save villains’ lives, particularly from himself. I’m probably stating the case clumsily, but it’s the explanation for why the “I’m not going to kill you, but I don’t have to save you” from Batman Begins doesn’t really work for the character. Because Batman does have to save him, or at least try. It’s what makes him Batman.
That’s an entirely valid interpretation!In Kingdom Come, he and Superman have that great conversation that comes down to “We may not always get along, but at the end of the day…we’re just two people who don’t want to see anyone die.”I really like that version of the character.…but I also love versions that are terrified by how much they enjoy the violence, and know that they’re one slip-up away from becoming Dragonfly (the Dragonflyman of Earth-Omega).It’s just a matter of the writer understanding which version of the character they’re using, and committing to building the story around that vision.
“You know why they’re so weird? Because they can afford to be”
I saw him in a Harry Potter movie and movie about Elephants with Reese Witherspoon. Never thought he could be Batman.
I have not even seen those. So, never.
No. Nor have I seen any Twilights.
Only seen him in Tenet. Can’t say he was good in that.
You can and should say he was good in that!!
He was in the fourth Harry Potter.
Furiously masterbating to a curved piece of stone isn’t goth?
everyone’s problem with every batman movie (particularly before they see it) has always been the casting, going all the way back to keaton.
Yes, and this is partly why I’ve always said the main role hasn’t been cast right even once. Some have been half-right, some have gotten the other half, some neither.
Regardless of opinions of how well he played the role, I feel like it’s hard to argue that Christian Bale wasn’t at least well cast as both Batman and Bruce Wayne.
Yes, his acting skills seemed like they should’ve been up the challenge.
He has a very soft, round face and mouth that really clashed with the main (only) facial feature of the role, however. Also, the voice, as everyone noted.
So his Bruce Wayne ended up being much better than his Batman
He was a great Bruce Wayne. Didn’t like him so much as Batman.
Kevin Conroy is still the best Batman casting.
Oh, I agree completely. My other comment was only regarding live-action.
Even as a kid I was impressed with Conroy’s ability to modulate between “Bruce Wayne voice” (warm, even avuncular) and “Batman voice” (genuinely deep and menacing, without resorting to a gravelly growl that sounds like he’s about to hack something up).
My favorite onscreen Batman moment is when he’s unmasked in front of Lois…and he immediately drops his Bruce Wayne voice in their future interactions.
The thing he got right and everyone else has gotten wrong is that Batman is who he really is, so that’s the real voice, and Bruce Wayne’s higher register is the put on. Bale and Keaton (and it sounds like Pattinson) got it backwards, and Kilmer and Clooney didn’t really bother to make them different.
Very true.He also had the advantage of just having the perfect vocal range for the part, I guess.Now they just have to find someone who can do the voice AND embody the role at the same time.
Maybe with the voice but I wold argue that Keaton nailed the “Batman pretends to be Bruce Wayne” angle the best. Bale didn’t do a bad job either.
Oh absolutely, I’m only talking specifically about the voice. They were both great.
And his third, rarer voice, of unmasked Bruce in the cave being largely chill!
definitely. mask of the phantasm is probably still ‘the best’ batman movie.i also don’t think there’s any meaningful way to get it 100% right in live action, because it’s always going to look a little fucking stupid that a grown man is dressed up in a custom made bat suit to fight crime and we have to take it 100% seriously.i don’t think any actor can fully solve that problem.
Conroy’s not only the best Batman, but Batman: The Animated Series (and its feature-length film extension, Mask Of The Phantasm) is the best all-around Batman adaption. Other adaptations have elements I enjoy just as much, if not more, than their B:TAS counterparts. But B:TAS is the only adaption in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
It’s too late now, but my fantasy Batman was always Keith David. The voice and the presence. Wow.
Would it be a crime if I said I have a problem with the casting of Adam West?
Yeah, I didn’t think Buster Keaton would have fit in The Cameraman, but the results speak for themselves.
The Cameraman is no Man With a Movie Camera.
I dunno, check out the big listicle of ranked villains: they’ve got Cameraman at #12 but Man With a Movie Camera way down after Joe Chill.
Gumbercules – the maddest!
Yes since he was known primarily for his comedic roles prior to that. But I am also at the age that I was a kid when the Burton Batman movies were released so Keaton will ALWAYS be my Batman. And besides Nicholson was the BEST Joker as well. He had a great mix of the sideshow like Joke form the 70’s TV show, but you could feel the menace and sisterness behind his eyes. Ledger and Leto, meh they leaned way to hard on the full blown psychopath side. And frankly Leto’s Joker would have felt more at home in a Batman Beyond movie IMO. That said this looks interesting.
MR MOM IS NOT BATMAN
“[H]as always been the casting, going all the way back to keaton.”But Diane proved those naysayers wrong in the end.
I just made a really undignified snort-laugh noise, so thank you for that
I sent in a letter to WB demanding they recast Pattinson.
I remember that twitter thread from a few years ago about a black Batman. If this is how people react every time a white actor is cast as Bruce Wayne, I can only imagine what announcing a black guy to play him would do.
This is Batman, Year 2. He’s not going to have perfected these things.
I mean, you’re entitled to your own fan head-canon to explain away what other people consider mistakes, sure. But many Year Two stories in the comics show that he’d perfected it just fine.
“But many Year Two stories in the comics show that he’d perfected it just fine.”Quick, name a single Batman comic that has EVER addressed the voice that has only really been think in Batman motion pictures since Nolan took on the character.Any one.
It’s been a while since I last read Long Halloween…but isn’t part of the overall arc across it and Dark Victory that Bats starts neglecting his Bruce persona, until meeting Dick helps balance him out?
I think it was more that his Batman persona had just become more brutal, but if you wanna make it just about the duality aspect, I would say the issue on that front was that he begins to abandon it completely, he doesn’t just keep it but perform it badly. Important distinction.
Yeah, I’m interested to see how it ends up working – Bats getting worse at Bruce-Wayne-ing because he’s so consumed by The Mission is an interesting idea, if executed properly.
I mean, it’s better than them bringing in another poorly-cast Robin, I guess!
: )
“Poorly cast” as in being a grown-ass man?
In fairness…so much of TDKR was dumb and weird, haha.
Oh yeah, all of them.
True enough, but they’re on-record as saying this version of Bruce Wayne hasn’t quite gotten to the “put on an ‘eccentric billionaire Bruce Wayne’ mask” just yet. It also seems like this Bruce Wayne is a little more anonymous, less Kardashian and more like one of Bezos’ kids. (Does Bezos have kids? Probably? I dunno.)
And it’s not a “mistake”, it’s just a storytelling choice. Sure, the duality of the “Bruce Wayne” persona vs the “Batman” persona is fun and interesting, but it’s not required to tell a Batman story.
And it’s not a “mistake”, it’s just a storytelling choice.If we’re just talking about the scriptwriting process, sure.
But I mean, it’s a “mistake” for the character, if it gives away his secret identity, no?
But I mean, it’s a “mistake” for the character, if it gives away his secret identity, no?Sure, but I think that’s part of them making Bruce Wayne less of a household name for this version. Which isn’t wildly unrealistic, there are plenty of insanely rich people who aren’t super well-known, especially if they’re just the kids of well-known rich people. I mean, it’s not like anybody knows the names of all the Walton family 20-somethings. Plus, since they’re leaning into the “homemade” look and feel for Batman’s suit and gadgets, it eliminates the whole, “hmm, which REALLY rich person is funding all of this?” factor.
I understand your point, and it’s a valid one.I guess I just like the idea of the “Bruce is a super-genius and thought of all of this baseline stuff like the dual-personality right from the start” side of his character, and feel like him having to “learn” all of it after the fact takes away from his whole “pinnacle of human performance in both body and mind” thing.
This Bruce Wayne is still a very clever person. Even staying under the radar like he does requires a great deal of intelligence given how famous his parents were.
“in the comics”This is a movie they made. I think the review said that somewhere
Right, he has a perfect rubber suit and rocket car but he can’t growl consistently.
This is Batman, Year 2. He’s not going to have perfected these things.Oh shit I can’t wait to see the Reaper
Well it’s Batman year 23 for DC and they haven’t perfected shit
Wow.You actually thought to write this down.
“squashes the essential duality of the character, erasing any real difference between Wayne and his alter ego”Interestingly I’ve seen a variant of this comment/critique on a few different sites (not necessarily ones that you’d expect to all be following the same party line either).Of course, I’ve also seen umpteen defensive comments going “You don’t get it… Bruce Wayne is the mask! Cower before my mighty intellect as I make a point that was played out decades ago!” so… I guess this is the sort of Batman people wanted?
Well, I don’t think those two opinions are mutually exclusive.Bruce Wayne can still be the mask, and Batman can still perform the role of Bruce Wayne correctly. Those aren’t diametrically-opposed positions.In the books, you got some of the biggest laughs out of how people would treat him as Bruce Wayne because he was so good at getting them to think he was a feckless over-cultured moron.
Then he would roll his eyes at what suckers they were after they left and he had gotten everything out of the conversation he needed to, detective-wise.
…but there are also laughs and characterization to mine out of the idea that he hasn’t learned the “Bruce Wayne” role yet, and his lack of practice is compromising The Mission.
It’s kind of a weird complaint, since I think the Bale/Nolan Batman is the only cinematic Batman who made any effort to really separate their Bruce Wayne from the guy in the cowl, putting up the appearance that Bruce is an unserious person who wants to party and womanize. In every other version, Bruce Wayne is just a dark, broody guy who’s very obviously Batman.
“Wasn’t he already the worst kind of watered-down goth, emo?”No, you’re thinking of the character he played in the Twilight movies. Easy mistake to make.
No, you’re thinking of the character he played in the Twilight movies. Easy mistake to make..
No, I’ve never seen the Twilight films. I was actually talking about him in interviews.
(But maybe every actor is obligated to act all emo if a bunch of emo teens are screaming at them in every public appearance? He could just be playing to his public persona, who knows? Easy mistake to make.)
I feel like there are two solid different reads on Batman: that Batman is a scary badass persona constructed to protect the traumatized kid, Bruce, that he still is deep down, and that Batman is the hardened, bitter man that he really is and Bruce Wayne is the mask he wears to function in society. There are good stories done from each of these perspectives, but “he acts basically the same in and out of the suit, so there is, psychologically, no real difference” seems like a third option that would be the hardest of the three to actually make interesting.
I agree 100% — you get it.
And well said.
That’s a great way of putting it. Cinematically, Keaton is probably closest to the first read, where his Bruce Wayne isn’t so much different from Batman as he is still, even in adulthood, the quiet, traumatized child who lost his parents. And Bale was probably the best representation of the latter read. My favorite funny moment in TDK is when the Joker invades Bruce Wayne’s fundraiser for Harvey Dent, and Bruce activates a hidden door to change into Batman. A nearby partygoer says “You have a safe room! Thank god!” and goes to join him, only to have the door shut in her and her date’s face. And those partygoers aren’t going to make the connection between Bruce Wayne disappearing and Batman showing up a minute or two later, because Bruce has made an effort to establish himself as exactly the sort of asshole who’s going into a safe room and staying there, by himself.
Maybe he went Emo?
Maybe he went Emo?.
I dunno, and I’m not touching THAT live wire again. One offhand joking sentence out of an entire post, and a squad of Pattinson-stans jump all over me for my “incorrect opinion”.
*shrug*Not starting THAT up again. Sheesh.
What is this army of “Pattinson-stans”? Who even uses the word “stan” unironically? You’re just being goofy about this.
“Goes? Wasn’t he already the worst kind of watered-down goth, emo?”No. Also, so what if he was?
I’ve been saying for years that Robert Pattinson is too emo, Robert Downey Jr is too prog-rock, Samuel L Jackson is too Sammy Davis Jr, Sammy Davis Jr is too death metal, and death metal is also too emo, just like Robert Pattinson. It feels good to be heard.
You don’t know what the term “emo” even means, so the rest of your point is moot.
If I learned anything from South Park, it’s that Goths hate to be called Vampires or Emos, Emos hate to be called Goths or Vampires, and Vampires are the stupidest thing ever.
Ironically, this is actually far more responsive to what I was trying to say in my first point than a couple of the longest other threads.
: )
I’d like to see a studio use 2 different actors for the role some time. Could be tough, but could also work out a lot better in terms of being able to truly display 2 different people if they can make-up or CGI the chin/mouth to hide the physical difference.
Interesting idea, hmmm
That reminds me of back in the day when there were two “regular person transforms into a superhero” live action shows on Saturday morning, Shazam and Isis. I always thought it was funny that Shazam used two separate actors for the roles, one being very boyish and the other much more manly, which Isis used the same actor and just basically took her glasses off.
Actually, I thought he did some interesting work with the voice. Since we don’t get anything of playboy Bruce, the only distinguishing factor we have is his voice, and whenever he’s not in the mask he sounds noticeably softer and more boyish.
LOL. Hey –Thanks, Wired:https://www.wired.com/story/the-batman-leans-hard-into-the-emo-revival/
On his couch, eating ice cream.
HE’S AT HOME WASHING HIS TIGHTS
Holy fuck I did not need to see that.
Dowd, I’m glad the last movie you reviewed for this site was a halfway decent one. I’ll miss your good work around here.
I was still hoping he’d give it a C+ for shits and giggles.
Wait…A.V. Club is losing Dowd?? Whose idea was this, and why did they think it was a good one?!
That’s what happens when people doing unique creative work get taken over by a private equity firm. The company gets hollowed out, the talent leaves, and the folks who are left running it have to figure out how to maximize clicks instead of, you know, putting out quality writing.
Farewell Dowd. You and basically everyone working at this site were so much better than J/O Media deserved.
Really looking forward to this, though I’m still disappointed it doesn’t show whether we can trust Harvey Dent.
CAN WE TRUST HIM???
I believe in him.
I suspect he’s going to turn out to be a bit two-fac— ah, whom I kidding? I love that guy!
a little disappointed in Catwoman’s ambiguity here (sort of the whole reason she is such a compelling character), but otherwise sounds like a good watch.
Yeah, part of what makes the relationship fun is that Bruce responded to the random cruelty of the world with self-annihilation in the service of an impossible dream, while Selina just said “Fuck it. The world is broken, so I’ll do whatever the hell I want.”
for sure, and she definitely has her own code of doing things, but it’s not as rigid as Bruce’s. She exists in the broken and Bruce thinks he can fix the broken.
…I’m not certain Bruce does “think he can fix the broken.”His pledge wasn’t to “save Gotham.” It was to “Spend the rest of my life warring on criminals.”When he gets hit with the Black Mercy in JLU, he doesn’t see an approximation of The Mad Hatter’s dream. He just sees his father beating the ever-loving shit out of Joe Chill. Forever.
I mean he won’t kill them lol, he must think there’s some kind of redemptive quality to these crazy fucks.
Pattinson had an interview with an interesting perspective on the “No-Kill Rule,” which is that he’s so rigid about it because he knows that if he kills even one of them, he’ll never be able to stop.
Batman viewing hoods as Lay’s potato chips? “Beat you can’t beat (to death) just one!”
I don’t think that’s a Pattinson thing. That was an explanation Batman gave in one of the comics. Obviously there are many interpretations of the character, so there would be different ways that Batman would explain why he doesn’t kill across writers in the comics, though.
Oh, for sure – I think there’s a version of it in Under the Red Hood.I just think it’s informative of Pattinson’s approach – the quote was more along the lines of “If he’s dressing up as a bat every night and beating people up, he must enjoy it…so it’s probably taking all his self-control not to kill anyone.”
Nice to see they keep up with the superhero movie tradition of the no-kill rule applying to not being willing to directly kill a villainous antagonist, but don’t seem to mind a lot of collateral innocent death along the way. I mean, there’s no way a bunch of people didn’t die in that fiery crash on the freeway that was a direct result of his reckless car chase.
I’m still pushing for a Batman Beyond movie. There’s so much they could do with moving past Bruce and moving into future Gotham
feels like with keaton in batgirl they might be trying something similar with that movie?
Batman Beyond actually seems like it work better as an animated movie. I know it IS animated, and has already had one animated movie, Return of the Joker, but I’m thinking the more photo-realistic animation style. The “uncanny valley”-ness that would undoubtedly hit the characters would actually give the Neo Gotham cityscape an otherworldliness of the future.I’d also really love an animated Batman movie that’s modeled after Dick Sprang’s Golden Age run.
I’m sure there’s a director who could pull off a live action BB, but a high-budget animated movie with Spiderverse/Arcane level visuals would be a sight to behold. The neo-Gotham setting has so much potential.
God I’d love that. The dynamic between Terry and old Bruce was so interesting. The comparisons between a young hotheaded kid under the mask and Bruce’s more meticulous, reserved detective style.
And it might finally get me my Zeta Project movie!
I don’t understand why people still think that all Batman can be is a gloomy edgy forever teenager.I’m sure this movie was made for someone, but it sure wasn’t made for me. No thanks.
Ad jeez, if it’s not made for YOU who could it POSSIBLY have been made for?Here’s one answer: me.
gloomy edgy forever teenagers love the movie theatre.
The backlash against the Schumacher films spooked the studio so much that we’re never again going to get a Batman with the slightest capability of enjoying himself.
You act like the fans and common moviegoers had nothing to do with it.
I mean, I assumed that was covered in the “backlash” part. And don’t get me wrong, the Schumacher take on the character was campy and awful. It’s just annoying that means Batman can’t ever crack a smile again.
Pretty sure Battfleck smiled now and again…..I’d attach a picture, but Giz’s comments system, as always, is somehow more ass with each update.
they’re also just never going to give it to someone who would take that approach even a little. like, can you imagine them hiring whoever directed the modern equivalents of pee wee’s big adventure & beatlejuice to do a batman now?
I don’t think there IS an equivalent. The closest I can think is someone like Michel Gondry or Jean-Pierre Jeunet. But frankly, the idea of a Batman movie from either of them seems like a hot mess, with emphasis on the mess.
If you want a worthy successor to Adam West, you need to either go Dietrich Bader’s West homage in “The Brave and the Bold” and “Batman ‘66″ or Will Arnet’s chef’s-kiss hysterical take on it in the Lego movies…“Darkness! – No parents!”
like, can you imagine them hiring whoever directed the modern equivalents of pee wee’s big adventure & beatlejuice to do a batman now?I know they produced the LEGO Batman Movie, but your comment makes me really want a full-on, live-action Batman flick from Phil Lord and Chris Miller.
So… Taika Waititi, then?
James Gunn went from Tromeo & Juliet and Scooby Doo to GotG and Suicide Squad. Lord & Miller went from Clone High and Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs to a Star War and a Spider-Man.
I don’t think it’s entirely out of the realm of possibility, though Burton is unique, I suppose, in that he maintained a personal style across all those films.
batman is unique, though. i’m not saying you can’t go from weirder smaller movies to weirder tentpole comic book movies, but they won’t let batman be weird anymore, is my point. like, they’ll let taika waititi have fun with thor and gunn play with suicide squad, they’ll even let todd philips make them a billion off joker, but they would never be in a serious consideration for a batman movie.
This is true. Even animated Lego Batman movies suck out any bit of humor Batman may show. Batman is no longer allowed to make jokes ever!
To be fair, with Lego Batman the lack of jokes is often literally the joke.
And yet they made The Lego Batman Movie.
Which, it occours to me as I’m typing this, probably didn’t make enough money for the suits to consider it viable.
Even though”Darkness! No Parents!” has been playing on a loop in my head whenever I watch any footage of this.
And why doesn’t Batman dance anymore?
The Schumacher films were 2(?) of the worst movies ever made. So, there is a reason.
Some days, you just can’t get rid of a bomb!
As one of the people who might enjoy this film:
I don’t mind a bit of doom-and-gloom in my movie stew so long as it’s mixed right. I’m willing to give this one the benefit of the doubt because the first Batman comic I read matched this aesthetic fairly closely, and I think that specific type of darkness (i.e. gothic Gotham) hasn’t really been tried before on its own, even if it feels like it has. Burton balanced it with camp, Schumacher did the same but tipped the whole packet of camp in.
But at the same time, I sort of agree with you. What’s interesting to me is that Hollywood (and the public at large, to a certain extent) seems to view these things in terms of ‘lightness’ and ‘darkness.’ The Dark Knight had the kind of critical and commercial success that Hollywood will probably spend decades trying to recapture. And Hollywood looks at that and thinks: ‘Okay – we need more dark, serious, gritty Batman!’But those movies are only ‘dark’ in comparison to Schumacher’s. What Warner Bros seem to have done is confuse social commentary, realism (again, comparative), intricate plotting, a somewhat grittier feel and scary violins on the soundtrack for ‘darkness.’ The movies themselves have plenty of levity, and light-hearted moments, and Bruce Wayne spends very little time wallowing in self-pity before springing into action, even when his love interest is murdered.Compare that to the Snyder films where the storylines are just as preposterous and straightforward as Schumacher’s, with nary a theme nor relatable character to be found, but where everything is treated with this empty, glossy, masturbatory self-seriousness. Which, to be fair, might be a trap this movie also falls into, but based on the review it sounds like it makes as aesthetic of it, so we’ll see I guess.
I realize this is heresy, but maybe… we’ve just already seen everything there is to do with the Batman character?There’s really not that much to him, and every square inch of the material has been explored for 80 years in every medium, including 11 live action films. He’s traumatized because his parents were shot in an alley, he dresses up like a bat and punches criminals. It’s thin gruel.They’ll keep making Batman content as long as somebody’s watching, but I don’t think any director can blow our minds with a new take on the character at this point.
It’s not heresy, but I do think it’s a weird take, given that a hugely unexplored element of the Batman character onscreen is his massive legion of sidekicks and his relationship to them. Detective Comics has at times been essentially a team book, with the entire Bat-family sharing equal time. Nothing like that has been done in a movie, and given that this is the Batman I grew up with–and I’m in my 30s–I find this very strange, and a huge missed opportunity to liven up the character on the big screen.
I mean dealing with trauma through buying everything you want and violently lashing out without consequence doesn’t really make well-rounded adults.
Huh? Keaton, Clooney, Bale, Affleck? Not forever teenagers.
At 176 minutes, definitely not for me. DC movies are so, so exhausting.
I enjoyed this movie, but, man, I don’t want to see yet another filmmaker in 10 years going even MORE dark. We’ve reached the bottom, folks.Let’s bring some of that Adam West/ Brave and the Bold sensibility back, please.
I AM THE ONE WHO KNOCKS!-Batman
“I am the liquor.” — Lim Jahey
A.A. taking a bow with a solid B, on a superhero film no less? Now I’m real excited
And it’s better than the C+ he gave Iron Man 3 when he started so there’s an argument that Comic book movies have gotten better.
gonna get the batman calzone’y this week to celebrate. hope i live until thursday!
Pizza is old news, Chris!
In doing so, maybe he gets at an essential insight about the ageless adolescent appeal of Batman—namely, that he’s something of an ageless adolescent himself, a guy so stunted by childhood loss that he exists in a permanent state of teenage angst.I thank you for the great review.But now I will be going into The Batman with images of Michael Jackson as the caped crusader screaming “Hee Hee!” and “Schomo!”
Is there a way to ask you an AV Club-related question through a pm, since it would be off-topic for this?
Dowd flourishes his cape and disappears into the dark of night one last time. Godspeed, sir. Until the critic-signal appears in the clouds again, we’ll be watching.
I’m hoping that several of the better writers here show up elsewhere… but with newspapers quickly dying, how much room is there these days for professional movie critics?
Lots of Substacks and Patreons.
He wasn’t the film critic critic we needed, nor the one we deserved.. wait, no…dang it!
“He gave us this!”*switch is flicked, giant C+ lights up the sky*
I’ve read a lot of comments in my 8 years reading A.V. Club. Yours is the best.
“When that light hits the sky, it’s not just a call. It’s a warning.”
Fitting he goes out on Batman, superhero films have been his bread and butter.
G/O media: “I never said thankyou.”Dowd: “Yeah … I noticed.”
Same Critic Time!Different Critic Channel!
Better than passable retread of a comic book character who’s been done to death equals a B? Ugh.
“They think I’m hiding in the shadows,” he whispers. “But I am the shadows.”
Fuckkkkk…the actor playing Orin would’ve been a great Batman villain. He could’ve pulled off Joker, Riddler, Victor Zsaj, Mr.Freeze…
Ron Swanson as the Batman. All of his gadgets are made of wood and indestructible.
And his family’s moonshine recipe could fuel 10 Batmobile.
He has amassed quite a bit of gold…
(not mine)
A Batman film as long as The Great Zeigfeld? When it hits the video stores it will definitely be on two tapes.
From the director of “The Pallbearer”!
There’s some movies you can tell are bad just from the theater poster or DVD cover. Every thing about that picture screams “This movie is terrible”.
And moreover, this poster tells you absolutely nothing about the film. It’s trading hard on you wanting to see Schwimmer and Paltrow together, that’s it.
The photographer used a neutral background so the graphic designer could add whatever backdrop they wanted. And the graphic designer said, “That’ll do.”
It’s a shitty poster but don’t blame the designer. I’d bet my pinkie toe they submitted 30-100 great ideas and after 100-300 revisions the various art directors, marketing folks, execs, and agents involved bounced it down to this.
Even in the 90s, I’m not sure anyone wanted to see that particular pairing.
There was a bit of a cottage industry of films that were sold to people who would only watch films starting one of the Friends cast. I know because I was one of those people for a particular shameful 3-6 months.
David Schwimmer for next Batman.
That would be quite the PIVOT!!
Batman is the least interesting thing about Batman. Like Wolverine, Angel, Geralt, and every other brooding tough-guy loner, the thing that makes him at all meaningful is the (non-romantic) relationships he’s thrust into almost against his will — whether with Robin and the “Bat-family” or even the Justice League. It’s those relationships that force him out of the pugilistic sadboi power fantasy and into a true redemptive arc as he discovers something to care about other than his own overblown suffering. Once a filmmaker understands this, I will be excited about watching Batman again.
Nailed it. Batman is my favorite comic book hero, always has been, but I desperately prefer the character to get the hell over himself these days. We’ve seen every possible angle of brooding in every possible corner of Gotham seventy-’leven times already. I’m okay with it here, since this is Young Bats, but I think it’s time for weird, fun, experienced Batman to come back. The villains get to swing from gritty violence to bombastic fun, so why can’t the hero?
weird, fun, experienced BatmanIsn’t that pretty much what Affleck was doing? At least by Justice League.
I feel like you do the first movie as the archetypal Batman that’s dark and brooding, but then takes in a teenage boy that’s possibly more messed up than him, and in channeling the kid’s anger into something more productive, Bruce learns to lighten the fuck up.
Bonus points if Alfred is 100% snarky about it.
This ^ this is the play. I would love it if they took it in this direction.
Aside from the angry teenage boy, that’s The Lego Batman Movie.
But I think a Robin that calls Bruce on his shit and makes him a better Batman would be worth seeing. I mean, I get that no amount of money will bring his parents back, but for someone to make Bruce think about his privilege and how much good he could do if he was less focused on his rage, would be an interesting character dynamic.
I don’t think he should actually do this, but a Robin that would point out that Bruce could probably out spend the mob in bribing cops, let alone lobbying politicians to provide better mental health coverage for Gotham’s citizens.Plus, watching people lose their minds over a more “woke” Batman will be a fringe benefit.
I did kinda love the LEGO Batman movie for that exact reason, even if it was extremely unsubtle in its delivery. But I think an “adult” Batman movie could make the same point more poignantly. I didn’t read the whole series, but it seemed like James Tynion IV’s recent Detective Comics run was taking that route using a whole cast of troubled Bat-people, including a repentant Clayface trying to atone for his past evil deeds. That’s the sort of story I’d love to see in live action.And yes, 100% agreed on your last point too, lol
So, a Bruce Wayne movie in a multiverse where he never became Batman.
Or, a Thomas Wayne movie where he doesn’t die? Didn’t Thomas Wayne already spend billions trying to save the city the right way in every iteration? Isn’t part of the point that bad people will always take advantage of good intentions, and Bruce decides to use this against them?
My own brooding teenaged self would hate me for this, but I would love a Bat-family movie…one that isn’t Batman and Robin, anyway.
They did a pretty good animated one.Batman: Bad Blood.
Batman himself, has the least amount of screen time in it, as the rest of the “family” have to come together to save him.
Bring back Aunt Harriet! Or not.
Thank you for your reviews, Dowd. You and the rest of the writers stable deserved so much better. I can’t wait to follow y’all wherever you land.Anyway, hyped for the Batman.
Best wishes going forward for you Dowd. I enjoyed your work here very much over the years and this place is most certainly worse for not keeping you around
As tedious as Snyder’s version of superhero brooding is, I’m kind of intrigued by this one. More so seeing this review. Will most likely check it out at some point.More importantly, though: Good luck for the future Mr. Dowd! Your reviews have been great and you’ll be sorely missed around here. I hope you land somewhere deserving of your talents.
No parent-murder scene? Best Batman movie ever.Wait, three hours? Oh, fuck off.
Will we ever get a happier version of Batman?
So, am I right that this iteration of Batman has no connection to any other film series?
Correct, it’s framed so far as an entirely new continuity. However, since The Flash movie is going to take DC explicitly multiversal just later this year, it may not stay in its own continuity very long.
I’d somewhat forgotten about this and it really bums me out. Please please please don’t weigh down this version of Batman by extending it to other franchises. Why can’t we have nice things.
I’m not saying it’s necessarily going to get connected to other DC movie continuities, but the studio explicitly introducing parallel universes/alternate timelines into a related franchise means all bets are off.
the movie is missing something crucial, and that’s the gravitational
pull of true infamy—the villainous magnetism of a Nicholson or a
Pfeiffer or a Ledger
So Keaton got to square off against two of them, Bale one, and none for Kilmer, Clooney or Affleck (with Pattinson still potentially having some more at-bats). Also, two thirds of those are the Joker. It seems like Batman movies have a somewhat narrow avenue for success.
“(with Pattinson still potentially having some more at-bats)“I have never said this before about any comment, but you should be banned.
You can’t ban someone from the AV Club for a single bad pun, it should be a three-strike policy at minimum.
“at-bats” – I see what you did there…and I like it…
Honestly, you saw it before I did.
I’m here for the Bat-puns and was not disappointed
Well, yeah. Even superhero movies thrive on human relationships, and for some reason the suits have decided that Batman can’t have friends or a family, so he’s totally reliant on a villain to give him anything to do. Unfortunately, he’s only got the two really good villains, and the rest are like, Calendar Man (who incidentally plays a big part in The Long Halloween, but I imagine has been left out of this cinematic adaptation because… Calendar Man).
I’d argue he has one of the top two rogues’ galleries (along with Spider-Man).
It sucks that they finally brought in Ra’s al Ghul, but other than being the leader of the League of Shadows/Assassins, he wasn’t a great version of Ra’s.Ra’s is one of Batman’s greatest foes. Done right, he makes the Joker look like a common pickpocket.The only screen one we got, trained Batman, and then died on a train.
You’ve convinced me: time to have Batman fight Dracula again. He’s in the public domain, right?
Nah, Moon Knight is all over that nerd Dracula.
Imagine if Marvel and DC both put out a Dracula movie in the same year.
Ra’s Al Ghul fell into the same bucket as the Mandarin, and they tweaked the character for similar reasons as when Marvel tweaked the Mandarin for Iron Man 3. I’d love to see a straight adaptation, complete with Lazarus Pits, but I think that’s going to have to wait until this Pattinson Batman has played out.
We could have had comic book faithful-Ra’s Al Ghul with Batfleck, but that’s the only film iteration it would have “worked” with IMO.
In another timeline there exists a brilliant standalone Batfleck film that’s basically a live-action “Under the Red Hood”. Oh well.
i’ve got my fingers crossed for ‘serious mr freeze’ in the next one.
There was a pseudo-adaptation of The Cold Equations too recently to try that.
i think if anything a recent adaptation is more proof dc WILL do it. they love double and triple dipping batman content.
The joke was referring to this:https://film.avclub.com/four-s-a-crowd-in-netflix-s-involving-deep-space-surviv-1846732589https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cold_Equations
I keep saying this too!
Hardy was also that level of magnetic as Bane. And Batman Begins works, even though there isn’t one big villain throughout the movie. As far as Kilmer goes, Jim Carrey’s Riddler probably goes a bit beyond “magnetic” to form a black hole in the middle of the movie…
And there goes one of my main reasons for even coming here any more. Thanks Alex, you’re still the greatest.
It’s funny to me how kind-of-predictable this version of Batman is, based only on the trailer that they cut together two years ago during the COVID-induced break in filming, after only recording like 10% of the movie. It’s moody, patiently paced, capably acted with lots of gravitas, emphasizes detective work, and above all is beautifully shot. All of that was evident in the first trailer.And I think I’ll enjoy it! The long run time makes me hesitate to watch it in theaters, that’s a bloody long time to be packed shoulder-to-shoulder with people breathing on me, even pre- the hyper-contagious pandemic, but it sounds similar to the vibe of Dune, which I absolutely loved seeing in IMAX last year.
So, on the one hand, this version apparently has great visuals and some gripping cinematic storytelling. On the other hand, it waters down and misreads my favorite Batman story and takes Catwoman and Ridder in directions I don’t think do the characters or the franchise justice. All things considered, this sounds like a “watch at home” kind of flick. I can live with that.
I’m seeimg this on Friday with my husband because it’s his birthday, and I’m sure it will be fine, but “overlong” has me concerned. Any movie that overstays its welcome is not one I look forward to, or at least not one I will rewatch (WW84 REALLY comes to mind). I’m still interested about what R-Bats (we’re not calling him that) can bring to the screen, but I just hope it won’t drag.
WW84 is pretty bad though. Don’t compare that to this. Not all long films are cut from the same clothe. I’m still mad at WW84 for existing. Wish stones? cmon writers.
Well, what’s a comic book movie without a MacGuffin lol. I did end up enjoying Batman for the most part. I do think it could have ended before it did, but it certainly wasn’t as egregious as WW84.
I’m not sure I’ll see this in theaters, but maybe in a future film this continuity will finally deliver the Michael-Emerson-as-the-Ventriloquist content that America has been demanding for the past 15 years. And by “America,” I mean me, but admit it, you can totally see that, right?
Holy shit, now I can.
The only thing I ever saw him in was Person of Interest, so I can’t imagine Harold being as browbeaten as the Ventriloquist is usually portrayed as.
He was pretty infamous on Lost for getting beaten up all the time.
It came to me watching Emerson on Lost as “Henry Gale” (the meek identity his character Ben Linus assumed to infiltrate the plane crash survivors). He could use his more intense persona when projecting through Scarface.
I would watch that and I haven’t seen a Batman in nearly a decade.
I’ll totally admit it so long as you also sign my “make a Batman movie with Condiment King as the villain you cowards” petition.
I’ll sign that!
I wanted Emerson as Riddler.
The Batman: screenplay by Lydia Deetz
It is interesting that Marvel heroes, at least onscreen, are much less defined by their antagonists than DC heroes. In fact the MCU’s biggest weakness in my mind is (generally) their villains. If you buy this premise – why is this?And sad Farrell is a glorified cameo, he’s always great and looked like he’d be having more fun than Dano.
I think it’s because Marvel’s characters originated with a lot of built-in personal drama when they were created, and DC’s were largely paragons of virtue taking on external challenges. And that doesn’t always make for the most dynamic character in a film.
So Batman is a stoic and brooding character who is pit against colorful and dynamic madmen with a wide variety of gimmicks, and his challenge generally how they test his resolve and wits, not his personal integrity. Meanwhile, Tony Stark grappling with his own arrogance, self-interest and callous behavior is kinda more interesting than him actually grappling with Iron Monger (who represents all of Tony’s worst traits). Tony becomes more interesting, but the tradeoff is that Iron Monger is kinda blah.
It’s also not uniform across the board at each company, because Black Panther (very similar to Batman in a lot of ways) was less interesting than Killmonger (more colorful villain with very complex motivation). But I think the Marvel villains are usually servicing the hero’s story arc in a more functional way than DC’s villains, who are more about serving the plot. Maybe?
Actually your comment about them being paragons of virtue makes sense in another context – DC is a generation older than (most) Marvel heroes, outside of Captain America. The Marvel characters came of age in the 60s, and could be more fleshed out by then, but Batman and Superman and the like already had 20+ years of history at that point. And yep, Killmonger/Black Panther dynamic was very different from most of the other Marvel films. And Thanos is a really good villain in Infinity War (not so much in Endgame where he’s pretty cartoonish). So doesn’t hold true for all of it, but villains certainly get less screen time in most Marvel than DC.
And sad Farrell is a glorified cameo, he’s always great and looked like he’d be having more fun than Dano.I thought Farrell’s Penguin was one of the best parts of the movie and I wish he was in it more. Farrell did a dead on “Untouchables” era De Niro. I liked the subtle sight gag of when Gordon and Batman left his feet tied up and Oz kind of waddles after them.
Portentousness, you say…?Look, I’m not gonna pretend I’m not all over this, I’m a sucker for Batman and I kind of dig that they’ve dialed the emo up to eleven, but from everything I’ve seen it does seem a bit lacking in the villain department. Moodiness works to a point, but even Nolan understood that Batman villains require a certain pizzazz, a hint of colourful goofiness. You can maybe play Penguin as a mobster or Riddler as Zodiac (it’s maybe a bit too ‘OMG edgy’, but eh, there’s room for it), but you still maybe need to chuck in a bowler hat or a cane in there, give them some zing.
Check out the review on BBC if you have a minute: https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20220228-the-batman-review-a-noirish-pulp-fantasy.
Why are you advertising a review in the comments of another review. Considering this is A.A. Dowd’s final review for the A.V. Club, I’d call that a biiiit disrespectful.
Hour three???
The movie is like 2 hours and 50+ minutes long with the credits.
When I was a teenager, I once thought I might become a writer.But I wrote things like “They think I’m hiding in the shadows,” he whispers. “But I am the shadows.” And I thought then that was profound thing to say.I am not a writer today.
Parts of this sounds a lot like the Telltale Batman series which is very interesting. I liked that series.
https://slot4s.com/
https://gamehall4s.com/
http://poker4s.com/
https://slot4s.com/
More like B. B. Dowd. Ha! Got em.
Happy trails, Mssr. Dowd. Remember, the real treasure was the C+ reviews we made along the way!
Doesn’t sound like something that will get me back in a theater.
Just saw it. I’ll probably eventually post a more cohesive comment with my thoughts, but here are my random thoughts:When it’s good, it’s good.There’s nothing really bad, but I thought some things were off in tone. You have this dirty, grimy, grounded Gotham City and then a character out of nowhere says, “That’s the Penguin!” I guffawed.Michael Giaccino’s (sp?) score is perfectly cromulent. Just like all of his scores.It’s too long. One wonders if the studio is afraid of another Snyder Cut fiasco and avoided telling him to cut out anything, but there are things that absolutely could’ve been cut or shortened, and one scene that flat out belonged after the credits.The performances are good all around.Oh! I have to give Matt Reeves credit for this: he doesn’t skimp on Batman. Bruce Wayne is not in the movie very much. Pattinson is in the suit for most of his scenes and dammit, that’s how I like it.There are a lot of shout-outs and nods to the comics. The plot itself is a pastiche of several Batman stories, including the Telltale series. I’m not sure how I feel about that.I know that this will be a lot of younger people’s first Batman movie, especially future generations, but there are a few “beats” that have appeared in previous movies. It’s probably not fair to say that’s a fault, but it did bother me.Having said that, I think the story did need to be its own “thing.” It wouldn’t have worked as even a prequel to Affleck’s Batman – and that’s largely because Matt Reeves understands Batman a lot better than Zack Snyder. The moments showing Batman as fallible and kind of a rookie Batman didn’t work for me that well. I didn’t need Batman to be the Ubermensch that has everything planned three steps in advance, but those scenes felt like they were from a Batman Begins remake or a straight adaptation of Year One.I still have a problem with Matt Reeves’ approach to basically out-Nolan Nolan, but I can’t argue with results. It’s not perfect. I think just looking at it as a movie and not a fan of Batman, superheroes, or comic books, it has pacing problems. But the middle, the second act – it works. It really works.
Some nice thoughts, and I agree with a lot of it. Especially the overall approach to one-up Nolan by being even MORE grounded. In doing so, things like a character actively known as “The Penguin” just seems out of place, and I liked it better when they just called him “Oz” (which is clever).It is too long, and frankly, too dark. It feels like an R-rated movie, and I saw a parent take her kids out of the theater after the second serial killing. Makes the complaints about Batman Returns seem downright quaint today. But damn does this film know how to *use* Batman. I loved the detective approach, and there’s something about the way he’s framed, that is so imposing! Pattinson can wear that suit, lemme tell ya
I saw it this evening – very early in the movie, someone says “fuck” and I thought, wait is this actually R rated? Or did they just randomly throw in their one use of “fuck” right out of the gate?
It goes pretty hard, doesn’t it? I mean, the main plot is Se7en, and the subplot is basically the dead hooker trope. A far cry from the McDonalds Happy Meal tie-ins of yesteryear, lol
Yeah one thing that I guess is a down side (although it made my specific viewing a delight) is that I don’t think this is a film I’d recommend to parents. Which is odd because it’s marketed as a superhero film which is usually a go for parents taking their kids.
I was telling my boss about it and when he got jazzed up I realized “oh wait…. maybe don’t take your son” and then his tone changed to “I probably wont see it then.”
I totally agree, and content aside, it’s also a 3-hour movie, and while it does have some action set-pieces, most of it is a pretty slow burn.
I saw it this evening – very early in the movie, someone says “fuck” and
I thought, wait is this actually R rated? Or did they just randomly
throw in their one use of “fuck” right out of the gate?Yeah, I didn’t think the dropping the F bomb was necessary there. It bought a lot of attention to itself the way it was used.
Some argue that no scene belongs after the credits. And if there’s a good one it’s less of a scene and more of a tease of what’s next. A director should be able to say all they want to say about the film before the credits roll.
You’re complaining because you wanted to see through the credits before watching the final scene!?!?! After a 3 hour film your complaint is that the film didn’t require you to spend more time watching the credits.
Well consider me baffled by you.
They should. But I didn’t like that scene precisely because it didn’t seem like anything the director had to say other than, “Hey, here’s the Joker.”
“a version much more Gen X in its disaffection than the Bat-movies they made in the ’90s”Batman Returns was the ultimate Gen X Batman.
I would say that’s the “First Half of Gen X who listened to Goth and College Rock” movie. This is more the “Second Half of Gen X who listened to Grunge and College Rock” movie.
Huh maybe it’s for me then? I’m very late Gen X and I like Batman ‘89/Returns a lot more than pretty much all of the live action stuff made since then, so ymmv I think.
I’m earlyish Millennial (born December 86) and I feel the same way, but I’m a bit of a man out of time when it comes to this stuff.
😆
‘’hushed’’ pop-noir cooli see what you did there
B is low, A- for me.I saw Batman 1989 in the theater on opening Night at midnight in Sunnyside Queens NY, and I loved Batman Begins….. this is the best Batman opening movie I’ve seen. Just wow.
RIP Center Cinemas, Super Tuesdays for $5 was an amazing era. I’ve seen The Matrix, Iron Man, and a number of other great films that left great memories there.
yeah, it was a fun place to see movies. I grew up in woodside but even when I moved to closed to LI we went there to see movies all the time.
The opening scene was incredible. Reeves’ direction made our entire theater nervous.
The idea that he was in the shadows was so great.
I really, really want a good detective story that happens to feature Batman as the detective. It doesn’t need much action (it can have SOME, as a treat) – but really him just using that amazing brain and tech to solve something.
I know that’s hard to do WITHOUT Batman so I get it, but I feel we should at least fucking try for it once in live action. Ya know? Just give it a shot.
Hell, they could make it an entire series. Batman CSI.
Spoilers:The film could have been split into two 90 minute parts. The first half could have been released now, and part 2 in October. The three hour run gets really long at times. it seems like the director was managing 3 different narratives. Batman vs. the political corruption in Gotham, Batman vs. the Riddler, Batman vs. Catwoman and her revenge tale. At whatever point that Riddler was captured, I wasn’t expecting the film to last another 30 minutes.
We really don’t need any more movies being needlessly split into two parts. This one was too long, but I’m not sure how halving it would have made it any better. If anything, it might have felt less overlong if it had been a six episode TV series. But that wouldn’t earn a billion dollars, so one three hour long movie it is.
I too felt it was too long however, if it was a six-episode TV series I probably would have loved it. So I can’t really hate on it for being something I love not necessarily in the correct format I want to love it in. It exists. That’s cool. Next time I view it Ill probably divide it up. Each hour seems to be it’s own thing. hour 1 is Catwoman and Penguin, hour 2 is Carmine Falcone, and hour 3 is The Riddler.
All I’m saying is, do a 60’s style Batman, 12 episodes on HBO Max, Nathan Fillion is Batman, and watch 80% of Hollywood crawl over each other to play the villains.Try it at least.
Oh Dowdy Dowd, missing the point again. Bruce Wayne is basically a goth kid because he hasn’t yet learned that he can offer hope as well as fear…remember when the newly elected mayor calls Bruce out for not doing more for the city? Or the several times Alfred points out that he still needs to be Bruce Wayne? While I think we all agree that Bruce is the mask and Batman is the person, he had to learn that Bruce could offer hope in a way Batman can’t, which didn’t happen overnight. After all, he became Batman to cope with his parents’ murder, he wasn’t some excessive playboy and then something bad happened, which led him to being Batman.I agree, though, that it played out in a way, structurally, that could have been improved. Riddler breaks out on the scene, and they do a wonderful job intertwining the three ‘villains’ into one story, but Riddler gets ditched for the mob stuff for too long before the reveal towards the end that he was basically getting Batman to do all the heavy lifting for him (which I thought was quite clever, especially in that I don’t recall them outright stating that was the case). I think if they had stuck with Riddler and set the mob/Catwoman stuff to the relative sidelines (for a sequel we can all assume is coming), we would have got a much more captivating villain in the vein you suggest.Also, Batman keeping a journal has happened in the comics. Specifically, The Dark Knight Returns, if I recall correctly. (Obviously the journaling link helps tie Riddler and Batman together in this particular movie, but just saying, it’s not the first time in Batman lore)
Watching it today – this movie is three fuckin’ hours long. For three hours, you’d better be showing me some rise and fall of a nation shit, but no, this is Batman going to a nightclub to find out who the Riddler is. This is some 90 minute shit.
Gonna see it soon, but I’m thinking one of Batman’s lesser seen villians would have been very interesting. One thing I’m pleased about is that there is not another version of the Joker. I’m extremely tired of the Joker in the films and really can’t stand him anymore in the comics. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much Joker.
B+, almost an A. I’m still trying to accept this version of Catwoman. She seemed more helpless than any previous Catwoman. It was a tough watch when Bats rescued her from Falcone and her “white privilege” line is going to date the movie. The battle at the arena was anti-climatic and did not have the tension that Bats/Gordon chasing Riddler had. Big ups to Rob Pattinson for making Batman the most interesting character in The Batman! This has to be the first Batman movie where the hero wasn’t outshined by the villains. I really hope Dano can return and I’m excited for Penguin’s story to continue. Farrell’s performance had a real feel of a guy who is bidding his time and will make a big move once he sees all the pieces fall in to place. I was hoping for more of Serkis’ Alfred. I’m more in love with his Batmobile then I thought I would be and the car chase was over the top awesomeness! It’s tough to tease Joker as well as Nolan teased him but I appreciate the effort. Maybe we get a Penguin/Riddler/Joker War for Reeves and Pattinson’s third film?
I really dug it. I do think it justifies its existence simply by being a different style of film than what we’re used to for a superhero movie. It does hew closer to The Watchmen HBO show than any batman film before it. I went back and forth on the Riddler and since Batman is only in his second year, it would make sense to me that one of his arch-nemisis was also just starting out.
a QAnon-like internet following turns out to be little more than an easy explanation for how a lone-wolf killer amasses henchmenI haven’t needed to gather henchmen in a long time, but if I were doing it nowadays… that’s the way I would go. An easily duped, limitless and dispensable crew of stooges? How else?
great review, sums up alot of what i was thinking but couldn’t verbalise. I saw the film last night and is still processing it. It was an really interesting tone for a superhero film. it walked a very thin line between being a superhero film and based in a reality.agree about this film being more like the comics, for some reason the scene with the mayor watching the TV coverage of his campaign reminded me of reading the Moore and Miller batman comics.It’s weird they hire Colin Farrell and bury him under special make up. Like with Jarred Letto in Gucchi. There’s surely stocky/big actors who could have played the penguin.
I liked it a lot and I thought there were some smart things in the film. I liked how Reeves used the red lighting to indicate Batman’s “vengeance” mindset and there was a good payoff towards the end with that device when you see the red light toggle back and forth signifying that Batman’s raison d’etre goes from vengeance to trying to help the people of Gotham.It was a little long, but it was never boring. I hope if there is another one with this team, that we get to see the billionaire playboy Bruce Wayne mask instead of the emo Bruce, because playboy Bruce Wayne is the most important mask Batman has.The worst thing about seeing this movie in the theater is having to see it in an AMC theater. What an overpriced dirty shithole (and I’m saying that in the bad way). LITERALLY a half hour of commercials and trailers. Someone needs to bring back the ArcLight or something comparable.
how is The Batman at West Coast Midnight Run online mag?riddle me thishttps://wifi.midnighttracks.org/batmanI always wanted to say that but it got never used once in this new movie, even though Carrey made it real sinister in his campy clownish version
About ninety percent of this movie was different versions of scenes I’ve already seen in a Batman movie. Some were done better, some weren’t, and it was way too drawn out and long.
this movie was so dumb I couldn’t even finish watching it.