The Batman

Ron

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I'm with you all the way on this, Ron. I don't mind the fantasy of the super-hero genre. In fact, I prefer it! The theatricality, the drama of the Burton films, perfectly match the tone of the material that was being presented. They're not perfect films and there's a huge tonal shift halfway through the film that can be marked precisely at Vicki's apartment after the museum sequence. It is what it is, and while Nicholson was much older and fatter than when the producers initially wanted to make Batman in the early 80's, I still think he's come closest to the purest vision of the Joker in any live-action adaptation. And that's with him having an unnecessary backstory and being killed at the end!

I like the Nolan movies but they too are far from perfect. Immediately after Begins, the films became less and less designed until it was just Batman in New York. I don't mind the tinge of realism in fiction as something to ground the story in, but super-hero fiction is pulp fiction; it can never be "real" nor should it strive to be. It completely saps the fun out of the source material. The Nolan films are the curse of the modern day super-hero film by either making them too arbitrarily long or too serious and grim.

I've not seen The Batman and I really don't think I ever will intentionally. It looks too much like other things I've seen and that's the result of sapping the "super" out of "super-hero." I was sold Joker on the trailer but when I went to see the movie, it was just a more shallow and inept version of Taxi Driver. Joaquin's performance elevated sub-par material but other than that, it was just a guy in make-up that could've been anything else if it hadn't been called "Joker" and had ham-fisted tie-ins to the Batman universe.

The best superhero film to date is still Donner's Superman, in my book, because it took the source material seriously and had fun at the same time. That kind of film-making now seems to be an either/or situation now and I don't think it's for the better.
Oh, dude. I will always champion Donner's Superman as not just the greatest superhero movie of all but one of the greatest movies period! You talk about theatricality, that movie has it in spades. In fact, Nolan cites it as an inspiration when he made the Dark Knight trilogy. Even elements of Burton's Batman make it into the Nolan trilogy. When Bale is barreling toward Ledger in the Batpod as Ledger is goading him on was directly mimicking Keaton in the Batwing with Nicholson goading him on to take a shot.

Yeah, I liked how Gotham looked in Begins. It was a nice mix of real world authenticity with comic book inspired locales sprinkled in. But then it just became basically Chicago in the Dark Knight and New York in Rises. I'll say The Batman does a good job of giving Gotham a comic book feel while setting it in actual city and not a sound stage. It reminded me of a more realistic version of Gotham from the Arkham Knight game. I admittedly still like Burton's Gotham the most but there is absolutely something visually satisfying about shooting in an actual city at just the right angles. Just look at the chase scene in the Dark Knight.

But yeah, I still prefer that fantastical element to my superheroes. I loved Phoenix's performance but it's not the same Joker and that was my main issue with the movie (and yeah it was Taxi Driver lite). He's too far removed from what the Joker is and there's no way to reconcile it. You never got the sense he was evil or intelligent. There's no way his joker could take on Batman. But again, it was a great performance. If you just accept he's not the same Joker, you enjoy it more. But, it you have to do that, does it really work?
This is a perfect example of different strokes for different folks. I much prefer Nolan’s films over Burton’s BECAUSE they’re more serious. I like Burton’s films...the other pre-Nolan Batman films not so much...but they’re Burton films through and through. They’re weird and cheesy, which there’s nothing wrong with, but I prefer the realistic take on these characters a lot more.

I guess the way I look at it is this...if superheroes and supervillains really existed, the villains would be downright terrifying. They certainly wouldn’t be putting dance numbers together while pulling a pistol out with an 8 foot long barrel. They’d be doing things like blowing up hospitals.

One of the things that I like about modern superhero films is that so many of them are just genre films that happen to have a superhero in them. The Dark Knight is a great film about the good guys trying to stop a terrorist. That terrorist just happens to be Joker, and the good guys are Batman, Gordon, etc.

I can understand how this aspect of them could be a turn off...particularly if the fantasy of comic books is what you look forward to seeing. However, in my opinion the films are all that much better for it.
Yeah, like you said, different strokes for different folks. I can't tell you the Nolan movies are bad because they're definitely not. Well, the first two anyway. Rises was...questionable lol.

Like you mentioned, a big reason for why they work is because they're not tied to being only superhero movies but crime dramas as well. I think that's the double-edged sword for me. Because they have to function as grounded stories, it sacrifices the fantastical fun that is part of why I watch superhero movies to begin with.
Burton's first movie looked darker than it felt when you watched it. That's how Burton's movies are in general.

Same with Schumacher's Batman movies. IMO they felt more like updated versions of the 1960s Batman TV show than the comic source material.

Nolan's Batman had a lot of strengths but it got so real that it lost the theatrical fun element. The 'bat' aspect of the character was little more than a formality by the 3rd movie. He was basically the Punisher with a no-kill policy and a bigger budget. When Nolan presented Catwoman and Robin, he was barely even admitting that's who they were.
Yeah, that's what it felt like to me as well. Begins felt like a Batman movie. Dark Knight did as well. Rises felt like a guy in a bat suit rather than Batman which you could say symbolically was how that whole movie felt. Even in The Batman, can't we have the Riddler look like the Riddler? I realize it wouldn't work to have him in green tights, purple eye mask, and carrying a question mark shaped cane laughing maniacally but can we at least give him something to make him look somewhat like the Riddler? Paul Dano in the movie looks like he would be the one buying Batman comics, not starring in them. You look at Penguin in the movie and you know it's Penguin. Same with Catwoman although I hated her ski mask. Couldn't they have had Riddler in something with a little flare? When he broadcasts videos, how about have him stand in shadow maybe wearing a Bowler/Derby and a suit with a visible question mark on it? Would that have been so campy? There's already a guy who runs around dressed like a bat and another dressed like a clown. I mean if we can't mimic the comic books at least somewhat, where's the fun in that?
 
Last edited:

batguy

Sr Member
Yeah, that's what it felt like to me as well. Begins felt like a Batman movie. Dark Knight did as well. Rises felt like a guy in a bat suit rather than Batman which you could say symbolically was how that whole movie felt. Even in The Batman, can't we have the Riddler look like the Riddler? I realize it wouldn't work to have him in green tights, purple eye mask, and carrying a question mark shaped cane laughing maniacally but can we at least give him something to make him look somewhat like the Riddler? Paul Dano in the movie looks like he would be the one buying Batman comics, not starring in them. You look at Penguin in the movie and you know it's Penguin. Same with Catwoman although I hated her ski mask. Couldn't they have had Riddler in something with a little flare? When he broadcasts videos, how about have him stand in shadow maybe wearing a bolo and a suit with a visible question mark on it? Would that have been so campy? There's already a guy who runs around dressed like a bat and another dressed like a clown. I mean if we can't mimic the comic books at least somewhat, where's the fun in that?

That's always the problem when they try to make comic book movies hold up for adult audiences.

They push the fictional worlds closer & closer to reality, and it keeps paying off with better movies for a while . . . but it's a losing game in the long run. Superheroes & villains don't happen in real life. Eventually the writers start coming up against the reasons why they don't.
 

Cephus

Sr Member
I'll say this...as much as I liked the first two Nolan movies, I can say the Burton movies did more for me as a kid than the Nolan movies did for me as an adult.
I'll be honest, I'm not a huge fan of the Nolan movies at all, mostly because I'm not that much of a fan of the Frank Miller Batman. I mean, it looks great, but I don't want deconstructed superheroes. I don't want my heroes to be dark and brooding. Tim Burton gave you the dark look and feel without the modern sensibilities that have polluted recent Batman and, to a lesser degree, most of the modern DC movies. I don't want dark, dreary and disgusting. I want hope. That's not what we get anymore, is it?
 

HMSwolfe

Master Member
Hey, guess what? Four of my favorite films are Mask of the Phantasm, Batman Returns, The Dark Knight, and The Batman. Isn’t it amazing that a person can enjoy different takes on the same character (or characters) without whining about other versions, or complaining that a film doesn’t cater to their exact, minute desires? Or deciding that just because said film doesn’t meet those expectations, it therefore is totally and completely bad, and has no redeeming qualities whatsoever? Sheesh. “My Batman isn’t broody, despite being a character whose parents were murdered in front of him.” “I want the campy costumes again, not realizing that I can just go and watch the stuff with the campy costumes at any time at all.” “I hate the realism, it’s ruined movies,” about a movie where over half the skyscrapers in the city have Gothic architecture on top, people call a mob lieutenant “the Penguin” almost exclusively, there are multiple sets of low-level crimes perpetrated by people in costumes, and the femme fatale of the movie has absurd, sharp fingernails that in reality would have broken the first time she tried to use them on something. I mean, good grief. If anything, I feel like there were multiple, multiple references to the Adam West Batman in this film—to the seam lines on the cowl, to running down the side of a building (rather than climbing up), the Batmobile being more of a muscle car and not nearly as long (not to mention the massive jet engine/afterburner, although, yes, a lot of the Batmobiles have that feature). But no. “Modern films suck, no one can make anything good. No one is allowed to enjoy anything. We definitely shouldn’t celebrate DC actually allowing a director to make his film rather than meddling, or hiring a trailer company to edit it, or forcing it to be part of their cinematic universe. We should all just slouch into our internet armchairs and complain about a movie we haven’t seen, because our opinion is the only one that matters.”

Rant over. On a topic actually related to the movie this thread is about, rather than endless bickering, I saw the movie again this past week. I think part of why I like this film so much is that he is a bad Batman/Bruce Wayne, but he also learns that. Yeah, he fails to catch the Riddler before Riddler kills (almost) everyone he targeted. Yes, the Riddler gets away with bombing the sea wall. But that’s all part of Bruce’s failure in the film, and realizing that he’s got to change, to improve. I also think that the super shallow focus the cinematography has is actually meant to represent Bruce’s hyper-focusing on the wrong things—he’s focused on “the element”, on vengeance—but he doesn’t (initially) see how to help people—like the man that was jumped at the train station, or the teen that was clearly pressured into joining that gang. He’s focused on symptoms, not realizing that he needs to treat the source. I can’t wait to see more of this Batman because I want to see him grow—become more capable in things other than the violence. I want to see him become more clever, better at the “Bruce Wayne, billionaire philanthropist” persona, better at helping those at the bottom in need. When the woman being airlifted out towards the end of film grabs at his arm for reassurance, I’ve nearly teared up every time. Because that’s what a superhero is. They’re meant to be our heroes. He sees that at the end—that just as much as he needs to inspire fear in criminals, he needs to inspire hope in the people.
 

Ron

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I'll be honest, I'm not a huge fan of the Nolan movies at all, mostly because I'm not that much of a fan of the Frank Miller Batman. I mean, it looks great, but I don't want deconstructed superheroes. I don't want my heroes to be dark and brooding. Tim Burton gave you the dark look and feel without the modern sensibilities that have polluted recent Batman and, to a lesser degree, most of the modern DC movies. I don't want dark, dreary and disgusting. I want hope. That's not what we get anymore, is it?
I wasn't keen on them at first as Batman movies when I first saw them, but I think the first two are indeed great movies though I don't regard them as the paragons of filmmaking the way a lot of others do. As for the rest of the DC movies, yeah, just forget it. Dreary and uninspiring is the order of the day.
When the woman being airlifted out towards the end of film grabs at his arm for reassurance, I’ve nearly teared up every time. Because that’s what a superhero is. They’re meant to be our heroes. He sees that at the end—that just as much as he needs to inspire fear in criminals, he needs to inspire hope in the people.
When you combine that with the man on the train in the beginning who was scared of Batman despite being saved by him from the thugs, it was a nice dichotomy.

Even if the movies don't churn out ideal for me (though, I did overall like The Batman), I very much appreciate the effort that Matt Reeves put into this one. That's all I can ask for. I wish every modern movie had as much effort. The scene in the beginning with Batman's monologue talking about fear and not only hiding in the shadows but being the shadows as we see criminals paralyzing in fear at the sight of the Bat signal was some of the best Batman cinema we've seen.
 
Last edited:

bwayne64

Sr Member
Hey, guess what? Four of my favorite films are Mask of the Phantasm, Batman Returns, The Dark Knight, and The Batman. Isn’t it amazing that a person can enjoy different takes on the same character (or characters) without whining about other versions, or complaining that a film doesn’t cater to their exact, minute desires? Or deciding that just because said film doesn’t meet those expectations, it therefore is totally and completely bad, and has no redeeming qualities whatsoever? Sheesh. “My Batman isn’t broody, despite being a character whose parents were murdered in front of him.” “I want the campy costumes again, not realizing that I can just go and watch the stuff with the campy costumes at any time at all.” “I hate the realism, it’s ruined movies,” about a movie where over half the skyscrapers in the city have Gothic architecture on top, people call a mob lieutenant “the Penguin” almost exclusively, there are multiple sets of low-level crimes perpetrated by people in costumes, and the femme fatale of the movie has absurd, sharp fingernails that in reality would have broken the first time she tried to use them on something. I mean, good grief. If anything, I feel like there were multiple, multiple references to the Adam West Batman in this film—to the seam lines on the cowl, to running down the side of a building (rather than climbing up), the Batmobile being more of a muscle car and not nearly as long (not to mention the massive jet engine/afterburner, although, yes, a lot of the Batmobiles have that feature). But no. “Modern films suck, no one can make anything good. No one is allowed to enjoy anything. We definitely shouldn’t celebrate DC actually allowing a director to make his film rather than meddling, or hiring a trailer company to edit it, or forcing it to be part of their cinematic universe. We should all just slouch into our internet armchairs and complain about a movie we haven’t seen, because our opinion is the only one that matters.”

Rant over. On a topic actually related to the movie this thread is about, rather than endless bickering, I saw the movie again this past week. I think part of why I like this film so much is that he is a bad Batman/Bruce Wayne, but he also learns that. Yeah, he fails to catch the Riddler before Riddler kills (almost) everyone he targeted. Yes, the Riddler gets away with bombing the sea wall. But that’s all part of Bruce’s failure in the film, and realizing that he’s got to change, to improve. I also think that the super shallow focus the cinematography has is actually meant to represent Bruce’s hyper-focusing on the wrong things—he’s focused on “the element”, on vengeance—but he doesn’t (initially) see how to help people—like the man that was jumped at the train station, or the teen that was clearly pressured into joining that gang. He’s focused on symptoms, not realizing that he needs to treat the source. I can’t wait to see more of this Batman because I want to see him grow—become more capable in things other than the violence. I want to see him become more clever, better at the “Bruce Wayne, billionaire philanthropist” persona, better at helping those at the bottom in need. When the woman being airlifted out towards the end of film grabs at his arm for reassurance, I’ve nearly teared up every time. Because that’s what a superhero is. They’re meant to be our heroes. He sees that at the end—that just as much as he needs to inspire fear in criminals, he needs to inspire hope in the people.
It's called an opinion.

Opinion,

a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
"I'm writing to voice my opinion on an issue of great importance"

And because it's an opinion, it is subjective. Some people like a thing, others do not. Just because someone doesn't like something you like,
doesn't mean they don't like you. " Likers " can be as sanctimonious and obnoxious as haters. Just because you like a thing, doesn't make that thing objectively good. Stop telling me I should like
Crap ! Like it all you want. I can't and won't try to stop you. But if you choose to judge others based on your opinion, don't be surprised when they respond negatively. Doesn't mean they dislike you. They just dislike your lack of common courtesy. So again, like any variation of The Batman you want too, and I will do the same. Just don't tell me what to like !
 

The Brahma Bull

Sr Member
I honestly don't know how or why so many people think Jack Nicholson was so good as The Joker. I like Nicholson as an actor, but I thought that was one of his worst performances. Also, The Joker is supposed to be a psychotic criminal mastermind, but Nicholson played him like a mentally challenged buffoon. Mind you, I place a lot of blame on Tim Burton because, in the end, it's his movie and he's responsible for the finished product, but having seen the movie I tend to believe Kevin Smith's comments that Tim Burton had his own ideas about who the characters in the Batman comics are, because he's never read any of them.

Anyway, there it is, I said it. I'm sure my opinion won't be particularly popular in this crowd, but Jack Nicholson should go on record as having been the worst Joker in any Batman production.
The Burton Movies were visually great. I liked Kim Basinger as Catwoman. But when people startet crying for Batfleck killing thugs, I remembered the scene Keston placed a bomb on a guy and kicked him into the sewer with a smile on his face. Burton didn‘t get a lot of the characters right.
 

Bigdaddy

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
The Burton Movies were visually great. I liked Kim Basinger as Catwoman. But when people startet crying for Batfleck killing thugs, I remembered the scene Keston placed a bomb on a guy and kicked him into the sewer with a smile on his face. Burton didn‘t get a lot of the characters right.
Basinger Katwoman and Keston Bat fellow were my favorite parts of the Brantone films!
 

HMSwolfe

Master Member
It's called an opinion.

Opinion,

a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
"I'm writing to voice my opinion on an issue of great importance"

And because it's an opinion, it is subjective. Some people like a thing, others do not. Just because someone doesn't like something you like,
doesn't mean they don't like you. " Likers " can be as sanctimonious and obnoxious as haters. Just because you like a thing, doesn't make that thing objectively good. Stop telling me I should like
Crap ! Like it all you want. I can't and won't try to stop you. But if you choose to judge others based on your opinion, don't be surprised when they respond negatively. Doesn't mean they dislike you. They just dislike your lack of common courtesy. So again, like any variation of The Batman you want too, and I will do the same. Just don't tell me what to like !
My point is many here are incapable of recognizing opinion. You may not care for a take on Batman, but that doesn’t make this film “garbage”. Having an opinion on whether or not something works for you is different from bashing something to death because you don’t like a premise. For instance: it’s pretty widely accepted that Stanley Kubrick was a great filmmaker. I don’t argue that. But none of his films have ever worked for me. I don’t run around telling people “Don’t watch The Shining! Real horror isn’t psychological, it’s monsters and stuff! Don’t watch 2001! Real sci-fi has lasers and action!” I just acknowledge that, while well-made, they aren’t for me. Many here aren’t capable of that, and moreover, seem to want to stop others from enjoying or even discussing this film in favor of repeating the same stuff they say in every thread in the Entertainment and Movie Talk forum ad nauseum. You don’t have to like this film. But say your piece and have a discussion, not a rage-fest.
 

joberg

Master Member
My point is many here are incapable of recognizing opinion. You may not care for a take on Batman, but that doesn’t make this film “garbage”. Having an opinion on whether or not something works for you is different from bashing something to death because you don’t like a premise. For instance: it’s pretty widely accepted that Stanley Kubrick was a great filmmaker. I don’t argue that. But none of his films have ever worked for me. I don’t run around telling people “Don’t watch The Shining! Real horror isn’t psychological, it’s monsters and stuff! Don’t watch 2001! Real sci-fi has lasers and action!” I just acknowledge that, while well-made, they aren’t for me. Many here aren’t capable of that, and moreover, seem to want to stop others from enjoying or even discussing this film in favor of repeating the same stuff they say in every thread in the Entertainment and Movie Talk forum ad nauseum. You don’t have to like this film. But say your piece and have a discussion, not a rage-fest.
When you're at that point; the best thing is to agree to disagree;)
 

bwayne64

Sr Member
My point is many here are incapable of recognizing opinion. You may not care for a take on Batman, but that doesn’t make this film “garbage”. Having an opinion on whether or not something works for you is different from bashing something to death because you don’t like a premise. For instance: it’s pretty widely accepted that Stanley Kubrick was a great filmmaker. I don’t argue that. But none of his films have ever worked for me. I don’t run around telling people “Don’t watch The Shining! Real horror isn’t psychological, it’s monsters and stuff! Don’t watch 2001! Real sci-fi has lasers and action!” I just acknowledge that, while well-made, they aren’t for me. Many here aren’t capable of that, and moreover, seem to want to stop others from enjoying or even discussing this film in favor of repeating the same stuff they say in every thread in the Entertainment and Movie Talk forum ad nauseum. You don’t have to like this film. But say your piece and have a discussion, not a rage-fest.
No rage involved. I can't type when enraged. And you didn't even read my post, or you didn't understand it. Nobody is telling anyone not to like something or watch something. So carry on, ; )
 

ScourgiousJinx

Sr Member
Everything depends on the language used. There's a massive difference between "This is a bad film" and "I didn't like this film," they are not the same statement. Some argue that simply because they said something that it should automatically be assumed that it's opinion, sadly it doesn't work that way.
 
Last edited:

HMSwolfe

Master Member
No rage involved. I can't type when enraged. And you didn't even read my post, or you didn't understand it. Nobody is telling anyone not to like something or watch something. So carry on, ; )
It’s not necessarily directed towards you, specifically, which I know can be confusing as it is a response to your post. More ranting, I’m afraid.
 

Solo4114

Master Member
I finally watched this film over the course of 3 days in roughly 1 hour blocs. I enjoyed it, overall, but I took it for what it was -- namely, a more realistic, grounded take on a Batman story. I do think it doesn't really resemble the classic comics -- it was a lot closer to Frank Miller's Year One -- but that's ok. It's just another spin on the same material and I'd say the question becomes whether it did what it set out to do, which I think it did. Now, what it set out to do may not be to an individual's liking, and if what you wanted was something a little more fantastical, then yeah, this wasn't the movie for you.

I will say that it had its weaknesses. First, Colin Farrel was wasted in this film. There was literally no reason to cast him, and the Penguin is barely in the film. So, why cast him, dump what are likely thousands of dollars into doing convincing makeup (which was, indeed, convincing), just to have him in, like, 3 scenes? The rest of the cast was terrific for what they were trying to do. I'd say everyone understood the assignment and nailed it in their performances. (Again, this is not to say whether one enjoys the assignment itself; only whether the actors executed faithfully on that assignment, which they all did.)

It's strange, though. For a 3 hour film, it still felt like a lot of the characters were underdeveloped, and I can't for the life of me figure out why. Lack of exposition? Too much reliance on establishing the mood of the film through largely visual shots? No idea. Like, I loved Jeffery Wright as Jim Gordon, but I would've really enjoyed if they honed in on what makes him a good cop. Aside from just trusting Batman and otherwise not being involved in any of the widespread corruption, we aren't given any insight into what makes him tick. The attraction between Selina and Bruce also made...not very much sense, other than that both are very pretty people, even in masks.

Actually, maybe that's the biggest weakness of the film: it relies too much on the positions of the characters and our meta-film knowledge of them to establish motivations and relationships, rather than doing the work of showing you where this stuff all comes from. Like, we aren't supposed to question what's driving Gordon to trust a masked, caped vigilante, to protect his identity, and to basically assist him in breaking the law. We're just supposed to accept it because he's Jim Gordon, and Jim Gordon helps Batman rather than trying to jail him. Likewise with the romance. We aren't supposed to question what it is about these two people that draws them to each other (aside from obvious physical attraction) because Batman and Catwoman always have an underlying attraction and that's just what happens.

I think a big part of this has to do with how franchise films and stories are handled anymore. These figures are so embedded in our cultures, so ingrained -- especially the likes of Batman and Superman who have had so many iterations of their stories told -- that we just...accept that this is how it goes. This bleeds into other franchises as well, though. JJ's Trek and Star Wars films are rife with this sort of thing. And they work...as long as you just accept that "These characters will do these things because that's what these characters are supposed to do, and we all know that."

Riddler, in this film, has the best character development because we're actually given insight into what drives him. Even Bruce Wayne, whom we're shown repeatedly grappling with being Batman and rejecting his private life, doesn't get involved with why he does what he does. We're already supposed to know, and just, you know, go with it. I think that actually works for Bruce himself, given how well-trod his background is. But for other characters, especially when you're doing a different take on them...or for inter-character relationships, I think you need more.


Anyway, overall an enjoyable film, and I'd watch a sequel, but not without its flaws.
 

Gimpdiggity

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
When you're at that point; the best thing is to agree to disagree;)
Joberg you’ve been here for years, you know this isn’t possible with some of these members. They’ll beat a dead horse over how much they dislike something. And many of them beat that dead horse in every. Single. Thread. It’s pathetic, really.

What I don’t understand is this…disliking something and stating an opinion is one thing, but coming back to state that opinion over and over is ridiculous. I never cared for Game of Thrones. Show was awful to me. You know where I DIDN’T spend any time? In threads about Game of Thrones. Yet here we have people repeatedly in threads about something they don’t like…oftentimes that they haven’t even watched…railing about how bad something is because it’s not how they wanted it.

It’s like their goal is to make it impossible to enjoy things simply by being so negative about it that people just stop trying to post about it.
 

bwayne64

Sr Member
I never commented on The Batman movie, not once. But that doesn't matter I guess. Sorry for the confusion. I tried to be clear but sometimes, it doesn't matter what you write. Once you get labeled a hater, or " insert your preferred alternative here " , you can't win. Again, never commented on the film. Cheers,

Joe
 

joberg

Master Member
I never commented on The Batman movie, not once. But that doesn't matter I guess. Sorry for the confusion. I tried to be clear but sometimes, it doesn't matter what you write. Once you get labeled a hater, or " insert your preferred alternative here " , you can't win. Again, never commented on the film. Cheers,

Joe
 

bwayne64

Sr Member
I think that this counts as a comment on page #8
I commented on a deleted scene. Not the movie itself. I was commenting on the Joker, scene, It was awful, imo. Haven't actually seen the movie, so can't comment on it. Go back and read the thread. People assumed I was commenting on the movie. Tried to explain that. But like I said the Internet is a strange bird. I need to stay out out these threads. Stick to the modeling threads. I'm a scrapper sometimes, well all the time, lol. But it's not productive. Cheers,

Joe
 

Ron

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I finally watched this film over the course of 3 days in roughly 1 hour blocs. I enjoyed it, overall, but I took it for what it was -- namely, a more realistic, grounded take on a Batman story. I do think it doesn't really resemble the classic comics -- it was a lot closer to Frank Miller's Year One -- but that's ok. It's just another spin on the same material and I'd say the question becomes whether it did what it set out to do, which I think it did. Now, what it set out to do may not be to an individual's liking, and if what you wanted was something a little more fantastical, then yeah, this wasn't the movie for you.

I will say that it had its weaknesses. First, Colin Farrel was wasted in this film. There was literally no reason to cast him, and the Penguin is barely in the film. So, why cast him, dump what are likely thousands of dollars into doing convincing makeup (which was, indeed, convincing), just to have him in, like, 3 scenes? The rest of the cast was terrific for what they were trying to do. I'd say everyone understood the assignment and nailed it in their performances. (Again, this is not to say whether one enjoys the assignment itself; only whether the actors executed faithfully on that assignment, which they all did.)

It's strange, though. For a 3 hour film, it still felt like a lot of the characters were underdeveloped, and I can't for the life of me figure out why. Lack of exposition? Too much reliance on establishing the mood of the film through largely visual shots? No idea. Like, I loved Jeffery Wright as Jim Gordon, but I would've really enjoyed if they honed in on what makes him a good cop. Aside from just trusting Batman and otherwise not being involved in any of the widespread corruption, we aren't given any insight into what makes him tick. The attraction between Selina and Bruce also made...not very much sense, other than that both are very pretty people, even in masks.

Actually, maybe that's the biggest weakness of the film: it relies too much on the positions of the characters and our meta-film knowledge of them to establish motivations and relationships, rather than doing the work of showing you where this stuff all comes from. Like, we aren't supposed to question what's driving Gordon to trust a masked, caped vigilante, to protect his identity, and to basically assist him in breaking the law. We're just supposed to accept it because he's Jim Gordon, and Jim Gordon helps Batman rather than trying to jail him. Likewise with the romance. We aren't supposed to question what it is about these two people that draws them to each other (aside from obvious physical attraction) because Batman and Catwoman always have an underlying attraction and that's just what happens.

I think a big part of this has to do with how franchise films and stories are handled anymore. These figures are so embedded in our cultures, so ingrained -- especially the likes of Batman and Superman who have had so many iterations of their stories told -- that we just...accept that this is how it goes. This bleeds into other franchises as well, though. JJ's Trek and Star Wars films are rife with this sort of thing. And they work...as long as you just accept that "These characters will do these things because that's what these characters are supposed to do, and we all know that."

Riddler, in this film, has the best character development because we're actually given insight into what drives him. Even Bruce Wayne, whom we're shown repeatedly grappling with being Batman and rejecting his private life, doesn't get involved with why he does what he does. We're already supposed to know, and just, you know, go with it. I think that actually works for Bruce himself, given how well-trod his background is. But for other characters, especially when you're doing a different take on them...or for inter-character relationships, I think you need more.


Anyway, overall an enjoyable film, and I'd watch a sequel, but not without its flaws.
Good observation about the characters.

Penguin had a nice character moment (albeit a small one) after Falcone was revealed to be a snitch and he [Penguin] was disgusted by it. I liked that. Even though he's a criminal, he has an "honor among thieves" code. I assume he'll have a bigger role in the next movie.
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. Your new thread title is very short, and likely is unhelpful.
  2. Your reply is very short and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  3. Your reply is very long and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  4. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
  5. Your message is mostly quotes or spoilers.
  6. Your reply has occurred very quickly after a previous reply and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  7. This thread is locked.
Top