The Batman

The Batman


Release Date: 2022
Rating: PG-13
Runtime: 2:56
Director: Matt Reeves
IMDB
yn's wtf?

I liked the movie well enough. It's more a detective mystery than an action packed blockbuster, so that was refreshing. I thought that after the first five minutes, I didn't care what happened next or how poor the movie might be as the first two scenes were pretty great. This felt like Batman in Fincher's Se7en darkness, which was a nice change and made sense to move the "grit" bar forward, while pulling away from Nolan's work.

There was more detective mode in this that relied on the human mind over gadgetry sci-fi to solve clues, but the gadgets used were nice and unique. While I can appreciate the effort to separate this movie from the action expectations of nearly all of its predecessors, the writing did cannibalize itself two or three times, building tension, peaking, then undermining that buildup to quickly move on to the next plot point.

Though it has a PG-13 rating, the violence was good and appropriate. My guess for the rating is that I don't remember seeing blood. That's fine. I enjoyed the action when it appeared and only questioned the kid gloves once in a scene in which some character was shot but only fell to the ground with an injury rather than a death. That felt obvious. The movie's climax made up for it, IMO.

The soundtrack was interesting with a minimal mix going back and forth with a motif of "Ave Maria" and Nirvana's acoustic hidden track, "Something In The Way." Both seemed to appear in the same key, blending back and forth from long scenes to another, my guess to help define some dichotomy of character but to what, specifically, I could not pick up on. That, for me, highlights the main problem that I had with the movie. I felt like there was intent that fell short of a goal. Pieces, individually, we're all very well done, but in context of the whole, no one piece seemed to matter more than another. I couldn't find focus as there were probably too many mysteries. There were too many endings. There were, arguably, too many characters spreading my interest too thin. All of this combined felt too convoluted and without a clear direction even in hindsight. The music is the most obvious representation of that lack of focus to point to. Both "Ave Maria" and "Something In the Way" were quite powerful in contrast to the imagery provided on screen when introduced. Just, for whatever their importance was, it never developed thematically for me. And that was the overall vibe I got from the movie.

Casting could be a minor snag with me and some viewers. I see so many having a difficult time breaking Pattinson from his teen heart(less?)throb role in the Twilight saga. To be honest, I thought he did great in this. His suit offered a lot to compensate for his physical size, and his Batman was larger than life in both stature and violent nature. I had no problem accepting this actor in the role. I will say that Jeffrey Wright seemed to be caught in his Bernard Lowe loop, still lost somewhere on the set of Westworld. And I despise all things Paul Dano since he appears incapable to offer anything different from his Eli Sunday overacting in There Will Be Blood. And I'm grateful that Barry Keoghan only had a bit part here being another actor I have no interest in. Andy Serkis also seemed a rather odd choice to me.

So as is, the cast alone might have dropped my rating by half a point maybe. I've only seen it once and was happy to take my Thursday afternoon off for it. Having just left the vet for some ugly business with my cat, it seemed right that I go worship in the cathedral of cinema. I owe this movie a second run, but just shy of three hours, I'm not sure I will be rushing to do so any time soon. Perhaps with a 20-minute trim, it would have scored higher. Shame, because I think this movie deserves a lot of attention in spite of its flaws.



with slight room to grow upon a second viewing.

You sir, are a genius! I thought you were gonna say sumbuddy looked like Missy Elliot from “The Rain” video.

Ha! Another spot on comparison!

at the moment batman dominantes north america boxoffice 248.5 million dollars on the weekend dunno if it true :/

Was listening to NPR this morning and they were interviewing someone about the film - this person was asked about Batman being a rich white guy who terrorizes people living poverty for kicks. The answer given was that the film confronts this, by reminding Batman that he is rich and that this film is closer to the ground because this Batman is "not a fan of the cops." These were weak answers to moral/political questions, questions which are increasingly a first filter of aesthetic evaluation (does it send the right message?) of popular artworks. It turns out Even so, this does not so much rebut the criticism as lean into it - the critique gets more purchase, so I am not sure how I am supposed to feel about Batman on the terms on the text. Am I supposed to realize that he is a bit of a baddie?

I just can't wrap my head around the idea of "Batman" in 2022. Everyone has a cell phone with a camera and half of his face is exposed by the mask. We have hackers tracking where all of Elon Musk's private jets are at any given time. We have satellites and drones and helicopters which would watch the Batmobile drive home. We have microphones which triangulate gunshots and CCTVs on every stoplight. In practical terms, I just don't see it happening. Batman belongs to time when a person could still disappear into the middle of the night and where sightings of Batman were only mythological stories. Superman can do whatever he pleases, because try and stop him, but Bruce needs his bank card.

I read your post a couple times in an attempt to do it justice. You have valid concerns that I can understand.

Then I can look at who this movie is made for and I don’t think that those conversations are a high priority. Everything is not for everyone. Batman is a symbol of good in a flawed human and that resonates with people. Bad guys are bad, in a movie based on comics. Just bad.

In respect to bigger issues in the world, attaching them to a mascara wearing mood that can’t stick the landing yet, seems misplaced. As much as I probably lean liberal, attaching talking points to *insert current biggest thing* so that we get pop, seems disingenuous and hollow.

A conversation about something for the people that don’t care about it doesn’t seem right.

The only thing that makes Batman a "baddie" is he's a vigilante (...and he's quite violent, so even if he was some sort of legitimate law enforcement, he'd be facing constant charges of brutality).

In his first movie serial they overcame this problem by making him and Robin government agents (G-men) to combat what was then the "yellow peril"! (*snicker!*)

In his first TV series they overcame the vigilantism by having Commissioner Gordon "deputize" the dynamic duo. (I'm still not sure how that works in modern urban cities - can police commissioners just deputize anyone they want? Including people dressed up for a costume party?)

another new batman movie or is it the tv series?
is robert pattisom gonna be on next batman movie?

It's a joke, based on The Babadook.

This is like Hannibal Lector saying that the only thing that makes him a baddie is that he like to eat people. Yes, Batman uses extra-judicial violence to solve problems. He breaks bones. He dangles people of roofs. He threatens with theatrics. He drives 140 MPH on city streets, because they are his streets, apparently. Pedestrians be damned.

He is an insanely rich man who terrorizes the people of Gotham to make Gotham better. Funny thing, Gotham never gets better. If anything, these movies argue that Batman catalyzes the appearance of villains. "Rich white male keeps the poors in line by dressing like a bat and beating up street people" has bad optics today.

Here we have this billionaire, the richest guy in Gotham. He spends his money synthesizing Kryptonite, making illegal jet fighters, and tanks, and surveillance networks for all his computer screens. Sure, he has charities and endowments, but his passions, his focus, and most of his wealth is tied up in his Batman project. Imagine finding out that Bill Gates tried to solve the crime problems of Detroit by hiring an illegal police force to terrorize street criminals. Just imagine it.

Now imagine if Batman tried to actually get the most bang for his bat-buck. Imagine that he spent all that time effort and money on scholarships, housing, clean water, passive security measures to improve community policing etc. Imagine if "the world's greatest detective" put all that brain power on solutions for poverty and crime in his city.

If the Batman were real, how many of us would be secretly rooting for him right now, while publicly saying there is no place in our society for vigilantes?

Note, I said right now - in the midst of a nationwide crime wave. I have to admit I've played with the thought lately that: since police aren't being allowed to do their jobs in many cases - they've been demoralized and had their ranks degraded - and we've got prosecutors refusing to prosecute criminals, I keep thinking the only thing that might make criminals begin to think twice is if they start meeting up with extreme force at the hands of those willing to use it to defend themselves and society.

oooh okay its all good . got me shocked at first lol

If you just mean that they keep making Batman movies and shows, well sure, but that's just because it's a franchise. They're not all connected, and when they are (like in comic books) it's the business interest of making more stuff essentially overriding narrative cohesion (also common to comic books).

In Nolan's trilogy, which doesn't have this problem, it actually addresses this issue head on from every direction. At the end of Batman Begins Gordon gives a little mini-speech about escalation, foreshadowing what's coming in the next two films. Bale's Batman specifically says he wants to "inspire people," and makes it clear from the outset the goal is simply to get Gotham's citizens and police to take their city back. And (spoilers, but it's been awhile) that's essentially what happens in the third film, too.

So yeah, I agree that the nature of Batman is either: a) temporary or b) dystopian. Either Batman is a temporary citizen-martial-law solution when the government has failed to protect its citizens designed to snap them out of their stupor, or else he presages anarchy.

Also part of Nolan's trilogy! Both in Thomas Wayne's philanthropy and public transportation project and in the energy solution he's been working on between the second and third films.

Quite a few, yeah. And I think, without getting specifically political, this mirrors a lot of facets of our criminal justice system, in that there's a noticeable gulf between ideals and practice and we're not really grappling with what those ideals (like reasonable doubt) would actually look in practice, consistently. There's a degree to which our ideals about liberty are shielded from their true cost, but with deniability. Batman, perhaps, is almost like a repressed recognition of this, swooping in to fill that dissonant vacuum.

An aspect that I really liked was

View Spoilers

WARNING: spoilers below

his motivation at the end has evolved from fighting criminals to being a hero for the people. I can see the bleakness of his character giving way to some of the playboy aspects of Wayne and more character development.

his motivation at the end has evolved from fighting criminals to being a hero for the people. I can see the bleakness of his character giving way to some of the playboy aspects of Wayne and more character development.

I don't. Nolan's Batman Begins (as you note in your own reply), for example, discusses how Bruce has caused costumed villains to appear.
The conversation ends with the Joker card being shown. Batman calls on chaotic forces which wreak havoc on Gotham. At best, Batman is the storm before the calm (i.e., the "temporary solution).

The sequels in the same continuity are connected. The comic books are. And we've spent decades in the comics. We've even seen Batman get old (DKR). The one constant is that Gotham starts bad and doesn't get better. We never see Batman greening Gotham.

This is an extra-textual explanation of why things can never get better in Gotham. The point, however, remains. Things never get better under Batman. They cannot. Batman cannot exist in a civilized society, and as of now, we have at least three explanations as to why.

1. The story requires it, formally.

2. Batman's existence in this world is escalatory.

3. In the real world (film as thought experiment), masked vigilantes would not make things better.

What we don't have just yet is an explanation which would lead us to believe that billionaires engaging in masked street justice is a good idea.
The best case for Batman as temporary can be found here. But even here Joseph Gordon-Levitt is left in a position where he's being groomed for the mantle of Batman (assuming that Bale's Batman is really quits) or Robin in such case that he has to return (his name is "Robin" Blake). The undoing of this presumed peace lies in this thread that is conspicuously left dangling. Gotham is always going to need a vigilante hero. Gotham is a failed polis.

Ra’s al Ghul is the temporary option. For better or worse, he is the serious change agent. Batman pulls up short. He doesn't kill, but he doesn't heal either. As an extra-legal force (which is already a proposition so dubious that it strains credulity that we still cheer for wealth-based fascism) Batman is not a solution, but an enabler. Batman plays with his toys, but carefully puts them back in their toy box (Arkham Asylum). Batman is a parasitic option that feeds on a festering wound. He needs a sick city and the sick city needs him. Batman curing crime would be like drug companies curing cancer. His fig leaf for his ineffectiveness is his moral code.

Batman fails as an instrumental violence option (because Batman is not willing to go the distance to really fundamentally change anything), and also a failure as being direct force for good (because Wayne's philanthropy is perpetually on the back burner -- never the main focus of all that power). He is a failure on both counts.
I think the evidence points directly at the latter. Over all the stories in all the continuities, Gotham is doomed. The best case we have for falsification is the end of the last Nolan film, but the introduction of Robin Blake is the ambiguous thread that signals the return of chaos.
I guess it's OK to live in the Warrens in abject poverty so long as you get a light rail project? Again, the vast majority of Bruce's time, effort, and money is centered on his midnight escapades. Fox get tasked with making him new toys and covering his tracks.

How is this Gotham described any different from the world we live in? It feels like all these scenarios are depicted as unique, but it’s business as usual per the human race.

Gotham is a dangerous city, even within the DCU. Gotham has regular bombings, gas attacks, and other acts of terror, in addition to occasionally being attacked by cosmic and mystical beings. And this is over and above the everyday robbery, assault, rape, and murder that is happening to everyday citizens by everyday thugs. The cops are notoriously corrupt and the city is flagrantly controlled by mob bosses of various stripes. Gordon is one of the few clean cops that be trusted. The most dangerous criminals are not put away in SuperMax prisons, but rather a single asylum that is (apparently) easier to escape than a pair of toy handcuffs.



Gotham is a dark mirror reflecting our world. It is bad enough that people accept vigilante justice meted out by people in costumes. It turns up the volume on our problems a bit to dramatize them and create a space where a Batman makes sense.