The Batman

[bobbie solo]

Reeves' thoughts on the Joker appearance:

In an interview with Variety, Reeves spoke about his actual intent with the cameo. Not exactly meant as a sequel hook, but rather as a way to further establish Gotham City as its own character, the appearance of The (almost) Joker is still an important piece of the puzzle. "I thought it'd be really neat if so much of the fabric of Gotham just already existed," Reeves explained. "And it was like an old Warner Bros. gangster movie and if you took a certain turn, you might see a character in his origins." This effectively turns the film into a more immersive experience for those looking to really dive into Gotham as a setting.

But that doesn't mean he has plans to use that particular element going forward. "It's not an Easter egg scene," Reeves said of the scene itself. "It's not one of those end credits Marvel or DC scenes where it’s going, like, 'Hey, here's the next movie!' In fact, I have no idea when or if we would return to that character in the movies." That's sure to be a bit of a blow to eager fans whose excitement levels rose at the prospect of a full movie starring Keoghan as the Clown Prince of Crime.

He IS in jail in the movie. This makes you think that Batman already caught him at some point during his first two years. Let's hope he stays there for a long time. Wouldn't want to see him until a 4th or 5th movie in this universe.

[BRoswell]

That's part of what I liked about the film. It didn't feel like a lot of superhero films that are half set-up for the next film in a never-ending series. It felt very self-contained, with potential for more stories, but not an urgent need to get there right away. I enjoyed the scenes with the Joker, but I'm glad they're not thinking about using him for the next film. That's too obvious, especially with a large rogues' gallery to dip into.

[bobbie solo]

now up on HBOMax.

[Jinsai]

I liked it well enough, was surprised with how well the main actor fit the role... When it finally got to some of the action sequences it was really thrilling stuff, and the gritty disturbing stuff was effective and haunting and all that.

Just, this movie did NOT need to be this long or burn this slow, it really didn't.

[allegate]

I'm excited to watch it again, especially the driving sequence. It was almost as good as the tornado sequence in Mad Max Fury Road as far as sound design and aesthetics go. Something you need to see - and hear - on a big screen. Still good on a small one though.

[burnmotherfucker!]

I liked it well enough, was surprised with how well the main actor fit the role... When it finally got to some of the action sequences it was really thrilling stuff, and the gritty disturbing stuff was effective and haunting and all that.

Just, this movie did NOT need to be this long or burn this slow, it really didn't.

What would you have cut out from the movie to make it shorter?

I watched it for the second time and I enjoyed it and thought it held up much better on a second watch than I initially thought it would. Some of the small nit picks that I agreed with others on after one viewing turned out to be perfectly fine.

I really like the world they built with it and I'd love to see a grounded version of Dr. Fries in it. Hope the new discovery people let them do whatever they want with the next one, they knocked this out of the park.

[Jinsai]

I'd have to watch it again to really say "this scene could have wound up on the cutting room floor." It's more a steady accumulation of long dramatic pauses and expository dialogue that could have gotten to the point faster... but I'll need to watch it again. That was definitely my first impression though: "This could really hurry things up a bit." It's 3 hours long isn't it?

[M1ke]

I'm not going to re-watch it to point out every opportunity for room to cut things, but even on my first watch I thought "OK, the song fits, but I get it, you don't need to embed an entire music video into this movie", and then they repeated it again near the end of the movie.

The song fits, and Nirvana is great, but the movie needed a short clip of it to help set the mood, not the whole song played twice throughout it's runtime.

[burnmotherfucker!]

@Jinsai , @M1ke

Fair enough, I could see how it could drag for some folks depending on their appetite for this sort of thing. For me personally though, I disagree about cutting those sequences with the music. They were some of my favorite segments of the film. The motor cycle ride reminded me of the beginning of Cronenberg's Rabid. And I thought it made it feel like entering a journey which made sense when it ended on the bike as well. For me it's important to let things breathe in film. Then again I love Tarkovsky, for example, so I'm not averse to slow cinema (and no, I'm not comparing a batman film to Tarkovsky lol).

I thought the pacing was great on my second watch and it flew by for me. I thought after my first viewing that it might drag due to being a detective/crime film. Sometimes those type movies drag once you know the plot but, to me, one thing that makes this such a good film is how it almost doubles as a hang out film in a way. It feels like spending a week in Gotham with all the world building it does.

[r_z]

Just got home from watching The Se7man. It's a great looking movie with a silly script full of actors that are great at looking dumbfounded. It's not good and certainly not great, but also not bad and certainly not terrible either. It's ok, I guess!

[SM Rollinger]

Meh, I fell asleep twice and just gave up. I love how everyone complains that the Snyder films were too dark and realistic and then WB kicks this out.

[elevenism]

It was slow at first, but once i got into it and fully understood what they were doing...good god, i was fucking STUNNED.

I thought it was a great film noir crime thriller with a LOT of moving parts, and relatively deep thematic aspects, that also somehow managed to be a Batman movie.

[BRoswell]

I love how everyone complains that the Snyder films were too dark and realistic and then WB kicks this out.

Dark I get, but realistic?! I'd never call anything in those films realistic.

[SM Rollinger]

Dark I get, but realistic?! I'd never call anything in those films realistic.

The action? Nah, no way, I agree with you. But the world they inhabit is most def framed as bing realistic.

[Deacon Blackfire]

I wish I had time to properly reply to your whole post about Batman but I will just say that I think you are too hard on Snyder if you like the Keaton version. They both kill and Keaton's version was very far from comic accurate. At least with Affleck it was basically doing the Dark Knight Returns version of the character. But I'm also not saying those movies aren't heavily flawed and even that comic has never been my favorite. I too prefer a Bats who doesn't kill and use guns but he does those things in the first ever comics so I also have no problem with a storyteller going that route.

Sorry it took so long for me to reply to this. I'm glad someone as clearly into Batman as you are liked the new movie. As far as Affleck Batman goes, my main issue with him isn't the killing specifically, it's who he does and does not kill and how that fits into a pattern of his version being a stupid brutalist dullard. Generally I prefer a non-murderous Batman but as you say, it's a take that can work. Keaton's Batman kills big baddies and thugs quite liberally and even Bale's Batman, who holds himself to the no-killing rule, kills (or lets someone die) in each of his 3 films, which fits Nolan's world of "trying for high minded ideals in a very messy and complicated world." As you know, Batman in the earliest comics wasn't too opposed to breaking a neck or kicking someone off a building (or into a vat of acid in his very first appearance!), and while I think the "no-kill" rule was extremely important to the character's development, the utilitarian reason for its initial implementation was just providing a way for them to keep the villain characters returning regularly. Keaton's Batman kills for the opposite reason - of course the villain needed to die so a new one could be introduced in the sequel. And then we have Affleck Batman, who blows up random thugs and henchmen throughout the film...but won't kill this universe's Joker, the heinous and supremely un-intimidating Leto version that BvS all but confirms killed a Robin at some point. You'll waste random dudes left and right but not the obnoxious idiot who killed your partner? It's asinine and fits into BvS's pattern of Affleck Batman being an easily manipulated, brutish fool.

Batman keeping around kryptonite just in case Superman goes crazy / gets taken over / etc and needs to be stopped? That is Batman 100%. That's why Tower of Babel was such a good Justice League story, because ofc Batman would have contingency plans against the whole Justice League just in case things went terribly wrong. Affleck Batman, on the other hand, seizes kryptonite to kill Superman outright, because he claims even a 1% chance of Superman going bad must be taken as an absolute certainty - that Superman, because he could potentially be dangerous, must die. That ain't Batman in my book. That's a totalitarian doofus who gets perfectly played by Eisenberg's insufferable twerp Luthor. The closest they get to his tracking with any version of Batman is Alfred's "you're kind of a cruel asshole now" scene with Bruce but they don't lean nearly hard enough in that direction for the general impression given by Affleck's Batman to be any better for me.

To bring things back to this film, the more The Batman has sat with me, the less taken with it I am. The negatives have become more pronounced while the positives have not held up too well. As some of you have said, it's not bad. But it's not particularly good either. For all its stylistic attempts to differentiate itself from its predecessors, narratively it covers very much the same ground as a lot of previous Batman films, and not nearly as well. And its stylistic dimension is mostly just aping David Fincher, which I'd have been fine with if the film really was the adult, heavy murder-mystery it really wanted to be. But to be perfectly honest, it's not half as smart a film as it should be, and certainly isn't half as smart as it thinks it is. In that sense, I feel like the perfect word to describe The Batman is pretentious. Those who follow my content here will probably be rolling your eyes at that criticism coming from me of all people but *shrugs* that's how I feel.

And ugh, that new Joker scene, good lord. The idea of the scene makes more sense than the stupid "for the sequel!" scene we got of him with the Riddler, but god talk about a take on Joker that makes me instantly disinterested with whatever future they have planned for him. Trying so very hard to be scary that it eschews any meaningful charisma and humor and on top of that is so overboard grimdark that it's not even vaguely scary anyway. Reminds me of Pennywise in the new It movies - they designed him so heavily as a "spooky evil clown" from the ground up that he looks like an over-the-top haunted house Halloween costume. It's too obvious and it's not scary. Tim Curry's Pennywise, on the other hand, spends most of his time looking like a clown you could easily imagine in a benign setting like a birthday party or a circus tent, and it is that aura combined with his performance that makes his take on the character so much more effective. Joker should be more like that, someone you could almost picture being a harmless entertainer until you really listen to him, until he smiles with a mouth that looks like it has too many teeth. I just really miss the character being able to have a more subtle, ironic brand of menace and being genuinely charismatic in a way that makes us love watching him as he scares the shit out of us. Give me more "Jack Nicholson acting out in goofy commercials to let the city know they are at risk of gruesome, terrible death" and less "toxic waste guy from RoboCop as a muttering American Horror Story serial killer." Even with his grimy style, Heath Ledger's Joker was hypnotically charismatic in his own strange way and also capable of being funny as hell. As a massive horror film fan, I wish this "horror" style take didn't assume scary meant something so one note and boring.

That's why I'm not pumped on this Arkham HBO Max series. Like The Batman's general pitch (a dark adult murder mystery story), the general pitch of the Arkham show sounds like something I'd love. A horror themed Arkham Asylum show that characterizes the setting almost like a character? Sign me up! But with the little we've seen of Arkham so far, and of their version of the Joker, unfortunately I am resigned to thinking they will once again miss the boat on what I find to be the most exciting potential of said project.

[october_midnight]

June 1, 2024 as the tentative date for the sequel.

[ickyvicky]

The Batman 2 confirmed with Robert Pattinson.

[Kodiak33]

Finally saw this last night, absolutely loved it. Way better than what I thought it was going to be.

[october_midnight]

[allegate]

Watched it again yesterday. There are a lot of soft-spoken men in power in the movie. The DA, the Commissioner, the Chief...all of them.

I was just looking at the cast list to see who Dory was - her voice was very distinctive but she hasn't been in anything I've seen - and say that Kenzie was played by Peter McDonald, the father from Moone Boy. Had a laugh at that.