Deakins to Reeves: "I’ve never been a fan of Batman until your film". Did WB failures in recent endeavours shed a new light on "THE BATMAN" success?
- Thread starter Rod
- Start date
You'd have to be buried deeper than the entirety of the Gotham PD to stand in DKR's shadow.
The film looked amazing and Pattison was fantastic. I really liked his interpretation. There were some great moments, absolutely.
Otherwise, it just didn't soar for me. The script was, frankly, horrible. The mob boss/politics stuff was not compelling at all and was pretty predictable. It felt stretched waaaay too thin at three hours. The Catwoman stuff was just bad.
That said, I'll still check out the sequel.
Otherwise, it just didn't soar for me. The script was, frankly, horrible. The mob boss/politics stuff was not compelling at all and was pretty predictable. It felt stretched waaaay too thin at three hours. The Catwoman stuff was just bad.
That said, I'll still check out the sequel.
Probably my favorite Batman movie and it has everything I look for in adaptation. It has a real sense of what its favorite iteration of the character is (90s Batman, Loeb specifically- Long Halloween most of all, Reeves was Loeb's student) and what makes that character and his Gotham tick. It's got some modern touches to what was already a pretty dated story with the flooding evoking climate change imagery and then there's just some truly weird imagery played totally straight with no lampshade like Wayne Manor being this gothic crystal palace or Batman and Catwoman racing out of a graveyard to close out the movie. It takes really big swings and I think it mostly works. Nolan also took big swings but seemed embarassed by its source material. 3 hours might be a little much though.
Last edited:
Great Batman movie with one of the worst ending scenes that really wants to try and ruin the movie for you if you let it. That joker scene with the riddler moaning loudly is just awful. The rest of the movie is almost perfect for the type of Batman story they were going for. I'm really worried if that joker version has any kind of lengthy scenes in Batman 2.
I'll die on this hill, the movie should've ended at the conclusion of the monologue. The next 10 minutes could've easily been cut without consequence.
Since Nolan, Batman has always been the artsy, critical-darling cousin of choice to its fellow mainstream superhero cinematic family, from The Dark Knight trilogy to Todd Phillips' Joker to Reeves' reimagining -- and I hope it continues to take those risks.
It definitely had great cinematography, and I liked the performances too. The movie was unnecessarily long though, and the plot itself was pretty weak. Oh, and I shouldn't feel smarter than Batman while watching.
Still, excited to see where they take it from here.
Still, excited to see where they take it from here.
I didn't finish it. It was good in everything but what it needed to be good at. The cinematography was great, Jeffrey Wright was good, Zoe Kravitz was good, Colin Farrell was good. Batman and the Riddler were just awful.
I thought it was a really great movie, not quite as great as The Dark Knight but in some respects it's a better version of Batman. I loved that the movie ended with Bruce saving people and realizing he needs to be a hero instead of just being out for revenge.
And the movie was completely robbed for the cinematography Oscar.
Let's reel it back a bit in terms of judging movies that haven't even been cast, let alone filmed or viewed. It's not like the DCU films are guaranteed to look just like a GotG film.
And the movie was completely robbed for the cinematography Oscar.
Let's reel it back a bit in terms of judging movies that haven't even been cast, let alone filmed or viewed. It's not like the DCU films are guaranteed to look just like a GotG film.
Dick Tracy was shot by probable cinematography GOAT Vittorio Storaro and it shows:
Anyway, good but not great movie. I have a spicy hot take from Deakin's podcast I've been meaning to post for a while to rile people up, but haven't gotten around to it yet lol.
Last edited:
It was fine? Didn't really hit much harder than that for me, but it wasn't bad and I can see why people love it. Maybe I'm just over super heroes in general, but nothing here felt fresh to me.
Guess I need to try it again because after one watch I didn't really come away wowed by anything. It felt like a really long movie and this Batman didn't feel very clever at times which was weird.
I also saw it at home via HBO Max so it was also really really dark at times. Maybe it would have been better in theaters but we lived over an hour away from the nearest theater (with reserved seating) at the time.
I dunno - it's always a little perplexing and maybe a bit frustrating when I see the hype for certain films here and I just don't really get it.
I also saw it at home via HBO Max so it was also really really dark at times. Maybe it would have been better in theaters but we lived over an hour away from the nearest theater (with reserved seating) at the time.
I dunno - it's always a little perplexing and maybe a bit frustrating when I see the hype for certain films here and I just don't really get it.
I hate that the explosive Batmobile chase scene is right next to a fairly uneventful interrogation scene right after
The Riddler starting his social media video with a polite, nasally, "Hi guys," slayed me.
My one criticism is that, for as long as the movie is, some scenes try to hold the weight of 2 or more opposing character beats, and sometimes feel like a tonal whiplash because of it.
My one criticism is that, for as long as the movie is, some scenes try to hold the weight of 2 or more opposing character beats, and sometimes feel like a tonal whiplash because of it.
It is a masterpiece as far as I'm concerned. Not a single wasted moment. That's a singular vision being brought to life by countless talented professionals.
That chase scene was an absolute visual feast in ways that I can't really think of in too many other superhero films.
The movie was a real beauty, which given its dark and brooding nature isn't easy to pull off.
The movie was a real beauty, which given its dark and brooding nature isn't easy to pull off.
Considering how massive of a success Nolan's TDK trilogy was, it was always a herculean task trying to follow that up and Reeves absolutely nailed it. I really love the grittier vibe he went with and Pattinson was fantastic. Even better on a rewatch too.
The movie was ok but it's a slog. Don't think i'll ever watch it again unlike Batman 89/Batman Begins/Dark Knight.
Sorry Deakins: I love Robert Pattinson and was incredibly excited since I also loved the second Apes movie… but the movie was too long and the Batman basically accomplished nothing the entire movie if I'm remembering correctly. I remember Reeves hyping up that the movie's gonna finally portray why Batman is the World's Greatest Detective…. But if that was Batman at his best…I could be the World's Greatest Detective because Bruce was an idiot throughout.
Also not a knock on Pattinson or even the writing… but moody Bruce Wayne isnt fun to watch and the character arc wasn't engaging throughout. I liked the start and end point of his journey, but the ending felt unearned.
One of the more disappointing films I've seen in theaters.
Also not a knock on Pattinson or even the writing… but moody Bruce Wayne isnt fun to watch and the character arc wasn't engaging throughout. I liked the start and end point of his journey, but the ending felt unearned.
One of the more disappointing films I've seen in theaters.
Yeah my excitement was pretty low for a Batman movie, I was just expecting Nolan Batman.... but worse.
Ended up really liking it a lot
But now im really excited for Brave and the Bold to be super comicy hopefully.
I agree, it made people go absolutely mad in my theater just with the sound design in that particular scene. Loved it.
I liked it well enough but definitely felt the run time was unjustified. Was checking my watch by the end.
It is easily the most beautifully shot of the Batman films. It's the best sounding Batman film. And it's my personal favorite of the films.
High praise, but also well-earned. This movie, Begins, and TDK are the most timeless of the movies. It will be interesting to see how impressions of these films may change and elevate further over time.
High praise, but also well-earned. This movie, Begins, and TDK are the most timeless of the movies. It will be interesting to see how impressions of these films may change and elevate further over time.
Not surprising, the movie is gorgeous and cinematography is off the charts. I wish DC leaned more on Reeves and his style to direct the DCEU, I'm afraid Gunn will make it all about the jokes. DC could differentiate itself from Marvel for being more grounded and mature.
Eh it's a good movie but there were a lot of rough spots. Not seeing how it's head and shoulders over anything else.
Yeah I enjoyed the movie but I'm tired of grounded Bats. I was so hoping Batfleck would do the solo movie because he's in a world with aliens and super powered individuals. After the Dark Knight trilogy I didn't want a Bat who just faced monsters and the criminally insane.
Movies are so grounded I expect someone like Clayface to have those MI masks or something.
Don't overthink it, some of us are criticizing the story and the writing and others are literally going "I liked it when the batmobile went vroom". But sometimes the aesthetic and character portrayal is enough for fans.
It's 2nd below Dark Knight for me.
I think Reeves can top it with his 2nd film, depending on the villain portrayal.
I think Reeves can top it with his 2nd film, depending on the villain portrayal.
Absolutely looked incredible, but as a film it honestly just felt like the samey version of live action Batman we've been getting in some form or fashion for like 15ish years. They do a good job of portraying a much younger version of that character, but as others have said, it just kind of feels like an echo of a take on the character we've seen and experienced so many times it didn't do much for me
I couldn't even make it to the end watching it at home. Thought it was probably one of the worst Batman movies ever made. I don't get the hype. Boring.
There is some top notch visual parts for sure but I found it a bit on the nose, particularly between Selina and Batman for example, it just didn't sell the moments but could be the direction, writing etc. I really didn't like the film. I can see the visuals but it doesn't make up for the rest so it just looks too staged with no substance or interest.
I mean, while it reads as shade to Nolan I get it. End of the day The Batman is a risky self contained movie and while obv a superhero film did some interesting things (its as much a Gotham movie as it is a Bats, superb cinemetography as a result, the hero did very little heroing). I think its a wider critique of the genre where we've fallen into the Blockbuster Sequel! era across the board. While some are going at the three hour run time, etc…that's the point, at this stage a superhero movie that throws the slightest curveball suddenly seems interesting since its so formulaic now. Hence Joker being a half assed DePalma movie but people talking about it like it's genius. We are thirsty for content that isn't filler.
agreed. SS and Peacemaker look completely diff than the GotG films.
if anything, WB has allowed their directors go go with their vision and not just make every movie look and feel the same. and with Gunn being a director himself, i am hopeful not every DCU movie is going to have the same look/feel.
i agree and disagree. not sure why both reeves and pattison kept hyping it up as the word's greatest detective. he did do some sleuthing but ultimately fails. if anything the movie, to me, does a great job showing his growth from just a brawler who beats up on level criminals to realizing what he needs to be doing.
i think the sequel will lean more into bruce being less moody and being the public persona bruce is supposed to be.
oh please. so people who enjoyed it are just simpletons?
I don't know how anyone can argue the latter point. The Batfamily has been a thing since 1940 and Batman without it, is a completely different character.
Some people have different priorities for what they want to see in comic book adaptations. I learned this during the Nolan era. Some people want a good movie, others value comic accuracy above all else.
If you want to spin that to be an insult go ahead. Just ignore the multiple posts validating that point.
Like I said, I think it's a strong production covering a bad script. And people are mostly complimenting the production so it did its job.
except you didn't say comic book accuracy vs good movie - you basically said people who enjoyed it just liked the sounds/noise/production and couldn't look past it to realize its not a good movie.
there are equally as many people, probably more actually, who enjoyed all of it - story, script, arc, plus the production. this movie was critically acclaimed. painting everyone who enjoyed it as just being into the production is ridiculous.
I'm not sure what one has to do with the other. I said it was the closest to an accurate representation of the character not that it was a 1:1 match. It's also early enough into Batman's story that not having Robin or Batgirl makes sense.
Look, I don't fight with people about the thing they have an avatar for. Maybe they're a little too attached and taking things personally.
I know what I said and meant, if you don't agree fine.
I think the script is bad means I think the script is bad. Other people saying the script is bad means they think the script is bad. Maybe someone called it good in here, I didn't see that, maybe you did.
No one is speaking for anyone here. If I point to other people's words, it's because they literally said them.
"This movie was critically acclaimed."
And? Do you like everything other people like? And don't like what they don't.
Last edited:
