I had a few other quick thoughts:

-I did like that Reeves was trying to show some growth in the Batman character even though there is zero difference between this Pattinson Bruce Wayne in or out of the costume. The meaning of heroism is given a bit of a shout-out and hopefully it means there will be more growth there in sequels. Yet for a 3 hour grind like that, it's not quite enough

-The obscene run time was also not necessary given how many characters were left underdeveloped. Outside of Catwoman and Falcone, the movie did a poor job diving into the characters for a film that ran on and on as it does.

-The limited range of Andy Serkis as a "traditional" actor definitely dulled his one big emotive scene. I've seen some people who found that scene unintentionally funny. I didn't think it quite went there but he's no Michael Caine, Michael Gough or Jeremy Irons.

-Giacchino displayed his poor dramatic scoring sense with his basically two note Batman theme. Instead of writing theme and variations, it's like listening to a child playing on the piano. When it gets more dramatic he simply plays it louder and louder....in a whole bunch of places.

Zzzzzzzz

That's too bad. First BATMAN movie I won't be seeing in theaters.

This one ought to be FOUR hours long...!

Amazing it couldn't even hit $370 mil domestic -- less than half the new Spider-Man movie -- even with nobody playing against it for weeks. "Pandemic box office" or not that's not especially impressive especially with inflation as high as it is.

No matter how much Film Twitter jizzed all over this, "normie" moviegoers just found it overly austere and humorless and far too long. This made The Dark Knight look like the Adam West show! At least Joker had the common sense to be only two hours long.

I have several friends who absolutely HATED it as much as I basically did. One was a comic book fan (or at least someone who likes these movies typically), the other a non-comic book fan who still has seen every Batman going back decades. I'm not even sure the film appealed to the hard-core Batman fans as some of the reviews indicated initially either. If it did, it would've been able to hit $400-500 million easy in this marketplace.

At least Paul Dano should be up for a Razzie for his horrible "performance", like a child reading Red Riding Hood..."I'll puff and I'll puff and I'll blow your house in!". That's how scary he was. Embarrassing. And Pattinson? Did ANYONE care about him? He didn't register whatsoever in that part.

Warner will do even worse with the next one.

AndyDursin wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 2:05 pm At least Paul Dano should be up for a Razzie for his horrible "performance", like a child reading Red Riding Hood..."I'll puff and I'll puff and I'll blow your house in!". That's how scary he was. Embarrassing.

That was "Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor" levels of villain miscasting. When he started doing that awful a capella rendition of "Ave Maria" while Pattison started punching the glass...

I just saw THE BATMAN today - I enjoyed it. I don't think it's the best Batman film out there, but I was engaged throughout the movie and didn't get bored at the long running time. It actually worked better for me than I thought it would...though instead of having The Riddler be the introductory character they should have just gone with The Joker since Paul Dano did his best to be a "crazy person". Definitely felt it owed a lot to SE7EN. I don't have a whole ton of complaints - I don't understand why everyone has to speak in hushed tones all the time...it is kind of irritating. Pattinson's performance was fine, but I agree with Andy that there was no difference between Batman and Bruce Wayne...though I imagine one could argue that Wayne was still trying to learn how to separate his personalities at this point in his tenure as a "super-hero". I thought the aesthetic of Batmobile was lacking as well - I really didn't like its look. Giacchino's score was quite repetitive - he had themes in there but they aren't weaved into the tapestry of the score as a whole (i.e. they aren't developed). And finally, the end did drag out a bit (I didn't really have a problem with its messaging). All in all I am happy with it despite my complaints. I think the Nolan films are better though.

Sequel pushed back to 2027. Are they waiting to see what business the new Superman does before committing to a screenplay?!

That's exactly what I was thinking too. If this new Supes goes over, my guess is they'll fast-track Gunn's Batman movie and Pattinson might quietly go into the night. As it is, it's 5 years between scheduled sequels -- and really, how many people are breaking down the door for it?!?

Meanwhile, we got three well-liked Sonic The Hedgehog movies over the course of 4-1/2 years.

AndyDursin wrote: ↑Fri Dec 27, 2024 8:11 pm...and really, how many people are breaking down the door for it?!?

I know some are gnashing their teeth with frustration over the news, but I'm totally Batman'ed out by this point. Pattinson's the third one we've gotten over the last 20 years, and by far the most colorless and bland (even Ben Affleck was more dynamic. ). And, if the purpose in pushing this back is WB trying to figure out a way to fold these movies into the rebooted DC Universe, it's gonna make a VERY awkward fit with the sunnier, more optimistic tone the new Superman looks like it's striving for. Seeing The Nolan/Bale Batman palling around with Supes, Wonder Woman and Aquaman would have been bizarre.

Agreed totally, albeit the one element Gunn has going for him is making a Batman you can take your kid to. That's absolutely not been the case with the last couple of iterations and, as a parent, I can at least appreciate that. It's gotten so dark and so far separated from Adam West and even the Burton/Schumacher years that it needs a lighter reset.

I wonder if the JOKER 2 bombing might also be playing some kind of role with the Pattinson sequel, reinforcing to WB it's time to move off that "adult" note with these characters and make something more upbeat with more commercial potential.