For clarity - I am a Batman fan. Before there was music, before there was painting, academics, nature, and all else - there was Batman in my life.
And I saw this film in the theater six times.
My Stripes -
I'm in my (very) late 20s - and I grew up in the age of Batman: The Animated Series, Batman '89, Returns, '66, Forever, the video games, backlog comics and all in between. I was there when there was Batman: Intimidation Game, Batman: Year One, Batman Triumphant and other projects rumored and in progress.
In short, I'm pretty into the character. I had the script for Batman Begins a year or two before release. Don't know how I got it, but I did. I followed the filming, set photos, theories, rumors and the wild ride of each of the Nolan films. I lived, breathed, and **** those films. I got the Begins game on PS2 on my way to the theater. I loved Vengeance and the Arkham series.
I was excited for Batman V. Superman - until Affleck was announced. Then I was pissed. But...he sold me. I love him as Batman. The quality of films being more spotty than a Dalmatian in a ****storm, aside.
I'm always eager for new interpretations of Batman in mass media. I'm always interested in how this versatile, dynamic, flexible, interpretable character can be made into something cool yet again.
Which leads me...to The Batman (2022).
My relationship with The Batman (2022) is complicated. To be blunt - once Affleck fell off, I was against it. It's not that I love Snyder or anything (I'm mixed on him, at best) - but Affleck's Batman clearly was one that existed in a world where Batman could fight Mr. Freeze, have a Robin, and wasn't afraid to be fantastical. And bringing in a new actor/director/vision felt too soon and almost jarring. I was scared we'd be robbed of that true-to-comics Batman world that I've craved.
Because in the last decade, I admit, I fell out of love with the Nolan Trilogy. Big time. I suddenly found myself fatigued of the 'realistic' take, the voice, the fact that Bale's Batman was only around for a few years, and knowing there was no rogues outside of Falcone/Scarecrow/Joker/Ra's Al Ghul/Talia Al Ghul/Two-Face/Bane.
I think I just spent too much time on those films and got sick of them. Overexposure and honestly, the hype made me sick of them.
And when Reeves came along, and the rumors and his statements indicated the return to 'grounded' Batman, I was a bit petulant about it. I was worried they were traveling the 'safe' route in response to Snyder's Batman, going back to 'realistic, grounded' as if that was the problem with Snyder's Batman.
I was also not in favor of yet another 'early years' Batman. Between many graphic novels over the last millennia, 'Begins', many animated films and even a video game and the Gotham show, I was over it.
BUT.
The initial trailer and Reeves passion sold this, for me. I was open to it after that. The guy is a geek - and I love him. The subsequent trailers sold me, even more. I was ready.
My body was ready.
And this film did one amazing thing for me - it got me back into Batman, as a whole. I cannot explain how many new Batman graphic novels I've read this year because of this film reigniting my passion for the character. How many bizarre stories I picked up because this film taught me the value in new interpretations.
I even revisited the Nolan films a month prior to the film's release. And I've rediscovered my love of that entire series of films to the point where I dropped $300 on the Trilogy Hot Toys Batman and a making of book from 2012.
So how did I like the film? -
I like it...mostly. And I wish I loved it.
When I walked out of the film, I was okay. I was fine. I existed. The film existed. The film I was so hyped for, posed with posters for photos in excitement - I'd just seen it at 7PM the day prior to release...and I felt just okay with it.
It's a bummer, but. Can't win 'em all, right?
I think what gets me with the film is that it's so, so damn amazing in so many ways I've been craving with modern Batman films.
The film gets so much, so right!
The look of Gotham was what I'd hoped for since Tim Burton (though, the Gotham in Begins was equally great, too). The grime, the rain, the lighting, the trash, the dystopia - it IS Gotham City. It feels like a world that can be expanded upon and coloured with future installments, only to enrich it.
The batsuit is just as great as each of the Nolan Trilogy suits and Burton suits. It's very cool, very Arkham Origins. I love the practicality of the suit, the grey/black is still retained from Affleck's Batman, and it's just a vibe. Still its own thing.
Each actor did an incredible job in their roles with the material. It's clear everyone believed in this film, the world, its director and crew. As well as the characters they played. Everyone seems to be proving they're worthy to return for a sequel.
Robert Pattinson is a solid Batman, for sure. He has a great voice and heroic streak in his portrayal that I think will get better, more.
John Turturro as Falcone is the highlight for me - holy ****. He oozes sleazy charisma and was the knockout performance for me. So effortless, so cool, so slime-y. You can't help but love him and hate him. Jesus, he rocked that and I'm very upset he's already gone from the series.
The film has this noir feel, dripping from every scene. It's almost always nighttime. It's always raining and wet. The lighting is scarce and dramatic. It's amazing. The visual style feels so notable, so distinct, so striking and so very Batman in a way I'd been craving for a long time.
The Batmobile, while visually pretty okay and not entirely my thing, fits this version of the character at the time of his journey and what they did with its feel, in terms of making it a fierce machine, elevated what otherwise would've been a too-subdued and unexciting design.
For some reason, each Batman director since 1997 has had it out for Wayne Manor + Batcave combination. Nolan burnt it down. Snyder burnt it down. In short, we've not had Batman operating in the Batcave while living in Wayne Manor above in a Batman film in decades. But, somehow I dig the Wayne Tower + subway station cave idea. It's fresh, doesn't alter anything functionality-wise, and is distinct. I love it.
I don't mind the film's length, truly. Though, I'd say just for the sake of more casual Batman geeks and filmgoers and the well-being of the brand, I'd dial it back next time. Not about my personal preference, just saying.
The fight/action scenes were good, for the most part. The it felt grounded, sure - but it didn't feel like it was confined, either. It wasn't as great as the heights of the over-discussed but still great 'warehouse scene' via Snyder (yes, great scene but for the love of God, fans need to stop praising it 24/7) but it was on par with Nolan or maybe a tinge better.
Where Does It Fall Apart, For Me? Well... -
Given that I praised so much of this film, where's the issue? Well, I said I liked it - but that I wish I loved it.
Because all the things I listed above are amazing, it needs one keystone to hold it all together and that keystone is always unable to save a film. And that's the writing.
Keep in mind, the dialogue is good. The story itself, is good (for the most part). But there's so many plot-beats and moments, as well as subplots that just don't seem to make it, for me.
Batman Returns...to 'Realism' -
There's apart of me still miffed about this. From the time Matt Reeves came onboard, we've been told we're returning to 'realistic' and 'grounded' Batman. Internally, I groaned at this.
The film had an uphill battle for me in this area, which may be a more personal thing than anything. I don't think this direction is bad, but I really wish this film had gone a route of more flexibility.
The Dark Knight Trilogy is amazing and the gold standard for quality superhero 'cinema' - but it wasn't because of the grounded nature. Snyder's Batman didn't fail because it was fantastical. There is more than one way to do Batman in the 21st century on the big screen.
It feels like WB or Reeves felt that returning to the grounded well was a secret sauce to Batman on film. I feel this way mostly because 95% of Batman comics/graphic novels/animation is definitively NOT grounded. It just seems too coincidental that they went the 'grounded' route which is at odds with 95% of Batman's printed history and in line with WB's last successful Batman outing.
As a result, it feels like this film is treading the ground already done before. If it had something new to say or do with this direction, I feel it'd have justified its direction but as it stands - the film does not have anything new to add, with this style.
In fact, the most fresh thing this film could've done is give us fantastical Batman. Nobody would've expected it. Instead, this direction just feels...'safe'.
And because it's trying to convince us that it's grounded, it makes scenes such as Batman's violent landing after the GCPD jump stick out. In a grounded film, it just looks out of place. If the film stuck by the rules it was conveying - he'd be dead.
Batman takes a bomb to the face without a scratch. A bomb...to the face. His suit is intact, his mask is in one piece, he's uninjured, not concussed, and has no bad effects from losing - what we can maybe guess - was at least 20-30 minutes of consciousness.
There are other examples (Penguin's car crashing in such violent manner that should've killed him) - but you get the point.
So not only does the film tread familiar ground of the 'realistic Batman on film' road - but it bends/breaks the rules whenever it needs to. Batman can take endless waves of gunfire to his chest at point blank range when the plot demands he be impervious - but when the film needs him to be at risk, a blast to the chest nearly takes him out.
The rules of this grounded-ness is so unclear and inconsistent, which is a fault of the writing.
If the film committed in one direction - either going full realism or fully fantastical - it'd be a lot better for the viewer.
BATMAN/BRUCE WAYNE/ALFRED AND THE 'DETECTIVE' IS MIA/ARC MISSING -
The writing of Bruce Wayne/Batman is of utmost importance, and I wish I liked him a lot more than I do. For one, this was hyped up as a detective Batman film - that we were finally getting a detective Batman on film instead of glimmers of it which had been par the course in the Nolan series.
But for all that hype, and for all the things I still hear about this being Batman portrayed as a 'great' detective - he just...isn't. Keep in mind, I love the impressive little moments like Batman knowing when a thumb was severed due to XYZ. Stuff like that is great little character moments.
But aside from that, I don't see where his 'great detective' cred that he receives to this day post-release is coming from. He isolated the letters on the cipher, sure. But aside from that, Alfred did the work prior, Alfred also translated the Spanish, Penguin figured out the Spanish was incorrect leading to the URL revelation, Martinez figures out the carpet tool angle, Catwoman captures Mackenzie, she also finds Natalia's phone, etc.
Batman didn't stop a single murder, nor did he figure out much of anything, at all. He certainly didn't figure out the end goal of The Riddler.
And sure, some of this can be chalked up to his inexperience and maybe that's the point - but the film doesn't really convey that's the point about his detective skills. It tacks on the inexperience as a symbol of hope at the end of the film, but not about his skills in the detective-area.
I don't mind Batman not being a great detective in a Batman film. I'm used to it. But when I'm promised a detective Batman story, where he's supposed to figure things out - I expect that.
Having him examine a crime scene, pass off ciphers for Alfred to figure out, him checking out Riddler's letters and the box that killed Mackenzie doesn't quite make him a detective. And that's why it falls flat, for me.
As for Bruce Wayne, I understand the angle they're going for. I think a Bruce Wayne unable to separate the Batman persona from himself even when out of the costume is a compelling angle to explore.
I just wish I loved how they did it here. The film doesn't really attempt to make much commentary on it. It's just present - that's how he is, and they don't do much with the concept beyond have it be present. Given the many routes they could go with it, it's such a huge missed opportunity.
Which would be forgivable if Bruce Wayne felt compelling or likeable. Maybe that's harsh - but I didn't feel empathetic or drawn to Bruce in this film. This is not a Pattinson issue - this is a writing issue. He was written to be withdrawn, empty, broody and mopey. But that just doesn't do much for me as a viewer generally and it does even less so when the writers don't do much with it, either.
I can't help that he's not great to watch, written as is. It's not the worst issue, since he's hardly Bruce Wayne on screen in the film. But, it is an issue regardless.
I also cannot believe that after all the ridiculous and petty 'Batman gonna be emo' jokes after the news broke of Pattinson being casted, that they actually did just that. Bold choice - but I'm not so sure it paid off.
Pattinson's Batman is written great in the monologue narrations. Though, as much as I think Pattinson is solid as Batman, I do feel he lacks presence in the costume. He doesn't feel imposing or 'present' really. He's understated to a degree that I'm not jazzed about. But he also has moments of greatness, so it's the least concern I have, here.
And his Bruce Wayne makes sense on paper, and I see where they were going with it - but that doesn't mean it's fun to watch or interesting. Or likeable.
As for Alfred, I found myself having a hard time caring about the relationship between these two. They've so little screentime, no warmth, no hints at much of the past until the hospital scene.
The film relies so much on your preexisting Batman knowledge of why Alfred is important and it just doesn't work for me. You can't rely entirely on your audiences' familiarity with previous films/comics to do the heavy lifting on your characters, especially when you try to cash in via an emotional scene that your film has not earned.
As for his 'arc' of realizing he needs to be a symbol of hope rather than vengeance...while that's a great idea on paper, in practice, it's barely there. The only indication that Batman learns this is when the Riddler goon repeats Batman's line back to him - and we cut to Batman. But Batman's expression is...the same as it typically is. The music is what tells us his wheels are turning.
We know what his arc is solely due to his monologue at the end. It's tacked on - we don't see him progress and change through the story to build to this change of perspective. It's literally told to us.
There's no reason to believe Batman at the start of the film would NOT be helping survivors like he is at the end of the film. So as it stands, Batman's arc arrives in the last 10 minutes of the film, with no prior hints, and is conveyed to the audience via voiceover. That voiceover is trying to do the heavy lifting and it does not work in a film that's typically super heavy on belaboring most things.
Show, don't tell.
Lastly, Bruce's parents' death isn't super present here. Yes, we don't need to see it all over again, but it'd be nice to hear Bruce talk about it.
THE RIDDLER -
I haven't mentioned The Riddler yet - but I'm so mixed on how I feel about him, it's insane. On one hand, I love the look, the method of puzzles and the streaming publicly - it all feels twisted an on brand for The Riddler. But I wish I felt he had this quizzical, quirky charm of insanity that made him gleeful to try and outdo people. Instead, he was more of a commentary on the incel, angry movement of disillusioned young men that I think is 100% relevant and great to call out - but I'm not sure The Riddler was the right guy for the job, here.
He was full of anger. Given his backstory, that makes sense. But I wish he was more subdued and I always felt the line where he claims his only strength is in his mind and not his body - being a bit silly considering he physically overpowers each victim somehow - most bigger than him.
And from a writing angle - I always forget he's in the film once the Catwoman storyline involving Falcone rears its head. It's not until the bullet hits Falcone that I go "Oh yeah, he's still in this." I've had conversations with fans who love this film that have said as such - and that's a clear writing issue.
I almost forget about The Riddler when I talk about this film which is a damn shame because Paul Dano is dynamite in everything he's in. He tries so hard in this film.
But that's also an issue - it almost feels like he's trying to out-crazy other villains, here. It feels a bit try-hard, at times. He needed to be reined in, a little.
GORDON, CATWOMAN AND SIDE CHARACTERS - WHY CARE? -
Another issue with the film's writing is the side characters. Gordon, for example, is super likable and Jeffrey Wright rocks. He's practical, level headed, he really sells this "I'm working with a guy in a bat costume and it's weird but Gotham is so ****ed up this is my best bet" angle so well.
But...outside of him having scenes with Batman, there is nothing else to him. Is he married? Is he taking heat for working with Batman? Is he suffering for it? What are his values? Why should we care about him?
I just feel nothing. I like him - but I don't know him.
There's nothing to flesh him out, at all - and thus, nothing to make him compelling. I know more about Martinez's background just from the 'carpet tool' talk he has with Batman. I gleaned so much from that little anecdote that fleshes him out far more than Gordon. And he also has a change in his character from the beginning of the film - he has a small arc, but it's still there and more present than anything to do with Gordon, who has earned more than what he was given writing-wise.
Selina Kyle/Catwoman is likely the most fleshed out character in the film. For one, we get her backstory, her parent lineage, we hear her motivations, her hopes for her future, we know what she dislikes - and we get a clear moment of growth for her. In fact, she's the most relatable and human character in the film.
Her girlfriend? When they find her body - I didn't feel...anything. We didn't even know her. I've seen the film over 10 times in full, 6 times in the theater - and I don't remember her name. The film clearly wants us to care about her, but I feel bad for not doing so. In a three hour film, it's hard of me to ask for MORE story - but I also think it's hard of the film to ask me to care about her when we find her body.
In fact, she feels like an example of 'fridging'. Her only existence in the film is to provide the motivation for her partner's anger/rampage in the story. She has no agency, no scenes dialogue outside of a recording - and she is simply defined by 'partner' and 'victim'. It's a bit disappointing, I suppose.
Now, I haven't mentioned Falcone or the Penguin, here - but there's a reason for that. While they're not super fleshed out, the film doesn't ask much of them other than to be villains and it doesn't ask much of its audience to care about them.
Penguin? Sleazy, up and coming criminal that works under Falcone. Cool. Got it.
Falcone? Devilishly sly, charismatic and a smooth talker.
There's a reason why not fleshing these guys out works whereas the other don't - because they're written in a way that we glean a lot from them just from their dialogue, personality and performance alone.
They're obstacles to the characters and that's all they need to be for now.
Plot Threads - Coming Undone -
A huge issue for me is the plot threads that either fizzle out or go nowhere. For example, I love the idea that the Waynes were not entirely perfect people. I think having Thomas be a bit corrupt strengthens Bruce's motivation to save the city that not only killed his family, but that he now owes because of the debt it paid for the fortune he has. In the film, they play with this possible corruption angle with Falcone and Wayne and tease the audience.
But what do they do with it? Not really...anything. In a film that's three hours long, the film is required to vehemently justify its increasing runtime. It has to prove without a doubt that every bit is necessary, and something like this doesn't do it. It's a waste.
Why am I hard on this type of thing? Because the subplot not only lasts for such a brief time, the span of maybe 8 minutes - but what does it do to Bruce Wayne? Bruce was quiet, reserved, reclusive, mopey, and angry before this revelation. How was he after this possible revelation? Well, quiet, reserved, reclusive, mopey, and angry.
Big moments like this should change the character. Visibly. And maybe it'd take time to sink in for Bruce - but, the film doesn't let that happen, either. Instead, we're treated to a scene with Falcone, an amazing monologue by Falcone played wonderfully, only to have the story beat and his monologue denied and things are put back in the same place as they were before this revelation.
A subplot introduced and debunked in 8 to 10 minutes. What even was the point?
Other issues such as the GCPD relationship with Batman being uneven get to me. By the start of the film, Batman is working with Gordon and reluctantly let into a crime scene. By the midpoint, he's in GCPD on their ****-list for interfering, in which a man died in the process.
One of the superiors is listing charges for Batman, at this point. We're to believe they not only never unmasked him, but didn't take him to a doctor instead of a precinct? In a film like this, with so much explained - they didn't bother explaining this.
On top of that, Batman decks Gordon, flees the scene, police give chase and so desperate to nab him, they shoot to kill in the actual building.
Yet...the next time we see the GCPD, Batman is walking among them with no issue, but standing with them as they arrest Falcone. He's able to investigate yet another crime scene.
What...? Why?
Batman was considered for charges, then assaulted an officer and a Lieutenant, fled the scene, was shot at, and jumped off a public building - and the GCPD just says "Nah, fam - it's all good!" or just forgets it entirely.
It just comes across as sloppy, on the part of the writers.
Are any of these a huge deal? Normally, no.
But I think what makes it stick out like a sore thumb is that the filmmakers, crew and director put an insane amount of love, detail and thought into every angle of this film. The look, the style, the lighting, the costuming, the vibe and so on. Which shows me what they can do. And to put that 110% effort into those things...only to not see the issue with writing that does this, really feels incongruent. If they'd put the same effort into the writing as they did the aesthetics - I would love this film.
It's a bit like a cake that is decorated with meticulous, and careful detail. The piping is flawless. The fondant is smooth as glass, and the writing is calligraphy-level. But the actual cake inside is half-baked.
The uneven, juxtaposition of absolute air-tight quality control with everything in this film aesthetically highlights the jarring lack of air-tight quality control with the story/characters.
In Conclusion -
The Batman is not bad film. It's still pretty good. I'm not attempting to 'bash' this film and I hope this isn't seeming in good faith.
I'm holding this film to a high standard because of several reasons. For one, it's clear Matt Reeves is such a massive fan and thus, I expect him to have a bit more of an eye for these things than maybe some others.
Two - this series comes after so many iterations of Batman. I expect each new franchise to build off of what the previous series' did. I expect them to find what works, what maybe hasn't been done, innovate, and improve. I hold this to a higher standard because it should improve on the past.
Third, this film is so expertly crafted visually, so amazingly acted, so perfectly shot and costumed and edited - that the meat of the film, the story, should be at that same level.
But for me, it isn't.
I really, really wanted it to be. I'll say again, when this film was months from release - I was ready for this to be MY new Batman. I was ready for the Nolan series to be unseated, for a series that was just as great as those films but embraced a more traditional aesthetic.
It just didn't get there.
Perhaps a great sequel or two can flesh this film out and make it better in retrospect, but I also think every film should stand on its own.
I've no doubt I'll enjoy the Reeves-verse Batman content, but I just hope the writing tightens up and we get an emotional connection to hang onto.
But I'll keep watching because...it's BATMAN!
. Just kidding, I think my thoughts about it are the same. The moment I realized TDK trilogy will be forever my favourite live action Batman, I started to appreciate The Batman much more, after lots of views too.
