The Batman - Rate And Review Thread (Spoilers)

[DeadlyWest]

Well said @shauner111 but I'll also add, I dont think The Dark Knight (or Rises) are THAt much more action heavy heavy than The Batman. In fact they probably all have more or less the same amount of action beats. But, again, its the execution, how the film's paced, edited, the musical score..all of that plays a role in the viewer's enjoyment. Reeves relishes in long lingering shots and whereas Nolan is more economic with the editing. Look at the beginning of Batman Begins, the first half of that movie is cut pretty damn quick, a LOT happens in a short time span. That kind of thing prevents you're average moviegoer from getting bored.

I'm not so sure

pretty much everything post Rachel's death in TDK goes at BREAK NECK speed and even before that you had the goddamn truck chase and attempting to save Rachel to contend with. This movie, on the other hand, has a pretty bombastic last half an hour but otherwise the action is broken up with other scenes that are more dialogue oriented. Like even the final Iceberg Lounge scene is then immediately followed by investigating Riddler's apartment, talking with him at Arkham and investigating his apartment again before all hell breaks loose. I'd say this movie /probably/ allocates the same amount of runtime to action as TDK does, but it also has a runtime that's 15 minutes longer and splits the action up a lot more

 

[BatLobster]

Score is brilliant so I guess they should think the movie is brilliant

But fr, you might have a point. The movie is quite moody, and that’s just not something that every viewer will grab onto. Oh well. I’m happy it’s not ticking every single blockbuster box. I felt like Batman 89 ticked the fun boxes but left a lot unchecked. If you wanted a smart blockbuster with some weight to it (see T2) you were likely disappointed in SOME way. But damnit does it deliver on every other level. And that’s what most ppl wanted in 1989. Just a fun time at the movies.

TDK kinda ticked every box that you would need for a successful blockbuster. Meaty. Depth. Emotion. Fun. Steamroller momentum. Goofy. Epic. I usually compare it to Terminator 2 more than Heat these days.

The Batman ticked every box for me personally but maybe not for most viewers? it doesn’t kick off with a big action sequence. It’s moodier, slower, more mysterious. It has the action to satisfy me but perhaps not enough for most to call it a fun action movie. TDK has the weight but it’s still incredibly fun and much brighter visually. Harvey Dent’s theme is so bright and hopeful for the most part. Joker’s music pierces right through you like a sharp razor. All throughout the movie. Thumping, loud, percussive score to represent Batman. It’s like the sound of a determined hero. And the rest of the music just goes hand in hand with the film’s action beats. So much that we used to have arguments about the score feeling like a generic action score and not Batman enough for some posters. Shout out to Travesty lol. But that’s good blockbuster ****. Whereas Giacchino’s score is jazzier, more melancholy. The action beats are few and far between. Effective but brief by comparison. Sounds more like the score for a unreleased Hitchcock movie at times. All of this is a strength of the film and gives it its own identity. But is it as satisfying to EVERYONE? Of course you can’t please everyone but TDK and T2 are probably the closest/perfect examples of achieving that right? Jurassic Park ticks that box too because every time I rewatch that behemoth I’m reminded by how intelligent some of those discussions are.

The Batman is such a similar but DIFFERENT beast.

I can get on board with this. T2 and Jurassic Park are probably two of my favorite blockbusters, so I've got no issues lumping in TDK with those.

I think I somewhat lament the lack of new films to add on that pedestal, as a certain 'type' of blockbuster that checks all the boxes and manages stands the test of time as an all-around classic. There have certainly been some good ones over the past decade, but few off the top of my head I'd feel comfortable putting in that territory personally. I'm hoping maybe Top Gun: Maverick can end up hitting that sweet spot.

But, I think it was the right move to push in a different direction with this interpretation. It's not that The Batman isn't a blockbuster, because I think ultimately it is-- but it IS a blockbuster that kind of wants you to forget it's a blockbuster for a lot of its runtime.

 

[shauner111]

I can get on board with this. T2 and Jurassic Park are probably two of my favorite blockbusters, so I've got no issues lumping in TDK with those.

I think I somewhat lament the lack of new films to add on that pedestal, as a certain 'type' of blockbuster that checks all the boxes and manages stands the test of time as an all-around classic. There have certainly been some good ones over the past decade, but few off the top of my head I'd feel comfortable putting in that territory personally. I'm hoping maybe Top Gun: Maverick can end up hitting that sweet spot.

But, I think it was the right move to push in a different direction with this interpretation. It's not that The Batman isn't a blockbuster, because I think ultimately it is-- but it IS a blockbuster that kind of wants you to forget it's a blockbuster for a lot of its runtime.

Agreed. This may seem sacrilege but I watched Fury Road again recently and I really didn’t like it as much. Again, gotta keep in mind that I’ve lost interest in those types of films long ago. But I felt like it was more in the realm of Batman 89 (at least my description of it). I hate the editing (fast forward uggghhh), dialogue and most performances in that movie. Score is also obnoxious (Junkie XL right? Not a fan). But the action and cinematography is wonderful.

I need to revisit Mission Impossible: Fallout but that one stood out to me as a top notch action heavy blockbuster when I saw it. Terminator 2 is still the king for me though. When I need my action fix, i know who’s apartment I’m visiting that’s for goddamn sure.

 

[BatLobster]

Agreed. This may seem sacrilege but I watched Fury Road again recently and I really didn’t like it as much. Again, gotta keep in mind that I’ve lost interest in those types of films long ago. But I felt like it was more in the realm of Batman 89 (at least my description of it). I hate the editing (fast forward uggghhh), dialogue and most performances in that movie. Score is also obnoxious (Junkie XL right? Not a fan). But the action and cinematography is wonderful.

I need to revisit Mission Impossible: Fallout but that one stood out to me as a top notch action heavy blockbuster when I saw it. Terminator 2 is still the king for me though. When I need my action fix, i know who’s apartment I’m visiting that’s for goddamn sure.

I love the later M:I films and McQuarrie's involvement Top Gun: Maverick (along with some of the buzz I've heard) is part of what has me hopeful about it. Fallout came to mind as a contender-- I think the only thing holding it back for me is I don't find that franchise necessarily packs the same type of emotional or intellectual/philosophical punch as the films we're talking about. But it's definitely top-tier modern action, basically go for broke, relentless entertainment and Ethan is a fun character to root for.

I actually haven't seen Fury Road in full since theaters.

 

[Gothamsknight]

Mission Impossible Fallout is a masterpiece, in my mind. I have to be honest, I kinda didn't jump onto the M:I train until the last year or so, but I find them all to be very entertaining, and Fallout felt like the culmination of everything. Definitely pumped for Top Gun Maverick, but I'm not a huge fan of the first movie if I'm being honest.

 

[BatLobster]

Mission Impossible Fallout is a masterpiece, in my mind. I have to be honest, I kinda didn't jump onto the M:I train until the last year or so, but I find them all to be very entertaining, and Fallout felt like the culmination of everything. Definitely pumped for Top Gun Maverick, but I'm not a huge fan of the first movie if I'm being honest.

I definitely agree that Fallout felt like a culmination. I've been a casual fan of the franchise over the years, but that one definitely hit me the hardest in theaters and I did a full franchise re-watch last year and still loved it. I'd say it's probably one of the best pure action films ever made.

 

[Gothamsknight]

I definitely agree that Fallout felt like a culmination. I've been a casual fan of the franchise over the years, but that one definitely hit me the hardest in theaters and I did a full franchise re-watch last year and still loved it. I'd say it's probably one of the best pure action films ever made.

Agreed 100%. Sucks we have to wait like an extra year for M:I 7 but I'm sure it'll be worth it.

 

[elgaz]

I loved The Batman first time round in the cinema, but having rewatched it 2 nights ago, enjoyed it even more.

I think after so many rewatches of Bale's Batman and then seeing Affleck's Batman in various different outings, it takes a bit of reacclimatising in the first act of Reeves' film to the various different approaches he's taken (compared to what came before); a more gritty look and feel, a different kind of Bruce Wayne, a slightly more strained Bruce/Alfred relationship, and so on.

After that though, it just hits all the sweet spots as far as I'm concerned. I love the look of the film, the soundtrack, Pattinson's often still & stoic demeanour as Batman whilst simultaneously being able to relay that there's a lot going on inside his head, Farrell's performance as Penguin, the choreography of the fight scenes, Dano's unhinged portrayal of the Riddler as a serial killer, the puzzles and detective work, and much more.

And the Batmobile. I had convinced myself that a cool Batmobile had to be something outlandish; either a sleek and menacing custom build like Burton's Batmobile, or something that looks indestructible and military-esque as per Nolan's approach. A DIY souped up muscle car sounded like seven-tenths to me, but it's actually perfect for this film - and the way Reeves introduces it is also perfect, wailing like a banshee in the shadows and giving me vibes of those killer car movies which terrified me as a child like Duel and Christine.

I don't like to try and compare this film to any of Nolan's ones. They all have their own merits and each Director has taken their own approach, just as (for me anyway) there is no 'definitive' Batman comic, but many different and successful approaches. What I would note is that Nolan's films were lauded for taking a more 'real world' approach to Batman (no superpowers, no campy humour or set design after the extremes of the Burton/Schumacher era) but I feel like Reeves really, really doubled down on that and stripped this Batman truly back to basics. He has some gadgets and some tech, but for the most part, the focus of the film is on his personality and his intelligence. And in my opinion, that approach works really really well for a character like Batman who's story is borne of tragedy.

The only and only bit of this film I didn't like was the Joker's short segment. It felt forced in, and I didn't particuarly care for Keoghan's take on the voice and laugh. But who knows, it was extremely short and maybe a more extended performance would show me to be wrong.

Delighted to hear there's a sequel coming and really curious as to where Reeves will go with it.

 

[shauner111]

I loved The Batman first time round in the cinema, but having rewatched it 2 nights ago, enjoyed it even more.

I think after so many rewatches of Bale's Batman and then seeing Affleck's Batman in various different outings, it takes a bit of reacclimatising in the first act of Reeves' film to the various different approaches he's taken (compared to what came before); a more gritty look and feel, a different kind of Bruce Wayne, a slightly more strained Bruce/Alfred relationship, and so on.

After that though, it just hits all the sweet spots as far as I'm concerned. I love the look of the film, the soundtrack, Pattinson's often still & stoic demeanour as Batman whilst simultaneously being able to relay that there's a lot going on inside his head, Farrell's performance as Penguin, the choreography of the fight scenes, Dano's unhinged portrayal of the Riddler as a serial killer, the puzzles and detective work, and much more.

And the Batmobile. I had convinced myself that a cool Batmobile had to be something outlandish; either a sleek and menacing custom build like Burton's Batmobile, or something that looks indestructible and military-esque as per Nolan's approach. A DIY souped up muscle car sounded like seven-tenths to me, but it's actually perfect for this film - and the way Reeves introduces it is also perfect, wailing like a banshee in the shadows and giving me vibes of those killer car movies which terrified me as a child like Duel and Christine.

I don't like to try and compare this film to any of Nolan's ones. They all have their own merits and each Director has taken their own approach, just as (for me anyway) there is no 'definitive' Batman comic, but many different and successful approaches. What I would note is that Nolan's films were lauded for taking a more 'real world' approach to Batman (no superpowers, no campy humour or set design after the extremes of the Burton/Schumacher era) but I feel like Reeves really, really doubled down on that and stripped this Batman truly back to basics. He has some gadgets and some tech, but for the most part, the focus of the film is on his personality and his intelligence. And in my opinion, that approach works really really well for a character like Batman who's story is borne of tragedy.

The only and only bit of this film I didn't like was the Joker's short segment. It felt forced in, and I didn't particuarly care for Keoghan's take on the voice and laugh. But who knows, it was extremely short and maybe a more extended performance would show me to be wrong.

Delighted to hear there's a sequel coming and really curious as to where Reeves will go with it.

Check out the deleted Joker/Batman scene in Arkham if you haven’t already.

 

[Brother Jack]

But, I think it was the right move to push in a different direction with this interpretation. It's not that The Batman isn't a blockbuster, because I think ultimately it is-- but it IS a blockbuster that kind of wants you to forget it's a blockbuster for a lot of its runtime.

And to that end I would say it mostly succeeds at that until the third act. I think it has some of the Begins syndrome where it becomes a kind of different movie in its climax, a more traditional and rote cape flick. Only here I actually think it's more jarring because of the film's length and because the flood twist feels like it comes out of nowhere with very little foreshadowing.

 

[DeadlyWest]

And to that end I would say it mostly succeeds at that until the third act. I think it has some of the Begins syndrome where it becomes a kind of different movie in its climax, a more traditional and rote cape flick. Only here I actually think it's more jarring because of the film's length and because the flood twist feels like it comes out of nowhere with very little foreshadowing.

Honestly I think the minimal foreshadowing works more in the movie's favour.

This is very much a movie centred around Batman's POV. We don't jump to different people's perspectives, it's just Batman's. To add more foreshadowing runs the risk of making Batman look like a moron for not seeing it coming because that'd be foreshadowing Batman would be exposed to in turn. It needs to feel like it came out of nowhere to work from a character standpoint. To add more foreshadowing would more or less mean you'd need to have Batman not notice it. Which, suffice to say, would not be the right call to make. It's a rock and a hard place, imo. But I'd rather have it come out of nowhere than be too foreshadowed. The former at least doesn't hinder the character whose story we're following.

 

[DeadlyWest]

Also, rewatched it again. **** 8.5, this is an objective 9/10.

Absolute masterpiece.

 

[shauner111]

And to that end I would say it mostly succeeds at that until the third act. I think it has some of the Begins syndrome where it becomes a kind of different movie in its climax, a more traditional and rote cape flick. Only here I actually think it's more jarring because of the film's length and because the flood twist feels like it comes out of nowhere with very little foreshadowing.

How do ppl still think it comes out of nowhere?

 

[DeadlyWest]

How do ppl still think it comes out of nowhere?

There definitely isn't a lot of foreshadowing that it'll be something that cataclysmic, but that's obviously by design given the POV style story being told. Any more would be at the detriment of Batman's intelligence.

 

[Brother Jack]

How do ppl still think it comes out of nowhere?

Because it does. There's only one mention of the seawall at the very beginning of the movie on the TV the mayor is watching and the film never draws attention to it again either visually or through dialogue until Riddler blows it open.

 

[shauner111]

Because it does. There's only one mention of the seawall at the very beginning of the movie on the TV the mayor is watching and the film never draws attention to it again either visually or through dialogue until Riddler blows it open.

So wait a sec...

Not only is that false (Riddler, as early as Act 1, is talking about how Gotham’s day of judgement is coming. Something of biblical proportions. Which surely isn’t about a couple more politicians getting whacked). But let me get this straight. Have we reached this point in society where unless the “third act plan” is told to us ahead of time, spelling out what’s going to happen...then that means it “came out of nowhere!”? There was plenty of foreshadowing in the script and film without flat out saying that a flood is coming.

 

[chintai80]

there was some small foreshadowing of riddler's plot if only u paid close attention.

but i thought riddler's endgame: the flooding + ridder having a cult following + planning a mass shooting coming out of "nowhere" was done well.

the audience is caught blindsided by this revelation just like batman and the cops are.
it is by design.

 

[BatLobster]

It doesn't completely come out of nowhere, yes there are a few throwaway lines setting it up, but it ends up feeling like an afterthought/detour from Riddler's own plan and ideology up to that point. It feels like a different movie/genre kicks in very late in the film.

I'm a big on quality setup/payoff and I think the setup there is pretty weak. It's not about needing to be explicitly told that it's coming, it's just that it never quite feels like an essential part of the plot that everything has thematically been building towards. IMO.

I don't think it's terrible or anything, there are some cool badass Batman moments in the third act for sure but how we get there always feels a bit ..."OK we're doing this now".

 

[metaphysician]

While I can appreciate what they were going for with the flooding. . . honestly, I kind of think it would have been better if the Riddler's "last riddle" were a more narrow assassination attempt against Bella Real. Probably a multi-component assassination plan, with a hidden bomb to find *and* snipers *and* maybe something else, but without the almost-tangential mass city flooding. The problem is that, besides the damage and death caused by the flooding, pretty much every other death that the Riddler caused or that Batman stopped is kind of negligible. "So you saved the new mayor. So what, hundreds of people still died and the city is still underwater." It makes the outcome of the actual assassination, which in theory was the centerpiece for the Riddler, irrelevant.

If you still want to have a strong element of "Batman having to save endangered people en masse," maybe have part of the Real assassination riddle be 'And then the Riddlers' contraptions and agents set the building on fire'.

 

[TheGDBatman]

I don't recall the exact lines, but there are a number of hints towards the flooding.

He's on a mission to cleanse Gotham and wipe the slate clean. What better way than to remove all of the pillars of power AND create an environment where anyone has an opportunity to seize power and become more than society previously let them be?

 

[J.Drangal]

The flood is certainly unexpected, but that's kind of the point... In any case, there's indeed a preparation. It's the Riddler we are dealing with and therefore, we must look for indirect references.

On several occasions, we find terms from the Bible, such as "Judgment Day", "Sins of the Father", etc. If not taken as a clue, this at least shows that Nashton feels invested with an almost mystical mission. And so, what better to conclude your holy crusade than a Great Flood, just like the one from the Old Testament, unleashed by a vengeful God ("Vengeance" you say?).

Of course, all of this remains discreet, perhaps too much... but in any case, it's there and symbolically quite well linked to the general theme.

 

[BatLobster]

I just feel it ultimately turns Riddler into TDK Trilogy-style, "burn society to the ground" type of villain, when him being a serial killer with a more focused intent had helped set him apart up until that point. I also feel like it ends up losing the whole riddle/game theme, which is also what makes him cool/different.

Another issue for me is the moment you realize how extreme his endgame is, you know exactly how the last 30 minutes are going to go. You know Batman is going to save the day and become a 'first responder' type of hero for Gotham. Although the image of mass shooters lurking around in an arena is pretty disturbing, ultimately the tension and edge of your seat quality wasn't really there for me because it didn't feel like we'd been building to this.

It's a perfectly serviceable climax, but it's one of a couple of instances where I feel the movie is trying to have its cake and eat it too.

 

[shauner111]

Disagree that it feels like a different movie. Felt smooth to me. Edward planned it all along but it’s done very carefully to the point where it comes off (in the first viewing) like he’s having a **** fit like “screw it, I’m not getting my way so they’ll ALL suffer!”. The reason why it comes off that way on first watch is because it’s absolutely in his character to have a temper tantrum like this. He’s such a pathetic character on film, in television, animation, comics. And this is kinda the pinnacle of that behaviour. When he’s behaving like a big baby in Arkham, there’s one word that comes to mind: pathetic. But the details are there. And I caught all of them during my rewatch. It’s mapped out, literally.

You know what comes off like a different movie all of a sudden? One hour into Batman Begins when they introduce the microwave emitter. Even if there’s foreshadowing of Ras Al Ghul’s plan to wipe out Gotham. Or the same with the bomb in Rises in how it relates to Dr Pavel’s kidnapping. That stuff felt more “out of nowhere” to me because it’s this maguffin that’s suddenly inserted into the narrative. Especially with Batman Begins because TDKR actually had multiple maguffins in the same story. So the emitter was more of a “oh, that’s the movie we’re watching now...huh.”

Here it’s not even a maguffin. Riddler has this plan and tells Batman about it. Then there’s no chase. It happens, he can’t stop it, nobody can even try to. It’s just about dealing with it and saving ppl. Within that third act you have Riddler’s online followers who have been helping him with gear. They’re using the flood and shelter as a way to corner Bella Real or anyone else they see fit. Again, Batman just has to try to stop them from doing more damage while the city keeps flooding. It’s very basic. It didn’t feel like a classic/typical Maguffin plot device to me. No literal ticking clock. No hunting down an object to stop it before the world ends. Instead it’s just “how do we deal with this thing that is out of our control?” ... “just save as many ppl as you can”. Which is sooo tied to Bruce’s arc where he desperately needs acceptance from ordinary citizens, even if he doesn’t realize it. It changes how he perceives himself...Mr Vengeance. Someone to be feared.

Riddler uses the flood to wipe the slate clean. But even if he succeeded in killing all the “scum” his mental issues wouldn’t magically disappear. Batman on the other hand would have never called for such a thing to happen but the flood ends up being this blessing in disguise since the situation wakes his ass up and helps others around him realize who Batman truly is behind the scary mask & cape.

It’s beautiful IMO. It works. It flows well. It’s set up properly. And the conclusion was very emotional for me on my second viewing. I got seriously choked up when that music hit and he led those ppl while holding that flare. Gorgeous stuff.

 

[shauner111]

I just feel it ultimately turns Riddler into TDK Trilogy-style, "burn society to the ground" type of villain, when him being a serial killer with a more focused intent had helped set him apart up until that point. I also feel like it ends up losing the whole riddle/game theme, which is also what makes him cool/different.

Another issue for me is the moment you realize how extreme his endgame is, you know exactly how the last 30 minutes are going to go. You know Batman is going to save the day and become a 'first responder' type of hero for Gotham. Although the image of mass shooters lurking around in an arena is pretty disturbing, ultimately the tension and edge of your seat quality wasn't really there for me because it didn't feel like we'd been building to this.

It's a perfectly serviceable climax, but it's one of a couple of instances where I feel the movie is trying to have its cake and eat it too.

To be fair, we used to say it as far back as 2008 that a good chunk of what Joker did in TDK was more like it came out of Riddler’s playbook than the Joker. So it didn’t really bother me here.

It was definitely trying to have its cake and eat it too. But I think they pulled it off. I guess some don’t think they did. I can’t change your mind. But the “it came out of nowhere” critique is just false.

Not liking the end as much because you wanted it to be more of a guessing game scenario is absolutely fair. I get it. But I can’t think of what they could have done to keep that going. Alls I know is I was really moved by what Reeves decided to go with. And I felt the tension because the effects, sound design, direction, score and acting during that flood/fight was top notch. It made me forget that Batman is obviously going to survive this movie. I also felt for the people trapped. I think that’s where the tension came from for me.

 

[BatLobster]

Disagree that it feels like a different movie. Felt smooth to me. Edward planned it all along but it’s done very carefully to the point where it comes off (in the first viewing) like he’s having a **** fit like “screw it, I’m not getting my way so they’ll ALL suffer!”. The reason why it comes off that way on first watch is because it’s absolutely in his character to have a temper tantrum like this. He’s such a pathetic character on film, in television, animation, comics. And this is kinda the pinnacle of that behaviour. When he’s behaving like a big baby in Arkham, there’s one word that comes to mind: pathetic. But the details are there. And I caught all of them during my rewatch. It’s mapped out, literally.

You know what comes off like a different movie all of a sudden? One hour into Batman Begins when they introduce the microwave emitter. Even if there’s foreshadowing of Ras Al Ghul’s plan to wipe out Gotham. Or the same with the bomb in Rises in how it relates to Dr Pavel’s kidnapping. That stuff felt more “out of nowhere” to me because it’s this maguffin that’s suddenly inserted into the narrative. Especially with Batman Begins because TDKR actually had multiple maguffins in the same story. So the emitter was more of a “oh, that’s the movie we’re watching now...huh.”

This is where I feel TDK trilogy being more solidly in that 'adventure', blockbuster territory can work in its favor. That kind of stuff just doesn't tonally clash as much for me, IMO. I mean, I don't love the microwave emitter personally, but for me Ra's al Ghul/LOS means you are dealing in a more Bond-ian type of film so it never struck me as completely left field. And the film has already spent time establishing Wayne Enterprise's advanced military tech, it sets up Scarecrow's fear toxin, all of which create a more heightened world, light-sci kinda world.

I love the first hour of Begins, it felt super grounded and psychological (at least at the time), but let's not forget we are meeting NINJAS within the first few minutes. It's allowing in some B-movie genre tropes right from the start and it also clues you in that this is a movie with international stakes and scale.

Batman rescuing the people in The Batman is great and a needed moment though, I understand that the entire climax was written probably the way it was to get to that point, so in the end I can concede that it's justified. I mean, I'm not one of these folks that is gonna say "it went completely off the rails!", I think it's fine and it has some good moments in it for sure. It's just not my favorite section of the film and I get some of the criticism of it feeling a bit shoehorned in.

To be fair, we used to say it as far back as 2008 that a good chunk of what Joker did in TDK was more like it came out of Riddler’s playbook than the Joker. So it didn’t really bother me here.

It was definitely trying to have its cake and eat it too. But I think they pulled it off. I guess some don’t think they did. I can’t change your mind. But the “it came out of nowhere” critique is just false.

Not liking the end as much because you wanted it to be more of a guessing game scenario is absolutely fair. I get it. But I can’t think of what they could have done to keep that going. Alls I know is I was really moved by what Reeves decided to go with. And I felt the tension because the effects, sound design, direction, score and acting during that flood/fight was top notch. It made me forget that Batman is obviously going to survive this movie. I also felt for the people trapped. I think that’s where the tension came from for me.

I will be completely honest. While I'm offering my two cents, I'm also not going to sit here and say "X" should've been the climax instead. I have no idea what a better alternative would be. Writing a movie is a juggling act and you're fitting a lot pieces of a puzzle together. I could say I wish Batman was having hits wits challenged more by The Riddler at the end, but then that could potentially negate the whole idea of Riddler thinking Batman was his buddy, which is hugely important to the theme. So, idk. The reality is I think Reeves knew he had to do 'something' big for the climax, and I get why he went this direction even if I don't know it if all gels for me. It could just be a byproduct of the length of the film at the end of the day. A lot of time is spent unraveling a specific mystery and once that mystery is solved, I think the movie can't help but lose a little momentum.