The Batman - Rate And Review Thread (Spoilers)

[Joe Von Zombie]

You're moving goal posts now. Your original argument was it was contradictory to his lesson in the movie. Not how close it is to the comics. As if Batman has never made morally questionable decisions in the comics either;

Spoiler

Horror movies, you're using horror movies as your example of this. Now which ones exactly? I am assuming slasher franchises like Halloween, F13, Nightmare on Elm Street etc where the majority of them have awful scripts. Which one exactly got a free pass because the previous ones were bad?

Friday 2009, the current DGG Halloween films, the 2005 remake of TCM etc. Outside of horror, the big one that comes mind is the force awakens. I'm not saying the comics are infallible either. A lot of the time when writers think they're being interesting with Batman, they either have him seemingly kill someone or have another character beat him up. It's not great there either. And I'm not trying to move the goal post, my point being is Batman Begins was supposed to be more in line with the comics to point where they make a big deal about him wanting to kill Joe Chill, show him dramatically throw the gun away, actively claim he's no executioner then kill several people by blowing up a monastery, then deliberately allow Ras to die. It's all over the place.

 

[The Joker]

Friday 2009, the current DGG Halloween films, the 2005 remake of TCM etc. Outside of horror, the big one that comes mind is the force awakens. I'm not saying the comics are infallible either. A lot of the time when writers think they're being interesting with Batman, they either have him seemingly kill someone or have another character beat him up. It's not great there either. And I'm not trying to move the goal post, my point being is Batman Begins was supposed to be more in line with the comics to point where they make a big deal about him wanting to kill Joe Chill, show him dramatically throw the gun away, actively claim he's no executioner then kill several people by blowing up a monastery, then deliberately allow Ras to die. It's all over the place.

Friday 2009? It never got a sequel and is sitting at 26% on RT. The current DGG movies....Halloween Kills is at 40% on RT. There's a 2005 TCM movie? Are you sure you're not talking about the 2003 one? That was critically slammed too. 37% on RT. So I'm confused why you think the horror franchise is an example of movies getting praise because the previous ones were bad. The only one there that got any praise was Halloween 2018 and it was a decent slasher flick.

I am trying to follow your logic here, but your examples don't make sense to me, and you keep setting parameters on the things you're using to try and support what you're saying. You're picking and choosing from the comics what you say is valid and what isn't after saying it wasn't in line with the comics when they've done the same thing. It would be much easier simply to say it wasn't the way you personally prefer Batman to be.

Anyway I am going to leave this discussion here. We're taking the review thread for The Batman off track.

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

Friday 2009? It never got a sequel and is sitting at 26% on RT. The current DGG movies....Halloween Kills is at 40% on RT. There's a 2005 TCM movie? Are you sure you're not talking about the 2003 one? That was critically slammed too. 37% on RT. So I'm confused why you think the horror franchise is an example of movies getting praise because the previous ones were bad. The only one there that got any praise was Halloween 2018 and it was a decent slasher flick.

I am trying to follow your logic here, but your examples don't make sense to me, and you keep setting parameters on the things you're using to try and support what you're saying. You're picking and choosing from the comics what you say is valid and what isn't after saying it wasn't in line with the comics when they've done the same thing. It would be much easier simply to say it wasn't the way you personally prefer Batman to be.

Anyway I am going to leave this discussion here. We're taking the review thread for The Batman off track.

I'm not specifically talking about critical reception which frankly doesn't matter. I'm more referring to audience/ community reception but I agree to disagree with you on this to no longer further derail the thread.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Great movie.

 

[Asr]

Saw this twice over the past week. Matt Reeves did it again, 9/10 for me.

I'm honestly not sure whether I like this or Batman Begins more though, both are top-tier to me. But I'm glad we're in a world where we have all these great Batman movies (for me the best ones are this one, Batman Begins, and TDK). Pattinson was excellent and pretty much was the angry, tortured soul that I was expecting. Reeves' directing was top-tier and I was glad we finally got a serious adult-oriented Batman movie that felt more like a crime thriller than anything that's come before.

But rather than heap more superlatives (which are very deserved), I have a few minor complaints about the movie:

1. IMO, Batman was "seen" a little too much by the characters in his world. I suppose it kinda fit in with his character to be presumptuously walking into crime scenes, the police station, and on the streets, but I would've preferred more "ninja"-style Batman, with him keeping to the shadows more and being un-seen.

2. I wasn't really a fan of Pattinson's Bat-voice. I can't really explain why, but just couldn't get into his whispery tone.

3. Not that I didn't love how long the movie was, because I would watch hours of this if I could, but I feel like there was a bit too much scope to the story for what's hopefully just the first of Reeves' Batman movies. The addition of the last act of the movie with a "mass panic" event just felt like something that wasn't entirely needed, and could have been something else to keep the story tighter.

Overall I really liked Pattinson's Batman, just had those minor complaints. And there were definitely some scenes where I felt like he evoked Keaton's Batman quite a bit too.

 

[OnLeatherWings]

1. IMO, Batman was "seen" a little too much by the characters in his world. I suppose it kinda fit in with his character to be presumptuously walking into crime scenes, the police station, and on the streets.

This is why I've said I feel this film is, in many ways, a dark version of the '60s show.

 

[BMW 224]

there is no point in defending the "i don't have to save you". it's bad and will always be. Bruce saying he is not an executioner but then blowing up the entire monastery was too.

I'll give you blowing up the monstary after "I'm no executioner" I won't defend that it's been a WTF moment for me since I first saw it.

No idea what the point of that was.

It undermines the brilliant conversation Bruce and Ducard just had.



But I will always defend "I won't kill you but I don't have to save you".

It doesn't condricate Batman specific "no executioner rule" in this universe and gives Ra's a glorious sendoff.

 

[Captain Tired]

It does when Batman is the one who conceived of the plan to destroy the monorail and provided Gordon with direct access to the tumbler that took it down. Him choosing not to save Ra's from the destruction of the monorail, that he conspired with Gordon to commit, is murder.

 

[OnLeatherWings]

I feel like Batman fans don't care if Batman kills in a film...he just has to SAY he doesn't kill.

Bale's Batman caused quite a few deaths and risked causing many (Batmobile chase, anyone? Or ramming a trash truck driver's upper body into the underside of an overpass?) yet he's praised for not being like the murderous Affleck. (Somehow Keaton comes away unscathed in these discussions).

And let's not pretend Pattinson's Batman was always preoccupied NOT risking killing someone (aiming goons' guns at each other and firing, causing Penguin to have a 95% risk of fatal car crash, etc.).

The amount of blows to the head the first goon takes in this film could cause a fatal internal brain injury. Same with smacking a pipe into the bouncer's head in the Iceberg Lounge.

 

[Captain Tired]

A more experienced Batman would have also held off on pursuing the Penguin in the wreckless, destructive manner that he did.

 

[BMW 224]

It does when Batman is the one who conceived of the plan to destroy the monorail and provided Gordon with direct access to the tumbler that took it down. Him choosing not to save Ra's from the destruction of the monorail, that he conspired with Gordon to commit, is murder.

That was the contingency plan.

Batman tried the non lethal ways multiple times and each time Ras stopped him.

Ras doomed himself.

 

[Captain Tired]

Why can't some Nolan fans ever just accept that Bale's Batman also murdered someone? It's not like he'd be in bad company. Pretty much every live-action Batman aside from Clooney and Pattinson (thus far) have murdered.

 

[BMW 224]

Why can't some Nolan fans ever just accept that Bale's Batman also murdered someone? It's not like he'd be in bad company. Pretty much every live-action Batman aside from Clooney and Pattinson (thus far) have murdered.

Bale's Batman never "murdered "anyone.

It was all collateral damage with justified cause after all options were wasted unlike others. (Can't speak for Pattinson yet because I haven't seen it yet.


Ra's All Ghull doomed himself.

Two Face was about to muder a child.

Taila Al Ghull was carrying fleeing with a bomb about to nuke Gotham City.

Meanwhile Scarecrow alive.

Joker alive.

Bane alive.

Falcone alive.

Goons alive


Lau alive.

Bales Batman unlike the comics operated as a soldier who made the tough calls when needed but never killed out of reckless or personal physcpathic satisfaction.

There's a big difference here between Bales kill's and Keaton's and Afflecks Kilmers etc.


Would I prefer if Batman didn't kill in movies ?

Sure.

But out of all them Bales Batman "kills" feel the most inline with Batman heroic and self sacrificing side.


I can almost see comic book Batman making similar calls.

And it definitely helps that he didn't kill all of his enemies for me.

It's all subjective though.

 

[Captain Tired]

Even all other options being wasted does not change the definition of what he did. In the case of Dent, it might be justifiable murder on a moral level, but it's still ultimately murder. He took direct action that he knew would result in Harvey's certain death. Yes he had Gordon's son to think about, but that doesn't change the blunt intent of the action he undertook. In the case of Ra's though, it's totally inexcusable in any sense. Batman had already neutralized a clearly passive and submissive Ra's by the time the track was destroyed by him and Gordon. He had the option of grasping Ra's by the neck and holding onto him as they exited out the back of the monorail. He chose not to save him from the destruction he and Gordon had orchestrated. Ergo, murder. It's as simple as that.

 

[OnLeatherWings]

I don't think Dent falling to his death was Batman's intent. Batman had literally just been shot and wasn't really able to stand.

He was not his most coordinated self at that point.

 

[Captain Tired]

Fine I'm maybe willing to concede him making a mistake in the case of Dent. But the murder of Ra's is totally indisputable imo.

 

[HarveyHarris]

This is why I've said I feel this film is, in many ways, a dark version of the '60s show.

You could definitely see this Batman park the batmobile outside the Police station and run up the stairs.

 

[Nemeres]

I feel that with Batman killing in films, the rule is pretty simple. If you don't see it, he doesn't.

In BVS we see the goons dying, so it's officially part of his MO, which extends into characterization and qualms about consistency, or lack thereof -- a killer Batman who still collaborates with JK Simmons's Gordon, etc. Nolan's Batman does cause likely deaths -- cops in BB, Talia's truck driver in TDKR -- but they're in life-or-death situations where the silly alternative is letting innocents die. In BB he refuses to be an "executioner", and he stays consistent with that throughout. They're not always consistent to a T, but the effort to establish rules counts for sure.

 

[BatLobster]

I think the reason Snyder's handling of it rubbed people the wrong way, was it came across a bit like..."Pffft, yeah, Batman kills. All the other movie Batmen killed. So now I'm gonna rub your nose in it to prove a point."

And if you've ever heard him talk about it, it does come off that way.

If anyone loved it or didn't mind it, fair play. Just saying, for me, it felt like Snyder was attacking the mere idea of a no kill rule and calling it dumb, in a way I had never previously felt. When you look at the over the top violence in a lot of his films, I think it's not too much of a stretch to see why he might have that attitude about it.

I honestly think Burton thought of his movies as live action cartoons and didn't think much about the ramifications of the kills. As some of us have said, I think Nolan's films incorporated the idea of him not wanting to take life and made it an important character element that is challenged, especially in TDK. But it's simply more earnest in how it handles it and it recognizes that even his mere desire not to become an executioner makes him a more sympathetic hero. The scene with Bruce tossing the gun in BB was very powerful. Snyder's version just felt very cynical take on all of that, IMO. That doesn't make it bad though and I'm not saying that interpretation has no place. It just wasn't for me.

 

[DeadlyWest]

I think the reason Snyder's handling of it rubbed people the wrong way, was it came across a bit like..."Pffft, yeah, Batman kills. All the other movie Batmen killed. So now I'm gonna rub your nose in it to prove a point."

And if you've ever heard him talk about it, it does come off that way.

If anyone loved it or didn't mind it, fair play. Just saying, for me, it felt like Snyder was attacking the mere idea of a no kill rule and calling it dumb, in a way I had never previously felt. When you look at the over the top violence in a lot of his films, I think it's not too much of a stretch to see why he might have that attitude about it.

I honestly think Burton thought of his movies as live action cartoons and didn't think much about the ramifications of the kills. As some of us have said, I think Nolan's films incorporated the idea of him not wanting to take life and made it an important character element that is challenged, especially in TDK. But it's simply more earnest in how it handles it and it recognizes that even his mere desire not to become an executioner makes him a more sympathetic hero. The scene with Bruce tossing the gun in BB was very powerful. Snyder's version just felt very cynical take on all of that, IMO. That doesn't make it bad though and I'm not saying that interpretation has no place. It just wasn't for me.

Adding onto this, my issue with Batfleck wasn't necessarily that he killed. Given the main themes surrounding that version of the character of redeeming him after he's broke his rule and become a husk, I thought him killing works perfectly for that idea so long as he went back to the rule once he rebecame The Batman, as it were

My issue with Batfleck is quite simple. In the 7 combined hours of BvS and ZSJL, guess how many times the no kill rule is actually mentioned?

Zero.

 

[Blade Hoarder]

And the simple fact that the story of the movie was Batman was getting very close to killing by branding people and letting inmates do it for him.

Him then blatantly killing completely negates that. Even if you think Batman should be the punisher for some reason, the movie is just sloppily put together.

 

[jamesb]

Isn’t this debate about Batman killing people a little bit daft. Or is it me! It’s all fantasy! Realistically all the Batmans will be responsible for a number of deaths with the amount of destruction they have all done in the movies. I would stop taking them so seriously .

 

[TheIronist]

When you place a character like this in something closely resembling the real world which most of these movies do then I honestly don't see how a character like this can realistically survive without sometimes having to kill in self-defense. In a realistic setting batman occasionally killing would at times be unavoidable, think that is fair to say. Judging BvS batman in that regard is kinda unfair because its not a solo flick and batman in this movie isn’t his true self - he is at his worst point and he was on its way to becoming the true hero we all love.

 

[DeadlyWest]

When you place a character like this in something closely resembling the real world which most of these movies do then I honestly don't see how a character like this can realistically survive without sometimes having to kill in self-defense. In a realistic setting Batman occasionally killing would at times be unavoidable, think that is fair to say. Judging BvS batman in that regard is kinda unfair because its not a solo flick and batman in this movie isn’t his true self - he is at his worst point and he was on its way to becoming the true hero we all love.

It's a movie based on a comic book which involves a dude putting on a rubber jumpsuit with bat ears on it and basically beating up an entire city

all night

every night

When you place a character like that in the real world, he's dead within the first month if that or his identity is revealed in a similar timeframe and he's arrested.

The point about him being at his worst point is fair enough, but the whole "well if you place this character irl, it makes sense" point has always kinda been moot imo. If the character was real, as I said, he'd be killed within the first month lmao

 

[Kindred]

So I normally don't usually post much here, but I lurk alot... but I have to throw my 2cents on this.
Let me just preface this by saying that I am NOT a Batman connoisseur.

This is a masterpiece. Pure and simple. I love this film to death from a cinematic standpoint, and from a very very personal one.

As someone who has had their mother taken from them, in what was arguably the most trying of times in their life, someone that went through love fire and betrayal all in the space of a couple of years, someone that had their soul scarred with anger and resentment... This movie got me, and it got to me hard.

It makes one question what the hell is one doing with their anger and their bile. And above all what it does directly or indirectly to the ones that surround you.

This Bruce... I get him. I get him, because I've been there in that hatred fueled hole that he's in most of this movie. Pattinson made sure that I felt that.

Opinions are subjective, some will love this, some will hate it, some will just be oblivious to it.
But to me this is perfection.
10/10