Much of “The Batman” is brilliant. It’s not necessarily my personal cup of Joe, but Matt Reeves has delivered an inventive and occasionally extraordinary film that incorporates elements of some great “contemporary” Batman comic book story lines and motifs. (Batman Year One, The Long Halloween, Cooke and Brubraker’s Catwoman, et al.)
It’s nice to see the world’s greatest detective actually detecting again.
The cast is superb. Robert Pattinson as Batman was excellent. I didn’t much care for his emo version of Bruce Wayne, but we hardly see him in the Bruce persona anyway. (He also wins for best bat-jawline). Zoe Kravitz and Paul Dano are also excellent, and Colin Farrell as the Robert DeNiro/Al Capone (Untouchables) version of the Penguin was good fun. He definitely has enthusiasms.
Jeffrey Wright as “Lt. Gordon” also great.
As for the story — I didn’t think it would be possible to incorporate Catwoman, Riddler and Penguin into one film without creating a bit of a mess; but the filmmakers made it work, and it worked pretty well.
And of course, developing the Riddler character as a serial killer is amazingly effective. Those real-life maniacs are always writing letters and taunting law enforcement so it was more than a logical character choice. Much of the first act of the film channels David Fincher’s Se7en and Zodiac. (Later on, it throws in elements of LA Confidential and Chinatown for good measure.)
As for the scarred side of the Two-Face coin?:
Upping the ante on Gotham as a modern Sodom and Gomorrah is wearying, even when done well. Why does anyone with more than 50 cents to their name live there? What the hell is the draw? It rains all the damn time, the nights last 16 hours or more, and it apparently has the most ineffective police force in urban history. It’s clearly the most dangerous and corrupt city in the USA, and it makes NYC in the 70s seem like a gleaming paradise. It’s becoming its own cliché.
(I’m beginning to think Ra’s al Ghul was right. Wipe Gotham off the map and start over.)
And riddle me this? Why are the non-“rouges gallery” villains always portrayed as one-dimensional cartoon characters? From Burton to Nolan to Reeves: The mobsters in these films are mostly not believable as mobsters. (Not to mention the cops, especially “senior management.” Also cartoons.)
And the bodies… just keep piling up… and up… and up. Maybe someone should call the state police. Or the FBI. Or… anyone.
As for the length of the film…
“I’m sorry I wrote you such a long letter. I didn’t have time to write you a short one.” – Blaise Pascal.
Seriously… it needed to be 20-30 minutes shorter. Do that and I think you not only have a terrific “superhero film”, but also a much more effective film, period. (No offense, it’s not the Godfather, which clocks in at about the same length.) And I would have watched the “extended” version on HBO a year from now anyway.
One final thought. A few film critics and fans have called this movie a “film noir.”
Nope.
Does it contain some of the tropes? Of course it does. So do a lot of films. (The whole dark and rainy thing again.) But, In actuality, you could argue the Batman’s arc in this film is the complete opposite of a film noir.
If it really was a noir, Batman would have completely fallen for Catwoman, done something really stupid because of his infatuation, and ended up floating face down in Wayne Manor’s swimming pool or dying in a hail of bullets.
Or, conversely, Bats would have done something “heroic” on Catwoman’s behalf that ultimately causes her to end up in a pool of her own blood.
And, spoiler alert (ok, I fibbed) they’re both alive at the end of the film.
The franchise lives on.
