A potentially great film being held hostage by its PG-13 rating and its messy, all over the places screenwriting.

By PG-13 I don't simply mean its visuals/goriness, but most importantly its dialogues, themes, and storytelling it tries to raise. Let me explain.

First, the dialogues.

The film opens with murder and Batman narrating the city's anxious mood. We get a glimpse of noir in this scene, but it soon falls flat due to a very uninteresting, plain, forgettable choice of words Batman used in his narration. Mind you, this is not a jab at Pattinson - Pattinson delivered it _nicely_. But there is no emotion in his line of words - there is no adjectives, there is no strong feelings about how he regards the city full of its criminals.

Here's a line from the opening scene. "Two years of night has turned me to a nocturnal animal. I must choose my targets carefully. It's a big city. I can't be everywhere. But they don't know where I am. When that light hits the sky, it's not just a call. It's a warning to them. Fear... is a tool. They think I am hiding in the shadows. Watching. Waiting to strike. I am the shadows." Okay? Cool. But sounds like something from a cartoon. What does that tell us about you, Batman?

Compare this to a similar scene uttered by Rorschach in _Watchmen_. "The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood. And when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. All those liberals and intellectuals, smooth talkers... Beneath me, this awful city, it screams like an abattoir full of retarded children, and the night reeks of fornication and bad consciences." You can say that Rorschach is extremely edgy (he is), but from that line alone we can tell his hatred towards the city, and even more so: his perspective, his philosophy that guides him to conduct his life and do what he does.

Rorschach's choice of words is sometimes verbose, but he is always expletive and at times graphic, making it clear to the audience what kind of person he is. Batman in this film does not. His words are always very safe, very carefully chosen, which strikes as an odd contrast to Pattinson's tortured portrayal of Batman as someone with a seemingly pent up anger. His choice of words is very PG-13 so that the kids can understand what Batman is trying to convey.

And this is not only in the opening scene. Throughout the film, the dialogues are written very plainly forgettable. It almost feels like the characters are having those conversations just to move the plot forward. Like that one encounter between Batman and Catwoman/Selina when she broke into the house to steal the passport or when Selina asked to finish off the "rat". They flow very oddly unnatural, as if those conversations are written to make them "trailer-able" (and the scenes indeed do appear on the trailer).

Almost in all crucial plot points the writers feel the need to have the characters to describe what has happened, or to explictly say what they are feeling - like almost every Gordon's scene in crime scene, or Selina's scene when she's speaking to Batman. It feels like the writers feel that the actors' expression just can't cut it and the audience has to be spoonfed with dialogues; almost like they're writing for kids.

Second, the storytelling.

Despite being a film about vengeance-fueled Batman (I actually like that cool "I'm vengeance" line) we don't get to see him actually being in full "vengeance" mode. Still in the opening we see Batman punching some thugs around. That looks a little bit painful but then the thugs seem to be fit enough to run away and Batman let them be. Then in the middle of the film we see Batman does something similar to mafias. Same, he just knocked them down but there's nothing really overboard with that. Then eventually in the car chase scene with the Penguin, Batman seem to be on "full rage mode", but over... what? He was just talking to Penguin a moment ago. The car chase scene itself is a bit pointless if not only to show off the Batmobile. And Batman did nothing to the Penguin after, just a normal questioning, not even harsher than Bale's Batman did to Heath's Joker in _The Dark Knight_ - not in "'batshit insane' cop" mode as Penguin put it.

Batman's actions look very much apprehensive and controlled. Nothing too outrageous. Again, at odds with Pattinson's portrayal that seem to be full of anger; he's supposed to be really angry but somehow he still does not let his anger take the best of him. The only one time he went a bit overboard that shocked other characters is when he kept punching a villain near the end of the film. But even then it's not because his anger; it's because he injected some kind of drug (I guess some adrenaline shot). A very safe way to drop a parent-friendly message that "drug is bad, it can change you" in a PG-13 film.

And all that supposed anger... we don't get to see why he is angry and where his anger is directed at. Compare this to Arthur Fleck in _Joker_ where it is clear as sky why Arthur would behave the way the does in the film. I mean we know his parents' death troubled him, but it's barely even discussed, not even in brief moments with Alfred (except in one that supposedly "shocking" moment). So... where's your vengeance, Mr. Vengeance? And what the hell are you vengeancing on?

Speaking of "shocking" moment... this is about the supposed Wayne family's involvement in the city's criminal affairs that has been teased early in the film. Its revelation was very anticlimactic: the supposed motive and the way it ended up the way it is, all very childish. If the film wanted the Wayne to be a "bad person", there's a lot of bads that a billionaire can do: tax evasion, blood diamond, funding illegal arms trade, fending off unions, hell, they can even do it the way the Waynes in _Joker_ did it: hints of sexual abuses. But no, it has to be some bloody murder again, and all for a very trivial reason of "publicity". As if the film has to make it clear to the kids: "hey this guy's bad because he killed someone!" Which COULD work if the film puts makes taking someone's life has a very serious consequence. But it just pales to the serial killing The Riddler has done.

Even more anticlimactic considering how Bruce Wayne attempted to find a resolve in this matter only takes less than a 5 minute scene! It all involves only a bit of dialogues which boils down to how Thomas Wayne has a good reason to do so. Bruce somehow is convinced with that and has a change of heart instantly, making him looks very gullible.

And of course the ending is very weak and disappointing. First, Riddler's final show directly contradicts his initial goal to expose and destroy the corrupt elites. What he did instead is making the lives of the poor more difficult, very oxymoron for someone supposed to be as smart as him.

Second, the way Batman just ended up being "vengeance brings nothing and I should save people more than hurting people" does not get enough development to have him to say that in the end. Again - where's your vengeance? And how did you come to such character development if nothing is being developed on? And let's not get to how it's a very safe take against crime and corruption that closely resembles Disney's moralistic pandering in Marvel Cinematic Universe film.

Last, the visuals.

I'm not strictly speaking about gore, though that also factors in the discussion. The film sets this up as a film about hunting down a serial killer. But the film barely shows how cruel The Riddler can be to his victims. Again, back to the opening scene: we get it, Riddler killed the guy, but it does not look painful at all as it looks Riddler just knocked him twice. The sound design is very lacking that it does not seem what The Riddler done was conducted very painfully. Riddler then threw away his murder weapon, but we barely see blood. Yet when Gordon arrived to the crime scene, he described the victim as being struck multiple times with blood all over. What?

Similarly, when Riddler forced another victim to wear a bomb in his neck. The situation got pretty tense, but when the bomb eventually blow off, we just got some very small explosion like a small barrel just exploded, not a human being! I mean I'm not saying we need a gory explosion with head chopped off like in _The Boys_, but it does not look like what would happen if someone's head got blown off. Similarly when another character got almost blown off by a bomb - there's no burnt scar at all.

Why the hell are they setting up those possibly gory deaths and scars if they're not going to show how severe and painful these are? At least not the result - we don't need to see blood splattered everywhere - just how painful the process is. Sound design and acting of the actors (incl. twitching, for example) would've helped a lot even we don't see the gore, like what James Franco did in _The 127 Hours_ or Hugh Jackman in _Logan_. In this film there's almost no tense at all resulting from those.

I'm not saying this film is terrible.

The acting, given the limited script they had, is excellent. Pattinson did his best, so did Paul Dano (always likes him as a villain), Zoe Kravitz, and the rest. Cinematography is fantastic; the lighting, angle, everything here is very great that makes a couple of very good trailers - perhaps one could even say that the whole film trades off coherency for making the scenes "trailer-able". The music is iconic, although with an almost decent music directing. And I guess this detective Batman is a fresh breath of air.

But all that does not make the movie good as in the end it's still all over the places and very PG-13.

Especially not with the 3 hours runtime where many scenes feel like a _The Walking Dead_ filler episode.

If you're expecting a Batman film with similar gritty, tone to _The Dark Knight_ trilogy or _Joker_, this film is not for you. But if you only want a live-action cartoon like pre-Nolan Batmans or The Long Halloween detective-style film, well, I guess you can be satisfied with this one.

This is in many ways the exact movie that _The Lego Batman Movie_ made fun of.
So, I can totally understand if this film reads like self-parody to some (I'll admit, the gravely film noir detective voice over was a bit much, it's been parodied to death at this point), but I'd argue that it's overall a refreshing take on the character in a well thought out story that includes some excellent performances. Paul Dano, Robert Pattinson and Zoe Kravitz all nail their roles.
It's a typical Matt Reeves blockbuster in every sense. It's grounded, serious, and there's a strong emphasis on drama/tension, and less on action. The production and style of this thing are phenomenal. Excellent cinematography, which should be Oscar nominated (but won't), music, production value, costumes, directing, etcetera. It's grim, it's dark, it's gritty, but it doesn't feel like it's directed by a 16 year old edgelord either. I love how the colour palette of this film is restricted to black, grey, orange and red. It's perfect, taking clear influences from David Fincher films, neo noir detectives and '70s paranoia thrillers (and maybe a hint of Marvel Netflix as well). I hope it reinvents the wheel for many blockbusters to come.
Its biggest problem are the pacing and the characters. I'm fine with defending longer films, but this isn't a smooth 3 hour ride like _The Wolf of Wallstreet_. It holds its cards very close to the chest during the first half, to the point where it's hard to engage with and can get kinda boring. It's a lot of set-up, mood and atmosphere, and not much else. It doesn't really hook you with its characters or the dramatic intrigue of the story. I didn't find this slow moving mystery compelling enough by itself (partially because it doesn't really engage the audience; you can't solve it by yourself), and there's not even that much action to compensate, besides a few quick beats here and there.
It also relies too much on the cultural iconography of Batman and Catwoman that already exists in our current zeitgeist, and while I might know those characters as cultural icons, I don't know **this** Batman, or **this** Catwoman. It eventually gets there though, as The Riddler and Catwoman get a lot more interesting in their own right as the film goes along, but it takes a long time. I love that this Riddler is essentially re-imagined to be a [spoiler] radicalized 4 Chan incel [/spoiler], which feels very relevant for today. Still, we know very little about Batman by the end of it (besides his brooding indie rockstar behavior), which is mostly due to the general lack of Bruce Wayne in the film. Batman cannot be interesting without a good Bruce Wayne accompanying him. That's nothing against Robert Pattinson, he's very good in it, but his Batman is written in a very one note way. As a film, it would've benefitted a lot from a deeper dive into his psyche, because the emotional arc of his character doesn't feel earned by the end of the film.
Still, these issues could easily be fixed in a sequel, it's a good enough foundation for a series of great Batman films.

7/10

The Batman is not a terribly bad movie, but it would be twice as good if it were half as long. How a film that likes to take shortcuts – especially with the Riddler’s ‘riddles’ – can still take almost three hours to get to where it’s going, I haven’t the foggiest (but then this is a rather strange enterprise that gives us Andy Serkis in the flesh and covers Colin Farrell in prosthetic makeup and a fat suit). Director/co-writer Matt Reeves very wisely avoids origin stories and takes for granted relationships, which have already been well established in a decades-long canon, between certain characters; on the other hand, he allows his movie to become bogged down at the halfway point in a deluge of backstory.

The obvious problem is that there is enough material here for at least two films, and Reeves attempts to cram it all into a single one. Why? We all know there are going to be sequels, so why not save some for the next chapter? Or better yet, why not leave some of it on the cutting room floor? There is absolutely no reason for the Penguin to be in this movie; he might as well be the Imperceptible Man (an actual Batman villain, mind you) for all that he’s given to do. Catwoman has been pretty much played out, and as far as the Riddler, I can’t believe I’m going to say this, but Jim Carrey did a much better job with the role than does Paul Dano – an otherwise fine actor that inexplicably chose to play the character as the bastard child of Heath Ledger’s Joker and Tom Hardy’s Bane. That leaves Carmine Falcone (John Turturro), who provides the most intriguing plot points; why not make him the main, or even – dare I say it – only villain?

Now, The Batman is long enough to try the patient of a saint, but at least it’s great to look at. Like the first Tim Burton Batman (as described by the unerring Roger Ebert), it “is a triumph of design over story, style over substance - a great-looking movie with a plot you can’t care much about.” Gotham City in particular is a winning combination of Burton’s faux noir texture and Christopher Nolan’s plausible architecture. The best scenes involve Batman (Robert Pattinson) and Jim Gordon (Jeffrey Wright) – and indeed Pattinson has an uncanny knack for playing off veteran character actors – as a sort of pre-Robin dynamic duo; their adventures are poignant because they appear to happen in the real world, or at least as real as a world can be wherein a grown man disguises himself as a giant bat (compare last year’s Zack Snyder's Justice League, with its unending CGI assault on the senses).

This was the worst Batman I have ever seen.

Firstly, Robert Pattinson was the worst choice for the Batman role. In Twilight he was alright, but in Batman he definitely failed. He was more like a sad, depressed goth kid with no emotions. He tried too much to fit the role, but in fact we got this depressive, dead and empty Batman.

Secondly, there were other small things that sucked about this movie, for example, Cat Woman had a very simple and stupid mask. Even older movie versions had a better mask than here. Batman's batmobile also sucked. Looked like a downgraded version. He also rode just a simple bike and lastly, he couldn't even glide with his default Batman suit. Also, don't know why but James Gordon was played by a black actor, while in every movie and even in every game this character is white. Riddler character also seemed stupid, wearing stupid mask and acting stupid and wasn't intimidating at all, but laughable. So, in general cast and acting was disappointing in this movie.

Lastly, the movie itself... It was dull, boring and depressive. They tried to make it masterpiece with 3 hours long, but in reality movie became just plain boring and I almost fell asleep.

Overall verdict: Disappointing.

Batman returns back to its detective roots, and it is a breath of fresh air. Robert Patterson is stunning as Batman. The twists and turns the new Riddler take is a fun ride.

**Verdict:** _Masterpiece_