I see this less as anti-Batman but anti-rawr-vengeance Batman. If anything this might lead to a Batman more in line with the definitive Animated version. A Batman who fights crime and the upcoming super villainy while using his influence as Bruce Wayne to try and make Gotham a better place.
Exactly. Bob seem to get 95% of the movie's message but the stumble at the end. Yes, Batman failed....because he was doing it wrong. He says it at the end -vengeance is not enough, he needs to also be hope. Which is what he does at the end when he lights a flare and get people out. He's using a signal to help the good guys, not just scare the bad ones. So the movie's thesis is not "Don't be Batman", it's "Be a better Batman".
Agreed - people who say this “isn’t a Batman movie” A) don’t understand the origin of the character and B) Have been conditioned by the modern blockbuster formula that has zero soul or plot and just constantly waterboards you with visual stimulus.
I love bobs channel but he referenced the water thing and called it baptism where as I saw that part as Batman chosing pure heroism over vengeance (he prevented the ppl in the water from being shocked) for me that's my favorite part of the movie! I like superhero movies to be thematically about superheros learning to be a hero. For a superhero movie That hits harder then starlord learning yando is his dad bcuz he looked out for him, and references comic stories where Batman learns he can't be just vengeance or fear, he has to be a hero too, see batman ego
Yeah I think its less about what the movie was trying to do and failed and more about how Bob wanted it to end. I will agree that considering how tightly paced the rest of the movie is that it drags a bit at the end it's pretty clear that it serves as both a deconstruction of Batman but also presents a solid arc of Batman realizing what his actual mission should be. That he cant scare the city safe. He also needs to be a simple of hope for it. That funny thing is I kind of wanted it to end on a dark note. Sort of an Empire Strikes Back/ Se7en ending and then use the next film to help him grow. With this ending providing complete closure its hard to narratively justify a sequel.
I didn’t view the movie as anti-Batman, but anti-the idea of Batman that folks like Frank Miller put into peoples heads. The movie is anti-unhinged-vengeance-driven-quasi-fascist who favors beating people up more than actually saving people. It’s the terrible “my parents are dead” stereotype that sprang up after Dark Knight Returns, and wormed it’s way into the public consciousness thanks to its influence on Burton, Nolan and Snyder. This felt to me like they were aiming to kill that idea and move their Batman more in line with the version done by creators like Adams and Morrison. Someone who’s goal is to help, not hospitalize.
maybe, but it reminds me of "anti war" films that glorify and overly stylize and then at the end say "but violence is bad!" it wants to have its cake and eat it too.
Batman always was & always will be a scared little boy running away from two bullets. He fights so no one else has to feel the same way he did, and that’s more important to him than never having felt that way in the first place. He is quite frankly pain incarnate, but that doesn’t mean his intention is or ever was to inflict it.
Yet the word vengance gets thrown around all the time If it's anti-vegnance, it's schizo about it And what are you talking about, "Nolan"? Nolan clearly is Revees' biggest inspiration rather than the comicbook source material
@@claynorth964 I don't think this version glorifies violence, if anything, with the exception of the car chase, the movie frames all the fighting as brutality, and actually found myself worried he would kill someone each time he got into a fight, half expecting the no killing rule to be explained as being entirely guilt-driven and somewhat hypocritical.
Exactly. People love the Frank Miller version but somehow miss the themes in that one as well. He's a nut job in that story and not aspirational at all, but he beat Superman so he's so cool. I feel like this was the closest story to capturing him as a hero in live action. The animated series was able to do this with some regularity.
I mean, the movie itself is aware to an extent that Bruce is fighting a losing battle, Selina basically says this at the end that the city will kill him but he says he has to try anyway which is a very classic Batman thing to say. This is essentially a movie saying Batman has to lighten up and be more of a hero civilians aren’t afraid of.
The comments made me rewatch the ending of the video- I wish people would pay more attention. Bob: "The natural ending of this ONE OFF movie would be that Batman stops being Batman. But now that it's continuing, where does it leave this 3 hour long movie besides overlong?" The Crowd: "You don't get Batman Bob, Batman's gonna Batman because he's Batman." Is there something about the character that turns his fans into 8 year olds?
Hey Bob! You might remember me as the guy who wrote that long comment on your BvS really that bad about how Batman helped my grandfather cope with his PTSD from the Korean war and I have to say I dont see this the way you do. This movie isnt anti Batman, but against everything those angry Batman fanboys who want him to go even further into killing people and love Snyder's version, have turned Batman into. A rebuttal to the logical endpoint of the Batman the internet edgelords see him as. Batman at his best says that we can turn our trauma into something positive. This is the first Batman film in a long while where I felt that thematically. Even the Nolan trilogy name dropped that aspect of the character but I never felt it. I idolize my grandpa so much because my dad was an abusive asshole most of my life and so I kept looking to the guy who protected me from him till he passed away. I dont have PTSD but I have trauma and I legitimately needed the ending to this film. A friend of mine who does have PTSD and is struggling with it hard needed Batman's speech at the end of this film. Batman can be more than "rich vigilante beats up the poor" and that's what I felt this movie is saying.
The entire point of BvS was exactly that Batman was too dark and went too far in that movie. He was radicalised. In the end he changed, hence he's different in ZS's Justice League. Personally Batman of the animated series is my favorite Batman, not an overly dark one, but it's important to keep that in mind.
@@mabusestestament how is he diferent,? its less ungry and grumpy and thats it, the movie goes way out of that arch on killing aliens that never gets resolve... the "He was radicalised. needs to change" never was the main point of the movie, even snyder said that in an interview, his heros are like that because that is what he thinks they should be in the world he built... snyder is the guy who read watchmen and says thats the way all heros should be, he never saw that comic as a deconstruction, he never gets moores main point of the comic...
Gotta say I think this is pretty off-base Bruce not being a “good Batman” is his entire arc in the movie, he has to learn what it means to be a better Batman, to inspire hope as well as fear. That’s about as pro-Batman a movie as it gets
Bob's point is that batman inherently makes things worse, and being a "lighter" batman isnt going to solve the problem. if Wayne had hung up the cowl and actually tried to create meaningul change with his billions, the film would have followed through to its logical conclusion.
@@claynorth964 This. Like what people don't get is batman come to this conclusion because he was a mask vigilante who enforce his own justice and go around beat up people and inspired fear Is batman going to not do that at the end of next movie? Go around beat up criminal like he always does? What meaningful arc batman going through here. He simply to recognized the problem but offered no real solution to change it.
@@claynorth964 The problem is that the movie makes it abundantly clear that Bruce is probably just as delusional as Edward, which is not helped by the massive red flag dropped when his mother's mental health issues are brough up and the dozens of close-ups showing he's on the verge of a mental breakdown 90% of the time... Which evetually happens right in front of Edward himself... (And I'm 90% sure the director intended for Bruce's rant to be seen as hypocritical while also working in-universe since Edward took it at face value thanks to his own mental issues). So, yeah, the whole situatuon would make a reasonable person change gears ASAP... But this version of Bruce is anything but a reasonable person.
@@claynorth964 I've seen this line of argument come up a lot, and I find it very short-sighted and frustrating. Okay, Bruce isn't Batman, he uses all his wealth for charity and social programs. Great. The Joker is still going to be the Joker, the Scarecrow is still going to be the Scarecrow, Ra's Al'Ghul is still going to be Ra's Al'Ghul.. only this time there's no Batman to stop them. The only thing that changed is that they now have a harder time hiring mooks, because those people already have jobs and/or a safety net, and maybe Falcone will have to move his drug operation to Blüdhaven or something. That's all good.. but you still need the Batman. Also, it's funny how the same people that bring up this argument never seem to talk about how silly and unrealistic it is that Superman's secret identity is putting on glasses and combing his hair differently.
I don't see this as an anti-Batman movie, but rather part of Batman's journey into becoming the hero we all know and love, while at the same time pointing at some of the more, uh.. potentially 'problematic' aspects of the franchise with a critical eye, as traps that are easy to fall into but to be avoided. This is a younger, more rough Batman/Bruce Wayne that still has some work to do with regards to processing the death of his parents and the trauma that comes with it. He has to learn to trust other people, to work with others, to not shut himself in from the world, and the responsibility that comes with his inherited wealth to help Gotham not only as Batman, but also as Bruce Wayne, because beating the crap out of criminals won't solve the larger, systemic issues (income inequality, corruption, unemployment, poverty) that create endless reserves of mooks for people like The Penguin, Falcone, Maroni and even The Riddler himself to employ and exploit, and even push otherwise 'good' people like Selina Kyle into crime as a means for survival in a cruel and uncaring world. And like many pointed out in the comments, it also works as a subtle critique of the angry, vengeful Frank Miller interpretation of the character more towards the somewhat stoic do-gooder and protector of the innocent that is more familiar from adaptations like the Justice League and Batman animated series. The Bat as a symbol of hope.
The “Batman becomes disillusioned by his tactics and does a course correction after screwing up massively” arc is not uncommon in the comics. Some of my favorite Batman stories come from this But in the end, he’ll always be Batman. It’s a shortcoming of the format, but I never really minded. It’s the same with this movie. There was character movement, just not too much. I expected that. Still loved the movie.
I agree wholeheartedly. Bob says the take away should be 'this idea failed, do something else', but the take away it's presenting is 'you failed, do better'
Bob, I feel like you got 95% of the movie's message but then drop the ball. Yes Batman failed, but not because Batman as a concept is inherently bad, but because he was doing Batnam wrong. He says it at the end -vengeance is not enough, he needs to also be hope. Which is what he does at the end when he lights a flare and get people out. He's using a signal to help the good guys, not just scare the bad guys. So the movie's thesis is not "Don't be Batman", it's "Be a better Batman". So yeah, not, The Batman is not anti-Batman. But it's anti Punisher. And the whole arc of the movie is for Bruce to learn how to be Batman and not the Punisher. Now, could the movie movie have benefited of an extra scene at the end to show us this new improved method? Yes. But I think it still works without it.
Excellent comment. I don't think I've heard it put this well yet, but I agree completely. It was a "show don't tell" way of doing that, where I didn't feel like it held my hand to get me to the point you put eloquently. I also feel like it was a movie that can exist on it's own, not necessitating a sequel or left open-ended. It was a self-contained experience, that I found to be enjoyable in just about every way. A good movie, not just a good comic book movie. Most relatable Bruce Wayne yet, and I'm glad a villain finally called Bruce out for being his alter-ego. Batman is the real face of Bruce Wayne, but finding out who he really is as The Batman was a large part of this journey.
Your interpretation is right! But Bob didn't miss that, he just felt that the anti-Batman parts were more interesting and the turn towards hope was hasty and smacked of corporate meddling and sequel bait. So in a sense, you got 95% of _Bob's_ message but then dropped the ball 😉
I feel that Bob is MOSTLY right, like you do... it IS an anti-Batman Batman movie. But the Batman it's anti- against isn't the very core concept of Batman as a character, but the VERSION of said character we've been saddled with ever since Frank Miller turned him into a frothing psycho who beats up muggers because he misses his mommy and called it "Giving Batman His Balls Back" because Frank Miller is an angry 13-year-old boy in an old man's body, but that's another show. And quite frankly, they've already done a better version of "Batman needs to get over himself and knock off the 'Grim Lone Avenger' routine." It was called "The LEGO Batman Movie." And it taught Batman that lesson by basically FORCING the Bat-Family on him and giving him a Batgirl willing to play along with a version of the gimmick that wasn't just, in her own words (thank you, Rosario Dawson) "Grown Men Karate-Chopping Poor People In Halloween Costumes."
@@thetribunaloftheimaginatio5247 Which is why it’s harder to just turn around and do a serious version of basically the same idea. What’s worse is that like he said in the review & here because of sequels it can’t actually fully commit to that idea. Which weakens it in some aspects & still has me baffled after seeing it
@@PlahboiStampede Why can't the sequals just make Batman more superhero-y? This movies is like the Long Halloween and transitions Gotham from 'normal' to 'comic'.
Karl Smallwood once said that the rule of thumb for a good interpretation of Batman is "whould this Batman confort a crying child?" And this movie literally has a scene where Bruce Wayne looks at a crying child and is distressed because he knows he should do something but isn't sure of what. His arc is about becoming that good interpretation of Batman
It's funny cuz about a month or two before this movie dropped, the Harley Quinn: Eat. Bang! Kill. Tour miniseries wrapped up and while it's nowhere near the same thing as this, I would say it at least follows through on it's message with a great deal more conviction. Cuz the ending message of that was Ivy realizing that she has to sort through her trauma, old and new, to be a better girlfriend to Harley and to not push her away. With that, on top of it just being the most adorably sapphic content DC has ever produced, I would say it's a hell of a lot more satisfying than the Batman.
I mean I'm a fan of Batdad. And willing to wait for Bruce to go "I'm taking in this one orphan boy, and this one too, and this one as well even though his family still around, and this girl, and I think she needs a sister, and oh, I have a biological son ..."
Nashton was the riddlers name before the animated series changed it to nigma. I get that nigma is more fun, but it always felt weird that many of Batman’s villains had names implying their villain identities. It’s not like the green goblin was Norman gobeline or red skull was johan skullen.
Sure, but then you also have Otto Octavious, Sergei Kravinoff, Michael Morbius, Felicia Hardy, Dr. Strange, Jubilation Lee, Jean Grey, Dr. Doom, Kitty Pryde,... and pantheon characters like Thor and Loki with no codename at all... it happens a lot.
@@robbybevard8034 Wait what? Jean Grey famously doesn't have a codename. She had Marvel Girl and Phoenix at various points but I don't see how those are related to "Jean Grey".
@@robbybevard8034 I don't understand what half of these names have anything to do with this? What does Dr. Strange's name to do with his powers, or Kitty's, or Jean Grey, etc. If Jean turned grey, or Kitty coincidentally turned into a cat, only then those examples would make any sense
I feel like the best way to follow through on this is to, for the sake of a metaphor, transition this Batman from the Black and Grey Batman of your Frank Millers to the Grey and Blue of your Neil Adams' And the best way to do that would be...Robin. I don't think that superheroes are bad, I'm a lifelong superhero fan and even philosophically I think that superheroes can do real good in the world but the methods that this Batman were using showed that he needed something not to nail his feet to the floor but to point his eyes upward at something more idealistic. The end of the movie is talking about how batman can't just be a symbol of fear, he has to be a symbol of hope instead. Lightening his look, becoming more of a public fixture that the people of Gotham can really count on and, yes, taking in a ward and partner who can remind him what he's actually fighting for and keeping him honest is the best way to do that without making some kind of point that the idea of going out to help people that no one else can or will is somehow a bad thing. Of course a point also needs to be made about Bruce Wayne as a figure of generational wealth. The idea of him as some unquestioned gazillionaire needs to be poked and prodded and dissected through a modern lens the way a lot of the recent comics have been doing. The make Batman a better hero, Bruce Wayne needs to stop being the black suit, slicked haired, glinting smile moneypot that Batman as a character has been presenting as a positive for so long.
Man, if the post credits was him just premiering or designing a lighter suit, or stopping a criminal without beating him untill he’s crippled for life (like he seemed to do to those street gang teenagers) it would’ve really made the movie better for me overall. Just tht little bit of hope that the next film wont see him go right back to grim and gritty mode
I think about the shortening of the ears points in one of the comics to not be as scary to kids because he is supposed to make criminals afraid not the innocent etc.
I really really disagree with the thesis here. I don’t think this movie is “anti-Batman” at all. It opposes the idea that “Batman=vengeance”. The movie displays a lot of LOVE for the idea of Batman with the notion that Batman can and deserves to be more than that.
Like the other guy said, it feels like you got like 95% of the way there then tricked yourself into expecting it to go one way and then got irritated it went the other way. This was always a story meant to show the way to be Batman wasn’t to let Bruce lose himself into vengeance. That’s why he ends on such a hopeful note and it sets up him to become Bruce Wayne the philanthropist who will fix the Wayne trust corruption issue and pay to fix Gotham after riddler’s attacks. And sets up Batman to be a hero for the people and not an agent of pure anger. That’s why the first and last people he saves react so differently.
I saw it yesterday. Thought it was a really good detective movie with some pretty decent action scenes in it and interesting characters, which spent exactly as much time on it's backstory as needed. In other words, I honestly think it's a great movie about the Batman *I'VE* wanted to see for quite a while. It's not the best movie with Batman as a character -- that would be The Dark Knight -- but as a movie about the character of Batman this was wonderful. I also think the point, in particular with the scene at the end and with Selina's line about him fighting a losing battle AND with him wanting to help Selina in her quest, was that he needed to realize that Batman needed to be more than just beating up the villains, but has to inspire and help out the average Gothamite. My only complaint is that although most of the film doesn't feel it's length, it does have about 3 or 4 endings, and after the one with (sequel baiting) I was done; it should have ended just there.
I thought the ending was great, I think the point was Batman couldn't just inspire fear and be this menacing force because people like the riddler will take it the wrong way. Batman has to show more compassion, not just be fear for criminals but he a beacon of hope. He doesn't learn that being Batman is bad he learns to be a better Batman.
I ultimately found the "Batman starts helping good people instead of just hurting bad guys" material at the end to be just genuine and effecting enough to really stick the landing for me- I think if the sequels commit, this can be a series about Batman being better, and that will make this ending truly hopeful. Or, if they back pedal and go full grimdark again to appease fanboys, then it'll be truly hollow.
Or as has been quoted in the past. "Would your Batman comfort a frightened child?" If not, then he's just The Punisher in a silly hat. Batman at his core is a guy that lost his parents to violence and as such thought about revenge, this one even makes it his focus, but what makes Batman is the desire to actually help. To make sure that no other child will have to live through what he lived through and when he met those that did, he decided to be a father and mentor to them. He wanted them to have an easier time than he did and to know that while the world can be cruel, people don't have to be. And that is how he lost one family but managed to build a second one for himself.
To be clear - the level of subtlety this movie is operating on is the _exact_ level of subtlety a PG-13 comic book superhero movie should be aiming at, in my opinion. As for the main thrust of the argument, I disagree with the premise - the Batman we see for 90% of the movie is not the _real_ Batman in the first place, yet. It's a rich kid with a chip on his shoulder, playing at being the Batman. The movie examines the difference between a vigilante and a hero, and Bruce Wayne's character arc is him starting as a vigilante and learning that what the city actually needs is a hero. So in a way he _does_ drop everything he's been doing and goes to do something completely new. The movie isn't at all against the idea of a superhero. It just insists that the murderous, angry Batman we might be familiar from other some versions is _not a hero,_ that being a hero doesn't mean punching bad guys until they're afraid of you, it means _inspiring hope._ (...And _also_ punching bad guys until they're afraid of you - it's Batman after all.) This is a Batman who might see eye to eye with Superman, instead of a Batman whose first instinct is to murder Superman.
I don’t even know how you feel this way, this movie had the most respect for the character and its history that I’ve ever seen from a live-action movie.
Personally, I saw this movie as a transition from "I am Vengeance" Batman to a less dark/brutal Batman. I think he narrates as much when loading the kid in the helicopter.
Maybe in the inevitable sequel we’ll get a more pre frank miller, swashbuckling Batman? Put him a blue and grey costume (Neil Addams Batman has always been my favorite Batman visually anyway)
@@locomadman If we do get the flashpoint time-jumping, parallel-universe visiting type movie that it seems like ... I hope there's at least a quick stop off in an Adam West style batman universe. Not Adam West specifically, because his Batman needs to be hanging out with Christoper Reeve and Lynda Carter for a quick "Perfect Future" moneyshot. But like 1943 serial version. Or a "The Brave and the Bold" inspired version. Dark and gritty batman is fine, but they really need to lean into the campy and fun version a bit.
It's hard for me to say whether I thought The Batman was good or bad because either answer would imply it got a meaningful reaction out of me. It pissed off Ben Shapiro though. So it's got that going for it.
I don't agree with the "anti-Batman"; maybe a specific image of Batman, the type that "has billions but uses it to punch poor people" iteration that's popular among people that haven't followed the character for decades. A version of Bruce that's so focused on his quest, that he eschews the financial responsibilities and opportunities for philanthropy and social good, that the Bats many of us are used to wouldn't hesitate to see complete. It's a Batman that, albeit wrongly, thinks if he focuses his time on punching criminals and making them too scared to do crime, he can save Gotham. But that has the unintended consequence of accidentally coinciding with deluded beanbag soldiers who are easily swayed by incendiary rhetoric and persuasive fantasies of "little guy vs. the big corrupt world". He's a detective, he has the pieces, but sees a dark reflection in people who think it's "so easy to put the pieces together" when said pieces are amorphous enough to become whatever picture they want to see. It's almost like a tweak-slash-expansion of that opening sequence from "The Dark Knight" where a bunch of armed knockoffs confront Scarecrow. Though, with fewer hockey pads.
I personally think this is spot one…. If you look at Nolan Batman by comparison. Batman’s fear tactics actually worked, which indirectly gave the people HOPE that a better Gotham was on the horizon….. “Turn Fear on those who prey on the fearful.” Batman was a symbol…Bruce Wayne recognized that he couldn’t shake people out of apathy as Bruce Wayne. His father tried and it didn’t work. So he became a symbol for the people showing they that will no longer stand for injustice, providing them inspiration to take the city back themselves…..which they did. To me personally, nothing screams Batman more. In this iteration….his fear tactics AREN’T working. He assumes he has to be a literal sign of hope…..he has to set the example for his fellow citizens, because I guess if he doesn’t LITERALLY SET the example, the people won’t have the courage or the motivation to fight back. This method is more in line with Superman.
The people at Gamefully Unemployed seem to agree with you, Bob. They expressed the same view of “Wow, the logical ending for Bruce in this is to stop being Batman, which the writers can’t do because they need him to continue being Batman.”
The ending monologue of this movie explains that he needs to be symbol of hope and that fear isn’t the thing that will make a change, it has literally nothing to do with stopping being Batman. People are genuinely stupid.
But the batman is literally the symbol of fear. (Not just for 95% of this 3 hour movie but in most depictions of the character since frank miller. ) It would be logical and more efficient for bruce to retire the “batman” persona (i.e. dressing up like a vampire demon, which he literally only does to strike fear into criminals) and create whole new persona that isnt based on fear of violence.(call this character dayman or whatever) But to do that would mean DC and Warner couldn’t make more batman movies in this universe (theyd have to be dayman movies, which wouldn’t bring in the bucks) thats all Bob is saying. That they cant have matt reeves fundamentally change batman much because it will hurt the franchise (I bet next movie batman will still be an all black wearing ,grim, nighttime operating, boogieman to criminals, because thats what sells right now)
It isn't the logical ending at all. The point of his arc in this movie is that he has to change how he's going about being Batman i. e. focusing on the human element and caring for the people he saves. There's a huge difference between the Batman that simply stares at the person he saves from a gang and the one that's trying to comfort a flood victim. The whole point being that what he needed to be was a symbol of fear to criminals, but a symbol of hope and inspiration to non-criminals.
@@TheRude39 a 5 minute epilogue does not a character arc make my friend.For almost 3 hours Batman is a step behind and failing to stop any of the riddlers crimes or seemingly help Gotham,you can't in the final 5% of the film then turn around and say:and so he changed his ways in an instant and decided he needed to be a symbol of hope.For that reading to work there needs to be more leg work done previously,you can't have your cake and eat it too,he can't be a psycho for 2hrs and 50 min and then become Superman(in symbolism at least)
The fact that you think it was only a five minute epilogue and not something developing throughout the entire movie and paid off in the final act speaks volumes to your inability to critically analyze media.
I'm so sick of every movie now just doing the easy "This is a metaphor for the angry internet fanboys of said property" story line. And that's coming from someone who ACTIVELY CANNOT STAND angry internet fanboys.
To play devil's advocate, "Angry Internet Fanboys" nearly destroyed America-- where a lot of these films are being made --and are still an active problem in American politics that needs to remain in the public mainstream consciousness. That being said, I'm ultimately inclined to agree with you, because it's at this point it's painfully self-evident that storywriters for movies/videogames/comics/television shows/books/etc. of the last 10+ years have less than zero intention of ever actually digging into the sociologically underpinnings and inner workings of this problem-- except for Star Wars, but that franchise only did it turn around and victim blame Women/PoC/LGBTQ+ who dare to suggest that the tablescraps artists and creators give them aren't good enough.
@@Veolynn13 you make really good points and I 100% agree that angry internet nerds in general changed our country for the worse politically and socially. I guess I was vague in my original comment. I meant it in a more broad, very base level of “Fan of ‘specific’ property actually sucks” kind of way. It’s not that I don’t agree with that, most hardcore fans of properties are insufferable and hold these things hostage. So I get the knee jerk reaction of studios to have similar subtexts in their movies. I guess in a more general sense, I feel like everything has to be SPECIFICALLY meta: “X character is a Batman fanboy”, “Y character is an analogue of this sect of fandom”, and sometimes it doesn’t even fit with the story they’re wanting or trying to tell. I think any movie regardless of whether or not it’s a blockbuster should absolutely have something to say. It makes for a more compelling story. Horror is amazing because of that. Some of the worst horror movies are ones that have no social commentary. Sometimes it just feels a little too easy and is kind of distracting to me. But again, I 100% agree with your comment. Just trying to be more specific about my original post.
They spent a whole movie getting Batman to the point that Nolan made it to about halfway through Batman Begins. It's hard for me to see where they take the next movies that Nolan didn't already go, at least thematically. Plot-wise this was obviously different and was a nice change...for about an hour and a half. The detective/serial killer mystery stuff worked for a while but got stale. Not sure how they keep that up without the Riddler as a main character. So again, I wonder how they really make it different than Nolan, especially if the Joker becomes prominent.
I think the Riddler character was actually one of the best since Killmonger since you can easily understand his point of view. He grew up poor in a failed system that basically left him for dead. He then found out that the one hope he was given turned out to be a lie of even deeper corruption. Something like that would absolutely radicalize someone. The main fault I find with the film is that they don't explore that. That even if we don't agree with someone's actions, we can understand that they had valid reasons for doing it. For example: if a child is bullied all through their school life and is never given any help, then they take a gun to school and shoot up the place. While that is a horrific crime, the person didn't just do it for no reason. I also think it's nice to see a Batman who fails, he's only been doing this for about 2 years, he's still a novice and as a result will make mistakes. Even in the comics Batman continues to make mistakes to this day.
@@Linny95 Not really, it basically just pointed a finger at him and said "you're sick" and yes he definitely is, but that sickness came from how he was treated in life. Life kicks a lot of people around and we're all happy to sit back and watch until it comes back to bite us when that person snaps. Now that doesn't justify their actions but it does explain them and the film could've focused more on them.
@@Linny95 "He's some orphan guy" was the basic sum up of Riddlers past in this thing. LeGresley is right. I want to know more about him but we didn't get into it much. Even TDK Joker had deeper backstory. We know for example Joker really didn't like whoever his dad was which plays great compared to TDK batman who's dad was a saint.
Just FYI, bullied kids _don't_ become school shooters; they commit suicide. "School Shooters are kids that had been bullied" is a MYTH invented by right-wing news media to distract from the reality that the Columbine shooters were white supremacists.
I feel like this movie needed one extra 20-30 second scene near the end where the new, young mayor along side Bruce Wayne announce a new foundation or a revised version of the previous foundation to help the poor and underprivileged in Gotham. It would have address most of the issues Bob brings up about the movie's themes, and provided them a way to give Batman/Bruce Wayne a "I can inspire hope instead of vengeance and can help the city in ways other than beating the snot out of people" moment without him actually having to quit being Batman.
2 hours ago Man, if the post credits was him just premiering or designing a lighter colored suit, or stopping a criminal without beating him untill he’s crippled for life (like he seemed to do to those street gang teenagers) it would’ve really made the movie better for me overall. Just that little bit of hope that the next film wont see him go right back to grim and gritty mode
@@Getwright- It certainly would have been better than the post-credit "scene" we did get. I at least hope that in the inevitable sequel we get to see him doing more stuff as Bruce Wayne as a nod to some character development.
@@Getwright- Notice though in the original trailer we saw years ago now, after he knocks that guy down, he hits him another 5, 6 times. In the final movie, it was just twice.
That sounds cheesy as hell and only perpetuates the tired trope that poverty-stricken criminals are entirely a product of a corrupt, broken system, propped up by an evil elite. A trope that is a hundred times less original than the "dark, brooding, vengeance" incarnation of Batman that you people complain about being so sick of.
That was the point of the Dark Knight. Bruce Wayne kept saying he’s quitting because Harvey was doing this by the book (or so he says,) he only inspired regular citizens in hockey-pads to try vigilantism, his presence caused the mob to call Ledger’s Joker, and none of it ended well.
I think I agree with most of the people on this comment section, when I say that the movie is saying that Batman should start acting like a hero instead of a vigilante, more so than that the Batman itself needs to die.... Would it have been cool for this movie to just finish on a Batman sucks and rich guys shouldn't be around at night punching people? Sure, but I don't think the payoff here is as hollow as you make it out to be. I mean it is basically the same thing they did on Arrow (and in Lego Batman, kinda).
Hey Bob, I have been watching for 10 (!) years now and really appreciate your perspective. But with this one I feel like you are giving the movie a hard time because of what you think it is and should be rather than what actually happens. For example, a big piece of your analysis is that the Riddler is the only character in the movie who 100% stans Batman. But this isn't the case. In Riddler's mind, Batman is pure, violent vengeance. Riddler believes Batman agrees with everything the Riddler has done and is meeting him in Arkham to celebrate the vengeance levied on the city leaders of Gotham. But Batman has clearly viewed Riddler as a villain throughout the film and never once struggled with whether it was wrong or right for any of the corrupt leaders to be tortured and killed. Batman wants the leaders brought to justice, not murdered. When confronted with who Batman actually is rather than who Riddler thinks Batman is, Riddler has a psychotic meltdown. If the movie was really interested in portraying Batman as complicit with the Riddler and ultimately bad for Gotham, as it seems your take of the movie is, it wouldn't have spent an entire act showing Batman successfully convincing Selena not to meter out deserved, bloody justice on her dead beat dad who is responsible for literally all the bad things in the movie aside from the Riddler: Gotham's corruption, the Russian girl's murder, and Bruce's parents. If anything, this movie humanizes Batman more than other films. It shows Batman slowly winning the trust of police over the film through his arc with the one cop who initially blocks Batman from entering the first crime scene, to helping carry Falcone away, to actually working with Batman at the Riddler's apartment and providing the final clue to uncover his plan. To take this a step further, it shows Batman working with police and fire fighters to rescue Gotham citizens at the end of the movie while Batman talks about being a symbol of hope. This is showing Batman as more of a civil servant and deputy who has won the trust of Gotham's institutions and people rather than being a toxic vigilante obsessed with bloody vengeance, as Riddler imagined.
I can see the appeal of a "I need to stop being Batman" conclusion. Then the next movie would've had Bruce trying to be a good billionaire until events force him to see there are things a Batman is good for IF he can be a better Batman.
Maybe the version of Batman this Batman-movie is anti-Batman about isn't the very core-concept, but the version of it we've been convinced is the "grown-up and mature" version by legions of fanboys (like what The Riddler turns out to be) and Frank Miller, who in 1986 turned Batman from a swashbuckler in funny tights to a blood-caked psycho who beats up muggers because he misses his mommy... and called it "Giving Batman His Balls Back." And quite frankly, we've HAD better refutations of the "Grim And Gritty" Batman, from BTAS splitting the difference between "Classic" and "Modern" to "Batman: The Brave And The Bold" being inspired by the Silver Age comics ("THAT'S NOT MY BATMAN!") to "The LEGO Batman Movie" essentially beating its title character over the head with "Dude, get over yourself! This Grim Lone Avenger routine isn't working! Accept some help already!" to "Harley Quinn" making him not just a background-character, but pretty much "The Only Adult In The Room." Maybe "The Batman" would be better if it had ended not on Gotham becoming No Man's Land, but on Bruce Wayne switching the black for gray and blue and actually cracking wise as Batman, with The Riddler promising vengeance because "That's not the moody bastard that inspired me to become a terrorist!" Talk about a missed opportunity.
Insightful as always. I think I mostly agree with you except that I don’t think the film is dishonest or disingenuous in its ending. Batman does realize he’s moving in a bad direction and decides to make a dramatic change, just as you said. He’s just going to keep doing it within the Batman paradigm. I think the disconnect is you’re insisting he HAS to have one ending (stop being Batman). While the film does show that Batman is doing more harm than good, it also argues it doesn’t have to be that way. Batman is in a position to be a force for positive, and just because Batman started his career on immature principles, it doesn’t mean he must resign his legacy to that. He won’t give up Batman, just redirect it his efforts( both in and out of the movies by calling out the toxic fansboys and vigilantes). My point is, Batman didn’t have to stop being Batman to support the movie’s conclusion. I’m also glad to see this humbler take on Batman as he was getting stuck up his own ass and devolving to parody before this.
That's the strength but also the weakness of this movie - it starts making moves towards 'hey so what's up that Gotham and also Batman and also the villains can even be like this', which is interesting right up until it gets uncomfortable towards the end and steps back. Reaching the conclusion of 'I should quit being Batman and I actually will' would be surprising and thrilling, and 'I should quit being Batman but what if my vague good intentions outweigh my disastrous results and I don't reflect on how this is literally a villain motivation' would be going somewhere interesting. Instead, we get 'I should quit being Batman, buuuuut what if it's Just A Thing and we move on'. Why take us that far and then turn around to go home?
Wait so the Riddler did his regular thing of leaving cryptic clues of his intentions, only this time it was because he wanted to communicate with Batman, the world's greatest detective and his idol in a way that wouldn't alert the authorities? My Batman exposure is very limited, but that sounds like a brilliant twist.
It was, especially the way it was set up and executed. I like Bob, but I completely disagree with him on The Batman. He is too focused on his idea of what the movie should've been in his opinion, while I really enjoyed what the movie actually is
I kinda got from the plot that Batman has to go about things better. He was all about hiding in the shadows and making bad guys fear the shadows and bringing about vengeance. However he learnt that he should give good guys hope as well as helping change their lives for the better.
Indeed, I got the same message, but that means he is kinda stupid and didn't learn the lesson he was supposed, too. What he needs to do is not for Batman to do things better, and pull the people out of the water, or fight against thugs with more aplomb, he needs to spend the Wayne money on fixing the destruction from the flood and helping those in need. At least that's what I felt the rest of the movie was saying.
Have you ever read "New Frontier"? Of course you have, it's a classic. This movie fits into his "I don't wanna scare kids" plotline. In the comic he switches costumes and gets a Robin after realizing he may be going too far. In this, the movie ends before we get to that point but it's coming. The movie is telling you being an edgy punisher guy who punches people isn't enough, he can't just be Vengeance, even Catwoman at one point just assumes he kills people and would help her.
Bob I love your work, but this seems a lot more like "you didn't like this movie" than "this movie doesn't know what Batman is all about". This is not an action movie, it's a noir detective movie. I really liked all the characters, the actors are all great and thank the merciful God there wasn't the "pearls and popcorn" scene of the Waynes being killed. It definitely could be shorter, but everything that is there makes sense to be there.
I thought it was a solid film. I liked that Batman got to be the undisputed main character in his own movie for once, and I like that it was a _detective_ story. It also made a lot of sense to me that his suit was totally bullet proof: it feels like the right move for someone who's fighting armed goons without using firearms of his own! It was too long tho, and I found myself in the theater mentally editing out scenes that could've been cut for time. The whole shirtless spray paint collage scene was superfluous, the car chase could've been shorter, and a lot of various dialog scenes could've been trimmed. But it's LEAGUES ahead of the Snyderverse imo; Pattinson looks really cool in the bat suit; the cinematography was gorgeous ... overall a worthy addition to the gamut of live action Batmans.
If Bruce was the main character we wouldn't have a detour thru Selina Kyle's story. Truth be told, I would have enjoyed solo Catwoman to the stale leftovers Matt Reeves served up.
@Tom Ford But does a character have to be good to be interesting? Personally I liked the take of a more flawed Batman. His flaws made him seem more real - a tortured soul with a burning desire to right the wrongs of his world. And that describes his villain too, of course: a tortured soul trying to "fix" the world. And I thought that was an interesting parallel to draw.
I understand the whole "unarmed human point" but for me that's one of those "at some point,you just go with or not" issues. Does it make sense for him to have an insignia at that point? Does Pattinson being able to survive a direct bomb to the chest make sense at that point? Does him not taking ant damage until that one goon in the third act hits him at a fraction of the fire power of everybody else in the movie? I don't generally give a crap about that usually but it's a slippery slope and for me The Batman didn't quite nail it. Man,this was longer than I thought.
This is one of the first videos where I had to stop, restart, rewind, and relisten to parts because the rant for the first 2 minutes was harder to follow than any of the MCU Bigger Picture videos Bob's done. ((INCLUDING the one talking about "The Celestial Madonna".))
I'll throw in my two cents, which are the same two cents as a lot of people in this comment section. The conclusion of THE BATMAN is Bruce getting a wakeup call that he needs to me MORE than just "vengeance", that maybe fear is a tool, but so is hope. It's him realizing he needs to take a journey, and taking his first steps on it. And that journey is going from being the shadow of vengeance who strikes fear into people's hearts...to being the one who'll sit with a terminally ill orphan until she passes (thank you Justice League Unlimited).
It's a big dispute of the whole gritty lonely vengeance angle. How unhelpful it is, and how uncondusive it is to healing or actually helping, that spending your whole time as batman isn't the only way to help and that bruce wayne can do more for gotham than he estimates. It views batmans vengeance as a rich white guy lashing out at people not systems. Riddler sees batman's vengeance, sees his actions and goes "yeah, I can do that. I can go out hurting those who "deserve" it". By the end he loses because he needed to learn that there's more going on under the seams than just crimes and that in order to help batman needs to inspire hope as well as fear, and that bruce can do more with his privilege to help others.
Most of the things you said, when you explained the plot, comic book inspirations and Riddler motivations, I was like "yeah... why wouldn't you think that's awesome?"; regardless, I don't know what chamber you've been in, but the whole Internet is head over heals for this movie. Everyone's really excited. Sorry it didn't work for you :(
it adorable you think a lot of peopling liking something means its more "legit". Transformers must be amazing , trump was really the best presidential option in 2016, etc. and this only has an 85% on rotten tomatoes. that means 15% thought the film WASNT EVEN WORTH WATCHING.
What sucks about the movie to me is that the actual comic Batman Year 2 would have been a way better story to adapt into a movie, and way simpler. It's about another vigilante in Gotham's history, but a killer in a skull mask named The Reaper, coming back and Batman having to fight him, it's awesome. It weaves in some of his own past and the waynes but not too heavily, it's about the clash of these two men, hero and antihero.
It felt like an odd choice to have Bruce give his "I messed up, now I have to be better" as the pent-ultimate ending, with "now catwoman is leaving" as the actual ending...? I would have liked to see him as Bruce offering to do more or oversee the renewal project or any number of things, too, but swap the last two endings and it is probably a little bit of a better movie with what at least tries to have a better conclusion
Nashton was Riddler's original last name, so it makes sense that before he's decided to be a villain he's not using a moniker. Riddler seeing himself as the hero aligned with Batman means that there's an argument that he wouldn't feel the need to call himself Edward Nygma yet.
New Big Picture - THE ANTI-BATMAN BATMAN MOVIE - In which Moviebob whinges for 14 minutes about how the movie didn't do what he would have done if he had been in charge and now it's bad because the themes aren't what he want's the themes to be.
Edward Nashton is what the Riddler was called in the comics after the Crisis On Infinite Earths quasi-reboot. They went back to Nigma eventually though.
Honestly while i love the concept of Batman movies focusing on the “world greatest detective” stick I didn’t like the mystery in this film . Like it felt very much like an episode of Sherlock or the ending of saw. It seems really hard to write a mystery where a smart viewer can use the clues given to protagonist to try to figure things out for themselves without using the knowledge of how stories like this tend to work, but that’s how I’d define a good mystery story. Here things were kinda just dropped in the viewers lap and you weren’t really ever given a chance to figure things out yourself Most of the time it’s not even Batman figuring stuff out as much as it’s just riddler literally directly telling the audience about it.
You're looking for this throw a nerd lense and I wouldn't. Not making the Wayne's squeaky clean, allowing The Batman to actually have realistic flaws only a rich man would have, Batman partially causing the problems is a much better story to tell than all these larger than life existential threats. And the ending people actually like, this isn't Anti-Batman, arguably this is the most character development Batman has got in most of his films. (Most people love the car chase, except for that convenient ramp)
Bob I think the point is less anti Batman but more anti Frank Miller Batman with Bruce ending the film realizing he needs to be a symbol of hope als the Scott Snyder run to be truly effective.
Exactly, I'm not sure Mr. Chipman truly got it. On a metatextual level, this film was about getting the Batman mythos away from the hyper-violent version that's been popular the last few years and taking us back to a Neal Adams, Alan Grant, Chuck Dixon (though Dixon is problematic in his own way) style Batman.
I get where you’re coming from if you thought this was a stand-alone film. But Reeves had been saying for nearly as long as he’s been on the project that this is the first in a planned trilogy. So him quitting the Batman persona doesn’t really make a lot of sense at this point. If anything, it adds to the development he has in this film as it’s the first steps to realizing the importance of his role as Bruce Wayne to really enact positive change in Gotham City. But again, coming from the POV of thinking this was meant as a stand-alone, your points are very valid.
I don't know that I agree with your final conclusion. I feel like this Batman movie did follow through with "I can't just be an angry sad boy." In fact that's what the whole death, rebirth, and helping hand to the injured thing is at the end. I think it could be argued whether it worked but... I kind of feel like the working script of the next movie is the assumed turning point. Bruce Wayne being awkward at a charity event and talking to the working people of Gotham, maybe picking up Robin "I set out to scare criminals, not children" that sort of thing. I feel more like this movie was a hard look at the shitty side of Batman... one that could be argued in a Vlog Brothers video in fact.
I really disagree that the movie doesn't stick to its anti-batman conviction. The ending of the movie is literally a voiceover of Robert Pattinson saying "Wow, I gotta rethink this whole vengeance thing, I was **WAY** off"
You make a great point that narratively speaking it would make sense for Bruce Wayne to hang up the cowl at the end of the movie, but I can see why he wouldn't. Billionaire playboys don't change when they realize their plan is untenable - they double down by throwing more money at the plan and pivoting to avoid the problem that has arisen. See Elon Musk with Tesla, Bezos with Amazon, Bill Gates with Microsoft, and several of them with space travel. I agree the ending of this movie directly conflicts with its theme but in terms of "Gritty Realism" what's more real than a rich hypocrite?
Exactly, that's what I felt like what was happening here when even cat woman was saying about Batman being a Hypocrite and that in the end the city is going to kill him in the end because of it.
What did Batman actually ACCOMPLISH in this film? He doesn't save any of Riddler's targets, he doesn't stop Riddlers' ultimate plan, he doesn't CATCH the Riddler- hell, he doesn't even stop Falcone.
He realizes he can't just be the psycho in the armor that beats bad guys half to death. He needs to actually do good and not just force evil into the corner because that only makes things worse.
@@jordanloux3883 is it so wrong to want a film to stand on its own merits or story rather than half-hearted promises to maybe follow up on it a few years down the line if this one sells enough tickets?
Here's hoping this is the Empire that sets the table for the feast that is Jedi. To continue the 'Wars theme, holding the pivot until the next movie may be to prevent the need to derail completely and start over if the movie didn't go over as well as it did, avoiding a tonal conundrum like the newest three movies had (the one lacking enough cohesiveness to justify calling it a trilogy)
14:25 Me: “are you referring to when he goes back to save his gf? or when he goes back to prevent bryan singer-” [WHOOPS! TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES!] Me, holding a CAD with a lawyer behind me: “ffs, we can’t even say his name in the comments section of an unrelated youtube video? wtf… 😒”
Nashton was established as Riddler's true name post-Crisis, with Nigma being an alias he assumed around the time he positioned himself as a foe of Batman. The post-New 52 Riddler reverted to Edward "Nygma."
While I understood the climax/resolution, it really felt like it was both strung out (ie, it took too long to get there, and then had too much denouement), and then felt rushed right there at the end (ie, realization/dive off the platform/come back up re-baptized), and didn't quite fit the rest of the movie. I agree that, at the least, "Hey, maybe I should focus on the good that I can do as Bruce Wayne" kind of realization would have made it a bit better. So, while I think it was TRYING to say "Batman needs to lighten up and be a hero, not an edgy vigilante", I agree that the move was ACTUALLY saying "vigilantism really doesn't work Bruce, and you're not very good at it", but then it flubbed the landing.
I just saw it today, and went back and watched your review, and it's remarkable how similar we thought about it. Like exact same score and I said full sentences you do to my friends.
I mean, the main thing I took away was a better portrayal of Batman using fear. That's, uh, that's it. Selina Kyle was there in name only - though for once you could actually see how she saw something unique in him as jaded as she was by corrupt ignoramuses. She didn't feel at all like the original Catwoman. Additionally, the real star of this movie was Gotham - now understandably beyond saving.
Like others here, I also don't feel this movie is "anti-Batman" so much as it's encouraging those who wish to be a force of good in the world to not be so simplistic in the approach. All too often, we see those fighting for good, be it physically or just metaphorically, become so certain that, because they're fighting for something good, they must be doing the right thing. They also get so set to this idea that as the world evolves and times change, their views and policies don't change with the changing times and they become "out of date". This is true across the political spectrum, not just the left or right, and it's always inherently flawed. For true "good" to be achieved, those in positions of power need to understand the complexities they face, the people they represent, and not assume that the most direct path to a solution is the right one, especially when they justify a "bad" action like violence as the only solution to achieve something "good". Basically, like any "superhero" who represents something good in the world, the Batman character has to evolve with society in order to remain relevant, with the character learning from our real-world experiences. This version of the character therefore feels so much more relevant and I couldn't disagree with your conclusion more - the movie isn't anti-Batman and instead wants the character to remain relevant and, narratively, a force for good. (How much actual good that gives the world vs it simply being a vehicle to reflect the existing modern sensibilities, of course, is a completely seperate debate!)
That's a very well thought out reflection, that really nails the best part of the film. One of the biggest problems with Batman films is that they don't often allow the character to change all that much. And here too, Bob seems so attached to Batman doing things the right way that when the film and the character question it, Bob was put off. Of course, film criticism is always an attempt to examine and explain our gut reactions, and Bob is usually pretty good at that. When he's not, it's because he's fighting against the tide of preconceptions that come with a beloved character. I'm reminded of his immediate dismissal of Spider-Man: Homecoming, not for being a bad movie in itself, but for not being enough like the Spider-Man he knows and loves. But what you're talking about here ties directly to that in a larger, more global social sense. As Batman himself said in the old animated series, a fanatic is someone who redoubles his efforts while losing sight of his goal. And we're all guilty of that. It's built in, as it were, to the way we operate. If we don't check that our actions are always in line with our intentions, we can become our own worst enemies. That's exactly what this movie is about. It opens with Batman lost in the repetitive cycle of violence he set himself on, his nights blending together, as he loses sight of the effect he wanted. Or thought he wanted. In the end, it kind of becomes clear he's not really thinking deeply about what he wanted in the first place. And it's only in looking into the dark mirror of the Riddler that he sees what he's becoming. Batman wanted to be the shadow of Gotham, but the Riddler was his shadow, in a purely Jungian sense. I thought that was pretty powerful.
@@rottensquid Thanks for the response, and your take on this as well. I didn't know about but particularly like what you mentioned re: the Batman Animated Series - whilst fictional storytelling is often just that (i.e. telling made-up stories), and cannot directly fix the problems we face in reality, there are still wonderful nuggets of wisdom found even in something that, at heart, is still just meant to be an entertaining show for kids. Just goes to show that, to write a hero well for any audience, we need it to hold up to the test of time at least in part. On the other side of things, I do like that Bob, even when I don't agree with his well-informed and thought through takes, is always acutely aware that, great as these films, shows, games and so on may be, they are still only a medium of storytelling and people shouldn't get so absorbed or infatuated with them either fitting or not fitting their point of view. I guess that's the interesting thing at play here - he's not pleased by a story that also seems to directly reference and opposed some of the real-world extreme fandom that he so vehemently opposes himself. Whatever the justifiable reasons for this, it's possibly a surprise to us as his audience. It's also interesting that his take boarders on the "not my Batman" when he also spoke poorly of the "not my Luke" arguement back after the release of "The Last Jedi"... though, in fairness, I think it was important he stood against that because there was also a wider element of fandom toxicity associated to that movie.
@@Henderson10102 Right, agreed. But that's the price of this community. Part of the joy of it is that we can share our hyper-focused enthusiasm with others who enjoy things on the same level, including Bob. But that means some of us take it just a bit too seriously. And even level-headed nerds like Bob get attached to their own ideas of what the character should be, even against their better judgement. We all do it, and it always looks a little foolish from the outside, especially now that we're sharing the discourse with people who take it way, way too far. It reminds me a bit of The Vision's metaphor about Theseus's ship. The questions is, how much can be replaced before it's not longer the original thing? As Neil Gaiman put it, if your Batman morphs to the point of being a guy in a yellow overcoat with a pet bat, he's not Batman anymore, just some random character with the same name. But with film, and indeed, comics, you can't just keep cranking out the same stories about the same characters forever, no matter how much the fans demand them. What fans crave is that original joy of falling in love with a character, a thrill that grows to mythic proportions in hindsight as the love deepens. They want that same thrill again, like a junky chasing their first high. But it can't be repeated that way, because what made it so good in the first place was that it was something new, something they couldn't have imagined. What they really crave is something new to fall in love with, but because something new can't be imagined by its very nature, no one knows to ask for that. They ask for more of the same thing they already got. A joker who looks like the Joker they know. A Batman they fell in love with back in '89. What they'll get is a nostalgic tour of past thrills, which on the surface seems like the same thing as something new. But it's not. It's "Make America Great Again." It's "The Good Old Days." It's a rose-tinted lens trained on an experience that's come and gone, and it blinds you to the possibilities of something new. I often find that things I once loved lose their all-encompassing thrill on rewatch, because I've grown since I fell in love with them, and they're no longer a mind-blowing revelation. I'm sure I'll always enjoy the Dark Knight, but now my Batman has a creepy leather mask rather than a molded rubber one. I'm not betraying my younger self by letting go and moving on, either in fandom, or in life.
The idea is not that Batman has been doing it so bad that he must hang the cape, the idea is that he should be a better Batman, not one that only punch people. I’m surprised you didn’t catch it, or maybe you decided to ignore it.
My take isn’t that it’s making a statement against the concept of Batman, but showing a character arc in which Bruce Wayne leans that he cannot do effective good by being edge lord vengeance bro and comes to the conclusion that he must strive to be a hero for the people of Gotham more than a punisher of its criminals. I think Batman Forever attempted a similar arc but was way more of a mess than The Batman. I do agree the joker cameo was dumb.
OMG... This series is going to move Batman away from Snyder/Dark Knight Returns and develop him into the Adam West Batman! I'm now actually more excited about this series than I have ever been for Batman stuff!
the ending with Bruce setting out to become hope is why I am ok with the movie not ending with "Batman is over". if the next movie he still continues to fail at everything and then still insists on continuing that would be a problem. so basically the next movie must be him becoming a better Batman and maybe actually help through his Bruce money. that would be nice.
Bob... you should seriously stop letting your thoughts be defined by your "enemies" IMO. Think independently for a change. Then you'll perhaps see that this is far from being an "anti-Batman" movie, and perhaps realise some way more important things as well.
Great video Bob! Really liked your review too, and I'm looking forward to seeing this movie asap. It sounds like the ending was an unsatisfying one, but I'm interested in finding out if they use The Batman making the wrong decision at the end of this movie to ultimately drive the conflict of future movies. Maybe learning that lesson comes down the pipeline in a future unnamed owl themed sequel?
Wouldn't it be neat if they brought in Patrick Wilson to play a big part in the previously unnamed owl themed sequel? cause he was an owl man in that other movie? Get it? 😉
Funny enough, your analysis (but not conclusion, even though I know how you got there) is why I love the film - he needs to be a better version of Batman, this idea, not just for myself and the city, but for those who live in the city with him. That's exactly what he says when he helps the woman who is being airlifted out in the end. Getting confused about the Spanish is a bit much by half, yes, as is the backstory on the Waynes could've been cut down easily, but this all still works as a whole for my money. So, it does insists upon itself but in a way that moves forward and not like Peter's bad take on The Godfather bit in Family Guy (which I forgot about and was actually funny at the time). I would actually love to know why you think the car chase scene was bad though.
I didn't even like this movie, but I gotta disagree about this point. If the movie spends 90% of the runtime on showing how Batman sucks at being Batman, then the movie can still end with Batman being Batman - as long as it shows that Batman really learned his lesson and changed his ways for the better. Which this movie DOES do - it's all about Batman rejecting fear and embracing hope, and all that corny stuff. The execution is a mess, but the basic idea of it makes just as much sense as a story which ends with Bruce no longer being Batman.
Love ya Bob, but I feel like you got the wrong conclusion here. The idea isn't that Batman as a concept is inherently bad, the idea is that the way Bruce approached being Batman was flawed. The common criticism if "Batman punches poor people while leaving the far more corrupt elites alone" was the *point* of this movie, and it ends in a place where Bruce has his eyes opened and needs to be more empathetic. If the Bruce from act 1 of this movie were to face Mr. Freeze, he'd say "He's a criminal, he made his choice, now I have to do my job." As he basically said about Annika when Selena told him about her. But from where Bruce is at the end, he would instead reach a hand out in sympathy towards that same type of person now.
a 5 minute epilogue does not a character arc make my friend.For almost 3 hours Batman is a step behind and failing to stop any of the riddlers crimes or seemingly help Gotham,you can't in the final 5% of the film then turn around and say:and so he changed his ways in an instant and decided he needed to be a symbol of hope.For that reading to work there needs to be more leg work done previously,you can't have your cake and eat it too,he can't be a psycho for 2hrs and 50 min and then become Superman(in symbolism at least)
@@donttalkaboutmymomsyo He doesn't. The ending establishes the first steps on that journey. He's not going to change overnight and he doesn't need to. The theme isn't "Batman will change" the theme is Batman *needs* to change, and his failure is exemplary of that. By the time of the sequel, assume significant time has passed in universe, he will be a more fully realized character. This is step one on his journey to become less like Miller's Batman and more like Tom King's.
@@kidanarchy2105 yeah cool story bro,but thats not the film we got,and by this very explanation you admit that the movie didn't do a good job of it,since the first steps take place at the very end almost like a footnote.That kind of inter-movie arc progression is important but the film itself has to be consistent.There's no sense of that need to change throughout the movie,hell his viee is even validated when he catches Falcone using his own method(read:go it alone,punch-a-palooza).The entire movie seems like its pushing for Batman to hand the cowl up,crime is up,Batman clearly has no effect,he can't stop the riddler etc etc... It just feels like a cheap unearned trick to see Reeves examine how an unstable psychopathic vigilante with great power could be a catastrophe and then after he learns just how damaging of an effect he's had(the gun toading internet trolls using him as an ideal) he pulls a 180.Thats not subversion,thats poor plot execution.
@@donttalkaboutmymomsyo we seem to be using the exact same points to come to entirely different conclusions. We're in agreement that Batman is a failure in this movie. We disagree on how to deal with that. When you fuck up you try again, not give up and run away. It requires a new approach, not throwing in the towel.
I just got back from seeing this, and I respectfully disagree Bob. I think that saying this is an anti-batman movie is like saying that Black Panther is an anti-Wakanda movie. In both cases, we see the movie start with an existing status-quo that actually feeds in to right-wing talking points (vengeance-vigilanties, isolationism) and the heroes learn that this is a mistake by facing the villains, and emerge from the experience as better heroes/leaders. A hero learning and improving, especially in a story framed as near the beginning of their career, is not the same as saying the hero should go home and hang up the cape. Yes, this batman starts the movie as a loser making all the wrong choices, but by the end he emerges as a better hero and closer to some of my favorite incarnations of the character, like say Bruce Timm/Kevin Conroy, and further from the ones I don't like such as Frank Miller/BvS.
The ending was really weird. They basically set it up exactly for Bruce Wayne to say that the Batman is not such a good idea, and that he should do more as Bruce Wayne, but there is no Bruce Wayne in the ending at all. It's too mind-boggling for this to be a mishap, so I wonder if that was the actual ending and they just dropped it in the edit for one reason or another.
I think the point was he realized he needed to actually be a hero instead of just a vigilante. Beating up criminals is not the solution, but instead should be focusing his time on actually protecting the people of the city. The point is not that "Batman is bad", its that "Violent Vengeance Batman" is bad. That a better batman would be more of, well, an actual superhero.
@@thewerdna Well, yeah, that's what he says in the narration, but it's the wrong conclusion, based on the situation and what the whole movie was pointing out. The people of Gotham don't need a Batman that much, they need more Bruce Wayne. It actually looked ridiculous watching a guy in a costume pulling people to safety one by one, when it's obvious that the solution is to spend as much money into sheltering the victims and into repairing the damage.
@@AvocadoBawlz-Johnson they aren't. The problem was he was only doing the former and really none of the latter until the end of the movie. Throw in the fact he was only dealing with low level thugs which fixes nothing long term when he should be really focusing on trying to help take down the larger scale criminals
Edit: Going to say this first off. It is easy to point out the negatives and that all I am pointing out. Things that felt weird. I would say that if you can sit through a 3 hour drama than do it. I never felt like I was just dragging. There is a lot going on and it takes full advantage of the medium to tell the story. A lot of the movie is shown and you need to put it together. I have so much to say about this movie. To make it short. It was well made. The acting was good, the atmosphere was consistent, the Riddler was a good take on crazy, but the ham-fisted marketing and studio involvement was jarring. Like the batmobile, 1 scene and all that collateral damage then they are like "oops" and never say anything about all that carnage?
It sounds like (having not seen it yet, just based on this comment) this movie has the same issue I had with Black Widow - I really dug all the character and spy famiyl stuff. But every action scene I was just like. How are you still alive? Why are the civilians just calmly watching this deadly chase? How many people in this prison did you just murder and then forget about? (Or, perhaps, more like Man of Steel and its complete lack of care for any collateral damage?)
@@UchihaKat I'm not saying you are wrong. There is very little in the way of action in it. I would strongly suggest seeing it. The baddies are amazing and very creepy. Almost a little too close to home from the last few years. It's more Noir and less Nolan. That being said, yeah, there are some time where you are scratching your head as one thing happens to someone then something that should be shrugged off is terribly dangerous.
At the risk of being branded a bad nerd actually Riddler's real name has been Edward Nashton for a while now so this is less making Riddler into a serious character and more adapting from the comics like most of these films do.
I see this less as anti-Batman but anti-rawr-vengeance Batman. If anything this might lead to a Batman more in line with the definitive Animated version. A Batman who fights crime and the upcoming super villainy while using his influence as Bruce Wayne to try and make Gotham a better place.
I wouldn’t mind a more swashbuckling, 70s neil addams, pre frank miller batman, in the sequel. Hell, put him in a blue and grey suit. I love that one
Exactly. Bob seem to get 95% of the movie's message but the stumble at the end. Yes, Batman failed....because he was doing it wrong. He says it at the end -vengeance is not enough, he needs to also be hope. Which is what he does at the end when he lights a flare and get people out. He's using a signal to help the good guys, not just scare the bad ones. So the movie's thesis is not "Don't be Batman", it's "Be a better Batman".
Agreed - people who say this “isn’t a Batman movie” A) don’t understand the origin of the character and B) Have been conditioned by the modern blockbuster formula that has zero soul or plot and just constantly waterboards you with visual stimulus.
I love bobs channel but he referenced the water thing and called it baptism where as I saw that part as Batman chosing pure heroism over vengeance (he prevented the ppl in the water from being shocked) for me that's my favorite part of the movie!
I like superhero movies to be thematically about superheros learning to be a hero.
For a superhero movie That hits harder then starlord learning yando is his dad bcuz he looked out for him, and references comic stories where Batman learns he can't be just vengeance or fear, he has to be a hero too, see batman ego
Yeah I think its less about what the movie was trying to do and failed and more about how Bob wanted it to end. I will agree that considering how tightly paced the rest of the movie is that it drags a bit at the end it's pretty clear that it serves as both a deconstruction of Batman but also presents a solid arc of Batman realizing what his actual mission should be. That he cant scare the city safe. He also needs to be a simple of hope for it. That funny thing is I kind of wanted it to end on a dark note. Sort of an Empire Strikes Back/ Se7en ending and then use the next film to help him grow. With this ending providing complete closure its hard to narratively justify a sequel.
I didn’t view the movie as anti-Batman, but anti-the idea of Batman that folks like Frank Miller put into peoples heads. The movie is anti-unhinged-vengeance-driven-quasi-fascist who favors beating people up more than actually saving people. It’s the terrible “my parents are dead” stereotype that sprang up after Dark Knight Returns, and wormed it’s way into the public consciousness thanks to its influence on Burton, Nolan and Snyder. This felt to me like they were aiming to kill that idea and move their Batman more in line with the version done by creators like Adams and Morrison. Someone who’s goal is to help, not hospitalize.
maybe, but it reminds me of "anti war" films that glorify and overly stylize and then at the end say "but violence is bad!" it wants to have its cake and eat it too.
Batman always was & always will be a scared little boy running away from two bullets. He fights so no one else has to feel the same way he did, and that’s more important to him than never having felt that way in the first place. He is quite frankly pain incarnate, but that doesn’t mean his intention is or ever was to inflict it.
Yet the word vengance gets thrown around all the time
If it's anti-vegnance, it's schizo about it
And what are you talking about, "Nolan"? Nolan clearly is Revees' biggest inspiration rather than the comicbook source material
@@claynorth964 I don't think this version glorifies violence, if anything, with the exception of the car chase, the movie frames all the fighting as brutality, and actually found myself worried he would kill someone each time he got into a fight, half expecting the no killing rule to be explained as being entirely guilt-driven and somewhat hypocritical.
Exactly. People love the Frank Miller version but somehow miss the themes in that one as well. He's a nut job in that story and not aspirational at all, but he beat Superman so he's so cool.
I feel like this was the closest story to capturing him as a hero in live action. The animated series was able to do this with some regularity.
I mean, the movie itself is aware to an extent that Bruce is fighting a losing battle, Selina basically says this at the end that the city will kill him but he says he has to try anyway which is a very classic Batman thing to say.
This is essentially a movie saying Batman has to lighten up and be more of a hero civilians aren’t afraid of.
The comments made me rewatch the ending of the video- I wish people would pay more attention.
Bob: "The natural ending of this ONE OFF movie would be that Batman stops being Batman. But now that it's continuing, where does it leave this 3 hour long movie besides overlong?"
The Crowd: "You don't get Batman Bob, Batman's gonna Batman because he's Batman."
Is there something about the character that turns his fans into 8 year olds?
Hey Bob! You might remember me as the guy who wrote that long comment on your BvS really that bad about how Batman helped my grandfather cope with his PTSD from the Korean war and I have to say I dont see this the way you do. This movie isnt anti Batman, but against everything those angry Batman fanboys who want him to go even further into killing people and love Snyder's version, have turned Batman into. A rebuttal to the logical endpoint of the Batman the internet edgelords see him as. Batman at his best says that we can turn our trauma into something positive. This is the first Batman film in a long while where I felt that thematically. Even the Nolan trilogy name dropped that aspect of the character but I never felt it. I idolize my grandpa so much because my dad was an abusive asshole most of my life and so I kept looking to the guy who protected me from him till he passed away. I dont have PTSD but I have trauma and I legitimately needed the ending to this film. A friend of mine who does have PTSD and is struggling with it hard needed Batman's speech at the end of this film. Batman can be more than "rich vigilante beats up the poor" and that's what I felt this movie is saying.
Well said, man! Thank you for sharing this.
Nah. The movie backtracks hard in the end. It’s a silly little thing disguised as something grand and serious.
@@paulmartin6419 Your critique is valid, friend, but this particular comment isn't the place for it.
The entire point of BvS was exactly that Batman was too dark and went too far in that movie. He was radicalised. In the end he changed, hence he's different in ZS's Justice League. Personally Batman of the animated series is my favorite Batman, not an overly dark one, but it's important to keep that in mind.
@@mabusestestament how is he diferent,? its less ungry and grumpy and thats it, the movie goes way out of that arch on killing aliens that never gets resolve... the "He was radicalised. needs to change" never was the main point of the movie, even snyder said that in an interview, his heros are like that because that is what he thinks they should be in the world he built... snyder is the guy who read watchmen and says thats the way all heros should be, he never saw that comic as a deconstruction, he never gets moores main point of the comic...
Gotta say I think this is pretty off-base
Bruce not being a “good Batman” is his entire arc in the movie, he has to learn what it means to be a better Batman, to inspire hope as well as fear.
That’s about as pro-Batman a movie as it gets
Bob's point is that batman inherently makes things worse, and being a "lighter" batman isnt going to solve the problem. if Wayne had hung up the cowl and actually tried to create meaningul change with his billions, the film would have followed through to its logical conclusion.
@@claynorth964 This. Like what people don't get is batman come to this conclusion because he was a mask vigilante who enforce his own justice and go around beat up people and inspired fear
Is batman going to not do that at the end of next movie? Go around beat up criminal like he always does? What meaningful arc batman going through here. He simply to recognized the problem but offered no real solution to change it.
@@claynorth964 The problem is that the movie makes it abundantly clear that Bruce is probably just as delusional as Edward, which is not helped by the massive red flag dropped when his mother's mental health issues are brough up and the dozens of close-ups showing he's on the verge of a mental breakdown 90% of the time... Which evetually happens right in front of Edward himself... (And I'm 90% sure the director intended for Bruce's rant to be seen as hypocritical while also working in-universe since Edward took it at face value thanks to his own mental issues).
So, yeah, the whole situatuon would make a reasonable person change gears ASAP... But this version of Bruce is anything but a reasonable person.
@@claynorth964 I've seen this line of argument come up a lot, and I find it very short-sighted and frustrating.
Okay, Bruce isn't Batman, he uses all his wealth for charity and social programs. Great. The Joker is still going to be the Joker, the Scarecrow is still going to be the Scarecrow, Ra's Al'Ghul is still going to be Ra's Al'Ghul.. only this time there's no Batman to stop them. The only thing that changed is that they now have a harder time hiring mooks, because those people already have jobs and/or a safety net, and maybe Falcone will have to move his drug operation to Blüdhaven or something. That's all good.. but you still need the Batman.
Also, it's funny how the same people that bring up this argument never seem to talk about how silly and unrealistic it is that Superman's secret identity is putting on glasses and combing his hair differently.
I don't see this as an anti-Batman movie, but rather part of Batman's journey into becoming the hero we all know and love, while at the same time pointing at some of the more, uh.. potentially 'problematic' aspects of the franchise with a critical eye, as traps that are easy to fall into but to be avoided.
This is a younger, more rough Batman/Bruce Wayne that still has some work to do with regards to processing the death of his parents and the trauma that comes with it.
He has to learn to trust other people, to work with others, to not shut himself in from the world, and the responsibility that comes with his inherited wealth to help Gotham not only as Batman, but also as Bruce Wayne, because beating the crap out of criminals won't solve the larger, systemic issues (income inequality, corruption, unemployment, poverty) that create endless reserves of mooks for people like The Penguin, Falcone, Maroni and even The Riddler himself to employ and exploit, and even push otherwise 'good' people like Selina Kyle into crime as a means for survival in a cruel and uncaring world.
And like many pointed out in the comments, it also works as a subtle critique of the angry, vengeful Frank Miller interpretation of the character more towards the somewhat stoic do-gooder and protector of the innocent that is more familiar from adaptations like the Justice League and Batman animated series. The Bat as a symbol of hope.
The “Batman becomes disillusioned by his tactics and does a course correction after screwing up massively” arc is not uncommon in the comics. Some of my favorite Batman stories come from this
But in the end, he’ll always be Batman. It’s a shortcoming of the format, but I never really minded. It’s the same with this movie. There was character movement, just not too much. I expected that. Still loved the movie.
I agree wholeheartedly. Bob says the take away should be 'this idea failed, do something else', but the take away it's presenting is 'you failed, do better'
Bob, I feel like you got 95% of the movie's message but then drop the ball. Yes Batman failed, but not because Batman as a concept is inherently bad, but because he was doing Batnam wrong. He says it at the end -vengeance is not enough, he needs to also be hope. Which is what he does at the end when he lights a flare and get people out. He's using a signal to help the good guys, not just scare the bad guys. So the movie's thesis is not "Don't be Batman", it's "Be a better Batman".
So yeah, not, The Batman is not anti-Batman. But it's anti Punisher. And the whole arc of the movie is for Bruce to learn how to be Batman and not the Punisher. Now, could the movie movie have benefited of an extra scene at the end to show us this new improved method? Yes. But I think it still works without it.
Excellent comment. I don't think I've heard it put this well yet, but I agree completely. It was a "show don't tell" way of doing that, where I didn't feel like it held my hand to get me to the point you put eloquently. I also feel like it was a movie that can exist on it's own, not necessitating a sequel or left open-ended. It was a self-contained experience, that I found to be enjoyable in just about every way. A good movie, not just a good comic book movie. Most relatable Bruce Wayne yet, and I'm glad a villain finally called Bruce out for being his alter-ego. Batman is the real face of Bruce Wayne, but finding out who he really is as The Batman was a large part of this journey.
Your interpretation is right! But Bob didn't miss that, he just felt that the anti-Batman parts were more interesting and the turn towards hope was hasty and smacked of corporate meddling and sequel bait.
So in a sense, you got 95% of _Bob's_ message but then dropped the ball 😉
I feel that Bob is MOSTLY right, like you do... it IS an anti-Batman Batman movie. But the Batman it's anti- against isn't the very core concept of Batman as a character, but the VERSION of said character we've been saddled with ever since Frank Miller turned him into a frothing psycho who beats up muggers because he misses his mommy and called it "Giving Batman His Balls Back" because Frank Miller is an angry 13-year-old boy in an old man's body, but that's another show.
And quite frankly, they've already done a better version of "Batman needs to get over himself and knock off the 'Grim Lone Avenger' routine." It was called "The LEGO Batman Movie." And it taught Batman that lesson by basically FORCING the Bat-Family on him and giving him a Batgirl willing to play along with a version of the gimmick that wasn't just, in her own words (thank you, Rosario Dawson) "Grown Men Karate-Chopping Poor People In Halloween Costumes."
@@thetribunaloftheimaginatio5247 Which is why it’s harder to just turn around and do a serious version of basically the same idea. What’s worse is that like he said in the review & here because of sequels it can’t actually fully commit to that idea. Which weakens it in some aspects & still has me baffled after seeing it
@@PlahboiStampede Why can't the sequals just make Batman more superhero-y? This movies is like the Long Halloween and transitions Gotham from 'normal' to 'comic'.
Karl Smallwood once said that the rule of thumb for a good interpretation of Batman is "whould this Batman confort a crying child?" And this movie literally has a scene where Bruce Wayne looks at a crying child and is distressed because he knows he should do something but isn't sure of what. His arc is about becoming that good interpretation of Batman
Its anti Zack Snyder’s Batman, is the way i pictured it
It's funny cuz about a month or two before this movie dropped, the Harley Quinn: Eat. Bang! Kill. Tour miniseries wrapped up and while it's nowhere near the same thing as this, I would say it at least follows through on it's message with a great deal more conviction. Cuz the ending message of that was Ivy realizing that she has to sort through her trauma, old and new, to be a better girlfriend to Harley and to not push her away. With that, on top of it just being the most adorably sapphic content DC has ever produced, I would say it's a hell of a lot more satisfying than the Batman.
I mean I'm a fan of Batdad. And willing to wait for Bruce to go "I'm taking in this one orphan boy, and this one too, and this one as well even though his family still around, and this girl, and I think she needs a sister, and oh, I have a biological son ..."
Nashton was the riddlers name before the animated series changed it to nigma. I get that nigma is more fun, but it always felt weird that many of Batman’s villains had names implying their villain identities. It’s not like the green goblin was Norman gobeline or red skull was johan skullen.
True, but Victor Von Doom is pretty on the nose
Sure, but then you also have Otto Octavious, Sergei Kravinoff, Michael Morbius, Felicia Hardy, Dr. Strange, Jubilation Lee, Jean Grey, Dr. Doom, Kitty Pryde,... and pantheon characters like Thor and Loki with no codename at all... it happens a lot.
@@robbybevard8034 Wait what? Jean Grey famously doesn't have a codename. She had Marvel Girl and Phoenix at various points but I don't see how those are related to "Jean Grey".
@@Keenath i don't remember exactly why, but Jean grey itself is wonky...
@@robbybevard8034 I don't understand what half of these names have anything to do with this? What does Dr. Strange's name to do with his powers, or Kitty's, or Jean Grey, etc. If Jean turned grey, or Kitty coincidentally turned into a cat, only then those examples would make any sense
I feel like the best way to follow through on this is to, for the sake of a metaphor, transition this Batman from the Black and Grey Batman of your Frank Millers to the Grey and Blue of your Neil Adams' And the best way to do that would be...Robin. I don't think that superheroes are bad, I'm a lifelong superhero fan and even philosophically I think that superheroes can do real good in the world but the methods that this Batman were using showed that he needed something not to nail his feet to the floor but to point his eyes upward at something more idealistic.
The end of the movie is talking about how batman can't just be a symbol of fear, he has to be a symbol of hope instead. Lightening his look, becoming more of a public fixture that the people of Gotham can really count on and, yes, taking in a ward and partner who can remind him what he's actually fighting for and keeping him honest is the best way to do that without making some kind of point that the idea of going out to help people that no one else can or will is somehow a bad thing.
Of course a point also needs to be made about Bruce Wayne as a figure of generational wealth. The idea of him as some unquestioned gazillionaire needs to be poked and prodded and dissected through a modern lens the way a lot of the recent comics have been doing. The make Batman a better hero, Bruce Wayne needs to stop being the black suit, slicked haired, glinting smile moneypot that Batman as a character has been presenting as a positive for so long.
Man, if the post credits was him just premiering or designing a lighter suit, or stopping a criminal without beating him untill he’s crippled for life (like he seemed to do to those street gang teenagers) it would’ve really made the movie better for me overall. Just tht little bit of hope that the next film wont see him go right back to grim and gritty mode
I think about the shortening of the ears points in one of the comics to not be as scary to kids because he is supposed to make criminals afraid not the innocent etc.
I really really disagree with the thesis here. I don’t think this movie is “anti-Batman” at all. It opposes the idea that “Batman=vengeance”. The movie displays a lot of LOVE for the idea of Batman with the notion that Batman can and deserves to be more than that.
@Tom Fordyou’re being bizarrely confrontational. Why is that?
@@ThePonderer He's a moviebob fanboy.
I feel like there’s a potential for that in sequels.
Like the other guy said, it feels like you got like 95% of the way there then tricked yourself into expecting it to go one way and then got irritated it went the other way. This was always a story meant to show the way to be Batman wasn’t to let Bruce lose himself into vengeance. That’s why he ends on such a hopeful note and it sets up him to become Bruce Wayne the philanthropist who will fix the Wayne trust corruption issue and pay to fix Gotham after riddler’s attacks. And sets up Batman to be a hero for the people and not an agent of pure anger. That’s why the first and last people he saves react so differently.
I saw it yesterday. Thought it was a really good detective movie with some pretty decent action scenes in it and interesting characters, which spent exactly as much time on it's backstory as needed. In other words, I honestly think it's a great movie about the Batman *I'VE* wanted to see for quite a while. It's not the best movie with Batman as a character -- that would be The Dark Knight -- but as a movie about the character of Batman this was wonderful. I also think the point, in particular with the scene at the end and with Selina's line about him fighting a losing battle AND with him wanting to help Selina in her quest, was that he needed to realize that Batman needed to be more than just beating up the villains, but has to inspire and help out the average Gothamite.
My only complaint is that although most of the film doesn't feel it's length, it does have about 3 or 4 endings, and after the one with (sequel baiting) I was done; it should have ended just there.
I thought the ending was great, I think the point was Batman couldn't just inspire fear and be this menacing force because people like the riddler will take it the wrong way. Batman has to show more compassion, not just be fear for criminals but he a beacon of hope. He doesn't learn that being Batman is bad he learns to be a better Batman.
Wait... So punching everyone out isn't the way?
Lol this movie is silly but I get ya.
I ultimately found the "Batman starts helping good people instead of just hurting bad guys" material at the end to be just genuine and effecting enough to really stick the landing for me- I think if the sequels commit, this can be a series about Batman being better, and that will make this ending truly hopeful. Or, if they back pedal and go full grimdark again to appease fanboys, then it'll be truly hollow.
Or as has been quoted in the past. "Would your Batman comfort a frightened child?" If not, then he's just The Punisher in a silly hat.
Batman at his core is a guy that lost his parents to violence and as such thought about revenge, this one even makes it his focus, but what makes Batman is the desire to actually help. To make sure that no other child will have to live through what he lived through and when he met those that did, he decided to be a father and mentor to them. He wanted them to have an easier time than he did and to know that while the world can be cruel, people don't have to be. And that is how he lost one family but managed to build a second one for himself.
To be clear - the level of subtlety this movie is operating on is the _exact_ level of subtlety a PG-13 comic book superhero movie should be aiming at, in my opinion.
As for the main thrust of the argument, I disagree with the premise - the Batman we see for 90% of the movie is not the _real_ Batman in the first place, yet. It's a rich kid with a chip on his shoulder, playing at being the Batman. The movie examines the difference between a vigilante and a hero, and Bruce Wayne's character arc is him starting as a vigilante and learning that what the city actually needs is a hero. So in a way he _does_ drop everything he's been doing and goes to do something completely new.
The movie isn't at all against the idea of a superhero. It just insists that the murderous, angry Batman we might be familiar from other some versions is _not a hero,_ that being a hero doesn't mean punching bad guys until they're afraid of you, it means _inspiring hope._ (...And _also_ punching bad guys until they're afraid of you - it's Batman after all.) This is a Batman who might see eye to eye with Superman, instead of a Batman whose first instinct is to murder Superman.
I don’t even know how you feel this way, this movie had the most respect for the character and its history that I’ve ever seen from a live-action movie.
Personally, I saw this movie as a transition from "I am Vengeance" Batman to a less dark/brutal Batman. I think he narrates as much when loading the kid in the helicopter.
Fun fact: This movies feautres all the villains from the original 66 Batman movie: Riddler, Catwoman, Penguin, and ||Joker||
Maybe in the inevitable sequel we’ll get a more pre frank miller, swashbuckling Batman? Put him a blue and grey costume (Neil Addams Batman has always been my favorite Batman visually anyway)
Holy shades of Adam West, Batman!?😆😉
@@locomadman If we do get the flashpoint time-jumping, parallel-universe visiting type movie that it seems like ... I hope there's at least a quick stop off in an Adam West style batman universe. Not Adam West specifically, because his Batman needs to be hanging out with Christoper Reeve and Lynda Carter for a quick "Perfect Future" moneyshot.
But like 1943 serial version. Or a "The Brave and the Bold" inspired version.
Dark and gritty batman is fine, but they really need to lean into the campy and fun version a bit.
@@ronburgundy9771 Right? It’d be awesome if they remembered when Batman used to have & be fun (RIP Adam West).
It's hard for me to say whether I thought The Batman was good or bad because either answer would imply it got a meaningful reaction out of me.
It pissed off Ben Shapiro though. So it's got that going for it.
I don't agree with the "anti-Batman"; maybe a specific image of Batman, the type that "has billions but uses it to punch poor people" iteration that's popular among people that haven't followed the character for decades. A version of Bruce that's so focused on his quest, that he eschews the financial responsibilities and opportunities for philanthropy and social good, that the Bats many of us are used to wouldn't hesitate to see complete.
It's a Batman that, albeit wrongly, thinks if he focuses his time on punching criminals and making them too scared to do crime, he can save Gotham. But that has the unintended consequence of accidentally coinciding with deluded beanbag soldiers who are easily swayed by incendiary rhetoric and persuasive fantasies of "little guy vs. the big corrupt world". He's a detective, he has the pieces, but sees a dark reflection in people who think it's "so easy to put the pieces together" when said pieces are amorphous enough to become whatever picture they want to see. It's almost like a tweak-slash-expansion of that opening sequence from "The Dark Knight" where a bunch of armed knockoffs confront Scarecrow.
Though, with fewer hockey pads.
RIP William “Thunderbolt Ross” Hurt (1950-2022). 2022 hasn’t been kind on the world’s legends.
Matt Reeves fucking loves Batman and it’s baffling you could come to any other conclusion than that
I personally think this is spot one….
If you look at Nolan Batman by comparison. Batman’s fear tactics actually worked, which indirectly gave the people HOPE that a better Gotham was on the horizon…..
“Turn Fear on those who prey on the fearful.”
Batman was a symbol…Bruce Wayne recognized that he couldn’t shake people out of apathy as Bruce Wayne. His father tried and it didn’t work. So he became a symbol for the people showing they that will no longer stand for injustice, providing them inspiration to take the city back themselves…..which they did.
To me personally, nothing screams Batman more.
In this iteration….his fear tactics AREN’T working. He assumes he has to be a literal sign of hope…..he has to set the example for his fellow citizens, because I guess if he doesn’t LITERALLY SET the example, the people won’t have the courage or the motivation to fight back. This method is more in line with Superman.
The people at Gamefully Unemployed seem to agree with you, Bob. They expressed the same view of “Wow, the logical ending for Bruce in this is to stop being Batman, which the writers can’t do because they need him to continue being Batman.”
The ending monologue of this movie explains that he needs to be symbol of hope and that fear isn’t the thing that will make a change, it has literally nothing to do with stopping being Batman. People are genuinely stupid.
But the batman is literally the symbol of fear. (Not just for 95% of this 3 hour movie but in most depictions of the character since frank miller. ) It would be logical and more efficient for bruce to retire the “batman” persona (i.e. dressing up like a vampire demon, which he literally only does to strike fear into criminals) and create whole new persona that isnt based on fear of violence.(call this character dayman or whatever) But to do that would mean DC and Warner couldn’t make more batman movies in this universe (theyd have to be dayman movies, which wouldn’t bring in the bucks) thats all Bob is saying. That they cant have matt reeves fundamentally change batman much because it will hurt the franchise (I bet next movie batman will still be an all black wearing ,grim, nighttime operating, boogieman to criminals, because thats what sells right now)
It isn't the logical ending at all. The point of his arc in this movie is that he has to change how he's going about being Batman i. e. focusing on the human element and caring for the people he saves. There's a huge difference between the Batman that simply stares at the person he saves from a gang and the one that's trying to comfort a flood victim. The whole point being that what he needed to be was a symbol of fear to criminals, but a symbol of hope and inspiration to non-criminals.
@@TheRude39 a 5 minute epilogue does not a character arc make my friend.For almost 3 hours Batman is a step behind and failing to stop any of the riddlers crimes or seemingly help Gotham,you can't in the final 5% of the film then turn around and say:and so he changed his ways in an instant and decided he needed to be a symbol of hope.For that reading to work there needs to be more leg work done previously,you can't have your cake and eat it too,he can't be a psycho for 2hrs and 50 min and then become Superman(in symbolism at least)
The fact that you think it was only a five minute epilogue and not something developing throughout the entire movie and paid off in the final act speaks volumes to your inability to critically analyze media.
I'm so sick of every movie now just doing the easy "This is a metaphor for the angry internet fanboys of said property" story line. And that's coming from someone who ACTIVELY CANNOT STAND angry internet fanboys.
To play devil's advocate, "Angry Internet Fanboys" nearly destroyed America-- where a lot of these films are being made --and are still an active problem in American politics that needs to remain in the public mainstream consciousness.
That being said, I'm ultimately inclined to agree with you, because it's at this point it's painfully self-evident that storywriters for movies/videogames/comics/television shows/books/etc. of the last 10+ years have less than zero intention of ever actually digging into the sociologically underpinnings and inner workings of this problem-- except for Star Wars, but that franchise only did it turn around and victim blame Women/PoC/LGBTQ+ who dare to suggest that the tablescraps artists and creators give them aren't good enough.
@@Veolynn13 you make really good points and I 100% agree that angry internet nerds in general changed our country for the worse politically and socially. I guess I was vague in my original comment. I meant it in a more broad, very base level of “Fan of ‘specific’ property actually sucks” kind of way. It’s not that I don’t agree with that, most hardcore fans of properties are insufferable and hold these things hostage. So I get the knee jerk reaction of studios to have similar subtexts in their movies. I guess in a more general sense, I feel like everything has to be SPECIFICALLY meta: “X character is a Batman fanboy”, “Y character is an analogue of this sect of fandom”, and sometimes it doesn’t even fit with the story they’re wanting or trying to tell. I think any movie regardless of whether or not it’s a blockbuster should absolutely have something to say. It makes for a more compelling story. Horror is amazing because of that. Some of the worst horror movies are ones that have no social commentary. Sometimes it just feels a little too easy and is kind of distracting to me. But again, I 100% agree with your comment. Just trying to be more specific about my original post.
Wait, what, huh ? xD I watch some other caped crusader film in the cinemas this week or did I just see this differently ? 0_0
They spent a whole movie getting Batman to the point that Nolan made it to about halfway through Batman Begins. It's hard for me to see where they take the next movies that Nolan didn't already go, at least thematically. Plot-wise this was obviously different and was a nice change...for about an hour and a half. The detective/serial killer mystery stuff worked for a while but got stale. Not sure how they keep that up without the Riddler as a main character. So again, I wonder how they really make it different than Nolan, especially if the Joker becomes prominent.
I think the Riddler character was actually one of the best since Killmonger since you can easily understand his point of view.
He grew up poor in a failed system that basically left him for dead. He then found out that the one hope he was given turned out to be a lie of even deeper corruption.
Something like that would absolutely radicalize someone. The main fault I find with the film is that they don't explore that.
That even if we don't agree with someone's actions, we can understand that they had valid reasons for doing it.
For example: if a child is bullied all through their school life and is never given any help, then they take a gun to school and shoot up the place. While that is a horrific crime, the person didn't just do it for no reason.
I also think it's nice to see a Batman who fails, he's only been doing this for about 2 years, he's still a novice and as a result will make mistakes. Even in the comics Batman continues to make mistakes to this day.
The film did explore why Riddler was radicalised though
@@Linny95 Not really, it basically just pointed a finger at him and said "you're sick" and yes he definitely is, but that sickness came from how he was treated in life.
Life kicks a lot of people around and we're all happy to sit back and watch until it comes back to bite us when that person snaps.
Now that doesn't justify their actions but it does explain them and the film could've focused more on them.
@@StephenLeGresley Ah gotcha
@@Linny95 "He's some orphan guy" was the basic sum up of Riddlers past in this thing. LeGresley is right. I want to know more about him but we didn't get into it much. Even TDK Joker had deeper backstory. We know for example Joker really didn't like whoever his dad was which plays great compared to TDK batman who's dad was a saint.
Just FYI, bullied kids _don't_ become school shooters; they commit suicide. "School Shooters are kids that had been bullied" is a MYTH invented by right-wing news media to distract from the reality that the Columbine shooters were white supremacists.
I feel like this movie needed one extra 20-30 second scene near the end where the new, young mayor along side Bruce Wayne announce a new foundation or a revised version of the previous foundation to help the poor and underprivileged in Gotham. It would have address most of the issues Bob brings up about the movie's themes, and provided them a way to give Batman/Bruce Wayne a "I can inspire hope instead of vengeance and can help the city in ways other than beating the snot out of people" moment without him actually having to quit being Batman.
2 hours ago
Man, if the post credits was him just premiering or designing a lighter colored suit, or stopping a criminal without beating him untill he’s crippled for life (like he seemed to do to those street gang teenagers) it would’ve really made the movie better for me overall. Just that little bit of hope that the next film wont see him go right back to grim and gritty mode
@@Getwright- It certainly would have been better than the post-credit "scene" we did get. I at least hope that in the inevitable sequel we get to see him doing more stuff as Bruce Wayne as a nod to some character development.
@@Getwright- Notice though in the original trailer we saw years ago now, after he knocks that guy down, he hits him another 5, 6 times. In the final movie, it was just twice.
That sounds cheesy as hell and only perpetuates the tired trope that poverty-stricken criminals are entirely a product of a corrupt, broken system, propped up by an evil elite. A trope that is a hundred times less original than the "dark, brooding, vengeance" incarnation of Batman that you people complain about being so sick of.
That was the point of the Dark Knight. Bruce Wayne kept saying he’s quitting because Harvey was doing this by the book (or so he says,) he only inspired regular citizens in hockey-pads to try vigilantism, his presence caused the mob to call Ledger’s Joker, and none of it ended well.
I think I agree with most of the people on this comment section, when I say that the movie is saying that Batman should start acting like a hero instead of a vigilante, more so than that the Batman itself needs to die.... Would it have been cool for this movie to just finish on a Batman sucks and rich guys shouldn't be around at night punching people? Sure, but I don't think the payoff here is as hollow as you make it out to be. I mean it is basically the same thing they did on Arrow (and in Lego Batman, kinda).
Hey Bob, I have been watching for 10 (!) years now and really appreciate your perspective. But with this one I feel like you are giving the movie a hard time because of what you think it is and should be rather than what actually happens. For example, a big piece of your analysis is that the Riddler is the only character in the movie who 100% stans Batman. But this isn't the case. In Riddler's mind, Batman is pure, violent vengeance. Riddler believes Batman agrees with everything the Riddler has done and is meeting him in Arkham to celebrate the vengeance levied on the city leaders of Gotham. But Batman has clearly viewed Riddler as a villain throughout the film and never once struggled with whether it was wrong or right for any of the corrupt leaders to be tortured and killed. Batman wants the leaders brought to justice, not murdered. When confronted with who Batman actually is rather than who Riddler thinks Batman is, Riddler has a psychotic meltdown.
If the movie was really interested in portraying Batman as complicit with the Riddler and ultimately bad for Gotham, as it seems your take of the movie is, it wouldn't have spent an entire act showing Batman successfully convincing Selena not to meter out deserved, bloody justice on her dead beat dad who is responsible for literally all the bad things in the movie aside from the Riddler: Gotham's corruption, the Russian girl's murder, and Bruce's parents. If anything, this movie humanizes Batman more than other films.
It shows Batman slowly winning the trust of police over the film through his arc with the one cop who initially blocks Batman from entering the first crime scene, to helping carry Falcone away, to actually working with Batman at the Riddler's apartment and providing the final clue to uncover his plan. To take this a step further, it shows Batman working with police and fire fighters to rescue Gotham citizens at the end of the movie while Batman talks about being a symbol of hope. This is showing Batman as more of a civil servant and deputy who has won the trust of Gotham's institutions and people rather than being a toxic vigilante obsessed with bloody vengeance, as Riddler imagined.
I can see the appeal of a "I need to stop being Batman" conclusion. Then the next movie would've had Bruce trying to be a good billionaire until events force him to see there are things a Batman is good for IF he can be a better Batman.
It does feel like Anarky would've been a better choice than Riddler for this story
Maybe the version of Batman this Batman-movie is anti-Batman about isn't the very core-concept, but the version of it we've been convinced is the "grown-up and mature" version by legions of fanboys (like what The Riddler turns out to be) and Frank Miller, who in 1986 turned Batman from a swashbuckler in funny tights to a blood-caked psycho who beats up muggers because he misses his mommy... and called it "Giving Batman His Balls Back."
And quite frankly, we've HAD better refutations of the "Grim And Gritty" Batman, from BTAS splitting the difference between "Classic" and "Modern" to "Batman: The Brave And The Bold" being inspired by the Silver Age comics ("THAT'S NOT MY BATMAN!") to "The LEGO Batman Movie" essentially beating its title character over the head with "Dude, get over yourself! This Grim Lone Avenger routine isn't working! Accept some help already!" to "Harley Quinn" making him not just a background-character, but pretty much "The Only Adult In The Room."
Maybe "The Batman" would be better if it had ended not on Gotham becoming No Man's Land, but on Bruce Wayne switching the black for gray and blue and actually cracking wise as Batman, with The Riddler promising vengeance because "That's not the moody bastard that inspired me to become a terrorist!" Talk about a missed opportunity.
It feels more like a criticism of Snyder and Nolan's Batman + a character arc.
Insightful as always.
I think I mostly agree with you except that I don’t think the film is dishonest or disingenuous in its ending. Batman does realize he’s moving in a bad direction and decides to make a dramatic change, just as you said. He’s just going to keep doing it within the Batman paradigm.
I think the disconnect is you’re insisting he HAS to have one ending (stop being Batman). While the film does show that Batman is doing more harm than good, it also argues it doesn’t have to be that way. Batman is in a position to be a force for positive, and just because Batman started his career on immature principles, it doesn’t mean he must resign his legacy to that. He won’t give up Batman, just redirect it his efforts( both in and out of the movies by calling out the toxic fansboys and vigilantes).
My point is, Batman didn’t have to stop being Batman to support the movie’s conclusion. I’m also glad to see this humbler take on Batman as he was getting stuck up his own ass and devolving to parody before this.
That's the strength but also the weakness of this movie - it starts making moves towards 'hey so what's up that Gotham and also Batman and also the villains can even be like this', which is interesting right up until it gets uncomfortable towards the end and steps back. Reaching the conclusion of 'I should quit being Batman and I actually will' would be surprising and thrilling, and 'I should quit being Batman but what if my vague good intentions outweigh my disastrous results and I don't reflect on how this is literally a villain motivation' would be going somewhere interesting. Instead, we get 'I should quit being Batman, buuuuut what if it's Just A Thing and we move on'.
Why take us that far and then turn around to go home?
Wait so the Riddler did his regular thing of leaving cryptic clues of his intentions, only this time it was because he wanted to communicate with Batman, the world's greatest detective and his idol in a way that wouldn't alert the authorities?
My Batman exposure is very limited, but that sounds like a brilliant twist.
It was, especially the way it was set up and executed. I like Bob, but I completely disagree with him on The Batman. He is too focused on his idea of what the movie should've been in his opinion, while I really enjoyed what the movie actually is
I kinda got from the plot that Batman has to go about things better. He was all about hiding in the shadows and making bad guys fear the shadows and bringing about vengeance. However he learnt that he should give good guys hope as well as helping change their lives for the better.
Indeed, I got the same message, but that means he is kinda stupid and didn't learn the lesson he was supposed, too. What he needs to do is not for Batman to do things better, and pull the people out of the water, or fight against thugs with more aplomb, he needs to spend the Wayne money on fixing the destruction from the flood and helping those in need. At least that's what I felt the rest of the movie was saying.
Have you ever read "New Frontier"? Of course you have, it's a classic. This movie fits into his "I don't wanna scare kids" plotline.
In the comic he switches costumes and gets a Robin after realizing he may be going too far. In this, the movie ends before we get to that point but it's coming.
The movie is telling you being an edgy punisher guy who punches people isn't enough, he can't just be Vengeance, even Catwoman at one point just assumes he kills people and would help her.
Bob I love your work, but this seems a lot more like "you didn't like this movie" than "this movie doesn't know what Batman is all about". This is not an action movie, it's a noir detective movie. I really liked all the characters, the actors are all great and thank the merciful God there wasn't the "pearls and popcorn" scene of the Waynes being killed. It definitely could be shorter, but everything that is there makes sense to be there.
He said it was fine
I thought it was a solid film. I liked that Batman got to be the undisputed main character in his own movie for once, and I like that it was a _detective_ story. It also made a lot of sense to me that his suit was totally bullet proof: it feels like the right move for someone who's fighting armed goons without using firearms of his own!
It was too long tho, and I found myself in the theater mentally editing out scenes that could've been cut for time. The whole shirtless spray paint collage scene was superfluous, the car chase could've been shorter, and a lot of various dialog scenes could've been trimmed.
But it's LEAGUES ahead of the Snyderverse imo; Pattinson looks really cool in the bat suit; the cinematography was gorgeous ... overall a worthy addition to the gamut of live action Batmans.
If Bruce was the main character we wouldn't have a detour thru Selina Kyle's story. Truth be told, I would have enjoyed solo Catwoman to the stale leftovers Matt Reeves served up.
@Tom Ford But does a character have to be good to be interesting? Personally I liked the take of a more flawed Batman. His flaws made him seem more real - a tortured soul with a burning desire to right the wrongs of his world. And that describes his villain too, of course: a tortured soul trying to "fix" the world. And I thought that was an interesting parallel to draw.
I understand the whole "unarmed human point" but for me that's one of those "at some point,you just go with or not" issues. Does it make sense for him to have an insignia at that point? Does Pattinson being able to survive a direct bomb to the chest make sense at that point? Does him not taking ant damage until that one goon in the third act hits him at a fraction of the fire power of everybody else in the movie? I don't generally give a crap about that usually but it's a slippery slope and for me The Batman didn't quite nail it.
Man,this was longer than I thought.
@Tom Ford "Beating up poor people" Sounds awesome, I think I'll buy a ticket.
This is one of the first videos where I had to stop, restart, rewind, and relisten to parts because the rant for the first 2 minutes was harder to follow than any of the MCU Bigger Picture videos Bob's done. ((INCLUDING the one talking about "The Celestial Madonna".))
I'll throw in my two cents, which are the same two cents as a lot of people in this comment section. The conclusion of THE BATMAN is Bruce getting a wakeup call that he needs to me MORE than just "vengeance", that maybe fear is a tool, but so is hope. It's him realizing he needs to take a journey, and taking his first steps on it. And that journey is going from being the shadow of vengeance who strikes fear into people's hearts...to being the one who'll sit with a terminally ill orphan until she passes (thank you Justice League Unlimited).
I didn't see it because I just don't need another Batman movie this century.
Ditto
Heard the car chase was good
It's a big dispute of the whole gritty lonely vengeance angle. How unhelpful it is, and how uncondusive it is to healing or actually helping, that spending your whole time as batman isn't the only way to help and that bruce wayne can do more for gotham than he estimates. It views batmans vengeance as a rich white guy lashing out at people not systems. Riddler sees batman's vengeance, sees his actions and goes "yeah, I can do that. I can go out hurting those who "deserve" it". By the end he loses because he needed to learn that there's more going on under the seams than just crimes and that in order to help batman needs to inspire hope as well as fear, and that bruce can do more with his privilege to help others.
Most of the things you said, when you explained the plot, comic book inspirations and Riddler motivations, I was like "yeah... why wouldn't you think that's awesome?"; regardless,
I don't know what chamber you've been in, but the whole Internet is head over heals for this movie. Everyone's really excited. Sorry it didn't work for you :(
it adorable you think a lot of peopling liking something means its more "legit". Transformers must be amazing , trump was really the best presidential option in 2016, etc.
and this only has an 85% on rotten tomatoes. that means 15% thought the film WASNT EVEN WORTH WATCHING.
@@claynorth964 Sorry you didn't enjoy it lol
WOAHWOAHWOAH the car chase is bad?? Uh I really disagree with that.
What sucks about the movie to me is that the actual comic Batman Year 2 would have been a way better story to adapt into a movie, and way simpler. It's about another vigilante in Gotham's history, but a killer in a skull mask named The Reaper, coming back and Batman having to fight him, it's awesome. It weaves in some of his own past and the waynes but not too heavily, it's about the clash of these two men, hero and antihero.
adam west's batman was the best batman.
He ties with Kevin Conroy for me, personally. But to each their own.
It felt like an odd choice to have Bruce give his "I messed up, now I have to be better" as the pent-ultimate ending, with "now catwoman is leaving" as the actual ending...? I would have liked to see him as Bruce offering to do more or oversee the renewal project or any number of things, too, but swap the last two endings and it is probably a little bit of a better movie with what at least tries to have a better conclusion
Nashton was Riddler's original last name, so it makes sense that before he's decided to be a villain he's not using a moniker. Riddler seeing himself as the hero aligned with Batman means that there's an argument that he wouldn't feel the need to call himself Edward Nygma yet.
New Big Picture - THE ANTI-BATMAN BATMAN MOVIE - In which Moviebob whinges for 14 minutes about how the movie didn't do what he would have done if he had been in charge and now it's bad because the themes aren't what he want's the themes to be.
aww, triggered the teenager
@@claynorth964 truly, your response in the soul of whit. I shall repent my terribly wrong thoughts and apologize immediately!
This film seems more like an anti Frank Miller’s Batman.
Edward Nashton is what the Riddler was called in the comics after the Crisis On Infinite Earths quasi-reboot. They went back to Nigma eventually though.
Honestly while i love the concept of Batman movies focusing on the “world greatest detective” stick I didn’t like the mystery in this film . Like it felt very much like an episode of Sherlock or the ending of saw. It seems really hard to write a mystery where a smart viewer can use the clues given to protagonist to try to figure things out for themselves without using the knowledge of how stories like this tend to work, but that’s how I’d define a good mystery story. Here things were kinda just dropped in the viewers lap and you weren’t really ever given a chance to figure things out yourself Most of the time it’s not even Batman figuring stuff out as much as it’s just riddler literally directly telling the audience about it.
You're looking for this throw a nerd lense and I wouldn't.
Not making the Wayne's squeaky clean, allowing The Batman to actually have realistic flaws only a rich man would have, Batman partially causing the problems is a much better story to tell than all these larger than life existential threats.
And the ending people actually like, this isn't Anti-Batman, arguably this is the most character development Batman has got in most of his films.
(Most people love the car chase, except for that convenient ramp)
Bob I think the point is less anti Batman but more anti Frank Miller Batman with Bruce ending the film realizing he needs to be a symbol of hope als the Scott Snyder run to be truly effective.
Exactly, I'm not sure Mr. Chipman truly got it. On a metatextual level, this film was about getting the Batman mythos away from the hyper-violent version that's been popular the last few years and taking us back to a Neal Adams, Alan Grant, Chuck Dixon (though Dixon is problematic in his own way) style Batman.
I get where you’re coming from if you thought this was a stand-alone film. But Reeves had been saying for nearly as long as he’s been on the project that this is the first in a planned trilogy. So him quitting the Batman persona doesn’t really make a lot of sense at this point. If anything, it adds to the development he has in this film as it’s the first steps to realizing the importance of his role as Bruce Wayne to really enact positive change in Gotham City.
But again, coming from the POV of thinking this was meant as a stand-alone, your points are very valid.
Wow its like the are trying to start with a place the character can grow from over a trilogy.
I don't know that I agree with your final conclusion. I feel like this Batman movie did follow through with "I can't just be an angry sad boy." In fact that's what the whole death, rebirth, and helping hand to the injured thing is at the end. I think it could be argued whether it worked but... I kind of feel like the working script of the next movie is the assumed turning point. Bruce Wayne being awkward at a charity event and talking to the working people of Gotham, maybe picking up Robin "I set out to scare criminals, not children" that sort of thing. I feel more like this movie was a hard look at the shitty side of Batman... one that could be argued in a Vlog Brothers video in fact.
I really disagree that the movie doesn't stick to its anti-batman conviction. The ending of the movie is literally a voiceover of Robert Pattinson saying "Wow, I gotta rethink this whole vengeance thing, I was **WAY** off"
You make a great point that narratively speaking it would make sense for Bruce Wayne to hang up the cowl at the end of the movie, but I can see why he wouldn't. Billionaire playboys don't change when they realize their plan is untenable - they double down by throwing more money at the plan and pivoting to avoid the problem that has arisen. See Elon Musk with Tesla, Bezos with Amazon, Bill Gates with Microsoft, and several of them with space travel. I agree the ending of this movie directly conflicts with its theme but in terms of "Gritty Realism" what's more real than a rich hypocrite?
Exactly, that's what I felt like what was happening here when even cat woman was saying about Batman being a Hypocrite and that in the end the city is going to kill him in the end because of it.
What did Batman actually ACCOMPLISH in this film? He doesn't save any of Riddler's targets, he doesn't stop Riddlers' ultimate plan, he doesn't CATCH the Riddler- hell, he doesn't even stop Falcone.
He realizes he can't just be the psycho in the armor that beats bad guys half to death. He needs to actually do good and not just force evil into the corner because that only makes things worse.
@@jordanloux3883 and then the movie ends before we ever see him even try any of that. So what was the point?
@@SirPaladin What do you think the sequel is for?
@@jordanloux3883 is it so wrong to want a film to stand on its own merits or story rather than half-hearted promises to maybe follow up on it a few years down the line if this one sells enough tickets?
Here's hoping this is the Empire that sets the table for the feast that is Jedi. To continue the 'Wars theme, holding the pivot until the next movie may be to prevent the need to derail completely and start over if the movie didn't go over as well as it did, avoiding a tonal conundrum like the newest three movies had (the one lacking enough cohesiveness to justify calling it a trilogy)
14:25 Me: “are you referring to when he goes back to save his gf? or when he goes back to prevent bryan singer-”
[WHOOPS! TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES!]
Me, holding a CAD with a lawyer behind me: “ffs, we can’t even say his name in the comments section of an unrelated youtube video? wtf… 😒”
I wish instead of going grounded, they lean into the fantastical and ridiculous. It still can have a dark edge but lean into the camp
They did. It was “Batman and Robin.”
No! That would be too much fun
We had that with Burton and Schumacher. Had Snyder been a better director Batfleck would have brought it back.
@darkecofreak23 I was going to say they did it was called the Arkham series
Nashton was established as Riddler's true name post-Crisis, with Nigma being an alias he assumed around the time he positioned himself as a foe of Batman. The post-New 52 Riddler reverted to Edward "Nygma."
The take away isn't 'you failed, do something different' it's 'you failed, do better'
While I understood the climax/resolution, it really felt like it was both strung out (ie, it took too long to get there, and then had too much denouement), and then felt rushed right there at the end (ie, realization/dive off the platform/come back up re-baptized), and didn't quite fit the rest of the movie. I agree that, at the least, "Hey, maybe I should focus on the good that I can do as Bruce Wayne" kind of realization would have made it a bit better.
So, while I think it was TRYING to say "Batman needs to lighten up and be a hero, not an edgy vigilante", I agree that the move was ACTUALLY saying "vigilantism really doesn't work Bruce, and you're not very good at it", but then it flubbed the landing.
How come the penguin isn't in jail at the end? He shot a guy to death in front of 20 police officers.
He didn't. The Riddler shot him. Penguin never got a shot off.
I just saw it today, and went back and watched your review, and it's remarkable how similar we thought about it. Like exact same score and I said full sentences you do to my friends.
I mean, the main thing I took away was a better portrayal of Batman using fear.
That's, uh, that's it.
Selina Kyle was there in name only - though for once you could actually see how she saw something unique in him as jaded as she was by corrupt ignoramuses. She didn't feel at all like the original Catwoman.
Additionally, the real star of this movie was Gotham - now understandably beyond saving.
If you think the movie is “anti-Batman” then you literally know nothing about the character.
Like others here, I also don't feel this movie is "anti-Batman" so much as it's encouraging those who wish to be a force of good in the world to not be so simplistic in the approach.
All too often, we see those fighting for good, be it physically or just metaphorically, become so certain that, because they're fighting for something good, they must be doing the right thing. They also get so set to this idea that as the world evolves and times change, their views and policies don't change with the changing times and they become "out of date". This is true across the political spectrum, not just the left or right, and it's always inherently flawed. For true "good" to be achieved, those in positions of power need to understand the complexities they face, the people they represent, and not assume that the most direct path to a solution is the right one, especially when they justify a "bad" action like violence as the only solution to achieve something "good".
Basically, like any "superhero" who represents something good in the world, the Batman character has to evolve with society in order to remain relevant, with the character learning from our real-world experiences. This version of the character therefore feels so much more relevant and I couldn't disagree with your conclusion more - the movie isn't anti-Batman and instead wants the character to remain relevant and, narratively, a force for good. (How much actual good that gives the world vs it simply being a vehicle to reflect the existing modern sensibilities, of course, is a completely seperate debate!)
That's a very well thought out reflection, that really nails the best part of the film. One of the biggest problems with Batman films is that they don't often allow the character to change all that much. And here too, Bob seems so attached to Batman doing things the right way that when the film and the character question it, Bob was put off.
Of course, film criticism is always an attempt to examine and explain our gut reactions, and Bob is usually pretty good at that. When he's not, it's because he's fighting against the tide of preconceptions that come with a beloved character. I'm reminded of his immediate dismissal of Spider-Man: Homecoming, not for being a bad movie in itself, but for not being enough like the Spider-Man he knows and loves.
But what you're talking about here ties directly to that in a larger, more global social sense. As Batman himself said in the old animated series, a fanatic is someone who redoubles his efforts while losing sight of his goal. And we're all guilty of that. It's built in, as it were, to the way we operate. If we don't check that our actions are always in line with our intentions, we can become our own worst enemies.
That's exactly what this movie is about. It opens with Batman lost in the repetitive cycle of violence he set himself on, his nights blending together, as he loses sight of the effect he wanted. Or thought he wanted. In the end, it kind of becomes clear he's not really thinking deeply about what he wanted in the first place. And it's only in looking into the dark mirror of the Riddler that he sees what he's becoming. Batman wanted to be the shadow of Gotham, but the Riddler was his shadow, in a purely Jungian sense. I thought that was pretty powerful.
@@rottensquid Thanks for the response, and your take on this as well. I didn't know about but particularly like what you mentioned re: the Batman Animated Series - whilst fictional storytelling is often just that (i.e. telling made-up stories), and cannot directly fix the problems we face in reality, there are still wonderful nuggets of wisdom found even in something that, at heart, is still just meant to be an entertaining show for kids. Just goes to show that, to write a hero well for any audience, we need it to hold up to the test of time at least in part.
On the other side of things, I do like that Bob, even when I don't agree with his well-informed and thought through takes, is always acutely aware that, great as these films, shows, games and so on may be, they are still only a medium of storytelling and people shouldn't get so absorbed or infatuated with them either fitting or not fitting their point of view. I guess that's the interesting thing at play here - he's not pleased by a story that also seems to directly reference and opposed some of the real-world extreme fandom that he so vehemently opposes himself. Whatever the justifiable reasons for this, it's possibly a surprise to us as his audience.
It's also interesting that his take boarders on the "not my Batman" when he also spoke poorly of the "not my Luke" arguement back after the release of "The Last Jedi"... though, in fairness, I think it was important he stood against that because there was also a wider element of fandom toxicity associated to that movie.
@@Henderson10102 Right, agreed. But that's the price of this community. Part of the joy of it is that we can share our hyper-focused enthusiasm with others who enjoy things on the same level, including Bob. But that means some of us take it just a bit too seriously. And even level-headed nerds like Bob get attached to their own ideas of what the character should be, even against their better judgement. We all do it, and it always looks a little foolish from the outside, especially now that we're sharing the discourse with people who take it way, way too far.
It reminds me a bit of The Vision's metaphor about Theseus's ship. The questions is, how much can be replaced before it's not longer the original thing? As Neil Gaiman put it, if your Batman morphs to the point of being a guy in a yellow overcoat with a pet bat, he's not Batman anymore, just some random character with the same name. But with film, and indeed, comics, you can't just keep cranking out the same stories about the same characters forever, no matter how much the fans demand them.
What fans crave is that original joy of falling in love with a character, a thrill that grows to mythic proportions in hindsight as the love deepens. They want that same thrill again, like a junky chasing their first high. But it can't be repeated that way, because what made it so good in the first place was that it was something new, something they couldn't have imagined. What they really crave is something new to fall in love with, but because something new can't be imagined by its very nature, no one knows to ask for that. They ask for more of the same thing they already got. A joker who looks like the Joker they know. A Batman they fell in love with back in '89. What they'll get is a nostalgic tour of past thrills, which on the surface seems like the same thing as something new. But it's not. It's "Make America Great Again." It's "The Good Old Days." It's a rose-tinted lens trained on an experience that's come and gone, and it blinds you to the possibilities of something new.
I often find that things I once loved lose their all-encompassing thrill on rewatch, because I've grown since I fell in love with them, and they're no longer a mind-blowing revelation. I'm sure I'll always enjoy the Dark Knight, but now my Batman has a creepy leather mask rather than a molded rubber one. I'm not betraying my younger self by letting go and moving on, either in fandom, or in life.
I'm with Bob and Griffin on this I found it rather boring wanted to walkout halfway though.
The idea is not that Batman has been doing it so bad that he must hang the cape, the idea is that he should be a better Batman, not one that only punch people. I’m surprised you didn’t catch it, or maybe you decided to ignore it.
Alex Jones talking about gay frogs will forever be hilarious!
My take isn’t that it’s making a statement against the concept of Batman, but showing a character arc in which Bruce Wayne leans that he cannot do effective good by being edge lord vengeance bro and comes to the conclusion that he must strive to be a hero for the people of Gotham more than a punisher of its criminals. I think Batman Forever attempted a similar arc but was way more of a mess than The Batman. I do agree the joker cameo was dumb.
OMG... This series is going to move Batman away from Snyder/Dark Knight Returns and develop him into the Adam West Batman!
I'm now actually more excited about this series than I have ever been for Batman stuff!
the ending with Bruce setting out to become hope is why I am ok with the movie not ending with "Batman is over". if the next movie he still continues to fail at everything and then still insists on continuing that would be a problem. so basically the next movie must be him becoming a better Batman and maybe actually help through his Bruce money. that would be nice.
Bob... you should seriously stop letting your thoughts be defined by your "enemies" IMO. Think independently for a change. Then you'll perhaps see that this is far from being an "anti-Batman" movie, and perhaps realise some way more important things as well.
Great video Bob! Really liked your review too, and I'm looking forward to seeing this movie asap. It sounds like the ending was an unsatisfying one, but I'm interested in finding out if they use The Batman making the wrong decision at the end of this movie to ultimately drive the conflict of future movies. Maybe learning that lesson comes down the pipeline in a future unnamed owl themed sequel?
Wouldn't it be neat if they brought in Patrick Wilson to play a big part in the previously unnamed owl themed sequel? cause he was an owl man in that other movie? Get it? 😉
I wish WB and other movie studios learn to leave creators alone, and allow them to focus on only one movie at a time
Funny enough, your analysis (but not conclusion, even though I know how you got there) is why I love the film - he needs to be a better version of Batman, this idea, not just for myself and the city, but for those who live in the city with him. That's exactly what he says when he helps the woman who is being airlifted out in the end. Getting confused about the Spanish is a bit much by half, yes, as is the backstory on the Waynes could've been cut down easily, but this all still works as a whole for my money.
So, it does insists upon itself but in a way that moves forward and not like Peter's bad take on The Godfather bit in Family Guy (which I forgot about and was actually funny at the time).
I would actually love to know why you think the car chase scene was bad though.
I didn't even like this movie, but I gotta disagree about this point. If the movie spends 90% of the runtime on showing how Batman sucks at being Batman, then the movie can still end with Batman being Batman - as long as it shows that Batman really learned his lesson and changed his ways for the better. Which this movie DOES do - it's all about Batman rejecting fear and embracing hope, and all that corny stuff.
The execution is a mess, but the basic idea of it makes just as much sense as a story which ends with Bruce no longer being Batman.
Love ya Bob, but I feel like you got the wrong conclusion here. The idea isn't that Batman as a concept is inherently bad, the idea is that the way Bruce approached being Batman was flawed. The common criticism if "Batman punches poor people while leaving the far more corrupt elites alone" was the *point* of this movie, and it ends in a place where Bruce has his eyes opened and needs to be more empathetic. If the Bruce from act 1 of this movie were to face Mr. Freeze, he'd say "He's a criminal, he made his choice, now I have to do my job." As he basically said about Annika when Selena told him about her. But from where Bruce is at the end, he would instead reach a hand out in sympathy towards that same type of person now.
a 5 minute epilogue does not a character arc make my friend.For almost 3 hours Batman is a step behind and failing to stop any of the riddlers crimes or seemingly help Gotham,you can't in the final 5% of the film then turn around and say:and so he changed his ways in an instant and decided he needed to be a symbol of hope.For that reading to work there needs to be more leg work done previously,you can't have your cake and eat it too,he can't be a psycho for 2hrs and 50 min and then become Superman(in symbolism at least)
@@donttalkaboutmymomsyo He doesn't. The ending establishes the first steps on that journey. He's not going to change overnight and he doesn't need to. The theme isn't "Batman will change" the theme is Batman *needs* to change, and his failure is exemplary of that. By the time of the sequel, assume significant time has passed in universe, he will be a more fully realized character. This is step one on his journey to become less like Miller's Batman and more like Tom King's.
@@kidanarchy2105 yeah cool story bro,but thats not the film we got,and by this very explanation you admit that the movie didn't do a good job of it,since the first steps take place at the very end almost like a footnote.That kind of inter-movie arc progression is important but the film itself has to be consistent.There's no sense of that need to change throughout the movie,hell his viee is even validated when he catches Falcone using his own method(read:go it alone,punch-a-palooza).The entire movie seems like its pushing for Batman to hand the cowl up,crime is up,Batman clearly has no effect,he can't stop the riddler etc etc...
It just feels like a cheap unearned trick to see Reeves examine how an unstable psychopathic vigilante with great power could be a catastrophe and then after he learns just how damaging of an effect he's had(the gun toading internet trolls using him as an ideal) he pulls a 180.Thats not subversion,thats poor plot execution.
@@donttalkaboutmymomsyo we seem to be using the exact same points to come to entirely different conclusions. We're in agreement that Batman is a failure in this movie. We disagree on how to deal with that. When you fuck up you try again, not give up and run away. It requires a new approach, not throwing in the towel.
@@kidanarchy2105 you're largely okay with the ending and i think its a cop out
I just got back from seeing this, and I respectfully disagree Bob.
I think that saying this is an anti-batman movie is like saying that Black Panther is an anti-Wakanda movie. In both cases, we see the movie start with an existing status-quo that actually feeds in to right-wing talking points (vengeance-vigilanties, isolationism) and the heroes learn that this is a mistake by facing the villains, and emerge from the experience as better heroes/leaders. A hero learning and improving, especially in a story framed as near the beginning of their career, is not the same as saying the hero should go home and hang up the cape.
Yes, this batman starts the movie as a loser making all the wrong choices, but by the end he emerges as a better hero and closer to some of my favorite incarnations of the character, like say Bruce Timm/Kevin Conroy, and further from the ones I don't like such as Frank Miller/BvS.
The ending was really weird. They basically set it up exactly for Bruce Wayne to say that the Batman is not such a good idea, and that he should do more as Bruce Wayne, but there is no Bruce Wayne in the ending at all. It's too mind-boggling for this to be a mishap, so I wonder if that was the actual ending and they just dropped it in the edit for one reason or another.
I think the point was he realized he needed to actually be a hero instead of just a vigilante. Beating up criminals is not the solution, but instead should be focusing his time on actually protecting the people of the city. The point is not that "Batman is bad", its that "Violent Vengeance Batman" is bad. That a better batman would be more of, well, an actual superhero.
@@thewerdna Well, yeah, that's what he says in the narration, but it's the wrong conclusion, based on the situation and what the whole movie was pointing out. The people of Gotham don't need a Batman that much, they need more Bruce Wayne. It actually looked ridiculous watching a guy in a costume pulling people to safety one by one, when it's obvious that the solution is to spend as much money into sheltering the victims and into repairing the damage.
@@thewerdna How are "beating up criminals" and "protecting people" mutually exclusive.
@@AvocadoBawlz-Johnson they aren't. The problem was he was only doing the former and really none of the latter until the end of the movie. Throw in the fact he was only dealing with low level thugs which fixes nothing long term when he should be really focusing on trying to help take down the larger scale criminals
Edit: Going to say this first off. It is easy to point out the negatives and that all I am pointing out. Things that felt weird. I would say that if you can sit through a 3 hour drama than do it. I never felt like I was just dragging. There is a lot going on and it takes full advantage of the medium to tell the story. A lot of the movie is shown and you need to put it together.
I have so much to say about this movie. To make it short. It was well made. The acting was good, the atmosphere was consistent, the Riddler was a good take on crazy, but the ham-fisted marketing and studio involvement was jarring. Like the batmobile, 1 scene and all that collateral damage then they are like "oops" and never say anything about all that carnage?
It sounds like (having not seen it yet, just based on this comment) this movie has the same issue I had with Black Widow - I really dug all the character and spy famiyl stuff. But every action scene I was just like. How are you still alive? Why are the civilians just calmly watching this deadly chase? How many people in this prison did you just murder and then forget about? (Or, perhaps, more like Man of Steel and its complete lack of care for any collateral damage?)
@@UchihaKat I'm not saying you are wrong. There is very little in the way of action in it. I would strongly suggest seeing it. The baddies are amazing and very creepy. Almost a little too close to home from the last few years. It's more Noir and less Nolan. That being said, yeah, there are some time where you are scratching your head as one thing happens to someone then something that should be shrugged off is terribly dangerous.
At the risk of being branded a bad nerd actually Riddler's real name has been Edward Nashton for a while now so this is less making Riddler into a serious character and more adapting from the comics like most of these films do.
I was not in favor but understanding bob’s position until he said the car chase was bad. What. Did we see the same movie?