BoydCrowder13 said:

---

FL_Ag1998 said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

I've loved Giacchino ever since he scored LOST, but he's quickly reaching Zimmer / Shore territory.

---

I listen to his Lost score all the time and was excited when I saw he was doing this one.

---

May be heresy but I like Giacchino better than Zimmer.

He has helmed some incredible scores in the last 20 years.

Incredible
Mission Impossible
Star Trek
Up
Lost
Jurassic World
Coco
Inside Out
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
Spider-Man

---

I agree he's fantastic, but for me he's still got a ways to go to catch Zimmer. Just too many great ones.

Gladiator
Interstellar
Inception
Dark Knight trilogy
Man of Steel
Pirates of the Caribbean
The Lion King
Crimson Tide
Dune
Blade Runner 2049

Just got back. I really liked it. This movie felt like it was ripped from a Batman noir graphic novel. I loved the look and feel of this Gotham. I am really looking forward to the HBO series now. More Colin Farrell Penguin. He's great.

Only a couple of issues:
Just a personal gripe…John Turturro is hard for me to take seriously in a role like that.
I did not like the ending with the Riddler incels. Felt too much like Batmans of movies past and especially since this had been a very different Batman film up to that point.

Overall though, I really enjoyed and hope we get more Batman films like this one.

Really enjoyed it. Though they should've ended with the conversation with Riddler and not have the final Fight Club type event.

I really like how they're showing that it's a very thin line between being a hero and being psycho like Riddler.

Did anyone else think the cop calling Gordon about Riddler sitting in the coffee shop sounded exactly like Marky Mark?

I'd like a spoof/dark comedy movie where the serial killer has all these masterful steps and clues but the protgaonist/hero is too stupid to figure out what most/all of them mean. Cuz if random Latino cop doesn't notice that the murder weapon is a carpet tucker, Batman doesn't find the big crazy floor map of bombs and floods.

So, I didn't love this. And I'm gonna admit that I am pretty tired of Batman movies in general, and that was my feeling going into the showing so that might play into my feelings about the movie.

Probably the worst aspect for me was the length. I really felt this movie was about an hour too long. This might be colored by the fact that I've seen so many good movies under 2 hours and so much of this time is spent on moody shots (that I admit are sometimes really gorgeous) and almost everything feels bloated. I also hated the last scene in the arena, and run time plays into that, but it was also just such a different scene than the rest of the movie and I get the story telling reasons for this but the entire movie up to this point is a PG-13 comic book version of something like Seven and then at this point it becomes just standard old batman movie we've all sceen 395230958205938509 times. Just felt like a **** choice for me.

Pattinson is fine as batman, I don't think its an especially hard role for him or anyone else at this point. Honestly the entire movie I got Rorschach vibes and whlie I don't know if that character is built off batman thats what it felt like to me. Which I mean, thats fine, but I'm just don't honestly get that Pattinson had a hard job to do here. For me, Keaton and Bale remain better batmans but I do think this was better than Aflek.

The story telling is so long and convoluted. Probably one victim too many.

All that just weighed the movie down for me. Additionally, the trailers give away any scene worth a damn in this film. For me, that reduces any payoff or enjoyment in each scene. There was no intensity in the penguin chase scene because I knew exactly how it was going to play out.

What I really did like was Ferrell as the penguin and the cinematography. Movie had some absolutely gorgeous scenes - especially in the aforementioned penguin chase scene. I also did like a lot of the movie before the final act. Even with the PG13 limits (would have loved for an R rated batman in this vein) it as dark af and really did seem like a good serial killer movie. Sadly this goes out the window a bit in the final act, IMO. I just wish they would learn to make batman movies that don't have to involve the entire destruction of gotham as a plot point. We've seen this **** soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many times.

agracer said:

---

Liked the movie for the most part but it was way to long.

Few things;

Likes

• Catwoman could not land a blow on Batman, just like it would be in REAL LIFE!
• The sets and cinematography
• Batman was more of a real detective and not not using crazy tech to solve things (like when Bale used the laser scan of the wall to get a fingerprint off of a bullet from TDK...yeah, no)
• Liked most of the other characters and story about how all Gotham was corrupt. Although I thought his father trying to hide and old family secret was kind of weak. The movie showed photos and news paper stories of what happened so why a family member committing murder 30-years before was suddenly and issue, when it was a scandal Wayne had nothing to do with, was lost on me.
• The cars
• The penguin

Dislikes;

• Batman does not capture The Riddler. He just gives himself up.
• What was the point of the flood again? He'd killed and exposed everything, was it just to cause more chaos? That's the joker.
• The end in the area and him lifting people onto stretchers was way out of his character.
• When the Riddler's follower says "I'm vengeance" and it's supposed to make Batman wake up to what's he's doing is kind of weak. Batman is chasing and fighting criminals. The Riddler was killing people (guilty and innocent). There's a huge difference.

Overall thought it was good though.

---

I think it was more that his wife was in and out of Arkham that was the secret. That combined with what her mother did and the fact stuff like that is hereditary (hence while Bruce is borderline psycho) and it would presumably be an ugly story to come out and would embarrass/hurt his wife.

Quote:

---

When the Riddler's follower says "I'm vengeance" and it's supposed to make Batman wake up to what's he's doing is kind of weak. Batman is chasing and fighting criminals. The Riddler was killing people (guilty and innocent). There's a huge difference.

---

I saw it as he couldn't JUST be vengeance. To me, the opening scene with the guy being scared of him was meant to show that he wasn't inspiring hope in anyone, but fear in everyone, both bad guys and the people he was intending to save.

He needed to evolve beyond that so that the good people of Gotham would see him as an inspiration, the guy trying to save the city and helping others.

But that's not to say he won't still be beating the **** out of bad guys.

Right. The first innocent civilian we see is scared of him. The last innocent civilian we see holds hands with him as she is being helicopterred out on a stretcher. That, to me, shows a ton of change.

Right after Riddler's goon says he's vengeance, Bruce is willing to sacrifice himself by taking out the electric wire threatening innocent people. When he comes to, he lit a flare to lead people to safety, and then helps them get out with the national guard. The voiceover talks about becoming a symbol of hope.

That's why the ending works for me.

AgfromHOU said:

---

That's funny.

But in universe he's already beaten Joker, which surely made headlines.

The best part about the absurdity of the existence of Batman is that everyone around him acts like it's a totally acceptable thing to run around in tactical gear and a bat mask.

---

The Joker could be in Arkham already for plenty of reasons. Maybe being inArkham makes him into the Joker.

AgfromHOU said:

---

Reeves states that Batman and him had an encounter about a year prior, which led to Joker ending up in Arkham. It's mentioned in a deleted scene from the first act of the movie.

He was born like the guy from The Man Who Laughs in the 1920's (can't stop smiling) and spent his life learning how to get under peoples' skin, which turns him into the Joker

---

one of the Ringer pods suggested that in this universe, with Martha being an Arkham, that's the reason Batman keeps putting villains in Arkham...keep occupancy up!

The more I hear from Reeves, the more it sounds like the Joker probably isn't going to be in the sequel, thank god. Reeves says he has "ideas" for the character, but it sounds like those ideas might be for, say, a third movie, or even the Arkham HBO Max series, and not the next movie. That said, the way Reeves continues to describe the first Joker scene - the deleted one - the more I wish he would have kept it in. Not because I want more Joker, but because the way Reeves describes it, there's already an implied history there between Batman and the Joker, which would have helped the final Joker scene feel less like a tease for the sequel, and more like a coda to the first scene. Basically, I wish we either got both Joker scenes, or neither Joker scenes, rather than splitting the difference with what we got.

Agreed

Count me in the camp that doesn't want to see another joker as the main villain in a sequel. I like the idea of him being a secondary character or even used in a sort of Hannibal Lector way from Silence of the Lambs. There are so many interesting Batman villains that we don't need another joker based plot IMO

I completely agree with the Catwoman scene, and wish we had seen both Joker scenes. The way he describes the first Joker scene seems like an all-time Batman/Joker interaction.