As per everybody else - went to see The Batman tonight
I guess i'd give it a 6.5 out of 10. People have talked about it being 'dark'. It is visually incredibly dark, to the point where you'll be craving a cutaway daytime scene of Bruce Wayne buying sandwiches. Tonally, it is nowhere near as dark as something like Joker.
It also felt incredibly bloodless to me. I understand that Batman is a character that doesn't 'kill' - but when you're marketing your film as being edgy you're probably going to need a bit more than it delivers. There was a scene where you as the viewer assumed that Batman had lost control and pummelled his foe into small pulpy pieces - only for him to just look a bit bruised and bemused.
I felt that Pattinson was a good fit as Batman - but there was zero chemistry between the major players in the story. Also didn't really feel that Catwoman added much to the story.
My final point is more about the modern way of producing films rather than a dig at The Batman specifically. I remember a time when, if your film exceeded 2 hours in length, it meant that it had a great deal to say and unpack. The rare films that pushed up towards the 3 hour mark were generally epic in scale, storytelling, character development and plot. To me, most modern films (and I would say that 'Superhero' films are the most guilty of this) take 3 hours to tell a story they could deliver more effectively in 100 minutes.
If a film as perfect as Blade Runner can package itself in 117 minutes - why would something like The Batman need 176 minutes to deliver less of a story?
