No Affleck =No batman
Boycott it make it flop and then wb will rehire Affleck and Snyder
#BoycottBatman
#BoycottReeves
True dc fans lets destroy this film
Don’t worry, it’s a DCEUFANTIC film. The odds are it will suck anyway.
shareTrue DC fans, hating on a DC movie? sorry, not a fan in my book
shareWhat? You crazy fanboys gonna boycott this one too? When does it end with you clowns?
shareSo, who's boycotting?
shareMaybe about a dozen people, judging from the opening day box office. The reviews are great, the word of mouth on the film is great, and the initial box office take is great. Sorry naysayers, looks like you've got a lot of egg on your faces.
shareI saw it and I want my money and 3 hours of my life back.
shareGood I'm glad you got your time wasted.
shareToo bad. I saw it, and I'm planning to go see it again in a couple of days. If you want a Michael Bay-style series of endless explosions and action scenes, maybe you'll find the movie boring. If you want all sunshine and roses, instead of dark and gritty, I can't see why you'd pay to see a Batman movie to begin with. If you want a John Wick series of endless martial arts scenes (no matter how ridiculous and over the top the world it's set in has to be), I can't fathom why you'd go to see a movie that every trailer made clear is a Se7en-style detective story.
This movie was an engaging, intelligent, true to the source material superhero movie, and a damn good one at that. I truly cannot fathom how anyone aware of what type of movie it was always going to be could have this reaction. Sure, if it's just fundamentally not your sort of movie, and you got persuaded to see it, I could understand this reaction. But how anyone familiar with comic book movies in general, and Batman in particular could have this reaction makes absolutely no sense to me. Unless you think Batman should always be the campy, Adam West version. And who has thought that since the sixties? Joel Schumacher tried to bring that interpretation back in the '90s, and it bombed so epically that it nearly killed Batman entirely. Based on what you could predict from the trailers, based on what is known about Batman as a character, I just don't see how you can have this reaction. Put simply: you knew what type of movie it was going to be. It was put out there well in advance. If that's not your thing, why did you bother to go see it in the first place?
It is no the genre that I have a problem with, it is the awful movie.
You thought the movie was INTELLIGENT? really? After 3 hours of moping around looking super emo, Batman solves the case by WATCHING A VIDEO OF THE VILLAIN EXPLAINING EXACTLY WHAT IT IS. Despite the fact that he already broadcast it publicly to his 500 followers on the internet. Somehow no one in law enforcement was aware of this.
You thought it was engaging how the movie stretched out a paper thin 30 minute plot out over 3 hours by making every scene excruciating slow, with long scenes of Batman looking sombre and emo played in slow motion to the backdrop of a droning Nirvana song? Must be great being you.
It is awesome being me.
The plot holes in this film are absolutely not one bit worse than those of the much loved "The Dark Knight." (How did nobody notice Joker, in clown makeup, standing on a street corner in broad daylight before the bank heist; how did he time the bus crashing into the bank and then pulling out so impeccably; how did no one notice a dust and debris covered bus pulling into a line of other school buses, especially the driver of the bus Joker pulled in front of; how did no one notice a hundred 55-gallon fuel drums being put aboard those two ferries; why didn't the guards in Lau's building check Lucius Fox for more than one cell phone?) And how is watching Batman not solve the case until someone tells him what that carpet tool was for (which leads him to the video) worse than watching Bale's Batman ineffectually beat on both Sal Maroni and the Joker, only to have them both laugh in his face rather than give him the information he wants?
Batman has, in the comics, almost always been a cold, aloof, emotionally distant loner who has trouble letting people get close to him. And it is getting so tiresome to see people refer to Pattinson's Bruce as "emo." It only shows that you don't know what the bloody word means: an emotional person, or one who is overly sensitive. This is actually the opposite of what Pattinson's Batman does throughout the film, which is mostly show a robot-like lack of emotion.
These are details about the Dark Knight that you would have to go back over with a fine tooth comb after having already watched the movie multiple times in order for them to appear to be a problem to you. This can be done with anything.
Unless you are seriously telling me that as you were watching the movie you thought..."how come no one noticed Joker in clown makeup standing on a street corner...duuuhhh". I am not sure why anyone would pay attention to someone in clown makeup in a megametropolis ctiy anyway.
I am talking about things that were immediately stupid in real time as I was watching the movie. The Joker laughing in Batman's face happened in the MIDDLE of the movie, not at the end. The reason I have to explain obvious things like this is because you are attempting to rationalize and defend a bad movie.The Joker was also a formidable opponent. This was SHOWN to us throughout the movie. When Harvey Dent held a gun to his head, he told him to toss a coin. He absolutely did not give a shit and was not afraid of anything. The Riddler on the other hand was a basement dwelling incel. Oh and remember when comicbook movies weren't too cool to make the characters actually look like themselves? The penguin looked like a generic italian mobster, and the riddler for some reason has an S&M feitish. But I digress, those things aren't even 1% of the problem with this movie.
It may be "dark and gritty", but it is still supposed to be a superhero movie. Batman is a superhero, right? There was not one single memorable action scene in the movie. The closest thing was the carchase, in the crappy looking batmobil. Even Batmans gadgets and accessories had to be made to look mundane and lame in this movie. Instead of gliding with his cape, he turns into squirrel man, and fumbles his landing just to remind us how "grounded" this movie is. But I am digressing again, just to be clear, these things are not even close to being the main problem with this movie. I don't want to give...
...apologists the opportunity to deflect and rationalize.
Fundamentally this movie was hollow and bloated beyond belief. What happened in those 3 hours to justify the run-time? Everything happened to slowly. There was no purpose to 90% of the scenes. At the end Batman gets the villains plan explained to him in a video, but he still doesn't avert the disaster. Instead the climax of the movie is him fighting half a dozen gun nuts (and failing) in an isolated part of the city. could the stakes have been made any lower if they tried? When Batman was dangling, I was just waiting for catwoman to show up and rescue him, while trying to stay awake, and right on cue she showed up and rescued him.
My last hope for the movie was that Joaquin Phoenix's Joker would show up, which I thought would be kind of cool. But that got killed straight away then for some inexplicable reason a crappy looking joker appearing out of nowhere in the cell next to the Riddler for no reason. Sloppy, Hack Synder level writing at its worst.
So wait, you didn't like the film because Batman fails to stop the Riddler's bombs from going off? Yet he shows up at the arena, takes down Riddler's followers and saves those people in the water below from getting electrocuted.
The big theme of the film was whether Batman is actually helping Gotham by doing what he does. Why do the stakes have to be ridiculously high for every superhero film third act? This was so refreshing that it wasn't some world ending event but basically Batman trying to save lives of the people and vowing to inspire hope in Gotham.
I think you went into this film expecting it to be The Dark Knight Rises and there'd be a big chase to get a nuclear bomb before it detonates. That's fine, but not every Batman film has to have that and nor should it.
Have you ever read any Batman graphic novels like The Long Halloween or Hush that are more neo noir detective stories than action packed save the city from annihilation stories? This film was emulating classic Batman stories like that and not what Nolan did.
Also completely disagree about the action scenes, this had the best action scenes we've seen yet in a live action Batman film, Batman was actually fighting like he'd been trained by a cult of ninjas and not like Nolan's Batman who just looks like he's learned how to box.
Agree with most of what you said but I definitely can't roll with you on the fight choreography. I found it severely lacking but chalked it up to this being a young green Batman that hasn't perfected his craft yet.
shareYeah that's fair, there were a few times where he got sloppy and it cost him. Like when he first shows up at the arena he could have popped his smoke grenade thing straight away to cover himself and blind his enemies. He did well taking out some of the gunmen without smoke cover though.
Also later on in that same scene when he walked towards the downed thug who managed to get a shotgun and blast Batman, Batman should have clocked the shotgun within reaching distance of the thug and moved quicker. But of course that was all done so we could have the bit where Catwoman comes to his rescue haha.
Oh yeah, that was another thing that sucked about the movie. He just walks into a gang of a dozen men, and his plan is just beat them up. Batman is not superhuman, and he has never been able to beat up 10 men at once as far as I can remember. He has gadgets and uses tactics and stealth to defeat people. He is a good fighter, but that was just stupid. And he lets people shoot him at point blank range with a SHOTGUN, and miraculously it only hits the armoured parts of his body(never mind the recoil would have knocked him senseless anyway).
shareHe didn't have time to plan an attack because the gunmen were in position shooting innocent civilians. They'd already managed to shoot the mayoral candidate, I don't think Batman had time for stealth.
Also he did use his gadgets. He blows a hole in the roof so he can drop down from above, then he used his bat claw thing to grapple two of the enemies and then he tried to take on the rest with his athletic prowess. Yes he doesn't have superpowers, but he's a very skilled martial artist and excellent hand to hand fighter and is trained in over 100 different forms of martial arts, it's something we haven't seen demonstrated much in the live action films, the closest we've seen before this is the warehouse scene from Batman Vs Superman.
Fair enough if you think it's stupid, but that's Batman, the suit helps protect him and yes taking on armed thugs head on is always a last resort for him when he's got no other choice which in this situation he didn't.
I was talking about the scene at the beginning of the film.
shareYeah those street thugs would have hardly been a problem for Batman, only one of them had a gun. He disposes of most of them quickly and the rest just flee as expected, as I said he's an excellent martial artist/fighter in the comics but if you've only seen the Tim Burton or the Nolan films they don't really show that aspect as much.
shareDoesn't matter how good a martial artist you are, if you walk into a group of 10 men you are toast. I mean if Jackie Chan takes on 10 men at once, then I can go with it, because that is his thing. Batman can take on a lot of people at once, but using projectiles, gadgets and stealth. Just walking into a gang of 10 men and punching them is dumb. And letting himself get shot at point blank range without blocking doesn't speak much for his martial arts skills. He seemed to survive by being lucky.
shareThat's all part of Batman's character, always has been, his determined spirit from the trauma of seeing his parents get killed right in front him as a young boy. It's ok to be jealous cause you're too weak and passive to win a fight against a toddler. Glad to here you wasted your time and money to see a movie you supposedly hated LOL! I'm sure WB will appreciate your support, fucking troll.
wtf....lol. Are you OK?
shareYour criticisms are juvenile. So what if Joker laughing in Batman's face happened in the middle of the movie? The point is, Batman was still failing to accomplish what he was trying to accomplish. Same with Sal Maroni. Yet for some reason, Batman failing in this movie bugs you, but in The Dark Knight you have no problem with it. Riddler being an incel bugs you, because we all know a guy who commits brutal serial murders and is obsessed with puzzles is, of course, going to be a normal, socially well-adjusted person with tons of charisma. Of course he will. And no, he doesn't have an S&M fetish. Google "US army extreme cold weather mask." That's what he was wearing, along with an olive drab M65 army field jacket. So that stuff came from an army surplus store, not a bondage gear shop. Batman doesn't avert the disaster after he watched the video, because by the time he's got Riddler's PW and sees it, he has all of about eight seconds to react. Batman didn't save Rachel or Dent in TDK either, or prevent Joker from blowing up a hospital, and he didn't stop Joker from blowing the ferries up either, but again, him failing in TDK is something that somehow doesn't bother you, while here it's inexcusable.
Look, you don't like the movie. Fine. Everyone's entitled to his opinion. But your criticisms listed above amount to stupid nitpicks you're using to justify it. And somehow you've let the movie get so under your skin that you feel compelled to go online, post long rants about it, and attack people who disagree with you.
It didn't get under my skin, it ruined my saturday evening, and I was stuck bored in the cinema for 3 hours. I actually believed the hype which is why I got tricked into seeing the movie at the cinema. So yeah, I want to vent. And then I see a bunch of overgrown teenagers raving about how the film is a masterpiece because it is "dark" and "gritty". I was bored because the characters were bland, the acting was mediocre, and the story was predictable and stupid. And it went of for THREE HOURS. Those are Zack Snyder levels of navel gazing. And the same Nirvana song played throughout the entire 3 HOUR RUNTIME. Lol.
I am just cursed with the ability to critically think and see through shallow pretentious self absorbed bullshit it seems.
And the same Nirvana song played throughout the entire 3 HOUR RUNTIME. Lol.
You mean the entire song played from start to finish only twice in the movie? It was sampled throughout the entire movie as the background music.
shareSo Michael Giacchino used a chord from a song you dislike in a number of tracks in the film, and so you hate the movie?
Nope, sorry. That's still a pathetically weak criticism. It falls into the "looking for excuses to hate it" category, and reiterates my earlier point: your criticisms are juvenile nitpicks.
I don't dislike the song. But hearing play over 3 hours, to very, very, VERY slow and protracted scenes when the film should have been getting on with the story really grated on my nerves by the end. I was aching for the plot to finally get moving, and we went back to that song for the umpteenth time while a slow and pointless scene played out.
shareNone of the scenes were slow and pointless. They were all there for character or plot development. Those of us with longer attention spans enjoyed the movie just fine.
share"it ruined my saturday evening, and I was stuck bored in the cinema for 3 hours"
Very dramatic. So you took an instant dislike to the film after the first few seconds, knew you were going to hate the film and whatever it was going to show you over the next 3 hours and decided to just sit there and stick it out to have a good rant about it on Moviechat afterwards?
It seems you didn't actually want to see this and just hate watched it to prove your preconceived notions that the film was going to suck. You know at a lot of cinemas if you're not enjoying the first 30 minutes of a film they'll normally be cool with you swapping your tickets to see something else, maybe keep that in mind for next time.
It's okay though, this film can't ruin any more Saturday evenings for you, it's over now lol.
No, I was still holding out hope for the first hour, I thought it's kind f slow but it will probably kick into gear soon. Then over the second hour my patience gradually draining away. After 2 hours my will to live was slipping away and I just wanted it to end.
shareWe get it, you didn't like it. It went over your head. You enjoyed the simple, crowd-pleasing aspects of The Dark Knight but aren't capable of understanding a deeper, more thought-provoking film. It's okay, we won't hold it against you. Now go watch Uncharted or Dog, or rewatch any of Michael Bay or Zach Snyder's movies, and quit complaining about this one.
shareHaha....this is such typical DC fanatic behavior. As soon as the new product comes along that everyone agrees must be the best film of all time, because it is the DARKEST and GRITTIEST, they suddenly have to tear down everything that came before. Remember when The Dark Knight was not only the greatest superhero movie of all time, but the greatest film of all time? Now it's "crowd pleasing". lol. Pathetic.
shareDespite hating nearly every DC movie ever made, I'm suddenly a DC fanatic? I'm merely pointing out that you are confusing the fact that the film went over your head for it being a boring film full of plot holes. You probably think The Conversation is a real snooze-fest, and can't figure out how any can ignore all the plot holes in Taxi Driver.
And if you can't acknowledge that The Dark Knight is a very mainstream, crowd-pleasing film that checks all the boxes on a Hollywood blockbuster checklist, I don't know what to tell you.
Yet you use exactly the same "you didn't like it because it went over your head" line that the typical DC fanatic uses. I understood the movie. So much that I found it incredibly predictable. Which made it even harder to sit through the 3 hours, knowing what was going to happen and waiting for it to end.
If you want to make a genre film under the guise of a Batman movie, then fine. Joker did it. And it was a very good movie. But the problem is that as a detective movie, The Batman sucks. And again, why did this movie need to be 3 hours long? You could have cut it down to almost half of the runtime, and nothing would have been lost.
Take out the credits and it's actually 2 hours and 45 minutes. I was gripped by the story from start to finish, I wouldn't have cut any of it but that's mainly because each of the separate plotlines all merged together in the third act. It's an entertainingly grim and gritty ride through Gotham City and established that city and it's criminal history very well I thought. I'll go and see the next film when it comes out in a few years time, at least you'll know to avoid any future Matt Reeves' directed Batman films from now on.
shareSure, sure, you knew what was going to happen. They all say that after they've seen the film, but I highly doubt you saw any of it coming. Keep on keepin' on. I think AmbuLAnce will be out any day.
share‘3 hours of moping around looking emo’
Lol, that’s not what happened and you know it.
‘By watching a video’
That he had to get the password for to get on Riddler’s computer. Also the GCPD didn’t know he was sending private videos to his followers, it’s not like he made those videos public. His videos were only made public when he wanted it to be such as the live streams.
Also The Riddler is locked up at this point, the GCPD wouldn’t have assumed he’d have bombs placed around the city, they just assumed he was a serial killer they’d caught.
‘Paper thin 30 minute plot’
Lol, only 30 minutes of plot, really? There’s an A and a B story with Batman trying to find the Riddler and then the Falcone/Penguin/Selina plot. Both plots converge by the end and almost every scene contributes to the progression of these plots.
‘With long scenes of Batman looking sombre and emo played in slow motion to the backdrop of a droning Nirvana song’
Lol it played only twice in a 3 hour film, get better criticisms.
How did he get 500 followers? They were watching his live streams right? You think that the Riddler vetted every single one of them to make sure they were not a cop or would not spill the beans about his plan? Ridiculous. Utterly, utterly stupid. And obviously so.
shareThat video Batman finds on Riddler’s computer was pre—recorded and would have been sent only to his most loyal followers who were going to the indoor arena to assassinate Real, there was what 10 of them at most? I doubt he sent it to all of his followers, otherwise he would have just done a live stream and that would have been stupid as the cops might have been watching.
Riddler wrongly assumed Batman would find this video and was also deluded enough to think Batman would agree with his plan.
So it’s not a plot hole, the GCPD only managed to arrest Riddler the same night the bombs were scheduled to go off. By the time they would have got round to getting into his computer and seeing the video it would have been too late.
He's like many who fail to understand a film then complain that it was stupid, of full of plot holes. He initially posted saying the message was posted publicly to 500 people. He didn't stop to wonder how many were actually given a password, or what Riddler's vetting process was. The bottom line is that he wanted a more mainstream action film, like The Dark Knight, and couldn't grasp what he was watching. He's the reason Zack Snyder and Michael Bay make movies.
shareSay what? This movie has a LOT in common with Zack Synder movies. That's one of the reasons I hated it.
shareExactly. Riddler even says something in the video along the lines of "What this community has meant to me these weeks, these months...let's just say none of us are alone anymore."
Riddler was clearly in contact with these people for months leading up to the election day, these aren't some random thugs who signed up last minute to help him out.
[deleted]
[deleted]
How many do you think he actually gave the password to? Far less than 500 showed up at the arena. It's only stupid to you because you aren't thinking.
shareCops don't actively seek out internet communities like this. The only people that are part of these groups are the ones that go looking for them. 500 isn't a big enough number to have randoms stumble upon it and be concerned. You are the stupid one.
shareSome people should grow up and get a job.
shareYeh, it was bad but cat woman was very dreamy. Very beautiful woman.
share