8.3? for batman the cartoon live action if written by a moody teenager

anyway? that doesnt make any sense, the word needs an s.

The gunfire lighting! SO GOOD! My cap is off to Reeve, who shot so many scenes in this movie as murky and fast-paced yet I NEVER lost the flow of it. I could follow the darn action scenes. So many action scenes are shot poorly (shaky cam) and it drives me 'round the bend. It works in a realistic war-drama where somebody is conveying the chaos of combat (Saving Private Ryan) but not in a fun action/adventure movie or comic book flick.

Still haven't seen Netflix's Daredevil. I don't know why; I know it's supposed to be good.

Mad respect for the precision here.

Have you seen Oldboy? There's an IMPRESSIVE hallway fight there, too. It's one of the best fight scenes in a movie (for my money).

I could be in for a Batman/Daredevil picture. Imagine the Cathedrals they'd both be 100% at home in?

I think we're thinking of the cartoon as being very different. I remember it as a remarkable show filled with great storytelling and some of the most iconic performances of Bat-family characters of all-time, so a comparison to the animated series is a big positive to me. What exactly are you accusing The Batman of? I fear that, without some clarification, we're going to be talking at cross-purposes.

I think I misspoke with the word "mature". On a re-think, I wouldn't call the comics or the cartoons "immature", just that they're embracing of a certain amount of the childhood fantastic. Perhaps that's more accurate. They're never going to seem like Casablanca or There Will Be Blood because they have that childhood element to them, but I shouldn't have implied immaturity. And I would say that this film isn't immature, either. Again, I think some clarification is needed on why you're calling it immature...?

I liked the detective aspects of the movie. They reminded me of some of my favourite Batman comics like The Long Halloween and Gotham After Midnight.

As for Alfred's being in spec ops, it goes back to at least 1982. I just hit up my bookshelf and cracked a comic book (The Untold Legend of the Batman) that depicts him as a WWII commando/spy. I know stuff changes in comics, but Alfred's been a bit of a badass for awhile now. This kinda mimics Holmes and Watson where the good doctor was ex-military, carried a revolver, and could handle himself in a fight.

If I were guessing, I'd say that Pattinson did exactly what the director and choreographer wanted him to, and if he couldn't/didn't, they'd have had a stuntman suit up and do it instead.

Most of this seems to come down to personal enjoyment or lack thereof. I don't have the same animosity towards a more fantastic Batman (why I love the Burton films so much), or the moody atmosphere, or Alfred's depiction, or the choreography. I loved the film, and the aspects you dislike seemed innocuous to me, or were positive.

" why would that kind of person be a butler? if he was a butler for a man who hid his identity and did military stuff on the side, that would totally make sense but that's not what bruce's dad was."

I noticed that the relationship between Alfred and Bruce is brittle. Bruce seems dismissive of him and Alfred seems annoyed with Bruce.

I had to think why the director/writers went this route and realized that it was well thought out.

Alfred is ex-military. He was probably a combination of butler/body guard for Wayne Sr. Wayne Sr. likely arranged for Alfred to become Bruce's legal guardian in the event of his death. He probably even arranged in his will for Alfred to be a permanent executor of the Wayne fortune.

Once Bruce became of age, he couldn't simply fire Alfred. Part of it might be a legal issue, part of it might be out of respect for his father who put so much trust in the man.

Alfred considers it his legal and moral duty to take of Bruce. Bruce comes of age and what does the little shit do? He tells Alfred that he intends to dress up in a goofy suit and run around after dark taking on the baddest of Gotham's bad.

At this point in his career -- year 2 -- Alfred probably thinks this is the stupidest idea ever. He definitely doesn't approve, but he can't stop Bruce from his mission.

This likely explains at the tense relationship between them. Bruce resents Alfred disapproval of his chosen lifestyle. Alfred thinks Wayne Jr is an immature idiot.

I'm exxagerating slightly but you get the idea.

In subsequent movies, I expect this relationship will thaw depending on how far into the future the series moves.

Wayne Foundation Burn Unit.

I meant to say that the emphasis in The Batman is on Batman-as-detective. Batman Begins had its emphasis more on Bruce becoming Batman than on his detecting. Other Batman movies have him doing investigations and pitting his mind against the criminals' minds (Batman '89, for instance, he solves the Joker's chemical attacks, The Dark Knight has him do analysis on the bullet fragments) but the focus hasn't been on his being a detective.

In The Batman, we spend more time seeing him searching crime scenes and trying to put clues together to uncover the identity, location, and plot of the Riddler, as well as nail Falcone to the wall.

I would also argue that The Batman gave Batman a really great character arc, as well.

I agree, that would be better, but I was pleased that they let him do any detecting at all.

This is actually a complaint I've had with comic book Batman for some time now. The Long Halloween does it, I think Gotham After Midnight did it (been awhile since I've read it), and generally-speaking there are a lot of Bat-books where he's always one step behind the villain. I think it's because most Batman writers are focused on making the villain seem nigh-unstoppable and a challenge for Bats. Plus they're also thinking in terms of action scenes, not necessarily as detective fiction writers ought to think.

So, yes, I agree with your point. I still like the movie, and I'm still pleased that they gave him detective abilities and scenes, although I do sympathize with wanting those skills to have more of an effect.

Thinking about it just now, it occurs to me that they easily could have done this. If Riddler didn't want to be caught, Batman finds him and is arresting him. When Batman first enters, Riddler does basically the whole "We got 'em! We're a great team and best buddies!" thing he does at Arkham, assuming Batman is here to celebrate the victory. When Batman says he's taking Riddler in, Riddler has his temper tantrum.

The flooding could just be a contingency plan he had. Something like, he told his followers that if he gets arrested then input such-and-such a code into the bomb system and follow through. He mocks Batman for being stupid about not knowing about the bombs (even though, how could he?) and we still get that moment (plus the satisfaction knowing Riddler isn't as clever as he thinks, either (not truly knowing about the Wayne-Batman connection)).

"Very muscular looking"? No he's not.

https://static3.srcdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/The-Batman-Andy-Serkis-Alfred.jpg

I also noticed that the relationship between them seemed brittle compared to previous versions.

I liked that conflict between them. It makes way more sense at this stage in Batman's career, if you think about it.

My impression is that you just want a retread of previous stuff.

you dont know how it works? we believe these ratings. so we watch it and then realize it sucks. why did i even need to explain this to you?

Yeah it's not just Superhero films.

Some of them are definitely bought and paid for. I've heard that Disney (among other companies I'm sure) wine and dine the early screening critics. Paying for their accomadation and meals, giving them goodie bags, letting them mingle with people who worked on the film. They get the red carpet treatment from what I've heard. Basically sweetening them up. Naturally the critics give glowing reviews as you don't bite the hand that feeds you.

I don't doubt this as I once seen a twitter user showcase his Midsommar (2019) screening invitation. It was a personalized letter with a little buildable maypole. If A24 are sending out goodiebags with collectibles then no doubt others do too.

With how movie criticism is now, they don't get to pay for everyone. On rotten tomatoes many verified critics are bloggers on small movie sites or even sometimes some random youtuber. Hence some negative reviews always get into the mix.

Critics have the power to irreperably harm a film before it's even released to the general public. So studios, with so much money at stake, do everything in their power to maximize profit.

I'm a big believer in people blindly following narratives (herd mentality). When a movie gets glowing reviews from critics, has a big marketing campaign and early online users rave about it (IMDB voters etc), people will often just hop on the bandwagon instead of standing out and questioning the movie.

On IMDB there are definitely paid for reviews. I saw one of the most blatant examples recently on Malignant (2021) of all movies. It was so obvious because so many new accounts were giving it 10/10 ratings with short broken english reviews. There was only 2 explanations, some fanboy made multiple sock puppets/bots and tried boost the rating of a movie he likes or the studio paid some low quality bot farm to give the film good word of mouth online.

This has been going on for decades.

I remember the blatant PR campaign for Green Lantern with early screeners bringing in amazing tweets from people in the biz.

https://www.slashfilm.com/515948/early-buzz-screening-green-lantern-earns-positive-praise/

The first screening of Martin Campbell's Green Lantern happened on Sunday night in Hollywood, and the early response so far has been very positive. Read some tweets and quotes after the jump.

Robert Meyer Burnett (director of Free Enterprise) on Twitter: GREEN LANTERN fucking ROCKED. The 3D was AWESOME. As a lifelong DC fan, the opening ten minutes made me squeal like schoolgirl. ... Believe it. The first ten minutes will make you believe. The 3D is also outstanding. ... GREEN LANTERN was terrific fun. The fact that it works at all is a miracle, but it really does cook. The first ten minutes sold me. ... The 3D in the opening ten minutes is wonderful. But YOU MUST see it with polarized glasses. The color is great. ... It's not campy at all. The humor is earned. And Mark Strong as Sinestro was AWESOME. ... I LOVED GREEN LANTERN. Don't know why, but it kinda' felt like THE LAST STARFIGHTER. I know..."Huh?!? What?!?" ... it really did feel like an 80's movie, circa '84... Weird. ... BTW...In LexG parlance...Blake Lively...LOOK AT HER. SMOOOOOKING hot.

Natasha Eloi (Space Channel) on Twitter:  "So-Frakking-Un-Believable!!! I'm still spinning w/ delight & utter fangirl satisfaction!! #GREENLANTERN IS GO!!!" ... #GREENLANTERNCORP be sure to stay until the end of the 1st credit roll for the BIG PAYOFF!! U won't be disappointed!! .... Torn between #MarkStrong as #Sinestro & #RyanReynolds as #GreenLantern on who rocked more! Hmm? Think we have a tie. Better be a sequel;)

David A. Arnold (comedian) on Twitter: Just saw Green Lantern...GOOD SHIT!

Trey Alexander (Fandango.com) on Twitter: "Just saw Green Lantern. Interview the cast tomorrow. Blake Lively is so hot. Ryan Reynolds is perfect. Great mix of humor, action & dram

Maybe I didn't pay attention because it's 3 hour movie. Also I don't dislike it, in fact I just said in my previous post it isn't bad. It's a pretty average movie, with its up and downs. I gave more details in other threads.