Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2022 4:28:22 GMT
I maybe gonna see this, because unlike Dune 2021, it doesn't seem like it is a wokefest. I could be wrong. Maybe it's a dumb reason but that's why I didn't see dune 2021. But what I need to do is read articles from this director that made it, because i did that for dune 2021 and found out it was a wokefest. Wokefest? Is that some kind of music festival? Not my scene. Those kids and their rockin rock music. Turn it down, ya punks! Am I right?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2022 5:52:07 GMT
Wokefest? Is that some kind of music festival? Not my scene. Those kids and their rockin rock music. Turn it down, ya punks! Am I right? I admit I made up the term 'wokefest' for some reason. And maybe it didnt' make that much sense.
What I should do is explain in much more detail.
Dune actually wasn’t “woke”. Boring as shit? Yes. But I don’t know what was so woke about it.
|
|
|
Post by darkpast on Mar 6, 2022 9:19:20 GMT
the movie was humorless , critics destroyed Snyder for this , even though he had twice as much humor, strange
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Mar 6, 2022 13:01:37 GMT
Wait, how the fuck was Dune "woke"?
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Mar 6, 2022 14:45:58 GMT
Wait, how the fuck was Dune "woke"? Ignore him. He's been on this for months. He's just that guy joetorrance with a new handle. He's harmless but repetitive.
|
|
|
Post by mstreepsucks on Mar 6, 2022 23:00:50 GMT
Wait, how the fuck was Dune "woke"? Maybe, it isn't.
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Mar 7, 2022 0:30:25 GMT
I also didn’t like the Joker scene much, though we see little. Makes me wonder if that was intentional so they can tweak his look/voice/laugh later on as much as they want.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Mar 7, 2022 14:14:04 GMT
A mixed bag here. If the movie is going to bother being three hours, it should've explored a few of its own themes instead of just moving on to the next overwrought scene. Every fun idea the film had, it immediately moved on from. I loved the inner monologue/journal stuff, I thought they were going to focus on how crazy Bruce actually is. They didn't. I enjoyed the criminals being so afraid of Batman by reputation alone. The one guy sees the Bat signal and just drops the spray can and runs off; Then in the very next scene, Batman confronts the street gang and they ask who he is! So is he a legendary creature of the night or not? It tries to make a troubled love story out of the Catwoman subplot, basically to justify her otherwise unnecessary existence in the film. They just needed a female lead, apparently.
Batman walking into the crime scene with all the cops, and they're a combination freaked out/pissed. I loved the way it was shot as he came in. But the scene just goes on too long, eventually it's more awkward than anything else. And that would be fine too if the movie was about vigilante/police dynamics. But it wasn't. It wasn't really about anything. Just a bunch of nods to comic storylines and a (admittedly decent) knockoff of Seven. It deals a little with escalation, and how Batman can be a good and a bad influence on Gotham at the same time, but Nolan already did that, and better.
The movie just kind of runs in circles most of the time. I'm fine with Oz being a red herring, but then Bruce confronts Falcone who tells him the truth (sort of); which means much of Bruce's life is a lie. Then Alfred immediately tells him the whole truth which doesn't resolve his inner conflict completely, but pretty much resets Bruce's focus. So...why are those two scenes back to back? Bruce, and more importantly the audience needs time to digest Falcone's story. Do we believe him? Does it matter? Does it change how we feel about the Waynes, or Batman? It doesn't matter, because Alfred immediately sweeps it away and we're moving on. To put those two scenes so close together is to render the first irrelevant, thereby making the entire 'twist' pointless. Such an odd storytelling/editing decision.
While the acting was fine across the board, none of the characters were particularly compelling. Again, more of the inner monologue that really set the tone at the beginning would've been helpful, but he never sounded that crazy again. "They think I'm in the shadows. I am the shadows." Whether you think that sounds badass or ridiculous isn't the point. The fact that he believes it is what's important, and we needed more unhinged ramblings if that's the portrait you're trying to paint. He's a bad day away from being the Riddler, and while I don't want to be spoon-fed with dialog (a flaw of Nolan's, to be fair), if you're going to set the tone with it at the beginning of the film, at least be consistent. Riddler was fantastic at the end, wish we had seen more of his personality throughout the movie. I guess they didn't want to go overboard and make the movie about him, but let's be honest, the best Batman movies are usually more about the villain. (And this one still didn't give us a particularly interesting Bruce.)
Stuff I liked. The Batmobile was rad; the sound it made when it started, the chase sequence was awesome. The problem is we saw it in the trailer. I liked that this was early Batman, so he's always a bit over his head. He's a brawler, not a ninja. He isn't 100% sure all of his gadgets are going to work (and it doesn't always go to plan). He can handle himself, but these goons still get in their licks. Absolutely loved the scene where it looks like Riddler knows who he is. Bruce is freaked out, the tension is rising, the quick cut to the video camera recording everything. Then Bruce realizes Riddler has no idea and the confidence suddenly flows through him like adrenaline. Expertly written, filmed and acted.
Another thing worth mentioning is that it didn't feel like a CGI fest. One of the aggravating things about most action movies these days is the overabundance of CGI. The Avengers fighting alien spacecraft, I get it. But Uncharted for example; it was fitting it starred Tom Holland because he'd have to be Spider-Man to jump around like that while dangling from a cargo plane. Also fitting it was based on video game because that's what you felt like you were watching. But you watch The Batman, and you feel like Bruce in real trouble, hanging from the lights in the final action sequence. There's a guy hanging on for his life-- he could fall, he could die. You believe it as you're watching it. That's worth a lot in 2022, as far as I'm concerned.
It's a well crafted film, visually. So much effort was put into developing a visual motif of hyper-realism, even more than with Nolan's trilogy. But this was actually a detriment at times, when something ridiculous happened it really stood out because we are constantly made to feel like this is a world close to our own. For example, a bomb literally blows up in Bruce's face and A.) there isn't a mark on him, and B.) the cops bring him to the police station, in costume, instead of I don't know, the hospital? It's a minor nitpick in the grand scheme of things-- if this were any other action movie or superhero movie, whatever, it's fine. But little things like that stand out in a film that takes itself this seriously.
Ultimately I'm honestly not sure where I stand on this film. I didn't hate it, I don't agree with all of the creative decisions, but it tried to do something. My biggest gripe is that it's just too damn long for a movie that doesn't come close to truly pulling me into the story. It has more false endings than Return of the King and none of them seem to matter. Did we need the Joker? No, but then we didn't need this movie, either. The score didn't help. I think there were two songs, Ave Maria and this modified Funeral March that doubles as the theme song. Dun-dun-dun-DUN, Dun-dun-dun-DUN. Ok, we get it. This is bleak, dark, dramatic! It isn't your run of the mill Batman movie (for better or worse) and it isn't Seven, either. So while I wouldn't say I actively dislike the movie, I don't know why I would ever need to watch it again. I'd just watch a Nolan Batman flick or Seven, instead of a movie that was somehow trying to be both at the same time.
|
|
Jason143
Junior Member
@glaceon
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 610
|
Post by Jason143 on Mar 7, 2022 23:05:16 GMT
But it wasn't. It wasn't really about anything. Just a bunch of nods to comic storylines and a (admittedly decent) knockoff of Seven. It deals a little with escalation, and how Batman can be a good and a bad influence on Gotham at the same time, but Nolan already did that, and better. My interpretation is that Reeves wanted to show Batmans transition from being a vengeful crime fighter motivated by anger and despair to becoming a beacon of justice to inspire Gothams citizens, which is what that monologue at the end was about. Not sure why he would be so anti-gun in this movie if thats the case when he was moments away from beating a man to death, but whatever. I can applaud Reeves for that because its not really something weve seen before. Afflecks was a worn down Batman who didnt care anymore. Bales version had set intentions from the start to become a symbol to inspire. Keaton was a mix of the 2. I like that Pattinson's version is still trying to find himself, almost as if he rushed in becoming Batman without really thinking about his true purpose in being so. The execution could have been a whole lot better. The Riddler got worse for me as the movie got into the last act. The whole prison interrogation scene is such a blatant rip off of Dark Knight. And Paul Dano overacted when hes losing it, screaming IIIIIII for way too long, too tryhard. Also his plan didnt make much sense. Hes trying to expose Gothams corrupt elite using intricate murders and sophiscated clues. But then he sets up explosive vans to flood Gotham because...he wants to create chaos? Thats something from the Jokers playbook. The ending just felt so off, as if the studio was like we need some big action set piece. Lets flood Gotham and have Batman fighting low level cronies. This could actually be the most underwhelming finale in any Batman movie ive seen.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Mar 7, 2022 23:51:00 GMT
But it wasn't. It wasn't really about anything. Just a bunch of nods to comic storylines and a (admittedly decent) knockoff of Seven. It deals a little with escalation, and how Batman can be a good and a bad influence on Gotham at the same time, but Nolan already did that, and better. My interpretation is that Reeves wanted to show Batmans transition from being a vengeful crime fighter motivated by anger and despair to becoming a beacon of justice to inspire Gothams citizens, which is what that monologue at the end was about. Not sure why he would be so anti-gun in this movie if thats the case when he was moments away from beating a man to death, but whatever. I can applaud Reeves for that because its not really something weve seen before. Afflecks was a worn down Batman who didnt care anymore. Bales version had set intentions from the start to become a symbol to inspire. Keaton was a mix of the 2. I like that Pattinson's version is still trying to find himself, almost as if he rushed in becoming Batman without really thinking about his true purpose in being so. The execution could have been a whole lot better. The Riddler got worse for me as the movie got into the last act. The whole prison interrogation scene is such a blatant rip off of Dark Knight. And Paul Dano overacted when hes losing it, screaming IIIIIII for way too long, too tryhard. Also his plan didnt make much sense. Hes trying to expose Gothams corrupt elite using intricate murders and sophiscated clues. But then he sets up explosive vans to flood Gotham because...he wants to create chaos? Thats something from the Jokers playbook. The ending just felt so off, as if the studio was like we need some big action set piece. Lets flood Gotham and have Batman fighting low level cronies. This could actually be the most underwhelming finale in any Batman movie ive seen. Good call, the overall theme was something also covered in the Nolan flicks. It borrowed a lot from Nolan and the character himself was an amalgam of previous versions of the character. I can see were you're coming from regarding Riddler. When a character goes off the deep end, it either works for you or it becomes cringeworthy pretty quick. I think Riddler's plan with the flood was to wash away another politician who he saw as the next level of corruption waiting to sink its teeth into Gotham. But you're right, it was conceived as the big set piece before the actual plot was taken into consideration. It's a superhero flick, so they needed to end the movie with a bang, and he provided it.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Mar 8, 2022 13:24:38 GMT
Matt Reeves could've cut 30 min of the 3hour run time of The Batman by just cutting out all the slow zooms into people's faces.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Mar 8, 2022 15:30:43 GMT
Matt Reeves could've cut 30 min of the 3hour run time of The Batman by just cutting out all the slow zooms into people's faces. On that note:
"...Toby Emmerich caught up with Deadline to discuss The Batman. The studio head revealed a shorter runtime was tested with audiences for the superhero epic, but it didn't test nearly as well as the theatrical cut of the film."
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Mar 8, 2022 15:35:29 GMT
A mixed bag here. If the movie is going to bother being three hours, it should've explored a few of its own themes instead of just moving on to the next overwrought scene. Every fun idea the film had, it immediately moved on from. I loved the inner monologue/journal stuff...I did not, but if they were going to put in in there at all, why let it go after one minute of it alone? Either put it in or take it out. Don't set up a tone if you're not going to use that tone. I enjoyed the criminals being so afraid of Batman by reputation alone. The one guy sees the Bat signal and just drops the spray can and runs off; Then in the very next scene, Batman confronts the street gang and they ask who he is! So is he a legendary creature of the night or not?
Yeah, I was confused by that immediately. Were the criminals aware, or not? That was stupid. It tries to make a troubled love story out of the Catwoman subplot, basically to justify her otherwise unnecessary existence in the film. They just needed a female lead, apparently. I wouldn't say she was unnecessary, but yes, they needed a female leadBruce confronts Falcone who tells him the truth (sort of); which means much of Bruce's life is a lie. Then Alfred immediately tells him the whole truth which doesn't resolve his inner conflict completely, but pretty much resets Bruce's focus. So...why are those two scenes back to back? Bruce, and more importantly the audience needs time to digest Falcone's story. Do we believe him? Does it matter? Does it change how we feel about the Waynes, or Batman? It doesn't matter, because Alfred immediately sweeps it away and we're moving on. To put those two scenes so close together is to render the first irrelevant, thereby making the entire 'twist' pointless. Such an odd storytelling/editing decision. yep, yepWhile the acting was fine across the board, none of the characters were particularly compelling.
Stuff I liked. The Batmobile was rad; the sound it made when it started, the chase sequence was awesome. The problem is we saw it in the trailer. The batmobile and the chase were the best part of the movie, IMO.It's a well crafted film, visually. So much effort was put into developing a visual motif of hyper-realism, even more than with Nolan's trilogy.
But this was actually a detriment at times, when something ridiculous happened it really stood out because we are constantly made to feel like this is a world close to our own. For example, a bomb literally blows up in Bruce's face and A.) there isn't a mark on him, and B.) the cops bring him to the police station, in costume, instead of I don't know, the hospital? It's a minor nitpick in the grand scheme of things-- I thought exactly the same thing. Its not a little nitpick. Why didn't they take his mask off when he was unconscious? He was unconscious long enough to get him from the church to the station and no one tried? And yeah, that bomb blew up right in his face! No harm whatsoever? Ultimately I'm honestly not sure where I stand on this film. I didn't hate it, I don't agree with all of the creative decisions, but it tried to do something. My biggest gripe is that it's just too damn long for a movie that doesn't come close to truly pulling me into the story. The more I think of it, the more I agree. Did we need the Joker? No, Nope.The score didn't help. I think there were two songs, Ave Maria and this modified Funeral March that doubles as the theme song. Dun-dun-dun-DUN, Dun-dun-dun-DUN. Ok, we get it. This is bleak, dark, dramatic!Right!I wouldn't say I actively dislike the movie, I don't know why I would ever need to watch it again. I'd just watch a Nolan Batman flick or Seven, instead of a movie that was somehow trying to be both at the same time.
Yeah, pretty much.
Anti climactic ending, too long, too many long scenes not delivering much, for how long the movie was you'd think we'd have gotten to know a lot more about the supporting characters. And the dark and grimy here only looked like an imitation of Se7en.
Not an awful movie, definitely worth seeing. Definitely a good Batman movie, but I'm not dying to see it again, or dying to see a full on franchise. Maybe the next one will be better. It does have room to grow. Fingers crossed.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Mar 8, 2022 17:06:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Mar 8, 2022 22:32:24 GMT
There's some storyline in the comics where Joker had his face cut off and then put back on. I guess looking like a clown wasn't creepy enough. Speaking of configuring comic characters, did anyone notice they basically turned Catwoman into Huntress? She felt similar to her last appearance played by Hathaway. I prefer the Michelle Pfeiffer/Julie Newmar more self assured Catwoman. There was definitely some of her too. I'm talking about the daughter of a gangster/wanting revenge plot. Not a ton you can do with Catwoman at this point, except the Frank Miller hooker stuff, but I reckon WB is too scared to go there.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Mar 8, 2022 22:46:29 GMT
I don’t know how making the movie half an hour shorter would work. The only scene I could see feasibly being cut without impacting the rest of the movie is the Joker one. Besides, WB might have learned a thing or two from what happened with BvS.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2022 23:04:50 GMT
What did everyone think about the flying squirrel suit? I don’t understand why that had to be so ridiculously grounded. Dude has contacts that record everything he sees. Just give him the damn wings. No explanation needed.
I kind of prefer Nolan’s idea of grounded better- where he actually features the comicky stuff but with a semi-plausible explanation (memory cloth).
What’s funny is Reeves’ Gotham is so wonderfully comic booky in tone and style that it really doesn’t need the whole grounded angle anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Mar 8, 2022 23:14:48 GMT
What did everyone think about the flying squirrel suit? I don’t understand why that had to be so ridiculously grounded. Dude has contacts that record everything he sees. Just give him the damn wings. No explanation needed. I kind of prefer Nolan’s idea of grounded better- where he actually features the comicky stuff but with a semi-plausible explanation (memory cloth). What’s funny is Reeves’ Gotham is so wonderfully comic booky in tone and style that it really doesn’t need the whole grounded angle anyway. Yeah I didn't care for it. Hopefully it's just a prototype for his cape gliding. But it was absolutely hilarious that he wiped out lol
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Mar 8, 2022 23:47:44 GMT
What did everyone think about the flying squirrel suit? I don’t understand why that had to be so ridiculously grounded. Dude has contacts that record everything he sees. Just give him the damn wings. No explanation needed. I kind of prefer Nolan’s idea of grounded better- where he actually features the comicky stuff but with a semi-plausible explanation (memory cloth). What’s funny is Reeves’ Gotham is so wonderfully comic booky in tone and style that it really doesn’t need the whole grounded angle anyway. I assume Reeves just wanted to do something different.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Mar 9, 2022 0:08:34 GMT
The more I think about it, watching this movie makes me wish that Joker was never made. I liked that movie when it came out, but looking back, I don’t think we needed it, and we certainly don’t need a sequel. This movie does a better job of doing what Joker tried to accomplish, while still being a superhero film.
|
|