You're viewing a single thread.
keaton was the best, but clooney was up there.
batman & robin was probably the closest a mainstream comic book movie has ever been to the tone of the source material.
The Schumaker films had good casting. Clooney, Kilmer, Thurman, Jones, and Carrey were all great for their roles. They just happened to be cast in terrible films.
i mean, the films perfectly captures the camp of the batman characters, which i'd say makes the films good.
i hold that the best modern version of batman is The Brave and The Bold.
I saw Batman Forever when I was 6 years old and I loved it. It was made for kids.
I like Pattinson's Batman the best. Although the movie itself went bad in the second half by resorting to cliche Hollywood spectacle.
Christian Bale
Counterpoint: "Batman voice"
Christian Bale is a great actor, but I think he was the worst Batman.
I like Christian Bale's, Bruce Wayne, I do not like his Batman. If you could take just the Bruce Wayne and combine it with say Clooney or Pattinson's Batman, that would be ideal.
nah
I think I have a poor view of Christian Bale, not because of his acting but because the 3rd movie was so bad- which doesn't have anything to do with how he represented Batman.
I hold to Affleck being the best all around portrayal of the character, just saddled in relatively mediocre films. That said, I really liked Pattinsonʻs take and the film overall (and I do sympathize with your take on the second half; it feels a bit bloated for the kind of “street-level” Batman they had going).
This is the first time I've read someone dislike the second half of the Batman. Kinda shocked to hear it reduced to "Hollywood spectacle" given the clear ties to the movies main themes and character arcs. It also was a nearly-perfect final act for a Batman movie imho with it not revolving around one villain Batman needs to physically beat up like most of the previous films.
The problem I had was the entire movie had the Riddler fighting corruption for "the little man" and being a counterpoint to Batman's work. Then at the end The Riddler, without warning, turns into a Marvel Villain (tm) where he floods an entire city killing many "little men" he spent his life protecting.
Because the Riddler actually had a valid point regarding the corruption infecting the city's elites. If the scriptwriter had followed this chain of thought, Batman would have ended up fully siding with the Riddler and potentially giving all his money away to fund social progress and equity.
Obviously instead the Riddler went mental and Batman gets to keep his wee belt.
I think there's an interesting conversation to be had here but I'm not certain I'm going to do it justice via text; let me try.
I think what's happening here (with your comment and actually the other one responding to yours) is the failure to separate the underlying motivation and intent of the Riddler and the Riddler's mental state or actions.
The Riddler in The Batman stems from inequality and corruption and systemic failures. We can empathize with that concept and we can understand how it drives him to become who he is in the movie. But I think him coming from that place does not necessarily mean he's "fighting corruption for the 'little man'" as you said. In fact, I think the movie goes out of its way to show us that he's less interested in helping people and fixing the system and more interested in hurting people and damaging the system. He kills the corrupt ~judge/politician in the beginning (sorry if I get details wrong or close to right, it's been a few years and my movie memory isn't what it used to be) and leaves a boy without his father - or maybe orphans him. He propagates some of the issues that made characters like himself and Batman.
He straps a bomb to a corrupt cop which I'd argue inherently endangers more than just the person "who deserved it". He firebombs Alfred, an arguably innocent bystander in everything. He plans a partial flooding of the city and the assassination of the mayoral candidate (at least) while riling up extremists to go out and hurt people. He isn't doing these things to weed out corruption or to help people, he's doing these things because they make him feel good. He's hurting the people who "hurt him" but in reality he's cultivating the same environment that made him.
And I think the movie gives both Batman and Catwoman as counter examples to the Riddlers methods. Catwoman came from a similar background of hardship and systemic failings and instead of specifically violently hurting people, she steals from people to help abused women (and immigrants if I'm remembering correctly). She's not making the system better but she's helping people like an Anti-Hero. She's trying to kill the mob boss like the Riddler does with who he blames, but she's not cultivating an armed extremist militia and she's taking care of people she relates to.
The Batman is even more interesting IMHO because he actually falls into the same trap as the Riddler at first, he's hellbent on hurting bad people to the point that it's doing more harm than good. Then the climax of the film is realizing he can't be Vengeance, he can't be what the Riddler is and what the Riddler promotes in his goons, he has to be Hope™. He has to help people, he lights the flare and leads people to safety.
That's the central arc of The Batman, going from being interested in vengeance - in the easy solution, in the thing that makes small changes you can justify but that don't help the people that don't change the system that may even hurt everyone - to being interested in change, in leading people, in taking care of orphans, in not creating more kids without father's.
The Riddler may have come from a place of systemic injustice but he was a serial killer interested only in vengeance, he wasn't robin hood, and he was that way from the beginning of the film. I thought the third act really spelt that out in a way I really enjoyed. I don't think he was ever protecting people, I think he was always obsessed with hurting the people that hurt him.
Of course, it's Batman, we need to see Batman dress like a Bat and be a billionaire and justify not doing like... World changing philanthropy with just his money, that's part of the fantasy unfortunately. But I hope in the sequel we see more of Bruce Wayne being the character I enjoy (and what they've set up nicely in this first film) of someone who does what the Batman can't. Reinstate funding, do public projects, revitalize industry - all that shit real billionaires should do (before funding politicians to tax themselves out of existence) and that provide a real sense of Batman AND Bruce Wayne being heroes.
Yes I agree with your analysis. His methods were bad which was the dichotomy between Batman and Riddler. Neither we're doing the boring work of philanthropy or social work because it's a super hero movie. But I disagree that Riddler was so different from Batman from the very start. Riddler and his followers weren't portrayed as suicidal maniacs bent on mass murder until the very end when Riddler floods the city. Instead the first half was Riddler kills bad guys and Batman doesn't. It didn't need the Hollywood disaster ending.
Did the Riddler think he was gonna die? Did his henchmen? I didn't get that vibe. And I think the Riddler was interested in the theatrics of his work from the get go, getting captured, the riddles (obvi lol), etc. I feel like going out on a big bang was always within character. And although he may have started by targeting the corrupt, I think his natural progression towards just targeting the wealthy or the "not like him" made sense. The Riddler killing many people via the flood felt natural to me but maybe I need to rewatch it.
As for his followers, we don't get a ton of screen time with them but the movie was very effective at evoking the right wing twitch/forum/podcast vibe of a deep dark rabbit hole - so maybe I'm projecting - but I 100% can see random people who think the Riddler's form of violence is cool or admirable being willing to dehumanize the people in the arena enough to commit mass murder. Idk, it's the disciple vs the leader dilution of the message or intent. And I'd still argue that the intent was never to improve things or be consistent, it was to make people hurt the way he did and justify it however he could.
Thanks for reading all my shit lol, hopefully you got something out of this :D
Did his henchmen? I didn't get that vibe.
The henchmen were right in the middle of the flood and continued to fight Batman. Ironman 3 was more realistic when a goon dropped their weapon and said they didn't even like the job.
I thought the point was they were in the rafters and therefore wouldn't die, and then we're all armed with scoped rifles aimed at the "corrupt" politicians they viewed as a problem they were justified in forcibly removing. All of that feels very accurate to the Riddlers initial plans - kill "the corrupt people in charge" and "sacrifice yourself for the greater good" (by getting captured by the police like the Riddler does).
These were fanatics, they were extremists. In Ironman 3 they were henchmen who came off as mercenaries, people not devote to the cause and their simply to make money. Not that Ironman 3 should really be used as a great example with their use of the 10 rings only to retcon that so like... We're they henchmen mercs or were they devote ninja soldiers or...? Still, pretty different situation.