Tag: Batman

Joker: Folie à Deux (2024) – A Film Maker On Trial

Posted on by fenrisfil

I didn’t intend to review or write about this movie (Largely because it came out in October, my horror month). However, I’ve heard so much nonsense about this film that I felt an article is needed. To do that means spoilers. So only read beyond this opening is you’ve watched the movie or don’t intend to. If you are just after a review, I’ll provide a quick one for you in the next paragraph before i move on to the various debates this film seems to have inspired on the internet.

This is a gritty neo-noir drama wearing the mask of a comic book franchise. This shouldn’t be shocking to anyone that has seen the first movie. But if you go into it thinking that the end of the previous movie was Arthur Fleck fully becoming the character from the comics, you will be disappointed! Also, this is a musical. There is a purpose to it, but it frankly wasn’t necessary and adds very little. The movie is however well made. Technically this is a good movie. That said, a mix of gritty depressing drama, show tunes and comic books is a meal most people won’t be able to keep down. I’d give it a 6/10, but only recommend it to fans of depressing neo-noir.

Joker Derangement Syndrome

Now, on to the debates those. It’s worth noting 99% of those debates are being spread by people that haven’t seen the film. Much of it is reacting to memes, some of which are horrendously inaccurate or outright lies. It is a bizarre torrent of overreactions and the only comparable reaction in movies is the one for the first movie. This is coming from a different group than the first, but it’s just as wild. Instead of claiming the director made a movie to inspire “Incels”, these people are claiming the director deliberately made a movie to punish fans for liking his last one. Both views are delusional. If only there was a term that applies to two people or groups sharing a common delusion… Hmm…..

I doubt the movie was intended to be politically divisive. Somehow it ended up like that, but perhaps that is more about how society is these days than anything to do with the movie. I try as best as I can not to get into politics on this blog, but it isn’t easy. It gets harder with every year and that just shows how much we really need stories that can bring us together instead of divide us. This wasn’t going to be the movie to do it though. It’s far too easy to project your own fear, anxiety and anger on to this movie. The Joker ultimately represents chaos and that is something we all relate to these days.

Question One – Was Arthur consistent to the first film?

Arthur is a mentally ill, run down, abused man with a low IQ. That was all in the first film. At the conclusion. he has his moment of bloody triumph, but he didn’t magically turn into another person. That doesn’t happen in real life. Arthur has put on a persona and has been encouraged to do this by the public that reacted to his subway killings. They then react to his public execution of the talk show host that mocked him in the same way. But, Arthur got caught. He didn’t plan for an escape.Indeed he originally planned to kill himself, not the host. This is a man pushed too far, not the clown prince of crime.

People reacted to this on air killing. It turned Arthur as “Joker” into an icon. The figurehead of a violent revolution. He revelled in that. But… that fades. After months out of the limelight he’s back to being Arthur. It’s not an unexplained character regression like Han Solo in The Force Awakens. It’s a regression that clearly would have happened. Its also important to note that Arthur is not really a bad person. He’s not cruel, he’s not sadistic, he is not a psychopath. Arthur doesn’t actually crave the chaos, he is a victim of it, A man that snapped in the face of it. When he he is confronted by the damage his Joker persona has done to innocent people, he willingly gives it up. This makes total sense.

Question Two – Was it an FU to the audience?

Perhaps the most unhinged claim about this film is that it was somehow an attack on the fans. The theory goes that Todd Phillips was upset about his risky neo-noir Joker movie making over a billion dollars. Apparently he was so upset by this that he deliberately set out to make the sequel as big a financial disaster as possible. This is quite clearly ridiculous. One could perhaps argue it was an FU to the studio for forcing him to make a sequel (figuratively speaking). But even then, it was an FU because he made a sequel consistent to his own vision, without compromise. He did not deliberately make a bad film or one designed to attack anybody. But he did take a big pay off to make this sequel and we should remember, he didn’t originally intend to do one.

Whether the studios wanted him to make the sequel more of a comic book superhero movie or perhaps even a Bonnie and Clyde type of film is a mystery. Whatever the may have wanted, they signed off on what they got. They gave Phillips carte blanche to do what he saw fit. Indeed he refused help from the studio. Whatever else this movie is, it is one mans vision. The crazy idea that this movie was somehow made to “Own the Chuds” is just as deranged as the idea the first one was meant to inspire “Incels” to do mass shootings. This isn’t some kind of psi-ops. It’s a creative director taking risks. It paid off once, it failed the second time. The odd thing is both sides politically seem to want to read into it that Phillips supports the other side.

Life Imitating Art?

This brings me to the films most interesting phenomenon. In the film, people react to Arthurs actions by putting him on a pedestal. They believe him to be an icon of chaos that will tear down the system. To the establishment he is an existential threat, to the downtrodden, he is a saviour. Yet ultimately he was just a man pushed too far, a victim, broken by the system. Though his antics meant he was now seen, but Arthur the man was more invisible than ever. When his fans discover the truth, they turn on him. At that point , he is truly alone. The enemies he made when he embraced the character of Joker still hate him. His only friends in the world are either traumatized or dead. Where this gets interesting is that the reaction to both Joker films has exactly mirrored the reaction to Arthur in those movies.

The first film generated outrage from the establishment. Specifically, mainstream journalists that thought the film was some kind of anthem for “Incels” that would rise up and engage in mass shootings. There were even metal detectors installed at some cinemas because people took this fear seriously. The reaction from people that felt beaten down by the system though was to see Arthur as some kind of icon. A symbol of standing up against the system. When the sequel came out both sides were no doubt expecting more of the same. But when it turned out this movie wasn’t “sticking it to the man”, those that had so invested in that side of the first were outraged so much they seem determined to see the film fail and Todd Phillips career to be over. Those that hated the first film stayed firm in their stance. The result, a box office bomb.

Good Intentions?

There’s two ways of looking at this. One is that Phillips set out to draw the audience so far in to the movie they could have been in the very universe the film is set. That the audience are reacting to the character of Arthur as if they are in his world and not just watching a movie. If so, there is no two ways about it, this is ingenious. But if not, then Phillips can’t be blamed for how the fans feel about the movie. It is just a somewhat experimental, somewhat arty movie from a director that likes to take risks. Phillips just wanted to make an interesting movie and take people on a journey. He didn’t set out to make a movie for one side of the cultural divide or the other. He just made a movie.

There’s a growing phenomenon with modern movies. All the while they are being criticized by some for being “Too safe”, there are risk taking creative directors that are finding the only way they can get a mainstream platform is to take on a mainstream franchise. The majority of the time this leads to an audience backlash. Franchises are not meant to be artist playpens after all. Instead they have a huge weight of audience expectations. That’s not to say a few risks don’t pay off. Guillermo Del Toro and Christopher Nolan have both proven that you can take risks and bring art to a superhero movie. But for every one of those there is a Josh Trank or Rian Johnson. Sometimes like with Taka Waititi and now Todd Phillips they start out with initial success, but eventually the desire to realize their vision gets in the way of audience expectations.

Keep Repeating: “It’s Just a Movie”

The mistake is to assume these directors set out to ruin things for the fans. That makes little sense. Even though people like Johnson and Waititi are antagonistic to the fans, no one actually sets out to fail. Sometimes there is some form of agenda, but not one of deliberate failure. Often these directors are just wildly inappropriate choices to take on franchise movies. Joker is a little different, since this was not set in an established universe. When Joker was greenlit there was a drive across Hollywood to make “Villain” movies. But Warner never asked for one in the main DC universe (Whose Joker at the time was Jared Leto).

No doubt the studio were not expecting a neo-noir, but it’s not like taking on the 8th part of a 9 part, 50 year franchise story. I say that because a lot of people have chosen to compare this to “The Last Jedi” while ignoring the very different situations. It’s worth noting most people didn’t even want a Joker origin story in the first place. The fact is Phillips had nothing to lose and so he didn’t something no one expected. But it worked and it made over a billion dollars as a result.

The Verdict

This time around, Phillips had everything to lose. Good job he was well paid for the risk, because he crashed and burned. In my view he took a too many risks this time. Making a gritty depressing tragedy and not a comic book superhero movie was already a risk. Making it a musical too… That was too much. Those scenes did serve a purpose. They are an insight into Arthur’s frame of mind. Not just in how he escapes his reality, but in how little imagination he has. A point that really didn’t need hammering into the audience so many times, and in a way that gave them very little to enjoy about it. It wasn’t designed to be an FU to the audience, but it wasn’t made for comic book fans either. It was made for Hollywood cinephiles. People at film school, other directors and possibly, The Oscars.

American directors tend to have a love of musicals. For me a musical is a way to compromise music for the sake of drama and drama for the sake of music. Often it just results in generic mediocrity. But that’s not how most directors feel. For them it is part of their DNA. The Oscars meanwhile love a depressing drama about someone with poor mental health that is mistreated by government organisations. Of course the backlash against the success of the first movie probably negates an Oscar nomination. But still, that is the kind of crowd it was made for. So it’s okay not to like it, but don’t take it personally. It is just a movie and Todd Philips is just a director that takes risk. Sometimes they pay off, sometimes they don’t.

James Gunn DCU – Analysis

Posted on by fenrisfil

So James Gunn has finally dropped the plans for the DC movies going forwards and it was a bit of a mixed bag and frankly overall somewhat disappointing. Not that I’m going to join the Snyder fans or Henry Cavill fanclub in calling it DOA before a single trailer or even casting decision. But my enthusiasm has certainly lowered. But let’s have a look at what was announced. There were three main categories (Technically two but I’m adding a third reading between the lines).

The Elseworld movies that won’t relate at all to the DCU and likely Gunn won’t have any involvement in; The legacy movies inherited from the previous regime that need to play out and lay the groundwork for the full reboot and finally the new movies that start to paint a picture of the direction Gunn wants to go. Obviously I’m going to focus more on those but we’ll cover it all so let’s get started!

Elseworlds

The first thing to note is that there basically seems to have been some kind of deal to continue to support The Batman (Which also has a couple of TV show side projects in the work), The Joker (Which was DC’s biggest film since Dark Knight) and Teen Titans Go (Which I gather is also very successful). The deal means they are labelled as “Elseworlds” a title used in the comics to designate an entirely self contained universe where anything goes. These are likely decisions not directly involving Gunn and basically the directors/show runner has free reign with them.

It’s interesting to note Gunn didn’t mention any other Elseworlds stuff or future plans. However there is a rumour the dreaded JJ Abrams Superman project may still be in the works as an Elsewords story. Can’t say I’m pleased to hear that since it sounds dreadful but it’s possible they are committed to make it through old contracts. That Gunn didn’t mention it means he likely wants to wash his hands of it if it is happening.

Sadly, I get the impression the Elseworlds tag is basically there just to support contractual obligations and milk relatively successful IP’s for a bit longer. There doesn’t seem to be any real creative drive behind it and it’s a shame because I’d love to see something like Gotham by Gaslight or Batman Vs Dracula. Maybe they’ll get creative with it later. It actually could have been a useful tool for supporting the main DCU if used properly.

The Gunn Show

The second thing are the legacy films/shows. These can be split into two separate categories, the ones that Gunn listed as part of his “Gods and Monsters” chapter and the ones that aren’t. Likely the key difference between the sets are that those that are included are shows Gun is behind and those that aren’t are ones he had nothing to do with. But just how much the legacy Gunn projects will actually be worked into the Gunnverse remains to be seen.

It’s worth noting there was no mention of the Peacemaker crew here except as being a part of the Waller series so it may their second season will effectively be merged into that show. Creature Commandos is being written by Gunn and likely will be a testing ground that can be ignored in the DCU if none of the characters get over. Basically it’s a Groot/Grogu generating machine. See what is marketable, then move it to live action.

Remnants Of The Past.

The more immediate legacy shows though come with them big question marks too. How much will they relate to the new DCU? Will the actors still be employed after the theatrical run? The Flash is marked as the point that changes the whole DCU which means that the Gunnverse is effectively a spin off of the Snyderverse. Not sure how smart that is. But the main question is will they carry over the PR nightmare and frankly terribly cast Ezra Miller into the DCU?

It’s worth noting Gunn has made no mention of The Flash, Aquaman or Shazam outside of their originally scheduled movies. But it’s also interesting to note that Aquaman 2 is released after The Flash, so will it be set before those events or does that mean Momoa is still Aquaman going forward? That wouldn’t seem to fit with the actors own hints about perhaps switching to playing Lobo in the DCU.

That just leaves Blue Beetle which is new and far enough off to scrub any reference to the DCEU, meaning the character could well have a place in Gunns’ DCU. But if it doesn’t perform they can just forget about the character without too much worry. So on to the important stuff and what should suggest a direction for the DCU moving forward and raise potential issues. Let’s look at this first chapter of the DCU or as Gunn calls it: “Gods and Monsters”.

Superman: Legacy (2025)

The first real movie of the “DCU”/Gunnverse. All we know about this is that it features a younger Superman meeting the people at The Daily Planet for the first time. Presumably day 1 in Metropolis. It’s likely you won’t see his Smallville upbringing and possibly if you see him departing Krypton it’ll be relatively brief. Gunn clearly didn’t want Henry Cavill in the roll and it’s not clear how much of that is a desire to sweep out the Snyderverse (We’ll know when we find out if Shazam, Flash and Aquaman are remaining the same).

If he just didn’t picture Cavill in the role it makes me wonder what kind of actor he did picture for it. It’s worth noting he literally said this was a 7-10 year plan, so the age factor does come into it and how long they can expect actors to commit. Still, Cavill seems so well suited for the role it does raise alarm bells that he wasn’t even considered to continue.

Supposedly (according to a press release) the film will be about Kal/Clark balancing his Kryptonian heritage with his human upbringing. There is potential there for character growth, I just hope it goes in a way of establishing Superman as he really should be and not just deconstructing and subverting his story for the sake of it. If it involves his Kryptonian heritage it suggests that Lex Luthor probably isn’t going to be his main focus.

It also seems unlikely they’ll bring in Zod or Doomsday since they’ll want to differentiate it from Zack Snyders’s Superman films. It’s also probably too close to Aquaman 2 to be Momoa as Lobo and I don’t think they’d want to start with Lobo anyway. Maybe we’ll see Braniac. Honestly we won’t likely know until they start filming.

Lanterns (2025)

The first legit live action show of the DCU is one that has been in the works for a while but seems to have changed form enough to become a key part of Gunn’s plans. It is supposed to lead into a key story piece perhaps setting up the first big team up. The series was originally supposed to air in 2023, but went through a lot of re-writes before Gunn even came on board. It’s an obvious show to do though and it’s not linked to the old DCEU so made sense for Gunn to convert it.

While it’s great news they are using both the most popular Lanterns (Interestingly, neither is the original) it seems a strange choice to do such obviously CGI intensive characters in a TV show. The suggestion seems to be it is going to be a bit of a buddy cop mystery, but with Lantern powers. The two are somewhat strange bedfellows, but on a TV show budget you can’t throw CGI out there every five minutes so I guess focusing on detective work helps, but will it satisfy fans? I think a lot of that will be down to if they can find the balance with the CGI and don’t end up with a show that looks as bad as She-Hulk did.

The Authority (Movie – probably 2025)

Based on the Wildstorm characters, which originated outside of DC but are now part of that family, though a fairly isolated part. It’s interesting that the second official movie out of Gunn’s DCU is based on characters that originated elsewhere. It’s also odd that they’ve basically decided to introduce what is effectively a subverted version of the Justice League (Even including a blatant Superman character (Apollo) and a blatant Batman character (Midnighter)… except these guys are gay and dating each other) before introducing the actual Justice league. Hopefully they’ll try and make them a bit more different to the characters they are blatant subversions of, otherwise it’ll damage the credibility of the originals.

There’s also the issue that they are basically all Black Adam and so when they engage with the actual Justice League it’s basically going to be that same story again. Again, a strange choice. However, they are obscure enough that Gunn probably feels he can do whatever he wants with them and figures he can turn them into another GOTG or Suicide Squad. Honestly though I’m not interested in this. I’m bored with subverted superheroes, popular culture has been swamped with them for a decade. We need to get back to the roots to remind us what is even being subverted. If I was more cynical I’d say they only picked this one because of the gay superheroes.

Paradise Lost (TV Show 2025/26)

Described as Game of Thrones but set in Themyscira. Game of Thrones isn’t easy to pull off, indeed not even Game of Thrones always managed it. Indeed it failed spectacularly in the end. So unless they have very talented show runners and actually get George R.R. Martin to write it (Which he’d probably do; anything to avoid actually finishing the next GOT book), it is likely the only thing it will have in common is the boring bits. I mean imagine all the conspiracies in gardens without anyone pulling off the shock factor. It’d basically be like all the scenes from The Witcher season 2 without Geralt in. Boring. Really boring. So I don’t hold much hope.

There is potential to set up some big events here, but the trouble is (As I think Marvel are discovering), most people will watch the movies, but very few will watch all the shows and all the movies. So if you don’t want to put people off the movies, you can’t make it a prerequisite to enjoy those movies to have watched the shows. So the truth is there is only so much they really can set up. If I was more cynical I’d say they just wanted a show with a majority female cast so they could say “Look, female characters!”.

The Brave and the Bold (Movie probably 2026)

Based on Grant Morrison’s work featuring Damian Wayne. Damian is Bruce Wayne’s biological son with Talia Al Ghul. He was raised to be an assassin, so he’s a little broken psychologically. In the comics, Bruce “Died” and Dick Grayson took over as Batman for a period and Damian became Robin. When Batman returned from the “Dead” he continued as Robin and after Flashpoint reset the universe and Bruce became Batman again, he continued to be his sidekick.

Now the question is, how does that possibly work for a first Batman movie for this new universe? You need a Batman old enough to have a kid and chances are he won’t be a ten year old like he was in the comics when he becomes Robin. So we’re probably looking at a Batman no younger than 35. Likely already well established. Meanwhile Gunn is apparently aiming for a younger Superman’s first day at the Daily Planet. This younger Superman, older Batman dynamic is suspiciously similar to Zach Snyder’s set up. It seems like a missed opportunity to pair two younger actors together. I can only hope that they won’t place this Batman too close to the end of his career.

One of the most frustrating things about Batman in the old DCEU was that they were constantly hinting at stories that were in the past and that sounded far more interesting than what they were actually putting on screen and largely made Batman seem like a has been. That’s not the way you should treat your top IP and make no mistake, these days Batman is way more important than Superman. DC’s tactic right now seems to be to hammer it with three separate franchises, “The Batman” with a younger Batman, but no larger DCU, “The Joker” with no real Batman but in a variation of his world and this older DCU version. I’m not sure this is a smart play.

Honestly as far as “The Batman” goes, they should really have either scrapped the film series or merged it into the new DCU. Having it run alongside it makes no sense. This isn’t exactly a really out there “Elseworlds” Batman, it’s just another darker, grittier Batman. While I didn’t like the movie, the casting was fine and nothing was broken. But if Gunn really wants his Batman he should have scrapped the future plans for that one. Instead it looks like they are trying to contrast them by making the character older again and this is disappointing. Still, we’ll see, maybe the movie will be good. At least they are actually introducing their Batman in a stand alone.

Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow (Movie probably 2026)

Based on Tom King’s work. That’s not good. That’s never good. The guy has written some of the most hated DC comics in recent years and it’s not bad writing but what he actually does with the characters that puts people off. This Supergirl will be a bitter twisted mess. It does contrast her with Superman of course, but not sure how likeable people will find the character. I also feel like introducing Supergirl so fast is a mistake, but it’s notable that Gunn talked about the “Bat Family” when talking about his Brave and the Bold movie. So if that movie sets up the Dark Knights family, this sets up Superman’s. Of course we also have multiple Lanterns right out the gate too.

I’m not sure diluting the water is that sensible, when you have such a variety of superheroes to draw from, putting all these “Family” characters into the shared universe right away seems the wrong way to go. In the case of Batman and the Lanterns it perhaps is just to pad numbers for epic fight scenes down the road, but Supergirl is being introduced in her own movie, she could have just as easily been Wonder Woman, Black Canary or Zatanna. Unique characters that don’t need life trauma to make them different from Superman. I get that Supergirl would eventually need to join the DCU, but this seems rushed.

Booster Gold (TV Show probably 2026)

Booster Gold is a very obscure character only DC comic fans will know, but he is popular amongst those. Gunn describes it as basically being the story of a loser from the future that goes back in time to the modern day so he can use future technology to be a Superhero and be popular. The character is an obvious one for Gunn really since it’s basically all his male leads. But that’s a problem too, how is this character going to feel unique if someone like Peacemaker is still in this shared universe and with his own TV show?

My feeling on this one is it will probably be funny, but it’s also yet another subverted Superhero character. When everything is a subversion, nothing is a subversion and Gunn needs to be careful not to make the majority of his DCU a subversion of superhero tropes. This seems to be the way it is going so far and that is not what is going to turn DC into a true rival to the MCU. I’ve said it many times before, but we are so far into subversion and deconstruction that these originally interesting writing tactics have just become clichés and what the public really needs, especially in a time when people are so divided is actual, traditional superheroes that are aspirational and universal.

Swamp Thing (Movie 2026/27)

Said to be “Tonally different to the DCU” but a key part of events (So not Elseworlds, despite the fact some media outlets are claiming it is). This I am looking forward to. It was a real shame the Swamp Thing series got axed right out the door (due to a messed up tax break situation I believe). Swamp Thing is a great character and I hope they focus this on the Alan Moore run and use it (though not in the first film) to introduce John Constantine to the DCU.

The thing is though, so far the trend has been for Gunn to follow Marvels current direction of adapting far more recent material instead of the more popular classics. So we will have to see if we get Moore’s version of the character or something else. Either way though, if they really double down on the horror tone this could be a great movie. On the other hand, I hope Gunn doesn’t direct this or if he does he doesn’t make it a comedy horror like his previous horror films (Remember Gunn started out at Troma). This needs to be a more serious affair.

But then this is a constant worry with Gunn. All his work so far has had a similar tone to it and that’s not what you want for every DC project. There are a lot of modern directors out there that simply can’t stop themselves from making every film about themselves (e.g. Taika Waititi who has made some good films, but every film has his stamp all over it, often to the point where it is more about him than the franchise he’s working in), if Gunn is going to make his DCU a success he needs to be a little bit more invisible and just provide what the film needs instead of showcasing James Gunn tropes and style all the time. If he can do that, he can do well.

Red Flags.

Ultimately while this is a fairly disappointing reveal with a large amount of red flags and one that will likely stir extreme anger from Snyder fans and the more obsessive Henry Cavill supporters, all that really matters is that they nail Batman and Superman. Those two have to be the main pillars of any shared DC universe and that universe can only ever be as strong as those characters. It really can’t be overstated, if they want to rival Marvel they need to weaponize their top assets. While neither of their movies scream “Masterpiece” just from the pitch they don’t sound terrible either. I don’t see any reason for them not to be able to pull them off and if they do they don’t need everything else to land. So with that in mind they announced the films and that is what matters.

The next tier of DC heroes (The B-List if you will) is Wonder Woman, The Flash and Green Lantern. Wonder Woman is the third most popular hero in DC and the most popular female superhero there is full stop, but the only mention of Wonder Woman at all is through the Game of Thrones knock off show in her homeland. It seems Gal Gadot isn’t continuing in the role, so there must be plans to introduce a new actress as some point, but probably not in that TV show (As Gunn would have mentioned that and it’d be silly to relegate your third most popular hero to a TV show anyway). It’s odd too that they are introducing Supergirl before Wonder Woman, again pushing duplicate “family” characters instead of embracing variety.

The Flash Situation.

The fourth most important character in DC is The Flash and this is a big, big issue for Gunn. Ezra Miller is both a terrible Flash and someone that constantly attracts terrible publicity to the point that many people will simply boycott his movies just because he is in them. This is guy that is mentally unstable and is regularly in trouble with the law (For everything from grooming, kidnapping, breaking and entering, theft, assault and running a cult… I should add most of that is accusations, but he was found guilty of the B&E and at least one of the assaults was captured on camera). If Superman and Batman can be pillars, Ezra Miller has the potential to be a fault line under which those pillars are built.

Currently Warner is publicly suggesting they support the actor but they really need The Flash movie to be a success as it sets up the new DCU. It was be logical to dump the actor after the film, but you still need a Flash. They need to find a way to justify the character changing the timeline in such a way it actually radically changes his own appearance. Either that or just switch actors like Marvel did with Hulk and War Machine and not even mention it. Whatever they pick, they need to get Miller as far away from their plans going forward as possible.

Underappreciated Heroes.

As for Green Lantern, this is a character that has never been given the respect he deserves on screen. The Fifth most popular DC hero and yet all he’s had is a bad movie and now a TV show that has to have multiple Lanterns in. This seems a waste, but hopefully the pair can move over to the big screen at a later date. At least they will be in place and with two there they have two chances to get it right.

After the top five, DC should really embrace it’s variety. There is a very big C tier including the likes of John Constantine, Hawkman, Zatanna, Martian Manhunter, Green Arrow, Cyborg (Safe to say that will have a change of actors), Aquaman (We still don’t know if Momoa is continuing in the role, though he’s hinted he isn’t) and Shazam (Likewise and Black Adam being canned possibly bodes badly). It would be a mistake to ignore this tier just so Gunn can try and find the next Guardians of the Galaxy. Many of these characters have never had movies either.

Missing An Open Goal.

There are two Superman related characters that would actually be perfectly well suited to James Gunn’s style and neither of them got a mention. Those are Bizarro and Lobo. Films with those two could be incredibly fun and Gunn would have been perfect to write and direct them. So I can’t help but feel a little disappointed he hasn’t opted yet for either, but I still suspect after the Aquaman film comes out they will announce Momoa is departing that role but will be Lobo instead. I hope that is the case anyway.

So that’s my thoughts on the announcements. Ultimately there were a lot of strange choices and disappointing omissions but there is potential here so I’m not rage quitting just yet. I will give them at least until their Superman film has a trailer and that will be a long time off. At the same time though I don’t feel at all enthusiastic about the various remnants of the previous regime we have to get through before we get a sniff of the direction of this new DCU. If other people feel like I do on this, that’s at least three movies likely to flop in a row, maybe four if no one gets on board with Blue Beetle.

Then we have the new Superman movie sandwiched between two Elseworld Batman movies (Joker II and The Batman II). That’s a good run of films, but if DC has four flops before that, will it be able to recover? Also will it confuse the audience to place the launch of the new DCU between two movies not even set in the DCU? Honestly, Warner still largely seem like they don’t know what they are doing. Time will tell however.

The Batman (2022)

Posted on by fenrisfil

The latest offering from Warner/DC in the Superhero genre is 2022’s “The Batman”, a movie that seems to have been a long time in the coming and that was probably greenlit by a very different team than is now in charge at Warner. The original intention for the movie was to be a vehicle for Ben Affleck’s Batman but this changed fairly early on and the idea became to launch a Batman shared universe separate from the DCEU. Already a very questionable idea, however if any DC hero can bare the weight of their own shared universe it is Batman. The question is though, does this film provide a good launching point for it? Let’s dig in.

In Bloom.

Matt Reeves directs the movie, having replaced Affleck during pre-production and is an old hand at coming on on other peoples franchises. His work includes directing JJ Abrams brainchild “Cloverfield” (2008), then in 2010 making the American remake of 2008’s “Let The Right One In”, title simply “Let Me In”. Following that he took up the reigns of the Planet of the Apes reboot series from Rupert Wyatt, making the two weaker films of the trilogy.  Now he has replaced Ben affleck helming this franchise and it seems unlikely much remains of the original concept for the movie with Reeves taking the opportunity to tell his kind of Batman story. The characters role as a “The Worlds Greatest Detective” would appear to be the focus of this version, with Reeves taking influence from Film Noir and stories such as “The Long Halloween”. Perhaps unsurprisingly there would also be a push to make this the darkest and grittiest Batman yet. 

Scentless Apprentice.

Robert Pattinson plays the title character, a casting choice that would prove highly divisive amongst Batman fans, perhaps unfairly due to his role in the “Twilight” film series. Pattinson is a pretty good actor, so for me it was all going to depend on the script. What did surprise me with the casting through was the sheer number of Batman characters that seemed to be involved in the film. Zoey Kravitz took the role of Catwoman, Colin Farrell was cast as The Penguin and John Turturro as Carmine Falcone. There was even talk of some Joker casting. But it was Paul Dano as The Riddler that would be the main villain of the story. The rogues would be joined by Andy Serkis as Alfred and Jeffrey Wright as Gordon. My concern was the story was starting to look unnecessarily cluttered but there were certainly a few names in there that had my interest.

Something in the Way.

A few things immediately come to mind while watching “The Batman”. The cinematography is actually pretty good and the darker grittier vision of Gotham this time does take a very Noir like form. It almost is a shame it is in colour. The soundtrack however is far less impressive. In interviews promoting the film Reeves talked about how he took influence for Batman from Kurt Cobain and his music. This seemed odd at the time, but in practice it becomes a sort of sonic worshipping of one particular Nirvana song: “Something in the Way”. A strange choice given it is effectively a song about being homeless and sleeping under a bridge and not really something I would attribute to a Billionaire superhero. But the piece is not just something played once, but the entire core of the soundtrack as the two chords the build that song are used throughout and unfortunately make most of the sound track reminiscent of “The Imperial March” from Star Wars. The only sections of music that don’t appear to be built around Nirvana are the recurring performances of “Ava Maria”, which also becomes somewhat tedious over time.

Like many modern movies the themes are far from subtle and designed to smack the viewer across the face in the most on the nose ways possible. Character development is spelled out in dialogue instead of demonstrated through action, with Batman declaring himself as “Vengeance” early on but then in a voice over in the final act deciding he needs to be more than vengeance moving forward. The voice over would be fine had I felt that Batman actually went through an emotional journey to get to that conclusion.

Heart-Shaped Box.

Part of the problem with this set up is it relied on Batman not having learned the lessons of his own origin story. Bruce would have had an entire emotional journey between the death of his parents and becoming Batman and this movie is set in his second year in the role. This is all very similar to what the Sony/Disney did to MCU Spider-Man, skipping showing the characters origin but also skipping that core character development that comes with it (In the case of Spider-Man, it was the impact of Uncle Ben’s death). For Batman it is that journey from orphaned child to the physical and mental peak of humanity. A journey that was shown to us so perfectly in Nolan’s “Batman Begins” (2005). Instead here we have a character that has the physical capabilities of Batman, but pairs that psychological makeup of a freshy orphaned child. 

Bruce Wayne, as we know him, is largely absent here too and when he does show up he comes across like a depressed teenager. The suggestion seems to be that he is yet to learn to wear that mask in public, but this brings with it the issue of it being obvious who Batman is. A situation not helped by a plot constantly teases the idea that his secret is going to be revealed. Of course it’s not like superhero movies of old haven’t had questionable secret identity issues (like the Clark Kent glasses situation), but this is like deciding to do Clarke Kent without the glasses and still expecting the audience to buy no one has figured it out. 

Negative Creep.

A major part of “The Batman” is the focus on Batman as a detective., an aspect of Batman that while not absent in past on screen incarnations was not specifically the focus. On paper this was an interesting change and one I was looking forward to seeing. Sadly though, this too ended up being a negative because ultimately this Batman is frankly terrible at it. He is a step behind, not just the Riddler but often everyone else as well. One of Batman’s accolades/titles is “The World’s Greatest Detective”. If you want Batman to be at all true to his comic roots his skills should be more like a Sherlock Holmes than a generic FBI Agent from a random TV procedurals. True, the Riddler is perhaps the best foil for him as a detective , but their battle of the wits should be more akin to Holmes and Moriarty and this was not even close. Batman was an embarrassment in this department and pretty much failed at every turn. It is really more the illusion of detective work than actual detective work. Batman does have a nice gadget in his surveillance contact lenses, but that doesn’t make up for his inability to figure out the central riddle.

Come As You Are.

So that’s Batman covered, what about everyone else? Well much as I feared when I saw all the cast the movie is unnecessarily bloated. It’s true you can have multiple Batman villains in a movie and have it work, The Nolan trilogy demonstrated that, but to varying degrees of success. It’s interesting to note that the longest of the Nolan movies is also the weakest and the one that utilised it’s three rogues the least successfully. Here both Penguin and Catwoman were unnecessary to the story being told and both added significantly to the movies run time. Selina does play a role in the main story, but it’s not a role that actually required or even benefited from being that character specifically, it could just as easily have been any other female character, even a wholly original one. Her role in the story has nothing to do with her skills as a thief or in combat, both of which are basically there without explanation (Much like Batman’s). They don’t even really deal with the cat gimmick outside of showing she has a few strays (Which she shows very little actual affection for). The cats don’t feel part of Selina’s personality and are just sort of there. As for Zoey Kravitz herself, she is okay in the role but hardly ground breaking.

Pennyroyal Tea.

The Penguin is a real mixed bag. Colin Farrell is superb in the role and the make up work to change him into the notorious character is incredibly well done. However, Oswald’s role in the story is even less relevant than Selina and his entire story arc could have been dropped with the only impact being they would probably have had to change one of the riddles. Given that riddle was the worst one and the one that made Batman look incompetent as a detective, that would not have been a bad thing. I would estimate that between the Oswald and Selina arcs you have about 20-40 unnecessary minutes trimmed from the story in a way that would have tightened up and improved the rest of the plot. Because of this I’m going to have to mark both down as a failure. However, seeing more of this Penguin in the future would be a good thing.

Big Cheese.

The third character from the rogues gallery is gangster boss Carmine Falcone and this is a character that actually should have had more of a focus on him. Not only is he important to the plot, he is played superbly by John Turturro and the underuse of the character does a lot to diminish the impact of a number of reveals later on in the film. The character would have been a perfect enemy for this grittier neo-noir type Batman in his second year of operation in the role, but when you clutter the movie up with Penguin and Catwoman Falcone ends up largely just in the background.

Drain You.

The final and most important member of the rogues gallery is the primary antagonist of the film, The Riddler. Played well by Paul Dano, but the character somewhat falls apart in the final act. As I mentioned earlier, The Riddler is the ideal foil for Batman as a detective, however just as this Batman is not an especially smart detective, neither is the Riddler especially smart as an antagonist and once the veil is lifted on his motivation he really comes across as quite a pathetic, naive character. Not that a pathetic character can’t be a villain but it does lead the end of the film to somewhat fizzle out (despite the attempt at a big set piece action ending). Overall though, I’m marking this one down as a positive.

Serve the Servants.

On the other side of the playing field you have Jeffrey Wright as James Gordon and Andy Serkis as Alfred. Both somewhat fell flat for me as the plot seemed to assume the characters relationship with the lead without really showing it on screen. Neither reallys seemed to have much chemistry with Pattinson and the Gordon/Batman scenes were some of the weakest of the movie due to the pair apparently trying to out mumble/whisper each other. Andy Serkis’ role in the movie felt small, like they didn’t really want to deal with the fact Batman has such a close ally and confidant, especially one that is also his butler. These are sadly both negatives.

Lithium.

Overall, there is some hope for the franchise going forward. Pattinson wasn’t terrible and nothing was broken beyond repair by this movie. Indeed some characters such as Penguin I absolutely look forward to seeing more of. However, they do need to learn from their mistakes if they want to build a worthwhile trilogy (or longer series). The next movie needs to be more focused and they need to vastly improve the character work and stop trying to push current day politics onto a character created in the 30’s that is meant to be timeless.

Milk It.

On a personal note I have to say I am tired of “Darker, gritier” batman movies. The Nolan trilogy was for me as dark and gritty as Batman should get. This movie pushes things so much further in that direction that to me it feels more like an “Elseworld” Batman (i.e. a one off novelty) than something trying to be comic true. That would be fine, but it’s also not quite unique enough to push that novelty. As you will know from this blog, I love Film Noir, so you’d think a Neo-Noir Batman would be right up my alley. Sadly though while the movie attempts to push that vibe, it feels artificial, like yet another attempt at a Noir that fails to understand the genre in the first place. A full on elseworlds Noir Batman, perhaps even in black and white could certainly be interesting, but I doubt Warner would ever greenlight something that radical.

Stay Away.

I would actually much rather see a Batman movie embrace the characters gothic side again like Tim Burton’s movies did 30 years. Indeed if we’re talking about doing an “Elseworld” Batman I would love to see a “Gaslight” universe set in victorian times that not only gave us Jack The Ripper, but also re-imagined some of the rogues gallery in a more gothic style and perhaps even had a bit of Batman Vs Dracula in the mix (I’m talking over several films or a series here). Maybe that’s just me, but I’d find that more interesting than yet another darker and grittier version. Of course they could also just try and put the character and the stories from the comic actually on the screen without interpretation and re-imagining. I know, crazy idea right?

Rating: 5 out of 10.