I was kind of disappointed in this movie. I was expecting it to be a lot better then it was. It's not bad or a good movie.

Why do people hate this movie????
If you do a live action THIS was as cloae to perfection as you could get. True to every aspect of the caryoon and honoring the memory of Robin Williams without Will 's Genie trampling on the iconic cartoon portrayal. Visually stunning. Music was spot on.

While I am fully prepared to admit that I hated this slightly less than I expected to, I also officially give up on Guy Ritchie. Disney's original _Aladdin_ is not one of my favourite Disney flicks, but I do like it. And although I'm sure there are people out there who will appreciate this live action do-over more than me, I do find it difficult to believe anyone would think this one is the better of the two versions.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

Saw this one last night and I must say I wasn't sure what to expect but I was extremely impressed by what I saw the movie made me laugh and smile theres plenty of action for Young boys and alot of music costumes and romance for young girls the only problem I see is there are shots of swinging breasts due to the wardrobe back then also the action may be a bit much for the youngest of kids but it's pure edge of the seat adventure that you absolutely must see best Disney movie of the year so far

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :)
What a wonderful surprise! I didn’t watch any trailers or clips, I completely stayed away from any sort of marketing, but I couldn’t hide from the negative feedback that social media was presenting. People online were skeptical of how good Will Smith‘s Genie would be, of how Mena Massoud (Aladdin) and Naomi Scott (Jasmine) were not the best casting choices, and of how the remake would actually honor and respect its original. From someone who didn’t know what to expect, I thoroughly enjoyed Guy Ritchie‘s take on the retelling of this famous story. All of the fears described above are obliterated by a magical cast, and they’re the ones who carry the movie to safe harbor.
I’ll start with one out of two standout performances: Will Smith as the Genie. He delivers an indisputably unique and entertaining display as the blue entity. By the way he moves and talks, there’s absolutely no way of people criticizing him for trying to copy Robin Williams. Smith does his own thing, and it works superbly. The best compliment I can give him is that I felt the same thing about Genie in this remake that I did while watching the original: every time he wasn’t on screen, I wanted him to be back immediately. In the original, I thought that the Genie appeared in the right moments every single time, which was when the pacing started to drop too much.
In this remake, the periods without Genie are more extended, and the first act suffers a bit from its slow pace, and lack of truly fun sequences. Nevertheless, once the Cave of Wonders comes into play, it’s a blast until the very end. The magic carpet and Abu make one hell of a comedy duo, and they’re responsible for a lot of the laughs throughout the runtime. Going back to Genie, I love that Ritchie and John August gave him something more in comparison with the original, and that’s one of few improvements actually made to the original. I wrote on that review that I was hoping that they gave more time for the core relationship of the film to develop and that Jafar (Marwan Kenzari) was more than just a paper-thin villain…
Well, Jafar keeps being an evil sorcerer that only desires power to rule everything and everyone. Unfortunately, he has more screentime than its predecessor, which means more over-the-top monologues of Kenzari, and sillier sequences with the whole hypnosis trick. On the other hand, Jasmine and Aladdin have a fully-developed script, which is by far the best improvement on the original. Their relationship grows naturally, and each character gets a lot of moments to express their feelings and show who they truly are, especially Jasmine. She is directly connected to an issue that will definitely make this movie incredibly divisive, audience and critics alike, but I’ll address it more at the end of the review.
Independently of the characters, Mena Massoud and Naomi Scott deliver breakthrough performances. Massoud is funny and quite likable as Aladdin, but Naomi is an absolute standout. Now, we look at this film as just another Disney remake. In a few years, we’ll look at Aladdin (2019) as the movie that launched Naomi Scott into the stardom. She is astonishingly outstanding as Jasmine. Not only her voice is pretty amazing, but her acting is unbelievably seamless. Regarding singing, Will Smith and Mena Massoud are also pretty good, and the musical numbers are another aspect that I surprisingly loved. Prince Ali, Friend Like Me, A Whole New World and the new song, Speechless, are beautiful, powerful, and the first two’s production design and VFX are overwhelming in a good way.
Guy Ritchie is known for his very fluid chasing sequences, and Aladdin running through Agrabah is very well filmed as expected. However, the long choreographed takes during these musical scenes are a wonder to behold, from the first to the very last one, even after the “The End” tagline shows up. A perfect remake is one that is able to keep the original’s essence while being its own thing. Ritchie does an impressive job balancing these pillars. For anyone who loves the original and wanted the remake to be a shot-by-shot retell of the story, every single little detail (from key words to important character moments) is present in this film. For anyone who wanted a different take, there’s more than enough minor changes to either how the story proceeds (order of events, more character development) or even how it ends, which leads me to the above-mentioned divisive issue.
Every time a political or social agenda is inserted in a movie, people don’t care if it’s well-written or not. They just don’t want any of those things on any film, and I support that. Hollywood needs to stop trying to put something politically or socially correct in a movie, just for the sake of it. Aladdin (2019) has a clear social message, and it uses one of the main characters to state that message clearly. Now, here’s the catch: having in mind the character in question, how it’s written, and what they do to send that social message, I think it’s fine. Yes, I know that a lot of people will think the complete opposite and crucify the film for it. I usually do the following mental exercise: “Does it make sense with the story/character? Is it just a single moment during the movie (proving that it might be too forced) or do they develop the idea? If it was an original film, would I even be thinking about this?”
Yes. They develop the idea. Probably not. Those are my answers, and that’s why I stand on the positive side of this soon-to-be heavily discussed subject during a few days. People need to start opening their minds to these modern takes on pre-21st-century classics. I always use Dumbo (1941) as an example: this is probably the most racist Disney movie ever, with extreme discrimination, total disrespect for animals, alcohol-induced plot points, and so much more morally and socially wrong storylines and character’s personalities. There’s no way that a film like that can be released today! So, obviously, Dumbo (2019) had to be extremely different from that one-hour racism show.
Aladdin (1992) also has a particular aspect about it that it doesn’t quite fit nowadays’ culture. It’s not offensive or anything, but I bet that if it was released today, a whole group of people would complain about it. Aladdin (2019) tries to adapt, and while it might have tried too hard, I still appreciate the effort, and at least it makes sense. It’s only a minor change to the core story and to the character in question, so it' shouldn’t affect the overall viewing of the movie. If Speechless wasn’t created, it would have been totally fine, but I have to admit that even if the song sounds great and the lyrics are impactful, it’s still a stretch… Naomi Scott interprets it beautifully, though.
Visually, the film is stunning. Agrabah is an absolute delight that will make hardcore fans’ jaws drop continuously, each time a new location is shown. I love how Ritchie strolls the camera around to show-off his production crew beautiful work, most of the times through long and fluid takes. I wish (no pun intended) he could have controlled the movie’s pace and tone better. Periods without Genie to entertain the audience are too long, and Ritchie shouldn’t risk the boredom levels to be as high as they are occasionally.
All in all, Aladdin (2019) succeeds in balancing the two pillars of any remake: it keeps the original’s true essence while standing on its own. Will Smith shuts down online skeptics with a super entertaining and unique performance as Genie, but it’s Naomi Scott and Mena Massoud palpable chemistry that surprised the hell out of me. The latter is perfect as Aladdin, but Naomi has her breakthrough display, which is definitely going to take her to even bigger stages. Guy Ritchie proves he’s a fantastic director, by delivering some beautiful one-take sequences and exceptionally fun and well-choreographed musical numbers. Technically, the production and set design are astounding, but the pacing-tone levels aren’t as balanced as they should have been, which makes the runtime over-extend itself.
Story-wise, people will feel incredibly divisive. Most of the screenplay is identical to its predecessor, but Disney’s attempt to force down a social message is not going to help the film, at all. Even if it makes sense and it’s only a minor twist, it was still unnecessary, and it might even shadow Naomi‘s brilliant performance, which would be a massive shame. Jafar bothers me a lot more than any of this stuff. However, Ritchie and John August deserve nothing but compliments for trying so hard to adapt such a risky original and mostly succeed doing it. I genuinely hope it crushes in the box office. It’s really a diamond (in the rough). Go watch it and make your own opinion!
Rating: B+

There is so much more to this film than just that famous scene in the shower - and so much of it belongs to the marvellous scoring of Bernard Herrmann. His ability to use those screeching strings, and the pace of his music does so much of the heavy lifting that gives this film a sense of accumulating menace that makes it still, after over 60 years, a masterful piece of cinema. Janet Leigh wants to make a go of things with her cash-strapped hunky boyfriend "Sam" (John Gavin) so when an unexpected opportunity arises at work that puts $40,000 in her lap, she skips town and takes refuge during a thunderstorm at the "Bates" motel where she encounters "Norman" (a very handsome looking Anthony Perkins). The rest you will just have to watch for yourself, but the story has just about everything you could want from a thriller: a fella with a bit of a "mummy" syndrome; some good old fashioned larceny; lust and though I didn't quite love the ending, it is a superbly dramatic piece of well considered and constructed cinema that cleverly builds on what is quite a simple story with a strong and convincing cast. Big screen if you can; that house on the hill looks more eery that way. Great stuff!

Amazingly, this is my first ever viewing, not sure why I waited so long, but finally got around to it. Great movie in every way from the performance by Anthony Perkins to the atmosphere, enjoyed every bit of this even though I basically knew the entire plot at this point since all iconic scenes and lines have been repeated over the years. Not sure this is my *favorite* Hitchcock movie as I still prefer Rear Window, but obvious why it has held up 60 years later. **4.5/5**

My most favourite film from the master of suspense.
This psychological horror is widely considered to be the first ever slasher film. Powered by great performances from Anthony Perkins & Janet Leigh, and the outstanding score by Bernard Herrmann which adds such great tension throughout the film, it is unarguably the greatest thriller ever made. Only Alfred Hitchcock could make a film so entertaining and so horrifying at the same time.
The climax continues to haunt me forever.

“We all go a little mad sometimes. Haven't you?”
A Phoenix secretary, Marion Crane (Janet Leigh), embezzles $40,000 and rashly flees town, ending up at a remote motel in Fairvale, California, where she encounters the eccentric Mama’s boy Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins). Mixed into this web is a private investigator (Martin Balsam), Marion’s sister (Vera Miles) and Marion’s secret beau (John Gavin).
Directed by Alfred Hitchcock based on Robert Bloch’s book, “Psycho” made a huge impact when it was released in 1960. It contains a plot development that was groundbreaking at the time shared by England’s “City of the Dead” (aka “Horror Hotel”), which went into production six weeks earlier than “Psycho” and was released in the UK at the same time, but not in America until 2 years later. While they’re both good, “Psycho” is way superior. It was followed by three sequels (1983, 1986 and 1990), the last being a semi-prequel, all starring Anthony Perkins as Norman with Vera Miles returning for the first one.
One thing I don’t like is that it was shot in B&W. Check out the sequels and the 1998 remake to observe the same settings in living color.
The film runs 1 hour, 49 minutes and was shot primarily at the backlot of Universal Studios, Universal City, California, with other parts in Los Angeles & Gorman, California, and Phoenix, Arizona.
GRADE: A

Required viewing.
_Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._

**When I suffer from love pain** after any breakup and cry for days, when I build scenarios in my head and upset myself again, **I will remember (500) days of summer** and I realised much better that t**here is nothing I need to upset myself so much,** because I have experienced that **new people will come up** and make me happy and even make me sad.

I recently had the opportunity to watch this movie again, many years removed from the first time I saw it. I was surprised how few details I remembered.
During the movie’s sharpest moments, the dialogue is witty and fun. The story bounces around back and forth along the 500 day timeline they have measured out for the relationship between the two main characters. The device works; we get to see the state of their couple-ness at various points. It is, most of the time entertaining.
But I have to say, as much as I like Zooey in her role (and this time around I know her from her great work in Elf), I was less than dazzled by our hero. I found him to be rather pathetic and despite the fun the two characters shared at times, it felt to me there was not much chemistry between the two, except when Zooey’s character exerted herself in his direction. Perhaps that was intended, given the arc of the plot.
As I said above, the movie was entertaining, but ultimately I wasn’t satisfied with the ending. How it turned out for both characters, while believable when looked at from afar, came across as sudden and a little lame. More groundwork should have be laid out for where they stood at the end.

Fun film.
'(500) Days of Summer' impressed me. It features a fairly unique and a pretty refreshing romcom story, which is told in an interesting way. Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Tom) is very good, as is co-star Zooey Deschanel (Summer). The pacing is good, as are the comedic aspects. All in all it's a pleasant watch.

In my view, the best of the series by a country mile. It's action-packed adventure cinema at the top of it's game. Harrison Ford and Alison Doody provide the foundations in an engaging and sexy way and allow Denholm Elliott; John Rhys-Davies, a duplicitous monkey and, of course, a series defining Sean Connery as his learned dad "Professor Henry Jones" with such a cheeky glint in his eye to add all the icing to a very, very good cake. John Williams provides a cracking score to complement the history and creativity of Messrs. Spielberg and Boam's words and images. We have even got a quote from Charlemagne. What's not to like?

"Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" adopts a change of pace probably because the filmmakers have obviously deemed "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" (1984) much too dark (and perhaps completely unpalatable in some quarters) for most audiences who thrilled at the exciting derring-do of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (1981). This current outing is much more audience friendly and it gets the delicate balance just right to create a heady mix of thrills and spills which results in a breathless whirlwind adventure during its action packed two hours. Steven Spielberg is certainly on tremendous form as he skillfully pieces together superbly executed action scene after action scene. He also makes extensive use of a tank in much the same way as he did the boat "Orca" in the blockbusting "Jaws" (1975) and he effortlessly finds a seemingly inexhaustible array of fresh camera angles to capture every second of the unfolding and fast moving action.

Good watch, could watch again, and can recommend.
While Harrison Ford does a great job as Indiana Jones, it is always good to see Sean Connery get involved, even if he is very passive in the action.
Then there is an unfortunate amount of flashback, but it is better than doing an "Indian Jones: Origin" movie to explain how he attained his stylish attire and phobia of snakes.
This has a quality female companion, an entertaining side character, but we're back to Nazi's again for villains. It almost is just a highlight of the ridiculous lengths that Nazi's went to look for weird resources: the occult ("Hellboy"), artifacts, and investigations into alien contact.
This is a return to quality though, it takes up the more serious atmosphere of the first movie and with that concentrates on a dramatically good action adventure movie.
This is my favorite of the franchise.

It feels very much a retread of _Raiders_. But, that was a great movie, so it's not exactly as if that's a bad plan.
_Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._

Raiders Of The Last Crusade.
Indiana Jones teams up with his father to try and locate the Holy Grail. Something that the Nazis are again particularly interested in themselves.
We didn't know it at the time, but every Indiana Jones fan on the planet presumed that The Last Crusade was to be the final film to feature the intrepid archaeologist. As it turned out, another film would surface in 2008, but casting that aside (as many would like to do), Last Crusade should, and is, judged as the trilogy closer it was meant to be.
In 1988 Steven Spielberg was deep into bringing Rain Man to fruition, all thoughts of Indiana Jones had gone by the wayside with the harshly judged part two, Temple Of Doom. In stepped George Lucas to politely remind Spielberg that they had an agreement to make another Indiana Jones picture, Spielberg no doubt obliged and humble, passed on his Rain Man work to Barry Levinson who promptly bagged himself an Oscar for the film. It can be guessed that Spielberg was probably grouchy around this period, but he needn't have worried, because The Last Crusade provided a much needed hit for not only himself (post Empire Of The Sun), but also Lucas (Willow) and Harrison Ford (Frantic).
I mention the run up to this picture because it explains a lot on why the film is pretty much a retread of Raiders Of The Lost Ark, something that some detractors find unforgivable. Yet Last Crusade is still an immensely enjoyable adventure picture, with Spielberg proving that he was still capable of a popcorn bonanza. Using the Raiders formula and moving away from the dark flourishes of Temple Of Doom, Last Crusade is actually the simplest film of the three, but still it manages, courtesy of a sparkling casting decision, to become the most entertaining of the original trilogy. Is it better than Raiders? Of course not, but it positively rips along with sparky dialogue and an agenda of cliffhanging suspense like the adventure films of yore.
In comes Sean Connery as Dr Jones Senior, and its the picture's trump card, because the magnificent interplay and obvious rapport with Ford (cool as a cucumber) is there for all to see. It's this what drives the film on through the more mundane and picture filler sequences, showcasing two top wily professionals with care and consideration to their craft. The casting of Alison Doody as the main female is a poor one, and one only has to look at her subsequent career post Crusade to see she wasn't up to the task here. Bonus comes in the form of the River Phoenix prologue, Phoenix as the young Indiana paves the way for the jaunty path that Crusade takes, whilst simultaneously giving us a nice little back story from which to launch the adventure.
Made for $48 million, the film went on to gross $474,171,806 Worldwide, now that's a lot of people who evidently were happy with Raiders Of The Lost Ark 2! And I gleefully count myself amongst that number. 9/10

It was one of the better movies I've seen in that it plays on nostalgia and not nostalgia to a bygone decade, but more nostalgia for the old story driven indie and quasi-indie films that ruled the 1990s.
Back in the day "Pulp Fiction" could win Academy Awards and tiny no budget movies like "Clerks" and "Reservoir Dogs" could gain cult followings and make long and successful careers out of their writer-directors.
"Three Billboards" has all of that, the story based on characters and situations not based on political rhetoric and special effects. You get the sense, when you watch it, that they wanted to tell a story and that was all that mattered to them.
There was a story to tell and everyone came together to tell it in the best way that they could...so it was moving, and it was funny, and it was dramatic, and it was oddly dark and oddly heartwarming.
You walk away feeling that you've seen a movie, and you have. That's exactly what this is, an actual movie. It's not special effects strung together on the backs of weak characters playing out a plot that has been rebooted several times...it's an actual movie that tells an actual story.
It's original. It's worth watching. It deserved everything that came its way at the rewards and more. It's the kind of movie that we need to see more of and its the kind of movie that I dearly miss seeing.
Give it a watch, you won't see a movie like it again, and that, I feel, is time well spent.

Phenomenal film. Loved every second.
I've been aware of this film, in name only (didn't know any of the plot etc.), since it came out and have always had a great feeling about it - I just had an inkling it would be great. It isn't, it's much more than that... it's incredible.
The mix between the humour and seriousness is superb, I found myself laughing aloud one moment and then feeling saddened minutes later; that was the case a ridiculous amount of times throughout the 115 minutes.
The premise is pretty mad and filled with coincidences, but I absolutely adore the way it is written and put together onscreen. The cinematography is also beautiful, as is the score. The pacing is fantastic too. All that is without even mentioning the cast, who are outstanding.
What a terrific performance from Frances McDormand, who I always remember from 1998's 'Madeline' - one of the first films I recall watching at a young age. She's utterly brilliant as Mildred, from the first scene to the last. Her co-stars are also top notch, so well cast.
Woody Harrelson (Willoughby) and Sam Rockwell (Dixon) are great in their respective roles, while my personal GOT king Peter Dinklage (James) also appears in a minor part. I liked Caleb Landry Jones (Red), also.
'Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri' is a must-watch!

Pretty damn funny given the incredibly grim subject matter, but that's not a shock when you take into consideration that _Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri_ is directed by Martin McDonagh, who once again comes away with a win, which makes him, in my opinion at least, three for three as a director.
_Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._

This was the worst Batman I have ever seen.
Firstly, Robert Pattinson was the worst choice for the Batman role. In Twilight he was alright, but in Batman he definitely failed. He was more like a sad, depressed goth kid with no emotions. He tried too much to fit the role, but in fact we got this depressive, dead and empty Batman.
Secondly, there were other small things that sucked about this movie, for example, Cat Woman had a very simple and stupid mask. Even older movie versions had a better mask than here. Batman's batmobile also sucked. Looked like a downgraded version. He also rode just a simple bike and lastly, he couldn't even glide with his default Batman suit. Also, don't know why but James Gordon was played by a black actor, while in every movie and even in every game this character is white. Riddler character also seemed stupid, wearing stupid mask and acting stupid and wasn't intimidating at all, but laughable. So, in general cast and acting was disappointing in this movie.
Lastly, the movie itself... It was dull, boring and depressive. They tried to make it masterpiece with 3 hours long, but in reality movie became just plain boring and I almost fell asleep.
Overall verdict: Disappointing.

The Batman is not a terribly bad movie, but it would be twice as good if it were half as long. How a film that likes to take shortcuts – especially with the Riddler’s ‘riddles’ – can still take almost three hours to get to where it’s going, I haven’t the foggiest (but then this is a rather strange enterprise that gives us Andy Serkis in the flesh and covers Colin Farrell in prosthetic makeup and a fat suit). Director/co-writer Matt Reeves very wisely avoids origin stories and takes for granted relationships, which have already been well established in a decades-long canon, between certain characters; on the other hand, he allows his movie to become bogged down at the halfway point in a deluge of backstory.
The obvious problem is that there is enough material here for at least two films, and Reeves attempts to cram it all into a single one. Why? We all know there are going to be sequels, so why not save some for the next chapter? Or better yet, why not leave some of it on the cutting room floor? There is absolutely no reason for the Penguin to be in this movie; he might as well be the Imperceptible Man (an actual Batman villain, mind you) for all that he’s given to do. Catwoman has been pretty much played out, and as far as the Riddler, I can’t believe I’m going to say this, but Jim Carrey did a much better job with the role than does Paul Dano – an otherwise fine actor that inexplicably chose to play the character as the bastard child of Heath Ledger’s Joker and Tom Hardy’s Bane. That leaves Carmine Falcone (John Turturro), who provides the most intriguing plot points; why not make him the main, or even – dare I say it – only villain?
Now, The Batman is long enough to try the patient of a saint, but at least it’s great to look at. Like the first Tim Burton Batman (as described by the unerring Roger Ebert), it “is a triumph of design over story, style over substance - a great-looking movie with a plot you can’t care much about.” Gotham City in particular is a winning combination of Burton’s faux noir texture and Christopher Nolan’s plausible architecture. The best scenes involve Batman (Robert Pattinson) and Jim Gordon (Jeffrey Wright) – and indeed Pattinson has an uncanny knack for playing off veteran character actors – as a sort of pre-Robin dynamic duo; their adventures are poignant because they appear to happen in the real world, or at least as real as a world can be wherein a grown man disguises himself as a giant bat (compare last year’s Zack Snyder's Justice League, with its unending CGI assault on the senses).

To be honest, this is a really good movie. Hang on? So why did I only give it 2 out of 5 stars? Well, this is really personal but, to me, it is not a good Batman movie. I really had problems writing this review because it is a very good movie. I just did not like it as a Batman movie.
The movie is really dark, gritty and noir. Not really a problem. It works for some movies. But it is also quite slow at the beginning and the first quarter of the movie was actually boring. Remember, this is a three hour movie so a quarter is more than half an hour of “boringness”.
The “boringess” was broken up by a pretty cool car chase. Some people seem to not really like the batmobile and I have to say that it was not very inspired but it was not all bad either. Unfortunately the movie turned rather boring for a while again after that.
The movie tries to bring out more of the detective part of Batman than the previous movies, which is fine, but there is just too much moping around with Batman / Bruce Wayne walking around oozing sadness all around him.
Actually, this brings us to my main gripe with this movie. The choice of actor for the Batman is just wrong for me. He is more like a sad puppy than the Batman. The script that makes him mope around, have emotional outbreaks and, occasionally, being downright stupid like just staring dumbfounded when explosives go off in his face does not really help of course.
To me the Selina Kyle character had more charisma than the Batman, especially when the Batman was in his Bruce Wayne alter ego.
And I really, really dislike that twist about Bruce’s parents. That was such a lazy Hollywood writer hack thing to do just to create (unwanted) drama.
Then we have the Riddler. Compared to the charismatic villains that we have come to expect he is just a sad little psychopath with a bunch of equally sad fanatical internet followers.
Now, all of this would have worked great if it had been a movie about some, unspecified, vigilante. The movie is really well done. The detective story, the action (especially towards the end) and the noir setting would have worked great. Even at its three hour bloated length it would have been great although cut down to two hours or a bit more would have been even better. If it had not been a Batman movie!

Batman returns back to its detective roots, and it is a breath of fresh air. Robert Patterson is stunning as Batman. The twists and turns the new Riddler take is a fun ride.
**Verdict:** _Masterpiece_

The movie was one of the best Batman movies in my opinion, but, I honestly didn't like thus portrayal of Batman. This didn't feel like Batman, more like BatDude. Like a man in real life that grew up watching Batman and decided to fight crime under his name. Overall it is definitely worth the watch!

_The Batman_ is the best live-action Batman movie yet. It's the type of Batman film I've been waiting for my whole life.
It's dark and realistic, but also stylish and large-scale. It's not limited by a commitment to realism like the Dark Knight trilogy, nor is it burdened by a shared universe like the DCEU. It is its own thing. A moody, disturbing, visually stunning, David Fincher-inspired, three hour long detective epic with some of the best interpretations of the characters ever put on screen.
Robert Pattinson is fantastic as a younger, moodier, and yes, more emo Batman. Paul Dano is straight up terrifying as the Riddler. Colin Farrell is unrecognisable in more ways than one as The Penguin and Zoë Kravitz is easily my favorite live-action Catwoman. Massively underrated is john Turturro as Carmine Falcone.
This movie kept me hooked all the way through. It's almost three hours long but it feels like two.
This is the best Batman movie. The Dark Knight is good and all, but Reeves finds the perfect mix of gritty realism and style (Nolan would never even dare to have a snorricam shot of Batmam gliding over the city), and finally gives us a live-action Batman that lives up to the title of "World's Greatest Detective". Not that there's much competition, since he's like the only one to actually do any detective work (no, Christian Bale magically finding a fingerprint on a broken bullet doesn't count).

Oh boy, yet another review here on TMDB about this movie. What is it about comic books that garners so much interest? I am no longer a comic hero fan, either in movies or the source comic books. I have seen some of the Marvel series and the only one that I would watch multiple times if it came across my screen in Ant Man and the Wasp, with its wit, action and humor.
I did read superhero comics as a kid, however. I stuck to DC comics. I especially liked the Legion of Superheroes, though I also read the Justice League, Superman and Batman. This was the Silver Age of comics, I believe, before they restarted and complicated the field with reimagining the comic universe (or whatever it is they did).
Anyway, I was a DC boy so I gave The Batman a look see. It is a dark film, both in its themes and its camera work. No wit and humor to speak of here, just grim and introspective comic book noir. But it was intriguing and interesting enough to hold only my attention. There were a couple of interesting twists on traditional Batman villains, for example. As with a lot of current thrillers, there is quite a body count, when sometimes with violence, I think less can be more.
It is not a film I will watch multiple times or anxiously await a sequel for, but I do not regret the time spent watching it.

I am so tired of superhero movies. Still, being down with a mild case of Corona, I wanted something to watch that'd go down easy, and The Batman was available, so I picked it.
I have to say that this, to me, is one of the rare superhero movies that appeal to me. And that's after having seen every other Batman movie since Tim Burton's 1989 one. And, I dare say, even with me being fed up with superhero movies, I think this is the best attempt.
At three hours, it feels like binge-watching a three-part miniseries. And by that I mean both that to the extent that it is three acts, they almost perfectly align with an hour each, and also that the pacing is great, and I never got bored.
The cast is excellent. Also, for the first time ever, I'm not thinking that it's ridiculous that no one recognizes Bruce Wayne as Batman. The half-mask actually makes Bruce Wayne unrecognizable. I'm not sure if they thought of that during casting, but it's really quite impressive.
It's also nice to not have to suffer through a pathetic attempt from Batman to make his voice sound cool. Oh dear, Christian Bale trying to look and sound cool was just so cringey. Robert Pattinson is by far the best Batman I've ever seen. The almost depressive mental torment he conveys does not come off as fake or pretension, and that's a first for the Batman franchise as far as I'm concerned.
The mood is bleak without being depressive, the score is fantastic, if a bit too much, the cinematography is amazing, I really have very little to fault here. If anything, it may come off as a little pretentious and self-indulgent, but that's also part of the attraction, and if I'm being completely honest, I think it's more to do with my own "people need to grow up and stop watching these childish things" prejudice I have, when in fact the 15-year-old inside of me f...ing loves it, and I need to embrace that childish part of me rather than hate on it.
If there's anything I would change about this movie, it's what I feel is somewhat of a PG-ification of Batman. I would love to see this movie with all its bleak desperation and lust for vengeance on the depravity and evil in the Gotham world, but with a seriously anti-hero, all-violent, bringer-of-death Batman. I would love to see him - in a more crude outfit, with less bells and whistles, and definitely without the cape - destroy, slay and kill, with exploration of the terrible aftermath it would bring, including the impact on his psyche, rather than the beat-up-and-let-go strategy that he is using in this movie. That part just feels to not align with both the doomish mood that sets the story and the seeming existential depression of our masked protagonist. I think that would warrant yet another installment in this franchise. I'm actually surprised how much meat there is on this character.
Also, if the movie overall is consistently a bit too much, the ending takes it one notch further on that scale.
Regardless, I now have two superhero movies that I keep in my movie collection. The other is Watchmen (Director's Cut).
1 star deducted for Catwoman being racist without it being presented as a problem. The casting of her is perfect, by the way. Much better than Michelle Pfeiffer.

Good albeit not great, this newest incarnation of Batman is well done if not also incredibly dark. I did like Robert Pattinson's portrayal and didn't employ the annoying voice that kind of ruined The Dark Knight and more so, The Dark Knight Rises. As a whole though I did like the plot (parts inspired by The Long Halloween) and a good supporting cast, with Paul Dano giving a creepy performance as The Riddler and looking forward to seeing more from Zoe Kravitz's Selina/Catwoman. **4.0/5**