In after people in the comments get mad before watching

The fact that he couldn't figure out the last piece of the puzzle because it wouldn involve knowing what a working class tool for fixing carpets is for was *chefs kiss*

With regards to the “why didn’t Bruce learn to use his wealth at the end” point, I think you could argue that he may have, but it’s a thing we could see expanded upon in later films. The main take away is that he can’t fight for “vengeance” because that just doesn’t solve the problem, he has to try to give the city hope. That could mean using his money as Bruce as well as being a crime fighter as Batman I think I generally get the rest of your frustrations. Superhero stories with the “villain who has a point but takes it too far” type plots can sometimes drop the ball when it comes to making a cohesive point and can make the messaging wishy washy. They are confirmed to make sequels, so hopefully they can do better in the future. Great film overall, but it did have some problems. I also took some edibles when I went to go see the movie and forgot what was going on a few times throughout the movie, so yeah, take that into account when judging my opinion.

Batman's arc in the movie is literlly realising that he was doing the same thing as the Riddler. When he talks to him in prison the Riddler is all disappointed because he thought Batman would agree with him. Batman's all confused because he didn't see how similat they were. And then at the end when the guy's like 'I'm vengence' Batman realises he the effect he's been having on the city. That's why he's doing national guard shit at the end, not becuase he realised that Bruce Wayne needs to do more for the city but because Batman needs to do more for the City.

He didn't say you'll become as bad as him but rather, you've paid enough, as in you've been through enough. Because she's a black poor woman and would be legally in trouble immediately. Other than that, its less of a superhero thing and more of a Batman specific thing where he doesn't let people kill or be killed on his watch as a way to both keep his own sanity and prevent others from going through what he went through. He probably views killing through the lens of his own trauma. As you mentioned, he is not emotionally all there, and it might as well be that if people that he believes in or trusts, if they were to do that, it might seriously mess him up mentally. Just the guilt of it. I do think it is a weird moral and selfish thing but that's kind of true to his character.

In terms of throwing money at the issue, they did kind of address it with the thomas wayne renewal fund. That billion in philanthropy was quickly gone into corruption just like modern day charity scandals.

Batman believes in rehabilitation, sometimes to a fault, he doesn't kill people because he doesn't want to inflict the pain he suffered when his parents were killed, they make it very explicit that corrupt officials have families.

I can see him sending Bruce a bomb, because he felt like Bruce represented privilege. Edward actually lived in a shit orphanage, but Bruce was the orphan everyone talked about.

The people commenting before watching the video astonish me. Pretty much everything people are praising about the film, Vaush says he also likes.

I'm pretty sure that when batman said "i have to become more" in his monologue is implying that he needs to be more than the batman, that is the point of the movie that batman is not enough

Vowsh I feel like you almost got the point. This movie isn’t about him becoming woke wealth distributor Bruce Wayne. It’s about Batman becoming a hero that Gotham can look up to instead of just a vigilante for criminals to fear. Sure him distributing his wealth would probably help more but there’s still time for him to learn that lesson. Especially cause they’re defintely gonna make this a trilogy

Big fan of the movie and I admire the criticism you lay out. I don't think any super hero franchise has ever handled socioeconomic issues correctly and are often the cheesy part of every movie, but I hope they can go further down that rabbit hole within the coming movies. But I really enjoyed this movie. From the noir aspect to the over the top bullet proof bat suit.

He told Selena that "you shouldn't have to pay for it". She didn't and that was good. That part did make sense

In the beginning they demonstrated that Batman was a boogeyman, and he used fear tactics that essentially made everyone scared of him including innocent people like the guy at the subway. But towards the end I felt that the people accepted Batman as a hero, because he saved the newly elected Mayor and the people stuck under the stage from Riddler’s mass shooters. Setting up for the sequels that he’ll be more of a “Caped Crusader” and not the Dark Knight. I absolutely loved this movie because it is a true adaptation of Detective Comics and a hodgepodge of different comics and graphic novels all in one package. Matt Reeves definitely loves these characters and can’t wait what he does with characters like Scarecrow, Mad Hatter and Mr. Freeze.

10:47 I personally thought that was the point - People were scared of Batman because he was just a vengeful, fear inducing vigilante. Its showing that he's willing to come out of the shadows and be helpful towards the victims, not just going back to the night to hunt criminals. This is symbolized with the flare in the water scene, he approaches the trapped victims and they all cower in fear and refuse his outstretched hand, but eventually they trust him and he leads them out (With the flare being the light) through all the mud and destruction.

I got the impression that Batman stopping Catwoman from killing Falcone was more to prevent her from getting in trouble legally, and less about preserving her moral integrity. I felt like he was basically saying "Yeah this guy is a POS who deserves to die, but you shouldn't take the fall for it" idk if there is really a substantive difference there but that's just my opinion on it

My reading for the Riddler going crazy at the end is that, like Batman, the Riddler's motives were merely destructive. He was just lashing out at a system that wronged him and so many others with no interest in how to actually make the situation better. I equate the Riddler to how some on the online left are less interested in actual, positive change and more interested in being mad at the Democrats. He's a foil to Batman in that regard, and in the end, Bruce Wayne uses his power as a billionaire and the symbol he's made to reform the system, something we'll see more of in the sequels. As for Batman not retiring at the end, he says at the end that the flood will create a power vacuum for crime rings and generally be the source of instability, so he's still needed, but more importantly, they know they're making a sequel, so why spend a few minutes pretending like it's the end, just so they can spend a third of the next movie bringing him out of retirement?

Idk I really disagree with the takeaway of the end of the film. The idea that "nothing happens" as a result of Bruce realizing that his idea of vengeance is bad for the city is just kinda wrong. The movie pretty explicitly shows a major change in the way Bruce conceptualizes Batman as a figure. Instead of a symbol of fear, he wants to be a symbol of hope. The bit where he lights the flair and is leading everyone out of the stadium very clearly shows this. I agree to an extent with the idea that it would have been satisfying for the movie to end with Bruce re-entering the public sphere as a philanthropist (which is something I definitely see the next film touching on, in fact I really think that doesn't happen in this movie specifically so it can be a big focus of the next one), I don't think that not happening makes Bruce's arc incomplete. There's a lot of visual language at the end showing how Bruce is changing what Batman stands for in the eyes of the city. Take the scene at the beginning of the movie when Batman helps that guy getting jumped by gang members. That dude was terrified afterwards, he literally was begging Batman not to thrash him. Versus at the end of the movie when he helps that person into the stretcher they're looking to him for reassurance, they're scared and he calms them down. A complete inversion. Imo his arc was one of the most satisfying parts of the movie.

Had Falcone not got killed, he definitely wouldn't just got off. He was just exposed as the rat who tipped off the cops about Maroni, publicly. When he's gettign arrested Gordon gets all the non-corrupt cops to show that not everyone is corrupt. And if Riddler didn't shoot him, the Penguin was about to, after beign exposed as the rat he had lost all his underworld power.

To me kind of an irony in regards to superheroes and societal change is that back in the 30's and 40's Superman was taking making societal change (through punching, but still) to hardcore levels, going after the Klan, oligarchs (IIRC in one instance the wealthy mine owner was a unionbuster, which Superman was not cool with to the point of threatening to kill him; and he did kill people before late 1940), slumlords, nazi sympathizers, and wifebeaters fist-first. Heck, in a 1939 comic Superman literally arrested Hitler and Stalin (after single-handedly stopping the Wehrmacht on the way to Berlin) and dropped them off at the Hague. Superman's targets were people who were protected by the system. The origins of superhero comics are really against and angry with the status quo of the Great Depression, so it is funny that superhero movie standard villain mold today is the way it is. PS: Batman's name in Estonian when translated literally from Finnish is "Leather Mouse Man."

I think this is a much more measured take than some of your others, though I still disagree. I don't see The Riddler's "turn" as that much of a turn. The bomb wasn't the only thing that threatened innocent bystanders, Riddler expressly told the DA to drive through that crowd of people at the funeral. We start out with only a general idea of the Riddler's motive: expose the corruption in Gotham. As the film goes, his methods become less justifiable as well as his solution. He tortures the commissioner to death. He ties Selina's relatively innocent friend to the mayor and gets her killed. He sends a letter bomb to Bruce Wayne because he feels he had stolen orphan valor. His solution goes from systematic change to cleansing the whole of Gotham. This wasn't a turn out of nowhere, nor an unreasonable one. We are shown a change in Batman at the end, though it is subtle. Throughout the film, Batman's focus is almost solely on the criminals, not the victims. When he saves the guy from the mugging at the start, the guy is afraid of Batman possibly hurting him and he doesn't asway those fears, he just walks off. Batman almost ruins his relationship with Selina when he gets to controlling and asks too much before she was ready. After he meets up with Selina after finding her friend dead, he starts to empathize with her and her hurt. After hearing the henchman say "I am Vengeance" and he cuts the transformer and falls to the water below. It is there that Batman realizes that his mission can't (at least solely) be Vengeance and he helps the survivors get to safety. He realizes that he can't fix Gotham through fear alone, he needs to give the citizens hope. The daylight rescue efforts serve the purpose of showing him not only saving that woman, but reassuring her that she will be alright. The villains Reeves mentioned he wants to use seem to point to this series' themes continuing to be an exploration of tragedy (Mr. Freeze and Hush) and corruption (the Court of Owls).

I feel like it is implied that he is going to help the city through his wealth and through actually being a hero moving forward. I don’t think that it needs to be explicitly said, the audience infers that him becoming a hero means that he is also on the path to becoming Bruce Wayne the Philanthropist. I understand that the implication may not be enough for people, however, I believe that the references to Bruce’s incredible wealth being used for good are more than enough for the audience to understand that “doing good” also means using his wealth for good.

This trope of "What if the social justice goes too far?" was one of the huge problems with the Falcon and Winter Soldier series. The Flag-Smashers were basically a refugee resettlement group for half the series and then the writers had them blow up a building to make them villains.

The ending was much more symbolic of Bruce realising he has to change his ways. The scene with the new mayor addressing his wealth and how he's not using it for any welfare programs definitely suggests this will be a thing he will learn to do in the future. Right now the entire city was flooded and people were dying, hence why he was focusing on this first, not to mention that... a lot of people are fucking stupid and if he just started spending more money they wouldn't have gotten the message of him trying to do good for the city Not to mention that Vaush seemed to have missed a line of dialogue when Selina was trying to kill her father. Batman doesn't say that would make her as bad as him, he only says "You've suffered enough" which is a pretty damn fair point because even if this guy killed her mother and girlfriend, she would still be haunted for the rest of her life by the fact she executed a surrendering, unarmed person who also happens to be her father

Hey I totally see what you mean with the politics, but Cat woman directly confronts batman and asks him why he only doesn't perceive the death of her friend as being as much of a crime as the murder of the mayoral candidate. I thought it was really interesting because i felt that they did a good job of showing the problems with batman and give room for the sequel to dive more into these themes. I sort of took batman not wanting catwoman to kill Falcone as him not wanting her to kill him in front of Gordon.

The entire time I watched the movie all I could think about was, "I'm sure glad this isn't an origin story." There were so many moments they could've spent explaining boring things like "where did batman get his armor?" Or "how did batman and Gordon meet?" "How did batman learn to fight so well". I was so glad they at most they mentioned it and then continued with the story.

If Batman DID hang up his cape at the end after realising his bs it would’ve been the perfect way for the Joker to come into play. One of his whole motivations is the ‘game’ him and Batman have, that whole sick ‘you need me as much as I need you’. Like it would’ve made so much sense if the joker did an ultimatum of some kind to get the Batman to come back.

I think the fact that they do draw attention to Bruce's lack philanthropy is enough to hint that he eventually will. Otherwise I don't think it would have been mentioned at all.

idk i never got the feeling that batman was going to "give up" being batman throughout this movie. when batman said it was the end of batman i think he meant he would be unmasked by the riddler. i think its weird that you dont talk about the stuff bruces father did with his money and how it failed.

17:25 He doesn’t say ‘You’ll be as bad as him’ he says ‘You don’t have to pay for what he’s done’ in reference to the emotional toll killing him (her father) would have on her.

I never really thought of the movie this way. His critiques actually made sense and I wish I thought this sooner.

The flooding was a metaphor for washing away the sins of the city I believe.

I feel the whole "why isnt batman distributing his wealth" point was always valid in batman as a whole but the director said this is going to be a trilogy so i'm hoping by the end of it some lesson will be sent

I think this video makes sense if you're judging an aged and experienced Batman, which this movie does not have. He's a young Batman within maybe his first 2 years of being the caped crusader. He is learn, he is raw. The philanthropy comes in the sequels and knowing the big fish comes with time. He acknowledged multiple times that maybe he's doing things wrong because he's too ground level. I think this movie wants us to see these flaws so the growth across the trilogy is more profound. Just my thoughts.

😂 “ I thought it would be the end of Batman” he literally just started being Batman

The point of batman helping people in daylight is that he becomes a symbol of hope for the city. People like the riddler took inspiration from the vengeance driven version of batman, justifying great actions of violence. Batman changing his ways to become a symbol of hope will inspire people of Gotham to help eachother. I do think that in the next movie they should have Bruce Wayne try to help the city with his money and address the barriers that will come with that. Of course the most based version we can get is Bruce discovering the court of owls basically rule the city allowing the elite to rule over the working class and as batman he takes them down basically collapsing the Gotham government and then the people build a new one in its place.

Vaush: "Real heroes execute criminals by having hungry rats burrow through their body."

They pulled a lot of the Burton-esque architecture, and it was beautiful.

“Just got back from seeing the batman” Bro did you walk home? Catch your breath 🤣

As for the Catwoman thing, Bruce's reaction is perfectly in character witb his code. If he didn't react that way, he wouldn't be Batman. The fact that he's wrong is the point of the movie. It's about his character arc. And yes, Gotham's underfunded and in shambles so every capable hand is one that can make a difference, it's about how one person can't make a change but uf they work together, the sky is the limit. Batman mentions a power vaccum for the mob to fight over and general lack of Gotham's ability to enforce the law, leading to him being needed, so he couldn't hang up the cape. Plus you gotta admit, the flare scene was beautiful. It felt very much like a comic book movie.

I don't think Vaush's take is shit but I think it just misses a lot of pretty easy to see points. The whole "why doesn't he just do a philanthropy at the end" is basically saying why didnt we get a 30 minute time skip in a film that takes place over the course of 5 days. If in the next movie ill eat my words but it seems exceedingly clear to me that Batman is having a character arc of going from a personal vendetta that ultimately was selfish to wanting to be more and do more to the city. Catwoman says to him in the end that he can't save this city and he just disagrees. His motivation has clearly shifted. The idea that Batman just doesn't do philanthropy classically is also kind bunk, he does in both the comocs and previous films. He has two massive foundations explicitly for Philanthropy and of the few large gotham based corporations his is the only one that is ostensibly fair and just, where he provides affordable housing, city clean up, gas, electric, water all at costs lower and more equitable than the corrupt competitors. But this is a year 2 Batman still angry misguided and raw. And we get to actually see Batman have that character arc in this film. Like being annoyed that we see him helping at a disaster that we literally saw him present at, and them depicting the small change in the hearts ofnthe people present seeing him help is silly. What he should jumped outta his Batman suit at the flood and gone home to set up a flood fund while people were actively trapped in debris in front of him drowning? As for the Riddler is the good guy take, the problem is real simple. Riddler targeted the correct people at first but his attack on the city is very clearly explained. He's inspired by Batman, almost singularly. But the key difference is Bruce is gifted hope in the city, Riddler isn't. Batman's tactic is essentially "enough fear will make Criminals stop" which simply doesn't work. Riddler takes the full illogical leap of more fear. The entire city has to be afraid, to know that any and all of them can be punished. Riddler isn't taking out criminals to fix a broken system, hes taking out Falcone and his goons to get back at them and to make a point. We literally see what happens as soon as any of these guys are killed in the film. Killing Falcone solved nothing. 1 less bad guy. Penguin steps in immediately. Kill a DA? Half the office is corrupt. Kill a bad cop? The commissioner is corrupt. The murders at the end of the day solve nothing. Riddler was right to reveal the corruption but his method wasn't just morally questionable, it didn't work. It part of why Batman sees his methods won't change anything. Frankly, the idea of molding society through violence and fear, thats Facism. Riddler is basically every single Alt Right Online Terrorist masquerading behind a populist message. If Vaush got into a debate with him on discord he'd call him a Nazi. Also....hang up his cape? They did that in Dark Knigt Rises and it kinda sucked lol. Anyway, tl;dr - Movie is like 5 days, Bruce Probably does a philanthropy in the 2nd film, Riddler was a Facist.

Jeez, the babies in comments can't handle Batman being criticised. I loved the movie, it comes most close to good socio political commentary compared to other Batman movies. But it does fall short, Matt Reeves probably didn't study sociology. Any leftist would be frustrated by the climax where Batman acknowledges how vengeance isn't it, but he doesn't also acknowledge the socioeconomic conditions of crime. But, they are setting things up so that the sequels can dig into things a bit more, so there is hope. This is easily the best Batman that comes the most close to good politics for sure, though.

Thank you Vaush, now I can finally have an opinion about this movie I haven't seen.

I loved the scenes with Batman's boots striding in the rain. That's some high quality slow motion puddle booting.

There was a heavy theme of being imprisoned by the pursuit of revenge throughout the film and many parallels between how Riddler and Batman are portrayed as well as there being something cage-like is almost every shot.

The Batman is a gripping, gorgeous, and, at times, genuinely scary psychological crime thriller that gives Bruce Wayne the grounded detective story he deserves. Robert Pattinson is great as a very broken Batman, but it’s Zoe Kravitz and Paul Dano who steal the show, with a movingly layered Selina Kyle/Catwoman and a terrifyingly unhinged Riddler. Writer/director Matt Reeves managed to make a Batman movie that’s entirely different from the others in the live-action canon, yet surprisingly loyal to Gotham lore as a whole. Ultimately, it’s one that thoroughly earns its place in this iconic character’s legacy.

It's nice that Vaush hangs out with conure off stream. If only he streamed with them too sometime....

you think the optics backlash is bad vaush but you shit talk the batman to a fanbase of nerds and the real carnage will begin

He does change his approach, not just as Batman but as Bruce Wayne, that's the point of Réal as a character. Ridler was never in the right. He was always just a psychopath being a paychopath. The moral outrage stuff was just the mask he wore so he could justify his venom. He's a twisted mirror of what the Batman is to Bruce. That's why there are so many bowtie moments that show the characters doing the same thing. To draw the comparisons. This lands explicitly with the vengeance line. It doesn't surprise me that you thought the Ridler was the _good guy_ though. He's full of impotent sperg rage at the unfairness of society and thinks that justifies his explicitly horrible actions. Ridler could have exposed all of these people at any time, he had all the dirt he needed to go to the news with them. Instead he set up saw traps and filmed them for his sperglord Internet followers to enjoy. Real good guy. They escalated his psychopathy to city destroying levels exactly so people like you, who can't follow a theme, don't come out saying _hur dur, Ridler was right._ And Falcone wouldn't have survived, he was outed as a rat. He'd have been shanked in black gate.

It seems like vaush wanted the ending to be a montages of Batman destroying his cave and equipment, putting on a business suit, and running for office/lobbying for change.

One of the main story threads was the misuse of the Wayne funds and the corruption it bread. Funneling money into the city is explicitly ruled out as a good way to bring good in Gotham

Ben Shapiro and Vaush have the same opinion on The Batman. Horseshoe theory confirmed

Really appreciate the thoughts on the movie, and I see your points, but personally I think you may be overthinking it. I think total indiscriminate destruction of Gotham was Riddler's endgame from the beginning and he was just simply insane from the get-go, regardless of some of the actually good stuff he was accomplishing. He crossed the line that Bruce wasn't willing to, and that was the point in my mind. That's what makes him a villain - otherwise, he'd be an anti-hero, right?. And yeah, I think maybe you were expecting the "Bruce Wayne evolving as more than just vengeance" setup to be payed off by the end of this film, whereas it'll likely be explored in sequel(s).

The Batman helping people was great and needed. When he went to save the people in the arena, and when he beat up the gang members at the train station, he sees that the people that he’s saving fear him just as much as the bad guys. He was accidentally terrorising the citizenry in the act of saving them. Helping rescue people and in the process humanising himself to the public was needed to show them that he’s there to help the people of Gotham. His example up to then had inspired the wrong people with wrong message. This was him doing a course correction and inspiring hope in the citizenry rather than revenge. It was also great to for once show the hero actually saving people. Usually it’s a big boss battle, hero wins, confetti. This was less a hero movie and more a hero story, which was a breath of fresh air. The Riddler’s mission was to cleanse Gotham completely. He expressly says we know that this new mayor won’t really change anything, the only way to effect real change is to break it all and start again. Alas, the great flood. And then we have Batman representing the opposite of that by saving everyone and leading the people out of the darkness with a literal beacon of light. That’s why the scene on top of the arena is in broad daylight. Batman physically steps out of the shadows and into the light as a visual representation of his emotional metamorphosis.

I think the point of the movie isn't just that revenge is bad, but also that he needs to learn not just how to be a symbol of fear, but a symbol of hope. That's why he was helping people, they weren't scared anymore, they were inspired by The Batman.

I agree that Riddler’s true intentions are more effective then Batman’s ever were, but I think what the movie presents is this power of fear they both indulge in which can lead to different outcomes. The Riddler’s way may be more effective but the thing about killing in the name of change can lead you into thinking that it’s the only thing one can do. Riddler sees the city as a place that will never change, and now that all the meaningful targets have been taken out whose there to stop? To him all politicians are corrupt, there will always be people who suffered like him and now that he has taste of power through killing he is not going to stop.

I’m gonna wait until it’s free. I hate movie theaters.

Batman told Catwoman that she would go down with Falcon if she killed him, not that what she was doing was "bad". Meaning she would have either gone to jail or be hunted by the police forever had she murdered him and he didn't want that for her.

That bit at the start reminds me of a few pieces of batman media including one of the games where an antagonist points out that the bat symbol draws your eye to his chest so you shoot there, when that's where his body armout is at its strongest

I actually agree with VOOSH but the movie didnt feel that long for me and i think theres no fucking way he could hang the cape without making fans Reeeee

Honestly, I really love the ending you were seeing here in regards to Bruce giving up the mantle of Batman for the foreseeable future and then giving back to his city with the resources & power that Bruce has rather than that of Batman. Overall, I think your critiques are super sound across the board and I agree with a good majority of them. Too be fair though, bringing things back to the end of the movies, I do like the simplistic symbolism / character ark of Batman becoming a torch of moral & ethical good for people to follow rather than continuing to be an angry hulking maniac. Now sure, it may be so simple that it's corny, but I do enjoy it even still. I'm also wayyy too brainwashed by the Adam West Batman series to find Batman simply just standing in the sunlight cheesy by any means lol. If Batman stands out in the sunlight, then I expect a two-story, multicolored umbrella to fall out of the sky right in front of Batman & Robin. Seeing Batman do what he can as one single guy is not only really great in my opinion & helps to reinforce the ending they're going for about Batman being that torch. It's less of the fact that he's now your Friendly Neighborhood Batman, it's more of the fact that Bruce wants to reserve his brutal nature by standing above the ide that he is only capable of spreading fear. Also, to me, that just IS a very Batman thing to do. He'll help people in any sort of nitty griddy way he can, even if he can only do one man's work, he will always try to help. I personally think that's just great and I've always loved that about Batman. Otherwise, I see all your points & mostly agree, maybe the other noteable exception would be for the Catwoman & Batman argument over killing the one guy. The character of Batman been in this exact situation before throughout other storylines, sometimes with worse people at hand. Jason Todd (one of the first Robin's for those who may not know) was tortured to near death by The Joker and presumed dead for many years. One day, Jason Todd comes back under a new mantle, (usually) The Red Hood, and sets out to do Batman's job in a more efficient manner while simultaneously vowing to kill all the criminals he fights against. This eventually leads Red Hood to Joker, and Batman won't let Red Hood kill him, and this is the JOKER we're talking about. No matter what version of that character you look at, the dude can easily outclass any mobster in a death count, yet Batman stays true to the idea that you will not necessarily *become& the villains you kill, but rather that you will cross a line that you can never go back from. THAT is what I think Batman was trying to say to Catwoman in this movie. She obviously will never be as bad as that mobster in comparison between one murder to many, but she will have blood on her hands nonetheless. Which is something that the character of Batman consistently tries to keep people from doing. Those are the pretty much only two things I truly disagree with. Even still, as someone who calls themselves a "film buff" (or a film junkie depending on how you look at it) I thought all of your takes were assembled really well. I especially like your perspective on Riddler. Partly considering the fact that I felt an inkling of that thought throughout the story, though I actually thought that in some ways most of what you had mentioned added to his character, the things about him that were sympathetic / the understandable motives that is, but I can definitely see how throwing in the "Tyler Durden" rule as you called it can be a bit of an easy way out when you've made your villain a little too in the right with their goals, pre mass murder of the innocents. Great review my guy. Terrible comment section lmao

Why in the hell would you think that they'd make a brand new Batman movie with a new Batman, only to have Batman quit at the end? From a financial standpoint alone this makes no sense. They did this in The Dark Knight Rises because that was the end of a trilogy, that story was over, but this a whole new thing.

This is so spot on it’s ridiculous Also very impressive that you were able to articulate all of the points you made in one take Definitely guna check out your other videos, cheers

Batman should fly to Canada in the batwing, buy tons of reasonably priced and potentially life saving pharmaceuticals, fly back to America, then distribute them to people who can’t afford healthcare Technically he’d still be a vigilante

18:26 I actually find this really funny, because the final moments of the film Come and See, probably the greatest film ever made about the horrors of war, actually does take this approach to killing Hitler. In my opinion, though, it works there because having that moment directly addresses that all of the horrors that we were shown before are a part of a cycle of needless death and hate, and it's a satisfying end to the character's arc. The "don't kill" moment in The Batman definitely doesn't work IMO, because it doesn't really justify why murdering Falcone would make Catwoman as bad as him, and we're just supposed to infer that it will because we as the audience generally understand that murder is bad. This is really dumb because I also understand that punching mentally ill people is bad, but I'm supposed to be okay with it when Batman does it. It's all just very dumb and I'm just really disappointed that we've had this many Batman movies and none can justify his complete opposition to murder outside of him not wanting to become like the man who killed his parents, but the films all still pretend that they do justify it beyond that, when they definitely don't. I still loved the movie, but it definitely fumbles a lot with the moral and political messages at the end.

Personally though, I liked riddler becoming more messed up by using van bomb to flood the city, It's like this moment where a villain with good intentions going too far down the hole and becoming evil. And that ideal becoming perverted to the point where it's just mindless violence (which is actually a scaringly real thing in real life.)

Wow it’s almost like there are more movies planned and they didn’t wanna cover every possible action of Batman/Bruce in the first movie

For the ending they could've had Batman helping the refugees, but _as Bruce Wayne,_ and implied that he's using his actual power in some way. Although to be fair, they could be saving his character development for the sequel, seing as how it was already hinted at.

Not only did the guy Batman beat up say "I'm vengeance", he's the guy Batman beat the shit out of at the beginning of the movie that he said that very line to. Full circle baby!

On the “helping the national guard” thing, I think you’re focusing a little too much on that. That was one scene, like the morning after the bombs went off. He didn’t even have time to take his suit off, he was just helping people. The movie didn’t have time to throw in a montage of Bruce Wayne fixing Gotham, which is something we’ll probably see happen in the sequels anyway.

When I found out Ben Shapiro and the other right-wingers hate this Batman movie, I realized I could use this movie to find out and expose the people who I should consider and declare as my political enemies. But Vaush and this video challenged that idea.

I loved every bit of this movie and also completely agree with this take. can't wait for the next one :D

Haven't watched all the video yet, but there is intention in the movie that he is just Batman, he hasn't developed his persona of Bruce Wayne the rich man, and Matches Maolone the man on the street. He learns that there are things he can't just do as fear inducing Batman, and a part of that will be having him be more than just a source of fear. I presume after the movie he will be recognising that Bruce Wayne can do a lot of things on a bigger picture of helping society, and after that, maybe even things neither can do. I like looking at the ways he entered the club. The first as Batman, the second as Bruce Wayne, and the third as neither. His personal journey has him starting as thinking that he is only Batman, and the story has him rethinking that.

When batman says “I think this is all coming to an end” he’s referring to the fact that The Riddler might know who he is not that he’s thinking about quitting, and I think your point about Bruce using his wealth will be explored in the sequel, it’s only the following morning after a city wide flood they’re not going to be able to sort it out in a day And I’m absolutely baffled by the fact you think he should’ve hung up the cape at the end, like it’s the first movie

I think that Batman can justify not killing when it comes to regular crime lords. They will just be replaced by someone else. He also explicitly said that not killing was for Cat Woman's sake. I also just assumed that Bruce Wayne would start investing in Gotham's welfare state after the credits.

I really loved the soundtrack though. All three notes of it

Batman donate to charity and build infrastructure in the comics(including the golden age) even in other media.Some people are trick by memes to believe that Bruce uses his money to fight crime which is not true. (Most of those memes come from apologists who make up excuses for the villains and criminals that threaten the citizens of Gotham city .)

I hated how Catwoman was handled. The writers gave her little agency compared to Batman and her character was constantly objectified by the camera. The way Batman interacted with her was disgusting.

I love how this film felt like it was filmed in 70s or 80s, it just captures that look.

Instead of having all these sympathetic villains who call attention to real-world problems, these superhero movies should have more villains who represent the problems. You have to admit, a billionaire supervillain would be far scarier than any of these subversive rebel types.

Vausch, Batman could not see the similarity between his mission and the Riddler who he actually inspired. Additionally, the Riddler was uncovering a stream of corruption that had created the environment in the city which itself, destroyed the Riddlers life. Here is another subtle thing you missed but mentioned. At the end, Batman carries the woman to rescuers. Moments earlier people were still afraid of him but her small gesture showed some hope. But, earlier in the film, during the other daylight scene, Bruce wears glasses because he stated that he is a nocturnal creature. At the end, he is looking into the light. meaning there is hope. I cannot believe you missed that. Regarding Batman being a good guy and Riddler being bad. All of Batmans villains, all of them usually are fighting against corruption through violent means. Batman, is actually attempting to protect the existing system, without actually addressing the true problems. Even in the Dark Knight, Joker points out that Batman wants to be a cop but never will be and will never be accepted by them unless it suits them at the time. Batmans money alone cannot affect this.

I feel like, due to the Riddler’s trauma and distrust with the people in power, he was never going to trust anyone to bring change but himself. Idk it’s kinda like some tankies have valid criticisms, but their conclusions are just bat shit insane.

Despite making up 1% of Twitch Politics, Vaush and Destiny are responsible for 100% of terrible art takes on the Internet. Makes you think.

I absolutely loved this movie

Great video!

I think the best explanation for Batman's no kill rule was in Under the Red Hood. If Batman could justify killing Falcone, he'd be able to justify killing any criminal that came after.

Im pretty sure theyre setting up him helping with social infrastructure for the sequels. I think he's going to become more of the "philanthropist bruce" as time goes on.

While I absolutely agree that the whole "If you kill him, you're as bad as him." mentality is really dumb, I don't know if the film is reinforcing that belief by having him express it. I don't think films are designed to reaffirm our worldview. Main characters can have beliefs that we don't agree with.

My adhd was not going to allow me to watch Batman bc of the length so tysm for this, I’m only 4 min in and you’re helping me get the gist so nicely 💞💞💞

So I'm only 13 minutes in but I figured the idea was he would create that dual personality and Batman ALONE couldn't fix the city. As in this movie as you correctly idenitified, he is focused on Batman alone. His "Bruce Wayne" doesn't exist, so no I don't think the foreshadowing was meant for him to stop being Batman but to also be Bruce Wayne. He's only 2 years in

I feel like the movie could use a few more human moments. It's a good film. But its hard to be invested when it's absurdly bleak all of the time. It doesn't have to be big moments that attention are drawn to, but just small things. Like Alfred playing crossword with the cipher.

I loved this film! It really brought out and showed off a lot of elements of Batman most Batman films got wrong however…. I think you brought up some really good points! It was incredibly ridiculous that Riddler was essentially doing what Batman needed to do and exposing the criminal element controlling and rotting the city. Riddler had avoided killing innocents throughout the film and was solely focused on just those he knew were involved in the conspiracy. He was still obviously extreme and crazy so they didn’t need to make him go and blow up the city. It made no sense for him to want to blow up Gotham after having avoided the killing of innocents throughout the film and they clearly wrote themselves into a corner that made him seem a little TOO sympathetic. However, I think this truly would’ve been a great parallel and foil to Batman’s efforts which are also violent and often destructive. They could’ve focused on how Batman basically killed a bunch of people in a freeway chase for the penguin. The whole moral of the story could’ve been that it’s not about “killing” and “not killing” but using your political power and money to actually help the people in need. That violence and destruction is not the way to solve these problems. That the people and the people alone are the only ones who can keep their city officials accountable and they could’ve made it an awesome Gotham rallies behind Batman type scene like in Dark Knight Rises. A quick side note: I had a friend mention once that if the journalist the Wayne’s killed was Riddlers father it would’ve been a thousand times better and made more sense why Riddler knew so much about this conspiracy and specifically in relation to the death of said journalist. It would also explain his constant complaints and jealousy towards Bruce Wayne for being a rich orphan unlike himself. Once again he could’ve been a perfect foil. Additionally, Riddler could’ve instead held the entire police department or DA hostage as a show of “cleansing” the city of corruption. He could’ve done the bomb thing but specifically towards the city officials even if it killed a couple of innocents. This would still show that he’s clearly crazy but put Batman in a situation where he needed to realize that violence alone even against the people that deserve it won’t fix the problem. It made absolutely zero sense for him to drown the city after literally trying to save it by exposing its criminal element.

It wasn't about Bruce's wealth, it was his disconnect from society on full display his change was when he was helping the civilians. That was the connection. At the beginning he was imposing fear on the city itself. The gangs feared the idea but so did the common people. once they saw his sacrifice for them they changed their view at the same time he changed his a bit. Its more about him as a symbol to the city and how that is viewed among the populous. Also how he is a reverse but similar psychopath as his enemies. Keep up the good work.

One thing Vaush didn't mention, and I didn't see here in comments after a cursory scroll, is that this movie takes place in Year Two, as evidenced by the cover of Batman's log after he takes out his camera contact lens. This explains why he is solely focused on vengeance to rid the city of crime and has not started thinking "big picture" yet. You would think that he would already have known how corrupt Gotham was, but since it was still early in his career, that can be forgiven. What can't be forgiven is his freely walking amongst the police. He wouldn't have been heroic enough that early in his story arc to warrant that level of acceptance. All previous renditions of this period indicate police were of the mindset to arrest on sight, with the exception of Gordon.

Man, I'm so tired of the "Bruce Wayne doesn't do charity and just solves crimes with punching and invading privacy" thing. In every version of Batman other than this he spends huge amounts of money on infrastructure and public works. But that's besides the point though because you can't solve problems like "The Joker has poisoned the water supply with laughing gas" and "A wizard has mind controlled the mayor" with fucking infrastructure. It's a comic book world and Batman fights comic book villains. Nolan really ruined the minds of an entire generation of Batman fans by tricking them into thinking that Bruce Wayne lives in a world that is any way similar to the real world. For fuck's sake he's had battles with Dracula and space aliens on the regular he doesn't just fight down-on-their-luck criminals and gangsters.

I haven’t watched the video yet but I’m 100% sure nobody in this comments section gets any bitches

Around 1:13, yeah, I'm glad they simply made Batman bulletproof in this movie. lol. There was one scene where Penguin's bullets weren't reaching through a car to hit catwoman hiding behind the car (and Batman on the ground). In reality, bullets burn straight through cars unless the car is heavily armored.

I feel like the main criticism here can be addressed by the fact that it isn’t a stand alone film; pretty sure it’s gonna be a trilogy (cuz they all are now). I think he’ll slowly start using his power in more effective ways, villains will still pop up while the city is still corrupt and unjust, and by the end he will have done some real good and be able to hang up the cape. Reeves did really well with the Apes trilogy, I think this one will be even better.

Lol, can't you just shut your brain off and enjoy the movie, Vaush? Stop asking perfectly logical questions! *sarcasm for people who can't tell*

I don’t necessarily agree with Vaush’s take on the movie but at least is better than Ben Shapiro’s take. That whiner didn’t like the film because for him it is too woke and suggest the idea of defund the police. Or some stupid shit like that. For me the movie is outstanding in every way. A thousand times better than I expected. ‘Se7en’ and ‘Zodiac’ meets ‘Dirty Harry’.