Fantastic Four (2025) review

    THE FANTASTIC FOUR is a movie that a lot of us were looking forward to as much, if not more, than Superman (2025). A lot of people complain about superhero fatigue but I actually think it's more like "cinema fatigue" with the problem not being that people aren't going to see superhero movies but that they aren't seeing movies period anymore. Streaming and Covid-19 are a one-two punch that means that if people are going to the movies, they'll probably do so only for things that are big events.

    Unfortunately, I'm going to have to say that I this one is a miss rather than a hit. I think Superman (2025) was a far better movie and this is just sort of okay--if that. Rather than compare it to Superman (2025) exclusively, I'm going to compare it to Marvel's other movies from the year with Thunderbolts and Captain America: Brave New World. I liked it the least of the three with Thunderbolts having a lot more heart and Brave New World being okay but still enjoyable.

    The premise is that on an alternate 1960s Earth, the Fantastic Four have managed to bring about world peace and elevate everything to a zeerust Pre-War Fallout-esque future. All in the span of about four years, which is already something that puts me off world-building wise. Sue Storm is pregnant with Franklin Richards and the family is in a really good headspace when they receive an ominous warning from the Silver Surfer: their world will be destroyed by Galactus within the year.

    The positives of this movie first: Julia Garner is fantastic as the Silver Surfer and I would have probably enjoyed a movie about her over this group. All those people complaining about the Silver Surfer receiving a gender flip are being silly. First, it's an alternate universe. Second, those saying it's a big support of the 'womenz' miss that a substantial chunk of the male audience (and some women) are going to enjoy her sexy re-design.

    I also appreciate a comics-accurate depiction of Galactus. The whole idea that audiences would never accept a skyscrapper-sized giant space god depends on the idea that there's something inherently less silly about guys with cosmic ray-induced powers over a Titan-sized being. If you're here for the comic book silliness, you're here for the comic book silliness. Which is why Krypto was perfectly fine and comic book editors were stupid to try to get rid of Supergirl for decades. In fact, Galactus being onscreen only for about ten minutes total is my biggest complaint about the film.

    As for the Fantastic Four themselves? Well, they're definitely the Fantastic Four. Reed is smart, Sue is the mature one, Ben is a rock guy, and Johnny is driven by his desire to bang the Silver Surfer. Honestly, it's a very bland and vanilla take on the characters with the only one who elevates the material being Pedro Pascal. His Reed is coded as autistic and I appreciated the representation even as I got pissed off when he called himself broken because of it. Mind you, this is a personal issue for me so it might not irritate you like it did me.

    In simple terms, the movie is boring. The action scenes have no stakes, no one is threatened, and our heroes don't seem to struggle throughout. The fact the entire world hangs on their every word and only turns on them briefly (before being resolved by a speech) is ludicrous. I just didn't have much fun during the film.

4/10

Superman (2025) review

    SUPERMAN (2025) by James Gunn is a work that you certainly don’t need me to tell you to go see. Virtually the entire response to the movie has been nothing but positive and I’m not going to be a naysayer. After the controversial choices of Man of Steel, Batman vs. Superman, and Justice League, it’s interesting to see something go the other way to embrace goofy fun as an alternative.

    Of course, goofy fun is misleading because there’s a lot of darkness underscoring the wackiness in a way that James Gunn is a master of threading the needle for.mixing of both comedy as well as tragedy. This is something that I think will contribute to the longevity of this new incarnation of the DC Cinematic Universse as it is able to do incredibly dark stuff with Creature Commandos and Peacemaker but also moments of hilarity.

    The premise is that Superman has just lost his first battle fighting against Ultraman/The Hammer of Bulgravia after successfully preventing a war. James Gunn starts us in media res with the kind of comic book serialized storytelling that was the case when I was a child. Specifically, you picked up Amazing Spider-Man 203 and had to figure out what was going on as well as who was who. Superman has been a hero for three years at this point and it is a world full of superheroes.

    Basically, this movie is created with the explicit goal is making a world that can be built upon for future movies. We get seeds for the Green Lanterns, Supergirl, and possibly the Justice League as a whole. Characters like Guy Gardner, Mr. Terrific, and Hawkgirl not only make the world more lived in but they also answer an obvious question of: “what can threaten Superman?” In this universe, he might be the strongest superhuman but he’s not that by an overwhelming amount.

    The movie also jumps past the majority of typical drama with Superman’s supporting cast in a way that is very smart. Superman conceals his secret identity from the world as a whole but he doesn’t keep it a secret from Lois, Jimmy, or the Justice Gang. We also get a nod to the hilarious “Superman hypnosis glasses” that were a Silver Age explanation for why Superman couldn’t be recognized.

    The movie is surprisingly political but in a way that isn’t necessarily going to be noticed as such. The invasion of Borvaria, a United States ally, to a smaller “imperfect” country is something that occupies a lot of the movie’s conflict. Superman also has his immigrant status brought forward and his citizenship is revoked as an excuse by the government to imprison him without trial or rights. If you think this is against Superman’s values, well, you’re probably Dean Cain. I had a small issue with the handling of Jor-El and Lora-El but that’s mostly because I think it conflicted with the message.

    The handling of Lex Luthor is one of my favorite parts of the movie as they manage to elevate him to a malevolence that simultaneously feels believable but also grandiose. Ironically, this is the most human and least “savior”-like Superman but Lex Luthor does a good job as being a metaphor for Satan with his own underworld-esque Hell universe as well as an insane pride-driven motivation that will destroy the world if it means that Superman doesn’t get to save it. Given he’s a tech bro, that’s sadly also realistic.

    In conclusion, Superman (2025) is a fantastic movie and a great start off to the new DC cinematic universe. The movie “gets” Superman and the fact that it embraces its sillier side while also touching on darker themes (like Lex Luthor’s abuse of his girlfriends, threatening innocents, and the lack of respect for due process), makes it a Superman entry with something to say as well. I hate that the Engineer was used as a villain here but I think I’m probably like two or three who care about the character in the audience.

Kraven: The Hunter (2024) review

 
    KRAVEN: THE HUNTER is a perfectly cromulent movie. It is a film that is not nearly as bad as MORBIUS or MADAME WEB. It is a film. It has a three act structure. There are characters within it. There is (sort of) character development. They have conflicts. Conflicts that are resolved. There is action (of a sort). It is truly, yes, a film. If you think I am struggling for things to say, you would also be right.

    This film is incredibly rote, paint by the numbers, and not even so bad that it’s good. Morbius was incredibly bad. So bad that it had several very laughable scenes. Madame Web wasted the movie potential of not one but four Spider-Women, five if you count the fact Dakota Johnson should have been playing Jessica Drew.

    Kraven the Hunter…is.

    The funny thing is, it’s not a bad Catman movie. If this had been about Thomas Blake from THE SECRET SIX and they’d gotten Gail Simone to punch up the script then I probably would have enjoyed it a lot more. Thomas Blake got re-envisioned as a “rich kid who becomes Tarzan antihero” well before the stab at making Kravin into it.

    However, this IS about Sergei Kravinoff and we get a white-washed version of one of Spider-Man’s villains because given access to the entirety of Spider-Man’s supporting cast, they couldn’t think of someone to make a superhero movie out of despite the Prowler, Black Cat, Silver Sable, or even Ben Reilly existing. Mind you, we have the Spider-Verse so it’s really just the live action films that are suffering.

    If you’re looking for fidelity to Kraven the Hunter from the comics, look elsewhere. Kraven is a character with a fascinating history as he was widely considered to be a joke for most of his runtime until the super-dark, KRAVEN’S LAST HUNT that wrapped up his character for decades like THE NIGHT GWEN STACY DIED did for Norman Osborn. We got to meet his ridiculous collection of children and his resurrected version that befriended Squirrel Girl but I’ve always liked Kraven. He’s one-note but he’s also a bonafide psychopath and if you can ignore the silliness of comics, I think he’s a good villain.

    This movie is about a younger Kraven (Aaron Taylor Johns), who is the son of a Russian mob boss, Nikolai Kravinoff (Russell Crowe), and brother of Dmitri Kravinoff (Fred Hechinger). While hunting with his dad in Africa, Kraven is wounded by a lion and healed by a local medicine woman’s daughter, Calypso (Ariana Debose). He gains the power of a lion and becomes an international mercenary and hitman that goes after people associated with his dad. Eventually, a Russian with mysterious powers nicknamed “The Rhino” (Alessandro Nivola), kidnaps Dmitri and Kraven has to go rescue him. There’s also the Foreigner (Christopher Abbott), who has the power of temporarilly stopping time (or maybe he’s speeding up in bursts).

    Movie happens.

    Fidelity wise to the comics, it’s not very faithful but I’ve seen worse. Calypso is Kraven’s lover, Dmitri AKA The Chameleon is his brother, and the Rhino becomes the Rhino. They even namedrop Miles Warren. I mean, the Rhino isn’t the dumb muscle of the comics. Calypso isn’t a magical priestess but a lawyer who can do a little magic either. But I actually believe the people who wrote the script have READ comics before. Possibly even Spider-Man issues with Kraven in them. They at least consulted his Wikipedia page. Damned by faint praise as this may be, it’s better than some depictions.

    It’s fine-ish. It’s also an incredibly safe movie. Kraven isn’t a villain. He’s a hero who kills horrible evil people and does nothing worse than Jack Reacher does on a Tuesday. Calypso isn’t a villain. No one has any real menace and even the Rhino seems like a fairly decent fellow who doesn’t want to hurt Dmitri. Russell Crowe is playing the only real scumbag in the movie and all I can think is that he would have been perfect for a Spider-Man movie where he plays an aging Kraven, the kind who might have adult children, and wants to die in one final battle before he completely loses his edge. You know, the plot of the recent Spider-Man 2 game.

    It’s not a great movie but I was able to finish it in one sitting. I hesitate to call the movie boring but it is incredibly low energy. Kraven is effectively invincible, the CGI is obvious, and any edge the character might have as a villain protagonist is gone. So, yeah, it’s not something I recommend but it’s not terrible. However, if you don’t get a seratonin high by pointing and going, “That’s from the comics!” then it probably is terrible.

5/10

Available here

Captain America: Brave New World review

    CAPTAIN AMERICA: BRAVE NEW WORLD is the latest Marvel Cinematic Universe movie. A lot of people wondered if this would be the movie to restore it after a series of less than impressive entries. Others believed it would be another dud that would show that the series was finished after AVENGERS: ENDGAME. The answer is neither. Captain America: Brave New World is fine, above average even. It's no Thor: Dark World or Avengers: Ultron but I'd say it's probably the third best Captain America film, fourth if you count Falcon and the Winter Soldier. It's good but my highest praise is that it's a B+ movie. It's a fun superhero time that involves a lot of shooting, punching, and flying but not much to say about anything.

    The premise is that Captain America (Anthony Mackie) has been working with the US military, which causes some trouble with his mentor, Isaiah Bradley (Carl Lumbly). The United States has recently elected Thaddeus "Thunderbolt" Ross (Harrison Ford) to the Presidency and a lot of superheroes are less than pleased given his role in the Sokovia Accords. Interesting, Thaddeus' bad reputation as a General Ripper-type applies to even other nations. Thaddeus insists that he is a better man than he used to be, though, and wants to secure a legacy as a peacetime president rather than a wartime hero.

    What follows is a basic caper story with Sidewinder (Gincarlo Esposito) and the Serpent Society stealing a bunch of adamantium from Celestial Island. If you don't know what Celestial Island is, it's that thing created at the ending of the Eternals. Apparently, it's made of the substance that fans of Wolverine love and is even better than vibranium. Comic Nerd Rant: Which is ridiculous because vibranium has other properties than just being hard. In celebration of Captain America recovering it, President Ross invites him and his guests to the White House. There, he's almost assassinated and Isaiah Bradley is blamed.

    I won't get much more into the story because there's actually quite a few "mysteries" that were completely spoiled by the trailers for the film. I can understand why Disney did it: they wanted to get buts in seats. However, there's two big reveals in this film that are meant to make MCU fans go, "oooo!" These big reveals are something most MCU fans are going to go into the film already knowing. I'm not going to go into them but one of the biggest flaws of this film is that Bruce Banner has emotional ties to a lot of characters and plots from this story and the movie would have been improved tremendously if the Hulk had been a co-star.

    Anthony Mackie's Captain America is fantastic and the movie "gets" who Captain America is meant to be. He's meant to be a figure who uses his words with his fists (as well as his awesome power armor). Some people may object to the whole issue of a legacy hero but actors age, unlike comic book heroes, and the plot of trying to live up a legacy is interesting. It's just a shame that Steve Rogers never shows up to mention that he was just a kid from Brooklyn. It was everyone else who made him into a legend. We get the next best thing, though.

    Harrison Ford does a fantastic job with the character and brings a humanity to him. Thaddeus Ross has generally just been a one-dimensional but believable character. This Ross has done a huge amount of shady stuff and evil science projects but believes being President will allow him to redeem himself. There's much about whether redemption is possible and the movie also indicates that it's impossible unless you take responsibility for your actions. It's a good message that, sadly, runs into the larger political concerns.

    Basically, this movie has the mother of all bad timing for people to want to see it because of real-life politics. It's not the case of Red vs. Blue (which is actually part of the problem). It's the fact that politics are pissing off everyone in America right now. This is a movie about unity, reconciliation. and a story that doesn't really reflect anything but fictional world stories. Not taking a stand on anything and saying we're all the same may be admirable some times but just about everyone these days is saying pick a lane. Example: one of the main characters is an adaptation of Israeli special forces mutant, Sabra, who isn't a mutant or special forces here. She's also noticeably so short that in a movie with giant red monsters, I don't buy her able to take down grown men.

    In conclusion, this is a good movie. It's a fun movie. It's not a blow you away movie. However, this is a movie that I got out of my seat to go see in theaters rather than wait for it to show up on Disney+. I'm as stressed by the world as anyone else and this was a fun insight into a planet much much better off than our current one.

8/10

Joker: Folie à Deux review

    Is the Joker: Folie à Deux bad?

    Yes.

    Yes, it is.

    Is it a worthy follow up to the themes of Joker?

    No, not really.

    This is going to be a rather personal review but I've suffered mental issues for much of my life. I'm not going to get into the specifics of them but I had quite a few of them growing up. I had epilepsy for my youth, high functioning autism for adulthood, plus several diagnoses for other issues that range from...oh wait, I said I wasn't going to get into specifics. I was on a lot of medications and very much someone treated "weird" by society. That's because I am weird and proud of it. It's all y'all neurotypical folk who are the strange ones!

    The Joker film by Todd Phillips tries to take Arthur Fleck, mass murderer, and make him a sympathetic character. Perhaps it was deliberate or perhaps it was accidentally correct but he did a pretty good job in the original movie. Arthur Fleck is mentally ill, low grade schizophrenia and depression as an amateur diagnosis, but that's not why he becomes a shooter. 

    One of the things I hate in America is whenever someone does go do some horrifying atrocity, they attempt to blame it on mental health in America. This is just cover, of course, and they do less about mental health in America than they do about gun control but it's also complete horseshit anyway. Mentally ill people are more likely to be victims of violence than they are ever likely to be perpetrators (John Hinckley Junior aside) and the majority of spree killers are driven by ideology or a desire to commit suicide by cop. Hate is not a sign of insanity.

    The first movie has Arthur driven to become a killer by a combination of parental abuse, financial distress, class warfare, and a desire to become famous. Society rewards Arthur Fleck with fame and attention only when he becomes a murderer. It is better to be feared than loved but Machiavelli said it was best to be both and the Joker persona allowed Fleck to become a national celebrity through his crimes. It's not a premise that tracks 1:1 with reality but as a Scorsese homage to Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy as much as Batman, it worked.

    Joker: Folie à Deux doesn't work in the slightest. It also more or less abandons the idea that society transformed Arthur Fleck into the Joker by rewarding his worst behavior than, "Oh, yeah, he really was crazy all along and that's why he did what he did." It also doesn't remotely make use of Lady Gaga as Harley Quinn (or "Lee" here) in either her acting, singing, or general weirdness. She's a character that could have been portrayed by anyone and the work suffers for her absence. Arthur never goes on to be the Joker and spends virtually the entirety of the movie in court or dream sequences where neither of the primary actors are allowed to sing well. Lady Gaga made an entire soundtrack for the movie and they didn't use it. What a waste.

    Essentially, the movie reverts all of Arthur's character development from the previous movie and infantalizes him by trying to make it so he isn't responsible for his worst deeds. No, Arthur is a multiple murderer and fully responsible for that. Society may have broken him but he's the guy who thought being a famous murderer was better than being a disgraced nobody. You don't get to walk that back. Indeed, the movie offends me by basically inverting the movie's message about society's treatment of the mentally ill as it requires Arthur being abused worse to get him to acknowledge the Joker was a bad idea. Yeah, abuse doesn't make people better regardless of what people think about prisons.

    In short, this movie sucks and just isn't fun nor informative. It also doesn't work as a sequel or an expansion on the characters of the first one. My own biases make its statements on what the mentally ill "need" incline me to hate it but the fact is that it would be bad even if it wasn't spouting nonsense. People wanted a movie about the Joker who commits crimes for the attention. They wanted a Bonnie and Clyde or Natural Born Killers. What they got was Chicago with crappier music.

4/10

Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse review

    SPIDER-MAN: ACROSS THE SPIDER-VERSE is the sequel to SPIDER-MAN: INTO THE SPIDER-VERSE, by far the most successful of the Sony produced SPIDER-MEN movies after the original Toby Maguire movies. At least artistically. It was a beautiful surreal animated explosion of colors, imagery, and ideas that took full advantage of its medium. So, I was eager to see what the sequel would be like. I even broke my “no theaters” rule that I’ve had for a couple of years. The only other exception being the Dungeons and Dragons film.

    The premise, for those who are more interested in more than just the metatext: Spider-Gwen (Hailee Steinfeld) is not doing great when her attempts to tell her father about being Spiderwoman/Ghost Spider go horrifically wrong. She is promptly recruited by Jessica Drew AKA Spiderwoman (Issa Rae) and Miguel O’Hara AKA Spider-Man 2099 (Oscar Isaacs) to become part of a cosmic group of Spider-People protecting the multiverse.

    Miles Morales (Shameik Moore), meanwhile, is struggling with his new life as Spider-Man. Much of the typical stuff for Spider-Man affect him like being unable to manage his civilian life with his superhero identity. A chance encounter with what should have been a minor supervillain, The Spot (Jason Schwartzman), ends up becoming much more difficult as said baddie is a lot more emotionally fragile than most Spider-Man foes. Which is saying something.

    Gwen finally reunites with Miles as hinted by the teaser in the previous movie and reveals that there’s an entire multiverse out there with people just like them. Unfortunately, the Spider Society turns out to have a dark side and Miles is justifiably horrified. Lots of references to the vast canon of Spider-Man is made and I enjoyed all of the in-jokes, even the ones I didn’t get.

    Without getting into spoilers, I love this movie because it’s another of those “meta plot” movies where the movie can be read as a literal plot in its own right and the next is of the entirety of a writer’s relationship with a canonical character:

1. Spiderman must look this way
2. Spiderman must have these events in his life
3. Spiderman can never really grow or change.

    This movie is all about trashing those expectations and the villain being about the belief “This is how it HAS to go because it is CANON.” It shows what kind of insane and crazy universe that could exist if fans weren’t so obsessed with Spider-Man wasn’t just a specific way. The characters, the art, and the plotting are all tremendously done.

    I think the best part of the film is the fact that it really does challenge who Spider-Man is and who he is for, with the movie directly saying, “Everybody. Spider-Man is for everybody.” I also appreciate the treatment of Spider-Punk by the movie as it’s rare we get anyone who could actually be called an anarchist in the film.

    Villain-wise, I have to give credit to Jason Schwartzman as the Spot, who manages to do right what was done wrong with Electro in The Amazing Spider-Man 2. A nerdy schlub like Peter who proceeds to break bad as opposed to becoming a good guy. He's humorous, pathetic, and sympathetic until he realizes the full extent of his powers. That's when the chaarcter becomes genuinely dangerous and I hope this influences the comic Spot. Really, of all the Spider-Man villains to adapt, I thought he would be one of the last.

        The real villain, though, is the idea of Spider-Man having to be defined solely by the tragedies of his life. One of the elements in the comic is that Peter self-sabotages himself and can't allow himself to enjoy the success he's capable of because he doesn't believe he deserves to be happy after Uncle Ben. The idea these thousands of Peters might buy-into the idea that it was all for a greater good is believable to me but I suspect more of them would not be willing to go along with the idea it was all for a greater good.

    If I have any complaints about the movie, it's the fact that it is a little bloated at 2:30 hours when it could very easily be trimmed down considerably. There's a lot of repetition about Miles' issues in school and his life that could be cut without much issue. I also feel like retredding the "should I tell my parents my secret identity" plot was worn-out in the Sixties. I would have probably ended the movie about ten to fifteen minutes earlier and started the next film with what they did here. The previous movie just feels far more efficiently paced.

    The fight scenes are incredibly imaginative and take full advantage of the medium to do things you could not normally do in live action. The color palette of the film is really one of its strongest strengths as the vivid colors and graffiti-like atmosphere plus varying art styles creates a unique visual experience (well for except for the first movie). One amazing scene has Spider-Gwen fight a black and white Vulture based on Leonardo Da Vinci’s sketches.

    Seriously, see this movie.

 

The Batman (2022) review

THE BATMAN is a movie I approached with some trepidation because while I am a die-hard caped crusader fan, I even watched the Keaton movie as the date movie I proposed to my wife during, I had some issues for this one. It was a movie made without Ben Affleck, it was yet another "darker and grittier" reboot, and Robert Pattison was an unknown quality despite (and perhaps because of) his most famous role as Edward Cullen.

So, what did I think of The Batman? Overall, my impression is incredibly positive. Pattison chose to do a non-traditional version of Bruce Wayne that reminded me of the Crow than Batman but that doesn't mean it's a bad choice. He's an emo, reclusive, and disturbed man who is more Tim Burton's Batman than the actual Tim Burton's Batman. Admittedly, it does kind of make the humorous plot hole of, "Who would I think is Batman in Gotham City?" "I dunno, the obviously unhinged billionaire who looks like a vampire and acts like a serial killer."

The movie is perhaps a bit too long at three hours but this is one of those rare films that I will say benefits from fully realizing its vision. It feels more like a miniseries rather than a movie and that's not an insult. We get to experience a Gotham City that feels genuinely dirty, sleazy, and impoverished to the point that it needs a Batman. It has a strong 1970s New York vibe and yet manages to incorporate topical subjects like internet-based conspiracy theories.

The Batman is more or less a companion piece to the Joker and I really think they should get a crossover with Joaquin Phoenix. This is effectively the same city that draws on a lot of the same sources with Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, and the more modern Seven to create a superhero movie that feels instead like an arthouse crime piece. If that's what you're looking for with your Batman, then that's definitely what you're going to get here. Those looking for a lighter-hearted MCU-esque take on the subject will be disappointed. This is darker than the Nolan Batman movies by a significant degree and closer to the Burton Batman without the cartoonish elements.

Part of the benefit for such a long movie is that we get to incorporate Catwoman, the Penguin, and the Riddler rather than focus on just one of Batman's rogues. It's always been possible to do this as we see with Batman Forever but the difference here is we get to incorporate them well. They're not even the sole villains as there's a decent-sized role for Carmine Falcone as well. Given I'm a huge fan of The Long Halloween, I always enjoy his incorporation into the Batman mythos, and he serves as a nice antagonist for Selina Kyle.

Speaking of Selina Kyle, Zoe Kravitz is one of my all-time favorite actresses and I absolutely love her in everything she's in. She even made The Crimes of Grindelwald tolerable for me. Here, she's a very humanized down-to-Earth Catwoman and I absolutely want to see more of her. Indeed, I would go so far to say that she's the first Catwoman I actually felt a romantic connection between Batman with. One I could believe in. She's not quite Catwoman yet but is certainly on the way to becoming her. 

Much has been made of Colin Farell's Penguin and he really does look like he stepped out of a classic Denny O'Neil comic book. The character doesn't get to do much but his slimeliness, corruption, and lack of threat in places reminded me of the one from the comic book. I've heard they're making a Penguin television series on HBO and I'd definitely watch it. He's also part of one of the best car chases I've seen on camera.

 The movie has a somewhat exaggerated but still-plausible financial crime about fake charities that feels timely without being heavy-handed. Much is made of the Wayne's philanthropy but there's plenty of people in Gotham who did their best to make sure none of the money ever reached the poor while using it as a tax dodge. It feels like something that happens all the time with billionaires and shows you can't just solve systemic problems by writing a check.

The Riddler's use in this movie is heavily inspired by the Zodiac killer, John Doe from Seven, and quite a bit of Jigsaw. Some viewers have mentioned that he also seems to be incorporating a bit of Qanon but people allergic to politics in their views can be reassured it's only surface-deep the way the Joker and Antifa was in Joker. The movie doesn't spell out his origin but it's easy to figure out how he ties to the central mystery as well. In that respect, he's more of a Hush and Riddler hybrid but without Thomas Elliot's suckitude.

I normally favor a Riddler who is not terrifying and more of an anti-villain but this version works extremely well. By the time they finally catch up to the Riddler, they find he's...a guy who looks like an accountant. It's very effective and does a great job establishing that he's someone who also has learned the lesson about theatricality and superstition that Batman has.

One element I really enjoyed about this movie is also the fact the movie is not afraid to interrogate who the Batman is and how effective he is. Bruce Wayne does his best to terrify criminals in order to make it so they don't commit crimes but he ends up inspiring people who don't have nearly his level of restraint or just think it's cool. "Escalation" as hinted by the Nolan Batman films but directly addressed here. The movie asks how much Bruce Wayne could do as a philanthropist and this version hasn't yet decided to be both the punching fist as well as helping hand.

Do I have some complaints? A few minor ones. As stated, the movie is written more like a television series and I feel like they could have tightened it up by about thirty minutes and incorporated details into the sequel. If your movie is three hours long, you frankly have two decent-sized movies already and maybe we should get back to that. The Batman also absorbs inhuman amounts of punishment that kind of hurt my suspension of disbelief in places. Unless the Batsuit is made of vibranium, it shouldn't absorb that much in the way of gunfire after all. Finally, the movie is literally too dark in places and could have been brightened so we could appreciate what's on display. But these don't really detract from my enjoyment factor.

9/10