DC Films

Rating wise they seem mostly similar to Dark Knight, with most of the negative ones saying it’s not fun enough and it’s too serious.

I get that’s what some people want but it’s not really rating the film on its own merits. It’s like going to see a thriller and complaining it’s not funny enough. It’s not what the film is and the marketing is clear that’s what it is.

How many times you peeing in 3 hours?

Sounds like bad planning.
I pee before I go in, job done.

Even without booze, 3 hours is too long for my ageing slack bladder. Home release, definitely.

Looking on Rotten Tomatoes at the negative reviews (of which there aren't many - it's 86% Fresh which is good), it seems like the main complaint isn't that it's not "fun" enough but rather than the attempted "noir" tone doesn't work. I only see one (Detroit News) which is clearly "No fun ". The Guardian liked it but thought the final act was apocalyptic, OTT, and didn't fit the rest of the movie, which could also describe Batman Begins, honestly. I think people are judging it pretty fairly, TBH.

Seems to be down as April 18th for a digital release, so happy to wait it out and have a home viewing for my aging bladder.

I was half expecting 3-4 month waits to become the norm again like with Spidey.

My movie going ritual is a hot dog and a beer at a Portillo's right outside the cinema, and I'm usually fine in regards to bathroom breaks. I think the key is to not take in a large coke or something INTO the theatre.

It's Batman day!

Ok, so Derb's The Batman mini-review (no plot talk but if you don't want to know anything then look away):

It's very good. It's also very long, and feels it.
While Reeves' version of Batman shares a lot of similarities to Nolan's - namely being a realistic take of a man in a batsuit in a real world - it's also significantly different tonally, leaning heavily into a noir crime thriller. There's no spectacle. The length is to service the lingering tone rather than serving the actual plot, but it does work. I was never bored, and the gf enjoyed it too. It won't be easy to repeat view to kill an evening, I think it will require more of a mood to watch it again and again.
Reeves' Batman is grounded in his world better than any on-screen version, imo. There are still elements of ridiculousness when you see a dude in a batsuit, most notably the cowl with ears, stood next to a police officer, but the moodier tone and cinematography throughout tie it all together much better than has been done before. There's no Batman waltzing about in day time like in Nolan's films, and it all feels very consistent.
Batman is 2 years in, he doesn't kill people, he works with Gordon to actually investigate crimes, and he doesn't rely on gadgets (he has a couple but nothing particularly comicbook-y other than some funky lenses). The batmobile is a beast. It's very much a Year One style affair.
Riddler is well done, though he's Riddler via David Fincher's Seven rather than anything like the comics. Penguin is fucking great, or specifically Colin Farrell is fucking great as Penguin. The prosthetic make-up is amazing. Reminds me more of the Arkham-verse games version than the comics there too.
It's a pretty compact movie in what it's trying to accomplish, with a relatively small scale effect, focused on Gotham and no grander scale scheme. The third act does feel a bit from left-field as a result but it doesn't betray what's occurred in the film previously, just escalates it in a way that is unpredictable so it feels a bit out of place. It really just dials in to what Batman is as a character in isolation of the wider comicbook world. He doesn't feel like a superhero in any significant way here. It's sort of Batman for people who are bored of superhero films in that sense.

Is it just me who finds it weird that they can just endlessly reboot batman and people will get excited about it every time? I can't think of many other characters/franchises where people wouldn't get bored/fed up by the 600th reboot in the last 5 years.

Yeah, but I never really thought of new bonds as 'reboots', and they tended to be decades apart.
I guess the Craig era was more of a reboot, but it didn't feel like it as much because they'd already changed the actor.
Actually, the craig era was the only one that got an origin story.

Whereas Batman has had total reboots and repeated origin stories a fair few times.

The other thing to remember is Batman is now over 80, as a character. Is it a reboot if someone does a Dracula film or a Frankenstein?

The Bond comparison is apt as he's now just a character that people play around with. Sometimes he can be dark, brooding and quiet and other times loud and brash.

Jeez dude! Don't say stuff like that!

Am I right in thinking there is a set up for further stories?

I'm setting my expectations at Batman Begins level - good mood piece with good characters but just not quite there and a bit beige.