When I heard that Robert Patterson would become the latest Batman let’s just say I was underwhelmed (and if you’ve followed Pattinson’s career at all you likely thought the same thing) because he just didn’t fit the character.
So why is it that he seems to work so well?
I think that it’s because Matt Reeves depiction of the character goes back to the comics in really interesting ways, for instance Pattinson’s Batman intimidates everyone around him, be it police or criminals. Now, the thing is I don’t think of Pattinson as intimidating – as opposed to, potentially, either Christian Bale or Ben Affleck – though what’s important is that everyone one around him treats him as if he is in his Batman persona, which really works.
Then there’s perhaps the most important detail: Reeves doesn’t rehash Batman’s origin story – though it’s important to the plot of the movie – because he likely came to the (fairly obvious) conclusion that he didn’t have to (imagine if during Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice Zach Snyder had spent that time instead showing us – as opposed to telling us – why it is that his Batman had grown so cynical. I don’t know if it would have ‘saved’ the movie, though it certainly wouldn’t have hurt).
My problems with the movie were relatively minor, with the greatest being that it rains A LOT in Gotham City. I understand what Reeves was doing with the consistent deluge but it didn’t do his movie any favors though it’s overall interesting enough that it remains a nitpick.