The Most Brutal Reviews Of The Batman And Why These Critics Didn't Like The Movie

The second most anticipated comic book film of the year will soon be swooping into theatres this week — and as many fans have hoped, it's earning a massive amount of praise from critics lucky enough to get an early glance. Matt Reeves' "The Batman" introduces us to Robert Pattinson's version of the Dark Knight, who Thrillist has described as an "eerie take on the Caped Crusader," and what The Beat proclaims as the first incarnation to "to pick up Nolan's mantle where others have failed before." At this point, the film has already scored a "Certified Fresh" rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

Of course, with bold statements comparing the latest iteration of Gotham's savior to the one Nolan gave us in a trilogy, verdicts from the other end of the spectrum were bound to appear. Opinions are, after all, like costumed identities in Gotham City — everyone's got to have one. But just what could possibly get stuck in the cape of critics who didn't see the same view from this newly-pressed cowl as the rest? Well, by the sounds of things, it seems that their issues have to do with similar traits to the many, many Batman films that have come before. Here's what they've said.

While the four and five-star ratings have come flying in like carefully aimed batarangs, some critics haven't shown much of the same fondness for Matt Reeves' first introduction into the world of the pointy-eared vigilante. Ann Hornaday of The Washington Post, for instance, says "The Batman" is "a film that's as ponderous as it is convoluted and, ultimately, devoid of meaningful stakes," and "another lugubrious, laboriously grim slog masquerading as a fun comic book movie."

Naturally, given the current climate of the big-screen — and the popular genre audiences are flocking to see — the movie's likelihood of being compared to other comic book movie entries was inevitable. However, Blake Howard of Dark Horizons deemed that "The Batman" doesn't even hide its supposed effort in trying to match what's come before. They described it as "a needless collage of not only better movies, but more egregiously of better Batman movies." Yikes.

One element that seems to be getting a lot of attention for all the wrong reasons is the film's runtime, which overtakes even Nolan's revered two final chapters of his "Dark Knight" Trilogy. This might not be an issue, had it not been for the story that some feel was as crammed full with as much stuff as a freshly worn utility belt. Tilt Magazine described this new take on the Bat as "B-minus serial killer thriller, one with a needlessly convoluted plot, too many characters, unconvincing twists, and a terrible villain." A particularly surprising point, given that Paul Dano's Riddler has been praised in other favorable verdicts. 

The New York Post have nothing but bad love for the Bat as well, making comparisons to the Nolan era of the Caped Crusader's big screen outings. "Director Matt Reeves' downer movie embraces the realism of 'The Dark Knight' — the opposite of Tim Burton's purple-hazed funhouse — only without the payoff of excellent writing and acting." While it's always been an aim for Batman to strike fear into the hearts of criminals and villains, instead they said, "there's an unshakable feeling here of 'What's the point?' Not to mention the nearly three-hour length. Holy runtime!" 

Even with a plot supposedly as hefty as this one, though, how do the cast fare in this new reimagining of the classic crimefighter? Will audiences that still bind Pattinson to a sparkly vampire from 14 years ago (we don't know why people are still obsessed with this, either) or finally see something special in his latest endeavor, along with the cast supporting him? 

Well, as it turns out, some of these less-convinced critics proclaim that even the film's efforts at bringing a new Gotham to life aren't anything to write home about. After following in the footsteps of those that came before (and who probably have severe throat issues for their troubles), Pattinson's take on the Batman has been deemed a big disappointment by those who weren't happy with the film. The Times said that "the performances are as complex as the colour palette (ie not very). Pattinson, who has delivered so many thrilling turns recently, struggles to elevate his antihero beyond a pouty emo brat." Meanwhile, The Seattle Times said that Pattinson " isn't given the opportunity to bring much to the role," and instead another apparent entry of "the mercifully sparse brotherhood of Superheroes Who Are Too Moody to Wash Their Hair, here plays a young, eerily pale and very intense Bruce Wayne." 

Again, there are far more positive verdicts elsewhere, but maybe it's worth seeing the film for yourself when "The Batman" arrives in theaters on March 4.