Lmao are you sure? I dont think youre sure. Think about what thread this is...THE Batman.... kino? Lmaooooo well well looks like weve got a real life joker here
>this
Pattinson's Batman is kino. If they're not going to make more films, they should try to get him into a mocap studio for a vidya series featuring a much more gritty, immature, and vulnerable Batman. Something like Dark Souls combat instead of bamham.
Has nothing to do with attention span. If someone wanted me to watch three hours of the 90's sitcom Home Improvement, I'd fricking groan at that too. That's an enormous timesink for something that isn't that good, and Home Improvement is better than the Batman. Movies that suck could at least have the courtesy of keeping their runtime in 90 minute range. That's one thing Woody Allen was right about.
That's why I prefer watching animated movies (unless it's a live action movie good enough to justify its runtime). That shit rarely goes on for much longer than 90 minutes even if it's bad.
>3 hours is a timesink
Anon you actually have brainrot. If you are physically incapable of holding yourself together on any task for 3 hours you are irreparable, useless even.
Pattinson and Farrell are the best thing about this flick. It's tolerable but hardly better than a 6/10. It's a movie for the "this is cinema" midwit crowd.
Ruined because they had to have a female protag, and unfortunately they chosee the dullest one. However, it's not bad on the whole. Ferrell steals the show imo, but Pattinson isn't bad
Movies are too long nowadays. Batman Begins feels like a longer and more captivating movie and it's literally 2 hours.
In the words of Shakespeare: >"Brevity is the soul of wit"
It's the mark of a hack if the movie is overly long. It makes the fricking incompetent talentless hack nepotism hire think he's smart if his little gay porno is 6 gorillion hours long. I watched Braveheart the other day and while it was 3 hours, it flew by like butter. Great film which used it's runtime perfectly.
it was kino
Lmao are you sure? I dont think youre sure. Think about what thread this is...THE Batman.... kino? Lmaooooo well well looks like weve got a real life joker here
yes I'm sure thanks for asking
KINO
I
N
O
You sure youre not J O K I N G? Like a jokester would....you must be joking right?
it's was fricking booooooooriiiiiiiiing
It was shit, you zoomer fried-brain moron.
>this
Pattinson's Batman is kino. If they're not going to make more films, they should try to get him into a mocap studio for a vidya series featuring a much more gritty, immature, and vulnerable Batman. Something like Dark Souls combat instead of bamham.
t. only watched first 15 minutes
"Wahh my attention span isn't long enough wahh!"
No one's forcing you to watch it moron
Has nothing to do with attention span. If someone wanted me to watch three hours of the 90's sitcom Home Improvement, I'd fricking groan at that too. That's an enormous timesink for something that isn't that good, and Home Improvement is better than the Batman. Movies that suck could at least have the courtesy of keeping their runtime in 90 minute range. That's one thing Woody Allen was right about.
That's why I prefer watching animated movies (unless it's a live action movie good enough to justify its runtime). That shit rarely goes on for much longer than 90 minutes even if it's bad.
>3 hours is a timesink
Anon you actually have brainrot. If you are physically incapable of holding yourself together on any task for 3 hours you are irreparable, useless even.
To fully appreciate Jack and Jill (2011), you need to watch it back to back in one sitting. Get to it, Mr. Alpha Attention Span.
Pretty boring, paced like a Netflix show. What bothered me more though is the tasteless use of the Ave Maria.
I am serious. And don't call me fricking.
I still haven't watched it. Looks gay af
They're scrapping this universe, right? Can't stand that twilight gay as batman
Pattinson and Farrell are the best thing about this flick. It's tolerable but hardly better than a 6/10. It's a movie for the "this is cinema" midwit crowd.
Batman 1989 was better
damn i didnt even realize it was 3 hours long when i saw it in theaters.
its worth it for Zoe kravit or whatever her last name is, shes gorgeoussssss
shes a mutt
yeah shes hot as frick
she's probably absolutely wild in bed
>shes gorgeoussssss
Guys who are actually interested in women don't talk like this, shill
>*looks up at you*
OP filtered like there was no tomorrow. Sad!
add the “oh no, oh no no no nooo” song in the background so zoomers can concentrate
The making-of of the this movie was one of the most self-congratulatory bullshit things I've ever seen
This movie had like 15 minutes of decent content and the rest was pure slop
show me a good memorable scene from this movie. I haven't watched it
yeah the 3rd act sucked. was pretty good as a film noir.
batman ended after the nolan trilogy. idk why you zoomer homosexuals bother. you will NEVER experience kino. EVER
3 hours of pure kino.
Ruined because they had to have a female protag, and unfortunately they chosee the dullest one. However, it's not bad on the whole. Ferrell steals the show imo, but Pattinson isn't bad
Movies are too long nowadays. Batman Begins feels like a longer and more captivating movie and it's literally 2 hours.
In the words of Shakespeare:
>"Brevity is the soul of wit"
It's the mark of a hack if the movie is overly long. It makes the fricking incompetent talentless hack nepotism hire think he's smart if his little gay porno is 6 gorillion hours long. I watched Braveheart the other day and while it was 3 hours, it flew by like butter. Great film which used it's runtime perfectly.
this was the only non-animated batman movie i actually liked
What was the deal with the shootout between Batman and the Riddler's chatroom incel squad?Seemed like it added nothing to the movie.