(Warning for suggestive Material, drug use, strong disturbing content, language, violence)

   WARNING: MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS

   Since 1943, the well-known and beloved DC superhero ‘The Batman’ has appeared in countless films and TV adaptations ranging from silly, fun superhero movies to gritty, edgy realism. The latest adaptation of Batman is simply titled “The Batman” and directed by Matt Reeves, who is well known for directing the “Planet of the Apes” movies.

   The newest actor to don the mask is Robert Pattinson, former Harry Potter and Twilight star as billionaire-turned-vigilante Bruce Wayne. Pattinson isn’t the only one putting on the suit this year, however, as both Ben Affleck and Michael Keat will be reprising their roles in “The Flash” later this year and Keats will also be showing up in HBO Max’s “Batgirl” film.

   This movies’ main villain is The Riddler, (Paul Dano), a serial killer who begins targeting high-status residents of Gotham and broadcast-ing his ongoing murder spree. This will be the classic villains’ first major appearance since 1995 “Batman Forever”; played by Jim Carrey.

   After facing many production delays because of Covid-19, the film is finally slated for its theatrical release on March 4. The cast list will be including Zoë Kravitz as Cat-woman, Jeffery Wright as Police commissioner James Cordon, Andy Serkis as Butler Alfred Pennyworth, and Colin Farrel as yet another classic batman villain, the Penguin.

   The movie will be taking place during Bruce Wayne’s second year of crime-fighting as the Batman, uncovering systematic corruption in Gotham City as both a detective and vigilante, all the while on the hunt for the Riddler.

   Batman movies tend to be like a game of Roulette: you may get amazing, chart-topping, show-stopping performances such as Chris-topher Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy, …or you can get the bottom-of-the-barrel unmemorable movies like “Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice.”

   So, with that in mind, what do the critics have to say about this new adaptation? Well, for the most part, they’re happy, but not quite exclusively.

   The Hollywood Reporter’s David Rooney enjoyed it, though he had some reservations about the film’s length and unrelenting darkness. Still, despite a few hiccups along the way, he praised the star, in particular, writing that “Pattinson is riveting throughout.”

   Empire’s John Nugent liked it as well, dishing out four stars, though he said he was a little down on the running time, writing: “The knottiness of the plotting will leave you feeling that near-three-hour runtime, but it is never boring, the narrative propelled by a series of grisly conundrums through Gotham’s seedy underbelly.”

   The New York Post was less happy, as their critic Johnny Oleksinski called the film “perfunctory” and dismissed it as “…the first caped crusader adventure in a little while to come off as completely purposeless.”

   The Times didn’t like it much either, with Kevin Maher awarding just two stars and criticizing it’s gritty, over-serious tone.