Spoiler Warning: The BatmanDC has seen a stellar resurgence in the past few years that has undone a lot of the damage that projects like Batman vs. Superman, Suicide Squad, and Justice League did. Recent projects such as Joker, James Gunn's Suicide Squad, and Peacemaker have been universally acclaimed and put DC back on the cinematic map. However, it might be the studio's latest project that has truly cemented its place in the current era of blockbuster franchises, and that project is The Batman.
Starring Robert Pattinson as the infamous DC antihero, The Batman has blown audiences away. It has quickly won back loyal fans of the franchise who were doubting whether a reboot could ever come close to Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy. One of the reasons why The Batman can even be in that discussion is because of the film's spectacular antagonist performance of Riddler, put on by coveted actor Paul Dano. The rendition of the Batman villain was more captivating than any that had come before it and had fans praising the role from the second the character appeared on-screen. But with such a memorable and moving character, would The Batman have been better off having the Riddler as the film's sole villain?
Riddler was Scary Enough
Part of why audiences relate to heroes in movies (even in antiheroes) is because they have to feel that the stakes are high enough - i.e., if what the hero is fighting for (or against) doesn't seem enough, then the audience won't buy into it. With that in mind, director Matt Reeves' vision for Riddler, combined with Dano's heart-stopping performance, was enough to make audiences root for Batman. Riddler was horrifying in this film, and that was exactly the tone that Reeves wanted the character and the movie to have. Sadly, audiences didn't get as much of the horror as they could have because Riddler was forced to take a back seat during some scenes and transitions that he could have otherwise been in if the screen hadn't been occupied with other villains.
In total, Riddler was only on-screen for about 15-20 minutes of a three-hour movie. Now, there is a technique often utilized in horror/suspense/detective films where the killer is hardly shown or even seen until the end of the movie, and The Batman did well enough at applying that technique. Unfortunately, a film like this can't execute that technique to perfection due to the fame and notoriety of DC's characters. Riddler might not be the most famous villain, but the audience already knew who the threat was, so the Riddler's suspense and reveal wasn't as amplified as it could have been.
The Batman's Villain Overload
Riddler, the Penguin, Falcone, Catwoman, and a surprise cameo from yet another Joker -- that's a lot of side characters for one movie, especially for the first installment in a franchise. While DC has never shied away from including a multitude of characters in their cinematic projects, The Batman's use of several different villains meant that the movie often meandered in terms of who the audience felt they were rooting against. One minute, it would be the Penguin, the next, Riddler; halfway through the movie, Falcone was introduced, and it became about him. In short, it was too much.
If the film had allowed Riddler to be the sole villain, the entire movie could have turned into a classic detective, cat-mouse chase where Batman tries to track down the psychopathic killer who is terrorizing Gotham. Instead, the film felt the need to jam-pack several villains into a story that really only warranted one in order to try and establish the fact that most movie-goers already know - Gotham is corrupt and loaded with crime.
The Villains Set the Stage for a Sequel
Dano may have given a memorable performance, but unfortunately, the character's fate felt bitter-sweet with Riddler being locked up in Arkham next to the Joker. While objectionable, most great super-villain performances in a cinematic setting have come from one-off roles - i.e., the character's story was so well done and conclusive that it didn't warrant a sequel. That's how Dano's performance felt... until a single scene at the end of the movie set up a potential second appearance (or more). If Riddler had perished or even been left to rot in Arkham (without any conversation with the Joker), it would have allowed audiences and fans to accept his fate. But now, Dano is left with the Herculean task of matching his prior performance and keeping audiences/fans/critics happy -- something that could have been avoided entirely.
Not only does Dano's performance get watered-down by a sequel set-up, but the Penguin and Catwoman are both casualties of the same crime. Colin Farrell and Zoe Kravitz were both stunning in their roles. However, neither were allowed to shine as they were forced to share the spotlight with other villains. The Penguin was basically Falcone's glorified bodyguard for most of the film. At the same time, a lot of Catwoman's role could have deviated to Gordon. It felt they were in the movie just to appear in future projects. The Batman was a phenomenal film that has revitalized The Dark Knight's cinematic presence, but it's at least debatable that Riddler was more than enough villain for this film.