Rumors are flying around that Robert Pattinson has been cast as Batman in Matt Reeves' The Batman, and it's caused quite a stir on the Internet. People just can't seem to get past the fact that R-Pats played Edward in the Twilight films, and that's all they see when you say the name, Robert Pattinson.
However, ever since those movies, the British actor has gone on to star in a series of independent films that really showcase his talent as an actor. That said, there are a few films in his canon which do show Pattinson's flaws as an actor. We're now going to go through five films which prove he will make an excellent Batman, and five that don't.
10 No: Twilight
Many people dislike the idea of Robert Pattinson as Batman because of the Twilight movies, and that's completely understandable. He played the vampire Edward in the movie adaptations of Stephanie Myer's books, and it radically changed the supposedly blood-sucking monsters forever—not in a good way.
Pattinson's performance could be described as 'stale', and you wouldn't be wrong saying that. His Edward is moody, brooding, and at times rather angry for no apparent reason. However, this is more a problem with the writing rather than Pattinson's performance. He was merely doing what he was told to do. That said, if his Bruce Wayne ends up being anything like Edward, then people won't be happy.
9 Yes: Good Time
Good Time is a fascinating independent movie in which Pattinson plays a character called Connie Nikas. He ends up taking his disabled brother Nick out of a therapy session before robbing a New York City bank for $65,000, and things take a turn for the worse.
Good Time is a testament to Pattinson's abilities as an actor. Directed by Josh and Benny Safdie and written by Josh Safdie and Ronald Bronstein, Pattinson shows what he can do if he's given good source material, and his performance in this film is spellbinding. Seriously, if you think he won't make a good Batman because "he's not a talented enough actor," then you have to watch this film.
8 No: Harry Potter And The Goblet of Fire
Robert Pattinson first came onto people's radar when he played Cedric Diggory in the Potter movies. Well, he was only in one of them. The role was an interesting character in the books. He was an ace seeker and was actually better than Harry Potter. He was a superstar in Hogwarts and very handsome.
Unfortunately, he died at the wand of Voldemort, which was sad. The reason this film is on this list as a reason Pattinson might not be a good Batman is because he doesn't really do much in the movie. The character's interesting in the books, but he's given very little to do in the film, which is really a shame.
7 Yes: Life
In Life, Robert Pattinson plays famous photographer, Dennis Stock, along with Dane DeHaan as James Dean. The movie follows Dennis as he's asked to shoot James just before he films East of Eden.
The film itself isn't the best ever made, and yet Pattinson's performance shows a maturity we hadn't seen from him before. He perfectly embodies the role of Dennis, and if he were to bring that sort of dedication to the Batman role, then fans shouldn't have anything to worry about.
6 No: Remember Me
Remember Me is easily one of Pattinson's weakest films, not including the Twilight films. Pattinson plays Tyler Hawkins, and the film follows him and his lover, Ally (played by Emilie de Ravin). Tyler's parents have split after his brother's suicide, and Ally witnessed her mother's murder. He's now making sure she lives each day to its fullest.
It's a rather sad and shocking piece, and yet Pattinson doesn't get an opportunity to really flex his acting muscles, despite its bleak subject matter and even bleaker ending. It just all felt a bit too much and wasn't one of his best acting performances.
5 Yes: The Rover
Now, The Rover is a film to take notice of. It's set in a dystopian future, but it's not one of 'those' films. It's a real powerhouse of a movie, and Robert Pattinson is doing something in it he's never done before. He plays Reynolds, who's a very naive young man from the southern parts of the U.S.
Though Guy Pearce also stars in The Rover, Pattinson almost outshines him, and that's proof of what a fine actor Pattinson truly is. Now, there's not much, if any, of Bruce Wayne in this performance, but it just shows his incredible versatility as an actor.
4 No: Water For Elephants
Post-Twilight, Robert Pattinson did everything he could to distance himself from those films. However, he did end up appearing in another romantic film afterward. Water For Elephants is perfectly fine. It stars big names such as Reese Witherspoon and Christoph Waltz. Yet, it was very much in the same sort of territory as the Twilight films, and he wasn't really getting the opportunity to show that he was more than just the guy who played Edward.
That said, Pattinson's performance is perfectly solid here, but unlike some of his other work, he's not pushing the boundaries of what he can do. He's staying firmly within the lines many had come to expect from him as an actor. It wasn't until afterward that he really started to strut his stuff on the silver screen.
3 Yes: The Lost City of Z
Once again, Robert Pattinson chose not to take the lead role in a film because he saw something far more interesting in one of the supporting characters. Pattinson has displayed throughout his career that he's more interested in the role and the director. He doesn't care about billing or about the money. He cares about the craft and who he's working with.
The Lost City of Z gave him the opportunity to work with James Gray, who had made films like Two Lovers, We Own the Night, and The Immigrant. These aren't terrific films, but Gray had shown a talent for working with the best actors and getting brilliant performances out of them. He certainly worked his magic with Pattinson since he's superb as Henry Costlin. Despite only being a secondary character, Pattinson firmly steals the limelight from the film's lead, Charlie Hunnam. If you watch this film and still don't trust Pattinson's acting abilities, then there's no hope.
2 No: Bel Ami
Bel Ami, barring the Twilight films, is easily the worst film Pattinson has ever been in. To make things worse, his performance isn't very good in it. If people were saying they were worried about Pattinson as Batman after having seen Bel Ami, then that would be understandable.
He's rather wooden as George Duroy, and given that this film came out soon after his time in the Twilight films, it wasn't a good sign. However, this was the type of film he was being offered at the time. It was rather raunchier than the Twilight movies, and he did take a bit of a risk in accepting the role. However, he went on to much better things after this film, and thank God he did.
1 Yes: Cosmopolis
Pattinson has said in the past that he cares more about who's directing the film than the movie itself. He said he has a list of directors he was desperate to work with and he'd do anything to be in one of their movies. David Cronenberg was one of those directors, and they've worked together twice now. Cosmopolis is rather divisive, like all of Cronenberg's films, really. However, no one can deny how mesmerizing Pattinson is in the lead.
He plays Eric Packer, a billionaire who rides through Manhattan in a stretch limousine office to his barber and meets a series of guests along the way. If you watch this film and don't think that Pattinson would make an excellent Bruce Wayne, then nothing else will. He's wonderful in the film and Cosmopolis alone should be enough to get him the Batman role.