Batman Begins again

Rating: 5/10 (10 August 2008)

We've all seen this movie before, at least I have, so it better be pretty darned interesting. It's not horrible, but not good enough to really justify all the talent that went into it. I first saw this movie a couple years ago in a drive-in, and I didn't want to comment on it at the time because I felt that the film was so dark and the soundtrack was so low that it was hard to appreciate it at all in a drive-in venue. Since then I've been impressed with "The Prestige" and I also thought "The Dark Knight" was very good, but revisiting this first entry in the new Batman series was largely a waste of time.
The movie takes far too long to get going, considering we all know where it's headed. I just don't like the whole idea of this movie, to try to make the origins of someone like Batman clear and rational. Part of his appeal should be the mystery, I think they could have just pretty much started right off with "Dark Knight." Look at how much more interesting Morgan Freeman and Gary Oldman were in the sequel; in this first movie they basically have nothing to do. Rutger Hauer shows up for a few minutes which is nice, but the plot line he's in doesn't really go anywhere interesting. Katie Holmes is very inadequate, and I don't particularly like Christian Bale's version of the Batman character. He mumbles too much when he's in the costume, and the digital manipulation of his voice is obvious and distracting. His Bruce Wayne is almost identical to his Batman, so it takes away from the interesting "dual identity" angle of the character.
However, like in the superior sequel, this film is greatly enhanced by a great villain, this time Cillian Murphy as "Scarecrow", a man who uses weaponized hallucinogens to strike panic in his victims. Murphy's calm and effeminate screen presence makes him a very chilling villain; he reminds me of Crispin Glover (who was rumored for a while to be in the running for the Joker role that Ledger ended up playing).
In the end I feel underwhelmed by the film on DVD just as I was in the theater. Too much of it is strictly standard melodrama structure and characters, not many of the interesting ideas that you see in most of Nolan's other films. It seems conventional almost in a spiteful way, as if Nolan was saying "hey, I can do *normal* too." But why? I guess he had to get this film out of his system before he could apply his talents more loosely and effectively to the sequel.