Been there! Done Bat! ...

Rating: 7/10 (5 July 2005)

Watching BATMAN, either the old TV show or the various blockbuster movies, there is a huge lapse in logic that is hard to get around; namely, how can anyone, even a millionaire/billionaire like Bruce Wayne, amass all those gadgets and gizmos and superhero stuff and still maintain his secret identity? Okay, those gadgets in his utility belt aren't that big of a deal, assuming, of course, Bruce Wayne also happens to be a scientific genius. But how can you install a nuclear reactor in a cave under your mansion without somebody knowing it? Or custom build a Batmobile all by yourself? Superman and Spider-Man and the like are all pretty much self-contained superheroes, but The Batman, being human, has got to rely on a whole lot of other people to supply him with super gadgets. How could he trust all those people to keep his secret? BATMAN BEGINS tries to explain away such illogical gaps and, strangely enough, the explanations prove to be not all that interesting. For instance, basically all those wonderful toys seem to be army surplus junk that Wayne Enterprises couldn't palm off on the military. Okay, but oddly by supplying logical answers to Batman's mysteries, the film only seems to demystify the very mythology it is trying to perpetuate.
Depending on one's point of view, BATMAN BEGINS is either a noble attempt to expand on the Batman legend, or like the STAR WARS prequel trilogy, a quiet, unwitting admission that the possibilities of the series have been milked dry. After over half the film illustrates the tedious exposition explaining how Batman came to be, the film becomes the standard superhero adventure, right up to the last minute confrontation with the villain and the saving of humanity.
The film is exceedingly well made, but relies totally on formula: Bruce Wayne's early childhood trauma (check), his conversion to eastern mysticism/martial arts (check), his vow to fight evil (check), his confrontation with evil forces out to destroy Gotham City (check) -- check, check, check, etc., etc., etc. And do we really need yet another climatic chase through a major city where large chunks of real estate is wantonly destroyed, but where apparently no innocent lives are lost? For a film offering a new beginning, BATMAN BEGINS seems to suffer from a lot of been-there-done-that.
To its credit, the film benefits greatly from the casting of Christian Bale as the young Bruce Wayne. As the other BATMAN films have shown, it is largely irrelevant who is in the Batsuit, since the character is largely played by a series of stunt men. But since most of this film deals with Bruce's metamorphosis, Bale has the talent to put a human face on the character of the millionaire playboy by being serious without being tiresomely intense, and still surprise the character with a bit of humor. Bale is backed by pros like Michael Caine (Alfred the butler), Morgan Freeman, Rutger Hauer and a surprisingly subdued Gary Oldman, all of whom are given little to do except give the film the credibility of their reliable presence.
The film's villains, however, are problematic. Whether we are talking TV show or movie, in the past the villains have been the real star of the stories, with BATMAN pretty much playing straight man to whatever "special guest villain" is hamming it up center stage. Here, Batman is the main character and the evil-doers he must vanquish almost seem like afterthoughts. Crime boss Falcone (Tom Wilkerson) isn't interesting at all and the possibilities of Cillian Murphy's Scarecrow are never even nearly realized. And while it is refreshing to cast Liam Neeson against type as the film's ultimate villain, I have to admit I never believed him or his band of ninja warriors were ever a real threat. Nor does his plot to destroy Gotham City even make sense, either in philosophical intent or criminal execution.
The film wants to avoid the over-the-top Jim Carrey/Jack Nicholson theatrics of the previous movies, but to what end? Neeson's Ra's Al Ghul doesn't quite measure up to the level of a James Bond villain, let alone rate being worthy of facing off against a comic book superhero. And having the final confrontation aboard a runaway elevated trains dares unfavorable comparisons to a similar action sequence in SPIDER-MAN II.
Showing little of the imagination of his work in MEMENTO and INSOMNIA, Christopher Nolan's direction is efficient and largely effective, if not inventive. He seems to be going for a degree of realism, far removed from both the campiness of the TV series and the nightmare gloom that plagued the Burton/Schumacher series of films. Either way, the film seems to be playing it safe, obviously avoiding any risk that might threaten the studio's hope of turning the franchise into another cash cow franchise.