Horribly disappointing

Rating: 2/10 (11 July 2005)

They tried to make Batman into Spiderman. This has got to be one of the worst ideas in the history of poorly adapted comic book movies, and I've seen "Elektra," people.
Director Christopher Nolan said he wanted to take Batman in a different direction when he was chosen to relaunch the franchise. He didn't say the direction was straight down, though. He also said he wanted to use Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" storyline as a model for the new film. If he was telling the truth, he would've admitted he was actually using the fantastic and very good "Spiderman" films as the model for the new film. There's just one big problem. Spiderman isn't Batman. In 60 years of history no one ever told Batman "With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility" or "It's not who you are underneath, it's what you do that defines you." Batman sees ridding the world of crime as his personal mission, everything else in life is irrelevant. Most of all, Batman does NOT believe in the inherent good of Gotham City's legal and criminal justice institutions. Batman is a vigilante. Batman kills criminals as judge, jury and executioner. In a word, Batman is the anti-Spiderman in every way, shape and form.
That's why this movie is awful and why most comic book movies just don't measure up. It's the old Hollywood saw of "monkey see, monkey do." Well, Sam Raimi has made millions making those everyday accessible Spiderman films, why don't we just make the new Batman film like that? Maybe because Batman isn't accessible. Sam Raimi has actually READ the Spiderman comics and knows why the accessible approach works for that character. It HAS worked for that character for 50 years. Batman is the polar opposite. But Christopher Nolan wouldn't know that, because it's obvious he's never read a Batman comic book. I conclude this because he said he wanted to emulate "Batman: Year One" but instead made an anti-vigilante movie.
It's good that directors watch other directors and take note of what's successful in movies, but it's gotten to the point in today's Hollywood that that's ALL they watch. Their frame of reference is only as big as the local megaplex. Maybe that's why the water contamination plot of "Batman Begins" was lifted whole from 1989's "Batman: The Motion Picture."
So Nolan essentially didn't create ANYTHING new with "Batman Begins." Instead he made a Frankenstein's monster out of pieces of other films. Hear's the pitch: Let's take the personal responsibility theme of "Spiderman" and add the poisoning of Gotham plot of "Batman." We'll get Morgan Freeman to act as a sort of Q character from the James Bond films to give Batman his suit, weapons and car so everything has a tidy explanation. We can even turn Batman's father (never a heavily-explored character in the comics) into an Uncle Ben figure, like in those boffo Spiderman films.
Liam Neeson's (Ducart/Ra's Al-Ghul) performance is the best in the film and comes very close to saving this hodgepodge but even he can't rise above the muck that is the script. He and Cillian Murphy (Scarecrow/Dr. Crane) as usual, have the best parts as villains. But undermining all their good work is the other Hollywood conceit of having to make everything "real." Scarecrow wears a three-piece suit and only dons his mask when scaring people. Shouldn't we be in Gotham City where the rules of our world don't always apply? You want me to believe these people find it entirely acceptable that Batman runs around in his well-explained armor but it would be ENTIRELY out of the realm of possibility that Scarecrow has, oh I dunno, a Scarecrow suit?
This is supposed to be a comic book movie, people. It's supposed to be fun. That's why the need to "explain" where every Bat weapon, vehicle and suit came from is so ridiculously out of place. No one asked how Spiderman made his spidey suit and we didn't see Superman knitting his baby blankets into a Supes outfit in either of their good comic book movies. It's not important, let it go. In fact, Let Morgan Freeman go. You're overpaying for one of the world's best actors so he can deliver plot contrivance and exposition. If it's that hard to shoehorn your exposition in that you need AN ENTIRE NEW CHARACTER for it, then your plot is probably too contrived in the first place.
Or, if you insist on Morgan Freeman, give him a better role. Gary Oldman is great as Sergeant Jim Gordon, maybe if he had a comparable actor playing the corrupt police commissioner the two could really go at it and chew some scenery. Instead, you've put Q in a Batman movie. I guess Christian Bale REALLY wants that 007 role.
Supposedly, the Fantastic Four movie is just as bad, reducing the rich, dynamic character that is Dr. Doom into a one-dimensional megalomaniac. It's stuff like this that's made box office receipts drop %18 this year because all these comic book movies are tent poles for the studios. Christopher Nolan, Ang Lee (Hulk) Mark Steven Johnson (Daredevil), Rob Bowman (Elektra) and David Goyer (writer of Batman Begins) should not be allowed to adapt comic books in the future. If they do, Bryan Singer (X-Men, X-Men II) and Sam Raimi should sit them down and FORCE them to read the comic books they're adapting and not just watch their movies.