A serious Batman, a great film.

Rating: 10/10 (10 December 2005)

Without rehashing the many good reviews posted about this film, I'll just comment on how it was perceived by an aging baby boomer who, like many, grew up reading Batman comics (among others) during the late 1950s and early 1960s. While they were termed 'comic books', many kids took the character seriously. His portrayal in those early comics was done in a serious manner, with barely a hint of humor. That was the indelible image I maintained about the character thereafter. I recall how disappointed, indeed angry, over how Batman was portrayed in the (to me) idiotic television series of the 60s. I was livid that he had been turned into a buffoon. Wild horses couldn't get me to watch that wretched program, even to this day. When Tim Burton's first film version was announced, I was excited. I had enjoyed Burton's other films, and expected great things. I was, once again, disappointed. In spite of the big budget, great costumes and nifty special effects, it just didn't deliver what I had hoped it would. I didn't care for the garish color, the 'villians' were a joke and frankly, Michael Keaton was a curious choice for the role. Subsequent films in that series were even worse (I presume, since I stopped watching them after the second Burton film). Batman Begins, however, hit the mark! Christian Bale was a superb Batman, the development of Bruce Wayne/Batman was thorough and logical (for a comic character, anyway), the sets impressive and the action exhilarating. As others note, finally it was done correctly. I found this version to be as definitive as one could get, and feel that off all the efforts to bring comic book characters to the screen, this was the most successful. Granted, some others have faired well, such as the first two Superman films with Christopher Reeve and the two X-Men movies. Even Spiderman was reasonably good, although the special effects drug the first one down a bit. To those Batman fans that, like me, have waited decades to see the character done as he should be, this is the one. A couple of minor criticisms would be the casting of Cillian Murphy as The Scarecrow. While he did a good job in '28 Days Later', he seemed too juvenile to be believed as a psychiatrist. And, while Katie Holmes was okay in the role, I had a hard time looking at her without thinking of she and Tom Cruise and all of the Scientology controversy, since I did not see the film upon it's release, but on DVD later. Which brings up the final point: those who intend to purchase this film on DVD would be advised to seek out the widescreen DTS surround version. It provides much better surround separation (as DTS generally does) compared to the Dolby Digital version, and the full-frame edition leaves out too much picture information, which negatively affects the enjoyment. A truly excellent film, with a sequel now in production (which will apparently feature The Joker, based upon this film's ending). Highly recommended.