Stripping away the campiness of the previous series, Nolan's "Batman Begins is a darker, angrier interpretation of the Batman cinematic universe.

Rating: 8/10 (15 July 2015)

Putting my childhood nostalgia aside, I am prepared to admit that, despite a few elements, the Burton/Schumacher Batman films were simply not very good, either as adaptations of the comics or as films. The stories were often poor, focusing more on the villains as opposed to Batman and the films suffered from Burton attempting to mix his "unique" filmmaking trademarks onto already established characters, changing them considerably from their comic book counterparts. Schumacher's Batman films have been savaged and picked apart by both critics and comic book readers in the 20 or so years since their release so I'm not going to be beating the "Joel Schumacher killed the Batman Franchise" horse anytime soon, but I will say this: Schumacher may have put the final nail in the coffin with his Bat nipples and wisecracking Mr Freeze, but Burton dug the grave with his penguin suicide bombers and dominatrix Catwoman.
Nolan's "Batman Begins" however, is an altogether different beast then either Burton's or Schumacher's interpretations. Stripping away the campy nonsense that marred the previous series, Nolan gives us a serious take on the character where the focus is less on over the top villains and more on the title character himself, often sidelined in the previous movies. Nolan also distances himself from the trend set by recent superhero franchises, taking his visual cues and styles more from" Blade Runner" or "Seven" than "Spiderman" or "X Men" and it helps create a comic book adaptation that feels less like a summer blockbuster and something deeper, darker and more mature.
Bale's Batman is also a vast departure from his predecessors. In a first for a Batman film, we spend more time with Bruce Wayne then his alter ego and it is this that sets the film apart from the previous series. Here we actually see Wayne turn both physically and psychologically into Batman as opposed to leaving it mostly untold with the occasional offhand remark or flashback sequence. As I previously mentioned, Batman in the Burton/Schumacher series was sidelined in favour of the villains but here the focus is on Wayne himself and his character arc with the villains taken to secondary characters. Bales Batman is probably the most psychologically damaged and multi faced of both series and it serves the character well. Bale combines the dark psychosis of Keaton with the action heroics of Kilmer but still manages to make the character his own. Bale manages to portray all sides of Wayne's personality: from the rage filled young man to the driven vigilante to the carefree playboy, Bale manages to portray the character truer to the comics then most actors before him and manages to successfully make the character his own.
In addition to the lead actor, the film features a stellar supporting cast. Liam Neeson plays Bruce's mentor, Henri Ducard. In a rare change of pace for Neeson, Ducard is revealed to the main villain in the third act of the film. Ducard is a villain that isn't defined by a silly gimmick or cheesy lines, instead he is simply a very dedicated man who is willing to do anything to complete his mission and it works in the post 9/11 world, Neeson's calm, cool performance add gravitas to his role, although there is the possibility that given Ducard's ideals and obvious real world parallels that it might date the film. Michael Caine plays Bruce's butler Alfred Pennyworth. Caine plays the role well and the character is rightly given a much bigger part then Michael Gough, who's Alfred was often regulated to an extended cameo, although Caine perhaps lacks the class and refinement that Gough bought to his brief appearances. Gary Oldman, continuing his recent choice of more sympathetic characters, plays Jim Gordon. Oldman is always a pleasure to watch and here he plays the world weary cop convincingly. Morgan Freeman plays Wayne's technician Luscious Fox, adding Freemans charm to a somewhat limited role. Cillian Murphy as the sinister Dr Crane is one of the films highlights, turning a villain which could have been campy and gimmicky and turning it into something we hadn't seen in a Batman film before: A villain who is genuinely frightening and a credible threat. On the downside Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes is less then convincing. Holmes pales in comparison to the rest of the supporting cast and the character isn't very convincing. Additionally Tom Wilkinson's Carmine Falcone, whist more believable then Holmes, is let down by Wilkinson's less then subtle "wiseguy" accent.
Among the films high points is the production design. Gotham for once feels like a real city for the first time since Anton Furst's work on the original Batman. Nolan's Gotham feels so realistic, you feel like it could actually exist somewhere in the world. The subsequent movies relied more heavily on studio sets and CGI heavy backdrops, declining to use the sets that Furst had built for the first movie and it showed, giving the movies an often cheap feel. Whist Nolan also uses studio sets in "Batman Begins", he manages to successfully blend them with real world locations, giving his Gotham city a much more realistic and vastly more epic scope than previous films.
Despite these strong points, the film does have its share of weak points which I feel I must mention. The fight choreography is often fast paced, which makes it difficult to tell what is going on and who is fighting who, although the final fight does seem to improve on this, as do the sequels. Also, despite Nolan's choice to avoid clichÃ©s in regards to modern superhero films, he drops the ball slightly by including a inspirational message, which feels rather forced and awkwardly inserted into the film.
Overall I would say that Batman Begins is a successful reboot of a much ridiculed franchise and despite a few flaws is a generally entertaining movie for both comic book fans and more mainstream audiences.