Thrilling, true to the source material and all around an excellent Bat-experience.

Rating: 10/10 (17 March 2016)

This was, in 2005, the best Batman to date. Tim Burton may have had the definitive Batman atmosphere, visuals and art design ever in his films, but when stripped down to their essence, his films were actually respectable, but "just good" superhero flicks. He did begin a trend in making sympathetic villains a top priority, but his movies didn't capture the essence of the protagonist fully.
That's exactly what makes Begins the great movie it is. It dives into the 80-year-old mythology of Batman and creates a wonderful mix of the most famous interpretations of the character's journey and existence. The origin, the motives, the training, the fighting style, the ethos of Batman are all definitely spot on here. Just compare the work done here to Burton's take. The only thing which the '89/'92 films represent better is the quiet and mysterious demeanor of Batman in action; Bale is a bit too talky, but that's only a minor complaint. When looking at the whole picture, Begins clearly has the more nuanced and detailed character study.
Another obvious improvement is Alfred, who becomes much more than just the sarcastic, cynical butler. He is a father figure, a friend, a comrade and a butler at once, but the relationship never ceases to feel natural. Commissioner Gordon is no longer a fat cop, but a tired-with-crime veteran that welcomes the unexpected helping hand and forms a unique relationship with Batman. And the villains are fantastic! Ras-Al-Ghul is brilliantly transferred to the big screen, maintaining completely the elegance and faulty sense of justice of its comic book counterpart, while Scarecrow is just as loony as he ever was portrayed!
Looking at the direction, it garners mixed feelings. On one hand, the Tumbler scenes are breathtaking, the cinematography compelling, appropriately dark and the first Batman appearance is simply iconic in its frantic use of cuts, making his first crusade really menacing. But, the rest of the hand-to-hand action scenes did not need this directorial treatment. It ends up looking jarring and not very enjoyable to watch. Plus, the whole "decadent" look of the city becomes murky at times. It's one thing to depict urban decay and another to just make the whole Narrows look like a giant wasteland. This is only at times, though (mainly the final battle).
Another complaint has to be the Bruce-Rachel romance. It is nicely built (childhood friends), but I cannot really, really feel the love and sexual tension between the two. Maybe it's the lack of chemistry between the leads, maybe it's the somewhat-uninterested-in-romance nature of the script.
Still, the film prevails; the bad sides are not major problems, just minor nuisances. The romance needed more focus (considering its importance on the sequel), the direction more steadiness in the combat action scenes and a more refined approach when depicting urban decay, but this is still the second best film in the Nolan trilogy. Despite its 140 minute length, it never bores and serves as a fascinating look into the psyche of Batman. Congratulations for revitalizing Batman for the 21st century, Mr. Nolan!