Finally, a Batman movie about Batman.

Rating: 10/10 (1 July 2005)

Batman movies in the past have always been about the villain. While villains are often what makes a piece of fiction truly captivating, developing intriguing villains should never be at the expense of developing the main character.
Batman is a character who has CHOSEN to develop a second personality in the way that some people who endure personal tragedies do subconsciously. This is a truly unique decision as most of humanity tries to grieve by moving on with their lives and remembering the good times. Bruce Wayne chooses to become Batman. The question that no other film has really explored is WHY the heir to a billion-dollar enterprise would make such a decision. No human in history has ever made such a decision to my knowledge, so Batman Begins had a hard sell to pitch.
This is the movie's greatest strength. Rather than shying away from this crucial question, Batman Begins embraced it and used some 2 hours and 14 minutes to explore the answer. We are given, for the first time, a real Bruce Wayne to go with our Batman, and the villains are secondary. Perhaps in sequels it is more appropriate to focus on the villain(s), but not before we have a movie explaining who Bruce Wayne is. Finally we do, and there is a decent amount of time explaining that Bruce Wayne has become Batman, and now Bruce Wayne is the real mask, the real charade. Somehow that makes all that is unbelievable about Batman come to life and seem, in some impossible way, to be possible.
On this film versus Tim Burton's 1989 Batman (a large topic of online debate). Burton's Gotham City and depiction of Batman had an atmosphere and world that truly felt like it could produce a character such as Batman, and it really sold us on the Joker. What it did not do was sell us on Bruce Wayne (a mistake that continued for three subsequent films and one more director). When Batman took off the cape and cowl in the 1989 film, Michael Keaton looked the part and performed well, but there was no dialog or plot development leading us to believe that Burce Wayne had any inner turmoil. The reclusiveness of the Bruce Wayne played by Keaton (and three subsequent actors) made the entire film unbelievable. If Bruce Wayne hid away in his mansion nursing battle wounds and was one of the few men alive with the means and motive to become a vigilante AND was generally anti-social, then surely he would be discovered as Batman very quickly.
Of course Bruce Wayne has to be all those things Michael Keaton portrayed him to be: reclusive, introverted, and quietly furious with the world that murdered his parents. It wasn't that Christian Bale is a better actor than Michael Keaton, necessarily, it's that Batman Begins generally does a better job of explaining the reason for Wayne's fury. also, we believe the Bruce Wayne of Batman Begins could keep his moonlighting a secret because he takes measures to build a public image counter to his nature by making himself appear to be the quintessential playboy.
The 1989 film created a beautiful, film noir depiction of Gotham that I love. The 2005 version kept that dark image of Gotham and gave it an almost industrial feeling that mimics that of the city in Blade Runner. Both approaches work because they evoke a feeling of dark desperation. Burton's noir approach didn't work as well when he took it beyond the scenery to the story. Gotham can't be like a Bogart film because it admits that there is a world outside Gotham that is peaceful and normal. Gotham City is supposed to be PARTICULAR in its darkness, and though it scenes are welcome to be dark and evil, it must stand constrastly to the rest of the world and to some of its citizens. There were no brighter elements to the Burton film, no characters that truly seemed innocent. Who was Michael Keaton trying to save?