The Biased Critic: "Batman Begins"

Rating: 10/10 (17 June 2005)

I have to be honest with you. I'm biased. I love Batman.
As a kid I was a comic book person (although not a fan-boy), and I always enjoyed Batman, whether as a campy 60s TV hero, or in the gritty 80s comic books. I was 14 the summer of 1989 when Tim Burton's "Batman" came out. It blew my pubescent little mind. I saw it several times, and ate it up like it was fresh popcorn.
"Batman Begins" tops it. That's sacrilege to a lot of people, and understandably so. But "Begins" is above and beyond the best Batman film.
One of its strengths is that it seems to take cues from "Spider-Man": tell a fluid, sensible story, explain the origins of the character, but spend most of the screen time exploring the relationships among the primary characters. And in a way, "Begins" is like a dark counterpart to the Spider-Man story.
But while "Spider-Man", with its splashy colors and frequent CGI, does a better job of making a comic book into a movie, "Batman Begins" succeeds in being the better film, creating a realistic world in which a Bat-Man, an ordinary man with no supernatural powers, could actually exist.
For example: there's a helicopter shot that sweeps over Gotham City about half way through the film, in which Batman is shown standing atop a tower overlooking the Gotham skylineand I got chills. It's that effective. As far as I can tell, it's just a stuntman in a Batsuit perched over a slightly-modified Chicago, but that simple shot absolutely conveys that "this could be real; this *could* really happen". And $100 million of CGI cannot buy those chills.
And that's another of the film's strengths: throughout the movie either it uses sets and models instead of CGI, or it uses CGI so properly (that is, sparingly) and so seamlessly that everything actually looks *real*. I hate to bash George Lucas when everyone else already has, but he spent countless millions making movies starring a Yoda *you can't touch* when he had a perfectly tried-and-true puppet that has depth and weight and texture (not to mention an actor's---Frank Oz's---actual *performance*). With "Batman Begins", it's the other way around: this is a Batman that is so realistic that he threatens to reach out and touch *you*.
Yet another strength: stellar casting. Christian Bale is a terrific Batman, hands down. Sure, there will always be debate among fans as to who's the better Batman, who's the better Bruce Wayne, etc. Again, I'm biased; I love Adam West. And I honestly think that every Batman actor has been good in his own way, even if the particular film he was in happened to suck. But Bale has both Bruce and Batman down in a way that is, I believe, most faithful to the true spirit of dichotomy in the character.
Oddly enough, with the exception of Morgan Freeman, the male cast is made up entirely of Brits, and they all shine. Of course, when do Gary Oldman and Tom Wilkinson not? And Liam Neesonboy, I hate to kick Lucas again, but *this* is what Qui-Gon Jinn should have been. Neeson's character is multi-layered, powerful, and compelling. Take his Ducard character, add morals and a few Jedi mind tricks, and you'd have an excellent Qui-Gon. His success in this movie makes it even *more* evident what a lost opportunity "Episode I" was.
My only gripe is the music. Hans Zimmer is a fine composer, but epic characters in epic situations deserve epic *themes*! Maybe Danny Elfman would have been wrong for the tone of this film (although I think nothe worked in "Spider-Man", didn't he?), but what about Williams? Glass? Even Horner when he's in "Star Trek II" mode? The music is background material in a movie that needs it to be textured for certain scenes, and thundering horns for others.
But that's the only thing that really bothers me, and even that's minor. The tone is perfect. The direction is excellent. The production design is not as immediately engrossing as that of the '89 "Batman", but great nonetheless. Everything that Batman has, from his belt to his cape to his cowl, seems real and imminently touchable. To me, that's indispensable.
The script, while not flawless, is tight and kinetic, keeping me guessing while watching a story I already *knew*. And far from being as humorless as a few critics (notably Gene Shalit) have said, there are many lines that crackle with dry wit, adequately balancing---but not neutralizing---the tension the director creates.
But the triumph of the film, I believe, is in the complexity of its relationships. In the comics, Alfred is not a doddering old queen (as in the films until now) but a superlative (if sometimes unwilling) partner, patching up all of Batman's wounds and supporting him in both of his personae. This is reflected in "Begins". In the comics, Jim Gordon is not a bumbling, overweight, gambling, nearly clueless police commissioner (as in the films until now), but a trusted adviser to Batman, and, above all, an excellent police officer. This, too, is reflected in "Begins".
My only regret is that "Batman Begins" will not be the cultural phenomenon of Burton's '89 "Batman". It hasn't been promoted as well, and it simply doesn't have the advantage of Burton's film, which came out at a time when the superhero film was thought to be dead. Now, because the Spider-Man and X-Men movies are so good (and hopefully, the upcoming "Superman" will be as well), it's simply *expected* that a new Batman film be good, and when it *is* as good as "Begins", it doesn't cause as much of a commotion.
I can only hope that this film is financially successful, and that I can spend future summers escaping the heat by watching Batman---*good* Batman---and eating it up like it's fresh popcorn.