The good, the bad, and the (somewhat) ugly

Rating: 8/10 (28 July 2006)

The previous Batman series, whilst ending in utter disgrace, proved a very good point about comic book adaptations. Namely, the more seriously one takes the comic book material, the better the adaptation works. And it is this lesson that was taken most to heart by Warner Brothers when it decided now was the time to bring Batman back to the big screen. While I did avoid this film during its theatrical run due to the presence of Christopher Nolan at the helm, I have to say the man has gone some way to redeem himself here. While Batman Begins is still a vague second to Tim Burton's directorial essays on the character, it does work as a great prequel. I just hope they have the good sense to pay the 1989 and 1992 films their proper respect, as I doubt that superhero films would be as polished as they are now without their contribution to history. As the original blockbuster, the original certainly still stands as one of the best. But this is all a moot point, for no film franchise can have a chance of success without a good film. On that respect, Batman Begins delivers.
One improvement in Batman Begins is that Bruce Wayne becomes a much more complex character. The other two good films used Wayne as a setup for the action sequences, making Wayne a lot less interesting than the suit he dons. In Batman Begins, a lot of thought and screen time goes into explaining exactly why Bruce Wayne puts on a suit and, to quote Jerry Seinfeld, smacks the crap out of people. We see everything in the evolution of the character, albeit in a highly compact, time-efficient manner. The murders of Bruce's parents by Joe Chill, the subsequent trial, and how this sends Bruce along the path to superheroism, are given exactly the kind of exploration they deserve. Had Batman Begins been all about this element, it would have scored a perfect ten from me. Unfortunately, some storytelling decisions leave the film with difficulties in reaching its true potential. Chief among them is the lack of focus in villains. No less than four antagonists are presented to us in this episode, and instead of enhancing the storyline, they confuse the issue.
Another major problem with Batman Begins that has me preferring the 1989 film is the camera-work. While the camera is not rattled or thrown about as in so many films by moronic directors who insist that it puts us further into the action, master Nolan really could learn how an action sequence benefits from having all its participants in a frame that only moves slowly, and when necessary. Hyperactive camera motion does not make a film more exciting or immersive, it destroys what little illusion of realism celluloid can actually have. Speaking of destroying realism, while the cable gun used to such great effect in Burton's films is given passing mention here, Batman is shown using his cap to glide, or leaping from tall buildings with no show of his means to slow himself down from reaching the ground at a fatal speed. One of the things that made the best Batman films so compelling is how they used Bond-style gadgetry in the right manner, both filling in interesting details and emphasising the fact that Batman is really human.
On the plus side is the acting. Christian Bale might be as tall as the canonical Bruce Wayne, but he also makes it clear in the first reel that he is an actor of a calibre comparable to the great Michael Keaton. He was well-chosen. Supporting him is an excellent choice as Alfred, the great and always-likable Michael Caine. Caine prevents any comparison to actors who have previously played the part by making the role entirely his own. One could accuse him of merely playing himself in this role, but that's one thing that stands out about his performance. Caine is a perfect match for the character. Another character who plays his role almost identically to his others is Liam Neeson. Etiquette prevents me from ruining surprises by talking too much about his character, but this is definitely the role he would have preferred to play when he signed up for the new Star Wars. Some of his lines raised the spectre of Nolan's lack of insight, but the story structure redeems the film brilliantly.
A protagonist is only as good as his antagonist, and this is where Batman Begins has problems. While the surprise back-flip of one possible ally does keep the audience on their toes, Cillian Murphy, Tom Wilkinson, and Rutger Hauer are sold short by a script that cannot make up its mind who the primary focus is. Hauer is an actor's actor, giving every line and movement its proper presence. His lack of screen time and disconnection from the structure of antagonism only hurts the film. Wilkinson only serves to detract from Murphy's screen time, using up the screen time or development that Murphy's character so desperately needs. The film is all about setting up Bruce Wayne as a three-dimensional character, but had the same effort been expended with just one of his opponents, it would have also done him a world of good. Still, the story is solid, and it is unusual to have a hero more interesting than its villain, so these are only minor distractions. I guess I am saying here that Batman Begins is a good film that a few minor problems held back from becoming a masterpiece.
Out of ten, I gave Batman Begins an eight. As a superhero film, it is on par with the ilk of Superman II or Batman Returns. The only frustration is how a few minor tweaks could have put it in the same league as X-Men 2.