So THAT's what the hype was about

Rating: 8/10 (8 July 2005)

When I first heard that they were making yet another Batman movie, I was oh so disappointed. I believe my exact words were "How many Batman movies do we need and how many guys do we need to play him?" After having seen this movie, I can answer my own question with "One more movie and one more guy."
Sure the first Batman movie had a better villain--Jack kicks Liam's bottom on any day of the week. But of all the different characterizations of Batman, Christain Bale is hands down the best. I never quite believed Michael Keaton as either a billionaire playboy OR a superhero; Val Kilmer and George Clooney nailed the first one but not the second. Throughout the film, Bale is utterly believable as both. When you add outstanding supporting performances by Gary Oldman (going against type and playing a good guy), Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine and some good action sequences, well it was $6.25 well spent.
Reasons why I didn't give it 10 stars:
1. Liam Nesson. He's done some fine work in the past and I strongly believe he was robbed of the Oscar for Schindler's List. That being said, he's not a believable villain. And the bad facial hair did not help.
2. Katie Holmes: Whoever (whomever?) cast her as Rachel should seriously think about getting another job. She cannot act, a fact she was able to conceal on Dawson's Creek. Here, in a role that should have been written as/for a strong female lead, she comes across as . . . well as Joey Potter. Not what the movie called for.