Holy Cow! A Decent Bat-Movie!

Rating: Null/10 (19 January 2006)

Christopher Nolan had a big problem with 'Batman Begins'. Eight years on from Joel Schumacher's Day-Glo camp-fest, 'Batman and Robin', with it's unfortunate echoes of the 1960s TV series, and sixteen years on from Tim Burton's muddled-but-stylish Gothic sprawl, he had the onerous task of dispelling public perceptions of his protagonist based on his earlier screen incarnations.
He manages it, largely. I had fears  mostly founded on the involvement of 'Blade' screenwriter David Goyer, famed for unnecessary tinkering with long established characters in page-to-screen transitions  that the film would be visually stunning, but lack substance. Quite the opposite is true, at least in the movie's first half. If anything the most interesting scenes are those in which no capes, cowls, gadgets or gizmos are present. In part I think this can be put down to Nolan, whose choice of source material is telling. He was, apparently, intrigued by Darren Aronofsky's aborted attempt to bring Frank Miller's 'Batman: Year One' (arguably the last good thing he wrote) to the screen, used key elements of that origin-story in developing his script.
Bale's performance is excellent. We knew from 'American Psycho' and 'the Machinist' that he was adept at exploring the dark side of his characters' natures, and his switching between the frivolous, dandified public Bruce Wayne and his true nature are disturbingly convincing  a million miles from George Clooney's avuncular turn in the last movie.
The supporting actors are splendid, particularly Gary Oldman as the idealistic young Jim Gordon, Tom Wilkinson as Mob boss Carmine Falcone and Michael Caine as faithful retainer Alfred Pennyworth. There's a good chemistry on-screen between Caine and Bale, establishing the only real relationship in young Wayne's life. Morgan Freeman is excellent, and Linus Roach, as Thomas Wayne, manages to give a sensitive, pointed performance, despite his having about five-minutes screen-time. Ken Watanabe as Ra's al Ghul (my favourite Bat-baddie in the funny-papers) has a great natural presence and authority on screen, but is given very little to do. Cillian Murphy, less imposing as Jonathan Crane, The Scarecrow, is, on the other hand, over used- but then I've never been particularly impressed by Murphy in anything. Katie Holmes is pretty, but serves little real purpose. Liam Neeson's Henri Ducard is disappointingly uneven - his calm, measured sensei in the first half, is hardly consistent with his near-deranged zealot in the second.
The involvement of Goyer means, of course, that the finale will be a hurried, muddled affair. As was the case with the 'Blade' movies he feels compelled, here, to end on a bang. Thus, in the final reel we are heading toward a threat of city-wide destruction which Schumacher would have been proud of, when a more intimate hero/villain confrontation would have been more in keeping with the general tone of the film.
Doyer tinkers a-plenty, but, safe for the fireworks in the finale, most of his tweakings of established 'mythology' are forgivable.
Violence is well handled. It's neither stylised nor glamorised. Most action scenes are filmed in shadow or in extreme close up, emphasising the suddenness of the Bat's actions, and establishing him as a fearful creature of the night.
Aaronovsky's intention of filming 'Batman: Year One' would, I think, have worked much better, but this is still an effective and (moderately) intelligent actioner.
The sinister spectre of Schumacher has been exorcisedand that, for Bat-fans, is the important thing.