Very average Hollywood action flick...

Rating: 4/10 (24 October 2006)

... and the three main reasons such an average film is so revered are probably: 1. It's a Batman movie (cult following..) 2. Christopher Nolan directed it (and everything he does MUST be great, right?) 3. It takes itself extremely seriously, and it's sort of trendy these days with superhero movies. I guess comics cult/passion has been so laughed at (as immature and childish) during three decades, that the aficionados needed some sort of virtual hero (in the form of a mainstream and somewhat competent work done by a "serious" director) to make them feel better...
The worst parts are probably the corny revelations about Batman's "past" (so he's a NINJA? *LOL* Must be the most laughable plot device ever..), and the totally uncinematic, sloppy, dull action scenes. I'm not a fan of comic books movies (though I like the first 2 X-men movies) but if I enter such a world, I want at least the action sequences to be highly cinematic, spatially engaging, in short I want movie magic, something to transport me. Found those in "Begins" about the most dull ones I ever attended in the genre (I had more excitement in seeing kids fly on a stick in Bedknobs and Broomsticks!). Very Tee-vee, and not even on par with stuff like Buffy the Vampire Slayer (the series). Looks like low-budget, sloppy and incompetent action. Why are some mainstream movies even trying to pull off elaborated, difficult action sequences after all (Van Helsing, King Kong, X2, Pirates of the Carribeans..) if such tasteless action stuff as found in "Begins" is satisfying enough for the masses? This is gonna be gooooood news for the movie executives! *LOL*
Every other aspect of movie-making here is competent, but straightforward, unimaginative and formulaic. Been there, seen that. Vaguely adequate pacing, the usual elliptical storytelling, formulaic staging and sets, monotonous editing... very, very average. I DID find something very good: Cillian Murphy's performance.
I have a good laugh when thinking about the fact that so many people out there consider this (judging from the ratings and its position in the top 250..) as being in the same league as cult classics like "2001", "Citizen Kane", "12 angry men", "Rashomon", "Vertigo" and the like... kinda surrealistic for such a mundane, shallow and unremarkable flick. An insult to the face of the great movie masters of the past.