Why is this Batman Production so popular?!?!

Rating: 5/10 (26 January 2006)

After so much publicity I finally got around to watching Batman Begins (BB) and I am in two minds how to rate it. I am still not totally clear on final judgment, though I have seen it 4 times in my overly decadent digital home cinema so judgment is not for want of viewing.
BB is definitely different to other projects bearing its name, but better? Well different. I can understand the franchise wishing to change their tact from the total trash of 'Batman and Robin', and the throes of embarrassing pathetic-ness it had become. They have re-packaged the franchise into a story that had previously not been told. It is obvious they have worked hard to try and bring Batman into the 21st century along with credibility of big budget and big names. But there is something gnawing at me that it is not very successful.
The main problem I have is with the marketing machine. As was 'Hulk', BB is marketed to late teens and above with concepts of deeper emotional concepts and adult themes... yet, the retail stores shamelessly promoted the hype of all things Batman for children - and young ones to boot with BB pajamas, school stationery etc. I find it inherently dishonest for what is essentially adult based movies to manipulate the public using children. It is not so far fetched to envisage say 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre (TSM)' being promoted obviously with adults in mind but selling TSM toy chainsaws, pajamas and school gear to manipulate the public to make dollars.
I understand that BB is supposed to be Gothic and dark, but at times its too dark. The fight scenes whilst having promise are edited so poorly, and coupled with the darkness, its a mess. Its alright, but I personally can not see how BB garnered the support and rating it has.
Credibility for the project seems to be due to the impressive established actors that were roped in; Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, Liam Neeson, Gary Oldman, Rutger Hauer... and to a lesser extent Ken Watanabe off the back of 'The Last Samurai' and Katie Holmes thanks to Tom Cruise's syrupy public exaltations. But I didn't like Christian Bale's performance. He seemed to be dull and struggle in the company of the 'established actors'. Then again the screenplay wasn't the greatest ever and not strong enough to effectively utilise the talent. Michael Caine seemed miscast; Gary Oldman was bland and Gordon was portrayed too weak at times; Morgan Freeman was excellent but had little to do; Rutger Hauer along with Liam Neeson were cast in what seemed weird roles...
Who was the true bad guy? Old formulas dictate that the climactic scenes pin the hero against the villain. Therefore, is Rutger Hauer; the corporate executive, the real bad dude, or is Liam Neeson? The League of Shadows which purportedly fights criminals... the essence of Batman's persona... are the bad guys ... rather ironic. It is so obvious that the 'Leagues' final actions are morally bad, but I felt that BB spent a lot of time in the final scenes ensuring that we see Rutger Hauer get his comeuppance when to be honest, I didn't really see they had established him as a credible villain. I mean we first see him when Bruce is young and he ensures the Wayne empire will flourish until Bruce's majority, which he does. Sure he acts condescending at times with 'too complicated for you' attitude, and his desire to progress the company's interests in areas which while far from illegal, were not to the original edicts of the founding Waynes. Yes he did fire Fox... but was it established that he was in bed with the League? And was he as bad or worse than the league? Liam Nelson did not portray the bad guy effectively, he was too good and not nearly nasty enough to warrant the leader of an ancient cruel judicial sect. The training of Bruce was established within a coven that fights for justice yet their brand of justice is highlighted beyond the bounds of morally right.. yet no one can see the blatant contradiction. The League itself seemed so small to be ineffectual for all the bragging of past deeds supposedly attributed to them.. it just didn't make a lot of logical sense.
Taking into consideration what I have stated above, I can not in good conscience rate this movie anywhere near the trend of 8/10. I am rationalising my multiple viewings down to morbid curiosity and willingness to find answers that gnawed at me from in previous viewings. I felt BB was incomplete, half-baked and rushed to be released. It just seemed to be missing that final polish you come to expect from a large budget, star filled movie. I rate BB 5/10.