Batman is back!

Rating: 10/10 (13 June 2005)

(Minor spoilers - no major plot secrets revealed, however)
Finally! Batman is back and better than ever. This installment is a complete re-boot of the film franchise and has absolutely nothing to do with the previous Keaton/Kilmer/Clooney movies.
This film is an origin story of how Batman came to be. In Tim Burton's 1989 film, Batman's origins were glossed over. Batman Begins really gets into the point-by-point of what drove Bruce Wayne to don the terrifying and bizarre persona of Batman.
Some people might not be happy of the fact that it takes quite bit of time before Wayne finally suits up as Batman. However, director Christopher Nolan keeps the pacing up with lots of fights and action sequences until the cowl comes on. There's still a lot of talking heads and childhood flashbacks, but these scenes are moving and very effective.
Christian Bale's Batman is the darkest of the Dark Knights that have graced the silver screen in the past sixteen years. Bale portrays Batman as more of a monstermore "bat" than "man." In Batman's first attack on the criminal element, Nolan shows the scene from the criminals' perspective  showing exactly why thugs think of Batman as some sort of monster and not a guy in a rubber suit. Bale does have a couple small moments where his performance didn't quite work, the "yo-yo" scene for example when he screams at thug for information, but overall his anger and pain really showed through and I bought his desire to become a demon of the night.
Even though this is a re-boot of the series, this film decides to use two villains from the comics that have not been used before in the movies to bridge the gap quite nicely and really illustrate further that this is not a remake of the 1989 version. In Begins, we are presented with Ra's Al Ghul and The Scarecrow, two fairly obscure villains  not as well-known to the general public as the Joker or the Penguin.
As a comic book geek, I realized the cinematic incarnations of these two foes are miles away from their comic book counterparts. In the comic books, Ra's Al Ghul (translates to "The Demon's Head") was an Eco-terrorist who was hundreds of years old. He used what was called the "Lazarus Pits" to remain forever young. He also had a daughter, Talia, who was a love interest for Batman. No mention of Lazarus Pits or Talia at all in this film.
The Scarecrow is also very, very different from the comics in this movie. In the comic books, the Scarecrow was a very tall, scrawny and socially awkward character who looks like Ichabod Crane in the "The Headless Horseman." His real name is Jonathan Crane, to reflect how he physically looked and his dealings with fear. The Scarecrow was dressed from head to toe as a Scarecrow would appear. In this film, Crane is a fairly good-looking and well spoken person who as the Scarecrow, merely wears a Scarecrow mask when dealing with his sick pursuits.
Now, as a fan of the comics, do these loose adaptations concern me? Honestly? No. Why? Because it would be hard to translate these characters as they are from the comics to the screen without seeming silly. We all remember The Riddler's green leotard in Batman Forever as one example of many silly and over-the-top villains. The villains in Batman Begins are still very strange, but easier to swallow.
In fact, the whole film is ground more in reality than any other Batman film. In the other movies, it was fantastic character set in a setting equally as fantastic. This film has fantastic characters in a very real setting. Gotham City looks like a real city in this film and the characters are almost believable. Is it conceivable that some sick and twisted psychiatrist would put on a Scarecrow mask and terrorize others with it? It could happen. Ra's Al Ghul's plans for Gotham City and it's water supply are a little out there  but maybe only a couple notches away from something reminiscent of what people feared right after 9/11.
Even Batman  from the outfit, to the cape, to the Batmobile, to the Batcave all make more sense than the other films. There's explanations for them all. Again, it's still a comic-book movie and there are still some slightly silly things  but overall, you could almost buy it. It's for that reason that I connected with this film on a further level.
You couldn't have cast this movie better  the worst is Katie Holmes as the love interest  but even she's not that bad. The actors really shine through and are given great lines for the most part. Caine is a much better Alfred than Michael Gough  more mentor and caretaker and less stiff butler in a coat and tails. Morgan Freeman still plays his stock character as the wise and helpful aid to the protagonist, but still turns in a solid performance. Gary Oldman's Jim Gordon is a very understated performance, but it works well for the character. Of course, Liam Neeson brings a class all his own to every project he's a part of.
MINOR SPOILER: With a set up for the sequel in the end, we all know this will spawn a slew of sequels and I'm eager to see this re-born franchise continue. We just have to make sure Joel Schumacher doesn't get within a thousand feet of the production offices.