Batman begins Again

Rating: 7/10 (15 June 2005)

Hollywood is now in complete auto-loop mode by remaking it's own movies. We are supposed to erase all four previous Batman movies and start all over again? So we return back to that fateful evening his parents were killed. And all intentions are that they are going to 'remake' the Joker episode too. This must be likened to that new catch term - a "re- imagining". How many rewrites do you think it took to have Batman 5 (or Batman Do-Over 1) to start with Bruce Wayne intentionally wasting away in a Thailand prison? This movie not only goes into far left field in terms of treating the kabuki of action movies, it goes into the parking lot. Another no-no is the lack of obligatory over-the-top action set pieces at least every 20 minutes or so. Here we get lengthy character development. But as one character declares - we are defined by our actions. The characters and the camera never stop moving. We float along the city of Gotham, or glide through other locations (which all seem to have high ceilings with catwalks).
As the pieces start falling together in the second half of the film, our patience is rewarded with a solid lead character that we know intimately. So every action has meaning, and the action movie actually has a story. Ang Lee tried this with "Hulk" a few years back, but failed because the character development was dull and tedious. (see my review for more explicit details). Here, the whole story of bats as the source of childhood fear is far more interesting. Every step of Bruce's transformation is done with a more Down to Earth approach. This means there are flaws in Bruce's motives, and things don't always go to plan. Michael Caine is well cast as the surrogate father. Morgan Freeman seemed to be cast primarily because he is a big name. Christian Bale on his own is a risky gamble for the franchise. I enjoy his strong acting abilities, but that almost works against you when the audience needs to buy that you like running around in a batsuit. Katie Holmes still comes off as the requisite leading babe, but no complaints there. Thankfully, there are no goofy love games (such as that bogs down the 'Spiderman' movies) as these characters interact. The script successfully steers away from most clichÃ© plot follies. Bad guys are thankfully not all dressed up like Liberace. This movie also gets some points for being gritty, casting Liam Neeson (everything he does is excellent), and mostly for a script that was brewed long enough to have a refined taste.
But once again, is all this enough to cover the fact that there are few jaw-dropping effects? For a guy like me who likes intelligent movies, the answer is yes. For the guy who needs to see an explosion every 10 minutes, the movie might drag. But for a 2 hour and 20 minute movie, it certainly did not drag at all for me. One thing I missed was a little bit of looseness of the characters. The movie almost never lightens up, and rarely has time for any fun humour. Others might be upset to see our hero attack the police, causing harm to men in uniform. It might be a little hard to sympathise with Bruce's desire to be a vigilante. This sometimes gives you an uneasy feeling about whether to applaud his actions. The script also carefully tiptoes around this grey area. The movie accepts that the police does not approve of those who take the law into their own hands. This is a strange clash of the real world versus the comic book world. But I for one am thankful that I don't have to see any more men in tights and goofy make-up. And god forbid please - no Prince music, MTV, or over- the-top set pieces.