Overrated, but good

Rating: 8/10 (25 October 2005)

Batman is a much tormented franchise in the movie business. Starting with the campy 60s film that was totally geared towards kids to the fun and hopelessly inaccurate Batman Forever to the disgusting bomb Batman and Robin, our Caped Crusader has yet to defeat his biggest villain, his interpreters. Like almost all comic book films, Batman constantly is shown at the big screen under the interpretation of the director of the movie. Tim Burton had a dark, gloomy, Gothic view of Batman and the citizens of Gotham City. This is why Batman was a remarkable film, and the reason kids left the theaters crying after seeing Batman Returns. Joel Schumacher had a more colorful look at Gotham City, which is why Batman Forever and Batman and Robin were totally neglected and criticized, among other reasons. By the time Batman and Robin had come out, Batman was no more than an old-looking guy with a whiny partner wearing a batsuit that apparently contained nipples, and was fighting against an Austrian-sounding Mr. Freeze, and an appallingly watered-down Bane. Batman fans were sobbing at the end of the film.
Years upon years later, Batman gets another chance. Seeing that most of his fellow super hero buddies like Spider-Man and Wolverine and even the Hulk making some good moolah for Marvel and DC and everyone else involved, another man gets the script of the next Batman movie. This time, they are going to attempt to wipe out the existence of the previous Batman films. Christopher Nolan gets to be on the director's chair. Already a major hit with indie fans, Nolan and Christian Bale used the popular comic book Batman: Year One to bring out the storyline and the origins of Bruce Wayne and why he is the way he is. This film opens to praise from virtually everybody, from Batman fans from regular moviegoers, and also from most critics as well. Batman Begins basically is the beginning of it all (duh!), how and why Bruce Wayne became Batman. While this is truly a wonderful experience for some avid comic book readers, others may wonder why it takes more than an hour to explain the anger behind Wayne, when the pop culture world already knows the reason he is so ticked off.
In other words, the plot moves rather slowly throughout the first hour, with a few glimpses of witty dialogue here and there (decent one-liners by Christian Bale and Michael Caine). Batman Begins is the most accurate interpretation of the Batman movies, but after the translation, what else is there? Gotham City looks like a regular metropolis; as a matter of fact the entire film has a very realistic look, which is most certainly not Batman-like. Burton may have screwed around with the story enough to perhaps garnish a couple of lawsuits, but he had the art direction down perfectly. Burton's Gotham City and even the Gotham City of Batman: The Animated Series looked much better. There is virtually no effort in terms of trying to bring out the gloomy tone and mood of Gotham City through its setting, Gotham City looked like any regular major city.
Christian Bale plays a magnificent Bruce Wayne, but a rather bland Batman. Bale as Batman sounds like he is going through a horrific sore throat. In a weak attempt to make Batman sound scary, I was almost laughing when Batman in interrogating one of the gangsters. Michael Caine does a good job as the father-like figure butler, but I still do miss Michael Gough. Morgan Freeman is Morgan Freeman, it seems like he does a wonderful performance in any movie that he is in, and Batman Begins is no exception.
The villains have absolutely nothing interesting about them, and when they have a moment to shine, it gets quickly taken away. Scarecrow, the best villain in the film, gets very, very little screen time. Cillian Murphy does a superb job as the creepy and quiet Scarecrow, but perhaps as an effort to not allow a villain to steal the spotlight, he can barely be seen in the film. On superhero films, there has to be a balance between the villains the heroes fighting them. In Batman Begins, there is no balance at all, the film is mostly about Batman and while yes that would make sense, do recall that most Batman baddies have a sort of connection with the twisted hero.
Most filmmakers nowadays when they do not know how to create spectacular fight scenes, they chop up the film and also zoom in on the subjects when the action becomes heavy. The Bourne Supremacy suffers from this. From the first fight to the final showdown, Nolan approaches the people fighting way too close resulting into some confusion as to who is fighting who and who is on the ground. In other words, Nolan could have used some of the fight choreographers in the Transporter movies and the Matrix films and some better cameramen to create more visually-appealing fights. The only exception to the rule was the sword fight when Bruce Wayne was training. By the way, Danny Elfman could have improved this movie by adding his superb orchestrated magic that made Batman (1989) such a delight to hear as well as to watch.
Bottom Line: The truest Batman film ever, but not the best. I still prefer the dark and magnificent 1989 film, and even in some cases, the action-packed and well-performed Batman Forever (Kilmer made a good Batman, and Jones and Carrey stole the entire spotlight). Like Sin City, it is a great adaptation, but after that there isn't much more. At least in the case of Sin City, there was a lot of effort in the visuals. But hey, it is better than Batman and Robin, but still lacks excitement. Where is the fun in this film? I'd say this movie is rather overrated. Good work Nolan, but your film is far from perfect.