Batman (Truly) Begins

Rating: 9/10 (6 July 2005)

It's been a long time since I've bothered reviewing a movie. One would be quick to assume that has a large deal to do with the fact people are going to watch a movie regardless of what I have to say. Sadly, your actions matter to me just as little as my opinions matter to you. Take that! The true fact is that I haven't been excited by a movie in a long, long time (excluding more stimulating features of course *wink, wink*). I was pinning my hopes hard of "The Hitchhikers Guide to The Galaxy" after viewing the fantastic trailers and having read the book. The movie was neither a poor adaptation nor a laugh-a-minute riot like the book. Making it an overall so-so experience.
Another movie I had been pining my hopes on since I heard that director Christopher Nolan ("Memento", "Insomnia") was attached to it was "Batman Begins" (Another one for 2005 would definitely have to be "Tom Yam Goong". Look out for that!). I'm happy to say the drought is over.
Please take note that I'm not a fan boy so whatever you're about to read is just a casual movie goers opinion on the restart of this potentially excellent franchise.
It took 8 long years after the cheese fest otherwise known as "Batman & Robin" for another Batman project to be green lit and I'm glad they waited so long to get it right. Chris Nolan, with the help of writer David Goyer (often credited for both the success and failure of the Blade franchise), creates a fascinating back-story for the caped crusader.
We all know the reason why Bruce Wayne dons the cowl and prowls the dark alleys of Gotham City but never got an insight into how he managed to learn all his skills or where he got all those toys. The movie does an excellent job at explaining all of that.
Many people will still regard Michael Keaton ("Batman", "Bettlejuice") as the perfect Batman and to give credit where it's due he was. The only aspect of his performance that never clicked with me was his Bruce Wayne. Maybe it was the sketchy characterisation or the fact not much focus was given to Batman's other side, either way it just didn't fit into the mix of things. Here Christian Bale ("American Psycho", "The Machinist") does a good job as the crime fighter and an even better one as the prince of Gotham.
He goes through all the motions - from a delusional youth to a single minded individual to creating his playboy persona - with such ease that it's hard to see any other actor coming close. He truly owns the role. The only problem is his early appearances in full costume. Sure he looks every bit the terrifying version of Batman but there are often times you can't help but think he's trying too hard.
The supporting cast do an excellent job in their short but necessary roles with Michael Caine ("The Cider House Rules", "Secondhand Lions") as Wayne's trusted butler Alfred getting some of the best laughs. I don't know what it is about superheroes and their love interests but Katie Holmes ("Dawsons Creek" and er...the girl responsible for making Tom Cruise behave like a 10 year old?) as Rachel Dawes does a so-so job just as Kristen Dunst did in the Spiderman flicks. Although her characters importance in helping Bruce Wayne find himself is essential to main antagonists character arc her importance in the overall story just seems a tad bit forced.
Unlike the past movies the villains play an almost non-existent part. They're only there to really set the wheels into motion and for Batman to defend Gotham against in the finale. The role of Ra's Al-Ghul (Ken Watanabe) is terribly shortchanged but hopefully the character mysteriously re-enters Batman's universe in future installments.
In the past the use of multiple villains struck me as an excuse for the studio bosses to make a pile of dough over merchandising, here the multiple villains all play valuable roles in driving the plot forward. The standout amongst which is Tom Wilkinson ("The Full Monty") as crime boss Carmine Falcone. His character could've been another mafia-type but he plays it menacingly enough for it to not come across as a caricature.
Nolan does provide Batman with a great introduction with him swiftly knocking down his enemies while cloaked in the dark but the fight sequences thereafter leave much to be desired. Couple poor fight choreography and poor lighting and you get a difficult to decipher scene. Unfortunately for us the problems with these sequences don't end there as Nolan's employs "NYPD Blue" style jerky fast cuts. I personally would've preferred long shots of Batman fighting one-on-one with his foes and seeing the Bats ninja training put to good use.
Another minor grouse I have against this movie are the attempts at humour. I say attempts because they don't even manage to raise a chuckle. Many of these scenes have been done before and not to mention done much better. They could've easily been left on the cutting room floor but probably were retained so the movie could cater to the adolescent minds out there. Can't help but feel this was Goyers' idea. Look up "Blade: Trinity" for proof.
On a whole "Batman Begins" breathes new life into the franchise while removing all the excesses it had become synonymous with. I doubt however that the masses in general will enjoy it as it presents itself more as a character driven story instead of one constructed around action set pieces. If it's the latter you're looking for then I'm pretty sure you'll be amused by something like "The Fantastic Four" (out July 7).