Article: Batman Begins
Section: Reception

Question: During what year was Batman written?

"Batman Begins" has received positive reviews from critics.
Review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reports that 85% of critics have given the film a positive review based on 263 reviews, with an average score of 7.7/10, making the film a "Certified Fresh" on the website's rating system.
At Metacritic, which assigns a weighted mean rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the film received an average score of 70, based on 41 reviews, which indicates "generally favorable reviews".
Additionally, the film was a success with audiences who, when polled by CinemaScore, awarded the film an A grade.
James Berardinelli applauded Nolan and Goyer's work creating more understanding into "who is and what motivates him", something Berardinelli felt Tim Burton's film lacked; at the same time, Berardinelli felt the romantic aspect between Bale and Holmes did not work because the actors lacked the chemistry Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder ("Superman"), or Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst ("Spider-Man") shared in their respective roles.
According to "Total Film", Nolan manages to create such strong characters and story that the third-act action sequences cannot compare to "the frisson of two people talking", and Katie Holmes and Christian Bale's romantic subplot has a spark "refreshingly free of Peter Parker/Mary Jane-style whining".
"Los Angeles Times" Kenneth Turan, who felt the film began slowly, stated that the "story, psychology and reality, not special effects", assisted the darkness behind Batman's arsenal; he noted that Neeson and Holmes, unlike Bale's ability to "feel his role in his bones", do not appear to fit their respective characters in "being both comic-book archetypes and real people".
"The New Yorker" David Denby did not share Berardinelli and Turan's opinion.
He was unimpressed with the film, when comparing it to the two Tim Burton films, and that Christian Bale's presence was hindered by the "dull earnestness of the screenplay", the final climax was "cheesy and unexciting", and that Nolan had resorted to imitating the "fakery" used by other filmmakers when filming action sequences.
Michael Wilmington of the "Chicago Tribune" believed Nolan and Goyer managed to "comfortably mix the tormented drama and revenge motifs with light hearted gags and comic book allusions," and that Nolan takes the series out of the "slam-bang Hollywood jokefests" the franchise had drifted into.
Comic book scribe and editor Dennis O'Neil stated that he "felt the filmmakers really understood the character they were translating", citing this film as the best of the live-action "Batman" films.
In contrast, J.R. Jones, from the "Chicago Reader", criticized the script, and Nolan and David Goyer for not living up to the "hype about exploring Batman's damaged psyche".
Roger Ebert, who gave mixed reviews to the previous films, wrote this was "the "Batman" movie I've been waiting for; more correctly, this is the movie I did not realize I was waiting for".
Giving it four out of four stars, he commended the realistic portrayals of the Batman arsenal – the Batsuit, Batcave, Tumbler, and the Batsignal – as well as the focus on "the story and character" with less stress on "high-tech action".
Like Berardinelli, "USA Today"s Mike Clark thought Bale performed the role of Batman as well as he did Patrick Bateman in "American Psycho", but that the relationship between Bruce Wayne and Rachel Dawes was "frustratingly underdeveloped".
Kyle Smith thought Bale exhibited "both the menace and the wit he showed in his brilliant turn in "American Psycho"", and that the film works so well because of the realism, stating, "Batman starts stripping away each layer of Gotham crime only to discover a sicker and more monstrous evil beneath, his rancid city simultaneously invokes early '90s New York, when criminals frolicked to the tune of five murders a day; "Serpico" New York, when cops were for sale; and today, when psychos seek to kill us all at once rather than one by one."
In contrast, Salon.com's Stephanie Zacharek felt Nolan did not deliver the emotional depth expected of "one of the most soulful and tortured superheroes of all"; she thought Bale, unlike Michael Keaton whom she compared him to, failed to connect with the audience underneath the mask, but that Gary Oldman succeeded in "emotional complexity" where the rest of the movie failed.
Film director Tim Burton felt Nolan "captured the real spirit that these kind of movies are supposed to have nowadays.
When I did "Batman" twenty years ago, in 1988 or something, it was a different time in comic book movies.
You couldn't go into that dark side of comics yet.
The last couple of years that has become acceptable and Nolan certainly got more to the root of what the "Batman" comics are about."