Pros: Realism-anchored stylistic approach, Captivating story matter, Superb leading man fronting Star cast, ‘Dark mood'.
Cons: Too much story, Silly dialogue at times, Needlessly long running time.
The Bottom Line: A bold effort to revamp the cinematic Batman franchise the previous two movies run to the ground. It mostly succeeds on the strength of a stylistic re-birth.
After director Joel Schumacher run the cinematic Batman franchise to the ground with his two silly movies “Batman forever” and ‘Batman and Robin” Warner Bros execs were in for some serious thinking. The wait lasted 8 years: “Batman begins”, the latest Caped Crusader’s episode, hit Theater screens on June 15.
Time to rejoice – or is it?
One thing’s for sure: “Batman begins” has very little in common with its predecessors - it breaks new ground and breaks away in numerous important ways. Chief among them – and highly influential on the rest – is Warner Bros’ assignment of Director-writer Christopher Nolan to the task. Being a Brit, Nolan (creator of “Memento”) treats Batman without any preconceived notions of what a comic hero - an American institution - ought to be. The result is immediately obvious – and highly pleasing: “Batman begins” brings to the movie franchise a much welcome dose of realism. Whereas previous Batman installments fell prey to cartoonish villains (really now, who’s afraid of clowns?), this one is highly viewable with a measure of identifiable crooks.
And more. Identifiable heroes too. Batman may be a symbol (and in fact strives to become a symbol as per the good advice of his otherwise compromised Zen-Master, played by bearded Liam Neeson) but to the viewer he is exposed as a man. Which is as it should be, because it takes a man’s emotions to drive super-rich Bruce Wayne to turn super-crusader. As we watch in meticulous detail how Batman begun, why, where and from whom he acquired his combat skills and cool stuff, we become acutely aware of another difference to previous releases: the creators did not take the story lightly. The decision to go with a prequel was a conscious choice.
The lead actor’s choice marks another departure from past practices: Christian Bale is Welsh – and superbly cast. Never has the “Dark Knight” been darker. Unsmiling Bale (last seen in “The Machinist”) possesses a brooding stare and a sculpted lower face that exhume intensity and expose previous Batman poseurs for what they are. Coldly charming as Bruce Wayne one moment, steely as Bat-suited avenger the next, he portrays splendidly the tortured soul who as a boy sees his parents gunned down in front of him by a mugger.
By whom? Here Nolan and co-writer David Goyer (author of the “Blade” trilogy) totally dismiss the past. In the first Batman film young Bruce’s parents were shot down by the later-to-become-notorious villain Joker. Purists foamed at the mouth at this artistic leave, but the cinematic fact remained: Joker did it. Never mind that; Nolan & Goyer simply don’t care. So far as they’re concerned, a small-time mugger did it. End of story.
And beginning of another. Wayne, haunted by guilt over his perceived responsibility over his parents’ death and consumed by anger over his inability to avenge it, drops out of his Ivy league University and embarks on a quest to nowhere. He ends up in a Tibetan (close as I can tell) prison where -somehow- inmates and guards speak English. This makes one smile, a rarity in an essentially humourless film. A few more smiles are close by as Wayne is released by the intervention of the “League of Shadows”, an ancient Organisation devoted to destroying corruption. That’s right, destroying. You think Nero set fire to Rome? It was the League, punishing the Roman capital for its decadence. Mehmed the 2nd sacked Constantinople? Wrong again, the League did it. Wayne doesn’t know it yet, but the League got him out to turn him into a weapon to destroy Gotham, which has become way-way corrupt.
A scene of Wayne’s training features some of the best photography of the movie as we see Neeson and Bale crossing swords on an iced-over lake. The takes are simply majestic. They are also blue. Well, bluish. I don’t know how Nolan does it, but even when colours abound the movie seems to be blue and black. It adds nicely to the ‘dark’ feeling. As they spar they exchange quips, comic-style. This exhibits one of the movie’s weaknesses: comic-book dialogue. It is one thing to read fortune-cookie wisdom, quite another to hear it. “To conquer fear you must become fear” and similar mumbo-jumbo doesn’t cut it in audio.
Possibly that’s why my teenage son was growing visibly restless by now. Thankfully the part where Wayne climbs back down the mountain is near. And the movie really takes off, as does Wayne’s metamorphosis into Batman. In this he will be helped by his devoted butler (Sir Michael Caine) and the master inventor of Wayne Enterprises (Morgan Freeman).
Such choices flaunt another break with the past: while Schumacher had relied on the likes of Jim Carrey, Umma Thurman and Schwarzenegger to support his hero, Nolan has framed Bale with a master acting class. To Caine, Neeson and Freeman are added Tom Wilkinson as Gotham crime boss and Gary Oldman as Sgt. Gordon. They all turn in exceptional performances and aid in not letting the movie degenerate into another comic-book-excess flop. In fact, I was apprehensive as to how I would perceive Wilkinson after his role-defining part in the hilarious “The full Monty”. I needn’t worry: he practically oozes wickedness without a trace of excess, cartoonish or otherwise. That’s what great actors do, act without seeming to act. So does lesser-known Cillian Murphy; playing a sold-out shrink whose alter ego is the Scarecrow-masked crook, he redefines ‘diabolical’. Katie Holmes, Wayne’s childhood sweetheart and now Gotham’s Assistant D.A. also makes the most of her screen time.
After cast, set is the area where “Batman begins” owes no allegiance to past efforts. Sure, Gotham appears decidedly gothic – but is not the weird comic-book-rendition of Bob Cane’s pen. This Batman’s city feels, uh, real. As does his car; the latest incarnation of the Batmobile is a very believable hulking Humvee loaded with high-tech systems. It gives rise to a rare funny moment as Batman, wanting Gordon to drive it uptown as he sets off after the villain Ra's Al Ghul in a train, asks him: ”Do you drive stick”? (predictably, Gordon has some trouble getting the Batmobile going in the right direction). Batman’s vehicle is the centrepiece in some great chase scenes including one that takes place… on rooftops! But it, too, feels real. I don’t know how much digital wizardry Nolan employed, but somehow Computer Generated Imagery isn’t evident. This picture seems to rely for impression on traditional movie fare, story and characters, not computer graphics.
So; new Director: non-American. New approach: realism. New story: the Joker didn’t do it. New casting strategy: star wattage. Do they add up to a successful picture? The flick has its failings, to be sure. The fight scenes are filmed so closely and edited so MTV-like they are heard rather than seen; silly one–liners pass as acumen; protracted pre-Batman gestation and drawn-out Batman action drag running time to well past two hours; and there’s way too much plot.
But none of these criticisms can blur the fact that, “Batman begins”, restarts the franchise quite successfully. If you’re thirteen and over, check it out for yourself.
Batman Begins explores the origins of the Batman legend and the Dark Knight s emergence as a force for good in Gotham. In the wake of his parents murd...More at Buy.com Marketplaces
Epinions.com periodically updates pricing and product information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it.
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.