Eric D. Snider
Batman Begins
Movie Review
"Batman Begins"
Review by Eric D. Snider
Grade: B+
Rating: PG-13
Released: Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Directed by:
Cast:
"Batman Begins" is the fifth modern live-action movie to be made about the Caped Crusader, but it's the first one to show why a criminal would fear him. Played with ferocious intensity by Christian Bale, Batman in this film growls, roars and threatens when he converses with evil-doers, his mouth -- the only part of his face visible under his dark, angular cowl -- twisted in fury. That his alter ego, billionaire Bruce Wayne, is relatively mild-mannered reminds the audience that Batman probably isn't going to kill anyone. But the bad guys don't know that.
Superman is a Boy Scout, Spider-Man is a confused teenager, the X-Men are misunderstood mutants. But Batman is only a man. He doesn't fight crime because he received super powers and an admonition to use them for good. He does it because he's pissed off. This is not, one suspects, someone to mess with.
That is the Batman of "Batman Begins," anyway; I've never read the comic book, so I can't say how faithful it is to the original. Regardless, it's a fantastic Batman, motivated by the dark emotions of guilt, anger and fear, and the movie provides as much fascinating character study as it does rip-roaring adventure and comic-book excitement. This version, directed by Christopher Nolan ("Memento") and written by Nolan and David S. Goyer (of the "Blade" movies, "Dark City," and several other dimly lit adventures), is as dark and stylish as Tim Burton's 1989 work, but more soulful, not to mention more thrilling.
It's more functional, too. All prior attempts to tell the story of Batman have glossed over the details: How did he become such a powerful fighter and skilled acrobat? Where did his costume and gadgets come from? Why make himself a symbol, and why a bat? "Batman Begins" takes nothing for granted, showing the full Batman story from the beginning and filling in all the blanks. (The Batcave, it turns out, was once an actual bat cave!)
Though set mostly in the present, with Bruce Wayne enlisting his manservant Alfred (Michael Caine) to help him become the Dark Knight, it is rich with flashbacks. Bruce has seen himself become overwhelmed with rage over his parents' murder, and the subsequent light treatment of the murderer. He has seen his beloved Gotham -- which his philanthropist father helped make great -- become rotten with corruption, crime and financial depression. He has left society to wander the far corners of the world, consorting with criminals and learning their mindset, ultimately being recruited by a mysterious stranger (Liam Neeson) to join the League of Shadows, an idealistic group of interdisciplinary fighters who want to redeem Gotham by "purifying" it -- which means killing everyone in it, obviously.
Bruce doesn't cotton to that particular plan, but he does return to Gotham to serve as a one-man justice league. The city is currently in the grip of crime lord Falcone (Tom Wilkinson), who has most of the police force, judges and district attorneys in his pocket and who revels openly in his ownership of Gotham. Batman has two incorruptible allies, though: his lifelong friend Rachel (Katie Holmes), now in the district attorney's office; and Lt. Gordon (Gary Oldman), a cop with a conscience.
Somehow tied to Falcone is Dr. Crane (Cillian Murphy), a psychiatrist who runs the Arkham Asylum and has some nefarious plans of his own. They involve a scarecrow mask and a hallucinogen, and you don't want to be present when he employs them, that's all I'm sayin'.
There is, I note with just a tinge of regret, very little night-to-night crime-fighting, the foiling of garden-variety muggers and bank robbers, that sort of thing. Batman's focus is much more narrow: He wants to bring down Falcone and his network of criminals. In that respect, he is less a superhero than an ad-hoc demolition crew. Once Gotham is back on the right path, maybe he'll retire.
The film occasionally feels like it has become so intent on darkness that it has forgotten to have fun. The Joker and Riddler are not present; the villains we have are of the more serious variety. But on the plus side, the film has a horrific and apocalyptic finale in which all of the villains' plans come to fruition and Gotham becomes the scene of large-scale terror and panic, the likes of which we have never seen in a comic-book adaptation. That Batman saves the day goes without saying, but the scenes that precede his victory are riveting.
Bale gets the role just right, portraying a man struggling to find balance between fighting injustice and being a normal human being. He broods but he doesn't mope -- he seethes, rather, and fights with himself over how to save Gotham, aided by Alfred, who dispenses wry Cockney sensibility as only Michael Caine can do.
Speaking of actors who are always likable, Morgan Freeman has a nice turn as Lucius Fox, a Wayne Enterprises product developer who designs nifty weapons and toys in his secluded basement laboratory. This role is nothing more than the Q to Bruce Wayne's 007, of course, but darned if the Oscar-winner doesn't make him an appealing, noteworthy figure anyway, lighting up the screen every time he's on it.
Cillian Murphy, Liam Neeson, Tom Wilkinson -- all are fine in their supporting roles as shadowy figures and outright villains. Only one of them gets a proper send-off, though; the other two just sort of wander out of the movie, presumably to return in sequels but nonetheless lacking a resolution for THIS story.
And Katie Holmes: Meh. I'm afraid I'm not as good at pretending to like her as Tom Cruise is. In fact, she's such a non-entity in this film, so bland and useless and clearly out of her depth, that if it weren't for her recent tabloid fame, I wouldn't have even bothered mentioning her.
Nonetheless, this is a movie I can get behind, a scary, exhilarating flurry of conflicting ideals, dark heroes, darker villains and good old-fashioned bang-up action. And Robin is nowhere to be found.
Grade: B+
Rated PG-13, plenty of action violence; nothing graphic or even particularly bloody
2 hrs., 20 min.
Copyright © Eric D. Snider.
This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.
This item has 4 comments
December 31, 2006 at 3:05 pm
Actually Eric, "Batman Begins" is the sixth modern movie to be made about the Dark Knight, at least as far as feature-length films released in theaters go. You mustn't forget "Batman: Mask of the Phantasm," the animated movie (and, in my opinion, still the best). It was released in December 1993, after "Batman Returns" but before "Batman Forever."
It was originally intended as a direct-to-video movie, but the WB made a last-minute decision to rush it to theaters and try to ride off the success of the Tim Burton films, even though it wasn't related to those movies. Most critics ignored it, and the WB did little to promote it, so it didn't last in theaters long, but fans of the animated series loved it and those who did review it gave it generally positive reviews. Siskel and Ebert eventually gave it two thumbs up. I don't think any of the Tim Burton/Joel Schumacher films ever received two thumbs up, though I could be wrong there.
Anyways, you might check it out during your January break, Eric.
And your review of "Batman Begins" here is right on. Everything about that movie was perfect except the inclusion of Holmes's character. The use of Rha's al Ghul for the film's villain was a good choice; the film even hints at his immortality (he's a sort of immortal in the comics) but doesn't outright say it or deny it, which kept it believable for non-comic fans but was still nice for us comic book nerds. The movie also followed the more modern comic book themes about Batman: that the Batman is who the man really is, while the Bruce Wayne persona is the "costume."
Oh, and Michael Caine: best Alfred EVER.
July 19, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Actually he said 5th "live action" batman movie. Mask of the Phantasm in animated. Eric was made no mistake. That is all.
February 21, 2008 at 7:16 am
Sometimes I feel like I must have missed something that other fans saw when they say this is the "greatest" Batman film ever.
This movie is so flawed. Where do I BEGIN?
1. The monotonus dialogue.
THOMAS WAYNE: DON'T BE AFRAID BRUCE.
RA'S AL GHUL: DON'T BE AFRAID BRUCE.
RACHEL: IT'S NOT WHO YOU ARE (BLAH, BLAH, BLAH)
BATMAN: IT'S NOT WHO I AM (BLAH, BLAH, BLAH)
THOMAS WAYNE: WHY DO WE FALL BRUCE...
ALFRED: WHY DO WE FALL SIR...
HOMELESS GUY: NICE COAT
BATMAN: NICE COAT
RICHARD EARLE: DIDN'T YOU GET THE MEMO?
LUCIUS FOX: DIDN'T YOU GET THE MEMO?
This actually borders on comedy (ex. THE PRINCESS BRIDE where INIGO MONTOYA continuously says to COUNT RUGEN "Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die.)" Or to a lesser extent FAMILY GUY, where they take some same line and repeat it "over & over".
Another thing, this has got to be the laziest BATMAN ever. All he does is p*#s & moan about how his parents are dead, despite the fact that the rest of the city loves him. Stop whining and do something. Yes, it is a big part of who BATMAN is, but BATMAN is a character who is very complex, he's a DETECTIVE, a CHEMIST, a COMPUTER WHIZ and an ESCAPE ARTIST. This also goes to substantiate the claim that when he does break out all that KUNG-FU, we don't even see it. I've seen better fight scenes in a STEVEN SEGAL movie.
Ironically, he doesn't have to do anything. Everything he needs to be a hero, like everything else, is just handed to him. It's hard to empathize with a hero who isn't flawed. For example: When SUPERMAN is CLARK KENT, he goes to great lengths to convince people otherwise. He has to resist the urge to use his powers. This BRUCE WAYNE isn't even subtle about revealing he's BATMAN "Need to learn how to be a ninja? Join my camp." "Need a bulletproof suit even though nobody ever shoots you and special cape? Visit the basement, the one stop shop for all your superhero needs." "Need somebody to develop an antidote for Fear Gas? Not a problem."
Oh, for all you "comic purist" out there LUCIUS FOX is a financer, not an inventor, BRUCE WAYNE builds all his stuff, and does "Not" I repeat "Not" know Bruce is BATMAN.
I won't go into how terrible KATIE HOLMES was, or how I thought that for a film that tries to be better than BATMAN & ROBIN, takes a lot of it's scenarios from it. Then I'd be p*^sing & moaning.
Another thing I noticed, Why is Katie Holmes driving a car in the beginning of the movie, but has to take the subway later? So Batman can save her?
Speaking of CARS, what was up with the BATtank, I'm sorry BATmobile. Aside from the ridiculous jokes and the crushing cop cars to save the worst character in the movie something else stuck in my craw. When Bruce goes to the hotel and the valet says "Nice Car" and Bruce says "You should see my other one." This is before we even see The Batmobile (Yes, we see the "Tumbler", but it hasn't quite gone through it's Batmobile transformation yet.) This is just bad, especially for an a story that is supposed to telling us Batman's ORIGIN, it implies that we know nothing about BATMAN, but should know everything about the BATMOBILE? I'm a litttle confused.
This BATMAN reminded of a cross between JAMES BOND and AZRAEL, the man who became BATMAN in the comics when BANE broke BRUCE'S back. He seems to think it's all about being scary, the gadgets and the fighting. After my recent arguement, I'm seeing that more and more.
What bothers me, is that for some reason I keep watching this movie even though I cringe at the sight or mention of it. Maybe I feel like I missed something that the other fans didn't that they thought this film was so good.
I live to see the day when TIM BURTON, MICHAEL KEATON and CHRIS O'DONNELL team up to being us a the BATMAN movie we deserve. Why can't it be more like the 1st 2 Batflicks and THE ANIMATED SERIES from the 90's? That was BATMAN baby.
June 16, 2008 at 10:43 pm
#2 -- I think Eric added "live-action" to the sentence in the review after seeing my comment, and it wasn't like I was calling him out on some huge blunder anyways. This is a good example of why you should send corrections in to Eric directly and not post them in the comments, but back then I didn't know that.