Batman Begins

No gothic buildings, spinning shots of newspaper headlines, jokes, positive emotions, digital eye-candy effects or a catchy soundtrack. Batman Begins is no fairy-tale fantasy. It’s Insomnia with Batman – a bleak drama about a real person set against the backdrop of the real world. What makes the film unique is the gravitas of the lead and supporting characters and their incorporation into the dramatically dense, emotionally engaging and intelligently told story. Everything in the film is physically palpable, the psychology of the characters is well developed, and the characterization of Bruce Wayne is literally a dissection of the development of his personality, a clarification of the reasons for which he became who he is. As a true character actor, Christian Bale redefines the cult of his character’s name. His Batman is not an exemplary hero. Rather, he is extraordinarily angry and enjoys the superficial vices that his wealth affords him. The bombastic cast is not without purpose and elevates the film to the level of a spectacular celebration of the comic-book genre. The action is great, though not quite as great as in Spider-Man. But does that really matter? It’s pains me not to give it five stars, but as an eternal idealist, I would have liked more plot innovation in the second half, which is rather guided by comic-book rules. The first half, however, is worthy of six stars. (24/06/2005)

Batman Begins is a terribly clever piece of work. For movie lovers, or people who are more into film, it muddies the waters with awesome acting aces (Tom Wilkinson is a god, Michael Caine is a god, Cillian Murphy is a god, Liam Neeson is a god, Gary Oldman is less of a god here than usual, and Rutger Hauer's godliness didn't get a chance to shine through), topped off with some great cinematography, a terrific score, and Nolan's deft hand. I mean, I have my complaints about the direction, of course, because to shoot 150 million hand-to-hand battles in a comic book movie like in a Steven Seagal movie (meaning a short montage of close-ups) is kind of yuck. But still ok. The problem is that all of the positive factors listed above are just tinsel on top of a supremely idiotic script about a battle between (absolute) good and (absolute) evil. Really all the positive characters here are dehumanized by perfection, and the negative ones (except one) have no other side whatsoever. It's not fair, and it blows the proclaimed darkness completely out of the water. That's like writing that LoTR is a noir film. It's classic American blockbuster hypocrisy, meaning there’s no lack of monorails falling on a town of people whose lives no one cares all while Batman’s coming up on police cars even though he has plenty of space next to him to see if they’ll move. And move they shall, but Batman Begins can’t dodge a mediocre rating from me. Sorry. (22/07/2005)

Visual wizard Burton created a legend, master of the film narrative Christopher Nolan found motivation for it. That's how simple the prequel to Batman, the comic book legend that took deep roots on the film screen, works. Strange fools tried to build on the first two classic films, but the result is the fact that Nolan saves the extinguishing legend, and it must be said that he saves the faith in a big way. His sober, realistic, dark and psychological ride impacts the viewer especially in the first half of the director's well-known aces: superbly sorted narration, suggestiveness, carefully sculpted acting performances (e.g., the episodic scene in the opera is a masterpiece!). The second, much more action-packed half, in which the symbol is already created and it is time for battle, is not as dazzling, because where Burton pulled out heavy visual calibers, Nolan is a little clumsy after all (especially the action scenes suffer from too much confusion). But: Batman comes out victorious in the closing stages and his director with him. Simply because, beneath the mainstream of the remediated comic cliché of the struggle of good against evil, there is a well-regulated underflow that has depth. It's the psychology of a hero, an anatomy of fear and evil that wants to do dubious good. The tool of the lower stream is both the magnificent rhythmization of the shots and the gradation of inconspicuous tension, as well as the excellent acting performance. Christian Bale is truly the best man in the black mask, Michael Caine is truly irresistible with his dry cynicism, Liam Neeson is "just" persuasive and Gary Oldman is unrecognizable... The very awkward Katie Holmes is unfortunate, but she gets lost in the mix. I wouldn't open the question of whether Nolan had surpassed Burton at all. His Batman is different. It has a completely unique atmosphere and a completely unique style. He prefers to look in the face over wild gunfights. That's a good thing, but after all, it brings a certain and understandable inner contradiction to the film, the bearer of which is the somewhat torn direction. Among comic books, however, Batman confirms the position of a true nobleman, and Nolan confirms that "ex-independents" manage to do the impossible – to film intelligent and non-prefabricated spectacles for Hollywood. ___ after the second viewing, I am clearly itching to give it full stars. All of my objections apply, but not that much, and the film improves upon a second viewing... (21/07/2005)

Christopher Nolan created a trilogy that redefined all established norms of superhero films at the time. Personally, I hold Batman in the highest regard among comic book characters; his origin story is incredibly fascinating to me. That’s why I was thrilled that someone took on this intriguing project and made the most of the opportunity. The first film introduces us to the beginnings of this eccentric billionaire, explaining why he decided to become a masked guardian of Gotham with the goal of making life difficult for criminals. It also reveals that his early days of monitoring all the nefarious activities were far from simple and were fraught with challenges; it took him quite some time to master everything. Nolan prides himself on his unique approach to the material, striving to minimize the inclusion of grandiose action full of explosions and CGI mess, which suits me immensely. On the other hand, the film emphasizes every dialogue (especially Alfred and Bruce, showcasing perfectionism in every aspect), with a script polished to the last detail, allowing you to fully enjoy the conversations of all the characters. I wouldn’t replace Christian Bale with anyone; no one has portrayed such a human Batman before, and I assert that this portrayal suits him best. I also appreciate the inclusion of various villains (Scarecrow, Ra's al Ghul) and, of course, the now-legendary Jim Gordon played by Gary Oldman. The ending set the stage for the second film, and we all know how Heath Ledger claimed the sequel for himself. I give the first film 90%. (12/09/2019)

Eight years after the ultimate flop, Batman & Robin, comes an episode that rivals the early Burton films. Great atmosphere, cinematography and visual effects. I'm not a big fan of Christian Bale, but he's lost next to Gary Oldman and Michael Caine. You can see that the hiatus has been beneficial and the bar has been set pretty high again. (27/02/2010)