A guy who dresses up like a bat clearly has issues.
As the title hints, Batman Begins is not a sequel to the three (the latest previous attempt doesn't count) recent installments featuring the Caped Crusader, but rather a new dawn that unabashedly ignores any established precedents. The end result is as intended, breathing brilliant new life into a series that had unfortunately become a laughingstock.
The script's blueprint invigorates the film. Because of the audience's general familiarity with the title character, Batman Begins is able to concentrate on his origin and motivations rather than the crimefighting itself. Like Superman, the best superhero movie ever, the film spends a significant portion of its running length on the how and why instead of the what. We observe the fears and struggles that Bruce Wayne faces, which simultaneously humanize him and heighten his mythic status.
This course of action is primarily executed over the first ninety minutes, during which a depth beyond the typical perfunctory introduction of motives is established. Batman's fearsome aura, the source of his power in both the fictional world of Gotham and the real world of moviegoers, is detailed, resulting in a humor-tinged movie more fascinating psychological thriller than standard adventure flick, although the action scenes still shine, one Batmobile-charged chase in particular. Eventually of course the inevitable protagonist-antagonist showdown evolves, and then the movie deteriorates slightly, but by that point Batman Begins has reached such heights that neither the slight come-down nor occasional cinematic conveniences and niceties (why the kid?) derail the picture.
Aiding in the climb to excellence is the best supporting cast of any Batman film, filled with respected and recognizable faces who nail roles as they suitably show more restraint than many in the prior versions. Cillian Murphy is extra creepy as the the shady psychologist Dr. Crane; Liam Neeson authoritative as Ducard, Bruce Wayne's mentor; Gary Oldman, even though you half-expect him to go psycho at any moment, evokes an excellent world-weariness as Detective Gordon; Michael Caine adds strength to the butler Alfred; and Morgan Freeman as Batman's pseudo-Q is...well, has Freeman ever been anything less than superb? Other talented actors like Tom Wilkinson (crime boss Carmine Falcone), Ken Watanabe (the enigmatic Ra's Al Ghul), and Rutger Hauer (the business head of Wayne Enterprises) round out the predominantly male cast interestingly loaded with Brits. As the mandatory female love interest, Mrs. Tom Cruise...er...Katie Holmes, is fully adequate and attractive, although her part could have been played by numerous actresses.
All that talent matters little if the man behind the cape and cowl falters. But Christian Bale never wavers in either portion of his role. I'll say it...Bale is better than Keaton, Kilmer, or Clooney, combining the best of the two former actors. As Bruce Wayne, he surpasses Keaton's charming playfulness and Kilmer's suave businessman with a twinkle befitting the younger man. As Batman, Bale possesses a masked intensity that blows away all of them, embodying the tortured soul through menacing facial expressions and a daunting physical presence that none of his predecessors maintained consistently.
Beyond an ominpresent score (from Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard) that is unrelenting but still mostly unobtrusive, a solid script and high production value lay the foundation from which the aforementioned excellent work is built. With the feel of a ridiculously polished (as it should be for $135 million) independent film, the Chicago-based Gotham City is edgier and darker than Batman Forever, but grittier than Tim Burton's noir-ish films. Those were bleak by design, while Batman Begins seems to draw its bleakness from beyond mere physicality, from a hope-starved story that matches its dismal yet chimerical backdrop. Instead of the fact-based world of Spider-man and his New York City, Batman and his Gotham sport a fantasy-laced makeover that better allows for distinctions between good and evil. While moral murkiness fits some films (Mystic River), superhero flicks work best with clear-cut distinctions. By creating a city with a sense of elevated reality, director Christopher Nolan and company imbue Batman Begins with a stronger soul that thrives on the film's dominant theme of fear, compounding the movie's allure.
All aspects collectively tap into the mysterious and powerful Batman mythos better than any other movie in the franchise. We now know not just who and what Batman is, but how and why he exists.
Bottom Line: Thus Batman Begins is the best on-screen incarnation of the Dark Knight yet. A high 8 of 10 for what may be the second best superhero film ever.
The script's blueprint invigorates the film. Because of the audience's general familiarity with the title character, Batman Begins is able to concentrate on his origin and motivations rather than the crimefighting itself. Like Superman, the best superhero movie ever, the film spends a significant portion of its running length on the how and why instead of the what. We observe the fears and struggles that Bruce Wayne faces, which simultaneously humanize him and heighten his mythic status.
This course of action is primarily executed over the first ninety minutes, during which a depth beyond the typical perfunctory introduction of motives is established. Batman's fearsome aura, the source of his power in both the fictional world of Gotham and the real world of moviegoers, is detailed, resulting in a humor-tinged movie more fascinating psychological thriller than standard adventure flick, although the action scenes still shine, one Batmobile-charged chase in particular. Eventually of course the inevitable protagonist-antagonist showdown evolves, and then the movie deteriorates slightly, but by that point Batman Begins has reached such heights that neither the slight come-down nor occasional cinematic conveniences and niceties (why the kid?) derail the picture.
Aiding in the climb to excellence is the best supporting cast of any Batman film, filled with respected and recognizable faces who nail roles as they suitably show more restraint than many in the prior versions. Cillian Murphy is extra creepy as the the shady psychologist Dr. Crane; Liam Neeson authoritative as Ducard, Bruce Wayne's mentor; Gary Oldman, even though you half-expect him to go psycho at any moment, evokes an excellent world-weariness as Detective Gordon; Michael Caine adds strength to the butler Alfred; and Morgan Freeman as Batman's pseudo-Q is...well, has Freeman ever been anything less than superb? Other talented actors like Tom Wilkinson (crime boss Carmine Falcone), Ken Watanabe (the enigmatic Ra's Al Ghul), and Rutger Hauer (the business head of Wayne Enterprises) round out the predominantly male cast interestingly loaded with Brits. As the mandatory female love interest, Mrs. Tom Cruise...er...Katie Holmes, is fully adequate and attractive, although her part could have been played by numerous actresses.
All that talent matters little if the man behind the cape and cowl falters. But Christian Bale never wavers in either portion of his role. I'll say it...Bale is better than Keaton, Kilmer, or Clooney, combining the best of the two former actors. As Bruce Wayne, he surpasses Keaton's charming playfulness and Kilmer's suave businessman with a twinkle befitting the younger man. As Batman, Bale possesses a masked intensity that blows away all of them, embodying the tortured soul through menacing facial expressions and a daunting physical presence that none of his predecessors maintained consistently.
Beyond an ominpresent score (from Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard) that is unrelenting but still mostly unobtrusive, a solid script and high production value lay the foundation from which the aforementioned excellent work is built. With the feel of a ridiculously polished (as it should be for $135 million) independent film, the Chicago-based Gotham City is edgier and darker than Batman Forever, but grittier than Tim Burton's noir-ish films. Those were bleak by design, while Batman Begins seems to draw its bleakness from beyond mere physicality, from a hope-starved story that matches its dismal yet chimerical backdrop. Instead of the fact-based world of Spider-man and his New York City, Batman and his Gotham sport a fantasy-laced makeover that better allows for distinctions between good and evil. While moral murkiness fits some films (Mystic River), superhero flicks work best with clear-cut distinctions. By creating a city with a sense of elevated reality, director Christopher Nolan and company imbue Batman Begins with a stronger soul that thrives on the film's dominant theme of fear, compounding the movie's allure.
All aspects collectively tap into the mysterious and powerful Batman mythos better than any other movie in the franchise. We now know not just who and what Batman is, but how and why he exists.
Bottom Line: Thus Batman Begins is the best on-screen incarnation of the Dark Knight yet. A high 8 of 10 for what may be the second best superhero film ever.


3 Comments:
Okay, some comments:
Why the kid? My (and others) guess is that maybe (just maybe) he'll be Robin? Granted they go that direction.
Cillian Murphy? Yeah...he'll be back. Notice how it wasn't until the end of the movie that we get him to actually admit to being Scarecrow "Crane?" "No! Scarecrow! Scarecrow!" Yeah, and if he does come back, he'll beat out Jack Nicholson playing himself for best bat-villain.
Katie Holmes? Apparently WB thought any actress could play the part too. They're booting her out for the sequel for AND I QUOTE "a much stronger actress." Ouch. Seriously though, I'd settle for someone who talked out of the front of their mouth.
Did you notice how the nipples were removed from the batsuit, but still managed to show up somewhere else?
My favorite thing about the film? The batsuit. The way it seemed to swallow light. It reminded me of the monolith from 2001: ASO. The money for the 2 assistants to keep the suit smudge free was very well spent.
And amazingly again, we agree on ratings. Just at work the other day I was telling Crandall how I really wanted to give it a nine, but the too-close action scenes and the one questionable plot hole (umm...so if it's a microwave emitter that turns wated into vapor...what happens to the 70% of me that just so happens to be water?) kept me from doing it. Thus I gave it an 8.5. Probably the first time I've ever gone to halves in order to give a movie justice. Haha...justice or vengeance?! ; )
As usual, great writing. Consider this response my blog. : )
-Ben
I agree Paul - great insight, and superb usage of vocabulary, as always. I have no idea what "noir-like" really means, but I do know that there was a captivating Japanime series called Noir that my roommate got addicted ot for a while in college - so I just pretended the two were linked.
I totally agree with your evaluation of the portrayal of the actual city of Gotham - it seemed so much more real and meaty than in the other movies. Craig watched most of Batman Forever tonight, and I peeked in (a lot). Carrey and Jones were hilarious - but the movie was so lights and glamor and fake - I didn't appreciate it for anything more than a couple good laughs. This one....this one did much more.
From dictionary.com...
noir (nwar): A genre of crime literature featuring tough, cynical characters and bleak settings.
Usually used to refer to old-school stuff like The Maltese Falcon.
I really liked Batman Forever, but you're right: it's a totally different world, much more vibrant and cartoonish, and not nearly as deep.
Post a Comment
<< Home