Batman Begins

Nolan's trilogy logically begins with Batman’s origin, which had been neglected to such an extent up until then. Today the situation is a bit different, but it was not a bad move then. Batman needed a revival and audiences needed to forget the last film of the last series, Batman & Robin. Nolan relied on good actors and a realistic style within reason. This was yet another contribution to the great family of DC films and helped bridge a decade when the style of the genre was changing fundamentally. (04/05/2022)

This is how it should have been. Finally, someone was found who rectified Burton's embarrassing blunders (not to mention Schumacher's botched "closure" of the series). This is the true Batman, the dark knight beneath the mask, with a cape hanging on his back and an uncontrollable resentment in his heart. Few could have been a better Bruce Wayne than Christian Bale. The hero of Equilibrium managed to improve his acting expression even further, and whenever he hesitated or became furious, a shiver ran down my spine. But the main hero here is Christopher Nolan and the team of screenwriters who managed to create precisely the atmosphere that the first episode of a comic book series should have. An exhilarating 90% and a final wink with the promise of the unexpected... (10/07/2005)

Overall, this was rather disappointing, especially considering the adoration from a significant portion of the film fans. It is primarily a very divided film, which on one hand wants to approach the theme and its hero unconventionally, but on the other hand, is burdened with genre clichés. I think the only person who has truly grasped Batman in such a polarizing theme is Tim Burton. His Batman films are stylish, properly exaggerated in a comic-book way, and above all, they don't take themselves too seriously. Nolan wants to be realistic, but at the same time his flesh-and-blood hero faces a monstrous conspiracy by an organization that destroyed ancient Rome, burned London, and for some reason feels that it will save the world by destroying a modern metropolis with all its inhabitants. This simply cannot work. Nolan's film take itself too seriously, so even though his directing skills are excellent, and he utilizes several top actors and has an adequate budget, the result is only average. Moreover, compared to The Dark Knight, this film is worse for several reasons. The Joker is a much more interesting villain than Batman's antagonist in the first installment, and Katie Holmes as an actress is hardly half as good as Maggie Gyllenhaal, lacking not only acting talent but also personal charisma. Above all, The Dark Knight works much better in its construction and logic of the characters in this fictional world. For example, a powerful underworld boss brilliantly played by Tom Wilkinson, who controls the entire city and easily buys its political and financial elites, would hardly be guarding a drug exchange with a shotgun in hand. Such logical gaps occur abundantly in Batman Begins. Although Liam Neeson is a quality A-list actor, he fails as the main villain in the cult comic book series, while Cillian Murphy is disproportionately better and represents what I would expect from a monstrous villain in a comic book film. Overall impression: 60%. (08/03/2010)

The raw atmosphere of Gotham is portrayed perfectly and better than ever in Nolan's first Batman film. Thank goodness it was Christopher Nolan who took on the new Bat-saga, and he really did it in his own excellent way, showing us that Batman can be taken seriously and his fate and mission can be identified with. Though Batman Begins is mass-market entertainment, as it should be, it doesn't lack rather well-developed characters (in the old Batman you would have a hard time looking for some more complex psychological connections), the overall atmosphere is more than decent, and in the end really a bit apocalyptic :)), which is only to the benefit of the whole thing. I was a skeptic at the time, thinking that Chris Nolan couldn't top his first Batman. Everyone probably knows all too well how horribly wrong I was. P.S.: The cast is fanatically fantastic. :) (08/01/2010)

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. (21/07/2005)