Batman Begins

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%. (03/08/2010)

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... (07/20/2005)

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. :) (01/08/2010)

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. (05/04/2022)

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. (07/21/2005)