Batman Begins (2005)

Batman Begins (2005)
Written by David S. Goyer and Christopher Nolan
Directed by Christopher Nolan

So it's come back to this. Finnegan...erm, Bruce Wayne, begin again. As many people might know, there is no love lost between the film Batman Begins and I. It doesn't need me to be a main proponent of its success, and I don't need it to be the definitive Batman film. For me, that is, and probably always will be, Tim Burton's original Batman. Let me explain.

Burton's Batman hits the nail on the head in every direction as far as I'm concerned. It tells a basic, simplified version of the beginning of Batman, who he is, why he fights crime, and why the character is beloved by so many. He is a masked vigilante that fights crime because it's the right thing to do. Sure, Bruce Wayne's personal politics are what drive him, but what keeps him going as Batman every day is his need to see righteousness and justice win. Always. So where the police and the politicians fail or turn their heads, Batman is there to remind them that no bad deed goes unpunished in the night. Because Batman is the night. Sure, Michael Keaton is a terrible Bruce Wayne, he's a nerdy looking jew-froed whiner, unlike his comic counterpart, but in the film that angle is played up to the hilt so that when he becomes Batman, it is a complete transformation. In the film medium, this works perfectly, it is telling the story through pure filmmaking.

In addition they portray Batman's ultimate nemesis, The Joker, in the perfect light. Sure, they changed The Joker's background to tighten the plot and heighten the emotional impact when Batman finally wins, because he is not only defeating the Joker, he is directly serving justice for his parent's death. Jack Nicholson is the perfect Joker, the mania and energy he puts forth into the character is the exact embodiment of what I imagine when I think of the Joker. The sets are cartoony, but this is not a bad thing, Batman takes place in a comic world, which is inherently cartoony by nature. The atmosphere and gloom of the film is perfect for the story being told. So there's my love for the first Batman film.

On that tip, I HATE Batman Returns. It is the antithesis of the first Batman, full of plot holes, shitty acting, unexplained plot twists, and a generally hokey response to what the first film built up. I have my own opinions on Batman Forever and Batman and Robin, but as far as I'm concerned, those are stand alone films, and have no bearing on my feelings for the Batman series. Along comes Christopher Nolan, with his vision of what Batman should be, seemingly just to fuck up my Christmas.

A few things I must address before getting to the movie itself: I like Christian Bale as an actor, a lot. I think he's terrific, he can become anyone, but that's not even the point here. Christian Bale looks like Bruce Wayne, and he's obviously physically fit
enough to fill out the cowl and cape perfectly. But does that automatically make him the best choice for Batman? Not in my opinion. Sure, we all buy into his public persona, we know he's loved by women and idolized by men, but this still speaks nothing of his qualification to play Batman. In my opinion at least. Second, I think it's just plain cheap to fill a big budget superhero action movie with big name stars just because you have the money and prestige to do so. I'll address this more later, but it's one of my biggest problems with the movie, that it became an ensemble piece with certain epic intentions, and when they don't live up to those intentions, it just bugs me even more that they wasted the time and the money to acquire all of these people for this film. Other nit-picks: The over-abundance of CGI when it's not needed will always bug me, and I will never be convinced a movie is good just because the advertising tells me it is so. With Batman Begins, I felt that this was force fed to a large portion of the movie-going audience (the same people that paid $1 billion to see a third Pirates of the Carribean film) who are far too stupid to make decisions for themselves. Of course, that's their detriment, but at the same time, in my eyes, it equals an amount of hype that is rather undeserved.
Now, with that out of the way, let's get to the movie itself, the plot, the acting, the direction, the special effects, the failed attempt to renew a franchise that didn't need renewal. It needed a bold film that is independent of the rest of the Batman universe. That is not what Batman Begins is. My main problem with this film is the first 40 minutes or so, where we are treated to a tired retread of the atman mythos. Sure, those sound like the words of a jaded comic fan, but consider: By the time the first Batman film was made, the world had already been treated to the reinvention of Batman in the comics. Anyone worth his salt in Bat-signals knows the reinvention of Batman, but in a first movie, that's not what we are looking for. So instead they decided to combine that first movie with some rehashed ideas that were old when the first film came out. I suppose my main problem with this first 40 minutes to an hour of the film is it is basically The Highlander, with Batman's backstory. Why? Well, there can be only one Batman of course, and that's what they're trying to prove with this film, trying to make you forget that an awesome filmed version of the Batman mythos already exists, and replacing it with a poorly rehashed version of a much lesser film. I'm of course referring to The Highlander.
In part, it's because the first hour is about Bruce Wayne leaving his charmed life behind, all for the memory of his parents. He goes off to become this mystical ninja warrior, which is true, Batman does have the skill and depth of a ninja, but in this case his training is too self serving to his own myth. He wants to learn about truth and justice, so he goes on a trip to learn mystical and martial arts? Huh? Instead, the opening act gets bogged down in Wayne's obsession with the separation from who he was raised as, to form this mysterious counter-ego, which ends up becoming Batman. This is all opinion, but in my mind, they wasted an hour showing us what we should already know at this point. And the kids that were first introduced to Batman through this movie? I'm sorry little ones. My generation apologizes on behalf of this movie and the live action Alvin and the Chipmunks movie.

Moving beyond that first hour which I so clearly hate, the general theme of the story is another point that really bugs me. The entire basis for Bruce Wayne becoming Batman is about fear and terror, and I feel the story of this film relies to heavily on these themes. Batman was never solely about fear and terror. Sure, he uses these themes as tools in his vigilantism, but fear and terror are not the reasons he fights. He fights for justice and vengeance, which is what makes him one of the edgiest superheroes out there. Batman is not afraid to kill to get the results he is looking for, but here, we are led to believe that Batman is trying to rid the world of fear and terror. Sure, when Bats wipes out the bad guys he is also removing a large portion of the rank and file fearmongers, but what Batman really fights is injustice. Fear is just one of the products of the people he fights. The thing I've always enjoyed about Batman, like I said before, is that he is not afraid to kill or break the rules to do what he feels is right. Violence is justified by the end result in Batman's mind, and one of the most interesting themes in the Batman universe is how he treads the line so finely between justice and revenge, how he is often wrong in the eyes of the police and the local government, but at the same time it is to do right by the people of Gotham City. He knows he must commit terrible acts in order to provide a safe place to live for the decent citizens of the city. So first Christopher Nolan wasted an hour of my time telling me what I already know to be true about Batman does not apply to this story, and he backs that sentiment up throughout the movie by changing the most central theme behind what drives Bruce Wayne, and what burdens Batman. Nice. What next, is he going to remake the Grinch and turn him into Santa Claus?

Now, on to the cast. It's far too star-studded for it's own good. As I said, I accept Bale as Bruce Wayne/Batman, but I would not go around agreeing that he was the best choice for the role. I can't say there is one actor in particular I would rather see as Batman, but at the same time I know for sure Christian Bale is not the actor that I would have chosen. Upon first viewing of this movie I really didn't like Gary Oldman as Gordon either, but after watching the film this time, this is actually the casting decision I like the most. I mean, I'm sure it helps that Oldman is one of the better actors of our time, but the first time around I don't think I liked him very much because he is so subdued. Watching it now though, that's exactly what makes him perfect. I also noticed that Oldman's Gordon took a lot of his characteristics from Gordon in the Bruce Timm animated series, which, in my book, is the one end-all-be-all version of all Batman lore. I like that Gordon is sensitive and the only good cop on the force, it sets his character up perfectly for a career-long association with Batman. Tom Wilkinson, however, was a terrible choice for Carmine Falcone. I just don't picture his British face as a ruthless gangster that could inspire so much fear in the underworld, he is too grandfatherly. Adversly, Rutger Hauer is wasted as the CEO of Wayne Enterprises, it's a throwaway role given to a very talented actor. Switch Wilkinson and Hauer, and there you go, magnificent casting. Morgan Freeman as Lucious Fox is just overkill, it's like Nolan is saying "Look, I can put an Oscar winner in every throwaway role in this movie!" just because he can. No one buys Freeman as Fox, they look at him and see Morgan Freeman helping Batman. The character is a bit overkill, people have long accepted that Batman has all of these gadgets, and even the fact that they were produced by Wayne Industries, so why did they have to go waste an extra 20 minutes and add an extra character, just to elaborate on a minor plot point? Again, it's filling the film with recognizable names just to be sure that even if someone doesn't like the bankable stars that are already in the film, well, here's a few more. I just plain don't like Katie Holmes, she is not good as the love lost for Bruce, by the time they meet again upon Bruce's return, I was already hoping she would die or he would forget about her. But, of course, he has to be there, there has to be some tie to the DA's office, so of course they can introduce Harvey Dent, and the character of Rachel Dawes can become a point of contention at some later point in the series. It's a cheap way to heighten drama and make the plot fit more snugly than it already does. The problem is, the Batman universe is so wide in scope that when you tie everyone together in the first film, there is little breathing room for the films that are bound to come after it.

On to the action. Too many sequences in this movie just felt big and showy for no apparent reason at all, other than to convince the audience that they are watching a big movie. If it doesn't take place on a mountain top where a helicopter can whirl around the scene majestically, well, the audience just won't know it's an important scene in the movie. There are many scenes like this, lackluster action setpieces that are overblown to add to the epic feeling of the film. The problem is, for me, these so-called epic scenes come off as tawdry and hollow, with no merit in relation to the plot, they feel like they were added on to a small story just to make it seem bigger. Again, I can see the reasoning for this, they sold the movie as a huge action blockbuster, but if you really watch the movie, there is very little action when everything is said and done, but they spend plenty of time trying to convince you otherwise. Maybe it's just me, but I'm not the type of film viewer that likes to have everything spoon fed to me while someone is telling me how it tastes. I'll find out for myself, thank you very much. These sequences do the opposite of what good action should do, which is serve the story. Instead, it seems that these sequences were cool ideas Nolan had in his head, which he then tried to add to David Goyer's already existing ideas for the main plotline. It leaves the movie feeling disjointed and the action scenes out of place.

As I have mentioned, there is a seeming over-reliance on CGI, and I can't really seem to understand why. There is a sequence with a CGI bat, which looked terrible, and I couldn't really find a reason for it. I guess because they couldn't get a real bat to do what they wanted it to? But in the end, they could've cut the bat entirely, and the movie would've been the same. At the same time, it just goes to show how lazy a filmmaker Nolan is, if he can't think of a better way to do it, he just puts in an order for a bunch of CGI to cover his weak plot points. This also plays into the fact that I think they spent too much time hammering home how afraid of bats Bruce is, and how everything he does in the last half of the movie is to avenge not his parents or his personal stance on crime, but to overcome his own insecure fear of bats, which is in turn a thinly veiled attempt to bring his feelings on his parents forward. I understand this was the reasoning given in the comics for Bruce to use the Bat as his logo, his calling, but at the same time this part of the film once again relies far too heavily on the theme of fear and overcoming it. The catchphrase for the film is "We only fall so we can get back up", one I personally think is corny, but my opinion aside, far too much time is spent drawing us to the fact that Bruce hates bats. Yeah, we know. What is it with Christopher Nolan showing us what he wants us to know over and over like a bunch of small children? That was the reason I hated Memento, the audience was treated like a bunch of morons, as if we wouldn't understand at all if these sequences weren't shoved down our throats over and over. Subtlety is not Nolan's strong point, and I suppose it's a choice in filmmaking style, but it's still a choice I hate. Don't even get me started on the Batmobile, what was the point in changing that to a mobile tank unit? I think everyone who knows Batman knows that the Batmobile is pretty much untouchable, especially since it was shown in a previous film to have a bullet-proof shell that can pop up whenever it is needed. Like many other people, I really hate Batman's voice under the cowl, the constipated grunting noises. I understand Bale was trying to separate the two characters, but at the same time, he could have separated them in a different way, he didn't have to act like he hadn't shit in 5 months to get the point across. Yeah, they're two different halves of one personality. We get it. Stop talking like an angry 5 year old. I also disliked the fact that so many things were slighly modified about Ra's Al Ghul, and they were seemingly changed, once again, only to serve the story Nolan was telling, not the actual history of the character, or his place in the Batman universe. It's as if they wrote all these cool setpieces in the mountain, and then thought "Okay, which villain can be here in the beginning, in Gotham at the end, and still have relevance to what is going on throughout the story. Ah, we'll just invent a different personality for Ra's Al Ghul and throw him in there, because no other villain would fit. Cillian Murphy, however, was a very good Scarecrow/Jonothan Crane, it's just a horrible shame they used him as a set up man, a secondary villain, when in reality they could have focused on him alone and the entire film would not have felt so meandering.

Don't be misled however, there are still many things about this film I like, and I didn't really notice how much I liked them until I sat and watched this movie again (for only the second time in its entirety). I do actually enjoy the second half of the film, what really gets to me though is the fact that this could have been such a better film. However, this is why I'm excited for The Dark Knight, they went with a singular, powerful, known Batman villain, arguably Batman's worst enemy, put a good, tight plot behind it, and didn't try to rely on the fact that they had hired a bunch of A-list talent to hide the oversimplification of one of the world's most beloved superheroes. As I said earlier, I think the first and last fatal mistake for Batman Begins was making it into an origin story, since this was obviously not the best storyline Nolan was suited to handle. Now, I would gladly watch Darren Arnofsky's version of Batman Year One, because I am more than confident in his ability to portray a raw, afflicted Batman, as opposed to the jaded, boring Batman we are treated to in much of this film. All in all this film was a disappointment on too many levels for me, and despite its good points, I find it to be an ultimate failure because it took a wrong turn in nearly every department, from casting and acting choices, over-reliance on CGI, poor choice of plot points, hollow action sequences, and corny situations. Bear in mind my rating will look a lot more positive than my review sounds, but keep in mind most of the categories I give points in are ones based in technical merit, which I will admit is Nolan's strong suit. The man can light and direct a scene, even if that scene is poorly conceived to begin with. Forget this movie, bring on The Dark Knight.

8.0/10