The Dark Knight Returns
Batman Begins was excellent.
Superficially, it might seem presumptuous to compare a film like Batman Begins with a movie like Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. The Star Wars franchise is a sci-fi juggernaut, hailed as an epic myth. Batman, at best, is a schizophrenic amalgam of 60's kitsch and 90's grit. By most any metric, Star Wars is the superior franchise: more fans, more cultural impact and most importantly, more money.
Batman Begins gets almost everything right. The story is original - it is a part of the Batman legend that has never been previously explored. Even Frank Miller's Batman: Year One does not go into significant depth or narrative regarding the actual process by which Bruce Wayne became Batman. This was a bold and ultimately savvy move by the film-makers. On the one hand, it's risky - by introducing new material into the canon, they run the risk of alienating fans who "know" what Batman's origin "should" be. Moreover, untrodden ground is practically anathema in Hollywood, especially in a franchise, generally considered too great a risk. On the other hand, new material makes people curious. They get to thinking. If this can be capitalized on, it translates to ticket sales. If the introduction of new material is handled competently, it can translate into a LOT of ticket sales, as well as critical acclaim. David Goyer and Chris Nolan rise to the occasion and deliver a vision of Batman that can stand alongside those of Miller and Burton.
Casting, with one exception, was extremely well done. Liam Neeson as Qui-Gon Jinn Ra's Al-Ghul delivers a solid performance - head and shoulders above his work on Episode I. Michael Caine as Alfred is simply superb. He is witty and resevered, but very, very emotive. Caine perfectly evokes the old-world sensibilities inherent in the Wayne legacy - dignity, charity and loyalty. Christian Bale deserves special recognition though. On his first foray wearing the costume, a standard thug makes the predictable terrified inquiry: "who are you?" When Bale replies "I'm Batman" the viewer's reaction is a resounding "fuck-yeah, you are!" The exception to this otherwise brilliant casting is the choice for Dr. Jonathan Crane, aka Scarecrow. The actor is not poor at his craft, per se, he is simply far too young (looking) to be effective in the role.
The story is exciting and engaging, and suprisingly, for the most part believable. The idea of a man becoming something more in order to serve justice is handled very earnestly. Even the tech behind most of Batman's gear is reasonably well explained. I especially enjoyed the character Lucius Fox - the designer and fabricator of the Batman's equipment. The Joker's question is finally answered. He gets those wonderful toys from Morgan Freeman. As an aside, I've always had a bit of a problem with how well outfitted Batman is. Sure, Bruce Wayne is rich, but this is not the kind of stuff you can buy off the rack at Target, or even REI. I think it's been generally presumed that Bruce Wayne makes his own gear, for lack of any alternative explanation. This never sat well with me, because a man can only do so much. Socialite by day, crime fighter by night, when does a billionaire playboy-cum-vigilante find the time to research and develop military grade tools that are ahead of the general technological curve? Having a third party provide the R&D goes a long way toward making the whole scenario plausible. I also appreciated the fact that as smart and adept as Bruce Wayne is, it is demonstrated that he doesn't know everything. When Fox talks chemistry to him, Wayne gets a blank look on his face and asks for a summary in layman's terms. Little things like this go a long way toward humanizing the characters, adding a lot to the overal verisimilitude of the film.
As for complaints, there are a few I'd proffer. One of the pivotal moments for Bruce Wayne comes when he refuses to act as an executioner in the name of justice. He demontrates this refusal by burning down a castle filled with dozens of people. Yeah, yeah, they were "bad guys" but the hapless criminal he refused to murder was almost certainly caught in the fire and killed, and if not, well, the castle's at the summit of an inhospitable mountain range. At any rate, we never see the benefactor of Waynes benevolence again, so one has to assume he bit the big one. Secondly, the microwave emitter gun is a bit silly. I don't know a lot about how a microwave gun would function, but the physics of the one presented in the film defy common sense. If a device can produce microwaves powerful enough to instantly vaporize water at a distance of several hundred yards, one would think said microwaves would have some sort of effect on living human tissue within its area of effect. But whatever, these are minor gripes.
Overall I found the movie immensely satisfying. And I will compare it to Episode III. Batman Begins is everything a franchise prequel should be. It adds to the mythos without compromising the canon. It delivers a solid story, combining a finely balanced mix of familiar elements with brand new material. It presents us with characters we care about and deepens our understanding of them. Ep III did none of these things. In fact, it actually did the opposite. Ep III detracts from the mythos by making Darth Vader a putz who's never actually killed a Jedi. Ep III delivers a lame story, kludging in formerly popular characters seemingly at random, for the sole purpose of making sure their action figure can appear on the shelves. Ep III presents us with characters we don't care about and then makes us hate them for how lame they are.
Yeah, I'm still pretty bitter about Episode III. But Batman Begins washed most of that foulness away, so today, I'm happy to be a geek.
Superficially, it might seem presumptuous to compare a film like Batman Begins with a movie like Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. The Star Wars franchise is a sci-fi juggernaut, hailed as an epic myth. Batman, at best, is a schizophrenic amalgam of 60's kitsch and 90's grit. By most any metric, Star Wars is the superior franchise: more fans, more cultural impact and most importantly, more money.
Batman Begins gets almost everything right. The story is original - it is a part of the Batman legend that has never been previously explored. Even Frank Miller's Batman: Year One does not go into significant depth or narrative regarding the actual process by which Bruce Wayne became Batman. This was a bold and ultimately savvy move by the film-makers. On the one hand, it's risky - by introducing new material into the canon, they run the risk of alienating fans who "know" what Batman's origin "should" be. Moreover, untrodden ground is practically anathema in Hollywood, especially in a franchise, generally considered too great a risk. On the other hand, new material makes people curious. They get to thinking. If this can be capitalized on, it translates to ticket sales. If the introduction of new material is handled competently, it can translate into a LOT of ticket sales, as well as critical acclaim. David Goyer and Chris Nolan rise to the occasion and deliver a vision of Batman that can stand alongside those of Miller and Burton.
Casting, with one exception, was extremely well done. Liam Neeson as Qui-Gon Jinn Ra's Al-Ghul delivers a solid performance - head and shoulders above his work on Episode I. Michael Caine as Alfred is simply superb. He is witty and resevered, but very, very emotive. Caine perfectly evokes the old-world sensibilities inherent in the Wayne legacy - dignity, charity and loyalty. Christian Bale deserves special recognition though. On his first foray wearing the costume, a standard thug makes the predictable terrified inquiry: "who are you?" When Bale replies "I'm Batman" the viewer's reaction is a resounding "fuck-yeah, you are!" The exception to this otherwise brilliant casting is the choice for Dr. Jonathan Crane, aka Scarecrow. The actor is not poor at his craft, per se, he is simply far too young (looking) to be effective in the role.
The story is exciting and engaging, and suprisingly, for the most part believable. The idea of a man becoming something more in order to serve justice is handled very earnestly. Even the tech behind most of Batman's gear is reasonably well explained. I especially enjoyed the character Lucius Fox - the designer and fabricator of the Batman's equipment. The Joker's question is finally answered. He gets those wonderful toys from Morgan Freeman. As an aside, I've always had a bit of a problem with how well outfitted Batman is. Sure, Bruce Wayne is rich, but this is not the kind of stuff you can buy off the rack at Target, or even REI. I think it's been generally presumed that Bruce Wayne makes his own gear, for lack of any alternative explanation. This never sat well with me, because a man can only do so much. Socialite by day, crime fighter by night, when does a billionaire playboy-cum-vigilante find the time to research and develop military grade tools that are ahead of the general technological curve? Having a third party provide the R&D goes a long way toward making the whole scenario plausible. I also appreciated the fact that as smart and adept as Bruce Wayne is, it is demonstrated that he doesn't know everything. When Fox talks chemistry to him, Wayne gets a blank look on his face and asks for a summary in layman's terms. Little things like this go a long way toward humanizing the characters, adding a lot to the overal verisimilitude of the film.
As for complaints, there are a few I'd proffer. One of the pivotal moments for Bruce Wayne comes when he refuses to act as an executioner in the name of justice. He demontrates this refusal by burning down a castle filled with dozens of people. Yeah, yeah, they were "bad guys" but the hapless criminal he refused to murder was almost certainly caught in the fire and killed, and if not, well, the castle's at the summit of an inhospitable mountain range. At any rate, we never see the benefactor of Waynes benevolence again, so one has to assume he bit the big one. Secondly, the microwave emitter gun is a bit silly. I don't know a lot about how a microwave gun would function, but the physics of the one presented in the film defy common sense. If a device can produce microwaves powerful enough to instantly vaporize water at a distance of several hundred yards, one would think said microwaves would have some sort of effect on living human tissue within its area of effect. But whatever, these are minor gripes.
Overall I found the movie immensely satisfying. And I will compare it to Episode III. Batman Begins is everything a franchise prequel should be. It adds to the mythos without compromising the canon. It delivers a solid story, combining a finely balanced mix of familiar elements with brand new material. It presents us with characters we care about and deepens our understanding of them. Ep III did none of these things. In fact, it actually did the opposite. Ep III detracts from the mythos by making Darth Vader a putz who's never actually killed a Jedi. Ep III delivers a lame story, kludging in formerly popular characters seemingly at random, for the sole purpose of making sure their action figure can appear on the shelves. Ep III presents us with characters we don't care about and then makes us hate them for how lame they are.
Yeah, I'm still pretty bitter about Episode III. But Batman Begins washed most of that foulness away, so today, I'm happy to be a geek.