I cannot remember the last time I was so disappointed with a movie. I went into BATMAN BEGINS with pretty much no expectations, and I was very disappointed. I actually felt sad on the way home afterwards because I was so disappointed. I really can't even think of much that I did like. Christian Bale was alright, but the only scene where he really shined as Batman was when he interrogates a crooked cop atop a fire escape. But otherwise, he was just so-so as both Batman and Bruce Wayne. I missed seeing Michael Gough as Alfred, but Michael Caine was the highlight of the film, without question. My favorite scene of the whole film is in a flashback where Alfred tells young Bruce that his parents' murder wasn't his fault. The rest of the cast was okay, except for Katie Holmes, badly miscast as a District Attorney. Gary Oldman fared pretty well as a pre-Commissioner James Gordon (he certainly looked the part), but he's given almost nothing to do and seems to only be in a handful of scenes. Rutger Hauer is the CEO of Wayne Enterprises in a subplot that isn't needed at all. I couldn't help but feel that a lot of the movie was just padding that could have easily been trimmed out.
As for the villains, we get the Scarecrow, Ra's al Ghul, and Carmine Falcone, a local gangster. Now, I know the point of this movie was to make it Batman's film, but the villains were handled so badly I practically felt cheated. The Scarecrow, one of my favorite of Batman's Rogues Gallery, is seriously wasted. He's no longer the Ichabod Craine-looking college professor, but instead a sophisticated-looking pretty boy psychologist. In the comics, his poisons cause people to experience their greatest fears. Here, they simply make people act crazy more than anything else. Ra's al Ghul is also wasted. He appears to be killed early on, but turns up later in an unnecessary plot twist that reveals Ducard (Liam Neeson) is really Ra's, the one we saw killed having only been a decoy. Thus, Ra's is absent for a good bulk of the film, and as a result fails to make much impact as a villain. Even worse, the "villain" shifts constantly, from being Falcone to Scarecrow to Ra's, instead of just giving us one for Batman to deal with, the way it should be. This was the problem with the third and fourth Batman films, and I was very surprised to see them falling for it again in this film. (Anybody remember how well it worked out for the first BATMAN and SPIDER-MAN when when you've only got one villain?) It just really ticked me off how they handled the villains, because they were using two of the most interesting ones. We saw glimpses of Scarecrow's potential in a few moments, and when he finally gallops into the thick of the action at the end, on horseback and (finally) in full Scarecrow costume, we expect to really see things hit the fan. But what happens? He gets zapped with a stun gun by Katie Holmes and runs off screaming into the night like a little girl, never to be seen again. What!? And Falcone was a total waste. We already had two other much more interesting bad guys, so we could have done without him.
Other things that irked me: I really hated the Batmobile, even more so after seeing it in action instead of just pictures. And the scene where it jumps across rooftops? Geez, wasn't the point of restarting the franchise to get away from the junk we got in the last two films? I couldn't believe it. The murder of Bruce Wayne's parents was also poorly-handled. It had much more emotional impact in Tim Burton's BATMAN, where I actually felt sadness seeing it happen as opposed to this one, where it's over and done with before you can really react to it. (Which I guess is something they might have intended, but it still had no affect on me.) And Gotham City! I know Christopher Nolan has said they wanted to make a "realistic" Batman film, sort of bringing him "into the real world." Well, it clearly doesn't work. The Gotham City of Tim Burton's film lived up to its name. Here, the movie could have just as easily taken place in Los Angeles. And this is really just a small complaint, but Batman's gadgets were hardly used. Where's his gas pellets during his escapes (like we saw demonstrated for him earlier in the film)? And the Batarangs were virtually missing in action. The action scenes, what few there are, were terrible. The MTV-style editing and camera work didn't help, practically drowning out any suspense and excitement they may have had. Half the time, I couldn't even tell what was going on and who was hitting who. And the excessive use of flashbacks in the first act made me feel like I was watching an episode of LOST.
By the time the movie was over and I was heading out of the theater, I really didn't even feel like I had just seen a Batman movie, but something else entirely. It's really a shame. The film had lots of potential, and after eight years of waiting, this is all we get. It could have been something really good. I know everybody's raving about it, but I really didn't see the big deal. I thought it was pretty lackluster. Perhaps if the writer hadn't been David S. Goyer? Who knows? All I know is that I'm extremely disappointed. Of the four live-action Batman movies (not counting the one with Adam West), I guess I'd rank BATMAN BEGINS at Number 4, right behind BATMAN, BATMAN RETURNS, and even BATMAN FOREVER. It seems that SPIDER-MAN's place as the best superhero movie of all-time isn't likely to be challenged anytime soon.
BATMAN BEGINS: 3/10
As for the villains, we get the Scarecrow, Ra's al Ghul, and Carmine Falcone, a local gangster. Now, I know the point of this movie was to make it Batman's film, but the villains were handled so badly I practically felt cheated. The Scarecrow, one of my favorite of Batman's Rogues Gallery, is seriously wasted. He's no longer the Ichabod Craine-looking college professor, but instead a sophisticated-looking pretty boy psychologist. In the comics, his poisons cause people to experience their greatest fears. Here, they simply make people act crazy more than anything else. Ra's al Ghul is also wasted. He appears to be killed early on, but turns up later in an unnecessary plot twist that reveals Ducard (Liam Neeson) is really Ra's, the one we saw killed having only been a decoy. Thus, Ra's is absent for a good bulk of the film, and as a result fails to make much impact as a villain. Even worse, the "villain" shifts constantly, from being Falcone to Scarecrow to Ra's, instead of just giving us one for Batman to deal with, the way it should be. This was the problem with the third and fourth Batman films, and I was very surprised to see them falling for it again in this film. (Anybody remember how well it worked out for the first BATMAN and SPIDER-MAN when when you've only got one villain?) It just really ticked me off how they handled the villains, because they were using two of the most interesting ones. We saw glimpses of Scarecrow's potential in a few moments, and when he finally gallops into the thick of the action at the end, on horseback and (finally) in full Scarecrow costume, we expect to really see things hit the fan. But what happens? He gets zapped with a stun gun by Katie Holmes and runs off screaming into the night like a little girl, never to be seen again. What!? And Falcone was a total waste. We already had two other much more interesting bad guys, so we could have done without him.
Other things that irked me: I really hated the Batmobile, even more so after seeing it in action instead of just pictures. And the scene where it jumps across rooftops? Geez, wasn't the point of restarting the franchise to get away from the junk we got in the last two films? I couldn't believe it. The murder of Bruce Wayne's parents was also poorly-handled. It had much more emotional impact in Tim Burton's BATMAN, where I actually felt sadness seeing it happen as opposed to this one, where it's over and done with before you can really react to it. (Which I guess is something they might have intended, but it still had no affect on me.) And Gotham City! I know Christopher Nolan has said they wanted to make a "realistic" Batman film, sort of bringing him "into the real world." Well, it clearly doesn't work. The Gotham City of Tim Burton's film lived up to its name. Here, the movie could have just as easily taken place in Los Angeles. And this is really just a small complaint, but Batman's gadgets were hardly used. Where's his gas pellets during his escapes (like we saw demonstrated for him earlier in the film)? And the Batarangs were virtually missing in action. The action scenes, what few there are, were terrible. The MTV-style editing and camera work didn't help, practically drowning out any suspense and excitement they may have had. Half the time, I couldn't even tell what was going on and who was hitting who. And the excessive use of flashbacks in the first act made me feel like I was watching an episode of LOST.
By the time the movie was over and I was heading out of the theater, I really didn't even feel like I had just seen a Batman movie, but something else entirely. It's really a shame. The film had lots of potential, and after eight years of waiting, this is all we get. It could have been something really good. I know everybody's raving about it, but I really didn't see the big deal. I thought it was pretty lackluster. Perhaps if the writer hadn't been David S. Goyer? Who knows? All I know is that I'm extremely disappointed. Of the four live-action Batman movies (not counting the one with Adam West), I guess I'd rank BATMAN BEGINS at Number 4, right behind BATMAN, BATMAN RETURNS, and even BATMAN FOREVER. It seems that SPIDER-MAN's place as the best superhero movie of all-time isn't likely to be challenged anytime soon.
BATMAN BEGINS: 3/10