This is only my second film review, so please keep your comments constructive. As always, I will not go on and on about the plot of the film, as the focus of this review is to encourage the reader to watch the film. But I will point out a few key areas.

Batman Begins is a film directed by Christopher Nolan released in 2005 - it runs for 140 minutes.

I received a Batman box set as a gift this Christmas; featuring Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Naturally, as I had barely heard of Batman Begins I slipped in The Dark Knight, I came way with the impression it was a good film - but without Heath Ledger's excellent performance as the Joker it would have been your average super-hero blockbuster.

Looking back on it now, I made a very foolish decision. Batman Begins is the first in a very successful trilogy of Batman films, the first two of which have been directed by Christopher Nolan (the 3rd has not been announced but it would be foolish not to make one!) - so the sensible option would have involved watching this film first. As it turns out I didn't, so I will defiantly be making references to The Dark Knight, to compare the two films.

Batman Begins is a film adaptation of the origins of Batman. Although I have never read the original comics, what your average Joe should know about this part of the story is all included. Wayne's parents deaths, his (quite reasonable) fear of Bats, and his eventual transformation into the Batman - its all in this film, and it all fits rather nicely.

There were so many ways this film could have completely destroyed Batman adaptations forever - after Joel Schumacher had practically ruined the franchise with his appalling "Batman and Robin", it look a lot of courage to create yet another Batman film. Which, previous to this trilogy, had only been deemed reasonable when Tim Burton directed them. His dark, Gothic remake of Batman was almost too adult, and as a result Joel took charge turning it into a kid-friendly, clichéd, terrible film.

This is where Nolan's vision is so ingenious, he mixes the jokes and action sequences that will appeal to our inner-children, but is still able to substantially develop the characters with interesting and diverse exposition.

The main area where this film shines - just like The Dark Knight - is in its actors. Christion Bale plays Batman, and in this film his voice (when dressed up as a Bat) is not nearly as irritating. In The Dark Knight some of Bales lines are very difficult to understand, as he tries to change his voice and goes over the top. In this film Bales performance is excellent, perfectly capturing the mix of emotions Batman faces thought this film, from love interests to attempted murder. Alongside Wayne, as always, is his butler Alfred - played by Michael Caine. He provides his fair share of humorous dialogue, and is very well acted.

The "Love-interest", I mentioned earlier is Rachael Dawes, played by Katie Holmes; she gives a stellar performance, as a Lawyer attempting to put the criminals to justice in a corrupt system run by the very criminals she attempts to lock up.

In fact the only notably poor performances in the film are by the two major villains - A twisted mental institution doctor who enjoys tormenting his "patients" with a freaky Scarecrow mask and "panic gas", (I have forgotten what it is referred to in the film) played by Cillian Murphy. Alongside him is Henri Ducard played by Liam Neeson. It's not so much that their performances were so bad, but that Heath Ledgers was so good. When you compare the insane laughter of the Joker, the loud explosions, thrilling car-chases (something I generally despise) to a guy running around in a mask (Scooby-Do reference!), who used gases, and a man who's evil plan in unclear and pretty ridiculous. The Joker will win every time.
The characteristics of the villins areless intriguing, becasue neither of them seem to have the upper-hand on Batman in any way; he has no real rival.

Which is particularly disappointing, because the films story, - for the most part - is outstanding. Not only does Nolan explore the psyche behind Batman, but also the relationships between the characters are cleverly interconnected. Then again, this film is more about Batman than the main villains - they could well have been an after-thought.

The Dark Knight thrived on its action sequences, but I feel Batman Begins captured the true style of Batman. He's a Bat - he hides in the shadows, his main weapon is his own mystery. So in this sense the combat sequences were well crafted in this film.
Gothem city really illuminates this (a strange choice of words considering it is so dark), with its great shadow effects and dark atmosphere.

In conclusion, Batman Begins is an excellent film - it was nominated for an Oscar among other prestigious prizes. Great acting, story telling and atmosphere make this a must-see, even if you have already witnessed The Dark Knight.

A few of your facts need to be hammered out:

- This iteration of Batman is not a trilogy, nor is it "Nolan's Batman Trilogy." While the third film is all but certain, it's not sure that Nolan will return to the director's chair. Refrain from calling it a trilogy until there's hard evidence of a third movie in the works (at this point in time, I don't think there is).

- It's Christian Bale, not Christopher Bale.

- I think you're being a bit too generous with Katie Holmes (although admittedly she's easier on the eyes than Maggie Gyllenhaal), but that's just a conflict of opinion. I also think you use a few too many asides.

I liked it. Could use a bit of fine tuning in terms of paragraph and sentence structure, but that's about it. I generally prefer fewer larger paragraphs instead of many shorter paragraphs, but that's just me. Good second film review.

Your review seemed decent enough, though I'm surprised to read that someone actually liked the action sequences in Batman Begins.

I honestly thought that The Dark Knight wasn't all that great, and didn't flow very well.

I haven't seen Batman Begins, but after reading this review, I'd like to read it a bit more.

I was always fascinated by how good a film Batman Begins was in spite of what should be a fatal flaw for a superhero film: it lacks a significant villain. And while The Dark Knight wasn't perfect, I would say it fully delivered on this film's promise, and more--about two sequel's worth of awesomeness, I'd say, so I'll understand if Nolan doesn't make another.

It's also interesting to note the differences in how Gotham was portrayed in the two films. To me, in TDK it looked more realistic, but also more like it's just Chicago at night (which, for the most part, it was, but that's beside the point). In Begins, there are some overview shots of the city which, while they look a little fake, still give the sense that Gotham is its own place and show pretty well how run down and dark it is. The general atmosphere for most of the film, especially the parts in the Narrows, was similar; a little unreal, but with the right amount of atmosphere. I'm not really sure which film does it better, but somehow I found the change much more jarring than the actress switch for Rachel... maybe I'm just weird. :)

You didn't like Cillian Murphy? That's a shame.

Random argument man:
You didn't like Cillian Murphy? That's a shame.

I thought his performance wasn't particularly great, compared to Heath Ledger.

Maet:
A few of your facts need to be hammered out:

- This iteration of Batman is not a trilogy, nor is it "Nolan's Batman Trilogy." While the third film is all but certain, it's not sure that Nolan will return to the director's chair. Refrain from calling it a trilogy until there's hard evidence of a third movie in the works (at this point in time, I don't think there is).

I heard they had announced who would be playing The Joker in the third film, which is as good as announcing it. I'll edit out the part about it beng Nolans trilogy.(Good call on the first name of Bale).

And I heard Christian Bale didn't want to do a third film, which is as good as saying they won't make it. Give it at least another year before listening to the rumour mill.

D_987:
Alongside him is "Ra's al Ghul" played by Ken Wantanbe.

Ken who? Ra's was played by Liam Neeson.

Meado:
And I heard Christian Bale didn't want to do a third film, which is as good as saying they won't make it. Give it at least another year before listening to the rumour mill.

D_987:
Alongside him is "Ra's al Ghul" played by Ken Wantanbe.

Ken who? Ra's was played by Liam Neeson.

I just searched that; and I know what I've done wrong - the original Ra al Ghul - (who dies when Wayne destroys the temple) is played by Ken Wantanbe, Liam Neeson's character is called Henry Ducard.

D_987:
I just searched that; and I know what I've done wrong - the original Ra al Ghul - (who dies when Wayne destroys the temple) is played by Ken Wantanbe, Liam Neeson's character is called Henry Ducard.

Ducard is the real Ra's al Ghul. Wantanbe's character is a decoy.

-- Alex

Hey Alex_P,

Wanna not give away the end of the film?

Alex_P:

D_987:
I just searched that; and I know what I've done wrong - the original Ra al Ghul - (who dies when Wayne destroys the temple) is played by Ken Wantanbe, Liam Neeson's character is called Henry Ducard.

Ducard is the real Ra's al Ghul. Wantanbe's character is a decoy.

-- Alex

Theres a reason I did not mention that...

D_987:
Theres a reason I did not mention that...

Hey, chief? You already did mention it accidentally at least once:

D_987:
Alongside him is "Ra's al Ghul" (which is Arabic for "Head of Demon") played by Henri Ducard.

-- Alex

Alex_P:

D_987:
Theres a reason I did not mention that...

Hey, chief? You already did mention it accidentally at least once:

D_987:
Alongside him is "Ra's al Ghul" (which is Arabic for "Head of Demon") played by Henri Ducard.

No, I mentioned the character, nothing to do with the story - something you mentioned above. That could be a huge spoiler to people who have not seen the movie.

D_987:
No, I mentioned the character, nothing to do with the story - something you mentioned above. That could be a huge spoiler to people who have not seen the movie.

That's what you tried to do. But that's not what you actually did.

Here, look:
You said "Ra's al Ghul played by Henri Ducard".
The actor is the prolific and widely-recognized Liam Neeson. "Ra's al Ghul" and "Henri Ducard" are the names of the character he plays.

But there's more!
If you corrected that sentence to read "Ra's al Ghul played by Liam Neeson", you'd still be "spoiling" his secret identity by associating it with the actor's face.

-- Alex

D_987:

Random argument man:
You didn't like Cillian Murphy? That's a shame.

I thought his performance wasn't particularly great, compared to Heath Ledger.

Of course it wasn't. What did you expect? But Cillian Murphy was excellent as Doctor Crane, just in a different way to Heath Ledger's Joker.

Whats with all the nit-picks?

D_987:
Whats with all the nit-picks?

Its batman. It tends to bring out the most rabid of critics because well, they are some of the best superhero films in quite a while and there is quite a large fanbase.

Vim-Hogar:
I was always fascinated by how good a film Batman Begins was in spite of what should be a fatal flaw for a superhero film: it lacks a significant villain.

In Begins, there are some overview shots of the city which, while they look a little fake, still give the sense that Gotham is its own place and show pretty well how run down and dark it is. The general atmosphere for most of the film, especially the parts in the Narrows, was similar; a little unreal, but with the right amount of atmosphere. I'm not really sure which film does it better, but somehow I found the change much more jarring than the actress switch for Rachel... maybe I'm just weird. :)

I agree with you on the location bit. The setting of the first film was in my opinion, the best rep of Gotham we've got so far on film. As for Scarecrow being rather poor I would slightly put it down to Nolans direction rather than anything else.

The scarecrow is never a scary villain. He was never very threatening either, rather camp (I mean he developed the 'crane style' of fighting after his own name and the fact he was lanky,sheesh) and relied on a gimmick to keep him going. In the comics he was always merely used as a foil to expose more of batman's psyche itself, before he overcomes the problem and easily solves whatever threat the scarecrow is posing.

Nolan's focus on the 'believable batman', (something I actually quite admire him for) stripped away pretty much all of the scarecrows characteristics and left both Nolan and Murphy little to work with.

Ras a gul to be honest has always been pretty much a boring character as hes too much like batman, rich a great detective and driven. Good as a contrast to batman himself, but he only become mildly interesting when you introduce his rather tortuously long back story (he originally appeared because he was the only one with the intelligence in the whole world to figure out the Wayne/batman connection). Neither are that good, but combine to be good first movie villains that expose some of the main themes of the film.

Sorry for the long explanations and I now realise I kind of nit picked. the review itself was very good and highlighted upon what I have always thought of as an underrated treasure. Keep it up :-)

Maet:

- I think you're being a bit too generous with Katie Holmes (although admittedly she's easier on the eyes than Maggie Gyllenhaal), but that's just a conflict of opinion. I also think you use a few too many asides.

She really is. I mean Maggie Gyllenhaal looks like her face was made from wax, and some stuck a candle next to either cheek. So that the middle of her face is in place, but the sides are about an inch and a half to low. But maybe thats just me... and you... maybe not you though... who knows in this crazy world.

The only way these batman films will continue to do well is if they keep away from the cartoon-y villains and keep towards the realistic ones
One of the great things I liked about The Dark Knight is that instead of joker being "Ha ha" crazy he was more like "OH SH*T get the hell out of here" crazy

PayNSprayBandit:
Hey Alex_P,

Wanna not give away the end of the film?

This is Batman Begins. It came out three years ago. Anyone with a vested interest in the story should have watched it by now, and the hypothetical person that hadn't, but still wanted to enjoy the twists, should've prepared for the worst when reading a review of a mainstream movie a few years after the fact.

I have to say up-front that I disagree with a lot of your points. The review itself is okay, although it feels like you're making a list of "this part of the film is awesome" arguments without much substantiation.

I wouldn't say it took as much courage to return to the Batman franchise as it did stubbornness and intent to milk one of the only profitable DC characters out of a fear of making a film about anybody new. This marks Batman's 6th out of 7 live action movies, and Superman has had at least five - still waiting on that Green Arrow movie, DC!

As has been stated, I think you're being overgenerous with Katie Holmes. I found it endlessly frustrating when her character, despite her apparently "strong female" persona, needs rescuing as a result of her own obliviousness in situations of danger. "Yeah, you better run!"

I thought that while Liam Neeson was a bit over-channeling Qui-Gon as Ducard, Cillian Murphy was one of the best parts of the film. I found him undeniably creepy (with the mask off, anyway) and absolutely slimy - which is what he should be, and it's what he's good at. He's proven it elsewhere in Red Eye. By comparison, Christian Bale is good, but far from "perfect" in his emotional mix. Batman himself is not exactly an emotionally complex character to begin with - alternating stripes of angst and guilt, manifesting as solitude, pretty much sums it up.

I find it interesting to note that you don't seem to count off points for my two biggest problems with [i}Batman Begins[/i] - the gaping plot holes, and the lackluster writing. I felt like the jokes in this movie really didn't mesh as well as they should have, and the film's finale is, as you say, ridiculous, both in its defiance of science (which compromises all of Nolan's efforts to reasonably explain Batman's gadgetry throughout the film) and in its blandness of premise. Oh, and the writing is notably worse than the writing in The Dark Knight - I felt, anyway. "I gotta get me one of those!"

Does anyone else find it perplexing to see a movie review for this?

In my book, there are two kinds a reviews i want to see, either recently released movies, which i might see or purchase on dvd, or older movies that the mainstream media passed over. This movie has been out for 4 years! (I think i don't feel like looking it up at the moment)There are already a plethora of reviews on it, and its definitely not under the public radar. So what's the point?

BTW, i didn't think that this was very well written either, there are far to many mentions of the sequel, for the little actual content pertaining to the movie.

Not a Spy:
Does anyone else find it perplexing to see a movie review for this?

In my book, there are two kinds a reviews i want to see, either recently released movies, which i might see or purchase on dvd, or older movies that the mainstream media passed over. This movie has been out for 4 years! (I think i don't feel like looking it up at the moment)There are already a plethora of reviews on it, and its definitely not under the public radar. So what's the point?

BTW, i didn't think that this was very well written either, there are far to many mentions of the sequel, for the little actual content pertaining to the movie.

I explain both your points in the top half of the review....and next time think before you type; I can write about what I want - its not like I'm getting paid to review these games / films. If you didn't like the topic then your opinion was already biased before you read the first line.

Not a Spy:
In my book, there are two kinds a reviews i want to see, either recently released movies, which i might see or purchase on dvd, or older movies that the mainstream media passed over.

I agree with you as far as reviews are concerned. But I like critical analysis of any kind of work, no matter how old or mainstream. This board says "reviews" but generally lets you slide the latter in as well.

-- Alex

D_987:

I explain both your points in the top half of the review....and next time think before you type; I can write about what I want - its not like I'm getting paid to review these games / films. If you didn't like the topic then your opinion was already biased before you read the first line.

I don't get how you explained both my points, but whatever.And i am by no means saying "you can only write what someone else says", I was just trying to point out that there are a lot of needless reviews. I get that you watched the DK first, but the comparisons are not necessary ( in terms of making the film relate to someone who has seen neither) and just take up to much body of an already short review. Also i really like Cillian Murphey, but that's just personal taste, i guess.