Batman Begins

Eight years after the ultimate flop, Batman & Robin, comes an episode that rivals the early Burton films. Great atmosphere, cinematography and visual effects. I'm not a big fan of Christian Bale, but he's lost next to Gary Oldman and Michael Caine. You can see that the hiatus has been beneficial and the bar has been set pretty high again. (26/02/2010)

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. :) (08/01/2010)

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%. (08/03/2010)

The thing that has always fascinated me most about the character of Batman is how controversial his film adaptations can be, or rather, how perfectly they can be screwed up. I've never been very interested in Burton's versions, I felt they were too colourful farces with many bizarre characters that looked borrowed from his other films, and I preferred to avoid Schumacher's infamous vision for good due to the horrible and mocking reviews, But Nolan? He showed here his exceptional skills and level... Some individuals, too spoiled by repeated viewings of the other two episodes (myself included), which possess a far greater dose of narrative innovation, a more noticeable aura of physical menace, and a more atmospheric Zimmer soundtrack, rightly consider Batman Begins to be the director's weakest effort, but that doesn't change the fact that as a grand opening to the most epic comic book saga since the turn of the millennium, these 140 minutes, and every second of them, work absolutely brilliantly. The first half, marked by flashbacks and time jumps, is masterfully orchestrated so that the viewer never loses track and is drawn into the plot – still built on a series of clichés uncharacteristic of Nolan – while the second half is a comic-book action romp, the epitome of Batman, with everything we imagine when we say his name. The fight scenes are a bit muddled at times, but they have an orgiastic visual charge, Zimmer is very much felt and the actors, led by the charismatic Bale, play their parts with a gusto and precision unprecedented for a blockbuster. As part of the series, 4*, but as a standalone film, it’s clear... 90% (29/07/2012)

Christopher Nolan created a trilogy that redefined all established norms of superhero films at the time. Personally, I hold Batman in the highest regard among comic book characters; his origin story is incredibly fascinating to me. That’s why I was thrilled that someone took on this intriguing project and made the most of the opportunity. The first film introduces us to the beginnings of this eccentric billionaire, explaining why he decided to become a masked guardian of Gotham with the goal of making life difficult for criminals. It also reveals that his early days of monitoring all the nefarious activities were far from simple and were fraught with challenges; it took him quite some time to master everything. Nolan prides himself on his unique approach to the material, striving to minimize the inclusion of grandiose action full of explosions and CGI mess, which suits me immensely. On the other hand, the film emphasizes every dialogue (especially Alfred and Bruce, showcasing perfectionism in every aspect), with a script polished to the last detail, allowing you to fully enjoy the conversations of all the characters. I wouldn’t replace Christian Bale with anyone; no one has portrayed such a human Batman before, and I assert that this portrayal suits him best. I also appreciate the inclusion of various villains (Scarecrow, Ra's al Ghul) and, of course, the now-legendary Jim Gordon played by Gary Oldman. The ending set the stage for the second film, and we all know how Heath Ledger claimed the sequel for himself. I give the first film 90%. (12/09/2019)