Batman Begins

Up until last Saturday around 10:15 p.m., Tim Burton’s “Batman” from 1989 remained my favorite of the Dark Knight franchise, with its sequel “Batman Returns” following in close second. It’s hard to choose my third favorite Batman movie because the gap between second and third is a million times greater than that between first and second.

Recent Batman films focused more on the flaunting of a star-studded cast than the creation of any in depth story line or character development. In “Batman Forever,” Kilmer still plays a ridiculous wealthy, good-looking Bruce Wayne with emotional problems – nothing new is brought to the table. It seems the real reason people were so eager to watch the movie was to see the new design of the bat suit and bat mobile. If that didn’t wet their whistle, Schumacher could always hide the mediocrity of his work behind Jim Carey’s flamboyant rendition of the Riddler. Carey himself was riding a nice little wave of success back in 1995– he had just completed “Ace Ventura: Pet Detective” the year before. I know, it’s hard to believe that Jim Carey was once funny…

Honestly, Schumacher’s renditions of “Batman” sucked so badly, I’m sure even his all star cast felt ashamed walking down the red carpet. I mean, come on, Arnold as a violent sub-zero idiot? Idiotic and bad-tempered, maybe. But frozen? NEVER. I’d like to go into more depth about “Batman and Robin” but the truth is that I forgot they even made it until I looked it up on IMDb.com.

So where was I? Oh yes. This film is unlike any of its predecessors – Burton’s included. The title even seems to have been thoughtfully planned out. It’s as if “Begins” is Christopher Nolan’s way of appreciatively bitch-slapping Schumacher in the face for all the extra work he had to do to make up for his four hours and seven minutes of cinematic guano (that’s right, bat shit!).

Only in “Batman Begins” is the origin and transformation of industrial heir Bruce Wayne into the crime-fighting Batman realistically explained. Not only is this formidable task accomplished, but it is done in such a cool way. Sure, we always knew Batman was some rich white screw-up with tons of money and of course he could afford to throw a couple bills at some designer to get him some kinky bat get-up. But it doesn’t make any sense. Who would build the bat mobile? Just imagine Bruce trying to walking into a Toyota dealership, “Yeah, that Scion’s cute and all… but I was thinking more ‘tank and rockets’ and less ‘Hong Kong soccer mom’.”

In “Batman Begins” everything is well explained: why Bruce gets fed up with Gotham City, what he’s really afraid of, how he receives his martial arts training, why he chooses a bat as his symbol, where he gets the bat mobile, how he acquires his suit and gadgets, etc. The viewer is then left thinking “OK. This can happen.”

I suppose the only thing that I’m still left to ponder is: why Katie Holmes? Thank God she doesn’t have a very large part in the movie. Supposedly she’s already been dropped from the cast of the sequel due to issues regarding Tom and Katie publicity taking away from that of the movie, which is a good thing if you ask me. She isn't very believable as an Assistant District attorney for a bad city like Gotham, she looks like an 18 year old Joey from the Creek.

The standout difference with “Batman Begins” and all the other movies: it is believable. The movie features an all star cast but none in particular seems to steal the spotlight – they all compliment each other. Christian Bale is an excellent new Batman, dark and brooding, for the first time since Michael Keaton you feel there is some cerebral activity going on up behind the mask. Bale is an ideal choice with plenty of experience playing outsiders since he was cast in Spielbergs 'Empire of the Sun' as a kid.

“Batman Begins” doesn’t feel like a typical Batman movie because it isn’t. Sure, there are a few corny lines, but that’s to be expected in such a movie. What’s good is that they are kept to a minimum, including senseless action and explosions. When special effects are used, they are truly frightening and cool (as used to show the hallucinations experienced by Scarecrow’s victims).

So is Christopher Nolan’s “Batman Begins” better than Tim Burton’s first two? That’s hard to say because the two styles are so different. Burton’s were unique in that they stayed true to the whole look and style of the Batman comic book. With each scene, Burton’s set design and bright colors had the viewer feel they were watching the comic book’s pages turn before their eyes. Nolan’s version on the other hand is a darker, more realistic approach to the Batman story. I can’t totally turn my back on Burton’s films because they are what made me a fan 16 years ago. The thing is, I can only imagine what “Batman Begins” must be like for a new fan of the series.

Sergio L. Martínez