"CATCH YOU FUCKERS AT A BAD TIME?"

Batman Begins (20th anniversary revisit)

June 15, 2005

If there’s a universally agreed-upon absolute banger of a summer blockbuster type movie from 2005, it’s gotta be Christopher Nolan’s BATMAN BEGINS, right? I’ve watched it many more times over the years, it holds up completely, and also seems historically significant as, among other things, a transition point between the ‘90s era of comic book movies and the seemingly endless one we’re in now. It kind of blows my mind that I reviewed it early for The Ain’t It Cool News and here I am two decades later writing more thoughtfully about it for a much smaller (but better) audience. Like a memory cloth cape tailored to fit a rigid skeleton when a current is put through it, time flies.

SUMMER 2005I haven’t experienced an era when people weren’t complaining about there being too many sequels and remakes, but I do remember a time before people complained about reboots, because it wasn’t until this movie that I ever heard that term. Nolan’s co-writer David S. Goyer (KICKBOXER 2) used it to explain that they were completely starting the series over. Not a sequel, or a sort of sequel with the same actors playing Alfred and Commissioner Gordon, but a do-over, a totally different take on Batman. I wish that definition had stuck – it’s useless now that it can mean that or a sequel or a remake.

Nolan’s successful turning on and off of the bat-computer seemed revolutionary in part because his notion of a stripped down, quasi-realistic Batman was so unexpected for the character. The expressionistic movies of former animator Tim Burton had birthed the mega-garish ones by former costume designer Joel Schumacher – the series was synonymous with lavish artifice. BATMAN & ROBIN made money in 1997, but it became so widely hated that many believed it would be the end of Batman movies, and maybe even super hero movies as a whole. Luckily that gave Warner Bros. an opening to consider acclaimed indie directors with drastically different approaches. They tried developing one with Darren Aronofsky (who had only done PI and REQUIEM FOR A DREAM) before they settled on the guy who did FOLLOWING, MEMENTO and (at the recommendation of Steven Soderbergh) INSOMNIA.

BATMAN BEGINS is an introduction to the Nolan we know today – the one who makes movies that feel huge and sweeping, have elaborate story structures that are non-linear but based in an elaborate logic, and brimming with somewhat pretentious ideas that are often said bluntly out loud by characters, yet we’re always in for a purely cinematic experience, never a filmed play. Twenty years later I’m still impressed that he had the inspiration and confidence to, after a brief childhood prologue, introduce us to adult Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale, POCAHONTAS) as a prisoner in a brutal prison in Bhutan, without immediately giving us context. No previous Batman movie ever showed or directly referenced his period of training before becoming Batman, but Nolan and Goyer give us Bruce first planning to assassinate his parents’ murderer (Richard Brake, DEATH MACHINE), then abandoning his life to live among criminals and learn their ways, before being recruited by the mysterious Ducard (Liam Neeson, DARKMAN) to train with the League of Shadows, a ninja clan planning to improve the world through extreme methods that Bruce ultimately rejects.

We also witness young Bruce (Gus Lewis, ASYLUM) being traumatized by a fall into a cave full of bats (similar origin to CUJO), see how his father (Linus Roache, THE CHRONICLES OF RIDDICK) and butler Alfred (Michael Caine, GET CARTER) try to support him, and why he blames himself for his parents’ deaths. In pure Nolan fashion the different threads and time periods swirl in and out of each other, sequenced not by chronology but by idea. What order these events happened in takes a back seat to what realizations they lead to.

One of the obvious motifs is fear: in Bruce’s phobia, Ducard’s philosophies of control, Jonathan “The Scarecrow” Crane (Cillian Murphy, RED EYE)’s experiments, and the reason for the Batman persona. Traditionally the bat costume is meant to scare criminals; here it also represents Bruce facing his own fear. As I’m listing these examples it seems heavy-handed, but I think it works exactly right for the movie, the perfect fusion of Nolan’s professorial shtick and Goyer’s comic book bullshit. It all comes together in one of the movie’s most beautiful moments, when Bruce discovers the caves under Wayne Manor, is swarmed by bats, and is now able to stand serenely among them with his eyes closed – Batman’s version of that cliche SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION type shot, looking up into the rain.


Looking at this still image I realize that okay, half of the power of that scene is the score by Hans Zimmer (BROKEN ARROW), who is credited alongside James Newton Howard (FALLING DOWN) with additional music by Ramin Djawadi (BLADE: TRINITY), Lorne Balfe (MIMIC 3: SENTINEL) and Mel Wesson (SPIRIT: STALLION OF THE CIMARRON). The two primary composers supposedly represent the two sides of Bruce Wayne, with Howard focused on drama and Zimmer on action. According to the website promoting Zimmer’s MasterClass, “The Batman score motif is just two notes, repeated. It leaves the listener with an unfinished, unsettled feeling… It’s a short phrase that contains the entire character of Batman/Bruce Wayne.” I don’t know about all that but it’s such an effective style it replaced the old PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN Zimmer sound as the main one he does now.

Once Bruce returns to Gotham it gets into more expected origin story stuff (making the costume, building the Batcave, finding the Batmobile), but the different context and clever details make it thrilling. I mentioned in my review of UNLEASHED how much audiences loved Morgan Freeman at this time, and that carries into BEGINS’ brilliant idea of casting him as Lucius Fox, a character previously unknown to non-comics people, but seeming at least as important as Alfred or James Gordon (Gary Oldman, THE FIFTH ELEMENT). I love the idea of the famous bat-gadgets coming from a DARPA-like research department of Bruce’s company that has been neglected by the current CEO (Rutger Hauer as a character pretending to be less loathsome than the one he played in SIN CITY). It’s weird though that Lucius seems to be the only person who works there. Of course I also enjoy the running gag of the two talking around what he’s using this stuff for. Plausible deniability.

I never really like the look of Batman in full-on armor, but by making parts of it translucent so we can see the interior before it’s painted they really make me believe that stuff is heavy duty. Of course my favorite detail will always be how the three spikes on his gloves (introduced in Detective Comics #36, possibly inspired by illustrations of a pulp character called The Black Bat) are explained as hooks on ninja gauntlets which can be used for blocking swords or climbing mountains. I’m personally all for doing things in movies just because they look cool, but there’s also an appeal to this feeling that every single detail of the world has a purpose.

Alfred contributes to the operations too. He’s the one who suggests buying the Chinese-imported masks by the ten-thousand with ear pieces purchased separately to avoid tracing. He’s also the one who tells us the secret freight elevator into the caves below Wayne Manor is a remnant from the underground railroad. Twenty years ago more people believed in the concept of benevolent billionaires – they were mostly seen as philanthropists rather than today’s bizarre nazi freaks openly scheming to ruin everybody’s lives. But I appreciate that Nolan and Goyer saw the importance of establishing the Wayne family as particularly kind people dedicated to fighting poverty, building public transit, freeing slaves. Historic good guys.

Katie Holmes (DISTURBING BEHAVIOR) as Bruce’s childhood friend Rachel gets the difficult job of speaking up for the Thomas Wayne legacy and seeking justice through the system (man that’s harsh when she slaps Bruce two times then tells him his father would be ashamed of him). I think she’s the only cast member who doesn’t quite overcome the cumbersome monologue she’s given, and there’s some retroactive weirdness from the character being recast in the sequel (by her choice, apparently). But I still think she works pretty well. If she’s the biggest weak spot that’s a sign that this is a good movie.

Oh yeah, I suppose I should mention that Ken Watanabe (two years after THE LAST SAMURAI, a year before LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA) is pretty much wasted as the decoy R’as Al Ghul. He looks cool and he gets to make one self righteous speech, but you’d never know they hired a great actor here if you’d only seen him in this. Luckily 1) it’s funny to consider what a shitty job it is to just sit on a throne with nothing to do but very occasionally pretend to be the boss in front of the actual boss and then be killed in a short sword fight b) Nolan later gave him more to do in INCEPTION.

As familiar as I’ve stayed with BATMAN BEGINS, a few things struck me on this rewatch. Even more than I remembered this has a ton of jokes, even corny ones, for a movie (and director) with a reputation for alleged humorlessness. We still think of it as a very serious movie because it comes from characters being funny, never making light of this world or its stakes. I thought of a running gag they could’ve done that would’ve tipped it, though. After the scene where Ducard demonstrates “invisibility” by revealing that there has been a ninja hanging from the ceiling unseen, there could be a series of unremarked-upon incidents where ninjas lower down to light his cigarette, dab his mouth with a napkin, etc.

Another thing that really jumped out at me was the fast pace of the editing – the way Nolan fits in so much material by jumping quickly out of one scene into the next. It skips through the timeline so much but not at the expense of momentum. This was the first Nolan movie for editor Lee Smith (DEAD END DRIVE-IN, HOWLING III: THE MARSUPIALS, ROBOCOP 2, THE TRUMAN SHOW), but he’s done five more since then.

I know some people make fun of the raspier voice Bruce takes on to disguise himself when he’s Batman. It’s always worked for me so I didn’t think about it much during this viewing, but I did notice that it’s pretty much the same voice Bale uses in HOWL’S MOVING CASTLE when he becomes a demon.

My biggest misgiving about the movie back in the day was the aesthetics of the fight scenes. The movie credits fight consultants Andy Norman and Justo Dieguez, who are both certified Jeet Kune Do instructors under Dan Inosanto, but more importantly are creators of a self defense system called the Keysi Fighting Method (or KFM). According to World of Martial Arts, KFM “was a style that was developed based on experiences of Justo growing up and working in the Spanish mines and Andy Norman’s rich experience in the martial arts and violence in the streets of Britain.” It’s supposedly good for close quarters combat with multiple attackers. Black Belt Magazine says the goal of KFM was to create “a fighting system that was grounded in reality rather than sport or tradition… a practical, no-nonsense approach to self-defense that would be effective in unpredictable and chaotic street fights.” That Nolan recruited these guys confirms that his instinct was to find what might be the most real world effective way for Batman to fight instead of the coolest way.

Norman was brought in to audition as a ninja, but apparently impressed stunt coordinator Paul Jennings (THUNDERBIRDS) and fight arranger David Forman (Leonardo in TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES) with his demonstration of fighting techniques. KFM’s inclusion in the movie exploded the popularity of the system. The founders later split into two different methods, Keysi by Justo and Defence Lab. Norman trained Tom Cruise for MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III and created the fighting style for JACK REACHER, and Neeson thought well enough of him to do a promo video for Defence Lab. Now that I think about it, BATMAN BEGINS might’ve had as much of an influence on the “CIA guys know these certain moves they can use to beat up anybody” philosophy of movies like TAKEN and THE EQUALIZER as THE BOURNE IDENTITY did. Maybe.

Despite my crusade for action clarity, I understood why Nolan wanted something closer to a real street fight than a Shaw Brothers movie or THE MATRIX, why a flurry of close up swings might capture the experience of being a thug facing Batman better than smooth, carefully framed movements. At the same time, good sir, did you not give us a Batman trained by a ninja clan? And then build to a dramatic moment when he must battle them all in a burning temple? And then just have brief, chaotic skirmish followed by sliding down a mountain?

Oh man, what I wouldn’t do for this exact movie infused with a couple modern JOHN WICK or THE VILLAINESS level action set pieces. Does the “theatricality” that’s a “powerful agent” not include doing some awesome fight moves? I still think it should, but I’ve accepted that this is not that type of movie. I can stand calmly as the fights fly past my face. It doesn’t bother me anymore.

Goyer recently talked about the anniversary of BEGINS on the podcast Happy Sad Confused, and he explained the thinking behind the burning temple scene. “We just said, ‘Pretend Bruce Wayne is James Bond, or Indiana Jones, or whomever.’ If we can do a sequence that is just incredible and heart-pounding, and he doesn’t have the mask on, then people won’t care whether or not he has the mask on.”

Which is funny because I like the scene for the whole idea of it, but it never would’ve occurred to me that it was trying to be RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK good! Nolan has definitely gotten better at that sort of thing over the years. What he was already great at, though, was the vehicle action. Another bit of Nolan counterintuitive brilliance was replacing the beautiful curves of previous Batmobiles with a rugged, jagged street tank. The Tumbler was imagined by Nolan as a cross between a Humvee and a Lamborghini (yeah, I can see it). He and production designer Nathan Crowley (BEHIND ENEMY LINES) designed it by kit-bashing models, and it was built by Chris Corbould, who is best known for creating the practical effects for James Bond movies from A VIEW TO A KILL to SPECTRE. The cars were 15 feet long, 9 feet wide, built from scratch to be sturdy so they could really do the stunts (though they weren’t at all bullet proof). Because they could go 100 mph the camera truck had problems keeping up. A 20% miniature was used for most of the jumping scenes, but reportedly a full sized one could jump 30 feet and was used for the waterfall scene.


Though Nolan later topped it in THE DARK KNIGHT, the Tumbler chase through the streets and over the roof tops of Gotham (Chicago) is still a joy to watch. The sequel has largely overshadowed the original in pop culture (and even in my mind), but I never get tired of revisiting BATMAN BEGINS, and (as sometimes happens in these retrospectives) the anniversary is activating a little nostalgia in me. I remember how exciting it was, after years of being needlessly aggrieved by the previous two Batman movies, that they actually managed to make one that was original and great and that I loved in a totally different way than I loved the Burton ones. I remember that I was able to see it at an early promotional screening, and as much as I was loving it, for most of the movie I didn’t know if that would translate to normal people. Maybe they’d think it was boring that it spent so much time digging into Bruce Wayne pre-Batman? But the silence of the audience was broken at the end, when Gordon shows Batman the Joker card – one of those spontaneous explosions of enthusiasm that can’t be forced. And I remember filing out of the theater with everyone buzzing, saying things like “I’m gonna see that again in Imax!” (Yep, Nolan was already pushing the “best seen in Imax.”)

Batman’s beginning was also the beginning of Nolan’s career as we know it today. The indie guy who got to do the Batman movie became the guy doing the Dark Knight trilogy, but afterwards he did not have to become the guy they hire for stuff. He somehow obliterated the notion of “one for them, one for me,” because his movies since then have only been bigger, but never more commercial, often less. He has been able to be a name brand big budget blockbuster director but not an “i.p.” or franchise guy, coming up with his own weird ideas like INCEPTION and TENET and not even sequelizing them. His biggest “one for me” was an R-rated scientist biopic that made $975 million and won the Oscars for best picture, director, cinematography, editing, score, supporting actor, and actor (for the Scarecrow).

BATMAN BEGINS was so good it changed everything. It did pretty well, got more popular on video, then the sequel was a smash. A precedent was established that super heroes could be treated seriously and appreciated by anyone regardless of nerdiness levels. Without this movie would Paramount, or audiences, have given IRON MAN a chance to establish the new super hero formula, kicking off the MCU? And if not, does Nolan now feel like Oppenheimer?

Either way, it’s a prime example of a model we seem to have largely lost in the modern age: the auteurist super hero movie. THE AVENGERS made connected universes the goal of every studio, and I do think those can be fun, but they’re the opposite of what Nolan achieved here, designing a world around one character and story. There was never any chance of another director continuing the series after his trilogy, and even when he agreed to produce MAN OF STEEL he was very clear that no, this does not take place in the world of Batman, we are focused on this other story about Superman. Calm down.

I must confess that I have an obsession with Batman. It was the 1989 movie that kicked it off, so I generally think of him in that Tim Burton context of the artist’s super hero, the dramatic motherfucker expressing his issues through theming, his psyche mirrored by various weirdo villains striking out in a menacing, shadowy landscape, little smears of color streaking across the night sky. So it’s a feat that Nolan can strip most of that away from his version of Batman and still have me 20 years later agreeing it’s One of the Great Movies. And although many movies (CASINO ROYALE, DRACULA UNTOLD) aspired to follow in its reboot footsteps, the recipe was hard enough to duplicate that it never felt like there were a bunch of copycats out there. I don’t watch this thinking “Well, this was the first time they did something like this, maybe you had to be there.”

So there it is, a singular movie of 2005, but basically timeless. A classic of the form that will spawn a masterpiece of the form. A lucky break, an opportunity taken, a successful merging of the high minded and the pulpy. The beginning of something great, but not to be repeated. If you want to make the next BATMAN BEGINS, you’ll have to hit control-alt-delete, open up a blank document, and get climbing.


* * *

tie-ins: There was, of course, various merchandise, though not like in ’89. There was a “stealth action-adventure” video game “incorporating both beat ‘em up and stealth elements.” Bale, Caine, Neeson, Holmes, Murphy, Freeman, Watanabe and others provided voices, but not Oldman (who was replaced by Gavin Hammon).

Action figures include “Ninja Bruce to Batman,” a stylized Bale Bruce Wayne with a bat-torso that slides over him…

…and a Ducard who I think looks like a hybrid of Martin Scorsese, Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro. I guess this is before they started scanning actors’ faces with lasers or whatever.


Special supplement – action guys who are in this:

Tom Wu (BELLY OF THE BEAST), Stuart Ong (IN THE LINE OF DUTY III), Chike Chan (OUT FOR A KILL), Jamie Cho (LARA CROFT: TOMB RAIDER – THE CRADLE OF LIFE), Martin McDougall (SUBMERGED), Roger Yuan (AMERICAN KICKBOXER, THE PERFECT WEAPON, RAGE AND HONOR, RING OF STEEL), Andrew Pleavin (UNSTOPPABLE), Spencer Wilding (later in GREEN STREET 3 and Darth Vader in ROGUE ONE), Dean Alexandrou (THE PROTECTOR), Joey Ansah (later in THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM and THE OLD GUARD), Jon Foo (later the star of BANGKOK REVENGE), Mark Strange (THE VAMPIRE EFFECT).

This entry was posted on Thursday, June 19th, 2025 at 1:45 pm and is filed under Reviews, Comic strips/Super heroes. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

45 Responses to “Batman Begins (20th anniversary revisit)”

  1. This is good, and pretty spot-on, except for

    BATMAN BEGINS is an introduction to the Nolan we know today

    Which I wish was true, but unfortunately I think that honor belongs to The Prestige. Which was the genesis of of his weird obsession with making three-hour trailers (never more than 40 frames without a cut, incessant and booming score, constant cross-cutting. Y’know, the modern movie trailer)

    It did begin his obsession with large format (wb even held the press screening at the massive Lincoln square imax. Which was really odd at the time. And as it turned out, a very wise move. It’s not everyday you see auditorium full of jaded, surly, ny film critics cheer and geek the fuck out). Unfortunately, it was also his last movie to actually utilize the format well, since he barely leaves images on the screen long enough to register on a normal-sized movie screen.

    (After seeing both Dark Knight and Inception in imax, I found it very striking how neither I, nor the people I was with, could remember large swaths of what we just saw, immediately after seeing it. Weirder still, our largest lapses of memory were of the final 30-40 minutes, which would of been the most recent events. I could only deduce that out eyes and brains became exhausted by trying to take in so much, so quickly, and they just gave up. After Dark Knight, I literally asked “Was Tiny Lister in that?” and no one was sure. We couldn’t even figure out if aaron eckhart died)

  2. Wow, this brings me back. O.G. Vernonites will remember that I made my bones here in the early days of the comment system by being the one asshole who thought the Nolan Batmans Weren’t That Great, Actually. And I’m sorry to say not much has changed. I’ve softened on the other two movies in the trilogy (I even kinda like the last one) but this one remains pretty much a non-entity for me. I gave it another shot a few years ago and just found it colorless and dull, with bad action, a dreary vibe, and a charmless hero. The other two are Nolan-y enough that they barely feel like comic book movies at all, and I can sort of appreciate them as something else. This one’s not really comic-booky but it’s not really anything else, either. It gets by for the first third or so on that breathless Nolan plate-spinning that always seems to promise amazing things just around the corner, but this time nothing pays off. I don’t think I’ve ever felt the air go out of a movie harder and faster than when Bale shows up in that lame batsuit and starts talking in that embarrassing voice (which I once, in my pithier days, likened to “Corey Feldman in THE LOST BOYS when he’s trying to sound grown-up”). The movie, and the trilogy really, never fully recovers. I just don’t believe in this character. Fundamentally, Nolan never made me believe that this is a world where a guy would dress up like a bat to fight crime. It’s a wound that never heals.

    As for the legacy, this movie started my least favorite trend in cinema: the transformation of escapist fare into self-serious dirge. This plague has spread across the entire cinema landscape, infecting every genre, from action to horror and even comedy. I don’t want to overstate things, but it’s very possible that I enjoy the medium of film less because of this movie.

    Pretty cool car, though. Shitty Batmobile, but a cool car.

  3. Man, I have always loved this…have the whole trilogy on blu ray and this is the one taken out for regular spins.

    What doesn’t work…continues not to work, the herky-jerky editing (reaching a point of utter absurdity when Batman is encouraging Rachel to continue her crusade and throws down a pack of Polaroids that supposedly shows a judge in a compromising position and I had to PAUSE the film to see just what it was) and yeah the famous Bale Growl.

    But I love the precision clockwork plotting of it. Not a single piece of exposition is wasted. The fact that the hallucinatory poppy Bruce inhales in the Tibetan monastery is the Beta Version of the more potent hallucinogenic mist The Scarecrow uses. The fact that Gotham’s ruin was part of a decades long plot by Ras Al Gul’s Organization…it all comes together beautifully. And I like the Work In Progress nature of how Bruce becomes Batman…also why I still love IRON MAN. The suit, the cowl, the gadgets, the car..a gradual assembly of Batman’s arsenal.

  4. I’ve always been interested in movie franchises which goes on for a bit (I have to weigh my words here, or else it might come back and bite me in the ass further down the road. Right, Vince?). And all of the Batmans have been under my microscope. I kind of agree with Majestyk in that the world around the caped crusader must not be too realistic. But the real test is how good the actor is when he’s Bruce Wayne. And Bale lacks a good deal in that departement. But the stuntman in the suit is good.

  5. I still remember the hype before its release. Everybody was so excited, including me, that in the AICN talkbacks I bonded with a fellow German over it and if he hadn’t lived on the other side of the country, we might have watched it together on opening night. (Hey, at that time a whole bunch of Talkbackers were still actually pretty excitable film nerds! They weren’t all assholes!)

    That said, when I finally saw it, I felt like I had to talk myself into liking it, because everybody else did. Kinda the Aphex Twin or Radiohead of movies. And so far that hasn’t really changed. Okay, I like it MUCH more than THE DARK KNIGHT, which I attribute to Nolan’s head not having fully disappeared up his ass yet and he still made a Batman movie, that offered a certain amount of fun, fantasy and escapism, compared to BATMAN & THE PATRIOT ACT VS OSAMA BIN JOKER. It was already “realistic”, but still gave us Ninja cults, a supervillain whose evil plan was to drive people insane with a fear gas and an action packed finale on a monorail. The realism came more from removing the “Goth” from Gotham and telling us: “Bruce ordered 10.000 of his masks from China, because that is less suspicious than having one custom made”.

    Still, it’s another example for how dreadful the post 9/11 popculture was. Everything had to be dark and gritty and as realistic as possible. Only a little bit of fun was allowed. Mostly in terms of small chuckles, like Gordon making a quip about how jealous he is of Batman’s cars. Kids these days don’t know what a relief it was when the MCU gave us suddenly the permission to actually laugh again!

    I mentioned it before, but I feel like it’s only a matter of time until some talented director pitches a Batman movie, that is more inspired by the cartoons and comics, which will then for a while the definite way to portray Batman on the big screen.

  6. I should give this a rewatch. 20 years ago I thought it worked better as a proof of concept than a movie. Ok, we can have a more grounded take on Batman and Nolan can do larger scale filmmaking (after his 3 previous smaller movies), now let’s see him make a Batman movie that isn’t 75% origin! As a standalone movie I thought it was fine (although lacking in the fight filmmaking), but the idea of what’s to come was far more exciting. I do remember being frustrated that I had seen/heard many people complain Ang Lee’s Hulk (which I loved) “took too long” to get to the Hulk, but then everybody was falling over themselves to praise a Batman movie that spends like 2-3 times as long on his origin.

    Thankfully The Dark Knight delivered on a lot of that promise before Dark Knight Rises threw most of it away (for me at least). A lot of things that started with Begins peaked with Dark Knight and then spilled over into excess after that. By the third movie I found Zimmer’s score painfully overbearing, the combination of booming SERIOUS music over a seemingly endless series of monologues made that movie a real slog (I drove an hour to see it in IMAX and honestly considered leaving before it was over, but I stuck around for Anne Hathaway). Nolan’s ambitious plotting, twists and scale were already becoming unwieldy with The Dark Knight (I still think it should either be even longer with more Two Face stuff or cut shorter with most of that set up for the next movie), by Rises I was frequently distracted by how the scale stretched the logic and mechanics of events (getting ALL the cops into the underground, Gotham being “cut off” from the world for a significant amount of time, etc.). Unlike most people, I went INTO the Bat-trilogy a Nolan fan and by the end of it I started to find him tiresome. Interstellar and Inception didn’t help either, technically accomplished movies that look real nice but feel hollow and unexciting to me (outside of a few sequences). I liked most of Tenet, though. I think the hand-wave-y bit where the lady basically tells the protagonist “don’t think to much about this dumb shit because it doesn’t make sense” made it easier for me to sit back and enjoy the technical exercise, as opposed to his other movies motioning at significance and themes they aren’t equipped to handle that drag them into tedium. The “temporal pincer” shit at the end had me dozing off, though, a perfect example of how Nolan can execute a complicated idea at a large scale but forget to make it exciting (I felt the same way about Rises plane hijacking scene, even watching it on the IMAX screen)

    Based on old comment sections here, I think MOST of us are a bit obsessed with Batman. I was born in ’85 and before the age of 10 I had consumed the Adam West Batman show (which I didn’t even remember watching until my mom mentioned it years later and it unlocked some key memories), the Burton Batman movies, and most importantly Batman: the Animated Series. That still stands a high point for the character. Most movies or shows choose either serious Batman or silly Batman. Real world criminals or superfreaks. Goofy gags or trauma and pathos. Batman: tAS realized that all of those elements are part of Batman’s appeal, and was flexible enough to change it up from episode to episode or even within the same story. Not every episode is good, but the great ones are capital-G Great and influenced not only future adaptations but even the comics themselves. Something like the Two Face origin two-part episode gets more character work into 45 minutes than 2 hour+ movies. Mike Flanagan is writing a Clayface movie and the only reason I think it might work at all is he said the Clayface two-part origin episode is his main inspiration (man Ron Perlman was great as the voice of Clayface!).

    The first time I was ever disappointed by a movie I was excited for was when I saw Batman Forever in theaters around my tenth birthday. The movie gave me a headache and left me confused. It took me a while to realize that I had not enjoyed it, the confusion came from the cognitive dissonance of my brain knowing that Batman is awesome, so a Batman movie is automatically awesome, but this one… wasn’t? Ironically, I would not be that disappointed in a theater again until 17 years later when I saw Dark Knight Rises. I was about 20 when Begins came out, though, and my tastes have changed over the years. Maybe I will appreciate it more now. Or maybe I will notice things that irritated me in later Nolan movies and like it less? I should bust out the blu-ray set. My wife has still never seen Rises after how disappointing I found it (I complained for days about it!), but she is in love with Anne Hathaway so it might be worth watching with her.

  7. My main problem with Batman Begins is that it overexplains Batman to the point of making him a nothing character. Bruce is so insanely pragmatic that every facet of the Batman persona is consciously constructed, robbing him of the psychological torment and the air of mystery that made the Burton version so compelling. I’m not an avid comic book reader, but I think it’s been a matter of canon for many decades that when Bruce is Batman he is his true self and Bruce is the construct. I feel like Batman Begins flips this somehow, into making Bruce the character while Batman is a complete illusion, even in Bruce’s head. The totemic power of Batman is completely deflated by doing this. They pay lip service to this with Rachel’s final lines, but nothing in the movie previous to this has told us this. I can’t help but compare Batman Begins to The Batman (2022), which manages to be both far more realistic but also flips the Bruce/Batman dynamic back to what I feel like it should be, where Bruce is this psychologically damaged possibly-on-the-spectrum broken figure, who becomes whole when he puts the Batman suit on. It’s kind of ironic really how Nolan made Batman less realistic by providing a pragmatic reason for absolutely everything.

  8. I feel bad how Vern was goes”Hell yeah, this is still a fucking great movie” and we are all like “Eh, it’s okay. I never liked it.”

    As I said, it’s the one of Nolan’s Batmen that I like the most and I think it really must be appreciated what it did for modern comic book movies, for better or worse. Just how Tim Burton made people realize that a superhero movie can look and feel like a goth opera, Nolan showed them that you don’t even have to create a stylized fantasy world. If you think about it, even the MCU is influenced by that approach and how they not just (over?) explained some of the more fantastical elements and how they take place in a variation of the real world instead of a hyper stylized comic book world.

    But I guess because of that, a huge chunk of BB lost its impact. The big selling point when it came out was: “It’s Batman, but closer to Michael Mann than Burton or Schumacher”. There even was the story of how Nolan attracted most of his cast by sending them the scripts with a different title and some of the most iconic names changed, so that they didn’t even realize they were reading a Batman script until the protagonist dressed up as a bat. And now this seems to be the only way how people do Batman, even if he is teaming up with super strong aliens, immortal Amazonians, underwater people and nerds with super speed.

  9. I remember really loving this at the time of release, and doing a rewatch probably in 2012-2014 time period where I thought it was “for kids”. I am with Vern in that the fights were a disappointment since we were in the midst of the Bourne era smear style. Nolan has pretty much always been that way though. My favorite thing about this movie is the Bruce Wayne “sycophants” speech he gives to save the people at his party. My buddy and I were howling in the theater. Bale remains the best Bruce Wayne just for that. (Also when he takes apart the shotgun in DARK KNIGHT, that was king shit)

  10. It’s been years since I watched either the Nolan Batman movies or SIN CITY, but based on these reviews it seems like they represent the two sides of the coin in terms of where comic book movies (and nerd culture in general) were at in 2005.

    It seems like Rodriguez was aiming at an audience that liked comic books more than cinema, whereas Nolan was aiming at an audience that liked cinema more than comic books. Rodriguez was very much trying to please a crowd that primarily cared about fealty to the source material, whereas Nolan was trying to impress film critics who didn’t like superheroes or fantasy but did like 1970s crime dramas (and who equated realism with sophistication).

    But even if they’re stylistic opposites, they’re both auteur films that no other director would have made the way they did.

    Twenty years later, neither approach seems to have triumphed – the big tentpole franchises and the straight-to-Netflix streaming movies have both made us accustomed to the idea of individual movies as interchangeable products whose directors are anonymous journeymen doing what the studio wants, in a generic desaturated house style. These geek properties have gotten bigger than individual directors who might have something to prove.

  11. I feel bad how Vern was goes”Hell yeah, this is still a fucking great movie” and we are all like “Eh, it’s okay. I never liked it.”

    It has:

    -A ninja training school atop a mountain in tibet (that has a ninja maze MADE OF NINJAS)
    -An insane evil plot to essentially get a entire city dusted simultaneously
    -Bale somehow doing an American Psycho AND an Equilibrium in the same movie
    -A villain is crucified
    -Rutger Hauer
    -Liam Neeson with a Fu Manchu mustache
    -Multiple bat swarms
    -A villain’s costume is wearing a fucking potato sack on his head

    Sometimes I really don’t know what people want…

  12. I agree with Vern that this is an awesome movie, even though it’s probably my least favorite of the Nolan Batmans (RISES is secretly my favorite. Don’t tell anybody). I like that it focuses on Bruce Wayne as a character, and the procedural aspects of building up the legend and gadgets. That makes it feel “realistic” even though this is also a movie about a secret society of ninjas and a machine that evaporates water in pipes but not in the human body. Like Richard Donner’s Superman, it strives for verisimilitude, and succeeds.

    Even though BATMAN ’89 is like a foundational text for me, and as much as I love Keaton’s neurotic Bruce and operatic vampire Batman, I think Christian Bale is my favorite actor in the role. I agree with Tobias that this seemingly flips the conventional wisdom of Batman being Bruce’s “true self,” but 1. Batman is the most versatile character in fiction, and both portrayals are valid, and 2. The public-facing Bruce Wayne is even more of an act than Batman in these movies. It’s Bruce in the cave with Alfred where he can be his true self.

    A simple but effective punch-the-air moment: “Gordon, there’s nobody left to send in.” Cue the Batmobile.

    I also had the Xbox game. Not great! Felt too on-rails, like you had to do everything one certain way to proceed.

    Also, incredible line here, Vern: “Like a memory cloth cape tailored to fit a rigid skeleton when a current is put through it, time flies.”

  13. I’m not a big fan of contrarian takes just for the sake of being different, but here goes:
    Not only is Batman Begins still 100% a grade A banger, it’s my favorite of the Nolan Batmen movies and the one
    that best maintains the balance of realism and funny book ridiculousness.

    I like both Dark Knight movies just fine and recognize that the scope and grandeur that they are endowed
    are more in line with Nolan as an auteur, but I find both to be both simultaneously a slog and rushed and their politics
    to be abhorrent that they both pale in comparison to Begins.

    Hot Take!

  14. I’m Team Vern on this one. Is it a “perfect” vision of Batman to me? No, not quite but inched the yards a little closer. There’s no doubt that TDK is the most cinematic film in the franchise (for better or worse and with all that loaded context) but this is the base for that old-school style of escalation IF you are going to continue this franchise. TDK felt, and maybe I’m wrong here, like Die Hard With A Vengeance in the way it side-stepped some sequel problems.
    It CAN be neat to do the formula over and shake up the locations or specific threats, but the same way that DHWAV inverts the first film’s major plot-device (McClane having the walkie switching to McClane being a slave to the phone) is comparable to TDK asking if Batman’s actions have led to this.

  15. Will have to wait to get a chance to really read Vern’s essay, but I really like this trilogy, and for my money, each one is better than the last (yes, I’m a TDKR is best heretic). This one is definitely the most heightened reality gothic, pseudo-Burtonesque, and it’s quite a pivot when they go all HEAT in TDK. I love Neeson in this and that whole stretch, and I love when Batman’s face gets weird and big and black, which is straight out of the TAS. And what a cast. Respect!! I’ll try to double back and properly read the review. Thanks, Vern and Vernhive.

  16. Okay – excellent review. I love the way it pulsates with the metaphors and classic lines of the movie. Beyond those stylistic flourishes, the essay shows the level (and levels) of immersion and affection. A thing of beautfy. And now you have my permission to know where I got these scars, because I make my own luck.

  17. Huh, I guess this is when they coined the term “reboot.” Had they made the Aronofsky Batman: Year One I wonder what they’d have called it. Maybe a prequel.

  18. I remember enjoying superheroes as a kid until, one day, they didn’t make sense to me. In the early 00’s, I think I enjoyed the superhero movies due to nostalgia (and because the X-Men more or less aren’t superheroes). But it wasn’t until Batman Begins when I said, ah, THIS makes sense to me — I get why a guy would get into a costume and try to make life better for others under a false identity.

    I just wish these movies had ideas about who “the others” were — there’s a lot of talk in these movies about “the people” but they’re all really bad extras from central casting, nothing more. It’s only the third movie when we’re told that “the others” feel wronged and that the lower and middle classes want to rise up against the wealthy. Gotham City, as an idea that must be protected, is awfully abstract in these movies. The Burton movies at least implied Batman did what he did because of a screw loose, and the Schumacher movies adhered to a generic do-gooderism.

    I remember being thrilled seeing a beta version of Batman in this movie, when Bale is wearing sweatpants and a ski mask or whatever, clumsily jumping from rooftop to rooftop, hurting himself, barely getting away. But the next time we see him, he’s the Batman we know, with all his gizmos and tricks, doing that “disappearing even when you turn your head sideways” thing. Were they better off showing these movies with a Batman who had a learning curve, or is it worse to speed-run that aspect? The latter, I’d say.

  19. I think there’s an interesting analysis that could be done contrasting THE 4 starting engine’s of today’s superhero film status.
    X-Men, Spider-Man, Batman Begins and Iron Man.

    On the surface of those 4 flicks what really sticks out to me are the directors. In order you have: a competent and slick director who has…issues but delivered what the world would accept from a “superhero film”, a cult-favorite who’s entire style is tailor made for the subject, an emerging director with a distinct authorial voice and command of cinema and the kind of oddball “ can he do this?” choice that led to someone like James Gunn getting his chance.

    I don’t really have the time to do a deep dive into this but I think someone smarter than me could really chew this meat.

  20. The interesting thing about X-MEN is that when Bryan Singer did it, he was an arthouse director. I mean, not full blown costume dramas, but USUAL SUSPECTS and APT PUPIL were seen as intelligent thrillers for a sophisticated audience. Plus by then the superhero movie world was still recovering from BATMAN & ROBIN. Having someone like him suddenly making a superhero movie raised more than a few eye brows. But when the movie came out, it was praised for its mature take on the subject, while still delivering popcorn fun. Opening the movie in Auschwitz and giving the villain an understandable reason for his evil plan, was seen as a brave idea. (Today it would probably be criticized as another case of “Why can’t villains be just evil and we have to feel sorry for them?”) So in a way, X-Men not just opened the door for the superhero movie renaissance that went over well with audiences AND critics, it also pre-dates BATMAN BEGINS as “critics’ darling director jumping into the franchise movie game and putting his own spin on it”.

    Although it must be said that in direct comparison, BB wins against X-MEN, which these days feels more like an (admittedly really good) Network TV pilot. (X-MEN 2 is still one of the great comic book movies though.)

  21. Well yeah, CJ, that’s kind of what was fascinating for a minute of comic type flicks. You had a couple successful ones that were pretty serious in their attempts to push back on schlock while still delivering exactly that. Then you have two that were modest but set a “tone” for lack of word, that comic movies chased for two decades.

    It’s interesting.

  22. Glaive Robber, I would like to hear you elaborate more on this theme / claim that the Nolan Batman Trilogy is concerned about “the people” but doesn’t know (?), show (?), or develop (?) “the people” to the extent that you think it should. I think there’s an argument there worth unpacking and maybe having, but I need to better understand what the alleged problem is here.

    In particular, I don’t know which characters, moments, etc. are actually in view when you say:

    “There’s a lot of talk in these movies about “the people” but they’re all really bad extras from central casting, nothing more.”

    I see these films as fundamentally about Bruce Wayne and his journey as an extremely over-privileged, slightly fearful, very traumatized young man who decides to follow in his father’s footsteps (in his own way) and devote himself and his resources to defending, rehabilitating, assisting, partnering with, agitating against, augmenting, and compensating for his city’s weakened justice system. He is crusading against all manners of injustice, lawlessness, chaos. Like his father, he believes that institutions and individuals matter and that “with great power comes great responsibility.” That said, the films mostly are NOT concerned with regular, lower-middle-to-lower-class commoner randos. They’re focused more on the good guys, bad guys, cowardly guys, morally gray guys, and twisted-or-beaten-down-by-the-system guys who are consequential forces of justice, injustice, or complicity. They’re highly moralistic and virtue-fixated films, preaching to a choir of the rich, the upwardly mobile, the professional class, the civil servant class, and especially the employees of the justice system. Thomas Wayne, Bruce Wayne, Lucius Fox, Alfred, Rachel Dawes, Harvey Dent, Bane, Rhas Al How-do-you-spell it, Thalia Al GHOUL, all the civil servants and justice system workers that Joker kills and car bombs and tries to manipulate and prisoner’s dilemma into turning on each other. They’re films about justice and morality and courage and virtue and corruption — whether you use your station and resources or position or whatever situational consequential choices you may have to be a force for good (courage, virtue) or evil (cowardice, abdication, graft, corruption, coercion, chaos). They’re also films that wrestle with extremism and extremist ideologies enacted by extremist personalities. They are films that continually ask, What is the right thing to do, and do I have the will to do it?

  23. @CJ, for what it’s worth, I think BATMAN BEGINS is great and Nolan only went downhill from there. But it may have a lot to do with the way some people treated Heath Ledger’s (fine) performance as “this is the best Joker ever, and the only version of the Joker that we’ll allow from now on, and possibly the best performance by any actor in any role ever”.

  24. @Toxic, that seems as hyperbolic of a way to react as the flip-side of the coin. No offense meant, BTW.

  25. None taken. I know I’m being a bit unfair. But I do honestly like BATMAN BEGINS much more than THE DARK KNIGHT, which I still like more than… well I can’t even remember the title of the Tom Hardy one. BATMAN ENDS?

  26. Personally I think Nolan peaked with THE PRESTIGE, the greatest dumb movie ever made*. From then on he just went downhill (for me. I know I’m in the minority with him. It’s Tarantino all over again.)

    *Let me elaborate on that, but that means there will be Big fat SPOILERS FOR THE PRESTIGE from here on.

    It’s a great movie. Incredible performances, great direction, not boring for one second, but it’s also a movie that

    – takes place in a world where you can find your exact doppelgänger by randomly walking into a bar
    – has a middle part that is a flashback within someone else’s flashback while it is all a whole different flashback
    – wants us to be surprised that the guy who looks like Christian Bale with a wig and a fake beard is indeed Christian Bale with a wig and a fake beard
    – spends 2+ hours on telling us that magic isn’t real and then pulls a random SciFi twist out of its hat (see what I did there?) in the last five minutes

    And seriously, that Nolan managed to make that kind of bullshit movie, but made me go “Wow, that was great!” instead of “What the hell was that!?” is the sign of an incredible director. Sadly I enjoyed nothing he made afterwards. But there are a few of his that I haven’t seen yet and he is not one of those directors who are banned from my screens. I just don’t care much for war flicks or three hour biopics about scientists.

    Jack Sparrow walked so that Ledger’s Joker could run. I said what I said.

  27. I know this could seem kayfabe here for…reasons but I actually did watch The Prestige as a Sunday night flick while spending a few days in Austin lock-up.
    It was really fun. Everybody (who wasn’t totally zoned) was super into it and since for the first 30 minutes or so nobody knew what it was so I had to be the guy who’s “seen it”.
    Every commercial break everybody is breathlessly asking me questions about what is going on/what happens next. I couldn’t bring myself to spoil anything, I just reassured them it’ll make sense.
    It was also cool because our lights-out was 10:30pm (after the local news) but it ran closer to 10:50 and the guards let us stay out in the quad and watch it. The local news did come on after but they left it on for us to listen to after killing the lights and we were bunked.
    Kinda neat.

  28. On consideration, I truly believe studios should use jailhouses as their audience screeners. You aren’t going to get more honest readings than that. For all the things I might “feel” about Nolan films, I’ve first-hand seen the power (if you will) of his filmmaking deployed on an audience you would think would hate it but it captivated them (there was a part of me that felt like the guards picked it because we’d hate it, buuut…).

  29. Even as cold as I am on Nolan overall, after that it was just a no-brainer that he’d end up with an Oscar.

  30. That adds another angle to my 4 pack: Nolan has been the only one to wrangle an O, even though the other 3 have certainly had their shots at it (A Simple Plan, Singer and Favreau have done their “smaller” bait).

    In all honesty, I believe one of these 4 is heads and tails better than the rest but they haven’t been as visible and prolific as the others, for whatever reason.

    I’m also genuinely shocked that nobody has wrangled Peter Jackson into a superhero flick, though that is certainly in the cards. What superhero would you like Jackson to do?

    I’m not sure on that one but I know that if Winding-Refn adapted The Shadow with Tom Hardy I’d probably die before getting to see it.

  31. I am deeply shamed by using “wrangled” one time too many. I watched Alligator last night. I apologize.

  32. I like this one okay, but it is seriously missing a good bad guy. Scarecrow is a side character and Ras al Gul is boooorrrring.

  33. Man I never vibed with this movie. I think it’s part of me just never really liking Batman? I think the first half of the movie that’s pre-batman is way way stronger then when it decides to be a mediocre superhero movie. Everyone involved is tallented enough that the human drama stuff works. But when it tries to be a superhero film it feels like no one wants to commit to being a super hero film. Like it is kind of opposed to what it is at a fundamental level and trying it’s best to not be that, but it’s still a DC Batman movie so it can’t fully commit to ‘not being a superhero’ movie like say Super or some of the more interesting deconstructions so instead we just get a Batman film that isn’t interesting as a batman film, has no real memorable villain, bad fights, and is more interested in being down to earth and grounded then being stylish and fun, wich when your concept is ‘dude dresses up as a bat to beat up goons in a city called gotham” is like…. what are you even doing?

  34. I also find it weird that This movie got this kind of retroactive appreciation for being ‘the start of modern superhero films’ and paving the way for things to come when like, Between Batman and Robin and Batman begins we’d had, Blade, Blade 2, Blade 3, X-men X-2 Hulk, Daredevil, Elektra, Punisher, Spiderman, Spiderman 2 and I think Fantastic Four by then? It came out riding on the coat tails of a huge superhero film boom. I don’t think the state of superhero films would honestly be much different if this movie hadn’t come out? Probably would have got a stand alone batman movie by Snyder before Man of Steel

  35. I always loved the Tibetan prison opening, but also found somewhat letdown by the League of Super Evil Ninjas were so underwhelming, except for the bit where Liam Neeson turns around and confronts Bruce in his house, I liked that. The Scarecrow was a fun baddie, but it was probably smart to keep him in a supporting role.

  36. @Ben, the case could be made that X-MEN deserves the credit more than BATMAN BEGINS for launching “modern superhero films”, and I’m guessing Bryan Singer’s fall from grace has a lot to do with people preferring to mention BATMAN BEGINS as the big inspiration rather than X-MEN nowadays. But I don’t think it’s ELEKTRA or THE PUNISHER or THE FANTASTIC FOUR that led people at Marvel Studios to think “hey, let’s spend 150 millions on a somewhat grounded take on our own billionaire playboy with PTSD”. Without BATMAN BEGINS there’s no IRON MAN or at least not IRON MAN as we know it. It’s ok not to like it, but its influence is hard to deny.

  37. BB was maybe the last step in making superhero movies acceptable “for adults”. Both the X-MEN movies and SPIDER-MAN went over well with even serious critics. Even one of our old political print magazines (Stern or Der Spiegel) dedicated a long article about how the movie is even worth the time of readers who don’t care about popcorn movies and especially not those with superheroes in them. But despite Spidey appearing in actually good movies and the X-Men having this whole real world bigotry angle going for them, it were still movies about mutants who could climb walls and shoot lasers out of their eyes, while this was a Batman movie that felt closer to the big studio thrillers of the 80s and 90s and not like a superhero movie at all, despite the guy in the bat costume and the world domination seeking super villains.

    That said: I absolutely agree. It’s strange how everybody acts like THIS was the birth of the modern superhero movie (and again with its sequel), although we already had several great and popular ones before. Sure, we also had DAREDEVIL and Ang Lee’s HULK confused audiences and critics, but after 1997 (We all mention BATMAN & ROBIN, but it was also the year of SPAWN and STEEL!), everybody was determined to make good superhero movies again.

  38. Rewatched this over the weekend. Still great! A couple moments which stood out to me:

    Rachel: We all know where to find him. As long as he keeps the bad people rich and the good people scared, no one’ll touch him. Good people like your parents, who’ll stand against injustice, they’re gone. What chance does Gotham have when the good people do nothing?

    With everything going on in the world right now, this moment kinda hit me hard. We’re all living in the decadent Gotham that the League of Shadows would happily destroy. But there are still good people in the world. This line does make me wish they had adapted that moment from Miller and Mazzuchelli’s Year One, where Batman busts in on the rich mobsters and says “You have eaten well” and “None of you are safe.”

    Bruce later defends Gotham against Ra’s al Ghul, saying “There are good people here.” I agree with Glaive we don’t really see those regular people in this movie– we have Rachel, and the kid in the Narrows, and I guess the falafel guy– but compare the train climax here with the one from the previous year’s SPIDER-MAN 2. Here, Batman destroys an empty train. There, Spidey saves the train, full of people, and in turn the people save him and the audience sees how each has earned the other’s trust. I love both movies, but there’s a stark difference.

    Ducard: Your compassion is a weakness your enemies will not share.

    Bruce: That’s why it’s so important. It separates us from them.

    I like how this movie lays out why Batman doesn’t kill, and why the gun is the weapon of cowards. Nolan handles it so deftly. But then he really undercuts it when Batman lets Ra’s die.

    And speaking of nods to James Bond, I love that Nolan put Shane Rimmer in here.

  39. I’ve personally not seen anyone suggest this was the beginning of modern superhero films, I’m sure Collider and/or some other clickfarm probably says it about once a week, but I mean anyone sentient. I do generally see X-MEN suggested, which I think is fair. BLADE was really in the mid-budget “smaller” mold of something like SPAWN or even the Dolph PUNISHER, just successful. And, you know, better. That line kind of died out around JONAH HEX and GHOST RIDER IS SPIRIT OF VENGANCE, you can see a bit of their influence in the KRAVEN VENOMS THE WEB films but that feels more a result of awkward concepts and Sony’s ineptness than budget or tone.

    I will say that SPIDER-MAN probably was an unacknowledged influence on BATMAN BEGINS despite their tonal differences, a gigantic hit which did a straight forward take on the character’s origin, something which hadn’t really been done in a major superhero film since SUPERMAN (unless you count THE SHADOW, or I’m forgetting something).

    Still, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a huge moment in the genre and even mainstream entertainment as a whole. It was so influential so quickly that it’s amazing to realise it was, relatively speaking, not that big a hit, being comfortably outgrossed by MR & MRS SMITH, CHARLIE & THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY and MADAGASCAR. I think this film directly leads to CASINO ROYALE the next year, and over the following decade or so everything from Star Trek to X-Men to Robin Hood to that second Street Fighter film to one of the Sonic games tried to pull some kind of “a Nolan”, some more than once. I’m not saying it started from nowhere, BATTLESTAR GALACTICA and BOURNE SUPREMACY are obvious antecedents of much of what it was trying to do, but this not only introduced the term “reboot” into our lexicon it crystalised what a “gritty reboot” was, and would be. And just as a lot of Rock music after Grunge didn’t necessarily sound like Nirvana but nobody would ever go full Poison, I think a lot of the comic book films that followed weren’t primarily influenced by Nolan, but certainly wouldn’t consider going full Schumacher or Beatty or perhaps even Rami, for better or worse.

    I say this as someone who is probably somewhere around the middle on this film by the way. In general I think Nolan is someone who makes immaculate and completely watchable films that hold off on exactly the type of stuff that make me personally feel a particular connection to a movie, and his BATMANs fit in with that. I do genuinely prefer the Burtons, have more of a connection to the Schumacher’s for all their faults and maybe even to BATMAN V SUPERMAN in a weird way (I would watch all three in a row before I’d watch THE BATMAN though). There is also certainly some negative influence that the Nolanification of culture has brought, I think there is probably some correlation with the rise of his style and the internet line of thought where any quirky or surreal element of a film is a sign of incompetency or cluelessness, but for good or bad I really do think this is a before/after moment for mainstream film.

    And while we’re here let’s remember some of the truly 2005 things that happened alongside the release of this film;
    – Not only was there an XBOX/PS2 game, there was a Game Boy Advance game! Not even DS!
    – Not only that there was a java mobile phone game! And then they made another one for the (otherwise un-video game’d) DARK KNIGHT! Adorable!
    – You may have seen the actually-did-happen TV spot that went viral a few years ago focusing on Bruce and Rachel’s relationship to the strains of Nickleback’s Somehow

  40. Pacman, BATMAN BEGINS was the beginning of modern superhero films. Now you’re covered!

  41. But I don’t have an edit button :(

  42. Obviously I’m aware of the influence of other comic book movies of the era. I’ve reviewed pretty much all of them! Many when they were released and then again years later. I was merely bringing up the possibility (in the form of a question, even) that IRON MAN (and therefore the MCU) might have been given the nudge to finally make it out of development into the eyeballs of open-minded movie-watchers because of the way BATMAN BEGINS connected with both comic book people and civilians. Certainly the first IRON MAN is closer to and more based on the grounded BATMAN BEGINS approach than, say, the last 20 or so MCU movies. (In fact I found videos from the time where people outlined how IRON MAN and BATMAN BEGINS are “the exact same movie.”) But yes, maybe it would’ve happened anyway. I don’t know.

  43. X-MEN (2000) in my mind is the beginning of the modern comic book movies timeline that exists today. That movie featured the hottest comic characters/group from comic books in the 1980s/1990s and the hottest character – Wolverine. It also successfully won over many movie critics and found intellectual acceptance as a ‘serious’ movie. Many we’re concerned with it so obviously using the holocaust/Jewish angle as a very on the head plot point – there was a lot of worry that it was not something a comic book movie should touch on. The fact that it pulled it off reasonably well, was competently and somewhat stylishly directed, and had a strong cast that was taking the roles seriously but also managed to find the right tone was all pretty surprising.

    The thing that was really successful about XMEN was that it was a new movie property, it was about a more modern, hipper group of characters – done with a more current postmodern angle. All previous comic book movies were still heavily influenced and storytelling wise beholden to trends and story telling that still can be traced back to the origins of the characters (BATMAN and SUPERMAN) and cultural/story cues as far back as the 1930s. Burtons’ Batman and Donners’ Superman never escape their 1930s roots, at heart. XMEN certainly doesn’t carry this baggage and also doesn’t try to follow that path.

    SPIDER-MAN (2002) cemented the new wave – it was even more artistically successful and was a ginormous financial and cultural and critical success. It was the first fully realized ‘modern’ blockbuster, also hip and postmodern and completely self aware of itself (something that even XMEN wasn’t.)

    I’ve left out BLADE because it’s almost the bastard stepchild in all this, it wasn’t a huge hit, didn’t make much of a dent culturally and critically at the time of release, but in retrospect was the ‘proto’ movie that secretly led the way. 30 years later it’s more recognized celebrated and appreciated for what it was, the sort of showing the way it could be done, before it was done.

    BATMAN BEGINS has always been my favourite of the Nolan trilogy, it’s the most small scale, most comic bookie in terms of set and production design and feel – I like the Gotham in it the most. I’m on record as not being much of a Nolan fan – I just don’t think he brings much real intellectual vigour to movies that are trying to pass themselves off as ‘smart’. Each to their own though. I’m way more a fan of INSOMNIA and THE PRESTIGE, and of his more recent films I think TENET is the best, because it’s just an extravagant heist/action movie (park all your convoluted time travel storyline explanations, it’s a great movie when you check your head and roll with it.

    I always wondered how much BATMAN BEGINS was ultimately going to be a one off – it was very costly in 2005(150 million) and just barely grossed 375 million, so not much of a money maker. I wonder what would have happened if Nolan hadn’t got another Batman film and things had gone differently. Probably not, by the mid 2000s comic publishing was slowing and trademark/copyrights were aging, so the owners of the property started to need to find ways to financially expand the characters and properties beyond comics, but who knows.

    And I always loved the Batman voice – this is a direct reference to what the Batman character does through out the original comics, he deliberately disguises his voice, both to protect his identity (he’s so famous his voice would instantly be recognized and he wants to freak out and screw with people – it always struck me as weird that so many fans of the movies loved to scream about how smart and sophisticated the movies are, but one of the smartest and also comic book true callbacks that it has is crapped on by people. What?) It was like Stephen King remarking that a day after he published his first Richard Bachman book he was being asked if he wrote it, that’s how famous he was. I do like how the Nolan movies emphasized the ‘Dark Knight Detective’ angle. If the Beatles put on wigs and went into a bar and played they would be recognized immediately. Probably actually as soon as George Harrison started playing his guitar, but certiainly as soon as a word was sung.

    It’s also interesting how these 2000 superhero movies emphasize sex and horniness. The XMEN and Batman certainly get down to business plenty, and Spiderman/Peter Parker does some fooling around and there is romance and love. I’ve always thought it particularly chaste and juvenile that so much of the MCU is dull and drab, get with it for christ sakes (bearing in mind that I haven’t paid any attention to MCU for nearly 15 years now, so maybe that’s changed.)

    If anyone’s curious, as a one time massive comic book reader (I was born in 1970) the modern comic boom of the 1980s and early 1990s was my glory days, the Michael Chabon novel “The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay is a truly great American novel, a massive, brilliant, heartfelt and loving, (with some deliciously true and wonderful fantasy elements that evoke a real sense of comic book wonder) read that focuses on the origins of comics in the 1930s, inspired by Siegel & Shutter and the creation of Superman. Definitely my highest recommendation.

  44. @Skani, sorry for the late reply. I agree with you that the movies (correctly) focus on what you mention.

    I do think, however, there’s a lot of stuff about the everyday citizens Batman is trying to protect. Like, he trains with the League of Shadows, and when they say they’re going to destroy Gotham, he jumps to the city’s defense? But who does he talk to aside from his small circle of Batman-relevant people? At the end of BEGINS, there’s that great bit where he forces everyone to leave Wayne Manor while insulting them all, but while he’s feigning being drunk, maybe he really means what he says? In “Dark Knight” he tells Joker that there are all these good people in Gotham, in relation to the inmates and the citizens who don’t kill each other. But he’s wrong about the regular people, since they do vote to kill the inmates. He’s right about the inmates, but, didn’t he PUT a bunch of them in prison? At the end of Dark Knight, he cosigns the plan to lie to the people and tell them he killed those cops, which doesn’t seem all that faithful towards these people. Sorta proves Joker right in his lack of faith in Gotham.

    The third one spends a lot of expository dialogue telling us that Gotham is safe, but also in bad shape because of the lack of trust between the poor and the rich, but what caused this divide and was it there earlier? When Bane starts talking about emboldening the people, we know he’s full of shit, but we don’t really know if the people actually responded to this insane masked dude, particularly when he ties their fates to those of the criminals whom he cavalierly lets out of prison. It’s all seemingly arbitrary.

  45. First off, Glaive, if it’s not your thing, that’s totally fine. My view is that it has a more ambivalent view, which is just that you have the whole gamut, from high-integrity people to low-lifes on the take, to straight-up monsters and psychos. And, of course, the film is fascinated with falls from grace, too — Harvey Dent, Jim Gordon’s cover-up, Batman sort of giving up and withdrawing into himself. I don’t see the situation on the boats in TDR to be some on-the-nose statement that up is down and the real criminals are the working stiffs, while the real victims are the inmates. I think it’s all of a piece with the rest of the series, which is about people having agency and responsibility for their choices. Bruce (and, I gather, Nolan) believes in ideas and ideals — remember, the whole appeal of Batman is that he can become a symbol, something more. So, the films are very clear-eyed that people can be all kinds of shitty, that systems can be all kinds of broken and corrupt, and that even heroes can fall or fail to live up to their own ideals or reputations. But then why do we fall? Bruce believes that the quest for a better Gotham and to be a better person is worth fighting for, but he’s far from infallible or uncomplicated.

    Also, to Pacman, I was of course joking. I don’t really see how BATMAN BEGINS in particular started the modern superhero movie (and don’t really care).

Leave a Reply





XHTML: You can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>