Caffeinated Clint
By Clint Morris
Knowing I’ve read David Goyer’s script, a few folks have checked in to ask me if “Batman Begins” is the ‘it-flick’ that so many others are saying it will be – many opinions too, based on script analysis. It’s a straight-forward ‘yes’ I reply with usually, but realise it’s probably time to go into it a little more profoundly, so here’s my take on Warner Bros’ “Batman Begins” – to the point and spoiler free – for every sceptic, devotee and bored blogger out there.
The Storyline – is it any good?
One could say an origins tale – this pretty much resembles what a ‘Batman: Year One’ would’ve been – would be easier to scribble on paper than fat charcoal. That could be true, but a good back-story is what will always keep an audience glued to the screen (Most of us remember the De Niro flashback scenes from ‘Godfather Part II’ as being the guts of the flick) and Goyer’s fleshed this one out better than a butcher would edible chook. Featuring Bruce as a tyke that witnesses his parents death, and as a result pretty much feels like an outsider and a pot of boiling two-minute noodles that’s been forgotten about (ready to explode), the script immediately seems more interested in telling us about the man behind the cowl rather than the well-attired Caped Crusader himself. Wayne’s an angry young chap. Kicking and punching his way through his younger years, he’s become somewhat of a renegade Russell Crowe – easily ticked off and bearing an observable odium against the world. And especially, and rightfully so, a grudge against the man who killed his beloved parents. To be honest, Goyer’s script doesn’t even resemble a Batman movie until the midway-point, largely because there’s no mention or sight of the Dark Knight, but if you stick with it, it grows on you and improves with each paragraph. Wayne eventually discovers a use for all this bent-up anger and comes in the form of a secret identity – a man to assist in capturing Gotham City’s criminals. Eventually, he’ll learn to control the inner demons. The action really kicks in when he dons the suit let me tell ya.
What’s the general tone?
One would immediately say ‘Dark’ but that’s what Tim Burton’s film was also described as. To explain it as a psychological thriller might be better. This is the tale of an angry young man that has to find his way and form a purpose to keep going on. Heck, its more “Good Will Hunting” than Adam West that’s for sure. It’s a real character piece, you get to know ‘everyone’, they’ve been written fantastically on paper (Wayne’s so much more human than he’s been in the previous movies) and much like you did when you first met John McClane you latch onto the improbable hero and root that it all works out for him.
Is it a realistic interpretation of the characters?
If we’re talking the comics, very much so, it’s obvious that Goyer is a huge fan. He’s obviously really thought about what kind of stratagem exists in the mind of the character, considered the world he lives in and meticulously plotted his motives for this first adventure. For starters, most probably assume that the Joker killed Batman’s parents, because Burton said so, but it’s not true, in the comics a guy named ‘Chill’ did that dire deed – and it’s remedied here.
How are the villains?
A lot different than you’d expect, in that they’re more than cardboard crunchers. Both Ra’s Al Ghul and the Scarecrow are fantastically written. These are real people, not just toy-fodder like Mr Freeze. They’ve both got great back stories; have excellent introductions and an even better curtain call. There’s a lot more Scarecrow/Crane in the story than there is Ra’s, but the former gets a fat chunk of screen time in the film’s final act – where as Crane takes a back seat there for a couple of pages – so it’s probably all equal by stories end.
How are the secondary characters?
Gordon – just great. He’s a decent guy that you can’t help but like. He’s one of the first to believe that ‘The Batman’ is all about doing something good and you kind of feel like jumping into the tale and slapping him on the back for his gutsy nerve. Rachel, Wayne’s child-hood friend and a D.A who assists Batman later on, is also a surprisingly well-written character. Surprising because in any other superhero movie she’d merely be a love interest and little more..Yes, there are some romantic sparks there (that’s inevitable….someone’s got to pucker up to Bats), but she’s also got a great little story going on there herself. Let’s hope Katie Holmes pulls it off .Alfred – much more than tea and scones. He’s the glue that holds Wayne and Wayne’s manor together it seems. He’s a sympathetic old soul. Can’t wait to see what Michael Caine does with it. Even the roles of the mystifying Ducard, Fox and Earle are pretty well-written and meaty; explaining why such big-time actors jumped at the chance to play what would normally be perceived as two-bit support roles.
Is there any cheese?
There are a couple of hokey lines, a dashing of black humour and the inevitable superhero self-referential Mickey, but nothing that’s not welcome. If anything, it breaks up the huge slab of action and adventure that occupies the film’s latter half. It’s a much darker film than Sam Raimi’s “Spider-Man” but it’s similar in the way it successfully meshes drama with spits and spurts of the light relief.
What about the action sequences?
As stated below, the second half of the film is full of action. From the moment Batman pops on screen, it’s pretty much a series of skirmishes, fist-foot fights, or chases. Speaking of Chases, just wait till you check out the car chase near the film’s middle – it’s going to be fantastic. One of the finest action sequences in sometime I predict. The big finale is also going to be quite spectacular (it involves a monorail) if what’s on the page is anything to go by. I assume three quarters of the budget will be going on just these two sequences.
Any link to the previous movies?
Without giving away anything of note, no, not particularly. Hopefully that means Prince won’t appear on the soundtrack either. In essence, this really is a ‘start over’ for the series.
But what did I think of the previous Batman movies?
I enjoyed the first Batman to a point. It was as fun as it was dawdling; it was as impressive as it was weird. I liked Keaton, I liked Nicholson….but the Joker became quite infuriating. As for the sequels, Pfeiffer’s Catwoman was sublime and sexy and the key to “Returns”, “Forever” was quite ok too but border lining on the Cheddar and “Batman and Robin”, well….couldn’t keep my eyes open. Never thought I’d watch a Batman film again actually after that abomination.
Closing Comments
This is going to be the best “Batman” movie ever. No butts about it. Sure, it’s probably got its problems and no doubt not everything is going to work as well with some as it will with others, but when something makes you thirsty as hell for the sequel, you know someone’s doing something right. 
The last couple of pages – the ending – frickin ties it all up skilfully and as good as one could wish for. Having spoken to Christian Bale several times over the years, I’m aware of just how much he likes the Batman character and I think that’s what’s going to make him strive to give it his best. He’s a fan of the superhero just as much as we are, so would indubitably be livid as heck if it wasn’t done right. And think about the rest of the film’s cast – Oldman, Holmes, Watanabe, Neeson, Freeman, Caine? – Why would they be some little superhero movie unless they honestly believed it was much more than that. In closing, I’ve got everything crossed for this baby and hope it’s the big one for Chrissy B. Pity we have to endure “Catwoman” first though.
