Batman Begins

Aucun bâtiment gothique, plans en mouvement sur les titres de journaux, des blagues et des émotions positives, des effets numériques attrayants ou une bande-son accrocheuse. Batman Begins n'est pas un conte de fées fantastique. C'est Insomnia avec Batman - un drame sombre sur un homme réel évoluant dans les coulisses du monde réel. Ce qui rend le film unique, c'est le poids du personnage principal et des autres personnages, ainsi que leur inclusion dans une histoire dramatiquement dense, émotionnellement engageante et intelligemment racontée. Tout dans le film est physiquement tangible, la psychologie des personnages est élaborée et la caractérisation de Bruce Wayne est littéralement une autopsie de son développement personnel, expliquant les raisons pour lesquelles il est devenu qui il est. Christian Bale, en tant que véritable acteur de caractère, redéfinit la renommée de son personnage. Son Batman n'est pas un héros exemplaire, il est extrêmement en colère et aime profiter des plaisirs superficiels que lui offre sa richesse. Le casting grandiose n'est pas gratuit et élève le film à une célébration magnifique du genre des bandes dessinées. L'action est excellente, bien que pas autant que dans Spider-Man. Mais est-ce que ça dérange quelqu'un ? J'ai du mal à ne pas donner 5 étoiles, mais en tant qu'idéaliste invétéré, la deuxième moitié, régie par les règles des bandes dessinées, manquait d'innovation dans l'intrigue. La première moitié mérite 6 étoiles. (24/06/2005)

This is how it should have been. Finally, someone was found who rectified Burton's embarrassing blunders (not to mention Schumacher's botched "closure" of the series). This is the true Batman, the dark knight beneath the mask, with a cape hanging on his back and an uncontrollable resentment in his heart. Few could have been a better Bruce Wayne than Christian Bale. The hero of Equilibrium managed to improve his acting expression even further, and whenever he hesitated or became furious, a shiver ran down my spine. But the main hero here is Christopher Nolan and the team of screenwriters who managed to create precisely the atmosphere that the first episode of a comic book series should have. An exhilarating 90% and a final wink with the promise of the unexpected... (10/07/2005)

Visual wizard Burton created a legend, master of the film narrative Christopher Nolan found motivation for it. That's how simple the prequel to Batman, the comic book legend that took deep roots on the film screen, works. Strange fools tried to build on the first two classic films, but the result is the fact that Nolan saves the extinguishing legend, and it must be said that he saves the faith in a big way. His sober, realistic, dark and psychological ride impacts the viewer especially in the first half of the director's well-known aces: superbly sorted narration, suggestiveness, carefully sculpted acting performances (e.g., the episodic scene in the opera is a masterpiece!). The second, much more action-packed half, in which the symbol is already created and it is time for battle, is not as dazzling, because where Burton pulled out heavy visual calibers, Nolan is a little clumsy after all (especially the action scenes suffer from too much confusion). But: Batman comes out victorious in the closing stages and his director with him. Simply because, beneath the mainstream of the remediated comic cliché of the struggle of good against evil, there is a well-regulated underflow that has depth. It's the psychology of a hero, an anatomy of fear and evil that wants to do dubious good. The tool of the lower stream is both the magnificent rhythmization of the shots and the gradation of inconspicuous tension, as well as the excellent acting performance. Christian Bale is truly the best man in the black mask, Michael Caine is truly irresistible with his dry cynicism, Liam Neeson is "just" persuasive and Gary Oldman is unrecognizable... The very awkward Katie Holmes is unfortunate, but she gets lost in the mix. I wouldn't open the question of whether Nolan had surpassed Burton at all. His Batman is different. It has a completely unique atmosphere and a completely unique style. He prefers to look in the face over wild gunfights. That's a good thing, but after all, it brings a certain and understandable inner contradiction to the film, the bearer of which is the somewhat torn direction. Among comic books, however, Batman confirms the position of a true nobleman, and Nolan confirms that "ex-independents" manage to do the impossible – to film intelligent and non-prefabricated spectacles for Hollywood. ___ after the second viewing, I am clearly itching to give it full stars. All of my objections apply, but not that much, and the film improves upon a second viewing... (20/07/2005)

Nolan's trilogy logically begins with Batman’s origin, which had been neglected to such an extent up until then. Today the situation is a bit different, but it was not a bad move then. Batman needed a revival and audiences needed to forget the last film of the last series, Batman & Robin. Nolan relied on good actors and a realistic style within reason. This was yet another contribution to the great family of DC films and helped bridge a decade when the style of the genre was changing fundamentally. (04/05/2022)

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)