Review of Batman Begins (2005) by Sultan A — 05 Nov 2015

"BATMAN BEGINS" (2005) AND REBOOTING THE REBOOT.

JUNE 2005.

The breeze grouped the evening clouds tight as I strolled into the theater with loose expectations. Sure, I was happy to see the new Batman flick, but happier to take a night off from long hours at work, the banality of summer school, and the rising Maryland heat. An action movie was a welcome escape to my desperate soul - a spectacle my eyes could latch on to without being connected to my sleepy brain.

"Batman Begins" woke me up.

Bearded Bruce Wayne playing poke-the-bear with hulking inmates in some forgotten prison halfway around the world. Even more remote is Ra's Al Ghul's temple, allowing Wayne to channel his abilities and his drive into something more focused, more dreadful. The film zips along and suddenly he's putting the familiar pieces together, reconciling who he is and discovering who he is going to be, gradually accepting each classic element of the Batman concept into his life.

As it all flashed by I sat transfixed with an investment in the story usually reserved for films like "Braveheart" (1995) or "Gladiator" (2000). The character study of this tortured man - as well as the themes of fear - were just as fascinating as watching Batman accumulate his gear and his allies. This was deep territory for a comic book movie. It was complex enough to make you admire the way the story tied back into itself repeatedly, strengthening its narrative with reinforced ideas and plenty of details. The "Blade Runner"-inspired Gotham City, Tom Wilkinson's world-weary mob boss Carmine Falcone, Michael Caine's expressive, engaging, and touchingly affectionate Alfred Pennyworth...each element of "Batman Begins" was purposeful and given serious thought, ensuring that it would be more than just a story about someone who wears a costume to stop goofy bad guys. The mindless summer action movie that I had middling hopes for had just been upgraded to action drama and simultaneously replaced "Spider-Man 2" (2004) as the most mature superhero film ever made. I zoomed home in my Bat Tumbler (a modest Hyundai Accent) with the soundtrack pulsing in my head, refreshed by my theater experience in a way I hadn't expected.

I didn't know who Christopher Nolan was, and would continue to be ignorant of him until the similarly well-told "The Prestige" released a year later. (A triple-timeline period drama about obsessed magicians, starring Wolverine [Hugh Jackman] AND Batman [Bale again]??? Yes please!) But it was his commitment to carefully crafted narrative that captured me then and makes me eager for his "2001: A Space Odyssey"-inspired "Interstellar" due this fall. Nolan took the familiar concept of Batman and broadened the scope, plunging deeper into who the character was and thereby grounding the fantastic in reality. To this day it is consistently graded as the single most successful updating and retelling of a franchise (especially one as dead in the water as this was after 1997's "Batman and Robin").

So when I pose that "Batman Begins" is the standard for rebooting films, I want it to be understood exactly what I mean by that, and why.

THE POPCORN REBOOT.

Whether the gap between the original and the new is five years or 30, we've seen every side of the reboot concept. Improvements like "The Incredible Hulk" (2008) versus "Hulk" (2003), failures like "Total Recall" (2012) versus "Total Recall" (1990), and acceptable, unremarkable updates like "Red Dawn" (2012) and "RoboCop" (2014). It's these last two that lead me to dissect the concept of what I call the "popcorn reboot" - the unambitious, yet entertaining-enough-to-make-us-money franchise installments that the studios will keep churning out year after year.

In addition to the aforementioned remakes of 80's films, reboots of "Mad Max", "Road House", and "Escape From New York" are all making their way through the Hollywood machine. Sure, I'd love to see them take Mad Max to the next level of his fast and furious dystopia, I'm excited to see what they could do with the complex character of Snake Plissken, and I'm eagerly anticipating the attempt to fill Dalton's ass-kicking shoes. But I place no faith in these projects that think they can live up to their classic originals. Whether they're afraid or unaware, Hollywood just doesn't always follow the successful model of "Batman Begins", or runners-up like "Casino Royale" (2006) and "Star Trek" (2009).

The new "Red Dawn" and "RoboCop" entries were fine updates to their respective stories, but they had no "zing" to them, nothing that improved upon the first telling. The directors and producers didn't expand mythologies, or plumb new depths of character development, or just find a way to make the audience feel something as they watched, for crying out loud. Premises like "Red Dawn" are just begging to be tinkered with, given higher stakes, and infused with more complex plots, but Hollywood wastes these opportunities, just like I fear they will waste the big opportunity with "Terminator: Genesis".

A new Terminator movie that wants to get back to what made the first two exceptional - amazing! Arnold's back - great! Jason Clarke - he's proved a lot in recent years. Emilia Clarke - I've heard wonderful things. Jai Courtney - Jai Courtney? The guy who brought absolutely nothing to the potential take-the-reins role of Jack McClane in "A Good Day To Die Hard" (2013)? This is the "talent" they've chosen for Kyle Reese, one of the most iconic sci-fi characters ever? Does Hollywood just cross its eyes and swing with these reboots?! Movies that have incredible potential, but are often given a bare bones cast and an okay director? Next year's "Jurassic World" is another example. This is the time to reinvent Jurassic Park and learn from the weaknesses of its sequels. Make the investment in an outstanding cast and crew instead of the mediocre version. I mean, I love what Chris Pratt is doing these days, but can you remember the last good movie you saw Bryce Dallas Howard in? Let's see a show of hands. ...I thought so.

Can these films succeed? Yes, absolutely. Plenty of directors and actors have come off of mediocre careers only to deliver fantastic results when lightning finally struck. You never know where the next incredible talent is going to come from. But that's not likely to happen and we all know it. They're out to make their money and don't care enough to take the time that Christopher Nolan or JJ Abrams might to truly craft a film worthy of its source material. So Hollywood will make their box office bucks with the bare-minimum effort, refusing to risk more on proven talent that might deliver a superior product instead of another popcorn reboot. They're afraid and they clearly don't understand what the fans want and what manner of legacies they hold in their greedy hands.

How did Nolan's Batman gangster Falcone put it? "This is a world you'll never understand. And you always fear what you don't understand.".