Casting issues:
I just couldn’t get over how Rachel and the Scarecrow/Dr. Crane both looked like they were twelve. I realize this is supposed to be Batman “the early years” but it was hard to take them seriously in their professions. (plus of course I’m not impressed by Katie’s “acting” so that didn’t help). And I love Michael Caine, but where’s the old Alfred?? Christian Bale was ok, better than Michael Keaton’s neurotic dweeb but not as good (IMO) as Val Kilmer.

It was an ok prequel, though certainly not deserving of being in IMDB’s top 250. It did a fairly good job of sticking to the storyline and not contradicting earlier versions. It tried to bring in the deeper philosophical underpinnings of Batman’s character (in a simplistic “Nepal=enlightenment” sort of stereotype). It also tried to make Batman more of a fighter than someone relying on toys/gadgets. There was the generic childhood friend/love.
The plot was basic destroy city stuff.

The mise-en-scene was pretty good, too much CG for my taste – but since when did Gotham resemble Chicago? I always thought it was a stand in for NYC? And why does Batman live in a mansion in the English countryside? These were kind of jarring moments that broke the spell of suspended disbelief for me.

Basically it was a crowd pleaser with nothing too original.
You can figure out the plot miles ahead, but doesn’t mean it’s not an enjoyable ride to the end.

I LOVE THIS MOVIE! ;p