After the fiasco that was Batman & Robin, Batman's presence on the big screen was in jeopardy. Warner Bros. realized how valuable the characters were when adapting to the big screen, and after a a few years of unsuccessfully trying, they finally rebooted the franchise with 2005's Batman Begins. Depicting a darker, grittier, and more realistic Batman, the film was a success with the critics and set things up for a new franchise perfectly. Three years later, a sequel titled The Dark Knight broke all sorts of records, and - what can I say that hasn't been said already? TDK lifted the bar on the genre considerably. But do these movies REALLY deserve all this success? Absolutely.
Batman Begins is by far the most in-depth film concerning Batman's origins, explaining why Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) became Batman, what drove him to fight crime, etc. One of the heaviest themes in the film is fear - Batman facing/overcoming fear, giving criminals the same kind of fear, and so on. As stated above, Begins takes on a much darker/realistic approach to the Dark Knight than previous adaptations - even to the point where you feel like Gotham City can actually be real and in our universe. The film's villain, Ra's al Ghul (portrayed wonderfully by Liam Neeson), doesn't even have powers like the comic book version of the character does, and instead depicts him as the leader of a political organization bent on destroying Gotham and trains Wayne in martial arts (something not depicted in the comics). Still, the film itself is incredibly solid, and offers a script and storyline that you actually WANT to follow.
The sequel, The Dark Knight, takes place a few months after Begins. Rising attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) is cleaning up the crime in Gotham (and does an even better job than Batman), when suddenly The Joker (Heath Ledger) rounds up the gangs of the city in an attempt to bring down the Batman. The film also followed Dent's fateful transformation into the villain Two-Face, and also further develops the characters from the previous film (with the exception of Scarecrow [Cillian Murphy], who only has a cameo in the beginning of The Dark Knight). In the end, the script is even more solid than the first, and although I usually don't care for movies longer than 2 hours and a quarter, the film's 2.5 hours of running time seem rather necessary, and I was slightly disappointed when it was over because of how well-done and captivating it is.
The casting in both films is almost perfect. Christian Bale embodied Bruce Wayne/Batman to near-perfection, and say what you will about his Batvoice, I rather like it unless it gets to the point where you struggle to understand what he's saying (for example, 'You'll be in a prison cell forever' vs. 'Your peanut butter jelly forever'). Overall, however, Bale is by far our best Batman yet IMO. Gary Oldman, Michael Caine, and Morgan Freeman are all perfect as Gordon, Alfred and Lucius Fox, respectively, while Cillian Murphy is always enjoyable on screen. Heath Ledger easily stole the show in Dark Knight, and I believe his Oscar was more than deserved. As stated above, Neeson is excellent as Ra's al Ghul, and it only convinces me further of how great an actor he is. Personally, I thought Katie Holmes was better than Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel Dawes (or, as BarleyPolitical puts it, 'In Batman Begins she was so much hotter'), but Gyllenhaal seemed to fit more into the Dark Knight tone than Holmes probably would have. However, I still think that Holmes did a good job as Ms. Dawes, despite popular belief. Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent/Two-Face is miles and miles better than Tommy Lee Jones' take on the character in the ultimately forgettable Batman Forever, and overall embodies the character to perfection.
The only actual flaw, in my mind, with the franchise is that it hasn't stuck as close to the comics as I would've liked. From being based mostly on Batman: Year One and mixing in some of Long Halloween and Dark Victory for good measure, to altering the origins of Ghul and Joker (which is something I can understand, considering the franchise's grounded completely on realism), to even introducing an entirely new love interest that wasn't in the comics (Rachel Dawes) instead of using Vicki Vale again, the films aren't near as close to the comics as they could've been. This is mostly a minor flaw, however, but I would've liked to see Ghul with actual powers like his comic book counterpart, among other things.
For those who complain about the realism concerning Batman's weaknesses, I don't see what the problem is. Sure it's kinda embarrassing to see Batman on the ground being attacked by dogs while the comic book version can fight off aliens and other super villains, as well as Batman being lit on fire and pushed out a window by Scarecrow, but let's look at the comic version. Both versions depict Batman as a being without super powers who relies on things such as martial arts and intimidation in fighting crime, but the comic version of Batman is arguably more suited for fighting off villains more powerful than The Joker or Scarecrow. While Nolan's version of Batman is far from perfect when it comes to fighting, it still works for the universe that Nolan created for the characters. It's not like Nolan originally intended on bringing in an alien invasion in this franchise.
In the end, Christopher Nolan's Batman saga is easily one of the strongest franchises around. With near-perfect casting, practically perfect scripts, and powerful themes, both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight have raised the bar considerably, and join films such as Iron Man, the first two Spider-Man films, and even newer films such as Thor and X-Men: First Class in doing so. Bring on The Dark Knight Rises!
I rate Batman Begins 4.5 out of 5 stars, and The Dark Knight 5 out of 5 stars.