There should come a point during Chris Nolan's epic and arduous reinvigoration of the Batman franchise where every viewer must ask themselves a, cinematically speaking, sacrilegious question. Is this utterly rebellious and confident commencement of an entirely new superhero saga surrounding the Caped Crusader better than Tim Burton's stunning and hypnotic 1989 original? The mere fact that this questions needs to be dealt with leads to the conclusion that Nolan has done a convincing job and has done away with the stench left over by Joel Schumacher's last two installments. In the end, and I am aware the comic book crowd has their sacred alters, my assessment is that Burton's work checks in as the better movie, both aesthetically and artistically, however, and please hear me out, Batman Begins is the better Batman movie.  

The main difference between the two, disregarding Burton's ability to enchant as well as entertain, is that the 1989 film treats the audience like a denizen of Gotham, where Batman is a ghost invading the night like a phantom plague, while the 2005 incarnation cradles us