Daring to hate 'Dark Knight'; with commentary on Internet Mob Mentality

[tekisui]

Source: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2008/07/daring-to-hate.html

David Edelstein dared to go against the critical mass and now his e-mail inbox is paying the price.

Edelstein writes film reviews for New York magazine and he walked out of "The Dark Knight" with a strong opinion that the film was ponderous and bleak with a disturbing cruel streak. Here's an excerpt:

"We’re now in a modern, untransformed Manhattan, where the Joker’s opening bank heist unfolds in a tense, realistic style with multiple point-blank shootings. It’s a shock — and very effective — to see a comic-book villain come on like a Quentin Tarantino reservoir dog. But then the novelty wears off and the lack of imagination, visual and otherwise, turns into a drag. The 'Dark Knight' is noisy, jumbled, and sadistic. Even its most wondrous vision — Batman’s plunges from skyscrapers, bat-wings snapping open as he glides through the night like a human kite — can’t keep the movie airborne. There’s an anvil attached to that cape."

Yes, he made a bit of a hometown error there (the Gotham scenes of the movie were made in Chicago, not in his own New York) but it's his point of view that really sent fans into a rage. The hate mail reached such a avalanche level, he responded with a second essay. Here's his intriguing explanation:

"Why — apart from narcissistic injury — do I respond to the abuse? Because there has been a lot of chatter in the last few years that criticism is a dying profession, having been supplanted by the democratic voices of the Web. Not to get all Lee Siegel on you, but the Internet has a mob mentality that can overwhelm serious criticism. There is superb film writing in blogs and discussion groups — as good as anything I do. But there are also thousands of semi-literate tirades that actually reinforce the Hollywood status quo, that say: 'If you do not like The Dark Knight (or The Phantom Menace), you should be fired because you do not speak for the people.'"

Well, the people don’t need to be spoken for. And a critic’s job is not only to steer you to movies you might not have heard of or that died at the box office. It’s also to bring a different, much-needed perspective on blockbusters like The Dark Knight.

[DS1]

1. He brought the phanton menace in to this?

He SHOULD be fired

[NightWatcher]

2. but Heath Ledger's dead, so it must be a classic...

Howard the Duck is dead, but that movie is no more important because of it either.

All art is subjective (except for Pink Floyd- they rock :hide: )

[Catch22Dem]

6. Pink Floyd gave us proof that god walks among us in human form

You may know him as David Gilmour.

[Captain Angry]

7. Howard the Duck was awesome.

Ok, Leah Thompson was awesome. The rest of that movie was pretty much a total loss. :-)

[iamthebandfanman]

49. whatever!

howard was a lucus masterpiece.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

124. Howard the Duck STOLE their tag line from some old novels.

"Trapped in a world he never made" is from the "Studs Lonigan" books by James T. Farrell.

A TV movie was made of "Studs Lonigan" starring Harry Hamlin some years ago.

[patrice]

8. except for The Who nt

[NightWatcher]

14. when I hear a Who song, my brain thinks that another CSI is starting, and I run away

[patrice]

23. CSI?

[Occam Bandage]

24. ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WseRJMQf1U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6itbHhm_TvQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-anMDapRbs8

[patrice]

40. Thanks, I LIKE Gary Sinise, but . . .

in re The Who, may I recommend The Kids Are Alright.

[glitch]

91. :) you I like.nt

[Quixote1818]

37. Ledger did well, but it was not an Academy Award wining performance

There were times when he just couldn't keep the tension going and just didn't seem that believable to me. Other times he was brilliant.

[Occam Bandage]

44. I thought Ledger was fantastic, but if he wins the Oscar it will be entirely because of his death.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

102. Might be a sympathy vote like Peter Finch in "Network", 1976.

Posthumous Oscar.

[Bjorn Against]

116. Hey Peter Finch gave one of the great performances in movie history in that role

Everyone should watch Network again today, because let's just say it holds up really well in the age of Fox News.

[MetaTrope]

104. Howard the Duck is back in high-quality reprints

http://www.amazon.com/Howard-Duck-Omnibus-Steve-Gerber/dp/0785130233

[Windy]

3. I saw it last night and thought it was pretty good.

I think that Christian Bale is a great Batman. (not too hard to look at either..just my humble opinion)

[Muttocracy]

4. found his review of it for NPR's Fresh Air

(took me a minute to figure out why I recognized his name)

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92624890

'Dark Knight,' A Cheerless Blood-Drenched Allegory

written after "being pilloried"

[notadmblnd]

5. How rotton of them to criticize Laura's film debut.

I for one, give it a :thumbsup:

[Occam Bandage]

9. Which rather reinforces my belief that he wrote a negative review not so much because

he is opposed to the film, but because he wanted to be seen writing a negative review of a popular film. Writing an article praising himself for daring to oppose the opinions of the unwashed People in need of dissenting voices? That's a man who takes himself too seriously.

[tekisui]

11. He got his name in a couple of stories.....

[RandomKoolzip]

16. Either that or he honestly disliked the movie.

Which is possible, ya know.

Nowadays, when criticizing a big-budget movie, you're not just critiquing the film itself, but the marketing campaign that travels with it. The excitement and hype that encases a film like this one is so enormous that one must criticize both the new clothes AND the emperor who wears them.

[Occam Bandage]

21. Which would be a possibility if not for the masturbatory self-congratulation in the OP.

He indeed did want to be seen opposing the Hype Parade around the movie. However, that doesn't have anything to do with the actual merits of the movies; that's him jockeying for in-crowd cool points. He sees The Dark Knight as self-promotion--but then not only writes an article sure to draw attention to himself, he then writes another article explicitly drawing attention to himself.

[TexasObserver]

66. "Hey everybody, look at me!!"

This critic is like the Michael McDonald child character on Mad TV. "Hey everybody, look at me!"

STU-ART!!

People seem to forget that movie critics are paid to write an ENTERTAINMENT column. They get more publicity and more readers by being negative than by being positive. It's a field that is built around this concept: Verbose pomposity expressed in a preaching, judgmental manner, the purpose of which is to please the CRITIC in his feelings of smug rightness, for his enjoyment and the enjoyment of those readers who need such a vicarious experience, but lack the vocabulary, time, and opportunity to do so.

[RandomKoolzip]

10. I have no desire to see that fucking movie.

It's just a marketing tool, a mega-billion dollar commercial for itself (product disguised as art).

Plus, do we REALLY need another fucking Batman movie?! Jesus, the last one came out like three years ago, and there was no brou-ha-ha, now this one comes out and it's all of a sudden some brave, new revolutionary vision? Sorry, not buying it. The only thing "new" about this one is the CGI. Why am I supposed to give a shit? :shrug:

[tekisui]

13. It's one of about 20 Action/Adventure/Comic movies to come out each Summer.

They are a dime a dozen. IMO.

[gmudem]

15. There was no CGI used in The Dark Knight.

Fail.

[RandomKoolzip]

18. So "no" equals "not that much"?

http://gizmodo.com/5019576/shooting-the-dark-knight-with-little-cgi-and-massive-film-stock

Either way, it's just a bunch of explosions, melodrama and special effects.

Pass!

[Codeine]

25. Yes there was.

Epic fail.

[Occam Bandage]

30. Well, both are correct-ish.

Yes, there was CGI used in the movie; burn trauma to Harvey Dent was CGI, as was the phone-sonar thing. However, both uses are unobtrusive and serve only where traditional filmmaking techniques proved unsatisfactory. The major crash-bang action scenes were filmed using set pieces and not CGI, and it is certainly incorrect to claim that CGI serves as a point of difference between The Dark Knight and Batman Begins.

[Codeine]

35. Well, then that pretty clearly means

that rather than "both being correctish" the person who made the statement "There was no CGI" was wrong, wrong, and wrong. ;)

[Occam Bandage]

42. Oh, certainly. It was a wrong statement countering a wrong statement, but

I was playing glass-half-full. ;)

[Codeine]

52. There's no water in the glass at all!

It's all CGI! :evilgrin:

[yardwork]

147. I wouldn't characterize the CGI on Harvey Dent as "unobtrusive."

[Terran]

139. Memo: using the word "fail"

to correct someone else's trivial and largely irrelevant error is a misuse of "fail". Learn to use cool internet jargon properly before someone gets hurt.

[Occam Bandage]

20. Couple points.

1. All art is self-promoting. All art was at one point contemporary. Most art has, at its time, been seen as either a toy of or a tool of the wealthy. So what if The Dark Knight's backers have a base motive? So did Michelangelo's.

2. The last one was similarly promoted as a dark, mature, deep reinvention of a complex Jungian character. This is as well.

3. There is very little CGI in both movies; Christopher Nolan prefers set pieces to CGI. It sounds like you're just recycling complaints you read about other popular movies.

4. You obviously don't have to give a shit, but refusal to like something because other people like it is as dumb as liking something because other people like it.

[RandomKoolzip]

26. I have no desire to see that movie because it's exactly like 99% of all the movies

that come out of Hollywood these days: remakes, big-budget special effects jack-offs, superhero rehash, and melodramatic claptrap. I know this because I've seen the commercials, the marketing, the hype, and it's alienating to those people who genuinely like film. You don't need to step in dogshit to know it's dogshit. I just don't want to see another fucking superhero movie that's already been remade a dozen times (but which feature all-new chase scenes and explosions!) Superheroes do not interest me. That's not what I'm looking for in movies.

Batman as a "Jungian" character?! Jesus. That's fucking sad.

Oh boy, I used the acronym CGI when I meant "special effects!" I hope I get another twelve replies correcting this. It'd make my day.

Anyways, enjoy the merchandising spree. I'm sure those Burger King Dark Knight commemorative drinking glasses will be worth something some day.

[gmudem]

31. Well you're missing out on a great movie.

But nobody is stopping you from complaining about a movie that you haven't even seen. You're definitely credible on the subject even though you haven't seen it.

[RandomKoolzip]

34. Well, I sure ain't missing out on the hype!

[Occam Bandage]

41. "I know this because I've seen the commercials!"

It's a good thing you don't let marketing hype influence you then. Oh, wait. Wait wait wait. Your opinion of this movie is entirely based on marketing hype. You're running off the exact same mental map as the teenyboppers who go because of the ads, except with a NOT-gate thrown in.

People who "genuinely like film?" Have...have you read the reviews? With the exception of Mr. Write-An-Article-About-How-Awesome-I-Am, critics have been lining up to give Chris Nolan blowjobs. The few people who don't like it are the sort who like to make a show of not liking popular things. You'd think that if they cared so little about what was popular or well-financed, they'd be able to get through a paragraph without talking about popularity or financing.

I honestly haven't noticed the merchandising spree, outside of reading an article or two about the promotion budget. I don't go to Burger King or watch television (baseball and MSNBC excluded). Therefore, I am not affected by it. You might find it easier to escape The Evil Corporate Promotion Machine if you stop paying so much damn attention to it.

(And yes, the character motivations in Batman draw heavily (and famously) from Jung, especially in the post-Frank-Miller comic books. It ain't just the kapow-bam-bop 1960s TV show. I understand you have no interest in superheroes, but it's silly to debate the merits of things you don't care to know anything about.)

[RandomKoolzip]

48. Oh, here we go again....

Look, I'm speaking as a fan of film who is tired of being burned. Everytime another one of these goddamn nblockbuster movies come out, it's surrounded by massive hype and marketing. I decide not to see it, because I despise that kind of shit, and then all my friends tell me, "hey! Don't be a crank! Go see it! It's actually pretty smart and stuff! You're missing out!" So then I go see it, and It's EXACTLY what I predicted it would be: a bunch of explosions, characters talking in muted cheesy whispers, and some pseudo-intellctual gloss thrown in to justify the explosions and flatter that section of the audience who'd normally feel guilty for enjoying these kinds of movies. Oh, and the cinematograpy is "good" (so what. It's actaully harder to make a film that looks "bad" these days.) EVERY SINGLE TIME, EVERY SINGLE MOVIE it's the same: From The Matrix to all the other Batman sequels to Spiderman to whatever, it's always been the exact same experience. I'm tired of being buffaloed by marketing into wasting my money and time on this bullshit.

"People who genuinely like film": people who want to see the medium used to its fullest potential as an emotionally and intellectually rich art form, not used to sell hamburgers and squirtguns. People who are dedicated film watchers, who have a knowledge of the history of film as an art, who are initmately familiar with the obscure stuff, the classics, the GOOD mainstream stuff and the indie market. The critics who have been praising this movie are typically big name guys like Richard Roeper (who claims to like EVERYTHING that Hollywood puts out - anyone remember his drooling review of "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," a film everyone's already forotten?) In other words, people on the payroll. Edelstein's taking a brave move by being the one lone voice pointing out that the emperor is naked save for his Bat-mask.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

76. "Forgetting Sarah Marshall"

Your criticism of a movie critic's review is that no one remembers the movie he praised....maybe because it had little to no hype? The same type of thing you are railing against?

Hey, everyone forgot the "Shawshank Redemption" until it hit cable. Then suddenly everyone found out how great it was.

[Lisa0825]

82. Not all film is high art. Sometimes it's just plain entertainment.

(Speaking as someone who has not seen it yet, just commenting on your opinions) And that's OK too. If you are too cinematically sophisticated to enjoy an insanely energetic action movie that is light on plot, or a comedy aimed at the typical mass market consumer, or highly hyped, dark version of a comic book hero, that's your prerogative. But you type as if everyone who is OK with being entertained by a wide range of films are just peons with brains the size of *bush. That's insulting and pretentious.

[PVnRT]

133. You go in thinking it's going to suck, and you're shocked when it does?

Duh.

Maybe you could point out what the "good movies" are so us unwashed, zombie-like drones can watch them and become as sophisticated as you, hmmmmmmm?

[RandomKoolzip]

134. Sure! Well, first off, there's "Local Hero," then there's "Nashvi-" Oh wait...you're being sarcastic

aren't you? Damn! You and your facetious humor have spotted an elitist! Hulk smash!

[PVnRT]

142. But, seriously, what makes a movie good?

I hear lots of complaints about how movies suck these days, but never any criteria about what makes them "good," save for a sneaking suspicion that it has to be independent, foreign, or both.

[RandomKoolzip]

144. Honestly? My subjective criteria: Rule no. 1: no superheroes.

Rule No. 2: no special effects, or actually no really obtrusive special effects.
Rule no. 3: no sci-fi, no fantasy bullshit.
Rule No. 4: no car chases, no gunplay for the hell of it. I especially hate movies about "hitmen" and "the criminal underworld" (Thanks A LOT, Quentin Tarantino. :grr:) even if they're "quirky." Where in real life do you find characters like the ones in most action films? Answer: in casting sessions for the latest Hollywood action flick.
Rule no. 5: It has to seem like it was written by, directed by, and tailored to adults. There ought to be an intention on the part of the filmmakers to present a reasonable simulacra of reality.
Rule no. 6: Quirkiness is okay, but it can be overdone. ("Rushmore" gets the balance EXACTLY perfect and is my personal favorite movie of all time) Quirky does not equal funny.
Rule no. 7: no Drew Barrymore. No Brad Pitt.
Rule no. 8: no remakes. If it was already a movie, I ain't watchin' it. If it used to be a TV series, I ain't watchin' it. If it's based on a "Saturday Night Live" sketch, I ain't watchin' it.
Rule no. 9: avoid melodrama at all costs. If I feel manipulated by fakey dialogue, swelling music, or any of the other filmic tricks of the tade, I will turn the DVD off.
Rule no. 10: It shouldn't resemble a hiphop video extended to 90 minutes. The set design or "look" of the film shouldn't be its primary selling point.

This is my own subjective criteria. If it doesn't match yours, that's understandable. I will continue to look for the films that surprise and delight me, and fart in the general direction of those that seem like bullshit until the end of my days, however.

Basically, try to imagine the American film landscape before "Star Wars" and you'll have a good idea where my own tastes lie. At one time Robert Altman was NOT considered a "fringe" or "art" or "elitist" director; "Nashville", for instance, was a mainstream product through and through and still managed to be toweringly good cinema. I pine for a time when all movies wren't aimed at the lowest common denominator like they were back then. I'll digress and list a just a few of my favorite films:

Harold and Maude
California Split
Atlantic City
Zodiac (REALLY well done!)
Sullivan's Travels
Barton Fink
Raising Arizona (let's hear it for the Coen Bros)
The Man Who Would Be King
Catch 22
The Conversation
Jonah Who Will Be 25 in the year 2000


Actaully, independence is no guarantor of quality. I've screened and helped select many films for film festivals in different cities and you'd be APPALLED at the awfulness of most indie cinema. On the whole, though, since indie directors by necessity have to rely on things other than special effects, so, in that department, they have a slight advantage.

Okay, on and on...you get the picture. Call me eltist, whatever, I don't care. Your opinion is just as valid as mine. The trouble is that the average person's tastes get catered to regularly, while mine are ignored. This leads to bitterness and frustration.

Oh well. Have a good day.

[EOTE]

136. FSM was a good movie.

And FYI, The Dark Knight has a 94+% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, so the great bulk of critics, whether they're the Hollywood types or not, liked the movie (I believe it's only 2nd to Wall-E for the best reviewed movie of the year). There are good superhero movies just as there are good independent films. There are lots of shitty independent films and shitty hollywood films as well. Apparently, just like the article quoted in the OP, you get self-satisfaction from tearing apart films that you know little to nothing about. If there's something worse than a film snob, it's a film snob who knows nothing about the films they lambaste.

[rch35]

83. The "brou-ha-ha" was there when the first one came out, but thats besides the point

its there now because this movie not only has some of the best modern actors of all time, it transcends what a "normal" comic-book movie is, creating a legendary movie that happens to be based on a comic book. This probably worthless explaining to someone who is dumb enough to lump an entire genre into one pile and declare each of its contents worthless.

[loudsue]

85. I'm with you, Random.

After seeing the previews, I'm positive I won't be spending my hard earned, devalued dollars on that particular piece of "art".

[The Backlash Cometh]

107. Of all the Batman movies I've seen, this version is the best.

[Deja Q]

118. *DING* *DING* *DING* You hit the nail on the head!

So many other forms of 'entertainment' that use glossy effects and thinly veil (if at that) put in modern day talking points to grab audiences are so puerile, pedantic, and patronizing that anyone who calls them art is naive at best.

It's as much art as giving a newborn baby a paintbrush and a mirror and everybody going "ooh" and "aah" over the sloppy scribble littered on the canvas.


And to think 'The 40 Year Old Virgin' had more depth to it -- that's too ghastly to contemplate.

[Fox Mulder]

123. I have no interest in seeing it either.

Like you said, it's just another fucking marketing tool.

[Whisp]

126. hey Fox. you going to see the X Files movie?

I go to the threatre rarely but I might take this one in.
I'm afraid to be dissapointed tho. I'd rather do that ovr a rental than filet mignon popcorn.

[awoke_in_2003]

143. " do we REALLY need another fucking Batman movie?! "

Well, Batman Begins was the first want that didn't suck, so I would like another one.

[gmudem]

12. I think the guy is just dead wrong

And he is probably looking for attention by saying this.

He loses all credibility with me when he says "the movie lacked imagination, visual or otherwise." Maybe this guy should have actually had his eyes open during the movie because the cinematography in certain scenes was absolutely stunning. The way they did the Joker and Two-Face was perfect as well.

If you want to bash the movie, at least try to make sense doing it.

[TommyO]

28. Another scene that got me

was when Commissioner Gordon and the Joker were in the interrogation room, the lighting had the Joker's visage hanging there on screen in a field of blackness - truly disturbing.

[gmudem]

46. Great example.

I'll be shocked if this film doesn't win best cinematography or whatever it's called.

[Quixote1818]

32. It had some unique things, like using cell phones for sonar

I thought it was well cast and the guy who played Batman was really good. It was too long for me though. Maybe because it got hot and stuffy in the theater after 2 hours and 40 minutes. I lost interest after two hours.

[TexasObserver]

17. God, is he full of shit!! Typical guy who can't do, but can critique.

Only fools pay attention to movie critics. They're idiots.

[tekisui]

19. I use critics as a barometer.

One local guy is a notorious hard ass. He slams most movies, but he is consistent. After a while of reading reviews, and watching what I want and forming my own opinions, I can use a critic to know to not waste my money on something or to not miss something.

But, I may never agree with their opinion.

[TexasObserver]

36. I've never seen or not seen a film based upon a review.

Just as I don't make my political decisions based upon what Peggy Noonan, Kathleen Parker, George Will, or David Broder have to say. They're all "critics" too, and all full of shit.

[RandomKoolzip]

22. Anti-intellectualism on a Democratic board? Interesting.

BTW, that argument about all critics being failed (fill-in-the-blank artist who work in the field the critic is plowing) is utter bullshit. By that argument, all political commentators would be failed politicians, right? Which would make all the pundits you agree with illegitimate by those standards.

[TexasObserver]

33. you have a very poor understanding of "intellectualism"

Movie critics are idiots. Has nothing to do with intellectualism.

Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one.

[RandomKoolzip]

43. "Movie critics are idiots." Ah. Thanks, got it.

Anyone who's knowledgable, rigorous, dedicated, and has the ability to write intelligently on a subject is an "idiot." Okay...good thing we have some definitions down!

So, would that make the average American movie-goer a "genius," then? Because I find it hard to believe a genius would shell out 14 bucks or more to see "The Incredible Hulk."

All you're doing is substituting the word "idiot" for "pointy-headed know-it-all" and using the same line of argument against the academic and/or intellectual tradition - the same line of argument that has done so much good for America in the last fifty years. :sarcasm:

[TexasObserver]

47. Like I said, you don't understand the word "intellectualism."

As for the films you imagine I view, you're equally wrong.

Your attempt to project upon me silly stereotypes that exist in your head is laughable, just as your attempt to cast yourself as intellectual is laughable.

[Dorian Gray]

93. I paid money to see Hellboy

but so what? It's ridiculous!

Doesn't make me stupid. I like arty films, and I like entertaining blockbusters. They're both have their place in the theaters. I'd like to see a little more of the first one be more readily available and popular, though.

[Snarkturian Clone]

95. 14 bucks?!?!

You're going to the wrong theatre. I live in a major city and it's $5 here on sunday mornings. $6 at the Indie theatre on wednesday nights. Haven't paid more than $6 for a movie in 5 years.

I see almost every movie that comes out in the major theatre and in the indie theatre. Both have their ups and downs, you go through some lull periods but sometimes good shit gets through. Dark Knight is of the good shit variety. Son of Rambow and Mongol were great in the indie theatres this summer.

Sometimes I hate the preview of a movie and I'll see it anyway... every once in awhile it will be good. Don't be such a Debbie Downer.

[Occulus]

99. Allow me to correct: movie critics are *individuals*.

I'm not going to allow one other person to decide how I'll spend a couple hours and six or seven bucks.

Now, if twenty or thirty critics are all saying the same thing, well... that's very different (which is why I like the rotten tomatoes website).

[BigBearJohn]

84. ... and they all stink

[Codeine]

27. Ai yai yai.

Is that what we've lowered ourselves to? That's the kind of crap the mouthbreathers lined up for Spiderman 17 like to say. :eyes:

[TexasObserver]

38. Do you always insult everyone who disagrees with your opinion of movie critics?

Take a deep breath and maybe you'll recover from your spell of the vapors.

[Codeine]

51. No insult,

merely an observation. The modern tendency toward the denigration of the art of critique is a sad one, and it disappoints me to encounter it on DU.

[RandomKoolzip]

55. Exactly.

The above poster also took my observation as some kind of personal attack, which was kinda weird.

[TexasObserver]

58. You think Joel Segal and Michael Medved are intellectuals?!

see below for my debunking of that delusion

[TexasObserver]

57. You're mistaken. The critic denigrates art. He's not the artist.

A critic is not an intellectual. A critic is not an artist. A critic is not an academic. A critic is not a scholar.

You're confusing critics with people who are successful in a field of endeavor. You're trying to make the movie critic a university scholar. Micheal Medved? Joel Segal? These are your heroes?!

Movie critics are largely buffoons, who write for a small segment of the population who thinks reading the reviews of critics is a worthy use of time, largely because they enjoy vicariously the pedantic haughtiness of such critics.

I don't even go to movies. I wait until they're on DVD. I give Netflix MY REVIEWS of films I like, and Netflix gives me the ratings by actual viewers for such films. I watch films like Gallipoli, Breaker Morant, The Killing Fields.

If I see this film, Dark Knight, it will be some time in the future, and I'll watch it for entertainment, not edification.

[Codeine]

63. Your absolute statements are increasingly ridiculous.

A critic can be an intellectual, though as in any field of endeavor most are not. A critic may indeed be an artist of the written word, like Hralan Ellison with his television reviews. A critic can certainly be an academic, as there is an entire area of academic study devoted to film theory. And your assertion that a critic is not a scholar is laughable, as the great film critics are living repositories of knowledge regarding film canon.

Micheal Medved and Joel Segal are no more representative of film criticism and the art therein than Dan Brown or Tom Clancy are representative of the art of the novel. There is a world of film critique that extends well beyond thirty seconds on your local newscast or the pages of USA Today.

Of course critics are largely buffoons, just as film makers, painters, writers, car salesmen, and DU posters are largely buffoons -- the human tendency is always toward buffoonery. One must use some critical analysis to discover the wheat amidst the chaff. A good film critique can be golden, a star that guides his readers to treasures they may have missed while also pointing out those instances where the Emperor has left the house in his birthday suit.

And, for the record, I absolutely loved the first of Nolan's Batman films, and I'm planning on seeing the new one in the theater despite Edelsteins's negative review. But a blanket denunciation of the art of film criticism is beyond absurd.

[TexasObserver]

72. Sophistry fits you well.

Give it a rest. No one, especially me, cares what you think about what I think.

[Codeine]

74. I can tell from the way you keep responding.

;)

[Occam Bandage]

77. There are few who can resist scratching an itch.

Doesn't mean you care about the rash ;)

[Codeine]

78. Well played! :D nt

[EOTE]

138. That's a tad hyperbolic, don't you think?

I'm sure you're aware that there were 3 Spiderman movies. The first two were good (the second one was great, actually), the third one sucked. I'm not any less intelligent because I saw the third film. I wanted to see for myself if it was any good. Now, to insult tens of millions of people for their choice in movies, that is pretty damned stupid. And to mock the intelligence of such a massive group of people by using a grammatically incorrect sentence? That's hypocrisy as well.

[Quixote1818]

29. I saw it yesterday. It was way to fucking long!!!!

I was enjoying it for about two hours then just wanted the fucking thing to end. I was about to walk out too. I give it a C+.

[Zomby Woof]

39. Meanwhile SAG and AFTRA may yet go on strike

The industry still hasn't made a full recovery from the writers strike. He's going to have to find other objects of derision to make his paycheck.

[raouldukelives]

45. I love the new wave of "dark" comic book movies

The last Batman movie was easily one of my favorite comic book adaptations so far. Right up there with American Splendor, Ghost World and V for Vendetta. So I have high hopes for it. Critics be damned!

[RandomKoolzip]

50. American Splendor and Ghost World were beautiful movies. Everyone should see them.

The Dark Knight is another Batman movie.

[NashVegas]

53. People Have a Misguided Notion of What Critics Are / Do

Critics are merely people who get paid to articulate an opinion.

It used to be they were people who got paid to articular opinion because somewhere, an editor was convinced enough that the writer had good taste. Somewhen that got blown up.

One no longer needs to have good taste, just some knowledge about movies, the ability to write well and a drive for self-promotion.

[RandomKoolzip]

56. "Good taste" is subjective.

[NashVegas]

73. In Context, Not Really

[HannibalBarca]

54. The problem with people such as....

Mr Edelstein is that their criticism is often rooted in a self congratulatory contrarian viewpoint that reinforces their fragile egos when they see themselves as being the odd one out, it reinforces their perceived intellectual martyrdom, if you like and yes all movie critics are narcissists.
Calling this a bad film is simply incorrect on a technical,interpretative, cinematography etc level, Chris Nolan is one of my favourite directors and has never in my mind made a bad film. He favours complexity and layers with multiple subplots which seems to lose some people.

[TexasObserver]

61. Agreed. Movie critics are largely delusional narcissists whose pedantic qualities are not deserved.

They're blabbermouths whose catty remarks sate the need for a feeling of superiority they and their readers crave. They appeal to pseudo intellectuals, people who only THINK they're intellectual.

[Codeine]

64. But that's simply not true of Mr. Edelstein.

Anybody who listens to NPR regularly knows that his critiques are measured, articulate, thoughtful examinations of the films, and that his reviews are more positive than not. Even the review in question was mixed in tone, with many things being pointed out that he liked.

[tomg]

106. Actually, I was going to ask when someone was

going to mention that. The review (as opposed to his response to those attacking him for the review which I also found interesting) was quite mixed, and while I had no intention of seeing this film initially, his review intrigued me enough so that there is good chance I will see it now. Whenever I see a critic say "close but not quite there," I am more likely to see the movie than when a critic gushes over it. I don't know if I will agree with the reviewer, but I did find the review thoughtful.

[TexasObserver]

88. Well played!

[whatchamacallit]

59. All that should really matter to everyone is what *I* think

I'll try to see it this weekend, and let you know if it's good or bad.

[nam78_two]

60. Heh-I have to wonder how much of this is a "balehead" effect

Christian Bale in his early days had an internet army of 15 year old girls who would write tearful letters to critics who gave his films bad reviews, movie directors who didn't hire him for roles etc. I know because I was one :P-well ok I never wrote letters etc. (mostly just commiserated with other baleheads at IMDB over how under-appreciated and divine Bale is). I was a moderate balehead ;), but it is a real internet phenomenon.

I got an email from an ex-boyfriend on Friday with the link in your OP and he asked if I was still "terrorizing people who didn't agree with me about Bale" :D (quite unfair because I never did any such thing).

[TexasObserver]

62. Hey! Christian Bale is a GOD!!

Empire of the Sun. Probably the best job of acting by any minor EVER.

American Psycho. Chilling.

The Machinist. Haunting.

Equilibrium. Awesome.

(I'll not mention that POS he did about dragons in modern day England.)

[nam78_two]

65. You won't get any argument from me

I never saw the dragon thing...seemed like an odd choice for him. Equilibrium is a seriously under-rated sci-fi flick. If you haven't seen it, you should check him out in "Rescue Dawn"-another largely unknown flick, but he gives an amazing performance. I don't watch a lot of movies nowadays but I rarely miss a Bale flick :).

[TexasObserver]

69. I don't see films until they're out on Netflix these days.

Netflix allows you to rate films you've seen, and based upon those ratings, they provide comparisons by other viewers. Films I really like get four stars, and then I find those films where other viewers who have tastes in films similar to mine also rate highly.

I have never relied upon reviews to determine whether to see a film just released, however. I don't care what reviewers have to say, because I know that critics are to film what political writers are to politics. There are a few Molly Ivins, but a lot more George Wills.

Critics are narcissists who are writing for the sole purpose of amusing people who wish they were able to get paid to be a critic.

[gatorboy]

68. You forgot Newsies!

Breathtaking!

[TexasObserver]

70. Upon your recommendation and other viewers at Netflix, I'll see it!

Just checked it. Rated 4.2 stars by those viewers who share my opinion of films.

Sounds good.

[gatorboy]

71. And there's always Little Women.

And The Prestige and 3:10 to Yuma if you haven't seen them (Especially The Prestige). :)

[EOTE]

140. How dare you defame the brilliance that was Reign of Fire.

To paraphrase the great James Lipton, watching "Reign of Fire" was like watching an enormously complex tapestry being woven by the hands of god.

[TexasObserver]

148. I'm guessing Christian Bale leaves it OFF his resume!

Now, Matthew what's his name? That's the grist of his mediocre mill.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

67. I wonder how well this movie would have done if it had gotten no more hype

than the average movie.

There's a certain percentage of the audience that will go to a movie simply because it's been hyped as if it's the greatest event in the history of the world and tied into every commercial outlet the studio can find. They then give it good word of mouth because it is visually exciting, even if it's a turkey in other respects.

I actually met a Japanese-American who was worried about going to see Pearl Harbor. How would the audience react to her? When someone suggested that perhaps she just not go see the film, she seemed surprised, as if she had never considered skipping a hyped film.

Most hits in recent years have fallen into the category of "relentless hype and commercial tie-ins plus word of mouth from teenage boys who love special effects," so the studios have trained audiences to think that a movie's excellence is determined by its visual punch. They are also so ignorant about movies in general that they won't even consider a movie that hasn't been hyped.

A critic who points out that a hyped movie is unworthy of its box office incurs the anger of the viewer who has shelled out over $8.00 to see it, and who has never seen an example of a high-quality film that has both excitement and substance. Said critic is deemed a snob because he knows that movies can be intellectually and emotionally deep and still fascinating to watch.

[RainDog]

75. yes. the internets are a wild west saloon. but the critic is going up against more

than just a movie.

The Dark Knight Returns has been mythologized itself as a moment in comix history that "resurrected" Batman. So the guy is talking to fan boys who go to the comix conventions, too, not simply movie-goers.

I've always felt like superhero movies and "quest" movies for the "hero's journey" were pretty annoying unless someone with uncommon talent took it on (yet again.)

I haven't seen The Dark Knight yet, but I want to, no matter what that critic says. I'll decide what I think about after I watch it. I saw Wanted and found that Rolling Stone thought it was as trashy as I did (except they called it a guilty pleasure, and maybe if I cared about seeing Angelina Jolie's tattooed back I would have found some pleasure in it too. In fact, I don't hate it as much as I did when I first saw it.

That's the problem with so many of these movies. They hype them in ways that mean the movies will annoy you b/c you've seen some of the best bits before you ever get there. The whole superhero issue goes into fashionable fascism too, but nevermind.

[JerseygirlCT]

79. I have no desire to see this. We opted for Mama Mia instead

and had a delightfully silly time.

[The Doctor.]

80. Wow, he criticized a Batman movie for being a Batman movie.

Whatever. :shrug:

[progressoid]

81. *snort*

This thread made the greatest page.

[girl gone mad]

86. There seem to be more than a few critics..

trying to make a name for themselves by trashing this movie.

It was filmed in Chicago, not Manhattan. They filmed many of the scenes right outside of my building. I used to see Heath riding his skateboard in the park and around bumtown all the time.

[Occam Bandage]

87. That was a complaint I intended to--but forgot to--register.

I recall another New York reviewer claiming the movie was shot in a "well-disguised" Chicago. Not only was this movie shot in Chicago, it was clearly shot in Chicago, and it did not attempt to hide that. No other major American city has that architectural style, especially in the LaSalle-street showdown. No other city has the L. No other city has those bridges, has Lower Wacker, has that skyline, has the Lake. Hell, the license plates were altered IL plates. The buses were CTA buses with a single line added turning the C into a G. Batman rides his motorcycle through the Metra station at Randolph Street.

I dunno, to me the movie just screamed, "HEY I'M TOTALLY CHICAGO HERE, GOTHAM CITY IS CHICAGO, THIS IS A MOVIE ABOUT BATMAN IN CHICAGO." It's like New Yorkers just see skyscrapers and think "Ah, Manhattan."

[girl gone mad]

89. Yeah..

I haven't seen the film yet, but from the trailers and clips, it doesn't look like they went to much effort to disguise the locations. Being a night owl, I got to see them filming quite a bit of the movie and I can clearly recognize the streets and buildings, even the blue-tiled train tunnel and especially lower Wacker and Michigan. Also, the Wrigley building is quite visible in several scenes. They lit it up with huge spotlights on nights they were filming (a few other buildings as well).

It was really fun to watch them at work. I will say that Chris Nolan looked the consummate professional, always dressed in a button down shirt, jacket and often a tie, even on the hottest Chicago summer nights. I felt bad for Batman's stunt men and stand-ins. Christian Bale was well compensated for sweating it out in the giant batsuit, but I'm not sure about those guys. One of them looked about 8 feet tall, too.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

100. Ok, they were changed to say "gotham" in the same script, but still weren't altered much:

They filmed "wayne enterprises" right outside my uncle's work (he worked for amtrak).

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

90. Sending hate mail to a movie critic for dissing a movie you liked is the lamest of the lame.

Movie critics and their output are to be completely ignored, that's all. At least, that's what I do.

[Dorian Gray]

92. The New Yorker

also gave it a negative review, as did one of my friends. I'm sure that it isn't perfect. Perhaps it sucks, and perhaps I will love it when I see it. What I don't get is giving a shit what other people think if their opinion differs from yours when it comes to films. How can people harass a reviewer? It's ridiculous. The guy didn't like the film! So what????

[NashVegas]

97. Go See It

It's great. Really. The greatest imperfection will be lost on 95% of people who will see it, anyway.

[fishwax]

94. meh--I find fanboys whining about critics and critics whining about fanboys both pretty tiresome

[NashVegas]

96. I Went to See It Tonight - I Have to Disagree With the Negative Critics

If they think TDK is too heady/talkie, they'd never make it through five minutes of My Dinner With André.

[fishwax]

98. oh, I disagree with the negative critics too

I just think it's silly to wish them ill or dismiss all critics as idiots, wannabes, etc., just because they profess not to like this particular flick :)

I thought it was a great movie :applause:

[aikoaiko]

112. Aint that the truth..

[shugah]

101. well i don't think it is the fault of the internet

that everyone can now express an opinion about a movie, because most people always have. "word of mouth" - people telling other people what they thought about a movie used to be a pretty effective method of "rating" or "critiquing" or "promoting" a movie. word of mouth is just amplified by the internet.

i disagree that someone should be fired from a film critic position for not "speaking for the people." the internet is and is not representative of "the people."

[Manifestor_of_Light]

103. "Hancock" with Will Smith was good.

He's a bum who is a superhero. It had explosions and flipping cars, but it also had three people who were emotionally involved with each other in the middle of all the special effects. It was interesting.

[knitter4democracy]

108. We really liked that one but thought it too short.

It wrapped up awfully quickly, I thought.

Jason Bateman makes that film. The cinematography was weird in some scenes, but Jason Bateman sold it in every scene he was in. You could see why Charlize Theron's character was with him, and that part had to be believable in order for the film to make sense.

[emmadoggy]

141. I agree. I've always liked

Jason Bateman, but I thought he was great in Hancock. Very real, very likable.

Of course, I love Will Smith and he is the reason we went to the film. He didn't disappoint.

Charlize is great too. It was the great cast who really made the movie enjoyable.

[knitter4democracy]

145. Jason Bateman is really a fine actor.

He's got the lock on the good man just trying to make sense of a crazy world, and he's just so darn believable.

Charlize was awesome. I loved how she interacted with her stepson, too--super-accurate and such a touching performance.

I just wish it had been longer. *sigh* I hope there's a sequel with the same cast because I really liked it.

[TexasObserver]

149. he turned in a good performance in The Kingdom

[The Backlash Cometh]

105. What an odd set of circumstances. Warning: potential spoilers

First of all, the internet blogs hatched because the media lost their ability to criticize. The art of criticism, was therefore safely being practiced on the tubes, while the papers were busy being toads for their newspaper bosses. We have had to make do on our own, so we are now of independent thought. I'm guessing that's why this movie critic sees the public discourse on the net as "mob mentality." Since we've learned to live without the middle man, our combined voices must appear like a unified movement, even though it couldn't be further from the truth. Most of us feel very isolated, which is the reason we jump on the net to begin with.

BTW, I saw Dark Knight and found the concepts refreshing. It is so true that A) people want a white knight, but B) that white knight has to remain pure in order for people to continue believing in him, therefore, C) all the other guy has to do is destroy the white knight's public image, by getting the white knight to cross the line so there is no difference between him and the people he's trying to put behind bars. i.e. Elliot Spitzer.

So, the movie basically exposes the human conundrum. Nobody can meet our expectations 100%, so someone has to play the dark knight, doing things which break the rules (homeland security intrusions), but they also have to be willing to take the ire from the public for those breaches.

[GeorgeGist]

109. It's ignorant ...

of people to treat fiction seriously in order to escape reality.

[BigBluenoser]

110. Good fiction enhances reality. No escape required or wanted. Cheers.

[L0oniX]

111. Sometimes I wonder if some critics are getting paid to give positive reviews to hype the average.

[leftofthedial]

113. I don't know about "daring" to do anything or "hate mail"

but it was a good movie . . . and it was good WITHOUT all the phony "graphic novel" post-production bullshit that is all the rage today.

[NashVegas]

121. You Saw the Previews for the Frank Miller Stuff, Too?

I got bored with Sin City, was ambivalent with 300, but the previews of The Spirit are forcing me to look at him as a moving picture artist, by strict definition.

[leftofthedial]

127. I liked Sin City.

300 blew.

His style (and its increasing influence on others) is visually interesting, but it often substitutes for minor things, you know, like characters, plot, acting and direction.

[GaYellowDawg]

114. Oh, fuck him.

If he doesn't like people responding negatively to his reviews, he should find something else to do, and shouldn't start boo-hooing because he's got the bad taste to pan a movie that just about everyone else likes. I think it's funny that when he receives what he's so often subjected movie actors, directors, and producers to - widespread criticism and mockery - he starts crying. Fuck him. A critic complaining about people criticizing his review is like Karl Rove complaining about someone else's ethics.

[Hippo_Tron]

115. Hyped or not, I've been waiting for this movie since I saw Batman Begins

I thoroughly enjoy Superhero movies and am rarely disappointed by them. This could have been a critical flop and I still would have gone opening night because I have been a fan of Batman since I was about 8 or 9.

I will also say that I don't presume The Dark Knight to be one of the greatest films of all time nor do I even pretend to know what a great film is. I also realize that much of the commercial success of the Dark Knight is due to hype and clever marketing and I say all the better. I'm glad that Hollywood was able to turn super-hero movies which only used to appeal to children and geeks into something commercially successful. That means geeks such as myself will continue to have more of these movies to look forward to.

[Deja Q]

117. Given others comments frothing over how it parallels topical real day problems,

I won't question that reviewer's judgment one damn bit.

And, yes, trying to criticize something, and such people get slammed by the hoardes of zombie-like followers, who get orgasmic over big special effects or haughty gloom and doom scenarios.

[sarcasmo]

119. It was a great movie, don't listen to this TOOl. Heath Ledger will win an Oscar.

[Codeine]

122. Right, but undeservedly.

His performance was cheesy scenery-chewing. He will win more because he died than for any actual acting ability.

[BestCenter]

129. He died for his role.

That's pretty hard-core.

[Blue_Tires]

120. it happens

that guy who didn't like No Country For Old Men had his blog blown up, too...

[RoyGBiv]

125. Crticism as a dying profession ...

If criticism is a dying profession, it is because of people like this individual who seem to take the stance that because he is a critic, he shouldn't be criticized. Or, to put it another way, he views criticism as dictate that is not subject to dissent.

He defends his profession not by explaining his position but by attacking the critics, the very thing he here is whining about others doing to him. It's a circular sort of self-defeating logic.

Critics take heat. They always have. If he can dish it out but not take it (he walked out of the movie and really thinks he can provide a valid critique of the movie in its totality?) then he might want to consider a different profession entirely.

And seriously ... did the "mob" of the Internet really complain about the critics who panned The Phantom Menace? I don't know enough people to make a good poker game who liked that mess.

[Dbdmjs1022]

128. Forget the hype, the bottom line is this is one of the best movies I've seen in a long time.

It wasn't all Ledger either. Bale, Eckhart, Oldman, and Caine were all at their best, and the result was without a doubt the best superhero movie ever. It's also up there with the best modern crime dramas, including Heat and the Departed.

[scheming daemons]

130. I agree..... if you didn't like this movie, it was because you were looking for a reason not to...

This wasn't a "comic book" movie...


This was Silence of the freakin' Lambs.... but with better action scenes.

[LanternWaste]

131. I watched it with a pal yesterday...

I watched it with a pal yesterday (he paid, else I'd wait for the DVD).

It wasn't spectacular, not was it a crap-fest. It certainly didn't come across as art to me, but then again, I'd not seen it attempt to come off as art-- so no loss either way. I had read that it was a neo-noir film, so I was intrigued by that-- but it's not noir, it merely has elements of noir.

The pacing was good, the sets were good, the acting was average. The only bit I saw that was under-achieving was that someone (writer? director? actor? all three?) seemed to artificially force the transformation of the DA from a good guy to a bad guy.

To me, it was a great way to spend a Sunday afternoon when it's 101 degrees outside, and let my mind escape and get caught up in some visceral, old-fashioned fisticuffs.




And, since my apartment is directly across the street from the theater, we walked to and from the theater, and for munchies we raided my refrigerator rather than spending $5.50 on a coke and the same on week-old popcorn :evilgrin:

[SidneyCarton]

132. Mr. Edelstein is welcome to his opinion, indeed that's what he gets paid for.

The Dark Knight was hard to watch, I'll agree with that. It was not your typical superhero movie, with the good guys vanquishing the villain, putting on their white hats and riding off into the sunset. That said I thought it was a brilliant film, though I can't actually bring myself to say I liked it. But I can't bring myself to say I liked Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan either. There are some films that aren't really meant to be liked, they are meant to make you think, ponder, take a good look at the world you live in, seeing the warts, the corruption and viciousness in all its wretched glory, I see The Dark Knight as one of those kind of films.

In many ways this film asks, how do you fight a Malignantly Nihilistic enemy, without losing your soul? The character of Harvey Dent is a tragic example of one who does lose their soul to the battle. The ending shows Batman's novel solution of self-sacrifice for the greater good. In honesty, Mr. Edelstein is right, the film is bleak and dark, in that respect it represents a place familiar to many Americans during the last 8 years. The film brings up many of the issues that we are currently dealing with. Batman betrays his ideals by attempting to torture the Joker into revealing the location of hostages, and is shown the utter futility such brutality. A covert spying system allows them to ultimately track the Joker and save lives, but loses Bruce the faith of Lucius Fox, his trusted adviser. There are many shocking and horrific images to consider in this film, and I find reflection over them to be useful.

That said, those who send Mr. Edelstein hate mail need to get over themselves. As a connoisseur of lousy cinema, I am quite comfortable and used to having the critics flame my favorite films. Such is life, leave the man's e-mail box alone, take your beef to IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes where it belongs

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

135. I agree with the critic.

The movie was trash.

I think people are upset because they know he's right.

[CANDO]

137. I was "undewhelmed" with TDK

Too much hype. Heath Ledger constantly licking his lips as the Joker drove me nuts.

[yardwork]

146. I agree with David Edelstein's review. I saw The Dark Knight last night.

It is sadistic. It's unpleasant to watch. And the action scenes make no sense. And what was that scene with the Scarecrow? Overall, the movie is mean.

Health Ledger was incredible as the Joker, but the movie itself is just too mean.