The House Next Door: Trickster Heaven, Two-Faced Hell: The Dark Knight

Saturday, July 19, 2008

Trickster Heaven, Two-Faced Hell: The Dark Knight

By Keith Uhlich

SPOILER WARNING IN EFFECT

Two images to begin, the first poetic, the second emblematic.

First: A nighttime shot of the Gotham City terrorist known as The Joker (Heath Ledger), his head stuck out the side window of a swerving and careening police car. The wind whips through his hair, stringy green locks blowing wild. His eyes are closed expectantly, lasciviously. Per his trademark behavior, it would hardly be a surprise if he were to flick his tongue around, wetting his lips and lapping up the chaos he’s created, even in the molecular abstract. The sound dies away as the shot (all too brief) goes on—this is the power of cinema: to put us in a headspace other than our own; to focus our attentions to a finely honed point; to experience, for lack of a better descriptor, the sheer bliss of being alive, even though the world burns.

Second: The Joker again, just entered a roomful of Gotham City mobsters. He sticks a pencil into a table and says he’s going to perform a magic trick. His devil-may-care bravado angers the men around him, and one of them (who might as well be wearing a “Disposable Henchman” placard) steps up to take down this lisping, pancake-and-mascara dribbling fop. Barely missing a beat, The Joker grabs the gangster’s head and rams him, face down, on the pencil. In the blink of an eye, both man and writing implement bounce out of frame, never to be seen again (almost as if they were never there). It’s the ultimate punchline because there’s really no joke, just a madman trickster’s truth: now you see it, now you don’t.

***

Now you see it, now you don’t. That about encapsulates the depths of feeling and artistry in The Dark Knight, Christopher Nolan and company’s sordid exercise in avert-your-eyes sadism, a work at best inelegant and at worst inept. The film would have us believe it’s about dualities and polarities, the so-called Dark Knight of Gotham (Christian Bale as billionaire Bruce Wayne and vigilante alter-ego Batman) compared and contrasted with White Knight—soon-to-be literally two-faced—Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), both of them joined in messily chaotic battle with the facially-scarred villain known as The Joker, whose mid-film “You complete me” declaration to Batman is less Jerry Maguire-jest than Matrix-like pseudo-philosophy.

Yes, we’re back in the realm of “awesome!” anagrams and pothead palindromes that the Wachowski Brothers popularized nearly a decade ago, only now they’re spoken with a solemnity and verbosity borne of a beat-down Western warrior spirit, and lent gravitas by a cast only stellar in theory. But then it hardly matters if The Dark Knight’s dispiriting view of a city at war with itself doesn’t hold together, not when you have Morgan Freeman (as Wayne Enterprises liaison Lucius Fox) and Michael Caine (as stalwart manservant Alfred) spouting gloomy old man platitudes about the culture of surveillance, and everyone else monologuing ad nauseum about various and sundry long, dark teatimes of the soul.

Nolan and company's previous Bat-tale, Batman Begins, is similarly infected with such verbal diarrhea (the word “fear” hasn’t been spoken so much since David Lynch’s adaptation of Dune), but it has a purposeful sense of momentum that occasionally treads the sublime, such as when Batman races his poisoned l’amour Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes) back to his underground lair, the sequence climaxing with the Batmobile arcing violently, gorgeously through a waterfall—a sanctifying romantic impulse melded seamlessly to a shopworn race-against-the-clock scenario.

Dawes returns in The Dark Knight (this time the paramour of Dent and in the form of Maggie Gyllenhaal), but now she’s little more than bait, a damsel-on-the-railroad-tracks plot device. I’m certain Nolan thought he was being transgressive by killing Rachel off, but her death packs zero punch because it’s so blatantly a screenwriter’s contrivance—mainly to motivate Dent’s split-personality revenge—and one executed with the same amount of “Gotcha!” shallowness as an earlier fake-out murder featuring not-yet-Commissioner Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman).

Nolan fancies himself a magician, but he’s more of a high-minded con artist—the Barry Lyndon of the Hollywood elite. If he occasionally stumbles upon an indelible image (aside from the one noted above, a scene where the two-wheeled Batpod does a wall-assisted 180-degree turnaround gave me giddy shivers) it’s quickly subsumed by his more frequent tendency toward Cusinarted spectacle. The human drama in Batman Begins held my attentions, so I wasn’t so much bothered by the fact that its action scenes were murky, bordering on incoherent (this seemed intentional to some degree, even though I think it was, ultimately, a failed artistic choice).

In The Dark Knight, Nolan and cinematographer Wally Pfister extend the incoherence to the movie entire. Despite being filmed on location in Chicago (along with a brief sojourn to Hong Kong), there’s little feel for the city’s dynamics, just random car-commercial shots of speeding vehicles, with inserts occasionally cluing us in as to who’s supposed to be where. More problematic is the tendency for characters to randomly show up as narrative twists-‘n’-turns dictate, such as when mob boss Salvatore Maroni (Eric Roberts) just happens to be waiting outside Harvey Dent’s hospital room so he can act as Jim Gordon’s on-the-spot snitch (the way Roberts plays the scene, he’s like a stone-faced, humanoid information kiosk waiting to be prompted with directional queries).

Since all these characters can be everywhere at once (except when disfigurement or death is called for), it severely undercuts the tension, and thus calls more attention to The Dark Knight’s rickety allegorical skeleton. On his personal website, critic Dave Kehr gives an astute reading of the film’s politics, calling it “Dirty Harry stripped of Don Siegel’s ambivalence and ambiguity.” He goes on to posit Nolan and the film as something of a George Bush apologia, but I think this is granting The Dark Knight more of a concrete ideological interpretation than it deserves. The very fact that Kehr ends his critique with a question (“Is he suggesting…?”) implies that Nolan’s themes—his beliefs—are too muddled to be read with any sort of certainty.

This flip-flop sensibility grows inexorably out of the film’s shallow artistry. For a movie purported to be so, well, “dark,” The Dark Knight spends a more-than-noticeable amount of time turning its gaze from the horrors it perpetrates. There’s an early scene where The Joker holds a mob boss at knifepoint, telling a made-up backstory as to how he got his facial scars. The buildup is suitably intense, but Nolan whiffs the follow-through by having The Joker’s mouth-slitting finale occur offscreen. It’s the pencil gag all over again, only rendered ineffectual, monotonous, the “now you see it, now you don’t” philosophy injected ruinously into the film’s aesthetic fabric.

And it really only gets worse from there. Much like Bale, who disappears inside the Batman cape and cowl as surely as he wasted away in The Machinist (that’s not a compliment), the film is slowly—slowly—devoured by its high-falutin’ funereal pretensions. There should be a kick to seeing The Joker wreak havoc (the laughter should stick in our throat, yes, but it should always be there regardless); to seeing Two-Face consumed by vengeance (rather than turned, thuddingly, into both a walking “oh the humanity!” metaphor and a low-rent Anton Chigurh facsimile); to seeing Batman, ultimately, make a life-altering sacrifice for the present-tense good of Gotham (half self-absorption/half martyrdom). But it’s all (bad) theater, as much a put-on as the posthumous Oscar buzz and Dean-comparing deifications of Ledger who, like everyone else, is playing a concept more than a character, hyped-up grist for a bloated pop-cultural mill.

It’s sad to witness The Joker become an abstruse agent of chaos, as much of an emptied-out, metaphor-laden golem as Two-Face. For Nolan, he can’t just be a sadistic, psychotic clown: he has to be something of a spoiled bastard child bred by humanity’s indifference, a literal sickness made flesh (something that lends a particularly queasy uncertainty to the sequence where The Joker does his best Bobbi from Dressed to Kill). He gets a great entrance and a lame exit—befitting our age of summation and closure, every primary Dark Knight character has at least one enervating “Clarissa Explains it All” monologue. His overall plan is foiled, but his cackling cynic’s view lingers on, driving those Gotham residents left standing into secrecy and/or seclusion. In a better movie, that note of desperation would resonate far beyond the borders of the screen, but here it remains at a cold, notional distance, just another of Nolan’s trickster philosophies, a final pencil in the eye before we’re bounced out of the darkness—a little worse for wear and none the wiser for the experience.
_________________________________________________
Keith Uhlich is Editor of The House Next Door and a contributor to various print and online publications.

314 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 314 Newer› Newest»

Andrew said...: Yeah, if we've learned anything from the great directors over the years it's that nothing can be frightening or intense if there's no gory payoff.

Wait, what?; 7/19/2008 1:04 AM
Sean Duran said...: You couldn't possibly have watched the same film as I did last night.; 7/19/2008 1:07 AM
Anonymous said...: That might be the most well written review I've ever read...but I still dug the movie.; 7/19/2008 1:09 AM
Rob said...: Just another review that proves some people take film way too seriously. The score, the dialogue, the story, the action, the lighting, the cast of actors who truly adapted to their roles... yeah, I can totally understand why you didn't like this film. Also I find it hilarious that you criticize the dialogue when your own writing just about made me fall asleep.; 7/19/2008 1:33 AM
Jesus said...: Isn't that the mark of good cinema sometimes? I mean, I have a feeling that people all across the country are going to be talking about how "the Joker did this" and "the Joker did that" when in reality...you never saw it.

Think about Reservoir Dogs. How many people CLAIM they saw Marvin Nash's ear get cut off?

They didn't.; 7/19/2008 1:40 AM
Bill said...: I think you've missed the mark. The themes in this movie were hidden so well that I'm not surprised. If Batman hadn't smashed the Joker into the mirror of his interrogation cell, would the movie have continued much further?

Ultimately, Batman is just as much an element as the Joker. This movie works brilliantly because it very subtly illustrates the fatal flaw of Batman as a savior. A point made so gently that Bruce Wayne would never hear it; nor, probably, most of this film's audience.; 7/19/2008 1:52 AM
Kevin said...: Nice Thesaurus work there mate, but just because a few hundred people gave it a fantastic review, doesn't mean that you have to be the awkward rebel and act like it was terrible. It was a fantastic and intense movie, and you need to get off the high horse.; 7/19/2008 1:59 AM
NPT said...: Bravo, Keith!

You nailed it.

Exhilarating!; 7/19/2008 2:01 AM
Dustin said...: For so many words you say so little. You're a critic and I respect your profession, but you certainly could have summed all of that up succinctly in about three paragraphs. You desperately need an editor.; 7/19/2008 2:17 AM
wherewestart said...: "a low-rent Anton Chigurh facsimile"

Sorry to burst your bubble but I believe Harvey Dent/Two Face was flipping a coin and putting things to chance LONG before Cormac McCarthy wrote No Country For Old Men. In fact, I'm gonna say Harvey has him beat by about 63 years.

You're entitled to think what you will about the film, that's just a very poor comparative statement.; 7/19/2008 2:20 AM
dottie said...: Well, you can't really blame them for shooting for a PG-13 rating in the interest of sales. This is the Dark Knight, but it's still Batman. There are the brooding geeks and film snobs, and there are the costumed kids. And with the unveiling of Two-Face, a real money shot, sacrificing the gore of a pencil to the eye or a blade through the cheek is welcome. I got what I paid for.; 7/19/2008 2:26 AM
Jeremiah Kipp said...: I found THE DARK KNIGHT stunning -- easily the best and most fascinating summer blockbuster to come out in recent years. And I couldn't muster up much enthusiasm for BATMAN BEGINS -- but they've created a spectacular morality play on an appropriately epic scale here.; 7/19/2008 2:41 AM
Will said...: Do you not understand that the director and the producers and all the legal team have to remain loyal to the fans and to what Batman (a superhero) represents. Oh sure they could have included gory mouth cutting scenes, but they would have doomed themselves to an R rating which nonetheless would have generated profit but would have put a slightly bad taste in everbody's mouth. Secondly such graphic depiction would have given the Joker to much of a "Jigsaw" feel considering the writer's adaptation of the Joker. As for the city, they did their best to show as much as they could, but the fact is Gotham is a fictional city. Which means if you want to show it in full scale you would have to do something on par with Tim Burton, and create an entire city, or you could just go ahead and show the Sears Tower and ruin the whole fact that it is a fictional movie meant to play upon the realities and feelings of our world. So unless you want the movie to end up like post 9/11 terror flick, then don't fret about them not showing Gotham in its entirety. Ultimately the fact is that regardless of whether or not Heath Ledger died, this movie would still be great. Because that's what it is a great movie, that takes us from our own lives for a few hours and entertains us. And until you can stop peeling the neverending onion that is movie making, you will never appreciate a great movie for what it is: entertaining.; 7/19/2008 3:15 AM
a joker said...: I wonder what it says about a critic who goes against the grain of 99%(don't worry its called exaggeration) of the rest of proffesional critics who say it's top notch. I believe the technical term you may have wanted to use but couldn't think of when writing your review was "crap", yes I know it's only four letters, but think of time you'd save "critiquing" a bad movie. Seriously you couldn't find one great thing to say about this movie? I'd say this movie just wasn't for you, but then that just ridiculous. :}; 7/19/2008 3:22 AM
Paw said...: Um, sir, that movie you just talked about was super awesome.

It, in many ways, completed me.

I couldn't resist the army of characters with no direction. It helped me not care about anything and just look at the flashybangs.

I just don't understand why it was called the Dark Knight. It seemed to me the Joker was in it more.; 7/19/2008 3:46 AM
Shaun Fernandes said...: You're a professional reviewer? Hard to believe. Half the scenarios you brought up as examples of "failures" apparently soar above your head. You question Nolan and Bale?? Nolan's directing is 2nd to none. The mood he intended does not slip nor does anything seem contrived. Not to mention the extraordinarily beautiful cinematography. Bale! You can not deny him the Machinist. Any actor who devotes his soul to a character already has surpassed most. You don't even begrudge Ledger his Joker? Surely your "brilliant" comment about him playing an idea and not a character is a joke. The joker is not a 2-dimensional "character". Like Alex Delarge, he is the embodiment of insanity and careless malevolence. Learn to enjoy the best movie of the year.; 7/19/2008 4:00 AM
John in San Diego said...: I disagree with you review of the movie. I thought it was well done, and I for one had no interest in seeing the violence that was done off camera. I did think that the movie was a little over the top. I really was looking forward to this movie, but I felt that Nolan really went too far with some of the things that Batman was able to do with the help of Mr. Fox. There were a lot of far fetched moments in the film, and I think that brought the movie down a bit.; 7/19/2008 4:19 AM
Chad W. said...: Hmmm... Maybe the theater you went to received a rough cut, pirated, or spliced-up copy?

Today was film night with the family and the first thing my 80 year old grandma said when Dark Knight ended was, "That was exciting!"

I agree with my Grandma and I have to say it was also one of the most unnerving and wildly haunting films I've seen in a while. I detest super hero comics (sorry) but I found this film to work on its own, altogether separate from the trappings and overblown fantasy of the comic book genre.

There comes a time when every critic ought to remove him- or herself from the psychology of film critique (or the grandiose expectations of a given high profile film). There comes a time when you need to simply sit back and enjoy, with a flexible though scrupulous eye, what is delivered on-screen.

With a straight face I would liken Ledger's performance to that of Anthony Hopkin's Hannibal Lecter. Both characters are haunting, feverishly grim, and exhibit a genuine hopelessness and inner turmoil that goes so far as to exceed their literary source material.

I have respect for all kinds of opinions, but yours seems mislaid somehow... as though you have a vendetta toward entertainment. I hope that in 25 years' time you can watch Dark Knight again and take notice of some of the rather endearing qualities it has to offer. I hope you can be entertained by it at least, if you are unable to pull anything more poignant from it.; 7/19/2008 5:18 AM
Joshua said...: You have a way with words, that I will give you. But man, you missed so much if that's all you gathered from it. I'd honestly suggest seeing it again, without the mindset that there isn't anything deep about it.; 7/19/2008 5:29 AM
Leroy said...: To be short, I find your article's description of the film's script as nothing but verbose platitudes to be more than a touch ironic.; 7/19/2008 5:34 AM
Don Sparrow said...: Naw, you've misread the film pretty poorly here. While the world of Gotham City is in and of itself muddled (I prefer the term "gray", this film isn't, nor is its' message. This is the story of a city deciding, painfully, that it wants to break ties from its' dark past, and hope for a better, if perhaps less plausible future. And there are growing pains, a great big spanner in the works, and a whole lot of darkness trying to shut out the light. But there is a light here, which comes out uncowed.

I think the Bush reference is a misplaced one. If anything, the unbridled hope and optimism of Harvey Dent brought Barack Obama to mind, though (hopefully) unlike Obama, Dent had feet of clay. Dent's meteoric rise was an easy one, and as soon as figures set about the destroy him, he became just as bad as them. IN the end, Bruce Wayne/Batman must rise into the role he wanted to pass of to Dent: Wayne has suffered the same loss as Dent, and worse, and it didn't break him. I find the ending scene (further spoiler alert) quite novelistic, in the way that both Batman and Dent fall to earth from lofty heights, but Batman is not broken by the experience, and is able to stand. This is a movie with dark thigns in it, with a positive message, which I think is distinct from it being simply a dark, cynical movie, as this review seems to make it out to be.; 7/19/2008 5:37 AM
tyson said...: Anton Chigurh, or I should say Cormac McCarthy, stole the shtick from two face not vice versa. Thinking two face would act like anyone other than two face is a little ridiculous. My only criticism is the lack of practical effects for his make-up. The effect was awful.; 7/19/2008 5:38 AM
Clumpy said...: The mere thought of the hate mail you're going to receive for this automatically earns you my respect, as I don't think that you're trying to be sensational.

I loved the film, but have no problem letting a critic be a critic. Keith's review represents the film as he and a few others saw it (a vast minority, admittedly, but one with valid points from a particular perspective).; 7/19/2008 5:59 AM
Love Gorilla said...: "There should be a kick to seeing The Joker wreak havoc (the laughter should stick in our throat, yes, but it should always be there regardless); to seeing Two-Face consumed by vengeance (rather than turned, thuddingly, into both a walking “oh the humanity!” metaphor and a low-rent Anton Chigurh facsimile); to seeing Batman, ultimately, make a life-altering sacrifice for the present-tense good of Gotham (half self-absorption/half martyrdom)."

Yeah, all of those things should be joyous to watch.; 7/19/2008 6:10 AM
The Hermit said...: You might try leaving spoilers out of your review although I find it overly verbose. Any real reviewer will refrain from adding so many spoilers into their critique. Also I don't have an issue with whether you liked the movie or not. It is just a very unprofessional review.

It makes you look like you have a vendetta and also that you don't understand the material.; 7/19/2008 6:21 AM
Sean Goble said...: A real critic doesn't require blatant spoilers to review a movie. While you may have severe disdain for this movie, ruining plot points for anyone who has yet to see it but wants to is unacceptable. People took THEIR time to read your review, a review that you've posted purely for ego as most blogs of your type are, but many might read simply because they want to give a contradicting point of view a chance, and you rewarded them by splattering your post with story spoilers and excruciatingly verbose writing. Whether I liked this movie or not, there's a reason you're writing for free.; 7/19/2008 7:15 AM
NoSurprises11 said...: Very well-worded review. A fantastic read. Unfortunately it's just well-worded and doesn't stand up to how the movie REALLY is.; 7/19/2008 7:17 AM
savvy said...: Wow! Clearly you are a talented writer with an excellent grasp of the english language, yet I can't but feel you entered this film with the intention of disliking it. It seems you watched the film with this mindset and looked for reasons to criticize the films' key themes and story beats. There's no point in launching attacks against someone for simply disagreeing with my feelings so I won't, but I have a difficult time comprehending how anyone who entered this film with an objective mindset could dislike it.; 7/19/2008 9:09 AM
Cde. said...: This is so right. This is a narratively and visually incoherent, sadistically violent (and yet not violent enough) mess. It's weighed down by the same apparent penchant of Nolan's for portentous monologues and overt symbolism that so damaged Batman Begins. Considering the way this is supposed to deal with people on several levels of a large metropolis that the city doesn't feel alive is crippling, but then again, nothing and no-one really does.

Not to mention the fact that this film carries with it some simplistic and incredibly unpalatable political implications.; 7/19/2008 9:13 AM
Matthew Fiting said...: Ah, pretentiousness has reached new heights. Bravo!; 7/19/2008 9:48 AM
Anonymous said...: Great review. It was a little better than you gave it credit for, IMO, but it was definitely worse than other breathless reviews made it out to be. It was a tense mess.; 7/19/2008 10:05 AM
Cde. said...: "Ah, pretentiousness has reached new heights. Bravo!"

Do you mean in the monologues from Michael Caine and Gary Oldman? If so I completely agree.

As for the political point, it is pretty muddled, but in dismissing the ethical dilemma brought about through a mass surveillance operation because it was being done for the 'right' reasons (stopping a terrorist) by the right guy who's looking out for our best interests, it does come off pretty strongly as endorsing Bush administration tactics in dealing with terrorism. With this in mind, the ending, portraying Batman is a tragic hero misunderstood by the citizens of Gotham who don't realise all he's doing for them, is supremely pathetic.

Furthermore, the way the Joker's motivations are dismissed as simply being a desire 'to watch the world burn' doesn't sit well either. By the conclusion, any moral crises regarding Batman's ethics have been abandoned and his methods have been shown to be justified, and it seems that the film is arguing that that force should be our primary weapon against terrorism. Ultimately this is sparing us from confronting the uncomfortable truth that we were responsible for the Joker, and trying to change our own actions to avoid sparking this antagonism. At the very least, the film could have examined the tragic impossibility of avoiding this kind of damage through our actions. Instead, Nolan endorses the cycle of violence in advocating fighting fire with fire...just like the current administration.

By the way, you should see what they're saying about you on the Rotten Tomatoes comments page for this review. ; ); 7/19/2008 10:13 AM
wileyboy said...: though it is a flawed film, it is still brethless in how good the good parts (joker and two-face) are.

you may not intend to, but you come off as perpetually smug as you seem to refuse to admit the film's strengths and instead couch your compliments in criticism. it does not flatter you.

like i said, though faulted in several ways, there is a lot to like here.; 7/19/2008 10:27 AM
Adam N said...: That's a great review, Keith.; 7/19/2008 10:35 AM
Elliott said...: Its not completely surprising that someone who has a thesaurus and no friends can find the time to write a review as self indulgent as this. Saw the movie last night, amazing...entertaining...best film of the year by far. Movies like this (even when they are directed by Christopher Nolan) aren't created for pretentious a**holes who type on their Apple laptops while sitting in a Prius thinking about how much they cant wait to get home and play "World of Warcraft." They are created for myself and everyone else whos looking for escapism from the things going on in our lives that cause us stress and frustration.

Movies like "The Dark Knight" make me excited, exhilirated and for two and a half hours last night I felt like a carefree "kid" again, which in these times is a tremendous accomplishment. Ill take my perspective on this movie, and the world, over Keith Uhlich's anyday. The view from up atop his soapbox is mighty bleak indeed; 7/19/2008 10:35 AM
Cde. said...: Look how many of the invading fanboys missed the big capitalised 'SPOILER WARNING IN EFFECT'! Shows how much attention they're really paying.; 7/19/2008 10:41 AM
Anonymous said...: I agree with your review entirely. It was preachy, slow, and totally forgettable. Other than the pod pulling a 180 against the wall, I don't think I can recall a single line or scene from the movie. Just one loud incoherent mess. Zero artistry.; 7/19/2008 10:45 AM
bozlover137 said...: The reason it is called the dark knight is that the entire movie is spent talking about how Harvey is the "White Knight" that will inspire the people of Gotham, and Batman is the "Dark Knight" that is doing the "behind-the-scenes" work to make Gotham a better place.; 7/19/2008 10:50 AM
Michael Peterson said...: Keith, you had to expect that this would happen. There have been more comments on this thread than in the last three, and mostly of the torch-and-pitchfork variety. It makes me laugh, actually.

I'm going to see the film later this weekend, so I can't comment on the veracity of your argument, but I will say that what you're saying is everything that I EXPECTED from this film, almost down to the letter.

The trailers have been schizophrenic, and a lot of the positive reviews seem to contradict one another. I was only a fan of about half of "Batman Begins," if that, but that half was strong enough to make this franchise more outright frustrating than the simply-awful Burton-Schumacher films. That "Begins" spent as much time on the Batmobile as it did on Bruce Wayne, or that you get Gary Oldman to play a pitch-perfect Gordon and give him nothing at all to do tells me that you've missed your mark entirely.

(All the worse when "Begins" was so clearly based in part on Frank Miller's "Batman Year One." Miller's done so much to eliminate his accumulated good will that it's easy to forget that Year One was not only a strong book, but a book about Gordon more than Batman.)

I'm still anxious to see Eckhart's performance as Dent/Two-Face, which on its own is inspired casting at the Downey/Stark level, but nothing about this interpretation of Batman, as folks are writing about it, strikes as very emotionally honest to me.

To be fair, The Joker often IS used as an avatar for mankind's poison. Everything from Grant Morrison's "Arkham Asylum" to Alan Moore's "The Killing Joke" to DC's silly crossovers posit that Joker is (a) so crazy that he might be super-sane, (b) the chaos contrasted with Batman's fascist impulses, or (c) Batman's own darkness itself, taken form. Expression rather than Bruce's repression, white face rather than black mask, etc, etc. blah blah blah.

But that idea only works if you follow through with it. The film needs to be set up specifically with Harvey Dent in the middle of the twin impulses of Batman and Joker, and played up as the real, honest hero who splits down the middle, unable to resolve two flawed views of the world. That's your metaphor.

Maybe I'll feel differently when I see it. I'd certainly love to be blown away by the damned thing, but all this knee-jerk reactionism is a little frustrating on a site known for its intelligent dialogue.; 7/19/2008 11:00 AM
Steve Pick said...: Holy cow! Where did all these comments come from? I haven't seen the movie, and it didn't stop me from wanting to check it out, but gee whillikers! This was a carefully considered take on the film, one which deserves argument from those who loved "The Dark Knight." Unfortunately, rather than arguing with the points, the vast majority of these comments seem interested in calling you smug, or saying you don't understand "entertainment."; 7/19/2008 11:06 AM
Michael Peterson said...: Other thoughts:

-Why does the "Batpod" have machine guns? This was my problem with the Batplane in Burton's movie, as well. Historically, Batman wasn't averse to guns (he carried a holstered pistol in the earliest comics of the 30's and 40's), but what he represents as an archetype no longer works with that image, and his character is always known now as the one who eschews them (see even cash-in "Gotham Knight," which you folks reviewed earlier). His use of guns just muddies the waters and makes Bruce come off as not understanding of his own ideals, and that drags down the allegories that Nolan is attempting here.

-On gore: I don't need my Batman film to be gory, no. This isn't "Saw," even if the script seems to be trying to make Joker fit that mold. But if Joker is supposed to represent the face of horror, the darkness and abyss that Batman and Dent both gaze into, then don't we need at least one legitimately shocking example of what he's capable of? Killing a mobster with a pencil doesn't seem to get that across. However, going too far down this road is also a mistake - Alan Moore has always regretted "The Killing Joke" and its empty violence against Barbara "Batgirl" Gordon, used for a metaphor that wasn't saying enough new. That seems to be the case here, as well, without Moore's artistry.; 7/19/2008 11:07 AM
countryofwhat said...: Ridiculous review. Dark Knight was fantastic. I cannot believe that this guy saw the same film I did. It's difficult to argue his points, because they are so out of the blue. So many of the negative aspects he points out were amazing in the movie.

And what the hell is up with all the spoilers? A lot of the punch will be taken out for people who have not yet seen TDK--especially the Joker's shocking first joke.; 7/19/2008 11:22 AM
Anonymous said...: Keith, your review is spot on. Pretty much everything you said was running through my head during the film. Sure, it's still an above average work overall, but every point you raise is legitimate, especially considering the attention the film is getting. And isn't it great getting smashed by the fanboy crowd for a change? I'm guessing they don't regularly read the blog. I swear, three of them used the word "verbose" in an attempt to "discredit" the content of your review. Too bad they're missing out on your specificity (which is more often right than not), a rare thing these days.; 7/19/2008 11:23 AM
Kevin said...: Why so serious Keith?; 7/19/2008 11:29 AM
Anonymous said...: Ledger's depiction of joker was right of Alan Moore's "The Killing Joke."

It was excellent and true to source material. Far better than I could ever have expected.; 7/19/2008 11:45 AM
Speve-O said...: This post has been removed by the author.; 7/19/2008 11:59 AM
Cam said...: I realize that people have their opinions and some might find subtle flaws in this movie, but to merely push it aside as a movie with nothing to offer and "no artistry" is completely ridiculous. You probably need to give your brain a rest and let yourself be awed by a film that deserves a whole lot more credit than what your raw thoughts are taking from it.; 7/19/2008 12:15 PM
Matthew Fiting said...: To clarify, my pretentious comment was directed toward Keith Uhlich and not the film.

Wileyboy pretty much sums up my thoughts though by saying toward the reviewer- "you may not intend to, but you come off as perpetually smug as you seem to refuse to admit the film's strengths and instead couch your compliments in criticism."

It's safe to say that TDK has been heaped with both overwhelming critical and fan praise, so any negative review like yours will face a higher level of scrutiny right now. So, in doing, you had better be prepared to present a strong argument for your viewpoint. I did not see this in your review. It was instead filled of high-sounded nitpicking and just ached of your desire to tear down the movie at whatever cost. You could learn a thing or two from reading the negative reviews of TDK by David Edelstein or David Denby, their critiques are at least based in reality, rather than a vendetta teamed with a thesaurus.; 7/19/2008 12:23 PM
astrotoby said...: I fandango'd the midnight showing Thursday night, and I was one of the first in line and the most excited, but I didn't like the movie that much... The action shots were pretty bad, weird editing, full of poses and unrealistic reactions. People don't fight like that. Bruce Wayne always rocks, he's my favorite thing about the franchise I think, but the Batman in this movie was melodramatic and sort of pathetic (as in full of pathos). He came off to me as a bit of a whiney little bitch, in spite of the fact that he can kick everyone's ass. Also his voice was incredibly annoying, and I could barely understand a damn thing he rasped out under his breath... And even though I don't necessarily think this is the end of the world, the reviewer was right; there's no doubt that the film does endorse a sympathetic attitude toward Bush-esque privacy invasion. Even though they made the right choice at the end and switched off all the little tvs, their use of them was completely justified in the morality of the film.

ps, the joker was awesome, he's the best thing about this movie.; 7/19/2008 12:28 PM
Jim said...: What thesaurus-type words did Uhlich employ in this review anyway? What, you fanboys don't know what "apologia" means?

Uhlich, you and Armond White are gonna get gored for your reviews. White, admittedly, is well used to this, but you, welcome to the club. Gored.; 7/19/2008 12:29 PM
Jacqueline said...: here’s an early scene where The Joker holds a mob boss at knifepoint, telling a made-up backstory as to how he got his facial scars. The buildup is suitably intense, but Nolan whiffs the follow-through by having The Joker’s mouth-slitting finale occur offscreen. It’s the pencil gag all over again, only rendered ineffectual, monotonous, the “now you see it, now you don’t” philosophy injected ruinously into the film’s aesthetic fabric.

To this, I have to say that one thing I liked about the film is that it doesn't glorify sadism or violence, the way movies like Sin City and Saw do. That would detract from its main message. To give us the full shot of the face being slit and blood spurting out is playing to that. What they just needed to show was Joker's sadism, and they do, but the film does not revel in it by being excessively graphic.; 7/19/2008 12:30 PM
gone said...: I really liked the first movie, and was expecting a lot more from the second one. Didn't happen.
"One loud incoherent mess" is just part of it. You gotta at least add to it a couple of ridiculous ideas, for instance, the fact that in the film, anyone who's crazy or has some sort of brain disorder automatically fits into joker-dom!! (Talk about easy recruiting). I think it even has a couple of stupid action scenes (Batman could have destroyed the truck which carried the Joker first of all, why go for the garbage truck??? That all ended in the Batmobile getting destroyed!). And don't tell me "that would've ended the movie, duh!". Just give me a smarter story (including the action scenes) and you can avoid those nonsense scenes altogether.
By the way, if you want to make a batman movie, don't destroy the characters! They could have made a similar plain old Psycho movie without adding Batman's, Joker's and Harvey Two Face's characters (yeah, I know, it wouldn't have been a Batman movie. But that's exactly my point).
One last thing: This is probably the Batman movie with the least "Batman" in it.; 7/19/2008 12:31 PM
Anonymous said...: I must say, though I respect your opinion as a critic; I tink your opinion is dead wrong. This is not because I disagree with it, though I do, but because of your statling lack of evidence able to hold up to any scrutiny. Yes, the movie had its flaws, as all movies do, but it also managed to turn chracters into people. They all were fully developed, complex, and full of hypocrisy. To me, that denotes both the quality of the acting, writting, and directing. I am not sure how you missed these people, but I think you should go watch the movie again. I know I am going to do so.; 7/19/2008 12:34 PM
Keith Uhlich said...: To Michael Peterson-

I suppose I did expect the response on some level, but you're never really prepared for what will happen with the reaction to a piece. I came home from the 6am IMAX showing to over 100 comments to moderate. I've let a good number through, others not. Mainly I've looked for comments that I thought would be good for the ongoing discussion, or were at least well-worded and/or name-specific opinions to the contrary (as well as some in support).

Based on your description of The Joker, you might get exactly what you want out of The Dark Knight, so I hope you'll come back after you see it and let us know what you think.

Thanks for writing,
Keith; 7/19/2008 12:34 PM
Big Popper said...: There has been a great deal of talk that this film was initially lined up for an R rating but that changes were made to reduce it to PG13. This may have been the cause for some of the "now you see it, now you don't" that you describe. Now there is a high anticipation for an unrated DVD. If there were dramatic changes for the sake of a rating it only reflects the deteriorating ability for film makers to hold to the artistry of creating the film they want and instead producing the film the market says will make more money on opening weekend. The movies that have had staying power and lasted as classics have been the ones where the artists of the film were influenced by their vision and desire rather than making another days dollar.; 7/19/2008 12:42 PM
Matthew Fiting said...: "What, you fanboys don't know what "apologia" means?"

Yes, I know what apologia means. But like I was saying before, I just feel the review lacks substance and the word choice ultimately comes off as showy for the sake of just being so.

Keith- Since you're in control of the comments I can appreciate you allowing the mix of criticism and praise toward the review. Most wouldn't be as fair. I'll make it a point now to read another review sometime.; 7/19/2008 1:08 PM
Robert Cashill said...: Record-breaking gross or not, droogy commentators baying for dissenters' blood or not (it's like they're looking for sites to pounce on)...I didn't like THE DARK KNIGHT, either. It's the most disappointing movie of the year.; 7/19/2008 1:11 PM
Anonymous said...: You speak very well in your article. You articulate your thoughts on the film in a great way. I just can't get over how great this film was though. I feel this movie could have had more gore in it, but one thing i can tell you is that i'd rather have a movie that more people can enjoy than making a slightly more gore/thriller based film.; 7/19/2008 1:11 PM
Start said...: first of all, even though there is a spoiler warning, why would you include so many spoilers in a review? what were you trying to accomplish with this review? those who have yet to see the movie won't read it, and those who have already seen the movie won't really care what you have to say... so why did you waste your time even writing this?

i respect your opinions on the film, but it's batman, dude. it's a batman movie. chill out.

ps- if you hated it so much, why in god's name would sit through it again, in IMAX??; 7/19/2008 1:28 PM
Michael Peterson said...: Thanks for responding, Keith. When I see it, I'll drop back in here, and probably write a piece of my own on my site.

I'm perhaps an overly harsh critic when it comes to superhero films, because I did grow up with the material, but I consider myself a writer - if the potential is there, it's there, whether the original comic (or prose, or film being remade) utilized that potential itself or not. So the blithe way most of these films disregard that potential makes them not worth my time.

I enjoyed the Hell out of "Iron Man," though.

I want to like this movie, despite the overbearing hype and the deification of Ledger's performance that began BEFORE the movie had been viewed (if it really is that good, great! I couldn't stand Nicholson's Joker, because he was being Jack, rather than the character - for me, the best-acted Joker has been Mark Hamill's voice work, and I know other people that have agreed).

Anyway, thanks. While I've certainly disagreed with you in the past - I believe some of your comments on Satoshi Kon, for instance, were a little off the mark - you've upheld the standard for intelligent criticism that Mr. Seitz instilled in this website.

[...Uh, also? There's a long list of names in the sidebar... How do you get to be a contributor? (ha ha?) ]; 7/19/2008 1:32 PM
BillyPilgrim said...: Great writing, poor substance. While your opinions are valid, and seemingly supported by your well spoken, finely-honed wit, it ultimately comes down to a matter of shallow preference. Well, obviously, each reviewer is expressing his or her own subjective preference, but the writer's job is too present a coherent argument with a thesis that will highlight the importance or the utter failure of whatever is under review. In other words (and in layman's terms), there is far too much "nitpicking" in this review, subsequently leading most readers to pass it off as pompous, and just another person going against the grain. And just one more tip, never outrightly say that you feel something is pretentious; nothing is more pretentious than claiming something is pretentious (hehe). But overall, you are very well spoken.; 7/19/2008 1:38 PM
Anonymous said...: "It’s sad to witness The Joker become an abstruse agent of chaos, as much of an emptied-out, metaphor-laden golem as Two-Face. For Nolan, he can’t just be a sadistic, psychotic clown: he has to be something of a spoiled bastard child bred by humanity’s indifference, a literal sickness made flesh."

Wait, you mean you would rather want him to be just an insane clown, lending no meaning to the story at all? He should just do stuff to get up Batman's underwear as an excuse for a movie, then move on? Wouldn't he then exist as an empty character if he did that, existing without any relationship to his environment?; 7/19/2008 1:39 PM
Steve said...: Just because you throw a bunch of complex and little-known words in a review does not make the review good, or you intelligent. You spent more time coming up with adjectives, creating words that do not exist, and misusing words to make the sentence sound more elegant, than you did actually saying anything of true value. You may have not liked the movie, I understand that is purely opinion. Realize though that bashing for the sake of being different and garnering attention does not make you a great writer.; 7/19/2008 1:55 PM
Anonymous said...: I agree with 90% of these posts. I think you believe you have taste for not getting washed up in the expectations and hype surrounding the movie. But wow, even after supposedly seeing it you still slam this film with insult after insult In Your Opinion. In My Opinion, your review is just a fun thing for you to post up to go against the grain and have viewers and faithful users on your site simply become angered at your negligence when reviewing the Dark Knight.; 7/19/2008 1:57 PM
Alex said...: ...so your problem with the film is that it is too morose?

Have you ever read Batman?; 7/19/2008 1:57 PM
Michael S T said...: I'm not sure where your expectations come from. You did write a well-contrived review, but it reeks of 'favoritism' of a sort, holding the movie to such insane standards with regard to what the Joker 'should' do or whether Rachel should live or not.

In regard to Rachel, it is clearly a twist of the comic books - not Nolan - that her death should cause Two-Face, and the purpose of any movie (especially a superhero one) is to suspend disbelief and forget that, in real life, this would not be plausible. It is easy to see, in terms of the movie, the twisted joy the Joker would take from causing the death of Rachel or Harvey. Why did you choose to blatantly ignore this and instead blame Nolan?

I see this recurring problem with many of your points - you expect to see some mouth-slitting action (in a PG-13 movie no less) and some full-bodied shots of Gotham and a portrayal of the Joker as nothing more than a sick clown. You don't call the shots in the movie, and you should instead try to respect the artistic direction, rather than calling it 'failed'. This review is well-written, but it seems like failed artistic expectations and a personal beef against Nolan's directing style shape your views more than the movie itself.; 7/19/2008 1:58 PM
Anonymous said...: I'd just like to say I get weary of readers comments that all basically say "your review is crap!" or "get off your high horse!" without any analysis why its crap. It's the classic: "oh everyone else loves it and you don't so you're just trying to be difficult ." I trust most people reading this are 20-30 something "liberal" moviegoers. Do you know what it's called when you give someone tons of crap for not liking something else everyone loves? Yeah, it's called being conservative. Last time I checked progress isn't made when everyone else agrees with each other.

I've read some snooty reviews of this film, but I thought yours was intelligent, articulate, and your arguments were explained well. It didn't tread into "holier than thou" territory like many New York critics and it gave me something to think about. Thanks for writing a great review.; 7/19/2008 2:00 PM
Night of the Living Fred said...: So I'm assuming that this is the most traffic you as a writer will ever see for anything that you've written or ever will. Nice strategy. Hope everyone knows that this man loved The Black Dahlia and hated Mystic River and the Dark Knight. Put that in perspective before you read this.; 7/19/2008 2:14 PM
Discman said...: Keith, nice job. I don't agree with several statements in your review, and I liked the film more than you did. But I didn't LOVE the film and am finding it difficult to discuss with friends any of the problems I perceived with it. Seems everyone thinks it's the best thing since sliced bread, and that any whiff of criticism must be squashed.

So good for you. I wish my own review had come across as a bit more tempered, as I clearly am not in the same pro-"Knight" camp as many of its admirers.

One comment about the film "averting its gaze" from the ultimate dark act of killing people. I appreciated this about the film, but I was struck by a sad reality: That scene where the Joker holds a gun to the head of a small child probably should've qualified for an R rating all by itself, but the fact that it didn't, but would have IF the Joker had been smoking a cigarette during that scene -- well, that's too depressing for words, isn't it?; 7/19/2008 2:16 PM
Colin George said...: Keith, this passage of your review caught my attention:

"Critic Dave Kehr gives an astute reading of the film’s politics, calling it “Dirty Harry stripped of Don Siegel’s ambivalence and ambiguity.”

Coupled with this comment moments later:

The very fact that Kehr ends his critique with a question (“Is he suggesting…?”) implies that Nolan’s themes—his beliefs—are too muddled to be read with any sort of certainty.

You've completely contradicted yourself. The fact that Kehr ends with a question should satisfy the existence of the thematic ambiguity you're looking for.

The problem with reviews like these is not that you disliked the film you saw, but rather that because you know the film was otherwise well received, you automatically play defense in your write-up, and your criticisms end up being disorganized and hyperbolic.

You don't need to pretend to be morally superior to the people you're writing this review for. You don't need to puff out your chest (or vocabulary) and pretend you're the only one that's right.

We're all entitled to our opinions, and in intelligent discussion, there's no need for your smug grandstanding.; 7/19/2008 2:24 PM
Michael Peterson said...: God, I've never commented so much on a film that I haven't seen, but I feel like certain misconceptions need to be addressed.

(It just causes me near-physical pain when people, in any situation, say "Just turn your brain off for a while" - how is this laudable?)

On the character of Rachel, then... she was an invention of the filmmakers (recall the uproar over her addition to "Batman Begins" instead of Harvey Dent), and her death was never tied to the creation of Two-Face before this movie. So whether it works or does not, it isn't a comic conceit that the movie has to work with, but a conceit of its own. For those interested in Harvey Dent's conversion in the comics, I'd recommend Loeb and Sale's "The Long Halloween," an imperfect work that does a fair job of humanizing and making believable that transition, while sticking largely to the plot elements previously laid out.; 7/19/2008 2:40 PM
Mary said...: In my opinion, the film's one flaw is that it occassionally suffered from slightly self-important bloviation, which made some of the scenes drag on longer than necessary.

That said, this critique suffers from the same flaw, raised to an infinite power. Both Nolan and Uhlich could use some serious editing.; 7/19/2008 2:43 PM
Anonymous said...: The problem with this review is that it doesn't make any sense. You express opinions but don't back them up...and considering you have no qualms with spoilers, I don't think you have any excuse.

Examples given:

- How is the film *not* about dualities and polarities?

- Why is the Joker telling Batman "you complete me" pseudo-philosophy? Do you have any knowledge of the characters?

- Where were the monologues that went on ad nauseum? Identify them in your review.

- Explain how the film has "verbal diarehha" when the editing was tight and the film is so interspersed with action so as to make the origin of this comment hard to determine?

- Why, precisely, do you have a problem with how Gotham City is depicted in the film? Can you explain why it is important to the film that Gotham be depicted at all anymore? We know what the city is from "Batman Begins." We know that the backdrop is basically NYC + Detroit on steroids. Is anything other than that truly important to the narrative?

- Suggesting that this film isn't "dark" merely because Nolan doesn't give us as much gore as he possibly could is specious reasoning at best...does "dark" equate to "disgusting" in your mind? Otherwise, I fail to see your logic. It's as though you've forgotten everything we learned from Hitchcock about letting the mind of the audience fill in some of the worst blanks...

- Why should there be a "kick" to the Joker's or Two-Face's actions? You don't find them both disturbing and awful? This isn't a popcorn flick, it's drama - the Joker and Two-Face should morally repulse and terrify. If you "enjoy" what they are doing then you're either a seriously amoral person or have a long-outstanding date with a therapist...

- You criticize Ledger for playing a "concept," but again I have to question whether or not you have any understanding of who the Joker *is*, even though this film handed it to you on a silver platter. The Joker IS a "concept." He is just behavior. He's an atom bomb with no particular target. To then criticize Ledger for playing the character as brilliantly as he did...it makes no sense from a critical perspective to lambast an actor for doing precisely what he or she is meant to do.

Some of us reading your reviews has as much or more of a formal education in film as you do, sir - and we know that a proper, intellectual critique of a film not only makes its arguments but *defends* them.

Otherwise the review, as you seem to think of this film, is just so much masturbation, isn't it? And of dubious worth to anyone reading a review to determine whether or not they wish to view the film in question.; 7/19/2008 2:43 PM
James Hudnall said...: Of all the clueless negative reviews I have read of this film, this gets grand prize.

FYI: This film has absolutely nothing to do with George Bush or Neocons. Even bringing them up pretty much casts you review in the light of unintentional parody.

To paraphrase the Joker...Why so Serious?; 7/19/2008 2:50 PM
jeff said...: I completely agree with you Keith. The film was so over-hyped and the movie will certainly soon be forgotten.; 7/19/2008 3:08 PM
Scott Tobias said...: I should probably be addressing this question to Dave Kehr on his site, but I"m curious: How is Dirty Harry an ambiguous character while Nolan's Batman is not? I'd say it's precisely the reverse: We're never meant to question Harry's role as vigilante, but rather see him as a figure who's standing for justice that our soft, liberalized system is too ineffectual to deliver. Any ambiguity probably comes from viewers who appreciate Siegel's style while finding his pro-vigilante POV risible. Here, Batman is much cloudier superhero: We're left to wonder throughout whether his presence in Gotham City really is beneficial or if it incites the sort of extra-judicial action we see from the fake Batmans in the opening sequence of the film.

But maybe I'm falsely conflating Siegel's Dirty Harry with the other Dirty Harry movies that followed. It's been a while since I've seen it.; 7/19/2008 3:09 PM
Will Lasky said...: It's strange that every Batman flop leaves us expecting the next one to be better. I'm no raving fan of Tim Burton, but I think this is a real testament to his (and Michael Keaton's) accomplishment. Nolan has always put his audiences within a dark box that seems to tamp down the unforeseen, to squash the possibility of something emerging with an independent life of its own. Reminds me of Guillermo del Toro. Great review.; 7/19/2008 3:27 PM
Justin said...: Did this review get linked on IMDB or something? I haven't seen a Nerd Defense Force like this since Bay's Transformers.; 7/19/2008 3:28 PM
Ben said...: Talk about self-important...how criticize the movie for that "flaw" when this writer has the same exact flaw himself? The real mistake here is that in his "I went to film school" bravado the critic forgets about the commercial practicalities of a movie positioning itself as a summer blockbuster. I really doubt that the gore of No Country For Old Men was ever considered as an welcome addition to this film, as it would kill its commercial viability...but who cares? It didn't need the gore, you knew what was happening, and if the immediacy of American culture has killed our imaginations this much that we have to personally see everything that ever happens to understand it then I fear for us all.; 7/19/2008 3:32 PM
PolishSteve said...: First off, Brevity is the soul of wit. If you applied as much intelligence as you insinuate, you would put your statements into more concise terms where a majority of your readers would not need to look up words in a dictionary in order to get a sense of your meaning. You write for the general public, so keep your phrasing general.

Second, you may just not be a fan of comic book movies in general or thought the movie was just trying to overextend itself beyond a popcorn matinee into something deeper. In any case, I have yet to see a movie based on a comic book or even many "high art" drama pieces that explores the balance between good and evil, chaos and order, ethics and anarchy as much as "The Dark Knight." Even if you didn't enjoy the movie on a purely entertainment level that most comic book movies strive for and that few achieve (which this one does), you should at least be able to appreciate the themes it presents.; 7/19/2008 3:35 PM
Anonymous said...: After the near comical positive review of Indiana Jones...Crystal Skull that praises its subtext while ignoring the odd pacing, cobbled together screenplay, lazy exposition, and terrible green screen effects in key action scenes that make it somewhat of a failure as slick, Summer action movie, and now this strange, I would argue misinterpretation of Dark Knight, I'm not sure whether Keith's reviews are awesome in their uniqueness or maybe a sign that he should not be writing about Summer blockbuster movies. I tend to like his writing, but his approach to these two movies is baffling. I'm not sure what audience the reviews are written for, if any.; 7/19/2008 3:50 PM
alma-apologist said...: Firstly: you complain that Ledger plays more of a concept than a character -- than in the very next sentence lambast Nolan for not simply making the Joker a sadistic clown, but bothering to have some kind of story behind his madness, i.e. a narrative that would make him more of a character than merely a concept.

This is, to me, a blatant contradiction.

Secondly: I believe you misread the Joker's back story sorely in the film. His tale about his miscreant father is sad and gripping -- though potentially cliched and too sobby, as you seem to see it -- but we are never sure whether or not it's true. He spins a different story to Rachel, for instance, when he's threatening her. The Joker strikes exactly the right chord in us. Part of us sympathizes, part of us recoils -- part of us, darkly empathizes. But we're never sure what's true or false, what's him or us, what's fact or exhilarating paranoia-feeding fiction.

Thirdly, and most importantly: What you don't seem to realise about the film is that its sleight of hand, its "now-you-see-it-now-you-don't" technique, is the pivot and the scheme of the entire movie. To me, the film's strongest message is about the dissolution of absolutes; this sometimes entails concealing the truth, such as Alfred does from Bruce regarding Rachel's decision to marry Harvey, or as Bruce does when he takes the blame, or indeed, when he determines never to tell Harvey what he *thinks* is the truth -- that Rachel would have married Bruce eventually. Sometimes the stark truth is so horrible that it *has* to be hidden, like the real story behind the Joker, or the slice of a lip; sometimes we simply don't *know* the stark truth, so why and how should Nolan attempt to present it to us? I loathe pedantry in films, and already The Dark Knight cuts closer to it than I like -- and you're complaining about it being too obscure and conflicted?

Interesting but ultimately irrational review. Cheers.

-- Gayle Goh; 7/19/2008 4:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Sure, it's a flashy 'product'. A $180 million expansion of a brand essentially designed to make back double the cost it took to produce. Considerations have to be made that there's only so much 'depth of feeling and artistry' the artless suits who funded the picture will allow.

Yet despite these considerations, the film succeeds. More so than you give it credit for.

I’m glad there are people out there who don’t simply fall prey to the breathless hype this film is receiving. A contrasting, critical analysis of the film is refreshing. However, I felt as though this critique was grasping a little too hard just to be contrary. No reason to fall in line with the over-excited critics and fans, but there is a reason for all the accolades. I feel as though you went overboard in trying to dismiss the film entirely, save for a ‘pencil gag’.

Though you may have some valid points, you seem to have written this review from within a vacuum. It may do you well to consider the ghosts of summer blockbusters past and present (with special emphasis on the 90s string of ‘Batman’ films).; 7/19/2008 4:27 PM
Matt Zoller Seitz said...: I haven't seen the film yet and won't weigh in until I have. But for now I'll say that it's interesting how pretty much every comments thread for every review of the film that I've read on line is thick with comments from enormous numbers of people furious, furious, furious that the critic doesn't adore the film. In some cases -- particularly David Fear's review at Time Out New York, which was mixed and critical but essentially positive -- some of the harshest flaming came on Tuesday when the review went up, and seemingly few people outside of insiders of one sort of another could have possibly seen it. They wanted the reviewer to label a film great, and they hadn't even seen it yet.

That's scary.

Is there a collective yearning for a masterpiece out there? Is it a Heath Ledger RIP thing (I don't think so; there hasn't been any "How dare you insult the man's memory" type comments in this thread)? Or is it groupthink, aided by Warner Bros. hype -- a hive mind phenomenon in which ecstatic love for the film has been unconsciously agreed-upon in advance as the only acceptable response to this film, which in turn means that anyone who dares deviate, and ask for something not necessarily better, but different, is an enemy of the people who must be crushed?

Something about big-budget action pictures brings out the latent bully in certain moviegoers.; 7/19/2008 5:02 PM
Sis. "K" said...: Here was my review:

I’m not a comic book reader.. I’m squeamish.. but I really liked this movie.. here is what I’ve posted elsewhere..:

*Good movie…

*Maggie Gyllanhal was terrible as Rachel… unnattractive.. shlumpy… not believable as a woman who captures the hearts of men… they couldn’t find a prettier woman? or one with more presence? sue me… but her whole image/persona is drab… and eh.. batman’s groupies looked better and had more presence…

*Heath Ledger was excellent… Oscar worthy… if one is going to see this in the theatre the film is worth seeing if just to see his performance… his character was arresting………. wickedly delightful even… believe the hype…

*Gary Oldman plays an engaging Commisioner… his character was a little mysterious but likeable…

* Aaron Ekhart was an excellent slightly naive, eventually gullible/ tormented, and teetering on the brink district attorney.. and an initially quite charming character.. who does a good job of shelving but allowing the audience to sense a potential dark side….

*Christian Bale is a cool batman.. can’t stand his mouth though… does he have a lisp or something?? I can’t figure it out… for some reason I liked him better as a businessman….

*Morgan Freeman is da man!

*very good movie to stimulate ethical dialogue….

*couldn’t stand batman’s voice when in batman attire…

* the conspiracy theorist in me says that this movie sends the message that brother’s shouldn’t go into crime or law enforcement…

*hate me.. but as engaging a film as it was I still could have waited for DVD none the less…

*I wouldn’t recommend this for anyone under 13… the PG 13 rating is well suited…

* ummm.. once again.. Heath Ledger’s joker was FUNNY, frightening and sometimes I forgot he was crazy until he started laughing.. he just makes fun of human ego, hypocrisy and vulnerability soooo well…!

*I believe his joker works because he’s lonely… I believe many have experienced that from time to time.. and that takes his character from being a cartoonish individual to something accessible and relatable on a certain level… there is a scene where I could feel that that was his story… Of course his loneliness was marked by criminal genius… however for others of us who are not sadistic and cruel! lol… when one is good at what they do or can “see” beyond what others see… or feel as if they do not fit in and do not wish to try to fit in any of the offered “systems”…

well I’ve known that type of loneliness before…

Sis. "K"; 7/19/2008 5:18 PM
Anonymous said...: I agree with many in wondering if you saw the same film that I did last night, as the film that I saw was incredible, in every way imaginable.; 7/19/2008 5:19 PM
Malcolm said...: Just because you pretend to not like the film doesn't mean you're fooling anybody.; 7/19/2008 5:24 PM
Nolan Bruce said...: Good review.....Unfortunately, not in any way true. It's like he came up with all these great things to say and said them, without any thought as to whether it was true. It seems like he just wanted to sound smart. So, he failed.; 7/19/2008 5:28 PM
Flower said...: "Something about big-budget action pictures brings out the latent bully in certain moviegoers."

Budget budget action pictures and anonymous internet message boards, you mean.

I saw the movie last night and loved it - but I think Keith makes an eloquent argument against the film, and I don't begrudge him his opinion in the slightest.

As for the reponse from some of the film's other fans, as tired as I am of reading their enraged (and, until at least midnight Thursday, largely uninformed) reactions, I'm equally tired of people talking about how scary those reactions are.

Look around, folks. There aren't riots in the streets. No critics have been harmed in the reviewing of this movie. This kind of vitriol happens on fan sites all the time. It's not pleasant, enjoyable, or particularly enlightening, but it's not scary either.; 7/19/2008 5:44 PM
Jettoki said...: I didn't like this film, and I think you've done a great job explaining why. It's sad that the 180 degree motorcycle turn was the most exciting moment in the whole movie.; 7/19/2008 6:08 PM
James said...: I always thought a critic is there to help viewers make informed decisions about what movies to watch... Seeing how almost everybody absolutely loves this movie except for you tells me that you need to seriously consider a new profession because you are out of touch with what the rest of the world views as entertainment.; 7/19/2008 6:19 PM
Michael Peterson said...: Matt - it's comics, superhero comics. There's a collective Stockholm Syndrome going on here, where fans want comics (by which they mean superheroes) to be "taken seriously" when comics (as in, other comics) ARE largely taken seriously in most critical forums, and accepted in most places of serious discourse (or just on an L train, for that matter).

The "outsider" mentality of superhero fans now relies upon that sense of being an outsider for validation, so even while most fans believe that "if they like these books they'll like me," there's a persistent feeling of "I'm smarter than them because I understand these books are great."

And I know that's a huge part of it, because I've already seen one known comics professional hurling comments in this thread.; 7/19/2008 6:28 PM
Tom E said...: Geez, Keith, I am so sorry about these comments. I liked the film quite a bit, but this is ridiculous.

Your review brings up a lot of questions and points I need to think about. I'm just sorry we aren't able to have a civil discussion of it here (usually THND is the best place for these kinds of discussions...see the posting on "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" for example).

Maybe in a couple weeks, once the hype has died down, you can repost this review or another one and people here can have an actual discussion. (The fact that people are complaining about spoilers seems to suggest that many of them don't visit this site very often.)

A few quick thoughts anyway:

- The film's politics are, I think, a bit more subtle than you give them credit for. I think the problem comes if you start to assume that Batman is the avatar for the creators and that what he believes, what he does, is ultimately good. On the contrary, I think one of the persistent themes of the film is that Batman moves farther and farther away from his original goal of fighting crime and corruption, and much closer to personal vigilantism. The interrogation scene with the Joker is probably the best example of this, but throughout he's constantly on the edge of becoming a far more selfish kind of hero.

- Less Bruce Wayne in this movie and more Batman was a serious flaw for me, and I think for you, too, Keith. The first film didn't even introduce Batman until about an hour in, but here we hardly see any of the toll the events are taking on Bruce, which is a shame.

- The first hour of the film, with its investigation of city politics and criminal organizations, made me feel like I was watching a superhero version of "The Wire." Granted, far less detailed than "The Wire," but it did seem like the film really wanted to see how the city of Gotham was working and operating among all of these larger, heroic deeds and people. (I'm currently working through season 3 of "The Wire," so it's on my mind and I may just be reading into the film too much, but still...it struck me.)

- The structure of the film was a bit weird and jarring. I kept feeling like we were near the end when we weren't. This might be somewhat intentional. I'll have to see it again to see how I feel about it.

As for Nolan, I do think he's much more in control here than it may appear. The first time I saw "The Prestige" I thought it was a mess, but subsequent viewings changed my mind. Maybe the same will happen with you and "Dark Knight."

Anyway Keith, despite what anybody else says, you are, in fact, a "Real Reviewer." Keep fighting the good fight.; 7/19/2008 6:29 PM
Dan Coyle said...: Matt: I guess when you pay ten bucks for a movie, you get prickly when someone essentially says you waste it?

Beats me. I haven't seen the film either, but this review is no skin off my nose if I like the film or not. It's nicely written (if wrong in some spots).; 7/19/2008 6:29 PM
Anonymous said...: I just got back from seeing the movie, and I disagree with almost everything in the review.

First, if you knew anything about Batman and the Joker's history in the comics, the "you complete me" line was taken straight from them. It isn't pseudo-philosophy, it is staying true to the pseudo-philosophy developed in the comic books. The Dark Knight tries to rise above being a "superhero" or "comic book" movie, and succeeds for most of it, but remember that it is based on a comic book character and a comic book universe.

Wachowski-esque? What movie were you watching? I can't think of a single Wachowski-esque quote. Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman's little monologues could have been written better, but they were hardly Wachowski-esque. Harvey Dent's press conferences are filled with clichés and political babble just as real press conferences are.

The Dark Knight is a logical progression from the "escalation" theme of Batman Begins. In Batman Begins, Liam Neeson wants to kill off Gotham City so it can all start again; in The Dark Knight, the Joker wants Gotham City to burn itself for its own sake. Your comment that the "city at war with itself" theme falls apart because of Caine's and Freeman's dialogue makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. There's no logic behind it, it's just a dismissive swipe at the movie.

Rachel Dawes is not a damsel-in-distress plot device. She and Bruce Wayne have drifted apart and the appearance of the Joker brings back to Bruce just how important she is to him. She seems like a shallow character - like all the characters except the Joker - because the characters are little more than plot devices. The protagonist of the movie is human society in the form of Gotham City. No one can stop the Joker. He takes over the Mob with ease. He blows away police like he's shooting tin cans. The Batman can't seem to stop him either.

You want the movie to jump right out and throw in your face the human impact of the Joker's actions. The Dark Knight isn't a goddamn character study, it's an action movie about a guy who dresses up in a costume with a bat motif and beats criminals up. You're supposed to infer from the events of the movie the human cost the Joker is placing upon Gotham. Shit blows up left and right, police die, judges die, district attorneys die, innocent people die, and no one can stop it. Does Nolan really need to spell things out for you as to what is going on?

Maroni shows up because he alone of the mobsters realizes that the Joker's plans for Gotham don't have room for a Mob in them, just a mob. He acts out of pure self-interest. He didn't "randomly" show up.

The characters obviously can't be everywhere at once; where was Batman when Harvey and Rachel were kidnapped? Where was Batman when the Joker escaped from the PD building?

Honestly, what movie did you watch? It wasn't the Dark Knight. The main theme in the movie was that Batman couldn't be everywhere, that no one could be everywhere, that no one could stop the Joker until Batman found a way to literally be everywhere with the city-wide surveillance. And it was political allegory. Just not pro-Bush or anti-Bush like people think. I think the allegory was that today, there are people who condemn everything Bush does and act like his policies are the most sinister things imaginable, completely immoral and unthinkable and indefensible. And that they should never, ever be considered ever, because Bush did them. That there is no time when warrantless surveillance is, uh, warranted, that there is no time when roughing up a prisoner is warranted. Batman beats the crap out of the Joker in an interrogation room, and it doesn't help him. There's some allegory for you. But Batman puts all of Gotham under surveillance because he has no other option. He can't find the Joker, no one can find the Joker, when the Joker shows himself people die and no one can stop him.

The allegory is that you can't ever say never about doing something like that. That's the political allegory in the movie.

The movie overall was excellent, and anyone who says otherwise is being contrary for the hell of it, or is braindead. The dialogue could have been better in places, the scenes could have transitioned a little more smoothly, but other than that I have no complaints.; 7/19/2008 6:35 PM
JB Knight said...: Since you comment about a mid-film Jerry-Mguiresque “You complete me” line that came with about 5 minutes to go in The Dark Knight, I can only conclude you wrote your article prior to watching the film. And your insistence that Heath Ledger played a concept rather than a character cements this into certainty unless you can show what stale conceptual thespian warehouse he plagiarized his interpretation of the Joker from. It seems your critique of the Dark Night is based on an apori assumption that a comic-book character couldn’t possibly be capable of a complex exploration of the human condition and the irony inherent in codes of manmade morality.
That the Dark Night succeeds as an action-backed superhero caper for the popcorn eating masses shouldn’t detract from the fact that it also succeeds as an intellectually satisfying morality play of greater depth that the genre of morality plays tends to allow for. Your exploration of this movie seems to point out a rather two-face need to glorify in your own mental acumen while decrying a cinematic shallowness that seems to be present only in your own mind.
I like popcorn and I like meditative explorations of primordial archetypes done in subtle, illumining, and profound ways. Your critique is shallow popcorn that embodies what the Dark Night and Joker learned to accept at separate ends of the morality spectrum: There are humans lost in the appearance of things and those that grasp the things themselves and in the grasping the appearance of duality is lost and the appearance of duality the things themselves are not grasped.
This understanding is deep and profound and the Joker uttering AT THE END OF THE DARK NIGHT what appears to you mere words stolen from another movie is something philosophers and mystics and poets and saints and sinners and artists have grappled with since the beginning of consciousness within homo sapiens. It is an awareness of limits and incompleteness and choice precluding full knowledge of other choices and the experience of one thing precluding the experience of another. The manic villain howled this at the human condition in his ending dual with Batman and perhaps one night the fullness of it overwhelmed the actor so brilliantly embodying the nihilistic soul of the Joker.
You rant at the dialogue and pretentiousness of this movie and I think the critic doeth rant too much.; 7/19/2008 6:54 PM
Matt Zoller Seitz said...: Flower: "Look around, folks. There aren't riots in the streets. No critics have been harmed in the reviewing of this movie. This kind of vitriol happens on fan sites all the time. It's not pleasant, enjoyable, or particularly enlightening, but it's not scary either."

Well, by "scary" I didn't mean in the "fear of one's life, society breaking down" sense (and I hope that was obvious, but I guess not). I just meant that with particular films (expensive, franchise-driven, highly anticipated) there's a push for unanimity of opinion -- not just general consensus, but unanimity, in the sense of "we who love the film will brook no dissent, however mild." It's incomprehensible to me. I understand really, really wanting to like a film going in -- hell, I want to like every movie I see, and am disappointed when I don't. But deciding it's a masterpiece sight unseen or (as some in this thread has already done) accusing the critic of secretly liking the film but saying he didn't to make a name for himself or try out a bunch of fancy, longer-than-two-syllable words to intimidate people who hate dictionaries, well...let's just go with "unnerving."; 7/19/2008 7:23 PM
John said...: You complain about offscreen action, when I feel that such is actually very stimulating in today's society (when it's so easy to find superfluous violence and gore everywhere you look). The only reason you wrote a negative review was because SOMEONE had to. =P

After reading your critique, I still don't understand what exactly it is you're saying. How did the film fail? Your review is filled with fluff...please be more concise!

The film was good. Good writing, great acting, an excellent portrayal of the Joker, and a beautiful juxtaposition of light and darkness (not to mention a monologue about madness and a social commentary on corruption) make for a great film.

So what the hell did YOU see?; 7/19/2008 7:36 PM
James said...: I can't take this reviewer seriously. He talks to no end about the pomposity of the movie in a way that conflicts marvelously with his own puffed-up vocabulary, all the while failing to disguise the fact that his head is so stuffed with his own condescending self-righteousness that no movie may ever be good enough to reach his arbitrary standards.

Hey, look at that. I can be a verbose jackass, too.; 7/19/2008 7:51 PM
zionred said...: once again, another one of your reviews proves how much of an idiot you are and how little you really know about film. give it up.; 7/19/2008 7:58 PM
Anonymous said...: That's hilarious... you feel free to criticize others work (Nolans), but can't stand to publish a critical review of your own (the comment made last night comparing your review to the know-it-all at a party). Don't give me because it was anonymous either... you seemed just fine posting praise anonymously. Truly telling about your professionalism. Bravo.; 7/19/2008 8:02 PM
Anonymous said...: It's unfortunate that you feel the only way to critique a movie is to use as many pretentious words and turns of phrase as possible in it, almost to show how much better you are than the film.

Are you being negative for the sake of being negative, to differentiate yourself, because you're clearly in the (major minority) among your 'profession'.; 7/19/2008 8:09 PM
mags said...: "Nolan and company's previous Bat-tale, Batman Begins, is similarly infected with such verbal diarrhea..."

Wow, pot meet kettle or what!; 7/19/2008 8:25 PM
prr5345 said...: Why is any suggestion that the film is badly thought out or shallow somehow wrong?

The review was very clear on the point that the reviewer felt there was a lack of thought throughout the characterisation and story. The sense of sadism in the direction and coldness was clearly stated, not from my point of view as a shallow attack, but from the opinion of it as an essential flaw that ran through the entire production, killing the life of the film. Arguements following this review do seem to be focused on ignoring that essential opinion to work from and simply harp on well-worn cliches of I thought it was brilliant so you must be a snob, going to the level of I cannot believe you do not see things the way I do. This type of thing is complete nonsense, and feels ignorant to reality of proper reviewing. The banality that's love it, hate it, five stars, weren't they all marvellous is something that's been crippling proper film writing, as its essentially about emotion and doesn't ever get to ideas, or the emotional meaning of these ideas, as to how they are viewed within a film's context.

This accusation of snobbishness also doesn't vie with other reviews written by the critic over time. The recent review of Indiana Jones 4 was that of a popular film that was well-reviewed and that Ulich liked (I didn't like it myself but I was interested in the review. I would recommend those hating this Dark Knight review to look back on Ulich's review for Miami Vice, which was excellent, interesting on a difficult, complex film about emotionality within genre confines) If you have been reading his work, they are the result of a singular point of view, a sensibility to film language, which is what you expect from a film critic (from Sarris to Kael onwards), just as you would expect them from a film-maker. That's his job.

I have not seen The Dark Knight. As a UK resident we don't get it until next week. I really don't have an opinion on it yet. I like some of Mr Nolan's work, especially The Prestige, but not all, thought the first film over-rated but enjoyable.

I would argue, as others have, that there has been a need for it to be brilliant for months, in many peices of writing. A high percentage of reviews have been the kind of banal opinion of I loved it yet went nowhere beyond an uninteresting statement of brilliance, that has no character nor opinion on the film. There's just very little writing so far on this film that isn't one-dimensional and dull.

I addition, generally for myself on the Batman films, I do find it odd that reviews generally bash the Burton Batman films, even though these films have genuine merits to argue about in regards to visuals and the pyschology. There was much taken from these film in Nolan's versions, which is completely ignored in gushing reviews, which leads to an unfair suggestion of uniqueness to what Nolan has done so far.

First films for both directors working on origin, an understandable link yet have plots of poisoning the cities which takes up the last half-hour, have a good section of the middle with the exact same type of action scene, where batman saves heroine from villain, takes her back to batcave, has talk, drugs her, has her wake up with the way to stop the villain's scheme. That's simply the obvious plot elements yet it is the base of all character movement. Yet is never commented on that they are basically the same story. The realism to Batman himself does seem incredibly subserviant to the Burton treatment yet this is dismissed. I bring this up as there is a lot of potential compare and contrasts that can be done and yet hasn't been. I find it an exercise in denial that many reviewers suggest that Nolan is the first film-maker to take the Batman character seriously, which is not the case. To contrast Nolan carefully to Burton would make Nolan's films feel less unique so seems to be avoided.

Additionally, on the new film, from what I've read, the scheme of the new joker to ruin everyone he touches, from individuals to masses, cause inhumane damage, lie continually, and argue it's all absurd. Which isn't very different from Nicholson joker. Again, areas to discuss beyond a simple I like that one better.

Second film information available has Batman as chief supporting player to a few other characters, who highlight batman's freakish nature, work on how he's got a very diffiicult relationship to the city, has some tragic elements, has politics and elections ruined by business, everyone is ruined or dead by the end, leaving the lead alone. Kind of like Batman Returns.
Just pointing out again how Nolan's films aren't new thematically or in plot. You could have a lot of discussion of the realist style, which has an implicit distance, versus the Buton style, which is very psychological and image-based for emotion intereacts within representing this type of character.

Yet there's no suggestion that there can be discussion of this, save I like this new one better and don't defame it. I say you should test the new film, argue against it, contrast it, see if it holds up thematically. Anything else would be just dull.

I'm finishing off now, by saying that I may not eventually agree with the review opinion of the film when I see it, it was a well-argued, the type we should be seeing more of, not the kind of viewpoint that is called snobbish. That kind of name-calling is just dull and doesn't lead anywhere interesting.; 7/19/2008 8:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Most people agree this was a good movie. You don't believe it was. That makes you a bad judge for the people.; 7/19/2008 8:31 PM
Anonymous said...: have you even read the batman comic? two face flips a coin for everything! the dark night is a comic book movie, not the departed or no country for old men. a damn good comic book movie i might add. Heath made the joker so evil yet hilarious. the scene when he does the pencil "trick" is brilliant.; 7/19/2008 8:33 PM
Tim said...: You could have just written:

I have an exemplary vocabulary and I don't care much for action movies.

But that would have forced you to be less pretentious.; 7/19/2008 8:43 PM
David said...: I know you want to be "that one critic" who revealed the mediocrity of a great movie, but no one will believe your awful review when you yourself know it was a great movie.

You had a good reason for sounding like an egotistical thesaurus: you were trying to compensate for your lack of criticism for this film. I could see you trying so hard to make your hasty assumptions and conclusions seem lucid, but it mainly came off as pretentious and grumpy, as though you were trying to hate this film.

Try watching it again, this time with a positive attitude. Maybe then you'll learn some humility and admit your mistake.; 7/19/2008 8:45 PM
Anonymous said...: did you watch the film with your head in your ass?; 7/19/2008 8:47 PM
Anonymous said...: dude. you are "that" guy.; 7/19/2008 8:53 PM
Connor Morris said...: "But that idea only works if you follow through with it. The film needs to be set up specifically with Harvey Dent in the middle of the twin impulses of Batman and Joker, and played up as the real, honest hero who splits down the middle, unable to resolve two flawed views of the world. That's your metaphor."

You couldn't be more correct, and in discussing the film after a viewing last night, I'm convinced TDK accomplished this. Two Face and Joker completely overshadow Batman in the picture, but I can't register that as a complaint. I agree Rachel isn't much more than a plot device, but aside from that, the two (or one and a half) villains are extremely well motivated. Ledger is a wonder, and almost none of his dialogue is superfluous.

The film's politics are more than a little ham-fisted, but for everyone who wants to posit this as pro-Bush, beyond the obviously "awesome" sadism, didn't you find yourselves at all sympathetic towards Joker? Specifically in the hospital encounter with Dent, I thought they totally pulled the whole so-insane-he's-more-sane schtick. The lines can be glib, but his plight for the illogical in a society that beleives itself to be wholly rational and thus correct was well executed.

The editing is sometimes muddled, and yes, Gotham hardly feels alive, but to say the film has zero artistry is a crime. Without arguing for too much longer, I have to mention that more than a few of the musical cues are downright chilling.

It's not flawless, but moments of the film, like the one pictured at the start of the review, are testaments to that lovely irrational and iconic side of cinema.; 7/19/2008 9:03 PM
Anonymous said...: I'll write this comment as poor as possible for you. I only clicked on your review link through rottentomatoes because yours was the only thumbs down on the first page. I think that's the only reason you've written a review of the movie that puts it in a bad light. I bet it's difficult writting something you don't really beleive, but you did a great job. I loved the movie.; 7/19/2008 9:17 PM
Lithium98 said...: So many words, so little was said.

After reading your long winded "review", the only word that comes to mind is "verbal diarrhea".

Go watch the movie again, this time pretend you're someone else who know how to enjoy a good movie.; 7/19/2008 9:22 PM
Brandon S. said...: How many thesauruses did you murder to make that review? It's fine if you disagree with it, but I've never seen such bloated and pretentious gobbledygook in my life. And I read reviews in my spare time, so I know what I'm talking about. It's obvious you're just doing it for the attention, and went into the movie thinking, "Okay, I am going to find absolutely everything wrong with this movie possible and maybe I can up my site's traffic." Since you didn't really find anything wrong, you resorted to writing a ridiculously long review jam-packed with so much superfluous verbiage, by the time I finished reading it I really didn't quite understand why you didn't like it - except for the lack of gore. And if you think gore makes a good film, go back to Hostel, Saw, and the Hills Have Eyes remake and drool over them, mmmkay?

You know what the sad part is? For a week or so, maybe not even that, your site will get a crapload of traffic. Then your link will soon be buried under all the reviews seeing this movie for the masterpiece it truly is on rotten tomatoes, and you'll fade back into oblivion just as quickly.

You can tell a critic is trying too hard to find any fault with the movie at all when their review is filled to the brim with the nonsense yours is. To give you an idea, let me put this previous paragraph into a format you would probably have written it in.

It becomes verily apparent that too much effort is being wasted and not enough inspired scribbling being jotted down for the purposes of our enlightenment when said examination of the film becomes rife with platitudes, incoherencies, and pretentiously transparent attempts at digging and exploring for faults within the crusted outer layers of the movie under scrutiny.

Ever heard of the phrase "less is more?" Ever heard of the phrase "show, don't tell?" Ever heard of the phrase, "Let's put a smile on that face?"

Because I'd be glad to put a smile on your face. Come over here, let me show you a magic trick. Don't worry, there will be PLENTY of gore.; 7/19/2008 9:22 PM
Brandon S. said...: And on a side note, I'd be interested to find out your response to all this negative reaction to your review. Perhaps give us another post that explains, on a more basic level that isn't filled with such completely pointless thesaurus usage, why you'll stand by your review. If you don't, it'll just show how much of a coward you truly are, and how your post was meant for nothing more than upping your site's traffic.; 7/19/2008 9:32 PM
Anonymous said...: This was a pretty shocking review to be honest. Regardless of what you think of the movie; try articulating your points next time without such flowery, know-it-all pseudo-intellectual elaboration. I will grant you managed to bring up some valid points about the movie's shortcomings, but in trying to link them to some larger philosophical/political/artistic context (I mean, what the hell is with all the namedropping? Who do you think you are, the keeper of movie folklore?) you come off more lost and murky in your tone than Nolan ever could.; 7/19/2008 9:34 PM
Phyllisia said...: Ok, while I respect your opinion and your right to perceive things as you will, I do believe you have over-analyzed(or perhaps under) and thus misinterpreted much of the film. As a long(loooooooooong) time batman fan and joker fan because lord knows that he's the very best batman villain to ever exist, I was overjoyed to view this film. It was amazing, spectacular. It exceeded my expectations by a long shot.; 7/19/2008 9:34 PM
A Lessanmore said...: I agree with almost everything you said. The movie was a cluster-f&u#k and not in a good way. I went into the movie expecting (thanks to the majority of reviews) it to be excellent, but I was disappointed. The joker was here one moment with an event that could only be caused by an elaborate plan and there one moment with an equally must-have-been-planned-out event. However, I saw none of the planning, the room for potential error. So, definitely the tension lost by the moments of unexplained plotting weakened the movie. I'm okay with a character who can do almost anything, but we need at least a few ounces of reality/believability to care about his contrivances. Also, the screenwriter's jokes, the verbal ones, weren't funny. And, yes, too much "Clarissa Explains it All" and/or Carrie Bradshaw voice over explanation. I certainly don't think you're trying to be different with your review; that's a tendency most of us grow out of early on. I think your assertions are correct. The movie wasn't great, and, somehow, with this film, I think you're gutsy for saying so.; 7/19/2008 9:37 PM
Anonymous said...: I have to agree with the review. In the words of one epic reviewer... "Your movie sucks". I have always been a Batman fan, and I have always waited for a dark interpretation of the character. This movie fails to give me any memorable vision or dialogue. We are the victims of hype, and for the most part, buy what we are told to buy. I don't know if it was the script or the directing, though I suspect both were at fault. I did not for a moment believe "Batman" and did not believe the Joker... though there were moments when I almost did. On a related note, the review could have been a bit more concise. Going to great lengths to draw analogies sometimes loses the analogy completely. To sum it up, Batman has always has been a dark and tormented character. We still have not seen the real Batman. It is ok to abandon the comic book idiom and give him a real personality, real dialoge and real humanity. The film fails.; 7/19/2008 9:39 PM
Anonymous said...: Because great, but popular films are the exception to the rule these days, this critic has become a cynic.; 7/19/2008 9:54 PM
Keith said...: Dude your a jerk. I have no problem with bad reviews or negative outlooks in general. MY issue is the total disregaurd for the people that read your review. You have a ton of spoilers in the review and at the very least you should say "hey spoiler ahead". You should really take into consideration the people who read your diatrob, you ass.; 7/19/2008 9:57 PM
Claz said...: You suck.; 7/19/2008 10:00 PM
Allan said...: I 100% respect your opinion. I totally disagree with you but thats not the issue. I just wanted to say that maybe next time you review a movie, possibly try to make it as spoiler free as you can. Just an idea. Thankfully I have seen the movie, but some people might read what you have to say in anticipation of seeing the movie, and there is a chance you could have ruined parts of it for someone.; 7/19/2008 10:02 PM
Anonymous said...: Let me start off by saying that I enjoyed reading your review-everyone is entitled to an opinion, and unlike some other reviewers (both positive and negative) yours seems logical. That being said, I loved "The Dark Knight" and strangely it seems for some of the reasons you didn't. For example, I'm proud of Nolan for directing a film that is genuinely creepy without falling back on the mindless gore that we see so much of today- it's suspensful without being disgusting. Perhaps it's all just a ploy to get money from the kids, but I still agree with the choice.
I'm not saying the movie was perfection incarnate, but I found it to be very entertaining, and at the same time thought-provoking.; 7/19/2008 10:09 PM
Anonymous said...: The Dark Knight is an amazing movie that over 95% of viewers have loved. Kieth, if you are a part of that five percent, that is fine with me. I laugh at the comments that say you hid behind your thesaurus, because your review is just too intelligent for some "fans".
At the same time, you must remember that this film 's top priority is to be a summer blockbuster that continues in the style of Nolan's Batman Begins, and satisfies Batman fans like myself. When you step back from film critic and realize that Nolan isn't trying to impress you, but the fan's that are going to make the movie hopefully 400 million dollars, you understand that all the perfect deepness to The Dark Knight isn't necessary at all. In fact, a blockbuster over the summer normally lacks much more than The Dark Knight did. In example, the most recent Indiana Jones. George Lucas and Stephen Speilburg were just having fun in that movie, yet you backed up Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of The Crystal Skull with two thumbs up. This might just be me, but when the monkeys attacked the Nazis, I gave up on the idea that Indi had something important hidden inside it.

To me the Dark Knight fulfilled all it's hype, and did have some deeper meaning to hold it together for the few of us looking for more than just Batman and Joker in a Batman movie.

For one, I think all the actors did a wonderful job portraying their respective characters. Gordon, Fox, Alfred, nothing spectacular, but satisfying at the very least. Dent and Wayne/Batman were beautiful. I can see how Batman's raspy voice can get on people's nerves, but Bale does it for a reason (disguise Wayne's identity) and I respect that. I personally don't like Maggie as Dawes, but she did fine.

And then there is Ledger as Joker. I'm a Batman fan, born and raised and Jacky just didn't do the Joker justice for me. Then again, if he took his character from the shining and put some make-up on him, that would be pretty scary. Anyway, Ledger blows everyone out of the water because his performance is just stunning. I wasn't looking for a "meaningless clown" and the Joker isn't that. He is as he say's "an agent of chaos." And he is freaking awesome!

Overall, this movie satisfies it's intended audience 100% and does a fair job of satisfying the critics also. In my mind, the fans deserved a real Batman saga, and Nolan is finally doing Batman justice. Like many others I can't wait for more from Nolan. And Bale. And I would have greatly anticipated more from Ledger, yet his final performance will resonate in my mind for a long time, and never will his Joker be forgotten. RIP; 7/19/2008 10:19 PM
Anonymous said...: This same reviewer gave Miami Vice and The Black Dahlia postive reviews:
http://www.thehousenextdooronline.com/2006/08/virtue-in-vice.html
http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=2507; 7/19/2008 10:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Matt, thinking a movie is a masterpiece sight-unseen is not restricted to only expensive franchise-driven movies like The Dark Knight. The same thing happened to No Country For Old Men. That is hailed as high perfect art and those who would write negative words against it are told they "don't get it" but here when people happen to love The Dark Knight, they are dismissed as being sheep bred by the Warner Brothers hype division.

I've read some of the comments at Rotton Tomatoes and it's puzzling at the amount of people who have missed the SPOILER WARNING that is in all caps and bold at the top of the review. Keith did you originally post this without that warning or did that many people miss it?

And seriously Keith man, how could you call Two Face a a low-rent Anton Chigurh facsimile when that's been Two Face's shtick for decades. You seriously need an editor, that's just embarrassing.; 7/19/2008 10:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Seriously, if you're just trying to get attention for writing a negative TDK review then you should seriously consider how low you're journalistic integrity is going to sink in many people's opinions. That was my "nice" critisism of your review.

I think you were the victim of a Joker magic trick as well, but the object was instead shoved up your ass. And that's my "mean" critisism of your review.

Give both some thought though.; 7/19/2008 10:26 PM
jf2009@gmail.com said...: I totally wanted to figure out what it was that left me unstisfied completly, and you almost hit the nail on the head. It takes a minutes after watching this monstosity to clear your mind but when you do you realize one thing for sure- what a LAME exit for the joker and there was very little depth to the characters. Not much new was revealed and it was quite predictable throughout. Additionally there were way too many cut scenes and the film would have benefited from longer takes and closeups tremendously, that said I still LOVED it!; 7/19/2008 10:54 PM
Anonymous said...: Because great, but popular films are the exception to the rule these days, this critic has become a cynic.; 7/19/2008 11:03 PM
Anonymous said...: The critic made a few fair points. Such as the confusing action scenes. But it seems he is expecting too much depth from a superhero movie. An then complains about the depth there is.

He asks why cant the Joker just be a crazy clown. Well this reminds me of in Spiderman 3 where the director chose to use Venom exactly as some the comics did. Just a selfish asshole villain. That character had no humanity an felt pretty throw away an was just the cherry on top of a crappy superhero movie.

Where as the Joker in this is an interesting character. Comparable to Hannibal Lecter like another person said. The movie would not have been a fun film to watch without this portrayal of the Joker.; 7/19/2008 11:23 PM
A Citizen said...: Hello Keith

Thanks for posting your review. I saw the movie this afternoon- and some of the points you made were valid (regardless of what the trolls say).

The film was surprisingly choppy, almost like a lot of it was left on the cutting room floor. I have my suspicions that there is a version of the film that DOES show the pencil going through the thug’s eye, yet negotiations with the ratings board made them cut it out in order to get a PG-13 rating. Movie makers often make harder core versions of a film for this very reason, giving them the ability to negotiate the more violent scenes out. I have a sneaking feeling (completely unfounded)- that there will be a R rated DVD version of the film coming out in the future.

So here you have it- the birth of a completely untrue internet rumor, right here on your blog! Let the fanboys go wild!

That said, one thing I would like to add to the discussion is its relationship to a post 9-11 American culture. The Joker is a terrorist- yet one that doesn't hide behind an ideology. He is a accumulation of all of our modern fears. Is it voyeuristic sensationalism that we are seeing in this film or a commentary on our culture? In much way, the ultimate joke is on us, the audience. Here is why-

We watch this story, filled with violence- however it is “real world” violence, not the cartoon violence of the Burton films. Without giving up any spoilers- there are political assassinations, hostages, ground to air missiles, buildings blowing up and most disturbing, human bombs- all images we are we are bombarded with from the 24 news networks from Iraq and Afghanistan, yet because the two main characters are dressed in pancake makeup and latex- we the are excused from any responsibility in our participation? What does that say about us as a culture?

Is this “entertainment” or something else?

What if in the film, the Joker was portrayed as a Muslim? As absurd as that sounds, would this film had even been made? Is Gotham is a westernized version of Kabul or Baghdad in the directors eyes? Where is our moral gravity as a culture, when Americans are dying every day, in many of the same ways as portrayed by the film? This film will probably make over $150M this weekend. Is this right?

I think there is a real danger in the answers- and in turn the joke by the filmmaker, and he is laughing all the way to the bank.; 7/19/2008 11:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Please stop reviewing movies.; 7/19/2008 11:28 PM
John said...: This is a review by someone who wants to hate this movie cause of all the hype it got before the fact. he feels that his intelligence would be insulted if he couldn't find a reason to disagree with the masses. Sir if your offended by all the bread and circus of Dark night there's a 9:15 showing of "mama mia." you may be less influenced by their ad campaign... possibly long enough to enjoy that trash so much you wouldn't find opportunity to (poorly) dissect it.; 7/19/2008 11:30 PM
Steve said...: I saw it, I loved it. I'm more critical than most critics. I don't even remember the last movie I saw that I loved. But this was something I loved. Blew my mind and gave my wife nightmares.; 7/19/2008 11:32 PM
Anonymous said...: This is a horrible, horrible excuse for a so called "review". Anyone that has any sympathy at all for this critic may as well check themself into the same mental institution the Joker was concieved from. This "review" is nothing more than a bloated, jealous hate letter to the world, and whose only motive in his exausted paragraphs was to spoil every major plot point. Sounds like this so called "critic" drank a little too much crazy juice while taking notes from the Joker as to how he can take all his readers with him down to misery town.; 7/19/2008 11:33 PM
Anonymous said...: "If anything, the unbridled hope and optimism of Harvey Dent brought Barack Obama to mind,"
Well you just lost all credibility as a human being. Please leave your disgusting support for a race-baiting politician out of the comments. What a lemming.; 7/19/2008 11:34 PM
worst review ever said...: the dark knight was amazing.. obviously you only wrote this view because you needed attention. also, why did you include so many spoilers? that was a very amateur move bro.

if you did not like this movie, i would be very curious as to what kind of movies you do enjoy. (other then gay porno's)

p.s. you're a fa66ot; 7/19/2008 11:37 PM
FML said...: What the hell is the matter with you, writing about who dies and when? What kind of "critic" are you? I made the mistake of clicking on someone other than a "Top Critic" and found your worthless, meandering diatribe. I will never click a non "Top Critic" again. I haven't seen the movie and your egotism infuriates me. Thanks for ruining a good chunk of it, moron.; 7/19/2008 11:37 PM
Anonymous said...: "Trickster Heaven, Two Faced hell: The Dark Knight"
So many words to use.
So little to say.; 7/19/2008 11:40 PM
John Lichman said...: OMGZ KEITH MAKE DECISIVE POINTS.
NOT LUV BATMANS.

OMG KILLZ HIM!

shit, keith. you broke THND's comment record.

of course, it also means they may come for us at grassroots. but eh.; 7/19/2008 11:40 PM
Spencer said...: Dude, you suck. I could go on, but I'll leave it at that.; 7/19/2008 11:44 PM
Anonymous said...: What an utterly pretentious douchebag you are, not to mention a useless tool no one has ever heard of anyway.; 7/19/2008 11:55 PM
Anonymous said...: terrible review; 7/20/2008 12:11 AM
A Movie Watcher said...: Could-you-have-used-any-more-hyphenated-words-in-this-review?

I'm an educated man but my eyes began to glaze over after about 3 sentences of this review. Frankly, I'm not even sure if you liked it or hated. Either way, you are a horrible psuedo-writer that has a tremendous love affair for heavily punctuated articles and a propensity for using confusing obscure words that a vast majority of people could care less about knowing the definition of.

I'll be sure to avoid any subsequent efforts made by you.; 7/20/2008 12:14 AM
Zach Wilkey said...: i'm curious... did you simply write this with the intent to put it on rottentomatoes and deny the dark knight the 100% rating it deserves? i hope that you got some kind of enjoyment out of that because i rather doubt anyone else would stumble across your blog or your incredibly misguided review by themselves. great use of the synonym feature on microsoft word however, apparently your masterful grasp of word processing far outweighs your abilities to review a film.; 7/20/2008 12:20 AM
Sergio said...: Now you see it, now you don't?

The lack of gore should not have to be explained to you.

Your review can be summed up with another cliche, you want to have your cake and eat it too. You bring up the lack of realism with characters conveniently bumping into each other not saving doomed characters in time IN A FILM. These tools of moving the story forward can be argued and dissected with every single film ever created, yet you bring this up like it's a glaring weakness found only in The Dark Knight. (And in Nolan's defense: Gordan, Batman paid the ultimate price for their stunt with a fake death, so that real death you spoiled was anything but JUST a device to bring about Two Face. Also, you want realism? How many times can a damsel in distress cheat death, especially one who knew the danger she put herself in with her job and the stands she took? Rachel died doing what she believed in, yet you write off this tragic strong female character as the origin of Two Face.)

Nolan brings intelligence, tension, and the complexity of justice and morality to a SUPER HERO movie. I don't think you have high standards, it's sounds like you have a vendetta against C.N, and I'll leave it at that.

Joker 2d? He has a motive and a drive (in my opinion to prove himself right, anyone is corruptible), you bring up the character of another amazing film, Anton Chigurh (granted for two face, and you've already been slammed for that) who was driven by...nothing. Yet The Joker is 2d?

The only thing I agree with you is that Nolan's direction with fight sequences can be better (and it will get better) - a smart director can learn action, an action director can't learn to be smart. Despite that, the set pieces were awesome (or like you would say, preeminent).

You string together some nice phrases in your review. But your review can't connect the dots as far PROVING your point that The Dark Knight is a mess. I think your personal issues (which I don't care to know) muddled your critique of a thrilling and intelligent film.

I aint the smrtest or wittyiest wrtier in the world, but here's my review: Best film I've seen in years.; 7/20/2008 12:21 AM
zac said...: a lot of dreck in these comments, yes, but there are some coherent thoughts from people who genuinely liked the movie, too, and it seems just as unfair to mock, lump and accuse them of "group think" as it is for them to accuse the review of simple contrarianism.; 7/20/2008 12:27 AM
Anonymous said...: Well said "Anon" (the one in between Dan and Matt).

Kehr's review is particularly idiotic. He simply hates the film because, as he perceives it, it's pro-Bush.

Matt's take is also unfair. I think many of the criticisms of Keith's review have been well articulated. They're not simply from crazed fan boys.

I think it's a flawed, near great film. My main problem is that some of the actions scenes are just incoherent (and I agree with Keith that Nolan made a mistake if its intentional).

Another problem is that it has the same "Batman shows up at the perfect time" absurdities from the first film. In the first film, Batman just happens to find Rachel (with the little boy) at the exact time Scarecrow is about to kill her. In "Dark Knight", Batman somehow finds Dent just before he is about to kill one of Joker's cronies (the one dressed as a cop for the Commissioner's funeral).

Also, despite what Nolan says, I do believe Ledger had a few minor scenes to still film when he died. The one big, jarring example is when Joker (apparently) overtakes the cop who was preparing to beat him in the interrogation room. We never see the scene and instead cut to an awkard cut of Joker already holding the cop hostage.; 7/20/2008 12:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Saying stupid things to stir up controversy isn't clever it's just.... stupid. At least as stupid as if you actually believed anything you said in this review.; 7/20/2008 12:37 AM
jphayjp said...: I agree with your point about the contrived and conveniently timed appearance of Salvatore at Gotham General, but...three things.

1) you need to consider your audience when writing your review. Treating a simple movie-reaction (I hope you're not paid to do this and hold a real job that actually benefits society) as a collegiate dissertation serves only defeat your ultimate purpose: inform the general movie audience of the film's quality. I understood every line, and disagreed with most as you seemed to miss the point of th movie.

2)DO NOT EVER criticize another critique in a review. Did you ask permission to insert his name and opinion in such a critical manner, whether legally required or not? Doubtful. Speaking from general perspective without such citation is not only more tasteful, but it shows you have something more to say than simply nay-say.

3) Did you watch the movie? Sometimes movies leave themes and cultural statements to interpretation at SOME level (did you give such a negative review to "No Country..."?). However, in this case, there is no ambiguous agenda. The point is clear. Watch it again. And if you miss it again, consider a new hobby. The idea of order vs. disorder, function vs. disfunction, and altruism vs. sensible justice played out in two varying agendas with multiple stories and piece of the puzzle used to put together a larger picture with a FEW pieces left to interpretation.

*shakes head* This movie is nothing short of a B-grade or 8/10. I'd give it 9/10.; 7/20/2008 12:37 AM
Dr. E said...: An interesting opinion, albiet incorrect. If you notice this reviewer likes only abstract and arthouse films, and oh yeah, the most recent Indiana Jones film which was absolute crap.
While he has an eye for the art of film, he misses the forest for the trees.
A shame, to go through life so blinded with a critic's eye that he can't enjoy a great movie.
The Dark Knight is a great movie, just not an epic film worthy of Oscar status.
Just enjoy this movie and ignore this reviewer from now on.; 7/20/2008 12:38 AM
jphayjp said...: CORRECTED. POST THIS IF YOU HAVE BALLS...

I agree with your point about the contrived and conveniently timed appearance of Salvatore at Gotham General, but...three things.

1) you need to consider your audience when writing your review. Treating a simple movie-reaction (I hope you're not paid to do this and hold a real job that actually benefits society) as a collegiate dissertation serves only to defeat your ultimate purpose: inform the general movie audience of the film's quality. I understood every line, and disagreed with most as you seemed to miss the point of the movie.

2)DO NOT EVER criticize another critic in a review. Did you ask permission to insert his name and opinion in such a critical manner, whether legally required or not? Doubtful. Speaking from general perspective without such citation is not only more tasteful, but it shows you have something more to say than simply nay-say.

3) Did you watch the movie? Sometimes movies leave themes and cultural statements to interpretation at SOME level (did you give such a negative review to "No Country..."?). However, in this case, there is no ambiguous agenda. The point is clear. Watch it again. And if you miss it again, consider a new hobby. The idea of order vs. disorder, function vs. disfunction, and altruism vs. sensible justice played out in two varying agendas with multiple stories and piece of the puzzle used to put together a larger picture with a FEW pieces left to interpretation.

*shakes head* This movie is nothing short of a B-grade or 8/10. I'd give it 9/10.; 7/20/2008 12:38 AM
skewlu2 said...: That was an interesting review, though nowhere near as interesting as the comments that have been mustered up by your "fans."

I'm going to agree with what the Joker (as well as some others here...) said about your review and ask you, why so serious, Keith?

Personally, when a critic goes so far as to insult both the director and the film itself then I generally disregard the review as "verbal diarrhea." You came across as ridiculously smug and only appeared to use big words to try and impress people with your extensive vocabulary. What did Nolan do to you anyway? Did he point a gun to your head and MAKE you watch the movie?

Wow were you off with the coin tossing Harvey Dent thing, as some others have already mentioned. While I don't agree with your review as you simply seem bitter and thus too biased to review the film in the first place, I do thank you for a good read. :); 7/20/2008 12:43 AM
rob humanick said...: Re: Colin George

I'm responding to your comment specifically because I found it to be one of the best and most courteously written of the negative bunch.

As far as your quotation goes though, I must say that it never struck me as ambiguous. I believe it to signify Keith's attempt to distinguish between something effectively ambiguous - complex, layered, maybe without an end conclusion or moral - and that which is simply confused unto itself or poorly developed to begin with.

Otherwise, why can't more posters be as pleasant and reasonable as yourself?; 7/20/2008 12:51 AM
Jürgen said...: Well done, Keith, and never mind the fanboy hate. My much less considered and rather more dismissive reviewlet broke my blog's comment record long before the movie even opened. I suppose a true fan's identity is somehow so wrapped up with the film's reception that it makes any dissent treasonous. (See also David Edelstein's piece about the "rabid nerd hordes.")

To me, it comes down to a few key points, summed up nicely by Andrew O’Hehir: "It’s a pileup of incidents and episodes that never congeal into a story, a succession of striking murky-but-clean images that never create a convincing temporal and spatial universe. On the one hand, it’s too pretentious to be a successful comic-book flick, but it’s not pretentious enough, if you want to put it that way, for any genuine moral griminess to come through."

The Dark Knight fails both as action adventure and as noirish psycho drama -- nothing here works quite as it should, but the noise and the hype somehow seem to obscure this fact for most viewers. Good for them, I suppose -- like Matt, I want to love every movie I see, but even in the IMAX version, I found myself exceedingly bored and irritated by its "high-falutin' funereal pretensions."; 7/20/2008 1:20 AM
Anonymous said...: I posted on Dave Kehr's blog, and feel compelled to post here as well. Many critics seem to be missing or ignoring the fact that every situation that exists in the movie, every incident, every death, every negative consequence is a result of Batman’s presence and actions. The Joker exists because of Batman.

The movie is a tragedy. There is no triumphant happy ending. Batman is in a worse situation at the end than Harry Calaghan is at the end of DIRTY HARRY. Sure, he may have saved a lot of lives, but he’s alone now. His confidante and chief weapons designer has resigned in disgust, the woman he loves is dead, the man he hoped would succeed him is broken and dead, and he is left with nothing. He’s damned to carry on his increasingly futile and destructive crusade, and also on the run as an outlaw and accused murderer. He won’t stop paying for his actions, all of which are ethically off the charts.

That’s hardly the triumphalism your critique seems to imply. It is, to me the most incisive movie about moral ambivalence and the impossibility of justice in America at this moment.

That a summer blockbuster should be so bleak and tragic - and still a megahit - is pretty impressive.

And the attempts to draw a Bush parallel are missing the bigger metaphor. Batman is *America in the 21st century*: well-intentioned, but ethically compromised, stuck with trying to pick the less evil of bad moral and ethical choices, living on borrowed time, and hopelessly lost.

Adam Lee; 7/20/2008 1:22 AM
J R Dobbs said...: Keith, you're dumb.; 7/20/2008 1:43 AM
Anonymous said...: I understand the method behind your madness. You're trying to lower people's expectations so that they go into the film uneffected by th hype surrounding this movie. If that's what you're trying to do, you are a genius! I and emplore you and your bad-review-giving buddies to keep up the good work. BUT, if not ... well, God help you all.; 7/20/2008 1:46 AM
Flower said...: "Well, by "scary" I didn't mean in the "fear of one's life, society breaking down" sense (and I hope that was obvious, but I guess not)."

No, it was obvious, though apparently my attempt at levity was not (serves me right, I suppose).

I've seen the 'scary' tag rolled out a lot the last couple days, though, and it's puzzled the hell out of me. I figured that intolerant, irrational reactions were such an accepted part of internet discourse - hell, discourse period - that they would've lost their ability to surprise, vex, unnerve, or otherwise discombubulate by this point. I suppose at some point these reactions point toward an intolerant or irrational worldview, but I don't think these responses qualify. This is heckling the ump. Hell, it's not even that.; 7/20/2008 1:48 AM
Anonymous said...: I feel as if you gave the review you did for the sole purpose of creating a heated discussion. You succeeded in that as I can see, but articulate writing or not, you completely missed the point. Anytime someone walks into a movie with the intention to rip a movie apart, poop on, and look for every flaw... then that's exactly what you're going to get. Instead of trying so hard to be the odd man out, how about enjoying the movie for what it was intended for?; 7/20/2008 1:55 AM
Brian Smith said...: Is there ever a time to let the politics go? This was a powerful movie, but it seems like it failed your political litmus test. My advice to you is to watch a movie and review it instead of watch a movie, read the political reaction and then write a review. I do agree that it was heavy at times and I think a bit too long. Cheers!; 7/20/2008 2:05 AM
Brian said...: I disagree with most of the points in your review and I detect a bit of hostility on your part towards not only the movie but the larger genre of action movies as well as the comic book source material.; 7/20/2008 2:12 AM
Steven Long said...: A very good review. I didn't enjoy the movie, but all of my friends did. I desperately wanted to enjoy it and I've been trying to figure out why I didn't. I think some of your points help inform my understanding, others don't.

I almost feel like there's something wrong with me for having not enjoyed the movie. I just wasn't pulled in so I saw all of its flaws.; 7/20/2008 2:24 AM
Joel said...: Great review. Sorry we didn't see the same movie. If you end up kicking yourself five years down the line for actually publishing this, no one will hold it against you.; 7/20/2008 2:29 AM
Anonymous said...: A brilliant review with intelligent points although as allowed, I disagree with most of them. I am a "fan boy" and I loved the film. It is the Superhero film I have been waiting for my entire life and I do believe it will become the one that all others are measured against. I think responses are already getting a bit over-analytical and far too complicated so I will try to add some simplicity to the mix. A beloved Hero and Villain was handled for once with intelligence and respect and I am grateful and pleased with the result. This film was rather dark but at this time I think it was needed and worked well I think the reviewer is speaking about characters that he does not know about and considers the film as a single epic instead of an episode in the continuing mythology of Batman. I am not a connoisseur of Film Noir, Just of Batman, and I believe all films in this Genre must be graded on these two different and often opposing stages. I don't wish to comment on the film's success as film art, I am not qualified nor inclined. I only want to comment on it's success as a comic character movie. Perhaps the reviewer should do this in reverse and see the merits of each. If I saw this film and did know the characters or their place in pop culture I would agree more with the review so that is how I try to validate my feelings. Cutting to the chase.....How about this....GODSPELL was a classic because we had read the bible...........WEST SIDE STORY was a classic because we had read Shakespeare........And now DARK KNIGHT is a classic because we read comic books. You take away the "Based On the story" from each and you will have a much more critical review from almost everyone.
On a more Brooklyn note........DARK KNIGHT KICKS ASS!; 7/20/2008 2:40 AM
Cde. said...: But Rob, was Colin George really that pleasant and courteous? He automatically viewed Keith's writing as being 'smug grandstanding' because he disagreed with the consensus. Nowhere in the review can I see a sign that Keith thinks he's 'morally superior' or 'the only one who's right'. He writes strongly and with convition,but he's not Walter Chaw, who hates anyone who disagrees with him. Now that's a guy who thinks he's morally superior to everyone else! Also, what's up with 'puff out your vocabulary'? It says something that these people were so intimidated by a well-written article.; 7/20/2008 2:40 AM
Anonymous said...: Marvin Nash's Ear
Or maybe you never saw reservoir dogs

You're a horrible writer. If you're going to be enough of an ass to use french, please use it correctly.; 7/20/2008 2:43 AM
Anonymous said...: you are seriously in love with yourself.

"Yes, we’re back in the realm of “awesome!” anagrams and pothead palindromes that the Wachowski Brothers popularized nearly a decade ago, only now they’re spoken with a solemnity and verbosity borne of a beat-down Western warrior spirit, and lent gravitas by a cast only stellar in theory. But then it hardly matters if The Dark Knight’s dispiriting view of a city at war with itself doesn’t hold together, not when you have Morgan Freeman (as Wayne Enterprises liaison Lucius Fox) and Michael Caine (as stalwart manservant Alfred) spouting gloomy old man platitudes about the culture of surveillance, and everyone else monologuing ad nauseum about various and sundry long, dark teatimes of the soul."

hahaha, you gotta be fuckin kidding me. reading the english dictionary doesn't make your review any more valid, it actually makes you sound quite pretentious. and maybe you should read into source material before you say that a character (Harvey Dent) is a "facsimile" of one that was written 45 years after his creation, and seen in a movie 65 years after. get off your high horse and out of your mothers basement.; 7/20/2008 2:49 AM
Anonymous said...: you sir are an idiot, and if this movie didnt please you, then honestly you can go to hell

that is all

i can do on and on and tell you why u are wrong, but i kinda dont care cause everyone else likes it, lighten up man; 7/20/2008 2:51 AM
Anonymous said...: Keith you saw through the movie. It was one of the MOST OVER HYPED movie in decades. It was super cheesy. And it was cheap! Only thing that saved this movie was "Joker". I think the producers should build a temple around Heath Ledger's grave.

There was a dialogue in the film....."We live in indecent times"..........we really do..........so anything chaotic makes more sense than anything else to most people. Fortunately, ( in my mind) I am not one of them who can be so easily blinded by some cheap, cheesy tricks.

And whoever said "Nolan is 2nd to none" needs to seriously see a shrink soon!; 7/20/2008 2:53 AM
Dave said...: The dude gave the happening a positive review....enough said.; 7/20/2008 2:59 AM
sociald8807 said...: Im never one to criticize anyone online (whats the point), but you sir, are aweful. The dark knight was a great blend of style, dark humor, conflict and action -- not to mention doing justice to two classic villains on the big screen. It had depth (which could at least be debated), but you cant say that it was not entertaining. And in the end, I pay $10 admission to be entertained. Go watch some artsy-fartsy preachy indie flick (not to say that all indie flicks are garbage) and tell us how great it is next time.

The only reason you couldave bashed this movie is if you were turned off by how much hype it got and figured you were above it. Maybe ya knew itd tick people off and were going for that.

Either way, the hype was right, and you are a very pompous, jaded critic.; 7/20/2008 3:17 AM
CJ said...: Seriously, the review aside...

"(rather than turned, thuddingly, into both a walking “oh the humanity!” metaphor and a low-rent Anton Chigurh facsimile)"

Harvey Dent was decades before No Country for Old Men. Please, if you're going to use sarcasm and comparison to other material get your facts straight. You have a long way to go before you are actually taken seriously by the other reviewers at Rotten Tomatoes.; 7/20/2008 3:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Thank goodness you don't get paid to review movies. This is a good indication of why.; 7/20/2008 3:24 AM
Hans Fruck said...: Hmmm... I didn't love this film, but at the same time I understand the vehement reaction against this review. Perhaps it wasn't written in this spirit, but when I read it, I couldn't help but sense a little superciliousness and a more-refined-than-thou attitude in the dismissal of this film. It's as if in his lunge at the contrarian high ground, the reviewer hasn't given due regard to the things this film does well.

My own view is that the film's 'polarities' and 'dualities' are a little too laboured, but interesting nonetheless. They don't just seem to be intellectual ballast; the film really does seem interested in its themes.

I guess what prevented me liking the film more was that it was a bit monotonal. It IS dark, but it's not as interesting or dramatic as it could have been because the film doesn't show us what's at stake. A little more light, joy, and love would've freighted the battles with a little more meaning. But the film does fall into a kind of dreary recapitulation, not helped by the fact that Batman's voice is a hoarse growl totally leached of any inflection.

Still, some of the action sequences are brilliantly devised and the ideas and sensibility driving the film are interesting, though, for me, not always interestingly executed. Special mention for Ledger's performance. After reading all the rave reviews, I didn't think it possible that this performance could live up to it. Far from being a concept, I think Ledger manages to make the Joker the most three dimensional character in the film. So much so, that he kinda butts up against the limitations of his source material. He almost bursts out of this film, transcending everything else on screen. Every time he was onscreen I was rivetted. Couldn't take my eyes off him. It's a rare performance -- one of the most convincing depictions of insanity and sadomasochism I've ever seen.

One critic (I forget who) described Ledger's performanc as mad-crazy-blazing brilliant. Couldn't agree more. I'll watch the film again, just to see him.; 7/20/2008 3:26 AM
Clinically Retarded said...: Forget you didn't like the movie. I respectfully disagree, but to each is own. Forget the pretentious multi-syllabled words you love to spout (paramour?? REALLY??) Forget that you didn't even praise Ledger's performance, which just shows you haven't a clue what you're talking about. NO. The thing is, you gave away key elements of the movie, and didn't give SPOILER Warnings. You broke the cardinal rule shared by all LEGITIMATE movie critics. So...therefore...you are NOT a real movie critic. You're just a douche bag with a computer. Period.; 7/20/2008 3:33 AM
Anonymous said...: u suck at life; 7/20/2008 3:41 AM
Adam Menendez said...: Both Dave Kehr and yourself wrote more provocative and interesting pieces than was the movie itself.; 7/20/2008 3:46 AM
Anonymous said...: This is, beyond a doubt, the most pretentious review I have ever had the bad fortune to bare eyes upon. I believe we should all be pleased that at the end of the day, as with so many other reviewers, this is the mark of envy borne by someone who is performing the equivalent of "manning the fry station", as opposed to actually achieving anything noteworthy. Run-on sentence and alliteration aside, I stand behind all of your detractors, ma'am. Oh, yes and I'll take the small fries with my meal, providing it's okay with your manager.; 7/20/2008 3:52 AM
Anonymous said...: You write a very good review, but I just don't agree. Despite the fact that I see where your criticism is coming from I found The Dark Knight to be my favorite movie this year. I get the impression that you're attempting to watch this movie in such a way that you don't let yourself enjoy it. Maybe you'll give it another go?

But I still found your writing style impeccable. Keep up the reviewing.; 7/20/2008 4:19 AM
cole17 said...: I completely agree with the assessment, especially the part which mentions Rachel's death having no emotional impact. I also agree that the movie's preachy tone grew very monotonous even if it was Caine and Freedman. And I was disgusted by how utterly depraved the movie was.I left the theater feeling like I'd been punched in the gut.; 7/20/2008 4:34 AM
Em&Lisa said...: Has everyone gone insane? Are there so many bad movies out there that we've forgotten a good movie if it crotch-shot us in the eye? The first rule of screenwriting is: Show me, Don't Tell me. This movie would have made a great audiobook or tv movie. There was soooooo much exposition, that I was confused then bored out of my mind. The audience & I loved Heath Ledger, all his scenes were brilliant, everything else was crap. Who goes to an action film where 80% of the film is cheesy high exposition dialogue? I was squirming in my seat, waiting for logic to arrive and a sensible plot to emerge, but was left like an australian incest child, stuck in the proverbial basement. Kudos to you reviewer for speaking the obvious, since these One tracked bat obsessed DC toters would've loved this film if Batman were riding a pink unicorn to the purple sky. I want my $9 back NOW!; 7/20/2008 4:35 AM
prr5345 said...: Why is there an actual problem with this review? The post on need for respectability within comics feels very accurate, the attitude on accusing the reviewer of snobbery utterly absurd. Like quite a few who defend this review, I wonder what is the problem in putting forward a dissenting opinion, those defending the film with the simple response of well, I loved it then giving raves about how much they loved it.

Is that a well-argued defence for the film? Is it a well argued attack on the review? As we now know from other press reports, this is not the only negative review for The Dark Knight that is followed with damnation for suggesting that the film isn't good.

I have not seen the film yet so therefore am not sure if I will agree or not with the review. As UK resident I have to wait until next week. I'm personally pretty neutral on Nolan, liking some, not liking others. But the review is a more positive development, I think, in that actually attacking, testing a film, rather than saying its simply brilliant, is a far more interesting way to go, in seeing how good it is. To be honest most of the reviews of this film are very dull raves that feel to be without actual thought on the film. They're just so uninteresting.

In my mind, the review seems consistent to the suggesting a lack of thematic density and problematic in the actual execution, the review arguing this be to be a problem through-out the film, so of course this has to be structured to return to this central problem as it is simply unavoidable. It has to cover a lot of ground throughout the film where the reviewer argues about the lack of depth throughout various areas of the film. It seems ridiculous to pillar someone for this. For contrast, look at Mr Uhlich's excellent positive review of Miami Vice, another stylised crime-based film of compromised morality and high emotion, which would defend that he's working on the film on their own merits.

The accusations of snobbishness seem absurd. As it has been pointed out earlier, Mr Uhlich gave a positive review to Indiana Jones 4 (a film which by the way I didn't particularly like but enjoyed his review of, and like the Wachowski's, information that's ultimately as dull as saying I simply loved it in regards to The Dark Knight). The film critic is of course working on the ideas in film, how the ideas are expressed, regarding visuals, verbal or emotional content, has to work on the ideas and extrapolate meaning within the various emotions attempted to be engaged by the director. Well a lot of directors ideas can be problematic and the critic has to start diessecting them, as has been done in this review. And from early criticism (Let's state Sarris and Kael, as most will have heard of them for film criticism) this means the critic, like the film-maker, becomes personalised, works on taste, will be idiosyncratic, will be arguing about the emotions stirred up by the film, it's possible meaning. That's his job, not to throw up the I love it, I hate it type of criticism that's been destroying reviewing for so long, making so much of it incredibly dull to read.

So to conclude, I suggest this is an excellent review, one of the very few good ones on The Dark Knight, which should be applauded, not damned.; 7/20/2008 5:02 AM
Demuredin said...: I find it funny how you get called a "fan boy" if you disagree with the jerk off that wrote this review. I'm personally not a huge Batman fan but i couldn't possibly disagree with you more on just about every single "point" you tried to make. Looks like calling me a fan boy is out the window, got any other spineless, shallow insults to try and discredit MY opinion? Crowding your review with words you think make you look intelligent doesn't strengthen your arguments in the least. The movie was brilliant, period. But hey, there always has to be one "rotten tomato" that thinks going against what everyone else says is going to get them attention. Well you sure got some attention, it's too bad for you it's all negative. Everyone, do yourselves a favor and listen to the 99.9% of other critics that reviewed the movie for what it truly is, and go see it as soon as you can. Kieth, keep sucking at what you do ;) Try reviewing some gay porn, I'm sure you'll give it 5 stars!; 7/20/2008 5:06 AM
Anonymous said...: You're a fat brained, overthinking idiot. This film was an instant classic.; 7/20/2008 5:13 AM
tusks said...: My favorite part about this review?

Every point the critic makes hinges on two factors:

His assumptions of "artist's intentions", and his assumptions of how things "should be done".

That latter being the reason he berates the movie as another atrocity of the "hollywood elite" while simultaneously expecting it to follow the rules set by movies of a "similar caste"... when it suites his argument.

The entire review so plainly contradicts itself and so neatly subscribes to a long dead (or at least it should be by now) school of criticism that I'm left feeling it must be some kind of joke... misguided object lesson... or maybe dada blog experiment.

It can't be real.

.. at least it got me to comment on it...; 7/20/2008 5:29 AM
brandon said...: These comments are depressing. Excellent review that totally nails Nolan's interest in director trickery. Although, it shouldn't be a surprise from the guy who made a career out of 'Memento'?; 7/20/2008 5:59 AM
Anonymous said...: this is the same guy who gave - Miami Vice, with Jamie Fox 5 stars. go figure.

this negative review is intended to get some hits onto his site.

you sucked me in dude. bravo.; 7/20/2008 6:09 AM
Anonymous said...: OK, so i've got a big problem with this review. you just wanted to make a splash. are you gonne go show this review to some big name editor? you gonna say "look everyone like the dark knight, but not me, no sir, i notice things that no one in the whole entire world notices, i gripe about things that no one cares about! i'm what your company needs." good luck. you're an egotistical prick; 7/20/2008 6:11 AM
MJ said...: Mr. Uhlich, I applaud your attempt to lull me to sleep. Rather than impressing upon me the idea that through an elitist use of vocabulary and a near-archaic writing style, you've only conveyed a sense of narcissism.

You didn't have many friends growing up, did you?; 7/20/2008 6:18 AM
Anonymous said...: My thoughts:
1) There was no progression in the movie, it was just one scene cutting to another scene without any real flow - the first 5 minutes was great though.

2) Bruce Wayne was a considerably annoying and wishy-washy character. It was hard to put up with.

3) Using the "sonar" technology to find the joker in the end was unimaginative. It was an artificial solution.

4) Harvey Dent would have been best left as a minor role for this movie. They really needed to take the time to establish the "white knight" characteristic.; 7/20/2008 7:11 AM
the perfectshade of blue said...: are you commenting after imagining what the movie will be? or is it hearsay?; 7/20/2008 7:25 AM
Renacier said...: Wow. That's a really pretentious load.; 7/20/2008 8:46 AM
Mariah Dodson said...: Great review. I was unmoved by the film and slightly irritated by the many gushing reviews. I came to RT hoping to find a review with which I could connect. Thanks for keeping it real.; 7/20/2008 9:01 AM
Steven Santos said...: I have to say what is going on this thread is indicative of a bigger problem: the unwillingness to discuss rationally and offer arguments.

It has gotten to the point on most movies (not just summer blockbusters) that we have this attitude that either you're with us or against us. And I'm not talking just about commenters like the ones on this thread, but the critics as well who spend more time reviewing one another these days than discussing the actual movies.

A couple of months ago, weren't the arguments over "Speed Racer" essentially two sides of group thinking? I wasn't interested in seeing the movie, but the arrogance of the movie's supporters probably did a better job convincing me to skip it than anything the movie's detractors did.

The same thing with the Indiana Jones film where one side will rip anything George Lucas is involved with while the other side will give it a pass simply because Spielberg directed it. Shouldn't discussion of movies be a little more complicated than this high school level clique formations?

The two sides on this movie are considerably more lopsided in favor of its supporters. But, after seeing the movie last night, I can't say that most of the reviews (positive or negative) and certainly very very few of the many anonymous people commenting on movie sites are seriously considering what the movie was attempting to do whether you thought it worked it or didn't.

I despise the laziness of an Armond White using "hipster nihilism" as an argument against this movie, which he was determined to hate before seeing, just as much as I despise this fanboy posturing that anyone who dislikes this movie doesn't get comic book movies like they do, as if it were impossible to make good and bad movies based on comic books. As if source material should be a factor in everyone's opinion even if they're not familiar with it.

Perhaps, we should start to recognize that arrogance and bluster do not make an argument. Oddly enough, this reminds me of the lead-up to the Iraq War when the war's supporters didn't make their case and resorted to questioning the patriotism of the anti-war contingent. So, basically, as we found out, those against the war were "unpatriotic", but were proven right in the end. A serious discussion (where the majority opinion should always, always be questioned) instead of that nonsense would have resulted in us not getting involved in a five-year quagmire.

I seriously think everyone, I mean everyone here, needs to step back a bit and put a little more thought into what they're saying and how they're saying it.

As I said, I saw the movie last night and it shook me to the core, but I'm still mulling it over and will continue to do so, while acknowledging the problems I had with it. I always feel a movie works on some level (even if you hated it) if it sticks with you over time and the discussion evolves to its many different aspects. Movies that you forget just after seeing represent to me when a movie truly fails. I always say that great movies keep on giving years and even decades later.

As I said earlier, I'm not really sure the discussion on The Dark Knight has even started and won't until we get past the hype machine and not have this mentality we're two rival gangs pulling out our switchblades and getting ready to rumble.

Yes, there can be more than one side to an argument. There can be two, three, four, etc. Opinions are allowed to have a certain level of individualism to them to, you know, make them unique. But, of course, in our current society, particularly, let's be honest, the last 8 years, we've devolved into this "I'm right! You're wrong!" nonsense that is killing discussion, as we speak.; 7/20/2008 9:02 AM
Anonymous said...: There is absolutely no way you actually watched this movie, you sir are a flippin moron; 7/20/2008 9:18 AM
Anonymous said...: You don't know shit about movies. ._. Please get off the internetz sir.; 7/20/2008 9:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Wow who piss in your cherrios? Hating just to be the hater.; 7/20/2008 9:36 AM
Ted Pigeon said...: Matt hit the nail on the head. This dialogue (here and on Rottentomatoes, and elsewhere) is not about the movie at all. It's about something else. Many commenters have slammed Keith for being defensive and "not defending his points," and I'm not quite sure why. Where is this dissent on critical perspectives to other movies?

Matt said it best when he observed that it's like there is some kind of collective unconscious agreement that we all have to love the movie; some underlying social movement, not just in filmgoers and cinephiles, but in critics too. I am amazed that the film is as well-reviewed as it is. Going into it, there was something of an implicit acknowledgment on my part that it was going to be incredible. But I'll be honest: I don't see what nearly unanimous praise is about? I was disappointed not because I thought it was a bad movie, but because it wasn't great. After two days of thinking about it, I still don't think it's great.

Keith's review did a nice job of capturing what I perceived to be a total lack of rhythm in the film. The "now you see it, now you don't" phrase is perfect; I felt distanced by the relationships among the characters as the movie cut between so many plot lines and events. Every good moment disappeared in the constant motion of the narrative. Nothing really sunk in, I felt.

There is much to be said about the film's qualities, no doubt. But the critical and popular dialogue about the film has suppressed any possibility for a real discussion about it outside praise. Many have clamored that Keith defend himself, and the scary thing is (yes, scary) that the dialogue has become so homogeneous that it has sealed off the possibility for thinking about the film in any other way than praise. Therefore, when someone does dare to think outside the dominant discussion, they are unreasonably and unrelentingly grilled.

Journalistic criticism is not about "defending" arguments, or supporting an opinion. It's an active reflection on the experience of watching a movie. In many ways it's more difficult than essayistic writing in theory because it requires that a writer articulate a reaction to and experience of a movie. It's fully in the moment, despite being removed from the moment. But when all of it starts sounding the same and embodying a kind of uniformity in perspective, we lose the sense of what it's really about.

No one is right or wrong about a movie; good criticism should make make us realize this. It should make us aware of our position and engage us in the innumerable possibilities of experiencing films. Getting lost in debate over who's right and wrong simply robs us of the richness of movies, which extends beyond simply experiencing them but includes also reflecting on them, talking about them.; 7/20/2008 9:43 AM