Cinematical

Look, I thought The Dark Knight had a lot of strong selling points: Combine a deft pace with thoughtful characterizations and a whopping IMAX design that turns the entire experience into a plot-driven theme park ride, and you've got one hefty dose of Batman adrenaline.

Still, comparisons to The Godfather Part II notwithstanding, The Dark Knight isn't foolproof -- in fact, no single movie in history is foolproof. The subjective experience of movie watching ensures that nothing can be universally liked by everyone, and rules of civility insist that humanity respect that truism. It's acceptable to feel passionately about a great work of art, and defend that perspective with rigorous argumentation, but much of the outrage over the minority perspective that The Dark Knight isn't any good has made such practical thinking impossible.

Deemed the first critic to pan the movie, New York's David Edelstein went out of his way to list the allegations against him sent along by various Batman fans. The House Next Door editor Keith Uhlich, meanwhile, fielded over a hundred rants in the comments section following his astute critique of director Christopher Nolan's questionable portrayals of violence. What's particularly shocking about this frightful deluge of negative responses is that many of these people began posting their disapproval before they even saw the movie.

It's one thing to disagree with somebody. It's another to censor them. That's the central problem with the United Kingdom's decision to condemn The Great Global Warming Swindle, a documentary by Martin Durkin arguing exactly what its title implies.

A response to the global warming awareness popularized by An Inconvenient Truth, Durkin's film was considered disingenuous from the perspective of British broadcast regulator Ofek, which ruled that Channel 4 violated the country's boundaries of impartiality when it broadcast the movie last year. Apparently, Durkin manipulated his subjects in order make them verify his questionable stance that global warming was a conspiracy.

Now, I find it hard to buy into any movie that puts its ugly one-sided argument right in the title, but there's something to be said for freedom of speech in this case. What's the U.K. doing with these nonsensical impartiality laws? Since when do documentaries have to remain objective and avoid agendas? Even your average PBS program takes a side. The ruling suggests a totalitarian mindset where art is subjected to a group think mentality, and that's scary. What if The Dark Knight were banned for condoning torture? Maybe that's an extreme comparison, so try this one: What does Ofcom think about Michael Moore?

Whenever a good idea comes along, it doesn't take much time for people to claim they thought it up first. That seems to be the case with Dr. Horrible's Sing-A-Long Blog, the Joss Whedon-created miniseries that streamed online last weekend and is now available on iTunes. Spout reports that legions of commenters calling themselves the Army of Toy Soldiers have been pummeling the site with complaints that Dr. Horrible is a direct rip-off of Dr. Steel, an online show that's several years the senior of Whedon's program. Wired spoke to Dr. Horrible co-writer Mauria Tancharoen, who said they've never heard of Dr. Steel, but don't mind that it exists. The Toy Soldiers, however, appear to be gearing up for a confrontation, possibly one that will go down this week at Comic Con.

Whatever. Dr. Steel offers plenty of entertainment value in its own right, and it does feature a maniacal supervillain with a catchy singing voice (see above). But it also contains more razzle-dazzle weirdness than plot, and Dr. Horrible is pretty much a straightforward narrative. One Toy Soldier member has argued that if they don't speak out, their silence will imply that Dr. Steel stole its concept from Dr. Horrible. That logic holds up -- but either way, we're dealing with two very separate programs here. If anything, the immediate exposure of Dr. Horrible can only help Dr. Steel gain more attention. Once noticed, people should be able to tell the difference.

First, he gets a mainstream comic actor to act in a contemplative art house narrative with Punch-Drunk Love. Now, he's putting two of them on a stage. According to cigarettes and red vines, Paul Thomas Anderson has written and directed a play in Los Angeles with Saturday Night Live stars Maya Rudolph (Anderson's partner) and Fred Armisen. It premieres at the Largo on August 5, but specific details about plot remain unrevealed. Still, the prospects of seeing Anderson's eerily detached style in a live performance are intriguing, to say the least. As Slashfilm points out, the production has a few logical attachments to the filmmaker's past: Anderson directed a short film for SNL back in 2000, and Rudolph starred in Robert Altman's A Prairie Home Companion, which Anderson may or may not have ghost-directed in parts.

Now that Anderson has proven he can craft epic period pieces of the raunchy (Boogie Nights) and morose (There Will Be Blood) kind, he's reached a point where audiences will basically allow him to take them wherever he wants to go. The dynamics of the stage, however, differ greatly from those of the cinema. Since the name and subject matter are a mystery, there's a lot left to the imagination. Will Anderson allow Rudolph and Armisen to unleash their comic potential? Or is that a milkshake I hear brewing?

Death is the ultimate dramatic device, but great art doesn't emerge from strong devices alone. In Take, the directorial debut of Charles Oliver, the impact of a single, startling tragic death immediately conveys the sense of watching a gravely serious movie, which is definitely the case. However, having immediately provided a tone, Oliver fails to follow up with a story powerful enough to justify it. That's not to say that the experience Ana (Minnie Driver) goes through after her son dies in a freak accident before the start of the film isn't relentlessly bleak, but there's hardly anything distinctive about the circumstances to make viewers care any more than they would if they were glancing at it in the morning headlines.

Still, Olilver has made a quietly observant work solely driven by the specific needs of two downtrodden protagonists with completely believable motives. In flashback, we learn that Ana struggled with her son's elementary school, which wants to put him in a special needs program. Meanwhile, she has a hard time communicating with her husband and finding decent work to get by. Elsewhere, reckless gambling addict Saul (Jeremy Renner) destroys his life in a whirlwind of debt. His misfortune, as it's shown in early scenes at a prison where Saul awaits execution, will lead him to accidentally murder Ana's innocent child, Jesse (Bobby Coleman).

There are many ways to anticipate The Dark Knight. You can assemble a fake plot out of the numerous clips circulating the web, you can stitch together adorable bat-toys, or just rewatch Christopher Nolan's first entry in the Batman franchise. However, there's a lot more to this sprawling, nearly three hour rush of furious confrontations and haunting corruption. The greatest Batman stories emphasize the character's shadowy nature, and Nolan pulls from many of them to create the intensely moody aura of the latest film. You don't need to know anything about the character to enjoy the movie, but it certainly expands the experience to do some research -- and allows for a greater appreciation of the filmmaker's efforts to honor the nature of the character.

Here's a look at some antecedents to the current interpretation from the last two decades.

Those manatees really know how to keep themselves busy. In one of the more irreverent news items of the day, Family Guy creator Seth McFarlane -- whose voice work is currently on display in Hellboy II: The Golden Army -- has told TV Week that he hopes to get a Family Guy movie off the ground in a year or so. The announcement was first picked up by Ain't It Cool News, where most commenters seem fairly lukewarm about the idea. Honestly, it's hard not to agree with them. Family Guy already has two feature length titles out on DVD, and neither one really raised the bar for the show or even played better than a decent episode.

At least The Simpsons movie had a plot that made sense for ninety minutes. Family Guy, with its incessant randomness, generally works as a series of distractions. In other words, not the sort of thing that really needs to get expanded beyond the half hour structure. Then again, the show has its devout base, which eagerly anticipates each sloppily constructed gag like clockwork, so maybe the new film project is good business sense. Either way, the South Park two-parter that took Family Guy to task remains far more entertaining (and insightful) than Family Guy's entire six-season run.

And you thought Wall-E was political. JibJib, the interactive e-card site founded by brothers Evan and Gregg Spiridellis, have returned to the scene that originally brought them fame. The duo first received national notice during the 2004 presidential campaign, when their riotous spoof This Land presented the two candidates (and a variety of secondary players) as rotund heads on animated bodies spouting rhetoric in rhythmic harmony. Since then, the JibJab site has placed more focus on the e-card business, but now it's back to the good old days with Time for Some Campaignin', a jolly tune to set the stage for the Obama/McCain face-off in the weeks to come.

The new video is similar to This Land in that it opts not to spoof either candidate more than the other, instead focusing on the larger campaigning process. It's hard not to laugh at the goofy visuals and smartly composed lyrics (especially those involving the Clintons), but it seems to me that the Spiridellis' work will never attain the degree of insight offered by the satire on The Daily Show (or The New Yorker, for that matter) because of this resolutely non-partisan approach. What do you think?

"While waiting in line for the screening of Hellboy II: The Golden Army, I overhead someone say that Guillermo del Toro's latest is being seen as his audition tape for The Hobbit," observed Jonathan Pacheco in his review for The House Next Door. Of course, Del Toro already had the directing gigs for the two Hobbit films before Hellboy II hit theaters, but that won't stop audiences from evaluating the current parade of fairies, demons and evil elves with Del Toro's Middle-Earth-to-be in mind.
Needless to say, it's a narrow perspective.

It would make more sense to expect that these upcoming features will negotiate between the gothic horror of Pan's Labryinth and the blockbuster approach of Hellboy II. In the latter work, it's clear that Del Toro has more interest in placing these loony supernatural beings in relatively conventional action sequences, allowing the specificity of the characters to create a sense of ingenuity. Pan's Labryinth, on the other hand, offers a single package of storytelling: The art direction, special effects and even the violence directly relate to the drama. The best case scenario for the Hobbit films would be a happy medium: Glorious visuals that reflect Tolkien's deeply involving mythology.

In the last twenty-four hours alone, countless news articles have compared the late Heath Ledger to James Dean. Of course it helps that the two actors -- whose careers lie fifty years apart -- bear physical resemblances to each other. The real reason for the frequency of the comparison, however, revolves around the possibility that Ledger, like Dean, might end up with a posthumous Oscar nomination.

Other than Dean, whose death in a 1955 car accident was preceded by two nominations back-to-back, six actors have landed the distinction -- but only one, Peter Finch, actually won (for Network in 1976). However, Ledger is now perceived an actor who possessed a potential he never quite realized, while Dean was already an icon by the time of his death (and he still didn't win the prize). If Ledger gets nominated for his performance as the Joker in The Dark Knight, the award will also acknowledge the great career that never was. Dean surely would have followed Giant with other wonderful performances, but his brief filmography also allowed the actor to reach a level of prestige that Ledger would have needed a few more movies to attain. So does this comparison really hold up?

The media certainly seems to think so. "Like Dean, he could endure as a mythic figure of talent silenced before his time," writes the AP. "People are aflutter over seeing the final performance of a new James Dean," reports The Huffington Post. " One quality that Ledger and Dean did share is rapid growth," notes the Baltimore Sun.