Cinematical

I was shocked at the universal praise of the movie. It's a well-made movie but it has its share of flaws (the 3rd act was an absolute bore in my opinion). Not sure why people get so riled up over a movie. I love movies but in the end it's just a movie!

Reply

movie was good start to finish point blank. everyone is entitled to their own opinion but doesnt mean its a good one. people complain about everything if this wasnt a comic book movie those critics answers would probably be different.

Reply

I love the movie, I am very critical myself but what can I say, this came out at a good time with enough quality to deserve my appreciation. Critics don't like it, fine with me, I make my own mind, don't hate them. Next year everyone will be exchanging blows over Watchmen and so on and so forth...

Reply

I've been reading a lot over the past view days about the venom fired at Keith Uhlich for his review. But not mentioned in any of these citations is the fact that The House Next Door is one of the most serious and thoughtful film websites out there, and there were many, many comments posted under his review that were respectful, articulate and equally passionate in defending the film. Also there right now is a second article that directly addresses Uhlich's criticism of the intensity of the violence, and I recommend to all of Cinematical's readers a daily visit to thehousenextdooronline.com

Reply

I tend to go with the hive mind option created through excellent marketing.

The same thing happened with 300, people loved it before they saw it, and lash out at anyone who thought there was something wrong with it.

Just how it goes, marketing is king.

Reply

Orwellian groupthink? You mean like those times you internet critics have decided ahead of time that the latest Quentin Tarantino bomb was the best thing since sliced bread and when the movie tanks as it deserved, various critics around here blamed the ignorant masses for not going to see the bad movie? You mean like that groupthink?

And besides, people rightly perceive that internet critics and print critics deliberately write provocatively in order to get the most attention and the most responses. It's not 'freedom of expression' that is being challenged, it's the provocative opinions that are recognized as such by readers. And then you all whine about freedom of expression when you are challenged. You can whine and try to have it both ways but we know that isn't going to fly. Just write better and with a better grasp on your subject.

Reply

Preaching to the choir, much?

Reply

As one of the people who wound up being rather disappointed by this movie, I have found myself having to tiptoe around the rabid fans who take any criticism of it as a personal slight to themselves. I don't get it; if you're not, say, Christopher Nolan, you have no right to be personally offended because I found my mind wandering somewhere around what felt like this movie's 19th or 20th hour. Loved the actors, loved a lot of the look, loved the opening sequence... and wound up finding the movie a lot less of a thrill than I expected.

So sue me.

Reply

WHY THE DARK KNIGHT IS NOT A GREAT FILM:

My take...

http://welistenforyou.blogspot.com/2008/07/why-dark-knight-is-not-great-film.html

Reply

There some irony to all this. Christopher Nolan must be at home, enjoying a fine glass of Champagne while listening to the cash register and the growth of his Hollywood power. Do you think he gives a damn about what us nerds write in a blog? Do you think he even considers reading someone's take on how his movie sucks? What a waste of time and energy. He is going to make more movies, yes, another Batman and we are going to pay our little money to see it and complain and blog and think that we truly matter. Pathetic...

Reply

I feel David Edelstein's review and response to be quite refreshing and well thought out, even if I disagree on the conclusion. I for one think that TDK is deserving of the praise its received (except the IMDB thing, that's crazy).

However, Keith Uhlich's post seems more of a personal attack on Nolan, for reason's unknown. The 'violence' issue for one can be explained by the PG-13 rating required for the film, but the obvious solution is never mentioned in the post.

The 'verbal diarrhea', 'incoherence', lack of using Chicago as a city, 'Two-Face isn't a as good as Anton Chigurh (not supposed to be...)', and 'trickster philosophies' arguments are just blanket statements, with no backing. His one evidence, Joker's 'You complete me' line, actually does make sense for a raving anarchic psycho compared to Batman. The comparisons to the Matrix's spouting nonsense was a low blow.

Of course he's free to not like TDK, and I'm free to say how the reasons he says he doesn't like the film aren't really thought out.

Reply

....NO!

Reply

Of course Uhlich is allowed to hate on Batman. But be honest--his review is verbal diarrhea disguised as high-minded intellect. It's common among Internet critics. On the Internet, at one extreme you have the Harry Knowles fanboys who can only occasionally write a complete sentence, but are frothing at the mouth; at the other extreme, you have educated pseudo-intellectual prose written by people who fancy themselves movie critic versions of Faulkner mixed with Sarte. The former may be more poorly written but they're usually more intellectually honest than the latter.

I too would have preferred that Nolan not cut away on some of the violence. But Uhlich knows very well Nolan would not have been allowed to do so. There goes his contractually-obligated PG-13 rating. And with his criticism of cutting away, Uhlich also dismisses scores of filmmakers, notable Hitchcock, as cowards for the same cinematic crime.

Uhlich may very well have not liked TDK, and that's cool. But his prose is not particularly well-written and his critique is not vary insightful. He could have written "Me not like new Batman movie" and that would have had as much substance as his review.

Like everything on the Internet, sure there are rabid fanboy attacks, but that doesn't make Uhlich's review any more intelligent or astute than "Me no like Batman."

Reply

The reason behind the fanboy defensive is simple. As someone who loved this movie (not a comic geek by any stretch of the imagination, either, just a regular movie nerd), I can't really conceive of how anyone can walk away from this movie having looked for a ride and not gotten it.

Critics who gave crap like Transformers a pass are finding fault in The Dark Knight which at the very least tried. In my opinion, succeeded admirably, but even detractors can't say that Nolan and company didn't try. I think that's why fans are so up in arms.

For example, David Edelstein (one of the few critics I read outside of this site) recommended You Don't Mess With the Zohan but didn't recommend Dark Knight. Yes, it all comes down to opinion but it's difficult to reconcile one opinion with the other... or should I say, it's difficult for fans to reconcile these two opinions with credibility, which I believe Mr. Edelstein most certainly has.

But it's not hard to figure out. We just can't understand why, after so many lesser movies people have gone ga-ga over, finally one comes out that is smarter and more mature (in a way) than the average popcorn flick, and some people turn up their noses. It's just sad, that's all.

Reply

"For example, David Edelstein... recommended You Don't Mess With the Zohan but didn't recommend Dark Knight. Yes, it all comes down to opinion but it's difficult to reconcile one opinion with the other... or should I say, it's difficult for fans to reconcile these two opinions with credibility, which I believe Mr. Edelstein most certainly has."

Thanks for the compliment but this thing about Zohan vs. Dark Knight is starting to get to me. I wrote about Zohan as an amusing slapstick fantasy rooted in Adam Sandler's Jewish-mama's-boy messianism; I made no claims for it as a masterpiece. I tried to engage with The Dark Knight on a deeper level and in accordance with its aspirations. Whether you agree or disagree or like or hate the DK review, you should understand that each film is viewed in its proper context. I love The Three Stooges and I'm not a fan of Lars von Trier, but I don't think it's fair to say, "He hated Dogville but loves it when Moe twists Curly's nose! What does that tell you?"

Reply

So apparently a filmmaker who spends years working on a project -- a labor of love and passion for most filmmakers -- should shut the hell up when a critic or fanboys bash the film.

But if a critic spends a few hours writing a review, the filmmaker and fans should all shut the hell up and not criticize the critic because apparently we might hurt the critic's feelings.

Okay, we've got it now. Critics work in a vacuum and everything they write is a work of pure genius. Gotcha.

Look, I agree that this fanboy stuff gets out of control, but just because a critic dislikes a film doesn't mean that critic has written a masterpiece of literature beyond reproach. It's a good thing these critics aren't actually artists. They'd never be able to handle the criticism.

Reply

Josh, you're caricaturing the response. No one is discussing filmmakers' ability to handle criticism. No one is discussing critics' feelings, which are irrelevant. The interesting thing in this case is what we've learned about Internet communities--the way someone says, "That varmint said somethin' bad about Heath Ledger. Let's string 'im up!" and the posse takes off for the magazine or website in question. In this case, 99% hadn't yet seen the movie, but it was enough that their leaders had: "Get 'im, boys!" No one is "above reproach" or beyond criticism, least of all critics. This is about the pressure on critics to fall in line with the majority--often a majority manipulated by corporate and media hype.

Reply