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.

Well, it is. Or so say the Internet Movie Database users, who have already rocketed the film to the #1 spot on IMDb's Top 250 list with a rating of 9.5 out of 10 and about 47,000 votes. It displaces The Godfather -- a film that doesn't even HAVE a pencil-wielding psycho-clown -- which had held the top spot for about a decade (according to our pal Peter at SlashFilm).

The rest of the top 10 on IMDb's list isn't as depressing as I thought it would be: Shawshank Redemption, The Godfather Part II, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Pulp Fiction, Schindler's List, One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest, The Empire Strikes Back, and Casablanca. I was expecting to see nothing older than about 1990, and certainly nothing in black-and-white.

IMDb notes that for the Top 250 list, "only votes from regular voters are considered," but they fail to define "regular voters." Does that mean people who vote regularly? Or do they mean "regular voters" as opposed to "guest voters" or something? Either way, these apparently aren't people who, in a rush of enthusiasm for The Dark Knight, hurried home and gave it a 10 out of 10 despite never having rated anything else on IMDb before. Apparently they have exercised their right to vote before, and presumably they know what they're doing.

Now, I loved The Dark Knight and all, but come on: the best film ever made? Surely that is not an opinion held by very many people, if any.

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.

Back in December we ran an article covering some of The Dark Knight's promotional activities, and not to toot my own horn or anything, but I posted what I thought was an extremely witty and observant comment: "I'm just glad they're doing something to raise awareness of this small film that might have otherwise slipped through the cracks."

Admit it, that's probably the funniest joke you've ever read. Because The Dark Knight isn't a small film at all, you see! It's a huge film that already has a great deal of public awareness! See how that's super funny?

Anyway, though we all had a good laugh at how funny I am, I also brought up a puzzling aspect of the Hollywood machinery. Warner Bros. is spending untold millions to promote The Dark Knight, and expending a lot of creative effort, too, with viral sites and games and events and so forth -- and for what? To promote a film that everyone was already going to see anyway. It's a highly anticipated sequel to a hugely popular film, it's gotten terrific buzz from those who have seen it, and it has the unfortunate-but-attention-getting Heath Ledger connection. You'd think the WB promotional team could relax a bit and let the film sell itself -- or, better yet, use that money to promote some lower-profile films that do need the help. So why didn't they?

Bearing in mind that attempts to grasp the logic of a Hollywood studio usually end in frustration, we can generally trace the thought process back to one thing: money.

What are the most anticipated movies at this year's Tribeca Film Festival? And has that (relatively) young festival in fact found a voice yet? And what does Tribeca's premiering Baby Mama and Speed Racer at this year's fest say about the uneasy relationship between high art and big headlines in New York's media world? Plus, what the end of New Line Cinema says about the state of the industry, and can Warner Brothers market The Dark Knight while still honoring Heath Ledger? Joining us this week on The Rocchi Review to talk about Tribeca and summer entertainment is film critic David Fear of Time Out New York as we discuss all of the above and more ... Cinematical's podcast content now has even better sound quality, and is now in iTunes; you can subscribe at this link. Also, you can listen directly here at Cinematical by clicking below:



As ever, you can download the entire podcast right here -- and those of you with RSS Podcast readers can find all of Cinematical's podcast content at this link.

Not long ago we posted three new Joker pics that were leaked online. After discussing the situation with a whole bunch of folks, we decided to remove them. They just spoiled too much of the film, and we at Cinematical did not want to be responsible for that. So, sorry. I know you all want your Dark Knight fix, as do we, but everyone needs to be responsible for how much Dark Knight they allow into their body. I don't need anyone to overdose on The Dark Knight today.* So you kids keep it in your pants and go about your business.

In other news, how much fun was April Fool's Day? I didn't realize how many sites would participate in the holiday, providing a slew of hysterical content to surf through all day long. Great job all around. Here's a wonderful email we got from a fan who (I think) thoroughly enjoyed our Justice League April Fools gag:

"I am calling for the immediate resignation or removal of Erik Davis from this now "so-called" cinema news site. That he would engage in such idiotic April Fools hijinks's is inconceivable. That management of this site would condone it is an even more ridiculous! If action is not taken, I will no longer be visiting this site, and will no longer patronize anyone who has advertised on this site. Shame on you, management. And shame is on you, Erik. I actually thought you were a "real" journalist. . . Thanks, "Mr. Glass."

I shall respond to this adorable reader email after the jump ...

*For the record, when I wrote this I totally was not thinking what you all thought I was thinking. I agree, in that context, it's a horrific joke in poor taste. But know that I wasn't going there; I was trying to go somewhere else with it. And believe me, if I was going there, I'd be the first to admit it.

The double-role has been a favorite for movie audiences for a long time. Actors as different as Lon Chaney and Ronald Colman have indulged in the two-actors-for-the-price-of-one roles. In The Dark Knight, Aaron Eckhart will get to do a two-fer, playing a character who didn't get nearly enough to do in that Joel Schumacher fiasco. (Though I did very much enjoy the bifurcated Tommy Lee Jones' use of the pluralis majestatis, the royal "we.") Few double-roles, however, are as roundly a good time as Brian De Palma's Raising Cain, a reviled but rich melodrama derived in equal parts from Psycho and the equally scandalous Peeping Tom. Preposterous, invigoratingly silly, and done to a technical turn by Hitchcock's most devoted fan, this forgotten thriller gives John Lithgow -- kindly actor and easy-going TV star of Third Rock from the Sun --a chance to show his hulking, evil side.

I

Since we're all impatient buggers who can't wait until The Dark Knight opens to see who is playing who and what the plot will be like, there's some more scoop to chew on. Obviously, if you're sensitive about spoilers, skip the post -- this info talks about a specific scene and side-plot to the film. In May, Erik Davis posted that Anthony Michael Hall, currently being freaky on The Dead Zone, had signed on for a part in the movie. The actor said he wouldn't say who he was playing: "I signed a confidentiality agreement, and I can't say which part I'm playing because it affects the story. I can't give away the suspense - it's a $200 million surprise, and I don't want to be the guy to ruin it."

It seems like that expensive surprise is out of the bag, if some inside scoop shared with Hollywood Chicago is to be believed -- but I don't think it's that expensive of a revelation. Hall will play a reporter for the GCN who is really jealous of the lovely Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale). The guy must be one heck of a reporter, or come from money too, because he has the same car as Wayne -- a Lamborghini Murcielago. He finds out that Bruce is Batman and wants to use his work to out the secret (as an antagonist rather than a villain). The Joker (Heath Ledger*) isn't happy about this and sets out to stop him. Really, the source could've said that Hall's character challenges him to a sumo-suit duel and I would be happy -- the film has got a great cast and should be one heck of a ride.

[via IGN]

*Name corrected thanks to mbstrlbstr.

The Joker is a larger than life character -- and he's about to get even bigger. The Dark Knight will be the first feature film partly shot in the 70mm IMAX format. Christopher Nolan is shooting four action sequences on IMAX, including the introduction of Heath Ledger as The Joker. "You can't do this on any home theater," Nolan says. "Batman has some of the most extraordinary characters in pop culture. We wanted the Joker to have the grandest entrance possible." And this won't be like when you go see Kickin' It Old Skool: The IMAX Experience, and it's just a larger, more stretched out image. These scenes are actually being shot on IMAX film. "There's simply nothing like seeing a movie that way," Nolan tells USA Today. "It's more immersive for the audience. I wish I could shoot the entire thing this way."

So why can't he? Well, for starters, there are only 280 IMAX theaters operating worldwide, and less than 100 show feature films. In addition, IMAX film is 10 times the size of standard, it's much more expensive, and it has to be shot using large, cumbersome cameras. Oh, and "they're loud," says Nolan. "We had to figure a way to eliminate sound so we could shoot dialogue." If you can't get to an IMAX theater, you'll still experience a hike in picture quality. In traditional movie houses, the scenes will appear more vivid, as though they were shot in hi-definition.

Below you'll find two official, newly released shots from The Dark Knight. The first is an IMAX shot of what appears to be a bank robbery gone awry. And the second shot is the first fully confirmed photo of The Joker in full hair and makeup. Pretty cool, huh? What do you think of the look?

More casting news for The Dark Knight, Christopher Nolan's new foray into the Batman mythos. Just a few days ago Jessica Barnes mentioned here on Cinematical that William Fichtner had joined the cast, and now, according to the LA Daily News, comes word that Eric Roberts will be playing a mafia kingpin. Not much else is mentioned about the role, but Cinematical's own Erik Davis posted last month that the character Sal Maroni will figure prominently in the new film, so it's probably not a huge stretch to assume this may be the character Roberts will play. In the comics, Maroni was the crime boss who threw acid in the face of District Attorney Harvey Dent (being played by Aaron Eckhart this time around), scarring him badly and driving him to become the villain Two-Face.

This isn't actually Roberts' first role with fanboy geek appeal. In 1996 he appeared in the U.S. made-for-TV movie Doctor Who, based on the long running British TV series, in which he played The Doctor's longtime nemesis The Master. And, of course, he currently plays the villainous Thompson on NBC's Heroes, so butting heads with super heroes should be second nature to him. His more mainstream roles of late have included the series The L Word, and Pandemic, a Hallmark Channel presentation in which he stars with Faye Dunaway and, surprisingly, does not play a bad guy.

One thing Roberts does make clear is that he likes to work. "I don't stop working. I'm a workaholic. I've resigned myself to the fact that I'm too overexposed to ever be a superstar, so I'm happy to be a working actor every day," he says in the LA Daily News piece. He also jokes about losing out on the Academy Award in 1985 when he was nominated for Runaway Train. "Once they gave my Oscar to the wrong person, I called my agent and said, 'From now on if there's one good thing about a project, I'll do it.' If the character is good, I'll do it. If the director is good, I'll do it. If the location is good, I'll do it."