Daring to hate 'Dark Knight'

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

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

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

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

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

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

Columnist Patrick Goldstein, my distinguished colleague here at The Times, has a take on this too at his must-read Hollywood blog, The Big Picture.

-- Geoff Boucher

Update: Some readers inferred from my post that Edelstein left the screening of "The Dark Knight" early. He didn't (as far as I know) so I have edited the post above to eliminate the imprecise language. The line "walked out of 'The Dark Knight'" is now "walked away from 'The Dark Knight.'"

Image from "The Dark Knight" courtesy of Warner Bros.

Comments

[M. Y.]

Thanks. I don't need to suffer through all the gratuitous gore and stupidity of another "Sin City". I go to the movies for entertainment. For blood and gore, I watch the news on TV.

[Ben]

I agree 100%.

I personally lost all faith in movie critics when they raved about Episode 3 and Spiderman 2, two movies which were total rubbish. Hype and cheerleading and big budgets does not a good movie make. Now I just trust my own instinct.

[Mark]

Saw 'Dark Knight' last night. meh.

[Ted Henderson]

I agree with Edelstein. I'm 45 years old and I've made a point of attending every Batman movie on opening day since June 1989. I love the character and his various incarnations but the "Dark Knight "went past being what I want out of a comic book movie. Half way through the movie I remember thinking I'd been tricked into going to a slasher film. It doesn't matter that you don't really see the slashing, it's just filmed so realistically that the image of a smile being cut into a face is strong whether you see it or not. I remember thinking that if Batman was not in this film, I would never have come to see it.

Thank God for "IRON MAN". I look forward to the next installment of that FUN action adventure. As for Batman, I don't think I'll go see another gilm of this grim tone. Hopefully Robin will show up in the next movie and lighten things up.

[Eli Langer]

i agree and support as both an artist and a critic that we need to wake up from the passive stupor of the last decade. a consumer conformist celebration in which our nation went along with the sick two-dimensional sadistic anti-human violence of the entertainment industry.
the time is now for a review of our cultural dead -end game playing which has led us into an apolitical and cynical surrender akin to clinical depression whose symptoms are treated without addressing the causes.
the short sighted motives of the entertainment industry mimicking the filthy selfishness of corporate culture and washington has brought our humanity to its knees in submission.
call it when you see it critics.
a new day is coming.

[debbie]

It was a huge relief to see a review that was more fair than all the biased positive reviews of the movie. Thank you for an honest review....you did not have to justify it at all. After watching this movie I was shocked to find that people loved it. It is at best a fairly okay movie with some decent action scenes. First of all- Maggie Gyllenhall was so wrong, dead and bland for this role, totally taking away the charm of two men fighting over, crying over turning into villians over someone like her....so not believable. Next the dialogues were so inane and juvenile, so many cliches, jaded lines....that it was almost a joke to have to hear them with the contrived intensity of the characters. After watching Iron man with nifty, mature, intellectual dialogues and with a brilliant superhero who makes his own suit, gizmos and kicks bad guys behinds...to hear the silly dumb lines in Batman and his asking for a new suit just seemed a lil silly. Batman Begins was absolutely fantastic and this is such a lame follow up....I hope the Nolan brothers do not get carried away by the false hype and love for this version and sacrifice the screenplay once again after this...Bale is fantastic as Batman and it would be a shame to let that go.

[Paul Nicholas Boylan]

This was a deeply disturbing film, and it is very much worth seeing for that reason alone. Good triumphs in the end, but only in the aggregate and at great cost. Whereas Batman Begins was action/adventure, the Dark Knight is horror, thanks in large measure to Heath Ledger's amazingly subtle and complex Joker.

I am going to think about this film for a very long time and wonder what I would have done if presented with the difficult choices the Joker crafted to rob his victims of their souls.

[tess]

Mr. Edelstein does not understand that a, perhaps the, principal function of a critic is to assist people in deciding whether to spend their hard earned cash watching a movie. I'm not familiar with Mr. Edelstein's oevre, but if he generally bashes revenge driven action movies, then he is failing his readers. His biases interfere with his job performance, and Mr. Edelstein should not be allowed to rate such movies.

[Tommy C]

Everyone has their own opinion,
I just cant see how someone couldnt like that movie.
I thought it was the best movie i've ever seen.

[Eggbert]

What, no one can have their own opinion anymore? Screw all those people that think The Dark Knight is the best movie ever. Personally I get sick of hearing about movies like this when they come out... it's like that's all they talk about... how great it is. And then finally you go see it, and it's just another average movie. Just cause an actor dies while/after making his last movie doesn't automatically mean it's a great movie. The Crow, Almost Heroes, Twilight Zone, Wagons East, Dark Blood, Gladiator. If you like a movie, that's great, not all people are going to like it though so quit getting pissed that they don't. Like Peter Griffin not liking The Godfather... I happen to agree with that.

[nojustice]

I agree to some extent - the movie moved slowly, was jumbled at times, and was only depressing. I REALLY wnated to like this movie as much as Batman Begins, but I just didn't.

I also hate to say it, but does Heath Ledger really deserve an Oscar nomination for this performance? Maybe, but I would hate to be an actor who gave a fantastic performance in a different movie and have to go against a dead guy. I'm not saying Mr Ledger did anything other than a fine job, but now perspective will be skewed when Hollywood considers this performance at Oscar time.

[Sean O]

While there are not many critics of whom I'd say this, including those that I always read in my hometown newspaper, I have found Edelstein's reviews on NPR to be not just interesting pieces, of themselves, but uniformly dead-on assessments of quality. I guess you could say taste is a personal thing, but that doesn't mean there isn't such a thing as "good" taste. If he walked out, I won't be going.

[avraam jack]

.
They need to get Bruce Timm to write the stories.
.

[Sleepy D]

How strange, a movie critic having a critical opinion of a blockbuster movie - you mean he's not being paid by some studio or network to push the film. Imagine, people just going around giving their straight an honest opinion. What's the world coming to. Why can't we water it all down to a nice two thumbs up.

[John]

I loved the movie. It was a true sequel to Batman Begins, and is a new take on Batman's universe that is probably more closer to truth. It is a shame that we won't see Ledger perform the role again.

[Jay]

For all those people who flooded his email with hate mail were one of two people....
A. Those still live at home Batman fans who dont understand a movie critics job and dont know a good movie when they see one......

or...

B. The idiots on every site talking about thier love for Batman even if the site has nothing to do with it.

I totally respect this critic and although i am a batman an i must say its a relief to see someone on the other side of the field...congrats man...keep it up

[Kugelschreiber]

Of course he's allowed to like what he likes, but this movie (and 'Begins') was based upon a comic book, and it's far closer at its heart to the source material than any previous attempt. I've noticed that the (very) few negative reviews 1) use the Burton movies and the TV show as their reference point when discussing the Batman 2) strangely accuse 'The Dark Knight' of aping 'No Country For Old Men' when discussing Harvey Dent's coin flip.

I don't mind being called a 'fanboy' (I'm a fan; who cares?) in saying that both criticisms betray a profound ignorance of the modern Batman mythology, especially as Kane portrayed him originally, and also how he's being portrayed in the comics today. The criticism of Harvey Dent's coin flip in particular screams 'misinformed', as the Harvey Dent/Two-Face character predates both 'The Dark Knight' and 'No Country For Old Men' by some sixty years.

As for the Burton movies, Nicholson was good, but he really was just playing The Joker as a roly-poly 'Nicholson-As-The-Joker'. Ledger's Joker is the first real portrayal of character. Also, in the 'Dark Knight', Jim Gordon and Alfred are real, fleshed-out, evolving characters. In the pre-Nolan films, there are ineffectual dithering old men who play almost no role in the storylines. Oh yeah, and there's this, too: 'The Dark Knight' *has* a storyline. Try telling me what the plots were of the Burton/Schumacher films.

All the negative reviews (as well as some of the commentary here) seem to want to keep comic-based films safely in kiddy-land. They want a return to the day-glo toy commercials that were the Schumacher films or the long meandering set-pieces that were the Burton films. The sixties TV show seems to be held in particular esteem, despite the fact that it was comedy.

That's fine. Those versions are rentable. In the mean time, we have a great director , a tight script, and an accomplished cast. And we finally have a proper portrayal of comics' best known villain by Heath Ledger, in a performance that will be remembered for a long long time. 'The Dark Knight' is an excellent film. It's that rare film that's getting raves from critics and the movie-going public alike. The few naysayers really don't know what they are talking about.

[yodazeke]

Have not seen the Dark Knight yet. My comment is more about Edelstein. I really don't get the guy. I see him on Sunday Morning on CBS and just can't wait to hear his negative spin on nearly every movie he critiques. Just another critic who believes it's all about him/her and not about the film they are being critical of. The great part of the blogisphere is you don't have a so-called celebrity face on the review and you can read many reviews to get a real feel of the movie. Mainstream critics typically don't get it. I really miss Gene Siskel. He got it.

[Jason]

I think people need to start making judgment calls for themselves and by themselves. The Dark Knight was, IMO, a great COMIC BOOK movie. The origins of Batman and the Joker was never cutesy or pretty nor should it have been made that way. This movie was pretty close to how each character is presented in the comics and it also presented psychological themes like 'good vs evil' and morality. If you thought that this movie was too much then you really have little insight to what a comic book hero/villain really is like. Bale is great as Batman and Ledger was "The Joker".

Like they say, to each his own.

[gorus]

I think that the Ledger's joker was terrible. It felt like he just walked out of a method acting class. Complex? No, one of the worst performances in a long time. And now, a call for an oscar nomination. Academy voters are idiots anyways.

Terrible.

[1974]

smug. baby boomer. stupid "professional" movie reviewer. go build some houses or plant some corn. emailing your "opinions" every week must really make for a tough life. the media is religion. this is like armand du plessis saying he doesn't like the gospel of luke. WTF? Why do you care, why am I reading this and, most importantly, how much does david e make as a "professional" writer?

[tester]

Here is the basic problem. His *job* as a critic is to view and review the movie.

If he walks out, he is acting like an emotional prima donna, he is not doing his job of viewing the movie, and then reviewing it. His review becomes about himself, and how his sensibilities have been offended.

Furthermore, if the reviewer, who writes for New York Magazine, is so dense as to not be able to recognize the self-same city listed as part of his publication's name, and is furthermore the most famous and iconic city in the world... and even worse, mistakes another iconic city, Chicago, for Manhattan, I fail to see how accurate and reasonable his review could ever be.

A food critic, who hates steak, cannot be sent to review a steak restaurant, because he will write, "I hate steak, they served steak, I couldn't believe it, steak tastes terrible and I walked out."

The Joker is a sadistic murderer, that is *who he is*, he is not the cartoon clown of the 1960s camp TV show, and this movie portrays the truest vision of the Joker. If this is not up the reviewer's alley, if he finds the depiction to be "cruel" then yes, he is accurate, that is what is intended and a sign that the director followed through with the vision. If he bases an opinion on this and comes to a "bad movie" conclusion, then he's again failing his job as a reviewer. He's the guy who hates steak being sent to a steak restaurant to make a review.

Folks who don't like this thing, who prefer "Batman & Robin" and its cartoon silliness, this is an honest preference and difference in taste.

However, this reviewer fails in his prime objective which is to view and review the movie. By acting like a spoiled child, he's fallen victim to the critic's disease of putting themselves above the film they're paid to review.

If he garners 100,000 angry emails, so be it. Let the critic be criticized, he wants to earn his living by slicing other people's work into shreds, then let his own work be analyzed in the same way. If he can't take criticism, he has very ironically stumbled into the wrong profession then. Because someone who wants to dish it out, but can't take it, this we label very early on in life in the schoolyard as a bully.

I have no sympathy for this stupid man. If he had stayed through the movie and reviewed the whole thing as a film, weighing its pros and cons instead of acting like a child and writing his review about himself, that would be a different story.

[Peter]

If you actually walked out of the film, you didn't do your job and review the entire movie (i.e., what you were PAID to do). I haven't seen the new Batman movie, but as a result of your walking out I won't take your opinion into account when I choose whether or not to see this movie (which I probably will, given the opinion of other critics who loved it). How many movies have surprised us (for better or worse) at or near their conclusion? I also will quit reading your reviews because you don't seem to be doing your job ... that is, unless you feel your primary job is sell print and actually reviewing movies IN THEIR ENTIRETY is secondary!

[Nate]

"Columnist Patrick Goldstein, my distinguished colleague here at The Times, has a take on this too at his must-read Hollywood blog, The Big Picture."

ummmm....and what's your take?

[Chris R]

In my opinion, it doesn't really matter whether a reviewer ultimately likes the movie or not. Both positive and negative reviews are important to me, in judging whether it's worth my time to go see a movie.

What's actually important is the rationale behind the evaluation the reviewer gives. Did he/she put any real thought and reflection behind their opinion? Was the review a simple, noncritical gush or a hateful slam, or did the reviewer really put some consideration into it and describe the reasons for his/her reaction?

If I decide to go see a movie, it will be on the basis (hopefully) of reviews on both sides, perhaps especially those that pan it. If I read too many positive reviews I will start specifically looking for (i.e. mrqe.com) negative reviews to get more information. If the values or principles brought forward by the review and its author are not ones I feel are relevant to me personally, I will still feel more justified in spending the money than if I hadn't read the dissenting opinions at all. Of course, the same is true for movies that are broadly disliked.

Whether the movie really is good or bad, we all benefit from a variety of perspectives, especially those from reviewers brave enough to go against what happens to be a majority viewpoint.