Dark Knight' mob attacks defenseless film critic

Not that it matters of course, when it comes to a pop-culture tsunami like "The Dark Knight," but so far most of America's much-maligned film critics have embraced the Christopher Nolan-directed film, which is due to set all sorts of obscure box-office records this weekend. (Is there, for example, a record for biggest July opening during a presidential campaign year?) But there's always a skunk at every wedding. When it comes to "Dark Knight" fans, the skunk is New York magazine critic David Edelstein, who had the temerity to slag off the new Batman film, calling it "noisy, jumbled and sadistic."

And that was just the beginning: Edelstein hooted at the action scenes ("spectacularly incoherent"), the director ("Nolan appears to have no clue how to stage or shoot action") and the movie in general ("it's all fits and starts, fitfully suspenseful, fitfully scary... with jolts of brutality to keep you revved up"). "Dark Knight" loyalists did not take this lying down. Edelstein has been bombarded with so much e-mail abuse since his review posted that he felt obligated to respond to the vitriol. (The New Yorker's David Denby didn't like the movie much either, but he's somehow escaped being tarred and feathered by the angry mob, perhaps because everyone was more enraged by the Obama cartoon on the cover of this week's magazine.)

I'm not going to get in the middle of this maelstrom, since sadly, I'm such a cultural slacker that I haven't seen the movie yet. But I feel a pang of sympathy for Edelstein, who notes that the Batman fanboys seem to want to have it both ways--calling him a snob for taking the movie seriously, then mocking his pretentiousness for offering more than a "Wow!" as a critical response. The ranting and name-calling all takes us back to the primal question of today's moviegoing age: Do critics still matter?

You should read Edelstein's entire response, but here, in a nutshell, is his argument, which is worth pondering:

"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 writing in blogs and discussion groups ... 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,'" 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.' " 

Photo of Christian Bale as Batman in "The Dark Knight" from Warner Bros.

Comments

[nunzio bagliere]

God Bless Our Planet And Be Good To All Others AS Time will Pass To The End Of Time FRom Nunzio Bagliere Syracuse N.Y EMAIL NUNZIO7MONEY@VERIZON.NET

[Xian]

Armond White of the New York Press (he's a listed as a Rotten Tomatoes critic, but not "top critics") is getting it much, much worse than David Edelstein (who I usually agree with, but certainly not on "The Dark Knight") or even Stephanie Zacharek and a few others who have given DK a negative review (it's their right, their opinion, but I gather that beyond the hype and the initial rush of seeing this film, history will prove them to be quite wrong). The vitriol (somewhat racist mind you) that Mr. White is getting on his opinion of the film is staggering... fan boys and cineasts seem to be out for his blood on this one. Rarely have I seen so much ardent anger and umbrage given to film critics over what amounts to a movie (no matter how shockingly good it is). Edelstein may be right in his assessment of the critic's role in the web-driven world, but then many in traditional print and other media have serious issues with the democratization of journalism in general.

[Jack]

What the mob won't admit to is that their primary interest is to see Mr. Ledger's performance to determine if he was on drugs during the shoot. That is the lurid whispering campaign happening outside of the film's primary marketing machine. All of it gets bodies into the seats, in the end that's all that will matter to the distributor. Hooray for Hollywood!

[Jeff R]

I don't know who writes the headlines here, but it seems a bit much to say that a "defenseless" person was "attack[ed" by a "mob." Apparently the author of a critical review received some critical (and none too articulate) e-mails and comments. Not quite the same thing.

[Roger]

Hmmmm --interesting thought. What IF Heath Ledger was seriously on drugs during all of his on-camera acting as The Joker. Would his performance be truly his own? If Ray Milland was completely drunk during The Lost Weekend (he wasn't) would he have deserved his Oscar? The Joker character is certainly mad --drug induced?? If so, how far should method acting go? Thoughts???

[Kelly]

I have to say I appreciate the irony.

The critic bristles that the mob doesn't believe in criticism. He knows this because off the criticism he receives.

[asdf]

Criticizing the critics's critics's critics.

I'm going to go stab myself with a yoga ball.

[joec]

i love batman

[Tim]

118 good reviews. 9 bad. i think that speaks for itself why he's conjured such animosity toward his review. if the movie is everything he says it is then why don't more critics fall in line behind his opinion. early negative reviews for spiderman 3 were greeted the same way until it became obvious from the sheer large number of negative reviews that spiderman 3 would disappoint. not the case with the dark knight. the overwhelming majority is praising this film, and this guy is saying they are all wrong and he's right. i seriously doubt it.

[Gmoney]

Sniff sniff.. boo hoo hoo... for critics. It's part of your job to take criticism just as much as to give it. Unless the mob ends up at your office or lurking behind you on your ride home, what does a few sentences really matter. If anything Edelstein should be happy that so many subscribers have seriously read his article, and so many more might start reading him even more. One does have a choice with emails and blog comments, to just not read them and to easily just delete them if it tickles your fancy. The position of a critic will never die out, jobs just re-invent themselves, theres always a name and a face or more so now an addy.

[Jim]

Edelstein is just jealous because Gotham City, which is technically New York City, now looks like Chicago in The Dark Knight. And the 'mob' is just jealous because Edelstein got to see The Dark Knight first. Batmania is alive and kicking!

[Anton]

The problem with critics is that there are so many bad critics. Critics that are jaded and overly hard to please, and ones that see movies through the lens of a art snob. Then there are the myriad of jump-on-the-bandwagon critics that just parrot everything that other critics have said already. It is critics like these that can destroy movie's revenues. Consider "Speed Racer" which has a favourable crowd response (those who bravely saw it despite terrible reviews), compared to a horrific critic response. How do we rationalise this? The message is we cant. Obviously critics are judging movies according to different standards than the people they are trying to "help." They are like the product you realise is worthless once you buy it. In this day of widespread information, I think the critic, if not dead, should die.

[Thomas]

How can anyone but critics really say whether it's good or not if it hasn't been released? Has EVERYONE somehow managed to see it early? I plan to see it and think it will be alright, but I don't expect it to be the best movie ever made, and really don't plan on it being any better than Ironman. I look forward to heath Ledger performance as the deranged Joker, but whether he's dead or not isn't going to make it any better. I wasn't really impressed with Batman Begins, so I still have mixed veiws on this one. That, and I odn't really like Christian Bale as Batman. Micheal Keaton was the best!

[David J Wilson]

If the "mob" didn't think critics important, they wouldn't attack them.

[Mark Thomas]

Vitriol is a natural human response to stupidity and/or maliciousness weaseling its way into a position of influence and then gloating about being untouchable.

[Bozzmania]

Take heart fans, the "critic's" a few years ago gave rave reviews to a total piece of crap
"Knocked Up" and thereby destroyed sales for a wonderful movie that came out at the same time ("Once").

Whaddya they knowanyway...........................

[L.J. Burgess]

Heath Ledger was a two-bit actor from the git-go anyway.

Any movie with him in top role can't be taken seriously.

[Carl]

Mobs are stupid. The movie's all hype.

[Jsens3]

Well, duh, of course what Hollywood about is money, its the American way! The much maligned critic is correct. The democratization of media has spawned a plethora of banal, pedestrian, offal. Films that are lauded to the heavens on Monday may be in the ash heap by Friday. The taste of the comsuming public is mostly in its collective mouth. Does any thinking person believe a Batman movie starring druggie Heath Ledger is going to be great film! Those who do are likely the same who thought Angels and Demons and The DaVinci Code were great literature. The observation attributed to P.T. Barnum that "there's a sucker born every minute" applies here.

[none]

No, critic don't matter. I haven't listened to them in years.

It's not really their fault...Once you become a critic you learn things about film acting, pacing, editing, etc, that you can no longer watch a movie as the rest of us do. By nature of what they do, they become detached from the normal movie going audience. It's sad, really. But, no, they often don't matter - and often they cannot predict if I will like a movie.

[Arlo Scott Kennedy]

Bravo! The author gets it EXACTLY right.

The "tyranny of the majority" does not represent sufficient cause for critical acclaim. If such were true then we should all agree that the ubiquitous Big Mac represents the height of attainment in the gustatory arts; Madonna, of course, is the greatest musician/composer of all time; and whomever does the layout on the most circulated advertising billboard is the greatest visual artist of our generation.

We've more than a sufficient supply of pop art. And we've certainly heard enough from the great globular mass of us when it comes to wisdom regarding that which we simply must consume. And, of course, We, the Collective, often get it right.

But that argument simply doesn't hold water when it comes to the sustenance of the bravest amongst us: our artists, particularly the most avante garde and outre; the sort of creators that the public is most likely to dismiss, leaving great work stillborn while the accessibly mundane sits atop an eternal throne. This is where the arts community must, in some sense, be an insular animal - a solipsistic clan obsessed with the discovery of an ever-purer creative process. Indeed, an isolation from public criticism is often the prerequisite to the generation of anything of interest at all. Would we have ever experienced a Marc Chagall, a Picasso or a Jackson Pollack absent the sort of incestuous relationship(s) that tend to mark the cross-pollination of artists, critics and patrons? We can easily assume that Bertolt Brecht, Samuel Beckett and Edward Albee would've languished in eternal obscurity were it not for the sort of theatre community that many would say no longer exists - it having been replaced by a blockbuster-obsessed Broadway (even Off-Broadway) that's so busy selling to flyover country that it long ago lost its raison d'tre.

So, we need critics. And 300 million Americans do not a patron make. Absent an arts community accountable only to itself there can be no more artists - only "product."

And, as a critic AND an artist, I've never been very fond of "product."

[Brian]

Armond White deserves any razzing he's getting.

His entire review of the film boils down to a moral criticism of the director's noir tonal choices. He hands out a 1-star review because of his moral belief that a movie like this should be about a hero who inspires hope.

Of course, anyone who knows anything about criticism or aesthetics knows that the person who approaches material this way is a philistine. Pure and simple. A rube, a hick. By the standard White proposes, Superman III is better art than Euripides' Bacchae. In just about every paragraph of White's review, he exposes himself as a hater of art and an enemy of art.

And he does so with a complete lack of self-awareness and the arrogance of a half-educated blowhard. He's too vain to realize he's a philistine and a bourgeois, and thinks that HE is the epitome of sophistication and that everyone who disagrees with him is "debased" [his word]. He has brought a knife to a critical and intellectual gunfight and deserves what he gets.

[Robert]

Saw Michael Caine on Leno the other night. He said that Ledger went through an amazing transformation in mere seconds. One second he'd be shooting a scene as the sadistic maniac that is the Joker and the next moment the two would be sharing a thoughtful conversation. So, was he on drugs? Well, Caine's comment would lead me to believe Ledger was perfectly capable of pulling off the Joker without that sort of help.

[Gene]

The man liked Hancock...so there ya go. He loved a movie that was not that good and then fell apart in the third act. Hancock was awful and The Dark Knight is an action/superhero movie masterpiece. Chris Nolan is without a doubt one of the greatest film makers alive, if you don't believe me please buy Momento and the Prestige so your dvd collection can have something other than Meet the I now pronounce you Chuck and Larry and Transformers in it.

BTW, anyone who thinks Michael Keaton was a better batman/bruce wayne and that Tim Burtons first film "got it right' have no idea what they're talking about, so please shut up, you sound like morons. Sorry, I've read that in a bunch of comments on almost every site and it really gets to me. Same for anyone who thinks Ang Lees Hulk "got it right" more than the newest film...get real.

[Brad]

Regardless of what Ledger's personal life was like, his role as Joker was genius. Its a pity we can't see him create more. I don't think they should make anymore Batman's, I don't think they can top his performance.

[John]

Well I'm at home and I just got back from seeing the Dark Knight. I'd like to disagree with Mr. Burgess. Heath Ledger never tried to please anyone and be the "serious" man. He didn't care what people thought of him. As for his performance in TDK, it was spectacular. I suggest you go see the movie instead of posting stupid comments, when it's obvious that you don't now anything about acting.

[da jokaah]

just saw the movie and its bloody awesome.critics can keep seeing the faults.i went in to enjoy.i enjoyed it a lot.i loved every character in it and loved the plot.thats what movies are for=enjoyment.i wouldnt mind seeing this again.go with the right mentality of having fun of relaxing of taking sumthing out of the movie and thats what you will get.if u want to criticize a movie and go in with that mentality then thats what you are gonna end up doing.dont believe the hype and dont believe the critics either.

and dare i ask the critics ......... "why so serious ?"

[Dylan]

"Does any thinking person believe a Batman movie starring druggie Heath Ledger is going to be great film"

This sums up snobbery and ignorance all in one. This meglomanic believes that because he doesn't like it nobody does and that a person who is on sleeping pills is a druggy. I feel for this moron and his lack of emotional intelligence.

[Michael Whalen]

Armond White is valuable because he is more of a cultural critic than a film critic. He asks the questions that no other film critics even consider: what kind of culture produces art like this? What kind of culture consumes it? What kind of culture celebrates it? What can we learn about ourselves through art like this?

He can certainly be an arrogant prick, & remains, hilariously, unimpressed by gripping story telling, great acting, or any well crafted piece of entertainment. But no American film critic produces, week and week, work that forces readers to think and ask very important questions about the values being celebrated in our popular art.

That people get bent out of shape, or hilariously, "offended" by Mr. White says more about their very thin skins that it does about the quality of his film & cultural criticism.

Oh, and he is not uneducated. His knowledge of film history is so extensive and vast, and his willingness to share it so compulsive, that he often frames entire reviews around references to films that I'm sure 95% of readers have NEVER heard of.

[Nathan]

alright come on now... I thought for a second that the headline of your story was literal... surely you could have picked a better one.

[Ed]

With a movie as popular and positively reivewed as TDK, I wonder if some critics don't intentionally write contrarian reviews just to get their words read and not get lost in a tidal wave of favorable reviews.

[The Zug]

A critic taking umbrage over criticism?

Hrmm.

Having seen some of the comments sent to some of the negative critics, I would agree that many are nasty, illiterate, and out of bounds.

But this is the business you have chosen, Mr. Edelstein.

Post your honest opinions, and then take your criticism like a man--just as you expect filmmakers to do.

[Shawn Mack]

Can we get somebody to stage a "funeral" for the word "Fanboy?" I'm tired of reading that damn word in every other article/review about any film not titled "Sex and the City." I know that the "funeral for a word" concept didn't really work for Rick Rubin and "Def," nor did it work for Kwame Kilpatrick and the "N-word," but still... something needs to be done...

[Chris mankey]

"What the mob won't admit to is that their primary interest is to see Mr. Ledger's performance to determine if he was on drugs during the shoot."

Nope,moron, clearly your career as a troll is at an end!

[josh]

the one thing that is missed here is that Edelstein isn't a CRITIC. He is a movie reviewer. His strongets made points were about the direction and the action sequences. Not to emntion the tone had "everyone liked this, so i am gonna hate it" attitude. It wa sbad writing and it was amovie review not a crticism. A criticism is soemthing much deeper, and after seeing it at a midnight show i will say this. Take off the batman costume and any refrence to comic books and this is a darker verison of films liek The Deaparted. It's as comic book camp at The Untouchables with the dark crime of The Deaparted.

Brilliant . Best film of 2008 so far. Just aheda of The Visitor

[Marcus]

It's too bad that Heath Ledger can't defend his performance, even though he shouldn't have too. As for Edelstein, hes defensless because he can't justify his opinion. If you're going to go against the curve then you better have better explanation than "spectacularly incoherent." It's truly unfortunate that he fails to see the progression that graphic novel movies have made and that the role of a critic is dead.

[Hates it Precious]

LAWL DEFENSLESS? STFU!

[Darius]

I've always disregarded the critics until reading this article. Just like every profession, in some facet it will be misunderstood by the majority(the people). Especially when most of the majority are not specialized, trained, and experienced in the field of work that they view from the outside. Inside the mind of the critic is the ability to focus on the film's blueprint which most people have less to no experience in seeing. The exoteric view of the film is less important to a critic. Its the esoteric pieces which are behind the views of mere logical, emotional content and pleasure.

I saw the movie. I loved it. I'll probably see again today. To me the movie is that good.

[Mini-Me]

I believe Ed is absolutely correct:
Particularly pretentious and selfish movie critics will occasionally grandstand with deliberately contrarian views, hoping they'll stick out and someone will notice. If they see an opportunity to advance their careers (by appearing especially "cultured" and superior), they're entirely willing to abandon all responsibility and write a distorted and dishonest critique.

Although movie critics often do have a better perspective on movies as art than the "unwashed masses," they seem to have cultural undertones of snobbery and one-upmanship, and it reeks of intellectual dishonesty. When a few critics' reviews become more about proving something about their own taste than about the movie itself, their egos can utterly drown out and devalue their expertise and better artistic judgment.

Ultimately, movie critics are not entitled to paychecks merely for showing they have "better taste" than everyone else. Rather, they receive paychecks because they're supposed to be performing two honest services:
1.) First, they're supposed to serve the "mob" they so disdain by helping them decide whether they'll enjoy a movie. However, far too many critics seem completely incapable of enjoying movies based on their own merits. If a movie is trying to be mindless, fun entertainment, these critics will judge it by the standards of "high art" and tear it to shreds. Frankly, I feel like they should give out two scores: One for how *enjoyable* a movie is, and another for its depth and artistic value.
2.) Secondly, they're supposed to serve the directors, producers, etc. by giving honest feedback about their work. However, some will shirk this duty (as is the case with a few Dark Knight reviews) in favor of advancing their own ego and reputation for being nearly impossible to please. I think it's more than just that, though...a few critics seem to disdain any kind of Hollywood blockbuster, even if it has underlying artistic value (like The Dark Knight). It's as if mass appeal is some kind of disease that needs to be shunned at all costs, and they'll revile a good work simply because it's popular. Finally, some critics are so beholden to prevailing trends in culture and art (postmodernism, avant-garde, etc.) that they exhibit an irrational bias towards such "fashionably artsy" films.

For the record, I really enjoyed Batman Begins and the new seriousness and depth it brought to the franchise. I was never very interested in Batman before, but the movie and its characters moved me, if that does not seem too over-the-top. I was very enthusiastic when I first saw previews of The Dark Knight, but as time went on and the film became more and more overwhelmingly hyped up (to make it a huge moneymaker), I started to get the bad feeling it wouldn't live up to its immediate predecessor. I figured that if it equalled Batman Begins, I'd be more than satisfied. I didn't read any reviews beforehand, so I had no idea what was in store when I finally saw it last night: The film just flat-out blew me away. The joker's personality made him the most terrifying villain I ever remember seeing. My sister, who hates action movies and anything fantasy-based, said it was one of the best movies she has ever seen. I quite honestly have to agree. I won't bother writing a full review, since plenty of more qualified critics have written very accurate ones (94% on rottentomatoes). Still, I will say that the film warranted *unanimously* positive views, and any vitriol towards offending critics is well-deserved. I obviously understand that different people will have varying levels of enthusiasm, and from the perspective of serious movie critics, I'm sure The Dark Knight has its significant flaws. Still, people who see more bad than good in this movie are deceiving themselves.

[John Rabe, Host of 89.3-KPCC's Off-Ramp]

Good Lord, people. Criticizing "The Dark Knight" and the stars in the movie is like criticizing President Bush. I'm sure Warner Brothers can take it, just like the President can. When the mob should be worried is when a critic goes after a small film made by a new director with unknown actors. That's when they have the power to kill talent and potential.

[X.S. Ben]

Dark Knight is the movie of the year so far and will be hard to beat. Never have I've seen an actor capture his pre-ordained character personality than Heath Ledger portraying the Joker. Those critics who bashed Ledgers performance and Nolan's directing choice with the Joker obviously are not fans or missed the true aura of the Dark Knight comics.

1 critic said it was nuisance to consider the Joker's ability to plant a bomb in a hospital for the 60 minutes he gave Gotham City. Those who are familiar with the Joker's true self and not the washed down version of the 90s knows that the Joker is a schemer though he denies it. He makes grand scale schemes for no apparent reason except chaos. It wouldn't be surprising for the Joker to have already planted bombs in Gotham City for his disposal at any given time.

Anyhow, Heath captured the Joker perfectly. From his brutality, to his unpredictability in his speech and actions, and even more than the rest his ability to capture Joker's struggle between keeping himself serious and loony. Countless times in the movie does Ledger transforms the high-octave voice of Joker in a deeper version of itself that to listen to Joker talking is chilling itself without even considering what he was saying.

There's not much to say about the movie without giving up too many spoilers so go check it out. This is by far the greatest superhero movie I have ever seen, Jack Nicholson has truly lost his throne as the Joker. Ledger will definitely win an Oscar.

[Dan J]

I can't speak for all the "fanboys" out there. All I know is, I saw it, I really liked it, and I cannot find anything tangible in the film to support the critic's claims and negative reviews. The only assertion I can make is that this reviewer either has a hidden agenda or is extremely prejudiced against some aspect of the film. My gut feeling tells me that this reviewer had the intention of writing a bad review before the film was even released. Therefore, I can no longer trust the validity of the critic and his reviews, and will no longer subscribe to the New Yorker. He has a complete right to his opinion, I just have zero trust and confidence in it.

As for Ledger being on drugs, well, that's just silly. He died without a single illegal drug in his body, possession or home. That hardly makes him a druggie. Moreover, Julie Andrews was admittedly drunk off of peach schnapps during Sound of Music. Does that lessen her performance?

[Jason C]

I'm sitting here laughing at this by "mini-me" above: "Particularly pretentious and selfish movie critics will occasionally grandstand with deliberately contrarian views, hoping they'll stick out and someone will notice." Mini is right, What universe do you live in, pal? I've been reading criticism closely for years and I can't think of anyone--even Armond White--who offers deliberately contrarian views to stick out. Most critics strive to be cheerleaders and be quoted in newspaper ads. I have no idea if if the critics who hated Batman are right or wrong, but the only pretentious boobs I see here are the ones attacking people in very personal (and idiotic) terms for not embracing the Standard Line that the Dark Knight is a masterpiece.

[Austin]

Alright, maybe everyone in this whole arugement is taking this too seriously. There's a mob over a critic who shouldn't have even been taken seriously in the first place. And now it's become a huge ordeal. Can't people just relax and give 2 positives and one negative about the movie, because everyone is only acting like a bunch of immature kids.

[Sharon M]

Yes, I ALWAYS see the first showing of interesting movie releases. Yes, Heath's performance was probably drug enhanced. Yes, Christian Bale is a far better actor than the script and numerous stiff-fisted fights indicate. The most eerie thing about this film is Heath Leger's performance. Like Jack Nicholson's Joker he was weird, cynical and maniacal. Parallel to Mr. Ledger's senseless passing is the senseless need to show brutality. Let's see some REAL writing. We all know that evil exists. Why promote it? Remember the quote - All that is needed for evil to reign is for good men to do nothing. Let Batman become a good guy. A decent guy with a mean set of "toys" to fight evil. I tire of this endless tirade of black thoughts.

[P Ross]

This Edelstein guy is just such a pretentious snob. He's not just a pretentious critic. He's a selfish, narcissistic guy in general.

Just look at his latest email response.

You'd expect that his response to the hate-mail that he's been getting would be entirely about addressing the freedom that a person has to express an opinion that goes against the masses.

But instead of that, he talks about how what he's doing makes him better than us. He thinks that he's like a savior of non-mainstream movies. He's basically saying that he's better than everyone cause he knows more movies.

And, he's basically saying that all those other 170+ PROFESSIONAL and TOP movie critics are WRONG in their opinion that The Dark Knight was a masterpiece.

He's trying to cover up the fact that the only reason he's doing this is to get attention, or to get quoted in some intellectual movie analysis. He knows that if he agrees with other critics, then his voice will get drowned out in the masses of critics who gave TDK positive reviews, and no one will notice him.

I believe everyone has a right to an opinion. But quite frankly, yours does not matter Mr Edelstein. And neither do the opinions of those other dissenting critics. Like Edelstein, they just simply want to stand out.

What a jerk. Get a life.

[Will D.]

I haven't seen batman but I agree with Edelstein about the 'mob mentality that can overwhelm serious criticism'. Most reviews by the MOB are preaching to the choir and I'm getting sick of it. How many times can you read 'The BEST' or 'I LOVE THIS'??? I salute Mr.Edelstein for his chutzpah.

[jerry]

it's perfectly fine for a critic to not like a movie on a personal level. however, if he's squeamish about violence, perhaps he should watch something else and not this movie. this movie is based on a COMIC BOOK. the character of the joker has no empathy and he's a psychopath, what does the critic expect him to do, be nicer to people? not kill anyone? i saw the movie yesterday, it's amazing. it's very brutal, but done well. heath ledger is beyond incredible. you do not think you are watching an actor "act" for one second during this movie. you believe that heath IS the joker. that's the mark of someone who is great at their craft.

[jerry]

for all the holier than thou people who keep posting in here about heath being a druggie, etc. - whatever personal problems he did or didn't have (and we don't really know do we? it's all hearsay. other than that he had trouble sleeping and had a prescription for sleeping pills, of which he very unfortunatly took too many on the nite of his death), if there actually was an addiction problem, it certainly didn't affect his performance in this film. it was masterful. if you're only going to praise artists who are perfect little alcohol and drug free angels, well, that narrows the list down quite a bit doesn't it? one flew over the cukoo's nest - no good. apocolypse now - no good. easy rider - no good. any movie with marlon brando, richard burton or dennis hopper in it - no good. i could go on, but i think you get the point.

[Moonstryfe]

There were a couple of people who mentioned in their posts, that they wondered if Heath L. was actually on drugs during his performance in Batman. The answer most likely, is yes. The hillbilly heroin that he was eating like candy, is not an easy thing to look at in the morning, and then walk away from. Nearly ALL of the drugs found in his system, are highly addictive, which is one of the reasons why he's dead.

Having intelligent conversations between takes, does not a sober person make. If anything, it is more likely that the *intelligent* conversations were helped along by his various medicines. All you gotta do is walk into a room full of hippies, and you'll see what I mean.

I thought the movie was good, over-hyped for sure, it's certainly not the 2nd coming, but I don't think it deserves the hate David Edelstein attached to it. His personal viewpoints are taking the front seat when they should be sitting in the trunk while he does his job.

Moon

[Kate]

I really disagree with the quote from Edelstein that you think we should be pondering over. To me, a movie that is filmed is done, whatever critics say are not going to help the directors improve the movie so I don't need their "professional" point of view. When I read a review, what I want to know is whether a movie is worth seeing or not - whether it will be worth the 2-3 hours of my life or not.

Now when a critic decides to offer an opinion that is completely opposite of my own, then I consider his review worthless and in fact misleading. Of course you can't expect everyone to like a movie. Perhaps all the reviews I read will make a movie sound great and it turns out that I didn't like it anyway; but the point is that I will have a higher likelyhood to be watching good movies, instead of being mislead into missing a film that I could've really liked.

To me, a critic whose opinion that does not agree with my own is worthless to me. Of course they can appeal to people other than myself and earn their position, but a critic whose taste cannot appeal to anyone (or only very few people), like in this case, deserves to be fired.

[sk8rpro]

It' s interesting that some of those that say the critics (like David Edelstein) who are against TDK are frustrated because they receive criticism - they think they are making wise distinctions - I, however, beg to differ.

I don't know if you've viewed the critic's viewpoints or not, but the comments were not critiques. You see, a real critique would be knowledgeable and at least somewhat professional. Instead, the comments are angry and have resorted to name-calling. In addition, many of the comments were made before the movie came out everywhere. What does that mean? That many fanboys, who haven't even seen the film yet, blasted their opinions.

Therefore, if a bunch of regular people who want to hate critics that dislike their film and resort to name-calling (and want to unleash their childish demeanor), than they are not really critiquing - they are merely venting.

[kate]

It is just too easy to be hateful on the Internet. We do not need all that vitriol to get the point or make a point. Of course, there probably are people who flatly hate the critic for simply criticizing Dark Knight. That pathology is no reflection on Mr. Edelstein or the movie

[John Carpenter]

Where is John Simon when you need him? Had he seen "The Dark Knight" and found it wanting he would have skewered it with
such power of expression that no one would have had the cheek to call him out publicly.

God, how thin the skins of TDN fanboys are!

Deal with it: there is a sizeable portion of the public--more than likely the greater part of the American public--who have no interest in the movie, or for that matter, movies in general.

[Lamont Turner]

His argument is moot since it is not a case of critic vs "the mob," but rather one of critic vs the majority of critics. When a critic comes up with a view so opposed to the majority of the public one feels he is just out of touch with the public's tastes, but when a critic presents a view that flies in the face of 90% of his fellow critics one must feel there is something else going on. Perhaps there is some adgenda we are not aware of, or perhaps this critic is reacting to elements not present in the film it's self, such as the hype surrounding it, or a general distaste for the type of film it is.

[observer]

Its all very simple. Movie critics judge movies on the basis of its "artfulness" or artistry. We, the movie audience--judge movies on the basis of entertainment value. Because we don't go to movies to look at art pieces. We go there to be entertained and escape from reality.

That's why highly praised movies turn out be such boring fare, whle many critically-panned movies turn out to be quite moving / entertaining.

Instead of relying on score aggregators like rottentomatoes, choose critics that have the same taste as you.

[Jim Treacher]

"if the movie is everything he says it is then why don't more critics fall in line behind his opinion."

Because different people can have different opinions about the same thing? I realize how bizarre that must sound.

[emanuel]

one of the most greatest writers of all times Jorge Luis Borges says about critics:

"For be a good critic...you need so much preparation, that is convinient you dedicate to art"

is not important who is the critic or his preparation..is just an opinion.
criticize art for me is like complete a logical sequence...you can say anything, the justification of your words can be more simple or more complicate, just that.

pd:sorry for my english :(

greetings from Argentina

[Dk]

While the critic has the right to criticize and he defended his criticism appropriately, the criticism he had for the movie clearly indicates he just wanted some publicity for himself and the publication he worked for. He and the publication very well know that the spotlight was going to be on this movie and that it was destined for rave reviews. So by throwing the rotten tomato he stands out and hence gets to share the spotlight as the ugly duckling in the pack.

Well Played. In the context of the Dark Knight, this would have been the guy who wold have actually pressed the detonator in the climax just to stand out and given the Joker the satisfaction of complete victory.

This is not to discount that there will be people who wont get this film and wont like it. Most people I know don't like intense action and are satisfied with light hearted run of the mill servings of Kung Fu Panda. It is sad that the genius of movies like Wall-E or Dark Knight is exploited by critics like these for their 15 minutes of fame.

Enjoy the movie and let the whiners whine.

[Dk]

While the critic has the right to criticize and he defended his criticism appropriately, the criticism he had for the movie clearly indicates he just wanted some publicity for himself and the publication he worked for. He and the publication very well know that the spotlight was going to be on this movie and that it was destined for rave reviews. So by throwing the rotten tomato he stands out and hence gets to share the spotlight as the ugly duckling in the pack.

Well Played. In the context of the Dark Knight, this would have been the guy who wold have actually pressed the detonator in the climax just to stand out and given the Joker the satisfaction of complete victory.

This is not to discount that there will be people who wont get this film and wont like it. Most people I know don't like intense action and are satisfied with light hearted run of the mill servings of Kung Fu Panda. It is sad that the genius of movies like Wall-E or Dark Knight is exploited by critics like these for their 15 minutes of fame.

Enjoy the movie and let the whiners whine.

[kleptobum]

To the person who said:
"Consider "Speed Racer" which has a favourable crowd response (those who bravely saw it despite terrible reviews), compared to a horrific critic response. How do we rationalise this?"
and the others who question the gap between "crowd response" grades to critic review grades. Crowd response comes from people who are already interested in seeing the movie, while critics are forced to sit through everything (even You Got Served, Norbit and Step Up 2 the Streets). The crowd response grades for Mamma Mia are higher than critics grades because most of the crowd were women who knew exactly what they were getting.
Critics aren't writing reviews for those people who are lining up on opening day. They are writing it for those who can't decide which movie to spend their $10 on, so they do need to be a little harsher than the average fanboy. But the best critics will point out a negative and explain why it's a negative. A reader can then decide if that negative really is so bad.
I have to agree that it seems that some critics look negatively on a movie just to be different. A mob has every right to email a critic and give him/her a verbal lashing.

[Nicholas Turk]

I feel that a lot of critics forget a few things while critiquing the films of today. One of them being a very vita role in a films success. This role is the over all premise. Weather or not that premise is supported and cleverly placed into the film determines the success of that story. Personally the Dark Knight was an amazing film. It reflects the way the world is today. For the viewers, the comparison between todays world and the movies is very subliminal. However if you analyze the premise you will see the story is more than just another action comic book movie. The premise of the movie is "That fear creates chaos and if you overcome fear you overcome chaos and demise." Right now our world is living in fear.
Another thing critics don't look at is the routing interest. One scene in the film (ship scene) I noticed made me route for something, however I wasn't routing for a huge explosion, In fact my routing interest was that the people overcame their fear and paranoia. The Dark Knight exhibited this very well; where other films sacrifice story for fascination the dark knight does not.
Critics also forget about overall screenplay. Cristopher Nolin is known for his multiple scenes and fast cuttings that are intertwined together. For movies like the Dark Knight it creates excitment and anxiety without needing the massive explosions.
Anyway I could go on forever, but I guess the one thing critics need to do is go back to the basics of the story. Then decide weather or not all the components of film making back up the story and create a new world for the viewer.

[Kevin]

As for Edeltein's final argument, which was printed at the end: Amen.

I loved The Dark Knight. But that doesn't mean that everyone has to. A critic writes his or her opinion. If you agree, fine. If you don't agree, fine. Telling people what they can and can't like is repulsive.

[The Force]

So David Edelstein is whining because there was a backlash to his review? That's kinda dumb on his part. He knew what he was doing by giving it a negative review in light of how good the film actually was. He was trying to get a response.

And now he's whining about it.

Uh, isn't that why we have critics, to start the conversation ball rolling on films?

[PKEL]

I kind of fond this message board entertaining. With just about everyone posting here putting their thesauruses into overdrive to fit the maximum amount of syllables and "intelligence" into their comments, I can barely take either side seriously. The only thing that I do find compelling are the taken-for-granted comments that Ledger used drugs on the set. I'm sure the incontrovertible evidence is tucked away in your room somewhere so there's no need to offer up any proof to the slander you write down.

[ryanman]

I appreciate the irony of a film critic complaining that some people don't like his opinion of the film. For a person who makes their living being critical, you'd think they could handle it.

[Orion]

Movie critics, failed filmmakers...

[Dave Jordon]

The problem with Tim Burton's version of Batman is that , anone who's familar with the comic book created by Bob Crane should know that Batman doesn't kill, and as far as the critics who are being slammed for giving it a negative review on TDK if they plan on watching it again and then again are bunch of hyprocrites.

[HelenWheels]

I totally agree with that critic. That's exactly what I thought of the movie, but when I started saying that to the friend I saw it with, he got all angry. WTF? Can't people have a difference of opinion?

I couldn't stand the barbarism, the super loudness, the extreme gratuitous violence, and the confusing plot.

Please note, I did like the first one. I thought the story was more clear and intelligent.

AND I did think Heath Ledger did a great job, he is to be commended. Not liking a movie on the whole does not mean there aren't great performances. I think Gary Oldman was amazing as well.

For all you people so eager to know if Heath Ledger was "on drugs": The guy is a method actor and he had mentioned many times that the role was very hard on him (when you see it you'll know why). Acting means becoming that character to a very large extent. Playing that role actually took a tough toll on him & may have contributed to the bad health he fell into.

And it was too damn long. END IT ALREADY. I can't figure out which movie had the most annoying nonstop endings, the first Pirates of the Carribean or Dark Knight.

[mark rourke]

how dare any of you to say heath ledgers amazing performance was drug related, why? cause his death was? do you think just maybe it was just an amazing performance by an amazing actor, he was good in all his movies this movie just happend to bring out the best in him and some people just cant take that, they just cant say he was amazing in that movie, no it had to be drugs, for goodness sake we could say that about all good performances now, its only being said bout him cause of how he died. I just take it for what it was, one of the best performances ive ever seen in any kind of movie.

[Brendan Payne]

Edelstein reminds me of Anton Ego, the stuck-up critic from Ratatouille (great film, by the way) - but without the conversion moment where Anton recognizes, "We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so."
And Dark Knight being widely recognized as far more than an average piece of junk, it's fair to say Edelstein's review is lacking in meaning. Sure, he has a right to not like a movie, but he also has the far more important right to be irrelevant, and I affirm his right to be so.

[Marcus Brody]

lol, "obscure box office records?" More like the biggest opening weekend ever, with $158.4 million. A solid 7 million more than Spiderman 3, also making the opening weekends of Spiderman 1 and all of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies look like those of indie films.

[Eric]

I've been a critic for nearly 30 years -- of stage, not film, but the same skill sets apply, and I've been enamored of the film world since college, with emphasis on film history and the golden age (early sound era through mid-'70s).
A critic's job is not to lead the public around by the nose, bully them, force his opinions down their throat, prove that he is "right" and they are "wrong" or to try to either urge the public to see a film or to avoid seeing it. A critic's job is to lend thoughtful (as in having given something a great deal of thought), informed evaluation of a film within the context of film history, the film's genre and the previous work of its director, stars, scenarist, etc., through the prism of his knowledge of film and his understanding of the world and of human nature. While I'm unable to watch anything without automatically picking it apart in my mind (occupational hazard!), I'm also able to enjoy movies on their own merits precisely because of the sort of self-induced schizophrenia that is necessary to become a competent critic.
Yes, there are now far too many in the world who are referred to as "critics" who are undeserving of that title and have proven their unworthiness time and again -- not necessarily by panning most films but by hitting below the belt rather than offering a balanced evaluation. Unfortunately, the advent of the 'net has brought us to the point where the voices of the few -- those trained in the art and craft of criticism -- are being drowned out by the shouts of the masses. Democratization of access to the public, yes... democratization of journalism, no, because journalism is a skill that takes years to perfect. Logging onto your PC and adding your words to a bulletin board is akin to scrawling on the bathroom wall in magic marker.

[cbk16]

I do not believe there has ever been a best picture oscar winner that every critic loved. Every film will have its detractors. But if 95% of the critics love a film, this usually indicates the film is a great film, 95% is not normal for a film, this how The Dark Night has been reviewed as seen on Rotton Tomatoes. Hancock is reviewd postitive by 38%, Moma Mia has a 53% rating.

[ed]

It's not immediately clear either of you understands your job description. The duty of a critic is to ENCOURAGE discussion and opinion at all turns. Not the opinions that bolster your own. Not the opinions that make you look smart. Not the opinions that sycophantically defer to your "authority." ALL OPINIONS.

Of course when an elite East Coast reviewer with an office shoots off a dissenting article, THAT is heroic. It's epic even. Yet when the rabble in middle america shoots off a dissenting email to that dissenting article... it's HARASSMENT? GROUPTHINK? An Internet-driven witch-hunt perhaps?

I've read FIVE separate articles on the Internet independently pointing to Edelstein's suffering. Someone's working doubletime behind the scenes to get the word out of Job Edelstein's epic struggle. The man in very poor form, not only seeks to garner publicity by slamming his own readers but is very smug in dismissing all opinions that differ from his own as stemming from ignorance or intolerance. After all, what can any opinion be that disagrees with his own... save ignorance? And what is criticism of his work... other than testament to the wide resonance of his own voice and testament to the vast masses of rabble arrayed against him? Oy vey, how I SUFFER for my work.

What exactly is the problem here? Edelstein wrote a review and people gave him feedback in the comments section of his own page established expressedly for that purpose. He doesn't like what is being written so he sics the literary equivalent of the dogs (via publicist) on his own readers in retribution for them daring to have an opinion that contradicts his own. If you go to the blog and actually read the comments, each of these PR-based articles attesting to this virtual pogrom at his door deliberately and unethically characterizes the posters when they're merely disagreeing with Edelstein's review or taking issue with it. How terribly terribly unfair it must be for Edelstein who criticizes others' professional work for a living to have to swallow a bit of his own medicine.

Tellingly, there IS a side of this argument that's driven by groupthink, a slavish devotion to any semblance of "authority" and a need to universally demonize all those who disagree with them... Take a good look around. You might not be on the side you think you are. If that's the type of critic you support.. one who can dish it out but cant take it. One that publicly attacks his own readers for differing from his opinion. One that has no qualms in making HIMSELF the story instead of the featured movie. By all means go at it. Other than that there's nothing much to see here other than a nasty mix of persecution complex, an unsupported feeling of elitism, and smug outrage at actually being called on crap you spew.

[Kat]

All I can say is thank God there are still critics out there who aren't afraid to critically examine a movie and that there are still papers out there that will publish them. I, personally, quite agree with Mr. Edelstein's assessment of the movie. The filming was awful and seemed to rely more on shock factor and brutality than any other storytelling element. That being said, it's okay to like it. It's just dandy to say it's your favorite movie of all time.

But for people to blindly assault Mr. Edelstein with e-mails that (knowing Internet culture as I do) most likely contain only personal threats and insults to his intelligence is unacceptable. Shockingly, there is room in the world for differing opinions. If you don't like his, simply don't continue to read his work. If you're so blindly driven to declare this movie "THE BESTEST MOVIE EVARS OMG HOW DARE YOU SAY IT ISNT" be prepared to defend your response with something that at least begins to resemble an intelligent counterpoint. Otherwise, just keep it to yourself, okay?

[DARK KNIGHT SUCKS.]

DARK KNIGHT SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!