Asides

"The Dark Knight Rises"

By July 16, 2012No Comments

02-1

This man…” [heavy Darth Vaderesque breath] “…was a school­mate…” [anoth­er heavy Darth Vaderesque breath] “…of Neil LaBute…”

Oh, fun with cap­tions. Anyway, I reck­on this top­ic deserves its own thread, so by all means weigh in on the movie and my review of it at MSN Movies.

No Comments

  • Aden Jordan says:

    I’m tak­ing over Gotham…because this man…was in…‘The Core’ ”

  • Oliver_C says:

    THIS… is the SIZE… of EVERY frame… (wheeze) … of IMAX!”

  • Frank McDevitt says:

    Great review, Glenn. Now I’m even more excited to see it.

  • lazarus says:

    I’d like to see a par­ody with Jeff Wells in the Bane role, lay­ing waste to home vid com­pan­ies that refuse to release DVDs in 1.66. Substitute that Harvey Dent por­trait with a printed-out screen­cap com­par­is­on of Rosemary’s Baby.
    “I am Criterion’s reckoning!”
    THE CROP KNIGHT RISES

  • Oliver_C says:

    As the movie ‘Crazy People’ might have put it (and had Wells been cast in it):
    “Open-matte DVDs — they’re boxy but they’re good.”

  • Shane says:

    Security is tight as Apple unveil the iPad 3

  • J. Priest says:

    Speaking as someone who has enjoyed the Batman movies, I’m still appalled at what happened over at Rotten Tomatoes. Anyone else catch that? The NYTimes did a write-up on it:
    http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/rotten-tomatoes-halts-reader-comments-amid-dark-knight-furor/

  • tripper says:

    At what point does the crit­ic become com­pli­cit in mak­ing them­selves the story? Let’s say a crit­ic tweets a link to their pan of the movie and adds, essen­tially, ‘I’m ready for the back­lash’ (some­thing the meat­heads would likely take as a chal­lenge*). Then the crit­ic spends the rest of the day and late into night RT’ing said back­lash. And is still RT’ing ‘hate mail’ the next day. Better to stay above the fray, no? Or at least try some­thing more con­struct­ive than re-tweeting, which, if any­thing, just gives the offend­ers the cheap thrill they were look­ing for. I’m just won­der­ing what the crit­ic’s motiv­a­tion is.
    *In British soc­cer there is a kind of gen­er­al charge called ‘bring­ing the game into dis­rep­ute’. It cov­ers many things, like if a mem­ber of a vis­it­ing team scores a goal, the play­er should refrain from going dir­ectly to the home stand and pump­ing his fist. Or if your team has a Catholic fan base, don’t make ges­tures on the field that might ant­ag­on­ize the oppos­ing team’s Protestant fan base. In oth­er words, don’t do any­thing that might make people dis­posed to go unhinged, go unhinged. If it seems a tad ‘blame the vic­tim’, well, it’s been worked out over years of hard les­sons learned. Sometimes you only have the abil­ity to treat the symptom.

  • J. Priest says:

    These reviews wer­en’t bait­ing fans, they were well-reasoned argu­ments from crit­ics who wer­en’t pre­dis­posed against the fran­chise. Fine reit­er­ated his praise for “Batman Begins” and Lemire really liked “Dark Knight” – both crit­ics were just dis­ap­poin­ted with the last install­ment. It’s abso­lutely ridicu­lous and simply dis­taste­ful how some fans who had­n’t even seen the film attacked both critics.

  • JC says:

    I agree with most of your com­ment, J. Priest, but I believe Lemire only gave a mildly pos­it­ive review to The Dark Knight. 3‑Stars-Out-Of‑4, I believe. And she did­n’t like Batman Begins. So it’s not much of a sur­prise that she did­n’t like this one, as it does­n’t have a Joker in the deck, and fea­tures sig­ni­fic­antly more Bruce Wayne than Batman.
    At any rate, they should’ve dis­abled the (Anonymous) Comments sec­tion, under reviews, at Rotten Tomatoes long ago. That’s about the only good that’s come out of this, really.

  • LondonLee says:

    3 out of 4 is only “mildly pos­it­ive”? Don’t you think crit­ics should save their full marks for, like, The Godfather, Citizen Kane, and Midnight Run?

  • jc says:

    Well, if you’re think­ing in abso­lute terms, per­haps. But I see most crit­ics award 3 1/2 Stars to plenty of films each year. In gen­er­al terms, 2 1/2‑out-of‑4 is con­sidered mildly neg­at­ive, and 3 Stars the min­im­um for a pos­it­ive review. That’s usu­ally how it works on Rotten Tomatoes, at any rate. Cheers.

  • Oliver_C says:

    Comicbook fan­boys: “How dare that f*****g c**t who deserves to be a****y r***d Christy Lemire claim that com­ics are full of adoles­cent aggres­sion and misogyny?!”

  • Brian says:

    @JC – I guess we dis­agree on rat­ings then, though they vary per crit­ic I’m share. To me, 2 1/2 star is mildly pos­it­ive, 3 stars is pos­it­ive, 3 1/2 is great (depend­ing on the crit­ic) and 4 stars is must-see, could be classic.

  • JC says:

    @Brian
    This is just semantics, any­ways. I think when a crit­ic gives some­thing 2 1/2‑out-of‑4, they basic­ally get to choose wheth­er they con­sider it “Fresh” on the Tomatometer or not. So, in a way, you’re right, that for a num­ber of folks, it’s the divid­ing line. If I rate a film 2 1/2, I basic­ally say I’m “on the fence” about it.
    Cheers.

  • StephenM says:

    I believe Ebert con­siders 2 1/2 to be a Thumbs Down, so most people fol­low his lead.

  • Josh Ralske says:

    And that kid singing “The Star-Spangled Banner” isn’t just on the nose, it’s nose-breaking.”
    That’s good.

  • Oliver_C says:

    Suddenly this movie has acquired a real-life tra­gic aspect…

  • Petey says:

    Suddenly this movie has acquired a real-life tra­gic aspect…”
    I blame William Castle.

  • Oliver_C says:

    Is this an instance of the Tea Party approach to film criticism?

  • Petey, I feel I am a worse per­son because I thought your com­ment was pretty funny.

  • Petey says:

    Petey, I feel I am a worse per­son because I thought your com­ment was pretty funny.”
    Your feel­ings are cor­rect. You, sir, are a worse ver­sion of Hitler for enjoy­ing any poten­tial inof­fens­ive humor that exists in human events.

  • JL says:

    To Glenn Kenny:
    Great review.
    Not sure I fully grasp the con­nec­tion with the Lang (Mabuse Spieler) film and Goldfinger (and The Dark Knight for that mat­ter) re: the finale of The Dark Knight Rises (the con­nec­tions I saw were more with… SPOILERS AHEAD… The Dark Knight Returns, which I’m sure was inten­ded, and “The Final Problem”). At the risk of post­ing a “spoil­er” com­ment, could you elaborate?

  • Glenn Kenny says:

    To JL: Thanks. And not much to elab­or­ate, I was just talk­ing about the tick­ing time bomb device!

  • JL says:

    Response to Glenn…
    Oh… that! I thought you meant we-think-the-hero-is-dead-but-he’s-not-really-dead… in which case, I saw no con­nec­tion to Mabuse der Spieler, and thought Goldfinger seemed a bit forced – and hence my invok­ing Holmes at the Reichenbach Falls.
    Also, I’m prob­ably wrong about this, but I don’t recall very clearly there being a tick­ing bomb device in Mabuse… though there is a tick­ing flood device (if memory serves cor­rect) in Metropolis (a film Nolan acknow­ledges influ­enced him on TDKR). Either way, I should watch those and oth­er Lang films again – no such thing as watch­ing a Fritz Lang film too many times.