If you don't like violent movies or superheroes, there is no reason you would like "The Dark Knight," and in fact you should probably not go see it. This would save the rest of us from having to endure your "mature" perspectives.

O'Hehir, unfortunately, did go see it, and we who liked the movie had to be insulted by his ad hominem "criticism."

Is the movie a pileup of incidents? For sure. Was there a story underneath? Yes, there was. It was about three men who were all trying to do what little was in their power to achieve some good for their community, without seeming to be able to exert any control at all over the consequences of their own actions.

It certainly wasn't boring. O'Hehir was probably too busy enjoying his own dislike of the movie, and telling himself how much better it made him than all those overgrown-teenage-boy bandwagoneer movie critics, to try to follow the plot.

Sorry if "how does one try to do good in the world when unintended consequences frustrate one's intentions" isn't an "adult" enough quandary for you.

Thanks to Salon for posting Wolk's article, a welcome relief from the know-nothingism of Zacharek and O'Hehir. Wolk's criticisms of TDK, I think, are fair. Batman didn't so much do detective work in this movie as run around, helplessly beating people up to try to find out where the Joker is. When that doesn't work, he resorts to crazy sci-fi omniscient technology in lieu of honest detective work.

What's been most interesting to me in consuming the critical reactions to TDK is the way it can already be split into equally annoying and warring camps:

1) Mainstream Critic Who Loves Film: This species praises the Ledger performance, gushes over the fact that there are 9/11 resonances (wow! comics aren't for kids anymore! biff!), and possibly makes the moronic statement that the movie has transcended its pulp source material. What's really going on, although no one has noticed it yet, is that the movie has transcended other superhero movies, not comics. Meanwhile, the up-to-the-minute surveillance references only dilute the metaphorical power of this type of storytelling.

2) Out-of-Touch "Adult" Who Hates Film Sight Unseen: This one wonders what the fuss is about, why all these adults are still playing with their childish toys, and can't we just talk about the new Werner Herzog or something? Wouldn't know cultural relevance if it smacked them in the face. Possibly relishes what they think of as their "counter-cultural" status. Will make sly references to alleged psychosexual confusion of camp 1.

Still waiting for interesting critical work to be done, and Wolk's piece is a step in the right direction.

Sorry, I forgot:

3) Members of Camp 2 Who Were Forced to See TDK Because They Are Movie Critics. Reactions attempt to explain how TDK is another sign of evil corporate money-grubbing, despite 2.5-hour length and relentlessly downbeat tone, not known to be regular parts of corporate money-grubbing strategy. May harp on Nolan's still-shaky action direction, despite having never shown particular favor to well-directed action in the past. Special emphasis placed on the fact that the movie can't really possibly have anything to say, because it has Batman in it, and since movie critics are such an important part of the national conversation on Iraq, civil liberties, environmental crisis, human nature, and so on, we should really only accord respect to small, quiet movies in which two people just can't seem to make it work. Ach, alienation!

That I get to read this clever running dialogue going on in the letters column here. It's so witty and sharp. It really adds a lot to my day. I think it's even making me smarter.

It's far more fascinating to fritter away one's life by baiting said fanboys with insulting comments on Salon letters pages. Oh, and bringing other people down to your level when they just can't stop themselves from asking what's wrong with you.

As to O'Hehir's new article, it is somewhat undignified for critics to respond to their audiences and address the same topic twice. On the other hand, it's fun. This kind of thing, rather than the usually-overwritten first stab, is where you see the critic's real assumptions come out.

For example, O'Hehir agrees with Uhlich that certain "pin-headed intellectual" readings of TDK may give the film more of a concrete ideological interpretation than it... deserves? But at the same time, these are better than the "jingoistic" defenses from the frothing mobocracy. I think that a reading is as legitimate as it is useful or convincing; there doesn't have to be some kind of proof that the reading is a priori legitimized by the text. So, the text doesn't have to "deserve" being read as a terrorism allegory or an abstract consideration of justice or what have you. The reading just has to be convincing -- and much of the criteria for how convincing it is will depend on the critic's background, predispositions, and so on...

Pretty much all the great rabbinic thinkers and spiritual writers were married.

But I notice that with the signal exception of Spinoza, it turns out no Jewish bachelors were architects of "Western Civilization," so hey, forget that.