...as I thought the last Batman movie was a bore.

I'm tired of really talented directors making brilliant movies only to end up pigeonholed into making one dumb comic book movie after another.

Nolan - The Prestige, Memento, Insomnia

Sam Raimi - A Simple Plan

The Wachowski Brothers - Bound

And so on. It's hard to believe that "Speed Racer" came from the same people who made "Bound."

Enough with the franchises already.

Zacharak takes a snarky view of the "most anticipated movie of the summer"! Film at 11!

Batman's Butler, player by Michael Caine is Alfred, not Arthur...

Try Alfred.

Aw, you beat me to it. :(

It's Alfred, not "Arthur". And Bob Kane was hardly the sole creator of Batman. Bill Finger was responsible for much of the mythos, including contributing heavily to the Joker.

Well, I am a giant dork...

The original Bat-Man killed himself in an insane asylum. Then they brought him back with a new plotline.

In the late 1970s, writer named Steve Englehart had the Joker arbitrarily push a henchman to his death in an issue of Detective Comics. (Englehart was most ably abetted in this by penciller Marshall Rogers–sadly no longer with us-and inker Terry Austin.) This was a shocking moment, reminding readers of the Batman comics books, after many years of comparatively benign Joker buffoonery, that this villain could actually be a true homicidal maniac.

In many ways, Englehart's Batman stories of this period were the true catalyst for what we saw on the screen in Tim Burton's Batman films and in "Batman Begins", as well as being pretty much part and parcel of what Frank Miller worked with to come up with his justly celebrated graphic novel "The Dark Knight Returns". While there were attempts to give Batman more of an edge in the early 1970s (including the invention of Ras Al Ghul), it was Englehart's version that really got readers to sit up and gasp, "Wow! You can actually do this? More, more, more!!!"

...and I think it's because his real interest has become (as Zacharek noted) diagramming plot and character, not revealing them. THE PRESTIGE had all the surface elements in place (terrific performances, complex writing, a terrific premise). But it was way less effective and emotionally gripping than it should have been because Nolan cared more about (and obviously had more fun) revealing the plot convolutions than he did showing the characters' obsession with obsession. And it's a shame, because anyone could relate to wanting to win at revenge so badly you'd get sucked into taking things too far. It sounds like TDK has almost the same problem.

...Batmobile lost a wheel, Commisioner broke his leg....

It's X-mas time for every overgrown pastey faced geek in America.

Given that I disagreed completely with Zacharek on Batman Begins, I think I should be in good shape tomorrow night.

Zacharek is the anti-reviewer. A descendant from Superman's Bizarro World. Whatever she recommends, I do just the opposite.

Having not seen the movie yet, I'm not in a position to argue. But from what I've seen in the trailers and the IMAX featurette, it looks like an entertaining film. And I'm ready to give it the benefit of the doubt.

This has indeed been one of the worst years for movies ever. All of them have been flawed--rushed, underdone, ill conceived, unmemorable.

But Batman? C'mon. Did you really expect it Hitchcock? It is a comic book after all.

Let's try putting a smile on that face.

I agree with Stephanie: Batman Begins was a pretentious, boring stiff of a movie -- something only an obssessive 14 year-old fanboy with masturbation issues would love. I was embarrassed to sit there next to my wife, vainly explaining that the reviews all said it was good. Thank God for Michael Caine, who manages to bring a spark to even the dullest of films.

Anyway, the only reason I'm considering seeing this film is for Heath Ledger's Joker. So far, the reviews are lauding him, but is that enough to justify $10 seats and a potentially wasted evening, or should we just wait for it to hit Netflix?

where does this idea that nolan wants to be hitchcock come from? just because they both like mysteries?? because nolan never seems to be trying to copy hitchcock's visual style in his movies, as stephanie's review itself points out. judging by the trailers, i would buy the idea that nolan is trying to copy the look of 'heat,' which nolan himself has acknowledged as an inspiration for the movie. (but it's silly anyway to talk about nolan as the hitchcock wannabe while we're still in the brief historical period when shymalan was allowed to make movies.)

oh well. judging from stephanie's batman begins review, she's firmly settled on the hitchcock theme as her hook for nolan reviews. it crops up there, without cause, too.

i don't doubt someone could have this reaction to 'the dark knight.' batman begins was definitely nolan's clunkiest movie, and bale never really found his footing. i'd check out denby's review in the new yorker for a competent expression of the objections stephanie's attempting here.

it's at least refreshing that stephanie dropped her over-the-top pauline kael impression for this one (nolan:hitchcock :: zacharek:kael??). but unfortunate in a way too -- kael had no problem recommending an otherwise crappy movie for a great performance. a true kael channeler would have spent 75% of this review on ledger. stephanie -- let's hope a genuine love of great acting isn't "the difference between you and *your* idol."

(one last point -- sorry -- can we drop the anachronistic use of the word "picture" for "movie"? kael actually grew up in the time when people used it. most of us didn't)

Stephanie, you're not fooling anybody with that fake name.

I only ask because Zacharek uses two very strange examples in her review.

The first is the "squirrels/nuts" simile. If getting a good review is like collecting a nut, then does that make Zacharek's reviews some sort of alterno-legume?

Also, this is just odd:

Zacharek: "Although he used sound brilliantly, the dialogue in a Hitchcock film generally tells us very little; the visuals, and the implied but indelible connections between them, tell us everything."

Zacharek says how Hitchcock films are low on dialogue, then later in the review she reference "Lifeboat" -- Hitch's talkiest picture! (Okay, maybe "Rope" is talkier, but still...)

I take it Zacharek didn't see "The Paradine Case" or "Marine" or the final scene in "Psycho," or "Rear Window" (lots of dialogue, there), or "Dial M for Murder," or "Notorious," or...

Hitchcock is happy to use copious dialogue when it's good dialogue.