Than allow a review of Ms Zacharek's to upset you. I finally saw the light with respect to her reviews in early 2004. I read her reviews of "The Last Samurai" and "13 Going on 30" on the same day.

http://archive.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2003/12/05/last_samurai/index.html

http://dir.salon.com/story/ent/movies/review/2004/04/23/13_going_on_30/index.html

What I learned was that while, in theory, a review should mostly be about the film, in Ms. Zacharek's case, it's usually more about her. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, provided of course, you know how to read her reviews for yourself. This may be as simple as drawing the opposite or identical conclusion. The good news is, that she usually makes it clear, over the course of the review, if she knows what she's talking about.

Iron Man is a solid recent example. Reading Zacharek's review, I knew I'd like the movie too, just not for the reasons she listed in her review.

Zacharek remains one of the true originals in film criticism right now, but this is another instance where her Achilles' heel as a reviewer -- a weak conceit poorly elucidated at the start driving the rest of the piece -- muddles her criticism. See also: Daniel Day Lewis is strategically CRIPPLED in There Will Be Blood, so reliant is he upon various ACTORS' CRUTCHES that he is basically CONFINED to the RICKETY WHEELCHAIR of Acting, not unlike his TRULY DISABLED character in My Left Foot.

There, the disability conceit was offensive, unnecessary, and, with each repetition, increasingly (and unintentionally) hilarious; one half-expected her to conclude with "Daniel has CEREBRAL PALSY of the soul." Here, we have the Hitchcock conceit instead, but watch how it wriggles around: at the start, Nolan is simply heralded by others as a new Hitchcock, but by the end, Hitchcock is his personal idol. Because Hitchcock would not find it to his taste, Zacharek concludes, The Dark Knight is trash.

Where is the logic here? On a very basic level, where has she established that because people have compared Nolan to Hitchcock, that Nolan surely must be emulating his "idol"? I see no reason to conclude Nolan is shooting for Hitchcock at all; why not work in Michael Mann, who he has talked about in relation to the film, if this was the template she wanted? (Maybe because Mann would like it; another existentialism-lite crime movie about men defined by their work, and it’s relation to the law.) Anyway, if she hasn't established Nolan’s supposed obsession with Hitchcock, what does the concluding paragraph, wherein she resurrects Hitchcock to condemn the new Nolan, have to do with anything?

When nerds try to defend their nerdyness as actual coolness. Or that comic books are mature adult reading. Next you're going to start on about how pro-wrestling is a respectable art form. It's absolutely embarrassing how low-brow American movies have become.

Way to embody the stereotype of the charmless A&E snob. Now go be embarrassed in the corner with the rest of the culturally irrelevants.

But more importantly, reviews (or at least, sophisticated ones) aren't about whether something is good or bad, but about placing it in an innovative cultural and ideological context. She's good at that, regardless of how you feel about her likes and dislikes.

Predicating a review of Nolan's film on how similar or dissimilar his directing style is to Hitchcock's is useful how? Did Nolan say anywhere that this film was an homage to Hitchcock? Did he suggest Hitchcock's influence weighed on his direction? I didn't find this review useless because I disagree with it, I find it useless because it's completely fucking non sequitur.

I think Willie might be Stephs' mom or dad. (they don't like the comic books, talky picture books are for kids)

Too bad we americans are too low brow for her, yehaw, pass me another Blue Pabst Bubba.

The Dukes are coming on the moving picture box.

On a serious note, Willie, why don't you take a look at Maus and see how "low-brow" comics can be.

It always goes unnoticed that the Federation is essentially a military confederacy and the difference between the army and the government appears to be paper thin.

"Outlander": Jim Jesus Caviezel, a spaceman, crash lands on Norway, 785AD to partner with the Vikings to battle the space dragons. I hope it's a comedy but if it's not, that will be even funnier.

Why does Ms. Zacharek, someone who clearly despises movies, write movie reviews? Better question, why does this site let her write for them. Perhaps that they are as petty and pretentious as she clearly is? Get rid of her, please - just on the off chance that even one person takes her self loathing seriously and will be turned away from this movie, which would be a shame!

Nice "Ogre" impression.

I'd be careful though. I'm sure there are some nerds who could drain your bank account using only your Salon signature.

Nerds rule the world, dude. Just look at the summer blockbuster schedule...

Of their interior astral planes.

Since Stephanie hated it, I'm almost guaranteed to like it! Never has my taste been so diametrically opposed to a critic's as with Stephanie Zacharek. The consistency is amazing, actually.

At pretty much every single turn, Stephanie's gotten it wrong. To each their own I guess. Caught the IMAX advance screening in Seattle last night and I was blown away. Best Batman move yet. I had no trouble separating the Joker from Ledger's overdose. Great, great performance, and I wasn't exactly a fan before this and fairly skeptical of all the raves that I'd been hearing for his work as the Joker.

This movie lives up to the hype.

But, hey. See it for yourself. You'll be glad you did.

Ms.Zacharek. You are one hard woman to please.

Having seen The Dark Knight, and thoroughly enjoyed it, I disagree with this review. But I respect the reviewer's opinions and the fact that she express them intelligently.

What really fries me is the headline on the home page: "Holy hype, Batman!" Apart from the fact that this exact phrase was used, oh, 73 million times when the first Burton Batman film came out in '89, it's the single most tired journalism cliché in regards to superheroes (not just Batman).

I know, minor point, but if there are two things in media I love, it's superheroes and Salon.com. You can do better.