Someone who writes empty drivel such as "The difference between Nolan and his idol is that Hitchcock demanded that we trust ourselves; Nolan demands that we trust only him." needs to look in the mirror before criticizing anyone else for being less deep than they think they are.

Figure it out for yourself, you do the math, don't mess with the Dark Knight, unless you wanna earn Geekdom's most sanctimonious wrath.

My comment that "Batman Begins" appealed only to 14 year old boys with masturbation issues obviously rubbed some people the wrong way. I would never argue that fantasy films, e.g., comic book-inspired films, or science fiction or horror or "fantasy," cannot be serious films. In fact, I think some of the greatest films are fantastic in premise. Regarding Batman, I think taking seriously the premise of an obssessive and wealthy and fit dude wearing a bat disguise and fighting crime is a wonderful premise for a film. It works as camp, but it works in a different and rewarding way when played straight. That's what films do for us that we rarely can do in real life: show us the "what if," as concocted by directors and actors and writers, etc.

Personally, I love the "what if" films that ask, what if dead people came back to life and tried to eat the living? How cool is that? But then, I'm a zombie geek.

As for "Batman Begins," the problem is that the film took itself seriously to a fault. Being serious is one thing, but we all know people who take themselves too seriously. The result, for a film or a person, is pretension and boredom, and those were the problems with "Batman Begins." Only a teenage boy completely obssessed with the "Batman" comic book mythology could accept the preposterously reverent tone of that film. It's the kind of intensity associated with being a teenage boy who has a skin mag in one hand and his rapt attention in the other. But hey, if he gets off on it, then good for him.

I'll sure be eager to learn, just how many strokes this Bat flick earns.

So it's wrong to have any action (like the kidnapping of characters) occur offscreen? Even in a 254 minute movie? How about mentioning the moral debate that forms the spine of the film; while the Joker enables chaos it is the choices of individuals to ultimately decide whether a society sinks to in lowest level of functioning or strains to achieve its highest. How many other films this summer spend so much time having charaters actually debate their moral dilemmas, acknowledging that a complex world may call for personal sacrifice from its citizens? Or contemplating the need for brave people without masks to take over the real wor of maintaing order. The world is no closer to superheroes now than it was when the first Detective Comics was printed, and still Nolan has managed to make his Batman a vital voice in our current debate our freedom and civic responsibility.

"These are just off the top of my head. Anyone else got some?"

SIN CITY

THE WATCHMEN (upcoming)

THE SPIRIT (also upcoming)

As far as Ms. Zacharek's criticism of events taking place off-screen, perhaps she should go to a Chekhov play. In three sisters, most of the "action" takes place off-stage, including the duel at the end and the fire. The drama is provided by seeing the characters respond to the events, not the events themselves.

But then I guess Chekhov was also lazy.

I'm not a student of film. Ms. Zacharek is a student of film. Her experience of a movie will almost certainly draw from a broader pool of reference than the one film being reviewed.

For me, though, as a Salon reader, I'm going to get more from reviews that describe a movie's merits (or lack thereof) within the four corners of a film itself, rather than by reference to other films by other directors and performances by other actors in other films to which I have no ready access. In this review, for example, references to how Hitchcock would have done it better, or perhaps how Hitchcock would have done it RIGHT, don't mean much for me. It's not a Hitchcock movie. Why are we talking about Hitchcock?

Still, I know how it feels to wince when a film portrays badly something about which I have some knowledge: as a law school grad, I get distracted by dramatic disregard for criminal procedure that a real judge would shut down instantly; as a musician, I find it darned hard to watch actors whose hands are nowhere near the right places on an instrument. I can't not notice those things, and they can't help but affect my perception of the film's storytelling as good or bad.

I would guess Ms. Zacharak's perceptions are always colored by her education and experience, but for me, her reviews would suit this reader's needs better if she applied her knowledge of the wider world of film in criticism specific to the film being reviews.

"As much as I disliked 'Batman Begins...'"

Thanks for playing. (Actually, I did give it a few more paragraphs. A truly stunning achievement in digging one's heels in and winking at your cool friends, full of "contrary.")

What a ridiculous review.

Wow, Ms. Zacharek REALLY hates this movie, eh? I completely disagree with her assessment. I hadn't heard the Nolan/Hitch comparison before. I think the comparison is unfair. Nolan's Dark Knight doesn't try to ape Hitch's great films (or even the mediocre ones), it creates it's own ground. The character arcs aren't muddled (though some of the dialog in the sound mix-challenged IMAX show I saw was), they're clear. And frightening. It's funny how a show which Stephanie loves (Battlestar Galactica), deals with much of the same moral ambiguity, yet "Dark Knight" gets short shrift by her. By the nature of it's chosen medium (feature film vs. episodic television), the Dark Knight has to draw these arcs much faster, and that makes them much more immediate, more threatening. The Nolans' script is extremely relevant to today's socio/political atmosphere, in the same way that the Moore/Eick plots are. The audience leaving the theater was rather shell-shocked.

And Ledger's Joker is truly frightening.