Jonathan: "Anything by Peter Bagge: (I'm still waiting for the "Buddy"/"Hate" movie!!!)"

I second that, and also in that realm, don't forget Eightball and Peepshow.

I also would vote for the Watchmen.

And Death Book.

Kirk: "First I were in gay cowboy movie. Very serious. Now I are dead. Also, very serious. Movie are serious business."

Are you a cat?

williedigital: "I love it ... 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."

I definitely don't think nerds are "cool," but nor are most people actually "cool" who think they are. Somebody who spends $200 on a piece of designer clothing is just as questionable as somebody who spends $200 on a golden-age comic book (although the comic book has resale value).

I don't think comic-books are as important as some people make them out to be, and few of them qualify as "deep" (although many titles have aspired to become so, and I think the works of Crumb, "American Splendor," Peter Bagge, Dan Clowes, Frank Miller, Art Spiegelman and many others have proven the genre capable of far more than anybody had previously thought).

Clearly, also, comic books are a very important reflection of cultural history. Go check out the 1940s Superman comics that show him beating up Japanese people, or similar comics like "The Fighting Yank" or "Captain Marvel" that depict battles with Nazis. Or look at early romance novels that address issues of teen sex, drugs, pregnancy, abuse and so on. Or check out EC comics that were the first of their kind to question bigotry against blacks and jews, often offering social commentary in the context of crime or science-fiction stories.

Or just look at the first 30 years of Mad Magazine and the generations of kids who learned more about American cultural history by reading back issues of the mag than they could have in any college survey course.

Comic books are interesting and much of the artwork is really remarkable too. You don't have to nerd out to appreciate it. People who love comics to the exclusion of other aspects of life are indeed geeks, but people who summarily dismiss an entire influential cultural medium are even worse.

Ledger's Joker reminds me of Daniel Day-Lewis' Daniel Plainview in There Will be Blood. The milkshake scene that ended TWBB would have fit right in in TDK. Both characters went beyond avarice to an overwhelming loathing of humanity. I guess the common thread is the moral: total moral anarchy is not emotionally healthful.

JM Walker: "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?"

Not only did Zacharek use Hitchcock as a touchstone for criticism, she did so inaccurately, suggesting that Hitchcock would never use dialogue when he could use a visual. That simply is not true -- Hitchcock was happy to use dialogue for lengthy exposition, and then carefully choose which visuals he wanted to highlight. It wasn't an either/or thing, it was a matter of emphasis.

For evidence that Hitchcock was not opposed to using lengthy dialogue, look no farther than the final scenes of "Psycho," which are all talk. Or watch "Marnie" or "The Paradine Case," which are completely dialogue-driven movies. (Few have seen "The Paradine Case," and it's not considered one of Hitchcock's best, but it's a remarkable movie in that it set the high bar for modern courtroom dramas.)

Hitchcock's actual attitude toward dialogue is that he was completely opposed to the use of dialogue for its own sake. The rule was that the dialogue always had to drive the plot or reveal character. That's quite different from avoiding the use of dialogue in favor of visuals, though. (For more about Hitchcock's aesthetic choices, read his interview with Francois Truffaut.)

I think that Stephanie Zacharek simply does not like superhero and action movies all that much. This is nothing to fault her for, but her role as a reviewer means she has to figure out how to justify her distaste, which is probably a challenge when much of the distaste is based in a predisposition.

Zacharek did give "Hellboy 2" a glowing review, so people should cut her some slack. And there's no rule that a reviewer has to like a film even if 90% of other respected reviewers do. Contrarian reviews are often more diverting reading, if they make their case in an interesting manner (it doesn't seem that Zacharek pulled that off this time).

It may just be that it was late, Zacharek was tired, the deadline was approaching, and Zacharek did the best she could. Heck, maybe she was in a bad mood that day and the movie rubbed her the wrong way. Reviews are subjective. I have seen many films that I loved/hated and then viewed them later on and completely flip-flopped my opinion on them. The first time I saw "Fight Club" it left me feeling cheated and annoyed because of the goofy ending scenes; then I saw it again and realized it was brilliant. Etc. (I'll probably see it again and find it annoying.)

Anyway, also keep in mind that Zacharek is likely seeing 2-5 movies a week and probably loses some perspective along the way.

Without exception this critic cannot write about anything but herself. Every word, including and and the, is about Stephanie. There has never been a critic, ever, who has reached this level of narcissism. Pay her no heed.

Trailer below: no "cool" people allowed!

http://watchmen--trailer.blogspot.com/

I honestly didn't think it was adaptable because it was so layered and complex--and that's before you get into the "knowledge of comic-book history required before reading" problem. If ever a book was "devil's candy" (great source material that is near-impossible to make into a movie, but people keep on trying), W was it. Trailer looks fairly good, though...