Although I have mixed feelings about Zacharek's reviews as a whole, I think I get where she's coming from on this. The sense I get is that she sees real talent in Nolan but feels that he's not living up to his potential, so while he does work that is head and shoulders above most other working directors these days, it's not as good as he's capable of, hence the frustration that gets misinterpreted as a negative review.

Of course, I'm just making an assumption, and I have to agree with other LWs that the Hitchcock thing was a bad idea. Maybe a better editor would have steered her away from it.

But I think there is literally no way that Ms Zacharek was ever prepared to like this film. She seems to have a genuine deep-seated loathing of Nolan and the idea that comic books can be more adult and complex than a children's story. I find it interesting that she so mentions Frank Miller's work favourably as he was one of the catalysing forces behind the darker portrayl of the DC character. I recognise that she most likely does not read comics or keep abreast of the world of graphic novels, but there has been a radical shift the primary demographic of comic books in the past thirty or so years. With stories now largely catering to young adults and under-40's rather than preteens. This has led to a wide-scale "maturation" of the genre. Not so say that they're all super serious works which rival Thomas Mann, but Batman in particular has been reworked into a dark, mysterious and moody character rather than his light-hearted 60's incarnation. He's existed as such since the late 70's and to expect this recent film to hark back to a bygone decade for a comic audience which no longer exists is a bit silly.

I can't fathom her utter hatred for the notion that Nolan is not Hitchcock. Yes critics have sometimes called him such, particularly (ie mostly only) during the release of "Memento". Nolan has never self-aggrandised himself in such a manner and to so viciously lay into him for failing to adhere to this standard imposed on him by others does Ms Zacharek a disservice. I don't know what she was expecting in the colour pallet of the movie either, as Batman is typically a dark and moody film, with a lot of shadow and blackness. Nevertheless, she makes it sound as if it was poorly lit and murky, rather than cold, largely blue and orange toned and well exposed. Never once was I unsure what was on screen.

The honest truth is that the notion of a comic book being anything more than surface entertainment appears to deeply offend Ms Zacharek. She punishes this film for not following a set of rules which never even applied to it. Nolan never intended The Dark Knight to be Iron Man (which is also excellent), nor did he wish to rival Hitchcock. He sought to utilise the cultural juggernaut of Batman to explore his concerns about morality, identity and the nature of power and responsibility. If you would take even a cursory glance at any one of the recent Batman comics you would see that this method was the only one which would honour the fans and remain true to the contemporary elements of this legendary DC character.

I have to say that one problem I've had with both the film and the press' critical reaction to it is the naming of the Joker as an "anarchist", which does nothing to counteract the shameful and offensive way this word has been completely robbed of it's original context or application. The Joker is not an anarchist, he is a psychopathic murderer and a nihlistic chaotic genius. He is not interested in the role of the state or corporate entitites, the poverty of liberal democracy or the possiblity of directly democratic voluntary communities. Sadly, once again this poltical philosophy has been misused as a short hand term for psychopath.

I was unimpressed by "Batman Begins" as well. Yawn. Rub eyes.

I too saw "Batman Begins" my batty friends, and I just can't wait till "Batman Ends."

Anybody who saw Hitchcock's Green Arrow: When the Bow Breaks would have to admit he was three steps ahead of Nolan 40 years ago.

I didn't really like Batman Begins much so I'm reluctant to see The Dark Knight despite the near universal accolades (Stephanie's review notwithstanding).

The tone of the first pick didn't bother me. But I thought Katie Holmes was badly miscast - whoever thought she'd make a tough, gritty assistant DA? Cilliam Murphy was badly underused and I thought the action sequences were terrible, particularly any scene of hand-to-hand combat. Nolan should've taken a few cues from Hong Kong cinema instead of filming those scenes with a jittery camera - murky and near impossible to see what the hell was going on.

The Dark Knight sounds like a major step up in the acting and story department and they got rid of Holmes, but I've read (in some of the more critical reviews) that the action choreography is still murky and needs work.

Anybody seen the film care to comment?

If it was in Slovenian and took place in 1950 replete with unwed mothers, you'd flock to it faster than a busload of Biblethumpers to a Mel Gibson lordporn snuff movie.

She liked the recent Eddie Murphy movie "Meet Dave." I feel sorry for her. It was dreadful.

Thank goodness Salon has contributors like Glenn Greenwald and Heather Havrilesky that provide insightful and entertaining articles.

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.

I bet you and your wife had a nice mutual tug/rub at that matinee screening of the Station Agent, though, huh?

Seriously, this is a movie based on a comic book about a man who dresses up in a bat costume and spends his evening hours fighting crime. Burton looked at that premise and saw utter farce, and that's what he gave us, and it was good. Nolan, like Miller and Moore before him, looked at it and saw psychosis, obsession, despair, and a soft chewy moral-relativist center inside a crunchy outer Manichaean-dualist outer shell. The criticisms of Nolan's directing style are perfectly legitimate, but anyone who complains about how "pretentious" a movie is and then—in the very next breath!—invokes the tired stereotype of comic fans as "14-year-old fanboy[s] with masturbation issues," can seriously blow it out his ass.