That would be The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus, which is scheduled to come out next year.

I have not seen the movie yet, but having read a few early reviews saying The Dark Knight isn't Hitchcock, I wanted to voice some protest. This seems an unfair way to write a review, as if modern film is only so good as it emulates its forebears. Yes Hitchcock was a brilliant an efficient visual storyteller, but don't forget Rope, by that I mean that he had his share of heavy-handed pseudo-philosophical ranting. But beyond that the aesthetic value of Hitchcock is not the same aesthetic value of a comic book. Hitchcock was working in a mainstream art form that was discovering how to take the themes of another mainstream artform (the novel) and convert it into a visual language. His films were aesthetically pleasing in well established ways, character and plot. The Comic Book was low art, considered a diversion for children so the ways in which it provided escape and pleasure and the language it developed was wildly different. My biggest problem with most comic book films is that they try to convert one experience into a different aesthetic language, resulting mostly in costumed soap operas, like Spiderman or absurd messiah stories like Superman. These characters are not interesting in the way Jimmy Stewart is interesting in Vertigo and by making them into "real" characters, i.e. characters in the novelistic tradition, they wind up coming across as petulant and absurd. So why should Batman the movie be Hitchcock? Batman is an interesting character but not in that way. He's interesting as a stand in for childhood desire and philosophical ideas. It's most important for a comic to explore these things with action and wit, and overdoing it on the philosophy to make up for the lack of true characters. But comic books are aesthetically pleasing because they are cool and nerdy in that way. Not because they send a character through an arc. They are overabundant and messy and full of energy and mood. So to say the dialog is heavy-handed and unrealistic and that the plot is a mess, is beyond the point in comics. Is it cool? Does it have verbal wit and ideas? Does it have lots of philosophical psuedo-profundity? Then its successful. I wish film critics would attempt to broaden there aesthetic vocabulary beyond one tradition and one aesthetic value, its not your job to tell us what you like, but to comment on culture in an informed way. How does The Dark Knight stand up to those values? Or maybe film criticism isn't about exploration, but a conservative defense of the aesthetic values of the past, that no modern work can live up to and thus gain entry into the canon? Sounds like the literary criticism of the 50's.

To all the people lambasting the Batman films for being oriented towards those who need to "grow up", how dumb are you? It's right there in the title. BATMAN. It's a movie based on a comic book for chrissakes. What did you expect? It's a guy dressing up in a bat suit and fighting crime. Can there be anything more ridiculous?

It's a fantasy, get with the program. These are the people who went to Star Wars and came out saying, "You know, there wouldn't be any sound in space, it's a vacuum. What a piece of tripe."

Please, take your idiocy elsewhere.

As for Zachareck, the proper context for the review is given when she admits she hates Batman Begins.

Sorry that Salon subjected you to this movie Stephanie.

Xrandadu Hutman asked Klytus: 'Which is the best version of "Blade Runner"? The theatrical release, the director's, or the final cut?'

The theatrical release is the best. The others eliminated Ford's voiceovers (which are intregal, IMO, to understanding the movie).

Do I get to be a movie geek too?

I've been following the hype for this movie very closely, and this has been the ONLY negative review I've seen so far! Nice job, Stephanie.

Movies based on comic books:

A History Of Violence

Road To Perdition

Ghost World

Art School Confidential

Persepolis

Comics are simply a medium, and there is nothing about them that dictates a film based on a comic book will by definition be stupid or uninteresting.

What could be more ridiculous than a man who dresses like a bat and fights crime? If you're looking to be dismissive it's easy to make any story and make it sound ridiculous ("Giant black panels turn monkeys into humans and thousands of years later a man goes into space, fights with his computer and turns into a baby. Please." or "A movie based on a trashy popular novel about Sicilian gangsters. Sounds like garbage to me." "Midgets in a fantasy world have to hide piece of jewelry from an evil wizard demon or the world will end? Phfft!") Heightened, speculative, or fantasy scenarios can be used by skillful storytellers as metaphors that can be powerful and moving, and lots of very good writers have used superheroes to tell brainy and thought provoking stories (see Frank Miller, Neil Gaiman, Allan Moore, and Grant Morrison just to get you started). Almost every major critic in the country (with the notable exception of Ms. Zacharek) agrees that Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight uses Batman to tell a complex, moving, and interesting story. It's fine if you don't like the film, but don't dismiss comic books and superhero stories out of hand because it makes you look ignorant, and yes, pretentious.

When I say I actually LOVED Batman Begins, more so that Batman 1989. I will admit that it was a little hard to follow the first time around, especially the way the camera work was done during the combat sequences. But after the 2nd. viewing, I begin to catch all of the little touches about the film that made it truly funny to watch. I don't know why so many folks claim that it had a weak storyline, or that Bale was too moody or whatever. Jesus Fucking Christ, it's a movie about a guy in a bat suit, based on a comic book character...this isn't Shakespeare, guys...and frankly, I'd rather go watch this or the "The Prestige" than Shakespeare on screen any day.

And no, it's not Hitchcock-fair neither...but Hitchcock never did a movie based on a comic book, and I'm sure he would have thought of such an idea as ludicrious and beneath him 50 years ago. So I guess we'll never know how Nolan measures up to Hitchcock in the literal sense, seeing as how neither director makes the same kind of films per se. But again, who fucking cares? Stephanie Z does, but I can pretty much bank on liking anything she doesn't like...

BTW, I love Hitchcock films too...but I'm not going compare every other director to him, or Spielberg, or Kubrick, or anyone else...new directors have new and different styles, it's not fair for critics to compare them to the cinematic "Greats."