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

It's supposed to be like the 6th sense. You're not supposed to understand till the end.

The voice over was Hollywood pencil necks scared people wouldn't get it.

The voice over is retarded and completely useless, it's supposed to be a thriller.

Hence confusion.

IMO

Please give us a decent movie reviewer. We deserve better.

I'm sure you were in the theater, but it appears you weren't playing attention.

That's because you wrote:

Batman look-alikes committing evil deeds

Spoilers Below

How did it escape you that not only were they not committing evil acts, they were trying to stop the mob after all, but numerous times it was mentioned that Batman didn't want to inspire this type of vigilantism. It’s the foundation upon the relationship between Dent and Batman.

Why do you think the Joker chose one of the Batman mimics as his victim in the taped broadcast? Or did you not notice this somehow?

When you miss key elements of a movie, it makes your reviews look less than professional.

I agree with the posters who ask why SALON can't find someone more erudite, less one-note that Stephanie Zacharek to do their film reviews.

My God, the woman appears to HATE film...a better question is, why does she continue?

Heath Ledger is singularly compelling in DARK KNIGHT. I saw the film on an IMAX screen; it's overwhelming in that venue. Afterwards, I concluded that I would have much preferred to see it on a conventional movie screen. And "DARK" is clearly an understatement: it's grim, haunting, bleak. It does have some storyline issues, but it is visually stunning and quite entertaining.

who said about voiceovers in 'Blade Runner': 'The voice over was Hollywood pencil necks scared people wouldn't get it. The voice over is retarded and completely useless, it's supposed to be a thriller. Hence confusion.'

I'm going to have to disagree with you, the voiceovers gave some snippets of backstory that thus allowed the movie to be under 2 1/2 hours long.

Personally, I would want someone to 'get' my movie & maybe the pencil necks knew what they were doing (in this instance).

No problem with you disagreeing, glad to see someone who's not afraid of giving their unvarnished opinion.

I can honestly say I will never deride the Salon comments board as childish, moronic or inappropriate again.

I disagree with Steph too, but jeez!?!?

Whoa whoa whoa, don't get too far ahead of yourself. Just wait until Obama makes another gaffe...

People keep aslking "what are you writing so seriously about a guy in a batsuit?" but the movie clearly was intended to be taken seriously, so what should a critic do but review it on the level it was written for?

Others say she simply refuses to take seriously a serious Batman movie, though I see no evidence of that. Zacharek seems as willing to accept a serious Batman movie as she is a serious movie on any subject, she just didn't like this one. If memory serves, she has given good reviews to previous comic adaptations. (I'm pretty sure she loved Ghost World). Salon itself posts articles praising comic books or comic book artists often enough.

I find the responses here pretty childish. There is no "true" Batman. He's a character who has morphed regularly over the decades. Grim and often silent in the first year, then turning into a model forties father throughout that decade, then into a boy scout in the fifties. And he was toying with pop and camp a little even before the television series came out (check out the well-considered book Batman Unmasked) finally returning to his darker roots in the 70's. Actually, at that point he was already going being the early darker "Bat-Man" due to the more realistic depiction of both violence and human emotions of the time. And then the gotterdammerung of The Dark Knight Returns followed by Batman: Year One.

I agree with the reviewer above who points out the big differences between Miller's rejuvenation and what was on the screen in Batman Begins. I'm not crazy about Miller's work. I think he misses a lot of the fun that existed in the character from the very beginning. I don't mean self-mocking fun, I mean the excitement one assoicates with The Shadow and other pulp heroes. My favorite Batman is probably the 40's incarnation, which had a great Douglas Fairbanks quality to it: action packed but fun-loving and essentially light-hearted. I know that's not in fashion right now, but I think it was a pretty good balance. Especially with Robin delivering those awful puns while he pummelled his opponents.

What is it like being captain of a starship that belongs to a socialist superstate?

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.

And for all those "If Zacharek hates it, it must be good" types--I feel exactly the opposite. I almost never disagree with her. 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.

Or should I say Electro Robot? Do you have a job? I think you post a letter in every thread, and must have limitless time to read every post, letter, response and response to your response? Must be nice.

Thank you, for agreeing to disagree :)

It still one of the top ten movies (w/without subtitles) ever.

"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain... Time to die."