where does this idea that nolan wants to be hitchcock come from? just because they both like mysteries?? because nolan never seems to be trying to copy hitchcock's visual style in his movies, as stephanie's review itself points out. judging by the trailers, i would buy the idea that nolan is trying to copy the look of 'heat,' which nolan himself has acknowledged as an inspiration for the movie. (but it's silly anyway to talk about nolan as the hitchcock wannabe while we're still in the brief historical period when shymalan was allowed to make movies.)

oh well. judging from stephanie's batman begins review, she's firmly settled on the hitchcock theme as her hook for nolan reviews. it crops up there, without cause, too.

i don't doubt someone could have this reaction to 'the dark knight.' batman begins was definitely nolan's clunkiest movie, and bale never really found his footing. i'd check out denby's review in the new yorker for a competent expression of the objections stephanie's attempting here.

it's at least refreshing that stephanie dropped her over-the-top pauline kael impression for this one (nolan:hitchcock :: zacharek:kael??). but unfortunate in a way too -- kael had no problem recommending an otherwise crappy movie for a great performance. a true kael channeler would have spent 75% of this review on ledger. stephanie -- let's hope a genuine love of great acting isn't "the difference between you and *your* idol."

(one last point -- sorry -- can we drop the anachronistic use of the word "picture" for "movie"? kael actually grew up in the time when people used it. most of us didn't)

goes home and consoles himself with his recordings of the 'ring' and 'the magic flute.' no superpowers, hidden identities, or other idiotic confections for kids please!

come on, aronofsky directing robocop is not exactly orson welles doing 'transformers: the movie.' i can very easily see how the guy who made the embarrassing 'pi' and 'requiem for a dream' -- a 2-hour d.a.r.e. commercial but with less character development -- ends up doing a robocop remake. he can't rely on "promise" forever. i'm excited too -- we'll get to see if he can tell a story and whether there's anything more to the flashes of (derivative) visual talent in those movies. (in fairness, i haven't seen 'the fountain.') let me be more precise -- i'm excited he's temporarily attached himself to his project. this is, after all, the guy who's talked about everything from 'batman' to 'lost' but couldn't even commit to doing a 1-hour episode of the latter.

i guess i'll take the bait -- i thought 'dark knight' was great. yes, there is fair amount of clumsiness in the storytelling (not worse than, say, 'blade runner') and some badly staged action scenes. but the movie is propulsive and has great escalating emotion/horror and some great performances. and it wasn't nearly as talky as i was expecting, especially when it came to the joker (and unlike 'the killing joke,' for example, which might have the right idea but totally failed to dramatize it).

i know critics like to imagine these summer audiences go to see shiny things and computer explosions, but if anything, batman and pirates of the caribbean: curse of the illegal chineses dvds prove that people can still be drawn in, in hordes, by great acting. time to cut all the supposed adolescents some slack.

by the way, did someone say that they didn't understand why people go to see the dark knight when they can read 'crime and punishment'? really? are you shocked that people read other books about revenge besides 'hamlet'? that they buy a street map of dublin instead of 'ulysses'? i just think you might be setting the bar a bit too high

wall-e's forced happy ending is a tribute to the even crappier happy ending of 2001, where the alien space gods take us to the new heights of evolution (space-embryo) or whatever.

but seriously, i seem to remember a similar number of people last year who felt ratatouille could be the best movie of the year. andrew, maybe it's only a "cult" this year because you don't like wall-e as much?

i second the other reader comments rightfully scolding you for the "just a cartoon" laziness

it's just that it's too abrupt. it's almost like hundreds of years of human sloth are turned off with the flick of a switch. it's not the optimism i have a problem with -- just the execution. like a few more scenes of struggle were needed to earn that ending.

but i think what also hurts is the pretty rote action climax between the evil ship and wall-e & co. at the end. regardless of whether you think the ending should've been upbeat or a downer, it does seem like the movie deserved something a little more interesting than a generic race-against-the-clock action sequence.

still liked it a lot -- my second favorite pixar after finding nemo, and my second favorite of the year after the gritty croatian heroin addict prostitutes on a road trip movie andrew's been recommending

i haven't seen 'che,' but it sounds like soderbergh's taking the 'lawrence of arabia' approach -- throw up a bunch of ambiguous impressive spectacle on the screen, but leave us without much on the charismatic figure at its core. but who knows -- 'lawrence of arabia' is still a great movie, with a great lead performance.

but i just wonder if it's really that brave to focus on the military campaigns and studiously avoid the politics, the executions, etc. seems a little like making a movie about george w. but focusing entirely on his domestic life with wife and kids. it may be accurate, but it's not what most of us would find important (devastating) about the man, and it would feel a little like cowardice.