« "The Cinephiliacs" and me |
| Oh God No »
"This man..." [heavy Darth Vaderesque breath] "...was a schoolmate..." [another heavy Darth Vaderesque breath] "...of Neil LaBute..."
Oh, fun with captions. Anyway, I reckon this topic deserves its own thread, so by all means weigh in on the movie and my review of it at MSN Movies.
Posted at 04:35 PM | Permalink
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
"I'm taking over Gotham...because this man...was in...'The Core'"
Aden Jordan |
July 16, 2012 at 04:56 PM
"THIS... is the SIZE... of EVERY frame... (wheeze) ... of IMAX!"
July 16, 2012 at 05:39 PM
Great review, Glenn. Now I'm even more excited to see it.
Frank McDevitt |
July 16, 2012 at 06:31 PM
I'd like to see a parody with Jeff Wells in the Bane role, laying waste to home vid companies that refuse to release DVDs in 1.66. Substitute that Harvey Dent portrait with a printed-out screencap comparison of Rosemary's Baby.
"I am Criterion's reckoning!"
THE CROP KNIGHT RISES
July 16, 2012 at 11:09 PM
As the movie 'Crazy People' might have put it (and had Wells been cast in it):
"Open-matte DVDs — they're boxy but they're good."
July 17, 2012 at 05:26 AM
Security is tight as Apple unveil the iPad 3
July 17, 2012 at 10:43 AM
Speaking as someone who has enjoyed the Batman movies, I'm still appalled at what happened over at Rotten Tomatoes. Anyone else catch that? The NYTimes did a write-up on it:
J. Priest |
July 17, 2012 at 02:06 PM
At what point does the critic become complicit in making themselves the story? Let's say a critic tweets a link to their pan of the movie and adds, essentially, 'I'm ready for the backlash' (something the meatheads would likely take as a challenge*). Then the critic spends the rest of the day and late into night RT'ing said backlash. And is still RT'ing 'hate mail' the next day. Better to stay above the fray, no? Or at least try something more constructive than re-tweeting, which, if anything, just gives the offenders the cheap thrill they were looking for. I'm just wondering what the critic's motivation is.
*In British soccer there is a kind of general charge called 'bringing the game into disrepute'. It covers many things, like if a member of a visiting team scores a goal, the player should refrain from going directly to the home stand and pumping his fist. Or if your team has a Catholic fan base, don't make gestures on the field that might antagonize the opposing team's Protestant fan base. In other words, don't do anything that might make people disposed to go unhinged, go unhinged. If it seems a tad 'blame the victim', well, it's been worked out over years of hard lessons learned. Sometimes you only have the ability to treat the symptom.
July 17, 2012 at 03:30 PM
These reviews weren't baiting fans, they were well-reasoned arguments from critics who weren't predisposed against the franchise. Fine reiterated his praise for "Batman Begins" and Lemire really liked "Dark Knight" - both critics were just disappointed with the last installment. It's absolutely ridiculous and simply distasteful how some fans who hadn't even seen the film attacked both critics.
J. Priest |
July 17, 2012 at 05:14 PM
I agree with most of your comment, J. Priest, but I believe Lemire only gave a mildly positive review to The Dark Knight. 3-Stars-Out-Of-4, I believe. And she didn't like Batman Begins. So it's not much of a surprise that she didn't like this one, as it doesn't have a Joker in the deck, and features significantly more Bruce Wayne than Batman.
At any rate, they should've disabled the (Anonymous) Comments section, under reviews, at Rotten Tomatoes long ago. That's about the only good that's come out of this, really.
July 17, 2012 at 11:02 PM
3 out of 4 is only "mildly positive"? Don't you think critics should save their full marks for, like, The Godfather, Citizen Kane, and Midnight Run?
July 18, 2012 at 12:44 PM
Well, if you're thinking in absolute terms, perhaps. But I see most critics award 3 1/2 Stars to plenty of films each year. In general terms, 2 1/2-out-of-4 is considered mildly negative, and 3 Stars the minimum for a positive review. That's usually how it works on Rotten Tomatoes, at any rate. Cheers.
July 18, 2012 at 01:05 PM
Comicbook fanboys: "How dare that f*****g c**t who deserves to be a****y r***d Christy Lemire claim that comics are full of adolescent aggression and misogyny?!"
July 18, 2012 at 03:44 PM
@JC - I guess we disagree on ratings then, though they vary per critic I'm share. To me, 2 1/2 star is mildly positive, 3 stars is positive, 3 1/2 is great (depending on the critic) and 4 stars is must-see, could be classic.
July 19, 2012 at 07:00 PM
This is just semantics, anyways. I think when a critic gives something 2 1/2-out-of-4, they basically get to choose whether they consider it "Fresh" on the Tomatometer or not. So, in a way, you're right, that for a number of folks, it's the dividing line. If I rate a film 2 1/2, I basically say I'm "on the fence" about it.
July 19, 2012 at 08:20 PM
I believe Ebert considers 2 1/2 to be a Thumbs Down, so most people follow his lead.
July 19, 2012 at 11:10 PM
"And that kid singing "The Star-Spangled Banner" isn't just on the nose, it's nose-breaking."
Josh Ralske |
July 20, 2012 at 02:58 AM
Suddenly this movie has acquired a real-life tragic aspect...
July 20, 2012 at 05:06 AM
"Suddenly this movie has acquired a real-life tragic aspect..."
I blame William Castle.
July 20, 2012 at 07:22 AM
Is this an instance of the Tea Party approach to film criticism?
July 20, 2012 at 10:30 AM
Petey, I feel I am a worse person because I thought your comment was pretty funny.
That Fuzzy Bastard |
July 20, 2012 at 01:46 PM
"Petey, I feel I am a worse person because I thought your comment was pretty funny."
Your feelings are correct. You, sir, are a worse version of Hitler for enjoying any potential inoffensive humor that exists in human events.
Unfortunately, due to social concerns, we are prevented from really diving into the deep cinematic resonances here.
I mean, we can go all the way back to 1903 and the final shot of The Great Train Robbery that got such good audience response.
Or, we can leap to the present moment and think about the trailer for Gangster Squad that played ahead of The Dark Knight Rises that culminates in that now perfectly eerie sequence.
(I feel I am a BETTER person for enjoying the schadenfreude of watching the execrable Nikki Finke get her "I did it!" gotcha on that trailer dead wrong in real-time the next morning.)
Glenn hit the spot with Targets cuz he managed to find a resonance that has the perfect moral tone, which ain't easy.
July 22, 2012 at 08:49 AM
To Glenn Kenny:
Not sure I fully grasp the connection with the Lang (Mabuse Spieler) film and Goldfinger (and The Dark Knight for that matter) re: the finale of The Dark Knight Rises (the connections I saw were more with... SPOILERS AHEAD... The Dark Knight Returns, which I'm sure was intended, and "The Final Problem"). At the risk of posting a "spoiler" comment, could you elaborate?
July 25, 2012 at 09:33 PM
To JL: Thanks. And not much to elaborate, I was just talking about the ticking time bomb device!
Glenn Kenny |
July 25, 2012 at 09:39 PM
Response to Glenn...
Oh... that! I thought you meant we-think-the-hero-is-dead-but-he's-not-really-dead... in which case, I saw no connection to Mabuse der Spieler, and thought Goldfinger seemed a bit forced -- and hence my invoking Holmes at the Reichenbach Falls.
Also, I'm probably wrong about this, but I don't recall very clearly there being a ticking bomb device in Mabuse... though there is a ticking flood device (if memory serves correct) in Metropolis (a film Nolan acknowledges influenced him on TDKR). Either way, I should watch those and other Lang films again -- no such thing as watching a Fritz Lang film too many times.
July 26, 2012 at 08:34 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.