Comments and other postings on other websites
_Comment on David Edelstein's reviews for The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises on vulture.com (NY Magazine)
Edelstein's review of The Dark Knight is a very poor piece of journalism. His arguments barely get past his "witty" hyperbole ("the lack of imagination, visual and otherwise, turns into a drag. The Dark Knight is noisy, jumbled, and sadistic... the tumult is spectacularly incoherent. Nolan appears to have no clue how to stage or shoot action...") He neglects to explain why Nolan has failed on any of these points.
However, reading his self-introduction above ("Having inspired thousands of abusive posts and e-mails from young Nolanoids"), it becomes clear that he is just trying to be "controversial", taking some sort of pride in giving a good film a bad review and (hooray!) being the first to do so. Well done, Edelstein. You were the first. Here's a certificate saying "David Edelstein was the first to give The Dark Knight a bad review".
His above review is better. He makes thoughtful and thought-provoking points about TDKR, although he's still not left the hyperbole behind ("someone trying to sing “Nessun Dorma” while choking to death on a mouthful of muesli" - his 'educated' readers can smile smugly for knowing what Nessun Dorma is), or that slightly irritating reviewer's trope of damning a film with faint praise by saying a minor acting role is the best thing in it ("It’s Anne Hathaway’s movie" - no it's not, and anyway, she's in it less than Batman, even though screen time is very important to him ("with not a lot of Batman to show for it").
He has also clearly not watched Batman Begins or The Dark Knight recently, as he would have been surprised how much of these two films are in fact wrapped up by TDKR (not that that's a good thing necessarily). He has also failed to understand the "Comic-Con Generation" in thinking that it likes reboots (it doesn't) or that it's fickle (it isn't, in fact it seems very conservative, which is why directors sweat over comic book movies so much).
I don't care much whether people like TDKR or not. It's clearly a good movie, if not an excellent movie (I myself would call it 'excellent'). A bad movie is something like Troll 2. The point I'm trying to make is that I find journalists who are deliberately contrary so tiresome, and it trivialises movies and movie reviews. I guess this stems from a journalist's need for self-promotion in a tough industry. My heart bleeds. I think Edelstein should focus more on the virtues of the movies and save his media studies essays for some other outlet - if anyone would pay him for them.
Edelstein's review of The Dark Knight is a very poor piece of journalism. His arguments barely get past his "witty" hyperbole ("the lack of imagination, visual and otherwise, turns into a drag. The Dark Knight is noisy, jumbled, and sadistic... the tumult is spectacularly incoherent. Nolan appears to have no clue how to stage or shoot action...") He neglects to explain why Nolan has failed on any of these points.
However, reading his self-introduction above ("Having inspired thousands of abusive posts and e-mails from young Nolanoids"), it becomes clear that he is just trying to be "controversial", taking some sort of pride in giving a good film a bad review and (hooray!) being the first to do so. Well done, Edelstein. You were the first. Here's a certificate saying "David Edelstein was the first to give The Dark Knight a bad review".
His above review is better. He makes thoughtful and thought-provoking points about TDKR, although he's still not left the hyperbole behind ("someone trying to sing “Nessun Dorma” while choking to death on a mouthful of muesli" - his 'educated' readers can smile smugly for knowing what Nessun Dorma is), or that slightly irritating reviewer's trope of damning a film with faint praise by saying a minor acting role is the best thing in it ("It’s Anne Hathaway’s movie" - no it's not, and anyway, she's in it less than Batman, even though screen time is very important to him ("with not a lot of Batman to show for it").
He has also clearly not watched Batman Begins or The Dark Knight recently, as he would have been surprised how much of these two films are in fact wrapped up by TDKR (not that that's a good thing necessarily). He has also failed to understand the "Comic-Con Generation" in thinking that it likes reboots (it doesn't) or that it's fickle (it isn't, in fact it seems very conservative, which is why directors sweat over comic book movies so much).
I don't care much whether people like TDKR or not. It's clearly a good movie, if not an excellent movie (I myself would call it 'excellent'). A bad movie is something like Troll 2. The point I'm trying to make is that I find journalists who are deliberately contrary so tiresome, and it trivialises movies and movie reviews. I guess this stems from a journalist's need for self-promotion in a tough industry. My heart bleeds. I think Edelstein should focus more on the virtues of the movies and save his media studies essays for some other outlet - if anyone would pay him for them.
