Fair enough. I was harsh before because I thought that you were suggesting that 'if you claim you don't like The Dark Knight you are just looking for attention!'Antoine Doinel wrote:No, I haven't seen the film (will be seeing it in IMAX on Monday) nor do I particularly care that he gave it a negative review. I take his negative review with just as much salt as the fanboy gushing. Frankly, I've been avoiding any reviews until I see the film myself.Cde wrote:Have you seen the film? Had you when you wrote this post? As someone who has, a lot of what Edelstein says rings true, so I find the assumption that by posting a lukewarm reaction he must be trying to get attention and bring hits (Edelstein and the New Yorker? Does anyone seriously believe that?!) stupid and even offensive. The film must be perfect and everyone must love it, and if they claim they don't it's just a ploy for attention. Right. In suggesting this, before watching the film no less, you come off as the fanboy figure Edelstein mentions who is bound to love the film no matter what because he's emotionally invested in loving it already. So why did Edelstein post the reply? I'd say that the explanation he provided in the article, coupled with all the death-threats he's no doubt received by now, are sufficient explanation without anyone having to turn to a narrow point-of-view focused around silencing critical discourse.
As for Edelstein, I'm sure this isn't the first time he's received fanboy death threats and it won't be the last. I just think it would've been classier to stick by his negative review and let the next few weeks play out to see what critical and fanboy reaction truly ends up being. Edelstein is not an idiot, and responding to a select group of fanboy nerds, as he well knows, will only drive more traffic to his review that he weakly insists he doesn't want undue attention for.
I do agree that it would have been classier if he had just stuck with his original review regardless of the response. The title in the link (possibly not Edelstein's doing) says it all: "Why you're still wrong about The Dark Knight").
It is. Of course, it's not '#4' good. I don't think it's worthy of sitting on any greatest films of all time list anywhere, ever. It's not a great film, it's not a masterpiece, and it's not the best American film in 35 years. It's a solid, tense city crime/gadgets film about the nature of chaos within society. I don't think trying to approach these kinds of themes in a genre many have come to dismiss automatically makes it worthy of this gushing.swo17 wrote:I know they start high and eventually drop down, but starting at #4? That must be some sort of record. Maybe this one is actually good in addition to being fanboydroolworthy?
Chaw's pointing out of the foulness of the attitudes beneath mainstream entertainment is his best contribution, but I often don't see the rest of what he has to say as being of much significance. And yes, I was offended by the No Country incident. I liked the film but thought it was no masterpiece, Unfortunately, that was emblematic of a wider trend in Chaw's writing to dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with what he has to say. My opinions were just as true to me as Chaw's were to himself, but it seems he's yet to wrap his mind around that, and if he has he doesn't care.Mr Finch wrote:Chaw did himself, the film he was reviewing and his readers who are looking forward to TDK a disservice with the Godfather II comparison, and that's coming from someone who has admiration but no love at all for Godfather II (the only Coppola film I truly love is The Conversation). As good as the remainder of his review of TDK was, he got carried away there and his suggestion that it might be the best US film since Godfather II is indeed so nonsensical that one wonders if he already regrets having made it in the first place. That hyperbole aside though, I still think it's one of the better-written raves about the film.
For what it's worth, I don't take his or any critic's word for gospel and I actually agree that there is no such thing as a perfect film and that art arises from imperfection; in fact, I stated in The Furies thread that in spite of its flaws I loved the film more than some of the canon titles in the CC (and to go one bit further: of all Hitchcock masterpieces, I personally love Rear Window the least because it is almost too smooth, too perfectly fine-tuned while Vertigo's flaws make the film more endearing to me).
One final note about Chaw's reviews: his name calling doesn't gall me personally as much because it strikes me as usually directed at deserving targets like Michael Bay and his likes, and the audiences who defend this crap (Bad Boys II essentially tells you it's alright to treat women as sex objects, to be racist and homophobic, to laugh at obese people and to have no regard for human dignity) under the same old pretense that "it's just a film". I do agree though that he sometimes goes overboard with his barbed language and attacks, and that he can be offputtingly intolerant and ignorant of opinions contrary to his own: I remember his controversial talkback where he proclaimed that he didn't like and understand anyone who didn't think that No Country for Old Men was a masterpiece. In that though, he is not unlike Pauline Kael who infamously received a journalist for an interview allegedly with the words "Did you like Godfather II? Because if you didn't, fuck you".
His hasty assessment of this as the best American film in 35 years reminds me of how he compared the inarguable masterpiece status of No Country for Old Men with that of Paradise Lost. The latter has been around for 350 years, the former came out a little over half a year ago and took out the big Oscars. Time has shaped our understanding and appreciation of that Milton's text, and it can justifiably be called a masterpiece. Chaw thinks that a recent movie everyone loves is equivalent to that in standing, and that anybody has the right to disagree is responsible for the death of criticism. To use his own words against him, "y'know...shut the fuck up".
All that said, I often agree with Walter Chaw. He also sometimes has interesting things to say. Often though he comes off as a more educated and eloquent form of fanboy, and his tone and intolerance of other opinions makes him incredibly unpleasant.
I agree about Vertigo. Rear Window is a great film, but it isn't something that I can become obsessed by like Vertigo (how appropriate). I think Hitchcock himself would agree; I recall that he thought Rear Window was his best made film but that Vertigo was his masterpiece.
Exactly.Cold Bishop wrote:Your point? The movie is definitely commenting on a post-9/11 world. Whether you think it's "brilliant" is another question, but it's definitely is a film about terrorism and the climate of fear that comes with it. To think otherwise is self-delusional.
My main problem with the film is I'm not sure I like what it's saying in that regard.
Spoiler
Fear rules, people have no hope to cling to except in lies like the white-knight figure of Harvey Dent. In this environment, Batman is justified in using his whatever-means-necessary techniques to stop the terrorists. Nolan made the parallels between Batman and the USA clear as day with the not so subtle patriot act reference, but in the end that act was justified in its role in helping take down the terrorist. Batman is making the right decisions for us and we should trust him, but instead he's pursued by the cops and a public who'd rather believe in a lie about the viability of peaceful ways of solving Gotham's problems than the ugly truth. Given the parallels made I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think that it's Bush or America fleeing from the police and hated by the public at the end, the world's 'Dark Knight'. Ugh.
