Fans Get Militant Over Negative Dark Knight Reviews

Posted by Josh Radde (josh@filmschoolrejects.com) on July 16, 2008

I’d venture a guess and say that The New Yorker is having a frustrating week. First David Remnick, editor of the publication, went on CNN to defend his “tasteless” and “fear-mongering inducing” cover featuring a Muslim Barack Obama giving a “terrorist bump” to Militant Michelle in the Oval Office while burning an American flag in the corner. Now, he may have to on E! and defend critic David Denby’s outlandish criticism of The Dark Knight.

Some people, myself included, check Rotten Tomatoes regularly during the week any particular movie comes out. When Hancock kept dropping and dropping I decided I wouldn’t drop everything to go check it out. Likewise, when Wanted displayed good reviews it crept onto my checklist. RT is a good source for people who want to go to the movies, but are wary on what they spend their $20 on (including a small popcorn and Milk Duds). And for those paying particular close attention to The Dark Knight (which was holding steady at 100% for awhile), David Denby’s review was a shot in the head.

Denby didn’t denounce the movie. He didn’t even say it was “bad,” necessarily. Here’s the blurb in Rotten Tomatoes (I would urge you to stay away from the actual review, because it has some spoilers):

“This movie is grim and jammed together. The narrative isn’t shaped coherently to bring out contrasts and build toward a satisfying climax. The Dark Knight is constant climax; it’s always in a frenzy, and it goes on forever.”

Now some people will see that blurb and not take it seriously at all, because WHO DOESN’T WANT A CONSTANT CLIMAX (Am I right, guys, *nudge*)? But to defend Denby, it’s a perfectly reasoned and rational argument. He, like everyone, praised Ledger’s performance (”He’s part freaky clown, part Alice Cooper the morning after, and all actor. He’s mesmerizing in every scene.”) and said the IMAX experience left him “giddy.” Like some who criticized Batman Begins in 2005, he disapproves of Bale’s ghoulish voice and the fight choreography being too close to the camera to really soak in. In 2005 I had the same response to those critics–Liam Neeson’s line “this is not a dance.” There’s no need for a wide-angled fight because Batman’s one goal is to take down enemies as quickly as possible.

As for the voice, I love it, but I can understand why some people don’t. It’s forced and rough, but it’s also intimidating and completes the separation between Batman and Bruce. There is no “Bruce” in “Batman” and vice versa and I think Bale has done a great job of juggling the duality (also written about nicely here in another FSR article). See how I reasoned that without calling Denby a f*ggot?

As for the “constant climax” remark, I can see what Denby is saying. Remember the film Armageddon–that movie is at full blast from the time the oil drillers leave Earth to when they return. Blockbusters fall into this trap too often, there’s just so much action that you don’t have any time to DESIRE more of it. A great action movie, like The Matrix, builds up to a climactic ending because each action sequence shows you a bit more, and more, until it all comes together at the end. I haven’t seen TDK yet, but I can understand the sentiment. A movie that shows you its best bit of action in the middle and doesn’t build towards an ending is frustrating, I call that the “Lethal Weapon 4 Effect.”

Also, while I was writing this article I checked back at RT’s home page and I now see that TDK has jumped from a ludicrously disappointing 88% approval to a satisfactorially sufficient 90%. I hope everyone keeps in mind, too, that Batman Begins ended with 84% approval.

I know that commenting on the Internet on sites like Rotten Tomatoes, AICN, and FSR is fun because you get a soundboard for your opinions and can remain anonymous. My mom got a touch of this when she commented on an FSR article I wrote about ten classics being converted to 3D and noticed that some people had taken to calling me an “idiot.” “Well, that’s so mean,” she said, “they missed the point of your article.” “That’s the Internet, mom,” I replied. That being said, there’s no reason for threatening David Denby’s life (in jest or not) because he didn’t like a Batman movie. It doesn’t matter that he gave Hancock a better rating than Iron Man. It doesn’t matter that he split his Dark Knight review with that of Wall-E (some insisted that showed disrespect to Batman, and didn’t see it as a space constraint in a publication). He’s a critic, and from what I can tell, an honest one. 520 comments dropping f-bombs, homosexual slurs, and hoping a man contracts AIDS based on his view of a Hollywood film is a bit extreme, especially coming from people who haven’t even seen the movie yet.

So please, give the man a break.

Instead, focus your fanboy hatred towards Eric D. Snider who just posted a review proclaiming The Dark Knight is “[e]asily the worst Batman film so far, and I include Batman & Robin in that statement.”*

Let’s lynch this f*cker.

*Snider’s review is a joke. But it did momentarily drop The Dark Knight’s RT rating below 90%.

| | Read more articles by Josh Radde