Article Ratings & Comments
(1-20 of 23 posts) | Reply
on Jul 10 2008 03:35 PM Time was severely underwhelmed by Begins. This is a good sign. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 10 2008 03:35 PM don't read this review it ruins everything. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 10 2008 03:36 PM Good review, a spoiler or two slipped, no harm. Two things I can't wait for, this flick and the first idiot critic to dump on it... (Reply to this) |
on Jul 10 2008 03:49 PM anyone that doesnt want certain plot points spoiled should not read this review. says the usual stuff anyway. great film, ledgers majestic (Reply to this) |
on Jul 10 2008 04:15 PM Ah, another great review. It seems TDK is just a half step away from masterpiece territory. Shoot! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 10 2008 04:21 PM Yet another review that claims The Dark Knight was just short of a masterpiece until it started setting things up for a third installment. Damn! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 10 2008 06:11 PM In reply to this comment (#1858643) thanks for the warning EmmG389, I almost read it. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 10 2008 08:02 PM "Transcends a schlock source"? Has ANY critic ever READ the best of the comics? No, of course not. Funny books, for children. I think the last critic that would have gotten the comics at their best was Oscar Wilde, God rest his soul. Or H.G.Wells. Or C.S. Lewis. Maybe Chesterton. Not the likes of this guy. But at least they like the movie. I guess that will have to do. None of them will ever really get it. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 10 2008 08:24 PM In reply to this comment (#1858640) Coincidentally, the negative Time review for Batman Begins had this quote: "Nolan's effort is not dishonorable, but what it needs, and doesn't have, is a Joker in the deck--some antic human antimatter to give it the giddy lift of perversity that a bunch of impersonal explosions, no matter how well managed, can't supply." And what The Dark Knight literally provides is that "Joker in the deck." So of course Time likes this better. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 10 2008 08:36 PM yeah i skimmed this review full of spoilers what an *** (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 10 2008 09:08 PM hey does anybody know whats the lowest review for this movie? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 10 2008 10:52 PM Agreed Dougyrdi. Its kind of funny that finally there's a Batman film that is much closer to the comic books than ever before and critics like this guy have to be sure to mention that it "transcends" the "shlock" of the source material. I think it's safe to assume he hasn't read any Batman comics before. He's too smart to read that trash. ;) (Reply to this) |
on Jul 11 2008 07:58 AM We just need more youthful critics instead of these old folcies that are slowly losing touch with todays standars in the media. They only relate to people over fifty. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 11 2008 08:46 AM I saw this movie last night and it was nothing short of amazing and heath ledger's joker burries jack nicholson's (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 11 2008 11:05 AM In reply to this comment (#1860377) Bobby, was that a shot at Corliss? Because he isn't a youthful critic by any means but he loved this movie. So why the complaint? (Reply to this) |
on Jul 11 2008 11:11 AM Guys, this is a terrific review -- Corliss is one of the better critics around, and this is one of the better reviews of TDK as well -- and the "spoilers" you read were nothing vivid enough to spoil the shock of the film's events. Both Corliss and Travers hint at some particular story-progressing happenings, but do so in a professional, very reasonable manner; and their intentions are solely to entice the reader and simultaneously transition into further/closing statements. I wouldn't believe for a second that the hundreds of RT users who've been religiously checking TDK's profile page for more reviews (as I have) haven't already read what is hinted at in Corliss and Travers' reviews elsewhere -- part of TDK's marketing campaign included advertising the death of a character, which neither Corliss or Travers reveal. (Eckhart himself even talked about it briefly while describing his descent into madness; i.e. his turn into Two-Face.) (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 11 2008 01:36 PM In reply to this comment (#1860779) It wasn't really a shot at him, but others who are ignorant to todays standards. Maybe this wasn't the right place for my comment. My bad. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 12 2008 06:47 AM In reply to this comment (#1860242) Good luck finding anyone under 30 that can string two coherent sentences together. By the way, what's a "folcie"? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 12 2008 11:54 AM Overall, a decent review, Mr. Corliss, but regarding your "schlock source" comment: **** YOU. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 12 2008 01:14 PM In reply to this comment (#1862978) It was a typo. I meant to spell fossil. (Reply to this) |
IGN RSS Feeds