That is a rotten review in my opnion, she basically said in nice words "The script sucks." Thats like being on Top Chef and having everyone saying your meat was undercooked. I hope Christopher and Jonathan Nolan will be okay after this.

It is a he :p I don't know if it is fresh or not have to see.

First Rotten review is the New Yorker. That doesn't surprise me since they haven't liked a popular movie in like forever. Although this guy seems more pompous than Anthony Lane ever was.

and in karmic payback they're getting tons of flack for their cover.

In response to people who think the Dark Knight is too dark, serious, etc: meh.

I guess we're lucky there are so many different kinds of Batman films now. There's something for everybody! I watched Batman89 on Saturday and boy, do I not really need to ever see that again. I know it's been said before--but only because it's true--that Batman89 would be more accurately called The Joker89. The Joker is the star of Batman89, in every single way. I find that if one watches Batman89 with even a slight critical eye way way too much stuff jumps out in a bad way.

Batman Returns is definitely the best of the other Batman movies, for me. I find it the most wonderfully dark and a huge step up from the lame and...well, mostly just lame 89 Batman.

I can't wait until I can actually read these reviews when I get back from a midnight showing, if anything just so I can finally have ammo against the likes of David Denby (who thought Hancock and Vantage Point were better than the Dark Knight).

Negative review, by star magazine and NY magazine added.

19 fresh and 3 rotten.

74 on MC too.

It's early, but anyone remember when I said this probably wouldn't get in the 90s on MC and that I think surpassing SM2 (83) would be fantastic for it?

So far every negative review is coming from NY critics (Star, NY Mag, and NYorker)

Maybe they don't like that the filming took place in Chicago and not the most overrated city in the world ?

It's the same remarks that hurt BB. Movie should be more children friendly and you shouldn't take a comic flick seriously.

That's exactly what made BB the best superhero movie ever made.

SpiderMan's silly melodrama is certainly not doing it for me.

Sorry, but fuck kids. They've got enough to see. Does everything need to have some lame kiddie appeal to it nowadays?

As for the "no serious comic book movies" nonsense, that's exactly what it is--nonsense. Anyone who might disaprove based on the fact that comic book movies have to be a certain way sounds like they're a perpetual fan of the good ol' reliable stuff as opposed to something that might dare to break the mold.

Also, I don't know about the Star critic but the same critics for the New Yorker (Denby) and New York Magazine (Edelstein) didn't like Batman Begins either. I didn't look before, and it's probably not available but I'll try anyway, but I wonder what they thought of the other Batman movies...

EDIT: Actually, 2005 David Edelstein of Slate liked Batman Begins and Ken Tucker of New York Magazine did not. David Denby of the New Yorker didn't like Begins either, though.

Anyway, I understand having some issues with BB (I know I do) but from what I've been able to glean about TDK so far it sounds like Nolan and Co. have fixed everything I didn't love about Begins. Woo.

It is pretty obvious in reading their reviews, that they are incredibly biased, which a critic shouldn't be.

Now that top critic who wrote the negative review had some more valid points, but once again, he seemed like he was itching to give it a bad review despite actually having more nice things to say than bad.

Eh, it's too bad it's not going to be the best reviewed film of the summer, or possibly even top 5, but I think it's a little stupid if this ends up getting a lower RT score than the likes of Hellboy II or (potentially) Wanted. I guess everything needs to be sugarcoated nowadays...

It appears some of the critics are more of the type that want to see a film with only boobs and bombs and hate it when they have to listen to dialogue. It appears not all critics and snobbish douche bags.

One gave Hancock rave reviews and gave IM a rotten one.

Percentage-wise, it may get a lower score than Hellboy II, but I don't think its average score (which means much more, by the way) will be lower.

It's like the it's the end of the world it got 3 negative reviews. Shhh, calm down. Just dance, it'll be okay.

It's only three negative reviews. Three reviews mean a lot when there less than 25 reviews total, but don't mean a whole lot when more reviews are added. The negative ones look more like an aberration than anything else. I expect the average to go back up above 8.0 and the percentage to go back above 90 and stay there.

New review says it's best superhero movie ever. Although it's from some guy at a website called CinemaBlend.com.

No way!

It went from 100, 100 to 87, 75?!?1

And from a 8.4 rating to a 7.8?!?!

NOOOOOOOOOO

http://www.cinemablend.com/reviews/The- ... -3238.html


Sexiest review ever.

Seems like an entirely trustworthy review. Time to set my hopes sky high.

No... not sky high. Can go much higher than that. Universe high.

That's OK. Totally where the film belongs.

The New Yorker gave it a bad review, call me when a respectable publication and critic gives it a bad review.

I think that people do not like it when genres are mixed, people expect their comic book movies to be light, fun and SFXladen, once a movie steps out of that, people usually tend to give it the cold shoulder. Espically when a movie is as dark (pun intended) as TDM, you hear this all the
time "people go to movies to escape." However, from what I heard TDM seems to on pace to change the world, a la THE WYLD STALLIONS!!!!