I believe there will be a certain minor critical revolt against this film because critics are tired of superheroes and tired of the "Christopher Nolan Is God" heated online discourse. I could see the A. O. Scotts and David Denbys of the world giving it mediocre reviews. Which doesn't mean anything, of course, unless fans are invested in the Rotten Tomatoes score as much as they are in the box office.

YES............................. totally right

but it's a much better way to explain the film is a masterpiece than the shit way /film did.... "I heard from 2 people" sounds very childish and incredulous

Denby and the other New York critics trashing a Nolan movie isn't new at all. Happened with TDK and Inception. Especially with Inception. More ratings of 30 or lower on MetaCritic than Spider-Man 3. At some point you just have to call it what it is: spite more than anything else. And yes I think those extremely negative reviews were influenced by the early wave of "masterpiece" coming from other critics and bloggers.

Wow, you're right. I just glanced at its Metacritic page, and Inception couldn't get a good review in NYC to save its life...

This "effect" will only be intensified with Nolan returning to the Batman well versus an original film.

At least Armond White seems to be retired .......... banned

Believe me, it sounds very VERY strange.

I honestly don't feel you know what you're in for with TDKR

I wonder if it gets the four stars from Roger or will he be in one of his, "Oh, when I was but a lad, superheroes were delightful. If Batman doesn't enjoy being Batman, why should I enjoy watching him?" moods.

Ebert gave 4 stars to BB, TDK, and Inception. If this movie is similar in quality, he'll give it the same treatment.

I won't be reading Ebert's review, that's for sure; he'll be spoiling the movie's ending in the first goddamn sentence, guaranteed.

Inception was dealing with not only backlash to its own first wave of heavy praise, but also backlash to TDK's critical praise and box office success. That little dipshit Edelstein flat-out admitted in his review that he was biased walking into it because of the praise. He basically said anyone who liked the film was Incepted, which is a funny line but also unprofessional. No better than Rex Reed saying Batman Begins was "for stupid people." Criticize the film, don't criticize your readers. That's a quick way to torpedo your own credibility.

He'll pull a Prisoner of Azkaban and give this one three-and-a-half stars. Calling it.

That's pretty damn good though, especially considering his bizarre dislike for the Burton films. As someone who loves both versions, it's really weird to see a supposedly neutral critic like Ebert basically hate one version while loving the other. It's still the same damn character and Nolan riffs on plenty of the same things Burton was doing.

I certainly think there is a lot to be said for dissenting (I do it all the time with my position on BB vs. TDK), but at some point it becomes clear that some pre-judgment went on. I mean fuck, more ratings of 30 or lower than SM3? Seriously? If nothing else Nolan and WB deserved some credit for having the balls to make that movie on such a big budget in an age where everything is pre-packaged and pre-sold, including crap like SM3.

Critics can definitely react strangely to hype.

I read once how many in the British music press had given Oasis' mammoth hit album (What's the Story) Morning Glory? only so-so positive reviews, so when Be Here Now came out, they raced to hail it as this Sgt. Pepper's caliber pop masterpiece, perfect in every way. But then Be Here Now sales plummeted, and it became rather infamous as a wildly self-indulgent and flawed record.

Too much talk about selfish critics, and not enough TDKR

So the Space Jockey is in this movie, too.

That's hilarious. I think once critics allow themselves to become predictable and even admit they were affected by hype before watching a film, they completely undermine their own credibility. I don't think Edelstein or Denby are necessarily bad film critics except when it comes to Nolan, at least this version of Nolan (the heavily praised version). Once upon a time, Edelstein gave a pretty positive review of Insomnia before Nolan became a mainstream success. But at this point, both of them are as predictable as Armond White when it comes to Nolan. I fully expect both of them to give extremely negative reviews for TDKR, probably in the 20-40 range on MetaCritic.

There might also be a certain feeling of Nolan once being their director, a quirky Sundance discovery, and now he's this industry unto himself whose every film is writ large. Peter Jackson's career has followed a similar arc.

If the film is indeed more well crafted than The Dark Knight, I don't see why an "anti-hype" sentiment would necessarily take place. Critics love great franchise/trilogy ending films as much as anyone (as evidenced by Return of the King, Toy Story 3, and Deathly Hallows Part 2).

And Nolan filmed a bunch in New York, so maybe that will appeal to the NY critics.

I think there is some merit to this for sure. I also think it makes the reception for Toy Story 3 even more amazing. How did that film, a franchise movie with tons of hype and tons of overpraise (yes, I said it's overpraised), avoid the kind of critical backlash that Inception had to deal with? I liked TS3 a lot, but I certainly wouldn't rate it above the first Toy Story film. Yet people were praising it like the Second Coming of Christ, and none of that praise led to any backlash. The PIXAR phenomenon is amazing to me. They find a way to hit the right notes with seemingly everyone.

Cars 2 and Brave have hurt Pixar, though. The narrative is now one of decline.

I would say, just Cars 2, Brave is simple but AWESOME and so underestameted by critics

Cars 2 never should have been made, but obviously the executives at Disney love the merchandising cash. The more sequels they make, the more difficult it will be for them to keep their sterling reputation. Sequels are generally associated with cash grabs and a lack of creativity. They managed to transcend those stereotypes with the Toy Story sequels, but can they keep it up? Cars 2 is a pretty bad start for them on that front.

Critics also seem to move in cycles to a certain degree. You can just feel this in the water. Terrence Malick wasn't "due" when The New World quietly came out in late 2005, but was last year with The Tree of Life. Wes Anderson wasn't when The Darjeeling Limited hit, but his time came 'round again with Moonrise Kingdom.

Nice conversation but it's

Let move on TDKR thread