Do critics hate comic-book movies?

yes, you missed 'iron man' RT: 93 / MC: 79

;-)

JE: I blame it on my lousy cut-and-paste. Thanks!

My biggest gripe is the people (critics and "regular people" included) who think that just because a movie is based on a comic book, it can't be taken seriously. I can't say that a majority of this type of movie make that argument easy, but when it comes down to that sort of reasoning, the majority of just plain old movies made don't create a very compelling argument for their art, either. Nobody argues that "Citizen Kane" shouldn't be taken seriously because someone made "Dude, Where's My Car?" Plenty of people argue that "The Dark Knight" can't be taken seriously because of "Batman and Robin," etc.

(Unrelated, but food for thought: I have this same problem with people who take a casual, uninformed look at video games and write them off just as easily. As an emerging art form, it's going to be immature, but if you look hard enough you can see plenty of examples that point towards and even explore the medium's potential.)

As a matter of fact, it is certainly not as simple as number of positive reviews as against number of negative reviews.
When somebody puts forth the point that critics generally take comic book movies lightly, they mean it in a qualitative manner rather than any quantifiable approach, i.e. number of stars.
As in the early westerns, comic book movies are almost never given their due for their thematic weight. Of course, we have barely had films worthy of such analysis, but I believe The Dark Knight is one such film. Be it its themes, or the filmmaking at hand, this is a masterful presentation. What Stagecoach did to the westerns, The Dark Knight does for comic book movies. It elevates it beyond the usual escapist fare, a measure that is primarily used for summer movies in general and superhero movies in particular.
In the 40s, 50s and 60s it was the western that portrayed our morality. Later on it was the science fiction. I guess, the superhero films have arrived with The Dark Knight, to be taken as seriously as those previous films. Films which could be works of art.

A most interesting entry, Jim. I was astonished to read that Christian Bale really did stand at the top of the Sears Tower (properly equipped with safety lines, of course) and jump off. He said something like he wasn't going to miss that for anything. Anyone would assume they were looking at CGI.

Interesting. I've actually been surprised by how much critics seem to like comic book movies. I watched The Dark Knight because of Ebert's review, only to be disappointed.

I guess that genre is just not for me. I don't understand the love for that movie. It was okay. Nothing special.

So where did this idea that critics don't like comic-book or graphic novel-based movies come from?

I think that the numerical ratings are misleading; there are a lot of positive reviews of comic-book films which nonetheless harrumph about the genre. As in, "if you have to see a superhero film, this one's not bad" or the like.

I think the impression comes from, not the idea that the majority of critics hate superhero movies, but that there are many critics who essentially sneer at the idea that a superhero movie could or should be taken seriously. The films may get a lot of great reviews, but everytime a superhero movie comes out there are always a few prominent reviews that trot out the same old canards about how it's an inherently juvenile genre and not worthy of much attention. Sometimes, as with The Dark Knight, this assumption even creeps into overall positive reviews, with the condescending "it's good... for a superhero movie."

And you'll notice I keep saying "superhero movie" instead of "comic movie." There's something inherently ridiculous to me about a terminology that suggests Spider Man, Sin City, History of Violence, and Ghost World belong to the same category.

I'd concur with ForrestK: I don't think that "teh critics" as a group pigeonhole comic book movies, but there are some individual reviewers who do so, sometimes by their own admission (from Jim Emerson: "The world needs another comic book movie like it needs another Bush administration..." Not trying to be unfair, here, Jim, you're one of my favorite reviewers). I think the thing that bothers me is that most reviewers who carry that "anti-comic book" stigma are really against the superhero genre, not the comic book medium, but don't realize that there's a difference, even in this late age (not including Jim, who makes this point above).

Let's say that "the Losers" (one of my favorite series) actually gets made into a movie entirely faithful to the comic. The thing that irks me is that some reviewers who liked the "Bourne" series and gave that positive reviews would decide they dislike our hypothetical, mostly-flawless "Losers" movie on the grounds that it was based on a comic book. That's my issue.

On the other hand, I suspect this attitude is beginning to soften a bit: every review I read for "Wanted" noted that it was based off of a comic, but praise or criticism seemed relegated to what was actually on-screen, as it should be.

I wouldn't be surprised if some critics were getting tired of the prevalence of superhero films, just as they might get tired of adolescent comedies. A. O. Scott's article "How Many Superheroes Does It Take to Tire a Genre" comes to mind.

Jim--

While critics in general are happy to give approval to comic book films (and, I think, many critics do treat them fairly), I think there's no question that there are elements of bias in many critics' reviews.

First, look at the language many critics use. When giving a positive review, many will say things like "despite it's comic book origins," or "leaping beyond comic books," as if being based on a comic book is in some way a handicap.

Second, I think there is something of a "glass ceiling" for comic books in terms of critical praise--Yes, generally "positive", even four-star reviews get handed out, but how often do these wonderfully-praised comic book movies end up in contention for awards (beyond special effects and sound) or on critics' Top Ten lists?

Until The Dark Knight, easily the most acclaimed comic book movie was Spider-Man 2. Ignoring the lack of major Oscar nominations, if you look at Metacritic's list of critics' Top Ten films of the year, you may notice that out of some 50+ lists, Spidey appears on.... 6. That makes it, by critical consensus, the 25th-best film of the year. Hardly the same exceptional reception it got from the simple up-or-down critical votes on Rotten Tomatoes.

(For comparison, the esteemed Roger Ebert, one of the critics who seems most open to taking comic book films seriously, deemed Spidey 2 the 4th best film of 2004).

Maybe Spider-Man 2 really was only the 25th best film of 2004, maybe critics were absolutely right that it was sufficiently entertaining, but no more than that. But it does say something about critical attitudes that the Incredibles, released the same year, was vastly more well-received on these lists, garnering dozens of placements. *What* it says I can't say precisely--maybe critics just didn't want to have two superhero movies on their lists, and so picked their favorite. But I suspect what it says is this: "Comic books and superheroes are for kids. They can be great movies only if they're aimed at kids. Maybe we should give comic book movies their own Oscar, so that they, like animation, don't have to trouble us in the *real* Best Picture award..."

You can see this line of thinking, and similar, in the few negative reviews of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. They're called pretentious, criticized for not being entertaining enough, and told they're trying to bring too much gravity to a story about a superhero.

I think this afflicts many, even most, critics to one degree or another. And the test of it as an enduring bias will likely come at the end of the year when we see if The Dark Knight earns significantly more praise than previous comic book efforts, and if it receives Oscar nods (particularly beyond the almost inevitable Ledger nomination, which, while deserved, won't necessarily speak to wide acceptance of the film as a valid artistic enterprise).

It could be that the critical glass ceiling for these movies is fragile enough to break.

First off, the only moment in the entirety of Spiderman 3 when I came anywhere near enjoyment was the split second during the bizarro emo/big-band musical number (wait, should I have warned of upcoming spoilers?) when Dallas Bryce Howard looks almost directly into the camera and whole-heartedly says, "I'm sorry." I'm sure it was just happenstance, but I was looking for an apology at just that very moment. I always take what I can get.

I wanted to say that five of my favorite movies from the last decade are actually comic-derived, and they didn't seem to make the list at all. So, for argument's (and my own mollification's) sake, I wanted to add them to the dialogue:

30 Days Of Night (2007) - RT: 49 / MC: 53
Persepolis (2007) - RT: 96 / MC: 90
V For Vendetta (2005) - RT: 73 / MC: 62
A History Of Violence - RT: 87 / MC: 81
Ghost World - RT: 92 / MC: 88

ForrestK--

Many people read this blog thanks to Jim's links to Roger Ebert. As such, it might be wise to avoid bringing up the Video Games As Art controversy again--you might unwittingly threadjack. ;)

"So where did this idea that critics don't like comic-book or graphic novel-based movies come from?"

From your previous blog entry, "Belatedly, Iron Man":

"The world needs another comic book movie like it needs another Bush administration..."

I have no problem with comic book movies per se...in fact, I downright love both the 1989 "Batman" and (gasp!) the 1990 film "Dick Tracy", because they are so well-designed and downright fun. I also quite-enjoyed "Hellboy", "Spider-Man 2", and hell...even "Spider-Man 3" a little bit.

My problem with films like "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight" is not that I can't see myself taking them seriously simply because they derive from comic books, but rather that I feel a tension between the films striving to be taking seriously and still taking some facile shortcuts in the storytelling. My problems with "The Dark Knight" weren't that I couldn't possibly take seriously a story involving a man who dresses up as a bat and another man who puts gruesome make-up on. The problem was that "The Dark Knight" still felt juvenile in some of its smaller details, such as the rushed, not-very-psychologically plausible transformation of Dent to Two-Face, the broad caricatures of the mobsters (i.e. Eric Roberts, the Russian mobster), or the manufactured tension of the whole ferry crisis (which could have been a wonderful moral dilemma but instead is glossed over with stereotypes and overacting).

While I think certain fans of comic books have a point when they question whether or not a critic has an inherent prejudice toward "comic book" films, I think it's also important for those fans to realize that it is possible for a fan of cinema to find fault with a comic book adaptation that has nothing to do with its source material. "300" was, in my opinion, one of the worst films of 2007, but it has nothing to do with the fact that it was adapted from a "graphic novel".

Going back a little further:

X-Men (2000) MC 64 RT 80
X2 (2003) MC 68 RT 87
X3 (2006) MC 58 RT 56

It seems to me that critics have a prejudice against bad movies. Make a good one, no matter the genre or source material, and they'll appreciate it.

My issue as a self profressed comic book geek is not with the reviews of comic book movies. They get good reviews because they are great stories and have been handled by directors and writers in the past decade who have a reverence for the fans and the orginal material. My problem with movie critics is the way they look down on comic book fans in general. The bad with women, live in mom's basement, weigh 300 pounds jokes are tiresome and offensive. Comic books have inspired alot of todays top directors, including Quentin Tarantino,Robert Rodriquez, Kevin Smith, Zak Penn, Sam Raimi, ect... yet they are looked upon with awe by critics while regular fans are looked at as jokes. Obviously your peers like comic book material due to the strong Tomato ratings you showed, and respect the work. Why not respect the fans who have pushed for this work to be placed on film and have provided you with fun and entertaining movies to critique as opposed to dumping on them as people!

I think the negative reviews of these movies can probably get a bit snobby, more so than with a negative review of an ordinary drama. Also, comic books are not taken seriously in literary circles, so those attitudes carry over to movies. Film, however, is more of a populist medium*, so there seems to be more of an acceptance among critics of "good trash".

On the subject of video games. I find there to be definite artistic qualities in _aspects_ of the games, such as the music and the visuals. However, the game itself doesn't seem to get there. I do think that the video game might be limited, at least as a storytelling medium, by the constraints of that medium. Certain features of storytelling (definitely certain features of, say, Aristotle's theory of tragedy), are necessarily excluded from video games. As stories, video games seem to be on a level with "choose your own adventure" books. I think, if video games are ever going to become art, they will need to use the special qualities of video games (player choices) and deemphasize storytelling, which is clearly a weakness. I can envision a video game that works like a painting or a sculpture. However, I always envision watching the video game, not _playing_ the video game. Somehow, _playing_ will have to be the only way to access the art. This seems like a hard problem to me.

*This is probably by necessity. It costs way more to produce a movie than to, say, write a novel. So, investors aren't going to invest unless they think they can make their money back.

I think comic book fans are responding to the many people who think that because a film is based on a comic book, then it must be shallow and can't be considered to be anything more than a stupid summer blockbuster.

I think movies like The Dark Knight and Spider-Man 2 are changing that perception, however.

There are some critics, like A.O. Scott, who just don't really like the superhero genre. (He wrote an article about its limits recently, right after The Dark Knight came out, which was rather odd timing.)

P.S. I do know a lot of people who like Spider-Man 3. If you look at overall ratings (like on Yahoo! it got a B, and on IMDB it got 6.5/10) from regular people, they're pretty much all positive, although not as good as the first two films' ratings.

As a lifelong comic book lover, I can tell you that my personal issues with the way comic book movies are treated by the critics has less to do with the tomatometer and more to do with the standard exposition that prefaces nearly every review of a movie that came from a comic book. There is a common notion amongst critics (or, at least amongst the editors who force the critics to write a short paragraph that defines where the story originated) that all comic books can easily be lumped together, as if it's one giant genre rather than the comic book being yet another device for telling any kind of story. Iron Man was very well received and yet, if you read a lot of the reviews, you'll find that they seem astonished that they are actually giving it a good review. This is even more evident when you see the critic give a review, like Richard Roper and Michael Phillips on syndicated TV (Michael's pretty good but oh, how I miss A.O. Scott!).

And here we are, going right along with it simply by calling them "comic book movies" as if there really is such a genre. Hancock wasn't based on a comic book but I'm sure that a lot of people think it was. Ghost World was adapted from a comic book, but most people wouldn't guess that in a million years.

When people use the term "comic book movie," they are largely talking about superhero films. They are also talking about them like "genre superhero," which I mean like any other type of "genre writing" (the best example here are grocery store romance novels - straight up "genre romance"). My wife tells me that she doesn't like sci-fi and I argue back that she really doesn't like "genre sci-fi." Is Battlestar Galactica sci-fi? No, it's a drama that happens to have spaceships. Is The Wire a cop show? No, but there sure are a lot of cops running around in it. Is Dark Knight a comic book movie? Sigh.

Alex, I'd go along with you on the point in your second paragraph, and perhaps take it a little farther. I followed Marvel comics off and on from my mid-teens to early 20s (roughly from '75 to '85) and though I haven't read a superhero comic in years still have a soft spot for that part of my past, and for the well-done recent films that recapture a piece of that. My problem with 'Dark Knight' was that I would probably have enjoyed it much more if they hadn't tried to go so far into gritty crime-drama realism...because to me there's a point where that bumps quite gratingly up against the parts of the story that one accepts as just part of the superhero genre, and it took me out of the movie again and again. Such as (with a nod to 'Hancock') all the huge chases and battles that take place on the city's streets without multiple deaths and/or injuries to innocent bystanders, and no one calling for Batman's arrest on those grounds alone. Or the fact that despite the little nods to quasi-realism with him falling asleep at a meeting or having Alfred chide him over and over again at bottom it'd still be completely impossible for one man to do all that Bruce/Batman does in a day.

Plus, I admit it, I have a petty little something against Christopher Nolan...from thinking Memento was good but overrated (OK, that's not his fault) to an interview he did in the wake of Memento when, upon being given the inevitable "new Orson Welles" question, smirked that Welles wasn't all that great. Youthful arrogance coupled with reading a few too many of his own reviews, probably, but it did leave a bad taste to me.

A superhero comic book is always about a battle between a good guy and a bad guy and they usually have super powers. Take away the supernatural powers, turn the comic into a film, and you can get:

Any Western
Any fim noir
Any crime thriller
Any sword and sandal epic

Some of these have won the Oscar for Best Picture in the last 20 years:
Unforgiven
Braveheart and Gladiator
The Departed
No Country For Old Men

Why should a bat costume and clown makeup disqualify The Dark Knight from joining those ranks? No Country especially as it has a conflicted hero, a psychotic and purposeless villain and a third doomed good guy who is caught in the middle. The first and last two movies on my list were considered art by critics. So it's not the subject matter, it's how it's presented.

Bra

Also, hero/villain movies that do include fantastical, supernatural elements have indeed won awards and been highly praised: Lord of the Rings and Pan's Labyrinth.

I think for the most part that comic book movies deserve respect but I do think they have limitations.I think that if they are terrific entertainments that they deserve a spot on a ten best list but I think if we were giving awards for best picture,Director,screenplay,actor,etc would be over the top because they're are not movies that describe the human condition but are instead escapist entertainments.Keep in mind award shows like this are waspy and proper and giving an award to a comic book movie would come across as weird.

I think critics have always liked but never loved comic book movies.I seen many critics that have given comic book movies a favorable review but when the ten best list came in January those comic book movies were nowhere to be found.So I don't think critics overall hate comic book movies at all but they just don't see them as great movies.

Someone above mentioned Video Games.Now I don't think they are art because after all you can't analyze them shot by shot or display them in a museum and they are interactive(could you imagine an interactive movie or painting).However,I do think the people who make the video game to life do deserve to be called artists because it does take artistic ambition and creativity to come up with the concept for a game and its storylines and it does take great craftsmanship to create great graphics.

Jim: I think you actually raised not 1 but 2 very good points in this article, and I'd like to address them both individually...

First of all, I think Stephen, Ed Howard, and JonG articulated my own thoughts about the critical "glass ceiling" (nice turn of phrase, Stephen!) for comic book movies. Even when I read a positive comic-book movie review, I can't help but a smell a whiff of patronizing condescension; it's good for a comic book movie, but, "of course", it's nothing that will ever compare to Citizen Kane (realistically speaking, I do sort of doubt that any comic-book movie will ever compare to Citizen Kane, but that doesn't mean I don't think the genre has the potential).

Yesterday, you brought up an interesting discussion topic in how an understanding of cultural influences can enhance our appreciation for movies. Strangely though, the opposite seems to be true with this particular genre. I'll use Batman Begins as an example. Had no critics been aware of its pop-cultural origins in pulp magazines and 90s blockbusters, then they might have gone into the film with a fresh eye and thought, "Christopher Nolan has crafted such an imaginative, interesting summer action film about a man dealing with psychological trauma by exchanging his human identity for a symbolic one." They might have even thought that having the man dress up as a bat would be a good, creative touch. Alas, the franchise's reputation preceded it, and many critics were convinced that all of the intelligence in the screenplay was merely Nolan marking time until he could get to the action scenes. Even the most positive reviews could not help but remark that the movie was "unusually intelligent for a superhero movie" or give it feint praise as "the best Batman movie yet." I will concede that most superhero movies, when viewed objectively without regard to their sources, will emerge as popcorn escapist fare . . . and there's nothing wrong with that. But the "glass ceiling" Stephen spoke of does seem to prevent a critic from recognizing a film that wants something more, like Nolan's last two Batman films.

The second point you brought up was in your P.S., when you stated that perhaps these movies succeed on the basis of how well they do justice to their diverse source materials. It reminded me a bit of a line from the Billy Joel song "The Entertainer" about another song he wrote: "It took me years to write it/ They were the best years of my life/ It was a beautiful song, but it ran too long/ If you're gonna have a hit, you gotta make it fit/ So they cut it down to 3:05."

I sometimes wonder if that is how authors - and here I mean all authors, not just comic book writers and graphic novelists - feel about seeing their work adapted to the screen. When they dedicate their lives, their hearts, and their souls to a book for years as John Steinbeck did with East of Eden and then see their manuscript chopped, cut and pasted into a star vehicle with just a fraction of their thoughts left intact. (Reportedly, Steinbeck was happy with the movie version of what he considered to be his most important novel. He must have been in a good mood when he saw it.)

But no movie adaptation of any source, be it a graphic novel or a book or another movie, should just illustrate the thoughts of the author. When that happens, the movie feels uninspired, lifeless, and frankly pointless to me like the first two Harry Potter movies. I feel that the movie needs to have enough of its own inspiration and creativity to justify its own existence; otherwise, is it anything more than an illustrated, condensed script for those who don't have time to read the book? The film should stand on its own apart from its sources, but it still needs to pay the appropriate respect to the authors who created it.

IAn example of a movie that pays the appropriate respect to its source but also achieves a life of its own is The Silence of the Lambs. Even though many scenes are taken word-for-word from the novel (if I remember correctly...it has been many, many years since I read the novel), it has a distinctively cinematic quality to distinguish itself from the book - the cinematography, Jonathan Demme's original shot composition and direction, and Anthony Hopkins's chilling presence.

Sorry if I ramble a bit when I address your second point . . . but it is another topic I've given a lot of thought to, and this post got me thinking about it again.

i haven't taken the time to read all the comments above me thoroughly, so please forgive me if i repeat any sentiments above, but, jim, i think the gripe most people have with critics is not that "comic book movies" are reviews poorly, but that they're not taken as seriously as "real" movies by critics. a good review is often marred with a statement like "it's good as good as this sort of thing can be," which is insulting, of course. it'd be like saying to someone "well, you're an idiot, but what you just said was intelligent, by your standards."

a.o. scott, who i love, seems to imply these sorts of things in every comic book movie he reviews (see especially "hellboy 2")

Two things:

1) I'm still waiting for an explanation from Sam Raimi on what the hell happened to Spider-Man 3. Once the credits rolled, all I could wonder was "Is... is this what Star Wars fans felt after each prequel?"

2) Since others have already well stated most of my thoughts about critics and comic book/superhero/graphic novel/funnies/sequential art/manga movies (has anyone made a manga movie yet?), I'll only add this: Yes, there does sometimes seem to be a slight bias from critics against comic book/etc. movies, as if they have to begrudgingly concede a positive review. But I think part of why fans make such a ruckus about it goes back to a simple fact of human nature -- we want the things we're interested in to be validated. It's not enough that I think a movie is great, I need to know that the critical elite does too!

Sometimes that can come from a legitimate concern that a great work doesn't get the credit it deserves (i.e. Dark Knight and Oscar hopes), but it can also simply come from wanting justification for how you spend your time and money. And sometimes that means it's not even enough that a comic book movie gets a good review -- it's how good of a review.

This behavior manifests itself in video gaming culture much more overtly, with what's come to be known as the "Why So Low?" phenomenon. "What? [Reviewer X] only gave 'Crysis' an 8.5 out of 10? Why so low!?" (Any GFW Radio fans here know what I'm talking about, by chance?) For some people, if it's not 10 out of 10, it's just not enough (which further goes to argue why, in a perfect world, reviews wouldn't have any scores at all).

Comics have never had an easy time of it in the public consciousness. Actually, I think comic book movies have done more than any other movement to bring comics into the mainstream. Look at the phenomenal financial success of The Dark Knight--if nothing else, you can no longer claim that comics are a fringe medium enjoyed by a small number of fat, obsessive "Comic Book Guys". Slowly, journalism and academia are starting to realize that comics is a medium, as well as a style, and that the absurd iconography of a superhero story exists in and above and around universal ideas and emotions. On one level, the Dark Knight is about a guy who dresses up like a bat and beats people up; on another, it's an exploration of the interaction between society's morality and the individual will; on a third, it's about the ways and means that abuse of power subverts initial good intentions (which can apply to many eras of history, not just our own); and so on and so forth.

It's disingenuous, though, to use the Dark Knight alone as an example; most of the movies in the list in Jim's post involve complex moral and emotional problems. Iron Man and Batman Begins interrogate the individual's responsibility to better his society; the Spiderman films match their stressed-out protagonist with Jekyll/Hyde villains in order to express the necessity of balancing personal power and ambition with the obligations of everyday life; the X-Men series is about the methods and effects of political oppression; and so on and so forth.

The genius of a superhero story is that it manages to distill these internal ideas into exciting external conflicts. Yet this seems to be (along with the condescending view of comics as childish) the very thing which causes some critics to dismiss them as silly action flicks, or damn them with faint praise. (Even Ebert does this. A great movie "transcends its comic origins", while a good one "fails to rise above them".)

To answer the original question, critics don't necessarily hate comic-book movies, but they tend to look down on them. I think the wind is changing, however, and hopefully the level of artistry in these films will continue to rise and gain respect in the critical community.

And I agree that to call a single genre "comic book" simply based on the medium they're all adapting is absurd--compare "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" to "Persepolis", for instance. It's about as absurd as calling "The Lord of the Rings" and "The Silence of the Lambs" both examples of the book movie genre.

There is a common notion amongst critics...that all comic books can easily be lumped together, as if it's one giant genre rather than the comic book being yet another device for telling any kind of story.

This comment above is seriously important. There appears to me to be a serious confusion about what constitutes a 'comic book movie'; what do we mean when we say that? If we're using it to describe any film adapted from a comic source, then (as the commenter points out) it sure as hell is not being used as a generic term. Comic books are a medium and a form, not a genre.

Dangit Jim!

Just as I gear up to write about something in the limited amount of time I have to write about things I discover you've already done it.

Ba-Hum-Bug!

Sam Erickson--

Sigh. This is exactly the problem. Why on earth shouldn't a superhero movie be capable of examining the human condition? If you think that The Dark Knight didn't have anything interesting to say about the human condition, I think you're almost certainly guilty of shutting off your critical thought about the film simply because of its subject matter. Even Iron Man, Batman Begins, Spider-Man 2, etc. have something to say about human nature. Whether or not you think they say it well, or artfully, or even consistently, is something else, but every one of them stakes out some territory in the vast scheme of "ways to interpret human existence" and defends it.

You can think The Dark Knight is good, bad, or mediocre, but to simply say that it *doesn't do what art does* because it's about a superhero is like denying that science fiction movies can achieve the aspirations of art, despite the evidence of 2001, A Clockwork Orange, Bladerunner, etc. Bladerunner's even, y'know, an action movie.

Oh, and your attitude to video games is, in a way, even more dismissive than your attitude toward superhero movies. The Gates couldn't be hung in a museum, either, and it was *absolutely* interactive. Yet it was still art (even Ebert thought so). Interaction between art and audience is almost inevitable. What makes it art is how the experience affects the audience.

Based on Ebert's review of Pineapple Express (particularly when he says "It's a quality movie even if the material is unworthy of the treatment"), a good question might be: Comic book movies and druggie comedies: Which do critics like least?

Jim,

A very compelling topic, but I'd love to hear more. Are there forthcoming posts on the question?

Between your entry and the comments, there's a lot to mull over. So:

1. "So where did this idea that critics dislike them come from?"
There is a general critical discomfort with the preponderance of comic book adaptations and the fanfare surrounding them. Often, critics give voice to this discomfort while praising (at least tacitly) the particular film in question, hence the high ratings. But, as you yourself have done, they question the intense publicity, favorable press, and artistic ambitions of the comic book films and especially the fanbase of these films. Yes, a lot of this criticism is directed more at the fans that the movies themselves.

2. ForrestK: "My biggest gripe is the people...who think that just because a movie is based on a comic book, it can't be taken seriously."
I think there are genuine reasons for this discomfort. We love to say that what makes a movie great is the how not the what, and I'm generally a proponent of that theory. However, we should acknowledge that depending on the subject, the threshold for the "how" is raised. In other words, a quiet drama about a grieving family is going to have an easier time achieving "seriousness" (which is not the same thing as "being good") than a movie about a man running around in a costume, doing death-defying stunts, and utilizing all sorts of fantastical gadgets along the way. This is not to say the second type of film can't be serious, just that it is going to have to try twice as hard as the other film (and again, "serious" does not equal "good"...that's another story altogether). Now, of course, not all movies based on comic books are superhero stories, but right now the majority of the big ones are, and these are certainly the films fueling the discussion.

3. Alex Murillo, good post. I liked The Dark Knight and did not like Batman Begins, but you are onto something. Many of these superhero films (and more so, the fans of them) want to have their cake and eat it too. They want The Dark Knight to be accepted as one of the all-time masterpieces, but grow angry when it's held up to (and falls short) of the standards those masterpieces set. This is also related to the fact that the die-hard "fanboy" types (not lumping all comic book fans under that category) whine about not being taken seriously and then verbally assault any critic who attacks their object of worship. Like, "we want the simple joys of kids' entertainment, with all the prestige of serious dramas (but without all the work)." The Dark Knight comes closer than any other film I've seen to bridging this divide, but rather than advancing the genre's cause, those who can't accept criticism are holding it back.

There is a larger issue with comic books, movies, and the seriousness of both mediums, and I found the topic so compelling I've decided to put an entry up in my blog. You can read it here:

http://thedancingimage.blogspot.com/2008/08/problem-with-comic-books-and-movies.html

I suppose it's all relative, but it's really hard to think of any kind of movie that critics today (and possibly from any other era) are particularly tough on. I find it inconceivable that any critic could actually find 70% of the movies he or she watches to be good, or 50% or even 30%. But judging by the Tomato meter, it's well above that.

I see no evidence of a prejudice against comic book movies that goes beyond the prejudice many genres are treated with. You will rarely hear romantic comedies discussed in the same vein as more "serious" movie, for example (and I contribute to that problem as I can't endure the genre.)

Regarding comic book movies, I have the same problem as Alex mentioned earlier, and it's really the same issue that goes into the reception of comic books themselves. When "Maus" won the Pulitzer, it was because it had supposedly transcended its comic book origins. R. Crumb gets taken seriously as an artist because he has transcended the form, etc. You're never going to find a "mere" comic book writer like Roy Thomas or Peter David crossing over into so-called respectability outside the comic book world because they're only making them there regular type comic books.

Thus I find myself quite irritated with critics who have claimed that Dark Knight somehow transcends or reinvents the super hero movie, not only because I think it is such an utterly mediocre film, but because the genre doesn't need transcending or reinventing. Granted, most super hero movies are awful; the same is true of other genres, however. What about praising a movie for being a well-made example of the genre, like Iron man which beats the living stuffing out of Dark Knight from first frame to last (sorry, I digress). OK, so critics _did_ praise Iron Man for just that, but apparently Batman is more important because of that alleged transcending thing. Nonsense.

Plus it's such a boring movie. Sorry, I digress again.

RonTeal: Regarding my "Iron Man" lead: The world needs another comic book movie like it needs another Bush administration..."

You wouldn't believe how many people (mis-)read that. Or maybe you would. I was referring to the number of comic book movies in recent years, and to the inevitable ending of the Bush presidency after two terms. I intended to address the reservations of skeptical moviegoers like me (because I wound up liking "Iron Man" quite a bit). I thought this was clear enough, but it wasn't: We've seen a lot of comic-book / graphic novel / superhero movies in the past few years. (In years past I've made similar comments about waves of buddy/action movies or, on a smaller scale, body-switching comedies.)

And, in 2008, we're approaching the Constitutionally mandated end of the current Bush administration. (It was also intended as a joke about having already had a Bush in the White House from 1988-1992 -- and a reference to Jeb Bush's now dashed or dormant presidential ambitions.) No need to read anything more into it than that.

So: What my gist was: You may think we've had enough comic book movies, just as the expiration date has been reached with the Bush administration. The full paragraph is:

The world needs another comic book movie like it needs another Bush administration, but if we must have one more (and the Evil Marketing Geniuses at Marvel MegaIndustries will do their utmost to ensure that we always will), "Iron Man" is a swell one to have. Not only is it a good comic book movie (smart and stupid, stirring and silly, intimate and spectacular), it's winning enough to engage even those who've never cared much for comic books or the movies they spawn. Like me.

"

Christopher, I find rather funny (and disturbing) that you find "Dark Knight" boring, inferior to Iron Man, and mediocre... it's so different from my own ideas I almost believed for a second that you were a troll or were making fun of somebody.

You are a true statement of the shock effect of a dissenting voice. But I have to come out of my shock to challenge you in two things...

1. Boring? That's like calling 24 (the show) boring, or calling Monty Python predictable. Please. The film even downplays some of its deeper themes to give more room to its rythim and its trepid action sequences... to make it more "accesible". So I can't believe you actually find it boring. After reading your comparison with Iron Man I guess its just an attack of jealousness, but I could be wrong.

2. I didn't find the film going away from the form of comic books, as I don't see Iron Man like the epitome of the realization of the comic book form. Why do you see this? Is there a TRUE comic book form. HOw can you say that in a genre and a format that's so widely variable? Read a comic of Justice Leage, and then read any number of Watchmen. Are they similar? No. But you can't label any of them, or any other work, as an example of that True Form.

So, no offense intended, but I believe you speak out of brand-loyalty, and not out of logic reasoning or clear opinion. Please, do not take offense at thise.

Greetings to Jim and everybody here.

Gee, Michel, why would I take offense from such staggering condescension?

Actually, I don't because it's too predictable. As I've said, any time someone dares go against the grain with a popular movie he or she will be labeled by the fans as "too cool for school" or something similar because it is apparently inconceivable to some people that someone might genuinely be able to watch this mighty, staggering, majestic masterpiece and think "Eh, nothing special." It blows my mind that people didn't like "2001" when it came out but, y'know, I trust that their reactions were genuine even if I disagree.

As for Batman being boring, yes, that's the primary word I'd use for it. However, I can also say I find "24" staggeringly boring (unwatchable, in fact) so there is obviously a real difference of opinion on what constitutes boring.

I can set aside all my other complaints about Nolan's take on Batman (and, indeed, all of Nolan's films) and simply say: this movie bored me. As an action film, I find it a complete failure as there is not a single compelling or memorable action scene in the film (and I won't mention the godawful editing again, I promise.) There's not a single action scene that gets the pulse racing or lingers in the memory. And the insufferable and utterly useless SWAT team assault in the film's climactic sequences almost rivals the opening of Batman Begins for sheer tedium.

As a super hero film, I found it reached deep for profundity that wasn't there. As others have said, Nolan and company hammer the MESSAGE (it deserves capital letters) home with the welcome subtlety of a jackhammer at 6 in the morning. None of this would have mattered, however, had it been more entertaining on even a superficial level.

Heath Ledger is very good. The rest of the film is inert.

Jim, I'd just like to point you in the direction of one Armand White, that prince of prose, who constantly goes on and on at great length about the virtues of Rap music (a critically devalued genre, unjustly), while using many of the same justifications for putting down Rap/Hip-Hop as "trash" or inferior in his reviews of films based on comic books.

For the record, though, there is one instance - his review of A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE - where I couldn't tell if he detested comics, or just David Cronenberg, but I attribute that to his sloppy critical style.

Chris, I repeat, you are free and welcome to have a different opinion from the vas majority... but when that opinion is Completely Opposite to what the vas majority thinks, and you offer not one single bit of valid reasoning to back up that opinion, then I'm inclined to believe that your opinion is based on extra-filmic experiences that has nothing to do with the movie. Maybe you are conscious of how your opnion goes against the current flow of mainstream audience and actually encourage that dissenting quality. Maybe its popularity has deeply affected you capability to judge.

Now, don't take me wrong here. I just want to read some actual argument from your part, not just attacks against the movie that are mereley subjective. And I believe that what Jim asked for too. You want an opinion that IS elaborated? Here you go: http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2008/08/under_cover_of_the_dark_knight.html#comment-438012

I don't think you are too cool for school. Elitists don't defend IRON MAN against a better movie. You are not going against popular judgement. You just happen to be already prone to acknowledge the superiority of TDK.

Now, for example, I have all the reasons to claim that 2001 was boring. It's evidently so. It's long, slow, many scenes are stagnate beyond a point and repeats itself over many many minutes. That's a fact. But its ALSO a masterpiece of gigantic proportions, an essay on the potential human evolution like no other. But that fascination tends to sleep during one of the film's long pauses. And that's WHY ITS BORING. If you actually deny that fact just to rejoice in your contradiction of the ideas of most people (perhaps it makes you feel right) then I found your reasons and can finish this argument.

There are many compelling action scenes in the film. How about the car chase with the introduction of the batpod? How about the fight with both swats and clonws in the building in constructions, with swat members falling over the edge one after another. Even if I found some of those unnecessary, I still have to see how good they were as action sequences. But you don't, which makes me think just were biased about the whole thing.

And to conclude, I don't believe that TDK has a message. Not a single one. Can you name it? You can't. For every supposed morale in the film, the are tons of evidence on the contrary. There is no ONE message. I dare you to find one. People have argued over this over and over in other forums and still haven't agree. So, if you say there's a MESSAGE... enlighten me, please.

To clear it up, if the link in my previous comment doesn't work, it's the first comment by Satish Naidu. Thanks.

Michel and Chris: I've been meaning to write about "boring" for some time. Obviously, it's totally subjective. For example, a film can be fast and loud and action-packed and still be utterly dull (certain Tony Scott concoctions come to mind).

As for "messages" -- that's another tricky word that can be defined in different ways by different people. I don't think "The Dark Knight" has ONE "message" it means to convey, either. The question for me is whether it presents its concerns in a coherent, thoughtful way, or just throws a bunch of "themes" at the screen just to see what sticks with any particular viewer. (Of course, those are two extremes -- my feeling is that "Dark Knight" falls somewhere in between, but I'm not exactly sure where yet.) Does it bounce conflicting points of view off one another (order vs. chaos, idealism vs. realism, Batman vs. Joker, maybe Harvey Dent vs. Commissioner Gordon in some ways)? Or does it just try to serve up something for everybody? I'm still trying to work back through the movie to track what it seems to be doing when. Next time I'll take notes -- but I just wanted to have the luxury of not doing so the first time, which may have been fortunate because it's a plot-driven movie and I can never remember plots, so I'm still trying to figure out if the movie ever clears up what was happening when -- without relying on notes which, let's face it, most moviegoers don't take. (Why in the world did they take off Joker's handcuffs and leave one cop IN THE CELL with him. Then when, predictably, he's taken hostage, acknowledges it's his own stupid fault and urges the cops to just shoot, why does somebody toss Joker a cell phone to make "his call"? We all know that cell phones are commonly used as bomb detonators. What were they thinking? My working hypothesis, based on this and several other incidents in the movie, is that these are simply the dumbest cops since Mack Sennett. No wonder Gotham needs Batman so badly.)

Um, it's a fact that 2001 is slow and meditative. But thinking it's boring is a subjective opinion, and no amount of passionate belief in said opinion will transmute it into fact. I've never been bored by 2001, and think that the pace is part of the point. Maybe you didn't mean to say that it was a fact that it was boring, but that was what you wrote...

" Spider-Man 3 (2007) (I don't know anybody -- besides the majority of critics, evidently -- who cared for this movie, do you?)"

I liked it. You don't know me, but you might have read one of my books.

And going back through your post Michel, it appears that is exactly what you meant to say. Sorry, but nothing else you have to say (if I cared to decipher it) means a thing to me now...

Boring is interesting. My wife and I both had totally opposing reactions to two generally well-regarded movies.

I loved There Will Be Blood, and I thought virtually every frame had something interesting on it. She found it tedious and boring. Nothing ever seemed to happen--which of course it did, but not in a really gripping, plot-driven way. The movie bored her to tears.

Which, by coincidence, is the exact same reaction I had to The Girl with the Pearl Earring. Whereas she was constantly enraptured with the portrayal of the time period and the class tension and whatever else, I spent the entire movie waiting for something interesting to happen and being disappointed.

We just have different loci of interest, I suppose, though it's funny how often people seem to think "I found it boring" is synonymous with "I'm too stupid to get it". Unless, of course, they're talking about how boring action scenes are...

Stephen

I don't mean to dismiss comic book movies(I agree with you that critics don't give comic book films enough credit).I love them just fine(I'm a comic book fan as well as a movie fan).I don't think anybody goes to a comic book movie to see the human condition being descibed and I think anybody who does is on a fool's mission.

I think "The Dark Knight" is a comic book movie unlike any other(Yes,It did have something very interesting to say about the human condition) and the despair that the movie went into did move me.Did this film turn me into a new person? No,Did I cry? No but was I exhilerated? Absolutely.I think "The Dark Knight" is one of the year's best(and so is "Iron Man"),even though I have reservations about it which are that it was too cynical to be fun(Call me shallow but I think you can take the character out of the comic book but you can't take the comic book out of the character) but that is of course what precisely makes it so good and so powerful because of how pitch black the movie is.I can clearly tell that its trying to be more than just a comic book or superhero movie but I think even great comic book movies like "Superman:The Movie","Batman Begins",the first two "Spider-Man" films,"Sin City" and even "Iron Man" made no apologies about what they were and where they came from and I think no apologies are necessary because nothing is wrong with a comic book being what it is.

I don't mean to dismiss comic book movies for being entertainments I'm just saying that's what precisely makes them so great or even works of art. They are great for me because they are not because they are emotional experiences but entertaining ones.

Do get what I'm trying to say?

Michel, I stated my arguments: you have decided that they are not worthy of your consideration. That's fine with me. I'm happy that you enjoyed Dark Knight so much. I'm sorry that you found "2001" boring. It's my favorite movie of all time and probably the most exciting one I have ever seen. 'Nuff said.

Jim,

Like any film, I suppose Dark Knight has multiple messages. However, the final act of the film certainly hammers home the notion that people (as a general amorphous crowd) are basically good which runs directly counter to the Joker's philosophy which I don't see as anarchy at all (even though that's what he claims) but plain vanilla misanthropy. The ferry scenes are about as didactic as possible regarding this supposed conflict. I found this entire sequence completely unconvincing. First of all, why would any of them believe what the Joker says. Second, the scene in which the prisoner takes the detonator from the cop and tosses it out the window is incredibly heavy-handed: it actually felt like a throw back to Norman Lear-style progressive politics of the 70s a la All in the Family which may have worked then but seem awkward and sometimes condescending today.

I agree about the Gotham police force, though I felt they were more predictable than just plain dumb. The Joker's goading of the one cop into beating him (and thus enabling his escape) was so ridiculous that only a generic movie cop could possibly fall for it. Perhaps that was intentional.

On the boring issue, you're absolutely right that pacing has nothing to do with it. "300" is numbingly boring to me: "Barry Lyndon" is completely absorbing. The reverse can be true as well. Most (not all!) Angelopoulos films bore me to tears: the glacial pacing isn't the reason why, but it pours salt into the wound when you're simply not engaged by the text.

Christopher: Well put about the "multiple messages" and the way things are framed (or tidied up, if you prefer) in the final monologue -- which functions not only as a final summary statement, but as a set-up for a sequel (as that kid in the audience clearly noticed). It's not really supported by what comes before, and those ferry scenes -- well, Capra might have made them work (or at least emotionally convincing in the moment), but they way they played out was pretty ludicrous, especially the balloting on the "citizens'" boat.

I had an extended back-and-forth e-mail argument about the Joker as "agent of chaos" with a friend. I'm trying to grapple with the distinction between a figure who wants to cause chaos, and one who embodies it. As much as I admire and enjoy Heath Ledger's Joker, I don't think he was given the right scenes to play. Everything he does is meticulously planned (and, as you say, misanthropic) but Cillian Murphy's Scarecrow in the previous film seemed more, I don't know, out-of-control himself. The Joker is crazy -- but (to "coin" a phrase -- Harvey Dent reference intended) he's crazy like a fox. He wants to see the city burn (and we know he doesn't care about money), but to me there was a sadistic glee that that the screenplay didn't fully allow him to let loose. (I probably won't be able to get too much more specific until I see it again.) Not that this Joker should have had joy buzzers and whoopie cushions like Burgess Meredith Cesar Romero, but I thought he needed at least one scene where he himself just goes off the deep end for no reason. The closet he comes is after the semi flips (a wonderful, awesome and really funny stunt) when he has his showdown with the Bat-cycle. But at that point he's pushed to the brink, rather than choosing to jump. An interesting idea: What if he were really nihilistic and suicidal, but Batman and/or other circumstances continually prevented him from dying. That's in the movie to some extent, but I would like to have seen it developed more.

Sam Erickson--
That's fair, I just disagree that a film must be entertaining simply because of its subject matter--it seems, to me, like saying that a Western or a cop movie bust be entertainment before art, y'know?

Jim--

I don't think there's much contradiction between The Joker as an agent of chaos and his obvious meticulous planning. The Joker plans lots of things, he has lots of schemes, but the difference between him and the planners and schemers he rails against is obvious--he's just as happy when his plans fail as when they succeed. That's one of the reasons he loves Batman so much, because Batman doesn't play by the rules, messes up the plans, and makes the games that much more fun. Imagine how bored the Joker would be if he succeeded and everyone succumbed to chaos. Like he said, he's a dog chasing cars, if he ever got what he wanted he'd be at a loss over what to do next.

"but I thought he needed at least one scene where he himself just goes off the deep end for no reason."

I think the movie DID have that scene. Remember the video that the Joker made where he's holding the copycat-Batman hostage, taunts and then (presumably) kills him? I found it the creepiest and most disturbing scene in the movie and you don't even need to see the Joker - the manic voice and laugh are enough. That came closer to the iconic Joker of the comics than any other scene, but I do agree in that I think the movie needed more of it. Also, the Joker laughing as he's falling from the building at the end, but that was pretty late in the proceedings.

Not a great film, but it was still very good. (And the bat-pod one of the coolest gadgets I've ever seen on film - how bout the way the wheel spins when it comes out of the alley or the way it stops and turns around against the side of that building? I'm not a techno geek who gets off on stuff like that usually, but wow, that was pretty darn slick.)

Jim, I think you meant Cesar Romero there earlier. As to the vas deferens that Michel notes between Christopher Long and--what was it--everybody? I think he (Michel) may not be alone in thinking that this is a comic/movie blog. Which just shows where we're at this summer and answers the title of your article to some degree, Jim, though it's probably more like "Are Critics Slightly Tired of Comic-Book Movies Right About Now?" The great thing about your blog, from my perspective, is that you are a generalist, yet one willing to go as deep into any subject as that subjects most loyal fans. So for future topics here's a quote from a Nicholson Baker essay in the Aug. 3 NYT Book Review: "...I'm hoping that one day soon gout will become more accepted and maybe even fashionable, like attention deficit disorder or sex addiction." Apparently he doesn't believe the high-brow media takes gout seriously as a literary malady. The bastards.

I'm surprised that all the comic book fans in these comments forgot to mention the most important reason that comic books are adapted to film. They are visual storytelling devices, just like the movies.

I have worked in film for 24 years, many of those years in animation. I grew up reading and drawing comics, and so I am surrounded by comic book fans. If anything, the majority of those fans find the critics are too kind! I've argued in defense of some of those box office hits with my geek friends and they are the harshest critics of comic book adaptations. Don't even mention the Hellboy movies to fans of the original comics - they'll kill you! I personally marvel at a comic book or graphic novel adaptation when it's well done because I know how insanely difficult it is to make them look good. Hollywood will keep cranking them out though, because those thin little books are like storyboards for the next box office hit.

So Jim, this is my theory on why those movies are a hit with the critics, but not the fans who claim "the movie sucked" after seeing it for the fourth time - most of those critics are not big comic book fans.
The complaints I've heard time and time again is that the critics "don't get it." They don't know squat about the long history of Spiderman? So what. Maybe those critics are better off, because having read many comics in my lifetime, very few would qualify as a passable screenplay.

Contrary to some, I don't believe for example, that Frank Miller is a genius but he's a good visual storyteller, therefore his work adapts well to the screen. A director with a keen eye and a screenwriter that can weed out the long history of goofy sidekicks and ridiculous villains can adapt most comic books into a 2-hour blockbuster formula. Good guy, bad guy, fight fight fight, inner demons, world in peril, redemption etc. Comic books are really very close to the heart of Hollywood.

The perceived prejudice of critics toward comic books comes from an old attitude that comic books and graphic novels are not "serious material," and suddenly, to their surprise, they make pretty good stories. I'd much rather read a review from a critic who has never heard of Iron Man, and is thrilled by its colorful characters, than a disgruntled fan who laments the fact that they left out Titanium Man or some other silly villain.
Ultimately the question is the same for any adaptation - book, comic book, graphic novel, television show - "Did it make a good movie - yes or no?"

Meinert makes a good point about the close relationship between comic books and film. I think they can both be described by Will Eisner's term "sequential art." Comic books are a series of images arranged in a sequence (usually) meant to produce a chronology of events. Film is a series of still images arranged in a sequence to do the same. There are differences, of course. Film's presentation of sequential images is designed to provide the illusion of continuity of motion. And printed words are part of the image in comic books while there is a separate sound track attached to the image in film. As well as other differences.

But comic books and films are definitely at least kissing cousins. I don't know if that necessarily means comic books are a natural to be adapted to film, but it's still interesting to note.

And hey, with all this talk about super-hero movies, how come nobody's mentioned "Judex" yet? OK, he wasn't so super, but he wore a costume, used gadgets, and fought bad guys. Definitely a proto-Batman. Hey, now we can connect this thread back to Jim's thread about knowing your film history/context. (It is safe, however, to say that one can fully appreciate Batman or any other super-hero movie without having seen Judex.)

Ellen,

I'm sorry you feel so zealot when discussing 2001, and you feel that me finding many parts of it boring is a definitive factor for not taking into account my opinions anymore. I do find parts of the movie boring, and I understand that it is a very subjective thing... but I just stated some characteristics from the film that constitute what most people would think as boring. The repetitions and the long pauses ARE meditative, but sometimes I found myself having nothing to do but thinking about things that had nothing to do with the plot or the themes or the technicalities. Why?

Maybe my thought-process is different from mine. But that is exactly my point to Chris... if you state that you find something boring, the least you should do is listing the reasons of why you think is boring. Othertwise... you are just bashing a movie for no reason. That was not my intention with 2001. I alredy stated that it IS a great masterpiece indeed. But I can't deny I felt some of the pauses forced and unnecessary. If you think that opinion is a good measure to read my comments, well, you have a low tolerance.

Christopher,

It's alright then, if that's your call. I still don't get the logic that should support many of your opinions. What I do see is mere subjective thinking, and wanted myself to prove me wrong. I still don't know, for example, how you can say the message is muddled, and in another post that the message is hammered into the people.

However, if you still would like to keep reading, I can answer some of your questions to Jim:

"The ferry scenes are about as didactic as possible regarding this supposed conflict. I found this entire sequence completely unconvincing."

I did find the moment in the civilians ferry less convincing than the superb moment with the tall black guy. However, nobody did it. Did you find it convincing because there have been an opposite example in real life. People do strange and unexpected things in the world all the time. Does "Stockholm Syndrome" ring any bell? Perhaps you find it unconvincing because you believe the same the Joker did. He found it surprising too. However, Nolan opposed that idea. It's just a matter of opinion... more or less idealistic.

"First of all, why would any of them believe what the Joker says."

This is an easy one... out of fear. There is no bigger suspension of disbelief than fear of losing one's lifes. Besides, the Joker did blow up a hospital. How much evidence do you want?

"Second, the scene in which the prisoner takes the detonator from the cop and tosses it out the window is incredibly heavy-handed: it actually felt like a throw back to Norman Lear-style progressive politics of the 70s a la All in the Family which may have worked then but seem awkward and sometimes condescending today."

You say condescending, I deep and surprising strenght of morals. Because, lets face it... it was surprising to most people. So, once again, you didn't like the outcome, but the scene was well written and directed.

Jim,

Well, I'm afraid I don't think Capra should've done it right. Maybe you felt detached from the scene, but all the caracters there were freshly introduced, and the heavy emotional handling was saved for later in the Two-Face/Gordon's family scene. I did find the scene with the black guy one of the best in the movie, and quite inspiring. Capra, well, he would've made it predictable, which should have corrupted the whole point of the twist.

And about the Joker being suicidal... would that have served the plot? For what reason? Joker can't be suicidal because that would be adding two qualitys that are disastrous for the character: 1. he would be empathetic, and people would feel sorry for him, somtheing Nolan wisely avoided, and 2. that would make him a coward, which he is not, at all. I really found surprising and pleasing that Ledger's performance was not overblown to a point were the story found obstacles. For me, it was perfect that way.

Meinert, I agree with you, Miller isn't a genius. In fact, his style is quite repetitive and has lots of fetishes in his work (almost all his good characters are 'hard-boiled'). The one who has achieved true greatness in the sequential art form (or just plain ol' comic-books) is not an American, but a British, Alan Moore. And, you see, he's the most adapted comic book writer but also the worst adapted. Examples vary from average movies like From Hell or V from Vendetta to completely outrageus movies like The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen. And yet, in all his graphic novels, he is a master. A master of content and of style. Anybody who is studying filmmaking should read a masterpiece like Watchmen (and the rest of his work) because there is the truest example of sequential art on its own, imposible to be translated to the screen whithout losing stuff along the way.

Many critics beliebe that 'Ulysses' is the book that has made the most out of the potentialities of Literature. Watchmen is the ulysses of Comic Books.

And yes Chris, cinema and comic books have many similarities. Yet comic books have enough merits to stand on their own. The best way I've found to explain this is through a great text titled "The Semiotics of Comic Books":

"... Time in a comic book is everything. The narrative in a comic passes over time, but it is time that does not exist. It only exists in the mind of the reader. Scott McCloud (author of "Understanding Comic Books") is essential in our understanding of this inner working of the comic book. When watching a film, the viewer is a fairly passive participant. The film moves along on its own, time passes without interaction, and that's that. For the comic book though, "time and space are one and the same" (McCloud). The reader is allowed to linger over a panel as long as desired, the only clue to the passage of time in the narrative being something we discussed earlier: the panel. According to McCloud, the panel serves as "a sort of general indicator that time or space is being divided," and since they're the same thing in a comic, the panel becomes extremely important, helping the reader divide up time and space internally. Leaving this up to the reader is a bold requirement of the comic book, as the creator needs quite a bit of cooperation for the narrative to proceed as planned, what (Will) Eisner calls a "contract between artist and audience" that depends largely on a shared understanding of how a page will be read, left to right and up to down, with more time spent on longer panels and so on.

It's in the gutters that the reader fills in the blanks of the narrative, an act that requires much more reader participation than most other artistic mediums. It is this act of "observing the parts but perceiving the whole" that McCloud calls closure. Closure in comics is continuous, as the reader jumps from panel to panel to panel and onward, completing the action internally as they go, and closure in comics is essential. To perceive time, essential to narrative, the reader must cooperate and close the gaps. Especially interesting to me, though, is the way that the reader barely even notices. Comics are often seen as media for children, they are so easy to understand. Yet they operate on a level of participation different from other forms of visual art, and in ways different from written narrative as well. ..."

I hope you find that enlightening.

No, Michel, the only problem I had with you is that you stated quite clearly that your feeling that 2001 is boring was a fact, which it isn't. Go back and read it. You can try and backtrack all you like and imply that because it's what "most people" (you've taken a poll?) would think of as boring that that somehow brings it even one iota closer to a fact, but it doesn't.

Oh, I guess I do have one other problem with you...your using words like "zealot" and defensive" to describe other poster's replies to you. Have you heard the one about the pot calling the kettle black?

Sorry, forgot a couple things I wanted to say...firstly, you're hardly the only one - I've always had a huge aversion to any critic or blogger who blurs the line between their opinion and fact, easy though it certainly is to do...our egos nudge us in that direction many times every day. And it feels to me (this is my OPINION now) that your basic take is "Yeah yeah, it's all subjective, everyone has their own opinion, blah blah blah, but mine feels true." So does mine, to me. But it doesn't go any farther than that.

In that vein, a quote from you: "...sometimes I found myself having nothing to do but thinking about things that had nothing to do with the plot or the themes or the technicalities. Why?"

Why in the world are you asking me? That's your experience.

Yeah, Ghost Rider, Spawn, Catwoman, Daredevil (which I think is actually a great movie - human characters, dark, and quiet religious symbomlism), are missing. Others mentioned V for Vendetta.

In terms of Frank Miller--

Look, I'm not gonna say that Frank Miller is a genius of the same caliber of Alan Moore. However, if you read Daredevil from the time Miller started as an artist through the end of his term as a writer, you can't deny how hugely he impacted comic books, and the vast improvement he made to mainstream superhero storytelling. (And his Daredevil run is still one of the best runs of a superhero book in comics.)

I don't think critics hate comic book movies. I think critics pretty much hate comic books. Most of the time, when a comic book movie is good, critics are "pleasantly surprised", even though, as you have rightly pointed out, most of them have been above average.

Right, look, I'm pleasantly surprised too every time a summer action flick doesn't suck, but critics go beyond that.

Why is it that every time a comic book movie is good, critics say that it doesn't feel like a comic book? That it trascends it's origins? Why can't the fact that it's good mean that they got the comic book right?

I love Ebert but I couldn't help but feel a bit angry when I read the first line in his review of The Dark Knight: "Batman isn't a comic book anymore." And yeah, I know that technically that's true because, well, yeah, it's a goddamn movie, but that's not what he meant, is it? He's talking about what everybody else is talking about. The realism and the grittyness and the... darkness, whatever that means.

Most critics are talking about these things, and the fact that The Dark Knight is "not a comicbook film" but a "crime film," like it's never come up in the comics, like the film has elevated these in ways nobody thought possible. The truth is that most of The Dark Knight has been inspired by specific stuff. The Joker's been the way Heath Ledger portrays him since Alan Moore and Frank Miller reivented him, along with Kevin O'Neil and Neal Adams, during the 80s and late 70s.

The whole thing about the Joker trying to turn Dent into an insane killer in that hospital scene can be dated back to the famous "The Killing Joke."

The list goes on.

The Dark Knight is fantastic. It's not the best film ever, but it's good. And it's a good superhero movie, even if it sounds better to call it a "crime epic," I guess.

Completely agree with you, Jorge. Almost everything from TDK has an original idea that can be traced back to the comics. And the script is concious of these. It even draws lines from specific stories. "He does that"? Long Halloween. "Inadequate sense of morality"? The Killing Joke. And, thematically, everything's right there, in the comics. Of course, only real fans can sense these things, being familiar with the original stories. Critics aren't.

What critics need to comprehend (even great ones like Ebert) is that the worst examples of comic-book stories, even when they're the majority, don't define a whole genre, or a whole format. There are some (maybe many) examples of comic-books that cand be regarded as the highest and purest of arts (Watchmen comes to mind right away) and they're still comic books. Not sequential art, graphic novels... but comic books. There's a lot of predjudice against them.

For example, B movies are abundant, and there are plenty of stupid, corny and inmature movies out there. But they don't define cinema just because they're the majority. You need to define comic books by its majority AND by its best examples... which, of course, will always be only a few.

Critics need to start reading good comics, right away.

Michel: I'm ignorant about comics, and yet I recently posted something about the importance of background and context in understanding movies! Not that I haven't read them, as a kid, and then graphic novels as an adult ("Watchmen," "Dark Night Returns" -- and, of course, "Maus," "Persepolis," etc., that have nothing to do with superheroes). But, obviously, I'm not an aficionado. I'm hesitant to read books before I see their movie adaptations, too, simply because I want to see the movie for what it is and not bring to it my own preconceived ideas, and story/character information that the movie itself fails or declines to provide. But I do read books, so sometimes I've already read them by the time the movie comes out. (In other cases, if I'm interested, I read them later.)

Thank goodness I can rely on reader comments to (retroactively) fill in the gaps in my knowledge!

Jim, in the realm of non-superhero comics, if you haven't already I get the feeling you'd have a fine time with the collected works of Peter Bagge. Also perhaps with my favorite comic of all time, Love and Rockets, by Gilbert and Jaime Hernandez. They've been chronicling the lives of two different large casts of rich characters (many of which feel like friends to me) for nearly 30 years now and haven't lost a step.

Watchmen has been mentioned as a comic a couple of times in these comments, so it seems reasonable to bring the discussion to the impending movie. The comic is considered one of the best AND most important comics of the medium's history. It will be interesting to see if the movie has any affect at all on people's perceptions about "comic book movies."

I can almost guarantee that almost every review of Watchment will start with "widely considered to be one of the best comics of all time." The multi-million dollar question is, will that phrase be followed by, "and I can see why . . ." or "but this is a movie, not a comic book."

As far as I can see, Watchmen is loved for at least three things. 1) it treated the whole idea of superheroes seriously. 2) it's a fantastic piece of storytelling, and 3) it used the medium to it's highest potential. The whole concept of words placed over pictures to convey a story and action was done with a level of sophistication that was (and still pretty much is) undreamed of anywhere else.

Seems to me that the movie has a chance to match the first two elements, and if it can, it should be a very good movie that is talked about along with Dark Knight, Iron Man, Spider-Man 2 etc. But what I'm really interested to see if there is even an attempt to translate that third area into the film. Stuff like the "mirror" issue, newspapers/trash telling the global story, or Dr. Manhattan existing on both sides of a page simultaneously (when he's entering the Artic fortress) could only seem to work in the comic book format. Will the movie try to somehow copy them, push the limits of film in a similar manner, or just ignore them altogether?

In any event, given its comic pedigree, this is one movie in the pipeline that might change the dynamics of this discussion.

You forgot A History of Violence and Road to Perdition, both of which were based on comic books.

I've been following your posts on The Dark Knight, and the comments on your posts, with a lot of interest. I'm really into this topic partly because I've really been enjoying the superhero movie genre the last few years, and partly because I think this genre presents such interesting problems for a critic. You know, the art-movie vs. blockbuster thing, the source vs. adaptation thing, all the things people have been talking about here.

I've noticed a particular trap I fall into when trying to talk about comic book movies that I don't seem to encounter with other genres. It has to do with realism--I find myself praising a superhero movie when it depicts realistic emotion, or a realistic setting (something Dark Knight does with its version of Gotham), or treats superpowers in a more or less realistic way. At the same time when a comic book movie makes logical leaps, as it inevitably does, I tend to excuse it by appealing to the pulpy nature of the source--"whaddya expect, it's only a comic book?" Not entirely intellectually honest, I'm afraid, but I do it anyway.

The point being that I'm not sure yet that we've developed critical standards for this genre. That is, as you say, we can judge a superhero movie as a movie, and we should, but can we also judge it as a superhero movie, like we'd judge a Western by the conventions of that genre? The superhero movie genre has been around for a long time, but I'm not sure it's been taken seriously long enough for us to have really figured out how to talk about it on its own terms--other than the fanboy method of judging its fidelity to its sources.

In the interests of not droning on ad nauseum in this comment, I'll mention that I wrote about this in connection with The Dark Knight on my own li'l blog a little while ago. I try to do most of my droning there.

I agree that the issue is one of perception and expectation: on one side, you've got the critics who will ONLY praise a comic book or superhero film if it is so full of psychological sturm und drang that is ceases to be any fun; at the other end of the spectrum are the critics who will criticise one comic book or superhero film for being 'merely' mindless entertainment, then criticise another for daring to aspire to some emotional depth or realism ('what does this film think it is? doesn't it know it's ONLY a comic book film!').

As a film AND comic book fan, I find something like THE DARK KNIGHT to be the perfect antidote to both schools: gritty and complex enough to be involving for a grown-up; fantabulously action-packed enough to also satisfy the 12-year old in you (and maintaining a lovely balancing act between both approaches).

Versus Superman Returns, which was just mopey and never soared.

Or the Fantastic Four films, which were just plain stupid.

It really is mainly A.O. Scott, who never seems to give a comic book movie a good review, and upon seeing the Dark Knight as it was peaking in popularity, he declared that 'it was a sign that comic book movies were on their way out'.

New Yorker too. There's this kind of idea that a comic book movie should be something goofy, and its a catch 22, because when Batman, for example, is goofy its not as good. Its a handful of prominent critics.