That's the only part I wanted to address.
It's really not a tough concept to grasp. When movie is meant to be independent from the source material, the studying the source material should not be needed. If it is needed, then the movie has failed.
It requires you to know what you're going into. If you go in to the movie clueless about who is who (especially when this is a sequel and not a first installment) you failed in comprehending it. Not the movies fault. Still, its irrelevant to what I was saying.
If those are negative traits, then it doesn't matter that it's supposed to be that way. If too much violence, too much darkness, and not enough humor means that people don't enjoy the movie, then saying "It's supposed to be that way," doesn't change or excuse that.
Except they're not negative traits. (Who gets to decide that anyway?) Am I going to say a horror movie is bad because its scary? Or that thrillers are bad because they keep you on the edge? Or that comedies are bad because they're not serious? If you don't like a certain genre, than don't watch it. Each movie is to be judged under the criteria it's genre puts up.
In this case, we have a dark and a serious movie. Calling a dark and serious movie bad because it's dark and serious is something that will ruin your credibility forever.
Is Batman supposed to be dark, gritty, without much humor from Batman and violent? Yes. Does that mean Batman media can't be criticized for containing these elements? Not even close.
On purpose=/=can't be criticized.
Reffer to above. It's one thing not to like a movie (not being someone's cup of tea) but it's a totally different thing to call it bad because you don't like the type of movie it is.
And yes, you can criticize. Noone can stop you. The thing is, unjust criticizm renders your word worthless. So be my guest.
Criticism is a mix between subjective and objective. What makes a good movie lies on both personal preferences and objective criteria. It's not either, so yes, the subjective opinion on the genre can be included in a criticism
Either way, what I said above still applies. Just because the source material was that way, or just because the movie was made that way on purpose doesn't mean that way can't be criticized.
No, no and again no. Criticism should always be objective. Failing to keep your personal prefferences out of the way (atleast to an extent) is a sign you're not a good critic.
You don't give the movie a lower grade just because you'd preffer to watch a different type of movie. That's why we have different critics for different movies. For example, I didn't like Fight Club. I didn't like it at all. The ideas it presented were quite pitiful to me, but does that make it a bad movie? No, ofcourse not!
Wether a movie is good or not is determined by wether or not it succeded in reaching its goals. If the point of a movie is to scare you then it succeds if it scares you. If its point is to deliver a serious story than it succeds if it does in fact bring a serious story.
How else, do I explain this?
And I'm saying the movie should be able to give you enough to fully understand the movie. If you need to read the comics to understand the movie at all, then the movie isn't doing a good job.
It gave you enough to understand the parts which you were meant to understand. If you wanted to know everything that ties into it and that has yet to be revealed, then it's your problem, not the movie.
