Superman Returns Official Rate and Review Superman Returns thread!!!

[WOOGIE3]

**** Elbert , seriously . He gives Garfield higher rating than Superman Returns when its painfully obvious that it was craptastic movie .
Critics like this i don't pay attention to so stuff him .

 

[Ita-KalEl]

I apologize if this has been posted. It's most certainly negative:

http://worldfilm.about.com/od/independentfilm/a/supermanvsgitmo.htm

Honestly, I can't even tell what the guy is even talking about, but Rottentomatoes is taking it as a canon review. Unfortunately

LOL funniest review ever.
In Italy you can read similar reviews only in the ultracommunist newspaper "Il Manifesto".

 

[Mr. Thing]

I apologize if this has been posted. It's most certainly negative:

http://worldfilm.about.com/od/indepe...manvsgitmo.htm

Honestly, I can't even tell what the guy is even talking about, but Rottentomatoes is taking it as a canon review. Unfortunately

What a dumb review, seriously. Comparing SR to a film about Guantanamo? Wtf.

 

[PSU442]

out of curiosity, how did Ebert review Begins?

 

[Ita-KalEl]

out of curiosity, how did Ebert review Begins?

Four Stars

 

[SingItWithMeNow]

here's a pretty neg one

http://au.movies.yahoo.com/Superman+Returns/movie/12076/featured-review/

 

[Scooter]

This is great:

Superman has been suspected of being a fascist since long before the character even existed--just ask Friedrich Nietzsche. Frank Miller, creator of the milestone comic book The Dark Knight Returns, showed the Man of Steel as a dangerously self-righteous Übermensch. If we needed any more proof, The Road to Guantanamo reveals that power doesn't ennoble, it corrupts--and that's why Superman Returns is a lie.

 

[IKnowSomeJudo]

LOL funniest review ever.
In Italy you can read similar reviews only in the ultracommunist newspaper "Il Manifesto".

Parts of it literally made me laugh out loud. Reminds me of a similar review of Batman Begins I read last year, where the reviewer basically called Batman a capitalist pig, stealing from the poor to feed the rich or some hilarious sh^t like that.

 

[Ita-KalEl]

here's a pretty neg one

http://au.movies.yahoo.com/Superman+Returns/movie/12076/featured-review/

It's not negative. I think that they are two persons that simply don't care about superheroes movies.

The only negative quote is this:

"I never understood why the staff of the Daily Planet couldn't see that Clark Kent and Superman were positively the same guy, but once you accept this unlikely premise you can probably enjoy this basically formulaic movie."

LOL

 

[The Eradicator]

Ebert used to be my favorite critic, but the man has really gone down in my book in the last few years. I think he has officially lost his mind with his recent reviews. He bashes SR, but likes trash such as Garfield and FF: Tokyo Drift? Wow, that speaks volumes for me. Ebert has lost all credibility and has become a total hack. What was once a great critic is now in my eyes one of the absolute worst.

Anyway, does anyone find it wierd that Ebert has HATED or really disliked most of Bryan Singer's films? He gave X2 three stars, but even in that review, he calls the film "dumb". It seemed like he just barely liked it. He didn't like X1, and he HATED Usual Suspects and Apt Pupil. I'm not saying that he has anything against Bryan Singer, but now that SR has entered his list of bad Singer films, I'm starting to think that Ebert's dislike of this particular director isn't coincidental. Either he just hates Singer's style or there is something else we don't know.

 

[IKnowSomeJudo]

Richard Donner, who directed the first large-scale Christopher Reeve edition in 1978, was followed for Supermans 2 and 3 by the infinitely more talented Richard Lester

I stopped reading here.

 

[The Eradicator]

I stopped reading here.

Amen to that.

 

[Scooter]

I stopped reading right here: "...aseguitrnh;srotjnh;gsrobn;aenhasr..."

Utter gibberish.

 

[hoopy3]

Can someone post the Ebert review, or a link to where they saw it...i can't seem to find it. Thanks

 

[LastSunrise1981]

Greetings all,

I live in Sumter, South Carolina and tomorrow on the military base they're having a free screening of Superman Returns at 2:00pm. I'll post a review here in this thread after I see it tomorrow.

I've always been a big fan of the Superman comics, the first two Superman movies, and of course the Animated Series that followed.

In any case, I'll post a review of what I thought tomorrow. Just figured I'd share with my fellow SR friends.

 

[LivingInClip]

People who sit and worry about reviews of a critic have no life what so ever. What does it matter? Go watch the moviee when it comes out and ignore the reviews. Don't try the whole 'gauging to see how the film is' excuse, because you already have a mindset that if it's a negative review that the critic is an idiot. You only want positive reviews - tough luck.

Get over it.
Move on.
Life life.
Watch it and enjoy it.

 

[The Eradicator]

People who sit and worry about reviews of a critic have no life what so ever. What does it matter? Go watch the moviee when it comes out and ignore the reviews. Don't try the whole 'gauging to see how the film is' excuse, because you already have a mindset that if it's a negative review that the critic is an idiot. You only want positive reviews - tough luck.

Get over it.
Move on.
Life life.
Watch it and enjoy it.

You're right, but that doesn't change that fact that Ebert has become a hack. I could care less if he gives SR a negative review or if a bunch of critics hate the film, because their opinions mean nothing to me, but what I was trying to say was that Ebert's reviews in the past couple of years have really stunned me. Even if he absolutely LOVED SR, I would still think that he's become an overall terrible critic.

I am not ashamed to admit that I am going to see this film with a very positive mindset. I love what I have seen from SR so far, I adore the character ( I am a Superman fanboy after all), and I think Singer is a great filmmaker. We're all human, and we're all hypocrites; most of the time, if not all the time, it's extremely difficult to look at anything with an unbiased point of view.

 

[IKnowSomeJudo]

You're right, but that doesn't change that fact that Ebert has become a hack. I could care less if he gives SR a negative review or if a bunch of critics hate the film, because their opinions mean nothing to me, but what I was trying to say was that Ebert's reviews in the past couple of years have really stunned me. Even if he absolutely LOVED SR, I would still think that he's become an overall terrible critic.

I thought his reviews have gotten considerably better as the 90s rolled in and onward, or at least, I agreed with most of his views on then-current movies. 80s and 70s - not so much. Looks like he's at it again though...

 

[IKnowSomeJudo]

I still have yet to find anything about that Ebert review anywhere on the net. J.Howlett, you sure you have the right info and not something some hater made up? it certainly wouldn't be unheard of. Some are willing to go to amazing lengths to discredit this movie, it's almost bizarre...

 

[The Eradicator]

I still have yet to find anything about that Ebert review anywhere on the net. J.Howlett, you sure you have the right info and not something some hater made up? it certainly wouldn't be unheard of. Some are willing to go to amazing lengths to discredit this movie, it's almost bizarre...

I heard that the quote is from the "One Minute Critic" column of the Chicago Sun Times. While there's nothing on Ebert's website, I think the blurb was in today's issue of the paper. I am not 100% sure though. We'll find out on Tuesday.

Like I said, even if the negative review turns out to be BS and Ebert actually loves the film, it doesn't change my opinion of him. He's a mere shadow of what he once was.

 

[ultimatefan]

It's not negative. I think that they are two persons that simply don't care about superheroes movies.

The only negative quote is this:

"I never understood why the staff of the Daily Planet couldn't see that Clark Kent and Superman were positively the same guy, but once you accept this unlikely premise you can probably enjoy this basically formulaic movie."

LOL

And what about accepting that a man can fly without a jet pack or any other propulsion device? Or that his skin can look and feel normal and still be bulletproof? Or that... It´s a fantasy movie, geez...

 

[quinlanvoss]

Never felt the need to post however we need to correct an error.

There is no current sun times Superman Returns review nor is there a one minute review as yet by Roger (either online or hardcopy ver).

Either the poster is confused or is a rival PR staffer attempting (rather pathetically i may add) to generate negative buzz where there is none.

 

[The Eradicator]

Never felt the need to post however we need to correct an error.

There is no current sun times Superman Returns review nor is there a one minute review as yet by Roger (either online or hardcopy ver).

Either the poster is confused or is a rival PR staffer attempting (rather pathetically i may add) to generate negative buzz where there is none.

Come to think of it, this has happened before. Days before the release of ROTS, there were threads all over the internet about how Ebert was disappointed in the film, but later on, it turned out to be complete BS (he actually gave it 3.5 stars).

We'll know for sure in a few days whether this SR review is BS or not.

 

[ultimatefan]

Never felt the need to post however we need to correct an error.

There is no current sun times Superman Returns review nor is there a one minute review as yet by Roger (either online or hardcopy ver).

Either the poster is confused or is a rival PR staffer attempting (rather pathetically i may add) to generate negative buzz where there is none.

Ebert´s reviews are post either as a sound file from his TV show with Roeper or the online version of his Chicago Sun Times review... If none are online, than it´s probably fake.

 

[Nivek]

Jamal posted on the Planet he found no additional evidence this review exists.

Curious times are these.