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

[Nivek]

Screw Fox News.

 

[Speedball]

Screw Fox News.

Totally agree.
I pretty much hate all news corps.
Stupid biased asses.

 

[The Eradicator]

If it turns out that Ebert's review is a fake, I'll take back some of the harsh comments I made about him earlier and apologize. However, I still think he needs to have his head examined for his reviews on Garfield and FF3. Let's just hope the man doesn't go totally insane with his opinions in the coming years.

 

[TPS1000]

Ebert's ** star review is true, folks. The person quoted on page 68 is a poster on OscarWatch.com, he works for a newspaper and gets in Ebert's reviews early. He usually posts the star ratings of Ebert's reviews and any interesting quotes from the reviews. He is 100% reliable.

 

[MoreCowbell]

We'll wait and see... We've been wrong before, however I think we're right this time and it's a fake.

can someone give us the RT link to this guy?

 

[TPS1000]

First post on this page:
http://www.bluetights.net/theplanet/showthread.php?t=14086&page=108&pp=15

 

[MoreCowbell]

NOTE: Unless otherwise indicated, "Coming Soon" blurbs are informational only, written about films that have not yet been screened. Roger Ebert's actual review will not appear until the day of release.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060606/REVIEWS/60606009/1023

Owell... Won't hurt anything.

 

[The Eradicator]

O well, I guess the man has his reasons.

 

[quinlanvoss]

EBERT...

He truly is becoming a silly old fool.

I saw the pic - Returns is a very strong film and i really cannot imagine what more a person could expect from the film.

His reviews are becoming more skewed and stranger the older he gets.

Ebert's analysis of DaVinci code as being preposterously entertaining is simply preposterous - the one thing that film isn't is entertaining (as 99% of the global critical community noted).

Honestly, his reviews are almost comical now.

He has stated before he has never really liked superman and related more to Batman.

Weird, as a normal humna being i have never related to a comic book character in any way (nor darth vader, capt sparrow or any fictional character).

 

[3 Dev Adam]

Ebert review is legit.

I just don´t agree with it.

 

[Excel]

http://www.moviereviews.cc/

 

[Mike059jig]

he praised the first 3 superman movies..maybe he's a litte old school and didn't think it matched up..however he gave spider-man a so so review while everyone else loved it

 

[Asgard]

Where has he ever stated that he's never liked Superman?

I ask because his reviews of STM and Superman 2 were brimming with excitement and awe and, well, he seemed to have absolutely loved the movies. He's even given them both a 4-star rating.

I think, if anything, Ebert came into the movie expecting to like it, and it just didnt entertain him as much.

Okay, we've got 'fool' down. Now Im just waiting for 'senile' and 'POS' to get posted. Hahaha.

 

[quinlanvoss]

he wrote he preferred Batman when reviewing BB as the characher has more depth etc.

Yes, he loved STM/SII then - SR isn't that different in tone or quality to those films and Routh is pretty much on the money when compared to Reeve.

Hence EBERT being senile & a fool - he would have loved SR in 78, however he is very different animal nowdays - more mutton than lamb.

It really doesnt matter, he is in the small minority of CON reviews.

His SM1 review was hilarous and his justifications ridiculous for not liking the film.

What he should have said as a caveat to his SR review is 'however dont trust me, i still think im in diapers'.

 

[Another_Fool]

I don't know, but I find that Ebert seems to have a problem with Bryan Singer's movies in general. Usual Suspects got thumbs down, X1 got thumbs down, apt pupil got thumbs down and now this movie gets his thumb down. His only Bryan Singer positive review was X2 - and even Ebert called that "dumb" fun.

 

[Excel]

he gave spidey 2 1/2 starz

 

[hitmanyr2k]

he gave spidey 2 1/2 starz

That 2.5 stars was well-deserved. Spider-man had a nice setup with the origin but the action scenes in the 2nd half were standard fare and not executed all that great. I remember Ebert's biggest problem was Spider-man's weightlessness to his movements that made it hard to suspend disbelief and I agree completely. Spider-man 2 definitely corrected this problem

 

[OneKnight]

Don't forget the gay, green Power Ranger masquerading as the Green Goblin.

Just terrible.

 

[OneKnight]

Superman Returns

Two stars out of four

“A glum, lackluster movie in which even the big effects sequences seem dutiful instead of exhilarating. Brandon Routh is monosyllabic as Clark Kent, and microsyllabic as Superman.”

- Roger Ebert



The gushers here got too cocky too fast.

 

[The Kid]

where'd you find that?

 

[OneKnight]

http://www.bluetights.net/theplanet/showthread.php?t=14086&page=108&pp=15

 

[The Kid]

Whooooooo This should be good.

Watching this place pretzel in on itself trying to discredit Roger Ebert, that is. The review is probably pretty well written itself.

[edit]That Spy Kids quote is gold. Jesus.

oh yeah, absolutely.

Ebert's going to get roasted if this review is real.

 

[Lead Cenobite]

Hey, I'll accept it whenever the review is posted. He's given low scores to movies I've loved before. But still, where is a good source? Some guy comes along and tells us it's true, some guy with like two posts, and we jump in and believe him?

 

[The Kid]

http://www.bluetights.net/theplanet/showthread.php?t=14086&page=108&pp=15

Oh it's real...

Die, ebert, die.

 

[Lead Cenobite]

Yes but isn't there a vague possibility that the scan could be a photoshop?