Ebert Does NOT Like Superman
Posted by John Campeaon 27. 06. 2006in News Chat
It’s no secret that Superman Returns has been my single most anticipated film since Revenge of the Sith. I think it’s going to be amazing, and in my mind (so far) Bryan Singer can do no wrong (a bit fan boyish of me I admit… but there you go).
Just about every major critic has been going crazy with love for Superman Returns. However… don’t start shinning up that Oscar just yet. Roger Ebert just put out his review of Superman Returns, and it’s not quite as pretty:
This is a glum, lackluster movie in which even the big effects sequences seem dutiful instead of exhilarating. The newsroom of the Daily Planet, filled with eccentricity and life in the earlier movies, now seems populated by corporate drones. Jimmy Olsen, the copy boy, such a brash kid, seems tamed and clueless. Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) has lost her dash and pizzazz, and her fiance, Richard White (James Marsden), regards her like a deer caught in the headlights. Even the editor, Perry White (Frank Langella), comes across less like a curmudgeon, more like an efficient manager.
Ouch ouch Ouch!
So what does this mean? I’m going to see Superman Returns in about 9 hours. My expectation levels just droped a couple of points. I actually respect Ebert a lot. However… do keep in mind that this is the same Ebert who just gave that sack of shit movie, Fast And the Furious 3, a positive reviews. So take that as you will.
Maybe Superman Returns will suck after all? Maybe it will rule? I’ll let you know my thoughts after the show. Up Up and away mother F’ers.
This post was written by :
John Campea who has written 6783 posts on The Movie Blog
visit author's website | Contact the Author
My expectations are still quite high, there have been ALOT of positive reviews for Superman Returns that cant be over looked.
Personally I find that I agree with Ebert as much as I disagree with him, so while I don’t mind touching base with his reviews, by no means does his review effect whether or not I see a movie.
Which, coincidentally, is the same way I feel about John Campea, I agree with alot of it and disagree with just as much ( Im still smarting from your Rob Zombie bashing!)
PS~ am I the only one confused by the DC and Marvel cross-marketing? Spidey trailer being shown at Superman Returns? also, I believe Superman Returns was moved to Wednesday from Friday not for money, but to completely destroy the new Blade series on SpikeTV tonight, its been advertised June 28 for like 6 months now, good thing I have a PVR, lol.
nord
Ebert’s lost it lately…he even gave Garfield 2 three stars. I rarely agree with him anymore. He’s come off as very self-important lately…
I really respect what Ebert has to say and his review just seems to say that this is a differnt version of what made Superman 1&2 decent and that everyone may be quick to kiss up to Singer for a glossed over not particularly innovative movie.
I have already seen the movie (member of the press in NC), but since I wrote a review summary for my newspaper i could not share it with you guys, but what i can say is that Ebert does have some points, but he may be a little harsh. This movie is good, but it isn’t innovative, it tries a little too hard, the special effects seem sometimes pointless and it is extremely glossed, but why would you expect differently? Trust me, you all should see this movie, it will only dissapoint a few people (it was made to please).
Ebert’s “positive” review of F&F3 was more a thumbs up to Justin Lin (who made a great movie in Better Luck Tommorrow) for improving F&F above the second one (which he did)–so don’t hold the positive review against him there. Which to his credit managed to move the “Cream of teh Crop” rating of the film up 9% points from its predecessor.
The movie will be fine, just like all of Singer’s work—-but don’t think it will be as great as X-Men or of course The Usual Suspects
Oh and his positive review of Garfield 2 seemed like a total joke to me ( i think he knew people would read it if he had one of the only positive reviews) i mean he wrote it from Garfield’s perspective about his own movie….
I dont think its fair to take distrust Eberts opinion on Superman Returns because of his Fast and the Furious review. Superman Returns and Tokyo Drift are two different films which strive for two different things. Tokyo Drift is nothing but an over the top, dumb, car movie. It doesnt try to be anything more. Its a quick and fun matinee showing. You go in, enjoy what you saw and then forget it. Ebert feels it succeeds at that. Superman Returns is trying to be the biggest superhero epic ever. Its trying to bring back an american icon. Its trying to be more then just a summer flick. Ebert must feel that it does not succeed at doing what its trying to do. He reviews his movies for what they try to be as no movie is hardly the same. His opinion is just as valid about the movie rather he gave Garfield 2 or Tokyo Drift good reviews or not.
Ebert dropped a major spoiler for me in this review, about Lois’s kid. That makes me angry.
I cant wait to find out what Doug thinks of this movie. I hate love stories that are fused into decent ass kicking movies.
Why does anyone care what Ebert thinks? Does it really matter what one person has to say about a movie?
Berardinelli does (really) like it. That’s enough for me :-)
«Superman Returns clocks in at a fat 157 minutes, but I hardly noticed the passage of time. The movie had me enthralled from opening to closing. One could easily argue that Singer used his time in the X-Men universe as an opportunity to hone his superhero movie skills. Superman Returns is near the top Рif not at the top Рof the superhero movie pile. It offers nearly everything: romance, action, humor, and plenty of goose bumps. For Superman, many happy returns.»
http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/movies/s/superman_returns.html
I usually read Ebert’s reviews. He writes fun and interesting reviews, like I remember when he reviewed ‘Halloween H20′ he spent some time wondering what Michael Myers does when it’s not halloween, and then goes on how he could be a mime.
Anyways..as much as I respect the man, I’m thinking he’s getting a little soft, and often harsher, at his older age.He doesn’t review half of anything anymore. He good reviews to both the new Fast and the Furious and the new Garfield movie. He gave War of the Worlds only two stars.
Not to mention he gave Tim Burton’s Batman movies both two stars and then preceeded to give Batman and Robin the same rating.
What it probably was, was that he was probably came into the movie, unable to enjoy for some reason or another, and left picking at it’s every weakness. I do it quite a bit, too.
I think ebert is now just a cynical old man….sad really….
Realy slybri, was that a spoiler? because it seemed pretty obvious to me as soon as i heard it in the synopsis….
That’s because Roger Ebert knows what makes a great movie. And I always pay attention to what Ebert says.
If he doesn’t like it, most likely the stories are stale and unrealistic.
At least I have the Spiderman 3 teaser to look foward to! HAHA
He’s been pretty crap at reviews for a while now. You say that your expectations have dropped a few points based on a review by a man giving crappy movies good reviews? I don’t understand this undying respect for the man from anyone. Almost everytime he right’s a bad review of a good movie or vice versa, everyone always says, “But I have a lot of respect for him.” Question, how many time does he have to crap out before people start seeing that he’s lost his skill and is only writing to please himself and his (once worthy) salary. Sorry for the rant but I am just amazed at the slack this man is given. Unless I missed that he saved a baby from a fire or is ushering in the second coming, Ebert lost my love a long time ago.
whoa, sorry about my typo’s!
you’re worried about the opinion of the guy who liked garfield:2. c’mon, john… seriously…
Is anybody else worried taht Lex Luthors bg scheme is creating a continent in the middle of the atlantic. It sounds so incredibly stupid
Also, IGN’s review of Superman Returns is pretty good. They gave it three and half stars. They actually seem to be pretty brutual in the actual review. Honestly, I never would of thought they would of given it that good of a review after reading what they actually wrote. Basically they claim its two thirds of a good movie and that the last third falls flat.
Ebert always goes about his rule:
“A movie is not what it is about; it is how it is about it.”
I’ve spoken to Ebert during the Overlooked Film Festival here in Champaign, Illinois and he says that he bases his reviews on the film’s genre rather than the entire world of film. He said that if he did that there would be no four star movies today. He didn’t like Superman Returns because it wasn’t as good as Superman I or II and because of that he only gave it two stars.
The reason he gave Fast and the Furious 3 and Garfield 2 positive reviews is because they succeed at what they were supposed to do. Tokyo Drift succeeded in giving pure entertainment and compared to the two predecessors it is an equal film. Garfield 2 succeeds in being a good family film and this is why (in his mind) it is a good film.
For War of the Worlds, the reason why he didn’t give that film a positive review is that Spielberg is in the director’s chair and it wasn’t even close to his greatest science fiction works (Close Encounters, Minority Report, A.I.).
Regardless of what Ebert says, I am still seeing this movie in IMax!!! I know most of the reviews have been postive but there have been some negative ones coming in other than Eberts. And they all have the somewhat of the same legitimate claims.
I guess what it boils down to if you like the new changes Singer brings to the mythos the same way Donner did when he made Supes I and some of II. From Donners version of Krypton, to one parent dying not both, to the way Lex became somewhat of comical villian surrounded by buffons. I liked the changes and was willing to put up with the villianary buffonery because Chris Reeves was amazing and Donner gave us some of the best cinematic footage in the first 45 mins of any movie in movie history.
Now I am not cool about the kid and I am not cool about some of Singers acting choices, Bosworth being not my thing to play Lois Lane or Frank Langella for Perry.
I am also not cool if Singer does nothing more than immitate Donner and doesn’t do anything to carve out Superman in the image he thinks Supes should be.
But I will wait and see. However some of the neg reviews are coming out and confirming some of my own reservations. So I really hope this movie is not just good, but great and blows me out of the seat!!
I really do because so far the summer movie season has been rather dull.
And if Supes fails to live up to expectations, there is always Spidey 3 and the sequel to Batman begins!!! Now those are movies that are worth looking forward too!!!
Ebert’s review doesn’t surprise me at all. His words have been my own fears for this movie. I was hoping that come tomorrow evening I’d be wrong, but it looks like I won’t be. Hopefully, I won’t see it quite as harshly as Ebert did.
the thing I like about ebert is he takes each film for what it is and judges it on that. Plus he doesn’t make up his mind about a film before he has seen it.
It’s all about Roeper. I take him seriously. Ebert is very nearly retarded. Singing praises about Fast and the Furious 3 and Garfield 2 (he thinks this Garfield was better than the original – which he also gave thumbs up). He’s had some more than quetionable reviews in the past year and I take nothing he says, anymore, as serious movie making knowledge.
Richard Roeper Richard Roeper Richard Roeper.
~ Drewbacca
MoviePatron.com
“very nearly retarded”
Made my day Drew, lol, and usually I roll my eyes at your comments.
nord
It needs to be said, that Ebert is a very, very big fan of the original Superman film, and it would seem that, perhaps, he was unable to seperate what was, with what is. It happens to all reviewers sometimes, they let their personal tastes get in the way of the film they are reviewing.
Not saying this happened here, but I’m just saying that it is a possibility.
I agree that Roeper is the much better critic, he’s able to react naturally to a movie instead of overthinking it. I dont think Ebert even knows whats good anymore. He has political biases and is a snob, but tries not to be and thats why his reviews can be so wrong. He’s an excellent writer though and a quick wit on his show, so I still like him anyhow.
I for one, hate Roeper. Sometimes he doesn’t like a film just because of what it is. Take for example his review of Kung Fu Hustle. He gave it a thumbs down because he was “kung-fu’ed out.” He never gave a particular reason why he disliked the movie but insisted just dissing it because it had martial arts in it. Roeper also trashed “Wallace and Gromit” because it was too British for him. Again, he never details why he hates the movie. Sure I disagree with Ebert from time to time (Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket, Gladiator) but at least he has reasons why he did not like a film.
jonesy…it is impossible for a review to be wrong. the only way a review could ever be wrong is if for example someone reviewed titanic and said “i didn’t like this film because kirsten dunst and josh hartnett were totally wrong for the leads”
that would be wrong because they are not in the film.
reviews are just someones opinion and to say ebert got some thing wrong is ridiculous.
So ebert gave fast and furious a good review? why does that have any baring on what he thought of superman?
it doesn’t at all.
he thought fast and the furious achieved what it set out to do…IN HIS OPINION.
he thought superman failed.
he isn’t wrong…nor is he right…that is just how he saw it…
I fucking love trailer park boys. I fucking love it.
I am neither right or wrong in saying that i believe it to be the greatest show ever made and that we are all blessed each and every one of us to live in its age……..but if you hate it or someone else hates I can’t say they are wrong….
I think lost in translation is the most orverrated piece of garbage I have ever had the misfortune to sit through. again I am not right or wrong about that. it is just how I feel……
opinions cannot be wrong.
Well said Carter.
But all your other opinons are wrong.
:P
:)
~John
Ebert liked Davinci Code, he liked Fast and the furious 3. He has lost all taste and needs to retire.
Yes, let’s jump on and pounce on Ebert!
Forget about : Manohla Dargis in the New York Times and Kenneth Turan in the Los Angeles Times who says: “This is a film that tries too hard and wants too much”…
The majority of critics though, have gone apeshit over “Superman”, is it that much of a shock that there might be a small handful who didn’t care for the film?
This attack on Ebert is uncalled for. I also think it is wrong for John to call out Ebert alone. But that’s not the worst of it: if half of the comments here are indeed the concensus, then everyone must have loved “Duece Bigelow 2″. Correct?
Josh: As for Ebert’s giving the Burton and first Shumacher Batfilms mixed reviews, he gave ‘Batman Begins’ a very high rating last year. Did we all forget that too? Seems to be the story. How short memories we all have. You know something? A friend of mine yesterday made a complelling arguement that all the “critics” especially Ebert. is out of touch with the poplulace. I asked him if he was ready to rent “Ultraviolet” when it went to the video shelves today. He clammed up. Fast.
On a related note? I don’t think Ebert digs Singer’s work behind the camera all that much anyway, with the exception of X2. Remember Ebert’s response to Usual Suspects?
We can agree to disagree; but again these cheap shots are just that.
Cheap.
“they let their personal tastes get in the way of the film they are reviewing.”
Damn people not ticking off mrkeen’s objective movie checklist.
I know what you meant though, we had a film reviewer in Oz, nationally lauded film reviewer mind you, who gave The Replacements a 0 because “my dad was in the trade union.” WTF?
I’ll probably see this a month into the theatrical run. No point seeing it with a bunch of rowdy tossers.
I think the biggest turn off is Lois Lane. How old is she when she had a kid? Was she even of legal age? Is her kid going to start playing a banjo?
darren seeley’s on point.
And I don’t get why everybody’s acting like this movie’s fucking oscar caliber (if that’s even a good thing). It’s got a 79% over at rottentomatoes–which you guys like to use like a flow chart–which is good, but compared to how you guys describe critics practically humping the shit out of this movie, it’s pretty lackluster.
And to drive home the point I’ve been making since the 8th grade…
Batman Begins had over an 85% at rottentomatoes this time last year, thus proving,
Batman>>>>Superman.
I stand by my words but on second thought I take back what I said about trailer park boys.
if you do not like it you are dead to me.
you don’t have to be a rocket appliance to figure that out.
I’m rather torn by Superman Returns. This is a non-spoiler review BTW. The first hour is a mess and it seems the film makers really didn’t know what to do with it. All my worst fears seemed to be realized. Every role seemed miscast, all the pay offs for each scene were based solely on nostalgia, and the film making seemed to be rooted in the 1970s. Then the filmed managed to change and transformed into a modern telling of the character. Also the actors began to shrug off the earlier bad vibes. Lois Lan became confident, Lex became evil, and Superman became Super. After the inital appearance, I warmed to the costume and Routh being Superman. So yes, I was wrong about Routh. There, I said it. Well, wrote it. Superman Returns strongest scenes were often not those with Superman but with his human co-chatacrers. This film had a better grasped of Superman being a God more so than any other film. Walking away from it, I over all enjoyed the movie. I even liked the kid.
The only part I really did not care for was Routh’s Clark Kent. Which surprises myself since from the trailer, I was ok with Routh’s Kent but not his Superman. Routh managed to make Superman his own, he couldn’t move Clark Kent beyond imitating Christopher Reeve. Which is sad since it almost feels like Kent just wasn’t needed for this film. There are only two scenes that Clark Kent was release used and both felt forced. I have to come down on the side that this wasn’t Routh’s fault either. I feel the film makers just pushed the tie ins to the first two movies so hard that they wouldn’ let it naturally happen.
Side note, the crowd at the theater went wild over the Spiderman 3 trailer. Apparently they weren’t on the net the past few days. They were jumping to the feet. I was rather surprised by that reaction.
No Spoilers.
I was not able to go see the first showing but my cousin did go. Now we are both fans of big blue, he is one of if not the most well known super hero, but it was painful to hear his words bring my worst fears to fruition. “It was not all that, it was average…” A fair movie that didn’t come close to living up to its great hype.
I had a feeling it was going to turn out like that. I really wanted so bad to be wrong… disappointing. I will still see it but with much lower expectations…
A broken fan.
LMFAO Get Carter
I fucking love me some Trailer Park Boys.
“You don’t have to be a rocket appliance to figure that out”
Fucking classic!!!!
“Take it easy Magnum PEI”
nord
Man, the movie fucking rocked. What was Ebert smoking to give this two stars? If you go to his website and look at the review, at the top it has his stars and what other people think. Other people gave it nearly four stars. Fuck Ebert.
Yeah, you’re right.
cooonnffforrrmmm, ebert. confffoorrrrmmm.
individual opinions are for commie hethans.
well nord i don’t want to be the one to say i toad a so but i toad a so…
ricky for president!
After work today I went to see the film, while I thought it was nice to see the trailer for Hollywoodland, to my dismay- NO SPIDEY 3 TRAILER in this Supey screening. Antbully looks…interesting, but nor webhead.
Too bad
So sad
bye bye
Lucky for QT.
Now…on to Supey…
I can see where Ebert is coming from. But I don’t think anything is going to match up with the storytelling of the Donner film.
I JUST SAW IT IT SUCKED TO MUCH TALKING AND THE 3D SUCKED
now, Ed, try speaking in coherent sentences and show us you can grasp higher brain functions enough to actually comprehend a film.
sorry. but there’s no excuse for that kind of grammar. if you’re wanting to make a point, you had better use cohesion. Otherwise no one gives a crap what you’re going to say.
as it is, i’m going to like it just to spite you.
I don’t trust either Roepert or Ebert (not that I really trust any critics). Roepert is far too motivated by personal biases. I lost all respect for him when he panned the first Lord of the Rings by saying it was stupid to go around chasing a ring. He then went on to rave about the second two installments after he saw how well received the first one was. Ebert might as well just flip a coin. I find his reviews inconsistant and flimsy.
As for the movie, I liked it. Singer does a brilliant job with these movies. My only real complain is that some scenes were held far too long. Especially at the beginning there are a couple scenes where the shot is held for suspense, but there is no real suspense, just frustration. The ending is also a little weak. It’s not bad at all, but no real explaination is given for what happens to Superman.
Sigh… really Ebert is getting old.
Yes the movie ahs its weak points. But overall it was a good bit of story telling. I especially liked the integration of the relationships of fathers and sons, it delves into both the immediate longings of a man for mate and offsprings, as well as into the entire judeo-christian mythos of god unto man. The movie, though it doesn’t seem so at first has several intricately written layers that one doesn’t notice until you attempt to sort out the movie a few hours after seeing it. It isn’t the original, even though it borrows heavilly from them. But I don’t think its supposed to be. Superman is meant to be a far more brooding character, Lois Lane is meant to be a less insecure woman. If you look into what the story is trying to convey I think the actors did a good job pulling it off, seeing how most people went into the theatre expecting Chris Reeve and Margot Kidder. Anyhoo thats my two cents in… gonna be quiet now…
I, for one, give it 9.7 out of 10. I’ m trying not to give too much away, but a ‘certain character’ definitely changes a lot in the Superman storyline, and if anything, leaves people scratching their heads wondering what will happen with that in the sequel, and I sincerely hope there is a sequel. I see that plot tangent as a good thing. I believe Spacey did a marvelous job as Luthor; less campiness, more…brutal/lethal? The iconic imagery, I thought, was simply fantastic, and paid an homage to comics fans, Reeves fans, and simply, Superman fans.
My .3 really only comes for one reason, and I’ll probably get flamed for it, but that’s okay; I deserve it. ‘Truth, Justice, and…..all that stuff?’ I can understand the desire to put that classic line in there, but I feel that it should all be in there, or none of it. Now, I know the Red Scare is going to come up, and many other dissected points of history concerning Superman, but it’s lost on me. Why? First of all because I’m a thumb-sucking right of the center flag-waver; second of all, because I still believe in the American Way. Sure, the world doesn’t really see America like that anymore (did it ever?), but I still have pride in being an American, and in the comics world, Superman is a fellow American. Yes, I know that he endeavors to protect all of humanity, but he is an American with that endeavor. Superman IS the America all of us want.
Superman was the worst movie I have seen all year. My god. Soooo long and soooo boring. Didn’t answer most questions and the whole plot was shady at best. Every attempt at humor was horrible because the guy playing superman was like a drone. Don’t pay to see this movie. Not woth the 10 dollars.
Come on people; why would you take anything this idiot Ebert says. I mean, he would rate a movie like “The elderly man who fell down unexpectedly” with 4 stars! And everyone should quit comparing Superman Returns with the original. Just enjoy it for what it is!