Ebert pans Supes

Ebert pans Superman Returns. Huh. That would probably be enough for me to pass on seeing it, if I didn’t know two people involved in the production…

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on Google+

6 Comments

Add yours →

  1. Ouch! I wasn’t that bothered to start with (Spiderman girl, here) but that’s really going to make me think twice.

  2. I heard it was great- hardened movie makers who saw the preview raved to me about it – and I hear Perry White’s office kicks arse

  3. Heh. Oh, I’ll be watching for Perry’s office, Miss Fee! That’s one of the aforementioned two reasons for going. 🙂

  4. I’ve read tons of good reviews of the movie, but that’s the first really negative (as opposed to just “eh”) review I’ve read–I would have thought that Ebert would love the movie, seeing as he WORSHIPS Spider-Man 2. And is it really okay to use “exuberance” in a sentence the way he did? “The original ‘Superman’ (1978) was an exuberance of action and humor.” Yeah, it’s a noun, but I’ve never seen it used that way. It’s like saying “She played the game with an enthusiasm of spirit and energy.”

    Okay, I’ll shut up now. 🙂

  5. Are you daring to criticize the word choice of the world’s first Pulitzer Prize-winning film critic?? 🙂

  6. I actually enjoyed it. We saw a matinee on Wednesday that I expected to be packed. Thankfully, it was not. I thought it was outstanding. Granted I do have a soft spot for Superman movies in general (thanks to my sisters, I’ve seen Superman II roughly 8,000 times), but I thought it was fun and Kevin Spacey is always a great lunatic. There are things that could have been better, but it made the time pass (including the 30 minutes of previews) and I came out with a smile on my face. I’m guessing Ebert’s expectations were pretty high for Singer, but I think you’ve got to see it for yourself.

Comments are closed.