Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Movies' started by JonZ, Jul 15, 2008.
James Bs review. 4 stars. ReelViews Movie Review
I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but 3 of the 4 current negative reviews at RT are from Time Out New York, New York Magazine and The New Yorker. I guess all the talk about New Yorkers being pissed that Nolan filmed in Chicago instead of using their city as Gotham was true after all. It's absolutely ludicrous that "critics" let something like that play into their review of a film, but in this case the bias clearly shows. What a bunch of a-holes.
Just got back. If you can, see it in IMAX. Even if you have to wait for a later show or more convenient time this weekend. It's worth it. Every penny. The movie itself is very, very good. I would have to see it at least a second time before I say HOW good -- but right now I'm falling down on pretty darn great.
Gilliam attacks Batman - Yahoo! News UK
I'm sorry, but it's the media making a big deal about it, not Warner or anyone involved with the film. And even then most reviews have been quite respectful, even pointing out that his performance is great by itself without any bias because of his passing. Warner has made no ads that play up Ledger's death. This is, IMO, a baseless accusation.
Roger Ebert's 4 star review... The Dark Knight :: rogerebert.com :: Reviews
Totally agreed. It's like he thinks they shouldn't feature him in ANY of the ads at all or something. Terry Gilliam always has to have a negative word in it seems for everything.
So... is Rex Reed an idiot? Bat to the Future | The New York Observer
Sad that a paid critic can be that dense to the idea of a re-launch and alternate adaptation. Does he think each film version of Hamlet has been a spin-off of those previous?
Yeah, but Ebert loves Chicago Seriously, Rex Reed considers BB the worst Batman film? Seriously? I don't think I can even wrap my head around that. Seriously?!?!?
The review comments were quick to jump on Reed's misunderstanding of the franchise and the fact that 'Begins' and 'Dark Knight' are not sequels to the Burton/Schumacher movies. Now this is one critic everyone can agree on...being a complete moron. Anyone who thinks Batman & Robin is better than Begins will always be a complete moron, which Reed made clear by stating that Begins was the worst Batman movie he's seen. There's no disagreeing with that assessment of him, because to do that would be well, stupid!
Oh my goodness, what a complete tool. I didn't know Rex Reed was even still alive let alone reviewing movies, but after reading that I'm glad I haven't heard much about him in the last few years. Clearly he's not all there. In a somewhat related category(since Reed also writes for a NY publication), now 4 of the 5 negative reviews on RT are from New York critics. It's absolutely pathetic how the reviewers in that city are holding a grudge against this movie because Nolan filmed it in Chicago instead of NYC. It's about the most unprofessional bias against a film I've ever seen and I hope nobody takes the reviews from any of those publications seriously.
The critics who thought it was being "too serious" for its comic book roots is one thing, but this idea that Nolan's Batman films are worse than Schumacher's is simply sour grapes, incompetence in understanding the language of cinema, or both. I like how rottentomatoes.com is listing Eric Snider's review as negative. They quote the following: "This is easily the worst Batman film so far, and I include "Batman & Robin" in that statement." And then neglect the next line: "Just kidding. It's fantastic. I just wanted to see if a negative quote on Rotten Tomatoes would get me the same kind of psychopathic comments that other negative reviews have gotten. If it does, I guess that means those idiots really are just going by the one-sentence quotes, and not actually clicking over to read the whole review."
Good job, RT (thumbs up). Seriously, I won't critique any of the reviews of a film I haven't seen, or even one I have. Opinions are like (yadda yadda), and all that. But I agree with Brandon re: Rex Reed. It's OK to not like a film, but a professional movie watcher should at least understand the skill in making it and presenting material. The objective portion of the job. Still, all in good fun. Who cares?
Andrew Sarris of the New York Observer has a positive review to put a small dent in Brent's NY spite theory.
I would think that the negative reviews could be more of a result of some critics deciding that they were going to go against the grain and not like the movie since the movie is going to be very popular (critically and box office-wise) rather than anyone being mad about where they choose to shot. EDIT: If I lived in New York City, I'd be alot more mad at the movie if they had shot it there since they don't need anything else to screw up traffic in that city.
I wasn't going to respond to this whole critic debate. But, reading what Rex Reed wrote....What an idiot. I cannot believe he doesn't know that its a reboot. What gets me the worst. He not only gets to see the movie before me...He gets paid to do it.
I read that for the BD release they are going to make it change aspect ratios. I hope this is not true. It would be a terrible idea and would distract from the viewing in our homes. It's designed to work for IMAX screens. I hope they fix it to 2.35:1.
Just finished watching first screening here in Fiji. Left speaker was off as usual. Focus was off. Reel changes were distracting. The print had dirt and scratches galore. And the opening did not have the brightness, clarity nor the punch of the IMAX prologue on Blu-ray. The movie was less wooden than Batman Begins. Looking forward to the ratio-changing Blu-ray. LOOKED AND SOUNDED perfect on my home rig.