Critic Review - Hollywood Reporter

Serves up all the requisite elements with enough self-deprecating humor to suggest it doesn't take itself too seriously.

June 15, 2011 Full Review Source: Hollywood Reporter | Comments (15)
Hollywood Reporter
Top Critic IconTop Critic


adithya k.

adithya kantewada

Todd You gave this movie a positive review. Then I have to think about watching it. I thought its a so-so movie.

Jun 15 - 04:28 AM


Stephen Watson

Right, time for everyone to desperately grab onto this review in determined hope.

Jun 15 - 05:00 AM

ray e.

ray ero


Jun 15 - 10:31 AM

Alan Smithee

Alan Smithee

Hmm, so basically you're giving this flick a pass because deep down even it knows it's not very good? What is this, 1997?

Jun 15 - 07:11 AM

Orhan S.

Orhan Sulejmani

They gave positive reviews to films who didn't take themselves seriously in 1997?

Jun 15 - 07:38 AM

Alan Smithee

Alan Smithee

No one took comic movies seriously back then. Get with the program bucko.

Jun 15 - 11:28 PM


Richard Smolnicky

That's news to me. Because I recall "Batman & Robin" getting totally DESTROYED that year by the critics. And that description fits that 1997 movie PERFECTLY.

Jun 16 - 12:53 AM

Alan Smithee

Alan Smithee

EXACTLY the reason why I brought that year up specifically. yes, B&R got destroyed because it was a cr@p movie, but it still had it's defenders at the time trying to claim it was alright because after all it's a comic flick and merely kids stuff not to be taken seriously. From what we have to reference nowadays, I don't see how anyone can use that tired excuse anymore.

Jun 17 - 12:27 AM

Adam J.

Adam Jackson

For $300 million it should try and take itself seriously. I'm a fan of the character and this movie feels like it was made just so DC could sell toys and apparel to kids.

Jun 15 - 11:13 AM

Stepping Razor

Stepping Razor

I agree. I think all filmmaking should be taken seriously, even if a studio's making a "dumb comedy." But, as of late, studio accountants seem to be running everything, and all they care about is some familiar brand name or franchise tag to hook onto in order to sell toys, t-shirts and slurpees.

Jun 15 - 04:53 PM

J. Pack

Jeremy Pack

Where'd you get the 300 mil figure? If i had to guess it would be about 230.

Jun 15 - 03:04 PM

Alan Smithee

Alan Smithee

Perhaps the front page of Yahoo News?

Jun 15 - 04:36 PM

Liam H.

Liam Ho

$300 million is with marketing also; most all bid budget blockbusters cost around that much to make and market. It's just strange that they would report it for this movie specifically. Its like when people report Superman Returns cost $260 million; but a good chunk of that cost came from development hell from so many people coming and going.

Jun 15 - 11:01 PM


THGhost .

It's actually just $200 million -

Jun 16 - 12:02 PM

Alan Smithee

Alan Smithee

Major source fail. If you actually followed the link on wiki, the estimate was "more than $200 mill." Not to mention the article was written three months ago which was before the the extra special effects work. The Yahoo News link on the other hand is up to date.

Jun 16 - 10:34 PM

Find us on:                     
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile