Critic Review - Chicago Sun-Times

I have been powerfully impressed by film versions of Batman, Spider-Man, Superman, Iron Man and the Iron Giant. I wouldn't even walk across the street to meet Wolverine.

April 30, 2009 Full Review Source: Chicago Sun-Times | Comments (23)
Chicago Sun-Times
Top Critic IconTop Critic

Comments

Borithegreat

Borithegreat Borithegreat

Let me see if I understand what your saying. You believe that the problem with this movie is that we don't care about Wolverine. Yet, for some reason, you say that it is a "well-made".

I'll be honest with you, Mr. Ebert. If I see a movie about one character's life and I don't care about him, the movie is simply badly made because it failed on its primary purpose; to give us a character to care enough to follow through.

Also, in your seventh paragraph you pretty much indicate that the movie is bad in almost every aspect. How is it then that it is "well made"?

It doesn't make sense.

Apr 30 - 10:28 AM

Jeff W.

Jeff Warren

Damn it, this is why I love Roger Ebert. I always agree with him.

Apr 30 - 10:30 AM

Greg W.

Greg White

Seems to me Ebert just doesn't like Wolverine as a character, and, as such, he could never enjoy a movie about him. That's fine with me, yet he still makes the concession that it's a well-made movie, which is somewhat... contradictory. The reasons Ebert dislikes Wolverine is why I like him: he's primitive; he's all human emotion boiled down to it's most basic level. He's an animal trying to be a human, and it's neat.

Apr 30 - 11:06 AM

jokerboy1991

jack giroux

Then why did he like X2 and X3 which were pretty Wolverine centered? Also a movie can be well made but not be good. Kind of like most Michael Bay movies, a lot of work was put in and it looks good at times, but everything else fails.

Apr 30 - 12:31 PM

FranktheRabbit

Gavin Drake

Well said

Mar 8 - 04:51 PM

Mike M.

Mike Meyer

Ebert gave a neutral review to the first X-men movie, and positive reviews to X-men 2 & 3, so that statement simply doesn't hold water.

Apr 30 - 11:31 AM

James F.

James Frommeyer

Borithegreat - A film can be technically accomplished (lighting, VFX, angles, etc) but serving a perfunctory story.

Kind of like writing a well-written paper that is completely wrong. Good grammar, vocabulary, style, etc... Doesn't mean it gets an A.

Apr 30 - 11:45 AM

Jack Sommersby

Jack Sommersby

Just like the all-time fiasco "Heaven's Gate": technically fine but soulless and contextually inept.

Apr 30 - 02:40 PM

James F.

James Frommeyer

Are you seriously going to bash a movie that features roller-skating violinists? Insane.

May 1 - 03:33 AM

Borithegreat

Borithegreat Borithegreat

I figured it be something like that. However, I feel that he should have said that. I he says its a "well made" movie and compares it to the director's other works like Tsotsi, which was critically acclaimed and Oscar nominated. So, its misleading. He should have been clear that it was good on angles, special effects...ect.

May 1 - 10:54 AM

tori_live

Kevin Rottentomatoe

In reply to this comment (#2445264)
>>>I figured it be something like that. However, I feel that he should have said that. I he says its a "well made" movie and compares it to the director's other works like Tsotsi, which was critically acclaimed and Oscar nominated. So, its misleading. He should have been clear that it was good on angles, special effects...ect.

May 2 - 08:46 AM

cifra2

First Last

Wolverine, as a character is overrated. Pretty much one note, yet, film-wise. 4 movies with him and they still didn't explore his ronin personality so well developed in the comic books. If they do a next Wolvie movie, it should be focusing in his Japan adventures. Out of the most interesting Wolverine interactions in the comic-books, they got completely wrong the ones with Rogue and Kitty Pryde, not to mention with Nightcrawler. X-Men is a franchise yearning for a reboot, as all Fox produced Marvel franchises to date.

Apr 30 - 01:39 PM

Steve W.

Steve Wirzba

I love how the quote from this review features a blatant (and misunderstood/mis-used) ripoff of a famous quote from C.S. Lewis regarding Hamlet.

"I would not walk across the room to meet Hamlet. He is everywhere I am."

Tool. Although I don't doubt this movie blows.

Apr 30 - 01:58 PM

BladeDancer

K J

I like the COMIC BOOK Wolverine, but the one in the movie isn't very likable. There is nothing there. He's more paper thin than the paper he was originally drawn on. I love the comic, but as a movie in itself, I think the big screen Wolverine is really not very impressive at all. Really, anyone who thinks this movie is good is insane. Other than some interesting but kind of fake looking action sequences, there's no script. It's more simplistic than I could have ever expected. They totally destroyed Deadpool and they hyped the whole thing up by showing other mutants that made less appearance than actors in the trailers before the film started.

Apr 30 - 08:52 PM

tyler g.

tyler gunderson

Roger is exactly right about this. The SFX are great... Jackman does a decent job with what he's given... But the dialogue is horrible, the plot points to the scribt absolutely SUCK and just a kicker to piss off the people that actually like the source material... They retcon alot of the important points of the most hallowed origin in all of Marvel. (Wolverines) (Not to mention it makes a mockery of Deadpool and Gambit)

That is a run-on of complete disdain. I saw the leak... Then tonight I saw the full release. They change almost nothing except add the usual Marvel movie post credits scene.

Saying the movie is pointless is an understatement. 4.5/10 for good SFX and thats it.

May 1 - 01:01 AM

Ryan R.

Ryan Runyan

Why does everyone feel the necessity to try and rip on every Ebert review? Obviously his dislikes for this film extend beyond Wolverine being "primitive." Read the review. Also, just about every critic that watched the film hated it, so trying to criticize Ebert for not liking the film and getting after him for a minor detail is silly. Just get past the fact that he didn't like some crappy film the mindless youths of America worship. Ebert is one of the best critics to have lived and his extensive knowledge of film is incredible. I highly doubt that much could be said about 90% of the users of this website.

May 1 - 06:59 PM

TrippSmyth

Tripp Smyth

Has anyone seen this movie yet? I'm not an expert on the Deadpool character, but I am pretty sure this movie wasn't even remotely close. I'm just curious what someone who knows more about that character than I do has to say. I also don't remember him being able to do all that *stuff*. As for the movie itself, it is all over the place. I also don't think the film version of the Wolverine character can carry any more, and neither can any of the X-Men characters on film.

May 2 - 11:44 AM

Bow Ties are Cool

The Holy Rainbow of Awesomness

As a fan of the character they completely fuckedhim up. He's called the Merc with a MOUTH and they took away his mouth. Deadpool has a acclerated healing factor as a super power THAT'S IT. He had a teleportation gadget once but he couldn't do it naturally and he certainly didn't have any lazers. A shame because they nailed Wade Wilson.

Jul 28 - 03:18 PM

TrippSmyth

Tripp Smyth

I meant "carry any movie" not "carry any more" lol

May 2 - 12:05 PM

Peter D.

Peter Davis

This is the FIRST time I disagree with Ebert...THIS MOVIE IS GOOD, highly entertaining, only two minutes of the movie was I kind of bored, and I am very sad that even he gave it a bad review. All I can say is I can't wait for the next one.

May 4 - 12:05 AM

thorin b.

thorin bane

The problem with Eberts comments is that script and direction is PART OF THE MOVIE. They were not good. Wolverine in the comic is a really deep character, they chose not to use most of his vast history and to infact change it for an action film. As a rule it falls to writers, directors, and producers to what is IN a movie. I am sure the actual crew did their best with what was there.

I also didn't think the FX where that great considering it's 2009. CGI is somehow getting worse. Final Fantasy looked almost real when it came out and that was from 2001. Jurasic Park is over 15 years old and had as good SFX in it.

Ham handed writing ruined the movie not the character of wolverine.

May 5 - 06:30 PM

Matt D.

Matt Dooley

Logan's character would've been more in the spotlight if they'd set most of this movie in Japan. Instead, the basically tossed together some bits of the character's back story, added some stuff not worth adding, and left out all of the character development. Really a shame that they basically reinforced the outer layer of Wolverine's character, instead of peeling back that shell and showing us some of the more interesting parts.

May 7 - 11:38 AM

Teshawndo Jones

Dan Skoglund

The worst line in any movie ever made, "You were the trickster and I was the wolverine. (shock ridden face)"

Sep 17 - 03:06 PM

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