The scene where the mutants stand on a beach and mentally duel by causing both American and Soviet missiles to shuttle back and forth in the sky is ... hilarious, I was going to say, but no, I should consider this scene more devoutly.
roger, I think your old age is making you delusional.
Jun 2 - 12:13 PM
Jun 2 - 12:42 PM
yeah! he is hypocrite. He is living in a kind of state where he doesn't enjoy what he likes instead think 'why did I like that? no I shouldn't'. He is mostly pretentious about these super-hero flicks.
Jun 2 - 04:24 PM
Well...he gave Star Trek only 3 stars, so I don't trust his opinion too much on big budget films. Plus, I'm not quite sure what he disliked about the film? He never says outright.
Jun 2 - 12:15 PM
No he gave Star Trek 2.5 stars.
Jun 2 - 12:50 PM
I know, that sucked, and Star Trek was great. I hated when he gave "Kick-Ass" 1 star, and that movie was awesome, and one of the best films of the year.
Jun 2 - 12:56 PM
He gave it 1/4 for a reason. Because he forgot about Orphan (which I actually thought was close to being as good as Kck-Ass).
Jun 2 - 02:22 PM
he even mentions in this review how much he hated Kick Ass
Jun 4 - 09:21 PM
That does it, I'm not seeing it then.
why? because some irrelevant critic that doesn't know what he is talking about didn't like it? it has 90%, i think that means a little more than 1 negative review
Jun 2 - 12:58 PM
Jun 2 - 01:04 PM
This is the first time I've ever seen Roger Ebert referred to as "irrelevant".
Jun 2 - 03:49 PM
Yeah, if Roger Ebert is irrelevant, I'm not sure there's such a thing as a relevant critic.
Jun 2 - 04:11 PM
completely agree, ebert is one of the only relevant critics. people have preferences, and you're never going to agree with them 100% of the time
Jun 2 - 04:25 PM
In Your Dreams
He's relevant enough that I'm going to avoid this coloring-book clunker like herpes.
Jun 9 - 03:20 AM
It's a shame, but it seems as if this film is being evaluated at a time when many reviewers are simply "tired" of comic book movies, regardless of quality. It's somewhat telling that even the negative reviews basically acknowledge that the acting and quality of filmmaking is good, but they basically just don't like the premise.I think it's problematic for any reviewer to be willing to disregard an entire genre of film.
Jun 2 - 12:18 PM
I couldn't agree with you more.
It's one thing to be critical of a movie's plot or acting or production, but, here, it just seems like he's just bomb-throwing at the genre.
Since when is that valid, reasoned film criticism?
Jun 14 - 08:55 PM
If you Roger find this scene funny! That's you! I don't see any funny here!But at least this is a very good bad review for me with a lot of good points and bad. It sounds more like a good review but it he wanna give it a bad review cause the beach scene is up to him!
Jun 2 - 12:29 PM
Rottentomatoes are the ones who said this was a bad review, 2.5 out of 4 for Ebert is between mixed and good. There should be red tomatoe beside this write-up.
Jun 2 - 12:52 PM
Yeah, I have to agree with this. Ebert says it's along the lines of just okay and a 2.5 out of 4 = 62.5%, which should be a "Fresh" rating, not a "Rotten" rating. Anything 60% or higher is considered "Fresh" for us, so why not the critics? However, I usually don't follow critics reviews. Most critics gave Thor positive reviews, and I didn't like it. Likewise, most critics panned "POTC 4" and I liked it. It's up to you to decide whether the movie is enjoyable, not them.
Jun 2 - 01:06 PM
I'm the exact opposite of you. I loved Thor ,and I thought Pirates was bad.
Jun 2 - 02:03 PM
Any movie under 3 stars used to get thumbs down on the show. 2.5 stars in this case is Rotten, still doesnt mean its closer to being a thumb up than a thumb way down.
Jun 5 - 10:41 AM
fetlt the same way ...
thor sucked , potc4 was awesome :)
Sep 11 - 03:04 AM
Ebert has always given 2.5/4 stars a rotten. It's gotta be a 3 or above to get a fresh out of roger. Though on metacritic it will come out at a 63, which is considered the lower end of the positive section.
Jun 2 - 02:09 PM
The reviewe declares rotten or not, the site doesn't make that call
Jun 2 - 03:59 PM
Feel like I've been disagreeing with Roger a lot lately, in the past I was almost always in accord with Roger. Dare I say after reading the review, he might be losing his touch.
I agree. Years back, I used to look to Ebert for advice on all movies, but lately, he has just been reviewing good movies badly. I officially stopped caring about what he had to say after giving Star Trek a bad review. I think he has just grown weary of big budget films.
Jun 2 - 12:43 PM
I was really hoping to disagree with him, but after seeing it, his review is quite accurate. I, personally, would have been a little harsher, in fact. I didn't care about the whole Cuban missile crisis back drop and many of the mutants were lame. Angel was beyond lame. And, I found the effects to be horrible and out dated.
As for agreeing or disagreeing with a critic, you'll never be on the same page 100% of the time, so get over it.
Jun 4 - 02:51 PM
Oh Roger... and you said it was't bad, so why's the review considered rotten? You seemed to think it was okay, but not great.
Jun 2 - 12:34 PM
Because he said it wasn't as good either
Jun 2 - 05:31 PM
Aw come on Roger, I like your reviews. This movie can't be that bad. I know you don't like the X-Men movies that much, but give this one credit. Like a 3 star review. From what I'm hearing, the script is fantastic. I'm not such a huge fan of X-Men myself, although I like the movies and some of the comics. But this entry in the series looks like the best of the series. All I'm saying is you don't have to be so critical all the time, I'm a huge of yours, but please, give this film mercy.
Jun 2 - 12:39 PM
I enjoyed reading his review, but it's clear that I'm diverging from Ebert as far as taste goes. I think he might just be sick of the genre.I can see how someone wouldn't enjoy comic-book antics after basically getting hammered with superhero movies for the past 10 years, though.
Jun 2 - 12:40 PM
Ummm, his review was positve....He didn't like some of the sillier stuff but liked the acting and direction. He said it wasn't great like Spiderman 2 and wasn't bad like Thor. 2.5 out of 4 is 62.5%, that's positive!
He never reviewed Thor... did he?
Yeah, he reviewed it. Hated it. 1.5/4
Jun 2 - 06:21 PM
He gave it 2.5 stars, that's 50%. 50% = Rotten.
Jun 2 - 01:02 PM
No, 2 stars would be 50%.But, 2.5 stars would always be thumbs down back when he was still on TV. So that makes it rotten.
Jun 2 - 01:12 PM
Ebert rates out of 4 stars, not 5.
2.5 stars out of 4 stars is not 50%, that would be 2 stars as it would be half of the highest rating.This is a mixed to positive review, not a mixed to negative review.
Jun 2 - 01:13 PM
Jun 2 - 01:19 PM
Jun 2 - 01:34 PM
I've been disagreeing a lot with Roger in these past few years, I haven't seen the movie but hopefully it's as good as the majority of reviewers seem to think it is.
Jun 2 - 12:47 PM
I agree with you, but some of his reviews are good, but mostly I'm disagreeing with Roger.
Jun 2 - 12:57 PM
Usually Roger is great, but he has ALWAYS had some questionable opinions, it isn't just something new due to old age. He gave Blue Velvet, Die Hard, Fight Club all rottens. And many people say he's overly easy on some movies nowadays, but even in the 90s he gave, say, Speed 2 a fresh. I'll always respect him as a critic, but sometimes he'll be off, and it isn't any more now than before.
Jun 2 - 01:05 PM
Why are reviews with 3/5 rating receiving a fresh tomato while reviews with a 2.5/4 (such as this review) are getting rotten?2.5/4 > 3/5
Jun 2 - 01:08 PM
Absolutely! Also, I think they take snippets of these reviews, only focusing on certain aspects of the review, and saying that's the whole review. I remember last year when Inception came out, RT published a snippet of A.O. Scott's review, of him listing the only negative thing he had to say about the movie, and calling that his negative review of the movie. Months later, I went back to check and sure enough, they changed it to a positive review, after re-reading what he had said in his full review. Some people on here jump the gun.
I'd really like to know the answer to that one.
Jun 2 - 01:24 PM
OK - the CRITIC tells rottentomatoes whether they want it displayed as fresh or rotten. The score is completely different. Ive seen 3 out of 4 end up rotten before.
Jun 2 - 04:14 PM
The "rotten" rating is on Ebert.
Jun 3 - 02:34 PM
Jun 5 - 10:43 AM
haha, ok, roger. old age is getting to you now. and you probably should've chosen a more insightful quote to put up on RT.seriously, ebert, you're out.
Jun 2 - 01:17 PM
"'X-Men: First Class' is competent weekend entertainment. It is not a great comic book movie, like 'Spider-Man 2,' or a bad one, like 'Thor.'"Does anyone else find amusing that Ebert felt compelled to throw in that dig at Thor?
Jun 2 - 01:29 PM
Nope.He knows how much his reputation got damaged by the shellacking he deservedly received for getting so many facts wrong in his "Thor" review.So, he's still raising his middle finger about it.Pretty petty, IMO.
Jun 2 - 01:42 PM
You're still on about his Thor review? Maybe his facts needed checking on some things but his basic critique of the movie was that it was pointless and meaningless, pretty accurate in my estimation. Most critics gave it a pass as a mindless actioner, not Ebert, he called it out for what it was.
Jun 2 - 03:13 PM
Um, we're on about him bringing it up again in his review, seemingly just to provoke people who didn't think his review of it was fair. Try reading the actual comment before saying stupid things.
Oh, and "pointless and meaningless" is a pretty pointless and meaningless way to describe Thor. The point was a superhero learning to have a bit of compassion by losing his superheroes. Seriously, how fucking cryptic is that for people? Maybe the movie wasn't your cup of tea, but attacking people for pointing out the painfully obvious parts of the movie that Ebert seemed to have ignored completely is completely absurd. As is Ebert citing not having read the source material as an excuse for having missed these things which were clearly explained in the ACTUAL MOVIE.
I'm not saying Ebert should pretend he enjoys it, but is it too much to ask for him to be a bit less biased?
Jun 2 - 06:48 PM
Ebert is the one who brought up "Thor" in his review of this movie.
Try to keep up.
Jun 2 - 11:08 PM
Oh, btw. From reading the reviews, it appears to me that most critics gave "Thor" a pass because they enjoyed the movie. Not because it was "a mindless actioner". Your silly condescension is hilarious.
Jun 2 - 11:24 PM
And his reputation does not hang in the balance of his OPINION of a summer action movie.
Jun 2 - 03:15 PM
Ebert himself would disagree with you. As seen by his Drama Queen Act of posting a blog about how he got creamed for his "Thor" review. A shameless act of self-pity on his part.
Jun 2 - 11:06 PM
Oh please. Roger Ebert's reputation is going to be damaged by a review of "Thor"? Thor. Seriously? In a month, no one is going to remember Thor, or care who gave it a shitty review.
Jun 2 - 03:48 PM
As seen by my reply above.
And the millions of people who will purchase the blu-ray around Christmas time will too.
Jun 2 - 11:07 PM
We all so very hope you and your toolbag friends enjoy your "hi-def" crap fest. I for one appreciate Ebert's continued sense of humor in trolling up the moronic branch of his fan-base for laughs. But by all means keep getting your panties in a bunch over a movie about a guy with a hammer. "Blu"-Ray. Seriously. You forget to buy an "e" there Vanna? ?
Jun 9 - 03:44 AM
It's no surprise that you're a fan of worthless game shows.
Because the next time you make a relevant or insightful comment about movies will be the first time. And NO ONE is holding their breath for that, Troll.
Jun 9 - 11:02 PM
i'm starting to say that the number of rotten reviews vs fresh reviews don't matter. the critic's average does. the critics average ends up equaling pretty much exactly as Metacritic does. it has a 7.6 critic average. and Metacritic houses a 77.
Jun 2 - 01:30 PM
well it was 77, now its 67. oh well. i didn't expect this movie to last long in the 90s anyways. i predict an 86-88.
Jun 2 - 01:35 PM
I'm disappointed, Roger.
Jun 2 - 01:44 PM