comment #1

oddDuck says ...

One more -- James Berardinelli

I've had this guy's site bookmarked for a few years now and while I don't read his reviews all that often, when I do I tend to agree with them. I also have no idea of his standing in the movie community, but he seems pretty with it.

In any event, he likes it!

http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/master.html

comment #2

oddDuck says ...

But shit! I just noticed that he gave Click 3 stars! I'm just gonna ignore that.

comment #3

Nicol D says ...

What is interesting though is that many of the 'tomato' reviews actually read like pans.

Many find that odd. I think the actual consensus is much more towards the middle. That it is an okay, not great Superman but at least he is back.

comment #4

oddDuck says ...

Nicol, just curious, are you planning on seeing it?

comment #5

ArchiveGuy says ...

Metacritic has it at 74%, too.

Though it's hilarious that JW calls anyone who manages to disagree with him a "sourpuss"--naturally, anyone who can't manage to enjoy themselves in a big-budget-blockbuster-w/brains is simply a KillJoy and WetBlanket Scroogy McScrooge (that is, of course, unless it's "The Lord of the Rings")

comment #6

Anonymous says ...

Hilarious that people still can't get over the fact that he didn't like LOTR.

comment #7

Nicol D says ...

OddDuck,

Yes, of course. I am seeing it at 10 tonight.

Truth is, I have heard so many things from so many sources I do not know what I will think now.

Trust me, Supes was a huge part of my childhood and I really want to like this (although I can see why you would think otherwise).

For many, Jar Jar put the fear of God into us on these things so we approach cautiously. But I will be there with my bag of Wild Berry Skittles; and I know if nothing else, much like my Phantom Menace experience, the opening credits sequence will kick ass!

Hope you enjoy the show!

comment #8

ArchiveGuy says ...

Hey, I could care less whether he did or not. But characterizing someone as a "sourpuss" for not jumping on the Supes bandwagon is ridiculous when he got so defensive about being labeled the exact same thing about films he felt justified not likeing.

Hate to break it to you, but for those critics that don't like SR, they have their *reasons* beyond temper tantrums.

comment #9

Zach says ...

Very excited to see this tonight!! The reviews have been positive for the most part (WAY, WAY better than for XMen 3) and I'm definitely looking forward to seeing what Bryan Singer put together. Superman is back!

comment #10

Terry says ...

C'mon JW,

I hope Superman is great. But Ebert, the NY Times, LA Times, New Yorker, and New York mag are no small fry, wrong though they may be just as much as any other critics. And Emmanuelle Levy's review is basically a pan, although Tomatoes is not registering it as such. This is clearly a film which some will love and others will not. From the number pf good reviews, more will probably love it.

Poland is often an arrogant ass, but his opinion is shared by some notable others.

comment #11

Andrew says ...

Poland has raved about some of the worst movies in recent history. I didn't love Superman, but I'll still take JW's opinion over Poland's any day of the week. Hell, I'd take my five-year-old nephew's opinion over Poland's.

comment #12

Alexander says ...

Can I be the first one on either a Jeff Wells blog or a David Poland blog to say that I like reading them both and find them both interesting? Sometimes I *really* agree with David Poland and *really* disagree with Jeff Wells (Munich was the biggest example in a long time) and sometimes the other way around. I've never understood this need for there to be two distinct camps that seemingly hate each other but, as James Madison said, the seeds of faction are sown into the nature of man.

comment #13

Anonymous says ...

a telling thing for me was that, despite their good reviews, neither TIME or NEWSWEEK went out of their way in their coverage... a page here, a small spread there. no covers, no big photos, no big headlines... nothing.

summary: good enough, but not great.

comment #14

sham says ...

Really Jeffrey, still trying to convince yourself you like "Supes"? How long till you admit it's just not as great as you thought? February? March?

comment #15

Anonymous says ...

Yeah, I actually like both Poland and Wells, too, though I neither agree with one nor the other consistently. Personally, I thought Poland was dead wrong on Munich (but that's just my taste).

I'm torn about Superman Returns. I think it could be good, but not great. But if I see it, I want to go IMAX 3-D. But the closest one is a daytrip away. So is it worth it for a whole day's trip, gas money and the high cost of an IMAX ticket (plus paying for my girlfriend's ticket)?

comment #16

Scott Mendelson says ...

I've always enjoyed both columnists and have always enjoyed how they shared an almost rivalry of sorts. I've usually agreed with Poland more than Wells, but I've always liked reading them both. They both have their issues and they are both best when the talk more about the movies themselves, with a little bit on business and box office, as opposed to the reverse. Point being, if one can like Star Wars and Star Trek... Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings... Batman and Superman, then one can enjoy both Wells and Poland.

Scott Mendelson

comment #17

Anonymous says ...

no one knows how to write anymore. singer, smith, kelly, etc all grew up on tent-poles. no one is coming out of the theatre anymore. all the great 60s and 70s stuff (star trek, twilight zone, etc) came from writers who cut their teeth on the stage.

comment #18

Sergio says ...

Hey, sorry folks but Poland and the other naysayers of Superman Returns are right. I've seen it and it's a BORE! (I literally dozed off for at least a minute halfway through) With the exception of the falling plane sequence 45 minutes in, there's no excitement and no thrills. The film takes itself WAY too seriously. There's no sense of joy and wonderment that Chris Nolan's terrfific Batman Begins has. First of all let me say straight off that I'm not a comic book "geek" my any means, but at least Batman or even Blade are interesting, tortured characters with major "issues" and inner demons. Superman...well yeah sure he can fly and throw a boulder into outer space but after that, what is there? He's just a big loaf of white bread, very polite, decent guy with ZERO personality. It takes a special actor like Christopher Reeve to bring out something more. Unfortunately, Brandon Routh, when not trying to imitate Reeve, is dull as dish water in the part and Kevin Spacey acts likes he totally embarassed to be in the film. But Kate Bosworth is a flat out disaster as Lois Lane. She way too young for the part and is totally unbeleiavble as a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, but who yet has to ask her boss how to spell words. She's just another skinny blond bimbo with absolutely no charisma whatsoever. A hat rack in her place would have had the same effect.

comment #19

travis b. says ...

on lois lane not spelling her words right...that was a running joke in the original films. nice to see they carried that over....but i've been hearing some bad things about bosworth...oh well. we'll see tonight at 10.

comment #20

Roddy Reta says ...

Routh and Bosworth, in all the clips I've seen, look really bland. Especially Bosworth -- isn't there an actress under 30 in Hollywood who has a personality?

comment #21

zoey says ...

"Isn't there an actress under 30 in Hollywood who has a personality?"

I'm sure Jeff would say Keira Knightley.

comment #22

Winston O'Boogie says ...

This is Ebert's annual pan of a big-ticket studio movie, a vain attempt to prove he's not really the studio toady he's sadly become.
We now return you to his regularly scheduled rising thumb.

comment #23

oddDuck says ...

"I'm sure Jeff would say Keira Knightley"

Actually I'm pretty sure Jeff has gone on record saying he thinks that Knightley doesn't have any real substance as an actress, and pretty much gets by on cute looks and "spunk"

comment #24

Nicol D says ...

Damn,

Tonight at 10. For all my bitching and grumbling;
now I find I am actually starting to feel like a kid again.

Please Mr. Routh...do not let me down!

Let me believe a man can fly!

comment #25

ArchiveGuy says ...

"Actually I'm pretty sure Jeff has gone on record saying he thinks that Knightley doesn't have any real substance as an actress, and pretty much gets by on cute looks and "spunk""

Woosh!

comment #26

Mathew says ...

The Ebert pan is pretty heavy. It describes very close to what I'm feeling from the trailers and the short clip that WB has posted on iTunes. What made the few Superman films so good (and yes even 3 had its moments) was in the casting. I think Margot Kidder was perfect as Lois Lane. She was funny, flawed and vulnerable. I could really see what Superman found attractive in her. Reeves of course was perfect as Supes. People diss Hackman's Luthor nowadays but you have to admit he was a lot of fun and his scenes with Otis (whatever happened to Ned Beaty by the way?) were reminiscent of classic 30's slapstick. Anyway it seems that Singer (who is an average director, really) doesn't have the magic touch that Donner and even Lester to a lesser extent had for the material. I'm still going to see it in IMAX.

comment #27

Wicker1 says ...

David Poland is a whiny twat. He can dish it out but he can't take it. He's a film snob of the first order and has no capacity for enjoying commercial entertainment or cutting edge genre filmmaking. He's reactionary in his comments and believes he's actually "risking" something by stating his opinion. When he actually creates something of significance, like a film or a book or even a friggin' painting, I'll have a little bit more respect for the man's point of view. His vitriol towards the likes of certain filmmakers is sickening. He's all "arrogance without portfolio." I've stopped reading his site because I don't want to give him the benefit of internet hits to keep him in business. On the other hand Jeff Wells actually embraces film. He can be a bit cynical up front at times, but he's not afraid to be wrong and not afraid to call it like it is. I feel Jeff's love for film, while with Poland all I read between the lines is "I can do this better." Based on Poland's reaction to "Superman," I think that bodes well for the film.

comment #28

Moviefreek says ...

The one thing no one ever mentions in this Poland vs. Wells thing: Poland writes at the level of a tenth grader (his review of Superman Returns reads like it was written in crayon). Wells, whether you agree with him or not, sure knows how to turn a phrase.

comment #29

Daniel Zelter says ...

It didn't really deliver for me in the second half. It just seemed like Singer borrowed scenes from as many 70's disaster movies as he could and then inserted Superman into them.

comment #30

Kevin says ...

Why would any one pay any attention to critics. Critics are the most irrelevant people in the discussion about film. Why is that? Because they only like what is in the past. They are simply grumpy old men morning the death of their youth and the movies they loved in 1940 whatever.

A film is classic when it stays in the public consciousness, not when it’s broadly accepted by critics. Here is a small list of critic darlings and films panned.

Darlings

Emile Zola

Dances with Wolves

American Beauty (hind sight is 20/20)

A Beautiful Mind (read the review and weep)

Panned

2001 a space odyssey

Psycho (count any film Hitchcock ever did pretty much)

Wild Bunch

Straw Dogs

Blade Runner

comment #31

jody says ...

The Chron's LaSalle is always panning films most of the other critics love. The dude positions himself contrary to the mainstream 99 out of 100 times. Is he so desperate for recognition that he pans a film just to attract attention to himself? The people of San Francisco deserve better than a petty self-promoter trying to make his name by bucking the trend regardless of the quality of the films he reviews.

comment #32

lesterg says ...

Kevin, what exactly is wrong with Dances with Wolves, or American Beauty? Last time I checked, they were both modern classics.

comment #33

Daniel Zelter says ...

American Beauty was insulting to my intelligence and also homophobic. (The sex scene with Benning using fake mannequin legs like in A Fish Called Wanda? Spacey not consumating his relationship with the cheerleader? The repressed gay guy being a nazi? What kind of bs and propaganda is that, Sam and Steven?)

comment #34

kevin says ...

"Kevin, what exactly is wrong with Dances with Wolves, or American Beauty? Last time I checked, they were both modern classics."

Nope your wrong, they are not modern nor or they classic at all.

when the topic of the best film of the 90's come up both those films are abstent from most people ( I know) long and short list.

comment #35

Anonymous says ...

"Actually I'm pretty sure Jeff has gone on record saying he thinks that Knightley doesn't have any real substance as an actress, and pretty much gets by on cute looks and "spunk"

OddDuck:

Was being ironic. Sigh. Should have pointed that out. (-: I was alluding to the article that Jeff did on Keira when Pride and Prejudice came out.

comment #36

outsider says ...

tworzenie stron internetowych tworzenie stron internetowych ; soczewki kontaktowe soczewki kontaktowe ; zdrowa żywność zdrowa żywność ; reklama w internecie reklama w internecie ; sm ; ma ; mpa ; apteki warszawa apteki warszawa ; agroturystyka agroturystyka mazury ; jiddu krishnamurti jiddu krishnamurti ; nauka angielskiego nauka angielskiego angielski ; stomatologia warszawa stomatolog warszawa ; opony opony ; klimatyzacja klimatyzacja ; domy opieki warszawa domy opieki warszawa ; apteka apteka ; projektowanie stron internetowych projektowanie stron internetowych ; ogłoszenia nieruchomości ogłoszenia nieruchomości ; nieruchomości warszawa, wynajmę kawalerkę warszawa nieruchomości warszawa ; nieruchomości, wynajmę mieszkanie warszawa nieruchomości ; korepetycje angielski angielski korepetycje ; sigmund freud ; jk