The Lensman wrote:
Let me say this again.....Do not base your appraisal on whether or not to see this movie on Ebert's "review". There's having a difference of opinion on something, and then there's not paying attention. I don't know if he was heavily medicated, is senile or what, but these were not the things you wanted to point out as negatives.
Let me give you the "negatives": Light on story, heavy on action and gore. If you find those "negatives"....don't go.
If you want an ass kicking, popcorn flick that is incredibly gorgeous....then go see it.
Meh. To be completely honest, nothing in your boisterous rebuttal of his review makes me want to see it either.
Fair enough, but at least you've got a more accurate picture of the movie to make that decision.
The man is not in good health. It seems kind of mean to abuse him because he can't always do a good job in following a picture now.
If he, as a movie critic, can't follow a movie in order to properly review it, then he needs to retire from reviewing movies. If he can't follow the movie, then he can't give an accurate review and that defeats the entire purpose of the review.
As for "abuse"....sorry, but it's frustrating to read the man make vastly erroneous statements about things that were abundantly clear in the movie. Even if I had hated the movie with every fibre of my being, I still would've had to take issue with the disconnect on these points.
Not to mention the fact that nearly every OTHER respected critic gave this movie a bad review as well.
Clearly for Ebert, this was one of those movies that got so ridiculous and stupid that he tuned it out, until it was just a bunch of random images flashing on the screen. I've certainly experienced that plenty of times myself (the last two Transformers movies anyone?)
If he can't sit through a movie that he's paid to review, if he tunes it out....fair enough. HOWEVER, he needs to say that at the beginning of the review so that people can decide if they want to continue reading a non-review. Anything else is dishonest.
Visually, this film was completely arresting. Although the 3D was mostly useless, in terms of straight-forward visual appeal, I'd put it up there with Avatar. Unfortunately, like Avatar, the visuals seemed to be driving the story; the plot there merely as a convenient channel to go from one stunning location to another, one epic slo-mo fight scene to the next.
Singh has crafted a gorgeous film - but that's pretty much all this movie has going for it. Well, that and Cavill's rocking body.
Can't argue with that assessment, and that sums it up pretty well. I still enjoyed the film immensely.
The story is on par with the standard summer blockbuster stuff we see all the time. No more complex or deep than Transformers, Star Trek, Star Wars, Clash Of The Titans, 300, Alice In Wonderland, Avatar, Inception, etc, etc....All movies with simplistic stories.
It *is* a gorgeous film, and I like the design sensibilities of most of the film. Some of it looks like it stepped out of a mythology book, or a painting. While I've not seen The Cell, I have seen The Fall, and the story there is somewhat simple as well. What sells it is the visuals.
The same applies to Immortals. Yes, more story would've been nice.....but again, it's not really any different in that regard than most blockbuster movies.