So I'm flipping through the new issue of Rolling Stone (#948) when I stumble upon Travers' top 10 movies for the coming summer:

1. Spider-Man 2
2. The Day After Tomorrow
3. The Terminal
4. Troy
5. Anchorman
6. Collateral
7. The Village
8. King Arthur
9. Catwoman
10. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

I'm just curious how much Warner Bros. paid Travers to put Catwoman on the list, or has he completely lost his mind?

Also, his movies to avoid: The Chronicles of Riddick, Around the World in 80 Days, The Notebook, and Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. Sky Captain really doesn't belong on that list, I'd flip flop it with Catwoman.

Anyway, what does everyone else think?

Well maybe he has seen Sky Captain and it wasn't good? I don't understand the Catwoman thing though.

Travers was never a great critic to begin with. So many of his reviews just scream "Quote me in your newspaper ads!" I remember his review of Hannibal where he said it was better than The Silence of the Lambs. He's not as crazy as Maltin, but he's nowhere near a good critic.

Travers is getting hard to trust as a critic. He will either bash a movie to no end if he doesn't like it or shill it like a madman if he likes it.

He also seems to have a pre-made decision on movies from people like Quentin Tarantino or starring Russell Crowe.

Harry Potter behind Catwoman...

*cough* Ebert *cough*

Peter Travers is a total douchebag. He recycles his "memorbable" quotes that can be put in the film advertisements over and over again (like the "hooker's lip gloss" one). He did score some points with me after calling Camp one of the best films of 2003, but lost said points when he called Girl Next Door and The Matrix Revolutions some of the worse films he has ever seen.

OMG TEH CRITIC HAS DIFFERENT OPINION THAN ME THAT CAN'T BE ALOUD HE IS INSANE KTHNX BYE

Oof, he loses even more points from me now that I know he picked Camp as one of his best of 2003.

Wow, I thought I was the only one who thought Hannibal was better than Silence of the Lambs (one of the most overrated films ever in my opinion.) I might have to begin paying more attention to Travers' reviews.

I do like most of Ebert's reviews, but he definitely worships QT...

Jeff K. Iz taht U, you l337 h4x0r!!?!$!@(*

I'm pretty sure he hasn't seen a single movie on his list. These are the picks based on what he wants to see. Not based on reviews, because I know that many of these films aren't even really finished. I know for a fact sky captain he hasn't seen, as it got pushed back due to not being complete.

then why did he give reservoir dogs 2.5 stars?

I guess I mean more recently. His very very nice review of Kill Bill vol. 1 is basically what I was going on (IIRC he also gave Pulp Fiction a great review, which it did deserve). I just hated his sentence for summing up Kill Bill vol. 1 (someone here on DVDTalk uses it as their sig) that a movie was not about what it was about, but it was about how it was about it. I agree style is important in films, but Ebert saying that just kind of didn't fit with the way he normally reviews films... I felt like he was overly praising Tarantino; regardless, I trust Ebert's reviews over alsmot any other.

Thats before Tarantino got popular.

Tons of people here also like Taratino. Why is okay for them and not for Ebert?

I'm not saying it isn't okay for Ebert, it just seems like from what I've read of his, he likes deep characters, and he doesn't tend to be impressed with lots of violence. It just seems like, from what I know of his likes/dislikes, he wouldn't normally like Kill Bill vol. 1.

Are you sure about that? While Ebert isn't for gratuitous violence, he does love movies that are very visual, to the point he's given high marks to Spawn, The Cell, and others. Movies that were mostly style, and not much else.

Not to mention...Kill Bill Vol. 1 is a very unique film. To compare to what he'd normally like...for that movie. Is pointless, because it is...very unique.

Point taken. Ebert definitely does like style. And I agree Kill Bill is extremely unique--in western cinema especially. Good call though on those examples, I guess I was being a tad selective in what I was remembering of what Ebert likes.

I actually seem to agree with Ebert's take on that movies aren't what they're about but how they're about. Weither it be the characters or a heavy dosage of style (Dark City garnered fairly mixed reviews upon first release, still wound up #1 on Ebert's list for 1998, I personally love that movie as well). As well as other stuff like say, Lost in Translation. What's it about? Guy and Girl in Tokyo become friends. Could be either way.

But... That all said, I'm just rambling now to kill time

I've never found Travers to be a particularly good critic and his selection of Catwoman as a must see film solidifies how useless he is. C'mon anyone who has seen that trailer knows that this film is a steeming pile.

And I totally agree with my sig.

OMG!!!!! I'm not alone

because it was a remake and he preferred the original

it's only unique if you haven't seen the dozens upon dozens of other exploitation films Tarantino is riffing off.

yes, the anime interludes and B&W sequences, etc, etc seem unique, but this is hardly the first film to use them.

hell- even Xanadu had a sequence where the main characters were represented in an animated sequence.