Roger Ebert Logic:

Crappy movie - "hey, its supposed to be a crappy movie, therefore it gets the job done. It's good if you view it for what it is, its just an enjoyable mindless summer flick with no substance whatsoever...but thats what its supposed to be. 3 stars and thumbs up!"

examples: Batman and Robin, Speed 2, The Fast and the Furious Tokyo Drift

good movie - "I think this movie really fails at some weird standard that I set in my mind before watching it...plus, I know that this is a serious movie tat actually had some talent behind it, so I'm gonna judge it by a much higher standard when deciding on thumbs up or down....so....2.5 stars and thumbs down"

Examples: Gladiator, Fight Club

Well, Batman Begins is dark and lacks a "joyous" element. And ... ****/**** from Ebert. Go figure.

Ebert would argue that Batman is a dark and joyless story, so portraying it that way is faithful. Superman is meant to be bright and happy, so portraying it as dark would be bad.

And I do NOT want to see Rachel McAdams as Lois Lane, as I find her horribly annoying. I'd rather see Margot Kidder play Lois Lane AGAIN than see McAdams play her.

QUOTING someone does NOT dismiss the spoiler tags.. Was that really fucking necessary?

not directed towards you, Doc...

The more I see of Bosworth in the clips, the more I'm warming up to her as Lois Lane.

Same here. When saw the first trailer I was all WTF, but I'm starting to think it might not be as catastrophic as I first thought. I'll wait until I've seen it before I completely dismiss her.

That's going a little overboard. If it totally detracted from the movie, I might agree. For me, her casting was just a minor quibble I had with the film... but then, I'm a little more forgiving than some.

For those that have seen the film is Bosworth's performance better than Katie Holmes in Batman Begins?

Could it be any worse?

From an acting standpoint: yes
From a this is a more iconic character that is ruined by poor acting standpoint: yes

True ... however, adding some adult depth into the story (i.e. "dark") will lift the film from being nothing but pure cotton candy on a stick. Sure, it tastes good and makes ya happy ... but you're left kinda unsatisfied and still a little hungry, even though you "enjoyed it". Granted, Superman shouldn't be about a tortured soul seeking revenge and revenge alone. However, this is a character who struggles to fit in, who has lost his family to the destruction of a planet, etc. Giving Superman the ability and power to be a shade or two darker will make him a 3-dimensional character that exists for more than just visceral pleasure.

Ebert puzzles me. Some movies I just like he will adore, others he will bash to no end. I will say that recommendation he made for the movie( )has me wondering about him in a major way.

Waits for the subsequent "Ebert has lost it..." thread

You bolded the wrong part. I said "Ebert would say," I didn't say that I agreed with him.

He slammed Batman and Robin, actually he slammed all the Batman movies until Batman Begins (which got a 4/4). Both Gladiator and Fight Club got 2 star ratings, and were slammed for other reasons. But generally, I agree, he gives a lot of good movies shitty ratings.

Yeah, the duel standard for Ebert gets to me too... I thought he'd like the new Superman... (having given the last big classic remake Kong ****) I guess he holds the first one to such standards nothing could've lived up to it.

The ** for Gladiator kills me... and his review focused almost entirely on the effects and photography which he thought was too dark.... shouldn't those be the least important factors to a reviewer?

All well... I guess we'd have a better time at Tokyo Drift and Garfield 2 instead of Superman.

Oh, I know. I wasn't implying you did agree with him. That was just in reference to that portion of your statement regarding Ebert and how he perceives the film. My apologies.

Oh, by the way, thanks Kal-El for finding all of these prelim reviews. All I know is that the more reviews I read, the more I look forward to it!

Ebert only loves movies with breasts. It's a proven fact. The guy gave thumbs up to Tomb Raider (both of them, i believe)

That's what I think whenever I see a movie I like that he hates or vice versa.

FWIW, he didn't like the first Spider-Man but loved the second and had it listed as one of the best of films of 04, so who knows with him.

Dark?

i just bought my tickets now

I just got back from seeing Superman Returns at a sneak at our local military theater, and I think Kate and Brandon do just fine. The packed house loved the movies. I'm a big fan of the Christopher Reeve films, and I really, really liked this version of Superman. Spacey was terrific as Lex, and the action was, well, super, and left you wanting more. As for the "twist", I thought it was a logical plot device, considering the events of Superman II.

I'll be seeing it again in about a week....

People should pay more attention to the content of his reviews than the star ratings for Ebert's reviews. His review for Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle was more of an explanation for the rating he gave it than an actual review of the movie. He did have a good point though: If you go into a movie expecting something, and you see it, and it entertains you, then the film succeeded. If you go into a movie and walk away disappointed, regarldess of your expectations, then the movie is a failure.

I work in a movie theater and I can't believe the hype for this movie. We had "Superman Returns" posted on our billboard because there was a preview for the press, and literally HUNDREDS Of people tonight, almost every other person, was asking to see Superman. Some guy even offered me $50 just to see if I could get him in. After I said it wasn't out yet, they were like oh...well, I guess i'll go see Click...I think this movie might even smash Spider-man 2's BO.

Yeah, can't fault Warner Bros.'s marketing on Superman Returns, it's all over the place for the past month. I'm just glad I'm about 2.5 days aways from seeing it on the big screen.

Speaking of "twists," wasn't M. Night Shyamalan approached at one point to script and possibly direct this new Superman? Glad he didn't.

I would bet it would feature liquid kryptonite in some form or fashion given Night's previous films (Unbreakable and Signs).

I think the twist would be to have the whole movie wind up being a dream of Clark Kent as a teen, meaning when the movie ends we see Tom Welling awaken and then call his buddy Lex to tell him about the experience.