Siskel and Ebert's TMNT reviews.

[Jester]

Well al of Siskel and Ebert's old reviews are online and I had to watch the TMNT reviews...they are just mean. Why is it that movie critics see fit if they dislike a movie to put down not just the film, but the franchise and the fan base behind the film and its success. Oh well, if Siskel and Ebert thought the TMNT were cinematic gold I probably would have disliked them...cause that's how it seems to work. :p

[AquaParade]

Yup...they hate everything I love...especially when referring to my childhood.

[Spitfire]

Their job is to review movies, just because you like a film doesn't mean it's good. In fact 90% of the movies people on here seem to enjoy, and no offense, are garbage in the eyes of a film critic.

Film critics like real movies. Stuff that requires thought and has good plot and character development. Not stuff that rides solely on being based off a video game or childhood memory.

The turtles movies aren't good, as a fan I enjoy them but the movie critique side of me has issues with them, all of them. The new movie lost all appeal to me and for me to enjoy it at all I have to completely lower my standards to near nothing. The first two films have the advantage of pumping me full of good childhood memories and when I watch them those flashbacks help me ride them out. TMNT is at the disadvantage there and probably why I hated it the first time I saw it.

I don't think any turtles movie is by standard good but I do agree it is wrong to make fun of the fan base who enjoy such films. It's unnecessary and unprofessional. Usually when a critic does that they don't have enough to complain about in the movie. TMNT while guilty of many things had a good score, great voice acting, and some of the best animation I've seen in the CGI medium so for that it gets credit but as far as pacing, plot, and all that goes it falls flat on it's face.

I hope you see what I'm getting at and just don't assume I'm an over analyzing asshole.

[TheAnimatedSeries]

Roger Ebert does not just like movies that are profound and meaningful. He loves tons of crap. He loved Daredevil. He probably liked Sky Captain, one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

I just checked, and he did give it an A according to Yahoo...

So anyway, movies like music arent all intended to deliver the same thing. Dance music can warrant itself an A and be meaningless with no message, as can the first Ninja Turtles be a "good" film and a real movie and not be an oscar contender.

I like crap movies too, and I like Ebert, but as with all proper critics reviewing movies like these, hes constantly proven how he doesnt really pay much attention. As recent as his review for Alvin & the Chipmunks:

"I was also grateful that Alvin wears a red sweater with a big "A" on it as an aid to identification, since otherwise all the chipmunks seem to be identical, like Mutant Turtles or Spice Girls. It doesn't much matter which one is Theodore and which one is Simon, although Theodore is always the one who seems a day late and a walnut short."

Its not a big deal, but about every time he reviews a childrens property with dynamic characters like TMNT he acts like all the characters are the same to suggest that the movie has no character development and is just a commercial, when we know the Turtles are drastically different.

[Drtooth]

When Ebert gave good reviews to BOTH Fast and the Furious movies, he lost all his credability.

See, Critics either like one of 2 films. Incoherent bohemian junk that thinks it's smart, and absolute trash because it's a "Popcorn flick." So there you go.

I'll always be more upset he gave Great Muppet Caper a bad review than the TMNT films. Then again, he didn't bother to do any research on the material. I would agree that the second and third films weren't too mcuh, but the first one is one of the best super hero/comic book movies I have seen. Other than a few little things, it was fearcely close to the original comic. And the fact that the foam rubber suits look more realistic than every single CGI character in all the Star Wars prequals.

[Jester]

Their job is to review movies, just because you like a film doesn't mean it's good. In fact 90% of the movies people on here seem to enjoy, and no offense, are garbage in the eyes of a film critic.

Film critics like real movies. Stuff that requires thought and has good plot and character development. Not stuff that rides solely on being based off a video game or childhood memory.

The turtles movies aren't good, as a fan I enjoy them but the movie critique side of me has issues with them, all of them. The new movie lost all appeal to me and for me to enjoy it at all I have to completely lower my standards to near nothing. The first two films have the advantage of pumping me full of good childhood memories and when I watch them those flashbacks help me ride them out. TMNT is at the disadvantage there and probably why I hated it the first time I saw it.

I don't think any turtles movie is by standard good but I do agree it is wrong to make fun of the fan base who enjoy such films. It's unnecessary and unprofessional. Usually when a critic does that they don't have enough to complain about in the movie. TMNT while guilty of many things had a good score, great voice acting, and some of the best animation I've seen in the CGI medium so for that it gets credit but as far as pacing, plot, and all that goes it falls flat on it's face.

I hope you see what I'm getting at and just don't assume I'm an over analyzing asshole.
I can agree with you Spit. The TMNT movies may not have been the best movies and I can understand a reviewer giving them low marks, but what got me about Siskel and Ebert's reviews of the 3 live action films and Roeper and his guest reviewer's review of the CG flick was the shere meanness of the reviews. Calling people who enjoy the franchise, not just the movie, "brain injured" (Richard Roeper). I will say that Ebert said one of the nicest thing when he said (I'll paraphrase.) of TMNT 3, "Why couldn't we get anything interesting from the premise of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles?"

Here's a link to the main page for "At the Movies." Just search for Ninja Turtles. http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/ebertandroeper/index2.html

[The Shelf]

Exactly. I don't think it's the bad reviews of TMNT that have people irked. It's the bashing of the film and the fanbase that has people upset. You can give something a bad review without bashing it, and you can most certainly give something a bad review without bashing people who actually enjoyed it.

Anyways, I rarely find reviews helpful at all beyond getting the highlights and lowlights of the movie, game, or whatever. It's hard to find a good review that's not overly biased that actually reviews the product for what it is rather than what the reviewer wants it to be. And even reviewers who can pull off such reviews rarely do so consistently.

[Drtooth]

Calling people who enjoy the franchise, not just the movie, "brain injured" (Richard Roeper).


And that smacks of professionalism and maturity right there.

Screw them They like incoherent bohemian crap, then fine. We don't go bashing that demographic of pseudo-intellectuals.

[Jester]

I think I would have been less upset with Siskel and Ebert if they had said the 4 turtles were overdrawn stereotypes, the Brain, the Brooding loner, the goof-ball, and the stalwart leader as opposed to the "They are all the same." crap. There are 4 distinct characters and I think since it is kids fare and it's based, in their estimation, on a cartoon and a video game series, then it's doesn't even have the possibility of being a good film.

[Warhorse]

Their job is to review movies, just because you like a film doesn't mean it's good. In fact 90% of the movies people on here seem to enjoy, and no offense, are garbage in the eyes of a film critic.

Film critics like real movies. Stuff that requires thought and has good plot and character development. Not stuff that rides solely on being based off a video game or childhood memory.

The turtles movies aren't good, as a fan I enjoy them but the movie critique side of me has issues with them, all of them. The new movie lost all appeal to me and for me to enjoy it at all I have to completely lower my standards to near nothing. The first two films have the advantage of pumping me full of good childhood memories and when I watch them those flashbacks help me ride them out. TMNT is at the disadvantage there and probably why I hated it the first time I saw it.

I don't think any turtles movie is by standard good but I do agree it is wrong to make fun of the fan base who enjoy such films. It's unnecessary and unprofessional. Usually when a critic does that they don't have enough to complain about in the movie. TMNT while guilty of many things had a good score, great voice acting, and some of the best animation I've seen in the CGI medium so for that it gets credit but as far as pacing, plot, and all that goes it falls flat on it's face.

I hope you see what I'm getting at and just don't assume I'm an over analyzing asshole.

Critics only like REAL movies. Well, I remember several years ago when Siskel and Ebert were on tv, reviewing movies, and two of the movies they reviewed were Showgirls and Species. I cant remember which one it was, but one of them said he gave it a thumbs up just because he likes the tit shots? He was giving movies thumbs up just because they had nudity in it? And neither Species nor Showgirls had any thought provoking moments, neither were master pieces in the cinema world.

I kind of dislike and distrust critics reviews, especially Siskel and Eberts, because the bottom line is, what is a movie for? Is it supposed to teach us something meaningful in life, make us think twice about our action. No, movies are meant to entertain us, nothing more, nothing less.

[jeff the cheff]

Anyways, I rarely find reviews helpful at all beyond getting the highlights and lowlights of the movie, game, or whatever. It's hard to find a good review that's not overly biased that actually reviews the product for what it is rather than what the reviewer wants it to be. And even reviewers who can pull off such reviews rarely do so consistently.

Thats a really good point, kind of what I was thinking.

My method of using reviews is to basically be recommended by friends and people I know. These people know me a little better than a reviewer does. I'll also feel recommended by a movie if a lot of critics gave it really great reviews and said things like its the best of the year. As far as bad reviews, I can use them as a guide, but they aren't all accurate. Some movies get bad reviews by critics, but they missed something that I saw in a movie. I really think amateur reviews are more useful, but aren't written well enough to be published like Ebert.

Anyways, everyone looks for different things in a movie. Some movies can't be looked at through a critics eye. Comedies, for example. Critics will give it bad marks because it doesn't develop a plot strongly, or good pacing, or good angles, and whatever the **** else they look for to review. What I mean is they have a system for reviewing movies, but they don't look for what a movies intentions are. A hilarious movie could get bad reviews, but does that mean its a bad comedy? Is it a bad movie? I would say neither. Its not a bad movie because it does what its supposed to... it entertains. The same can be applied to TMNT. We're looking to see our favorite characters portrayed in a new style, a new storyline, and just make us feel good.

I really think most of these critics would agree with what we are saying, that they aren't the final word, but they do the best they can. However, insulting people who like the movie is just lame, and I think we ALL agree on that.

[ZariusTwo]

Ebert is double-edged...he clearly is paid to like certain movies for the sake of a franchise, but tears down films like TMNT for being "corporate". In this event, that's really marketers knowing how long a children's franchise lasts, two to three years maximum, and when you reach the theatres, that's when you start criticising the s*it out of it so it makes less money, and the older demographic films with substance, style, or general entertainment value can continue to make money with the more consistent audiences.

I mean, one slip, even the slightest neglect of this trait, and you wouldnt want theatres to become suddenly dominant with shallow, sloppy wedding crasher comedies and remakes would you?

....Oh.

[Spitfire]

Critics only like REAL movies. Well, I remember several years ago when Siskel and Ebert were on tv, reviewing movies, and two of the movies they reviewed were Showgirls and Species. I cant remember which one it was, but one of them said he gave it a thumbs up just because he likes the tit shots? He was giving movies thumbs up just because they had nudity in it? And neither Species nor Showgirls had any thought provoking moments, neither were master pieces in the cinema world.

I kind of dislike and distrust critics reviews, especially Siskel and Eberts, because the bottom line is, what is a movie for? Is it supposed to teach us something meaningful in life, make us think twice about our action. No, movies are meant to entertain us, nothing more, nothing less.

Your using one critic as an example I'm talking about them as a whole, and as a whole they all said TMNT was bad for the most part. It got a 30% on RT.

Best comic movie you've ever seen, ever seen Spider-man 2? Batman Begins? Sin City? Those are great comic movies but their not just great because of the source material their great because their also good movies, not just good by comic movie standards.

Enlighten me on what you consider to be "Incoherent bohemian junk" because if it's movies where you don't drool on yourself while watching them then your what I call the average brain dead movie go-er.

You guys like stuff like 300 and Transformers, those movies are jokes riding solely on peoples fan ties, or in 300's case boobs and action scenes with unnecessary CGI wash overs. They over stylize and focus on that instead of story and character development. It's sort of how video games have become. All they focus on are graphics instead of trying to work on making the gameplay better. Then they sell based off hype and as Zarius said a few critics paid off to give crap movies good reviews.

[ZariusTwo]

Species was awesome because it was meant to be what it was. That's why Siskel liked it, classic old-school boob-fest alien fun, and the fact it remains a memorable film proves that it had the power of spectacle.

TMNT does NOT have that. Leo vs Raph is a great set-peice, but it's not the final battle in Species or great speactle-fests like Alien where the pace is unmatched. TMNT has great pace, but average in context of modern theatre.

People appreciate a vulger Bay fest like TF because TF is a big name, they dont appreciate Daredevil because they hate Ben Afflek, Jennifer Garner, and theyve never heard of Daredevil, not because it's a bad movie. DD is better than the first Spider-Man movie. Spidey 3 is underrated, but critics and audiences thrash it because Spidey is, by now, overexposed, and the time has come to dwindle it down to insignificence so that when a reboot arrives, it makes more money.

Making money is the ideal staple of hype movies. Would anyone give a s*it for 300 if Frank Miller's "Sin City" had bombed? No. People only like it because Miller's name is attached to the comic, and because "THIS IS SPARTA" is the only memorable line and scene of the entire bloody film. JJ Abrams Cloverfield wouldnt be anything but a flop if it hadnt been for the viral campaigns, and it'll be regarded as crap the instant people expecting Godzilla or Voltron watch it. They may as well be paying for a rickroll.

[Drtooth]

Enlighten me on what you consider to be "Incoherent bohemian junk" because if it's movies where you don't drool on yourself while watching them then your what I call the average brain dead movie go-er.



Oh, you know. Either A) Really bad indie flicks where privillaged kids with rich parents who sent them to film school whine about how horrible their lives are for being a misfit. or B) a big fat Hollywood A-list fest they try to market as a classy film.

I have no problem with indie films, but come on. Lighten the hell up. Stop sending well fed camera crews to poor parts of Ireland and having rich kids tell people to feel sorry for them. For the same money it takes to make one of those, you could do something better to help.

This sort of elitist stuff is what I hate about critics. If it's not some snotty piece of forgettable whining with indie rock in the background, it's not worth a damn.

I hate action films too, and moronic by the numbers college comedies as well, and will take said indie films over them anyday. But guess what? I p**s 10 bucks a go at the movies to forget about how crappy life is. Okay?

How come Jerry Stiller's film about him being an aging, furious director, didn't even get a second look, and a bunch of twenty somethings get awards and acclaim for copying the other non-conformist film makers?

Both sides are hypocrits, IMO.

[Jester]

I'm not sure why I feel like I have to qualify the thread, but this was created mainly to point out the harsh reviews of the 3 live action films as opposed to the new CG film. Now with that said...carry on. :P

[VaughnMichael]

Who cares some lil fat guy with no life doesn't like turtles wa wa wa moving on.

[ToTheNines]

Not really adding to the conversation, just responding to some comments...

they dont appreciate Daredevil because they hate Ben Afflek, Jennifer Garner, and theyve never heard of Daredevil, not
because it's a bad movie

Exactly! I see these dumbass lists of the "worst comic book movies of all time" made by **** head who don't read comics ever, and just s**t on DD for having 2 "name" actors (who did a great job).

Spidey 3 is underrated, but critics and audiences thrash it because Spidey is, by now, overexposed, and the time has come to dwindle it down to insignificence so that when a reboot arrives, it makes more money.


I honestly did not like Spiderman 3, (I also had to put up with some real weird mofo's in the theatre that day, so that made the experience ever worse) I actually have fun picking it apart when I watch it with freinds, but considering how good the first 2 were the 3rd is just plain not good. I know it's the third in the series, so I honestly wasn't expecting much, but I can't believe that everyone and their brother saw this film like twice.

Who cares some lil fat guy with no life doesn't like turtles wa wa wa moving on.

:lol: you just made my day.

[VaughnMichael]

:lol: you just made my day.
I'm glad I just woke up and I'm in a mood.:P

[sgtfbomb]

Who cares if Roger Ebert disliked the Turtles movies. People have different tastes, and I dont criticise a person for not liking a movie I like. Thats just retarded. While I dont agree with many of his reviews, I do like reading his reviews for the most part, and often I will agree with him.

And besides, critics often get a lot of crap because they hate movies that generally arent good. Personally, Spiderman 3 does suck. In fact, it was terrble. I've seen dog s**t thats more entertaining that uneven garbage.

Sure he didnt like the first Ninja Turtles movies, and the second and third (of course, I would have trashed the third one anyway)...but I'm sure most of us have family members and friends that say the same thing about these movies.

Dont take it seriously. Its just someone else's opinion.

[Spitfire]

Oh, you know. Either A) Really bad indie flicks where privillaged kids with rich parents who sent them to film school whine about how horrible their lives are for being a misfit. or B) a big fat Hollywood A-list fest they try to market as a classy film.

I have no problem with indie films, but come on. Lighten the hell up. Stop sending well fed camera crews to poor parts of Ireland and having rich kids tell people to feel sorry for them. For the same money it takes to make one of those, you could do something better to help.

This sort of elitist stuff is what I hate about critics. If it's not some snotty piece of forgettable whining with indie rock in the background, it's not worth a damn.

I hate action films too, and moronic by the numbers college comedies as well, and will take said indie films over them anyday. But guess what? I p**s 10 bucks a go at the movies to forget about how crappy life is. Okay?

How come Jerry Stiller's film about him being an aging, furious director, didn't even get a second look, and a bunch of twenty somethings get awards and acclaim for copying the other non-conformist film makers?

Both sides are hypocrits, IMO.

You failed to list one movie.

But while your post is in front of me let me point out someone who is dirt poor can go to film school so your argument about that is complete BS.

[TheAnimatedSeries]

I saw DD twice in theaters and bought both DVDs and have watched them both a handful of times and its definently not a great movie to me. Its a guilty pleasure. Had it not been raped midway through production by the studio, it probably would have been better than Spiderman. The bad cartoon style directing in some sequences "I have work to do (swish swish swish adjust glasses zoom in)" didnt match the manga influence of the comics either, MSJ should have dropped that idea.

Then again, everyone is entitled to their opinion of what makes a movie good and spitfire is as wrong as the guy calling any movie with substance "bohemian". Transformers and Pan's Labryinth are cinematic equals.

[ZariusTwo]

Transformers and Pan's Labryinth are cinematic equals.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

TF is just another "fashionably popular" sucess that NOBODY with a mind of their own would appreciate if it bombed. It didnt because the franchise has been healthy and alive for years with The Unicron Trilogy and toylines that didnt dip in sales. It was a secure victory at the box-office, but DD is superior to it because of it's sub-plot (which alone is more than TF's lack of ANY plot)

Who cares about the cartoonish direction of DD? At least it didnt reduce the film to a Road Runner cartoon with the mentality of treating it like The Condemed

[Spitfire]

If I need to explain to you how wrong you are it would be a waste of my time because your so far gone from understanding what a cinematic masterpiece is it would be impossible.

[ZariusTwo]

It's always the numbers that make masterpeices for those people.

That or blind fan devotion.

[Drtooth]

Dont take it seriously. Its just someone else's opinion.

I could care less if they gave it a bad review for the sake of putting it down. But when they say TMNT fans are brain damaged is pretty much the real offensive part to me. Any given project has fans. Power Rangers, Pokemon, Superman. It doesn't matter if you don't like it yourself.


I remember what5 the South Park guys said once. Something along the lines of "We hate Family guy, but we realise it has fans and it speaks to them." or something like that. had Ropey said that, it wouldn't be so insulting.

BTW, I remember hearing Joel Siegal gave TMNT Secret of the OOze a pretty good review. It was either himk or someone else.

[AquaParade]

I saw DD twice in theaters and bought both DVDs and have watched them both a handful of times and its definently not a great movie to me. Its a guilty pleasure. Had it not been raped midway through production by the studio, it probably would have been better than Spiderman. The bad cartoon style directing in some sequences "I have work to do (swish swish swish adjust glasses zoom in)" didnt match the manga influence of the comics either, MSJ should have dropped that idea.

Then again, everyone is entitled to their opinion of what makes a movie good and spitfire is as wrong as the guy calling any movie with substance "bohemian". Transformers and Pan's Labryinth are cinematic equals.

What do you mean? What exactly happened midway through the production of daredevil? Soudns interesting, because even though that movie has a lot of flaws, there are some subtle things in there I really like about it. I can tell it had great potential and I'm nol even a diehard DD fan.

[Mr._Mutant_Man]

Film critics like real movies.

So Transformers and Batman Begins were fake movies? Darnit.:(

Screw movie critics, and most critics for that matter. Not every movie or book has to try to be a work of art. People go to movies and read generally to be entertained. I'd much rather watch a sci-fi or action film than some pretentious piece of crap that a movie critic with his head up his ass raves about. Most of those movies are boring as hell. Don't get me wrong, stuff like Godfather and Cuckoo's Nest are classics, and blow "popcorn" movies away, but I think movie elitists need to lighten up and let themselves enjoy stuff more. Most of the stuff that critics love these days are snoozefests. If you want excellent movies that critics loved that are actually fun to watch as well, you kind of have to look back.

And as far as good comic movies go, I'm not sure I'd place Spider-Man 2 that highly above even Ninja Turtles. The romance was handled much better in Spidey 1. In 2 it seemed a little more forced, and the dialogue became cheesier, although not as bad as say Attack of the Clones. IMO the first Spider-Man is still the best one.

Also, Sin City was enjoyable, but if we're going to be harsh about what a good movie is I wouldn't consider it one. It has style, but not much substance.

[Spitfire]

Movies are a form of art, they should be treated as thus. I understand most movie go-ers like to turn their brain off when they sit down to watch a movie so it's to no surprise Transformers and 300 make lots of money.

Critics like movies you find boring because they watch every movie that comes out, or the majority of them, to reviews them. So what do they see 90% of the time? Some over stylized action film with crap dialog and a CGI budget that rivals Bill Gate's bank account. So when something comes out that's different it's not boring to them it's even more entertaining because it's something different they don't see to often.

My general consensus, and this is in no way a stab at you or anyone on this forum this is based purely off the people I live around, is the average person, not just movie go-er, is a certified idiot. Even this new generations video games have been dumbed down so it's easier to solve the puzzles and easier to beat. Old games used to be challenging. The newer ones are a joke, I can beat any 360 game I have on the hardest setting without dieing really, that's sad cause I'm really not that good at video games.

[ToTheNines]

Critics like movies you find boring because they watch every movie that comes out, or the majority of them, to reviews them. So what do they see 90% of the time? Some over stylized action film with crap dialog and a CGI budget that rivals Bill Gate's bank account. So when something comes out that's different it's not boring to them it's even more entertaining because it's something different they don't see to often.


That's a great point to bring up, we don't watch nearly as many movies as these folks do (well, most of us don't) so they should and do see movies differently than us.

[Mr._Mutant_Man]

Movies are a form of art

My general consensus, and this is in no way a stab at you or anyone on this forum this is based purely off the people I live around, is the average person, not just movie go-er, is a certified idiot.

What is considered art is pretty subjective though. There are all sorts of things that people consider art that others would consider to be crap. Some people might find putting on a good pro-wrestling match (one that really gets the crowd going and allows them to suspend disbelief for just a little bit) to almost be an art form, while most scoff at wrestling in the first place. People find all kinds of different paintings and structures art, while others might just see random shapes or random crap being put together. Different people put value in all kinds of different things, and that's what makes the world great: variety and different tastes. I really like comic books, but due to certain tastes no matter how much certain books are critically acclaimed I wouldn't touch them with a twenty foot pole. I can barely read 10 pages of American Splendor. Sorry Harvey Pekar, would much rather read about the Justice League beatin' up the bad guys. Same goes for books like Transmetropolitan. I don't care how much people rave about it, I just don't care.

If that's your conclusion based on observation, I'd say you unfortunately live in an area concentrated with idiocy. Most people are reasonably intelligent, but everyone has their less than bright moments. Nothing against you, I just don't like that mindset of "everyone is stupid except me" because it's kinda elitist and I'm more of an optimist.:)

[TheAnimatedSeries]

If someone only watches the big action spectacles because they absolutely cant appreciate any heavier subject matter, theres nothing neccessarily wrong with that, but I understand you suggesting they are retardeds and generally not wanting to associate with them. But you are being simple minded and lethally pretentious by suggesting that I cant appreciate a cinematic masterpiece just because I also appreciate a well done, visual masterpeice. As movies, as entertainment, both films entertain me 100%. Past that, there is nothing trying to be conveyed by TF, but PL of course is deeper experience, created obviously by more serious filmmakers with cinematic nuance. I still give them both four stars based solely on entertainment value. I enjoy both sides of the mirror, I'm not going to limit myself to liking only the finer, critically acclaimed movies. Some things I like because of who I am, not because of what it is. And some movies that are widely panned entertain me and I'm not going to claim they dont. I dont just listen to Pink Floyd, the Beatles and TOOL because they are great. I listen to White Lion and MC Ren too, because I respond to what they have to offer, which is something completely different than the other artists deliver.

[ZariusTwo]

If someone only watches the big action spectacles because they absolutely cant appreciate any heavier subject matter, theres nothing neccessarily wrong with that, but I understand you suggesting they are retardeds and generally not wanting to associate with them. But you are being simple minded and lethally pretentious by suggesting that I cant appreciate a cinematic masterpiece just because I also appreciate a well done, visual masterpeice.

TF was'nt a visual masterpeice. Everything was too busy to stick. There ARE a few shots in the movie that reek of cinematic significence on that level, usually it involves the robots, but keeping the humans constantly involved made it impossible for the scope to be taken adventage of.

[Dragon Turtle]

Seeing the old 1990 review was like taking a trip back in time, to a kinder, gentler, more naive time in cinema history. A music director directing a movie? Outrageous!! Product Placement? Insanity!! A kids movie that isn't Bright and Bouncy? Unthinkable!!


I believe Ebert is a closet ninja turtle fan, his actual review isn't all that bad, giving the movie 2 and a half stars, obviously hiding his love for the movie or else risk his credibility as a movie reviewer for liking the turtles.:)

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19900330/REVIEWS/3300302/1023


I can picture Ebert feverishly trying to defuse the bombs in the underwater level of the old NES game before throwing the control pad at the TV and cursing.:lol:

[Mr._Mutant_Man]

Ebert seems to be one of the most lenient movie critics I've watched/read reviews from. Most critics I read in newspapers tend to rip every movie a new you know what.

I think the darker style of the movie kind of helps differentiate it from other movies aimed at the younger audience. If nothing else, critics have to admit that when looking at movies inspired by children's fads, Ninja Turtles stands way above Power Rangers and Pokemon. Ninja Turtles is a wacky concept, but I don't think it has the same brain cell killing effect those movies can have.

[Spitfire]

I believe Ebert is a closet ninja turtle fan, his actual review isn't all that bad, giving the movie 2 and a half stars, obviously hiding his love for the movie or else risk his credibility as a movie reviewer for liking the turtles.:)

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19900330/REVIEWS/3300302/1023
Dude he gave Hitman, Tomb Raider, and Fast And Furious good reviews. Those are much more dis-crediting then a turtles movie. He's not a closet fan.

And I explained critics only like really artsy, different movies. Usually independent movies and I explained why as well.

[The Shelf]

Dude he gave Hitman, Tomb Raider, and Fast And Furious good reviews. Those are much more dis-crediting then a turtles movie. He's not a closet fan.

And I explained critics only like really artsy, different movies. Usually independent movies and I explained why as well.

Yet neither Hitman, Tomb Raider, nor Fast and Furious are artsy or different. :-/

Critics aren't any better at rating movies than "normal" people. Just listen to people who are interested in similar things as you if you want a good review.

[Drtooth]

And I explained critics only like really artsy, different movies. Usually independent movies and I explained why as well.

Well, not as a general rule. They tend to flock towards that stuff, but sometimes they'll give positive and even good reviews to undeserved campy garbage (like the ones mentioned) and pass it off as a popcorn flick. Funny thing. You could have a film that's well done, well thought out, just a very good film, and have one tiny thing missing, and they'll give it a bad review. And then they shove Will Ferrel into some tight fitting spandex and have him do the same schtick for 90 minutes, and at least one of the more respected ones will give it a good review. Critics aren't fun to watch. Except for Gene Shallet. He has that goofy mustache that cracks me up.

[Dragon Turtle]

Dude he gave Hitman, Tomb Raider, and Fast And Furious good reviews. Those are much more dis-crediting then a turtles movie. He's not a closet fan.


No Ebert is most liklely not a closet TMNT fan, it was a jest (hence the smiley face), and Ebert has for a very long time been a more lenient movie critic, and it seems as if he has gotten more lenient as time has gone by.


And I explained critics only like really artsy, different movies. Usually independent movies and I explained why as well.

It really depends on the critic and their personal tastes, you could go to www.rottentomatoes.com and search virtually any movie perceived to be bad and find a positive review or search any single movie critic and find that they gave a positive review to a brainless popcorn movie.

[Jester]

Siskel and Ebert gave George of the Jungle a good review....I rest my case.

*Jester is not saying he didn't like the movie, George of the Jungle with Brenden Fraiser and Thomas Haden Church, but he doesn't feel it's a movie that you'd expect to hear the phrase "Two thumbs up!" attached to.