Siskel and Ebert's TMNT reviews.

**Jester** · 12-16-2007, 10:42 PM

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~~ · 12-17-2007, 12:51 AM

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

*Spitfire* · 12-17-2007, 02:55 AM

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 · 12-17-2007, 06:35 AM

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* · 12-17-2007, 10:41 AM

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** · 12-17-2007, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spitfire666xXxXx

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/bue...er/index2.html

The Shelf · 12-17-2007, 11:30 AM

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* · 12-17-2007, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jester

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** · 12-17-2007, 12:39 PM

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* · 12-17-2007, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spitfire666xXxXx

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* · 12-17-2007, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Shelf

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* · 12-17-2007, 09:41 PM

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* · 12-18-2007, 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warhorse

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* · 12-18-2007, 06:15 AM

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* · 12-18-2007, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spitfire666xXxXx

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** · 12-18-2007, 12:52 PM

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.

*VaughnMichael* · 12-18-2007, 01:47 PM

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

*ToTheNines* · 12-18-2007, 01:58 PM

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZariusTwo

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).

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Putrescent

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

you just made my day.

*VaughnMichael* · 12-18-2007, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ToTheNines

you just made my day.

I'm glad I just woke up and I'm in a mood.

sgtfbomb · 12-18-2007, 03:01 PM

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.

12-16-2007, 10:42 PM	#1
Jester Rat-faced Dude-guy Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Arkansas Posts: 26,298	Siskel and Ebert's TMNT reviews. 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 __________________ "Clearly, you're Ninja Turtling incorrectly." - Leo656

12-17-2007, 02:55 AM	#3
Spitfire Writer • Director Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 12,035	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. __________________ Check out my online portfolio http://www.christopherpelletier.com/

12-17-2007, 06:35 AM	#4
TheAnimatedSeries Foot Soldier Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 158	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. __________________ ...but thats just one black mans opinion. Whats yours? Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III is better than SOTO and the 2007 movie. You would know that if you were a gangster.

12-17-2007, 10:41 AM	#5
Drtooth Foot Elite Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 4,439	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. __________________ [Insert mildly amusing banner here]

12-17-2007, 12:39 PM	#9
Jester Rat-faced Dude-guy Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Arkansas Posts: 26,298	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. __________________ "Clearly, you're Ninja Turtling incorrectly." - Leo656

12-17-2007, 12:51 AM	#2
~~AquaParade~~ Banned Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 8,450	Yup...they hate everything I love...especially when referring to my childhood.

12-17-2007, 11:30 AM	#7
The Shelf Mad Scientist Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,031	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.

12-17-2007, 09:41 PM	#12
ZariusTwo Overlord Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Britain, DINO THUNDER...POWER UP! Posts: 22,459	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 sit 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. __________________ Spider-Man: The Rescue* Spider-Man: The Galloping Cat Spider-Man: Scarlet Mirror Doctor Who: Child of the Daleks

12-18-2007, 06:15 AM	#14
ZariusTwo Overlord Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Britain, DINO THUNDER...POWER UP! Posts: 22,459	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 sit 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. __________________ Spider-Man: The Rescue* Spider-Man: The Galloping Cat Spider-Man: Scarlet Mirror Doctor Who: Child of the Daleks

12-18-2007, 12:52 PM	#16
Jester Rat-faced Dude-guy Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Arkansas Posts: 26,298	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. __________________ "Clearly, you're Ninja Turtling incorrectly." - Leo656

12-18-2007, 01:47 PM	#17
VaughnMichael I'm Baaaaaaccck! Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 11,833	Who cares some lil fat guy with no life doesn't like turtles wa wa wa moving on.

12-18-2007, 03:01 PM	#20
sgtfbomb Stone Warrior Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: The Internet Posts: 830	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.