Windows 7 wrote:Out of 233 reviews listed here, 22 are negative. Out of 129 reviews listed on RT, 20 are negative. Really, RT? What gives?

Are the 20 on RT all in the 22 on here?

Inferno313 wrote:

Windows 7 wrote:Out of 233 reviews listed here, 22 are negative. Out of 129 reviews listed on RT, 20 are negative. Really, RT? What gives?

Are the 20 on RT all in the 22 on here?

No, about 8 of them aren't.

I'm not sure it's been awhile since this was last updated.

I'll be updating again tonight. Last update was earlier this afternoon. Reviews have really been pouring in the last couple hours.

James Berardinelli

http://www.reelviews.net/php_review_tem ... ifier=2116 3.5/4

I think this was lost in the shuffle

19 out of 35 reviews at MetaCritic are 88 or higher, 11 of which are 100 grades. It's the folks at the bottom that are dragging it down. This thing has more ratings below 30 than f**king Spider-Man 3. While I think some of the criticisms about exposition and whatnot sound very well-reasoned, I also wonder where some of these critics were with Avatar. That film had a shitload of exposition too yet Edelstein and some of the others that have panned Inception gave Avatar rave reviews. Why ignore this exposition flaw in one while harping on it in another? Double standards FTW.

redfirebird2008 wrote:19 out of 35 reviews at MetaCritic are 88 or higher, 11 of which are 100 grades. It's the folks at the bottom that are dragging it down. This thing has more ratings below 30 than f**king Spider-Man 3. While I think some of the criticisms about exposition and whatnot sound very well-reasoned, I also wonder where some of these critics were with Avatar. That film had a shitload of exposition too yet Edelstein and some of the others that have panned Inception gave Avatar rave reviews. Why ignore this exposition flaw in one while harping on it in another? Double standards FTW.

It also has to do with perception. I certainly expect less with the story of a Michael Bay movie, but you sorta let yourself get taken on the ride and forgive a lot of its shortcomings because you lower your standards. Even SM3, a lot of it's pretty harmless and most critics didn't get up in arms over it. The terrible WOM didn't take until it was actually released and the general public was like, "WTF is this crap?"

Whereas if you see squandered potential, it bugs you more, like it did me for Superman Returns. Not a BAD film, but I still get frustrated thinking of all the stuff they COULD have done, but didn't. Nolan obviously pursued a more complex storytelling method than Cameron did for Avatar, so the exposition in Inception may have bugged those critics more than Avatar did, because Avatar was more simple story and whatever formulas it used, didn't stick out as much.

But that's just my "I haven't seen the movie yet so I'm just theorizing" two cents.

redfirebird2008 wrote:19 out of 35 reviews at MetaCritic are 88 or higher, 11 of which are 100 grades. It's the folks at the bottom that are dragging it down. This thing has more ratings below 30 than f**king Spider-Man 3. While I think some of the criticisms about exposition and whatnot sound very well-reasoned, I also wonder where some of these critics were with Avatar. That film had a shitload of exposition too yet Edelstein and some of the others that have panned Inception gave Avatar rave reviews. Why ignore this exposition flaw in one while harping on it in another? Double standards FTW.

That because everybody sucks up to Cameron. I am surprise on how some bad reviews Inception i getting.

EctoCooler31 wrote:James Berardinelli

http://www.reelviews.net/php_review_tem ... ifier=2116 3.5/4

I think this was lost in the shuffle

I ed at his description of Nolan's movies as having an "anti-happiness bias." :JGLface:

Anita18 wrote:

redfirebird2008 wrote:19 out of 35 reviews at MetaCritic are 88 or higher, 11 of which are 100 grades. It's the folks at the bottom that are dragging it down. This thing has more ratings below 30 than f**king Spider-Man 3. While I think some of the criticisms about exposition and whatnot sound very well-reasoned, I also wonder where some of these critics were with Avatar. That film had a shitload of exposition too yet Edelstein and some of the others that have panned Inception gave Avatar rave reviews. Why ignore this exposition flaw in one while harping on it in another? Double standards FTW.

It also has to do with perception. I certainly expect less with the story of a Michael Bay movie, but you sorta let yourself get taken on the ride and forgive a lot of its shortcomings because you lower your standards. Even SM3, a lot of it's pretty harmless and most critics didn't get up in arms over it. The terrible WOM didn't take until it was actually released and the general public was like, "WTF is this crap?"

Whereas if you see squandered potential, it bugs you more, like it did me for Superman Returns. Not a BAD film, but I still get frustrated thinking of all the stuff they COULD have done, but didn't. Nolan obviously pursued a more complex storytelling method than Cameron did for Avatar, so the exposition in Inception may have bugged those critics more than Avatar did, because Avatar was more simple story and whatever formulas it used, didn't stick out as much.

But that's just my "I haven't seen the movie yet so I'm just theorizing" two cents.

Superman Returns is one of the most frustrating films ever! There's a great film buried in there somewhere, but instead, it comes off as merely good. For me, it hits the right emtional notes, but otherwise it's somewhat dull. The airplane sequence is really cool and the film is beautiful to look at. The costumes, sets, art direction, and cinematography are all ace. And the performances are generally great. The problem lies in the script, which spends too much time being nostalgic and reverent to the first two Chris Reeve films. It just becomes boring and depressing after a while. Part of it is that Luthor, while a great villain, has been done to death. Kevin Spacey is great, but it just kind of feels like a been there, done that film.