Ebert and Roeper give "Batman Begins" two thumbs up

[Joe Grendel]

Ebert, after giving thumbs down on the first four Batman movies said "finally, this is the first one that GETS IT RIGHT.

"This is the darkest of the Batman movies and the most engrossing. ... Last year, 'Spider-Man 2' got Spider-Man right, and this year, 'Batman Begins' is the Batman movie I've been waiting for and hoping for. It's one of the year's best films."

I know that Ebert & Roeper don't necessarily get genre films always -- Ebert famously panned "Star Wars" back in the day -- but two thumbs up suggest this won't just be a fanboy wankfest, but will actually be a good solid film in its own right.

And these were thumbs WAY up.

Looks like I'll be reupping City of Heroes for a month. Glad I got my dark avenger of the night made ahead of the crowd. ;)

[Helena]

I've seen this mentioned on other boards. And it really doesn't give me much comfort because I've seen him pan movies I've loved. However since I essentially agree with him on the previous films. Except BF which I like.

[Gaz]

Here's (http://www.empireonline.co.uk/site/incinemas/ReviewInFull.asp?FID=9770) a second opinion if you want one. Empire are very reliable, imo, they tend to review from the movie-fan's perspective, not over-analyzing like, say, the Village Voice.

[Santanico]

It might be worth remembering that, these days, Ebert tends to give a thumbs-up to everything. He gave one to Garfield, for God's sake.

Don't mean to rain on anyone's parade here, but I'm just saying, is all.

[Grant]

It might be worth remembering that, these days, Ebert tends to give a thumbs-up to everything. He gave one to Garfield, for God's sake.

It does seem like that. But Ebert generally does a good job reviewing a movie on it's own terms. He gets carried away but I think he's more fair then most.

[Mr. Croup]

At one time, it always seemed when Ebert, and his late partner, Siskel, gave a film two thumbs up, if was a financal flop. Let's hope the film isn't all hype.

[revolver86]

Ebert usually bases his opinion on a movie on whether it did what it was intended to do. If it was a cheesy horror movie, and it did it well (even though the movie was shit), he'll give it a thumbs up. Because even though he doesn't like the movie, he knows there is a large audience for it. He also likes fun up beat movies more than the overly dramatic types. Roeper, on the other hand, has become a real hard ass and tends to give thumbs down to movies he liked, but had little apsects that annoyed him. He always seemed more geared towards the artsy type of movies. But, every once in a while, they rise up and get into these big blockbusters. They did it a few weeks ago with Star Wars (and boy, were they dead on) and they'll probably be right with Batman.

[The Xenos]

I think Ebert is questionable when it comes to comic movies. Ebert often times if full of crap when it comes to comic book movies. He generalizes in an ignorant way and knows nothing of the matrial but still makes grand comments about it.

I belive Ebert said he didn't know why Professor X would want someone with claws in his hands when he already has someone who controls the weather and shoots lasers from his eyes. His assumptions about supersheros makes him ignore the movie and what it says. Prof X wasn't just colelctinbg a bunch of spandex clad clods with superpowers. He was trying to bring peace ala Martin Luther King. He was a teacher at a school. This was obvious, but Ebert's ignorance stopped him from seeing the film.

Though maybe this was a good review unlike his X-Men one review. Now I do think Begins is going to be good. Then again I thought the same about Daredevil going into it and that fell apart on screen. Though I got a good feeling about this one.

-Xenos