(no subject)
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090429/REVIEWS/904299978/1023
Old news, but I'd never read this review before. I'm not mad he doesn't like the movie, the movie has mixed reviews, and from what I've read of the plot, it turned Logan into just another action movie cliche.
What irks me is an old complaint I have about hollywood and comic book heroes. To sum up what bothers me about Ebert's review, is he's more or less saying
"Lol, I've never read X-Men or Wolverine comics, but I can obviously learn everything I need to know about a character that has been written for decades from one movie! Clearly this movie is a 100% accurate representation of Logan just like all comic book movie heroes, therefore I'm going to judge Wolverine's popularity to comic book fans as unwarranted because a movie sucks!"
It's an old, but strong and I believe valid complaint about how hollywood treats one of my favorite storytelling mediums. Usually, moviemakers who make movies about comic book characters don't do a lot of research about their source material, because comic books still have a lingering stereotype to those who don't read them that they're all cheap stories written for kids, and because of the moviemakers' huge egos. So they end up making a shitty movie by including creative tweaks they think will be a smash, and said shitty movie perpetuates hollywood and other peoples' assumption that comic book stories are all laughable. The Halle Berry Catwoman film, anyone?
To top it off, when a GOOD movie like Dark Knight is released, even some of the praise pisses me off, because the critics tended to say that it went beyond the comic book story limits and was a genuinely good crime drama. NO, assholes, you know why it was good? BATMAN WAS CREATED AS AND IS AT ITS CORE A GOOD FUCKING CRIME DRAMA(aside from a period where he was as hokey as Adam West, due to media pressure...which he was pulled out of by the 70s). THE DARK KNIGHT MOVIE STAYED TRUE TO THE SPIRIT AND CHARACTERIZATION OF BATMAN'S WORLD, IT WAS GOOD BY BEING ACCURATE. One of the biggest reasons Heath Ledger's Joker performance was so good, is he studied alot of Joker stories as well as other psycho characters. The writers and directors are all talented, but they were also smart enough to actually listen to DC comics, to pay attention to what the fuck Batman really is, to study his true self in the comics he has appeared in for decades.
I view comic books as another creative medium, not a lesser form of entertainment. There have been shitty movies based on nothing, shitty movies based on shitty comics, shitty movies based on good comics, shitty comics, shitty comics based on movies, and all of the above with the word good inserted sensibly.
Movie Logan was kind of cool in the X-Men movies, and more cliched in his own movie. But none of those reflect the true depth of the Logan portayed in Marvel Comics. You know why you don't understand the reason Wolverine has been so popular with comic book readers for over twenty years, Roger Ebert? It's NOT the movies you've watched, it's the COMIC BOOKS THAT COMIC BOOK READERS, YOU KNOW, READ. THE ONES YOU HAVEN'T. Wolverine was winning popularity polls years before the first X-Men movie trailer was ever shown on a screen. It's one thing to write a review about a movie(and I happen to agree with this review). But it's another to rate a poor movie and then to go so far as to rate a decades old character based on the one movie, and criticize people who've read stories you've never touched for liking the character in those stories. You idiot, did you even bother to find out how longtime X-Men readers felt about the movie? A lot of them hated it, because it was a terrible representation of their beloved character.
Because George Clooney as Batman means that must be how Batman has been for almost a century, amirite?