Replies

Yeah, I disagree completely. I love Ebert, and, sadly, I pretty much agree about X-men. He didn't dislike the x-movies, he just thought they got bogged down with too many mutants. I think he's right. Oh, and what he asked was how a mutant would be "intimate" with Rogue, since touching her nearly kills you. I've wondered that myself.

He likes fun movies, in my estimation. You just have to understand what he's saying. When he questions the logic of an action/adventure pic, he's observing rather than criticizing. The lack of logic in such movies shows a cheerfulness on the part of the director.

Although, I'm a bit of a movie snob myself, so maybe I have no room to talk :)

Well, I dont have the unedited review archived, but to my memory, he got into a lot more detail than just having sex with Rouge as I recall. It was two paragraphs worth (that I do remember), and were likely the largest paragraphs of the review. I read the review almost immediately upon arriving home after the very first showing of the flick, and saw that the offending passages were struck from the review within 8 hours. Like I said, it was just plain creepy but I dont have a copy of the unedited review.

As far as X2's logical fallacies, I wondered if he had even watched the movie. He was wrong about so many plot details, I sincerely doubt that he had. But when you are looking for realism in a comic book movie (fercryinoutloud), then your ability to suspend disbelief and be an effective critic comes into question.

But when it comes to dramas and the like, I do value Ebert's opinion, but prefer Medved's...JFK

There is no inherent illogic in Rogue's situation. If they made it clear she *was* in a sexual relationship but there was no explanation of how that could be, that would be illogical. But saying that she can't, when she already isn't, is a pretty weak observation. It's like watching 'Cinderella Man' and noting that the main character can't fly or shoot lasers from his eyes.