Re: Thor
Paul Christian Glenn <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.music.dadl.ot |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Wow. That seems uncharacteristically harsh for him. He usually saves his most venomous stuff for flicks that are aggressively bad, but his major complaints here seem to be that (a) the plot isn't very meaty, and (b) it's Marvel's Thor, rather than the traditional version. His complaints about the plot and villains seem way off the mark. How, exactly was "Iron Man" better in this regard? Ah, well. A good read, as always. On May 11, 2011, at 11:27 PM, "Peter T. Chattaway" <petert-LOVM4QxV+tDq6eQxt3vRmLDks+cytr/[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 10 May 2011, Johne Cook wrote: >> So where is Roger Ebert's review? > > Ask and ye shall receive. He's reviewed it at his blog, rather than in the newspaper: > > http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/05/_i_didnt_attend_the.html > > -- > dadl-ot mailing list > http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot -- dadl-ot mailing list http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot