>i mean, the first paragraph of Ebert's review makes me not
>want to see this at all:

meh, these guys are entertainers, not reviewers. i could give a fuck about a professional review


i check the yahoo review overall grade to get a more accurate, overall perspective

like right now, the "pro's" give it a c; users give it an a-.

given that professional critics are a bunch of douchebags who often have far reaching criticisms, i take that c from 9 of them with a grain of salt. people will say "oh, if 9 of them say its a c... it must be a c!"....

but then, you know, 165 people who don't get paid to rip movies with actual budgets to shreds and actually watch movies to be entertained and not write a fucking dissertation on it, they give it an A-. but given that most people have shitty taste and are easily pleased, i take that with a grain of salt.

so i take those two, read a few reviews and arrive at a more plausable conclusion: the truth lies somewhere in the middle. it's probably a solid flick with some flaws.