I guess I have the knack of rubbing reviewers the wrong way - always have. This time of course they have bigger axes to grind - they can rip into my movie while trying to make their mainly pale asses look so politically correct by screaming 'white-wash!!' like the deranged idiots they all are. They fail to understand, or chose to pretend to not understand what this movie is, so as to serve some bizarre consensus of opinion which has nothing to do with the movie at all.

That's ok, this modern age of texting will probably make them go the way of the dinosaur or the newspaper shortly - don't movie-goers text their friends with what they thought of a movie? Seems most critics spend their time trying to work out what most people will want to hear. How do you do that? Why these days it is so easy... just surf the net to read other reviews or what bloggers are saying - no matter how misguided an opinion of a movie might be before it actually comes out.

Lock a critic in a room with a movie no one has even seen and they will not know what to make of it. Because contrary to what a critic should probably be they have no personal taste or opinion, because they are basing their views on the status quo. None of them are brave enough to say 'well I like it' if it goes against consensus. Therefore they are less than worthless.

Now that anyone can post their opinion about anything from a movie to a pair of shoes to a hamburger, what value do they have - nothing. Roger Ebert wasn't bad. He was a true film lover at least, a failed film-maker, which gave him a great deal of insight. His passion for film was contagious and he shared this with his fans. He loved films and his contribution to cinema as a result was positive. Now we have a pack of diseased vultures pecking at the bones of a dying carcass. Trying to peck to the rhythm of the consensus. I applaud any film-goer who values their own opinion enough to not base it on what the pack-mentality say is good or bad.

Roger Ebert wasn't bad.

Every film does it, and he picked the worst of the worst. I can't think of any reason he would direct this movie outside of the huge paycheck. From what I read it cost 140 million, but because of major Australian tax incentives it only cost Lionsgate 10 million plus marketing.

Every film does it, and he picked the worst of the worst. I can't think of any reason he would direct this movie outside of the huge paycheck. From what I read it cost 140 million, but because of major Australian tax incentives it only cost Lionsgate 10 million plus marketing.

He's kind of right, though (it's also how most of KJ operates). But it's not the best time to say things like this - it just makes him look bitter.

Pathetic, Mr. Proyas.

People like the sand/desert level in video games but all the movies set there fail. If I was a movie studio I would have a no sand rule.

In reality, it's probably something to do with characters. Characters in films like Gods of Egypt and Exodus aren't relatable. What does our life have in common with theirs?