On Rotten Tomatoes they've been generally positive. 27 good to 9 bad.
Rotten Tomatoes is my go-to site for movie reviews and in this case I would be more inclined to trust it. The way I see it, more reviews => more accuracy.
I wouldn't worry about it, movie reviewers are liberal arts majors paid to enjoy the smell of their own farts, so something which doesn't fit in their neat little boxes must automatically be bad. The concept of combining moral absolutes and moral relativity in the same story probably caused their heads to hurt, so they cook up lazy reviews to outrage the fans and drum up website traffic.
When the reviewer at the New Yorker wrote: "There is Dan (Patrick Wilson), better known as Nite Owl, who keeps his old superhero outfit, rubbery and sharp-eared, locked away in his basement, presumably for fear of being sued for plagiarism by Bruce Wayne." he betrayed his total lack of understanding of the source material and a key element of the story line, that these people where inspired to become masked heroes by the same pulp comics which gave us Batman and Superman.
Also keep in mind these are the same reviewers who thought "Chicago" deserved the best picture award in 2002. Fuck em. Listen to those who have actually read the graphic novel, who know the context, the form; listen to the fans.
Most of the time, the more publicity you see about a movie, the more it sucks bad.
I like the music in the trailer though.
"based on 7 reviews"
"This kind of reverence kills what it seeks to preserve. The movie is embalmed."
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
"I don't read scripts, scripts read me!"
I think that that comment comes across very clear. Basically, the director and company's appreciation for the subject matter created a stagnant, stilted cinematic product by merely broadcasting scenic nostalgia from the graphic novel instead of allowing the movie to become a movie. But, we'll see it when we regular old folk get to see it to know ourselves.
For news and discussion of the entertainment industry.