David Poland's thoughts on AOTC

[CMJ]

This was part of today's column from my favorite entertainment journalist. He's the saame dude that wrote the great piece of the BO that I posted here a couple days ago. Anyways...I thought I'd post his thoughts...and since it's not exactly a review, I decided to throw it in this forum. On a side note the Jeff he speaks of is Jeffrey Wells another entertainment journalist.
*****************************

Star Warrrrrs… fab-u-lous Star Warrrrs…

I know that people are waiting to hear all the news of Attack of the Clones, but even as I watched it, I realized how anxious I wasn’t to do a full scale review of the film… at least not yet. Even though I could split out the overall comments from the spoilers as I did with Spider-Man, somehow I don’t feel a need for it here. Spider-Man was a giant question mark. Was it loyal to the comic? (Pretty much, yes.) Did Sam Raimi do his best work ever? (Yes.) Were people going to walk out unhappy? (No.) But Star Wars: Episode Two – Attack of the Clones doesn’t have that same sense of boundary issues. The only real question is, does it work?

And the answer is, unequivocally, yes. There are dead moments and too much expositional dialogue at times and Hayden Christensen would be a lot better if he had 20 percent as much on-screen charisma as he has brooding skills, but… George Lucas takes a movie world obsessed with CG and big images and tops every single film ever made going away. Does Clones have the heart of a Titanic to go with the stunning – and I mean stunning – images? No. The love story is a little soft and there is a distinct lack of a Han Solo or even a good Lando Calrissian. I really would have loved a little rogue action somewhere in there. Hell, maybe even a little competition for “Ani.” (Yes, they are still calling him that, even if they stuck a Quaalude in Jar Jar Binks’ freak chow.) What if ere was an edgy charismatic who could actually make Amidala laugh while Anakin is supposed to be keeping his distance, literally and emotionally. Wouldn’t her choice of Ani be even more significant than destiny and all? At one point in Clones, I was horrified and excited (not sexually) by the sense I was getting that Luke & Leia might actually be a product of an enraged Anakin’s rape of Amidala. I know… it’s a horri--DO-NOT-SWEAR--DO-NOT-SWEAR--DO-NOT-SWEAR--DO-NOT-SWEAR-ing-fying idea. But it would fit the urge to be epic that Lucas seems to have. Very Greek.

The first big action sequence of the film is so remarkably well made that it made me wonder whether LucasFilm effects people are really THAT much better than everyone else (read: Dykstra’s Spider-Man CG team). The way Lucas did it, the characters and their surroundings always had real weight and velocity and movement. It never felt fake, at least not as effects work. (Jeff Wells will rail against some of the action choices Lucas made… but discussing George Lucas with Jeff is impossible. Anything positive is someone else’s fault and anything bad is more evidence against the convicted.) Later in the film, there is some slightly weak work in the “Coliseum Sequence,” where characters jumping on and off of CG animals and vehicles look like they came out of a Harryhausen movie. But that is a minor thing in light of the breathtaking work throughout the movie. There really hasn’t been a film yet as sophisticated visually as The Phantom Menace and this one feels like another 50 percent improvement.

Back to the story, I don’t want to tell you very much at all. I want you all to discover the surprises for yourself. Knowing ahead of time would suck. It’s already a bit odd, knowing where every element is headed. But some of Lucas’ choices and how they are already bending in small ways towards Episode Four – A New Hope are wonderful. Some aren’t. The Jedi aren’t quite as insightful as you (or they) might expect. And one major plot point involving Anakin’s family seems contrived and then Lucas compounds the problem by shying away from the horror that the moment brings, leaving Anakin to talk about it when seeing it would have been so much more satisfying dramatically. But, overall, you can feel the heavy breathing building.

The most ironic thing – and this takes me back to Wells aka The Ultimate Lucas Basher – is that the supposed source of improvement from the last film to this one is Lucas’ new screenwriting partner, Jonathan Hales. But the dialogue is the weakest part of the picture. Attack of the Clones is a visual feast. The story moves in surprising and clever ways as well as in obvious and expected ones. And the love story is first-love infantile, which may not have been the best choice as the foundation of an epic evil. (On the other hand, it does suggest that Anakin will be even more sympathetic when Luke takes off Darth Vader’s mask in Return of the Jedi.) In term of crowd pleasers, it has one sequence - which most of you have probably heard about but I’m going to keep it to myself anyway – that offers about the biggest audience reaction moment since the T-Rex showed up in Jurassic Park… people who weren’t planning going to see Clones will show up at the theater just to see this.

I’m going to try to see the film again before next Thursday so that I can do a complete review. But I am pretty confident in guessing now that Attack of the Clones will be the summer’s highest grosser by a substantial margin and has a real shot at the $1 billion mark worldwide.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well I am glad he liked it but I hate it when Critics say where is Han solo type of character. For me if there was a han solo type of character they movie would stink, I want to see new characters not retreads of the same ones from the OT.

[JonathanLB]

All of the critics are clueless. Not one so far is qualified to review a Star Wars film, so I am glad I can do my review with the confidence that no better review exists online, lol.

Certainly not from those posers at TheForce.net. Scott Chitwood is not a Star Wars fan whatsoever. He only really loves ANH and ESB, doesn't even much like ROTJ, TPM, or AOTC. He is a loser for calling himself a fan. There is nothing wrong with only liking two of the films, but you don't call yourself a fan if you only like two of FIVE films. What a dork.

So far, a lot of reviews for both TPM and AOTC were all like, "Where is Han Solo?! Where is Luke and Leia?" IN THE ORIGINAL TRILOGY YOU STUPID PIECES OF BANTHA POO! Jesus, how hard is it to understand that these are DIFFERENT movies?!

I don't want to see a Han Solo in the prequels, I want to see the prequels with the characters they are supposed to have. It would be so stupid if the prequels were just remakes of the OT.

[Figrin D'an]

Okay guys.... calm down. It's just an opinion. Besides, he also said in the article that this wasn't a full review, just a few random thoughts about what he saw and what he thinks. No biggie...

The critics aren't clueless... they just have a different point of view. There are some critics that I personally don't agree with, and that sometimes I feel wouldn't know a good film from a pile of dog crap... but that is also just my opinion. :)


Not everyone is going to like everything about the film... some may really like it, but still find a couple of things that they feel could have been done better or differently. That's fine... I can probably say that about 90% of the films that I see and enjoy. Once we see AOTC, we may each find something that just didn't work for us, or that could have been done a bit better. I have no problem with that...


He's a critic... he's paid to write/speak his opinions on film... he's just doing his job.

[Super Wookiee]

"Well I am glad he liked it but I hate it when Critics say where is Han solo type of character. For me if there was a han solo type of character they movie would stink, I want to see new characters not retreads of the same ones from the OT."


Yeah thats exactly what i was going to say.

Most critics are really inconsistent. Most bitch because GL re used the Death Star idea in ANH and ROTJ, yet they want to see a character like one of the old ones. For me, if there was a Han Solo like character in this it would only serve to take away from Han Solo in the original.

Another thing is that they don't understand that George Lucas looks at his saga as a poem or a song, with stanzas (verses) that echo each other. If they could just grasp this concept they would understand why things are the way they are.

I never think of star wars in terms of what I want. I think of it in terms of What GL is doing, and that the over all story, lesson, theme, he is making is. I guess this is just a result of my background in Literature.......

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by JonathanLB
So far, a lot of reviews for both TPM and AOTC were all like, "Where is Han Solo?! Where is Luke and Leia?" IN THE ORIGINAL TRILOGY YOU STUPID PIECES OF BANTHA POO! Jesus, how hard is it to understand that these are DIFFERENT movies?!

I don't want to see a Han Solo in the prequels, I want to see the prequels with the characters they are supposed to have. It would be so stupid if the prequels were just remakes of the OT.

Didn't this guy mean a Han Solo LIKE character? So not actually Han Solo, but a character with the same screen presence, or whatever.


Originally posted by CMJ
In term of crowd pleasers, it has one sequence - which most of you have probably heard about but I’m going to keep it to myself anyway – that offers about the biggest audience reaction moment since the T-Rex showed up in Jurassic Park… people who weren’t planning going to see Clones will show up at the theater just to see this.

I'm curious what this is about. Can anyone send me a private message telling me which scene he is talking about? Or a URL with a spoiler warning.

[Super Wookiee]

Okay. I emailed you

[darth_mcbain]

I agree - I think he meant a Han or Lando-LIKE character. However, I still agree with the sentiment around here, that why should there have to be a character like that in these movies? The people making these statements obviously have preconceptions about what should be in these movies. They need to realize that these are not simply remakes of the original trilogy. Yes, they are SW and are in the Star Wars continuum, but that doesn't mean that the same character types have to keep showing up. That would get so boring.

Think James Bond... Yeah, they're fun, but the villians are always more or less the same bozos with world domination on their mind with their funky sidekicks. The formula works, but it loses its flavor. People should demand more, and it appears that here in SW, George Lucas is thankfully not just remaking formula movies for the sake of making more money. He's got a story to tell, and tough noogies if the same character-types don't show up in every movie. If you want Han Solo, pop the OT into your VCR.

[JonathanLB]

That scene he is talking about is AWESOME. I've not seen it in full, but saw a lot of it at Celebration II and I cannot wait to see it in context. Good lord.

Well AOTC is doing great so far with critics as far as getting "good reviews," so a "great" number of "good" reviews, basically. That should bode very well for audience reaction because it seems that fans who have viewed the movie really like it.

The widespread opinion seems to be that AOTC is the best SW film since ESB and ranks 3rd out of the 5. Which for me means it'll be #1, lol, but whatever. Then a few people have said it is better than all but ESB, others have said it is as good as ESB...

[Super Wookiee]

"In an interview with CINESCAPE’s own Editor in Chief Anthony C. Ferrante yesterday, Steven Spielberg crowed loud about his pal George Lucas’ STAR WARS EPISODE II: ATTACK OF THE CLONES.
"I saw CLONES two weeks ago up at George's. For the record, of all the STAR WARS they've made, this is my second favorite just behind EMPIRE,” Spielberg told us. “It was great. The action scenes looked like George had been inspired by James Cameron because they were as good as any of the action scenes in T2, and I think George did his best directing with this one too."

Well there you have it.

[JonathanLB]

I think finally AOTC is the film that can challenge ESB in the minds of the fans. Mark my words, ten years from now, many many people WILL be calling Episode II or III the best SW film, not ESB.

Right now ESB has like 55% of the fanbase onboard, the other 45% think TPM, ROTJ, or ANH is the best. Polls vary, but on TFN it was ESB, TPM, ANH, then ROTJ. TPM was like 17%, ANH 16%, ROTJ 14% I think. Other polls have TPM in last, but it just depends where you look. All of the polls, though, have ESB holding a solid majority, or 50% at least, of the fans.

I think that hold is going to be destroyed with this prequel and the next. I think Episode III could very well be the best critically reviewed Star Wars film on first release in number of positive reviews vs. negative, then just behind ANH in overall critical sentiment. So I think it will build on what AOTC is achieving. I also think many fans who currently think ESB is best will either change their mind in the next few years to thinking AOTC is the best SW film, or they will change their mind later and declare Episode III the best. If not, because of sentimental reasons and whatnot, then it may take another 10 to 15 years before people are finally willing to admit, "Hmm, yeah, ok I guess Episode III really is the best Star Wars film, darker than ESB, more important to the saga even, and ultimately the best film."

It will be interesting to see how things pan out, but AOTC will steal less from ROTJ, TPM, and ANH than it will from ESB. There are three dark SW movies, yet AOTC is only the 2nd one, all of the light ones already came out. So some fans are destined to have ROTJ as their favorite film for good because it's the concluding part, or others always TPM because it's very light and complicated at the same time, or perhaps ANH because it started it all and they think it is most fun. HOWEVER, the ESB fans declare ESB the best because of its dark tone and meaty plot, plus perhaps the great ground battle and the witty banter of course. Well, Episode II has a far superior battle because it's actually more of a full-scale war starting rather than the defense of a base, then Episode II is basically just as dark (darker?), so I think many of the ESB fans will switch their allegiance.

[CMJ]

Geez people..David really dug the film...you're acting like he hated it. :P

[Jedi Master Carr]

I am glad he liked the movie and I agree with some his statments, I just think its silly to want a rouge type character in the film that is all, maybe he is just nostaligic I don't know but that is the only point in his review that I disagree with.

[CMJ]

I don't know Carr...the statement made some sense in the context of his argument. He was implying it would have been more dramatic had Amidala had 2 suitors(ala in ANH where Luke and Han were kind of at odds over Leia). So if one suitor was a Jedi...a "rougue" like character would be the perfect foil in that scenario. Lando too was in that same vein...which is why his name got thrown in there. I don't know that it's a necessarily BAD thought.

[Jedi Master Carr]

That would have been a love triangle which is one of the most overdone things in stories so I was glad Lucas did not do that for this movie, I hate love triangles in film now because of the fact they have been done so many times, but that is just my opinion.

[CMJ]

Well Carr...what story HASN'T been done a billion times? ;) In a sense all stories are just cliche's(the good ones just hide it better than others). If I remember right(from school) there are only like 7 basic plots that all stories fall into. Not a whole lot of range there. ;)

[Jedi Master Carr]

True I just find the love triangle so cliched I guess and would rather not see it done again in a SW movie, but again that is just my opinion.

[JMK]

It's too much like Jerry Springer or a daytime soap opera.

[JonathanLB]

We don't need a Pearl Harbor-love triangle here, come on. His suggestions are idiotic. He's a cool guy, though, I like him...

I sometimes make commentary about certain films like things that could have improved them, for instance, but not always. You have to know your place. I wouldn't look at an AFI top 100 film and say, "This and this should have been changed," because clearly the movie succeeded with most people as it was. Just the same, you DO NOT question Lucas's decisions on the Star Wars Saga. He has had all of the time in the world to craft his story carefully and perfectly, so it is just as it SHOULD be. If he doesn't like it as it is, he is free not to support it, but the story is just the story. Lucas has said that many times. It cannot be changed. It's just the way it is meant to be.

I'm glad that Lucas doesn't much listen to his critics (I suspect Jar Jar wouldn't have had much of a role in AOTC regardless because there obviously was not room for him) and just does what he thinks is right.

[CMJ]

Geez Jon...just because his suggestions don't agree with your opinions doesn't make them idiotic. Man alive....there are things I might suggest changing about TPM for example, but whatever. It's all about opinions...and if someone doesn't agree with yours it doesn't make them idioitc or stupid. There's NOTHING that irritates me more than when people say things like that.

[JonathanLB]

He is an arm-chair director, and nothing annoys me more than that when a film has a talented director already.

I definitely will say how a film SHOULD have been done if I think the director is clearly incompetent, but if it's an acclaimed director I hardly think it is my place. I might make a suggestion, but it is annoying when they say it like this is how it SHOULD be! It's like, uh, and who are you again? A critic.

I will just make suggestions, not demands. You can't say it SHOULD be this way, just as a suggestion that maybe it would be more effective so and so other way than what it is.

[JMK]

Call me crazy, but it sounded like you contracdicted yourself in that last post.


I definitely will say how a film SHOULD have been done if I think the director is clearly incompetent

and


You can't say it SHOULD be this way, just as a suggestion that maybe it would be more effective so and so other way than what it is.

What? You will say how a movie should have been done, but others can't?


It's like, uh, and who are you again? A critic.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[JonathanLB]

My latter statement was still in reference to acclaimed directors, the first was meant for directors who have little to no experience. What I'm saying is that if I see a film directed by a total no-name I definitely might say the way he does so and so is totally ineffective and it should have been this way.

But if it's by Steven Spielberg or David Fincher or John Woo or whatever and I don't happen to like the entire film (and it's unlikely their films would get a BAD review, just maybe a 2.5 or 3 occassionally), then I may suggest something like, "Perhaps if Spielberg had..." not "Spielberg should have..." because seriously who am I to say how STEVEN SPIELBERG should make HIS movies?!

I even am very cautious about suggesting how any director should have done something because I'm pretty much entirely against that. I think critics should say what is right and what is wrong and possibly, sometimes, make suggestions about what could have been improved, but not sit there and write what would have made the film better in a matter-of-fact way. That's just a little arrogant, so I try to avoid that entirely, but there are some movies so utterly bad that I cannot resist just flat out saying: look, if it were this way and that way, it would have been a lot better for sure and the director just blew it on this film.

[flagg]

So did Jeffrey Wells like AOTC? He was one of the most anti-TPM guys around.

[JonathanLB]

I don't know if he has seen it, but trust me, he already made up his mind NOT to like it. He already wrote an editorial about how bad it was going to be before he even saw it.

He is such a hypocrite. He read the script to TPM and said he loved it, then he saw the movie and said it was horrible?! WTF? He is just not trustworthy at all. I've never seen a bigger loser in all of my life. I like Lisa of EW way way more than that dumb idiot. He's not a real movie critic either, though, he's an entertainment analyst, yes, but not a critic. He's just incredibly stupid. Not for not liking TPM, but for being hypocritical about it and judging AOTC without even seeing it.

[CMJ]

Here is what good old Jeff W. had to say about it....

*********************



About the new Star Wars movie, I was right in my expectations … and I was wrong. I was mostly underwhelmed but also juiced at times, especially during the last 35 or 40 minutes. Christopher Lee's Count Dooku is awesome, and his light-saber battle with a certain major character in the final minutes is true rock-'n'-roll. It doesn't have Jake Lloyd dragging it down, but it has the Dawson's Creek callowness of Hayden Christensen to fill his shoes. Jar-Jar Binks isn't on-screen enough to cause serious agony, but he can still make you wince.
There's also the superb Ewan McGregor as Obi-Wan Kenobi, manfully slumming his way through this prettified digital penitentiary with dignity and style. And there's one radiant moment set aside for Samuel L. Jackson's Mace Windu when he eyeballs Count Dooku at a climactic moment near the end. And I can't enthuse enough about Lee, whose über-villain registers with real authority and pizzazz. But then he's an old hand.

In short, I'm giving Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones, which was shown at three all-media screenings yesterday in Los Angeles, a split decision. Is it "fun," like Time's Jess Cagle proclaimed in that cover story a week ago? Yeah — in the third act.

But it's nowhere near as strong or satisfying as The Empire Strikes Back, as I expected. The dialogue, for me, is just as excruciating as it was in The Phantom Menace, particularly when Christensen is speaking it, and especially in his love scenes with Natalie Portman. And like Phantom Menace, Clones was obviously conceived and plays like a movie for pre-teens. If only Lucas had cared to raise the bar a little and write it for 20-year-olds, I'd be jumping up and down.

But let it be known that Clones saves itself in the last act with a terrific gladiator-arena scene (obvious shades of a recent Oscar-winner that trafficked in this sort of thing), a big battle scene between warring clone armies, and that kickass duel finale. You leave the theater feeling satisfied — or is it relieved? — that it finally pays off.



There's a nifty airborne chase scene through the towering sprawl of Coruscant in the opening act, but most of the first 90 minutes feels rote and sluggish. I'm talking about scenes with live and CG characters standing around in their makeup and ornate costumes exchanging important information and considering the ramifications. And then another, and then another, etc. The dialogue sounds so stiff and plodding that you can hear the really bad lines go "plop" on the floor, like spoonfuls of mashed potatoes. An hour-and-a-half of this, and it feels like you're knee-deep in the stuff.
I could feel the audience watching and waiting … and not much happening. There was a palpable sense of relief — almost an audible exhale — when a good line (I'm not going to spoil it except to say it's spoken by McGregor to Christensen) finally came along. Another big reaction came when Christensen, reacting to a character's death, lost his Jedi composure and began slashing away at those responsible. The first "whoo-hoo!" happened at this juncture, obviously because something raw and uncorked had finally punched through.

Will Clones out-earn Spider-Man when it opens May 16? Possibly, but I'm picking up signals that it may fall short. But the want-to-see is obviously huge, and it should grow all the more once the word gets out that it really delivers in the final act.

The noon show that I attended was supposed to be digitally projected, but something went awry with the equipment and they switched to a film version instead. So I returned Tuesday night to see Clones in its full digital glory. The increased brightness, needle-sharp detail, and fullness of color in the digital version was obviously preferable to what the celluloid version provided. It's roughly analogous to watching a well-mastered color film on a regular television, and then seeing it again on high-definition TV — the latter is obviously the way to go. Ideally, everyone should see Attack of the Clones this way. It's so cool and radiant-looking you can almost trip out on the visual elements alone. If you're near a big city that has a digital-projection theater showing Clones, make a point of seeing it there. Trust me — it's worth whatever the extra effort may be. It's too bad George Lucas's original plan to have Clones play digitally in hundreds of theaters didn't come to pass.

[Jedi Master Carr]

He seems to like it but is a little disapointed, I wouldn't count him though he hated LOTR so I have no use for his opinion.

[JonathanLB]

Well I wouldn't say someone's opinion doesn't matter just because they didn't like one particular movie. I mean I would hope that if someone disagrees with me about, say, Gosford Park or A Beautiful Mind they could still read my other reviews and hopefully agree with me on other films and still respect my opinions.

I would say that is a good review in that he says you should go see this movie. Even though he is not very positive about it clearly, he's not going to turn anyone away and if anything people will read that and want to go see it for themselves to see what they think, with the knowledge that he still loved the last 35 minutes or so. Those types of reviews are good publicity, as oppossed to the ones where the critic is obviously unimpressed and thinks you should be too, therefore you shouldn't see it, blah blah.

One reason critics meant nothing to TPM, besides the fact that people did love it, is because most mixed reviews STILL said you must go see it yourself anyway, regardless of what I say, basically. That was the general tone. Yes, this movie is overrated, they said, but yes you must go see it anyway.

AOTC will kill Spider-Man, but not in its first 10 days. AOTC should run almost exactly even with Spider-Man over the first 11 days, for instance, but it will be behind after 3, a little less behind after 4 (Thu-Sun for AOTC), a little less behind after 5, etc. Then a strong Memorial Day weekend with the Monday there included will put AOTC on the same level as Spidey, but the third weekends, comparatively, will make the huge difference. While Spider-Man will fall 55% at least on weekend 3 because of AOTC opening, AOTC has no such competition on its third weekend and will enjoy more like a 35% decline, maybe a 40% decline (because the weekend after Memorial Day always sucks for the films in release). Then the fourth weekend will be really important as Spider-Man will have fallen far by that point but AOTC holds on tight and falls about 25% or so.

[JMK]

Well, this is more of a brainstorm thought than anything, but it seems alot of people thought TPM was written for young children, and now this guy is saying that AotC is written for pre-teens/teens. Maybe, then, following that pattern, Episode 3 will be written for 20-somethings! :lol

[Doc Milo]

My latter statement was still in reference to acclaimed directors, the first was meant for directors who have little to no experience. What I'm saying is that if I see a film directed by a total no-name I definitely might say the way he does so and so is totally ineffective and it should have been this way.

So you, who have no experience in directing a film at all, is qualified enough to tell a director with little experience (a no-name) how his movie should be done. But you're not qualified to tell someone who has been acclaimed as a director how it should have been done?

In fact, you're not qualified to tell either one how their movie should have been done. What you are is a viewer who has an opinion on what makes a good movie. Whether the director is acclaimed or not should not influence that opinion. You should feel confident as a viewer/critic to know what you like, and what you think would work, and whether the movie was done by Johnny No-name or Stephen Spielburg, you should feel confident enough to suggest things that could have been better, how things, in your opinion, could have been done to make the movie, in your opinion, better.

[JonathanLB]

"In fact, you're not qualified to tell either one how their movie should have been done."

That is really not the point. I DO know what makes good film and what doesn't, and for the most part what I don't like doesn't make money, so I don't highly recommend making a film that doesn't please me.

Sure, a lot of the films I panned critics loved, but did they succeed commercially? Lol, of course not. I can tell you before hand whether your movie is going to be successful or not because 95% of the time because what I like, audiences like. That's why I've had such success already with people enjoying my reviews because I don't pan good entertainment and I also don't give art house films 4 stars just for the sake of saying, gee, I am elitist, I rule!

Gosford Park, failed, Mulholland Drive, failed, Jason X, failed, Crossroads, failed. Those are my 0 star films lately, a few of them, now did critics love the first two? Yes they did. Did either do well commercially? Hell no. Make something I don't like, see if I care, but don't expect to make any money on it either.

I wouldn't tell Steven Spielberg he made his movie wrong, and I really wouldn't tell anyone else they made their movie wrong either, but I will sometimes suggest that perhaps so and so other way would have worked better (and whatever I am writing is always my opinion, not a fact by any means). They are merely my observations about a movie, so just because I say something about how the movie "should" have been done doesn't make it accurate or useful or authoritative, but it does make it my opinion and perhaps some people will think, "Hey, yeah, I agree with this!" others will think, "This guy is full of it."

Whatever the case, hopefully they at least get something out of it.

[JMK]

Commercial success is not the only thing that makes a movie great, or even good. If that were the case, then Titanic is far and away the best movie EVER made, and I don't think anyone is going to buy that argument.

And are you really putting Gosford Park and Mulholland Drive into the same category as Jason X and Crossroads? That's ridiculous. First of all the first 2 were well received by critics, generally, whereas the other two were bashed by just about everything with a heartbeat. They're 2 different types of movies, aimed at different demographics, having different ambitions, and not necesarily made to make wads of cash.

[CMJ]

Actually taking into consideration how much it was made for..."Gosford park" was a modest hit. It grossed nearly 40M in the states I think...and was produced for not even half of that.

[Doc Milo]

My point, Jon, was not that you shouldn't voice your opinions in your reviews . . . quite the contrary. I was reacting to the attitude you voiced about not criticizing acclaimed directors, but it's okay to criticize no-name directors. You should feel free to tell anyone how you think a movie could have been made better, whether it be Spielburg or Johnny No-name. (Of course, that's IF you think that any given movie could have been made or done better...)