Total Summary of Reviews in a Sentence or a Word!

[JonathanLB]

I wrote this because I felt like it, basically, and I tried to do my best at not interjecting my own opinion into that of someone else, but just trying to determine what the actual critic said. This took a long time, hope you guys like it...

If I quote something, that means they said it specifically, otherwise it was my impression from reading the review. I hope I got them right and I hope I covered a lot of the stuff out, I tried to make it pretty full!

Here is what various people and organizations thought of Episode II, no spoilers, just the facts:

Variety, Todd McCarthy: Great.

Cinescape, Eric Moro (executive editor): "Good."

Cinescape, Michael Tunison (managing editor): "Terrific."

Cinescape, Anthony C. Ferrante (Editor-in-Chief): "Great."

The Sun (TheSun.co.uk), Derek Brown: "Fantastic" (best Star Wars movie yet).

The Sun, Will Hagerty: Very good (best since ESB).

Entertainment Weekly, Lisa Schwarzbaum: Barely above average.

DVDFile, Peter Bracke: Good.

Hollywood Reporter, Kirk Honeycutt: Above average.

Zentertainment, Dustin Gast: Great (4.5/5).

The Z Review: Excellent (5/5).

JoBlo.com, Movie Emporium: Quite good (8/10, ESB got a 9/10, TPM an 8, ANH a 10).

Empire Online, Catherine, Amar, and James (three separate critics): "This one rules!"

The Trades, Alex Keen: Very good (B+).

Box Office Prophets (BoxOfficeProphets.com), Calvin Trager: Good.

Times Online (TimesOnline.com), Erica Wagner: Pretty good (6/10).

Reel Insider, Ted Pfeifer: "Amazing!" (roughly equal to ESB and ANH).

Rolling Stone, Peter Travers: Quite good (just behind ESB and ANH).

London Evening Standard: "Spectacular."

The Times UK: Decent.

The Daily Telegraph: Good.

The Daily Express: Good.

The Daily Mail: Very good.

London's Metro: Excellent.

Teletext (teletext.co.uk), Paul Arendt: "Very good" (4 out of 5 stars).

TIME, Richard Corliss (early commentary): "Exhilirating... fun."

Planet Sick-Boy, Jon Popick: Pretty good.

XFM (xfm.co.uk), Chris Smith: Good (he did not think that ESB, ROTJ, or TPM were very good movies and would have rather seen ANH be the only Star Wars movie, he says...).

Steve Rhodes, Internet Reviews: Good and very fun (3 out of 4).

CBBC Newsround Online, Mandy Bhandal: Very good.

Go.com, Mike Standish: Good.

Go.com, Patrick Enright: Mediocre.

LDJW (ldjw-film.8m.com): Excellent (10/10).

Hot Button, David Poland: Quite good.

The Digital Bits, Bill Hunt: Good (B).

Fox News, Roger Friedman: Pretty good (he said he liked it).

Atlanta Journal and Constitution, Bob Longino (early review, unofficial): Very good.

TheForce.net, Scott Chitwood: Very good (behind ESB, first, and ANH, second).

TheForce.net, Carter: Nearly excellent (9 out of 10).

Slant Magazine (aka Apollo Guide on RottenTomatoes.com), Ed Gonzalez: Decent (2 out of 4 stars).

Films in Review (FilmsInReview.com): Excellent ("I loved everything about this movie").

END.

As more reviews come in, I'll update, but help would be appreciated! :) Hope you guys like it.

[Super Wookiee]

Cool!

[Jedi Master Carr]

Here is three more that I know of
People-Great second best after ESB
NYTimes below average
Sci-fi.com-good
you also missed the Independent which gave it two stars but they are high brow and probably hated all the SW movies.

[Figrin D'an]

FilmThreat.com - Excellent (Ranked just behind ESB)

[Jedi Master Carr]

That was a great review by Gore he hated TPM and he gave this one 4 stars.

[JediBoricua]

I'm not a big fan of reviews, but recently i've been adicted to rottentomatoes.com, I check it at least thrice a day.....

And I've noticed, at least with SW, they are eager to post the bad reviews, and tend to leave the positive ones until later. I mean look a the list on this thread, more than 85% of the reviews quoted are positive, and there are only 12 reviews on rottentomatoe.

The NYTime had a negative review that came out a few hours ago and they already posted it, while the Rolling Stone review, Time, VAriety, even AICN who boasted AOTC with great reviews that came out days ago haven't been posted?

Don't they use these reviews also, or do they do this with every movie? PUt the bad stuff first?

[Jedi Master Carr]

I know I don't know why they haven't put up Variety, Rolling Stones, People, Film Threat, BBC,etc these are all great reviews. I know why they put up Ny Times because its the Ny Times, and Scott is a moron, he is an elitist snob who thinks that everybody who doesn't like his movies are morons. here is a quote from his review.
"Like weary Brezhnev-era Muscovites, the American moviegoing public will line up out of habit and compulsion, ruefully hoping that this episode will at least be a little better than the last one, and perhaps inwardly suspecting that the whole elephantine system is rotten. Even the true believers camped out on the sidewalks with their toy light sabers (or the ones at the screening I attended who burst into applause at the appearance of the 20th Century Fox and Lucasfilm company logos) seem more dutiful than enthusiastic."

The guy is a jerk he thinks we are idiots for liking SW that is what makes me mad about him, he has no buisness telling me what films I should like.

[JonathanLB]

He is really silly -- big man for hating Star Wars, oooo! Wow. I am impressed.

I am glad to hear that Episode II's dialogue is as BAD as the original trilogy, which means it should be just about the best screenplay ever written. ANH's certainly was. So if it's that "bad," then we're all in for a treat.

Jonathan Hales is a wonderful writer. I met him in Indy and he is the man, I love that guy. I've always thought Lucas was a great writer too. It's not his strongest ability because he's better at the general plot, it's what he loves most, and he admits he struggles to write the screenplays, but I struggled to do my physics homework and still had two A's. It just takes him longer, doesn't come as naturally, but when he DOES write it, it's wonderful I think. That's why you have people quoting his screenplay 25 years later. "May the Force Be With You!" is the most well known film line ever written. TPM had a ton of good lines I really liked too, some witty, some actually intelligent, like, "Your focus determines your reality." Very true, I have found.

Oh well, I mean critics didn't like Mark Hamill's acting and I think Hamill is one of the best actors I've ever seen in the SW films. His range is remarkable and delivery perfect. It's just sad that he never was able to do more. I always felt Hamill did a better job than Ford, but of course I think Ford was excellent. I just thought that Hamill had a lot more he had to accomplish as Luke and he did wonderfully.

You want to see bad lines and acting, go watch Jason X. The SW films are full of great dialogue and acting, critics be damned. I don't think they'd know good acting OR good dialogue if it ran up and bit them in the @$$.

They think Gosford Park has a good screenplay. I got news for ya: Jason X has better dialogue than Gosford Park. At least it was funny!!! :)

They think Halle Berry was the best actress of the year last year, which is a joke. She was pretty good, nothing more, nothing less. I just don't think most of the critics know how to judge movies at all and that is very perplexing to me because they are supposed to be experts.

I can understand that they have odd likes/dislikes sometimes, sure, but to call Star Wars dialogue bad is just silly. I have no idea where they are coming from there. Give me "childish" banter between Han and Leia in ESB ANY day over the trash they call good dialogue.

If I had to pick ONE SINGLE aspect of the Star Wars movies I most liked, it would not be the general story, nor the special effects, the wonderful music, the incredible visuals, it would actually be the four screenplays. That is what makes Star Wars the greatest series, because the screenplays are incredibly strong. Without a strong screenplay, I don't think you can even make a good movie, which is why I loved Donnie Darko and Memento. Both had wonderful screenplays. Sometimes you can take a great screenplay and turn it into a lousy film if you have no budget or if the actors suck, but with the SW films you got the great music, great directing, and great visuals along with what I feel are the best screenplays ever written, so to say that they are BAD is just absolutely not understandable to me. Doesn't even register.

I have seen bad -- I see bad every other day. I see way too many bad movies in my weeks because that's my job now. I have to sit through screenplays as horrible as Deuces Wild, Jason X, Crossroads, etc. Then I get good movies with pretty mediocre screenplays, i.e. High Crimes (too many bad lines). I certainly know what a bad screenplay is because I see them ALL of the time. I also know what a good one is and I relish finally seeing one, it's like a diamond in the ruff.

So the other critics can suck it -- Star Wars dialogue rules.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Also Eonline gave it a postive review. Also I heard that E News daily had the other EW critic on Owen something and he said he would give Ep 2 an A, so there is the rumored A review I wonder why they went with the lower review probably to bash SW I believe, watch on the end of the year thing, if Sw is up there in the BO they will put Owen's review in their publication.

[Dutchy]

Film Freak Central, Walter Chaw: "worst it possibly can be" (0.5 / 4)

[Dutchy]

Chicago Sun-Times, Roger Ebert: "not one line of quotable, memorable dialogue" (2/4)

He also points out, and I thought that was quite interesting, how the movie looked kinda fuzzy on the big screen. He thought a digital showing on, for instance, DVD would do it more justice.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Ouch ouch ouch. And Ebert is a Star Wars lover. Yeah, I can juuuussstttt hear the Ebert sucks!!!! now. Hey, remember, he was a great supporter of TPM and we used him to defend TPM. I think we have to cop that one sweet especially as Ebert for once places good well reasoned arguments why he does not like the moive. Note, he wants to give it a chance.

I hope it's just me - it seems the reviews are getting worse.

[Jedieb]

I've been staying away from reviews and most of the threads we have going on them. I just find that reading them gives away more of the film than I want to know. I don't even read the card backs on the figures I buy. Once I've seen the movie, then I'll go back and read some reviews.

[JonathanLB]

Of course they are not. There are going to be a number of bad reviews for anything truly innovative or original. Otherwise, if everyone just loved it, it may be a fun movie but it would lack depth. The lack of understanding that depth is what causes the lower reviews.

Ebert has been a good Star Wars supporter true, but you know my feelings about Ebert already. I don't like him at all lately. I think he has slipped over the edge in the last 3 years, in fact, having given many horribly wrong ratings. Need I mention Gladiator? The best non-Star Wars film ever, IMO, and a best picture winner that almost all of the critics loved and audiences loved more, yet he gives it 2 stars (same as AOTC). He didn't like Spider-Man either, which was a wonderfully refreshing comic book movie that really lived up to expectations. He definitely is not one of my favorite critics anymore, although he used to be. :\

Also his review of Frailty, ugg, I mean I could find more examples. I just don't feel Ebert is the same anymore, his reviews do not seem as good as they were before. He used to understand good entertainment better than he does now, or at least he is going through a bad streak or something.

Roeper apparently really liked the film. I think most of the die-hard fans are going to LOVE it, so I'm surprised Ebert isn't more firmly on board. Must have been that time of month for Ebert, I swear he has PMS. I almost knew he'd give AOTC an average review because I thought just like a week ago, "Wow, wouldn't that be just the perfect ending to a horrible period of reviews for him." Yup, that is the final straw, Ebert has officially fallen out of my graces.

Just saying, "But what about TPM!" is not enough to make me change my mind. The guy reviews hundreds of films. ONE movie that he got almost right (but he should have given it 4 stars) doesn't classify him as a great critic, by any means!

Thanks for the updates, Dutchy. lol. I need to add these all to my list, I put it up on my site too. It'll be convenient I think.

I would venture to say AOTC will be the most reviewed film of the year. Not the best reviewed, not the worst, not the most averagely reviewed, etc just the MOST reviewed. Even DVDFile reviewed it and they don't normally write reviews for theatrical releases until they hit DVD.

The People Magazine review is great too because a lot of people read that magazine. I am surprised EW chose to put Lisa's review in. As I said before, and I stick with it, she is a terrible critic.

Anyone else remember that she gave THE MATRIX, largely considered the most important modern sci-fi classic, a C+ rating?! She has no idea what she is talking about at all.

[Dutchy]

Hey Jonathan, I was wondering... is there ANY chance you would NOT give AOTC 4 stars? :)

[Jedi Master Carr]

Read the review, 2/3 of it he is complaining about digital film, I think that shows something there, I think he is so against digital film that has clouded his judgement but that is also my opinion. He also does seem to be losing it he gave a weak review of LOTR and gave HP 4 stars, plus a few years ago he only gave The Usual Suspects 1 1/2 stars and that is an incredible movie.

[JonathanLB]

Not really. I mean obviously I review every film as objectively as I can and I say how I really feel about it, even when my opinion is way different from many people, but I cannot imagine AOTC not being a four star film. I am sure it will probably be my new favorite movie, actually, it's going to rock. I trust that if Lucas can do something 4 times and have each film be that good, IMO, then the 5th time should be no different. Especially given that AOTC has better reviews than TPM, which I loved.

[Dutchy]

No wait, is there any chance AOTC would NOT become part of your all time Top 5 favourite movies, Jonathan? :)

[Dutchy]

As for Ebert, he's not only commenting on AOTC being too digital. He's also writing about the lame love story and the dull dialogue. Remember: that's HIS opinion. :)

[Jedi Master Carr]

I know but half of his review is dominated by film vs digital it seems like he is more upset over that than anything else, because he doesn't really point out specifics really, so I wonder if he is just so upset over the movie being digital that it influence him to point that he didn't like the movie.

[Figrin D'an]

I read most of Ebert's review, and I have to agree with Carr... he used a lot of the review as a platform for the film vs. digital debate. Yes, that is an interesting topic to discuss, but it should be done in a completely seperate article, not in a review of a particular film itself.

Anyway, he has his gripes.... fine. Good for him. It's not going to effect my judgement of the film once I see it. He didn't like The Fellowship of the Ring, a film that most of us around here absolutely loved... it's not like we haven't disagreed with the man before. He's one critic too... there are many others that have given AOTC glowing reviews.

[JonathanLB]

Good insights, Figrin...

Well I must agree with Carr. Dutchy, you are right that he certainly covered other aspects, but as a critic myself I have often thought about going into detail about some "issue" in one of my reviews, and sometimes I had to cut myself short because I felt it was inappropriate to use a review as a platform for my opinions on another issue.

Though if you look through my reviews, you can find a few cases where I am guilty of writing a paragraph about a topic instead of the film itself. I felt in those few instances it was very relevant to the review and indeed necessary, but I didn't put it there without thought. I think one time I was talking about the evolution of gross-out comedy, I believe in my review of The Sweetest Thing, and I use a paragraph to talk about where this new revolution started, IMO (There's Something About Mary), and how far it has come since then (in a bad way, lol). I felt that was entirely relevant to the review because I was trying to explain that The Sweetest Thing is actually just too far over the top and attempts to outdo its predecessors.

In the case of Ebert's review, good or bad, I do not feel it is appropriate to use such a substantial portion of the review for his feelings on a particular technology. Playing devil's advocate, he probably feels it IS appropriate because Episode II is the first film shot entirely in digital, or first major release I mean. So that is probably where he is coming from, but I must disagree with that particular decision.

I would not accuse Ebert of being a good writer either, though. He's not. He's a very mediocre writer who has a great knowledge of film and the industry. He is also very good at articulating himself on his show, I think, he's a better speaker than he is a writer. That is ok, most critics I have found are not particularly good writers. Or if they are good, they certainly aren't great.

I forgot, Ebert didn't like FOTR either!!! LOL, jeez. Ok, my favorite movie of 2000: Gladiator. 2001: LOTR: FOTR. 2002: will be AOTC. So he doesn't like any of those, yet Gladiator won best picture, LOTR was nominated for best picture and received the highest overall number of Oscar noms, won best picture at the AFI competition, was named best picture by numerous critics, etc. AOTC has received mostly positive reviews too, so my choices are not weirdo picks. Most people thought Gladiator was the best of 2000, or actually, more accurately, the highest number of people thought Gladiator was the best 2000 film compared to any other release. Same goes with LOTR, actually.

Harry Potter 4 stars? He is on drugs? Most critics realized that the film was nothing but a kiddie flick with a few cute moments and pretty lousy effects. Still, if the kids liked it, I say it succeeded... (and of course there is the little fact it made a ton of $$$).

I don't much care for Ebert, you can see why. He has disagreed with the films that mean the most to me. It's one thing that Mike Clark of USA Today sometimes disagrees with me, but it would usually be on a film I hardly care about. Like if someone gave High Crimes 1 star (I gave it 3), I wouldn't be offended. The film means nothing to me whatsoever and I thought it had problems too, so I wouldn't even bother arguing for or defending an insignficant film like that. LOTR, Gladiator, and Star Wars mean a lot to me, though, so if a critic trashes the films I like the most they are not going to be one of my favorite critics, lol.

Every time he gave another bad review to a great film, a lot of people here said, "Well remember TPM!" Yeah I'm remembering but that was 3 years ago and he has lost his taste since then obviously. He has no idea what he is talking about anymore. His opinions suck.

"No wait, is there any chance AOTC would NOT become part of your all time Top 5 favourite movies, Jonathan?"

Favorite. Ugg, stupid UK spellings bother me. Haha, j/k.

Dutchy, you are probably right there is basically no chance of that. It's very hard to explain, perhaps you have to be a Star Wars fan to get it, or more specifically you have to be really into the films, but I know that when all 6 films are finished they will represent my top 6 movies. The best analogy I can make is like something from Gattaca. If you take the right genes and you create a genetically superior human being, that person is going to be better and more able than any other normal person. Like that, the Star Wars films are better equipped than any other movies. The production design is superior to anything ever done, effects are always the best (but this hardly matters, it's just a nice bonus), and the overall story arc is just fantastic. It's the best, most epic story in any movie or movie series I think, so because of that you can figure that these movies are "it" for me as far as greatness goes.

I am on the same page as most critics with the acclaimed great films of the past, like the AFI list is getting almost all 4 star ratings from me (yesterday I saw two of the best films so far, I think: The Graduate and High Noon, which was a favorite of mine as a kid actually). I absolutely understand how critics love those movies so much, and for the most part so do audiences, but I must disagree with many critics and their views on the Star Wars films.

The Star Wars Saga is what all other movies should be measured against. It is the pinnacle of perfection, as close to perfect as humanly possible (and humans are not generally capable of perfection, hehe). Now a lot of people may not think that, but I do, so I really don't care what the other critics think. That's for them to worry about. I'm just another critic and those are my opinions.

My question for you: is there any way you'd give AOTC a chance and appreciate it or are you just going to take the negative comments from the reviews and repeat them? I personally don't think sci-fi and fantasy are really your genres. You are not a big LOTR fan from what I understand, don't like Star Wars that much, don't like The Matrix. You just have different tastes. It's not your type of genre apparently, just as I'm not into whatever the hell genre In the Bedroom is part of, lol.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Also he compared HP to Wizard of Oz, now I saw HP and though I thought it was good movie, it was far from being the Wizard of Oz our era, if any film is close to Wizard of Oz maybe LOTR is (though it is a little more violent than Oz) I have no clue why he concluded that and then came out dissing LOTR and now AOTC, maybe all that cancer he had affected his brain.

[Dutchy]

Jonathan, I agree Ebert used too much of his review for the digital stuff. On the other hand, his 2 star rating was not based on that only.

Hehe, I like how you pointed out "Favourite". Most people wouldn't even notice 10 major grammar errors in writings, where you even notice a subtle difference like that. :) Overhere we learn British English in school, by the way.

So you really liked The Graduate? That's so cool. I also really liked it. The chemistry between Hoffman and Bancroft is very nice (God I love Mrs. Robinson). Plus I just love the soundtrack by Simon and Garfunkel. Especially Scarborough Fair, which is a truly wonderful song. Pretty amazing they played the entire song in the movie.


My question for you: is there any way you'd give AOTC a chance and appreciate it or are you just going to take the negative comments from the reviews and repeat them? I personally don't think sci-fi and fantasy are really your genres. You are not a big LOTR fan from what I understand, don't like Star Wars that much, don't like The Matrix. You just have different tastes. It's not your type of genre apparently, just as I'm not into whatever the hell genre In the Bedroom is part of, lol.

I'm pretty sure I'll watch AOTC with the same feeling as TPM. That is, I'd be very impressed with its visuals and be uninterested in the story. It just doesn't appeal to me. Visually though it's definitely entertaining. I share TPM among the Top 10 most stunning looking movies ever.

Yes, LOTR left me plain cold. Even visually I wasn't all that impressed. Just not my cup of tea. I liked The Matrix though, really liked it. I do like sci-fi (The Terminator movies are among my all time faves), but the fantasy genre indeed I do not like.

As for the In the Bedroom genre, well, we've discussed this before. You wrote an essay on how the ordinary can't compete. Lemme repeat something I wrote in another thread with that essay in mind (and to which you already replied, by the way):


Jonathan, in such movies the actor's emotions tell the story. It seems to me like you are rather impassive for people's emotions. With movies like these you can sympathize with the actors and the lives they portray. Or you can relate their emotions to your own. That's why people like those kinda movies.

Like the Thora Birch character in Ghost World, she was looking for someone to care about her and love her. Now there's a goal for many people to reach and it sure comes with many obstacles to overcome.

Maybe to you making the major leagues in baseball is an extraordinary goal, but for many people finding the oridinary (or what seems ordinary to you, anyway) is a struggle. Life is a struggle.

Actually, life itself is a truly remarkble journey and definitely worth telling.

[CMJ]

First of all...Ebert LIKED FOTR, he gave it a positive review...just not a glowing review. I think it was 3 stars.

Second...Carr...Ebert couldn't have had cancer affect his brain...you're thinking of Siskel who passed away from brain cancer. By the way...I found that comment a touch inappropriate, but whatever....

[Figrin D'an]

CMJ... Ebert did give Fellowship 3 stars, but only because he acknowledged that it was a really incredible piece of filmmaking. Beyond that, he didn't like it that much, and said so in his review. He was disappointed with how Jackson had adapted Tolkien's text, and said that the human/elf characters were portrayed to much as "norse gods" while the hobbits were just along for the ride and pushed to the background... among other things.


http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/2001/12/121901.html


It's generally not a favorable review, IMO.

[JMK]

Maybe Ebert IS a hobbitt and is insulted that they were't in the fore front enough! :lol

[CMJ]

Figrin...I thought the review was mixed, BUT, taken in conjunction with the show he did with Roeper that I viewed..I KNOW Ebert liked the film. He lavished alot of praise on it during that episode(even if it was to curb Roeper's trashing of the film). To me he sounds more like a disappointed fan...who still see's merit in the work. Somewhat like many SW fans felt after TPM for example.

[JonathanLB]

Yes, Dutchy, I also really thought The Graduate was excellent. Out of the maybe 30 or so AFI films I've reviewed so far, it would get one of my higher ratings. It's not even the type of movie I would normally like, I admit that, but basically there are a lot of films on the AFI list that are just too good not to like, basically. Back to that in a sec.

That song you pointed out is really good, used very well, but I am personally really impressed with the other one, "Sound of Silence," which was used three times throughout the movie and I loved it. I have never actually heard it before, but the overall music in The Graduate actually added significantly to the film. It is a good example of how much music matters...

I felt The Graduate and Fargo were similar to me while being very, very different movies. Basically Fargo is not the normal type of movie that is great, it's not like a Ben-Hur that is totally epic, or like Unforgiven which makes you think for so long afterwards about the ending that you cannot help but think it was a great film. Fargo, to me, was more like such excellent filmmaking that I couldn't deny the quality of the craft. I'm trying to find ways to describe this. Well basically, to me, it would not be one of my favorite movies, but it was so incredibly well done from acting to directing to music and cinematography that I was like, ok, I surrender! Four stars! Haha, it just basically blows you away with its quality, even while being a very quirky, weird movie where you kind of say, "Wow, well that was interesting." I really don't think Fargo would be a good movie if you put it in the hands of many other filmmakers. Like it could be quite mediocre or bad, in fact, but with the talent attached it was fantastic.

The same goes with The Graduate. If you described the plot to me, I'd be mildly interested, at best, and probably wouldn't think it sounded like it had that much potential, but the entire way it was created, with inventive cinematography, great music, great acting, unusual characters, and possibly an even weirder ending along with plenty of humor throughout, there is no way I could not like it. It still would not make my personal very top list, but it certainly would be up there on my larger list of great films. It is definitely excellent and ranked very highly on the AFI list. I always try not to let that influence me while reviewing something, because sometimes you know, it could make you set your expectations too high, so you need to go into each AFI film not thinking, "Ok this damn better be one of the best movies ever," but more like, "This is going to be a very good movie probably, let's just see how good and let the film run its course." Usually, when the credits role, it's another four star movie, hehe. I think the AFI list is really good, it's so enjoyable seeing all of these movies because most are quite original and all of them are worth seeing for one reason or another.

BTW, I didn't mean anything by the "favorite" comment, I was just razzing you, hehe. There is nothing wrong with the "u" there as it certainly is correct in British English. I must admit, though, that I am very bothered when United States publications write a sentence like this:

Then he said, "I really did not like that movie".

That is not correct here. The period goes before the quotation, inside of it, unless you are publishing in Canada or Britain. In the U.S., always put the period in the quote. I'm not sure why people still insist on getting that wrong, plus it looks silly to me. Favourite, etc, doesn't bother me. The period all out there like that does, it just is one of those things I guess. I am ANAL! lol. :)

Anyway back to Ebert, though, I just am surprised at his reaction. Perhaps he'll change his mind later. I don't much like him really, but I will say one thing in his defense. He is the type of critic who would change his opinion without feeling like he had to remain proud and stand his ground even if he later didn't feel that way. I mean, he is a humble enough guy so that if 10 years later he felt it was actually a very worthy Star Wars film, he would say so, whereas other critics never would admit that. They'd just say they were right all along, they're not changing their minds, etc.

I was going to make another comment in this thread before I even opened it, so I didn't really open it to reply, but it would be rude not to, haha, so anyway...

I was just wondering if anyone else actually finds it funny to read bad reviews of ANH and ESB? I really do for some reason. My only reaction is to laugh, for some reason it is just funny to me. It's not insulting, doesn't make me think, "What was this critic thinking?" It really doesn't make me think anything, it just makes me laugh! I guess it's because it seems like such a popular culture fact that ANH and ESB rule that bad reviews of them just seem, well, like jokes I guess. Actually I mostly think the same thing about reading ROTJ reviews. I think they're pretty funny too. It's reading the bad TPM and AOTC reviews that bother me because we don't yet have the perspective of time, as we now do with ESB, for instance.

ESB was a successful sequel for sure, I mean, it did become the 2nd highest grossing movie of all time behind its original, of course! Yet it was not a critically successful movie whatsoever in 1980. It didn't perform well at the box office when compared to ANH, ROTJ, or TPM, nor do I think it will stand up to AOTC well at the box office either (ticket sales I mean, not $$$). It has since then been quite redeemed as many critics would call it one of the best sequels ever, or perhaps the best, and most sci-fi fans would place it in their top 10 I'd say, often top 3, but you get the idea.

Some things do get better with age, ahem, Blade Runner. I still want to know how a film that audiences hated and critics detested ever became one of the most acclaimed sci-fi films ever and in less than 2 decades. Hmm, and I agree, I love Blade Runner, one of my top 10 favorites, non-Star Wars. But still, most films that fail both critically and commercially are, uh, quite dead.

[Jedi Master Carr]

CMJ I though that Ebert just had some cancerous growth removed from his leg or something I could be wrong about that I didn't mean anything bad by it, I completely forgot that Siskel died of cancer, I thought he died of a stroke but I could be confusing people. Also I meant it as a joke not to be taken seriously but I admit it was a cruel one I guess considering the thing about Siskel so I take it back. Now I respect Ebert and usualy agree with him half the time but on this case I think he is just slighly biased against digital film and that it is effecting his opinion of the movie but that is just my opinion.

[CMJ]

It's okay Carr...no hard feelings. When I first read your post I was dumbstruck how harsh it read(to me). I see you didn't mean anything bad by it...so it's all cool. ;) I'm not usually so "politically correct"...but for some reason that statement bothered me a great deal.

[JMK]

ESB has aged extremely well. Each time I watch it, I can't believe how well done it is.

[JonathanLB]

Ultimately it doesn't matter whatsoever. Just because someone says something about a movie doesn't make it true. The bashers can complain about TPM forever until their faces are blue, but that will never change the actual film. Everyone who sees it for the first time is still free to think whatever they want even if everyone who came before them comments otherwise. That is the beauty of art.

So it's most important that my booty is in the seat May 16 so I can enjoy this whole experience, then again over and over again later. As long as I love it, you guys can all hate it even, that is ok by me, but just don't try to distract my viewings darnit! ;)

[CMJ]

Amen Jonathan....amen. I don't think I've ever tried to force my opinions down other people's throats...BUT I do like reading other people's opinions, and the occasional lively debate is good for the soul. ;)

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yes I am not going to get bothered by a few negative reviews, I'm still going to see and then I will decided for myself, I like it, that is all that matters really. But I don't mind debating with people who have different points of view.

[Quadinaros]

I knew it!! I've been following Ebert closely for almost 20 years.
He's been one of the most vocal opponents of digital filmmaking and I just had this fear that he would let that cloud his judgment of AOTC. He's using his review as a campaign against digital filmmaking.

"But I felt like I had to lean with my eyes toward the screen in order to see what I was being shown. The images didn't pop out and smack me with delight, the way they did in earlier films. There was a certain fuzziness, an indistinctness that seemed to undermine their potential power."

"I saw it on the largest screen in Chicago"

You're telling me those Coke bottle glasses aren't enough? Go see Hollywood Ending again, Roger, and see the potential of the blind.

"Perhaps because a movie like this opens everywhere in the world on the same day, the dialogue has to be dumbed down for easier dubbing or subtitling"

This line annoyed me beyond anything else in the review. Do you really think Lucas was comprimising his movie to accommodate the worldwide release?

Ebert has always been my favorite critic, but I think I've had it.

Roger, have a few more cheeseburgers, go see your optometrist, and retire your fat butt. Trashing Spidey and AOTC in a week is evidence. It's over for our favorite thumb.

I better stop before I say something nasty.

And believe me, I have more to say on this topic.....

[JMK]

Come on Quadrinaros, tell us what you really think! Has Star Wars ever been known for it's oscar-winning dialogue? No. Why would it start now? He's purely using this as a catalyst for his anti-digital campaign. It's almost as if he went into the screening with his review already written. He probably knew that the dialogue wasn't going to be the best. He probably knew he was attending a digital screening. Talk about a biased review. Way to mail it in Ebert.

[JonathanLB]

His review was almost predictable. "Surprising" in the fact that he has liked the other SW films, but predictable in that he has been such an idiot lately that the pessimist in me saw this coming from a mile away. lol.

I think the dialogue in the Star Wars films rocks, so I'll watch AOTC and see what I think, but the few lines I have heard are really good, well especially the one Obi-Wan says in the nightclub at the start of the music video. I enjoyed listening to Hales talk about his script and Lucas's script; I think it is a quality piece of work, but I'll know for sure in 5 days, 4 hours, 37 minutes.

Anyway, it may not be "Oscar-winning dialogue," but ANH WAS nominated for an Oscar for its script, if anyone will actually remember that (they don't seem to...). The dialogue in ANH is indistinguishable in quality from that of the rest of the Star Wars films, but the Academy doesn't appreciate sequels and wouldn't nominate a sci-fi sequel especially. Godfather II is the exception to prove the rule, but it's also drama, not sci-fi or fantasy.

I guarantee LOTR: TTT will be just as deserving as a best picture nomination and best director nomination as FOTR, but it won't get one. It's just their idiocy, what do you expect. FOTR, TTT, Return of the King, all made at the same time. All the same quality I am willing to bet. There is not any reason to think that a director is going to make three movies at the exact same time back-to-back-to-back and then randomly one is going to be much better or worse than another. That's absurd. TTT will be just as worthy, but will be lucky to get 3 Oscar nominations in technical categories. The Oscars are just stupid.

[flagg]

I think Ebert is overrated. He dissed 3 of my favourite films of all time (Edward Scissorhands, Batman Returns and Reservoir Dogs) and the reasons he gave for disliking them were really lame, too. He seems to be a real "style over content" critic. How else do you explain him giving a thumbs up to Tomb Raider?
I don't think his review of TPM was that positive either. He only seemed to enjoy it for the visuals and Jar Jar Binks! He basically admitted in that review that he doesn't care about Anakin Skywalker's story, so it's not surprising he would bash AOTC since it gets deeper into Anakin's journey.

[JonathanLB]

Edward Scissorhands rocks. Batman Returns is not a favorite of mine, but it's still a good movie!

Well I thought Tomb Raider was also a definite thumbs up, a very good, entertaining film. It's just what I expected. I think most people feel the same way, that it was at least good and entertaining. If you expected more from it, you were looking in the wrong auditorium obviously, lol.

Ebert is not a very good critic, very overrated given he is one of the most well known.

I still really like Leonard Maltin. It doesn't hurt that my agent represents him and he was nice enough to endorse my first book! LOL, so I am biased, I cannot say anything bad about Mr. Maltin. It would be wrong. :)

[JonathanLB]

Here is the best review I have seen so far, and I am sure I will agree:

http://www.actiontrip.com/reviews/starwarsepisode2_movie.phtml

He says the chemistry is wonderful and Christensen and Natalie are great. I am sure they are, the rest of the critics just were desperately searching for something to complain about and they found it. The romance in ESB rocked and I am sure it does in AOTC, I cannot wait.

92/100 = excellent from Action Trip. Heck yes.

All of the reviews are really making me want to see the movie even more, unlike with TPM where they just kind of disturbed me. I was a bit worried even at a few points, I mean I felt like opening day in the first 15 minutes I was kind of nervous, like somehow just thinking, "Please be good, please be good!" Then 20 minutes in or so I had forgotten about it and was totally into the film.

With AOTC, seriously the more reviews I read the more I drool. Even a few of the B- type reviews, not that great, still talk about the awesome sequences I know are going to make it totally sweet.

I'm seeing the sneak previews today of several films, already saw one, so that when Episode II is out I can quit being a critic for a little while and go back to being an obssessed Star Wars fan. ;)

NICE. Man the reviews are getting better, I love this one:

"The Attack of the Clones is arguably the best Star Wars movie yet. It restores the magic and sets us up for the next one brilliantly. At this rate the one after that should be an absolute classic. Oh, right, it was."

AND: "It's simply terrific, a sometimes breathlessly exciting, constantly surprising, frequently funny, high-action adventure, which even manages a surprisingly affecting romance." FIVE STARS out of FIVE. -- New Zealand Herald.

Wow... I am getting so excited now.

[JediBoricua]

What I am most enjoying about the reviews is that all of the critics that have confessed being fans of the series have really enjoyed the film! Some that hated TPM with all of their being fell to their knees by what they saw.

Being a hardcore fan myself I can't wait!

[Jedi Master Carr]

You might not like Maltin any more Jon, he gave AOTC a Not on Hot Ticket (Basically thumbs Down) What is this the two critics that like TPM the most and seemed to like Jar Jar dislike AOTC is it because Jar Jar is hardly in the movie or something.

[Figrin D'an]

wow... I'm surprised that Maltin didn't like it. He's one of the critics that I figured would be really positive about the film, unless he too is anti-digital... but that doesn't seem to fit him.

ehh.. oh well... Not like it really matters, I'm still going to see the film a bunch of times. :)

[JonathanLB]

That is too bad, schucks. I like Maltin, he really has been a good supporter of Star Wars. I find that sad, for him at least, because most people are really enjoying it.

This is kind of funny though is it not? I mean, the fact that last time around our best supporters are, this time, our main detractors. Like I was thinking about it and what if the same people I argued with on TFN's forums 3 years ago are now on MY side arguing against people who WERE on my side back then?!

That is just a weird thought. Civial war! LOL.

Really too bad about Maltin and Ebert, though, I'm pretty bummed about that, but the film has so many great reviews. I am really confident it's going to rock!

Many of the reviews have been so great.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I really won't listen to them I will decide for myself, as far as Maltin I think he has become too comerical lately and that could be the reason for the anti-SW (SW isn't cool in some people's eyes) who knows that could just be his review for the show, I wouldn't be surprised if he changes his mind for his book (he changes his reviews a lot as I recall)

[JonathanLB]

Well I would not make any excuses for Maltin's review, I mean apparently he didn't enjoy it, that's too bad. I am shocked in that he has really thoroughly understood the saga before AOTC, I thought.

I must say that I do attribute bad reviews of any SW film to lack of understanding because the real fans understand and love all of the films. The poser fans, i.e. TPM bashers and ROTJ bashers, don't get it. That's their problem, though, it isn't mine. I love those movies and can't wait to see them many more times.

Maltin would probably change his review for the book if AOTC did well ;) He is a cool guy but he strikes me like that, almost like a Joel Siegal type, where they pretty much go with the overall sentiment.

[flagg]

I heard that the guy who runs theforce.net didn't like AOTC either. Is that true?
I really don't know what to think with these reviews. A lot of them are saying AOTC is the best one after ESB, but on the other side you have TPM supporters bashing AOTC. It could go either way at the moment.
I just hope AOTC doesn't get beaten by Spidey. That would be plain embarrassing :)

[JonathanLB]

That is not true. Scott Chitwood runs TheForce.net and you can go read his review if you'd like. It is very positive. I think he said he places it just behind ESB and ANH, ahead of ROTJ and TPM. He really enjoyed it, but he said he wasn't sure if he "loved" it. He just really enjoyed it. Then again, he didn't love ROTJ or TPM either. IMO, he's hardly even a real fan. He is just so negative, you cannot be a fan if you only love two of the five films. That's just not right.

[ReaperFett]

The People (UK Newspaper) gave it 5/5

[Figrin D'an]

Okay guys... I promised I would post this review when it was finally put online. James Berardinelli is probably my favorite film critic, mainly because I find that my taste in film tends to match his pretty well. He's honest with his reviews, but he also has a better grasp of "the big picture" of a given film than some other critics do. So, here is his review of Attack of the Clones, just put up on his site today.

http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/movies/s/sw2002.html


For those who don't to read it, because it does contain a couple of potential spoilers, he gave the film 3.5 out of 4 stars. He makes a few comments about things that weren't perfect, but he also said that he understands why Lucas did things in certain ways. Overall, he really enjoyed the film, and said that it is a worthy addition to the Star Wars saga.

Keep in mind, he also like TPM (his review for it is also on his site if you want to read it.)


So... take from that what you will. :)

[JonathanLB]

I still think most of the reviews so far are coming out very positive. Even the one that TFN just posted with "(negative)" in parens is a two star rating, which is NOT negative. I give two stars to many films and that doesn't mean I didn't enjoy some of the film, it just means I didn't particularly like it. It's neither positive nor negative, thus 2 stars.

I've seen basically none below 2 stars (or a C), although I guess Dutchy pointed one out. LOL, kinda funny that anyone could give any Star Wars film a bad review. I mean, ok let's pretend that you really don't care about the story, the characters bore you, and you're not even a huge fan of the dialogue, then you're still going to appreciate the really exhilirating sequences in each film and the action. For instance, I am not a big fan of ID4, yet I'd give it 3.5 stars because I felt it was a great summer blockbuster, great for what it was, that is. I didn't think it was original by any means, there were some seriously corny moments, etc. But overall, great entertainment.

Like Dutchy here, for instance. He is not a SW fan, but he enjoys the visuals of the films and at least enjoys all of the movies even if he is by no means mad about them. They are just fun films for him, nothing more, nothing less. That's why I find it hard to believe anyone would not give a SW film at least an average rating, at the very least.

I don't think I hardly ever give a major blockbuster less than two stars, because most of the time the production values are high enough to warrant a somewhat favorable, if disappointing rating.

Even Armageddon, for instance, a film that is just pretty sickening compared to a lot of great blockbusters, and it is corny and painful beyond imagination in scenes. It still gets 2 stars because some of the action was pretty great and I like Steve Buscemi and Bruce Willis is a cool guy, plus the production values throughout are very high. Bad dialogue, corny sequences, somewhat silly and overdone plot, but a two star movie still.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by JonathanLB
Like Dutchy here, for instance. He is not a SW fan, but he enjoys the visuals of the films and at least enjoys all of the movies even if he is by no means mad about them. They are just fun films for him, nothing more, nothing less. That's why I find it hard to believe anyone would not give a SW film at least an average rating, at the very least.

Yep, I have to say though I like TPM best of all 4 Star Wars films. The original trilogy doesn't come close to TPM's visuals. Still, I give all 3 original SW movies an average rating, ANH the lowest. And I liked ROTJ better than ESB. But they all don't come close to TPM. For me, TPM is definitely above average, coz of its stunning visuals. It's an entertaining movie.

For someone who is not all entertained by special effects, I can image that person rating a SW movie below average, though.


Even Armageddon, for instance, a film that is just pretty sickening compared to a lot of great blockbusters, and it is corny and painful beyond imagination in scenes. It still gets 2 stars because some of the action was pretty great and I like Steve Buscemi and Bruce Willis is a cool guy, plus the production values throughout are very high. Bad dialogue, corny sequences, somewhat silly and overdone plot, but a two star movie still.

Wholeheartedly agreed. Man, what's wrong with us today? ;)

[ReaperFett]

Armageddon was 10/10 quality :)

[JonathanLB]

Oh boy, I actually liked Armageddon when I first saw it. That scares me a lot. What was I on that day?! The second time I saw it, I really thought it was painful...

"ANH the lowest. And I liked ROTJ better than ESB."

There is nothing wrong with that... Personally, ROTJ was always my favorite as a kid for its amazing space battle and the final showdown between father and son, not to mention Yoda, and I loved, loved, loved the whole rescue sequence because I thought Luke had turned into such a bad@$$ compared to the last two films.

ANH is still my least favorite of the saga, which is not to say I think it is lower quality or anything. Heck I LOVE ANH obviously, but one of the films has to be my least favorite basically, so that just happens to be it. Or maybe better put, ANH is my 5th favorite Star Wars movie out of 5 so far, lol. :)

TPM is also my favorite. Whoa, Dutchy, our order of SW films is not that different ;)

[Jedieb]

Dutchy, TPM at #1?! ROTJ ahead of ESB?!!! Are you MAD man!! ;) (I don't think I've ever discussed SW rankings with you Dutchy. Considering how long we've both been here that's kind of weird huh?)

No finger pointing here, PLEASE!!!! Anyone who joins in just calmly state why YOU would rank certain SW films above others. Even it the differences are miniscule.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well I would rank them this way but I have been known to change my mind a lot
ESB (the best SW movie to date also the whole Vader Luke Confrontation is why I would chose it)
ROTJ (the end battle is amazing, the best space battle and Vader vs Luke again is great, plus the Emperor is a great character)
TPM (I really liked it and saw it as a great introduction to the characters)
ANH (Now I love ANH but I think I have seen it the most and that is part of the reason I place it last but really ROTJ-ANH are all close to me so they could all easily change places down the road)

Also I want to add a couple more reviews have come out NY Post gave it a very postive review, LA Times negative (another one of the TPM postive reviews going the other way) Newsweek Mixed, he said the fans would like it but he wanted more.

[JonathanLB]

I don't think there is anything wrong with putting TPM at #1, many fans do, and as you say, for me at least, the differences are miniscule.

I could just as easily screw with my entire order after Episode II comes out. I suspect that in the next 5 years, my order will change a fair amount and not just because of the new films, but also there may be moving of the various pictures. I could decide on a whim that ROTJ ranks ahead of TPM and ESB and ANH, then rank it like AOTC, ROTJ, ESB, TPM, and ANH, or maybe AOTC, TPM, ROTJ, ESB, ANH, it just depends. ANH could jump to first possibly. To me, it's very pointless really bothering with saying why one film is this and that, because it's all one story and I consider their quality all equal, but for various small reasons I have my favorites.

For instance, it comes down to this...

I can rank my favorite planets, as can any fan. I can rank my favorite characters (it would be tough, but it could be done). I can rank my favorite space ships. So if I can rank all of those, based on that I can decide what SW film is my favorite just by virtue of the rankings of smaller items in the movies. But in the grand scheme of the saga, that is all just petty detail and I appreciate each film for different reasons. I like the almost nostalgic feel of ANH, nostalgic for the Old Republic, that is, and I like Obi-Wan in that movie a lot, love the final battle, and the Tatooine scenes are amazing. I cannot get that in any other SW film, so each film has its really cool nuances.

For TPM, I love the podrace. Probably the most exhilirating thing I have ever seen. I thought the final lightsaber duel would be my favorite, and I believe it was after the first viewing, but as I watched both more and more I really thought the podrace was my favorite exhilirating action piece of that movie. It's by far the most exciting thing in any Star Wars film to me, but then again, I LOVE the speeder bike chase in ROTJ. Each film just has its different really neat aspects.

Coruscant being my favorite planet (I guess you can tell I like the idea of a massive city better than a sprawing jungle or a huge forest or a rainy-looking planet, ahem, Naboo), TPM and AOTC definitely gain points for having it. I must say the final shots in ROTJ are among the most amazing I have seen. I literally used to watch that 13 second shot of Coruscant over and over probably 25 to 30 times just because it reminded me of the (at that time) future prequels.

Also, sorry here because it is the first film and super classic, but the saber duel between Obi-Wan and Darth in ANH sucks hard. It's got sentimental value and it has good dialogue and IS meaningful -- a very important showdown, but speaking from a martial arts or swordsplay point of view it blows pretty badly. The battle in ESB is impressive and I like the darkness of the entire scene, plus a lot of the moves are actually good, the battle lasts a little while, is another incredibly important turning point in a way, and the action is more impressive. I still do not think any saber duel will ever compete with the importance of ROTJ's. How any FAN of the saga could argue for the ANH or ESB duels over that shocks me. You are talking about the most important aspect of the entire saga, as Lucas himself says and he is the creator so the message he says is the message he was delivering. In a word, the saga is about "Redemption," he answered in an interview several years back. That battle is about the showdown between father and son, probably the two most Force-capable people in the galaxy at any point, and the fantastic music STILL gives me goose bumps as you see a pullaway shot with the male choir doing their music. It's the final battle in the six-part saga, it can't help but be the most important. The one in ESB is a prelude to future events, a setup if you will, and is great without a doubt, but it just gives way to the ROTJ battle.

TPM's is, needless to say, the "best" saber duel in the saga so far because of its quality and I am not sure if AOTC outdoes it. I've heard that TPM's is still #1, but I think many will disagree because seeing Yoda with a saber has to be just about the most awesome thing ever :) Plus, I saw Hayden with two sabers... That... has... got... to rock! :D

I think it is appropriate that the saber duels in the OT are not mind-blowingly great, though. Why would they be? I'm sorry but Vader couldn't move that well with all that stuff on, he fights extremely well given he's on a respirator and has like 100 pounds of armor :) Obi-Wan vs. Vader, again, neither were athletic at all. You got a guy who should be at a retirement community versus, again, a guy on a respirator. So even with a huge budget and Hong Kong fight choreographers, it wouldn't be better. It'd be stupid. I wouldn't want to see them fighting like they were 20, it would just be absurd. Same goes for Luke vs. Vader. Luke wasn't classically trained and it would be unbelievable to think he just picked up Hong Kong skills in two weeks at Dagobah or whatever.

So the prequel trilogy just naturally should have better saber battles because they are real, full Jedi and all classically trained.

Anyway, gotta work, but all this Star Wars talk is making me want to pop the movies in again -- badly!

[Jedieb]

Was the LA Times review from the same writer? I'm curious about the few writers that have done back flips. Anyway, I still haven't read a single review. Just a few more days, a few more days....:crack

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yep Turran, I can't remember if he gave it 3 stars or 3.5 of course he could have backtracked later in the year to begin with. Also the Chicago Tribune review is suppose to be up today and the critic, Willimington is going to give it a glowing review, calling it the best of all 5:eek Also the New Yorker posted there view and it was, shockingly, postive, I mean he enjoyed it but said the plot was bad and it was basically a 3 star review but for the New Yorker to give a SW movie a postive review is a shock, I think most of the previous SW films and big hollywood blockbusters got trashed by the New Yorker.

[JonathanLB]

I'm not sure what people are talking about with the LA Times changing their view with the same critic, blah blah, etc.

That is incorrect. I met Mr. Turan two years ago and I've still been in touch with him a bit as recently as 8 months ago or so. I have his home address and e-mail and phone, etc. He didn't care for TPM. He didn't like AOTC either. Big surprise (not really).

IMO, he is a pretty poor critic, kind of a duffer. I've not much cared for his reviews as I have read them in the last several years (it is cool meeting a critic who is well known, but his views are just very far out there).

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Jedieb
(I don't think I've ever discussed SW rankings with you Dutchy. Considering how long we've both been here that's kind of weird huh?)

Nah, that's not weird, I mean this is a Star Wars forum so why should we... umm... wait a minute... ;)

[Jedi Master Carr]

Maybe I was wrong I could have swore that the LA Times gave it a good review, what is the other newspaper in LA? maybe it was that one. Back to the New Yorker they gave it a pretty postive review and I will go ahead and post it, I am really shocked by it considering they have given just about every SW movie negative reviews.

http://www.newyorker.com/critics/cinema/?020520crci_cinema

and here is the Chicago Tribune that one is very postive

http://www.metromix.com/top/1,1419,M-Metromix-Movies-starwarseventwilmingtonreview!ArticleDetail-16605,00.html

[JonathanLB]

Carr, you are definitely right...

"Maybe I was wrong I could have swore that the LA Times gave it a good review, what is the other newspaper in LA? maybe it was that one."

I think that was something like Los Angeles Daily News or... I dunno, but there was, you are right. One LA paper gave it 3.5 stars and actually raved about TPM, it wasn't the Times though, it was something else... elusive! LOL ;)

But I definitely remember that.

I know Turan wasn't hot on TPM because I remember when I asked if he'd be willing to give me like an endorsement for the TPM book, I had to preface it by saying that I realize he wasn't a big fan of the film, but that my book really is more about the event and the hype and the historical perspective than the actual movie... He understood.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Since I don't live in LA I am not sure maybe CMJ knows the name of the paper, it just escapes me right now.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Here is the review by Cinescape
http://www.cinescape.com/0/editorial.asp?aff_id=0&this_cat=Movies&action=page&obj_id=34494&type_id=270285&cat_id=270340&sub_id=270376, he gives an A-, and I remember that they were very critical about TPM, there is another review there too that is postive B+ I believe.

[imported_QuiGonJ]

The Los Angeles Daily News is the other paper, and they gave TPM 3 1/2 stars out of 4 back in the day.

btw, cool thread. :)

[Jedieb]

This is what rottentomatoes has so far:
Reviews counted: 39
Fresh: 23 Rotten: 16
59%
FRESH = 60% or greater

They're are still reviews to come in so it could still end up being "Fresh." These are their TPM numbers:
Reviews counted: 96
Fresh: 56 Rotten: 40
58%
FRESH = 60% or greater

Why they don't count ALL their reviews towards the tomatometer is beyond me. They could at leasts have a seperate counter, but I guess it's just easier for them to only use established reviewers for the meter.

[JonathanLB]

Thanks for the extra posts...

This has been a good thread.

12 hours until I get in line guys!!! :) (24 hours early). This is going to rock so hard...

[Jedi Master Carr]

Jon I think you will like this USA Today's Mike Clark gave it a great review here is the link
http://www.usatoday.com/life/enter/movies/2002/2002-05-15-star-wars-review.htm
he gives it 3.5 stars which is really good for him (he can be critical on huge box office films) Now RT better add that

As far as RT you should see how guys on theforce.net are acting they think that people are conspring against it (not all of the posters just a few) well they start emailing RT to post the postive reviews they were holding back and it began to get nasty on the RT forums as one guy called RT admins a word that rhymes with tricks and another called them morons, I then started posting to show not all SW fans are crazy weirdos who think there is a conspriacy out there, (though there is one that we will all remember) I think me and a couple others calmed it down but man some of these guys are just impatient.

[JonathanLB]

See I told you Mike Clark would come through. That guy is the man. Go back and read his other reviews. For the most part he is spot on. I want to meet him one day or talk to him, he's just awesome. We agree on most all movies, within 0.5 degree accuracy. Like I will probably give AOTC 4 stars, but he is always within 1/2 star of me pretty much. Every once in a while I'll give 3 and he'll give 2, but... we're pretty close.

Man, Clark rocks... Just read it. :) He is a cool guy. I swear, he's the only critic with a brain.

I forget who gave Starship Troopers 4 stars at USA Today, but that was really bold, haha. I loved that. I thought it was a fantastic film, saw it a few times in theaters, and I was really impressed with that review. In general, USA Today has been very Star Wars friendly over the last five years, even, and they are always quite objective about the series. They don't go spouting absolute hokey and they are a great paper. I'm a subscriber, have been for many years...

A 3.5 star review is actually really good. I mean, he admits the die-hard fans will give it 4, and maybe the naysayers will give it 3, so he "split the difference" as he says. Not a bad call, I think he's right (that the die-hards are going to love this film!).

I wouldn't call it a conspiracy at RT, but man... a lack of objectivity and professionalism, yes. In fact, I know the guys there didn't like TPM, and I am willing to bet they are not positive about AOTC before its opening. So a conspiracy? Well... maybe, but more likely just a negative group of people who have a bias against Star Wars. That has already been proven before. Even the people who post on RT are pretty negative, like AICN posters, not like normal moviegoers. They scare me.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I think they are just lazy and that is about it, really though I don't care the reviews from Variety, Rolling Stones, USA today and the New Yorker have my psyched and I hear Joel Siegel is going to give it a glowing review on GMA probably Thursday, Siegel is cool usually sometimes he can be annoying.

[JonathanLB]

He is totally opposite of the whiny, nagging old critics who complain about everything and every movie released.

He obviously has fun at movies still and is not afraid to say so and so blockbuster was a very fun film while the rest of the critics do nothing but try to show their "intelligence" (or more like pseudo-intelligence).

I give a movie 3 stars as long as I had fun at it and I was entertained. Mind you, I'm not an easy critic because that, amazingly enough, doesn't happen extremely often. Heck at one point earlier in the year I went 13 straight movies in theaters without giving one single 3 star review or above. I'm fair, though, and so is Siegal.

I hate people who just look for flaws in a movie instead of simplying letting the movie play and make mistakes if it will, but if not, then don't attempt to find them when they don't exist.

I let a movie screw up on its own, and many do, I don't sit there LOOKING or waiting for them to screw up. I will notice if they do, and if not, then I have a wonderful time.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I don't disagree with you it is just that Siegel has a way to get on my nerves occasionally but most of the time he isn't that bad maybe it is because he is so hyper so early in the morning.

[flagg]

I know what you mean about the negativity on rotten tomatoes and aint it cool news. I wonder if the posters there like any movies :)

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well its Fresh for now 24 out of 40, there are a few more postive reviews to add, USA Today, ABC News(Siegel's review he gave it 3 stars), CNN (Clinton loved it but the review is not up yet), People, Weird, The Charlotte Observer, and the St. Louis Dispatch and there are a few negative the Washington Post (the first one at least there is suppose to be a second coming out) and the Atlanta Constitution. Still to come out the Boston Globe, the Detriot Free Press, the NY Observer, and a few other city papers like Orlando, Miami, Toronto, etc. Not sure how most of them will review it.

[JonathanLB]

Good news to add here.

Another official Tomatometer critic, Shawn Levy of The Oregonian, has given AOTC a glowing review!!!

A-.

He also gave TPM an A- and even defends it in his AOTC review (he has balls, and I like this critic, not just because he's from my home state obviously; he actually has a brain).

So there is another good review to add. Looking great so far with a huge portion of the huge critics calling it good to great and almost ALL sci-fi buffs loving it. This is very sweet indeed.

Star Wars is back, and I believe this is going to crush TPM even.

[Jedieb]

I'm going to go through a lot of these reviews in the next few days, but to anyone who didn't like AOTC..
"We're you smoking crack when you saw it?" ;)

I honestly don't see how anyone could give AOTC a resoundingly negative review. I'm not saying AOTC is perfect. I'm not saying it's the greatest American motion picture ever made, I'm not even saying it's the best SW movie ever made. But I just don't see how someone could trash this movie. I just honestly don't get it.:huh

[Jedi Master Carr]

I will probably be doing the same thing once I see it later Jedieb, but also here is something to realize ESB was bashed heavily by critics when Rotten Tomatoes used to have the old reviews up I think ESB had like a 52% rating from the old reviews of course now I think it has nearly 90%, shows how things change. Part of it too, is some of these critics just want to bash it because its a big movie, others are hypocritical morons. Perfect example Titantic was given some bad reviews when it first came out and afterwards after the general public started raving about it some of the critics changed their minds and said it was 4 stars. That is why I hate critics because anybody can be one there is no school out there, there isn't really anything that you can do to become one, and at times it makes me mad that they get paid to see movies, it looks like a very easy profession. It doesn't matter nobody listens to them, I don't know too many people who listen to critics. The only time they matter is the small indie films.

[CMJ]

Carr..."Titanic" was given mostly great reviews when it was issued...very few critics bashed it first. In fact...the oppisite happened...once it started doing so well, the ineveitable backlash started.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I thought I read somewhere I forget now that it was given mixed reviews (what they meant by mixed I have no idea) and then I read a few critics changed their opinion, couldn't name who because the article was vague, it was a while back so the details are fuzzy maybe the article was saying this because of the backlash that occured later.

[CMJ]

There were a FEW critics that bashed it first...I'm pretty sure Turan did for example, but the overwhelming response was really positive.

[Jedi Master Carr]

That is probably what they meant, hey look at this way, most of the critic like AOTC and the negative ones are the ones that standing out (according to places like IMDB and stuff), it just shows the media loves concentrating on the negative especially when it comes to big movies.

[CMJ]

Usually so...usually so. The media here is SW banana's right now. Well, I guess I should take off and see if I can get in. :)

[Master Yoghurt]

Washington Post. A rather negative one
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17116-2002May14.html

Argh, he just dont get it

[JMK]

Neither does this critic. TPM got a much better review than AotC:
http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/story.asp?id={457E4B0F-4CE7-4DE3-8EB8-9D4B830A981E}

[Jedieb]

I'm not for a moment saying that any critic who bashes AOTC is ignorant or stupid. Name calling is just a cop out. I just can't understand how someone could walk out of a theater after seeing AOTC and say that it sucked. I can see someone having some problems with it, but trashing it is a completely different issue. I think it's fair to say than most of the fans who were dissapointed with TPM walked away from AOTC thinking they'd seen a better movie. For a critic who praised TPM to bash this film I find highly unusual. Maybe they've been influenced by some of the backlash that TPM generated. Or maybe like Ebert, they let issues like "digital V. film" cloud their review. Either way, I just don't "get" it! :huh

I just read the post review, and it reminds me of a tendency some critics have when panning a film, they try to be comedians. Comparing Hayden to a member of N'Sync, how witty. If this guy is so funny, why isn't he writting for SNL or some comedy show? Putz. :x

[JonathanLB]

Well I am guilty of writing funny reviews of bad films, but I rarely pan movies that are major releases. For instance, I only make my reviews funny when I review zero and one star films. I've never given a major release that bad of reviews, though, so when I write a review of a film I was disappointed to see, but wanted to like, then I will spend my review saying what I thought went wrong in an informative way, not a comedic way (it wouldn't be appropriate).

"Carr..."Titanic" was given mostly great reviews when it was issued...very few critics bashed it first. In fact...the oppisite happened...once it started doing so well, the ineveitable backlash started."

Well, I wouldn't go THAT far, lol. It got very good reviews, but most critics acknowledged the horrible dialogue in Titanic and the cliched love story. They said it worked anyway and the film was beautiful and whatnot, but I didn't read too many reviews where the critics didn't at least mention that much of the dialogue was pretty silly.

[Jedieb]

Most of the negative media I remember from Titanic came PRIOR to its release. You heard wild rumors about the budget, the delays, the risk the studio was taking. But I guess a lot of that went away once the money started coming in.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I agree with you Jedieb, what I can't understand his how some critics can give it glowing reviews like Clark, and Variety and others like NY Times and the Washington Post rips it apart, but really it doesn't matter with a film like this the critics don't matter at all. And I could care less what they say really.

[CMJ]

I don't know Jon..I just did a search on RT and it had a 86% positive rating with MANY raves. I also seem to remember it being on several end of year lists.

[Quadinaros]

I was previously reading reviews just to get a feel for the advance buzz. But now that I've seen the movie, I have no need for them.

What's the point? I know the movie rocked!!!!!!!!! :cool

[Jedieb]

True, true...

[Jedieb]

True, true... there are much better things to read, like the novel for instance.

[flagg]

Have you guys noticed that AOTC finally has a fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes? Good news, I suppose, but it was nice of them to wait until AOTC's box office was fading before revealing that :mad

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yeah they finally added the critics they had on there other page, took them long enough. I don't think the box office is fading that badly it will still cross 350 and hopefully will pass Jurassic Park at least. Of course the International gross will help it win overall.