ST Critics' reviews for Star Wars: The Last Jedi

I think AOTC is pretty terrible. I couldn't give it less than 2 stars and there are good and enjoyable moments in the film. 0 stars is not objective re its cinematic merit (though I guess valid as an utter rejection of the story).

 

I would argue that as a Star Wars fan, it is in fact essential to have repeated viewings in order to fully digest it. Not because of any inherent complexity or because of “not getting it”, but because of the sort of thing that’s being discussed in the “why doesn’t it feel like Star Wars?” thread; new Star Wars films often don’t feel like they fit, because they’re brand new things in a series we know really well, and the unfamiliarity can be jarring until it settles.

For me, I remember hearing the TPM soundtrack and initially thinking Duel Of The Fates sounded incredibly unstarwarsy. I remember others saying the humour in AOTC wasn’t Star Warsy. In 1980 I’m sure people thought the shift in tone was unstarwarsy. We’ve all seen our least favourite Star Wars films probably 10+ times as a conservative estimate, and we know them like the back of our hand.

It’s why this “you shouldn’t have to analyse it to understand it” argument is bogus.
If you turn y0ur brain off and watch the film, it flows.
If you engage with it, there are elements that make more sense if you think about it, or are enriched by thinking about it.
There are also, admittedly, things that all the films would rather you didn’t think about too much, but that has always been the case with Star Wars (people banging on about bombs not dropping in space can probably give a good explanation of the pseudoscience/magic behind lightsabers and not see the double standard)

 

this is the big issue. Much more so than review bombing or the possibility of bots. More people are going to dislike the film and rate a 0 (or half a star, in the case of RT) than people are going to love the film and give it a perfect score. Thinking practically, this film deserves neither. If you think otherwise, that's fine. I wholeheartedly disagree.

 

It’s just a weird thing now, I guess. Like how in the 90’s video game reviews ended up skewed to the point where a 70% review score meant “bad game”, and really bad games got 50% scores, essentially making “50% or below” the equivalent of 1 star.
But it also shows how polarised discussion of everything is. I keep using this term, but in all honesty, if we all calmed down a bit, then the two camps here really are arguing the difference between it being a 2 Star film and a 4 Star, with a compromise being that if we all put our heads together and thought “what star rating represents hardcore fans opinion?” then the obvious conclusion is “3 Star film. It’s bold and daring, but makes narrative choices that aren’t for everyone”
That’s why a zero star review or a “it’s perfect” review provoke eyerolls. It’s delberately moving away from engagement and towards entrenchment

 

I'd agree that the SW films are something to watch more than once because of the sheer amount of stuff going on, its hard to take everything in on first viewing. Even now watching the old films I notice things that I had either missed or just not noticed before, thats how rich they are in details. For me the first viewing is always too fraught with expectation and the excitement of the inner child in me watching new SW again that more vieiwings are a must.

One thing I'd say about TLJ is that seeing it a second time allowed me to enjoy it more, all my expectations had gone and I could relax and try to take everything in both visually and story wise and I enjoyed it more second time around.

I know what you about things not feeling like SW. I think because the gap is so big between eras that those films that have gone before are engrained on our brains and we think we know the boundaries of the universe and what it can and cant do, thats hard to get around when watching these new films. I clearly remember back in 83 and for a long time after feeling that Jedi seemed so detachd from the first 2 films, I put that down to the 3 year gap seeming like forever and as a kid thinking how much everyone had aged in such a short time.

If they had continued to make films at a more regular rate then I don't think we would have felt like that.

You can sit down and analyse any film and rip it apart. The reality is that not many films in the action genre put something together that holds up to minute scrutiny, because you could always question choices made that advance the story to get from a to b or the actual science and logic behind things. These are films that IMO in the main hold up well as what they are, pure escapism entertainment pieces. Are we as hardcore guilty of overthinking SW fims too much? I think so, and I do that too, much more than any other film that I like.

 

@CEB exactly, if you look at the RT average note it's indeed 3/5. And as an average it means a lot of people would give it more, and a lot would give it less so yes, bold and daring SW movie but with story choices that will delight or infuriate you.

But really, when you look at the tomatometer for audience on RT or the metacritic's equivalent can anyone -even if were disappointed- believe that TLJ is a worse film than the fast and furious franchise or transformer movies...or jumanji 2! Even the Mummy 2017 is not that much lower than TLJ. This is perverse effect of the binary good/bad system of rating and the obvious fact that when SW fans hate a SW movie they want to bomb the score so low that it doesnt mean a thing anymore (come on, transformers? FandF? seriously?) but is ised by some as the definitive proof the the movie is loathed by the audience and a complete critical failure...which isnt the case. Yes it's divisive. Because it's Star Wars. But these internet polls they dont mean much than that...

 

Imo - and not denying a lot of fans hate TLJ (whist a lot of fans love it) - that RT score has been gamed in the way the Ghostbusters reboot was dragged down, and the way the Justice League score was inflated. People with an axe to grind driving a narrative.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Seeing TLJ was a deja vu of seeing Observance (2017). I am able to account for the disconnect between critical reception and audience reception, because I am in no way blind to the technical details and critic catnip that the director generously sprinkled throughout. I will speculate that an audience review brigade did not occur for this movie.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/observance/
TOMATOMETER
82%
Average Rating: 6.6/10
Reviews Counted: 11
Fresh: 9
Rotten: 2
AUDIENCE SCORE
34%
Average Rating: 2.5/5
User Ratings: 93

 

Quite a sample size there.

 

They're very different for starters. The only super hero movies I've liked are Burton and Nolan's Batman and Logan (Guardians of the Galaxy and Deadpool are alright). I have no interest in following the avengers and all those spinoffs. And I have no problem with CGI. They're just not my thing.

 

Ehh, I dunno, the premise is kind of similar, SW back in the day was expanded quite a bit with comics and novels, though the DC/Marvel focused less on novels.

Ah I like Nolan's Batman myself, but there are some bits where it wouldn't have worked without CGI.

Part of what's so great about CGI is that some of this stuff is not meant to be real or even look real from real-world standpoint. If CGI gives this notion that seems fake, well that's because it was never meant for the real world to begin with. And that's exactly the way I like some of it.

There are some horror movies out there I'd wish they drew back the practicality. (Shudders)

 

This is straying from the topic of critic's reviews, just to be clear--I don't care about CGI one way or another. It is a tool to advance a story and should be used to serve the story. Like any special effect, it can be used positively or negatively. Similar to other effects, when the filmmaker is too distracted by what they can showoff that it distracts from the story, it is a detriment. I don't like the story of most Marvel movies. I don't care what special effects they do or do not use.

 

(Blinks before shuffling awkwardly)

Amen. 'Nuff said. I understand.

I'll admit it's kind of an addiction. The PT definitely had a surplus of eye candy, no?

 

@MasterPrince713 i prefer subtle CGI than in-your-face CGI yes but that's not really why im not into the marvel/dc cinematic universe. I just dont find them very interesting as movies...the stories, the directing, the tone of these movies, the subtexts and themes... well it's just not my cup of tea, i find them quite shallow although i do occasionally enjoy some of them as light popcorn entertainment (they all do have a real third-act problem though, same thing foe the big baddie)....batman returns is still the best superhero movie for me too haha.

 

Good caution. I did some tabulating of lists of movies 'critics love / audiences hate' and have 44 films. If I divide Critic approval (%) by User approval (%) I get a sortable spectrum of 'how much Critics are divided from Users' in approval ("divide"). If I divide total User reviews (#) by total Critic reviews (#) I get a sortable spectrum of 'how much Users are piling on to make certain their vote is counted in this very important matter of who thinks what after reading Rotten Tomatoes' ("pile-on").
The top five of the "divide" sort are Willow Creek, Sharknado, Hulk, Spy Kids, Splice.
The "pile-on" numbers for those movies are very small, except for Hulk.
TLJ's "pile-on" numbers are changing instantaneously now, and will stabilize when? Another year?
There are four movies that are clustered below TLJ in the "divide" sort, that have very large "pile-on" numbers: War of the Worlds (2005), About a Boy (2002), King Kong (2005), Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005). These would make a good standard for comparison for theories of brigading, however that is defined or takes place. The numbers make it look like these films were "divisive" or "controversial". Three of them are remakes or revisitation to a known story universe, so they had an invested fan base that would have standards.
TLJ having a higher "divide" quotient, and having all the more time in the world to gain a higher "pile-on" quotient, makes it quantitatively probable that it will be a candidate for brigading. (If it is not now.)

 

I believe I know that feeling ("a lot of depth, subtexts, symbols and allegories") all too well regarding the Matrix Trilogy (as a matter of fact it's the decisive chapter in a book about outstanding Sci-Fi accomplishments I'm writing) which probably qualifies as symbolism 'overdrive' but although the Wachowskis presented the decisive hint (i.e. Agent Smith is Neo's alter ego) in the third film on a silver platter to understand what's ultimately happening (and as a hat tip to ESB and Luke's "fighting himself" in the dark tree) most audiences still didn't get that.

But in the particular case of TLJ, I feel TPTB should be a little more forthcoming and elaborate on "depth, subtexts, symbols and allegories" if they want us to believe these are there to be appreciated. I for one haven't seen much if any of these things in TLJ.

How comes. Even though I'm grateful for the Matrix Trilogy I hated the Wachowski's Jupiter Ascending. I don't know where to start (it could go OT rather soon), but after the Cloud Atlas it felt this one to be such a letdown that the only positive thing I remember about this movie was the popcorn I ate while watching it, so I would have only given that movie 0 Stars.

 

This line of thought is bizarre and fantastical, and yet it seems to be everywhere. How exactly was the score “gamed”? How do you determine which scores are legitimate and which are not? Do you even know what effect these “gamed” scores had on the total? In your opinion, should the legitimate score be 5 points higher, or 10? How could you even decide? This whole effort to dismiss reality (and to be fair, you’re not the only one doing it) is incredible. The bottom line is that the score speaks for itself. It is not irrefutably representative or definitive, but it is not some conspiracy. In any case, Rotten Tomatoes has said they stand by the integrity of their scores. http://variety.com/2017/digital/new...tomatoes-user-ratings-bots-skewed-1202647473/

You say that a similar thing happened with Ghostbusters, but that movie stank, just like The Last Jedi. It doesn’t take a right-wing conspiracy or legions of angry nerds to turn audiences against a bad movie, it can happen on its own and it does all the time. But you may be on to something here. Both Ghostbusters and The Last Jedi were heavily advertised (and presumably created) as films that would break new ground in their franchises by subverting critical elements of their canon. With Ghostbusters, the boys club would become a girls club. Unfortunately, it didn’t make the movie better, just politically focused. With The Last Jedi, key characters and themes would be presented in ways that are radically different from the series’ internal mythology. Unfortunately it just made the film pseudo-intellectual and unnecessarily austere.

The Last Jedi is a stinker. That doesn’t mean you or anyone else can’t enjoy it. I love The Phantom Menace, and that movie is widely regarded as a stinker too. But when you try to dismiss reality because it doesn’t conform to your invested narrative: that’s ridiculous.

 

It's not 'reailty' that TLJ is 'a stinker' though, that's an opinion - not a verifiable fact.

 

Ghostbusters doesn't stink either.

 

Ok, I guess I wasn't clear enough. Or maybe I was. Either way, I'll repeat myself in simpler terms. The "reality" is that the Rotten Tomatoes audience aggregate score does in fact represent the opinions of thousands of people.

To quote: "that's an opinion - not a verifiable fact." If you don't want to address the substance of my post, fine. But don't bother trying to challenge arguments I didn't even present.

 

Bless your statistics-literate heart.

 

So you think a movie is objectively good or bad based upon the majority of peoples opinions?

 

Here's some reading for you: http://www.responsivemanagement.com/news_from/2010-05-04.htm

 

Their single individual vote does. But the result cannot be considered to accurately reflect the audience-wide opinion, because the survey has absolutely no scientific rigor. The only surveys conducted with any rigor at all are sharply in dispute with the RT results. The fact that you agree with it doesn't make it any more credible.

 

I don’t disagree with anything here per se, except your implication that the RT audience score has no value whatsoever because it wasn’t conducted with “rigor”. Does it totally represent everyone who saw TLJ? Of course not, and I said as much in my original post. However, it does represent something. It represents over a hundred thousand responses, the majority of which have written feedback. Do you disagree with that? The point of my post was to address the speculation that it was somehow “gamed”. Do you think it was “gamed”?

No, that is not what I think.

Thanks professor.