**Official** MEDIA reviews of AOTC -- your reactions

>> And that shows why you're not an artist.

I said I'm not a "professional" artist, but I'm still an artist. You don't need a degree for that, I certainly don't need to telling me if I'm one or not.

>> This discussion has been gotten into before, but any artist will tell you (when he cannot be quoted) that the "public" are idiots when it comes to art.

Laughable. This is the classic "moving the goal post" tactic. First you cite what real artists think of critics. Then when it's shown that there is no record of that, you come of with the "secret knowledge" argument. Baffling.

>> I did read your signature, and it stresses that public criticism is the only criticism that is important, which is ridiculous to any artist.

Mark Twain is the artistic success you will probably never glimpse, not to mention a genious. You can dismiss the quote all you want, but a better person than you and me said it.

And yes, your attitude is elitist and you do sound pretty arrogant. Most people can tell you that, but since you don't listen to the unwashed masses, maybe we should get a critic to convince you of it.

abbmcracy: The only thing that's obvious is your arrogant attitude towards others.

BTW, don't lecture on visual effects because you use lightwave and other off-the-shelf stuff. That doesn't make you an expert.

abmccray, you have a point about the criticism of people "in the know" being more helpful to an artist than the adulation of the mindless masses. But I don't consider most critics to be any more knowledgeable than the average movie fan. If they truly had a passion for film they'd be making their own movies, not just criticising those who can.
I'm a member of Francis Ford Coppola's Zoetrope website, and I truly value the reviews of my work from other artists there because I know they understand the process of writing and how difficult it can be. I wouldn't value the opinion of a journalist who only has a passing knowledge of film at best. Read through all the negative reviews of AOTC and try and tell me how many actually offer constructive criticism. I think you'll be hard pressed to find more than a few reviews like that.

Two quick points.

I have YET to see a single review that mentioned what to quite a few people is the scene on which the entire STAR WARS saga rests, the Tusken Raider confession by Anakin. This to me is an extraordinarily well-acted scene. Almost every time I have seen the film this scene seems to jolt the audience. It is a major turning point in the character at the core of STAR WARS. It is a very emotional and unsettling and well-done scene. Did I miss something? If someone else has read a review by a major critic where this scene was mentioned, please tell me. I want to know. I cannot find one.

Secondly, I am sure many people on this thread are familiar with the infamous "we are so hip and so cool and so negative" site, salon.com This site has consistently and aggressively published not only VERY negative reviews of STAR WARS film, they have also gone out of their way to attack Lucas on a very mean and vindictive level that I feel goes beyond mere film criticism.
They are mean-spirited and take every chance they can to ridicule or attack Lucas. (not that he can't handle it, of course.)

Anyway, I visited the salon.com site today and apparently their rather negative view of the world (they seem to HATE just about everything) is not resulting in success.
I checked their financial section.

Their stock is currently trading at TWELVE CENTS A SHARE as of Friday. That's pitiful.
When Enron's stock collapsed last year and went below a dollar a share, financial experts were calling that stock virtually worthless. And salon's is at 12 cents a share and DROPPING. AOTC'S world-wide box office take is at 391 million dollars and climbing. God only knows how much money the DVD and VHS will make. Maybe if they knew how to engage the public as well as Lucas, they wouldn't be practically bankrupt. If they know so much, how come they aren't thriving? They sure throw stones at everyone else every chance they get!

Here's the thing about art, in any form. When you decide to do something artistically, it should be YOUR vision not someone else's. Sure after it's over someone can tell ya "hey this this and that should've been done differently," but should you listen to them? No, because they are trying to make YOUR vision into their own. Art is about bringing something in your head to life whether it be on a canvas or on film, etc. Now if you want to make money doing art, yeah you will make attempts to try and appeal to the people who are going to make you money. "Professional" critics can be one of these since if they give you a positive review, it will influence others. But George Lucas needs not bother with the professionals. The professionals didn't like the OT, but it made Lucas a crapload of money. Professionals are paid to try and find something wrong with a movie, but someone who watches for entertainment PAYS for entertainment so most don't go in looking for flaws but just to have fun. Particularly with Star Wars because of the fact that the masses love it so, it makes it that much more appealing to a critic to point out its flaws.
I must say I admire George Lucas 'cause he just doesn't give a crap at this point about pleasing everybody, he's gonna make his art his way.
George is a visionary, I just think he needs to hand the dialogue completely over to someone who's good with screenplays(it worked wonderfully in ESB).

abmccray, I do not know where you get this idea that critics "help" an artist or an art become better. This sounds like the rambling logic of a critic more than an artist.

As a quasi-artist I can tell you that it is the objective opinions of those who absorb ones work that often dictate future creative ventures and not the pretentious babbling of a professional thesaurus.

RB

I hear a lot of talk on this board about how it's only the mindless fans who love the prequels and people who are educated in film can see how flawed they are. I beg to differ. Look at the following examples:

Kevin Smith (acclaimed screenwriter) enjoyed TPM and thought AOTC was even better.

Lawrence Kasdan (writer of ESB and ROTJ) thinks Lucas is doing a fine job with the prequels. It's not just out of respect for Lucas, though. He wasn't afraid to bash how his ESB script was changed. He complained that the love story was undeveloped onscreen and there were too many lame one liners added for 3PO (hmmm, sound familiar?)

Finally, Drew McWeeny (one of the toughest critics on Aint It Cool News and also a screenwriter) loved AOTC.

So, I think we can say that it's not just the uneducated masses who enjoy the prequels.

This had its own thread a few days ago, but it got locked. So here goes (numbers are a few days old).

499 customer reviews of AOTC have been posted on Amazon.com. Of these:

238 (48%) are five-star
96 (19%) are four-star
70 (14%) are three-star
45 (9%) are two-star
50 (10%) are one-star

for an average 3.9-star rating.


For comparison with the previous films:

TPM: 2120 reviews, average 3.5 stars
5-star: 37%
4-star: 20%
3-star: 15%
2-star: 13%
1-star: 16%

ANH: 386 reviews, average 4.7 stars
5-star: 82%
4-star: 10%
3-star: 5%
2-star: 1%
1-star: 2%

ESB: 144 reviews, average 4.8 stars
5-star: 88%
4-star: 7%
3-star: 2%
2-star: 3%
1-star: 2%

ROTJ: 127 reviews, average 4.4 stars
5-star: 69%
4-star: 15%
3-star: 9%
2-star: 5%
1-star: 2%


Reviews of TPM are a combination of theatrical, VHS, and DVD reviews.

Reviews of the OT are for the VHS SE.

-tn

I've been told to post this here, even though no one posts in this topic anymore.
I hope it's a joke, otherwise it's the worst review ever!
Juicy Cerebellum's review

If you think he's harsh on AOTC, check out his LOTR review!

I know this guy isn't a professional critic, but it still leads me to the conclusion that 99% of critics suck. They don't enjoy films because they're too busy writing with their light pens, and they still get facts wrong!
They should be wiped out. Who's with me?

I wouldn't go that far. Yet

Looking at Roger Ebert's four star review of MINORITY REPORT(which I liked but don't think is THAT great)I realize how annoying he is when he's effusive about something. Critics are generally more entertaining when they're putting something down. Although his pan of AOTC wasn't because it was basically a rant against digital cinema and why celluloid is still better.

Yeah, I was thoroughly unconvinced by Ebert's review of AOTC. He made some criticism (I can't remember the exact wording, thank god) that the monsters in the arena scene looked as if they had been animated back in the 50s with modelling clay. Hmm. It's as if Ebert couldn't possiibly fathom the idea that Lucas was creating an homage to those old creature flicks. I usually agree with Ebert, but this is just one more example of how SW hype and expectation clouds judgement.

Also, did anyone read A. O. Scott's article in the NY Times a couple of weeks ago about the popularity and cultural value of sci-fi/fantasy movies? It appeared to me to be a thinly veiled recant of his/her scathing review of AOTC back in May. I will not take any of A. O. Scott's reviews seriously again!

Whoa! How quickly this thread has become an argument! Well, I have something else to throw in the pot...

The heated argument going on here just goes to show how simple minded our society is. If something is not superlative, then it does not exist.

Abmccray, you stated that Spielburg was one of the best directors of our time. While I agree, I would like to point out that there are many more talented directors in the world than you could possibly know. But we don't ever here about them, because the media doesn't choose to call them "the best". So, if it isn't "the best" then our society really doesn't care.

SW has been hailed as one of "the best" series of all time, and the media is eager to have GL pass the torch, which he refuses to do at the moment. This stirs up loads of controversy, afterall, cheesy sci-fi B-movies (which is all that star wars ever was or ever will be) are not supposed to be "the best".

We all need to realize that everyone, including abmccray's favorite reference, Mr. Spielburg, is flawed. NO ONE is perfect. Critics point this out all the time. However, it is possible to criticize a movie without "bashing" or "slamming" it, something nearly EVERY critic today has forgotten. Yes, it IS possible to end a negative SW review WITHOUT the remark that SW has lost its magic. There is a major difference between professional critics (who sell newspapers) and level-headed critics (who are harder to find, but more valuable).

It is also ludicrous (sp?) to suggest that professional critics are more important than the public. abmccray, your remark that professional artists think the public are idiots is quite disturbing. I would NEVER want to have anything to do with someone who thought of me as stupid. We need both the critics (who criticize, not bash) and the public (who the art is essentialy made for) to determine the true worth of artwork.

Some (not all, as is the common perception) critics found SW to be lacking, while the public absolutely eats it up. This is just fine, we all need to accept the fact that our opinion is the only thing that should really matter to us. If you loved AOTC, then enjoy it. If you disliked AOTC, then don't watch it. Feel free to criticize, but don't hurt anyone's feelings or spoil the fun by bashing it.

I agree, criticism makes the art better. Bashing, however, serves no purpose.

Well, I suppose I shall enter the fray as well.

[image=http://www.westsidefencing.com/images/coaches/monkeys.jpg]

Believe it or not, there are academics and critics who do make valuable contributions with constructive criticism and thoughtful, in-depth analysis of a given subject and should not necessarily be lumped in with the majority of the mass media who get paid to come up with lame catchphrases.

BTW, Stanley Kubrick was easily a creative superior to Spielberg and Lucas combined.

Thank you so much, Imperial_Guard! There are critics who don't write reviews to suit the subscriber, and we need more of 'em! Its also refreshing to see someone realize the worth of another creative mind besides Spielburg and Lucas. Can't we all just accept that everything has its virtues, and learn to enjoy them, all the while noting and critiqueing (not bashing) the weaker points? It IS possible to be a congenial critic. One could say, "Well, I enjoyed the epic scale of the story in AOTC, but I thought that the acting could have been touched up a bit" That sounds SO much better (and gets the job done better) than someone who says "AOTC was a poor poor movie. SW has lost the magic it once had. Horrid acting and mediocre special effects plague this feeble fifth installment in a dying series."

OK, I made those up, but you should see my point. I am not a gusher, I will be the first to admit that AOTC had some low moments, but I am NEVER going to bash something that I was so entertained by on the whole. We all need to quit taking these things so seriously. If "What's his face" Ebert didn't like a movie, who cares? Let George Lucas lose sleep over it, its not our problem! If we enjoyed it, then that's all that matters. Movies are, above all, entertainment. And in that field, AOTC certainly brings home the bacon!

Monkey duels are cool

stay on target!

http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/1906/r_sw2-ac.html

His comments are "intelligent" at times but I think he's over analyzed every scene, instead of just sitting back and enjoying the movie. He is very impressed by Williams' score. He raises some interesting issues however. Some I disagree with.

I've read that review before. I'm always suspicious of critics who try and claim the audience was as bored and disappointed as they were, especially since from my experience audience reaction has been far more favourable to AOTC than TPM.

Here's a review from Interzone magazine I like better. He criticises AOTC fairly for its faults (although I don't agree with his opinion on Natalie) but he also admits the strength of the story and visuals outweigh those flaws. I think it's a review bashers and gushers can both appreciate

"Let?s summarize. We have a notionally democratic Republic whose governing Senate is heavily in the pockets of big business, and whose elected leader is secretly in league with the Dark Side, deliberately fuelling a bilateral arms race with the aim of escalating local tensions into a galaxy-wide war. The real purpose of that war is to centralize power in the Chancellor himself, under the pretext of emergency security measures against an outside threat. But this will lead, with an inevitability foreseen a quarter-century ago, to a fascist dictatorship and the eventual abolition (early in A New Hope) of the institutions of democracy itself. Liberal apologists argue that the system, flawed as it is, is still worth defending, and that diplomacy is always better than armed confrontation. But they have no clear answer to the voices who argue that capital will always be the enemy of freedom, both within its institutions and without. Indeed, the most tangible challenge to the Republic comes from faceless multi-planetaries, a shadowy alliance of the forces of galactic capitalism with names like the Trade Federation, the Commerce Guilds, and the Corporate Alliance, who can arm faster because they?re not encumbered by the painful need for consultation, consensus, and democratic process, which in any case they?re busily subverting from within.

This is all pretty strong stuff for a Star Wars film, even without the additional resonance it picks up from its year of release. It would have been easy enough to present a simplified version in which George Bush is a Dark Lord of the Sith and leave it at that. But the unexpected thing about Clones is its startlingly overt attempt to reinterpret American history and politics in terms of the philosophy of the Force. As anyone who put ?Jedi Knight? on their census form knows by now, all recourse to arms in anger is surrender to the dark side. When Anakin lightsabers the Tuskens back to the stone age in blanket revenge for an atrocity against his own, it?s the first fateful step in his ultimate Darthification. That?s presumably why the plot engine of Episode II: Attack of the Clones is the striking fact that the thousand-year-old Republic has no standing army, so that when the forces of evil raise a droid horde against them there?s nothing to meet them with. What luck that someone on the team had seen the problem coming and commissioned a defence program on the sly, so that the Republic has a handy clone army ready to pit against the Federation?s forces. Ah, but: the most powerful plot whammy in Clones is the discovery that the Republic?s military salvation is none other than the imperial stormtroopers (now fascinatingly revealed, along with the Fetts, as Maoris, in yet another sign of the New Zealand takeover of the entire universe). As the Sarumanic Count points out to Obi-Wan, the Jedi are unwittingly fighting on the side of the Sith; for Amidala as for Yoda, the only right side in a war is the one that prevents it from ever happening.

These are, it?s fair to say, quite big themes, and if their actual execution is fairly incoherent, that too in its way is part of the point. In the midst of a disintegrating galactic order and the rise of incomprehensible evil from its secret places, the outlook of an Anakin Skywalker, or a George Lucas, is easy to feel. ?Life seems so much simpler when you?re fixing things,? our hero grunts. ?I like fixing things.? Dealing with people, expressing feelings, finding the right words, seeing a plausible path by which

OK. I HAVE TO ALERT EVERYONE TO THIS REALLY SICK ARTICLE I FOUND ONLINE. PLEASE EMAIL THIS GUY AND SET HIM STRAIGHT.

THE CASE FOR THE EMPIRE

Well, I finally read the infamous Mark A. Altman's review of AOTC. He didn't like it. What a surprise
However, in the same issue of Cinescape they vote AOTC one of the 25 best sequels of all time, so I guess he holds a minority opinion there.

I was looking at the RottenTomatoes reviews for AP3 (An awful movie like AP2) ad surprisingly the Cream of the crop rating is 60% while the overall is 54%. Whereas AOTC overall is 64% while the Cream of the crop is 36%. This leads me to believe as many have suspected that the mainstream press had its mine made up when AOTC came up that they were going to be biased against it.

But also if you compare these two reviews from CNN (Different reviewers). One review is for AOTC - Clones better but still uneven and the other is for AP3 - Goldmember tired amusement

The interesting thing is that the AP3 review is considered fresh and AOTC review is considered rotten.

I'm surprised his Time/Warner bosses let that reviewer say anything bad about Austin Powers

http://www.somethingawful.com/truthmedia.php?id=317

Here's a review ,I haven't seen posted newhere else,read it for it humor anyway.

But I wonder if this guy even saw the right movie?

and incredibily that is a PAID site, so got waste ten bucs a month for that crap?