Discussion in 'Attack of the Clones' started by jasman, May 2, 2002.
Most negative reviews of AOTC are, for the most part, on the money.
Most negative reviews of AOTC are, for the most part, on the money.
[puts on inferno ******ant suit]
Ooooo. This should be good.
[pulls out lawnchair and a beverage, waits for chaos to ensue]
it isn't a paid site
and pooja,have u actually read the review?!
What should be good?
Why do I see this going in the way of the TPM forum?
Oh I don't care what the reviews say... I just usually agree with the negative reviews.
Whereas I agree usually with the positive ones
I am really happy with the movie, so thats all that matters in my books.
Most of the really positive reviews are a bit out there.
I think the really negative reviews tend to be far more objective and devoid of bias.
Guys,I came upon this
To clarify Any_kin__Skywalker's post, the review is at this website:
[link=http://somethingawful.com/truthmedia.php?id=317]TruthMedia Review: Star Wars Episode Two: Attack of The Clones[/link]
Ok, here are a few comments about this "review."
Episode Two is a love story with little action. The big lesson here is that pre-teens sleeping with older women is A-OK in everybody's book. Is this really the best lesson we want to instill in the hearts of our children?
Ok, say it with me: "Anakin is twenty years old. PadmÃ© is twenty-four years old." Four years difference in age between a couple is NO BIG DEAL!!!!!
My first impression of the new Anakin is that he should be throwing a football and dating a cheerleader on the sidelines. He's much better suited to portraying a High School quarterback, not a Jedi!
Oh, look! Here is yet another person jealous out of their mind of Hayden Christensen's good-looks.
Natalie Portman reprises her role as Princess Padme, a weak-willed and blatant Princess Liea rip-off.
One, try learning the story. PadmÃ© is a SENATOR. She used to be a QUEEN. And two, if you're going to write a review, please proofread!!!!! It's L-e-i-a, not L-i-e-a.
Yet Padme is a very appropriate name for Portman's character considering that her bra (among other things, like her acting resume!) is obviously padded.
Um, no. Portman has a very nice resume for her age. Let's see. [link=http://www.natalieempire.com/filmography.htm]Portman's Filmography[/link] and [link=http://www.natalieempire.com/theatre.htm]some theatre experience[/link]. Quite nice!
Somebody buy this girl some acting lessons! Aspiring actors such as myself take note: this is what happens when you start acting late in life.
Oh, look! Jealousy rears its head yet again: this time over not being hired by casting directors.
Anakin and the Princess have no chemistry, which isn't surprising considering the great differences in their age. Was Portman ever investigated on child abuse charges? It's very hard to believe that the pair eventually spawns heroic Han Solo and lovely Princess Liea.
Oh, this is rich! Say it with me again folks, "FOUR years is NOT a big age difference!" Additionally, the proofreading is lacking with the spelling of Leia yet again incorrectly. Additionally, it seems that the author of this "review" has not even seen the original trilogy since he seems to think that Han Solo is a child of Anakin and PadmÃ©.
Basically, ancient wizard Christopher Lee reprises his character from "Lord of The Rings." It's the exact same character with less hair and a different name. Christoper Lee is just too old to be acting and his Darth Tyranus character is a disgrace. Shouldn't he be in a nursing home getting his diaper changed? George Lucas should have spent less time stealing ideas from "Lord of The Rings" and more time on his dialogue. The structure is all wrong. A professional such as myself can recognize this immediately.
Someone needs help. Christopher Lee is too old to be acting? This reviewer is obviously adding agism to his horrendously long list of idiot qualities. And a professional wouldn't have a problem with Christopher Lee's age, now would he?
And as a former science major, I am quite offended by Lucas' use of so-called "future" technology.
Ugh! Thanks for displaying the fact that you don't know a single thing about the basis for the entire Star Wars saga.
Next time, LucasArts should hire a more experienced special effects company.
This one, I think, takes the cake! I wonder if this reviewer has even heard of ILM, let alone what it's done in the film industry.
Just a few more notes about the plot and the characters before I wrap this up: Evan McGregor - who portrays young Obi-Wan Kenobi - just isn't convincing at all. You can barely understand anything he mutters through his thick, fake accent. My brother-in-law pointed out that since Episode Two was partially filmed in Ireland he probably spent m
Like I said, the really negative stuff tends to be far more objective and devoid of bias with no cheap shots at all.
I think it's pretty obvious that the critics who really slam AOTC have done their homework.
Why some gushers get annoyed and upset at some of this negative stuff is really beyond me.
u guys know that this is a joke,right?
"This review pretty much just seems to be nothing more than some people having pulled a mindless individual way from their bong, set them down in front of a big shiny box called a computer, and told them to pecktype out something to make fun of Star Wars. If I hadn't been bored, I wouldn't have even bothered to respond about this piece of trash."
You got it in one,it's a fake review designed to annoy people .
Go to www.somethingawful.com/truthmedia/
and all will be explained.
"But thankfully Anakin's dad has some terse words for Yoda and the situation is resolved and the scene ends before the entire film becomes a complete loss. Anakin's dad reminds me of the drunk skateboarder with spiked hair that hangs outside my apartment, so I won't say anything more about his character because I'm offended"
Who the hell is he referring to? Who did he think was Anakin's father, and WHO had terse words with Yoda...I don't remember anyone having terse words with him.
I mean...who would...???
Ciou-See the Sig
He makes the movie sound better than it was.
A drunken skateboarder would have only helped TPM. And AOTC too now that I think about it.
You got it in one,it's a fake review designed to annoy people.
That was fake?! I honestly thought that it was an actual review. It's pretty hard to tell these days. I've got to check out this site. That's pretty funny. LOL
What took u so long ,I had to tell u twice.
I can't believe someone actually analyzed it line by line. This is funny
Yeah! AOTC suxorz!! TPM wuz awfuller by far! I am totally convinced!
You guys are sad. TPM was good, and AOTC was good! I enjoyed both of these films and quite honestly, have grown tired of the worn out psuedo-intellectualism from the bashers. It's so much easier to dislike or hate something. So much easier to come up with reasons for why you dislike something that are convincing. How does one honestly express a love or passion without sounding "goofy" or "stupid"? I am not a gusher and there are many things I dislike, but I have to say that these new films have much to like if you actually want to like them and aren't too busy trying to do your best impersonation of a cynical vulture.
I think I have seen the basher condition defined quite nicely twice now, One is from the recent Toyfare defense of Jar Jar:
"dark-hearted legions of would-be hipsters immediately emerged to project their own bizzare prejudices onto him and tell the rest of the world how uncool he was. They tried to convince us that anybody who wasn't as bitter and dead inside as they were was somehow dumb. Well, no thanks, you soulless monsters."
And the other form the old editorial defense of Jar Jar by Go-Mer-Tonic:
"One of the primary complaints about The Phantom Menace was that it wasn?t ?dark? enough. Many fans were livid that the prequels began in such an upbeat way, as opposed to the grimness and morbidity they were looking forward too. For people such as these, Luke coming home and finding the charred bodies of his Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru was basically the high point of the entire saga. It had grit.
Perhaps this is why so many responded positively to The Lord of the Rings. That had grit and gore, and it was dark. To be sure, many moviegoers felt at home in the bleak, near-hopeless world of Middle Earth, watching hobbits go on what basically amounted to strange acid trips as they grimly marched through a terminally oppressive landscape with hideously deformed goo monsters stalking them every step of the way, but not me. I like movies you can eat popcorn while watching - not ones that make you long for prozac."
This is exactly the condition I am speaking of. It's all about reflexivley wanting things to be dark and action-packed. I too used to long for these things when I was a
twelve year old boy and my testosterone had control of my faculties, but I matured and realized that there is more to life than insanity screams and exploding heads.
My advice, take it or leave it, is to grow up and try to see the light sometime and if you don't have constructive criticisms to say, don't even bother.
EDIT: Fixed my emote..
There doesn't seem to be an appropriate place to air this piece of tripe but here'll do as good as any other...
May the Force be with Noel
By JANE STEVENSON -- Toronto Sun
Oasis guitarist-braintrust Noel Gallagher is an unequivocal Star Wars fan. Of the original, that is.
"I went to see it when I was 10, it changed me life," the Manchester native told The Sun in an interview before the sold-out Oasis show at the Molson Amphitheatre last weekend. "You see, I thought Star Wars was real."
However, Gallagher had not yet seen the second prequel, Star Wars: Episode II -- Attack Of The Clones, which was released earlier this year.
"It's a cartoon now, innit?" complained Gallagher, now the father of a young girl. "There's going to be a proper header (translation: confusion) for your daughter when you get to Episode Four and he (George Lucas) goes back to the '70s and it's like, 'What? When did the sets all get really s---?'"
OK - you've seen the article above, the title piece (on canoe.com, a Canadian site) was "Oasis rocker blasts new Star Wars"...
What REALLY got me mad was NOT Mr Gallagher's dismissal of TPM (I'm mightily impressed that a bastion of wisdom and talent actually went to see it and he's entitled to his opinion as much as the next burnt-out 30 year old star wars fan).. no, what I TOTALLY took issue with was that Mr Gallagher did NOT see AOTC and therefore, his esteemed opinion (fit to publish in a newspaper) was completely redundant (ie 'bout say, three years). The mass media really seem to have a thing about dissing the prequels, in this case, making a story out of a total non-event. I wrote a polite letter to the journalist involved in any event (nothing rude) - made me feel better in any event.
Well, before AOTC fans declare war on Canada, I can say that in the Canadian city that I live in (not Toronto; yes, there are others besides Toronto ), the local papers, mainstream and alternative, gave AOTC rave reviews.
The following post was started as a new thread...but I was told to tack it on to the end of this 150 page monster. Here goes.
I have gotten used to Star Wars bashing in the media, so it doesn't really effect me in any significant way.
I've seen Star Wars bashes in commercials for the VH1 Awards and in a million other movie reviews for SW un-related movies. I've even seen a huge TPM bash in a Pitchforkmedia review of Weezer?s Maladroit album. ?????
I don't normally let them affect me, because I enjoy the prequels and can tolerate the hateful comments on everything from acting, Jar-Jar, effects, writing, editing, rasicm, etc. But the one thing I can't stand is ignorance.
Here is a snippet from an AOTC DVD review in Rolling Stone #911:
"We all saw the movie and then wondered why. Could acting be more wooden, especially by Hayden Christensen as Luke and Natalie Portman as his lady?"
Can you find the problem with this review? Luke????? If you're going to trash a movie, at least pretend like you know what you're trashing! But that didn't bother me TOO much...it could have been a simple typo, right?
But then I bought the next issue of Rolling Stone today (The Rock and Roll Yearbook 2002). Inside I found, not only more nasty words on AOTC...but numourous Two Towers praises.
Here are some samples:
Spider-man won cheers, but the prize for hisses (far more fun) goes to Gollum in The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers."
"NEW STARS RISING:
Orlando Bloom, an archer with style in The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers; Viggo Mortensen growing ever more kingly in the same film..."
And then to top it off, Rolling Stone gives The Two Towers the #4 spot for the 10 best movies of the year. Saying that "Jackson delivers the goods in battle scenes that will take your breath away."
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm a big LOTR fan and I can't wait to see TTT.....NEXT WEEK! The movie has not been released yet and Rolling Stone is praising everything about it, and ranking it among the best of the year. I've heard of advanced sceeenings...but these guys are pretending that it has already swept the Oscars. (I won't even get started with the "Oscar buzz" surrounding Gollum)
I am not doubting that it will be a great film, and it will probably be one of the year's best, but today I got really frustrated with this magazine.
Did Peter Jackson take over Rolling Stone??
Maybe Entertainment Weekly should only hire SW fans as writers. Hmmm?
Does this seem wrong to anyone else?