*OFFICIAL THREAD* Media articles, interviews and reviews for Revenge of the Sith. V.2.

Discussion in 'Prequel Trilogy' started by G-FETT, May 14, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Moderators: Bazinga'd, heels1785
  1. Get_in_Gear Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Nov 29, 2004
    star 5
    At least Empire put it at number four in their review of the year. :)

    Above it were Crash and Sideways, which I can't really argue with - they were both great films and not really easily comparable to SW.
    Batman Begins was also up there at number two though - with it being roughly in the same genre it is easier to assess in relation to ROTS, and I must say I didn't feel it was anywhere near as good as ROTS...

    And that is one of the most amazing things I have ever read!
    For 10 bucks they finally get the anticlimactic answer ? some old dude made him paranoid and he fell into lava.
    What?
    So now you can destroy any movie simply by implying that anything is "anticlimactic" - I mean, what did this reviewer actually expect happened to Anakin?

    War of the Worlds: For 10 bucks they finally get the anticlimactic answer - some aliens kill people and then get the flu.
    King Kong: For 10 bucks they finally get the anticlimactic answer - An ape goes ape and falls off a building.
    The Passion of the Christ: For 10 bucks they finally get the anticlimactic answer - some beardy weirdy gets nailed to a tree for being different.
    Titanic: For 10 bucks they finally get the anticlimactic answer - a ship sinks.
    Citizen Kane: For 10 bucks they finally get the anticlimactic answer - some old dude lost a sled once.

    Lazy - just lazy.
  2. G-FETT Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 10, 2001
    star 7
    Yes, its just bashing for the sake of bashing. Rather pathetic and embarassing, really.

    I'm not surprised EMPIRE has ROTS in their top ten, even though their review was kind of poor, from what I remember?
  3. Get_in_Gear Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Nov 29, 2004
    star 5
    I think Empire are quite sneaky like that - they tend to hedge their bets by giving films a respectable score (didn't all the PT films get 4/5?) but still have plenty of bad things to say in the actual review.
    That way they don't leave themselves open to as much criticism - if you don't agree with the actual body of the review, at least the score is acceptable, and vice versa.
  4. RolandofGilead Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jan 17, 2001
    star 7
    I don't think anyone can deny that there's some sort of deep seated bias after reading that article. And GiG, you took the words right out of my mouth. No movie could stand up to that kind of attitude no matter how great.

    As far as why, I can't say for sure. I do know that corporate politics plays a role for sure. They promoted LotR, Harry Potter, and Matrix because those were all owned in some way by their parent company. Time Magazine seems to be the only Time/Warner property who still has some integrity. Just last week they listed the RotS DVD as a "Must Own" for the holidays and included Darth Vader in their list of "People who mattered in 2005."

    So Jealousy, and politics is part of it, but the "hip" factor definitely has a role too. EW, Newsweek, MTV, and sadly even Rolling Stone are all run by old foggies now who need to appear "with it." Critics with very low self-esteem need to sound superior. Stephen King likened their attitude as "we don't really have to see this movie to know it's bad now do we." I wonder if they just look on the internet, see someone quip that Jar Jar sucks, and feel they've taken the pulse of the fanbase. That certainly would explain why they qualify every attack against the Prequels by labeling them as a "disappointment to fans." This way they can write off their financial success, their positive reviews and exit polls and lean on the word of an angry few.

  5. Formerly_Tukafo Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Nov 10, 2003
    star 1
    Magazines don't speak with only one voice, different journalists write different articles and reviews and therefore all kinds of different viewpoints can be heard over time in the same magazine.

    While it's clearly "cool" to dislike the prequels (and ROTJ) I nevertheless want to offer one point of defense for some of those critics that changed their mind. This happens. It happened to me and probably to most of you too. You watch a film, think it's great, but then over time you realize that your initial point of view was wrong, you were simply overwhelmed the first time you saw it but the movie gets worse and worse for you over time. It doesn't just happen to SW, just look at the Matrix sequels. The reviews for Reloaded were pretty good, even the more negative ones didn't bash the film and had good things to say. Today however you get the impression that the film is universally seen as a disaster of epic proportion, clearly a change of mind. I just read an interview with John Cusack and he says in it that he thinks the real perception of a movie can only be made 5 years or so after it came out, once the marketing, hype, reviews and all that have died down and you can't even remember how much the movie cost, whether it was successful or not and whether it got any good reviews. Only then will you see what people really think of the film and how popular it is. Interesting point. All SW prequels have for me turned worse the more often I watch them but I still think Sith is a good film
  6. G-FETT Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 10, 2001
    star 7
    Does anybody know what all those critics who praised ROTS are saying now? Like The New York Times and Variety and The Washington Post? Have they started backtracking?
  7. voodoopuuduu Classic Trilogy Trivia Host

    Game Host
    Member Since:
    Mar 22, 2004
    star 5
    So Jealousy, and politics is part of it, but the "hip" factor definitely has a role too.

    Yep, its a pack mentality. And the critics have a terrible track record, so why anyone listens to them is a mystery.
  8. RolandofGilead Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jan 17, 2001
    star 7
    Judging by the number of critically acclaimed box office duds this year:

    Cinderella Man
    Pride & Prejudice
    Brokeback Mountain
    King Kong
    Serentiy :_|

    I'd say no one's listening anymore.
  9. Gobi-1 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Dec 22, 2002
    star 5
    What's funny is that Batman Begins features one of the best cast ever assembled: Christian Bale, Michael Cain, Liam Neeson, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freemen, Cillian Murphy, Tom Wilkinson, Rutger Hauer and Ken Watanabe yet it isn't going to receive any Oscar recognition. If a film with a cast of that caliber can't get nominations then the Oscars are truly blind. Sith, Harry Potter and Batman have better actors then most of the Oscar bait films getting all the praise right now.

    The bar on genre films is continually being raised yet the Academy has ignored it, save for their infatuation with the LotR films.

  10. stormcloud8 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 24, 2002
    star 4
    In a lot of ways, I think that critics go out of their way to identify a film the public won't like and then flag it as a masterpiece. The idea that a movie is FUN is almost abhorrent to them. I enjoy movies of significance and depth, but at what point did the critics and awards shows decide that FUN is no longer an important part of movies? I don't need to learn a lesson every time I watch a show or movie, I don't need the grand meaning of life explaining to me in a pompous 2 hour exposition, most of the time I want adventure and excitement. I've got enough reality going on in my actual reality, movies should take me away for fun and adventure.

    There needs to be a happy medium between the pretentiousness of the Oscars and the foolishness of the MTV Movie Awards. Movies are supposed to be entertainment, but I feel that somehow the critics and awards shows have decided that movies should only seek to teach us some important lesson about life.

    I think if the Oscars added some new awards ("Best Picture - Action"???) or something, I wouldn't despise them so much.
  11. jasperjones Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 24, 2001
    star 4
    I'd say when all the lists are in ROTS will feature in quite a few. Empire, Total Film, Capital Radio and the BBC have all had it in theirs, which considering the reception of the other two is good. It's popping up at AICN as well in some of the lists. CHUD will nail it wherever possible, which is fair enough but again, they have to label it as a gargantuan failure that you have to be an idiot to like. Fair enough if you hate a film but to say there aren't millions out there who actually "gasp" enjoy ROTS is something I find conceited and rather one eyed. I can totally see how some detest the prequels - I myself think they could have been so much better but enjoy parts of them immensely - but you simply can't make that amount of money through sheer hype alone. Even with TPM, many enjoyed it as a theatrical experience. Now I can see flaws I didn't before, but the atmosphere at a packed cinema in London was great and the audience even laughed at Jar Jar in the way GL wanted them to. And to speak for the masses and declare the anti-climax for millions is offensive and patronising.

    I personally think that critics should not be allowed to review the films at press screenings. It is the deadest, atmosphere free way to see a film you can imagine. Filled with cynical, jaded critics, half-empty seats at 10 in the morning. When the critics talk about auidences scoffing at certain lines or bored with what's unfolding in front of them, the audience they are talking about is often their fellow critics. Now there is nothing wrong with critics hating SW and I can see why some would, but I guarantee that if the same critics watched the film, as I did, in a jam-packed Odeon Leicester Square, full of SW nuts and people who genuinely wanted to see the movie (and permieres don't count either as half of the people there are there to be seen) then there was no way they could have described the audience reaction as anything other than "loving it". Cheers at the start, woops every time Yoda kicked arse, roars of laughter at the intended R2 humour, gasps during order 66, sniffs at the end, and yes, laughs at silly lines like "good relations with the wookies I have" but that's part of the fun- ( if you had a cinema full of anti-prequel fanboys watching the originals, I guarantee they'd cheer lines involving "toshi power station" or "nerf herder" yet these are all as turd as anything in the prequels only we love them now because of the cheese factor). Essentially, that would be a proper way to experience any film. With a packed cinema full of people who are gagging to see the film.
  12. Formerly_Tukafo Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Nov 10, 2003
    star 1
    "Judging by the number of critically acclaimed box office duds this year:

    Cinderella Man
    Pride & Prejudice
    Brokeback Mountain
    King Kong
    Serentiy

    I'd say no one's listening anymore. "

    Only Cinderella Man and Serenity are box office duds, Pride made decent business, Brokeback is still in limited release with record-breaking averages, wait till that one gets relased nationwide. And Kong? Kong is at 135 Million and still makes over 7 Million on a weekday? How is that a bomb? By Sunday it will have over 170 Million and even if it then drops considerably every week it would still make over 200 Million, that's guaranteed. How is that a flop?
  13. RolandofGilead Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jan 17, 2001
    star 7
    I said "Duds" not flops. And what I meant was that King Kong was touted as the biggest movie of 2005, that it would arrive and wipe the floor with the competition. Not only did it not even come close to RotS, but it's still in a heated battle with Narnia. It will do respectable business but it will not be the number one movie by a longshot.

    Therefore no one listened to all the critics who said that it would. No one listened when critics told them to go in droves to see Cinderella Man, or Serenity (which I loved). I can guarantee you that Brokeback Mountain and Pride and Prejudice will not break 100 Million. There is a groing disparity between what is critically acclaimed and what is financially successful. I'm not saying this is a bad thing. Just because it makes money is no proof of worth. But it does indicate that critics have no idea, nor care about what the average person will actually like. And that calls into question their value.
  14. Formerly_Tukafo Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Nov 10, 2003
    star 1
    But, Roland, this is not new. Ever since I read reviews small arthouse films are praised and big overblown blockbusters are ripped apart. And for the most part I have to agree with critics, most blockbusters are indeed bad movies and many arthouse films are far more passionate and interesting.

    Who said Kong will be the biggest box office success of the year? Peter Jackson didn't, Universal didn't. It was silly movie magazines and internet fanboys that "predicted" that.

    No, Brokeback won't reach 100 Million (not even close) but that's not the level that films like that should be measured against. It's a small movie, politically and culturally provocative. That makes it artistically interesting but commercially problematic
  15. RolandofGilead Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jan 17, 2001
    star 7
    That's all true, but the problem is when it becomes a pattern. When they don't actually bother to watch the blockbuster film because there's the assumption that it couldn't possibly have artistic merit. In that same vein we have small art-house films that might be no good whatsoever, but simply because they're small they get lavished with praise. I feel this is happening more and more. That movies do not get the opportunities they deserve because of prejudgments.
  16. Get_in_Gear Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Nov 29, 2004
    star 5
    I suppose fashion has to be constantly on the move, or it isn't fashion.
    They build things up, just to knock them down so that something else can take it's place.
    I was reading the Variety review of ANH's original release in a biography I was skimming through last night, and what struck me was how the very things that the reviewer was holding up and saying "hey - this is great!" are the exact same attributes that might, in 2005, be used as "evidence against" a movie.

    What is hard to reconcile is where are the media trying to force fashion, and where is fashion dictating to the media what is fashionable.

    It's easy to knock the media, but Jackson's last films were massive both critically and commercially.
    They won him Oscars.
    That is the justification for this whole "King Kong is going to big and we are going to jump on the hype bandwagon" attitude.
  17. stormcloud8 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 24, 2002
    star 4
    Well I think Jackson is taking his first steps down the Lucas path. Don't forget what a genius Lucas was once upon a time, only to become reviled and hated by so many just for doing what he's been doing all along. I'm quite happy to see Jackson start to fall off his mighty perch. He's good but certainly not what he's made out to be.

    The Boston Globe praises ROTS at the expense of TPM and AOTC in their 2005 wrap-up today:

    "The studios, as is their wont, tried to lure us back with bigness, and a case could be made that they did a pretty good job. George Lucas brought the second ''Star Wars" trilogy to an unexpectedly compelling conclusion..."
  18. RolandofGilead Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jan 17, 2001
    star 7
    Unexpected it was. And unfortunate.
  19. G-FETT Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 10, 2001
    star 7
    [face_laugh]

    Don't you just love the way they praise ROTS by being critical of the other films! [face_laugh]

    And why do a lot of rags persist in lumping Star Wars and George Lucas in the the sudio system? ROTS is a TOTALLY, 100% INDEPENDENT MOVIE. Its only association with the studio system is that Lucas allowed FOX to distribute it and have their name at the start of the move and thats all. Everthing else is 100% independent.
  20. RolandofGilead Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jan 17, 2001
    star 7
    Because then they sound like independant rebels instead of the Corporate Whores they really are.
  21. G-FETT Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 10, 2001
    star 7
    Of course your right, as always. ;)
  22. RebelScum77 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Aug 3, 2003
    star 6
    Well looky here... Entertainment Weekly has an online article called Get your hankie! 2005's saddest film moments. And guess what?

    2. Star Wars: Episode III -- Revenge of the Sith: The denouement. It's sad enough to watch as Padme (Natalie Portman) dies in childbirth, Anakin (Hayden Christensen) nearly dies and is reborn as Darth Vader, and Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) successfully seizes power to become emperor. Sadder still for a generation of moviegoers is the realization that the screen saga they've followed for 28 years is finished ? these cherished movie characters now belong irrevocably, like childhood, to the past.


    #1 is from "Brokeback Mountain", so really this is pretty good.
  23. G-FETT Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 10, 2001
    star 7
    Hey, thats good stuff from EW. Finally praise for the movie, without rubbishing the other ones. =D=
  24. jasperjones Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 24, 2001
    star 4
    Jonathan Ross couldn't manage it yesterday. Despite the general public voting it in as their 4th favoutite film of the year, he felt compelled to question his guests if they were glad that the sw films were finished and proffered the incredibly lazy theory that the only reason he could think of that Lucas made the films was to make money. Tit.
  25. fett Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Feb 9, 1999
    star 3
    ROTS is so great I saw a brief clip from the duel today and felt compelled to watch the entire film. The media can kiss my butt.
Moderators: Bazinga'd, heels1785
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.