The *Official* AOTC Media Review Discussion Thread (NO SPOILERS ALLOWED)

One should not care about what critics have to say. I have appreciated films that were shot down by both critics and general viewers alike. Their opinion does not have to relate with your own; which is yet to be formed. 'Thus you should keep your patience, perhaps lower your expectations a bit, and go to the theater open-minded.



Many of the reviewers seem to gripe about bad dialogue, but it just might be that they don't get the whole picture. The dialogue in the Original Trilogy - even if containing few ever-green, quoted sentences - wasn't perfect; but did it distract us from the path of entertainment? No.

I still have the same faith in Attack of the Clones as I had before reading few negative reviews. Why? Because I want to form my own opinion before judging whether the second installment in the prequel trilogy is worth my time or not.

May the 16th come soon!

 

Critics jump on bandwagons. Most of the bad reviews talk about TPM most of the time and are in a huff because that movie raped their sister or something. It's like I hated TPM over and over then at the end and AotC sucks too. It's a joke really.

 

Yes. A bad review, thats what I have been waiting for. I was a bit concerned that AOTC was getting so much praise from critics like no other star wars film, I find if critics love a film its crap but if most hate it it is great So I say roll on the bad reviews, most people dont realy take any notice of them. I would still go and see a film even if it got a bad review, if I didn't watch films that had generaly bad reviews I would never had seen any star wars film

 

It's funny how you guys get all riled up just because "AotC" gets a few bad apple reviews. Your the same people that picked Spiderman apart for it's acting and special effects and now god forbid a professional critic say the same about "AotC". Most of you haven't even "SEEN" it yet and your already questioning the critics. Give me a break! If you want to dis the critics do so after May 16th, doing it now makes you look ignorant. A lot of you have said that "TPM" was horrible, it is very possible that AotC might not live up to expectations as well. Stop being so bias, watch it first then judge.

Anyways this was expected, all Star Wars movies get bad reviews. The reason Star Wars is so huge is because of the fans not the critics so don't worry about it so much. It's your review that will be the most important one in the end. Stop being crybabies.

 

Good point Darth Zero. I think some of the reactions are overboard. This is especially true in the spoilers forum, with more of the hard-core fans who can't take even an ounce of honest criticism.

 

Of the negative reviews I've read, I've not seen anyone say AotC is not better than TPM. Like some of you who posted, I loved TPM. So now I'm just that much more excited about AotC.

As to reviews, in general. The only one that matters is your own. Either way, Epi III will come.

Isurus

 

TPM was wicked good!!!! I LOVED IT! AOTC I hear is even better!!!! I CAN'T WAIT!

 

The Phantom Menace wasn't bad; and if AOTC indeed is an improvement, it is going to be at least good in my books. Whether it will be the spectacular re-birth of the Saga; as some of the reviewers have said ( mostly fans - notice this! ); shall be seen on May 16th.

 

Ok, I looked at TFN's headlines and saw that new online article at EW. Maybe he is just one isolated jerk, but that is just pure Star Wars bashing if you ask me.

 

Here is a link to the AOTC review page at Rotten Tomatoes:


Just in case y'all were interested.

Bucky...out

edit: Don't link to reviews full of spoilers. Consider this a warning.

 

Well, after browsing over the reviews released today it seems like almost all are positive, the one glaring exception being entertainment weekly. I know I liked TPM so I'm sure I'll love this one!

 

I've been a firm believer that critics have problems having fun. If it's intelligent, something about the government, courts or anything else boring, they love the movie. If the movie had humor or action in it what so ever, they hate it.

Example: The critics picked apart The Mummy and the Mummy Returns. Sure both movies wern't believeable, but you had fun at those movies. And the movies grossed three times more money than what the critics who bashed it make in a year.

So anyway, don't let the few bad reveiws of AOTC get to you. Those crtics just have problems....lol

 

I was getting upset about the negative reviews also. But after thinking about it more and reading this forum, everyone is right. Your own opinion is what matters. The fans are what matter. These people just do not get the SW following so they just bash it. Stern had a review, but I never listen to him anyway. So just wait and enjoy the moive guys. MTFBWY ALL!

 

One must always take critics with a grain of salt. Some critics only like "Oscar movies", and others look at movies for what they are. IF the movie comes out for the viewer to have a helluva fun time, and the viewer does - even if the dialouge/acting is bad and the plot is dumb. Jason X is fits that perfectly. In comparing to most movies, Jason X is a stinking piece of Eopie dung, but in light to what it set out to do, it did its job, making the audience have a good time.

As for Ebert, he's the critic I like the most. Sure, sometimes I disagree (spider-man for one) but he loves genre flicks. He recognzieses movies from the previous paragraph and reports them as so (the Evil Dead movies for example - another great trillogy)

 

Ebert's column has good Q&A in it that relates to our thread's current topic:

Q. I noticed that "Frailty," a movie that most critics seem to like, isn't making much money. My question for you is, do you think a movie can be TOO critically acclaimed? In other words is it possible to see a four-star review and think "Oh, that's an artsy movie. I don't want to see that."

Grant Lankard, Indiana, Pa.

A. Absolutely. One of the great mysteries is why people will cheerfully attend movies they expect to be bad, but approach good movies with great caution. This is an actual conversation I had years ago:

Reader: "We live near the Wilmette Theater, and it is showing 'Cries and Whispers.' What can you tell us about that movie?"

Ebert: "I think it's the year's best film."

Reader: "Oh. That doesn't sound like anything we'd like to see."

Amen, Ebert! Amen!

 

Got to agree with the previous poster. The only critic whose opinions I value greater than 2 cents, other than myself, is Ebert.

[Edit: A bit too harsh the first time around. But I consider other critics to have opinions that aren't quite worth as much.]

 

Far from bashing the film, the reviews here in Britain (Hello my American chums!) have been amazing.

A very respected critic in the London Evening Standard gushed wildly, mentioning the words 'miracle' and 'Heironymous Bosch' in his review, the BBC review claimed it was the best Star Wars film, the Sun (daily readership 10 million) said it was amazing.

Dazzling reviews. I wish I wasn't spoiled.

 

That Ebert quote was brilliant.

Honestly though, most major critics know what they're talking about. Why does everyone in America hate critics so much?
Anyway, who cares what Lisa Schwartzbaum at EW thinks about AOTC? I rarely agree with her anyway. Ebert, even when I disagree with him, I still respect his opinion. The rare occasions I disagree with him; Fight Club (I love it, he hates it), Tomb Raider (He loved it, I loathed it), and recently Spider-man (He thought it was okay, I really enjoyed it).

Usually the major critics are on track, but most of the small ones just jump on the bandwagon. Relax. Watch what the major critics say, but who really cares what some guy at moviepoopshoot.com thinks about AOTC? Make your own decision.

 

Alot of people are getting iffy about the negetive reviews AOTC has been getting from most critics. As with any dicussion, I ask that you merely look at your sources...

The critics that are attacking AOTC are, generally speaking, the same who attacked The Phantom Menace. They usually site such problems as "lack of human character development, flat acting, monotone themes," and the like. What has to be understood by we Star Wars fans is that these people aren't reviewing an epic or a story...they are reviewing a film. To most critics, the Star Wars films stand right up beside any other movie...Happy Gilmore, Gladiator, When Harry Met Sally. And, in tha respect, they are correct in their accusations. When WAS the last time you saw any Oscar worthy acting or "slice of life" performances in a Star Wars film?

But the Star Wars movies aren't just regular movies. I don't think I'm alone in saying that I pretty much diferentiate between the SW films and everything else that comes out of Hollywood. The point is, these are very IRREGULAR movies being reviewed by very REGULAR reviewers. And I don't think I would have it another way. I can see the drama of "You've Got Mail," or "In The Bedroom," in my OWN bedroom. In the Star Wars movies, I look for something else...magic.

On the other hand, many of the more "like-minded" Hollywood peeps are speaking highly of the film. Right here on TheForce, you can check out the marvelous reviews given by Steven Speilberg, and even the biggest critic of them all, Joel Sigel.

In the end, it's a question of motives. If you look to the Star Wars films as "just films," then there may be room for improvement. But if you look at them as something more...a modern "Odyssey," or "Gilgamesh" as we fans do, you're likely to have a very DIFFERENT final perspective.

~Scott (DarthSc0tt@aol.com)

 

From Steven Spielberg:

In an interview with CINESCAPE?s own Editor in Chief Anthony C. Ferrante yesterday, Steven Spielberg crowed loud about his pal George Lucas? STAR WARS EPISODE II: ATTACK OF THE CLONES.

"I saw CLONES two weeks ago up at George's. For the record, of all the STAR WARS they've made, this is my second favorite just behind EMPIRE,? Spielberg told us. ?It was great. The action scenes looked like George had been inspired by James Cameron because they were as good as any of the action scenes in T2, and I think George did his best directing with this one too."

 

Of course, I would sure hope ol' Steven wouldn't say anything negative about Georgie's latest film.

 

I know that this comment was made much earlier in this thread, but I feel as though I need to address it.

""remember when Lucas predicted that some people wouldn't like Episode II because of the love story? Looks like he was right""


"People will be against a love story if it is handled poorly."


While certainly, this may be the case, and would be the case if the love story is handled poorly, there are other reasons as to why reviewers would be against the love story.

Unfotunatley, it seems to me anyway, that many critics and perhaps the general public as well, expect Star Wars to be a non-stop action flick from beginning to end, and can not stand it when the film takes a turn for the...well, slower pace. Of course, you and I know that action is not what Star Wars is all about. First and formost, George crafted his films to tell a story. Albeit, the story contains its fair share of action, but it has never striven to provide us with over two hours of pure, straight fight scenes. Its a shame that so many people feel as though it should....




Mace Windy,
windier than the signature feature!

 

Agree, Mace. Of course I want the love story to be well crafted (and just as cheesy as the Leia-Han romance in ESB) but the real criticism seems to be that it "slows" the movie down (the political stuff too).

Well all that has to be in there...and I am glad that it is. Remember, these stories largely SERVE the narrative in the original trilogy (like the Simarillion serves LOTR) so the background and "talky" scenes are necessary.

 

Good points.
To stage something as large and complex as the fall of a galactic republic... or the transformation of a republic into an empire.. it's going to take a lot of people talking back and forth. there's no way around it. We need those secnes in order to get a real sense of a republic falling. its not something that just happens overnight and jedis go running around with lightsabers ("let's go hunt some Sith!")

from Sci Fi Universe 1994:

..like the Godfather films, the new Star Wars may also take its time spinning its yarn. "The first trilogy will not be as much of an action-adventure kind of thing," Lucas told Starlog magazine in 1981. "Maybe it will have some humor, but right now it's much more humorless than the second trilogy. It's a little more Machiavellian, with all this plotting, more of a mystery."
-----------

 

Hear that prequel bashers? This is Lucas talking DURING production of the original trilogy...

We like your plan, George...well, most of us do anyway.