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

Before we getted too worked up over the negative reviews (which admittedly, I was getting very worked up), everyone should take a look at the review by the New York Times. The New york Times review should put things in perspective.

No - not the "scathing" review they just gave AOTC. The review I'm talking about is dated June 15, 1980 and is titled "'The Empire Strikes Back' Strikes a Bland Note."

Here are a few excerpts...

Confession: When I went to see "The Empire Strikes Back" I found myself glancing at my watch almost as often as I did when I was sitting through a truly terrible movie called "The Island."

It is amusing in fitful patches but you're likely to find more beauty, suspense, discipline, craft and art when watching a New York harbor pilot bring the Queen Elizabeth 2 into her Hudson River berth, which is what "The Empire Strikes Back" most reminds me of. It's a big, expensive, time-consuming, essentially mechanical operation.

The Force is with us, indeed, and a lot of it is hot air.

I'm not as bothered by the film's lack of resolution as I am about my suspicion that I really don't care. After one has one's fill of the special effects and after one identifies the source of the facetious banter that passes for wit between Han Solo and Leia (it's straight out of B-picture comedies of the 30's), there isn't a great deal for the eye or the mind to focus on.

For the complete review
CLICK HERE!

I must admit that I was (am) a bit worried after seeing the mixed reviews. I think maybe reading this review has helped me realize that not every - or even most - critics have a clue when it comes to a good Star Wars movie. I'll be judging for myself in 6 days!

 

well this is big I suppose:

Spielberg?s opinion about ATTACK OF THE CLONES... (no spoilers)

EDIT: The opinion has been posted already, and this link is screwing up the thread.

(sorry linking doesn't work

(don't worry: he liked it )

 

The Ebert review is up at suntimes.com.

He gave it ** out of **** (he gave TPM *** 1/2)

His complaints were about the dialogue and the special effects.

It seems as if he might have let his disdain for digital cinema get in the way here.

He also claimed he needed to see it again, and he also said that die hard fans will love it.

Unexpected, this is.

 

Darn...I've got to disagree with Ebert on this one (although I have yet to see the movie).

Then again, I differed on Ebert's opinion of Spiderman also, which I thought to be highly entertaining.

 

I was also surprised to see Ebert's review of Spiderman after seeing the movie. Can't really comment on whether I agree with him on AOTC yet - obviously. I think maybe he's been in a bad mood the last few weeks...

 

Der---in my post I put ATOC! Hey, it was early and I was worked up. Obviously I meant AOTC.

 

Half the review was talking about the digital cinema and how he saw it on a big screen with film projection, which I guess didn't look good to him.

I am surprised he's taken such an about-face on tolerance for cheesy dialogue. I mean he gave TPM the best review it got. I guess I just assume he'd like AOTC better.

But who knows?

 

Ebert has turned in a negative review. This likely means the film will get absolutely destroyed by critics from this point on. The problems he had with AOTC were the things he praised TPM for: Big effects, revolutionary filmmaking, and lack of character development and good acting. He also said there were no memorable lines but I've heard elswhere that there were.

Are we gonna find out later that Ebert has been dealing with cancer? I mean I agree with Darth Maulligan in that he has sounded a lot more grumpy lately. But, he didn't bash the film, he didn't compare it to TPM, he didn't say it was a toy commercial, he simply judged it on it's merits and he felt it fell flat.

Now it's time to see if I disagree with him for the first time I can think of. I sure hope so.

 

You are correct, Jar Jar.

In fact, I am going to predict that AOTC will do worse on the rottentomatoes list than TPM did. TPM was at a 58% approval rating, 2% shy of being declared "fresh."

Ebert's review will open the floodgates.

 

Not necessarily. Spiderman got an 82% approval rate in rottentomatoes, despite Ebert's partially negative review.

Although, for some reason, I do agree with you in this case regarding AoTC.

 

Amazon.com liked it - well the reviews do 59 in total 4.5 of 5 stars including some who have allready seen the movie

EDIT: Link removed for spoilers and causing scrolling problems.

be warned (allthough not notice by me ) some spoilers

 

I think the difference is probably that Ebert's review will be available while the other reviews are being written. All the Spidey reviews probably came out close to May 3rd.

 

Flying Dutchman - that url you provided to Amazon's reviews was thoughtful, but this one - like some of the other online "viewer reviews" - tend to have multiple reviews, some of which are spoiler-free, most of which are not.

The Amazon review site has many, many spoilers in some the reviews, so just be warned!

 

And most of them are not "reviews" anyway...they were comments made on the trailers and such.

Go to internet movie database for "real" reviews, all of which are positive.

 

well this IS a review by some one who has seen an early cut.

bewarn may contain spoilers (not in the beginning - only as he starts to talk about "What is great about the film?" I suppose - try to be spoilerfree to )

Anyway he loves it:

quote (no spoiler)

How do I explain the success of ATTACK OF THE CLONES? First, I must say that this film makes THE PHANTOM
MENACE a better film. In fact, I would have to say that not only does it do that, but suddenly you will realize with horror,
exactly why Jar Jar Binks is in the series at all. Upon first viewing, in less than ideal circumstances, I must say that I feel that this
is by far the most entertaining Star Wars film to date. It may not have that innocent sense of wonder for the first film. It doesnÕt
have that sense of intimacy that EMPIRE STRIKES BACK had, or that filmÕs desperation. However, it also doesnÕt have
the trivial frivolity of JEDI or MENACE. ATTACK OF THE CLONES is a turning point in the saga. The point of no return.

http://www.ronaldo.com/rpg/starwars/swep2_review.html

 

I am still shocked at Ebert's review. This is 1.5 stars lower than he has rated any Star Wars movie, and here some people are saying it's right up there with ESB and ANH (people who hated TPM, no less).

 

Flying Dutchman:

That review was written by Harry Knowles, I believe.

 

D'oh your right... <sight>

 

Say what you like about Ebert, but at least he writes reviews based on his own opinion, not what's "cool" to think.

He didn't bash TPM like other critics did just because it was cool to do. And he's not writing a carbon copy of all the other AOTC reviews here.

Hats off to Ebert. I may not always agree with him, but at least I respect him.





Rick McCallum loves you!

 

The first reviews that came out seemed to be very possitive, now they are beginning to shift towards negativity. All i know is that i am very excited to see this movie and i hope the first reviews were the correct reviews.

Here is my thing, i find it hard to believe that some people are putting this movie up in the ESB rating while others are saying it is worse that TPM. This is a HUGE deviation in opinion.

If the reviews were more consistent i would put a little more stock into them.

 

well...positive reviews still outnumber negative by 6:1 or so...it's just that Ebert's carries a lot of weight.

 

Again, not necessarily. I personally think that some of the best movies are those with big deviations in ratings.

 

Oh I agree he's a fantastic critic. That's why this development had me worried..

I said had me worried. I think I can live without Ebert's praise and he is in a split it seems with Roeper who really is just like a younger version of Siskel. He did give it two stars after all, and gosh darn it.. I LOVE STAR WARS!!! Scott here at TF.N rated it as a better film then ROTJ. Speilberg loved the film as did others whom I respect. Other reviewers I don't know have greatly enjoyed this film and while I hate the comparison because I loved the movie, they at least all found it better than TPM.

I'm not saying screw Ebert mind you I'm saying that maybe he didn't get it. Maybe he's just too set in his ways to recognize the advances in digital technology. He kind of alludes to that in his review and maybe that's why he is so grumpy about it all. I don't know why he disliked the film, but I know that I can't let it get me down and I won't.

To see the beginnings of the dark side in young Anakin Skywalker. All of those experiences are there to be cheered by fans of the "Star Wars" series, and for them this movie will affirm their faith.

Amen, Ebert! AMEN!

 

Here's ebert's review minus plot/spoiler information:


STAR WARS -- EPISODE 2: ATTACK OF THE CLONES / ** (PG)

May 10, 2002

BY ROGER EBERT

It is not what's there on the screen that disappoints me, but what's not there. It is easy to hail the imaginative computer images that George Lucas brings to "Star Wars: Episode II--Attack of the Clones." To marvel at his strange new aliens and towering cities and sights such as (snipped). To see the beginnings of the dark side in young Anakin Skywalker. All of those experiences are there to be cheered by fans of the "Star Wars" series, and for them this movie will affirm their faith.

But what about the agnostic viewer? The hopeful ticket buyer walking in not as a cultist, but as a moviegoer hoping for a great experience? Is this "Star Wars" critic-proof and scoff-resistant? Yes, probably, at the box office. But as someone who admired the freshness and energy of the earlier films, I was amazed, at the end of "Episode II," to realize that I had not heard one line of quotable, memorable dialogue. And the images, however magnificently conceived, did not have the impact they deserved. I'll get to them in a moment.

In the classic movie adventures that inspired "Star Wars," dialogue was often colorful, energetic, witty and memorable. The dialogue in "Episode II" exists primarily to advance the plot, provide necessary information, and give a little screen time to continuing characters who are back for a new episode. The only characters in this stretch of the film who have inimitable personal styles are the beloved Yoda and the hated Jar-Jar Binks, whose idiosyncrasies turned off audiences for "Phantom Menace." Yes, Jar-Jar's accent may be odd and his mannerisms irritating, but at least he's a unique individual and not a bland cipher. The other characters--Obi-Wan Kenobi, Padme Amidala, Anakin Skywalker--seem so strangely stiff and formal in their speech that an unwary viewer might be excused for thinking they were the clones, soon to be exposed.

Too much of the rest of the film is given over to a romance between Padme and Anakin in which they're incapable of uttering anything other than the most basic and weary romantic cliches, while regarding each other as if love was something to be endured rather than cherished. There is not a romantic word they exchange that has not long since been reduced to cliche.

No, wait: Anakin tells Padme at one point: (dialogue snipped) I hadn't heard that before.

When it comes to the computer-generated images, I feel that I cannot entirely trust the screening experience I had. I could see that in conception many of these sequences were thrilling and inventive. I liked the (lists settings and characters).

But I felt like I had to lean with my eyes toward the screen in order to see what I was being shown. The images didn't pop out and smack me with delight, the way they did in earlier films. There was a certain fuzziness, an indistinctness that seemed to undermine their potential power.

Later I went on the Web to look at the trailers for the movie, and was startled to see how much brighter, crisper and more colorful they seemed on my computer screen than in the theater. Although I know that video images are routinely timed to be brighter than movie images, I suspect another reason for this. "Episode II" was shot entirely on digital video. It is being projected in digital video on 19 screens, but on some 3,000 others, audiences will see it as I did, transferred to film.

How it looks in digital projection I cannot say, although I hope to get a chance to see it that way. I know Lucas believes it looks better than film, but then he has cast his lot with digital. My guess is that the film version of "Episode II" might jump more sharply from the screen in a small multiplex theater. But I saw it on the largest screen in Chicago, and my suspicion is, the density and saturation of the image were not adequate to imprint the image there in a forceful way.

Digital images contain less information than 35mm film images, and the more y

 

The thing that really annoys me is that the reviewers that I trust had bad movie experiences that didn't have anything to do with the movie:

Moriarity from AICN: Had to deal with the death of a close friend. He was thrilled with the moive, but admits the death was altering his perceptions.

Ebert: possible bad theater set-up. That's gotta be frustrating.

Howard Stern: had to deal with rude people talking and eating through the first 15 minutes. He turned aroudn and told them to shut up becuase he'd been waiting 3 years for the movie. he said the first 15 minutes were "horrible" and "ruined" for him.