Why is Clones getting such bad reviews.......

Tukafo, what I meant was that if a critic doesn't like any previous Star Wars films, then they're not likely to enjoy AOTC either, so it's pointless for them to review it. It would be like someone who hates heavy metal reviewing a Metallica album.
Lucas has made the prequels for the fans, and their opinion is the only one that matters as far as I'm concerned.

 

My favourite example of a high profile critic giving AOTC a rave review is Todd McCarthy in Variety. He has a few complaints, but overall he loved the film. Edited highlights from his review below, in case you're not a member of Variety.com:

The Force is back -- along with fun and excitement, as well as the bonus of romance -- in "Star Wars: Episode II -- Attack of the Clones." As if realizing that "The Phantom Menace" three years ago didn't exactly deliver the goods even while racking up a staggering worldwide gross of $923 million, or perhaps just finding his directorial footing again after the 22-year layoff, George Lucas has reached deep into the trove of his self-generated mythological world to produce a grand entertainment that offers a satisfying balance among the series' epic, narrative, technological and emotional qualities. If "The Empire Strikes Back" represented an advance on the original "Star Wars," "Clones" marks a big leap beyond "Menace," while also holding out the promise of a climactic installment that could be even more dramatic. Reinvigorating a series that showed signs of needing a transfusion, "Clones" will soar to the furthest extremes of the B.O. stratosphere.
Virtually everything that went wrong in "Menace" has been fixed, or at least improved upon, this time out: The exposition and sense of storytelling are clearer and more economical, all the main characters have significant roles to play, the detailing of the diverse settings is far richer, the multitudinous action set-pieces are genuinely exciting, there is now the dramatic through-line provided by a love story, some of the acting is actually decent, and even the score is better. Stimulating everything is a restoration of overall imaginative purpose, which is a good thing now that the first installment of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy has, in the view of many, set the bar so high for cinematic fantasy and myth-making.

On first blush, "Clones" would appear to rank behind "Empire" and somewhere around the original "Star Wars" among the five series entries to date. The juvenalia and sporadic feeling of cynical marketeerism are pretty much gone, replaced by a late adolescent/early adult-level treatment of such matters as forbidden love, betrayal, strategic politics and preparation for war. It has become customary for contempo big-budget adventures to pile one apparent ending on top of another, ad nauseum, and while "Clones" may be guilty of this, the difference is that here they are welcome -- the "endings" get better as they go.
-
-
-
Through this middle stretch of the film, which might prove a little tedious for hardware geeks and pre-teens, the seeds are being planted not only for the inevitable Anakin-Padme union, but for Anakin's eventual move to the Dark Side and transformation into Darth Vader. And while the "intimate" dialogue is mundane, and a few lines borderline risible, the crescendo of events carries the day with room to spare, setting the stage for the escalating drama and conflict of the picture's second half.

In short order, Obi-Wan, Anakin and Padme are captured by the emergent villain of the piece, turncoat Jedi Count Dooku (Christopher Lee), and are put at the mercy of some ferocious, prehistoric-type beasts in a teeming, carved-rock arena so enormous it makes the ancient circuses of "Ben-Hur" and "Gladiator" look like playpens.

As if this amazing sequence weren't enough, it's followed staggering combat between masses of Separatist droids and Republican clones, a desperate air chase and a succession of lightsaber duels, the last of which is smashingly funny and exciting, involving an unexpected and remarkably nimble little participant. Lovely, quiet and portentous final scene will leave millions of fans eager for the series resumption, scheduled for three years hence.

Full-fledged arrival of Lee in the final act raises the level of drama, and of thesping as well, to a new level, and it's amusing to reflect on how this 79-year-old vet has cornered the market in villainy in two of the biggest film series

 

I disagree with the statement that you have to like a certain type of film in order to review such a film.

That essentially would mean that practically no opinion could ever be considered valid.

If I say "American Pie" is a bad movie you could say that my opinion is pointless since only somebody who loves braindead sex comedies is entitled to review American Pie.

If I say Hannibal is a great movie you could say that it's an unvallid opinion since I'm not a cannibal and should therefore no judge any films about cannibals.

And so on and so forth

I stick to it - if you're the editor of a newspaper and you would like a review of AOTC that helps your readers make a choice then it's a bad idea to let it be reviewed by a Star Wars fan. You might as well have it reviewed by George Lucas for that matter to get the same results. Give the review to somebody who's not a big SW fan and see if he likes it. If he does then all the Millions of readers that are not SW fans have a review that they can relate to and that means something to them

 

You still haven't answered my question though. If someone didn't like the previous Star Wars films, how are they going to give AOTC a fair review? You seem to be saying that the prequels can only be considered a success if they also appeal to people who have no interest in Star Wars.
What I'm suggesting is not so outrageous. In the music industry, it's common sense that a classic fan should review classical albums and a rock and roll fan should review rock albums. Why should it be different for films?

 

I agree. Only fanboys blinded by their faith in the almighty Lucas should ever review any work he does.

 

Thank you! Finally someone gets it.

 

I agree also, you should never allow someone who only thinks a movie is good if it is declared as such on AFI's top 100 list, or if their film professor says that a particular film is good, to review a star wars film.

 

yes its much better to have a totally biased person who will like the movie no matter how bad it is (not mentioning names) reviewing the film with no perpective or objectivity.

why even have reviews then? lets just declare every movie that comes out the greatest movie ever and end it at that.

 

Hi. I'm new here. I thought we weren't suppose to make duplicate thread subjects. Isn't this thread, similar to this thread:

boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=7644643&replies=258 ?

 

Right, Umm AL already summed that one up Dr, abit more eloquently I might add. And where's that damned AFI to make up your mind for you when I need em.

 

this movie ant a flop just look at the box office. thay would not know a good movie if it came up behind tham and cut there heads of with a lightsaber...

 

Coruscant_Occupant, that other thread has completely different connotations. Please let the moderators do their jobs; that's what they get the big bucks for.

 

More often than not, different critics will see a film and have totally opposite reactions. I was always a big fan of Siskel and Ebert because they often disagreed and I found those reviews to be both entertaining and informative.

I have noticed that the reviews of all of the Star Wars with the exception of ANH tend to vary a lot. I am a big fan of ESB and ROTJ, yet they these films had many bad reviews when they originally came out. I personally like these two films better than the prequels. However, based on the reviews, these films were not any "better" than the prequels.

One odd thing that I noticed about the SE versions of ESB and ROTJ is that they recieved better reviews than the originals versions. I am not sure why this happened, especially since many fans did not like the SE versions.

 

Critics gave better reviews to the SEs precisely because they're not diehard fans. Because the original trilogy is now considered an all-time classic, it's okay for critics to praise them. It's the same reason 99% of critics say Citizen Kane is the best film of all time. It's expected of them.
I wouldn't be surprised if the prequel trilogy is critically praised in 20 years time, either.

 

i wud be worried if a star wars film got good reviews, personally.

Britney Spears said it best:
"Everything I love, critics hate. And everything they love, I freaking don't."

 

Hey Duckman, how is the new N*Sync album treating you?

 

quote:

Britney Spears said it best:
"Everything I love, critics hate. And everything they love, I freaking don't."

I think Duckman has something here. Certainly the "product" churned out by cultural leeches like Spears is in many ways analogous to the PT movies/Lucas.

1. Same demographic (pre-adolescents)
2. Same level of quality (utter crap)
3. Same purpose (to seperate young people from their <parents> money)
4. Same natural shelf life (any day now, though this will be artificially extended for the PT movies because of the OT and becuase theres another movie coming. For all the arguing of whether people loved or hated TPM and to a lesser extent AOTC, the most dominant emotion <or lack thereof> was simple indifference.)
5. Same modus operandi (throw enough bright, sexy imagery at the audience and they wont notice or care that the b--ch cant sing/the director is washed up.)

for the record, i have to admit i enjoyed chunks of AOTC. Then again, if Britney Spears were performing topless at a nearby lounge, i might go check her out. well, the matinee anyway.

 

That's a great post.

 

You know what really pisses me off. Is that reviewers or people in general dont take the music(score) of the movie that seriously. It's probably on top there for one of the most important aspects of the film. How do u think silent films get there dialouge from. MUSIC of course. George has always said that he likes his films to be considered silent films also. That the music speaks the emotion, kind of like a dialouge in a way. I mean, its like the music is not even important. For me, whenever john williams strikes a chord i feel the action, the drama, the emotion. I know the dialouge can be a little dry but really guys come on, the OT had problems to. If Star wars didnt have john williams or any great music than star wars wouldnt be the same.

 

We can't see it the way average people do, especill not like the critics do. Average people are drones and will go to see Star Wars because someone told them to. We can't understand how someone can hate Star Wars, we just can't see it the way they do. We love it too much. The fact that we are fans, multiplies our satisfaction by 10.

 

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Studio/7728/CUES.HTM
Great audio interviews on John Williams and his connection to star wars and how important music is to the star wars saga

 

hmmm...

 

Check out this review. Warning, some naughty words.

Does it amuse you?

 

I'd say that review pretty much sums it up. I forgot about the Slave I sounding like a lawnmower... I wonder why they didn't just use the ESB sound. Duckman, thanks for the link.

 

Funny review. I guess there weren't enough guns in AOTC for that guy