*Official* 3NS ROTS Reviews (Ebert's review, spoiler-free inside!)

"Also, it's important to notice that you buy tickets before, you see the movie"

You can only get those kinds of figures from repeat viewings. If I film is poorly received, a 'tepid' response as the critics are so fond of saying, then what we wouldve ended up with is a Van Helsing or a Tomb Raider 2. A film does not rake in 650 mill without people loving it then going to see it again (then again and again in some cases). and a film DEFINATLY doesnt make 900 mill (or whatever TPM was) through the same means. Also dont forget about word of mouth, which seemed powerful enough to draw in the crowds even when the critics were largely dismissive.

 

I'm really glad Lucas said this today at Cannes:

"We've discovered in the last few years ... that we have two fan bases," he said. "One is over 25 and one is under 25. The films that those people (over-25s) don't like, which is the first two, actually are very fanatically adored by the under-25-year-olds."

I couldn't agree more, though I don't know that 25 is the break point, probably more like 30. As one of the over 30's, I get so tired of trying to convince my friends who love the OT that the PT is good. They just won't be swayed. Meanwhile, my brothers and sisters who are quite young love the PT and are bored by the OT.

 

I think for the most part GL is slightly wrong with the over 25/ under 25 idea. I can see where he gets the thought from but I'd rather think of it as "people who've discovered Star Wars late, and people who always been SW fans. Wait - you know what - I dont' know about that either lol. The only reason I say that is because I only started watching SW since '99 and there a few like me who watched SW right before episode 1 or after it - funny enough we like the prequels. So yeah . . . . but my generalization is flawed as well.

 

Actually, I think more what he is getting at is that those who grew up with the OT are closed-minded to the PT.

 

Yeah thats pretty much it. I really do wonder what he truly thinks of the fans sometimes . . . . .

 

I kind of agree. The movie reviewer here (he's in his 30's) hates the PT and loves the OT. He expected the PT to make him feel the way he did when he saw ANH in '77 and he was 9. And so he was disappointed. OTOH, I am over 25 and love both the PT and the OT- lucky me!

 

Oops, sorry Imran....

http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/product.aspx?p=7&e=52770734&pg=1&am=-1

There you go! I got interuppted when I did my inital message that I forgot to say where they were. DOH!

 

kenneth turan of the LA Times gives it a mixed review...calls it the best of the prequels...didn't read it all for fear of spoilers

 

The New York Times review is up... and it's good!!

I'm a little weary of editing it for spoilers... so maybe I'll send it over to Dustin..

 

Wow. NY Times blew me away!!! Next to Ebert, is that the biggest one out there?

"Revenge of the Sith" is the best of the four episodes George Lucas has directed. That's right: it's better than "Star Wars."

 

Rebelscum, you can send it to me if you want I'll edit it.

 

I am f'ing giddy from reading the A. O. Scott review. Better than "Star Wars" ... Oh ma ga!

 

Ok, I think I got it...

New York Times
by A.O. Scott


CANNES, France, May 15 - With "Episode III - Revenge of the Sith," the "Star Wars" cycle at last comes to an end - or rather to a middle, since the second trilogy, of which this is the final installment, comes before the first in faraway-galaxy history even though it comes later in the history of American popular culture. Like many others whose idea of movies was formed by (and to some extent against) the galactically later, terrestrially earlier "Star Wars" trilogy, I was disappointed by "The Phantom Menace" and "Attack of the Clones." So I approached the recent press screening of "Episode III" in New York warily, and perhaps a little wearily, though to balance my own trepidation I brought along two fans whose enthusiasm in 2005 easily matched my own in 1977, when I was a little older than they are now and when "Star Wars" - oh, all right, "Episode IV - A New Hope" - landed in my hometown.

I was anticipating, at least, a measure of relief: finally, this extravagant, ambitious enterprise, a dominant fact of our collective cultural life for nearly 30 years, would be over. But I was hoping, a little anxiously, for more. Would George Lucas at last restore some of the old grandeur and excitement to his up-to-the-minute Industrial Light and Magic? Would my grown-up longing for a return to the wide-eyed enthusiasm of my own moviegoing boyhood - and my undiminished hunger for entertainment with sweep and power as well as noise and dazzle - be satisfied by "Revenge of the Sith"?

The answer is yeth.

This is by far the best film in the more recent trilogy, and also the best of the four episodes Mr. Lucas has directed. That's right (and my inner 11-year-old shudders as I type this): it's better than "Star Wars."

"Revenge of the Sith," which had its premiere here yesterday at the Cannes International Film Festival, ranks with "The Empire Strikes Back" (directed by Irvin Kershner in 1980) as the richest and most challenging movie in the cycle. It comes closer than any of the other episodes to realizing Mr. Lucas's frequently reiterated dream of bringing the combination of vigorous spectacle and mythic resonance he found in the films of Akira Kurosawa into American commercial cinema.

To be sure, some of the shortcomings of "Phantom Menace" (1999) and "Attack of the Clones" (2002) are still in evidence, and Mr. Lucas's indifference to two fairly important aspects of moviemaking - acting and writing - is remarkable. Hayden Christensen plays Anakin Skywalker's descent into evil as a series of petulant bad moods. Natalie Portman, as Senator (formerly Queen) Padmé Amidala, to whom Anakin is secretly married, does not have the range to reconcile the complicated and conflicting demands of love and political leadership. Even the more assured performers - Samuel L. Jackson as the Jedi master Mace Windu, Ewan McGregor as Obi-Wan Kenobi, Jimmy Smits as Senator Bail Organa (note the surname) - are constrained by their obligation to speechify. Mr. Lucas, who wrote the script (reportedly with the uncredited assistance of Tom Stoppard), is not one to imply a theme if he can stuff it into a character's mouth. Ian McDiarmid, as Supreme Chancellor Palpatine, who transforms from a rancid political hack into a ruthless totalitarian before our eyes, gives the most powerful performance; Yoda, the spry green Jedi master voiced by Frank Oz, some of his finest work in this film does. (R2-D2 is also in fine form).

Anyway, nobody ever went to a "Star Wars" picture for the acting. Even as he has pushed back into the Jedi past, Mr. Lucas has been inventing the cinematic future, and the sheer beauty, energy and visual coherence of "Revenge of the Sith" is nothing short of breathtaking. The light-saber battles and flight sequences, from an initial Jedi assault on a separatist stronghold to a fierce duel in the chambers of the Senate, are executed with a swashbuckling flair that makes you forget what a daunting technical accomplishment they represent. Some of the most arresting

 

i am stunned the NYT loved the movie...this is huge.

now the Newspaper ads can point to the following:

Time
New York Times
Ebert and Roeper

There are no three bigger.

 

don't forget Newsweek and Variety!

 

newsweek was somewhat lukewarm...Time and New York Times basically put this film in with the Big Two (ANH and ESB)....that is absolutely huge...I agree Variety is big to big movie fans like yours truly, but I bet the general public don't have much of a clue about it

 

Yeah, I have heard of Variety but I don't think I've ever read a copy.

Have we seen this one yet from Associated Press :


May 15, 2005 ? All those "Star Wars" geeks, who've been waiting for weeks outside movie theaters with their Yoda sleeping bags and their homemade lightsabers, finally have a film that's worthy of their perseverance.

The Force is strong with "Episode III Revenge of the Sith," the sixth and final piece in George Lucas' galactic saga, which represents a welcome return to the ideas and the spirit that made his original "Star Wars" a pop-culture juggernaut 28 years ago.

The circle is now complete, as Lucas' characters are fond of saying, and much of the film's joy comes from watching these familiar names and events fall into place.

It is enormously satisfying to see young Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) teeter along the edge that separates good and evil, and to see what finally pushes the would-be Chosen One over to the dark side of the Force.

It's a wonderful, small discovery when EDIT (And all the other words that ooze from Ian McDiarmid's mouth leave you feeling so slimy, you'll want to take a shower afterward.)

But the moment we've all been waiting for is one that simply must be experienced in a packed theater: EDIT

The iconography is powerful to behold, especially when compared to the horrendously disappointing Episodes I and II. In retrospect, the first two "Star Wars" prequels seem even more useless, with their stilted dialogue and their numbing, CGI-infused clone battles.

Lucas wisely has placed the emphasis this time on elaborate lightsaber duels between Anakin and mentor Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) against EDIT, and ultimately between Anakin and Obi-Wan themselves. Some of the biggest thrills come from tiny Yoda, the Jedi master who's at the height of his powers here. He does as much damage with a well-chosen, structurally inverted phrase or the subtlest wrinkle of his round, green face as he does with a swing of his lightsaber. (And Yoda has mad skills.)

Lucas' writing still clangs, though, especially during the exchanges between Anakin and his secret bride, Senator Padme Amidala

EDIT

but it's too late and we know it's too late, and that built-in expectation is much of what makes "Revenge of the Sith" so riveting.

It's also a visually wondrous film, though. Lucas uses the digital technology to far greater advantage than he did in the first two prequels, which too often had the glossy, detached look of a video game. EDIT

Clearly, this is Lucas' war protest movie EDIT But it's also, at its core, a soap opera. It always has been. Think of Darth Vader telling Luke Skywalker, "I am your father," during the heat of battle in "The Empire Strikes Back." Episode III features fast-paced parallel editing between two staples of daytime TV: EDIT

But despite its drama and darkness, Lucas gives us some light moments, too. He EDIT feels like Lucas' last little dig at the naysayers and a reminder with this final farewell that, nearly 30 years later, he's still doing it his way.

"Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith," a Twentieth Century Fox release, is rated PG-13 for sci-fi violence and some intense images. Running time: 142 minutes. Three and a half stars out of four.

 

i am still in shock that the NYT critic says it ranks with ESB...the thing that I found coolest in the review is that the critic admitted to being somewhat skeptical----which is not the mindset a critic should have.

so what does he do? he takes a couple of kids who are as excited as he had been back in 1977. that shows he wanted to enter the film without being predisposed to dislike it.

plus, it sounds like he watched all six films before writing his review. that's pretty cool. he didn't just want to review the movie; he wanted to see how it fit with the others.

and he actually knows it is Princess Leia "Organa."

 

A.O. Scott actually gave ROTS a positive review? I honestly did not expect that one bit. Amazing. Simply friggin Amazing. This must be quite the movie. *Do not get HOPES UP!*

 

I am very anxious to see what happens to the TomatoMeter once the floodgates open and all of these reviews start pouring in.

The New York Times review, in particular, is pretty remarkable!




Mace Windy,
too windy for spoilers!

 

Yeah, I think we can now utter a statement that I never would have believed possible after the last six years:

"Revenge of the Sith is a critical success."

It would require a bizarre turnaround at this point for the trend to reverse. Also, the Associated Press review is important because I'm assuming smaller publications without a movie critic on staff may run with it.

 

According to Peter Travers, highly respected New York Times critic A.O. Scott was given kool-aid just before attending the New York press screening. Also, rumors were he had been brainwashed by a couple of prequel fans with whom he attended the event.


Here is something else: the Philly Inquirer critic actually said something to this effect in his review...if Yoda is so smart, why can't he speak proper English?

And here I thought I took Star Wars too seriously.

 

I was watching Fox News and they had a segment with 3 people who had seen the ROTS. One said it was awesome, the second said it was great, and the third said it was pretty good. They also talked about the politics of the film, which was interesting to say the least.

 

Humm, I must be out of the loop. Why did Natalie Portman shave her head? Is it for a role she's doing?


The Ripley look just doesn't do it for me. At all.

 

for the Wachowski Brothers' next film I believe. She plays a terrorist in some prison or sumpin.

Awesome review by A.O. Scott. I expected 2 thumbs up from Ebert and Roeper, but not this from the Times. That review should bump up the Tomato meter to 95%.

thank you everyone for pitching in with the reviews, I got a little tired. I'll probably do some more tonite.