Orginal "Return of the Jedi" Siskel and Ebert review

Enjoy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgU5m2T0YUo&feature=PlayList&p=7535F24359667AF7&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=28

 

Hmmm...Gene Siskel died of a brain tumor less than two years after that review. That's what you get for bashing the Ewoks!

The Endor speeder chase scene is still my all time favorite Star Wars scene. I remember being so awe inspired when I was watching that as a kid

 

Didn't Siskel die sometime around 2001?

 

Yeah, this isn't the original review. It's from the rerelease.

Also, LOL at Siskel's "be careful what you wish for moment" when he raves about ending TESB with so much unresolved and wishes that more Hollywood films would do that.

Nowadays, it takes more guts to do a Hollywood genre film that DOES have a nicely resolved ending.

 

this is the 83 Jedi review

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLZJKIzxutQ&feature=related

 

1999, unfortunately.

 

Wow, the way their talking about this is the way that modern critics talk about "acceptable" big blockbusters of today, like Iron Man, Harry Potter, LOTR, Spider-Man, Avatar, etc. They really ate this movie up!

I can't help but wonder what 1983 Siskel and Ebert would have thought of the prequels, as we all know that many of the Lucasisms that are critiqued by modern critics were very present in Ep 6.

 

Ebert's still around. He really liked I and III, but not II.

And here's a little contrast I find very interesting:

 

I'm surprised Siskel was so impressed by the acting in the film: while Hammill gives a memorable performance, you can tell Ford is mailing in some scenes, and Fisher is a non-factor most of the time. But I'm sure McDiarmid contributed a lot to his impression.

 

Exactly. It seems that at some point between 83 and the late 90s, critics began to "expect more" from the genre.

 

Awesome piece of SW history!

 

I think you can see it happening in this review. Films like the OT, the Indy films, and Back to the Future raised the bar for the genre.

Naturally, critics expected the prequels to at least MEET the bar established by the OT. They didn't, hence disappointment.

 

Nice try, but there a clear tone shift between their review recorded in 83, and their review from the 97 show. Specifically, Siskel goes from praising the refined acting against puppets and creatures to the later review dismissing the presence of the fuzzy Ewoks. That's a shift in the tone of the review, not the qualities of the films.

In the 83 review, Ebert expresses his hopes that Lucas will be putting out more of these movies "way sooner than once every three years." In the 97 review, he's praising Lucas for not turning them into the next endless "James Bond like series." Hell, he even uses the comparison of the effects to "the greatest video arcade of all time..." as a compliment!

This, along with the Ebert quotes above, show a clear shift in his understanding of these movies. Certainly changing your opinions is valid, but let's be honest about what's going on here.

 

To be fair, Ebert has been known to vacillate. Just read his reviews of the last two James Bond films: with Casino Royale, he celebrates the decision to jettison the trappings of the tired franchise, yet two years later, he derides Quantum of Solace for merely following Martin Campbell's lead (albeit with less grace).

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with changing or altering your opinion. In the heat of the moment, you may feel one way, but then after you've had a couple years to think it over you may come to a slightly different conclusion. And of course all the things that happen to you and to society in the years in between influence both how you read new material and how you re-read old material. Actually, I would be a little disturbed if this didn't happen, as if you are frozen in time on some island.

As far as this relates to the SW films, the context of the time of release determined how people read the films and what they liked and didn't like, and as that context changed as time went on so did their readings. For instance, for some people the hype was infectious and made them so excited that they ended up liking the film in the heat of the moment, whereas years later they realised it wasn't as good as it first seemed; for others, the hype left a bad taste in their mouth and they were already sick of the movie before they saw it, whereas years later it seemed much more tolerable. It happens.

 

Naturally, critics expected the prequels to at least MEET the bar established by the OT. They didn't, hence disappointment


Meet the critics' expectations? Is that what you meant? Or yours?