Siskel and Ebert's first review of Star Wars

Someone told me that Siskel and Ebert (on the show in 1977), gave the original Star Wars two thumbs down. Has anyone ever heard, or has any proof of this?

I also remember reading that George Lucas himself has said that none of the Star Wars movies have been well-reviewed. So people who have read the reviews back in the day - would you agree with the abovementioned statement?

 

It wouldn't surprise me if they did and it really doesn't matter if they did.

 

This is true from what I remember, though one reviewer did say Mark Hamil was as "cute as a button", honest that is what he said.

 

"...and it really doesn't matter if they did."

Oh, it certainly does not, though I just wanted to read something more substantive, given that fact that Ebert now calls the original trilogy, one of the greats.

 

I guess the OT has worn on Ebert over the years.

 

I haven't read Ebert's original '77 review, but Siskel's was positive.

 

Roger Ebert does not have a clue about films or filmmaking. The number of times he changed his mind on films is vast. It was not just Star Wars.

Also, the number of negative reviews after the intitial release of Star Wars was substantial. This number would gradually decrease over the next few years.

 

Who are Siskel and Ebert?

 

Yes, but why is this a suprise. For one think Siskel and Ebert are morons. For another, critics are nutorious for hating good movies.

I don't know if your serious Darth_MacDaddy, but Sikel and Ebert were a very famous pair of critics for decades. They were no more in the late 90s after Gene Siskel died.

 

Roger Ebert is a Pulitzer Prize-winning author, and is perhaps the most acclaimed film historian and expert of all time. He knows more about film than any of us here could ever dream of.

 

I'm pretty sure that Ebert liked Star Wars from the beginning (or at least for a long time). He defended Phantom Menace as well.

 

Here's a snippet from Siskel's review:

He gives some praise: "striking visual tricks . . . Lucas' scriptwriting . . . weird-looking aliens," then adds, "On the debit side are the film's human performances. Save for Alec Guiness, the cast is unmemorable." I think the ultimate rating was a thumbs down.

 

The ultimate rating was positive. Check out Rotten Tomatoe's page for ANH and you'll see.

 

Ok. I didn't have the full review, just those snippets in a 20th Anniversary STAR WARS magazine.

 

I know Ebert loved TPM, then did a 180 and hated AOTC for pretty much the same things he liked back in '99. Go figure.

 

I've also read, or was it heard (?), that Lucas himself has said that none of the Star Wars movies were well-reviewed. He goes on to say that there was always a character that some people didn't like, i.e., 3CPO, Yoda, the Ewoks.

Has anyone else heard of this or remember what interview it came from?

 

I remember something like that too. I think it was GL defending Jar Jar Binks after TPM, saying the comedy sidekicks always got slated, like C3PO, Yoda and the Ewoks in the original trilogy. Always thought that was an odd comment as I can't see how Yoda could be described as a comedy sidekick...

 

Darth_Insidious: "He knows more about film than any of us here could ever dream of."

He does not have an encyclopedaic knowledge of film. I guarantee he does not know anywhere near as much as many film directors, like Scorsese or Spielberg and even many film fans.

How can you say he knows more than other people here? You do not even know anybody enough to say that. I am not trying to be big-headed, but as far as cinema knowledge is concerned I would wipe the floor with him. I know from his reviews and writings what he knows, and I know how much I know, so I can make a judgement. That's right, I remember reading Eisenstein as early as 14 years old and I had to sit with a dictionary because I never understood much of the English (which was considerably complex). However, I took it in and then again with other film literature over the years. Now when you read Ebert's reviews of Eisenstein's or Pudovkin's films it is clear he is unable to identify the groundbreaking elements present in any of the films. It is one of many examples which shows his extreme limitations as a critic. (Note-most film critics fall into this category)

He quite clearly knows nothing about film or film-making. But he knows enough about being a film critic which is what he does best. With the exception of the Cahiers du Cinema critics, film critics have always been consistetly disproved as years go on. Generally, I do not pay any attention to most film critics.

Perhaps YOU have such a limited sense of cinema that you feel reading Ebert is top film-writing.

Darth_Slanderous: "and is perhaps the most acclaimed film historian and expert of all time"

Right.

Why don't start reading actual cinema literature and stop making ridiculous comments

 

So says the guy who calls Michael Mann the "The World's Greatest Living Filmmaker".

 

Cool it, please.

On a personal note, Ebert is a top-notch writer and one of the best living film critics. He was one of the first to embrace new technology (DVDs, internet, etc.), and has always had something of an eye for the future.

 

Doesn't have too much love for digital projection though, and I disagree with him there.

 

"as far as cinema knowledge is concerned I would wipe the floor with him. I know from his reviews and writings what he knows, and I know how much I know, so I can make a judgement. That's right, I remember reading Eisenstein as early as 14 years old."

So we'll just take you at your word, then? ?

"So says the guy who calls Michael Mann the "The World's Greatest Living Filmmaker"."

Well, I guess CT1K and I agree on something!

(Maybe not the "greatest", but I do love his films. "The Keep" comes out on DVD soon!)

"Doesn't have too much love for digital projection though, and I disagree with him there."

Film still has better resolution, and an "organic" quality. It's getting better, though.

I was very impressed when Siskel and Ebert broke down "Top Gun" and "Days of Thunder" into 11(?) distinct and similar aspects. That was great!

I didn't always agree with their opinions of films, but I always understood, and therefore respected, their reasoning for their opinions.

 

MeBeJedi: "So we'll just take you at your word, then?"

I agree. I just do not understand where he thinks Ebert obtained this unbelievable knowledge, and where he believes Roger Ebert is a 'film historian'. I do know Leonards Maltin operates partly as critic and partly as historian, but not Ebert.

MeBeJedi: "Well, I guess CT1K and I agree on something!"

Cheers MeBeJedi. Good to here The Keep coming out on DVD. I remember Empire giving it one of its 'unsung five-star films' a few years back and I found it difficult tracking down the VHS in the UK.

 

MeBeJedi: "So we'll just take you at your word, then?"

Actually, I am not asking anyone to take my word. My point is that only yourself knows how much you know about films. We can also get an idea from Ebert's published and on-line writings, how much he knows. So I am personally entitled to make that comparison. However, Darth_Slanderous says "He knows more about film than any of us here". The point is that Darth_Slanderous does not have sufficient information to make a statement like this. See what I mean.

 

The Keep? Is that the weird film with Gabriel Byrne? Or it is Kyle McLaughlin...anyway, the supernatural one set in an old fort...

Wish my memory was better. It was shown on BBC2 several years back, odd little film but I liked it quite a bit. I'd never heard anything about it since.