Slashdot Mirror
Newest Star Wars Reviews Suprisingly Positive
Patchw0rk F0g writes "CBC is reporting on the suprising results of pre-screenings of Lucas' latest (and final) installment of his sci-fi epic. From TFA, "The advance reviews of Revenge of the Sith, the sixth - and final - Star Wars film, have been mostly positive - and in some cases outright effusive." Go figure... maybe Georgie got it right finally."
What's so surprising? After all, A New Hope was the best one in the original trilogy, IMHO. Lucas is a great director. Just because he did something different the last two times from what you were expecting doesn't mean you'll always hate his work. So why get surprised?
Is there anyone out there, that say, saw 5 out of the 6 Star Wars movies and are not going to see the last one because of a review or vice versa, see the last movie because of a positive review? In general movie reviews are relatively useless unless you know a reviewer well enough to be sure that his/her personal tastes line up with yours.
Well, I'll be watching it whether the critics love it or hate it. I like to form my own opinions.
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.â"John Gaule
The lightsaber combat in eps 4, 5 and 6 especially seem a little lacklustre compared with the excitement of the big fight in episode 1. And the whole look of the series just jars a little when you have part 4 made 20 years before part 1 and really looking 20 years older even with the lick of paint for the special edition.
Add to that the fact that Lucas clearly changed his mind a few times about where the story was going, with Leia suddenly becoming Luke's sister (and I'm not even convinced that Obi wan's lie about Darth Vader killing Luke's father was originally meant to be a lie), it would make some sort of sense.
And then the guy can stop fiddling with the original trilogy, and "tell the story he originally wanted to tell".
Bravo for standing up and saying what (I'm sure) so many here are thinking, but won't say because it's now chic to bash George Lucas.
The first two weren't THAT bad! Yes, Jar-Jar got on a lot of peoples' nerves, and the puppy-love scenes in EP2 might have been a little overdone. But overall, I thought they were generally very enjoyable!
But let's face it; most people here weren't old enough to be movie critics when the original trilogy came out, so they don't really have much perspective. Now that it's fashionable to be jaded, they just can't bring themselves to admit that they actually liked TPM and AotC.
I for one look forward to seeing RotS, and won't be here sounding off about how George Lucas robbed my life of several hours.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
I know, what's even worse are those first few movies. Just a few spaceships, Luke discovers the force, shoots a bunch of stormtroopers and blows up a Death Star or two. And Darth's his father. I mean seriosuly, what do people see in these things?
If you oversimplify to the degree that you did Episode III, you can make anything look stupid. Romea and Juliet is just two lovey-dovey people with a fatal misunderstanding. Indiana Jones is just some archaeologist who beats up Nazis. Episode III is just some saber fights. I mean come on; you know it's more than that.
Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.
He has to make you fans again? What, just because he stops making movies for a while means you revert to your Pre-Star Wars stage and aren't a fan anymore? That's silly. If anything, you would be a fan from the first three he made, revert to normal person once hating Episode I, then see Episode II to see if he wins you back. Episode I shouldn't be his attempt to win you back, since there was nothing to disenchant you with the magic of Star Wars before that. Unless you didn't like the Special Editions or something but you don't need to bother seeing those.
Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.
I actually liked the first two movies... the dialogue wasn't exactly mind blowing... even dull at times... but they were still very entertaining by and large. However, I have a feeling that, story aside, if Darth Vader had been in the first two movies I think they would have gotten a much bigger reception. All of the original trilogy had Vader in it in all his 3V1L L337 coolness, and all three of them were very good... the third only dropping off mildly from the first two.
Now that Vader is finally coming back onto the screen he has everybody fawning again. I have a sinking suspicion that the dialogue and acting is going to be similar to that of these last two movies (essentially what makes them 'horrible' in many people's eyes), but its got Lord Vader... so it's AAAAALLLLLL good. My $0.02.
To the author of this article:
Finally got it right? So it somehow seems that George messed up some critical point in the original three? I think an obssessed legion of fanatical Lucas zealots and Star Wars freaks would beg to differ with that statement. Aside from that, yeah the Phantom Menace wasn't so great. Jar Jar Binks was incredibly annoying (can they please, PLEASE KILL HIM this movie? I'd love to see Jar Jar's fricking head get lopped off with a lightsaber; hell I'd pay money just to see that one scene by itself) and was far to prominent in the movie, but Attack of the Clones was pretty good. Particularly the end battle scene in the arena, and Yoda stepping up to the plate againest Count Dooku were particularly good. Personal opinion: take your opinion and shove it pal. With the exception of Phantom Menace I've liked all the movies, and I don't doubt Revenge of the Sith will be great as well.
If Lucas could easily buy good reviews, he would've bought good reviews for the last two prequels too.
To be honest though Lucas didn't have an awful lot to do for this film - he already knew how it had to end. I'm no writer but I'd wager it is a lot easier to formulate a screenplay when you already know exactly what it has to achieve to be considered a success.
Contrast that with Episodes I and II, where Lucas had very little in terms of pre-ordained plot development - the result was obvious, Jar Jar Binks et al.
Not to mention of course that since Episodes I and II were poorly received (62% and 65% respectively), reviews of this film were (and are already) bound to draw comparisons and as such favour it accordingly anyway.
For me one of the worst things about the previous two films in the franchise is that because they were continuations (albeit prequels) of what had already become legendary - no one had to try very hard. As a result the acting is wooden, the dialogue stunted and insincere, etc. Reminds me of the cringeworthy Matrix sequels.
Anyway, I personally believe that if the film didn't happen to include the words "Star Wars" in the title, that we would be seeing completely different reviews. And I consider myself to be an avid Star Wars fan to boot.
Lets be frank here and I'm not trolling.
Nothing will be good enough for the Slashdot crowd. He could film it in super douper total emersion 3D-o-vision with the best script & acting on the planet and there will still be compaints from many of the Slashdot crowd. He could choose to be totally divorced from the bloody thing and people will still hark back to how it isn't quite as good as the one they saw while in their nappy 25 years ago, and George has spoiled.
Hindsight is invariably 20-20 and rose tinted. People seem to forget that the originals had their very dodgy moments too. What people remember is not just the movie, it is the whole experience that they had when sitting there many moons ago, before the got old and embittered by age and by supporting Windows boxes (coz supporting Unix doesn't embitter one as much does it). It was going with their parents, getting popcorn, sitting surrounded in awe by peers, with their parents or older siblings. Playing with X Wing fighters for weeks afterward. It was getting all the mags & figures & watching the cheesy kids shows jump on the bandwagon. It was the fact that this was totally new, nothing else came close.
I watched the rest, I await the next as does everyone else here, even those that refuse to admit it.
Oh and just to piss off the remaining readers I haven't offended yet, I love my TiVo.
Just because your paranoid doesn't really mean they aren't out to get you
I'm a member of an oppressed minority group who believes that New Hope was better than Empire.
I dunno why that is. Maybe we didn't care for some of the darkness in ESB, and New Hope was more fun. Maybe the open-ended conclusion was less thrilling than the destruction of the Death Star. Maybe it's the "freshman effect" that made Clerks better than Mallrats. (Not that ESB is anything like Mallrats. ESB is a great movie. Just less fun than New Hope.)
It's not important why. I just wanted to state out loud that although it's accepted wisdom that Empire was better than New Hope, it's not entirely universal.
But that's why I've said before on Slashdot that I thought that Sith had a good chance to be the best of the prequels: it ties in to what I feel is the best of the originals.
Either way, I have never trusted a movie review from anyone but a close friend who I know is reliable. I have yet to find a movie critic whos opinions are consistant with my tastes.
John Podhoretz just posted a warning:
WARNING: He also gives a Jar-Jar spoiler in a later reply.Name one movie where the pre-release reviews weren't positive. The film companies control what gets said about their movies and they're not about to let some critic slam their film before the public's paid millions to see it. And if a critic DID write a negative pre-release review, he'd never get to see another pre-release.