Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Hey all....

I find it interesting that most of the critics/reviewers (70-80%) gave Episode III a good review, saying that it went back to the magic of the original StarWars and all, but they made sure to point out that it was superior to the inferior Episodes I and II.


While most (I know not all ) of us would say that they got better as they went along, I also find it really interesting that these same critics gave Episode I a good review, then trashed II.

I think the general consensus is that II was better than I, based on what I have read hear, at TFN, SW.com, and heard from folks I know at theatres,exit polls, etc..... (Feel free to chime in here if I'm wrong )

So one question I have is: What caused this?

Why say Episode I was great, then bag on II?

Because other critics hate them?

Because of fan backlash over I?

Because Lucarse put out an Episode I that you reviewed well, but people were dissapointed in, and still saw to the tune of over 400 Mill?

Seriously now, what happened here? I'll post some reviews to show you what I mean....

(CONT.)
So awesome was the sight that it drove men mad. We who can see the stars every night glance up casually at the cosmos and then quickly down again, searching for a Dairy Queen.

"Star Wars: Episode I--The Phantom Menace," to cite its full title, is an astonishing achievement in imaginative filmmaking. If some of the characters are less than compelling, perhaps that's inevitable: This is the first story in the chronology and has to set up characters who (we already know) will become more interesting with the passage of time. Here we first see Obi-Wan Kenobi, Anakin Skywalker, Yoda and R2-D2 and C-3PO. Anakin is only a fresh-faced kid in Episode I; in IV, V and VI, he has become Darth Vader.

At the risk of offending devotees of the Force, I will say that the stories of the "Star Wars" movies have always been space operas, and that the importance of the movies comes from their energy, their sense of fun, their colorful inventions and their state-of-the-art special effects. I do not attend with the hope of gaining insights into human behavior. Unlike many movies, these are made to be looked at more than listened to, and George Lucas and his collaborators have filled "The Phantom Menace" with wonderful visuals.

There are new places here--new kinds of places. Consider the underwater cities, floating in their transparent membranes. The Senate chamber, a vast sphere with senators arrayed along the inside walls, and speakers floating on pods in the center. And other places: the cityscape with the waterfall that has a dizzying descent through space. And the other cities: one city Venetian, with canals, another looking like a hothouse version of imperial Rome, and a third that seems to have grown out of desert sands.

Set against awesome backdrops, the characters in "The Phantom Menace" inhabit a plot that is little more complex than the stories I grew up on in science-fiction magazines.

(CONT.)
The whole series sometimes feel like a cover from Thrilling Wonder Stories, come to life. The dialogue is pretty flat and straightforward, although seasoned with a little quasi-classical formality, as if the characters had read but not retained "Julius Caesar." I wish the "Star Wars" characters spoke with more elegance and wit (as Gore Vidal's Greeks and Romans do), but dialogue isn't the point, anyway: These movies are about new things to look at.

The plot details (of embargoes and blockades) tend to diminish the size of the movie's universe--to shrink it to the scale of a 19th century trade dispute. The stars themselves are little more than pinpoints on a black curtain, and "Star Wars" has not drawn inspiration from the color photographs being captured by the Hubble Telescope. The series is essentially human mythology, set in space, but not occupying it. If Stanley Kubrick gave us man humbled by the universe, Lucas gives us the universe domesticated by man. His aliens are really just humans in odd skins. For "The Phantom Menace," he introduces Jar Jar Binks, a fully realized computer-animated alien character whose physical movements seem based on afterthoughts. And Jabba the Hutt (who presides over the Podrace) has always seemed positively Dickensian to me.

Yet within the rules he has established, Lucas tells a good story. The key development in "Phantom" is the first meeting between the Jedi Knight Qui-Gon Jinn (Liam Neeson) and the young Anakin Skywalker (Jake Lloyd)--who is, the Jedi immediately senses, fated for great things. Qui-Gon meets Anakin in a store where he's seeking replacement parts for his crippled ship. Qui-Gon soon finds himself backing the young slave in a high-speed Podrace--betting his ship itself against the cost of the replacement parts. The race is one of the film's high points, as the entrants zoom between high cliff walls in a refinement of a similar race through metal canyons on a spaceship in "Star Wars." Why is Qui-Gon so confident that Anakin can win? Because he senses an unusual concentration of the Force-

(CONT.)
--and perhaps because, like John the Baptist, he instinctively recognizes the one whose way he is destined to prepare. The film's shakiness on the psychological level is evident, however, in the scene where young Anakin is told he must leave his mother (Pernilla August) and follow this tall Jedi stranger. Their mutual resignation to the parting seems awfully restrained. I expected a tearful scene of parting between mother and child, but the best we get is when Anakin asks if his mother can come along, and she replies, "Son, my place is here." As a slave? The discovery and testing of Anakin supplies the film's most important action, but in a sense all the action is equally important, because it provides platforms for special-effects sequences. Sometimes our common sense undermines a sequence (for instance, when Jar Jar's people and the good guys fight a 'droid army, it becomes obvious that the droids are such bad fighters, they should be returned for a refund). But mostly I was happy to drink in the sights on the screen, in the same spirit that I might enjoy "Metropolis," "Forbidden Planet," "2001: A Space Odyssey," "Dark City" or "The Matrix." The difference is that Lucas' visuals are more fanciful and his film's energy level is more cheerful; he doesn't share the prevailing view that the future is a dark and lonely place.

What he does have, in abundance, is exhilaration. There is a sense of discovery in scene after scene of "The Phantom Menace," as he tries out new effects and ideas, and seamlessly integrates real characters and digital ones, real landscapes and imaginary places. We are standing at the threshold of a new age of epic cinema, I think, in which digital techniques mean that budgets will no longer limit the scope of scenes; filmmakers will be able to show us just about anything they can imagine.

As surely as Anakin Skywalker points the way into the future of "Star Wars," so does "The Phantom Menace" raise the curtain on this new freedom for filmmakers. And it's a lot of fun. The film has correctly been given the PG rating; it's suitable for younger viewers and doesn't depend on violence for its effects.

As for the bad rap about the characters--hey, I've seen space operas that put their emphasis on human personalities and relationships. They're called "Star Trek" movies. Give me transparent underwater cities and vast hollow senatorial spheres any day.



That bit at the end is for you, TW-Janick Just kiddin' buddie.


That review was from Roger Ebert, the infamous fatso with a thumb up his ass (or down his ass, depending on what he's watching )

I'll post one more to show you what I mean...


Then I'll post the same critics reviews of Episode II.

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phanton Menace B+
20th Century Fox / Lucasfilm


Year Released: 1999
MPAA Rating: PG
Director: George Lucas
Writer: George Lucas
Cast: Liam Neeson, Ewan McGregor, Natalie Portman, Jake Lloyd, Ian McDiarmid, Pernilla August, Oliver Ford Davies, Hugh Quarshie, Ahmed Best, Anthony Daniels, Kenny Baker, Frank Oz.

Review by Rob Vaux


"Strip this film of its often striking images and its high-falutin' scientific jargon and you get a story, characters, and dialogue of overwhelming banality..."

Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Like a lot of criticisms of The Phantom Menace. Thin characters, dull plot, a weak link in the franchise. The only trouble is, it's not a criticism of The Phantom Menace. It's a review of the original Star Wars, released in 1977. Amazing how little has changed in 20 years. After insufferable hype and fan-fed hysteria, The Phantom Menace opened to the exact same complaints as its now-canonical predecessor. Only this time, its very real assets have been almost completely dismissed. After two decades, we've grown so used to George Lucas' fairy-tale kingdom that we've forgotten what was so magical about it in the first place.

(CONT.)
And magical it is. While most films today have the ability to render anything on-screen, few realize that potential as well as The Phantom Menace. Consider the city of Coruscant, a planet-wide capital composed of countless layers of buildings and ships; the Senate chambers, where an ineffective republic debates a seemingly minor squabble with ominous implications; or the underwater vistas of Naboo, filled with fearsome creatures and delicate cities alike. All of this covers territory that three other films have passed before, and yet finds something startlingly original there. The universe in this movie lives, it breathes, it surrounds us with three-dimensional vibrancy. Every character here has a background, every building a story to be told. Lucas has infused so much detail into his world that it attains a completeness that few other science-fiction films even aspire to. Every shot feels real, no matter how wild or fanciful its appearance.

Against that backdrop, any story would be hard-pressed to keep up. George Lucas has enough sense to keep his simple -- he sticks to the celebrated archetypes the series started with, and maintains a proper sense of fun. The Phantom Menace paves the way for the rise and fall of Anakin Skywalker, discovered here as a little boy by a Jedi named Qui-Gon Jinn (Liam Neeson). Anakin's trials, and the beginnings of the evil that will eventually consume him, are drawn along with high energy, exhilaration, and a genuine sense of wonder. The action sequences are breathtaking (topped by a lightsaber duel that may be one of the best examples of pure cinema I've ever seen) but never compete with the story for attention. A more complicated plot would get lost amid the exquisite visuals; here, it's straightforward enough to always stay on track.

Is the film perfect? Of course not. The truly obscene prerelease hype generated expectations that no movie could meet. The dialogue does clunk, the story is simple, and no human being on Earth is going to the mat for Jar Jar Binks.

(Jar Jar's the only reason I didn't rate this film higher.) That, unfortunately, is part of the package; this has never been a series about arch conversations and convoluted plot developments. Lucas has likened the Star Wars movies to silent films, telling a story visually rather than with words. The Phantom Menace follows the same pattern. The script could have been tighter (and was rightfully critiqued for its tin ear), but that's really not the purpose of the exercise.

And the drama isn't as thin as it may appear. The best thing about The Phantom Menace is the way it sheds new light on characters we thought we knew by heart. Yoda's resigned bitterness in Empire becomes all the more poignant after seeing his quiet caution in Phantom; the twinkle in Obi-Wan's eye is just as clear in Ewan McGregor as it was in Alec Guiness (we know now why he moved through the first film's Death Star with such confidence); and there's something chilling behind Anakin's face... something that says he's making a list and all of us are on it. When you look at The Phantom Menace alone, these details are hard to notice. Taken as one chapter in a larger story, it brings out subtle nuances that didn't exist before. For that -- and for many other reasons -- it deserves our admiration.

I'm not trying to invalidate criticism of the film: its shortcomings are not insignificant, and the disappointment many people feel has some very real foundations. I hear the complaints, and I note their validity, and I agree: The Phantom Menace could have been better. When I respond -- when I try to show others the genuine magic that shines through despite the flaws -- my strongest argument comes from a little boy I saw in the lobby after my first viewing last May. Amid the hyperactive energy around him, he was still and quiet, and you could see his brow furrowed in thought. As I walked by, I saw him look up at his father and softly ask a simple question.

"Daddy, can we see it again?"

Couldn't have said it better myself. - Rob Vaux

-Sithsaber

I found at leat 30 more that rate it as "B", "B+", "8/10"...etc..
at mrqe.com (its a review archive site), and you're all welcome to check (of course there are a few crap ones too.. but far more good ones).

I wont argue that, some reviewers just hated the PT, and some, just hate StarWars.

This thread is about reviewers who liked it, then flipped sides, then flipped back again...(a twisted series of feelings that I suspect many jaded fans are in the middle of...

Episode II reviews:

Aside from the fact that you just posted 9 times in a row when a link would suffice...

I liked TPM...
I hated AOTC...
I like ROTS less and less. While the end is great, the beginning is terrible.

I think this is the opinion of most critical viewers. Episode II was terrible...it was a mystery without a mystery, a love story without love...one big long set up to a thrity minute action sequence.

It is not what's there on the screen that disappoints me, but what's not there. It is easy to hail the imaginative computer images that George Lucas brings to "Star Wars: Episode II--Attack of the Clones." To marvel at his strange new aliens and towering cities and sights such as thousands of clones all marching in perfect ranks into a huge spaceship. To see the beginnings of the dark side in young Anakin Skywalker. All of those experiences are there to be cheered by fans of the "Star Wars" series, and for them this movie will affirm their faith.

But what about the agnostic viewer? The hopeful ticket buyer walking in not as a cultist, but as a moviegoer hoping for a great experience? Is this "Star Wars" critic-proof and scoff-resistant? Yes, probably, at the box office. But as someone who admired the freshness and energy of the earlier films, I was amazed, at the end of "Episode II," to realize that I had not heard one line of quotable, memorable dialogue. And the images, however magnificently conceived, did not have the impact they deserved. I'll get to them in a moment.

The first hour of "Episode II" contains a sensational chase through the skyscraper canyons of a city, and assorted briefer shots of space ships and planets. But most of that first hour consists of dialogue, as the characters establish plot points, update viewers on what has happened since "Episode I," and debate the political crisis facing the Republic. They talk and talk and talk. And their talk is in a flat utilitarian style: They seem more like lawyers than the heroes of a romantic fantasy.

In the classic movie adventures that inspired "Star Wars," dialogue was often colorful, energetic, witty and memorable. The dialogue in "Episode II" exists primarily to advance the plot, provide necessary information, and give a little screen time to continuing characters who are back for a new episode. The only characters in this stretch of the film who have inimitable personal styles are the beloved Yoda and the hated Jar-Jar Binks, whose idiosyncrasies turned off audiences for "Phantom Menace." Yes, Jar-Jar's accent may be odd and his mannerisms irritating, but at least he's a unique individual and not a bland cipher.

The other characters--Obi-Wan Kenobi, Padme Amidala, Anakin Skywalker--seem so strangely stiff and formal in their speech that an unwary viewer might be excused for thinking they were the clones, soon to be exposed.

Too much of the rest of the film is given over to a romance between Padme and Anakin in which they're incapable of uttering anything other than the most basic and weary romantic cliches, while regarding each other as if love was something to be endured rather than cherished. There is not a romantic word they exchange that has not long since been reduced to cliche.

No, wait: Anakin tells Padme at one point: "I don't like the sand. It's coarse and rough and irritating--not like you. You're soft and smooth." I hadn't heard that before.

When it comes to the computer-generated images, I feel that I cannot entirely trust the screening experience I had. I could see that in conception many of these sequences were thrilling and inventive. I liked the planet of rain, and the vast coliseum in which the heroes battle strange alien beasts, and the towering Senate chamber, and the secret factory where clones were being manufactured.

But I felt like I had to lean with my eyes toward the screen in order to see what I was being shown. The images didn't pop out and smack me with delight, the way they did in earlier films. There was a certain fuzziness, an indistinctness that seemed to undermine their potential power.

Later I went on the Web to look at the trailers for the movie, and was startled to see how much brighter, crisper and more colorful they seemed on my computer screen than in the theater. Although I know that video images are routinely timed to be brighter than movie images, I suspect another reason for this.

DUDE...just post a link

From the topic name, I thought this would be a good thread, oops.

(CONT.)
"Episode II" was shot entirely on digital video. It is being projected in digital video on 19 screens, but on some 3,000 others, audiences will see it as I did, transferred to film.

How it looks in digital projection I cannot say, although I hope to get a chance to see it that way. I know Lucas believes it looks better than film, but then he has cast his lot with digital. My guess is that the film version of "Episode II" might jump more sharply from the screen in a small multiplex theater. But I saw it on the largest screen in Chicago, and my suspicion is, the density and saturation of the image were not adequate to imprint the image there in a forceful way.

Digital images contain less information than 35mm film images, and the more you test their limits, the more you see that. Two weeks ago I saw "Patton" shown in 70mm Dimension 150, and it was the most astonishing projection I had ever seen--absolute detail on a giant screen, which was 6,000 times larger than a frame of the 70mm film. That's what large-format film can do, but it's a standard Hollywood has abandoned (except for IMAX), and we are being asked to forget how good screen images can look--to accept the compromises. I am sure I will hear from countless fans who assure me that "Episode II" looks terrific, but it does not. At least, what I saw did not. It may look great in digital projection on multiplex-size screens, and I'm sure it will look great on DVD, but on a big screen it lacks the authority it needs.

I have to see the film again to do it justice. I'm sure I will greatly enjoy its visionary sequences on DVD; I like stuff like that. The dialogue is another matter. Perhaps because a movie like this opens everywhere in the world on the same day, the dialogue has to be dumbed down for easier dubbing or subtitling. Wit, poetry and imagination are specific to the languages where they originate, and although translators can work wonders, sometimes you get the words but not the music. So it's safer to avoid the music.

Is KMC really this lameo?

But in a film with a built-in audience, why not go for the high notes? Why not allow the dialogue to be inventive, stylish and expressive? There is a certain lifelessness in some of the acting, perhaps because the actors were often filmed in front of blue screens so their environments could be added later by computer. Actors speak more slowly than they might--flatly, factually, formally, as if reciting. Sometimes that reflects the ponderous load of the mythology they represent. At other times it simply shows that what they have to say is banal. "Episode II-- Attack of the Clones" is a technological exercise that lacks juice and delight. The title is more appropriate than it should be. - Roger Ebert.

NOOB!!!!
-Sithsaber

Do you want to post someone else's words or have a conversation about it?

See what I mean though,?

He made a few good criticisms (which, to me, were just reversals of things that he defended in his earlier review), then spent the rest of the review talking about old hollywood's 70mm movies, Patton, Lucas adventure into digital filmaking, and a bunch of other horseshite.

I wonder where that review came from?

If he truly meant what he said about Episode I, then it's hard for me to picture him feeling this way about II.

I know I didn't.

One more review....

No more reviews

Originally posted by sithsaber408
See what I mean though,?



Do you?

Do you really?!

Originally posted by tlbauerle
DUDE...just post a link

Sorry bout that, I honestly dont know how

just copy the address bar at the top of your browser like this:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=387874&from=thread&pagenumber=2#post5810952

Originally posted by tlbauerle
Do you want to post someone else's words or have a conversation about it?

Of course I intended this thread to have a conversation.


I didn't know how to post the link, I'm really sorry dude.

I dont have much experience starting threads, Jus answering them.



However....

I have noticed a tendancy towards spouting opinions about topics without all the knowledge ( I, myself, have been guilty several times )...

and befor people chimed in... I wanted them to read the said reviews, if they were going to post about the reaction of the critics.

Originally posted by tlbauerle
just copy the address bar at the top of your browser like this:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=387874&from=thread&pagenumber=2#post5810952


Ohhh....


THANKS TL-BAUERLE!!!!

...I appreciate the non-flamage, as well.

Originally posted by Ast
From the topic name, I thought this would be a good thread, oops.


It is... I promise!!!!

Just give it a chance youpi

Originally posted by Ast
Do you?


Yeah, or I wouldn't have asked.












I mean that he gave an awesome, glowing review for the first movie, then totally flipped his position. He gave an awesome review for Episode III... hold on I'll get it...














Just kiddin

It makes no sense to me.

Critics who hate the PT... fine.

Critics who altogether hate StarWars...fine.

But how can an honest film journalist praise and defend a movie, then trash the next one when it has the same drawbacks/strengths, but is more fun, reveals more of the story, and has better action sequences in it.

I think most people forget about the Coruscant chase, the club, Jango vs Obi, the droid fac.... ok, scratch that one, but the arena (after the Jedi show) mace beheading Jango, the clone army shots and yoda v.s. dooku make ep2 way better than 1.


Or no?

*sigh* try using the edit button------------------------------>

Originally posted by Jedi Priestess
*sigh* try using the edit button------------------------------>

Again.... sorry

C'mon JP you work with kids...

Please forgive?

No matter what...I thought AOTC was infinately weaker in about every aspect.

TPM was new, exciting, different...

It felt more like a fantasy than what we were used to. AOTC felt too much like a fanboy wetdream.

If you ask me, I liked AOTC better than TPM, it wasn't a Disney-like movie and it was far more interesting and had a good plot outline, the critics can go f*ck themselves for all I care, those assholes wouldn't know a good movie if it came up and bit them on the ass!

IMO, All the Star Wars films are enjoyable. I don't know why they hated TPM so much like its the worst film ever. Still, its their opinion and I respect it. As for me, i grow up with TPM, watched it when I was 10. It was a magical experience, same goes with AOTC and ROTS. Also, the prequels actually inspired me to pursue my dream in graphic and sound design.

Originally posted by Fox4
If you ask me, I liked AOTC better than TPM, it wasn't a Disney-like movie and it was far more interesting and had a good plot outline, the critics can go f*ck themselves for all I care, those assholes wouldn't know a good movie if it came up and bit them on the ass!



Right!!!


Now I understand that TL-B and a few other posters dont feel this way, but I think most starwars fans liked each prequel better, with Episode III being the best one.

I know I liked Episode II better than I.

I still dont get why fatso roger ebert (or any other critic) would praise Episode I, then bash Episode II.

(then praise Episode III )

Any guesses?

Because Episode I was new, exciting, different...

Episode II was a weak story. Anyone who can get over the fact that it is STAR WARS and can look at it as a story can see that it was weak, poorly acted, and overrated.

I'll give you poorly acted... that's almost a given for starwars(unless the actor is British ).

But I look at all movies as movies, not just as StarWars(check the People's Choice thread for some of my views on good quality movies and thier relationship to StarWars).

Episode II may be overrated as well, I'm still on the fence about that.

But the story about:
the secret clone army to destroy the Jedi that will first come to their aid, the conspiracy to create the clones, the double-crossing of Sidious by starting a war in which both sides are under his control... combined with Anakin's growing power and immaturity relating to his ability to understand the proper place of his powers...oh, and him breaking Jedi codes by killing in anger and taking a wife... while his mother dies and drives him on a "quest for greater power" ...


dude, that IS a weak-ass storymsn-wink

most critics hated Empire until the entire trilogy was out at which point they retroactively made it the most critically acclaimed of the original movies.
At the moment I think II and III, along with clone wars (which i view as one 2 hour movie) are probably my faves. The biggest reason they resonate with me is cause i don't think the love story seems phony at all (for personal reasons), that ambiance is wonderful, and the movies are definitely a product of their time. Definitely art imitating life.
The big problem i had with episode I (aside from the usual jake lloyd/jar jar binks/too many cut scenes arguements) is that sidious is used too much and loses his mystique, ending up almost like dr. klaw or cobra commander by films end. over all, each of the 4 prequals has a defining moment.
TPM-The scene with maul and sidious on the balcony in the works
AOTC-The scene where anakin is confronted by Padme after the tuscan slaughter
Clone Wars-volume 1-Anakin's duel with Ventress, volume 2-The scene in chapter 21 where anakin is being stalked by padme in a crowd
ROTS-Immolation

I think each of these are defining points in the saga.

i should also mention that the scene in chapter 21 which i mentioned is my favorite moment in the entire saga

Yeah, Empire was originally recieved as..."Oh, well that was good, but we expected something different."....at least to hear Ben Burtt tell it on the dvd commentary for Empire.

He goes on to say that it's funny how after 20 years the film is looked at for more than it was at first, and the things that people say about it being the best of the OT. (which, of course it is )

I wonder how the PT will be looked at in 10 years, let alone 20.

I hope that it is remembered with fondness, not as better or worse than the OT, just as the newT, that like the old one, brought some fresh stuff to hollywood.


(I also hope in 10-20 years to have an answer as to why critics praised Episode I, and then bashed II.)

For now I'm sticking with them changing their opinions due to the fans backlash over epI, and based on the general critics perception of: prequels, StarWars, George Lucas, etc....

Roger Ebert liked Episode I, defended/ excused the poor acting/cloudy plot, praised the visuals/adventure/fights, and then proceeded to say that Episode II was not a good film.

WTF?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
As for the bad rap about the characters--hey, I've seen space operas that put their emphasis on human personalities and relationships. They're called "Star Trek" movies. Give me transparent underwater cities and vast hollow senatorial spheres any day.



That bit at the end is for you, TW-Janick Just kiddin' buddie.


That review was from Roger Ebert, the infamous fatso with a thumb up his ass (or down his ass, depending on what he's watching )

I'll post one more to show you what I mean...


Then I'll post the same critics reviews of Episode II.
You should probably post his AOTC (which he gave thumbs down) review also.

I liked em all! been to every one when they came out in theatres from ANH to ROTS....heard alot of crap weeks after each movie from critics but I remember what all the fellow moviegoers were saying when they walked out...WOW or GROOVY even for ANH...lol...man that was a long time ago! Almost everyone loved it until someone else cracked on it or they had time to analyze little mistakes that make no difference....SW rules... end of line.

Originally posted by CBright7831
You should probably post his AOTC (which he gave thumbs down) review also.


I was going to, since its the whole point of this thread, but I didn't know how to post a link.

Hold on a second.

Oh, wait a sec.

It's on page one if you want to read it.

(Guess it wasn't a TOTAL waste of time posting that.)

BUMP.


Feel free to chime in with an opinion.


Why were the Prequels hated by critics/praised by critics at the same time?


Why would a well-known, established reviewer throw his weight(pun intended ) behind Episode I, specifically saying that "character development and relationships" were not as important in StarWars as fantasy, adventure, realism, etc.... then bash Episode II for the things he excused in TPM, while not noting the sizable improvement in adventure, realism, fantasy(Kamino anyone) in EpisodeII?

I think, that guys like this, felt that "its just Episode I, things will improve". Everyone knows Episode I would always be the introductory movie, and so while half the moviegoing audience hyped themselves up, others, like Ebert, understood it is just a beginner movie.

By the time Clones rolled around, everyone had heard everyone elses opinions, and maybe down to that fact alone, the overwhelming negativity slightly polluted Clones hopes of achieving anything more than mediocrity on the review side of things.

I personally liked Phantom Menace way more than Clones too, to be honest. I was expecting a lot more from Clones. I didn't care about people hating on Jar Jar, or any of that bandwagon shit (although I was always a little frustrated how C3PO was shunned as the main comic relief for this quite pointless creation). I just really disliked Clones in general, the villains, the set pieces, and what they did to Boba Fett (making the Fett name a monumental plot device while at the same time removing everything that was once interesting about the once mysterous character). The love story was just not convincing, it was creepy. It had its moments, like the Tatooine scenes, but the rest of the movie just didn't do anything that great, even on a visual point of view. The duels in Clones are the worst in any of the Star Wars films, while the chases and other scenes didn't better any of the other similar action sequences from the other films. At least Phantom Menace had the amazing Pod Race and the superb duel at the end. From a visual point of view, TPM wiped the floor with Clones.

Oh well.

Originally posted by Red Superfly
I think, that guys like this, felt that "its just Episode I, things will improve". Everyone knows Episode I would always be the introductory movie, and so while half the moviegoing audience hyped themselves up, others, like Ebert, understood it is just a beginner movie.

By the time Clones rolled around, everyone had heard everyone elses opinions, and maybe down to that fact alone, the overwhelming negativity slightly polluted Clones hopes of achieving anything more than mediocrity on the review side of things.

I personally liked Phantom Menace way more than Clones too, to be honest. I was expecting a lot more from Clones. I didn't care about people hating on Jar Jar, or any of that bandwagon shit (although I was always a little frustrated how C3PO was shunned as the main comic relief for this quite pointless creation). I just really disliked Clones in general, the villains, the set pieces, and what they did to Boba Fett (making the Fett name a monumental plot device while at the same time removing everything that was once interesting about the once mysterous character). The love story was just not convincing, it was creepy. It had its moments, like the Tatooine scenes, but the rest of the movie just didn't do anything that great, even on a visual point of view. The duels in Clones are the worst in any of the Star Wars films, while the chases and other scenes didn't better any of the other similar action sequences from the other films. At least Phantom Menace had the amazing Pod Race and the superb duel at the end. From a visual point of view, TPM wiped the floor with Clones.

Oh well.


Point taken.


I always looked at AOTC as more of the transitional movie, to get us from the Old Republic to the events that would make the Empire, and I still say that the arena sequeces(after the arrival of the Jedi)/clone&droid army battle were rockin...... You're right about the duels/chases.... I always kinda considered the end duels as one long fight against Dooku, rather than 3 short ones.



Kudos to you SuperFly.... that's the first real answer to my question so far.

(Rather than opinions of why Episode I, II, sucked/didn't suck)

Wow... late to the party again...

OPINIONS AND TRACES OF NUTS]

Originally posted by sithsaber408
It makes no sense to me.

Critics who hate the PT... fine.

Critics who altogether hate StarWars...fine.

But how can an honest film journalist praise and defend a movie, then trash the next one when it has the same drawbacks/strengths, but is more fun, reveals more of the story, and has better action sequences in it. Because the screenplay is worse, the story is boring, it's bogged down by too much romantic dialogue that's just ridiculously unconvincing and has VFX that don't portray an ounce of realism... thus making the film less fun, less exciting, and less worthy of a good review. You know, some people are actually able to see these movies as individual movies, and not as a trilogy or a saga. Why shouldn't someone be able to like one movie in the trilogy and not another? Just because a critic doesn't like a particular episode doesn't mean he doesn't like the PT or Star Wars...

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Why were the Prequels hated by critics/praised by critics at the same time? Because critics are just people... like you and me. Their opinions are celebrated simply for the fact that they are able to put them together in coherent sentences.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Why would a well-known, established reviewer throw his weight(pun intended ) behind Episode I, specifically saying that "character development and relationships" were not as important in StarWars as fantasy, adventure, realism, etc.... then bash Episode II for the things he excused in TPM, while not noting the sizable improvement in adventure, realism, fantasy(Kamino anyone) in EpisodeII? There was realism in Episode II? Fantasy? Adventure? Really? Because all I take from it is cartoonish (disney-like) FX, bad dialogue and hokey romance. Nowhere near the adventure/fantasy/realism I expected from a Star Wars picture. And the fact is that if this was not a Star Wars film I think I could have liked it a lot more... I could have liked it as just another mindless action film and I could have been quite happy with it. But it's not just a movie. It's a Star Wars movie. And I wanted more... or better... or different.

Originally posted by tlbauerle
I liked TPM...
I hated AOTC...
I like ROTS less and less. While the end is great, the beginning is terrible.

I think this is the opinion of most critical viewers. Episode II was terrible...it was a mystery without a mystery, a love story without love...one big long set up to a thrity minute action sequence. A-****ing-men! And a thirty minute action sequence ending with the worst lightsaber duels of all-time.

On Empire: To me A New Hope is a sad film. And it's a sad film because it marks the end of the great George Lucas. The great George Lucas whose creativity and originality gave us THX-1138 and Star Wars: Episode V - A New Hope and... well that's it. Because after that he made Empire Strikes Back. A film that is much more blockbuster and much less ingenious than ANH. A film that, in my opinion, is still relatively devoid of pretentiousness but holds many more hollywood virtues. It's the film that marks the end of George Lucas's great creative flair. And I think this is why it was originally held in such low regard compared to ANH. It wasn't until Return of the Jedi was released and the trilogy complete that critical viewers realised that these were largely 'hollywood' films, and that in that respect Empire reigns supreme. Of course, I could be entirely wrong seeing as I wasn't born until four years later...

I don't know, I personally think Episode I was vastly underrated. It got way, way overhyped, and then everyone was dissapointed when it didn't meet up to that hype. However, after watching all three prequels just recently (I hadn't actually seen Episode I since about 2000 or so) I was able to notice that Episode I, was in fact, not a bad movie at all. The special effects were fantastic, especially for the era, the battle scenes were actually quite well done, and the acting wasn't that bad, either. Jar Jar Binks was, in fact, horrible, but I think everyone let the "Jar Jar effect" ruin too much of the movie for them. If you ignore Jar Jar, it's not that bad.

Episode II, on the other hand, used more or less the same quality of visuals, as in nothing ground breaking, much more sketchy dialogue, a good deal less battles, and was a lot less important to the saga as a whole then either Episode I or III. I'm not saying II was bad, but I personally do completely agree that I was the better of the two.

So that's it then?

Episode II sucked compared to Episode I.

Hence, a good review for one and a bad review for II........

Could it be that simple....


(goes back several pages where people listed AOTC as 1st or 2nd on SW list and almost all listed TPM as last)








Nope.no2

Well, for the record... my ranking:

The Empire Strikes Back
^
A New Hope
^
^
^
Return of the Jedi
^
^
^
The Phantom Menace
^
Revenge of the Sith
^
^
^
^
^
^
Attack of the Clones

Hmmm...





Anyone besides this clown?

Just kiddin Dodo.

If nobody else has any thoughts on this, then feel free to close this thread (or let it pass into obscurity, like many fine threads before it).

A good discussion was had by all.

(Not bad for my first real thread, though I wont soon forget to post links to the crap I want people to read)

Originally posted by sithsaber408
So that's it then?

Episode II sucked compared to Episode I.

Hence, a good review for one and a bad review for II........

Could it be that simple....

(goes back several pages where people listed AOTC as 1st or 2nd on SW list and almost all listed TPM as last)

Nope.no2


Oh, right... Since a lot of other people don't share my opinion, my opinion is thus invalid and incorrect, even though it's an opinion.

-_-

Originally posted by DeVi| D0do
Well, for the record... my ranking:

The Empire Strikes Back
^
A New Hope
^
^
^
Return of the Jedi
^
^
^
The Phantom Menace
^
Revenge of the Sith
^
^
^
^
^
^
Attack of the Clones

That's about how I'd rank it...except SITH might be one lower.

Originally posted by Ganner Rhysode
Oh, right... Since a lot of other people don't share my opinion, my opinion is thus invalid and incorrect, even though it's an opinion.

-_-

No your opinion is valid. I respect it.

I'm just saying that most posters thought Episode II was great when it came out, and now they change their tunes.

I digress... I only started this thread because of the review Ebert gave Episode I, what he liked and didn't like, and then the review he gave Episode II which seemed to totally contradict his earlier review.

I had always thought that most StarWars fans liked II better (I guess because of all the b*tching I heard over I) but alas, it appears that I am batting 1,000 today.

i liked em all, just learn to appreciate them the same.

I think the main reason Episode 1 and 2 get such a bad press has nothing to do with what is on screen. All the guys criticising forget how old they were and their experience of films when they first saw Star Wars.
Now compare that to how old you weree when you saw the Pantom Menace and Attack Of the Clones. Of course your expectations are going to change. As it said in one of the reviews posted any kid watching The Phantom Menace probably thought it was the best film ever.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
No your opinion is valid. I respect it.

I'm just saying that most posters thought Episode II was great when it came out, and now they change their tunes.

I digress... I only started this thread because of the review Ebert gave Episode I, what he liked and didn't like, and then the review he gave Episode II which seemed to totally contradict his earlier review.

I had always thought that most StarWars fans liked II better (I guess because of all the b*tching I heard over I) but alas, it appears that I am batting 1,000 today.

I also think the other issue is they type of fan. Most Star Wars fans that are infatuated with the series, and Natalie Portman , think AOTC was better than TPM. I mean, let's face it...it has more 'Star Wars' feeling to it....plus they hate Jar Jar, which is their main reason for hating TPM.

Then there are movie fanatics who see AOTC for the weak film it is, and say so. These people may reluctantly say AOTC is worse than TPM.

Then there are people who like fantasy, and see TPM as a fantasy...which it really is...because like Fantasy stories (ala Fellowship)...the journey is more important than the story.

Then there are a few people, like me...who can somehow look past Jar Jar...and actually like TPM. These people maybe like it better because they critically see that AOTC is weak, like the fantasy aspect of TPM...or whatever.

However, I think MOST fans recognize that the OT is very superior, except the younger crowd can't get past the flashy graphics of the the PT, and see the OT as antiquated

Originally posted by tlbauerle
I also think the other issue is they type of fan. Most Star Wars fans that are infatuated with the series, and Natalie Portman , think AOTC was better than TPM. I mean, let's face it...it has more 'Star Wars' feeling to it....plus they hate Jar Jar, which is their main reason for hating TPM.

Then there are movie fanatics who see AOTC for the weak film it is, and say so. These people may reluctantly say AOTC is worse than TPM.

Then there are people who like fantasy, and see TPM as a fantasy...which it really is...because like Fantasy stories (ala Fellowship)...the journey is more important than the story.

Then there are a few people, like me...who can somehow look past Jar Jar...and actually like TPM. These people maybe like it better because they critically see that AOTC is weak, like the fantasy aspect of TPM...or whatever.

However, I think MOST fans recognize that the OT is very superior, except the younger crowd can't get past the flashy graphics of the the PT, and see the OT as antiquated

Excellent thesis indeed, TL.

I fall into the middle I guess.

I know the OT is better than the PT. I wouldn't dispute that with anybody, and I've said so on the boards.

I still like the PT, though.

I figure it's because

1.) I'm a fantasy fan. I saw all the LOTR in the theatre, along with the Matrix trilogy, and Narnia. (even Zathura surprised me!), and I enjoyed them all.

2.) I'm a StarWars fan. So the PT was a great trilogy to me because it was a fantasy, and it was about Darth Vader.(over all 3 movies, of course... some of it is drivel )


I also liked TPM... I never thought it was crap, and I don't suspect I ever will.

AOTC was different, and while more StarWars-y, I'll grant that the acting was poor.

I guess Ebert is strictly a fantasy fan(judging by his LOTR/Narnia reviews), since Episode I was a fun journey/great adventure to him, but Episode II was a let-down.

Without a doubt I think the OT is superior. But with regard to the PT I think I fall into the fourth category... I like TPM. It used to be, when it first came out, that I liked it for the fantasy, for the adventure, for the action, and for the journey back to a galaxy far, far away. But that was when I was 12. Now I have a more critical eye, I think. And, perhaps, I appreciate it more. In fact, I think TPM is a film that, for me, only gets better with age. I never hated Jar Jar... not when I was a kid, not now. He's only annoying as you let him be... and to me that's not much. Sure he's a bit too much sometimes, but I think the film wouldn't have been as good without him... This film IS a kids film.

Episodes II and III on the other hand, are only getting worse with age...

AOTC does have a more Star Wars feel to it, but it's just not enough. There's no emotion, no heart, no adventure and worst of all: no realism. Nothing in the film looks real. The acting doesn't bother me too much... it just serves as another reason to dislike it. None of the Star Wars films have had good acting. These films are soap operas in the stars, there is an art to the performances (nobody can be as bad as Natalie is in ROTS and then give a Golden Globe winning performance in Closer without doing so purposely). But the dialogue in Episode II is beyond soap-opera level. It really is god awful. I believed Han and Leia's romance in ESB. I can no longer even bring myself to watch the romance of Anakin and Padme in AOTC. It's really that bad.

Add to that the fact that nothing happens in the film that is exciting, intriguing or even relevant save the few scenes on Tatooine (which I actually really, really like).

^

That fireside conversation is very painful to watch, it just doesn't seem like Anakin means it. On top of that, Anakin just lacks the mackdaddy quality that Han posesses. "You like me because I'm a scoundrel." sounds a lot mo' pimp than "Then you do feel something!".

And I agree with you about Tatooine; when he found his mom and whacked those sand people---that was some damn good acting.

Have you ever tried to woo a girl who was more interested in her career than her personal life? Sounds a LOT like the Anakin and Padme dialogue in the fireplace scene. Completely accurate and dead-on to real life.

Plus, Anakin is not Han Solo, it's an unfair comparison like apples to oranges. If Lucas and the other screenwriter wrote it so that Anakin sounded like Han, Lucas would be boiled in oil for ripping off 'Empire." The way Anakin & Padme fell in love HAD to be different because it was a 'forbidden love' type thing.

Of course it shouldn't have been exactly like the Han/Leia romance, I'm just saying there's a quality in those scenes in Empire that don't make me want to hurt people, unlike AOTC...

Completely accurate and dead-on to real life? "We live in a real world, come back to it.... If you follow your thoughts through to conclusion, they will take us to a place we cannot go"...? I don't know what kind of girls you go out with, but I've never had anything remotely like that said to me...

Come on, it's just terribly written. "I wish I could just wish away my feelings."... My six year old niece could wirte better love lines than this.

"You are asking me to be rational,...that is something that I know I cannot do."


Oh well, TPM had "yippeee", "Yes,sir!", and "Their here." " Good, they made it."(Totally pointless dialouge scene, the last one)


None of them are terribly brilliant.

However, I don't think it is the dialouge that has a major effect on the reviews/perceptions of the movies.

(Episode III got great reviews across the board)

Well, comparatively, I think Episode III had much better dialogue... or should I say, much less bad dialogue. That is, if you don't count the "It's because I'm so in love" "No, it's because I'm so in love with you" scene. And I think dialogue has a great effect on the reviews... I think I remember one critic saying that there's no line in Episode II you could quote with any pleasure and that the love scenes are just old, tired cliches which is absolutely true.

TRUE.

I dunno...I find myself quoting OBIWAN: "Possibly..." almost all the time. I think that's just about as great of an Alec moment as "Hello there..." in SITH.

I love watching AotC for many reasons. It's got a different feel to it than the other trilogy films. At least 75 percent of AotC is really a mystery, a who-dunnit:

Who's trying to kill Padme, who killed Zam, where's the dart from, what's Kamino, why were the files erased, what clone army, who is master Syfo-Dyas, who's Jango Fett, who recruited Jango, who's Tyrannus, why are the Jedi blind, what happened to Shmi, why is Dooku trying to recruit Obi-Wan to destroy the Sith, and on and on until the climax. Each revelation opens a door which opens another which unwraps an enigma, then the whole thing explodes in the end with the final battles.

I like the fireplace scene because it's got a lot of heart to it. Anakin opens up about his feelings, tortured that they are. I love how Padme acts with her body language as Anakin pours out the feelings, she is just incredibly uncomfortable. Even so, Padme is such the "career girl" that she lets it slip out that she feels something toward Anakin, after denying it. Anakin pounces on that, "then you do feel something!" And yes I have gone out with girls like that who deny their feelings and think they have to put career before personal life; doesn't mean they don't exist! It's like in the movie "Hitch" when the freshprince says "When a woman says she's too busy for a relationship, she's lying." When you've lived through relationships which have hit the skids thanks to that "career vs family" type of thinking, the dialogue ain't so bad.

A who dunnit eh? So Jango and Zamm are hired by Tyranus, who works for Sidious (who is the Chancellor but we're not supposed to know that yet) who has promised Nute Gunray to kill Padme for that stuff on Naboo.... But then Jango lives on the planet where they've made clones out of him, so killing Padme is just a side job since he doesn't seem to be doing much there in the water except raise his son. Holy crap! That IS so complex, I prefer Agatha Christie had written that one.

And WHO is Syfo-Dyas? A question NEVER ever answered. AOTC DOES have a different feel: it feels like crap!