Rotten Tomatoes says...

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2005-05-12 09:33pm

Rolling Stone is a worthless rag. The negative review is actually a good thing from my perspective.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2005-05-13 10:40am

Three more positive reviews and one negative. Now at 33/6, 85% positive.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2005-05-13 01:21pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Three more positive reviews and one negative. Now at 33/6, 85% positive.

As I pointed out earlier, the Orlando Weekly, which was labelled as "rotten" gave ROTS 3 out of 5 stars, and the latest "rotten" review added (supercala.com, who cares what they say, I've never even heard of them) gave ROTS 6,5 out of 10. Something smells fishy...

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2005-05-13 02:01pm

What are the general tones of the reviews?

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2005-05-13 02:14pm

If you're referring to the ones I mentioned, so was Orlando Weekly's reviewer negative towards the dialogue and actors, but the rest of the review is rather mixed.

The other review I mentioned complains about the acting. The general feel of the review is that the reviewer finds it difficult to make up his mind. He starts by saying "...this is a disappointment", but later on he says: "...this film is by no means a wreck, it's just not near all that it could have been." and he's really positive about the Anakin/Obi-Wan duel.

Still, he gave the movie 6.5 out of 10, which is enough to put it at "fresh" (at least if I've interpreted their site correctly).

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2005-05-13 08:53pm

I stumbled across this article for some reason, and felt like posting it here. From what I've read in the article, he seems like such a fan of George Lucas...(/sarcasm)

Noble Ire · Post by **Noble Ire** » 2005-05-13 09:03pm

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:I stumbled across this article for some reason, and felt like posting it here. From what I've read in the article, he seems like such a fan of George Lucas...(/sarcasm)

My god, what an imbecile. What demon pit could spawn a bucketful of bile like that? Honestly, this review makes me think of Rolling Stone in a favorable light.

WTF

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2005-05-13 11:00pm

Mange the Swede wrote:Still, he gave the movie 6.5 out of 10, which is enough to put it at "fresh" (at least if I've interpreted their site correctly).

Nope. It goes in the "rotten" category.

Morilore · Post by **Morilore** » 2005-05-14 12:48am

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:I stumbled across this article for some reason, and felt like posting it here. From what I've read in the article, he seems like such a fan of George Lucas...(/sarcasm)

Look! I can spew snobbish shit with big, intelligent words!

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2005-05-14 04:31am

Master of Ossus wrote:
Mange the Swede wrote:Still, he gave the movie 6.5 out of 10, which is enough to put it at "fresh" (at least if I've interpreted their site correctly).
Nope. It goes in the "rotten" category.

Okay. I only thought as they label movies as "fresh" when they're over 60 %, so following logic, 6.5 would also be "fresh".

It's down to 80 % again...

Post by **Vympel** » 2005-05-14 05:00am

Pure Sabacc wrote:
My god, what an imbecile. What demon pit could spawn a bucketful of bile like that? Honestly, this review makes me think of Rolling Stone in a favorable light.

WTF

It's pretty obvious that when a reviewer says that Empire and Jedi, were shit, he has zero credibility as a reviewer of film and is simply a moron. Most of the negative reviews I've seen so far have not merited comment from me save to attack the accusations of "inconsistencies" (the incredibly annoying "why is he on Tatooine" one especially) as well as inability to understand the plot. I haven't see the movie, they're entitled to their opinion. But that load of bile is just an awful review, it's long, meandering, unfocused, verbose, self-indulgent, and in general, I'll say it again, full of shit.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2005-05-14 10:32am

I've got to say that it's interesting that all the negative reviews that seem to hold water credit McGregor with a good show, and then slam the rest of the film on the basis of its poor dialogue.

Mark S · Post by **Mark S** » 2005-05-14 12:43pm

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:this (/sarcasm)

Cynical, elitist dipshit.

Noble Ire · Post by **Noble Ire** » 2005-05-14 01:08pm

Axis Kast wrote:I've got to say that it's interesting that all the negative reviews that seem to hold water credit McGregor with a good show, and then slam the rest of the film on the basis of its poor dialogue.

The same with Mcdarmid. If even the bad reviews are saying that they preform well, then they must really on the ball this time.

Pint0 Xtreme · Post by **Pint0 Xtreme** » 2005-05-14 06:24pm

I also noticed that Episode 1 and 2 got a 'Fresh' rating by a few percentage points.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2005-05-14 06:47pm

Peter Travers is not only a twerp with lousy tatse in movies, he's a dishonest twerp with lousy tatse in movies. When he used to review movies for People Magazine, he panned Empire saying it was a pale imitation of A New Hope. Now he says it's the best of the series and all Star Wars movies suck in comparison. He gave a slightly favorable review of The Phantom Menace, then listed it on his worst movies of 1999 list. He gave a much more favorable review to Clones, then trashed the movie later. He's a fraud who changes his opinions to meet the expectations of the Aren't I Edgy crowd. Fatboy Roberts reports that this loser, like Rex Reed and Pauline Kael, reviewed movies he didn't even watch. What an asshole!

The fact that all of the critics who have panned Revenge of the Sith so far are imbeciles, frauds and losers who, like stunted children, think that screaming and soiling themselves in public will bring them the attention they think they deserve; should be taken as a good sign.

By the way, Ebert and Roeper just gave it a "Thumbs Up".

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2005-05-14 07:11pm

Elfdart wrote:Peter Travers is not only a twerp with lousy tatse in movies, he's a dishonest twerp with lousy tatse in movies. When he used to review movies for People Magazine, he panned Empire saying it was a pale imitation of A New Hope. Now he says it's the best of the series and all Star Wars movies suck in comparison. He gave a slightly favorable review of The Phantom Menace, then listed it on his worst movies of 1999 list. He gave a much more favorable review to Clones, then trashed the movie later. He's a fraud who changes his opinions to meet the expectations of the Aren't I Edgy crowd. Fatboy Roberts reports that this loser, like Rex Reed and Pauline Kael, reviewed movies he didn't even watch. What an asshole!

All that may be true, but truthfully the only thing you need to know that his review is crap is the fact that he works for Rolling Stone.

Noble Ire · Post by **Noble Ire** » 2005-05-15 12:22am

By the way, Ebert and Roeper just gave it a "Thumbs Up".

I saw that. About time they finally got it. It was a pretty good review nothing new said, but there were some pretty sweet snippits from the movie.

Dangermouse · Post by **Dangermouse** » 2005-05-15 06:29pm

The Cannes screening is today. It will be interesting to see what the consensus is from that. Already though, I am pretty excited after reading the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes.

Post by **Dalton** » 2005-05-15 07:29pm

Apparently there was cheering for Star Wars at Cannes.

Dangermouse · Post by **Dangermouse** » 2005-05-16 10:42am

Dalton wrote:Apparently there was cheering for Star Wars at Cannes.

Times has an article regarding the Cannes premiere:

Times wrote: As writer-director George Lucas and many of his stars came into view, the orchestra struck up the first martial notes of John Williams' theme. "Georges Lu-cah!" a French voice fanfared over the loud-speaker system, and the crowd cheered. The spectacle was as majestic and fun as the celebration of the Jedi's triumph over the Death Star in the final scene of the first Star Wars, such a long time ago.

If there's one thing that commercial American films know how to do, it's fill a screen with splendor. A huge screen, like the one in the Grand Palais' Lumiere theater, makes any Hollywood-style movie look better. Basic Instinct, no world-beater, had a pearly, febrile glamour when it was shown on opening night here 13 years ago. And Sith, a spiffy catalog of the things Hollywood does best, found its perfect showcase in the Lumiere. Of course the audience of 2,400 exulted when the Star Wars logo first appeared; that happens any time one of the six films is shown. But they remained enthralled, clung tight through the time-warp space ride of thrills and despair, sensations and special effects, in part because of the glorious visual presentation. This is a handsome movie, but it will never again look so good as it did today.

Emphasis mine. I wish I was there.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2005-05-16 10:48am

2'400 at Cannes? That's quite a party.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 2005-05-16 11:07am

Never again look as good as it does today?

I wonder what the author meant by that...

After all, the vast majority of people can't see a film at a film festival like Cannes, so if he's talking about "atmosphere" oh well.

I've never been to an actual film festival, but from what I've read it's a very very different experience from seeing films at the theater. People cheer, applaud (only saw that once, after seeing ANH SE on opening night in my hometown), even jeer and boo during movies or get up and walk out in the middle to show their support/disapproval. The creative staff is often on hand to make comments before or after, etc. But this again is part of the atmosphere. Seeing those emotional "fans" or haters really turns many people off, and anyway it might lead to a kind of herd mentality (if half the people in the theater are heckling a picture and you disagree, are you going to pick a fight with them or what?).

In terms of theater quality, is he saying this theater is the best possible place to show a movie? I'd be surprised if there weren't equal or better theaters in the entire world.

Surely he wasn't talking about the technology already looking dated when the movie comes out...?

Dangermouse · Post by **Dangermouse** » 2005-05-16 12:03pm

Kurgan wrote:Never again look as good as it does today?

I wonder what the author meant by that...

After all, the vast majority of people can't see a film at a film festival like Cannes, so if he's talking about "atmosphere" oh well.

I've never been to an actual film festival, but from what I've read it's a very very different experience from seeing films at the theater. People cheer, applaud (only saw that once, after seeing ANH SE on opening night in my hometown), even jeer and boo during movies or get up and walk out in the middle to show their support/disapproval. The creative staff is often on hand to make comments before or after, etc. But this again is part of the atmosphere. Seeing those emotional "fans" or haters really turns many people off, and anyway it might lead to a kind of herd mentality (if half the people in the theater are heckling a picture and you disagree, are you going to pick a fight with them or what?).

In terms of theater quality, is he saying this theater is the best possible place to show a movie? I'd be surprised if there weren't equal or better theaters in the entire world.

Surely he wasn't talking about the technology already looking dated when the movie comes out...?

Finding a layout of the theater and knowing the screen size would tell us a lot. Most theaters I have been in sit anywhere between 300 and 600 so 2400 to me is hard to imagine. I wonder if they are using your standard 35mm projector, a 70mm projector or something else entirely. Provided the theater is properly cooled (2400 is a lot of body heat), I think watching a 70mm print on a very large screen would be memorable.

The other thing that caught me eye in that article was the live orchestra. Its mentioned they played the theme before Lucas talked. I wonder if they also played the score during the film as well. That might be asking too much with respect to score timing and the theater's sound system but it popped it my mind.

I think you are right though. He is probably refering to atmosphere and the energy during the screening. I saw the premiere of Frida at the Toronto Film Festival (Does anyone know the size of their theater? I remember being high up) and the energy of the audience made it very fun and very memorable. I haven't experience yet what you have described but I am sure it happens.

I am sure there are theaters as equal as the Lumiere at Cannes.

Post by **Vympel** » 2005-05-16 12:26pm

I quite liked this quote

But throughout his career, Lucas, like his comrade/colleague Steven Spielberg, has gotten a raw deal from some for bringing pleasure to audiences. All the "Star Wars" movies will continue to entertain us for many years to come. They were grand fun, and this last one's a corker. That's all the defense they need.

and from another review:

And was the Empire really so bad? Sure, they blew up planets, but only the troublemakers. If you just abided by their rules, would you really have such a bad life? It’s not like they turned everyone into slave miners. They just wanted to be in charge, but the galaxy’s big. You could probably live a normal life and never suffer. Kind of like the red states. As long as they don’t speak up, nobody bothers them.

Hilarious!