Flare Sci-Fi Forums: Good reviews for the new Star Wars film

This is topic Good reviews for the new Star Wars film in forum Star Wars at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/9/33.html

Posted by Trinculo on :

I recently read the reviews for the new Star Wars movie in Time and Newsweek and in the theatre managers opinions of the new film on Cinescape. The consensus is that the film is vapid. Does anyone know of a review by an adult who liked the film? BTW, I plan to be seeing the film "Mummy", "Wild Wild West", and a few others before seeing the Star Wars film.

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

I haven't really heard anything good yet. Some of it might just be anti-Lucas propaganda, but I'm not so sure.

------------------
http://frankg.dgne.com/
"[Steve Jobs] shouts at his employees a lot, using language you can't use on TV, not even on UPN." - Andy Ihnatko

Posted by Elim Garak (Member # 14) on :

I'm not looking forward to Menace-bashing sessions.

------------------
Quark: "Lesson number one: No one involved in extra-legal activity considers himself nefarious." (DS9: "The Sound of Her Voice")

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :

I think it comes down to a little bit of jealosy, a little bit of Tall Poppy syndrome, and the major fact that for such an anticipated movie, and it being SciFi/Fantasy and it being Star Wars, that the reviewers not for just such big magazines as Time etc. but probably for smaller papers and magazines, the reviewers have to bag TPM not to loose face with their peers. I mean, it is usually the case that reviewers bag 'popular' movies while swooning over 'smaller' movies, cause if they don't they won't sound 'intellectual', won't sell as many units, and thusly are in danger of loosing their jobs. I can't see why so many people take reviewers at their word, I mean puh-leese most movie goers will know the difference between a good and a bad movie, I think if you need to be influenced by some pratt writing a review column, you musn't have much control over your own life, thats not to say that reviewers are always wrong, usually they are quite correct at assessing movies, its just that they need to 'proove' themselves to their bosses, or peers, to look professional. I am going to see Star Wars, and I'm sure those millions of other people are too, I'm sure Lucas is in no danger of loosing out...

Just for the record, on an Australian show last night, called 'The Panel' done by the guys from 'Working Dog' who brought you things like 'Frontline' and the newly released movie (in the US) 'The Castle' - go see its its farkin' funny - they had a semi regular entertainment reporter on their, she had just flown back from the states, and had seen TPM, and had been the first Journalist to interview George Lucas after the movie, she said it was ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC - shes not a critic, she doesn't have to secure her job, or her 'weekly column' she said it was brilliant - and the movie goes for about 2hrs 12 mins - just for those who want to know...

ANDREW

------------------
"For flavor value, chocolate. But I prefer the Cult
of Curry." - Frank G, April 1999
"(strange mouth jerks)" - Krenim, April 1999

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Normally, I would agree with the critics not "getting" certain things. After all, they aren't perfect.

However, a movie like Star Wars doesn't succeed because of its appeal to the arthouse crowd. The source of its popularity is its ability to appeal to almost everyone. I fear that Episode I might be lacking some of that appeal, and that is what the critics are picking up on.

------------------
"You hear about 'constitutional rights,' 'free speech,' and the 'free press.' Every time I hear these words I say to myself, 'That man is a Red!!...' You never hear a real American talk like that!"
--
Mayor Frank Hague, Jersey City

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :

Oh, I think critics and reviewers 'get it' I just think they can't let on they 'get it' or 'enjoy it' other wise they'd loose the respect of their peers and employers.

------------------
"For flavor value, chocolate. But I prefer the Cult
of Curry." - Frank G, April 1999
"(strange mouth jerks)" - Krenim, April 1999

Posted by Montgomery (Member # 23) on :

It's the hype that creates the backlash. It's on every magazine cover, on TV, domiating the net. Radio 1 is doing a trail for it calling it, in all seriousness and with a pretentious voice:, "The GREATEST movie of ALL TIME!".

With that level of hyperbole, how could any film measure up?

------------------
"You're wrong, and you're a grotesquely ugly freak."

- Chris Morris, Brass Eye

Posted by Xentrick (Member # 64) on :

I've heard two adults who liked it, one guy an exec in the movie theatre business raved on the Cavuto Business Report, another is a local rock&roll DJ at the nearest VIP advance screening.

The DJ is not a SF fan and he was of the opinion that SW:TPM was slow to get started, but still thought the special effects are worth seeing.

{just saw The Mummy Wednesday night after my brother's recommednation. He described it as making Indianna Jones look like ***** ****. Lots of action, lots of CGI effects. The opening scene shows the Pyramid complex at Giza as it might have looked 3000 years ago. Some of the actual Mummy scenes really look computer-generated, and these are annoying, but overall I liked it. Finally Brendan Fraser has a recent movie he can brag about, and the lead actress--Rachel Weis-- makes a very favorable impression, having looks, brains, and personality all in one.}

Posted by Simon on :

The main thing about reviewers is that they are supposed to ignore things like SFX and how cool Darth Vader and light Saber battles are. Thus the reviews for these types of movies are lower than many people would like.

In Canada our fairly conservative Globe and Mail decided to give it two reviews 2.5/4 for those who don't like this type of movie and 3.5/4 for those who do.

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

That sounds more than a little condescending.

Posted by Elim Garak (Member # 14) on :

It sounds quite rational besides the fact that most people like this type of movie, thus leading to the production of The Phantom Menace.

------------------
Quark: "Lesson number one: No one involved in extra-legal activity considers himself nefarious." (DS9: "The Sound of Her Voice")

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

So all science fiction fans are tasteless idiots who will love anything filled with pretty explosions and bright flashing lights? Because that's what the implication is.

Posted by The Excalibur (Member # 34) on :

I think you are taking it a little to personal Sol, that's not what it says. It says if you not a sci-fi fan it's an ok movie, if you are a sci-fi fan it's a better movie.

http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue108/news.html

------------------
INSURRECTION

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

To me, the implication seems clear. The Phantom Menace is a substandard film, but science fiction fans will swallow it.

Now, that's not to say that TPM actually is a bad film, of course. But the movie itself isn't really the issue. It's the perception that science fiction is essentially for children, and hence science fiction fans are essentially childish; that is what bothers me.