 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
... based on the consensus of major reviews nationwide at the Rotten Tomatoe site. The actual numbers are 49 fresh, 41 rotten, averaging 54% fresh on their tomatometer (it takes a 60% consensus of positive reviews to achieve a fresh rating). It's worth noting that even a cursory reading of the "fresh" reviews hints at the spoilage. ;^)BTW, if you weren't aware of it already Rotten Tomatoes is one of the best sites on the internet for film information. Check it out:
Follow Ups:
Spider-Men-like films are anomolies. Stan Lee has about six titles in the wings ready to be cast already. If it wasn't "Spider-Man" it would be something else...then it's just gone. Poooof ! We won't be talking about "Spider-Man" next year let alone by the end of the summer!George Lucas is a solid entertainment act, from start to finish. His "Star Wars" story cycle is an institution. Guaranteed built-in entertainment value and elements, from start to finish.
No comparison really.
When it comes right down to it Spider-Man is just a far better film and worthy of repeated viewings. My wife and I saw "Attack of the Clones" once; it's doubtful that there'll be any "cloned" viewings. I will say this having seen Episode II earlier today, "Clones" was better than Episode I and marginally better than my expectations. Granted, it didn't take much to be better than my expectations, but it was watchable and at times bordered on entertaining.As for your mild rant about anomalies and what Stan Lee has waiting in the wings, both X-Men and Spider-Man have lived up to their hype; there's no reason to expect that future films based on Marvel comics characters will be less than respectful of the original concepts or filmgoing audience. Can you say the same of the Star Woes track record? If you want to talk about institutions, Stan Lee is quite honestly much more of an American treasure than George Lucas or any of the SW films except, perhaps, Episode IV (Lucas first effort and the only good one to date that he himself directed) and Episode V (which Lucas didn't direct).
SW Episode II vs. Spidey: "No comparison really." You're correct, Spider-Man has excellent direction, involving characters, good acting, thoughtful dialogue, plausible love interest, taught pacing, and oh yes, ...it had an interesting story. So what does SW "Clones" have? It has LOTS of special effects, it has LOTS of cliches, it has predictability, it has all the hype Lucas can muster behind it. Did I leave anything out?
AuPh
If you prefer a sugar substitute for The Real Thing, that's your choice. I'm not going to waste my money on fad films.
... you already HAVE wasted money on a fad film. Of course, the wife and I went ONCE to, so Lucas can add our sheckles to his honey pot, but we went to screenings of Spidey twice and enjoyed it both times. FYI, Spider-Man is on our DVD want list; Star Wars Episode II, with it's wooden portrayal of Anakin and endless string of cliches, most definitely is NOT.> > > "If you prefer sugar substitutes to The Real Thing..." < < <
In the long run, sugar substitutes may just be preferable to pure cane, my insulan loving friend! Didn't you know that too much processed sugar isn't good for you? ;^)
AuPh
Both the new and the old shoot for emulation of the old serials, have their share of groaners, plot holes, and really lame dialogue. The difference is that in the first three the actors and the filmmakers seemed to enjoy what they were doing. There was a freshness and a sense of fun that the audience recognized and went along with in spite of the hokiness.Whether it's all of the digital machinations, or the "weight" of the Star Wars Tradition/Mythos hanging over the actors, making them take it way too seriously, there were very few genuine emotions for the audience to grasp onto to be drawn into the film. To my mind, that is the film's greatest failing (with Lucas's lack of distinction as a director running a close second).
And, why DO they try to put real/digital people on digital animals?!
John K.
Tom S is on the money.I am around the same age as Tom and I can relate to what he says about growing up with the "force".I didn't expect a religious experience in the theater.What I expected was to forget I was in a theater and be drawn to the cool fantasy world of SW.The movie did not dissapoint.AOTC is the best SW to date.To the guys who bad mouth AOTC without seeing it,once again go shit in your hat.
After seeing this movie, I realised why I liked the first three (4, 5 & 6) so much- I forgot I was in the theatre and felt like I was part of the war going on onscreen.BTW, to all those who thought the romance issue with Anakin and Amidala wa hollow or corny- lighten up! Its good to see a romance protrayed on screen that doesn't involve seeing the couple involved tear each others clothes off or a blurrily focused sex scene.
Kudos to Lucas for directing two characters in an AGE APROPRIATE relationship!!!
My wife had GREAT reservations about seeing (or accepting) Yoda as a CGI. She has been a big fan of Frank Oz back to the Sesame street days (who hasn't?). But during the first CGI shot of Yoda just talking, and seeing the inflections in his facial character, I glanced over at my wife- she was smiling. She leaned over to me and said simply "they did it!".
For those of you who don't like the idea of CGI for yoda, I'm sure you will at least admit it had to be done once you see that little guy go up against Count Dooku (sorry if you haven't seen it yet, you will be amazed)!!!
Clearly the best to date. Can't wait for Episode III!!! See ya in '05.
Dman
You don't have to have bodice ripping, just chemistry! There was NO chemistry between the romantic leads although Natalie Portman tried her best to fake it. The precious moments, coincidences, exposition dialogue and cliches that riddled "Attack of the Clones" ruined any suspension of disbelief, and all the great FX that Lucas plastered up on the screen didn't help one bit.AuPh
I will concede that Lucas still can't write a good "normal" personal dialog between characters (even with the additional help in the screenwriting process), but I DID feel the akwardness of first love and the temptation of choice there that a person in Anakin's position must have (the whole Jedi for life/ Senator duties thing, etc.).Maybe I'm a hopless romantic, but I remember being 17 or 18 and feeling so tongue tied with my first love that I occasionally spouted out hoaky cheesy one-liners in an attempt to woo/convince/get lucky/whatever.
I just saw the film for a second time last night, just to verify my own feelings about everything I've felt about it. I am happy to say that I still get the fellings of excitement of all appropriate things within the film. Also, the sadness, happiness and tension where applicable.
IMHO, the best he's done so far.
Dman
I felt that the first Star Wars (Ep. IV) came much closer to capturing the innocence of youth with Luke's feelings for Princess Leia and his efforts to seek adventure. True, Mark Hamill didn't have the chops to stretch his acting very far, but he was much more believable than the current actor portraying Anakin. Granted, Hayden Christensen is probably about the equal of the child actor used in Ep. I, but that doesn't raise either film in my estimation.I'm forced to agree with many of the current SW critics who've concluded rightly or wrongly that George Lucas has lost his ability to direct actors convincingly, in manner that conveys anything resembling passion. The SW saga is virtually (pun intended) all FX show now and indeed the story suffers for it. Suspension of disbelief has apparantly been traded for the oohs and ahs of an immobile roller coaster ride and character development has been replaced with rapid-fire choreographed action sequences which literally segue into each other from the openning title to end credits, the pace only briefly slowing for the awkward forced romance between the leads. The only logical explanation is that Lucas probably assumes no one will notice the plot flaws and precious coincidences because of all the action crammed into Episode II.
BTW, the silly light-sabre duel between Yoda and Senator bad-ass was comical to the point that my wife was almost in histerics; I'm quite sure that the humor was unintended; in retrospect, this scene is just embarassingly bad. If Lucas had wanted to convey Yoda's power more believably, he could've had the character bring the fight to him, first with his mental control of objects and then with anticipatory movements in the duel. Of course, big surprise, after the scene started with Yoda using his mental prowess Lucas chose to end it with the "whirling dirvish" Yoda because the rapid pacing showed off the improved ILM special effects.
AuPh
If it fits you're more than welcome to wear it and enjoy Lucas' latest crap for what it is! BTW, my wife and I are seeing it tomorrow against both our better judgments (we pre-ordered our tickets last week to avoid the hastle). While I'm very much a fan of the first three films (especially Episode IV & V), the last movie in his bassackwards series sucked pond water. Some of the worst acting I've ever seen, but if I felt ripped off, how about the poor theater owners who were locked into carrying the film for many weeks by Lucas' rigid no-competition contract? They got screwed even worse.Tom S. is an okay guy in my book, but you obviously missed the thrust of my message in response to his post. I was much older when I saw the first series of Star Wars films and was just as impressed as he was at seven, my point being that a good film is a good film whether it's seen through the eyes of a child or those of an adult. Often perceptions change with age, but the best films are timeless; IMO, Star Wars and Empire have aged quite well in this regard while Episode I was groanworthy fodder from it's initial showing! Of course anything with the words "Star Wars" attached to it will be worshiped by rabid fans (i.e., in this instance, "fan" being much closer to the word from which it's derived!) who park their brains at the door.
Unfortunately for the director's small legion of Jedi nazis, who practice Jar-Jar brinksmanship while living in denial, there is a growing consensus that Lucas has lost touch with his audience. He can still make a film that children and die-hard fans get giddy about, but no longer is he creating the kind of work that will stand the test of time. Now, apparently, its all about the FX and how much money the SW licensing can generate.
So go now my son, again and again, and may the farce be with you!
Regards,
AuPh
What is it that people expect from star wars?I was 3 years old when the first star wars movie was released into theaters. My mother told me that in the years following the release I must have watched the film 40 times in various forms while growing up to the age of 7 or 8 (broadcast television, borrowed laserdisc players, videotapes, theaters etc.) I imagine that my age grouping is a large section of the current SW fanbase as well as those slightly older and younger. The SW saga became part of what this age group grew up with. Instead of imagining you were a firefighter, cowboy, indian, astronaut or whatever you were imagining you were a character in SW. For better or for worse, the values of the story were instilled and emulated by those in my generation. “The Force” has become religious in reference for those in this generation. Now, before you dispute this, look up religious in the dictionary and observe the behavior. It doesn’t necessarily mean it’s profoundly spiritual but it is religious. Mannerisms are universally understood, movie script lines are quoted and used just like bible scripture in conversations, and there are heated conversations on the exact canon of the SW “universe.” Just like the bible, as time passes, facts and generally accepted truths changed with public opinion. When Empire Strikes Back was first released, it was panned harder than EP1 by both fans and critics because of the “dark” storyline. Now, Empire is used as a comparative standard of quality for the new films because of how “fresh” it was. The SW saga has become tools for persecutions and a whipping post for personal frustrations.
Where am I going with this? The negative backlash of reactions from “devoted fans” and “movie critics” from the EP1 and now EP2 only prove out that what these people were semi-consciously looking for was a spiritual experience. When faced with the grim reality that SW is just a movie (and as admitted by Lucas several times, a high budget Saturday matinee movie), people decide to “crucify” the film itself along with the creator(s) because their expectations were not met. Jesus was crucified, was he not? Now, please don’t construe that I’m saying the film or Lucas is the second coming. All I’m saying is that the negative backlash from not meeting what is expected is observable in both situations.
In short, people expected to be spiritually enlightened or to be bequeathed with power of the force (or the word of god). It’s too bad that all that SW ever was is that it’s just a movie. For me, it’s an entertaining movie and it’s fun to forget that you’re twentysomething and just be a kid again, glued to the movie seat, watching a space fantasy.
Tom §.
I was 25 when the first one came out (Episode IV) and watched it 7 or 8 times myself; it was great fun. Unfortunately for the Star Wars saga, that first film seems to have aged much better than Lucas' ability to cast and direct his vision. BTW, I don't expect to be "enlightened" or "bequethed with power of the force", but when I go to see an overhyped mega-million dollar feature I do expect to be entertained without wincing at corny cliche` dialogue and bad acting. Note: If I wanted that, I would stick strictly with the serials of the 30's and 40's! When viewed in the context of the times they were filmed those classic 12-15 Chapter cliffhangers have a great deal more heart and are loads of fun.My suggestion, if you haven't seen Spidey, "Clone" yourself and go to that instead. :o)
AuPh
> > Unfortunately for the Star Wars saga, that first film seems to have aged much better than Lucas' ability to cast and direct his vision. < <1) He never had such ability to begin with. Take a look at his "illustrious" directing attempts other than star wars. Did you also happen to notice that Empire and ROTJ (the #1 and #2 films regarded by fans) are not directed by him?
2) The first films were panned by critics during their original theatrical release. Yes they've aged well. What makes you think these new 3 won't? Time will answer that question.
> > How old are you anyway, Tom? < <
I didn't check the release date of the original star wars before I posted my response. I was > 1 year old when the first movie was released in 1977. I only saw the original on home video formats while the other "first 2" I saw in theatres after nagging my parents incessantly.
> > but when I go to see an overhyped mega-million dollar feature < <
And who created this hype? Who said it was going to the greatest thing in the world? Probably the same people who waited in line for 12 hours then left in the middle of the showing.
> > feature I do expect to be entertained without wincing at corny cliche` dialogue and bad acting. Note: If I wanted that, I would stick strictly with the serials of the 30's and 40's! < <
Hello!? What do you think Lucas has admitted to emulating time and time again? Why is this suprisingly offensive now? If you work off of preconcieved notions, you may be attempting to interact with something that isn't there (insert CG blue screen quip here).
Tom §.
I consider the first Star Wars a great film followed closely by The Empire Strikes Back. Even though he didn't direct the second and third features in the series, both were his "vision." Unfortunately, the wheels started falling off of that vision in the third film (i.e., it was to neatly tied up and had some serious "groaner" elements including the cute furry creatures that had TM marketing written all over them).FTR, Lucas was at one point in his life viewed as a great visionary director (even before SW) from the same class as Spielburg, Scorsese and others who came into prominence in the early 70's; of course, you are correct in your assessment that he hasn't lived up to those expectations.
As for what he is emulating, well if it's the serials of the 30's and 40's he is doing it badly or picking the worst ones to emulate. You may recall that Spielburg's Raiders of the Lost Ark also based it's theme and structure on the classic serials and pulled it off handsomely. Granted, Lucas had a hand in the concept, but Spielburg created a beautifully directed homage to a classic form of cinema that WILL stand the test of time. His second effort fell short and he recognized the fact that he'd let his audience down somewhat and corrected the failure by turning in another classic in the third film in the series.
My point here is that Spielburg has respect for his audience while Lucas is gotten wrapped up in the minutiae of creating special effects to the point where he no longer connects to the movie going public outside of the drooling SW fan base.
As I indicated your loyal fan above, may the farce be with you!
AuPh
> > My point here is that Spielburg has respect for his audience < <LOL! He panders to and manipulates the audience just like Lucas. He just pulls different strings. To me, the indy jones series is just as hokey as star wars. Although, It doesn't make it less entertaining.
Tom §.
... and far less hokey. Spielburg DOES pander to certain audience expectations dependent upon the type of film he's making, but as a director, Spielburg still has an artist's heart and coninues to redefine himself creatively; no such luck with Lucas.AuPh
"The Empire has no clothes.""...isn't filmmaking. It's high-tech taxidermy."
Cute, huh?
clark
We have two people where I work that went to the 12:01 showing Thursday morning, they were giddy. Loved it, said "Lucas is back!" and couldn't wait to see it again. Go figure.BTW, I love the Rotten Tomatoes site. Everyone should take a visit before seeing a movie.
Dan C
/
ooops!
Hi,
the ads told me the movie wasn't storyboarded, they looked amateurish. I grew up watching movies that were painstakingly crafted to look great. Every good movie was full of larger than life scenes that visually leapt off the screen. Or at least reflected the craftsmanship someone like Hitchcock would demand from his crew.The shots I saw on TV, some of them were pathetic. The sort of thing you'd expect from 'Ernest becomes a Jedi'.
Did either of you two ("late" or "McW") actually see the movie in a theatre yet? I suggest you do so (even if its a matinee, which are usually cheaper if you don't want to fork over the Lucas-cash!). You may agree with the critics, or you may, as I did, fall in love with the thing again (Episode I, while good, left me flat compared to this) and can't wait to get back in line to see it again!
Just my thoughts. No flames attempted.
Dman
Someone down the page commented that the audience was laughing at the special effects (or CGI?) they were so bad....
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
