Holy Shit! Ebert Gave Star Wars Ep. 2 Two Stars!!!!

[CriticalBill6966]

That's the same rating that he gave for "The New Guy".

Maybe he was in a bad mood, maybe not, who knows?

This came as a shock to me because he gave the anoying Episode I, 3 1/2 stars (and that's staring Jar Jar). Granted it is only his opinion and not everyone will hate/love it, and it is only one review....I just don't know what to think about it.

What do you people think? Ebert and his review?

I would feel a tad bit better if he had given it a half more. I know it's just a half more but there are tons of movies he's given 2 1/2 stars to that I love but very few fall past that point.

[movieDUDE68686]

yeah, I was pretty suprised myself

[TheRock]

Ebert is hit and miss. I think he is a good review writer but sometimes his reasons for liking/disliking a movie are strange. As far as his review for Episode II, it's definately a shock considering Ebert loved all the Star Wars films before AOTC. His problems with the film(fx,acting,too talky for first half) have all been stated in other reviews, even in the positive ones.

[James Logan]

I don't trust Ebert anyway. He gave 3 stars to GLITTER, 3 or 3 and a half to TOMB RAIDER...he just doesn't know shit about movies.
Let's just say he's "entitled to his opinions"...which are WRONG. http://www.joblo.com/ubb/tongue.gif

[Horror whore]

You guys know now that it's going to be a great movie!

[Muha]

ebert is a fucking hack...


'nuff said

[Scarface98.9]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by James Logan:
I don't trust Ebert anyway. He gave 3 stars to GLITTER, 3 or 3 and a half to TOMB RAIDER...he just doesn't know shit about movies.
Let's just say he's "entitled to his opinions"...which are WRONG. http://www.joblo.com/ubb/tongue.gif</font>
u got it wrong. he gave 2 stars to Glitter and 3 for Tomb Raider. but he really contradicts himself in this review

[ClarkGriswald]

I don't think Ebert fucked this review up at all. If everyone else is making the same points, maybe he's in his own mind for once. Just once.

I still think AOTC will be a good film, but not a great film. Eh, I dunno. I caught some footage and I wasn't thrilled by it. maybe once I see the whole product I'll feel better.

-----

ClarkGriswald
"Sometimes the best medicene is too simply sleep. Other times you need a good dose of your friend morphine to put you in La-La Land."

[Irene Manor]

Maybe Ebert was out of reefer, and didn't get stoned before he saw it.

[LordKaruku]

I think Ebert knows more about movies than most other mainstream film critics. All you have to do is listen to the commentary track on "Dark City" to realize he knows more about how filmmaking works than a lot of filmmakers, and also has an encyclopedic knowledge of movie history to back it up.

While I certainly disagree with a lot of his opinions, and some of his reviews may miss a point or be based on faulty information, I agree with him more often than any other non-Internet critic. His AOTC review seemed to make some good points, and I'm sure I'll re-read if after seeing the movie.

By the way, my God-- trying to stay spoiler-free on a Star Wars movie is like trying to walk through a rainstorm without getting hit by a drop of water. I've gotten pretty good at figuring out how many paragraphs of a review to skip once I see the words "In Episode Two, ten years have passed since..."

[Zing!]

The first thing I thought when I read Ebert's review of Episode II was that he was covering his bases. His major problem with the film was that he felt seeing a digital movie on a film projector instead of one of Lucas's digital projectors made the film seem 'out of focus.' He ends the review by stating he may change his mind about the movie after seeing it again in a digital theater (and change his mind yet again after seeing it on DVD). Although he will most likely always have a problem with the film's laughable dialogue, I wouldn't be surprised if he raises his review to at least two and a half stars, if not three.

[Zed]

I really prefer to read Joblo's reviews!!!!

[James Logan]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Scarface98.9:

u got it wrong. he gave 2 stars to Glitter and 3 for Tomb Raider. but he really contradicts himself in this review</font>

Thanks for the correction, Scarface. But that's still two stars too much for each one of the movies.

[Ender]

Roger Ebert's opinions are hard to decipher. I've never cared for his taste in movies, or his manner of writing reviews. The more he dogs on a movie, the more confident I am as to the quality of it (see his FIGHT CLUB review for a prime example of what I'm talking about).

[Cyclonus]

Well, he has the balls to go against the popular consensus, that much can be said. Remember his reviews for Gladiator and Erin Brockovich? (I didn't think the latter was so great either)

[Ender]

Yeah, he's got balls, you have to be if you're any kind of credit.

If he just had tastes I could agree with in addition to those balls, I might be a bigger fan of his.

[LordKaruku]

Dellamorte made a good comment on this over in another topic-- Ebert's over 60, why does everyone expect him to like Fight Club? It's not at all aimed to him. I've yet to meet anyone over 40 who liked Fight Club. Anyway I think it's a little unfair to bash Ebert for giving FC two stars, unless you consider yourselves the correct target audience to judge the merits of a Barney movie. http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif

[Mike Sampson]

Too many STAR WARS topics open. Closing down and referring people to the official AOTC topic...

MS