There are certainly elements which appear to have captured the wider audience's imagination, namely the Jedi Temple massacre, McDiarmid's performance as Palpatine and the sad but compelling inevitability of jigsaw pieces locking into place.

Some have praised the computer imagery as a now believable component of Lucas's 'intergalactic canvas' while others have commented on the improved (if not stellar) performances of Christensen, Portman and McGregor. A few naysayers aside, it's much better than we could have hoped for.

This is my extensive response to the immature and uniformed Filmforce review:

So IGN Filmforce posted their review of Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith and it's already being attacked as not only being unprofessional by attacking every critic to give the movie a positive score on the IGN-owned Rotten Tomatoes as well as specifically linking to (and attacking) Drew McWeeny's AICN review by calling McWeeny a "less level-headed" reviewer (Glen Oliver once ran AICN Coaxial), but also for attacking the movie with uninformed nit-picks that anyone who has seen the first two prequels will know the answer to.

First up, Oliver complains about Order 66:

The evil Chancellor Palpatine – who has quietly puppet-mastered an entire Galactic Republic throughout these prequels – suddenly declares "Order 66", prompting tens of thousands of "Clone Troopers" to suddenly turn on & assassinate the very Jedi they've been fighting beside for years. At face value, they murder their friends and comrades – simply because they were told to do so.

This severely dilutes the impact of the long-awaited "Jedi purge." Revenge of the Sith spends God knows how long on political and metaphysical ranting and raving, yet one line of crucial explanation would have brought greater substance and meaning to this dramatically essential event. Were the Clones imprinted with "sleeper programming" when they were hatched at the clonery (which would serve to exemplify the horrific, and boundlessly patient, depth of the Sith's long-term plans)? Does Palpatine have a brainwashing device of some sort? Is a piggy-back zombiefication code imbedded in Palpatine's trans-galactic snuff command to the Clone armies? Or, are the Clones simply brainless and stupid? If so, I'm selling a bridge in Brooklyn, and I've more than a few tasks for them...

We've been waiting for this moment since Obi-Wan Kenobi (Alec Guinness) first alluded to the fate of the Jedi in Episode IV. We see the moment, and it is well executed (excuse the pun). But we do not understand the event. It's vacuous, and feels like a plot device rather than the gut-wrenching betrayal it was clearly intended to be.

Anyone who has seen Star Wars Episode III: Attack of the Clones (the movie that comes before Revenge of the Sith in this trilogy) knows the answer to his complaints.

When Obi-Wan visits Kamino, he is told:
"LAMA SU: You'll find they are totally obedient, taking any order without question. We modified their genetic structure to make them less independent than the original host."

Since Palpatine is the Supreme Chancellor of the Republic, and thus in charge of the entire army, the Clones follow his orders without question; and that includes slaying their Jedi Generals.

Next up he whines about Anakin not sensing the twins inside Padme or Luke on Tatooine:

In Episode II - Attack of the Clones, Anakin Skywalker senses the torture (and impending death) of his captive mother from far across the Galaxy. He drops everything, goes to rescue her, and fails. This is a pivotal plot point in RotS.

Yet, in Sith, Anakin fails to detect the presence of the twins gestating in his wife's womb, even though he is sleeping in the same bed as the woman. Furthermore, one of these twins is eventually "hidden" on the same planet from which he detected his mother in Attack of the Clones – only this time the location is implied as remote enough to "avoid detection by the Sith." So, which is it? Thus, one of the primary dramatic thrusts of the entire franchise hinges on conceptual inconsistency and lack of internal story logic. Perhaps the Sith are as stupid as their Clones? Or, perhaps they need new writers...

The key word he missed there was torture. And the answer to his complaint can be found in not only Attack of the Clones, but The Empire Strikes Back as well.

The Jedi aren't some magical life detector. When Anakin sensed his mother's torture he felt her pain from across the galaxy. When Luke on Dagobah sensed the trouble Han and Leia were in, he sensed their pain. In Revenge of the Sith Anakin dreams about Padme's death and pain of childbirth.

What Oliver is complaining about there is perfectly consistent with the rest of the six Star Wars films and is yet another example of his review being uninformed and nit-picking something in order to give it a negative slant.

As for Luke, it's partially explained above, but also Anakin does not know he has any offspring until a farmboy blows up the Death Star and the galaxy first hears the name Luke Skywalker.

In the earlier prequels, Jedi skydive from tremendous heights, dodging aerial traffic & leaping from impossibly high balconies like flying squirrels. So, how can a principal Jedi character in this film die...by falling? The same discrepancy rears its ugly head in Episode VI - Return of the Jedi, by the way. This undercuts the intent of the sequence, and the fate of the key character.

Mace Windu is zapped by force lightning and loses an arm, he's in no condition to cushion his fall out of Palpatine's office. Nice try.

The Jedi are repeatedly able to detect unrest in The Way of Things. They can sense an individual's restless spirit, or the plight of a colleague endangered millions of miles away. Yet, they can stand in the center of their enemy's power base, and be completely blind (or only vaguely suspicious) as to who...and what...they are truly dealing with?

The Jedi make noise about their order's diminished ability to use "The Force." So, if they are aware of this shortcoming...and if the future of humanity (and the entire galaxy) is at stake...shouldn't they be a bit more proactive in figuring out what the enemy is up to?

Prehaps the ultimate nit-pick, which is also explained throughout Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones. Yoda says "The Dark Side clouds everything, difficult to see the future is" and Mace shares a moment with Yoda where he flat out says their ability to use the Force has diminished. In Episode III they get Anakin to spy on Palpatine because they suspect something. They are trying to figure out what the enemy is up to, but Glen Oliver decided to not mention such things in his review.

The things he complained about are explained in Episodes I and II, it'd be like him reviewing Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and saying "How do we know how Indy is pretty sure the painting on the wall is the Ark? Do we know he's seen the Ark? How do we know this? This movie sucks because of this."

Glen Oliver is a silly face.

I know people here are getting pissed off with some of these new reviews, but wasn't this expected? Yes, ROTS got some shockingly great first wave reviews, but I mean, THIS is what you knew was going to happen all along regardless of the film's quality.

There are critics who critique and then there are critics who write to be egotistical. We know Star Wars is a nice big juicy target for critics because they KNOW everyone is going to read THAT review. It's the easiest way to get your name recognized. No asshole cares about Tweedle-Dee's opinion of 'Monster-in-Law', but you can bet your ass everyone will care what he/she thinks about 'Sith' before they get to see it - especially considering the popular distaste towards the prequels.

This is just beginning. There's a slew of reviews that are aimed at trashing the film, but at least for those of you that take RT as the be-all end-all, you have quite a head start.

Jonathan Ross is funny, but bear in mind that in a recent inteview with Ewan McGregor he called the first 2 prequels 'crap'. Also, Ross is not known for being a Star Wars fan. That said he isn't one of these people who wants to attack Star Wars for no other reason than some bullshit superiority complex. Which would seem to be the case in some of the so called negative reviews.

Good points CoGro.

Some new reviews up at RT it looks like. Sorry if they have been mentioned already it's tough to follow everything at this point.

One of them says we should be watching LOTR instead.

Yep, Nirvana rocked his face off and he didn't come off funny that night. And yes, they were supposed to play Lithium. The video is commerically available in the Nirvana documentry "Live Tonight Sold Out!." To make this Star Wars related, a PR guy once told me that Kurt had an Star Wars lunch box that he kept his drugs in.

Anyone else notice that Devin from CHUD's review has been changed to a fresh? But it still counts five rotten reviews?

Of course it was expected. But this time it's like the few bad reviewers are being smug, negative, name-dropping and over-the-top just for the shits and giggles of being smug, negative, name-dropping and over-the-top. It's like these few negatives are reviews of reviews, rather than honest critiques of a movie they just saw.

There are 5 rottens.

There are five rottens because the "Cream of the Crop" is rated twice so Peter Travers' review gets two rotten votes instead of one.

Not just journalism, but phonies and fakes in general. I love Penn & Teller's BULLSHIT!, and the now-defunct Media Whores Online ("the site that set out to bring the media to their knees but found they were already there"). I know a phony when I see one.

Of course, the movie didn't have Mawky Mawk, whose crotch Travers shows an unhealthy obsession with.

If RT wants to have any kind of credibilty, they should make up their minds about what constitutes a "fresh" or "rotten" review. If there's no star rating to base a score on, I could see allowing the reviewer to tell them. But to have a reviewer give 3 out of 5 stars and declare his review a pan, is just a case of RT compounding and collaborating with the reviewer's dishonesty.

The "official" (I use that term guardedly) indicator and list of reviews can be seen first here:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wa ... ic=columns

The reviews show up first, then the indicator gets updated a bit later. It's been nine hours since the positive Fiore Mastracci review was added to the list, but it hasn't been added to the indicator yet. That is an unusual delay.

Movie critics are such a self-important bunch aren't they? Here's Michael Medved having a shit fit when a guest on his show calls him out (the subject isn't movies, though):

http://mediamatters.org/items/200505120007

Beware of any American who uses a faux-British "bloody" to describe something that isn't actually bloody. What a pretentious dickhead!

No doubt when other critics get letters or e-mails calling them out for their bullshit, they'll start squealing like Ned Beatty in Deliverance and pretending to be lone voices in the wilderness under assault from hordes of fans.

It should be of great comfort that the 6 or so negative reviews have come from ASSHATS and DOUCHES.

I'm still yet to read a review that has outlined why this film hasn't worked as a whole (Yes there might be a few scenes that don't work).

Instead we have been unloaded with vile reviews from douches whose criticisms have ranged from the bizarre (criticisms against former employers, critics, Lucas, the anti republican feel) to the downright absurd (How can you state with absolute certainty that this has the worst acting/dialogue known to mainstream cinema).

Travers review should get special mention for his inability to firstly understand the story, secondly for thinking his view should hold more weight than critics who have gushed over it and thirdly for stating quite inappropriately that you will only like this film if you drink Kool aid.

But, as we have all been saying the only judge that matters is you on opening night.

So true!

It also seems like almost every review still dumps on other reviewers who say it's good. That one guys quote "oh my...it's nowhere near as good as you might have heard" or something like that isn't even in the actual review! This is really strange. Steve Rhodes is interesting however. It appears to be his least favorite of all six. So now we have anywhere from it's the worst of the series to the best.

Anyone who thinks this film is the worst in the series is clinically retarded. I don't give a shit if someone comes along and screams 'my opinion'. If you truly believe that you're not a fan and your fucking stupid as hell.

u still going next wednesday at colossus?

you're damn right I am.

word. as will i

on a more thread-related note, I'd be suprised if there were no bad reviews for this

it's fucking star wars afterall...not gladiator

people shouldn't get so bent out of shape over this

It's a bullshit criticism because they want people to groan when they read it.

There's nothing different in this film, action wise, than anything in the OT. You've got a space battle, you've got a bunch of saber duels, you've got saber action scenes, battle scenes etc. Nothing that hasn't been done, but just on a much greater scale with terrific imagery.

Throw out the negatives that slash the film with such hollow comments. The movie is for real.

true, but people already have mindless vendetta against the series...hollow comments should be expected

non side scrolling link

A one star review from the guardian unlimited website.

It most certainly is,and a right old load of asshattery that article was too.(the 40 reasons...)

Thought it might add fuel to the fire to post a link.

He harped on the use of the word "younglings"? I'm sure there is plenty to bitch about in ROTS, but that's just fucking stupid.

http://img206.echo.cx/img206/5509/mcdinterview5tk.jpg

An appreciation of Ian McD's acting from today's Telegraph (uk)

Yup.

I think this guy just likes to hear himself rant while using grandiose language in order to mask his own ineptness at being able to intelligently critique the film.

Goddamn, I wish more American journalists wrote that well....

That was a great article by the way, thanks for sharing.

With all the negative reviews coming in from complete asswipes, I thought I would throw this review from my local Fox affiliate David (won't even try to spell his last name). Enjoy

http://www.putfile.com/media.php?n=FoxnewsROTSreview

Hitchhikers was one of the worst movies I've sat through in my entire life. Easily.

O.K.

My thoughts on critics:

You must remember that critics are not interested in serving the public trust; they're interested in serving themselves. You're a critic, and you need to pay the rent: there is a sea of other critics out there in the same boat. Some people in that situation will always go against the tide, to try and stand out. Some people will focus on gushing with the popular opinion as cleverly as possible - perhaps their punchy little quote will end up in a big ad in the newspaper, and their notoriety/income will increase.

And there are, of course, intellectuals who align themselves with elitism; they are forced to have disdain for all things popular. Their inability to be objective is indication of how ironically intellectual they are not.

In the end, critics are just people. People with an agenda. You are seldom going to find well thought-out, thorough objectivity in that demographic, no matter what they're critiquing.

But mostly, there's the bitter, sad realization that while they can write and scream or praise and jump up and down, they will be utterly forgotten in the annals of history, where Star Wars will not. For all their words and self-important positing, they know they have made no lasting contribution, no great impact. They've changed no lives, and shaped no futures. They're resigned to being wordy because they've done so little. Like a fat, lazy sports fan who doesn't like how Barry Bonds is hitting this season. Beset by jealousy, and ignorance, compensatory self-importance and bluster, they sit at their keyboards, furiously typing, and turn their self-hatred outward, to the very things they long to be part of most.

I love how none of the Star Wars DVDs come with any critic quotes, and especially after Lucas's comments about some of the harsh criticism towards both the prequels and the original trilogy as well, I wonder if some of the critics have an axe to grind, because of that. As long as George doesn't care for the critics, why would a critic with an agenda care for him?

I don't know where I'm going with this, probably just rambling, but I think George is past the point of caring about critics, if he ever did.

clap. clap. clap

I was wondering when Salon will get around to printing another review by David Brin (yes, the schmuck who wrote The Postman) that all but calls George Lucas a Nazi. It's a tradition at Salon to piss on Lucas and they're overdue.

regarding that column in The Guardian: wow. I almost feel sorry for him, but he seems to be one of those psychologically broken wannabe activists who insists on seeing his pet grudges and obsessions in everything. I bet he thinks the 1980 version of Flash Gordon was a seminal influence on Reagan's supreme court choices and that Battlestar Galactica advocated trickle-down economics. What a joyless twat. I bet he's a blast at parties, too. He's the guy sitting in the corner who's always frowning and grumbling about the government while he watches everyone else have a good time.

This just in: Ebert and Roeper give ROTS TWO THUMBS UP!

Very cool, I can't see the show until Sunday night.

Ebert changed his stance on digital after Once Upon a Time in Mexico

Where did the E&R info come from?

Their show has already aired in some markets as it's syndicated.

I taped Ebert & Roeper early this a.m. and just looked at the recap at the end. Indeed they give it 2 thumbs up, and the only criticism I've heard so far is against the rating. Roeper said "kids play video games more violent than this!"

----------------------

Ok, I just watched all of the E&R segment. They really like it alot, and Roeper says it's the best since ESB. The ONLY criticism (apart from the MPAA) is the dialogue. But then Roeper says that all of the SW movies have that problem, so it's no big deal. Roeper also said he loves the action scenes, and they both thought the last 3rd of the film is really great and emotionally powerful.

They do NOT criticize Jackson's performance. Ebert said the dialogue is flat, and that "a deep actor like Samuel L. Jackson is just sort of intoning" the lines. They also point out that McDairmid is quite eloquent and slippery. Oh, and Ebert said that "there might be a few more lightsaber fights than we really need," but it's great and as mentioned in an earlier post, goes back to the tradition of the action/adventure serials.

Roeper says that this one has what Episodes 1 and 2 didn't have... A heart. Not sure I agree that 1 & 2 were hearless, but there you go.

And there is NO mention at all of digital filming or digital vs. film, blah blah balh...

The audio of their review should be online soon: http://tvplex.go.com/buenavista/ebertan ... today.html

What clips did they show when they did therre review?

The clips were mainly the same shots we've seen from the trailers and the music video. Nothing new that I'm aware of.

I knew that Roeper would like it, and it is a pleasent surprise about Ebert. Now does both of their reviews count as 4 postitves on RT, just like Travis's negative counted as 2?

Watched E&R again, and here are some more thoughts from their discussion/review: Ebert said that he felt that this movie does a great job of tieing everything together, and that it's compelling to watch how Anakin turns into the bad guy. He said the scene when Vader's mask is applied is very powerful, and they both thought Portman did a bang-up job in her scenes.

Roeper also said that even though we basically know what is going to happen, the scenes have a deeper resonance.

Well after that Rolling Stone reviews Kool-Aid just got popular with SW fans, I am sure you will see some fans drinking it in the line up.

Travers is a fool