"Prequels Actually Better Reviewed Than Originals"

[vacantlook]

\"Prequels Actually Better Reviewed Than Originals\"

I found this quite fascinating to read.

Critical Consensus: “Star Wars” Prequels Actually Better Reviewed Than Originals

Based on current active critics though, the results are as expected. The average Tomatometer of the original trilogy handily beats the prequels by 20% -- 90% to 70%, respectively.

When “Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace” was released in 1999, a group of us actually went to our local library and dug up a sampling of available sources that reviewed the original trilogy during the time of their respective release dates in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Because those reviews weren’t available online, we OCR-ed them and put them on the web, breaking all kinds of copyright laws in the process. We were quite the rebels back then. However, when we legitimized the company months later, those reviews were the first to go. Thanks to Archive.org, a site that archives the web pages, the quotes are still there but the full text reviews are gone. The results are actually quite surprising.

As one can see, only “Star Wars” managed to be Fresh, with a respectable 79% on the Tomatometer, while the other two sequels got successively worse. Most of the critics thought the first film was an inventive, fun, and entertaining summer popcorn movie. It’s interesting that they complain about the dialogue back then too. “Empire,” which is regarded as the best of the series nowadays, only managed to score a mixed 52%. It received great technical grades, but critics had problems with the plot, one way or other, and thought it was just “minor entertainment.” It got worse with “Jedi” – uneven pacing, no character development, tired acting, and hollow and junky filmmaking. It scored a moldy 30% on the Tomatometer. Prequels were probably the last thing critics wanted back then after the thrashing of the last film.

Ironically, if you compare the average Tomatometer of the prequels and the original trilogies during the time of their respective original release dates, the Prequels are actually better reviewed by 16% -- 70% to 54%, respectively!

The article has links to individual pages (thanks to archive.org) that have quotes from reviewers made back during the original releases. I find reading them to be incredibly interesting. Here are some of the comments of criticism made that piqued my interest.



From ANH:

"Lucas has rather left his audience out in the cold, with only regularly administered shots of special effects to keep them warm." -- Richard Combs, MONTHLY BULLETIN

"His work here seems less inventive than in THX 1138." -- Stanley Kauffmann, NEW REPUBLIC

"Story, characters, and dialogue of overwhelming banality!" -- John Simon, NEW YORK

From ESB:

"The root of the problem with The Empire Strikes Back is its complexity." -- Richard A. Blake, AMERICA

"There's no plot." -- Colin L. Westerbeck, Jr., COMMONWEAL

"Lucas has been so preoccupied with the construction of mechanical amazements that he has perhaps forgotten there is more in Homer than epic battles, one-eyed giants, the song of the sirens and the whims of the gods." -- Robert Hatch, THE NATION

"No amount of lightness, however, can lift this movie out of the swamps of Dagobah." -- Robert Asahina, NEW LEADER

"Far less entertaining than the first!" -- John Coleman, NEW STATESMAN

"Empire is simply a minor entertainment." -- Tom Allen, VILLAGE VOICE

"I found myself glancing at my watch almost as often as I did when I was sitting through a truly terrible movie called The Island." -- Vince Canby, NEW YORK TIMES

"Diverting piece of nonsense." -- John Simon, NATIONAL REVIEW

From RotJ:

"The old Star Wars gang are back doing what they've done before, but this time with a certain evident boredom." -- Vincent Canby, NEW YORK TIMES

"Lucas obviously has problems topping his previous work." -- Robert Asahina, NEW LEADER

"Jedi is downright repetitive!" -- David Ansen, NEWSWEEK

"The film is often ineptly paced and structured, almost invariably lacks focus, and overuses mechanical models, with glaring deference to action scenes over acting scenes." -- Gregory Solman, FILMS IN REVIEW

"Resoundingly hallow and rootless!" -- John Coleman, NEW STATESMAN

"Let's not pretend we're watching art!" -- Rex Reed, NEW YORK POST

"The actors appear as exhausted as we feel by the end of the movie." -- Joseph Gelmis, NEWSDAY

"It's time for George Lucas to move on and excite use in some wholly new way!" -- David Denby, NEW YORK

"An impersonal and rather junky piece of moviemaking!" --THE NEW YORKER

So, what do I take away from reading all this? That many people said the same things then as they say now. And no matter how much criticism certain Eeyores lob at the films, I shouldn't let that come anywhere near making me love all the films any less.

 

[Recoil]

Re: \"Prequels Actually Better Reviewed Than Origin

Yea but who ever actually listens to what movie critics say about ANY movie?

 

[Jade Jaguar]

Re: \"Prequels Actually Better Reviewed Than Origin

Well, I think critics can be interesting to read, but I accept their opinions as just that, and no more. Actually, with some critics and some sorts of films, I am more likely to go see one that got a bad review than a good one. They get paid to analyze films. They sometimes have interesting and useful insights, and sometimes warn us away from real stinkers, Like Gigli. Nothing wrong with that. There is no point in expecting them to like what you like, or what I like. Over time, some films grow in stature, and some diminish. Nothing wrong with that, either.

 

[KoshFan]

Re: \"Prequels Actually Better Reviewed Than Origin

Roger Ebert gave both ANH and RotJ four stars when they came out.

 

[Jade Jaguar]

Re: \"Prequels Actually Better Reviewed Than Origin

I don't always agree with Ebert, but he is almost always interesting and informative, well worth listening to. He will often tell you enough about a film for you to decide whether you want to see it, regardless of what his opinion is. I'll admit that he sometimes annoys me by saying a lot of good things about a film, then, based on one very minor point, give it a thumbs down. I'll certainly see it anyway, if I want to.

 

[Vonbloodbath]

Re: \"Prequels Actually Better Reviewed Than Origin

Well, I think critics can be interesting to read, but I accept their opinions as just that, and no more. Actually, with some critics and some sorts of films, I am more likely to go see one that got a bad review than a good one.

I'm with you on that one; ever since Traffic got 5stars and armfuls of Oscars, I've distrusted any other reviewer instinctively.

The thing with the SW prequels is this; most of the reviews (by reviewers) that I've read (admitedly they have mostly been on AICN) have been positive, citing this as as good as, or better, than RotJ. (although I've heard the Guardian gave it 1 Star).

Most of the "unofficial" reviews, i.e. reviews by members of the public on forums like this, have been more negative, with a few exceptions which have been MUCH more positive.

A big factor is probably expectation...at the time I was respectively disappointed by TPM and pleasantly surprised by AotC, because I had High hopes for the former, and no hope for the latter!

But over time, my opinion has changed, and I prefer TPM to the hollow mess that was AotC...

So I'm going to see this one (in 20 minutes... ) with 0 expectations (as much as possible).

I predict I'll like it more than the last 2, but only marginally so.

VB

 

[GKarsEye]

Re: \"Prequels Actually Better Reviewed Than Origin

The good thing about Ebert is that he reviews films on their own merits. So he'll give a thumbs up to a cheesy romantic comedy that most "serious" cinophiles would brush off but he's simply comparing it to other cheesy romantic comedies.

Some of the negative reviews seem like they were written by people who wouldn't give this type of movie a rave review no matter what, since it's a space kid's movie.

"Let's not pretend we're watching art!" -- Rex Reed, NEW YORK POST

And he's right! I hate it when people invest so much artistic value in this stuff. These folks desperately need a wider frame of cultural reference. But that doesn't make Star Wars "bad" (and is that the entirety of Reed's review? Maybe he feels like I do about Star Wars- fun for what it is, but then let's move on with our lives)

 

[Springer]

Re: \"Prequels Actually Better Reviewed Than Origin

The problem with reviewers is that they review the film on the basis of one viewing. How many times have you had to see a movie before you finally get it it? When I first saw Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones I loved them- on repeated viewing I changed my mind. I hope that doesn't happen with Revenge of the Sith because I really liked it.

When I first saw the Matrix it took me a while to warm to it. I loved the Matrix sequels, to to properly understand them you probably have to watch them several times. Reviewers were watching them once, not getting them and them trashing them in the reviews. Complex films need to be watched several times before a judgement can be made, because you don't see everything on the first viewing.

Having said that, I agree with some of the comments about the original trilogy. The pacing in Star Wars is uneven, and ROTJ doesn't have much character development, except for Luke and Vader. And I never used to like Empire, although I acknowledge it as the best of all six films today.

I think another thing to remember is that some people don't get SF, and critics can sometimes be snobish and biased against SF.

 

[GKarsEye]

Re: \"Prequels Actually Better Reviewed Than Origin

How many times have you had to see a movie before you finally get it it?

For the vast majority of films, once.

 

[PillowRock]

Re: \"Prequels Actually Better Reviewed Than Origin

I think that there are a few things going here.

If you look at Rotten Tomatos now for their ratings of SIth you will find that the overall freshness is 82% with an average rating of 7.4 out of 10. However, if you look at their "Cream of the Crop" rating it is a freshness of 72% and an average rating of 6.9 out of 10. I think that this difference is perfectly predictable. There is a fair sized collection of web reviewers who are systematically inclined to rate summer action / adventure (or "popcorn") movies more highly than the "professionals" (on average). The "Cream" will exclude that whole group, and therefore the rating will tend to go down. When you do an archive search for the orginal release reviews from the 1970's - early 1980's you will only get the equivalent of Rotten Tomatos "Cream" reviews. I think that is the fairer comparison to the original reviews, not the overall Rotten Tomatos numbers.

Also, Springer has a point. SF has always gotten knocked down by a percentage of reviewers. I think that by the time the prequels came out, the Star Wars franchise had acquired more of an air of respectability (due to the weight of its legacy), and therefore probably suffered less from this than the original trilogy (especially the original Star Wars in 1977). More of the reviewers were willing to give a chance, an fewer would put a ceiling on the rating number that would give "that kind of movie".

With regard to the specific case of Empire, there is something else to remember. Do you remember the outcry and complaining about how horrible The Fellowship of the Ring was ... from people who didn't realize that it wasn't going to be a complete stand-alone story? Empire had the same problem. The difference was in the percentage of people who knew advance not to expect an ending. For Fellowship, anybody who was paying any attention should have already known that. For Empire, there was no source novel that was widely read. The details of the plot were a very closely guarded secret (apparently to the point where Lucas, director Kirshneer, and Mark Hamill were the only ones on the set privy to the knowledge of the "I am your father" line). There was significant backlash against the movie for that reason ... in the short term initial reaction, anyway.

 

[GaribaldisHair]

Re: \"Prequels Actually Better Reviewed Than Origin

This is actually quite a complex question ... my experience differs greatly depending on the film, and my expectations. Sticking with SW.

I loved Star Wars right from the off (but then I was only 8), ditto ESB, but RotJ I liked in parts but not in others. As a 14 year old boy, Leia in the gold bikini was a dream come true, the Ewoks were just lame. The only alteration to that experience is that I now prefer the long-haired earth mother version of Leia from RotJ to the gold bikini version - other than that my liking for the films hasn't altered.

Likewise the PT. Massive expectations for TPM, massive let-down, and even with my reduced expectations of it, I still don't find too much to get excited by. AotC, not so massive expectations, not quite so big a disappointment. Good in parts.

Haven't seen RotS yet, but this will definitely be the first of the PT I will go see on the big screen.

Having said all that, I was hugely disappointed with The Matrix Reloaded on release, but have come to love it on DVD after repeated viewings.

 

[PillowRock]

Re: \"Prequels Actually Better Reviewed Than Originals\"

From ESB:

"The root of the problem with The Empire Strikes Back is its complexity." -- Richard A. Blake, AMERICA

"There's no plot." -- Colin L. Westerbeck, Jr., COMMONWEAL

Don't you just love putting two complaints like that next to each other?

Personally, over the years I have found that when movie reviewers start saying things liike "the problem is that it is too complex" it is almost always a good sign.

 

[admiraldave]

Re: \"Prequels Actually Better Reviewed Than Origin

How many times have you had to see a movie before you finally get it it?

For the vast majority of films, once.

Yeah, one viewing will, almost all the time, tell me if I like a movie or not, and repeated viewings will only reinforce my opinion. I made the mistake of trying to watch AOTC when it was on last night (first time since the theatre) ... it's actually worse than I had previously remembered.

Someone said that AOTC was a rape of childhood memories, ROTS was a grope.

 

[Springer]

Re: \"Prequels Actually Better Reviewed Than Origin

How many times have you had to see a movie before you finally get it it?

For the vast majority of films, once.

Sure, for straightforward films. But for more complex films it sometimes takes several viewings before you can make a judgement on it. Or, at least that's what I find. Lines of dialogue, plot nuances, foreshadowing, some of this you can miss on the first viewing, but notice on the second or third or fourth viewing. Reviewers who watch a film once can sometimes miss some of this. Well, that's what I reckon anyway.

Funnily enough, I think a lot of reviewers follow what is fashionable. It is usually fashionable to bash big summer popcorn movies, which is probably why the original Star Wars films were panned. But now, as was mentioned above, Star Wars has a legacy and is respected, and reviewers seem wary of criticising it, at first at least. The reverse was true with the Matrix. When the first film came out it came in under the radar, and it was seen as cool to like this film. Then with all the hype over the sequels, they were prime targets for panning by the critics, whether it was justified or not.

 

[GKarsEye]

Re: \"Prequels Actually Better Reviewed Than Origin

Sure, for straightforward films. But for more complex films it sometimes takes several viewings before you can make a judgement on it. Or, at least that's what I find. Lines of dialogue, plot nuances, foreshadowing, some of this you can miss on the first viewing, but notice on the second or third or fourth viewing. Reviewers who watch a film once can sometimes miss some of this. Well, that's what I reckon anyway.

Maybe- but surely Star Wars isn't like that? I mean, really, it's space people bowing each other up. There aren't "layers" or whatever.

Then again I also think the Matrix is a bunch of overblown, confused mess of meaningless wanna-be philosophical mumb-jumbo that uitimately collapses into itself in a fantastic implosion of banality.

 

[Recoil]

Re: \"Prequels Actually Better Reviewed Than Origin

Yea, Star Wars is *NOT* a complex story. It really is that simplified. Fans who debate on how highly intellectual the movies are, are just simply kidding themselves. Sure there are some keen points here and there, but basically the first 3 were hero stories with rebels fighting a big bad empire, and the prequels were a republic falling into chaos and evil. There aren't overly complex layers, and the dialogue? Heh, I think you all know the answer to that one...

 

[admiraldave]

Re: \"Prequels Actually Better Reviewed Than Origin

Sure, for straightforward films. But for more complex films it sometimes takes several viewings before you can make a judgement on it. Or, at least that's what I find. Lines of dialogue, plot nuances, foreshadowing, some of this you can miss on the first viewing, but notice on the second or third or fourth viewing. Reviewers who watch a film once can sometimes miss some of this. Well, that's what I reckon anyway.

But those don't really change my opinion of the film. Yes, it was fun to watch Memento or Urbania again, and pick up on some elements that I missed first time through, but I enjoyed those movies the first time.

And there's no way I'd ever consider any of the Star Wars movies complex.

Then again I also think the Matrix is a bunch of overblown, confused mess of meaningless wanna-be philosophical mumb-jumbo that uitimately collapses into itself in a fantastic implosion of banality.

That's as sucinct and accurate summation as I've ever seen. Matrix: Revolutions was as painful to watch as AOTC.

 

[Springer]

Re: \"Prequels Actually Better Reviewed Than Origin

At its core Star Wars is simple. But the terminology used in the film, the aliens, the hopping around from planet to planet, make it more complex, at least to none SF fans, surely. And whiz-bang special effects can often distract you, meaning you might miss other relevant parts of the film, until you go back again and watch it.

Or maybe its just me.

And Matrix Revolutions was not painful to watch IMO, but that's a different argument.

 

[PillowRock]

Re: \"Prequels Actually Better Reviewed Than Origin

It is definitely true that complete non-SF fans can be thrown just by the odd terminology (things like warp drive or hyper-drive / hyper-space).

I remember going to see Star Trek: The Motion Picture with my Mom way back when (it was my freshman year of college, the first weekend that I had come back to visit / get my braces tightened, and my Mom *really* wanted to do something, *anything*, with me). She was completely thrown into not understanding what was going on just by things like people "beaming" from place to place.

 

[Chris Springob]

Re: \"Prequels Actually Better Reviewed Than Origin

It's possible that the tastes of the average critic has changed over the last 30 years, in such a way that critics nowadays are more forgiving of "popcorn crunching" movies.

Just a thought--I don't know if this is true or not, as I wasn't old enough at the time the OT came out to be conscious of what critics were saying.