Ebert and Roeper convinced me NOT to see this shit! - A Knight's Tale (2001) Discussion

[–] mechajutaro (2788) 3 years ago

Heath Ledger may suit the role of a knight, but to me, he will always be The Joker.

He fits both of those roles to a T today. Knights and The Joker are all decomposing in the earth

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

Ebert also gave a Bronx Tale a perfect score and said it had good acting from the two actors who played C. I now have to seriously question these guys judgment.

if I showed anyone that film and those actors scenes and said "wow isnt this amazing acting!?"

and they didnt look at me like I was a mentally deranged person in need to locking up. I would unfriend that person immediately

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

I've never heard of a Bronx Tale, but I do tend to follow Ebert a lot and his reviews, and I felt particularly irked when he trashed one of my favourite movies of all time, Gladiator with Russell Crowe. So it just proved to me that everyone's different.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

you re the better for it its an embarrassing pile of trash with a Robert dinero put to waste in the film. he actually directed it and it shows. as if hes trying to recreate goodfellas, but know what made it such a masterpiece, nor has the technical knowhow to do it. the entire film is basically. bland and boring medium and long eye level shots

did he really?I know its subjective but even from a technical standpoint gladiator is incredibly competent. just watched it that lady is relentless and right

reply

[–] Kowalski (75736) 2 years ago

A BRONX TALE IS A STRONG DIRECTORIAL DEBUT BY DE NIRO...WELL WORTH A WATCH...THAT OTHER GUY GOT MOLESTED WHILE THE MOVIE WAS PLAYING...HE CAN'T GET OVER IT.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9552) 2 years ago

I mean, Ledger was William before he was The Joker...

As for A Knight's Tale, it's a wonderful, fun film and a ripping good time. Ebert was great, but not right every time.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8719) 2 years ago

I agree. I certainly enjoyed it and remember it being a big movie among younger folk in its time.

Sure, its soundtrack is obviously anachronistic and there was probably plenty more that doesn't stand up to historical scrutiny, but it was a fun movie and everyone should see it at least once.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9552) 2 years ago

It's tremendous fun. A sports movie where they joust instead of play football or hockey.

The anachronisms are part of the fun, for me, anyway; it's definitely not trying for accuracy.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8719) 2 years ago

I'm looking at the box office right now and am a little surprised it only made $117 million. That's not even double its production budget. I wonder how well it did on home video.

As far as I see it, this is THE movie that made Heath Ledger. I know a lot of people were turned on to him by 10 Things I Hate About You and he also had a big role in The Patriot, but I regard A Knight's Tale as his breakout role that made him a star.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9552) 2 years ago

I think you're right, A Knight's Tale was his breakout film (first time I was aware of Paul Bettany, too!) that made him a leading actor.

I think it was a fairly popular movie. Maybe they just overspent, but people liked it (to my recollection). Or maybe it's one of those things where Heath Ledger became more known even if the movie didn't do gangbusters.

reply

[–] Mustang (5432) 2 years ago

It is just a fun almost old fashioned type film like Errol Flynn's Robin Hood. It's not like Pearl Harbor where they set it against specific historical events.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9552) 2 years ago

Exactly: it's just super-fun. There was no pretense at seriousness or historical accuracy. Not that they didn't tell a good story, but just that they were going for light fun.

Criticism (in my opinion) of things like films have to take into consideration the aims of the film at the very least. Imagine criticising Monty Python for being too silly (unless you're a certain British colonel...)? True, they are being very silly, but that's the point, so I wind up dismissing the critique.

I remember reading a review of Death Race (the Jason Statham remake) that criticised the film for having a thin plot as just an excuse for car chases and scantily-clad women to be navigators. I remember thinking, "Yeah, that's the premise, man. That's what they were going for."

So saying, "I don't like the anachronisms" in A Knight's Tale, or "I prefer historical films that are more serious," is fine, but saying, "It's too light," is missing the point a bit.

reply

[–] Mustang (5432) 2 years ago

I think people need to drop their pretense's and just say they dislike a film rather than stating all these factors which were intentional anyway and part of the films style. It's like they are trying to sound intelligent or elite because the film they dislike is just too fun for them.

I could easily criticize some classic films for being depressing and boring but that is the thing they were going for!

Another irony of the people who criticize inaccuracies in films like A Knights Tale is that they would have no issue at all with Asian people playing English townsfolk in medieval England in other films and TV shows.

edit: Rather than question the modern music a better question would be, where is it coming from? There isn't any signs of electricity let alone electric guitars and drums!

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9552) 2 years ago

Yes, but people like to make definitive statements. We get confused when we hate a film and other people love it. It drums up ire. I don't know why. But it seems to be the norm.

A lot of it (I think, anyway) comes from inexperience. People who haven't met enough other people and honed their senses of empathy leave this blind spot in like, "I'm right (about this subjective thing)! Other people need to know why they're wrong!" They aren't picturing the kind of person who might like this thing.

This is in direct contrast to a sense that I have that some art is actually just better than other art. I know that's a paradox, but fighting it out in my brain is the knowledge (knowledge? suspicion?) that as much as I believe art is subjective and "to each there own" I also can't reconcile that with the idea that Casablanca isn't an objectively better film than Timeline with Paul Walker.

I just assumed that the film people were hearing medieval instruments while we're hearing Golden Years' groovy electric ones.

reply

[–] Mustang (5432) 2 years ago

"I just assumed that the film people were hearing medieval instruments while we're hearing Golden Years' groovy electric ones."

Ha, yeah I was thinking that too. They don't explain it but at the same time there is the scene where they are chanting We Will Rock You (ok no guitars but still a rock song) so I kind of think they were hearing the same thing we do. Somehow.

I vaguely remember Timeline, I thought it was a fun film, nothing amazing but then I have noticed that films that aren't amazing tend to be really entertaining. I think on forums you will always have people who desire to "win" the conversation rather than just converse.

I'm ok with this film being a weird mix of styles yet Kevin Costner's Robin Hood is not great for me, not only due to his American accent (Slater's is even stronger) but because overall the film just isn't that great. It can never decide what it wants to be. A problem that this film does not have.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9552) 2 years ago

To some extent I don't think the movie "cares" what they're hearing. They're just showing us a fun movie.

If I was to guess, I'd say they aren't hearing the electric guitar. They're hearing the trumpets, but the trumpets are playing a fanfare that sounds (note for note) like Brian May's solo.

I remember really disliking Timeline. But even if it was fun, I still say it's not as good a film as Casablanca.

Maybe within the parametres of what we're talking about, Casablanca is a better romantic drama than Timeline is a sci-fi adventure film?

That's a good point about Costner's Robin Hood: sometimes it's a light, goofy Robin Hood and other times it's set in a grim, Middle Eastern prison or featuring a sexual assault (I think they crack jokes during the assault, too?) Errol Flynn's Robin Hood remains the gold standard (in my opinion); it knew *exactly* what it wanted to be.

reply

[–] liscarkat (18460) 2 years ago

I thought I wouldn't like it. I'm not a big rock fan in the first place, and I was prepared to hate the anachronistic score. But for some reason it worked, and I really enjoyed it. It's not a documentary about medieval life. You just have to suspend disbelief and allow yourself to be entertained.

reply

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 2 years ago

I thought I'd hate it too. I just watched it cause I was checking out Heath Ledger's filmography at the time and found it to be a simple, enjoyable film. Just fun, positive.

reply

[–] Keelai (34880) 2 years ago

Siskel and Ebert both gave Star Wars two thumbs-down and Ebert pretended to like the movie AFTER it became a huge hit. I seriously lost respect for them after that debacle.

This film is supposed to be a mixture of old meets new to make it more relatable and fun. The sports fans doing the wave, a feminist Lady with punk hair, modern dancing, etc.. Ebert was never good with appreciating a movie that offered something a bit different. The sound track is catchy and the movie is entertaining.

reply

[–] Guitar King (4901) a year ago

I doubt Siskel and Ebert gave Star Wars two thumbs down on the show since they both wrote positive reviews...https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/star-wars-1977

Here is a screencap of Siskel's positive SW review. https://i.imgur.com/GfC3Yne.jpg?1

reply

[–] Keelai (34880) a year ago

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This topic always makes my blood boil!!!!!!!!

I watched the original Siskel & Ebert TV review in 1977. Both morons gave SW a thumbs down.

They weren't alone. Every movie review criticized it. The average rating was 2 stars. Critics said the only good things about the movie were the 2 robots and special effects.

The movie received great word of mouth and long lines grew. My line was loooooooooooong and I waited for 3 hours!!!!!! SW was still in the theater over a year later! It was a phenomenom!!!

Remember that in 1977, sci-fi = B-movies: bad acting; cheesy sfx; retarded story, dopey costumes. The critics were too biased to understand SW was different, but the public knew!!!!!!! Records were broken and the critics were very embarrassed!!

3 years later, the sequel came out. So did the original for fans who wanted to see it, again. The SW average rating was now 3-stars and critics spoke positively about it!! The sequel received positive reviews!

3 years later, the 2nd sequel came out. Original SW re-released again. The SW rating changed to 4-stars and critics called it new mythology and a classic!!!!!!! Including Ebert!!!!

It pisses me off that the critics pretended they liked SW from the beginning. They're liars who changed and hid their original negative opinions!!!!!!

You have to find the original 1977 reviews and Siskel Ebert show. Anything after 1977 is revised BS! I looked for their 1977 show, but they probably destroyed it!

They were both my favorite critics at that time, but their deceit and negative reviews made me lose respect for all movie critics. They go with the flow of public opinion and peer pressure and are blinded by their own biases.

Don't believe any movie critic when they say they liked Star Wars in 1977!!!!!!!!! Only look at archived 1977 reviews.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9552) a year ago

So, I'm not sure what clip you're talking about, but everything I can dig up has them liking Star Wars.

Both of their original print reviews praise the film. Here is a photo of Siskel's original review: https://www.reddit.com/r/StarWars/comments/2b3ppb/gene_siskels_review_of_the_original_star_wars_two/

Here is Ebert's: https://www.newspapers.com/article/3656786/roger_eberts_star_wars_review/

I've seen them listed as 3.5 (Siskel) and 4 (Ebert) stars, but the Ebert review doesn't have stars printed. Still, he opens with how amazing the movie is and later says that the only problem is that the final Death Star attack goes on for a little too long.

These guys are meant to have hated this movie?

I also found this, but it's clearly a re-look at the film, so it's not initial release. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gtQck24Nf8&t=259s

Do you have any record of the original thumbs-down decision? Any source material?

EDIT: Sorry, I seem to have posted an already-posted image of Siskel's review. I leave it up there for posterity, but I am acknowledging my redundancy mistake here.

reply

[–] Keelai (34880) a year ago

Not clip. I watched the actual show on TV.

About a week after the movie premiered, long lines started forming and critics realized they made a mistake. News commentators made fun of the local movie critic in my area for being wrong.

Your links aren't original reviews. The original reviews would be dated exactly on May 25, 1977 on the day of release. That was the norm. Reviews released on Friday when a movie was released.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9552) a year ago

Okay, I used "clip" when "TV show segment" might have been more accurate. I can't find that segment from Sneak Previews with Siskel and Ebert.

May 25, 1977 was a Wednesday. Would the review be out on the 25th or on Friday?

I'm guessing Friday, since the Chicago Public Library is saying it was on the 27th that Siskel published that review (headline: "Star Wars Flashes with Space Wizardry") that has been posted here by myself and others. https://www.chipublib.org/blogs/post/star-wars-premieres-in-may-1977/

So, Siskel at least was on-board with his first review of the film.

Ebert's website has his review dated Jan.1, which is an obvious typo. I'm not sure when exactly his original review was out, but it wouldn't have been the 1st of January. This would be especially the case if he/his website team had been trying to cover it up - they'd definitely scrub that date clean.

S&E went on to defend Star Wars against other snooty critics. They gave thumbs-up to other entertainment films. The idea of a cover-up for reviewers' original reviews (especially to do 180-degree turns so quickly after initial release) is weird to me.

At this point, there's a lot of evidence to the contrary that says they liked Star Wars out of the gate. Do you have any evidence to support your claims? I'm not trying to be rude, but it's time to produce some research of your own, outside of just saying that you remember something.

reply

[–] Keelai (34880) a year ago

Initially, both Siskel & Ebert gave Star Wars a thumbs-down. That was my point.

What they did AFTER SW became a hit is irrelevant. I already wrote that critics began changing their reviews and adding stars as time went by.

My comment is about their show. I doubt it exists anymore. Not everything is on the internet! There's plenty I can't find especially when it becomes old.

You're unaware that sci-fi normally had horrible SFX and were looked down upon by movie critics. It was normal to give them bad reviews. Lucas completely revolutionized sci-fi, movie theater experience, merchandising, and SFX. He made them respectable, too.

Only online proof is others discussing the show:

Siskel and Ebert's first review of Star Wars

"Someone told me that Siskel and Ebert (on the show in 1977), gave the original Star Wars two thumbs down. Has anyone ever heard, or has any proof of this?

I also remember reading that George Lucas himself has said that none of the Star Wars movies have been well-reviewed. So people who have read the reviews back in the day - would you agree with the abovementioned statement?"

"This is true from what I remember, though one reviewer did say Mark Hamil was as "cute as a button", honest that is what he said."
https://boards.theforce.net/threads/siskel-and-eberts-first-review-of-star-wars.11787317/

I usually link to the above re: their thumbs down review. I'm not the only one who watched their show in '77.

You appear to have a paid subscription to archived newspapers, therefore you're in a better position to read the May 1977 ones. A Wednesday movie release meant that newspaper reviews were released on Wednesday, too.

BTW, no reason for me to misrepresent my favorite movie critics S&E. I was just disappointed that they both didn't recognize a revolutionary movie. Snobby Siskel yes, but not down-to-earth Ebert. R.I.P.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9552) a year ago

Well, the reason the reviews are brought up is because it speaks to their opinion of the film. Siskel's review likes the film, it's released two days after the movie, and it's 3.5 stars. It seems really unlikely to me that the Chicago Tribune would release a Star Wars review on Wednesday and another review on Friday just so Gene Siskel could save face by bumping up the star rating.

It seems unlikely to me because papers don't do this. Did they do it in 1977? I've never seen it happen. If you've got indications of it happening, show me the two articles. Not necessarily Siskel, Ebert, or even Star Wars - I'm just asking if you've got any double-reviewed articles. Also important: the second review can't acknowledge the first. Plenty of critics have come back later with, "I was wrong." Ebert did this with Full Metal Jacket, I believe.

Which brings me to another anomaly in this tale: Siskel and Ebert did change their minds, did write or speak to changed opinions, and always acknowledged that they were wrong. My question would be: how come they weren't doing this with Star Wars?

If Gene or Roger managed to talk their respective papers into paying them twice for the same movie, and if they chose to put out that review about 48 hours after the first, why wouldn't they say something about seeing it a second time and thinking it was marvelous? Why pretend - to regular readers - that this was the one-and-only review?

So, to my eyes, the evidence presented here is very scant. The OP in the linked thread has a friend who says S&E voted thumbs-down on SW. Second-hand info from an internet poster. The guy saying it's true from what he remembers is ambiguous: is he remembering Lucas' words, or S&E's reviews?

As to Lucas, he said that none of the films were well-received, but at least by Empire S&E were reviewing them well, so he's obviously talking about "most" critics, not all.

At any rate, I'll stack up photocopies of Siskel's original review vs. a message board thread.

I'm aware that sci-fi was much-maligned, can't catch a break, and to this day is pretty derided.

reply

[–] Keelai (34880) a year ago

Reviews are normally released on the day of the movie's release. Don't you personally know anyone who saw Star Wars in 1977? Didn't they read newspapers and watch the news on TV? It was common to have movie reviews in both newspapers and news programs at that time.

Lucas is right when he says Star Wars was not well-received by critics. The average was 2 stars. I hope you don't believe in general that snobby critics liked Star Wars when it was initially released? I had no intention of seeing it because of all the negative reviews. But, then the news started reporting long movie lines around the country and I saw it about the second or third week:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQ8ujaAJftg

It's not uncommon for movies to be panned and unpopular when first released only to gain popularity over time. "It's a Wonderful Life" was not originally liked by movie critics in 1946 and considered a communist film, but it's a 4-star film now.

Star Wars was re-released numerous times so you're likely reading a subsequent review.

Ebert does mention seeing Star Wars again during his XMas review. There were also end of the year reviews, video release reviews and rerelease reviews with each sequel.

Just google the initial Sneak Previews show with the date it ran stamped and post the link.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9552) a year ago

I don't think I know anybody who a) saw Star Wars in 1977 and b) was paying all that much attention to the Chicago newspaper reviewers.

What's your source for the average being 2 stars? I can't find that data after a small amount of pumping a search engine for information.

While it's not uncommon for films to be panned initially and lauded or re-evaluated in retrospect, it is uncommon for there no record of that whatsoever. For example, with It's a Wonderful Life, I knew that already because it's pretty common knowledge (or oft-repeated trivia, at the very least) because on record. I'm skeptical that a nation full of critics would pan Star Wars and then reverse their decisions days later and have nobody talking about that ever - save for on two message boards online.

Star Wars was re-released, but the Siskel review is dated May 27th, 1977. I am skeptical that a newspaper would run two reviews for the same film in two days just so Gene Siskel could reverse his decision. If you have proof to the contrary, bring it out and I'll retract this branch of the debate myself.

Ebert's initial review doesn't mention seeing it twice.

Look, I can't find the clip or episode, but it's also not my claim. I'm asking you for some proofs here. I've found plenty of my own.

reply

[–] Keelai (34880) a year ago

"Roger Ebert does not have a clue about films or filmmaking. The number of times he changed his mind on films is vast. It was not just Star Wars.
Also, the number of negative reviews after the intitial release of Star Wars was substantial. This number would gradually decrease over the next few years. "

"Yes, but why is this a suprise. For one think Siskel and Ebert are morons. For another, critics are nutorious for hating good movies."
Yes, they gave SW a thumbs down.
https://boards.theforce.net/threads/siskel-and-eberts-first-review-of-star-wars.11787317/

Siskel and Ebert Review “Star Wars” During the Film’s Second Release
https://twistedsifter.com/videos/siskel-and-ebert-review-star-wars-during-the-films-second-release/

This makes no sense! Why would they show the SECOND review instead of the first???? They're hiding it because they both gave it a thumbs-down!

BTW, A Knights Tale is a wonderful and entertaining film.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9552) a year ago

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did Ebert not acknowledge when he changed his mind? I don't have a problem with a critic doing a little soul-searching and coming up with a different rating for a film. In fact, I'd expect opinions to change over time. But when Ebert altered his reviews - I've already mentioned Full Metal Jacket, for instance - he admits he was wrong before. So, why would Star Wars be the only anomaly there?

Again: two or three people on a message board saying S&E are dumb-dumbs isn't making me buy this.

It's possible there just aren't any clips of the original Star Wars being reviewed, but I can't find a complete episode list for Sneak Previews, either. Do you know the air date of the original Star Wars review?

I agree: A Knight's Tale is a wonderful film, and it's really quite special (as is Star Wars).

reply

[–] Keelai (34880) a year ago

I don't know of any critic who said they changed their mind about SW. They just changed their reviews over time. If you can produce the initial TV review, that would be perfect. Why show the 2nd review and not the first?

Another thing is that both critics could say positive things about a film, but still give it a reluctant thumbs down because of the negatives.

I never said S&E were dumb! They were typical movie critics of that era who looked down upon sci-fi and couldn't recognize a movie that would revolutionize the industry. I became disillusioned by them because of it.

I'm not sure why you would ignore proof from multiple people who were around in 1977 after asking for proof. That makes zero sense. Don't you personally know anyone who saw it in 1977 and read and watched reviews?

The show should have aired that opening week. I was watching another TV review from a local guy who told people not to see it around the same time. About a week later, the newscasters did a report on the long lines and they questioned him about why long lines were happening for a movie he didn't recommend. He said he didn't understand it. I found that clip on youtube a number of years ago, but it's no longer there. Maybe copyright infringement. Not everything is on the internet. There's no surviving news footage of that Frenchman crossing the World Trade Center buildings on a tightrope even though all stations were interrupted with news bulletins about it.

I watched A Knight's Tale in the theater, saw it repeatedly on TV and finally brought it. But, I wouldn't compare it to SW which innovated the industry. Someone described seeing it in the theater in 1977 as having a religious experience. I agree. Nothing like that was ever experienced before in a movie theater.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9552) a year ago

I'm not sure if I'm being clear right now, but my point here is that, if you want to show that the initial show said something different, it's your responsibility to produce that evidence, not mine. I'm not making that claim.

Of course, you are right; both critics might have 3.5 or 4-star reviews and still give a thumbs down for marginal reasons. This is one of the problems with a pass/fail system like thumbs-up/down and Rotten Tomatoes' tomato metre. However, it is unlikely that an extremely positive review would translate to a thumbs-down. I'd expect that more from a 2.5-star review.

I know I was not clear here, and I apologise for the confusion. I didn't mean to say you thought S&E were dumb. You've made your appreciation for their general criticism clear. I meant to say that the fellows on the message board you linked to called them dumb.

I'm ignoring anecdotal evidence from anonymous message boards. Or, rather, I am taking anecdotal evidence from anonymous users on message boards as a small piece of evidence. But, if I apply Beysian logic to this problem, I might ask myself, "In a world where Siskel gave a 3.5-star review to a movie, is it more likely that people have remembered his thumbs-down incorrectly, or more likely that he gave positive responses to the movie?" At the moment, I'm weighting the latter.

As to people who I know who saw Star Wars in 1977, I'm not sure how many of them were watching S&E. I could hunt around, but I'm also not sure if I want to add an element of investigative journalism to my life.

Sure, it's possible that the clip or episode doesn't exist anymore. This might be due to a cover-up or it might be just because, as you say, sometimes stuff just gets lost. I am, at this juncture, more inclined to believe the latter.

I'm ultimately left with the problem that I have more evidence - concrete evidence like photos of newspapers - that suggest Siskel and Ebert loved the movie. Until further evidence turns up, that's where I am.

Star Wars is better than A Knight's Tale, for sure.

reply

[–] Keelai (34880) a year ago

Yes, first review is conveniently "lost". I'm sure you'll find it.

Undated and revised XMas reviews aren't relevant.

Those people who backup my version are 1st generation uber SW fans and Mr. Lucas himself.

You underestimate the 1977 SW release which was not an ordinary movie. Critics underestimated a major global phenomenom and innovation. Very embarrassing for them. I'll never forgive S&E for disappointing me although I still like them.

You can't be a fan if you don't know any one who saw the original SW in the theater.

Not better. Innovative and revolutionary. SW wasn't just a movie. I don't think you get it because you were born into a would already changed by SW. I witnessed and experienced the change. Not possible to be a false memory since experiencing SW in the theater and the societal impact weres among the most important events in my life. I became a lifelong SW fan 5 minutes after the movie started. We have kids in order to turn them into SW fans.

People camped out on the lines for months before opening. Couples married on the SW movie lines! Not just a movie!

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9552) a year ago

Apparently, I must be even more clear and direct: I'm not looking for the first review. If you want to prove they voted thumbs-down on the film, it's your "job" to find it.

I'm not citing an updated review, I'm citing Siskel's initial review. Heck, I'm pretty sure I have Ebert's original review; the "January 1, 1977" date on his website being an obvious typo. But, because it's a typo, I can't be sure of when it was published.

Lucas said Siskel and Ebert reviewed his film badly? Where? Earlier, you said he was quoted as saying all Star Wars films got bad reviews at first, but he's clearly speaking generally there because they were not universally derided. Ebert's first Phantom Menace review, for instance, holds high praise for the film when others dumped on it. While Lucas saying it got mostly lackluster reviews is true, he couldn't be talking about Ebert in that case. Therefore, he isn't necessarily talking about S&E in '77, either. Unless, of course, you have a quote from him specifically saying just that?

"You can't be a fan if..." is a garbage statement. I'm sorry if that's harsh. I have been enjoying our debate (hence, why I'm still here) but I just can't accept somebody policing who's "in" and who's "out" on a fanbase like SW.

reply

[–] Keelai (34880) a year ago

No, it's not my "job".

The thumbs-down is in the 1st TV review which is MIA. The 2nd TV review has no thumbs-up or thumbs-down. I like how you (plural) say they gave a thumbs-up when there is none in the second show.

And at the end of the 2nd review, Siskel insults SW and fans. It's obvious he looks down on both.

Siskel's review is mixed. I addressed this to another poster. He repeatedly insults SW and the fans. Just scroll down or click to read my comment and see linked interview:
https://moviechat.org/tt0183790/A-Knights-Tale/6230858da32e6c63e93672c1/Ebert-and-Roeper-convinced-me-NOT-to-see-this-shit?reply=649a3448b37efb61da18d8d5

https://moviechat.org/tt0183790/A-Knights-Tale/6230858da32e6c63e93672c1/Ebert-and-Roeper-convinced-me-NOT-to-see-this-shit?reply=649a3887b37efb61da18d8f9

People see the stars and assume Siskel gave a good review, but news columnists don't write their own headlines and an editor could've stuck the stars on his review. That type of review is what I was seeing in 1977: great SFX, funny two robots, nice music, but everything else sucked. It's a mixed review - not positive.

I would need to see a May 1977 Ebert review in a newspaper. Not a Jan 1, 1977 review on Ebert's own site. Your excuse = trolling.

Now, you're arguing with Lucas. He knows how his movies were received by critics and fans.

Ebert's Phantom Menace review is compromised since he did an interview with Lucas at the same time. He also did a previous interview with him years earlier. I'm beginning to see the motive for the 1st SW negative TV review being "lost". It's also interesting that Siskel and Ebert referred back to earlier SW reviews they did with the exception of the first one.

Someone else mentions Ebert, but like you, he became confused by the bogus written review:
"I’ve been hearing rumors that Roger gave Star Wars a bad review, but later changed his mind after it had became popular."

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9552) a year ago

If you make the claim, you back it up. It's not my "job," either.

I read the Siskel review, and it seems positive to me. I guess you interpret it differently, but so what?

Look, at first you argued that they gave it 2 stars, and now you're saying it's a 3.5 star review, but it wasn't Siskel, so it's irrelevant. Which is it? Did Siskel give it two stars, or did his editor pick the stars?

I'm not arguing with Lucas, I'm arguing that Lucas saying, "They were reviewed poorly" doesn't wash because they weren't. S&E both gave Empire and Jedi positive reviews. Now, we can argue motives (if they were "on board" the popular opinion or not) but the *fact* is that they didn't. So, if Lucas says, "All the SW films were poorly reviewed," he's talking generally, not all critics. It's just flat-out not true that they all gave negative reviews. In fact, I'd be amazed if a film didn't have one or two "minority reports" from critics, good or bad.

It doesn't matter if Ebert's TPM review is "compromised," because either way he gave a good review and Lucas saying, "SW was poorly reviewed," wouldn't be talking about Ebert.

I was just meaning they gave it a positive review, not a literal thumbs-up. You're saying they gave a thumbs-down in their first review?

reply

[–] Keelai (34880) a year ago

You're the one claiming S&E gave SW 2 thumbs-up without any evidence. The thumbs review is in the 1st show and unlike you, I actually watched it.

Either your memory is faulty or your reading comprehension is bad. You can always reread the prior comments to refresh your memory.

I'll ignore your many errors in order to allow you the time to reread. I have no interest in teaching anyone how to read.

You become upset when I say you're not a true SW fan, but then you're fine with Siskel bad-mouthing the movie and its fans.

"I was just meaning they gave it a positive review"

1. What is complementary about saying SW as best film is an outlandish remark?
2. Or it appeals to people who like low-brow movies like "Buck Rogers-style adventures"?
3. Good SFX is all it has in common with Kubrick's film?
4. Whenever the inanity of the entire enterprise begins to surface... How is that a compliment?
5. It's story is terribly simple?
6. Only good acting is by Guinness?
7. The cast is unmemorable? Really? Vader? Tarkin? Luke? The droids? Han Solo? Leia? You're agreeing with Siskel? Why are you insulting SW?

"Star Wars is so successful and so mindless fun, that I hope Hollywood doesn’t forget that there are people who want to see some serious pictures too."

Siskel was as clueless about SW as you are. And there is nothing positive about his condescending comments.

Nevertheless, Ebert initially gave SW a thumbs-down. His sucking up to Lucas after SW became popular is irrelevant. I already wrote that critics did the same en masse.

You wouldn't know who it included because you weren't around in 1977.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9552) a year ago

You made the initial claim. I didn't say their first show was thumbs-up. I asked you to prove it's thumbs down: your claim.

You're becoming personally insulting, and I'm on this site to converse and debate. If you're going to do that, I'd rather talk to other people.

1. Liking SW, thinking it's a great movie, and not thinking it's a best film are definitely not mutually exclusive. Not thinking it's a best film doesn't preclude a good review.
2. He also says it's a hip take on old movie serials. He liked that aspect.
3. I'd say that 2001 and SW are very different films, yes.
4. You're right: it's not a compliment. But you've cut the line off before he goes on to say that Lucas keeps the film entertaining enough that any of that doesn't matter (to Siskel)
5. It is a pretty simple story. It's good vs. evil. That's not bad, and I didn't think Siskel was saying it's bad.
6. He elsewhere says he likes the droids. He might enjoy the movie and think the cast were ho-hum.
7. I think he's referring to the actors/performances, not characters as, again, he cites the droids as fun. Side-note: I didn't say I agreed with Siskel on any given point. How am I insulting SW?

Prove Ebert gave that thumbs-down. Find me the proof of the original review and/or show. Did you see Ebert and Siskel literally give thumbs-down on their show?

I cannot say this any clearer: if Lucas said that Star Wars movies have always received bad reviews, he cannot be speaking of every, single review because some reviews are demonstrably positive. Ebert's TPM review is one example, which is all that is needed to disprove that statement. Therefore, either Lucas is unaware of all reviews, or he is speaking of a general pattern, not every review.

reply

[–] Keelai (34880) a year ago

I'm not attempting to insult you. Just being honest since I believe you're either trolling or can't comprehend a mixed review. Nor do you understand art or how mass media worked in '77 or now re: critics.

You're also unaware that Siskel was the snobby critic with more refined taste in movies whereas Ebert was more mainstream. The show's concept resonated because two critics with opposite taste in film agreeing meant something significant. I expected Siskel to look down upon SW and he didn't disappoint. Ebert's initial thumbs-down is a disappointment.

You're proving my point about Siskel's cluelessness re: SW being the best picture of the year. SWs impact on the movie industry was historic. It's one of the most important films in cinematic history! Creatively and artistically a masterpiece! Of course, it was the best picture of the year!!! You will never experience what millions of theatergoers did in 1977 when SW appeared on the screen which lead to the frenzy, dedication, loyalty and devotion. Ebert's ignorance about SW is shocking, but understandable given the anti-sci-fi climate in 1977.

There is plenty of proof about S&E thumbs-down review which you prefer to deny. That's your ongoing problem, not mine.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9552) a year ago

Sorry, I've gotten a bit mixed up here. I just want to take a step back and clarify something, because we've been using "thumbs up/down" to just mean "negative/positive."

Just to clarify: Siskel's review was 3.5 stars, Ebert's review was four stars, but you're saying they gave thumbs-down in their TV review, yes?

Do you mean they gave a negative review, they didn't recommend the picture, or they gave it two thumbs-down?

reply

[–] Keelai (34880) a year ago

re: your links

Ebert is dated 1-1-77. The movie wasn't released until months later. It's only a revised review AFTER SW became a phenomenon.

Your Siskel news article has no date.

I repeat that SW was being released multiple times in the theater and critics were updating their reviews with each release. Don't confuse the original 1977 reviews with later release reviews and updates.

The best way to find original reviews is to look at the reviews in a 1977 newspapers on microfiche in the library.

I'm a sci-fi fan and SW uberfan so I was paid very close attention to the reviews over the years.

I would forgive them if they admit they were wrong or changed their minds, but I'll never forgive their deceit.

reply

[–] Techto (1307) a year ago

Both Siskel and Ebert gave Star Wars positive reviews. Ebert was especially effusive in his praise:
https://ew.com/article/2015/12/17/original-star-wars-reviews/

reply

[–] Keelai (34880) a year ago

I already addressed that review. They, like most critics, revised their reviews after the public turned SW into a huge hit. SW was released repeatedly in the theaters because Lucas wouldn't give permission to show it on TV or release it as a video for many, many years.

Your link is a later review. SW was not released on Jan. 1, 1977. And it's on Roger Ebert's website!

Realistically, the original video of the 1977 show likely was taped over and no longer exists.

reply

[–] Techto (1307) a year ago

It’s a big deal if the two most famous film critics of the era panned one of the biggest box office hits of the decade only to quickly reverse themselves, sing its praises and actively hide their earlier disdain. But, as Carl Sagan said, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

reply

[–] Keelai (34880) a year ago

Practically every critic did, therefore they were no different.

I find their cover-up to be ridiculous.

You can easily find the evidence yourself by reading the archived newspaper reviews for May 1977. If you want to contact the owners of the TV series to see if the original show exists, be my guest.

reply

[–] Techto (1307) a year ago

Sorry, I don’t care enough to put to travel to a library that has microfiche records of old newspapers. But, absent any evidence, I am disinclined to believe your claim.

reply

[–] Keelai (34880) a year ago

Evidence is there. You're too lazy to look. I understand.

Siskel and Ebert Review “Star Wars” During the Film’s Second Release
https://twistedsifter.com/videos/siskel-and-ebert-review-star-wars-during-the-films-second-release/

That's the second review. All you have to do is find the first review.

I'll assume you weren't around in 1977, therefore your perspective is very narrow.

reply

[–] Techto (1307) a year ago

I was around, in fact. You’re the one making a positive claim — asserting a fact — so it falls to you to provide supporting evidence when challenged.

I’ll consider and respond to another of your posts if you present evidence for your claim. Otherwise not.

reply

[–] Keelai (34880) a year ago

You clearly were not around in 1977 since you're completely unaware of the environment at that time. And it's obvious you're not a SW fan since you know nothing about the news coverage nor do you know other SW fans.

I'll take your silence as your complete surrender🏳.

reply

[–] Techto (1307) a year ago

Here’s Siskel’s review: 3.5/4 stars:
https://external-preview.redd.it/zmdA-HA_ZholuYiDV_tBMx4UK-mTROEYvQ-Z5C-0UP4.jpg?auto=webp&s=588af9076b2c4495f1ae49238f2c480298d95e7c
You are mistaken.

reply

[–] Keelai (34880) a year ago

I'm referring to the first TV review which is MIA. This is the second and has no thumbs up or down at the end! The show I watched had their thumbs down at the end.:
https://twistedsifter.com/videos/siskel-and-ebert-review-star-wars-during-the-films-second-release/

There are a few problems with your link:

1. It's undated.
2. The review is actually mixed - not good.
3. I already mentioned that stars were being added with each new release throughout the years. 1977 reviews had 2 stars, 1980 had 3 stars and 1983 had 4 stars. Your linked mixed-review could have originally had 2-stars. Newspaper columnists don't write their own news headlines.

If you read your linked review objectively, Siskel is repeatedly insulting SW...and fans. (Stars and headlines may not be his or added later).

Negatives:

1. Time calling it best film is an "outlandish remark".
2. ...will appeal to those who enjoy "Buck Rogers-style adventures". (aka: B-movie crap)
3. Good SFX is all it has in common with Kubrick's film. (Another insult. SW is low-brow compared to 2001 Space Odyssey film)
4. Calling it the year's best movie might trigger image searching.
5. It's story is terribly simple.
6. Whenever the inanity of the entire enterprise begins to surface...
7. On the debit side are the human performances except for Guinness. The cast is unmemorable.

These two comments show his ignorance about SWs raison d'etre and he doesn't get the movie:
8. Lucas apparently blew his entire $9.5 million budget on visual effects.
9. Condescending comment about how fans want escapism with happy endings.

He, Ebert and other clueless morons said the movie was popular because they were like cowboy films. What BS!

That's not a good review! It's mixed. The stars don't match the text. The reviews I read and watched were similar. Critics praised the SFX, visuals, two robots and a few mentioned the music.

They were clueless idiots like most critics at that time.

reply

[–] Techto (1307) a year ago

Why bother to cherry pick evidence from the review to make your case if the source is inauthentic? You’re exposed as a conspiracy monger. The only question that remains is whether you were a credulous dupe or a liar.

reply

[–] Keelai (34880) a year ago

You have no evidence. That's my point!

Lucas, I with other 1st generation SW fans are part of a vast conspiracy to ruin deceased Ebert's reputation? You're a conspiracy kook!

reply

[–] Keelai (34880) a year ago

Listen to this condescending remark by Siskel at the end of their 2nd review at 4:20.
https://siskelebert.org/?p=10001

Gene Siskel:
"Star Wars is so successful and so mindless fun, that I hope Hollywood doesn’t forget that there are people who want to see some serious pictures too."

That's not someone who liked SW. He's going along with the flow.

Someone below commented about hearing rumors that Ebert didn't like SW:

"I’ve been hearing rumors that Roger gave Star Wars a bad review, but later changed his mind after it had became popular. "

But the commentator then doubts it because of Ebert's review. Again, it's undated and on his own website. Not really proof. I standby my original comment. They gave SW a thumbs-down in their initial TV review.

I expected Siskel not to like SW, but Ebert's thumbs-down is what really upset me at the time. I'm still fuming.

reply

[–] Keelai (34880) a year ago

2003 forum:

Siskel and Ebert's first review of Star Wars

"Someone told me that Siskel and Ebert (on the show in 1977), gave the original Star Wars two thumbs down. Has anyone ever heard, or has any proof of this?

I also remember reading that George Lucas himself has said that none of the Star Wars movies have been well-reviewed. So people who have read the reviews back in the day - would you agree with the abovementioned statement?"

"This is true from what I remember, though one reviewer did say Mark Hamil was as "cute as a button", honest that is what he said."
https://boards.theforce.net/threads/siskel-and-eberts-first-review-of-star-wars.11787317/

I usually link to the above re: their thumbs down review. I'm not the only one who watched their show in '77.

reply

[–] Techto (1307) a year ago

https://ew.com/article/2015/12/17/original-star-wars-reviews/

reply

[–] Keelai (34880) a year ago

A 2015 article by someone likely not born is useless. They don't mean anything because ratings and reviews were revised like I wrote.

You need to see a microfiche of the actual movie reviews for opening weekend dated in May 1977.

I don't think the original airing exists. This is a review done by Ebert around Christmas AFTER it became a huge hit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/mfnh15/lost_siskel_and_ebert_tv_review_of_star_wars_in/

reply

[–] letess (1540) a year ago

I’m not understanding. Ebert gave this movie 3 stars. Out of 4. The same year, he gave Mulholland Drive 4 stars. One of his favorites. Ebert says this movie makes him smile. Roeper calls it a cheeky triumph.

I can’t tell whether you saw this movie or not. And that if you didn’t see it, it was based on good reviews of Ebert snd Roeper. Which doesn’t make sense.

A Knight’s Take is a good and creative movie written and directed by Brian Helgeland. Who later did the great film LA Confidential.

Heath is good in this. And so is Paul Bettany. It’s where I first saw James Purefoy. As a viewer, you are either in or out with the music. I remember liking this movie a lot. I saw it twice when it came out. In one week.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9552) a year ago

It's a great, surprising movie! I love that it's a sports movie set in medieval England instead of in a stadium in the USA. The anachronisms are part of the fun, and in my opinion, the soundtrack is one of the finest ever put to films!

reply

[–] letess (1540) a year ago

Hola amigo. Yeah. I loved soundtrack too. I loved costumes. Great actors. Wasn’t Bettany “Geoff”. Chaucer? This movie is a gem. (In a way, first couple of episodes of Peaky Blinders did music and style of clothes too. Thanks to Otto Bathurst.)

I saw 8-1/2 last night to a full house. 35 mm. I will say something on the other very long typewriter-like thread.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9552) a year ago

Oye.

Yeah, Paul Bettany was Geoff, and one of the best parts of the film. The whole cast are great, though. Wat played by Alan Tudyk is definitely a highlight as well.

I look forward to reading about 8 1/2 on the typewriter.

reply

[–] Keelai (34880) a year ago

Are you aware that Ebert & Roeper ruined the movie by revealing the end? Sheesh! I'm glad I stopped watching the show after Siskel died.

A Knight's Tale is also a feel good film. One of my favorite movies.

reply

[–] letess (1540) a year ago

You’re amazing if you can remember all these episodes and/or reviews. I think most people just wanted to see Siskel and Ebert get into it. I never much cared for Roeper. I do recall Siskel liking One False Move and in my mind, I gave him a star. I do, in hindsight, like to look at Ebert’s reviews on older movies as he is so thorough and gives a great deal of thought to explaining the movie. I am thinking of Chabrol’s Le Boucher, one of my favorite movies. But even in that he gives a lot away where he really shouldn’t. I also like to read Vincent Canby, Bosley Crowther and Pauline Kael reviews and they are in microfiche format. Most I disagree with but I just love seeing them in their original print. Pauline Kael is in the master class of writing. With her reviews, it is better to see the movie before the review as she divulges everything. I disagree with her more than anyone and yet I respect her more than anyone, except for what she did to David Lean.

I did not particularly like Star Wars. I didn’t think about it much until reading this thread. After reading this thread, I can honestly say that I don’t think of it as being that good. And I am not a revisionist. I am unapologetic. It was popular like Farrah was. Comparing the comedy to Laurel and Hardy doesn’t seem fair. Not fair to Laurel and Hardy. When I see this movie on top 100 lists, I am astounded. But they are American lists. I do agree there probably hasn’t been a more influential movie made as far as cultural and commercial impact as this one. There’s the wonder of Lucas. If any critic initially gave SW a mediocre review and stood by it, I would applaud him/her. I did see Jaws and I thought this movie is beyond excellent. I loved A Knight’s Tale. I understand that people like the Star Wars franchise and I don’t debate this. I liked the name Han Solo.

reply

[–] Keelai (34880) a year ago

Watching Star Wars in the movie theater in 1977 vs watching Star Wars at home after 1977 are two entirely different experiences. A good comparison would be living in 1903 to witness the Wright Brothers first flight vs living in 2023 and seeing a plane flying overhead. The former was something never seen nor experienced which eventually revolutionized society and later became the norm. What was shocking in 1903/1977 is only routine in 2023.

Lucas invented the Dolby stereo sound system for his 1977 SW movie. For the first time, sound surrounded and traveled within the theater. When Vader's ship fired on Leia's, the sound appeared to follow from the right side of the theater to the left side. That alone was shocking.

When Vader's ship appeared on screen, it was overwhelming and endless. People literally gasped. And bad poorly-done SFX was normal in the 70s. Seeing realistic SFX as well as new visual concepts like lightsabers and hyperspace travel surprised and shocked everyone. SW remained in the theater for over a year because people wanted to repeatedly see the SFX. SW was repeatedly rereleased.

I'll also add that there was a strong depressing aura in the U.S. at that time because of the Vietnam War and Nixon's resignation. Americans didn't feel good about ourselves as a nation. Everything was gray. No b&w simplicity. We weren't good because of atrocities in Vietnam and a crooked president. Lucas made it simple by creating a hero to cheer against obvious bad guys. We needed that at that time.

1977 Star Wars was never just a movie. Later generations can never understand because the 1977 era no longer exists.

I was a movie buff who went to the movie theater practically every week. Reviews were in all the newspapers and news shows at that time. I followed them for recommendations. SW initially received mixed reviews so I decided not to see it. But, a week later, the news began reporting long lines which peaked my curiosity and changed my mind. That's why I remember their reviews.

I just watched the Ebert/Roeper "Knight's" review on youtube. I remember someone (maybe local news) complained about the mixture of modern music and costume with historic. I thought that was great and went to see it in the theater.

Roeper was too much like Ebert. There needed to be a snobby critic to offset Ebert's common taste in film. Rex Reed would've been perfect. I just wanted recommendations for good movies.

reply

[–] letess (1540) a year ago

This is an excellent response. It says everything I missed. And captures that moment I wished I had had. I only saw the trilogy and The Last Jedi.

I am one of those people who like critics (but not just anyone off the internet) so it’s difficult sometimes having discussions with posters who don’t believe in them as a whole. I read them even if they’re not that good. You are able to if you go to IMDB and go to external reviews. Often you can get the original review in the original publication. Especially Village Voice and NY Times. It’s fantastic going back to the 60s. Next to the review are ads and movie screenings occurring in that actual time period. I usually go to Mick LaSalle at the SF Chronicle or Laura Clifford in Reeling Reviews.

I think that Ebert would be in complete disagreement with the current critics on his website. Before they decided on Roeper, they had guest critics and Rex Reed was one of them.

reply

[–] Keelai (34880) a year ago

Thanks.

I watched Rex Reed and others try out with Ebert. Too much brown-nosing for me. I thought his wife should've been the reviewer because she would've been more independent like Siskel was.

I read that there is a reluctance to give negative reviews now because the studios won't give screenings to those critics. And mass media became consolidated with movie studios, newspapers, TV channels, magazines and websites owned by the same large corporation. Most traditional mass media promotes movies and shows without any reviews.

Rotten Tomatoes reminds me of S&E. Critics are like Siskel and Audience like Ebert. A similar high score is like E&S two-thumbs up.

I also use MC for reviews and recommendations. I try to stay spoiler-free so a numeric score is usually enough. I read reviews after I watched the film now.

I had avoided Ebert's website since he's obviously not involved now, but your comment lead me to click on it. I like that there are plenty of negative and mixed reviews which means they're not afraid to be honest. I also like the critics' diversity and that Ebert's widow is managing it. Her enthusiasm and opinions confirm my initial belief that she should've worked with Ebert on the show. I'm impressed with the site's content so I'll use it in the future.

reply

[–] letess (1540) a year ago

Chaz is fantastic. Before Roger died, he gave her a list of critics he liked: Brian Tallerico, Matt Zoller Seitz, Nick Allen, Matt Fagerholm and Nell Minow.

I don’t see these same critics of late. But I looked up a few small films that I really liked. I liked Under the Skin with Scarlett and director Jonathan Glazer and this guy listed above, Matt Zoller Seitz, gave it 4 stars. I then looked at another film I loved, Walk on the Moon, with Diane Lane and Viggo and Ebert gave this one 2 stars. And yet, because of that movie, Lane got the role in Unfaithful - which Ebert did give 3 stars and is essentially the same character as the wife. Ebert did give The Piano 4 stars - with Harvey and Anna. I name these 3 movies because these are the movies I get into the most controversial discussions about. They are movies about women and many men fault them, especially Unfaithful. But there you have it. Ebert tells a story rather than a review and often he gives historical insight and factual input. I like reading Kael’s commentary because as another poster said, she’s an essayist and I love her writing style even though I never agree with her. And she held court; she admonished and robbed a lot of very deserving directors.

Now, today, we live in another time. There are a lot of reviews on websites or even YouTube where the reviewer can’t spell, the incorrect use of grammar, the facts are off, and the opinions are condescending and overly political - so I no longer really look at reviews until I’ve seen the move. They are very much like imposters but people follow them. So, I love to read the old ones on microfiche because I end up reading other news items on the same page or the cost of shampoo ad next to a review or an obit and it’s interesting to reflect on another time altogether.

reply

[–] Keelai (34880) a year ago

Walk on the Moon and Unfaithful were two good films. I disliked the Piano. Too dreary for me, although the performances were good.

I don't like when trailers and critics giveaway the entire story.

I agree that American journalism has went downhill with some exceptions. Foreign news is still good.

I don't know if you've seen this website. It's good if you want to see S&Es old shows:
https://archive.org/search?query=sneak+previews

reply

[–] letess (1540) a year ago

Thank you. What a treasure trove. This goes way back. I clicked on one of them and they both agreed on all the movies. I loved American Gigolo and they did too. These are really interesting.

reply

[–] Keelai (34880) a year ago

You're welcome.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9552) a year ago

Siskel and Ebert fighting was always amazing. Have you seen their outtakes videos of them snarking and just ripping on each other? They're something else. But more than that, S&E united against a common enemy was like watching a typhoon team up with an earthquake. They both rip apart this guy, and it's great. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky9-eIlHzAE

He doesn't stand a chance.

I know what you mean with them giving too much away. I think older reviews weren't as worried about "spoilers". I find myself wondering if spoilers were a big deal a while ago. I think it's a new thing. Time once was stories would just be shared, so spoilers weren't a problem. With the advent of technologies like film, or even novels, allowing somebody the opportunity to experience the exact story themselves becomes an idea. It seems to have persisted into early film criticism that giving away plot points wasn't a problem.

I wonder at it myself. Is it really important? After all, I know how Romeo & Juliet is going to end each time, yet I still love seeing that wonderful work done really well. Or what about re-reading something? I've re-read Lord of the Rings many, many times, and it's never lost its magic. Spoilers haven't affected my enjoyment. I avoid spoilers, but I do wonder how important they are to loving a film...

I think Pauline Kael was going for criticism as in essays and so forth. She wasn't reviewing a movie or telling an audience if the movie was good. She was trying to dig into the meanings of film. That's probably why you love reading her reviews even when disagreeing: she's trying to get some interesting ideas over.

For myself, I love Star Wars. It's like mythology. I think if fantasy and adventure films - or superhero stories - are done really well they have that lustre that myth or faerie tale has, and for me, Star Wars achieves that sense of wonder and awe.

Jaws and A Knight's Tale are also wonderful films, of course.

reply

[–] letess (1540) a year ago

Taking a kid or your kid to see Tender Mercies. Gee, dad, thanks. I looked up John Simon because I never heard of him. Probably my just not being aware. Clearly, he’s an academic and an intellectual probably. very well versed - I also can’t believe recommending Huck Finn. Although a great novel I’m not sure it is really for kids.

Ebert told who the killer was. That was his spoiler. There was doubt. It’s part of the movie where you should be in disbelief as much as the female lead and for a period of time. It didn’t affect me because I didn’t read the review or see the movie at the same time. Kael revealed that Quinn gets gobbled up by the shark in her review of Jaws.

Star Wars did not have the same affect on me as it did you or this other poster. I didn’t have a negative view either. Just there was no magic. And this is more disheartening for me as I really looked forward to it. I also thought the humor was corny. I think the word I had for the whole movie was hokey.

It is no. 13 on the AFI 100 list which was composed once only and in 2007, right below no. 12 The Searchers. The Searchers was made in the 50s and it is without a doubt for me one of the best. This one was magical. And it is difficult for me to see the one that follows is SW, which took me a while to figure out they renamed to A New Hope, which I think is a horrible title. On the 2012, Sight and Sound list, SW is not even mentioned - not sure. But on the 2022 Sight and Sound, which as you probably know being a film person, got a lot of controversy this year. But, SW-ANH is now on this list as no. 240 - The Searchers slipped from being in Top 10 to around in the 30s. So, did 8-1/2.

Do you think the magic of the time (1977) of SW, along with Lucas technology, catapulted this to a place on the S&S list? Do you think the magic of Harry Potter will get to that place too? Because I actually agree with that Simon guy about the script and acting. And when reowned directors are asked about SW, they are lost for words. Scorsese says “the first 3.” Tarantino answers with a question, Who wouldn’t? Coppola feels sadness for Lucas as a director bc he didn’t make other films and he thought American Graffiti was the beginning. He says Lucas brought joy and happiness and pleasure which goes with that fake title, A New Hope. He delivered but at what cost? If the movies stopped at the first 3, would there be a legacy or would it just stop in time. Is it a kid’s movie for kids at the time. Some say that kids of today don’t like it that much and only want to like it because dad likes it or in some cases, grandad.

I loved the space ones - 2001, Alien - I don’t think Dark City is a space one - but was it Ridley Scott who said Star Wars was the flip side for the first two? I am jaded, I think. I love the other ones.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9552) a year ago

Oh, yeah. Simon might or might not be a good critic, he might or might not be smart, but he definitely is out-of-touch with what one has to do with kids. He's also failed to realize that children's imaginations are fired up by stuff like Star Wars. I'd agree that presenting kids with very human and true content is important, too, but SW or other faerie stories help kids to play and dream - as long as they aren't overloaded with it.

Okay, yeah, giving away the killer is not a good idea. I get annoyed in introductions in books that give away plot points as well. Essays about the story are great little bonuses that a publisher can include, but put them after the story so I can enjoy the analysis. Likewise, Kael shouldn't say who does or does not get eaten. My opinion. Still, I do think that if the only good part of a story is the "surprise" element, it's not a good story. I should be thrilled by the ride, not just the destination.

I won't judge you. Everybody has different reactions to different films, and if Star Wars didn't fire you up, that's totally cool.

Believe it or not, I actually am not familiar with the 2022 Sight and Sound controversy, but I'm off to look it up!

Best-of lists are interesting to me, but they're never perfect. It's also really hard to rank movies. I love Monty Python's Meaning of Life and I love Casablanca. Which is the "better movie"? What rubric would account for one film's absurdist comedy goals AND the other film's romantic drama elements? So, while I use lists like the AFI Top 100 to help me mine history for great classic films, they aren't the perfect arbiters - in my head, anyway.

I haven't seen The Searchers yet, but it's on my list. On your enthusiastic mention of the film I might try to track it down sooner than later.

I don't know what puts one film up or down. I will say this: personal tastes aside, SW has captured the imaginations of several generations now. I've seen kids today and kids of several years ago responding to SW, and believe me, they aren't faking; they really love this thing. It's still a major event for kids today. Small screen, big screen, any screen. Kids do still get blown away by this. I can see maybe teens and younger adults not digging on the original Star Wars films as much, but I also think that a lot of them might come around later.

reply

[–] letess (1540) a year ago

My comments are too long. S&S lists come out every 10 years. In 2012, Vertigo was no.1 Citizen Kane - 2. In 2022, the no. 1 is a French 70s movie. Jeanne Dielman. It’s 3 hours. It’s on Prime Video. I haven’t seen it. Other movies lost their ranking and some were removed altogether. The list is more inclusive. AFI list is drastically different. Half of the movies on S&S I’ve never heard of. The Searchers is a Ford western. Everyone loves Monty Python.

They are building here a Lucas Narrative Museum. Ready in 2025. It’s huge. If I’m still in LA, I hope to see it. SW is/was a phenomenon. A movie that changed many lives.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9552) a year ago

I don't mind long comments from thoughtful chaps like yourself.

I've never heard of Jeanne Dielman. Maybe I'll check it out (if I find the three hours...) but it's odd that a movie I haven't even heard of would take the top spot. I'll be the first to admit that my consumption of world cinema is lacking (with the exception of a fair number of Kurosawa films and a smattering of European ones) but even though I haven't *seen* as many movies from around the globe, I at least know most of the "must watch" ones (like 8 1/2!) So, for something to come from "nowhere" - yeah, I can see why that's controversial.

Of course, any list is going to have to leave out certain titles. I think they're as fun to read for what got left out as for what got put on. With that said, I think lists are better as genre lists. It's hard enough to say "Best Sci-Fi" film without saying, "Best Film Ever!" and needing to compare sci-fi flicks and horror movies to comedies and period pieces.

People who don't love Monty Python are a little suspect. I'm not saying "bad" or "have bad taste," but just... Beysian logic dictates that they are slightly more likely to be crummy people.

What's a Lucas Narrative Museum? Like a historical look at all his revisionism of Star Wars? That would be fascinating... Whatever its merits or debits, Star Wars certainly reshaped lives and cinema forever...

reply

[–] Kowalski (75736) a year ago

SAD STORY...THIS FLICK WAS FUN AS HELL...YOU MESSED UP.

reply