press screening and first review...

**Dave Hutchens** · 9th May 2002, 06:38 AM

Well, as everyone surely knows, reviews are pouring in from just about everywhere, and with just ONE exception (so far), they've all been glowing. Fans in particular, it seems, are just in adoration of this film, and largely feel that this is the finest SW yet.

The one exception I've run across is today's review from Fox News, which was not terribly enthusiastic, noting awful dialogue and "infomercial grade" acting. BUT, check out this single positive comment:

"Samuel L. Jackson gives it his best shot as Mace Windu and Christopher Lee is the perfect balance of evil and snarky as Count Dooku."

Evil and snarky...works for me!!

Dave:1roll:

**John Farrell** · 9th May 2002, 02:07 PM

This is what I was afraid of...(from Fox News)

"One of the reasons Yoda's performance comes off as so strong and human is because the humans in Episode II often seem artificial. The worst offender is Hayden Christensen, playing the teen-aged Anakin Skywalker.

I know Christensen had his fans from Life as a House, but in Clones he is more wooden than a tree. He has no screen presence and his delivery of the dialogue ? granted, it's made up of forgettable, banal lines ? is deadly. Looking scared to death, Christensen makes his way through Clones as if he's on a building ledge and trying to get back inside."

I could tell the kid was going to stink just from his scenes in the trailer. Oh well, at least watching Mr. Lee and Samuel L. Jackson should be fun...

**John Farrell** · 9th May 2002, 02:09 PM

I forgot to post the Fox take on Mr. Lee:

"There are some actors up to the job of making Clones worthwhile, though. Samuel L. Jackson gives it his best shot as Mace Windu and Christopher Lee is the perfect balance of evil and snarky as Count Dooku. Anthony Daniels and Kenny Baker make our old friends C-3PO and R2-D2 as ingratiating as ever, but again the character development is dependent entirely on knowing the rest of Star Wars."

**David Vasser** · 9th May 2002, 02:40 PM

So far the one BBC reporter who has seen AOTC is giving a huge two-thumbs-up to the film with comments like, "This is going to be the most talked about movie of the year and rightly so."

If I recall correctly, FOX prematurely declared Al Gore the winner in the last presidential election so their credibility and judgement is somewhat dubious to me.

Lots of people claim they have seen this film, including some who have posted here. This BBC review claims the count of people outside of LUCASFILMS who has seen AOTC is less than 100 people and they all have had to go to SKYWALKER RANCH to see it.

You can read the glowing BBC review here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/tv_film/...000/1969286.stm

There is no mention of specific performances in the film in the BBC review.

Hope that link works for you but I can not be responsible if it doesn't. I've encountered some issues with links being changed and moved lately but as of this moment the link works.

**John Farrell** · 9th May 2002, 03:18 PM

Thanks, Brother Dave!

Here's the Fox link:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,52250,00.html

It does go into detail, so I'd be surprised if he was making it up. But, yeah, Fox has a tendency to enjoy trying to be the spoiler...

Best,

John F

**David Vasser** · 9th May 2002, 03:37 PM

After reading the FOX review, I have to agree he really did see it! It sounds like he was expecting FLASH GORDON though.

Comparing FLASH GORDON to AOTC is like comparing Sabrina the Teenage Witch to Saruman. LOL

**Susan Pitcher** · 9th May 2002, 06:56 PM

Quote:

. . . .Christopher Lee is the perfect balance of evil and snarky as Count Dooku. . . . "

Snarky? Somebody is overusing his thesaurus a bit. I think he comes off looking the best in the trailers along with Sam Jackson's Mace Windu.

Maybe the problem with casting for Star Wars is similar to casting any big role like a remake of "Ten Commandments" trying to recast somebody to play Moses. Some productions will rarely find a perfect fit, so if Haydn doesn't quite measure up it probably isn't totally his fault. Look at what Jake Lloyd had to pull off as young Anakin.

. . . .Snarky. Gotta ponder that one awhile.

**Dave Hutchens** · 9th May 2002, 09:05 PM

...I'd swear I started this topic last night. :D

Oh, well!

Dave

**Charles Prepolec** · 10th May 2002, 06:19 AM

The online version of the UK newspaper The Independentalso ran a review yesterday. While the reviewer, David Thomson, is generally unimpressed by the film his comments about Mr. Lee are quite good. You can find the Independent Review by clicking here.

Quite frankly, the review addresses a number of concerns that I have had with George Lucas' approach to dialogue, special effects and story structure, so once again, I am feeling somewhat cautious about this new addition to the Star Wars saga. Glossy special effects alone do not a classic make (two words...Phantom Menace...), so once burnt, twice shied, I suppose, although I'll be overjoyed to have my suspicions washed away...

And Mr. Hutchens, a quick note, forum posts are moderated, but do appear in the order they were posted, so relax, if a post or thread is of interest, your fellow members will find it, wherever and whenever it hits the boards.

Cheers!

10th May 2002, 07:09 AM

I've just finished perusing reviews on theforce.net and almost every one mentions Mr. Lee positively. Many indicate that the final fourth of the movie, which features Mr. Lee, makes the film entirely worthwhile.

The NY Times review, which thoroughly trashes the film, refers to the "formidable Christopher Lee." I believe Rolling Stone's Peter Travers (oft-quoted, seldom read) refers to "the great Christopher Lee."

**Dave Hutchens** · 10th May 2002, 11:52 AM

Thanks, Charles...I'll keep that in mind.

Dave

**Dave Hutchens** · 10th May 2002, 12:30 PM

Well, this is what we have so far on Ebert & Roeper and AOTC:

"Local ABC station WLS showed some highlights from this weeks "Ebert and Roeper" on the news earlier today. While it seems as if Roeper really enjoyed the film, Ebert did not. Which is shocking, considering that Ebert gave Phantom Menace one of its best reviews. The highlights seemed to insinuate that Ebert thought that the effects were too over the top and that the story had too many holes in it."

This posted on TheForce.net just hours ago. I must admit it worries me a touch that Roeper, evidently, was the pleased one. I've had little faith in this man's opinions since his _glowing_ review of "Planet of the Apes" a year ago.

Dave

**Dave Hutchens** · 10th May 2002, 02:10 PM

For anyone who may be getting a little concerned, here's a link to some absolutely WONDERFUL fan reviews:

http://www.episode-x.com/episode2/index.php#688

Happy reading!

Dave

**John Farrell** · 10th May 2002, 03:19 PM

I have to agree with Charles' thoughtful entry above. I think when a franchize grows to this extent, it gives the writer the sense that he doesn't have to work as hard at telling the story (look how dreadful some of the Star Trek movies were). Of course, lousy dialogue can be made more palatable by superb acting, but Mr. Lucas is wont to cast underwhelming newbies in key parts...

Best,

John F

**Susan Pitcher** · 10th May 2002, 07:25 PM

Quote:

...I'd swear I started this topic last night. :D . . . .

You did, but my clicking finger is possessed by an evil misquote demon right now. My bad :dunce: .

It's hard enough to try avoiding the spoilers. Why are old curmudgeonly geezers like Ebert picking it apart? I think we're better off just waiting and seeing the movie for ourselves. Critics are so stodgy. . . .