EXHAUSTING
>"'Star Wars' is like getting a box of Cracker Jacks which is all prizes. This is the writer-director George Lucas's own film, subject to no business interference, yet it's a film that's totally uninterested in anything that doesn't connect with the mass audience. There's no breather in the picture, no lyricism; the only attempt at beauty is in the double sunset. It's enjoyable on its own terms, but it's exhausting, too: like taking a pack of kids to the circus. ... It's an epic without a dream." — Pauline Kael, The New Yorker.
THUMBS UP
>"'Star Wars' taps the pulp fantasies buried in our memories, and because it's done so brilliantly, it reactivates old thrills, fears, and exhilarations we thought we'd abandoned when we read our last copy of Amazing Stories." — Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times.
OVERWHELMING BANALITY
>"Strip 'Star Wars' of its often striking images and its high-falutin scientific jargon, and you get a story, characters, and dialogue of overwhelming banality, without even a "future" cast to them. Human beings, anthropoids, or robots, you could probably find them all, more or less like, that, in downtown Los Angeles today... O dull new world!" — John Simon, New York magazine.
WITTY
>"'Star Wars' ... is the most elaborate, most expensive, most beautiful movie serial ever made. It's both an apotheosis of 'Flash Gordon' serials and a witty critique that makes associations with a variety of literature that is nothing if not eclectic: 'Quo Vadis?' 'Buck Rogers,' 'Ivanhoe,' 'Superman,' 'The Wizard of Oz,' 'The Gospel According to St. Matthew,' the legend of King Arthur and the knights of the Round Table. ... One of Mr. Lucas's particular achievements is the manner in which he is able to recall the tackiness of the old comic strips and serials he loves without making a movie that is, itself, tacky." — Vincent Canby, New York Times.
UNEXCEPTIONAL
>"The only way that 'Star Wars' could have been interesting was through its visual imagination and special effects. Both are unexceptional. ... I kept looking for an 'edge,' to peer around the corny, solemn comic-book strophes; he was facing them frontally and full. This picture was made for those (particularly males) who carry a portable shrine within them of their adolescence, a chalice of a Self that was Better Then, before the world's affairs or — in any complex way — sex intruded." — Stanley Kauffman, the New Republic.
RIP-ROARING GALLOP
>"'Star Wars' is Buck Rogers with a doctoral degree but not a trace of neuroticism or cynicism, a slam-bang, rip-roaring gallop through a distantly future world full of exotic vocabularies, creatures and customs, existing cheek by cowl with the boy and girl next door and a couple of friendly leftovers from the planet of the apes and possibly one from Oz (a Tin Woodman robot who may have got a gold-plating as a graduation present)." — Charles Champlin, Los Angeles Times.
>>63544779
>This picture was made for those (particularly males) who carry a portable shrine within them of their adolescence, a chalice of a Self that was Better Then, before the world's affairs or — in any complex way — sex intruded
Spot on.
Thanks OP.
Have a bump.
I wish 4chan was around for The Phantom Menace. The shitposting would've been unstoppable
>>63544779
>>"The only way that 'Star Wars' could have been interesting was through its visual imagination and special effects. Both are unexceptional. ... I kept looking for an 'edge,' to peer around the corny, solemn comic-book strophes; he was facing them frontally and full. This picture was made for those (particularly males) who carry a portable shrine within them of their adolescence, a chalice of a Self that was Better Then, before the world's affairs or — in any complex way — sex intruded." —
This is absolute gold
>>63544779
>This picture was made for those (particularly males) who carry a portable shrine within them of their adolescence, a chalice of a Self that was Better Then, before the world's affairs or — in any complex way — sex intruded.
kek
>>63545859
Fuck that is really accurate tbqh.
It was well-received more than it was panned. Stop being a contrarian.
>>63544755
>no lyricism
Does this explain the obsession he had with pottery for the rest of his career? Did these review really get to him?
>>63545970
>I kept looking for an 'edge'
*tips fedora*
[tipping intensifies]
>>63546150
Of course it was well received, we all know that, faggot. Doesn't make some of the critique posted less accurate.
>>63545859
This isn't a bad thing unless you make it a big part of your life.
>>63544755
>Lucas based the character of General Kael (Pat Roach) in WILLOW on the film critic Pauline Kael, a fact that was not lost on Kael in her printed review of the film. She referred to General Kael as an "homage a moi".
Lucas holds grudges.
how come the empire only sent out like 3 tie fighters to try to take out a group of 6 rebels during the death star attack at the end lol, talk about plot hole
>>63545967
Would of been fucking spectacular if I'm quite honest.
>>63546447
Canon wise: They were arrogant and they thought the Death Star defenses would hold. Also the rebels sent in only a few small fighters. Think of it like the Seal Team Six raid of Osama Bin laden.
Real Reason: Money and the new tech. Imagine being told to make hundreds of ties. They did not think this movie was going to be that big of a hit and were having budget issues as is.
>>63546660
>seal team six raid
No not really, since Osama didn't exactly have a huge army as defence? The point of hiding in some house is that you don't have a huge fucking army around you showing off everyone that someone important to them is there.
>>63544755
>OVERWHELMING BANALITY
>if you take all the shit out, there's nothing left!
This man got paid for writing this.
Movie critics have always been scum.
>>63546947
Well I think that's what he mean, that it was literally only shit without anything inside. This was still a time when people considered that movies should have at least something in them other than plain entertainment value, even if that something was almost always completely fake.
>>63546150
>Carrie Fisher, resembling her father Eddie more than her mother Debbie Reynolds
>>63545859
Is this a bad thing?
>>63546888
If Osama and company knew they were coming you would know half of the muzzies in the city he was in would have guarded that mansion with their lives.
>>63544755
>"Strip 'Star Wars' of its often striking images and its high-falutin scientific jargon, and you get a story, characters, and dialogue of overwhelming banality, without even a "future" cast to them.
>"Strip 'Star Wars' of its often striking images and its high-falutin scientific jargon
>Strip a movie of its script and cinematography
Saying retarded shit like this should be against the law.
>>63545859
That's some of the gayest armchair psychology I've ever heard. How does an "observation" like that even have a place in a film review?
>>63545859
So fucking prescient.
>>63545859
>Calling people manchildren on a Russian Christmas Card catalog site
Recently I've been considering watching episodes 4-6 and tear into and analyse them to an extreme. Just rip off plinkett's thing but for 4-6 instead of the prequels.
But that would mean I'd have to watch those shitty movies.
Inb4 star wars fanboys get mad about people having different opinions, oops too late
>>63544755
Pauline Kael is a massive pleb. One of the worst "revered" critics of all time
>>63546150
This is such a shitty review. He was a star pilot not a sky pilot. And C-3P0 was not allowed to enter the bar he didn't refuse to enter. The bartender even says "we don't serve their kind here". Did this guy even see the movie?
>>63546150
>it should be around for a long time
Well he was certainly correct about that
that does it I'm done have your marketeer board I'll see you franchise gobbling fucks in january
>>63545967
trust me the shitposting for The Force Awakens will also be glorious if it sucks as hard as Phantom Menace.
>>63546405
>>63547568
>>63547605
I just like how it insults Lucas as much as the fans. It's just so well played.
>>63546428
kek
>>63547568
He was spot on though. Guy deserves a medal along with Alec Guinness.
>>63544755
>"This is the writer-director George Lucas's own film, subject to no business interference"
70s people were so naive and optimistic.
>>63547568
butthurt
Those who don't create and have talent are movie critics.
>>63549362
>believes everyone will suck his cock now that he shit on Phantom Menace
stop being a meanie, it was a top 10 1977 flick !
>>63545859
Guy sounds like a hit at parties
>>63549544
>spot on
spot on anon
Are you fucking retarded? Story, characters, and dialogue is the script. "High-falutin scientific jargon" are just dialogue flourishes. The review is talking about looking beyond the style and at the substance which is very dull. The style hasn't aged well either.
Also cinematography is not just striking images. It is how information is presented visually in a movie and in Star Wars it is rather pedestrian compared to something like Apocalypse Now or almost any modern movie.
>>63547513
hey : >>63553993
haha, they're all dead and Star Wars lives on.
fucking faggots.
>>63545859
This sounds like something that would be published in the New Republic.
>>63547568
It's not enough that he thinks the movie is bad, he has to talk down to the people who might like it.
>Leia's planet gets blown up
>she whines a bit before Tarkin does it
>it's never mentioned again
>she got her homeplanet blown up because her dumb ass was caught on a rebel freighter
>These hatin' ass niggas
Jesus fuck what kinda pretentious shit were they expecting
It's a well done sci-fi adventure tale of hero and villain. Why do critics act like every piece of film has to be revolutionary?
>>63546428
more clever than just coming out and saying "What a bitch!"
>>63555382
>Jesus fuck what kinda pretentious shit were they expecting
This, apparently; an adaption of a Sidney Sheldon novel that 20th Century Fox thought was going to be their big hit of the summer.
>>63545859
Damn, 70s movie critics really knew how to troll.
>>63544779
>visual imagination and special effects. Both are unexceptional
Are you mad??
>This picture was made for those (particularly males) who carry a portable shrine within them of their adolescence, a chalice of a Self that was Better Then, before the world's affairs or — in any complex way — sex intruded."
That's quite too honest family.
>>63549362
It doesn't matter how bad or good Force Awakens will be. It will be shitposted to death and back.
>>63546334
>cherry picking for subjective "accuracy".
>>63544779
> Vincent Canby, New York Times
For those who don't know, Vincent Canby is God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Canby
>>63556102
> feature sex and nudity
>Susan Sarandon
HELLO!
>>63545859
This guy predicted the manchildren epidemic of the 21st century. Naturally, many of /tv/ neckbeards feel offended because it's too true.
>>63544755
>it's a film that's totally uninterested in anything that doesn't connect with the mass audience.
I don't understand what's wrong with this? That's the whole fucking point of Star Wars and why Lucas used Joseph Cambells Monomyth theory to write it, he wanted to create something in the fashion of previous mythological stories but for modern people.
>>63549362
Phantom Menace was a bad movie thru and thru, Force Awakens will be mediocre at worst. It's being designed so it doesn't absolutely blow and to keep fans and audiences alike interested, unlike Lucas whose sole purpose was to sell toys.
>>63549549
It's true, Lucas had a lot of freedom. Something like Star Wars would not be made today unless you are already a famous director in Hollywood, like James Cameron with Avatar.
>>63547977
Critics are too busy reviewing the movie to watch it.
>>63556411
Lucas didn't use Joseph Campbell. That's a myth Lucas created after the fact, when intellectuals told him how similar it was to Campbell's thesis. Lucas just went along with it to sound smart, instead of telling the truth that it was all a cheesy Flash Gordon homage.
It doesn't take anything away from Star Wars, but Lucas totally lied about being inspired by Campbell.
>>63556626
No, it's based the Hidden Fortress, he said so himself that he had originally planned to base it on Flash Gordon but didn't.
It's literally the Hidden Fortress in space.
Lucas also said that he re-read The Heroes with a thousand Faces multiple times while writing the script.
>>63546888
He was just down the road from the biggest military academy in pakistan, they could have drummed up some defense if they'd thought about it.
>>63556725
based on*
>>63544755
Ebert was so based wasn't he? He seemed to have an ability to get the bigger picture.
was planning on watching star wars machete order but cutting out episode 1 completely
so 4 5 2 3 6
good? or do i need to watch epsisode1 garabge
>>63556725
If he said it then it must be true.
>>63556840
2 and 3 are much worse than 1.
>>63556969
>I don't have any evidence to the contrary, but I'm going to act like I'm right.
Gee, I wonder who to believe, the guy who wrote the script or anon on /tv/?
>>63556395
He is incorrect in that being sexless is no longer the defining attribute of Manchildren.
>>63556322
His more negative review of Empire was posted here a few days ago, dont remember where
these critics had nicer prose than "critics" today
>>63554796
Good thing the "bonus material canon" includes mentions of it past ANH.
>>63556840
Machete order is a stupid meme. Just fucking watch all the movies either in release order, as most fans have seen them (OT then PT) or chronological order (PT then OT) and get over the "PT so bad/boring" meme.
>>63544755
>EXHAUSTING
>Pauline Kael, The New Yorker.
>THUMBS UP
>Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times.
And this is why Kael is the best film critic of all time.
>>63557116
>muh dick
>>63544779
>This picture was made for those (particularly males) who carry a portable shrine within them of their adolescence, a chalice of a Self that was Better Then, before the world's affairs or — in any complex way — sex intruded
Jesus, this is so accurate.
>>63544779
>>63557388
>>63556322
>>63556207
>>63545986
>>63545970
>>63545859
>"Can there be a happier person in our time than George Lucas, the originator and chief creator of the now five-part Star Wars series? He is the archetypal fantasizing boy made king. Steven Spielberg comes very close, but Spielberg is sometimes assailed by grave themes, and, what’s more, he deals fruitfully with them. Lucas is unencumbered by mature thought."
Stanley Kauffman on SW Ep. II
https://newrepublic.com/article/125443/star-wars-impervious-film-criticism
>>63544755
>NOT EVERY REVIEWER LOVED THE FIRST STAR WARS, GUYS
Same is true for the second one and the third one.
What's your point? Most reviewers and most people in the audience liked the movie.
>>63557514
OP here, there is no point or agenda
i jut thought it would be fun to see and discuss some things that were written in 1977 about a wildly popular topic on /tv/ right now
