More Early Word
John Podhoretz, whose taste I don't trust, hates the new Star Wars. Fine. But listen to him explain why early major media reviews are positive: "...while the movie critics of my long-ago youth were middlebrow snobs suspicious of populist entertainment, today's critics have turned into toadies. They are afraid of being on an audience's bad side, afraid that a movie they will pan might really strike a chord."
Let's go to the facts, shall we? According to Rotten Tomatoes, a highly forgiving poll of reviewers, the top media critics gave a big thumbs down to Star War Episode I: The Phantom Menace, with only 40% approval, and didn't like Episode II: Attack Of The Clones any better. Unless 1999 to 2002 represents Podhoretz's long-ago youth, he has some splainin' to do.
PS I should note that, according to Rotten Tomatoes, one of the critics who actually liked Episode I was John Podhoretz of the New York Post.
posted by LAGuy @ 11:37 AM
2 Comments:
In looking at Rotten Tomatoes, the percentages that I see are 62% for Phantom Menace and 65% for Attack of the Clones. ROTS is at a whopping 93%, but there's less than 30 reviews so far. It'll probably drop, but should remain well ahead of the first two.
What I'm referring to are the top media reviewers ("Cream of the Crop" as Rotten Tomatoes calls them) because that's what Podhoretz is referring to in his piece. Those are the numbers I quoted.
If you want to get more specific, Podhoretz's only mentions the positive reviews of Variety, The Hollywood Reporter and Time (all Cream Of The Croppers at RT). Yet look at what these alleged todaies said about Star Wars I: The Phantom Menace. Variety, The Hollywood Reporter and Time (and let's throw in Newsweek) didn't like it. So Podhoretz is all wet. (By the way, there was one guy at a major paper who liked it--John Podhoretz of the New York Post).
Post a Comment
<< Home