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

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

by Senh Duong | May 19, 2005

Discuss Article | Blog Article | Email To A Friend

The results are not what one might expect, based on reviews collected during the time of each trilogy’s original release dates.

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.

Prequels Tomatometer Scores Based on Current Active Critics:
83% - Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
65% - Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones
62% - Star wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace
Average Tomatometer: 70%

Original Trilogy Tomatometer Scores Based on Current Active Critics:
80% - Return of the Jedi
98% - The Empire Strikes Back
93% - Star Wars
Average Tomatometer: 90%

However, as user ‘Knelt’ noted in our News section, it’s not fair to compare the two trilogies based mostly on current active critics because most of them saw “the original films as children, and are reviewing them based on nostalgic memories as well as judging them on established ‘classic’ status.”

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.

Tomatometer Scores for Original Trilogy During Original Release Dates:
(Click on the links for the archived quotes from Archive.org)
31% - Return of the Jedi
52% - The Empire Strikes Back
79% - Star Wars
Average Tomatometer: 54%

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!

Tomatometer Ranking of Star Wars Series Based on Critical Reaction During Original Release Dates:
83% - Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
79% - Star Wars
65% - Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones
62% - Star wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace
52% - The Empire Strikes Back
31% - Return of the Jedi

Related Items

Movie:	The Empire Strikes Back
	Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace
	Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
	Star Wars
	Return of the Jedi
Celeb:	Natalie Portman
	George Lucas
	Ian McDiarmid
	Samuel L. Jackson
	Hayden Christensen
	Ewan McGregor

(1-20 of 37 posts) | Reply

the_game writes:
on May 19 2005 04:50 PM

A great comparison, and I was thinking the same thing esterday while reading the last "critial concensus" on RoTS. There's also alot more reviewers around now-a-days too, with internet reviews being non-existant back in the 70's & 80's.

(Reply to this)

Scott Weinberg writes:
on May 19 2005 06:27 PM

Wow, solid research. Interesting stuff!

(Reply to this)

Impavido writes:
on May 19 2005 11:24 PM

More undeniable proof many professional critics are idiots...

(Reply to this)

dylan21484nj writes:
on May 20 2005 12:37 AM

[b]you really have to take critic reviews with a grain of salt[/b]
all people have their own opinions of both trilogies. however, if a vast majority of critics think a film is either good (80%-100%) or bad (0%-20%), chances are it is either good or bad. but when a film is in the middle realm there, it's hard to gauge because everyone has their own personalized opinions and gripes that could sway their critique of the film.

and if you think about it, a lot of critics today are people who run personal websites and haven't studied films nor have been taught the art of filmmaking, so their review could be as simple and caveman-ish as "EXPLOSIONS AND NAKED CHICKS! GREAT FILM!"

it all boils down to how YOU, the single person, enjoy a film. going solely by critics' reviews isn't always the best way to go

case in point: John Carpenter's Halloween was panned by critics when it first came out. but when moviegoers started going to see it in droves and saying how great of a movie it was, the critics backpedalled, called Halloween a "horror masterpiece." so you can't always listen to the critics.

(Reply to this)

jeanpaul writes:
on May 20 2005 01:01 AM

In reply to this comment (#822248)
[b]Amen.[/b]
Quote: "More undeniable proof many professional critics are idiots..."-- Amen to that, brother.

(Reply to this)

catanga writes:
on May 20 2005 02:30 AM

[b]episode X: the end of the backlash[/b]
Star Wars hits back!!! ha, ha I love it
keep em comin! let the good times roll!!!

(Reply to this)

jsmccune writes:
on May 20 2005 10:55 AM

[b]The reason to use critics[/b]
If it's a movie you don't want to see (w/ your wife/significant other) you can cite the 'vaunted' critics (assuming they grade badly).

That's 'bout the only reason I can think of... Isn't the point of a movie to be entertaining? Nowadays, critics are entertained, but still pan movies...

And then there's Million Dollar Baby -- now there's some fantasy for you (Da*n critics -- had to see that one with my wife due to their favorable reviews) -- useless bunch of buggers for the most part.

(Reply to this)

ccchhhrrriiisss writes:
on May 20 2005 11:04 AM

In reply to this comment (#822248)
More undeniable proof many professional critics are idiots...

Posted 05/19/05 11:24:35 PM by Impavido

I totally agree! Did you see some of the "cream of the crop" critics who must actually HATE Star Wars? One even gave the film ZERO STARS. Can you believe that?

BTW, this film was more than I hoped for. I hoped for the best, prepared for the worst, and came home smiling!!! Revenge of the Sith really rocks!

(Reply to this)

cabezone writes:
on May 20 2005 12:29 PM

In reply to this comment (#822253)
One can also say that the current movies are reviewed with a nostalgic "taint" also. I fully believe that if these had been Star Trek movies they'd have flopped and been trashed even worse that they have been.

(Reply to this)

Scott Weinberg writes:
on May 20 2005 01:07 PM

Yeah! All movie critics are freaking morons! Oh...wait, I'm a movie critic.

:(

(Reply to this)

Now it's dark writes:
on May 20 2005 01:14 PM

There must have been a lot of lowered expectations out there, because Sith was not much better than the first two. Besides Darth Vader, there really wasn't much difference.

(Reply to this)

Senh Duong writes:
on May 20 2005 01:27 PM

In reply to this comment (#822255)
Hehe...Critics did gave the first "Star Wars" good reviews and probably help to get the word out too since back then, films depend more on word of mouth and marketing.

I think "Empire" was probably just ahead of its time. Was it the first time that a film ended on a cliffhanger? And like one of our staff members said, it seems like the bad guys won at the end...

I think we can agree that "Jedi" is the weakest of the three originals.

(Reply to this)

Madman writes:
on May 20 2005 01:55 PM

[b]Senh,[/b]
Any recollection of how many reviews there were for each film that you took into account. Just purely for interst sake.

Thanks,

Madman

(Reply to this)

lpbreeze writes:
on May 20 2005 02:18 PM

Nice job. Also I would point out that critics weren't USED to the Star Wars movies when they came out which is why the reviews weren't great. A lot of people resented them. Because of Star Wars there were a bunch a lot more science fiction films and critics accept that and are used to seeing them.

(Reply to this)

Bryant Frazer writes:
on May 20 2005 03:04 PM

Nobody has yet suggested one of the more obvious conclusions -- that critical standards have been systematically lowered in the intervening years by a surfeit of shitty movies. "Revenge of the Sith" is getting pretty good reviews, but no way would it have passed muster with the crowd that (rightly) savaged "Return of the Jedi."

To make the same point more charitably, you could simply note that pop culture has shifted pretty dramatically since 1980 -- not to mention the fact that today's 30something movie critics were, like, 10 when "The Empire Strikes Back" opened. This kind of filmmaking is hard-wired into our brains, and in those moments when "Revenge of the Sith" approximates the propulsive energy and imagination of those original films, it provides a heroin-like nostalgia rush. The new films may not be objectively better (if there is any such thing as objectivity), but they stroke our pleasure centers in meaningful ways that may make us kinder to them.

-bf-

(Reply to this)

Senh Duong writes:
on May 20 2005 03:57 PM

In reply to this comment (#822258)
There weren't that many... 20-25 reviews. It's not the most comprehensive research, but it does give us a general idea of the consensus back then.

(Reply to this)

kenporules writes:
on May 20 2005 06:53 PM

Wow, interesting. I wish I could read all of those.

(Reply to this)

locke writes:
on May 20 2005 10:46 PM

that's really interesting. though i can't say that i agree, the prequal trilogy will never be as good as the original. but i haven't seen episode three yet. so you really can't my word for it.

(Reply to this)

synergyred writes:
on May 21 2005 10:13 AM

This is interesting. Although I'm far from a diehard fan, I do feel that that orginals were very good movies. This just goes to prove that critics only give good reviews to the movies that they suspect will win tons of Oscars.

(Reply to this)

oscar haymen writes:
on May 21 2005 10:17 AM

Who cares. The phantom menace is a piece of garbage, with the Attack of the Clones being "OK". How the heck can anyone honestly say the second trilogy is better than the first trilogy?

(Reply to this)