The newest story in the Star Wars universe isn’t set to come out until May 25th, but the early reviews are not kind to Solo: A Star Wars Story.
Rotten Tomatoes, a review aggregator website, has the latest Star Wars movie scoring a 72% critic score, the lowest since the much maligned Attack of the Clones came out in 2002. That movie sported a 66% critic score, which is still better than the 55% that The Phantom Menace received in 1999.
This makes Solo: A Star Wars Story the lowest scored Star Wars movie in 16 years, and the third lowest in the entire franchise*.
It is important to note that many of the highest grossing movies of the 21st century did not receive a great critic score, as the audience score seems to be a better measurement of entertainment value of a movie. For example, the fourth highest grossing movie of all time, Jurassic World, had a 71% critic score on Rotten Tomatoes.
*TV Shows and Animated Films were not included in this calculation.
This site seems to not really like Star Wars, constantly framing every SW story is the most negative light.
It’s an active choice to title a headline “Solo: A Star Wars Story is the worst reviewed Star Wars movie since Attack of the Clones” and not “Solo: A Star Wars Story running a 72% on Rotten Tomatoes” or whatever.
Agreed. This article was pure clickbait at its best.
Agree
It’s only been reviewed by 115 people so far. Most negative reviews say that its good, just not ground breaking. Think I read like two horrible reviews, and those reviewers didn’t like Force Awakens either.
I agree. Very slanted headline. I only clicked to see the comments and am glad they are seeing the same thing.
It’s also worth noting that Rotten Tomatoes is owned by Time Warner… and the last time I checked they were a *squints* corp-orate….com-peti-tor. Also worth noting that Rotten Tomatoes does not limit how many accounts critics can make, they need not be affiliated with any entertainment publication or entity. (for example there’s a review from a youtuber with less than 5k subscribers, and 4 separate reviews from authors that all work for the same publication) So in other words, their scores are worth less than the votes of a High School class presidential campaign.
You should really educate yourself on how Rotten Tomatoes works. SERIOUSLY, put in the work.
And “Life of the Party” is a Time Warner product. It currently sits as 40%.
So much for your conspiracy theory.
“After raising about $1 million, the site officially launched in 2000 with the goal of being the thumbs up or thumbs down of the movie world. In 2004, it sold to IGN Entertainment, which owned a string of entertainment sites about TV, film, and gaming. After IGN’s ownership changed hands, Rotten Tomatoes was sold to Flixster in 2010. When the site was bought by Warner Bros. a year later, Rotten Tomatoes became a subsidiary of one of the very movie studios whose films it scored.” Sources: https://www.thewrap.com/rotten-tomatoes-division-warner-bros-can-it-be-unbiased-27088/ https://qz.com/1073208/how-hollywood-created-its-own-worst-enemy-in-rotten-tomatoes/ I wasn’t suggesting conspiracy. I was suggesting the possibility of bias. And… Read more »
Worse than Attack of the Clones? Wow…It must REALLY suck
Worst rated SINCE AotC, it’s still has a higher rating.
AotC was a good movie as far as I’m concerned as were all the prequels with Revenge of the Sith being the best Star Wars movie ever. I grew up in the 80’s so I love the OT but I hate how people just hate on all the prequels and Solo will probably be the BEST star wars movie since ROTS.
Making the mistake of stopping and watching some of each of the first 3 episodes this weekend on TNT, it wld have to be pretty horrific to be that bad. Those three were epically bad. I don’t know where this new bar was raised to when Disney took over. People need to be realistic. Lucas really made 2 & 1/2 good movies out of 6. Disney has made 3 out of 3 by my count. I have problems with some parts of them but they are certainly more suitably grouped with 4, 5 and 6 than 1, 2, and 3.