I've noticed something weird about how critics have rated Attack of the Clones compared to Phantom Menace. Back when it was released, PM got generally good reviews (it got a rotten tomatoes score of 64%). In contrast, Attack of the Clones has gotten slightly *worse* reviews (RT score of 60%). Yet even many critics who have gave 'clones' a negative review noted that it was better than 'menace' (i counted 9 such reviews at RT). It seems that just about all critics say it is an improvement over 'menace'. Why? IMO, the general critical opinion of PM has changed over the past 3 years, from generally positive to generally negative. I'd bet that if the RT critics re-reviewed PM it's new score would be about 35-40%. Another example i can think of (with reference to a specific critic) is Roger Ebert's review of Fast Times at Ridgemont High. His original 1982 review of that film was a 'thumbs down' as can be. He denouned it as the worst kind of gross, mindless, pot-addled, teen-age trash. Now, in his latest review books, he gives it 3/4 stars and refers to it reverentially as if it is a minor classic. Which just happens to be how most critics view it now... What accounts for these kinds of re-appraisals? Do the critics actually re-view a film and say "i was wrong the first time", or are they just running with the crowd - going along with the critical consensus that has formed about a film over the years?