Uh, I referred to both New York Times (rave) and New Yorker (pan), so what's that make me?
LW!
Why so defensive?
Relax and allow some varying opinions.
I never understand why you take some reviews here so personally.
That makes you fair and balanced (
), sozobe
Who's taking it personally? I was stating a fact.
(The comments could also be taken as offensive instead of defensive.
)
I was wondering if you were George Lucas slumming.
<I was hoping there'd be a smiley in your response.>
The only complaints I have heard about this movie, have been about the love scenes, the acting, and the horribly executed "nooooooooo" at the end. As far as major complaints with the film, people complained that Lucas' took Anakin's dive to the darkside far too quickly, or that it wasn't believable enough. This doesn't take into consideration that the movie is limited and cannot possibly include everything, as it was almost reaching the 3 hour mark.
Nope, not slumming -- I love the original "Star Wars" and "The Empire Strikes Back" is my favorite of the series. It's not serious sci-fi like, say, "Bladerunner" which has some deep thematic material that was aimed at an adult audience (which, incidentally, in the U.S. didn't get the critical acclaim it got in Britain, for example). I might enjoy III and will likely see it in the digital version but there's only one theater in the OC that is showing it in that version.
My comment was that I've read too many disparaging remarks about movie critics not mattering at all...well, unless one hates the same film.
I think they are of value and if they review a movie objectively within its genre, it will nearly always steer me towards or away from the cineplex. Ebert is one of the fairest along those lines so regardless of what is written here, it's now on my list.
I also liked the actors in the original trilogy.
You have to miss Harrison Ford in the prequels. The assembly of characters was brilliant in IV, V and VI. The prequels have several contrived characters where the interactions seem stilted and uninvolving. Still, III may be a film that can stand on its own regardless of the the other parts.
As far as dialogue, most of it is a pop venacular (it ain't trying to be Shakesperean!)
"Fair and balanced?!" You wound me, Wiz! Take it back!!
<kiddin'>
I apologize for the shameless jibe. Can I figure you're fair and unbalanced? (See our mental health forum).
Well, we have to miss Sir Alec Guiness also and I've found that Ewen MacGregor as the young Obi Wan has practically carried all the weight in the prequels.
I agree with both of those points, LW. I only saw smatterings of the Ewan films--and he was everything, I thought.
He was great in "Big Fish" and "Velvet Goldmine."
One of the better film actors from the last twenty years.
So, this movie isn't as good as American Graffiti?
I feel "American Graffitti" is still Lucas' best film.
It's hard to believe that these movies are from the same director and writer.
I will probably always remember the experience of seeing IV but to watch it repeated times even on my big screen is not a priority -- "American Graffiti" I could watch at least once every few years. "THX 1138" was just repeated in hi-def on a cable channel. I got about half way through and turned the "1984" clone off. Kudos to Lucas, however, for pioneering CGI effects with "Star Wars" even though it's produced great movies (LOTR) and a lot of junk ("The Chronicles of Riddick"). Both I and II "Star Wars" were watchable but forgettable. I'm not going to see III with expectations that it will be entertaining but whether it's a movie I'd see more than once remains to be seen. The concept was stretched out to begin with in the first three movies, the third being basically a repeat of the first (blow up the Death Star). The original and "Empire" will always be a legendary entries in the annals of film history.
I am going with youngest cub today. Raleigh is a ghost town so we should be able to find two seats together. Strangely enough, we're the only two who care about it. So, a father son bonding outing. Cool.
Saw Episode III during the weekend.
Though I'm not a fan of the series, I've liked all 6 films.
IMHO this one is among the best, both because of the effects and the ambientation (I'm not going to look for pears in the elm tree). An enjoyable experience where, finally, all ends meet.
Btw, I saw Star Wars on Friday. The movie is putrid. It is long. The first two hours are ponderous and laborious, entirely so. George Lucas has no clue how to write real human dialogue. Nor does he have a clue on how to film a love scene..painful. Natalie Portman is wasted. Why is she even in the film, if you won't use her.
The whole process of Anikan turning to the dark side is so hackneyed and heavy handed that only huge cue cards would have made it any tackier. Hayden (whatever his name is) should quit acting entirely. Maybe, he could do porn, the brother's so stiff. Only Sam Jackson escapes with his rep intact.
Ann, I want to see what you think. I read somewhere (in Variety, I think) that George Lucas would have been an architect had he not become a filmmaker. I think he would have been one of those architects who build huge, people unfriendly, edifices kinda like Phillip Johnson. Horrid.
I know many of you won't heed my warning and see that blasted thing. Good luck. The last 20 minutes is perhaps the only good sh*t in it. By the way, my appreciation for Harrison Ford as an actor has quintupled.
