So what was YOUR opinion of Star Wars, Episode III

bbaptiste wrote:

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.

I have to disagree with your opinion here. The movie is not meant to be a drama or big on dialogie as it is meant to appeal to general audiences of all ages. The entire story is so huge one can literally divide Episode III into it's own sub sets of which entire movies can be made. Bear in mind that Lucas is trying to tie the grand story together, in which case he cannot spend alot of time on minuteness. The purpose of movies is for entertainment, and although I know the dialogue is cheesy compared to The Best Years of Our Lives, I suspend myself because I know that this is sci-fi, and not about drama or emphasis on love. I believe that opinions like yours are usually those of people who are not die hard Star Wars fans such as myself, which is why we disagree.

0 Replies

We liked it pretty well but we were glad we didn't stand in line for hours to be onme of the first. It wasn't that good.

I thought it was interesting that Yoda gave Obi Wan a study assignment of talking with his old teacher who'd figured out how to return from death. Although Lucas swore that was the last movie, it seems that he has opened the possibility of another dealing with the raising and growing up of the twins period of time.

That could have cool possibilities if presented with real character development IMO.

Both cub and I agreed we really loved the specials.

On the whole I much preferred Lord of the Rings to Star Wars .

Side note...mercifully, no Jar Jar Binks.

0 Replies

Anonymouse wrote:

bbaptiste wrote:
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.

I have to disagree with your opinion here. The movie is not meant to be a drama or big on dialogie as it is meant to appeal to general audiences of all ages. The entire story is so huge one can literally divide Episode III into it's own sub sets of which entire movies can be made. Bear in mind that Lucas is trying to tie the grand story together, in which case he cannot spend alot of time on minuteness. The purpose of movies is for entertainment, and although I know the dialogue is cheesy compared to The Best Years of Our Lives, I suspend myself because I know that this is sci-fi, and not about drama or emphasis on love. I believe that opinions like yours are usually those of people who are not die hard Star Wars fans such as myself, which is why we disagree.

Au contraire. I'm a huge Star Wars fan and a huge sci-fi collector. Does being a huge Star Wars fan mean I have to be spoonfed mediocrity and like it? If so, it is somewhat dismaying that you eschew holding Lucas to a reasonable standard of competence. Grand intentions is not reason enough to give this film a pass. LOTR is as epic as Star Wars, grand in breath, scope and reach.

Yet, LOTR manages to remain witty, subtle and watchable unlike some 2/3 of the new Star Wars trilogy. I want the engaging films, like Episodes !V & V, that made me love Star Wars in the first place. Think of the electric chemistry Harrison Ford and Carrie Fusher shared onscreen, now imagine the sterile banality of the relationship between Natalie Portman and Hayden Christiansen...horrible.

I have to disagree with you. I won't drink the kool aid. Lucas needs to learn that multi-million dollar effects do not a good film make. Don't snhortchange us because we want quality sci-fi!!

0 Replies

LOTR was masterfully done as each part was better than the one before it. Not so even with the original three episodes of "Star Wars." I guess after "Empire," it was all down hill. I'm afraid although I loved the performances within the framework of the film that the Ford and Carrie romance got undeniably schmaltzy in VI. Not to worry as space opera is just space opera and serious sci-fi, which seldom makes it to the screen, may eventually find its place in a darkened theater. Why, since all these novels have been bought to be scripted, haven't they produced "The Demolished Man," "Mission of Gravity" and "Foundation?" They would all still involve great CGI but I'm thankful we didn't have to sit through "The Demolished Man" with Ahnold (I'd nominate Kevin Spacey for the lead). One day I hope to see some great sci-fi novels brought to the screen other than Philip K. Dick. Of course, "2001" was based on a short story "The Sentinel." I'm not holding my breath as really good sci-fi requires one to think and thinking can be entertaining.

"Star Wars" has never taxed the grey cells and the meager attempts to look like socio-political sci-fi in I and II were again unsuccessful and was just more baggage like Jar Jar Binks.

BTW, "I Robot" owes as much to Azimov's "The Caves of Steel" as to the collection of short stories.

0 Replies

bbaptiste has it pinned down exactly.

Anonymouse saying that any die hard Star Wars 'fan' would love the new movies would seem to define the word 'fan' as:

fanatic n. & adj. (Person) filled with excessive or unreasoning enthusiasm, esp. in religion.

The key word here is 'unreasoning'. This type of 'fan' makes something like Star Wars their own religion, clinging on to every bit of spurious material which is fed to them without really thinking about it, just because it is branded 'Star Wars'.
They ignore any kind of objectivity and react personally to even a hint of criticism levelled at it (they probably won't have even read this far and stormed off to watch the Star Wars Summer Special and play with their Jar Jar Binks talking doll).

As a seven year-old at the cinema in 1977 I thought that Star Wars was the greatest film I'd ever seen, BUT this is exactly why I criticize the pitiful dross George Lucas has now churned out in his sleep. By making these movies what they are, he's betrayed the talented young filmmaker he used to be, the filmmaker who made a film which changed the cinema industry in the 70's and inspired an explosion of creative energy.
Unfortunately, it seems that the effect of this has been to shift focus onto the tools he used (effects) at the expense of the great universal story he crafted. Very few directors since (including himself) have had the vision to let great narrative and character take the lead over showboating effects. Peter Jackson has been a welcome change, but it's been a long dry spell.

If 'fans' have low enough expectations to be happy with movies like the new Star Wars trilogy then I guess they will be overjoyed when someone makes some Lord Of the Rings prequels too. Maybe the dark lord Sauron could start off as a cute little kid who talks to trees, but gets angry when his favourite shrub dies and becomes a master of evil........

George Lucas has become a 'fan' instead of a filmmaker. If there's a dark side then George has truly embraced it..... maybe this is the real allegory behind his saga.

0 Replies

Hayden's beautiful to look at, IMO, but gay, I think and not too hot in love scenes with wimminfolk.

0 Replies

I will always wish that Lucas had just gotten someone else to write the love scenes (gotta disagree w/ whoever said that Han and Leia had chemistry-- giggle! Their love scenes were absolutely as stilted as Anakin's and Padme's). Who mentioned, "Oh, hold me, Anakin, like you did that night" ? Aaaaargh! That actually made me laugh even though I tried not to Smile

But besides that, when it comes to light sabers and blasters and battles and all the real sci-fi stuff, I thought it was SO much fun. I had a great time, I was in a Star Wars daze for the rest of the day. I really didn't expect much from the third one (hadn't even bothered to see II until last week) but it made me very happy.

Ewan MacGregor was so great. He managed to sound like Alec Guinness, but actually be in character too. I think that's a pretty difficult task-- easy to slip into just imitating rather than acting (see Cate Blanchett as Kathrine Hepburn in the Aviator for an example of that, IMO).

All in all, I thought Lucas pretty well redeemed himself. Sure, if you hate Yoda-style pseudo-Zen wisdom, then don't see it. But loved it, I did. Smile

Talk like Yoda from now on will I.

0 Replies

Awkward love interests are a staple of vintage space opera. Nobody apparantly realizes that this is really, really vintage space opera -- more likely you'd find the same basic stories in the old Amazing Stories of the 40's and 50's. I'm sure Lucas is a sci-fi fan and has read enough of the old pulp magazines and novels that he's weaved together his extravaganza from bits and pieces. "Star Wars" was unique, remember, because it was the first true CGI -- we were all astonished at the special effects, the space dog fights, the gigantic star ships and the kinetic energy of it all. That's basically dispelled by so much CGI that it cannot hold up on its own.

I think dora has it nailed, however -- if one casts aside their adultishness and pretense, they will have fun with all the "Star Wars" movies, but obviously it has warn thin. Ewan is a very good actor so I would expect some Guiness Shakesperean delivery from him in the part.

I disagree that Blanchett was imitating Hepburn. She took on the speech and mannerism affectations but it was obvious to me she was doing a sketch of Hepburn's persona rather than a realistic portrayal. I thought it worked even if one has seen each and every Hepburn movie. My Mom, who worked for Hughes, said De Caprio wasn't trying to be absolute, either. Heads up, they don't really look enough like the characters (as usual in bio-pics) to to try for imitation. Blanchett deserves the positive critical response for her acting, not her imitation.

0 Replies

Yeah... I love Cate and tried to get past my intial feeling that she just didn't fit the part, but I somehow couldn't quite just sit back and forget that this was Cate playing Kate. It distracted me the whole time, but that was probably just me. I love hearing all your insider stuff, LW, like your mom working for Hughes! Did she notice any of his peculiarities?

0 Replies

She only really met him once when he came to the OC facility in Fullerton. There were executive which she was directly under (one of them being our estate manager yet today) and they gave her a lot of input about the man. The only problem I really had in the movie is DeCaprio didn't look old enough when he flew the Spurce Goose (which was actually made out of birch!) Hughes was beginning to look very dissipated, maybe because rumor has it that he suffered from syphalis. Not hard to imagine as he had slept with so many in Hollywood and it's not exactly as pure as everyone imagines (of course, that's my version of the ultimate in facetiousness).

0 Replies

It was somewhat disappointing I expected more of the last Star Wars film. My primary issue was that my expectations weren't met but I only have myself to blame for that. From an objective standpoint it was a good film, but could have certainly been improved.

0 Replies

The WORST acting I've seen from the cast, especially from Samuel L Jackson who I expected more from. But, after mentioning this opinion to one of my Star Wars junkie friend, it occured to me that most junkie's don't watch Star Wars for the acting.

0 Replies

Sameul L. Jackson is the second worst performance in the first three. He's like a neutered goat.

0 Replies

neutered goat? Shocked

interesting.... Laughing

0 Replies

I guess I just meant that even though the role was hardly challenging, an actor as good as Sam Jackson should have done something more creative with the character. Dull, dull, dull.

But then, Lucas hasn't shown talent for directing his actors all that well since "American Graffitti," and it makes that one look like an accident.

0 Replies

Bad, Bad, bad
George Lucas made a mess of things in the first place. He left too much time between the end of episodes 2 and 4. The movie has poor dialogue, and many characters are simpy, attrocious.

Hayden Christensen was craptacular. His acting was wooden, and he sounds like a moron.

One critic said that Ewan Macgregor left him wishing for Alec Guiness. I agree, but, to be fair, Obi Wan was one of the best portrayed charactes in the film.

A Hint for any budding directors / writers out there. If you start a series and decide to make a prequel, make 1, not 3!!!

0 Replies

I thouht Ewan gave it the most valiant effort but when you're stuck in films that are CGI extravaganzas, written poorly and basically too much of a good thing, what does one expect? The reason for making three was simply driven by...money. My respect for Lucas who initiated CGI effects, THX standards and several other techincal marvels is down several notches.

0 Replies

True, but to be fair to Lucas, maybe he wanted to show how trouble developed gradually within the Republic and within Anakin. I don't like prequels. I want an episode seven, but they probably would do a TV series.

0 Replies

He could have done that in two films max. Except they would make less money. Not that it isn't the object of Hollywood to provide a bottom line. The prequels will not be classics but more of an addendum. III is passably good but the only real classics here are the original and "The Empire Strikes Back," although they will always be thought of as a classic trilogy.

0 Replies

To provide this post's bottom line:

Episode 3 sucked

0 Replies

So what was YOUR opinion of Star Wars, Episode III

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know