reader comments on this entry:
wed 2005-may-25 02:20:45 pdt
posted by iphy
So, I disagree. I don't have supreme nostalgia for the original Star Wars movie and I nevertheless think it is one of the great historical films. It's got a great epic story and it was the first movie to introduce the Wagnerian 'individual theme music for different people/conncepts' into mainstream modern culture. The soundtrack still stands out as one of the great soundtracks of all-time and, even before Lucas went crazy with the adding in new effects and digital crap the special effects hold up pretty well today. The worst part about the whole film is the acting and the general cinematography and directing more than make up for that.
I feel pretty "meh" about the second one. Thought the third one had active stink. And have felt about the fourth and fifth ones about like the third. Haven't seen the sixth yet.
wed 2005-may-25 09:04:27 pdt
posted by neilfred
I figured some folks would disagree. But note that I'm not at all contesting that the original Star Wars was the first film to do various particular things -- again, I certainly acknowledge that it was ground-breaking at the time. I'm talking about evaluating it in a modern context.
I don't remember it well enough to say whether the cinematography got worse in the subsequent ones. But I guess it seems familiar that the story was less compelling in Empire and especially Jedi...
wed 2005-may-25 12:36:45 pdt
posted by fling93
I think people...have this fondness for the originals that comes in large part from the fact that they were kids when they first saw them...
I totally agree with that. It's like comfort food. Everyone harps on the dialogue especially, but it was just as cheesy in the old films because Lucas was emulating cheesy serials -- which are targeted towards kids.
The plot isn't all that complicated. The only "tricky" part is that Palpatine's the one who instigates the separatist movement so that he can use the public's reaction to increase his power. Kinda like how some conspiracy nuts think Dubya was behind 9/11.
It's not the reason you didn't get sucked in, because none of these films are about plot (the earlier films were much more linear, and they all have gaping plot holes that you could pilot a Star Destroyer through). It's probably the lack of nostalgia, as you said.
wed 2005-may-25 14:59:15 pdt
posted by Rick
it was just as cheesy in the old films because Lucas was emulating cheesy serials
I have my doubts about this. I strongly suspect Lucas just isn't a very good writer/director.
wed 2005-may-25 16:50:49 pdt
posted by fling93
Well, I think it's both, and perhaps his choice of cheesiness stems in part from his limitations as a writer/director. Or maybe it's his failure to realize that the cheesiness wasn't the actual intent of the original serials (it's just how they turned out because they were so bad). But I'd have thought his pal Spielberg would have clued him in on that.
But yeah, anybody who can make Natalie Portman and Liam Neeson look like bad actors is a pretty bad writer/director (and I heard even Hayden Christenson did well in Shattered Glass).
tue 2005-jul-12 04:16:24 pdt
posted by Creford
There were extremely excellent and the best scenes in the movie "Revenge of the Sith".
Good originality and great imagination, great story in this movie!
Here's Photo gallery for Hayden Christensen(Anakin) of this movie. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0159789/photogallery-ss-0
I love Star Wars series the most!
tue 2005-jul-12 11:09:54 pdt
posted by ersigh
I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who feels like that. I've received quite a bit of teasing and general shocked reactions because I'll say I don't really care for Star Wars. I didn't really care for it when I was a kid either (although i think that makes me an exception).
I love Sci-Fi stuff and the story line for Star Wars, I think is quite good. It's just how it's implementing in the films has always bothered me. The special effects did indeed seem special when I was a kid.
However, when the remakes came out with added more modern specialness, I got totally pissed off because Jurassic Park, made many years earlier, looked FAR better. So I had to sit through the movies AGAIN.
I actually had some sort of hope when the most recent 3 were coming out that somehow they'd be better, that they'd put the good story line to use in fashion more indepth than one of those children's golden books.
I was irritable after the first film because the acting was terrible (painful) as well as dialogue the actors had to work with (natalie portman is not a good actor anyway but many of the others are). Jar Jar Binks made me want to stab people. I somehow got dragged into seeing the second but all I can remember from it was "is it over yet, holy crap this movie is long" (similiar reaction as to the Lord of the Rings trilogy only LotR actually would pull me in on occasion).
I went and saw the third because it looked "dark", because it touched on what would be the more interesting part of the current story line put to film. I think perhaps it was better than the other two because R2D2 was so sooped up. However, it seemed to me that the dialogue was even worse (and how could Natalie Portman's character sleep in the dress w/the beads on it... ouch!) but I gave it credit that perhaps I am blocked out how bad the dialogue was in the others. I just don't understand how such an angry, whiney guy came from that little kid who was brought up around trained jedi's. There's no real basis for that character trait (except perhaps ADHD).
I actually thought for a moment that the acting was better in the initial 3 but I saw one of them the other day and whenever Luke Skywalker openned his mouth I'd start twitching.
My son loves Starwars. I let him. It's a good story ... even if it's not that well told.
tue 2005-jul-12 11:49:17 pdt
posted by fling93
natalie portman is not a good actor anyway
Take that back! TAKE THAT BACK!
wed 2005-jul-13 14:28:21 pdt
posted by leigh
Take that back! TAKE THAT BACK!
Not likely to happen. She was given far too much credit for her role in "The Professional". The movie was good but there are far better child actors out there.
I'm willing to guess that her acting is better in films other than Starwars but within the trilogy ... ugh ... however, the acting of others also seemed a bit off (like samuel jackson ... outside of it seeming highly inappropriate for him to the play the role he was, his acting was also pretty bad) so maybe it's just the movie.
I honestly have not seen her in anything else, I've intentionally avoided films w/her in them. However, with her new shaved head ... I may reconsider. :)
wed 2005-jul-27 10:12:59 pdt
posted by Daniel
Revenge of the sith was basically the movie we all have been waiting 4. Like all movies it had it's ups and downs. The plot was amazing as well as how he tied everything together in such a way that people will remember his story for generations. Not many people understand the true quality and genious it takes to make a movie like that. The only reason this movie had it's down sides his bad acting. Lucas had everything in his line except good acting. For instance padme didn't show enthusiasim in her role at all. The mace windu character was completely pointless in this series. Also Senator organa didn't have abig enough role in this story. The one who saved the movie was Obi Wan. He played such a deep character and he played it well. His connection and devotion towards anakin was nothing short of spectactular. My ultimate fav scene was when anakin put on the helmet. It was great to hear james url jones voice again. Overall it was a good movie and im glad lucas ended the saga with such deliberation worthy of an academy award.
NOTE: html tags cannot be included in the above. however, blank lines
will separate paragraphs, and if you care, some rudimentary formatting
is available with the following html-like tags (but note the square
instead of angle brackets):
- text[br]more text
- [quote]some quoted text[/quote]
some quoted text
- [link url="http://www.example.com/"]somewhere else[/link]
- somewhere else