We were talking about it briefly on JBSkagg's movie thread, but I thought I'd start a new thread for purely selfish reasons.
STAR WARS...I understand it came out early this morning, the first showings at 12:01.
For those who didn't pay attention, I hated the first two movies of this prequel trilogy. Well, hate is a strong word. The first one kinda bored me and the second one made me want to gnaw off my own leg and throw it at the screen. Is that hate?
Anyway, no amount of loyalty to the original trilogy will make me see the final chapter in the movie theatre at a rate of $7.50 per person (Total of $15 because my husband will go too.) As it is, we've already wasted $30 in the theatres on the first two movies.
I wanted my money back. They really should do that for bad movies, I think.
Sooooooooooooo.....I'm looking for 10 (TEN) guinea pigs to watch it first. I am looking for a report that basically tells me that not only will I get my money's worth, not only is this movie everything the first two should have been, but I will almost make up for the money I lost in the first place.
Ten rave reviews. And anyone who comes on and says it sucks will cancel out a rave review.
I only give it three stars. This movie does not hold up on it's own as a movie. It is good because it finally ties up all the loose ends. Christensen, Portman, and Jackson are all fairly stiff and not terribly believeable. I don't think they had much to work with (script wise) and didn't do too much with what they had. I suppose this wouldn't be considered a rave review, however I think that it is worth seeing on the merits of the fact that it ties up many of the loose ends pretty well. The score is very effective and it makes some mediocre scenes emotionally effective. The sequence that happens right after Anakin falls is the darkest moment in all six movies. I found that whole section very moving (there is accordingly very little talking). I'd go see it, but if you can, go to the matinee.
Posts: 175 | Registered: Jul 2004
Well, so far I'm still thinking no, but I appreciate the honesty.
BTW, I do plan on watching this movie at some point. It is really a question of spending the money to see if in theatres or getting it through Netflix. (Not quite free but paying for that service anyway so close enough.) I'm afraid I do have to see the tie-together after all that, it's more a matter of principle that I won't throw my money at a movie just because it's got a big name, especialy if it has proven time and again that it doesn't deserve it.
I saw it last night, and I was not disappointed. Granted, I came into it with low expectations. Overall, it is very flawed. There are a slew of logical gaps that pull you out of the story, and the massive amount of action they throw at you is often not compelling (come on, when you have already seen 4 lightsaber battles, why do you want to see TWO more SIMULTANEOUSLY), and the pacing was off. All that said, when the empire begins to form, and tensions are high, it pulls you in. But overall, it is not a good movie, but it is phenominally better than the first two.
Posts: 71 | Registered: Apr 2005
I must make the comment, since there is no where else to make it, that I do NOT understand Natalie Portman's poor performance. Yes, she sucks in Star Wars, and I thought that in S.W. I (or IV, whichever way you wish to look at it. It should be illegal to start a 6 movie set out with #4, it's too confusing) At any rate, Portman gave a very credible performance in the movie Garden State, even though the movie itself was a bit weak. I was pleasantly surprised to see she actually CAN act.
So that makes me turn my gaze toward Mr. Lucas, wondering if the acting skills of ANYone could have redeemed the script(s). I mean, c'mon... Samuel Jackson (and Liam Neeson in II) turning in a bad performance? We all know they are capable of much more. I suspect there were other issues going on behind the scenes that affected what we ultimately see on the screen.
Space fantasy. Is that another word for space opera? (I like that phrase better than 'space opera.')
Actually, I liked Episode II best of the six movies. 'Course, I'm a romantic, and liked the sweet side of Anakin. I saw III for $5.50 this afternoon and thought it was pretty good, although was sorry to see it was too dark for young kids.
I picked up the book, Star Wars: The Labyrinth of Evil, at the library last week. It claimed to be the pre-quel to Episode III, which I thought rather strange, but I read it before I saw the movie. And was glad I had.
Warning: Possible spoilers, but not really, since this is only what is behind those three scrolling paragraphs at the beginning of Episode III: The book was indeed the pre-quel. Palpatine is kidnapped in it, General Grievous is introduced (although I know he's in the Star Wars cartoon movie, too, but knowing his immediately preceding role was helpful), Padme's pregnancy is hinted at, we get more time with the nicer Anakin (with more foreshadowing of his future switch), and it ends with the battle over Coruscant with the words "to be continued." And it was -- in the movie. The book definitely gave greater depth to the movie for me.
Special effects were great in III, as I expected. The lizard thing was cool, and Grievous was an interesting foe. I'll see the movie again, I'm sure.
Warning: Another spoiler alert. One loose end not cleared up: How is it that Leia in a later movie "remembers" her mother as beautiful and sad if she never saw her mother?
I know just what you mean Christine. I'm fortunate, though, in that my guinea pigs live with me. My two oldest boys just saw the film, while my youngest and my husband are seeing it even as I write this. The boys really enjoyed it and recommend it. But with everybody in the family having seen it, I won't have anyone to go with. I may wait for it to hit the dollar theather. I can't abide bad acting so the first two movies of the new trilogy were torture. Why subject myself a third time? Isn't there anyone close to Lucas who has the guts to say, "Look, George, this stinks to high heaven! Why don't you allow these people to act?"
Posts: 150 | Registered: May 2005
I went to see it with friends for $9.00 (yeah, pretty expensive, but it was a good cinema in Paris) A word of warning: I'm a Star Wars addict who got hooked at 14 by Return of the Jedi and flipped from there into more serious SF readings. So it's not exactly an unbiased review. It's not also not exactly a rave review. Overall, I think it's the best of the prequels, which admittedly is not saying much. I agree that the score was stupendous, especially in the last half of the movie, and that the wooden acting lets it down. Some of the lines also suck. But it ties up loose ends pretty effectively, if a little too fast, and in spite of everything you do get caught in it. As for the science...In spite of my scientific background I'm not a sucker for exact science, especially in Star Wars, which like Kathleen I consider to be science fantasy. I guess a pretty massive suspension of disbelief is necessary, but heck, I read so much fantasy that I don't have trouble with that. A couple of glaring plot holes, but then I can be pretty cynical when it comes to plot. And the ending felt rushed. But you can't help feeling something for the characters, sometimes in defiance of the terrible acting. And it's a terrific, moving story, although admittedly a book would have been better, so we could see inside the characters' mind better than we do. And if that's any help, I'm going to see it a second time when my boyfriend comes back from his trip abroad :-)
Posts: 1075 | Registered: Sep 2004
Heh... what's the deal with all of the talk about money? To see this movie here in London, it's going to cost roughly Â£10.00 (probably more), which when exchanged to US dollars is about $18.00. You should try living in one of the most expensive cities in the world -- then you can moan. All right?
Posts: 1520 | Registered: Jun 2004
Actually, $7.50 is for the matine....it's $8.50 otherwise.
Of course, if I wanted to wait until I go to Arkansas for my sister-in-law's wedding I can catch it for $4.
Anyway, I saw a comment I just had to respond to:
quote:Actually, I liked Episode II best of the six movies. 'Course, I'm a romantic, and liked the sweet side of Anakin.
Um, did you see a sweet side of Anakin I missed because George Lucas can'r write romance to save his life and by the time the second movie began they had already really skipped Anakin turning from a sweet kid into a hot-headed jerk.
I read this out to my husband just now and he said (reltaed to my sex topic) that's why you can't write a sex scene because no one will agree what a good romance/sex scene is!
Why should he listen? The money is talking and it's saying the wrong thing. How many of you went to see the third movie even though the first two stank? You're lining George Lucas' pockets with all the feedback he needs.
Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003
This is slightly off topic but:Why can't we see Harry Potter and the Jedi of Kazakstan!
Hogwart's could be in space now- the jedi could have their own house. Aliens could be in the other houses and when Vader goes bad- Hermine could use her way-back time necklace (under the advice of the wizards and yoda) and stop him early. Potter of course would have a wand and a lightsabre- and he would be a fighter pilot. Snape and Anakin could have wizardry duel. We then learn at the end that the Vader and Potter are actually twins. And that Yoda knew!
Etc, Etc. I would be a better movie than this latest star wars movie which I thought was about on par with Blade Trinity. Cheesy, but good special effects. But not worth $8.50.
Science fantasy isn't exactly the same thing as space opera, though they could be grouped together.
Space opera refers to a nickname for westerns (horse opera) and implies that the science fiction story you are reading could be translated easily into a western. I wrote an article when the first trilogy was still fairly new, arguing that you really couldn't translate STAR WARS into a western, in rebuttal to people who were claiming you could. (What do you do with the DEATH STAR and the droids, for example?) While Han Solo translates fairly easily into western format, the translation I came up with was more reminiscient of WILD WILD WEST than it was of a real western.
Science fantasy is fantasy with all the trappings of science fiction and so on, but not much in the way of real science. Some could argue that STAR TREK is also science fantasy, though they seem to take the trappings a little more seriously than STAR WARS does.
By the way, Orson Scott Card has said that he doesn't write science fiction. Rather what he writes is fantasy with science as the magic.
And I think there are an awful lot of so-called "science fiction" writers out there who do the same but don't admit it.
[This message has been edited by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (edited May 20, 2005).]
Star Wars was orginally a Samurai movie. The droids were two farmers, Darth was a enemy general burned in a fire who realizes his love later at a village festival with a big bonfire. I think he relates that he was her uncle (not father but some close family member). I don't think there was an equivalent for Luke.
So yes it could have been a western. The deathstar could have been cannon, explosives, or train weapon. The jedi would be similar to the gunslingers in Dark Tower. The droids would have been farmers-or lackeys of some type.
In regards to the comment about Leia's mother:
Luke says to her, in Return of the Jedi (Ewok camp): Leia, do you remember your mother? Your REAL mother?
and Leia replies something to the effect of: A little. She was pretty and always a little sad.
At the time, the knowledge that Leia is adopted is viewer knowledge (and Luke's knowledge only). There was never any reference prior to that point that Leia was adopted, so that was a bit of a gap in the dialog I thought.
Hmm. Well, I'd say that STAR WARS is based on HIDDEN FORTRESS about as much as STAR TREK is based on FORBIDDEN PLANET. There are certainly connections and similarities, but neither is the only source of the ideas.
And in my article, I came up with John Wayne's War Wagon for the Death Star. (And I said it was all a range war with the droids as sheep herders, the rebel alliance as farmers, the empire as either the railroads or the cattle barons, and Han Solo as a freighter--who did a little bank robbing (see Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid) on the side.)
Kathleen, I don't remember an explanation for Grievous' coughing, and after I saw the movie, planned to get the book again and see if I could thumb through and find out. (I was reading the entire first half of the book while tending my grandkids and reading parts of it aloud to them, so for that part of the book my attention was somewhat divided. )
That's what I figured about Leia's remembrance, but the specific phraseology seemed not to fit. Elan's comments make it all fit less. But hey, who's keeping score?
Space opera certainly seems hard to pin down, from your horse opera comparison to a Tor editor's "Big...large governments slugging it out...winks at hard SF facts" to a list I saw somewhere with some pretty impressive SF writers and works listed, including Asimov and Dune. So I think I'll switch to the science fantasy label which to me is in the same ballpark, but far more appealing.
quote:Um, did you see a sweet side of Anakin I missed because George Lucas can'r write romance to save his life and by the time the second movie began they had already really skipped Anakin turning from a sweet kid into a hot-headed jerk.
Sorry, Christine, but I didn't think Anakin was a hot-headed jerk in Episode II. Not that he didn't have bouts of hot-headed jerkiness, but he still had some poignant innocence that even Lucas' questionable writing skills couldn't destroy.
Part of it was due to Christenson, who (pardon the cliche) was perfect for the part, part of it due maybe to what I heard was some real chemistry between Hayden and Natalie Portman, part of it due to what we knew was going to happen to Anakin.
If this weren't so, if he had come across only as a hot-headed jerk, then who would have cared if he gave in to the dark side? The whole story was predicated on him going full circle, otherwise the balance the Jedi expected could not have been attained, and the whole Star Wars fan base wouldn't have been as engrossed in that saga as they have been.
Anakin's scene when he finds his mother in the hut was heartbreaking. And I liked the fact that Anakin and Padme married and didn't just 'get together.' Their love scene just before they were carted into the arena in Episode II was the best love scene I'd seen in a long while.
Well, probably because you made all that up in your own head sometime or other, it was never in the movie I saw (yes, at the dollar theater).
I can't get over the fact that Christine thought that the Anakin in Ep.I was a "sweet kid". He's a willful, manipulative little monster who's only slightly redeemed by the fact that he really is more special and important than everybody else.
Card may not have laughed at any of Anakin's lines in Ep.II, but I laughed all the time. Particularly at that scene with his mother. I didn't even feel bad about it.
Still, that's a major improvement over the lines in Ep.I, where you're just cringing and wanting to cry. My little relatives insisted on watching that movie about a dozen times a few weeks ago (okay, it was three times, but that's more than enough to dispell all my guilt over being such a bad uncle-if I felt any, which I don't).
quote:Well, probably because you made all that up in your own head sometime or other, it was never in the movie I saw (yes, at the dollar theater).
HUH? Exactly what 'all that' and 'it?' That you're surprised Christine thought young Anakin a sweet kid and describe him instead as a 'manipulative little monster' clues me in. I forgot you hold humanity in low regard, so of course you would have missed 'all that.' But you definitely didn't get your dollar's worth.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jun 2002
Well, I make a lot of things up in my head but I'm not sure if it had anything to do with Star Wars.
Kolona, I know what was *supposed* to have happened, but I'm afraid that unlike Card, who gave a lot of credit to the idea despite the abysmal writing, I could not find the story through the writing...it was just too bad. I wanted to see Atikin as the good man who would become Darth Vader, in fact I expected to see that in Episode II, but I never did. The character I saw was already more than halfway gone to the dark side.
I can continue to enjoy the original trilogy mainly because I pretend the prequels did not happen and that the backstory is precisely what I have imagined in my head this whole time, which is a much better story.
I didn't take the time to read through each post, so I hope I'm not repeating anything anyone has said.
Let the STAR WARS prequels be a lesson to every writer here: AN INTRIGING BACKSTORY DOES NOT GUARANTEE A COMPELLING STORY.
So far, the prequells have given us nothing that we could have discerned from the original trilogy. It is really important to see Anakin turn to the dark side? It is really important to see how Anakin becomes Darth Vadar? What makes the orignal trilogy so great is that it leaves so much to the imagination. The viewer helps in the creation of the story by filling in the blanks, so to speak.
The fundamental flaw Lucas made with the prequells is that he assumed he had enough material for a trilogy . . . and he didn't. The original trilogy grew over a series of years and was more or less an accident. He had a 200-plus-page screenplay and knew there was no way he could make it into one movie. So he divided it into three. But with the prequells, he didn't take the time--in my opinion--to develop a coherent story that could fill three movies.
So if there's a second lesson here, it's this: DON'T CARELESSLY EXPAND A STORY FOR CONTRACTUAL REASONS.
And that's what Lucas did. In 1980, when STAR WARS was rereleased with the the subtitle EPISODE IV, Lucas made a contract with the audience that there was another trilogy that came before this one. But he didn't take develop the backstory in a real story . . . and now we're back to my original point: Lucas thought his backstory would make a compelling story.
Ever since I realized this, I've always been on guard with writing my own stories to make sure I begin as close to the ending as possible, because the worst thing a writer can do is to bore the audience by showing them things that don't have to be shown.
And that's true of the prequells, as well. Lucas would have made a better trilogy if he had cut Episode One and exanded Episode II into two movies. The ending of Anakin really began when he came back into contact with Padme, and that's were the trilogy should have began.
I haven't seen Episode III yet, Christine, so I can't say anything about it. I am going to see it next weekend, however. It's certainly a movie you'd want to see in the theather, I think.
[This message has been edited by Jerome (edited May 21, 2005).]
quote:I haven't seen Episode III yet, Christine, so I can't say anything about it. I am going to see it next weekend, however. It's certainly a movie you'd want to see in the theather, I think.
Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?
And again, Why?
Why should I continue to line the pockets of a man who has continued to create crappy movies?
Why should I encourage more people to exploit big names to make more money?
Why should I prove to the movie industry that back writing doesn't matter?
This reminds me of my sister-in-law, who can't understand why her son is a little monster when every time he's bad she puts him in her lap and hugs him and tell shim to be good.
It's the SAME THING....we're giving George Lucas, nay, the ENTIRE MOVIE INDUSTRY positive reinforcement when they feed us crap based on a name. Go ahead, I'll keep giving you my money because I've got to see light-saber fights in the theatre....my flat-screen TV could never do it justice.
A good movie doesn't need a big screen to do it justice. A good movie is good because it has compelling characters, believable dialogue, dramatic conflict, and poignant artistry.
No, Rahl, I'm with you . . . I don't think $7.50 is too much to get excited about.
Christine -- The only reason I said you should see it in the theater is because it's the kind of movie that works best in the theather . . . unless you have a home theater. I generally don't go to movies. I'd rather use my $7.50 to buy a new paperback than on a movie. I don't like the crowds. I don't like the seats. I don't like missing part of the movie if I have to use the men's room. And I don't like watching a movie without popcorn and a drink (and I'm NOT going to pay those prices).
More importantly, however, is that most movies work just fine on television. Epics are the exception -- BRAVEHEART, TROY, THE LORD OF THE RINGS, KINGDOM OF HEAVEN -- and STAR WARS is an epic. So any epic I want to see, I try to see it in the theather.
Well, I'll weigh in - I just got home from seeing III, and I must say the comments here have been spot on. The movie is better than the previous two, still not on my "best movies ever" list, the popcorn was OK, we paid $5 apiece at matinee prices, Jar-Jar Binks had no speaking lines (thank the Maker), and there were a couple of inconsistencies. For instance...
SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT
... if C3PO had a job working on moisture vaporators (or whatever it was he told Luke's Uncle Owen he had experience on when he was first purchased from the Jawas), how would he have known that if he was given directly to Captain Antilles and had his memory wiped? And that line I recalled from Return of the Jedi where Luke asks Leia, "Do you remember your REAL mother?" That line is clear to me cause I just re-watched that movie a couple of days ago.
But those are all nits to pick. I think I'm finally realizing George Lucas isn't the cinematic godling society has made him out to be, and I am OK with that. The man has given us some pretty entertaining cinema over the years, and I don't feel my life is worse off for having plunked a few bucks in his pocket.
The reality is that George Lucas did for science fiction movies what Tolkien did for fantasy novels... each redefined a genre and invigorated it with life. Maybe there has been better science fiction than Star Wars. But modern culture without Star Wars is very hard to imagine.
He said his first job was programming "binary load lifters, very similar to your moisture vaporators." I'm thinking that somebody wiped his memory and assigned him to an ordinace/supply section.
Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999
No, I would say that George Lucas IS the "cinematic godling" everyone has made him out to be. He, along with Speilberg, completely revolutionized Hollywood--not just the speical effects, but Hollywood itself. He reminded Hollywood of the fact that movies can be big and fun, that action flicks are just as good as heavy-handed dramas, and that good characters, real heros, and uplifting themes make up movies that people want to see.
Unfortunately, Lucas's weaknesses overshadow almost all of his strengths--not because he has more weaknesses, but because they're more noticable than his strengths. He's not a good writer, and he's not a good director, and he shouldn't be allowed to do either. I think he can come up with good story ideas--this is the man who not only gave us STAR WARS but INDIANA JONES; he also gave us HOWARD THE DUCK, but everyone can have a flop now and then--and he's a great in the post-production phase. His biggest problem is that there's no one out there to say, "Hey, George, that stinks."
I'm going to see it this Saturday, and I'm looking forward to it. I'll give everyone my review then.
[This message has been edited by Jerome (edited May 22, 2005).]
Well, although this doesn't really have anything to do with the new StarWars movie--and although I have a hard time picturing a cannoli as "organic food"--I still thought this version of StarWars in a grocery store was hilarious: www.storewars.org/flash/index.htmlPosts: 932 | Registered: Jul 2001
Ah--just in case anyone should object on these grounds--I should have made clear that the parody I linked to above is an advertisement for organic foods. I still thought it was very funny.
Posts: 932 | Registered: Jul 2001
quote:Am I the only one that thinks $7.50 isn't really worth getting hysterical about? Hell, I'd pay $10 to watch a monkey poop.
You're right, I don't give a damn about 7.50.
But am I the only one with any principles left?
It's the principle of the thing! It's not MY $7.50....it's everyone's $.7.50 (or more, or ocassionally less) that is making the movie MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
You want to know what I'm upset about? I'm upset by millions of Americans who all agree that a movie is subpar and yet still continue to give their hard earned money to a hack who can't write to save his life. I'm not just upset about that, I'm pissed as HELL. And I have a right to be because it's all your fault...everyone who has responded here who gave their money to this movie, all of you in combination..you don't even have the right to complain about bad movies being all that's out there. It's your fault they are. You want to demand more than stop paying for less. You want to watch your monkeys pooping all the time, then by all means keep paying for it.
Principles are often counterweighed by, "WHy bother? I can't do it alone." These are reasons people give not to vote, not to recycle, not to stop shopping at Wal-Mart...Well, I can't do anything about the rest of the Americans, but I can start by living by a certain set of principles that have nothing to do with $7.50 and everything to do with demanding, in my small voice, that I want more. It's how capitalism is supposed to work and is in large part why it's broken.
THAT'S my problem. Frankly, I can't believe nobody understands that.
[This message has been edited by Christine (edited May 23, 2005).]
I couldn't agree with you more, and that makes me hypocritical as all get out. And my wife uses that exact same reasoning you mentioned when I try to dissuade her from shopping at Walmart.
The moviegoing public does give reinforcement to the industry. Unfortunately, once a movie is seen, there is no refund. If there are sequals, thats the only way to punish.
And yet, Saturday I took my wife too see it. This time around Lucus managed to make an okay movie, not great, but not atrocious. The only reason of seeing it in the theater is for the effects, and maybe that's not reason enough. Special effects are a crutch that has ruined too many movies.
I must be getting old, but the opening 15 minutes was too fast paced. I had a hard time figuring out what was going on. And the wide continuity gap between II and III didn't help. General Grevious? Huh? Where'd he come from?
I feel it should have started at a moderate pace and then built up to the action, action that was a bit slower, that could be followed. I feel eventually all the non-stop hard-to-follow action evokes a who-cares?
Thank you....I was beginning to think I was crazy.
Well, I am crazy. I was beginning to think I was just plain nuts!
Chris, if you live around a Target, especially the new Super Targets, I highly suggest them as an alternative to Wal-Mart. They have higher quality stuff at competitive prices, a cleaner food section, their clothes are about the same price for all they hold together longer...the only thing they don't have is a sewing department or much in the way of pet supplies. Then again, around here PetSmart is right next door.
My wife loves Target even more, its one of her favorite stores. But then, I wonder if they are really any different (squashing smaller retailers, using overseas sweatshops, bilking thier workers).
It's funny, after the movie my wife said she was suprised. She thought that Anakin was only pretending to turn to the dark side, or in the end he'd come back. She doesn't follow SF&F very much.
Okay, sounds like Christine is on a bent here about rewarding Lucas for terrible storyteling.
And she's right, we are effectively rewarding him for doing a crappy job. But here's the thing -- his special effects are out of this world and the actions sequences, though entirely unecessary to the plot at several points, are nevertheless spectacular.
And for some people, that's all they want: a couple hours of mindless action and groovy effects to dissappear into for a spell. For most teens and younger kids that's all they want, and they'll see it again and again and again. Most adults are at least curious enough that they're willing to shell out $8-10 just to see what it looks like "this time".
For the record, I didn't pay a dime either time I saw it. The first was a special preview and the second came as a gimme for services rendered, as it were. So I really haven't contributed to the Lucas empire on this one. Nevertheless...
It's like Card said in his review -- the movie was terrible from the standpoint of dialogue and acting, and the plot holes are so big you could drive a truck through them. But what of it? I've already preprogrammed myself to expect horrible acting and dialogue and questionable plot motives, so if he delivers on the stuff I DO expect him to deliver on -- namely special effects and visuals (plus one heckuva score by JOhn Williams) and intense action -- then I at least walk away without feeling dissappointed.
To me it's the movies that promise one thing then deliver another that tick me off. I already knew the acting and dailogue would be painful, so that did not factor into my assessment as much as other issues did.
Lucas and Hollywood are swimming in money no matter what we do. If you don't like it and don't want to support it, don't go see it. But if someone does want to see it, no point in getting bent about it.
I'd be more concerned about all the people spending money to support crap such as Gangsta Rap or porn. Though I do see your point -- rewarding people for bad behavior only makes the bad behavior worse and more frequent.
It is a deeply flawed film, but it is still very entertaining. For whatever reason, that's good enough for many people (about 150 million dollars worth so far, apparently).
The good movies are often rewarded too. I think the real problem is Hollywood needs to realize that good films make money too. Look at Passion of the Christ, LOTR trillogy, Shrek and Shrek 2, Gone With the Wind, and Goodfellas just to name a few. All these films (and many more) were quite profitable in their own right.
And whoever it was that said this prequel really should have begun with the second film is absolutely correct. The Phantom Menace was a waste of time. Entertaining perhaps, but could have been left out entirely with no real loss to the story.
ADDENDUM to previous post: after seeing the first Star Wars (the episode IV, this manages to get so ambiguous) and a bit of ep. V, it is clear that there are some major continuity problems between ep III and IV, V, VI. Leia's memory of her real mother is only one. There are also the droids: how come Vader fails to recognise C3PO as the droid he designed? Not to mention R2 which was his copilot. And to continue on the same subject, when Alec Guiness sees the droids for the first time he clearly doesn't recognise them. He should have, for the same reasons as Vader. (In case you feel that he did recognise them and was lying, let me point out that he seems much less assured and more pensive (he's not meeting Luke's gaze) when he says to Luke that his father was killed by Darth Vader. He definitely hasn't seen them ever in his life. Odd, isn't it?
Posts: 1075 | Registered: Sep 2004
Verdict: Wait for the DVD. The effects are cool. The story, a bit weak -- as expected.
By the way, our tickets cost Â£13.00. That's approx. 24 dollars US. Granted, cost of living and stuff is different here, and we did see this movie in Leicester Square at the Odeon (where London holds movie premieres -- and you do see the occasional actor or two hanging about). But it is not about the money. It's wanting our 2.5 hrs back...