theshire said:
Well, if you want to hold that opinion, you have every right to do so. I don't agree with you, but then when was the last time I agreed with anyone?
Uh, about five posts back when we agreed on something, thus guaranteeing the apocalypse?
😀
As for that times review (how many reviews did the Times do anyway?) I think any review that features such prose as:
I say it’s all been a big nothing. Lucas’s prequel trilogy has set out to exploit the affections the public rightly has for the first three Star Wars films. If he had released episodes I to III first, I doubt there would have been a Star Wars phenomenon at all.
That happens when people like Lucas start believing they are Serious Artists with something to say about the human condition and good and evil ... Even Star Wars episodes IV, V and VI were too sweet and simple to be taken seriously. But I, II and III could have been it.
really shows the author had NO intention of giving a fair and balanced review. In fact it goes to show what shires' been saying here - these films are entertainment first and foremost. If you don't have an affinity for that sort of movie then fine, there's nothing wrong with that. But this reviewer is panning the film for not being a "serious" film when Lucas has said all along that the Star Wars movie is aimed at kids. And remember folks, for those of us that grew up on the original trilogy most of us DID see it as kids and there ain't no movie on earth that'll make you feel that way again. In fact the more I read this review the more I wonder what on earth their editor was thinking assigning them to this movie.
Nothing has so marred these prequels as Lucas’s bizarre decision to cast McGregor as the young Obi-Wan Kenobi, a part made famous by Alec Guinness. It’s like casting Ray Winston to play the young Stephen Fry.
EXCUSE ME?!?!?! Ewan McGregor gets so close to Alex Guiness at times in these films that it's a little bit spooky (for those that have seen Revenge I offer up just two words: "How Uncivilized")
Is Vader really one of the great fascinating villains of cinema, or just a heavy breather in a sexy black outfit? The first Star Wars sequel was an unabashed celebration of the heroic;
Ooooooooookay. So this is someone who thinks that Vader, regular leader of the all-time cinema bad guy list and "Mr Evil Bastard we'd secretly like to be" winner twenty years running is "a heavy breather in a sexy black outfit"? Oy. And just for the record Cosmo (yes, that's the reviewers name) the sequel to Star Wars was called The Empire Strikes Back and ended with Luke "I'd swear I had two hands at the start of this flick" Skywalker screwing up good and proper, Han "Do I really want to do the third film" Solo trapped and sold as a wall hanging and the good guys essentialy having lost big time. Please could someone escort Mr Landesman to the nearest cinema for a week long continuous screening of Battlefield Earth for such a dishonest review?
Anyway, sorry for the rather long post but after reading that travesty of a review I just had to vent a little frustration.
While I remember, and this might be considered a SPOILER so don't read this last bit if you don't want to know how this movie ends.
.
.
.
.
Is it my imagination or is this the first time in movie history that an evil genius has actually carried out his master plan sucessfully?