|
|
Post by ZapRowsdower on May 25, 2005 16:57:17 GMT -5
And for those of you curious on how I rate the Star Wars flicks, here you go:
1. The Empire Strikes Back
2. TIE: A New Hope & Return of the Jedi
3. Revenge of the Sith
4. Attack of the Clones
5. The Phantom Menace
|
|
|
|
Post by Termination on May 25, 2005 17:18:39 GMT -5
Full review, straight from my website. Cool website Smitty, I look forward to reading your reviews.  |
|
|
|
Post by Bartwald on May 26, 2005 2:28:58 GMT -5
I'm afraid that you, good people, may turn all Anakin on me but the truth is I was disappointed with Sith, and it's my second least favourite SW film. Here's why:
- the fights were all great, but why make all the fighters Spider-Men? Watching the old Christopher Lee somersaulting better than Jackie Chan made me wince; and watching Anakin jumping up and down the elevator robbed the scene of all suspense; in Episodes IV-VI the Jedi's were also using Force in their fights but their moves looked much more human - and I liked it,
- the Anakin/Padme part of the plot, though better than in Attack Of The Clones, still sucked; plus, why the hell Natalie Portman looks so anti-Natalie Portman during her talk with Christensen on the balcony?!
- general Grievous is a fine character but I expected him to be a tiny bit more courageous, if you know what I mean,
- the dialogues lacked the humour of Episodes IV-VI; even R2D2 and C3PO seemed to lose their comic touch for most part of the film.
Mind you though: I still liked the film. What I especially LIKE about it is:
- how nicely it clicks with Episode IV; I, just like some of you, watched EIV the day after EIII, and the plot follows so smoothly from here to there - bravo for this!
- how good Ewan McGregor was as Obi-Wan: if given more funny one-liners he could be this episode's Han Solo!
- Yoda: yes, he does grab at your heart here,
- the birth of Vader/the birth of his children: powerful,
- as said before: all the fight scenes, especially the Spielberg-storyboarded Obi-Wan vs. Grievous.
Overall: 7/10 for me.
The SW films from best to least fine:
1. The Empire Strikes Back
2. The Phantom Menace (not a mistake!)
3. A New Hope
4. Return Of The Jedi
5. Revenge Of The Sith
6. Attack Of The Clones
|
|
|
|
Post by Termination on May 26, 2005 3:26:53 GMT -5
Forgot to post my fav from best to least fav;
1) Attack Of The Clones
2) Return Of The Jedi
3) The Phantom Menace
4) Empire Strikes Back
5) Revenge Of The Sith
6) A New Hope
|
|
|
|
Post by Quorthon on May 26, 2005 15:23:42 GMT -5
My favorite SW films list (since everybody is doing it and I didn't want to be left out):
Return of the Jedi
Empire Strikes Back
A New Hope
Revenge of the Sith
Attack of the Clones
Jar-Jar-A-Rama, er, I mean Phantom Menace.
Let's not forget those two ewok films!! Yeah!! Wilford Brimley is a Star Wars superstar!!
|
|
|
|
Post by LivingDeadGirl on May 26, 2005 16:08:15 GMT -5
Empire Strikes Back A New Hope Revenge of the Sith Return of the Jedi Attack of the Clones Phantom Menace I didn't wanna be left out either...  Why a #6 slot for ANH Term? |
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on May 26, 2005 16:57:21 GMT -5
Why a #6 slot for ANH Term? You can almost always tell, who are the first generation fans and who came to the party a little later, by the order in which they rate the various movies. Oh, and Bart, you were "disappointed with Sith, and it's your second least favourite SW film.", but you still gave it a 7/10. That's a pretty high score for a film you're not doing backflips over, isn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by Termination on May 26, 2005 22:37:40 GMT -5
Actually was born before A New Hope hit theaters back in 77, but only by a few months.
It was the first Star Wars film I seen of the 6 & every film made after it, I felt had a better story, cinematography, acting, & overall appeal. Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike the first film, all 6 have their own entertainment value & imo, A New Hope just isn't up to par with the other sequels & prequels.
|
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on May 26, 2005 23:13:51 GMT -5
Actually was born before A New Hope hit theaters back in 77, but only by a few months. Exactly. Not a first generation fan. Being born in '77 is not the same as having seen the movie when it was brand new. I also don't count babies who happened to be in the theater with their parents and fell asleep during the movie. When did you finally see it for the first time? And this isn't attack on you or anything like that. I'm just curious. |
|
|
|
Post by Pulpmariachi on May 26, 2005 23:29:01 GMT -5
Ah. Actually, though, I think Spielberg did the Anakin/Obi-Wan fight and Yoda/Palpatine fight. Well, helped with them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bartwald on May 27, 2005 0:48:37 GMT -5
Oh, and Bart, you were "disappointed with Sith, and it's your second least favourite SW film", but you still gave it a 7/10. That's a pretty high score for a film you're not doing backflips over, isn't it? The problem is - those goddamn EXPECTATIONS, you know. As I said - I enjoyed the movie a lot but I also think it could be the best in the series, hence the disappointment. And by the way - my least favourite SW film, Attack Of The Clones, got 6/10, which ain't bad, either. |
|
|
|
Post by Quorthon on May 27, 2005 1:10:25 GMT -5
Actually was born before A New Hope hit theaters back in 77, but only by a few months. Exactly. Not a first generation fan. Being born in '77 is not the same as having seen the movie when it was brand new. I also don't count babies who happened to be in the theater with their parents and fell asleep during the movie. When did you finally see it for the first time? And this isn't attack on you or anything like that. I'm just curious. I consider myself to be a first generation SW fan, even if I didn't come around till '78. But I grew up with the original trilogy--hell, during my youth, my brother and I went through a phase where we literally watched a different Star Wars movie every weekend one summer--which meant a summer of reruns since there was only the three movies!! |
|
|
|
Post by Termination on May 27, 2005 1:37:55 GMT -5
Actually was born before A New Hope hit theaters back in 77, but only by a few months. Exactly. Not a first generation fan. Being born in '77 is not the same as having seen the movie when it was brand new. I also don't count babies who happened to be in the theater with their parents and fell asleep during the movie. When did you finally see it for the first time? And this isn't attack on you or anything like that. I'm just curious. I consider myself a first gen fan. I was 4 when I first saw it, that would be 1981. Wasn't until after Empire was released that I had a full appreciation for ep IV & V. These 2 films, I watched endlessly. They were my fav films in my youth until James Cameron's 1984 Terminator flick which I saw in 1985 on pay-per-view. So Star Wars & Terminator were the only films I really enjoyed as a child & still do to this day.  |
|
|
|
Post by ZapRowsdower on May 27, 2005 2:44:36 GMT -5
The argument of Prequels vs. the Original trilogy rages on, but it's very similar to the dispute of Desperado vs. El Mariachi.
By far, the prequel trilogy LOOKS much better than the original trilogy. Duh. 16 years of growth in the area of special effects and the magic of computer animation found within this time make THAT possible. Not to mention George Lucas has much more money to spend because of companies such as Industrial Light & Magic and Skywalker Sound... oh and the original trilogy too. So of course, the prequels are just going to have so much more in the area of visual effects and cinematography.
Another strength the prequels have are their storylines. My God, those are some great stories. Pick apart the movies all you want, but any way you slice it, you can take nothing away from the story Lucas was trying to tell.
The prequels are all great in their own right (Episode III made it into my Top 25), but the original trilogy was better, and here's why:
1. The original trilogy was way ahead of its time in terms of special effects. The prequels, impressive as they are, are still pretty standard in this day and age. But back then, effects like that weren't seen too often.
2. Charm and nostalgia. Two things that make the original trilogy IMPOSSIBLE to top. These are movies almost everybody has grown up with. I DIDN'T grow up with them (damn deprived childhood/parents who didn't like Star Wars), and I STILL fall for the charm and nostalgia every time I see them.
3. George Lucas was MUCH better back then at writing than he is today. Maybe it's the fact that he's been out of practice or something, but you'll NEVER find the awkward, cheesy dialogue of the prequels in the original trilogy.
4. The prequels lacked Han Solo. Not the actual character, but a character LIKE him. My friend actually brought this to my attention, and I realized it was true. All the characters in the prequels have such stiff dialogue, because all they had were Jedi and political pencil pushers. What they really needed was a mercenary with attitude; with dialogue that is so much in contrast with what everyone else is saying that the audience would fall in love with him/her. And no, Jar Jar Binks does not count.
5. Jar Jar Binks wasn't in the original trilogy. I'm not a Jar Jar hater; in fact, I can do a great Jar Jar impression. But even I admit, Jar Jar did more harm to the movie than good.
6. Darth Vader was in ALL THREE movies in the original trilogy, as opposed to just one. And let's face it, he's about as bad-ass as heroes come.
7. In the prequels, George Lucas could have afforded to do some extra takes. Especially in Episodes II and III, when you have NATALIE FUCKING PORTMAN at your disposal, you MIGHT want to tap into her full potential instead of just having her read out the lines. Whereas in the original trilogy, the acting just never seemed to be a problem. And Padmé could have used some more "Leia" characteristics. I like how they had her fighting a little bit in Episode II, and her one line about "aggressive negotiations", but Leia had more wit in her little finger than Padmé had in her whole body. You can't really find the resemblence.
8. There was just no "shock" factor. The original trilogy had Darth Vader being Luke's father and Leia being Luke's sister (which I even doubt Lucas saw coming from the beginning). The biggest shocks in the prequels were Count Dooku being a Sith Lord and Chancellor Palpatine being THE Sith Lord (which isn't a shock if you've seen the original trilogy anyway).
I'm not trying to put down on the prequels. I love them. I love ANYTHING Star Wars. I even liked the Ewoks movie. I have a bunch of the video games, and am really interested in reading the books. I might even check out the infamous Christmas special George Lucas wants to keep everyone from seeing. But the original trilogy is what started it all, and I'm sure even George Lucas knows he'll never be able to top them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Termination on May 27, 2005 10:22:42 GMT -5
I thought Natalie Portman's acting was good in Attack of the Clones. Her lines, well.. The very little screen time she had in episode III was dissapointing a bit. Almost as bad as having her a background character like Jar Jar.
|
|
