I saw this movie StarWars

[LillSnopp]

I just saw this movie StarWars.

And its really bad. I mean, first episode was real garbage, some sort of joke movie (i suspect the directors didnt take it seriously), and then the second one seemed more serious, but poor acting.

And now this, its suppose to be the last one if i understood it correctly, and i rarely see such poor acting in a movie. Seriously. Perhaps the actors are new to all of this, i saw a negro which i also seen in Pulp Fiction (one of the few i recognized), and he is pretty good in that movie (Pulp Fiction that is). But in this one, cheeezes, i say.

In any case, perhaps you guys seen this to? I remember the original movies, they where pretty good, but what is this ?

[otseng]

I just saw the movie too (I assume you're talking about Episode III: Return of the Sith). I thought it was pretty good. Though I was surprised that there were very few people in the theater on opening day for it.

I didn't go see the movie for the acting. Though I didn't think the acting was too bad. I basically went to be entertained. And it fulfilled that.

One thing I was impressed with is that George Lucas was able to create episode III that moves fairly well into the next almost 30 years after creating episode IV. I also enjoyed the deeper look into the enticement of evil and how it can ensnare people.

[LillSnopp]

I just saw the movie too (I assume you're talking about Episode III: Return of the Sith). I thought it was pretty good. Though I was surprised that there were very few people in the theater on opening day for it.

Well, yeah, something like that, im not really into it, so i hardly notice the under-titles..

But how can you think its good? What was good? I mean, the acting was poor. thats an absolute. Sure, some scenes where good.

I didn't go see the movie for the acting. Though I didn't think the acting was too bad. I basically went to be entertained. And it fulfilled that.

Well, the entire movie was "action" in my eyes. Everything seemed to move very fast.

One thing I was impressed with is that George Lucas was able to create episode III that moves fairly well into the next almost 30 years after creating episode IV. I also enjoyed the deeper look into the enticement of evil and how it can ensnare people.

I did not really understand the evil/good part. Was very badly portrayed. The Emperor wants a Good stable Universe, and the jedis wants a "good" Universe. I saw the Emperor as the good guy, yet he was portrayed as bad.

At the same time the "good" people of the movie claimed Democracy to be the only way, when anyone with any sort of brain power knows that Democracy is bad for any state / world. And these people claimed themselves to be "jedis" which i understood ot be intelligent people. Very paradoxical in my eyes.

[LillSnopp]

The Negros name was "Samuel L. Jackson", and he seems to have been in several movies (mostly bad ones as seen on imdb.com).

And Christopher Lee was the guy whom died in the beginning. I know he has been the voice of Death in Terry Parchets Discworld, and i think i have seen him in some other movies too.

[otseng]

But how can you think its good? What was good? I mean, the acting was poor. thats an absolute. Sure, some scenes where good.

Actually, I thought Ian McDiarmid (Palpatine) did a great job acting. All the special effects was pretty good. And the plot was interesting.

Well, the entire movie was "action" in my eyes.

What else was it supposed to be?

I did not really understand the evil/good part. Was very badly portrayed. The Emperor wants a Good stable Universe, and the jedis wants a "good" Universe. I saw the Emperor as the good guy, yet he was portrayed as bad.

Well, Palpatine double crossed people, lied, and ordered executions of innocent people, so I can't see him as a good guy.

As for a dictatorship versus a republic, neither one is inherently good or evil. So, I don't think that can be a basis to determine if something is good/evil.

[foshizzle]

The "stable" universe you speak of was an oppression. A tyrant destroyed all whom opposed him. While stable and efficient, it violated all laws of humanity.

In this movie, he was willing to kill every person against him (even those that /could potentially/, eventually be against him. I'm talking about the 'younglings').

If you see human life as a thing to waste, and productivity as the only purpose of existence, than I can understand that the Emperor would be seen as a good guy.

Honestly, the acting of the entire series left something to be desired. James Earl Jones, Harrison Ford and Ian McDiarmid were great in the original series, but just about everyone else needed lessons. The same can be said for the new series.

I really didn't notice it, though. I'm still a massive fan of Star Wars, and probably always will be. Though the acting was a teeny bit lacking, I still thoroughly enjoyed the movie. Great action, fairly good plot, and good philosophical points.

My big problem in seeing the new series was not judging it according to the old. It's better to view them as 2 seperate trilogies. Half the appeal of the original trilogy was the look of the crappy starships, the popsicle stick Death Star, etc. but the fact that the movie was incredible anyway! The new movies couldn't really revisit such outdated filmaking techniques, so the feel would have never been reached again.

[LillSnopp]

Actually, I thought Ian McDiarmid (Palpatine) did a great job acting. All the special effects was pretty good. And the plot was interesting.

Except some scenes, but that was the poor directing/script. They seemed to want to make a long period of time, happen very fast.

What else was it supposed to be?

Well you said "I basically went to be entertained.". and the entire movie was more or less 99% "action", with some side dish "romans" or whatever you want to call it. Everything was way to fast. Didnt really work very well.

Well, Palpatine double crossed people, lied, and ordered executions of innocent people, so I can't see him as a good guy.

I didnt really see any "innocent" people getting killed. So i cant agree about that.

About the "double crossed", well, i think that was the only way he could get a stable empire, else these people wanted to have control (the normies). And cotinue to have a democracy, which would be obviously fatal for the world. They need one man, not a bunch of idiots.

As for a dictatorship versus a republic, neither one is inherently good or evil. So, I don't think that can be a basis to determine if something is good/evil.

Well, i see republic as a bad thing. Dictatorship has its in roots to be good. Anything that comes close to a Democracy is dangerous, and has not its citizens good in the main court, so to speak. (people do not know what is good for them, they are to ignorant for that).

[foshizzle]

I didnt really see any "innocent" people getting killed. So i cant agree about that.

What is your definition of "innocent"?

[LillSnopp]

What is your definition of "innocent"?

People whom are worth to be alive.

[Corvus]

Actually, I thought Ian McDiarmid (Palpatine) did a great job acting. All the special effects was pretty good. And the plot was interesting.

Except some scenes, but that was the poor directing/script.

I haven't seen the movie, but from what I know of George's script-writing abilities, and from what I've read in reviews, this sounds right. I heard one characters even says something as ridiculous as, "I am sad"?

Well, Palpatine double crossed people, lied, and ordered executions of innocent people, so I can't see him as a good guy.

I didnt really see any "innocent" people getting killed. So i cant agree about that.

In episode two Count Duku(sp?) escaped with the plans for a weapon that can destroy whole planets. Later on in the series, Luke Skywalker's home planet is destroyed. I would call that a brutal dictatorship.

A tyrant destroyed all whom opposed him.

What is your definition of "innocent"?

People whom are worth to be alive.

Guilty are those who use the word "whom" wrongly.