OB1-adobe
Amazon.com is the best place to find reviews by people who don't know jack shit.
**************************************************
*******
1 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
Not good, May 30, 2005
Reviewer: C. Nielsen (Orange Park, FL) - See all my reviews
Revenge of the Sith was a mixed bag. The fact that it was able to tie into the original Star Wars was satisfying, but that was about the only thing I found satisfying in the movie. Most of it was boring. The script was atrocious. Lucas continued to make the same kinds of mistakes that I thought he made in the last two movies.
Yoda played too big of a role.
Dooku is a stupid name. So is Grievous.
Jar Jar Binks appeared in a couple of scenes.
Lucas showed altogether too many creatures and people and flying ships. The sparseness of the original Star Wars is what captured my imagination about the movie. Lucas failed again to realize this and destroyed the most interesting thing about the original Star Wars.
The "Force" was demystified by "mitochlorians" or whatever they were called.
There were far too many BORING light saber battles. All they are is glorified sword fighting using light sabers which are not novel anymore. You've seen one of these fight scenes, you've seen them all, and there were far too many of them in this movie.
The attempts to weave modern day politics into the script and the philosophical statements coming out of Yoda's mouth were stupid.
Too many new inventions. So in the original Star Wars, technology actually decreased?
Uncomfortable, melodramatic "giving birth" scene, along with awkward dialog.
Ewen McGregor and Sam Jackson and Natalie Portman were all miscast. They should have gone with unknown actors. The fact that these actors are so well recognized detracts from the appeal and the immersiveness of the Star Wars universe.
Why were there so many "Clones" in the first three movies, but none in the original three movies?
I don't think George Lucas is a good director. Anyone else could have made a better prequel trilogy for Star Wars. Everything that was good about the original trilogy has been stripped away and replaced with heartless, visionless filler. **************************************************
************
Yeah, in 1998 everyone knew who Natalie Portman and Ewan Mcgregor were.
ALL HAIL DIPSHITS!!!!!!!
**************************************************
*******
1 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
Not good, May 30, 2005
Reviewer: C. Nielsen (Orange Park, FL) - See all my reviews
Revenge of the Sith was a mixed bag. The fact that it was able to tie into the original Star Wars was satisfying, but that was about the only thing I found satisfying in the movie. Most of it was boring. The script was atrocious. Lucas continued to make the same kinds of mistakes that I thought he made in the last two movies.
Yoda played too big of a role.
Dooku is a stupid name. So is Grievous.
Jar Jar Binks appeared in a couple of scenes.
Lucas showed altogether too many creatures and people and flying ships. The sparseness of the original Star Wars is what captured my imagination about the movie. Lucas failed again to realize this and destroyed the most interesting thing about the original Star Wars.
The "Force" was demystified by "mitochlorians" or whatever they were called.
There were far too many BORING light saber battles. All they are is glorified sword fighting using light sabers which are not novel anymore. You've seen one of these fight scenes, you've seen them all, and there were far too many of them in this movie.
The attempts to weave modern day politics into the script and the philosophical statements coming out of Yoda's mouth were stupid.
Too many new inventions. So in the original Star Wars, technology actually decreased?
Uncomfortable, melodramatic "giving birth" scene, along with awkward dialog.
Ewen McGregor and Sam Jackson and Natalie Portman were all miscast. They should have gone with unknown actors. The fact that these actors are so well recognized detracts from the appeal and the immersiveness of the Star Wars universe.
Why were there so many "Clones" in the first three movies, but none in the original three movies?
I don't think George Lucas is a good director. Anyone else could have made a better prequel trilogy for Star Wars. Everything that was good about the original trilogy has been stripped away and replaced with heartless, visionless filler. **************************************************
************
Yeah, in 1998 everyone knew who Natalie Portman and Ewan Mcgregor were.
ALL HAIL DIPSHITS!!!!!!!