"Star Wars"

I realized while doing a survey (Suck it, Billy!) that many of you must be lying awake at night, wondering, "What are Judi's thoughts on the "Star Wars" franchise?" And far be it from me, Miss Ambien/Clonipin 2007, to knowingly deprive y'all of sleep. I will withhold no longer. With no further ado, I present to you:




"Star Wars": In My (Not So) Humble Opinion



A New Hope:

Good. Best part: Darth Vader. Obviously. Also the Millennium Falcon was pretty kick-ass. Also I was little. Also my grandparents' neighbors had a kid, Patrick, who had allllll the toys. And the toys were really really awesome. I loved them. But of course, in my ambivalent gender role, as much as I loved the toys, I always loved Princess Leia the most.


Empire Strikes Back:

Good, but I think a little overrated. That could be because I saw it after I lost all faith in George Lucas. I mean, I do appreciate the arguments for its being the best one, but...I don't know. Maybe I didn't understand it or something. But I did like those big tall things that loped around like giant metal Old Benjamins. Furthermore, my childhood best friend Kelly and her family (Hi Tiffany!) had the most awesomest thing ever, this tower in their yard from "Empire Strikes Back." And no, I'm not going to look it up on Google® for street cred. I'm keeping it real.


Return of the Jedi:

GREAT beginning. Based on all the festivities at Jabba's palace alone, it should have been my runaway favorite. The Rancor scene was one of my favorite scenes ever! Scary! And I liked Frozen Han Solo, and the worm pit, and of course, Jabba himself. Plus of course it inspired the "Friends" about the gold bikini, which is awesome although I personally just don't have it in me to be sexually attracted to Carrie Fisher, even in a gold bikini.

HOWEVER. George Lucas should have held a bake sale or something to get the budget for Wookies (Sometimes I know things! --Monica), because a movie of teddy bears flying around on motorcycles for what feels like seven hours...well, good in theory, bad for Star Wars. You know what I'm saying? The Emperor stuff was fine, but it is one of the most anticlimactic things I've ever seen in my life, and I watched the entire ninth season of "Seinfeld." Muffin tops, anyone?


The Phantom Menace:

Are you even serious right now.


Attack of the Clones:

I used to get into actual fights with my ex over this movie. There is nothing you can say to convince me that this movie didn't suck major, major balls. Natalie Portman can do very nice work at times. This was not one of those times.


The Last One:

Truthfully? I can't even remember the name of the last (third, whatever) movie. Something about death and fate or whatever that "Attack of the Clones" had the unmitigated gall to try and tease me with, like "Hey! Sorry! Sorry about those two hours of shit! Next one will be better! Promise!" Oh okay, it was "Revenge of the Sith." Right? I only remember "Sith" 'cause of "The Office," though. And I didn't see the last movie. I heard it was okay, but enough was enough, for me.

But seriously? George Lucas paved the way for guys like Joss Whedon, in the bad way, and I LOVE Whedon. Unquestionable creative genius ruined, or at least hindered, by unchecked ego. Didn't these dudes read any Shakespeare? Pride is ALWAYS the downfall of brilliant men. And Whedon is in my opinion more talented than Lucas overall, like at least he can write (Lucas can't), and cast (Natalie Portman anyone? Just because someone looks the part doesn't mean s/he can play it), and direct (Critics across the board, on "The Phantom Menace": "The actors all looked confused.").

But in my opinion, the deepest sign of an unchecked ego is to spring a horrible character on a captive audience. (Hello, Dawn.) Like, "HEY I KNOW YOU'RE ALL COMING TO MY MOVIE, HOW 'BOUT SOME JAR JAR EFFING BINKS!". I mean, REALLY. It takes a rabidly strong megalomania to take your billions of dollars and brilliant creativity and still need some dude on the Internet to edit out the biggest piece of crap from your movie, and STILL have it be mediocre at best.

Which makes me even more happy for Judd Apatow's success. 1999 was a turvy-topsy world where "The Phantom Menace" raked in the dough and got to have sequels (or prequels, whatever, I don't care), and "Freaks and Geeks" was thrown away by stupid NBC. I never want to go back to that world AGAIN.





©2007


ETA: I wanted to post Javier's opinion 'cause he is more informed and a fan, and I do agree with what he wrote, if that makes sense. AKA I don't HATE the movies, I just find flaws with the last four (chronological four, not prequel-wise), basically. Anyway here is what he wrote:


"I agree (that Eps 1 and 2 weren't so good). Ep 4 is just a classic and started the whole thing and for the 70s is still viable. 5th was the best. 6th should have been better, but I just can't believe that a couple of rebels and a bunch of little furryanimals using sticks and rocks defeated the Empire. Sorry, that's alittle far fetched. Ep 3 made up for Eps 1 and 2, well not entire, but at least it was good. I just wish George Lucas knew how to direct his actors to act. The only believable performance in the new movies is Liam Neeson, and they kill him off so there won't be any more good acting in the next two. And I LIKE Ewan McGregor and Natalie Portman. But Lucas even made Sam Jackson look bad!"