Quote:
Originally Posted by aberkok
I wasn't asking a question. To elaborate:
According to those here who are pro-Ebert, he reviews based on the quality of the filmmaking. If that's the case, then he shouldn't be casting Episode III in a positive light as it is a poor example of filmmaking. If he is interested in the audience's entertainment, that's another story. This is where it gets too subjective because while I enjoyed both Episode III and Deuce Bigalow, I know some wouldn't.
By the way, what is Star Wars if not the most notorious example of a movie designed to "reap $$$." As well, the most recent installments had plenty of moments designed to make 12 year olds laugh. So I can certainly compare the two.
You're also wrong about Deuce Bigalow being for 12 year olds. I wouldn't have appreciated the full range of jokes until I was at least 18 or 19. That must be why I enjoyed it so much.... at 24!
|
How is Episode III a poor example of film making? It is easily the best of the prequels and possibly better than the originals. It has great acting, great effects, an incredible plot, and good closure. The dialogue is faulty in only a few scenes. Episode II however...now that is a poor example of film making. I completely agree with you about the first two installments of the Star Wars prequels...Episode 1 had many, many kiddy moments in it and Episode 2 was downright horrid. Episode III is one of the best sci-fi movies ever, however (excuse the completely intentional rhyming).
-Lasereth