What is the Last Film You Watched? - Part II

[A24 4,346]

I don't have to eat shit to know it will make me vomit.

(what a great line, works every time)

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Since you have not seen this film, your appriciation of Joe's credibility is worthless.  

Stefancos, I never ate your shit, and yet I know I will not like its taste. I don't have to eat shit to know it will make me vomit.

----------------

Alex Cremers

really dogs and monkeys eat it all the time and it doesn't make them vomit, but then they are more advanced lifeforms than you.

instead of following the critics like a lemming, watch the movie and make up your own mind.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Frances eats her own poop?

[JoeinAR 1,949]

no, but if she could get to Annie's litter box..., fortunately she never has.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Cat's and dogs living together...in peace?

[Lurker 5]

Mass hysteria!

Neil

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

[Morlock 11]

The beacon scene is still one of the most breathtaking things I've ever seen or heard on film.

You're joking right?

Did anything in my post imply that I was?

Morlock- who was not joking

[A24 4,346]

instead of following the critics like a lemming, watch the movie and make up your own mind.

Sorry, I'm too experienced to rent that stinker, Joe. Unlike you, I make progress. I've learned to distinguish the good from the bad. Besides, I made up my own mind when I saw them 15 minutes. That was all I could take. No critic had to tell me I was witnessing dumb blandness.

Always remember Joe, those who like Battlefield Earth are the first ones to hate the critics.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[A24 4,346]

The beacon scene is still one of the most breathtaking things I've ever seen or heard on film.

You're joking right?

Did anything in my post imply that I was?

Morlock- who was not joking

How good can it be? I don't even remember it.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

You loose what little credibility you have left with posts like that.

[A24 4,346]

Coming from you that's a compliment!

[Morlock 11]

How about coming from me?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

How about coming me?

That's not even a proper sentence.

[Morlock 11]

How about coming me?

That's not even a proper sentence.

Neither was yours (loose?).

And coming from me, what do you expect?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

No wonder they put you in the army.

[SturgisPodmore 0]

Alex, you could easily, and I'm sure, will soon, say that you can't juudge a movie by watching fifteen minutes of it. You just pick whatever suits your current opinion best and go with that. If you're so experienced, you would think you would, in fact, be able to form your own opinions, but when you discuss a film, you always talk about what critics say; far more than anyone else here does.

Btw, in America gay marriages are allowed in some states. That is a fact, not an opinion.

~Sturgis, whose dog eats his own crap once in a while

[Justin 2]

Deep Impact. A very touching movie in many places. Sadly IMO it's nothing spectacular but still very good. Horner's score is effective in many places but there is far to much music in the film for it's own good.

Justin

[A24 4,346]

Alex, you could easily, and I'm sure, will soon, say that you can't juudge a movie by watching fifteen minutes of it.  You just pick whatever suits your current opinion best and go with that.  If you're so experienced, you would think you would, in fact, be able to form your own opinions, but when you discuss a film, you always talk about what critics say; far more than anyone else here does.

Did I step on your Potter toes? I gave my opinion and then, occasionally, or just to put things in perspective, I throw in the status quo of the critics, especially in cases where a movie has been crushed or celebrated. I do that whenever this pleases me. If you don't like it then that's your problem, Sturgie.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

no you gave the critic's opinions, not yours, you don't have one.

[SturgisPodmore 0]

Oh, I forgot. You also have to resort to trying to patronize people by calling them names. How mature.

~Sturgis

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I'd also like to point out that films like Psycho, It's A Wonderful Life, Jaws, Star

Wars, The Exorcist, Bonnie and Clyde, I can keep going, all had their share of very negative reviews.

Critic's are not always correct, as you like to point out when Titanic is mentioned.

so Alex be very careful, your pack may be heading for a cliff.

[A24 4,346]

I'd also like to point out that films like Psycho, It's A Wonderful Life, Jaws, Star

Wars, The Exorcist, Bonnie and Clyde, I can keep going, all had their share of very negative reviews.

I can't verify your titles, Joe, but I know that the reaction to Star Wars was generally (the combined sum) very positive. It's mainly George Lucas thats says critics didn't like Star Wars but that's not true. He only says that because the prequels aren't getting good reviews. It's also something what he and the prequels fans would love to believe. If the critics were wrong then, they must be wrong now. But various articles and original reviews will tell you George isn't exactly telling the truth about the popularity of Star Wars with the critics.

And I don't believe that films like Jaws were generally crushed by the critics. A few probably didn't like it, sure, but that's it. And from the 15 minutes I saw of National Treasure I can guarantee you that it will never gain critical acclaim, not in a million years. It's simply not that kind of movie. By the end of the year this movie will be forgotten. It won't even earn itself a footnote in history. These movies are only there to make the really good movies stand out.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Imagine watching only the first 15 minutes of Psycho and then base your opinion on it?

[A24 4,346]

so Alex be very careful, your pack may be heading for a cliff.

By admitting National Treasure is your thing, you already sank deeply, well before hitting anything.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[A24 4,346]

Imagine watching only the first 15 minutes of Psycho and then base your opinion on it?

No, it would intrigue me to see more of it, even today.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Alex, have you seen a ROTS TV spot yet?

I'd love to know your opinion about the whole film.

[A24 4,346]

Alex, have you seen a ROTS TV spot yet?

I'd love to know your opinion about the whole film.

It's not 15 minutes but I think they reveal quite a lot. Still awkward performances, same type of dialogue, bad CGI Yoda, but the drama and the duels will turn this into something much better than Attack Of The Clones. It will also garner a better score from the critics than National Treasure.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[JoeinAR 1,949]

So did Attack of the Clones and we know how bad a film that was, another example of the critic's getting it wrong.

and Alex, I didn't say those films were crushed by the critics, I said they got their share of bad reviews, Psycho was intitially critically panned, as was Its A Wonderful Life. Even National Treasure got alot of nice reviews, alot of mixed reviews, and some bad reviews.

[A24 4,346]

So did Attack of the Clones and we know how bad a film that was, another example of the critic's getting it wrong.

and Alex, I didn't say those films were crushed by the critics, I said they got their share of bad reviews, Psycho was intitially critically panned, as was Its A Wonderful Life.  Even National Treasure got alot of nice reviews, alot of mixed reviews, and some bad reviews.

Some bad?! You're distorting the truth, Joe. Here, take a look for yourself. This is all taken from different reviewers. National Treasure gets a really bad score.

- Isn't any fun at all, which is ultimately the most damning thing you can say about a Bruckheimer movie.

- Absurdism taken to a new extreme.

- Has almost nothing to recommend it.

- If National Treasure mattered at all, you might call it a national disgrace, but this piece of flotsam is so inconsequential that it amounts to little more than a piece of Hollywood accounting.

- Disney's National Treasure is supposed to be family-friendly, a PG-rated action adventure free of hard violence and bad language. That's admirable, to be sure, but with a friend like this a family doesn't need sleeping pills.

- It's not just hard to believe any of this, it's impossible. And director Jon Turteltaub (Phenomenom) directs with robotic cheerlessness.

- Rated PG, which must stand for "particularly gullible," it's "Raiders of the Lost Ark" for people who slept through American history class.

- It lacks the conviction to embrace its own garish awfulness, resulting in little more than tedious historical and patriotic hokum, a preposterous potboiler done in by slack pacing and pedestrian execution.

- National Treasure's storyline isn't compelling or coherent enough to warrant the term "plot."

- For his fourth paycheck-cashing run through “J-Bruck’s” action-hero gauntlet, Cage lazily plays Benjamin Franklin Gates-the first of many overstuffed social-studies references.

- If the Founding Fathers had known National Treasure would be the result of their efforts to forge a new nation, they might have reached for the Wite-Out.

- Sort of "The Da Vinci Code for Dummies."

- Ten minutes into the picture, you're searching the screen for life-support machines.

- It's a silly, stupendously artificial enterprise.

- Too dumb and improbable to even go into.

- Jon Voight shows up as Ben's daddy, and Harvey Keitel plays a devilishly goateed FBI agent: They're the only two actors who seem to have a sense of how ridiculous National Treasure is, but there's not enough of them to carry the picture.

- Nicolas Cageologists will be sad to hear that he's entirely too normal in National Treasure -- he's mildly funny but doesn't make any of the kooky dramatic choices (needless accents, ranting about the orifices of Greek gods) that made his other Bruckheimer performances so much fun to watch.

- Can't match an ounce of the suspense generated by contestants frantically buying airline tickets on Bruckheimer's own TV money quest, "The Amazing Race." This movie is a fortune wasted.

- Ham-handed to start, with a fondness for cochlea-crushing decibel levels, National Treasure gets more entertaining as the preposterousness rises.

- Coming from writers responsible for such material as "Snow Dogs" and "The 6th Day," National Treasure is not so much a no-brainer as a brain-stunner, so audaciously ridiculous you are initially intrigued, then soon irritated by its incoherence.

- National Treasure is so silly that the Monty Python version could use the same screenplay, line for line.

- Too bad the clever bits are swamped by no-brainer gunfights, rescues, and chases galore.

- National Treasure is as doggedly hokey and ham-handed as a Disneyland ride.

- It has no ambition, little sense and false sentiment, but it does have velocity, high spirits and scale.

- Tries to combine the suspense of old Saturday morning serials with the gusto of producer Jerry Bruckheimer's action pics. Falling short on both counts, this long, and long-winded, series of middling cliffhangers won't pump the adrenaline of action aficionados or -- the family crowd.

[Morlock 11]

Kingdom of Heaven. It's official. Historical epics that include large scale battles simply cannot make genuinly great movies, unless directed by David Lean (and only Lawrence of Arabia at that).

With that as an introduction......

(WARNING: CONTAINS SPOILERS)

I liked the movie. Coming out of it, I would've given it 3 1/2 stars. After some more thought, a solid 3 stars, and pretty much the same 3 stars I would give Troy.

As usual, my disorganized thoughts. First, the actors:

Orlando was fine. No particulaly good or bad acting from him.

Neeson was good and solid, but not enough good dialogue from him. His presence was not felt in the film as it should have.

Thewlis was the same, though he did seem to have a little more to do with his character. He gave him that great smile he uses so well.

Marton Csokas did a very good job as Guy, he really looks perfect for the part, and really hit all the right notes.

I loved Irons. Not the role you'd think of for an actor of his caliber, more like a solid character actor, not a part for a leading man, but he was very good in the part. He had some good lines and made a very good and likable ally to Balian. I would have loved a lot more back and forths between him and Gleeson.

I had heard about Edward Norton being the Leper King, and I was surprised that he really did make a big impression on the film. He was solid, and quite touching.

I looooved Brendan Gleeson, as I always do, and as I was sure I would. He is simply the absolute best character actor today at creating these juicy, delightful characters, irrelevant of screen time (Brian Cox is probably second in line). I just loved his Reynald, his expressions when confronted by Irons in the first scene are priceless, and the way he dances in jail is just scrumtrilescant.

Ghassan Massoud was fantastic as Salladin. Just the perfect Salladin. It can't be easy to portray one of the greatest warriors in history, but he just sank into it.

The world created, by Arthur Max and the VFX team, is astounding in how real it feels. I could not tell where the sets ended and the SFX began, they were totaly seemless. The place seems real, unlike so many other sets in these epics that don't feel lived in. While there were several geographical inaccuracies, particulaly when it comes to Jerusalem, most of the liberties taken were quite beneficial to the film, and anyway, only people who know the city would notice them.

DP John Mathieson started making up for his horrendous work on Phantom of the Opera with this one. No particulaly bad stuff (though the camera is a bit too boring and predictable early at certain points), and some realy beautiful vista and striking images using smoke and fire (the scene near the begining with the priest and the fire looked entrancing to me).

Score was very good. I wrote some of my opinion in the score thread.

Now, after all that wonderful wallpaper, the core of the movie:

The core of the movie as presented now basically sucks. Maybe the 4 hours version has what is missing, hopefully it'll be restored for us to judge for the DVD (not as deleted scenes, but actually restored). Our hero is not particulaly interesting, goes through little change in the movie, and whatever change does happen is not really explained. His story is clunky, terribley paced, and without the wallpaper, would be quite dreadful. The screenplay (again, as presented at this stage) appears to be a below average one (in a world where avergae means decent, that is). Though the background story holds together extremely well, there is never a solid narrative for our main character. The dialogue is by and large servicable, except when it comes to Salladin, which brings me to my next point:

The film does say interesting things about religion, but, of course, I'll not go into that here. But Scott and Monahan (the writer) did go to great lengths to make Salladin such a likable character, and surprisingly, through an apparant case of bending over backwards, have created a Salladin that seems to be, historicaly speaking, remarkabley accurate for a Hollywood film. He is the wisest, smartest, most moral, most likable character in the movie, and is given the best and most meaningful dialogue.

The film has naturally been compared to Gladiator. IMO, this comparison, though done for obvious reasons, does not really have any relevance, save for the fact that Scott felt compelled to direct both movies. I liked this movie more than Gladiator, but that's because all the wallpaper succeeds so well. Gladiator tried to be Spartacus, and failed. Kingdom of Heaven is trying to be the ideal Troy, meaning- epic battles, one heck of a story as it's setting, a large array of great supporting characters, but not amounting to so much at the end of the day, save for a pretty simple religious message.

The film did have great battle scenes- I got a huge rush when Guy and Reynald attacked the Saracan caravan (that was wonderfuly conceived and shot), and the final battle was pretty exciting, and I found it a lot more interesting visually than Minas Tirith (though not nearly as much as Helm's Deap). And the film does have one heck of a story as it's setting- a fascinating story, that sent me straight to my World Book catching up on my crusades history, and the history of Jerusalem. It did have a large array of great supporting characters (as I mentioned above). It was lacking in it's main story, but even if that were to be perfectly worked out, it still would be a 3 1/2 star movie, never a 4 star movie, where as a Gladiator does have the potential of being a 4 star movie, being mainly about the main story and far, far less about wallpaper. The amazing setting will always make a film much better than a 2 star film, but IMO will never allow for a 4 star film.

Overall, as I said, a 3/4 star film, or 7/10. Scott's talents were kinda wasted. He was not particulaly evident in the movie. I still concider him on a roll of good movies since 2000 (Yes, even Hannibal. That was a great bad movie), but it's a pitty he couldn't hold up the level of excellence he achieved with Black Hawk Down and Matchstick Men.

[Ray Barnsbury 8]

- National Treasure is as doggedly hokey and ham-handed as a Disneyland ride.  

I resent that comparison!

Ray Barnsbury - who went into National Treasure knowing it would be mindless, superficial Bruckheimer fluff and still had a good time

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Alex, thank for proving you're a mindless automaton, who is programmed to respond to the critics.

funny, while there were shots fired in the movie, you know there was never a single gunfight, let alone gunfights...

[A24 4,346]

"Some bad reviews".

- JoeinAr

LOL I'm only trying to put them words of yours in perspective by showing it got more bad reviews than you are willing to believe, that's all.

Alex, thank for proving you're a mindless automaton, who is programmed to respond to the critics.

Wrong assumption, Joe. I made up my mind about National Treasure long before any reviews were available. How shortsighted of you to think that because I like Blade Runner I can't think for myself. At one point, when information became more accessible, I discovered that most of my favorite movies, films that I saw on TV and in cinemas, also happened to be critically acclaimed movies. I watched these movies in the most innocent of ways with no information, non what so ever, about their status.

It just baffles me that a guy like you (who's in his fourties and an avid movie watcher) doesn't get farther than Potter, Temple Of Doom and National Treasure (are you sure you don't like the Star Wars Holiday Special?). Dear Joe, decades go by, but your artistic appreciation doesn't seem to make any progress. It fascinates me that you actually believe that these movies are true art and/or at least much better than a Goodfellas, a Citizen Kane, a L.A. Confidential, a Sunset Boulevard, a Blade Runner, a The Deer Hunter, A Clockwork Orange, a Deliverance, etc, etc.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[dooku77 0]

Eight legged freaks Hopefully some of you score aficianados have seen and heard this one it was originally titled arac attack, funny but bittersweet. I'm also hoping ottman can pull one out of his arse for fantastic 4 has anyone heard his house o wax yet? I hope he doesn't rip off horner and mancini's lifeforce like he did in X2

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

I just watched two episodes of Lost in a row. Now I'm definitely hooked.

Best show since I watched 24 season 2 on BBC. Damn cliffhangers!

[Elmo Lewis 6]

Very true words. What episode are you in?

-Ross, who just watched "Raiser by Another" and is equally hooked.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

The two I watched yesterday were Solitary and... Raised by Another.

I was a bit disappointed with Solitary at first, because I loved that the House of the Rising Sun had so much Korean in it, while in Solarity the Iraqis just spoke English. A missed opportunity I thought at first, but soon enough I just got swept away to not care any more.

And I love Giacchino's work on this show.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

"Some bad reviews".

- JoeinAr

LOL  I'm only trying to put them words of yours in perspective by showing it got more bad reviews than you are willing to believe, that's all.

Dear Joe, decades go by, but your artistic appreciation doesn't seem to make any progress. It fascinates me that you actually believe that these movies are true art and/or at least much better than a Goodfellas, a Citizen Kane, a L.A. Confidential, a Sunset Boulevard, a Blade Runner, a The Deer Hunter, A Clockwork Orange, a Deliverance, etc, etc.

----------------

Alex Cremers

Dear Alex, I don't enjoy gangster films, Goodfellas is a good movie, but nothing of interest to me. Citizen Kane great but boring film, very boring. LA Confidential overrated. Sunset Boulevard, is grand, Blade Runner is a visual treat, but ZERO heart and soul, The Deer Hunter, great movie, but a subject matter that I don't care for. A Clockwork Orange, great movie, seen it dozens and dozens of times.

Deliverance, great movie.

Now Alex, I am calling you out. You seem interested in Kingdom of Heaven, yet you trash National Treasure

So here's the quandry, Natioal Treasure scored a 42% on Rotten Tomato, while Kingdom of Heaven only got a 41%. So since you don't have to eat shit to know it will make you vomit, then I suggest you avoid the shit known as Kingdom of Heaven.

Now Alex, please talk your way out of this one.

[Audax 0]

Just watched the Truman show. I still love it. You really care about Truman and it's just so funny, without being lame. Carey does a good job, he shows his weird side hardly in this movie (that's a big plus ).

Audax

[HPFAN_2 0]

I just saw Hotel Rwanda, and i'm just blown away. What a powerful film, this is a movie that touches every nerve in the body.

It portrays the struggle of the Tutsi refugee in a such a personal way. Paul's character was obviously the most interesting, his drive to save these people and his family was heart wrenching. He put every refugee's life over his, even though he probably didn't know most of their names. Comparisan between him and Schindler will be made. I have to say that while both actions by both men are true highlights of what humanity can offer, Pauls sacrifice to me has that much more to it. Schindler didn't have his Wife and children to look after. Making Paul's sturggle that much more personal.

The film is very well made, the scene in which the U.N. leave is the most powerful to me. Coupled with the silvery mist of the rain and the two brilliantly composed shots of the busses leaving with the faces of the white people looking down on the blacks being left behind at the hotel is moving. The scene moved me some more when the nuns came around the bend with black orphans to get on the buses, the shots of the U.N. soldiers seperating the white nuns and the black children was the climax emotionaly for me. To think that just because these people are black and they are from some little country their lives aren't worth as much as an American, an Italian or citizens of any other country. It's sickening to think of it. I forgot his name (the actor) but the U.N. general who helped Paul delivered to me the best line of the movie. "You could own this Hotel if you wanted, but you're black and you're not even a ni**er ( i dunno if this word is appropriate here) you're an African." These words have such meaning. It pretty much sums up the reasons for the inaction of the countries in the west.

Now for the acting. Don Cheadle was friggin great. Man he realy carried this film, you felt his pain and feelings throughout the entire movie. He is such a great actor.

Hotel Rwanda is a fantastic film and if you don't come close to crying then you have something wrong with you.

[QMM 4]

The commentary I heard has the real Paul on the DVD

[A24 4,346]

So here's the quandry, Natioal Treasure scored a 42% on Rotten Tomato, while Kingdom of Heaven only got a 41%.  So since you don't have to eat shit to know it will make you vomit, then I suggest you avoid the shit known as Kingdom of Heaven.

That's easy, Joe. Where does it show that I have interest in Kingdom of Heaven? Because I forwarded a link to a teaser a long time ago? I did that because many here like Scott and heck, it's a Knights and Battle movie! The only thing I really liked in that teaser (not even a trailer yet) was a short flash of Liam in the woods. I am not sure if I posted my thoughts about the trailer at JWfan but I've been sharing my doubts about this movie for quite some time now (especially about the ordinary filter photography). That doesn't mean that I given up hope that one day Ridley will be back with the eye of the tiger, preferably with a science fiction movie. Damn, 41% is pretty bad score!

By the way, one who doesn't like gangster movies, or starts to exclude genres (except for porn), isn't a true film fan but an "event watcher". Always remember that, Joe, and you will do fine.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[A24 4,346]

Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back. After 25 years I come to the conclusion that the former is the better movie. It's a space/fantasy movie that creates myth in its purest form with all the right elements. It's just there, the story unfolds, without explaining. You get the sense that there's a huge galaxy where the adventures of Luke are just a small footnote. In Star Wars, there is something we cannot grasp. Something that is bigger than us. We feel it but we can't put our finger on it. The universe will continue to exist with or without Luke, Han and Leia. For all we know, something of much greater significance could be happening at the other side of the galaxy, at the very same time as Luke races his spinner back homewards to find the remains of Owen and Beru lying on the ground, or, even, as he destroys the invincible Death Star. These are all minor events from a space-time continuum point of view. All is relative. We only witness a microscopic part of it. It's not even important that we witness it.

Compared to Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back dims down the vast scope and delivers us a full-fledged soap. Before the story begins, Luke's face gets purposely damaged to explain to the audience why his looks are a bit different from how we remember them. Then the film focuses quite some time on the romantic triangle of Luke, Leia, and Han. We learn more about this strange and obscure phenomena named "The Force" through the introduction of a cute green critter that happens to be the expert in these matters. The love nest of the corrupt Lando is the ethereal playground for further intriques. Besides Leia making her amorous decisions, evil itself seems to be a close family member, always handy if you need a shocking cliffhanger. If it weren't for the fantasy sets, much of this could be happening in The Bold And The Beautiful.

However, the second film does excell in acting performances. Harrison Ford, Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher have clearly grown as actors. Someone said that we believe in the muppet Yoda because of Hammill's performance. There might be some truth to that statement. Anyway, the acting reaches its summit and will not be equaled in later Episodes. The characters are warm, sympathetic and human. The film also has more and bigger spaceships. The FX creators demonstrated, with a most impressive meteor shower, that they could provide the audience with a true theme park ride. From now on, building huge Theme Park Rides, each one bigger and better than the last one, will become ILM's main job. Cinema will now be judged by many people on the quality and quantity of Special Effects. Thanks, Lucas. Thank you very much!

----------------

Alex Cremers

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

So what are you saying. ESB is responsible for current FX crap like Van Helsing?

[A24 4,346]

So what are you saying. ESB is responsible for current FX crap like Van Helsing?

No, Star Wars is, because without Star Wars there wouldn't be The Empire Strikes Back. Lucas changed cinema into a theme park. You don't have to act surprised. This is a well-accepted notion. I don't mind though. For every action there's a reaction. Some people will always rebel against the ruling regime (trend).

But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that Star Wars is the better movie of the two.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

I don't mind though.

Oh, alright then.

Actually, I always felt like ESB was the one where we only got a small portion of what was going on. In Star Wars we witness a major event in the civil war, whereas in ESB not much progress is made by either the Alliance or the Empire. Instead it are the characters themselves who make the progress (although there was of course some development in SW as well).

[A24 4,346]

I don't mind though.

Oh, alright then.

Actually, I always felt like ESB was the one where we only got a small portion of what was going on. In Star Wars we witness a major event in the civil war, whereas in ESB not much progress is made by either the Alliance or the Empire. Instead it are the characters themselves who make the progress (although there was of course some development in SW as well).

That's not what I meant. I wasn't talking about the story.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

By the way, one who doesn't like gangster movies, or starts to exclude genres (except for porn), isn't a true film fan but an "event watcher". Always remember that, Joe, and you will do fine.  

I suppose you like all genre of films then? I have never gotten excited about a gangster film, I will watch them (especially event films) I supposed if I had to pick a favorite it would be the Untouchables, even recognising that the Godfather is a better film, I get more enjoyment out of Brian DePalma's film. 'Course thats probably a sin in your eyes Alex.

Star Wars isn't responsible for crap like Van Helsing, the responsibility lies with the filmmakers who misinterpret Star Wars impact. It surprises me that it took Alex 25 years to figure out that Star Wars was the better of the two films, hell even someone as challanged as me, knew it the minute I saw the 2nd film.