I liked 1-3 because interesting things happened, but the acting wasn't very good. I agree with other posters on R1, but I didn't like 7 as much--felt like they basically remade 4 to get some nostalgia-based approval
That was my thought, as well. Oh, another Death Star thing with another fatal flaw that can be exploited by one person. Let's bring the orphan from the desert planet.
My favorite part of 2 was the ending where they used a torpedo to shoot Spock's body to the Genesis planet. I love Amazing Grace on the bagpipes. -Tenny
I feel like Lucas focused on the wrong relationship for 1-3. Rather than focusing on Anakin's relationship with Padme, more emphasis should've been placed on Anakin's relationship with Obi Wan. Their Jedi relationship/adventures as Master and apprentice would've been much more appealing, objectively a better story, less cheesy overall, and would have made episode III's betrayal much more theatric and emotionally wrenching while fully portraying the divide in Anakin's morals that were instilled in him and their flaws.
But he had to build up the relationship with the girl, because that's what gets him to go to the Dark Side.
I watch movies for the story, not the acting. World class acting can't make a bad story good. So I can't relate to the "acting" reason for not liking them.
There is much truth here, more than you probably realize. How many of us recognize "good acting" when we see it?
And that relationship is easy to build. Guy likes girl because she's pretty, gets her pregnant, finds out she's going to die due to pregnancy, and, bam, story made. So many hours put into that relationship that were unnecessary when a better story occurred right alongside it without any exposure.
I saw the Off Broadway production of Driving Miss Daisy when visiting NY on a senior trip in high school. Morgan Freeman was in it. It was basically him & whoever played Miss Daisy and a couple of chairs on the stage. Was the best pure acting I've witnessed, and I had that impression as an 18 year old that would have much rather been running around NY that watching a low budget play. We also saw Cats. It was ok. On a later trip where I helped chaperone 8th graders on a NY trip my first year teaching, we saw the rock opera Tommy. I liked it better than Cats. I mean who doesn't like The Who? However, the cheap production of Driving Miss Daisy kicked the shit out of both of them from a pure acting point of view.
Disagree. If you are noticing the acting, you aren't committed to the story. That's an attention problem. That's why "the book was better than the movie" is a constant refrain: because those people were fully committed to the story, and the acting was in their head. None of those people are good actors, so why was the play in their mind so much better?
I describe good acting as a performance in which you completely forget that the character and actor are completely separate people, that there is a script, and that the situation is really taking place in a studio. Bad dialogue delivery or writing hurts things the most. The presence of not readily understandable/definable emotional reactions is a powerful 2-edged sword that makes or breaks things. Because that is how people really are- complex and unpredictable. Completely cardboard, child-like emotional responses doom performances though, so you have to risk the 2-edged sword. No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood are two good examples where pretty much every role was well-acted. Actually, Daniel Day Lewis really only does great acting. He doesn't seem to know how to do anything else. Being a weirdo in real life seems to aid in wielding the double-edged sword of complex emotional response.
