Profiteer George Lucas Cares Not Against Artistic Distaste

Rating: 4/10 (2 July 2011)

I have heard a lot of people criticize it because their expectations were not coincided with, the generation of devotees were sadly in tears due to the continuity errors with their franchise they devoted towards and I have also just heard it's pop corn entertainment; however, the movie, while yes it does fit the bill with those things is not really what makes it fail. What makes it fail is its target audience - what was this movie actually geared towards? Kids?... From what I have seen the movie fails to even appeal to a single kid, as kids really enjoy political disputes in such times of turbulence; do you think kids even give a monkeys about a blockade stopping trade routes to Naboo? Even though the movie contradicts the fact that they're against Naboo and want to destroy it notwithstanding that, even though all Naboo have is an imperial(played by the great Brian Blessed) living underneath a dome in the water.
Is the movie for Adults? Well, not really... Jar Jar, to exemplify, is family friendly; however, he is an unwholesome brute, who is superficial and has the grimace and voice of an African-esque figure; perhaps not coincidental as he is a slave to the Gungans and Boss Nass, so Lucas gets trumped there. Yes adult debates take place, but it falls under a really pimped out kids movie; you got the young whipper snapper Anakin (Played by Jake Lloyd) who is the remarkable young man with a special forte for manufacturing pods, he is a nuisance. Who is this movie for? Star Wars fans absolutely went to the streets with it. Do you know what the movie was geared towards? Profiteering in the hope that this coverage could prove George Lucas has got this miraculous talent and that it only lies as an undercurrent; true art shouldn't need to be thought of through marketing. Eye candy? Yes, it is Eye Candy, but so are many other Sci-Fi movies like Blade Runner (1984), Alien (1978), one of my favorite directors "2001: A Space Odyssey" (1968) while they're not intrinsically eye candy, they're visually impressive... heck, even Black Lagoon was visually impressive and so was Forbidden Planet... what distinguishes it from these movies? The fact that the movie is not even visually pleasing. Eye candy is quite derogatory, however, but the word hyphen basically indicates that it's attractive, yet not interesting a tall; this movie is not even attractive; it's a hodgepodge of disjointed cutscenes.
The movie only resonated with me in the vignette of "Duel of the Fates" in which the chopped up, orchestrated ensemble fight against Maul with Qui Gon and Obi Wan happens; Palpatine (Darth Sidious played by Ian McDiarmid) doesn't fight them because he knows in folklore the good guy always triumphs? Heck, if he was there, Obi Wan would have been potentially killed and it would have stopped the string of sequels... However, the potential of death wasn't even present here. I was 5 years old when this movie was launched into the mainstream theater. I could not remember the midichlorians, Coruscant or any of the scenes in the Pod Race (the most boring thing ever), all I remembered was the fight scene, and being annoyed when George kept segueing away from that as if to establish cross-cutting; I swear the only reason I tolerated Jar Jar when I was little was because he was there; that was all.
The whole story is bent on showing you this sanctimonious kid getting debased as a bigger threat; perhaps this movie shouldn't have been made. It has things that are "all right" in among the naked scenes that were so woeful they make you want to poke your eyes out. It's like Batman - I do appreciate Nolan's "Dark Knight" for how lavish it was and for its story arch; however Batman is looked at further in as to what drives him to the motivation determining his unceasing vigilante ways; in "Batman" (1989) The Joker is the more focal character, where we can only wonder what this does to Batman by the cause and effects that interlock with the story. However, Tim Burton's version happens to be my favorite because I see why it was given that approach - this black, cloaked, deeply confused and ethically troubled human being does not need to wear a badge of honor; he needs to follow a code that enables him to detect and identify those who matter.
I think Darth Vader, this enigma didn't need and could have been given ANY backstory apropos his time in the past and instead he is given the most physically sickening story that takes the elements from "The Wizard of Oz", "Pinnochio", "Charlie and The Chocolate Factory" and "Little Man Tate" to apply this to a sugarcoated "complexity" that this altruistic little Cherubic boy is nothing more then this... yes, leaving nothing to the imagination of any intertextualised bad guy and totalitarian of the darkside; no, no, we'll let him be degraded by being taken away from the slave trade and becoming a jedi too old to be trained! Good lord, I know why he countered the Light Side of The Force - It's because nobody respects him as a human being!
However, I have researched into Mike J. Nichols' "Phantom Edit" which is a really interesting assessment to transvalue with the other version. J. Nichols admits that he can't totally get rid of everything in order to give this movie life because we're acutely aware that there are important plot points; however, he gets rid of that behemoth in the sea that pays homage to the other movies because, like all others, we know it's not necessary.
Also, Lucas is utilizing certain past conventional methodologies in these movies, and yet he fails to communicate the myth of Star Wars. Characters under an alliance to take over the sennet - not trade routes and mind washing Anakin!