Why all the hype - its not that good

Rating: 5/10 (12 June 2002)

The strength of the early star wars films was the novelty and the acting. The heavy reliance on CGI for episodes 1 and 2 mean that the acting has taken second place and there is no novelty value as we know how the story turns out and there are very few new characters in episode 2.
I saw the film with someone who has never seen the original trilogy, but has seen a tape of episode 1. This means they don't know how the story turns out. However, they simply weren't enthralled the way we all were 25 years ago.
That's not to say the film isn't fun, but it drags a bit in places and I found myself wanting the boredom to end with a bit more action. However, the action is not always that well done with some continuity problems.
I seem to one of the only reviewers who liked episode 1, as there was novelty and good acting. There is neither in episode 2, and Ewan McGregor in particular fails to convince. I agree with another reviewer that Yoda is the best actor, but even this role has changed since the early films. I suspect Yoda was not CGI in the seventies and the added texture of a muppet made for a more convincing screen presence.
Episode 3 will have to be very very good, with less CGI and more acting to convince me that these prequels have been worth the hype. Incidentally, it is worth remembering that the acting in the early pictures came from relatively unknown thespians, if one forgets Sir Alec Guinness and Peter Cushing. Perhaps Mr Lucas should take this into account when casting episode 3. Famous luvvies do not always make a good picture.