comments seem to be only extremes

Rating: Null/10 (28 November 2000)

All I see are rave reviews and slams for this movie. None of you get it. I seriously doubt that that many of you genuinely love this movie. Your eyes are clouded by its popularity and because your friends and just about everybody likes it. On the other hand to write it off as terrible with a blanket statement is a pretentious way of trying to establish oneself as an artsy person who really gets it.
To judge this movie accurately you must first realize that it is philosophically deep as a mud puddle. It is not about art. It is about creating a world and putting you in it. From the standards of the time it did this very well with special effects. Now many of these effects look very fake (the cardboard box and PVC gun turret on the death star) Also many of the scene changes look dated. Datedness is inevitable for any movie, so to criticize a film based on this is to criticize practically the whole media.
Instead the way to address the film is to find the distinguishing feature which has totally altered the movie industry. Off the top of their head a cynic would say that budgets have been forced up because other movies have to meet the special effects standards set by Star Wars. This in turn has made independent low budget film go way underground. This is true to some extent, but by this reasoning any movie with advanced special effects would have done the same, and it was bound to happen anyway. In terms of plot to explosions ratio Star Wars isn't that bad. A devout Star Wars fan would say, 'Well, duh Star Wars'
My response to both is that what was new about Star Wars and still makes it good viewing today is not shiny new visual effects, but having a futuristic world with advanced technology and still having disgraceful examples of that technology. I will call this concept jalopies in space. The idea of craft like the Millennium Falcon with technology to go light speed being held together with duct tape and rubber bands is why Star Wars is still relevant today. The feel of the beat up helmets, which the wing men wear, or Han Solo's 'just hit it with a hammer' attitude were a new way of presenting the future. (Yes I realize that the story is set long,long ago, but it is still a representation of a more technologically advanced society than ours, so for purposes of this review its the future)
The dirty feel of the technology has very much affected the feel of science fiction movies. Prior to this, although a technologically advanced society might be morally degenerate in a 1984 novel sort of way, the technology would have no chance of malfunctioning unless it wanted to kill people. Also the jalopie feel of the movie is not an attempt at comic relief. It is an attempt at realism that works well. The dirty feel of the film also applies to other genres to a lesser degree. In the 90's computer generated effects have been knitted into all genres. You know the look of these graphics: too clean, too smooth. Having a too perfect look is good if that is what one is aiming at otherwise it's not so good. A realistically rough look can be applied to any visual media.
This realism makes perfect sense. It is the sort of thing that cannot be replaced with shiny new computer graphics. I do wonder how much of the jalopies in space feel of the movie was intentional. In the special edition rerelease Tatooine is computer generated and looks really clean. A one horse planet shouldnÕt be clean. On the other hand the damaged rebel clothing and helmets had to be intentional, because it would be easier to get a matched set of new looking helmets or clothing than a beaten up look. In terms of Episode I being clean this makes sense because it represents a period of time when the universe is economically stable and deals with affluent classes.
My final recommendation is to see this movie regardless of who you are, because it is referenced ALOT. Of course you have probably already seen it multiple times, because I only know two people who havenÕt.