With All Due Respect, This is Not a Great Movie !

Rating: 7/10 (3 April 2010)

The important points about this movie are very..
The first of the ones around it; is that overwhelming success. It was incredible to see how the audience declared "war" over the entire hippie, realistic, experimental American cinema, whatever the name of the problem was, which prevailed since the end of the 1960s. And they celebrated a real glossy and entertaining another one. Apparently, this movie returned the word commercial to movies, being Hollywood's perfect revenge out of TV, previous expensive "not hit" movies, or the else illnesses, and the birth of the modern blockbuster as we know right now.
Additionally, I think that (Star Wars) gave the movies such a fundamental influence; which was pushing powerfully the teenagers as the cinematic heroes, and sci-fi to the commercial rank. Yes, Disney movies used the teenager heroes before, but on a short-range and not with a gigantic prosperity, and sci-fi was there, yet artistically. So (Star Wars) paved the way to venturesome leads, who range between 10 and 18 year old, in next sci-fi, or fantasy for that matter, hits. Recall: E.T., The Goonies, Back to the Future.. etc, which defined the ages of the moviegoers for years to come, and manifested that fantastic cinema could be popular and profitable.
Then, the important points "in" it. For one is the combination of the script. It's smart to gather factors of the western legacy, the old world's legends and the sci-fi space adventures. And it clicked. I loved the most that team of: strong mystic knight (Obi-Wan Kenobi), reckless bounty hunter (Han Solo), willful Princess (Leia), heroic immature farmer (Luke Skywalker), English - so devoted - butler (C-3PO), and clever little robot (R2-D2); instead of the mythical animals of the ancient legends. And not to forget the metallic Commander, and magical evil guy (Darth Vader). That selecting of soul, mind, and heart vs. viciousness, coldness, and inhumanity was so creative despite how using them wasn't mostly as creative.
And, these special effects. I believe that was a milestone at its time. The next stops will be (Terminator 2: Judgment Day - 1991) and (The Matrix - 1999).
Let alone that music score. (John Williams) is the one who can make the symphonies so marketable. What I love about him is his understanding when it comes to expressing many themes so passionately. And the way how he gave that plain tale a profound shadows and enthusiastic spirit. He can turn any light cartoon into a Shakespearean epic, with load of credibility and likability. Without his music, this movie could have lost good deal of its personality and prestige.
Away from all of those points, the script wasn't that competent, which is something to be assured of with the next, not written by (George Lucas), sequel. And to hold by your own hands with the next, wholly doomed, wholly written by Lucas, 3 prequels! In this movie, I don't remember a twist or surprise. The thrill wasn't that super. The characters were so comics; namely funny and naive. And I hated points like, for instance, how (Chewbacca) was so unnecessary, rather unused!
I watched it more than once, and I can't deny the feel of bore in some places. For one reason, the dialogue is so-deeply-insightful-it's-uninteresting, seeming so geeky and no entertaining. It's things to be written but not to be said; exactly as (Carrie Fisher) referred to (Lucas) once. And for another, the direction was ordinary; many scenes were tepid and humdrum.
The action sequences weren't the best. The long climactic sequence, of exploding the death star, was yes kind of new image, but surely artificial, monotonous, and lacking any high suspense. Although the lightsabers idea was impressive, but the swordplay wasn't. Generally, the movie relayed more on the cool look more than the smart directing.
Unlike many of the movie's attackers, I didn't hate the acting. It was suitable and fresh. The thing is that script didn't endow these actors with many characteristics, or hard situations to make them enjoyably watchable and deeply effective. (Alec Guinness), (James Earl Jones) and (Harrison Ford) were the winners. (Ford) in particular stole the show. Aside from his wit, the lovable cowboy was absent for years. And simply his character was the more human; the type that will be nonexistent in the prequels. On the other hand, (Mark Hamill) and (Carrie Fisher) lacked charisma, and (Peter Cushing) was wasted to the degree of being unnoticed.
The "New Hope" matter was a new nonsense! I don't know how (Lucas) did that in cold blood? But clearly he did it only for himself. Otherwise, it's a practical lesson in how to toy with an old movie to change and alter, how to irritate viewers by some useless CGI, and how to destroy the history since it makes you totally out of the mood and distracted between the original 1970s's quality and the 1990s's one!
The sequel is way better. Mainly because (Lucas) was out of the writing and the directing. These previous defects, that I mentioned, would be doubled in the next trilogy of prequels; where the script would go down, the action would be so missed, the direction would be downright tedious, the CGI would hugely and provocatively rule as if it's the point, and the acting - sorrowfully - would hit the rock bottom also!
Nostalgia got a big hand in the top rank which (Star War) achieved. No doubt, the viewers of the late 1970s were so thirsty for that substitute dazzlingly-made world, being extremely fed up of countless anti-heroes, needing desperately a portion of sheer noble adventures or good American values. Not the ("Dirty" Harry), not the "British" (James Bond). So they got all the reasons to adore this movie. It looked different and desired for them, unlike someone who watched it in 1998. Because deep down inside, (Star Wars) is averagely entertaining time. And despite my admitting that it has great effects, it is not a great movie in my book.