(yes, even the originals) is pretty bad. Come with me, my padawan, as we journey through the internal chronology to discover the poopiness of the Force!
• “The taxation of trade routes to the outlying star systems is in dispute.” Zzzzzzzzz…
• The immaculately-conceived (!!!) young Anakin doesn’t seem overly concerned about leaving his slave-Mom behind on Tatooine, typical of the stilted relationships in these films.
• Boy, Jedi sure have bad hair.
• The discomfiting Watto
may not have been intentionally designed as an anti-Semitic stereotype, but he sure comes off as such.• And of course, Jar-Jar Binks
. A CGI personification of George Lucas’ isolation in a universe of Yes-Men (nobody suggested to him this character was a bad idea?), JJ isn’t funny or endearing, he’s annoying (and yes, offensive) enough to make C-3PO
seem bearable. 
EPISODE II: ATTACK OF THE CLONES
• Enter the immensely dislikable teen Anakin, whose saving grace is that he sounds like Christopher Walken (imagine if Lucas had Walken re-dub James Earl Jones’ dialogue as Vader!).
• The love scenes between Anakin
and Padme
are cheesier than any romance novel. • The term, “younglings” is introduced, presumably to make their extermination in the next film a bit more semantically palpable than “Anakin killed all the baby Jedi!”
• Is Palpatine’s secret identity of Darth Sidious
really supposed to be a mystery? • Despite a valiant attempt on the FX crew to make the light saber duel between Yoda
and Count Dooku
not look silly…. It looks really silly. 
• The opening battle over Coruscant is endemic of Lucas’ compulsive drive to fill every frame with sensory overload: too many ships, too many droids, too many explosions, too much music. Make head hurt.
• R2-D2
uses a cell phone? • More shmoopy dialogue between Anakin and Padme. “Hold me like you did by the lake on Naboo, so long ago when there was nothing but our love!” These characters are as inherently annoying as the homecoming queen and her angry jock boyfriend, a regime that happily never lasts.
• Ultimately, the obviously manic-depressive Anakin is willing to go to the Dark Side because of little more than a bad dream. If they’d have had anti-depressants a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, this whole mess could’ve been avoided.
• As always, the climax is amazingly unsatisfying. A perfunctory, mostly dialogue-free montage gives exposition and ties up loose ends (“Have the protocol droid’s mind wiped.”), setting the stage for Episode IV, but there’s no heft. The final shot should’ve been Vader and the Emperor looking at the Death Star
construction and gloating over the destruction of the Jedi. Instead we get Owen and Beru looking at the sunset. Sunsets. Suns-set? Whatever. 
• Luke Skywalker
: The whiniest hero in pop culture history (he is his father’s son). • I’m sorry, but Darth Vader
… is silly looking. With his little silver button nose, chicken wire respirator, chest control panel (why didn’t anyone ever just throw a rock at this thing and end his evil reign?) and a belt that evokes a cell-clip-wearing uncle, he makes me chuckle. • Greedo
shoots first. Sheesh. • They couldn’t squeeze in one minute for Princess Leia
to mourn her entire PLANET after the Death Star destroys Alderaan? No, “We have no time for our sorrows.” Besides, our screenwriter is inept at conveying human emotion!• As part of the complete continuity, the film suffers from Obi-Wan
’s seeming senility. Despite saving Luke from the Sand People (by waving his arms and shouting?), Kenobi doesn’t seem like he’s been spending the past 20 years watching over the titular New Hope. Obi-Wan doesn’t even seem to remember his Jedi name! • Oboy, a Leni Riefenstahl homage as climax!
• The stop motion Tauntauns look like something Hermey the Elf would ride.
• Luke and Leia’s smooch is creepy even without knowing they’re siblings (when is George gonna digitally erase that saliva string?).
• Apparently, Jango Fett
was the worst shot in the galaxy, as the stormtroopers (assuming they’re clones of the bounty hunter) couldn’t hit the side of a Sandcrawler. • More retcon problems: Why doesn’t R2-D2 recognize Yoda? Why does Yoda have to tell Obi-Wan “there is another?” And since Palpatine told Vader that he’d killed the pregnant Padme, when did Darth discover he had a son?
• The muppet-like aliens are comically unbelievable. Jabba’s Gamorrean guards
seem as threatening as the Great Gonzo. The Sarlacc looks straight outta “Little Shop of Horrors.” • Artoo’s circular saw extension is as ludicrous as Bat-Shark-Repellant.
• More awkwardly scripted drama: “Luke, you have a sister.” “No shit. Bet it’s Leia.” I’m paraphrasing, but this important plot point is revealed with no impact whatsoever.
• Ewoks
suck. Also, Endor’s primitive forest world is a very unspectacular setting for the climax of a series that’s called “STAR Wars.” • Why does every single episode end with people just kinda standing around? There’s not one good final line in any one of these movies, which speaks volumes about the lack of importance placed on dialogue.
Okay, I grant that some of these beefs are more with the state of technology than anything else, and I could forgive the muppet-esque aliens if everything surrounding them didn't likewise feel as fleshed out as an episode of SESAME STREET. I also realize that so-called “Expanded Universe” stories in other media have filled in some of these blanks and even fleshed out the cardboard characterizations, but the movies need to stand on their own. And, with the possible exception of ESB, they don’t. Still, Lucas acolytes worship the series with a forgiving, religious fervor that frankly baffles me. I realize that writing this piece may put a bounty on my head. I hope they send Bossk
. He’s funny. _________________________________________________
ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED in GEEK MONTHLY #4, May 2007
” is an acronym for Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, the comic book – cartoon – action figure – movie phenomenon spawned in that most awesomely plastic of decades, the 1980s. When the Turtles last blasted across the silver screen, they were foam and latex puppets and costumes worn by little people. In the new film, they are, naturally, CGI creations. Not that anyone ever thought Michelangelo, Donatello, et al were actual flesh and shell beings, but the updated Turtles raise the question: What’s more believable? An actual, if artificial construct… or a computer generated image? 
” debuted in 1933, Willis O’Brien’s startling effects of the stop-motion ape climbing the Empire State Building stunned audiences. They had simply never seen something so fantastic interacting with the everyday. To look at the film today, the stop motion animal is more quaint than terrifying, with its jerky movement and visible handprints of the manipulating animators on its fur. But for diehard fans, the original remains the quintessential Kong, despite (or, depending on your sensibilities, because of) its technical limitations. 
made headlines by attempting to use an actual full size Kong robot. In the end, the 40-foot, 1.7 million dollar behemoth was stiffer than the 1933 puppet, getting a full minute of screen time. So the filmmakers ended up going with make-up / effects creator Rick Baker in a monkey suit, which looked like, well, an actor in a monkey suit (especially since he didn’t bother to stoop like an ape when he walked). 
” (2005). Ostensibly an ode to the original 1933 film, Jackson’s epic was chock full of giant and/or icky movie monsters and a scarred, dinoflea-ridden, fully realized Kong (played in motion-capture by Andy Serkis). And while the film was visually dazzling, many critics felt that it was TOO much, particularly in the scenes on Skull Island, populated with dozens, nay, hundreds of digital creatures. Jackson seemed to fall victim to Lucasitis: an overwhelming inflammation of too many digital effects, culminating in a lack of focus and often leading to eyestrain or headaches and an overall lack of emotional connection. In the end, Jackson’s “Kong” did okay, but wasn’t as enthralling (nor emotional) as its inspiration. 
” (1989), “
” (1991) and “
” (1999), but it wasn’t until Ang Lee’s “
” that the humanoid star of a movie was computer generated (no, “Casper” doesn’t count). While the general public had accepted the bodybuilt but still human Lou Ferrigno as Bill Bixby’s angry alter-ego in the “
” TV show of the 1970s, the comic book basis was in fact a far more imposing creature, a tank-sized beast that couldn’t even find pants at the Big & Tall Shop (especially not in purple). But, despite a gargantuan size, the bigger, badder movie Hulk failed to connect with an audience. A convoluted, overly serious script was primarily to blame, but could the fact that the Hulk wasn’t “real” have had something to do with it? 
.” In the Marvel Comics universe, the Thing and the Hulk are about the same size, and have gone green-toe-to-orange-toe many times. In the movies, Michael Chiklis buried under makeup just isn’t as imposing (nor as tragic) as the character needs to be. Especially considering the character’s lack of human flesh and hair (two of the hardest things to realistically animate), the Thing’s rocky form seems to beg for the CG treatment (after all, both the flamed-on Human Torch and the Silver Surfer are fully CG in the upcoming “
” sequel).
” is in a way a curious example movie effects coming full circle. In the 
of the 1940s, when the Man of Steel (played by Kirk Alyn) would take flight, the live action Superman would suddenly be replaced with a crudely animated character. That obvious cartoon has very little in common with the sophisticated CGI Superman used in many flying shots in “Returns.” Still, while audiences knew that computer graphics were being used, it was the combination of those shots with actual physical effects of Brandon Routh on cables and gimbals that made it work. If you don’t know which shots are “fake” and which are “real,” it becomes easier to get lost in the sum total. 
.” That movie drew audiences to the theater with promise of making you believe, for the first time, that a man could fly, and it did, with nary a computer involved.