>>> “..... a film with comic-book characters, an unbelievable story, no political or social commentary, lousy acting, preposterous dialogue, and a ridiculously simplistic morality. In other words, a bad movie.”
Who could live without a NYTimes/New Yorker “renowned” film critic? (I’ll be the first one to raise both of my hands)
Wny does even every film need to be gritty, amoral, ideology-driven, or completely dry but edgy/profound dialog?
The same critic probably praised the “Tomorrowland” to no end, is my guess.
I actually liked “Tomorrowland”, script could have been better but the overall theme of the film was really good.
I wasn’t even in my teens when i saw the first movie in 1977. It was different & had some action. Visually it was interesting; never over-analyzed the movie or its ‘deep & meaningful’ message, if any... it was entertaining.
Then again in the 80’s it had an influence on pop-culture and political scene at least in title. Remember President Reagan’s SDI which involved the development of defense in outer space against intercontinental ballistic missiles was called “Star Wars”.
“ridiculously simplistic morality”
There’s the reason the critics hate it. Take everything away, and it’s a story about good vs evil, and good triumphs.
Liberals can’t admit evil. It forces the inevitable look in the mirror.
I’m more of a Trek guy but the Star Wars series is ok. It has always reminded me of a middle ages tale.
Apart from the bit about political/socialist commentary, the same thing could be said about An Inconvenient Trufe!!!