[joebuck]

"Atkinson further derides the movie as "irrelevant preadolescent dreaming" in a review which seems consumed with an unfulfilled sexual appetite."

What an idiot. Lucas has always explained that Star Wars is INTENDED to be "irrelevant preadolescent dreaming". The series started as Lucas' version of the old "irrelevant preadolescent" movie serials he enjoyed as a child. Obvoiusly the viewing public has very much enjoyed this "irrelevant preadolescent dreaming". Star Wars has never claimed or sought to be anything else. To criticize a film and director for being exactly what was intended is disingenuous. It's pretty obvious that this reviewer's problem isn't with this movie, it's with the whole "star wars" thing in general. The writer just doesn't have the guts, or intellectual honesty, to admit it.

[Enterprise]

I can't imagine just what in hell the libs want here! Do they expect Princess Leia or Senator Amidala to do strip teases and jump into bed with all the different aliens? Can't a story be told of women and men who are part of a grand sweeping adventure without assuming they are promiscuous, or that somehow, they are supposed to be? You're right - what MISERABLE PATHETIC IDIOTS!

[spetznaz]

And do you know what! Had Lucas decided to include explicit sexual acts in the film this same critic would have written a scathing report on how the movie is awash with moral decay!

It seems all these critics do is criticise movies, when they themselves could not do even half as well if given a chance. Critics is one facet of work that can truly, and should honestly, be eliminated.

Just the other day i was reading his dimwit criticise SpiderMan for being 'too cartoony.' Puh-lease!!!!! SpiderMan is cartoonish because it IS based on a CARTOON! What did he expect them to do, dress spidey is a tux and have him travel by driving a sports car? And maybe adopt a Brit accent and prefer shaken martinis?