I do like French cinema, I was being tawdry.

But come now gentlemen, you weren't really thinking you found something deep and artistic about the original trilogy, did you?

This is popcorn, pure self indulgent whiz bang ride on the roller coaster stuff. There is no art other than painting with CGI, is there? I do enjoy seeing what I consider to be state of the art special effects, but your criticisms that there should be something more is wasted on this fluff. No one is expecting Lucas to actually write something profound for "Star Wars," are they? I'm curious. I know that both of you are scholarly (Anduril and Oscar) but you weren't expecting to be overwhelmed by the acting or the great dialogue, were you?

I don't get it.

Where is the great acting in the first film? Mark Hamill looking at the sun set? Or how about his reaction to seeing his "parents" the adults who raised him, as charred remains. He looks down. Great direction! Go back and look at it again. It's awful! Or how about when Leia finds out she's the daughter of Darth Vadar in "Return of the Jedi" ("Yeah, I've always known...") It sucks! Just before Hamill went to film "I am your father!"; Lucas was the one who told him about his real father to get the reaction he wanted, not the director! Lucas was on set that day! Only he and Hamill knew! No one else, until James Earl Jones did the dubbing. He said so last Thursday on Charlie Rose.

It seems to be that a small elitist (and I am not implying anyone at this site, God forbid!) group of critics (i. e. The New Yorker Magazine for one) has chosen this time to find the second trilogy god awful. WHY? They've always been awful. But ask my son why he wants to go. Not for the acting or the art, but to see all the cool spaceships blowing up! Star Wars is the NASCAR of the film circuit! Let's face it, folks. This is a tempest in a teacup.