RateItAll.com - The Opinion Network
1) Find and share opinions on anything; 2) Publish your own ratings list and share it on any site; 3) Make a little money

Shop

Powered by Yahoo!
Tags for Prequel Trilogy (Episodes I - III - 1999 - 2005) (Browse Tags)

Ratings Breakdown

  • 2
  • 2
  • 1
  • 4
  • 1

Hottest Topics

Hottest Weblists

Prequel Trilogy (Episodes I - III - 1999 - 2005)Get Rating Widget!

Overall Rating:3.00 based on 10 ratings
(Add picture or description)

Your rating:     (Roll over your star rating, then click) (5=Great)
Notify me by email when someone comments on my review
Notify me by email when someone reviews this item
 

Reviews for Prequel Trilogy (Episodes I - III - 1999 - 2005)  1-8 OF 8

Browse next item:
Sort items by:
REVIEWERRATING & REVIEW
AntonChigurh (1)
07/05/2008
I think there is simply too much nostalgia and memories in the original trilogy to which Star Wars was built up to a Camelot like legend. With these prequels you had 38 year olds going into the movies expecting to be taken in a time machine to 1978...that's asking too much. Not all the Lucasfilm magic can do that. Still the Phantom Menace did drag despite Ewan McGregor's flawless Obi Wan but Christopher Lee as the evil Count Dooku in Attack Of The Clones got the ball really rolling. And Revenge Of The Sith had the most action out of any Star Wars movie and also was the saddest to see Obi-Wan and Anakin who shared a brotherly love fighting to the death at the end. This is when internet geeks started rating movies on websites in droves. They even have sites designed for them to complain about films. Of course nowadays you have these 15 year old high school freshmen typing on their computers that mommy bought them for their birthday how much Steven Speilberg sucks.

  (1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree)
RichardMarshal (7)
07/05/2008
I thought these films were very good in some parts but long and unintersting in large spots. George obviously doesn't put any effort into making an elegant script - he's worse in the prequels than in the originals. He continues to dissappoint his actors. George paid more attention to special effects than to actually making a good film. He approached the films casually and it shows. George Lucas doesn't really care that Star Wars was ruined. He thought the whole Star Wars thing was lousy after the first few days of shooting Episode IV, anyways, but he was determined to get the job done. Why would he put a great deal of effort into Episode I? He wants people to like his films but I don't believe he's surprised that so many people don't - neither does he care a great deal.

  (0 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree)
Humorbot (21)
02/06/2008
Not cool. Star Wars is now ruined.

  (0 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree)
ILikePie (48)
06/01/2007
Although not quite up to the standard of the excellent OT, the PT still offers many great moments of cinema, as well as using some amazing CGI. It is good to get to know the story of Darth Vader a little better, and also we get to know the origins of other parts of the SW saga, such as Yoda and Darth Sidious.
Usually in terms of trilogy quality, this would be worthy of five stars, but for the sake of this PT vs OT argument, I will only give it four so to prove the OT's superiority

  (4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree)
FranksWildYears (47)
05/28/2007
The second trilogy suffers a bit under the weight of its pretensions but is extremely well produced and gorgeous looking. It has a bit of difficulty trying to serve its vast audience of 7 year olds and 47 year olds alike but pulls it off fairly effectively. The story arc is very clever, going back in time to get to the middle of the story. Althought they rush to fill in the gaps between the prequel and the first series it is a neat trick to see where story elements that are referenced in "A New Hope" get explaned 25+ years later in the final chapter. Like the first series it suffers from wooden acting, probably the result of having to stand still in front of the green screen so much to enable the CGI animators to fill in the screen. Hayden Christiansen is over his head as an actor trying to carry the gravity of his role and comes of as poutty instead of tormented. Natalie Portman improves from silly in the first film to sexy prop in the second but is reduced to the point of plot necessity by the third film. The only actor who doesn't completely embarrass himself would be Ewan McGregor, although Samuel L. Jackson does OK.

  (2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree)
irishgit (135)
05/28/2007
It is a telling indictment of many modern movies, and the fans thereof, that the "debate" here turns on where the special effects were better.

Ok, they were better in the Prequel. Big whoop.

The story, acting, directing, characterizations, dialogue, etc is vastly superior in the original trilogy.

The advent of CGI has made far too many directors abandon their craft for cheap (well expensive, but you know what I mean) visual thrills, at the expense of any character development or plausible script.

The prequels aren't the worst movie examples of this trend, but they're up there.

  (5 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree)
numbah16tdhaha (144)
05/27/2007
Overall, it lacked the magic of the original, but it had the best duels.

  (5 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree)
acegamer24 (2)
05/27/2007
The special effects are vastly superior to the original, the depth and scope of the star wars universe is really felt in the prequel

  (2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree)
1-8 OF 8View All
Add a rating badge for Prequel Trilogy (Episodes I - III - 1999 - 2005) to your site!
Add a rating badge to your site!
test