"Star Wars" is perhaps the most successful movie franchise of the 20th century. From movie ticket sales alone, it has made George Lucas a very wealthy man. Add the toys, games, t-shirts and other merchandise and it should establish Lucas as part of history. A person has just got to start wondering how this movie ever become so incredibly profitable. Although this movie is watchable and even innovative, I really cannot put "Star Wars" in the same categories as impressionable films like "Sunset Boulevard", "Stagecoach", "Casablanca", "The Bridge On The River Kwai" and even "Pulp Fiction".
My reason for saying that pertains to one factor, director George Lucas. Although many would argue, I think that Lucas is not a good director. He always seems to be lacking focus with Star Wars' story, in which was almost the case with "American Graffiti" (Thankfully, he didn't). I'm very impressed with the innovative visual effects of "Star Wars" as I am with any film afterwards that ever utilized it justifiably in connection with the certain film's story (it's sequel, "The Empire Strikes Back" is much better in many aspects). Unfortunately, outside of it's visual delights, it just doesn't have anything that other films hadn't already shown (even if this was made for children). From the whole "boy leaves home" beginning (Mickey Rooney has done it before with more feeling) to it's much appreciated "bar room scene" (straight out of many westerns and even some war themed films), there isn't anything we haven't seen before. Although the whole galactic twist on which the movie is based is totally original, majority of the ideas are still pretty much re-hashed from greater films (Kurosawa's "Hidden Fortress", Errol Flynn/Michael Curtiz movies, etc.).
To re-evaluate, the bad parts consists of lack of originality. The idea's, topic's and situations' originality in which a film's greatness lies are sadly missing. The good parts which are visual design in terms of special effects and costumes definitely proves it's place in being a great landmark picture. I just don't recognize it as the one of the greats. This reaction could be the result of years of watching movies again and again and unexpectedly realizing a certain film's depth and lasting capabilities. A good, not great movie full of innovation yet lacking any depth that is only realized when seen again.
My reason for saying that pertains to one factor, director George Lucas. Although many would argue, I think that Lucas is not a good director. He always seems to be lacking focus with Star Wars' story, in which was almost the case with "American Graffiti" (Thankfully, he didn't). I'm very impressed with the innovative visual effects of "Star Wars" as I am with any film afterwards that ever utilized it justifiably in connection with the certain film's story (it's sequel, "The Empire Strikes Back" is much better in many aspects). Unfortunately, outside of it's visual delights, it just doesn't have anything that other films hadn't already shown (even if this was made for children). From the whole "boy leaves home" beginning (Mickey Rooney has done it before with more feeling) to it's much appreciated "bar room scene" (straight out of many westerns and even some war themed films), there isn't anything we haven't seen before. Although the whole galactic twist on which the movie is based is totally original, majority of the ideas are still pretty much re-hashed from greater films (Kurosawa's "Hidden Fortress", Errol Flynn/Michael Curtiz movies, etc.).
To re-evaluate, the bad parts consists of lack of originality. The idea's, topic's and situations' originality in which a film's greatness lies are sadly missing. The good parts which are visual design in terms of special effects and costumes definitely proves it's place in being a great landmark picture. I just don't recognize it as the one of the greats. This reaction could be the result of years of watching movies again and again and unexpectedly realizing a certain film's depth and lasting capabilities. A good, not great movie full of innovation yet lacking any depth that is only realized when seen again.