> I find it interesting how, even after the "Why don't you people listen to film critics?" message thread, nearly everyone is anticipating seeing Star Wars Episode 2 despite the overwhelming evidence that the movie shall suck.

Heheh. I think it's a little different in this case. Episode II is part of a single story that people know the beginning AND the end of. At minimum, half of the six episodes are fantastic. So as far as whether one goes to see the next piece of a story people are already interested in and excited about, it hardly matters whether that piece is "good" or not.

> In fact, the best thing I've heard about the movie is that it's supposed to be better than Episode 1. (As our resident New Zealander said yesterday: "Smashing a brick against your head is better than Episode 1." ...)

Her opinion isn't mine. I liked Episode I and don't understand why Episode I is so hated. It *is* inferior to the original trilogy, however, and the woodenness of the characters is bothersome. If the dialogue had the restlessness and attitude as in the first trilogy, I don't think I'd have had any problems with it at all.

Unfortunately that's a big problem, and the most depressing thing I've heard about Episode II is that, better than Episode I or not, it STILL features wooden, lifeless dialogue.

> When it comes to CGI being used in movies and television, I'm more likely to gloss over mistakes and imperfections. Saying a movie is bad because the newest animation technique doesn't seemlessly blend the animated with the live action is like saying Jason and the Argonauts was bad because the skeletons were obviously the products of stop-motion animation.

I think the problem, as he saw it, was not "the CGI is bad" but "the CGI is unbelievable." The former is a technical issue. The latter is a problem that negatively impacts tension and suspension of disbelief, which is essential to a movie like "Spiderman." King Kong and Jason and the Argonauts, by way of illustration, both possess very obvious effects -- and yet, somehow, they are more believable and, indeed, nightmarish, than just about anything I've seen for computer animation.

Not that I'm saying Ebert's right about Spiderman. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I suspect he's wrong, and now I'm even more interested in seeing the movie and seeing for myself. At any rate, that's where he's coming from.

> But when it comes to dialogue being clunky, lines read as if the characters "seem more like lawyers than the heroes of a romantic fantasy", that I am less likely to forgive.

And whether the complaint is "bad special effects" or "unbelievable special effects," I completely agree with you here: this is a far worse problem than either.

What I don't understand is why Ebert forgave that same problem in Episode I. The dialogue was clunky there, too. That was its whole problem. *shrug*