Honestly I plan on seeing the movie now. I have seen it in redbox a few times but always thought "eh".

Attack the block is from 2011 though...

Still a very cool movie that isn't afraid to have its "heroes" do some pretty sh*tty stuff.

I didn't see it till last year.

I just got back from renting it.

As for saying a 'B movie'... I would have been better served in saying that I never remembered seeing it at the theaters here in the states. A buddy of mine recommended it and well... Good flick.

Max von Sydow. = Gilad Pellaeon

Has to be!

I thought this too! It would be great to see him show up.

You pitiful fool! My life is not for any Earthling to give or take!

ALLOW IT

The big exciting part of this for me is Andy Serkis. Honestly, I'm glad that I don't know who anybody is. It's how the original trilogy did it, and I'm fine with that.

Also, I disagree with the earlier assessment of Hayden Christensen. When Samuel L. Jackson and Natalie Portman aren't giving good performances either, you can't complain about the guy just 'cause he was the main character.

The big exciting part of this for me is Andy Serkis. Honestly, I'm glad that I don't know who anybody is. It's how the original trilogy did it, and I'm fine with that.

Also, I disagree with the earlier assessment of Hayden Christensen. When Samuel L. Jackson and Natalie Portman aren't giving good performances either, you can't complain about the guy just 'cause he was the main character.

Can we just agree that the prequels all sucked. There might have been a fight scene or two that was cool and it looked really slick, but overall they sucked. Hayden was the worst but he also had the worst lines.

Can we just agree that the prequels all sucked. There might have been a fight scene or two that was cool and it looked really slick, but overall they sucked. Hayden was the worst but he also had the worst lines.

They totally sucked. I just don't agree with the idea that Hayden Christensen was somehow part of the reason it sucked. Because, again, if Natalie Portman and Samuel L. Jackson suck, a not-as-good-but-still-fine actor isn't not going to suck.

That's not entirely true, Christopher Lee and Ian McDiarmid were amazing and I will gladly watch them chew the hell out of some CGI scenery.

Can we just agree that the prequels all sucked.

No. Can we just agree that we all probably got something different out of them?

For me it was world-building on an unprecedented scale. For me there is still nothing that beats them for grounding the SW galaxy in a context I could relate to while simultaneously giving it almost unfathomable depth. I could give a crap about the acting and the dialogue, I got a galaxy to play in.

The big exciting part of this for me is Andy Serkis.

I'll agree with that, it was a surprise, but a very welcome one. I've seen him in a couple other things than LotR/Hobbit, and he has excellent talent. And frankly, I think he carried a lot of LotR, without his channelling of Gollum it would have been a fantastic looking but totally rambling and non-sensical spectacle.

Can we just agree that the prequels all sucked. There might have been a fight scene or two that was cool and it looked really slick, but overall they sucked. Hayden was the worst but he also had the worst lines.

They totally sucked. I just don't agree with the idea that Hayden Christensen was somehow part of the reason it sucked. Because, again, if Natalie Portman and Samuel L. Jackson suck, a not-as-good-but-still-fine actor isn't not going to suck.

That's not entirely true, Christopher Lee and Ian McDiarmid were amazing and I will gladly watch them chew the hell out of some CGI scenery.

I have to agree. While there were some cool special effects, some interesting historical background and even some good scenes, overall I did not like the prequels nearly as much as the original 3. I do not blame the actors in the prequels, rather I blame the writers and directors. The actors can only do so much when they are given bad lines and poor direction.

The big exciting part of this for me is Andy Serkis. Honestly, I'm glad that I don't know who anybody is. It's how the original trilogy did it, and I'm fine with that.

Also, I disagree with the earlier assessment of Hayden Christensen. When Samuel L. Jackson and Natalie Portman aren't giving good performances either, you can't complain about the guy just 'cause he was the main character.

Can we just agree that the prequels all sucked. There might have been a fight scene or two that was cool and it looked really slick, but overall they sucked. Hayden was the worst but he also had the worst lines.

Some of the acting was awful to say the least. Some was good. On balance it was no thespian benchmark. I did quite enjoy Ewan MacGregor lamenting Anakin's fall to the dark side in the last one.

Visually it was great effects. I do very much enjoy the art deco meets Flash Gordon look of Coruscant and its architecture and traffic and such.

Plot wise while the story was essentially known an in that regard a drawback, the basic idea was quite sound.

I did enjoy Grievous a lot.

So good and bad but poor acting an dialogue really do hurt a movie.

Can we just agree that the prequels all sucked.

No. Can we just agree that we all probably got something different out of them?

For me it was world-building on an unprecedented scale. For me there is still nothing that beats them for grounding the SW galaxy in a context I could relate to while simultaneously giving it almost unfathomable depth. I could give a crap about the acting and the dialogue, I got a galaxy to play in.

No we can't. By any degree of measurement, the prequels are really bad films. You and some others may have gotten something out of the experience, but what you didn't get was a good movie. They were bad films that only fanboys could love, or can make excuses for. Don't get all twisted about being me calling people fanboys. I'm on a SW message board myself. I'm just not going to apologize for a bad film because it happens to have Star Wars in the title. Telling me the prequels had any redeeming qualities is like trying to convince someone Chinese Democracy was a good album.

I'll agree, once again, there were some cool moments and some pretty CGI. That's it.

Wait, the music was good. John Williams has always been the best part of Star Wars films anyway.

On another note, when I first saw the picture of the cast doing the read through, for a second the guy on the far right with his back to us, next to Mayhew, looked like comedian Bill Burr. That would have been great! Maybe.

No we can't. By any degree of measurement, the prequels are really bad films. You and some others may have gotten something out of the experience, but what you didn't get was a good movie. They were bad films that only fanboys could love, or can make excuses for. Don't get all twisted about being me calling people fanboys. I'm on a SW message board myself. I'm just not going to apologize for a bad film because it happens to have Star Wars in the title.

I'm not apologizing for anything, I'm well aware of the flaws. I just don't care, and I'm tired of people ragging on them when we wouldn't have all this cool stuff without them. You asked if we could all agree, and the answer is no. I don't know why you think you need to try to impose this "agreement", or even ask the question at all. It's pointless.

I think the prequels are good. I would be willing to wager that the average moviegoer would say that the prequels are bad. So if we're arguing semantics, I'd say the prequels are generally bad, even if I feel the other way personally.

Can we all just agree that the prequels sucked

In that case, I agree with Glewis. He is asking us to acknowledge that the prequels were bad. I enjoyed them, but I acknowledge his statement.

If whafrog enjoyed them for his reasons that's pretty much his business and there is nothing wrong with that. If glewis hated them, that's fine too. I'm sort of an all inclusive view, the acting was overall less than stellar but there were good moments and I very much liked some of the characters and the style and look of the film. I don't get this endless need to force one's opinion down someone else's throat on these forums.

So whose love interest does Daisy Ridley get to be?

Can we just agree that the prequels all sucked.

No. Can we just agree that we all probably got something different out of them?

For me it was world-building on an unprecedented scale. For me there is still nothing that beats them for grounding the SW galaxy in a context I could relate to while simultaneously giving it almost unfathomable depth. I could give a crap about the acting and the dialogue, I got a galaxy to play in.

I don't think the Prequels were as bad as some do. I don't think they were good either. So I'm in the middle, but I have to ask, what part of the prequels made you feel like there was world-building going on? I ask because for me, the prequels lacked this aspect. I was so happy for the Clone Wars show to fill in some of these gaps. But for me at least outside of the main Jedi and to a lesser extent Sith, the worlds, peoples, organizations even the galaxy, felt shallow and one dimensional. Maybe I missed something that you saw and I'm willing to admit it is possible, but I'd love to hear what made you feel the opposite from me.

what part of the prequels made you feel like there was world-building going on? I ask because for me, the prequels lacked this aspect. I was so happy for the

The 5 second shot of Alderaan in RotS, and all the other wide angle planet shots were worth the movie ticket price, imo.

what part of the prequels made you feel like there was world-building going on? I ask because for me, the prequels lacked this aspect. I was so happy for the

The 5 second shot of Alderaan in RotS was worth the movie ticket price, imo.

Visually we got to see "more" of the galaxy, but that's it in my opinion. I had to turn to the EU or Clone wars for places like Kamino or Geonosis to get fleshed out in any detail. Even Naboo felt shallow to me. I got sucked into the OT as a child, teases like, "You fought in the Clone Wars" or "many Bothans died" felt to me like the built a world more than what Lucas overtly showed us in the prequels. This is of course all my personal feelings, I am not trying to say you are wrong, as we both have our own "certain point of view".

I don't think the Prequels were as bad as some do. I don't think they were good either. So I'm in the middle, but I have to ask, what part of the prequels made you feel like there was world-building going on? I ask because for me, the prequels lacked this aspect. I was so happy for the Clone Wars show to fill in some of these gaps.

Hey, I love TCW even more-so for that, but I don't see how they can be compared. The formats were different and the PT only had so much time, and pre-dated TCW considerably. The PT is maybe one season of TCW in length. Anyway, for me it was all the little things, people living their daily lives, Dex's diner, the guy selling squid-things at the pod race, the Dug PO'd at Jedi careening through traffic, the long shot of Coruscant at sunset in E3, the Senate, the Opera House with the floating water ball...the background candy is incredible, and we got a glimpse of Republic society from top to bottom.

I don't see how the world-building aspect was lacking, when I don't know of a single other movie or TV franchise that exhibits the kind of scope the PT wrought. The OT, for all that it laid the groundwork, barely hinted at the possibilities (and yet was still groundbreaking in that way when it was first released).

Anyway, I get that not everyone enjoys that, or even agrees on the quality of what's there. I only jumped into this thread to object to groupthink.

Wait . . . Max von Sydow?!?

Wait . . . Max von Sydow?!?

AAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!! THIS MOVIE IS ALREADY F***ING AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!

Hahahaha. He better be bad....