The Magic of ‘Star Wars’: Is It Waning or Waxing?

I read Patrick Goldstein’s column this week (“Seclusion Has Left Lucas Out of Touch,” May 21) and couldn’t wait to reply. After all, I was one of those “lemmings” who stood in line on the opening weekend for “Star Wars: Episode II Attack of the Clones.” Actually, I stood in line twice--because within 48 hours of seeing it the first time, my girlfriend and I were back in the theater savoring the magic once more.

You see, Patrick, while it may be “passe” to actually enjoy this 25-year-old franchise in your elevated Hollywood circles, there are those of us out here in the real world who actually had tremendous fun revisiting that galaxy, far, far away. We don’t have to feel superior in bashing something so “old-fashioned” and “cobwebby” because we came away from the film with goofy grins and speeded-up pulse rates.

AARON CAMPBELL

Los Angeles

*

Goldstein’s comments about “Star Wars” hammered the nail squarely into the heart of the last two pictures, the problem being there was no real heart in these two films. He reminded me of the emotional intensity, the universal issues and the cohesive mystery of storytelling, which both “The Lord of the Rings” and at least the first two “Star Wars” epics had in abundance.

Actually, I liked “Clones” very much in some ways and thought it was far better than “Phantom Menace,” but when the heart is missing, all the technical brilliance in the world can’t save anything or anyone.

DAVID PICKUP

Sherman Oaks

*

Sorry, but I love the new “Star Wars” films, and I like what Lucas is doing. It’s complex, interesting and experimental. I’d like to know what Goldstein found intense about Peter Jackson’s “Fellowship of the Ring”--it was dreadfully limp to me. “Spider-Man” is nice but

VINCENT ASARO

Levittown, Pa.

*

I’m sure you’ve had responses to the contrary, but all those die-hards need to wake up: The franchise is no longer what it once was. “Attack of the Clones” doesn’t even come close to differentiating itself from the standard effects-driven summer fare the average moviegoer has grown accustomed to waiting in line for this time of year.

I almost dread Episode III--talk about a nail in the coffin.

JOEL FREY

Dallas

*

Goldstein writes that Lucas has made the prequels devoid of spark and emotional intensity. If you are looking for that spark on the mere surface, of course you will be disappointed. “Star Wars” is a reference to the sci-fi short serials of the ‘30s and ‘40s, such as “Flash Gordon Conquers the Universe.” In “Clones” and “Menace,” the dialogue is delivered in stilted fashion intentionally.

To be blunt, Patrick, the spark you are seeking is there. You just can’t perceive it. The true meaning and emotion of the new films are subtle and designed to be felt, not seen. Do yourself a favor; watch some of the old serials and then go back and watch “Star Wars.” This time, read between the lines. You won’t be disappointed if you rid yourself of your preconceived notions of what you believe “Star Wars” should be.

“Star Wars” is complicated. You and others are distracted by its spectacle. Feel “Star Wars” within.

KELLY DAVIS

Los Angeles

*

First of all, this is a kids’ movie. Why is Goldstein being so hard on Lucas? Was he hard on the people who created “Spy Kids”? Because that’s all “Star Wars” is. I had a great two hours, and I was glued to the screen.

I don’t really understand why there are still critics writing about American movies anyway. I mean, come on: Just go see it and relax. You pay the same amount for a cheapo dinner at Burger King or the Olive Garden--do you go home and write silly articles about the special sauce or the decor of Sizzler? Chill out, man; it’s just a movie.

DAVID HORVATH

Manhattan Beach