Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/3/85; site ukma.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!ukma!sean
From: sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey)
Newsgroups: net.movies,net.movies.sw
Subject: Re: _Star_Wars_  (spoiler)
Message-ID: <1935@ukma.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 1-Jul-85 23:36:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: ukma.1935
Posted: Mon Jul  1 23:36:06 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 5-Jul-85 06:43:33 EDT
References: <2202@ut-sally.UUCP> <285@mit-vax.UUCP>
Reply-To: sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey)
Distribution: net.movies
Organization: The White Tower @ The Univ. of KY
Lines: 22
Xref: watmath net.movies:6870 net.movies.sw:569

In article <285@mit-vax.UUCP> csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) writes:
>In article <2202@ut-sally.UUCP> kelvin@ut-sally.UUCP (Kelvin Thompson) writes:
>>                           _Star_Wars_
>>
>>                        by Kelvin Thompson
>
>No no no no no no no no no no no no nooooooooooo!
>[more flames]

Actually, whether it was intended to be funny or not, I thought the
review was quite accurate.  Star wars was quite a shallow movie.  The
reason it succeeded was because it's concept and execution was so new.
The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi were MUCH better movies
than Star Wars.

I thought that the book "Star Wars" was quite good.

-- 

-  Sean Casey				UUCP:	sean@ukma   or
-  Department of Mathematics			{cbosgd,anlams,hasmed}!ukma!sean
-  University of Kentucky		ARPA:	ukma!sean@ANL-MCS.ARPA