Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back

-

Blockbusters Reviewed
Welcome to the 15th edition of My Fortnightly Movie/TV Thoughts.  Last fortnight, I reviewed Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope (1977).  This fortnight, I’m reviewing:
  • Star Wars: Episode V – The Empire Strikes Back (1980), rated PG for Mild science fiction violence
That of course is the Australian rating.  In the United States, it’s rated PG for sci-fi action violence.
As usual, I’ll give the trailer and a clip at the end.
And as usual, I put up this disclaimer just to be safe:
WARNING: POTENTIAL SPOILERS AHEAD.  PROCEED AT OWN RISK.
Star Wars: Episode V – The Empire Strikes Back
1320esb_key_d5-0220rgb1-616x414
Irvin Kershner’s contribution to Star Wars – the second in the original trilogy and Skywalker Saga (although chronologically 5th in the latter), and the 3rd (chronologically 11th) overall – is even better than its predecessor, and the trilogy’s best.
Image result for the empire strikes back title
Following the destruction of the Death Star…
View original post 776 more words

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

KJV Only?

-
Image
The KJV Only movement is a belief on the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible - also known as the Authorised Version (AV) or the Authorised King James Version (AKJV) - that ranges from preferring it over other, later translations, to the belief that it's inspired, perfect, and superior to the original Hebrew & Greek texts, and that all other translations are intentionally corrupt, satanic, and unreliable.  The former is of course entirely a matter of personal preference & opinion, and you won't hear criticism of it from me.  The latter on the other hand... well, that's the focus of this article. First, some historic background (although most will be at least partly familiar with it: following his coronation as King of England and Ireland in 1604, King James I (VI of Scotland) commissioned a new translation of the Bible into English.  The project was handed over to committees - each of which translated a separate portion of the Bible - which separately compl...
Read more

Evidence for Giants

-
Image
You will find in the Bible and in innumerable ancient legends references to giant; humanoids who were (often much) taller (and stronger) than normal.  (Gigantism – where a person is abnormally large, but weak – is entirely different.)  They often have a supernatural origin, the result of a union between supernatural beings and human women.  The Bible calls them the Nephillim and Rephaim.  The Greeks called them the Titans. They don’t fit into Evolution, and so are generally regarded as myths.  However, there is direct evidence – PHYSICAL evidence – that they were (and probably still are) very real.  The following is an article titled Traces of Giants Discovered Worldwide from Tales from Out There: The skeletons of giants were removed; whenever a new one appears the bones are quickly removed; they are carried far away to big hangars hidden from the public eye  or are destroyed. The Smithsonian Institute has admitted in court tha...
Read more

Revisiting Christmas

-
Image
Well, today (in Australia) is Christmas Day.  Quite possibly THE most popular holiday in the world (although the media’s trying to make horrid Halloween more and more popular). For those of you who celebrate it, I hope you’re having/have a great day.  For those of you (like me) for whom it’s just another normal day (and no, that’s not “legalistic”), I hope you’re having/have a great day. Although it’s become lost in modern consumerism, Christmas is claimed to be a celebration of Christ’s birthday – although it’s generally agreed that He wasn’t born on that day. Some of you might remember my post Christmas , in which I argued that it is an appropriated pagan festival (see Deuteronomy 12:30-31, Matthew 5, and Does the Torah Still Apply? ).  However, I have since discovered that some of the claims are false. “False” as in I’m seriously questioning my view of Christmas as a pagan festival. I’m going to go through each incorrect (or only partially correct...
Read more