I've never been really into the whole Star Wars thing. I didn't see the first trio of films all the way though until they were a couple of decades old. I'd seen them in bits here and there on TV and occasionally when someone rented one of them, but the re-releases a few years back were my first exposure to the films in an uninterrupted, unedited (well, nothing removed) format.

I'd made the argument once that I wasn't into the movies as the original came out when I was eight. The friend I was talking to, a fan of the series, retorted that he'd been in his third trimester when the original came out. Touche!

It may just be that I'm not much of a sci-fi person in general. I watch Star Trek but don't have the depth of knowledge that makes me a Trekkie. I've read the first book in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but didn't care for it. I did, however, enjoy the movie. I don't read general sci-fi books, but do read a lot of alternative history, which is a sub-genre of sci-fi (as the folks who write it are, mostly, sci-fi folks).

I bring all this up as preface to mentioning that Sarah and I saw Attack of the Clones last weekend. Not being fluent in the first three films, and finding The Phantom Menace pre-teen twaddle, I perhaps didn't get as much out of the movie as I'd hoped. Samuel L. Jackson as Mace Windu was fun, and seeing Yoda swing a light saber was cool. Otherwise, eh.

I suppose my biggest problem was that we never really saw the intervening years between the two movies. Anakin has a bug up his ass about how Obi-Wan is "holding him back," but we never see how that developed. The Jedis are losing their ability to use the Force, but we really only know about that from Windu talking to Yoda. And for some reason, Anakin is now a grown man, while Senator Amidala looks pretty much the same. Then again, the lush beauty of Naboo would probably slow anyone's aging process.

There was a lot they needed to set up for the third film, and at times I thought Basil Exposition was making a cameo. But I don't think it was as bad as some critics said. But it wasn't the sort of movie that made me see what I was missing, either.

Getting back to things I more normally care about, the great World Cup betting experiment is over. I finished ahead by about $30. Picked Mexico to beat Ecaudor (originally even money, but the odds changed to -120, so I only got $50 on my $60). I also took the US-South Korea draw, doubling my $25. I would not have minded had Clint Mathis' goal stood up and I lost the bet that way, though.

Even so, the US seems poised to make the round of 16. Portugal spanked Poland to get back into the race, and also helped to demoralize the next American opponent. I watched about 5 minutes of the Portugal game, and I have to say they played in a rain of Biblical proportions, easily the heaviest rain I've ever seen a sporting event play in.

I didn't care for the way the US went into the bunker in the second half, and think that if they'd pressed just a little they could have avoided the Korean goal made inevitable by our passivity. As it stands I think the Koreans are going to have their hands full with the Portuguese, who really must win to keep going (they could tie and hope for a Polish upset victory, I suppose).

Tomorrow starts the last round of prelim games, with drama right off the bat. The French play Denmark to see if they can repeat. Things could get really interesting if France and Uruguay get one goal wins, as I think that would tie everyone up in points and goal differential. Not sure what the tiebreaker situation is, but see them going to drawing lots or monkey knife fight.