Slashdot Mirror
Ebert Gives 'Sith' Positive Review
emerald demon writes "The world's authority on reviewing movies, Roger Ebert, has released his review of "Star Wars--Episode III: Revenge of the Sith." I noticed that Ebert & Roeper gave it a two thumbs up, but I assumed that Ebert was going to go for the minimum for giving his thumb up--two and a half stars. I was delighted to read his three and a half starred review. It seemed like he let a few things slip, but it's obvious that he enjoyed it. '"Episode III" has more action per square minute, I'd guess, than any of the previous five movies, and it is spectacular.' Bad dialogue as usual: 'To say that George Lucas cannot write a love scene is an understatement; greeting cards have expressed more passion.'"
Ebert just likes Star Wars because he belt less conspicuous during the Cantina scene.
But clicking on the submitted link is worth it just for the headline picture and the funny caption.
Use your Google Toolbar to help Folding@HOME
From the Fine Article:
Although Lucas has absolutely said he is finished with the series, it is inconceivable to me that 20th Century-Fox will willingly abandon the franchise, especially as Lucas has hinted that parts VII, VIII and IX exist at least in his mind. There will be enormous pressure for them to be made, if not by him, then by his deputies.
Yes! Bring on the deputies! And as for the Sheriff...
Freedom came my way one day,
And I started out of town, yeah!
All of a sudden I saw Sheriff George Lucas Brown
Aiming to shoot me down.
So I shot, I shot, I shot him down.
(Of course, Lucas would deflect the shot with his lightsaber)
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
looks like Ebert has turned to the Light Side :D
... then the movie *must* be good. Personally I don't find his opinions all that indicative of quality film.
I CANT WAIT to see star wars!!!
Actually, the Filthy Critic is the authority you're looking for.
http://bigempire.com/filthy/
Not more. Since when this guy is an authority if he likes sissy movies (check his other reviews).
return to the temple of the revenge seeking crusader
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
How long is a minute squared? I guess it would still be 60 seconds. Or maybe by square they mean dull, as in the ol' "L7" In that case, Ebert is saying that Episode III has more action in its dull scenes than the previous 5 movies combined. Wow!
Free MacMini
>[...] world's authority
I just love it when you USians are humble.
He also gave 'The Phantom Menace' 3 and a half stars.
A LOT of people, be it here on Slashdot or on other forus, are trying to convince me really really hard that RotS is a good movie. FINE. Show me a review from a guy who thought the first two movies were dreadfully boring! If THAT GUY can say the movie was decent, I'll have a better attitude about it. Otherwise, you're only appealing to those who are already going to see it.
"Derp de derp."
This is bad! The only thing that was going to save this movie was the low, low expectations!
On the other hand, opinions of the Star Wars movies is so far from being grounded in reality -- there's just too much cultural weirdness -- that maybe people will be particularly swayed by the reviews. Prevailing wisdom and all. I mean, I walked out of Matrix Revolutions on opening night totally entertained and happy, and yet a month later, watching it again, I agreed that it was horrible.
xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
If Lucas had set Episode III in Chicago, Ebert would have given it 4 stars.
Al Capone gives Return of the Syph a 0-star rating.
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
"Bad dialogue as usual: 'To say that George Lucas cannot write a love scene is an understatement; greeting cards have expressed more passion.'"
Hello? He's a GEEK! Before he got rich the closest he ever came to a love scene was
most likely delivered monthly courtesy of hugh hefner.....
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
...get a stupid answer:
How long is a minute squared?
1 minute = 60 seconds.
(1 minute)^2 = (60 seconds)^2 = 3600 seconds^2
I forgot where I read the review but I remember something they said, "Revenge of the Sith is better than it's two previous counterparts, but only in a way that dying in your sleep is preferrable to death by crucifiction."
"The world's authority on reviewing movies, Roger Ebert"
It always amazes me that people believe these sort of blanket western centric statements. I'm sure loads of people from China and India (to name a few) hang off of Eberts words.
deangelo (not from China or India)
You know we are talking about a man who had set up a brother and sister as a love interest.
Anyway, only Lucas believes people watch(ed) Star Wars for his craptacular romance plots
Here come the horde of star wars fanboys...
Personally, why do people still take people like Ebert seriously? Everyone has different tastes so you can't have a 'definitive source'
Ebert, shmeebert. Slashdot used to have a direct link to the Filthy Critic. Much better reviews.
Same as he gave The Phantom Menace. Make of it what you will.
Also, the Ebert & Roeper review (mp3) is pretty good.
Now, about the picture on the review - is Tion Medon The Mouth of Sauron demasked?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Like everybody else, I've come across plenty of movie critiques but a few stand out. Juicy Cerebellum is one of them, he usually gets the point and doesn't hide his real feelings about a flick, if it's bad, he'll smack it left & right. Plus his writing style is like my own, less than formal.
Here's his review of Sith (with spoilers..)
From the Guardian:-
"Henceforth you will be known as Darth Vader!" These dire words, addressed to a tormented Anakin Skywalker as he crosses the threshold to the much-mentioned Dark Side, mark the definitive moment of his Luciferian journey, which will end with him in a black, neo-Wehrmacht helmet-mask, with incipient emphysema and a walk that makes him look as if he has had concrete hip replacements.
It supposedly forms the mythic heart of the gigantic Third Episode of George Lucas's colossally inflated Star Wars prequel trilogy. Yet when this moment happens - after what seems like seven hours of CGI action as dramatically weightless as the movement of tropical fish in an aquarium - I looked blearily around the cinema and sensed thousands of scalps failing to prickle. We had all been bored into submission long ago.
George Lucas is now not so much a director as chief executive-cum-potentate in charge of a vastly profitable franchise empire in which striking back is not an option. And within this empire's boundaries, Lucas is so mind-bogglingly powerful that none of his lieutenants dares tell him the truth: that yet another Something of the Something title, after Attack of the Clones and Return of the Jedi, is pretty annoying. (It's actually his fourth, if you count the original script title to the first Star Wars: Adventures of the Starkiller.) But here at any rate, finally, is the end of the road, or rather the middle of the road - the moment in 1977 where we came in. Lucas has taken three pointlessly long and artificially complicated movies to get to the point: precisely how did Luke Skywalker's father come to embrace the forces of darkness?
Hayden Christensen is Anakin, the talented but mercurial Jedi pupil of Obi-Wan Kenobi, in which role Ewan McGregor wears a big and bushy beard, to indicate the aged wisdom that we know is his destiny. Their mighty contest is to be at the centre of this movie, during which in quiet moments leading characters will gaze out over massive futuristic cityscapes resembling the photorealist artwork once used for 1970s sci-fi paperbacks: pointy buildings with swarms of pointy aircraft criss-crossing overhead, often bathed in crimson sunsets.
Once again, McGregor speaks in a simperingly lifeless Rada-English accent, a muddled and misconceived backdating of the Guinness original - the young fogey with the light-sabre. In boringness he is matched by that Jedi master of woodenness: Hayden Christensen, the flatliner to end all flatliners. As an actor Christensen must show the terrible embryo of future wickedness within himself. And how does he do this? By tilting his head down, looking up through lowered brows and giving the unmistakable impression that he is very, very cross. If Princess Diana had gone to the Dark Side, she would have looked a lot like this.
So why does Anakin desert the forces of light? It is his passionate love and concern for his pregnant wife, Princess Amidala, coupled with a sense of his own slighted dignity that are to be the tragic and fateful factors leading to the most unconvincing evil act you can imagine, an event weirdly neutralised by the bloodless unreality that surrounds everything. The vicious Anakin massacres - oh, horror! - a bunch of innocent Jedi children.
But that is not how Lucas's solemnly high-flown script chooses to refer to them. With sub-Shakespearian gravitas, McGregor intones: "Not even the younglings survived." I'm sorry, not even the what? Is that their surname or something? Are Mr and Mrs Youngling going to come home to find a nursery bloodbath?
One of the things about the previous film, Attack of the Clones, that made you think things might be looking up was the terrific performance by Christopher Lee as the sinister Count Dooku. Almost the very first thing Lucas does here is kill him off. It is a crippling blow that leaves us with a range of scandalously dull secondary characters. People such as Senator Bail Organa, played by Jimmy Smits, and Samuel L Jackson as the fiercely uninte
We are the most humble people on earth, ever!
There is not nearly enough love in the world, but there is far too much trust.
I don't know about that. The last card I got from Hallmark wasn't all that romantic at all.*
Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
Welcome to dumpsville,
Population - YOU!
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
You only use 2% of your DNA
'To say that George Lucas cannot write a love scene is an understatement; greeting cards have expressed more passion.'
Hayden Christensen isn't helping matters either with his acting "talents". I think it's hilarious that the Clone Wars producers has to intentionally find a voice actor who could give a performance as flat and wooden as Christensen's.
If you beat him with sticks for two hours he give it at least two stars.
The one that really disappoints me is -- from the review:
First off, C-Span is a lot more watchable than bland dreck like "Everybody Loves Raymond." But more to the point: C'mon, people, the problems with the first two movies weren't to do with their having overly complex plots. They were to do with their having particularly stupid plots. And within those stupid plots, the individual scenes, and the actions taken by the characters, were also often spectacularly brainless.
At the end of EP II, before nonsensically going off to fight the war they cannot be expected to fight, the Jedi Council arrives at a moment that I think sums up the political complexity of these goofy plotlines: "Hmm. Maybe we should keep an eye on the Senate. Almost seems like they can't be trusted..." You could almost see the light go off above Yoda's head. Shrewd thinking by the council.
To say that Anikin buzzing out to visit his mom -- and arriving at JUST the moment of her death -- was bad because the politics of Sand People were overwrought, that would be wrong. That whole sequence was bad because it stunk, period, in maybe 15 distinctly idiotic ways.
Anyone who's read a mediocre Sci Fi epic has read much more complicated, much more convincing political plotting than these movies offer the viewer. Decent but not great Hollywood thrillers -- "7 Days in May" -- are so much better in every way, despite having far more complex plotting.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Let me get this straight.
It is news when it comes from the guy who also gave Jar Jar a thumbs up?
The existing six films, patchy though they are, tell one overarching story - the fall from grace and subsequent redemption of Anakin Skywalker. Anything else tacked on at the end would ruin the 'shape' of the saga, if you will.
Which is why it's pretty much inevitable that some halfwit in a suit will greenlight them, I'd have thought.
math genius... can someone explain this "square minute" concept to me?
What course would teach me about minutes squared? Maybe something in the physics department?
The world's authority on reviewing movies
...
I'm french and I never heard about this guy, the world's authority you quote.
I did not even know there could be something like a world's authority on something as subjective as rating a movie.
I'm fed up with this SW trilogy, and I'm sure I will NOT go see episode III in theater.
They are showing them on TV in France, one every monday, starting with I, II (already screened), we're supposed to go see III today, and next monday, they will show IV,
Well, even on TV, episode I and II are pretty boring (I and my wife actually slept before middle of episode II, and we are NOT eager to watch the rest), even the action is boring, but these films are better suited for TV, it is less boring than what I remember I endured in theaters.
Anyway, I can see most people feeling compelled to go see this try all they can to reassure themselves that it will not be a waste of money and time like I and II.
Ebert should give a positive review. I would find his lack of faith disturbing.
I mean, come on, he gave a great review to the universally panned Phantom Menace, and an equally good review to the moldy cheese production of Anaconda. I like Ebert but this guy is not a barometer to a film's quality. Leave that to Rotten Tomatoes (which looks to be positive so far).
Google has a very good non-biased, objective review system in place. Check it out for this movie:
9 &oi=showtimes&fq=Star+Wars--Episode+III:+Revenge+o f+the+Sith/
http://www.google.com/reviews?cid=ba601666fe1a2e7
It pulls from many different sources
...Ebert gave "Back to the Future Part 2" two thumbs up. That kind of tarnishes his reviews of sci-fi movies IMHO.
I like and respect Ebert's reviews and opinions, but with any movie that is based primarily on visuals you have to take his comments with a grain of salt. When a movie is visually stunning he tends to rate it high even when nothing else about the movie is good. Take for example his review of the terrible Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. Notice that he also gave it 3 and a half stars.
I personally don't feel amazing visual effects trumps a poor acting/writing/directing job, although it's clear in many cases that Ebert does.
I find his opinions very reasoned and well written. I find he enjoys action flicks and comic superhero movies more than I do, but I consider this when reading his reviews. Rarely does he give a total loser a thumbs up. I generally find some filmic value in all the movies he likes, even when his personal tastes conflict with mine. I find he provides the best gauge of whether I will like a movie compared to the other reviewers out there.
Look, anyone who knows the film industry knows Siskel and Ebert. These days it's Ebert & Roeper. In any event, if you don't know who they are, then you don't know much about film.
I guess this means I can go see Sith now.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
He gave it Three and a Half Stars.
Phantom Menace also got Three and a Half.
A good rant.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/roger_home .jpg
Who does he think he's kidding?
Ok.
I thought the first two new movies sucked horribly and had no hope that Return of the Sith would be any good.
I'm going to stay as completely spoiler free as possible.
I was lucky enough to go to a screening this past weekend, and it is good. It is very good. It's not perfect, but the turning of Anakin to Darth Vader was handled *mostly* very well. There's a nice slow build, one thing upon another upon another, and it's done believably. There's still a point where it makes too big of a jump for me, which is the disappointing part. It was as if Lucas saw what he needed to do finally, but ran out of time to do it and so had to jump-start a bit in the middle. That's the biggest reason I don't take more umbrage with it, he had the idea right, and most if it was done almost perfectly. If he had actually started it more in the second movie it might have salvaged that one (well, probably not.)
It is definitely all out action, many duels between many different characters. I also think the opening sequence was one of the most awesome looking things I've seen on the screen in a long time. I do have one problem with the opening scroll text before that, and that's just the first word of it. It felt out of place compared to the opening scroll texts of the others, and I think it could have been omitted to much better effect.
Almost everything about this movie is done differently, and better, than the first two. It isn't perfect, but if all three had been like this I wouldn't have complained (much) at all.
Any plans for a episode IV?
Bob Marley shot first!
Don't blame me, I voted for Cthulhu.
(No spoiler included, although I think the article had its share). I definitely recommend it for any Star Wars or sci-fi fan.
:-)
The opening battle scenes alone are worth it, and it does have a lot of action scenes
Yes, the love scenes are contrived and some dialogue made me cringe, but on the plus side, the action was really good (although there are some scenes that seem made to sell action figures
Also, Lucas managed to include practically every relevant character from the series.
(Possible spoiler) The ending is a bit disappointing.. it seems like the movie is too neatly tied up and ribbon-wrapped, but they have to please the hardcore fans I guess.
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
I have no desire to see Episode III. I and II were bad enough. I'm oversaturated with the advertising in the grocery store alone. You can't even buy Cheezits without R2-D2 staring at you. Dark side / dark chocolate M&M's? Give me a break!!! Science of StarWars on Discovery. Ok, the Chewbacca / Cingular commercial is kinda funny, but other than that, I've had it up to here with Star Wars.
So far the previews look too much like a video game and not enough like a story. Maybe I'm just getting old and would appreciate some mental activity instead of visual eye candy.
Oh well, I'll let you guys stand in line and if the Slashdot consensus is that it's good, I'll take a peek. Otherwise, I'm counting down the days 'til the return of Battlestar Galactica. Now that's some SciFi!
It doesnt matter. You are going to eventually watch the movie, if its a week from now, 2 weeks, or a year from now.
Your probably going to buy some product that you always get but now has Star Wars logo attached.
My trojans magnums are now called "Yoda mini sabers".
So buy your Vader slurpee and know that the Darkside of the force is now called marketing.
It's a bad idea, this whole "I'm gonna release my movies out of sequence! Nyah!" Methinks George is remodeling Skywalker Ranch and couldn't afford the bidet he wanted. "Let's invent the PRE-prequel!" Hadyn Christiansen lacks soul or depth of any kind (not that Mark Hamill was emoting much, but still...at least he had a cleft...), Natalie Portman looks terrified, Jar Jar was a nightmare, Liam and Ewan were better in almost anything else, and the films themselves seem contrived, lame, wooden, and dull. Not to mention annoying. I am a HUGE fan of 'A New Hope', 'The Empire Strikes Back' and 'Return of the Jedi' (especially 'Empire'...by far the best), but I refuse to waste my time on another Star Wars film without Harrison Ford. That's saying something for a girl who saw all the others more than 10 times apiece. I'm going to go cry with my Ewok doll now, and eat Pez from my C3PO dispenser.
crucifiction
Cool... what's the rhetorical term I'm looking for? Neologism?
Now that is class.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
This has been bugging me since Ep 2...are we supposed to like Anakin? Care about him? Root for him? Honestly he seems like kind of a dick. He's arrogant, whiny, petulant, rude and self-absorbed. I thought his story was supposed to be a really really good guy who gets pushed over the edge and becomes a really really bad guy...a fall from grace. But this guy doesn't have far to fall.
Personally, Obi-Wan is the only character I actually like.
As most users of this website must be aware, the original Star Wars was an influential worldwide film whose impact still resonates now, almost 30 years later. Unfortunately, some of the themes in the original Star Wars series have, in my opinion, contributed to the mindset of International terrorism, the cancer we see worldwide today.
That's a controversial statement, so here's some proof. First of all, the side we are supposed to sympathise with were the rebels. Yes, a group of paramilitaries and other non-combatants who were fighting against a classical army structure providing order throughout the galaxy, the Empire. Here's the crux: the rebels never fought the empire in a conventional sense - they knew they would lose. So they went for "soft targets". Does any of this sound familiar??
Let's look at this. The Terrorists/Rebels were repressed by a powerful enemy. Deprived of the means to fight back conventionallly, the Terrorists/Rebels were forced into guerilla tactics - concealment, ambush, and brainwashing (of the innocent small bears). It is the latter action I find most repugnant, morally. The rebels bribed the small bears first with food, then by masquerading as a deity figure encouraged them to attack a local outpost of the Empire. Now, there was no evidence the Empire had been anything other than a benevolent overlord to those bears. They were used shamelessly by the so-called good guys, and no-one raised an eyebrow.
It was the movie "Clerks" which first brought this to my attention. In it, a character made the remark that the partially constructed so called "Death-star" must have been full of innocent tradesmen who had been contracted to work on the military project, their wives, their children, their favorite grandparents. The deaths of these innocent civilians was papered over in the film as nothing more than an impressive explosion. The butcher himself, Skywalker, was portrayed as some sort of hero.
I have heard some argue that the rebels actions were justified by the Empires act in blowing up Aldebaran, Leia's home planet. Firstly I would beg you to remember that history is written by the victors. Did this peace loving planet Aldebaran even exist, or was it mere PsyOps? Did the "Deathstar" (actual name: FreedomLoveMoon) destroy anything larger than an asteroid? We can't tell - the filmmaker takes a biased treatment of the story from the outset, and the rebels conveniently destroyed the evidence. No attempt is made to give the Empire the right to reply to the allegations.
My final point (I have many more but space is limited) is to look at Skywalkers conversion to the rebel cause. Does anyone else see something disturbing in the following description?: He goes out to the DESERT where he meets a religious extremist leader (Kenobi) who fills his head with ridiculous tales, ARMS and TRAINS him and then sets him on a veritable SUICIDE MISSION??? Who can honestly justify this?? PULL THIS FILTH OFF THE SHELVES.
You may never have seen the original movies in this light. But it has been present in your subconscious, and the cultural subconsciousness of your elected leaders. Every time they had an opportunity to make a serious impact into terrorism, it was there, whispering treacherous thoughts of platitude. The dangerous mindset is so subtle it eluded notice, but influenced every decision. George Lucas should be hauled in front of Congress, and then executed. The current global terrorism emergency can be traced back to the moral relativism championed by the Star Wars franchise. He made a quick buck, we got global insecurity. Bastard.
Meine Schwester ist sehr, sehr reizvoll - Nietzsche
I thought the first two were really mixed bags - I enjoyed some parts but actually hated others, and saw each about twice. Even after I bought the DVD's I didn't even bother to watch the movies until just before Sith...
I saw ROTS last week at a charity screening. Overall I would agree with Eberts review. And personally I would say it's MUCH better, much smoother with no parts I disliked. I actually enjoyed Hayden in this one and pretty mcuh everyone else, especially Palpatine.
So take that for what you will. I do think this is a far better movie than the first two and is a lot of fun. For the first time in these sequels I'm planning to see it multiple times because I'll enjoy it, and look forward to looking for things I missed the first time around. For me, this movie has totally rekindled the fun of Star Wars and my delight in the series as a whole. Frankly it even makes watching the previous two more fun.
Also on a final note I would say that you can really tell that a LOT of care was put into this movie. Not just by Lucas but by everyone from set designers to effects guys. They all poured a lot more love into this one than the previous installments - they all finally woke up and realized this was it, the last chance to shine.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
One of my favourites quote from That 70s show :
Fez: I am so excited about Star Whores.
Hyde: Fezzy, man... Star Wars.
Fez: Screw that
Who are you? George Lucas? I could give a crap about whether a review is good or bad until I see the movie. You see if the movie turns out to be good then I am delighted the review steered me to a film I enjoyed, if not then I am angry at the review for steering me to crap.
I am never delighted by a review for a movie I haven't seen. Particularly when its 3.5 stars yet says that the dialogue is as bad as the dialogue in Clones. Clones was so terrible if I had been in a theater (saw it free on TV) I would have probably left and asked for a refund.
The funny thing is, the entirety of Ebert's review is extremely harsh on pretty much every aspect of the film, aside from some comments near the end about how imaginative the special effects are.
I really don't see how all that adds up to three and a half stars.
DNA just wants to be free...
That's what I liked about the old Siskel and Ebert show. You got multiple reviews for each movie.
... the effects?
Ebert likes this one, despite the wooden acting and pathetic dialog, because of
Siskel might pan it because the wooden acting and pathetic dialog overshadowed the effects (or whatever Ebert liked) for him.
So those reviews had more depth. If you were wondering about a specific movie, you would have the advice to not go in expecting anything intellectual or insightful, just lots of action and effects.
And isn't that how you review movies for your friends? You tell them whether it is worth the money to see in the theatre or whether they'd like it more on DVD with beer and pizza so they can laugh loudly.
Then there are all of the Special Editions that have to come out, and so on...
The Star Wars franchise becomes bigger than Microsoft and IBM combined!
I believe three stars is his criteria for a Thumbs Up, not two and a half. Could be me hallucinating though.
Ebert also gave Ep. I 3.5 stars saying that it does a good job at setting up the story for the other movies in the prequel trilogy. For some kicks, check out the Ep. I review here. So while I think Ep. III will be a good movie, I would take his reviews with a grain of salt.
"Oh dear, she's stuck in an infinite loop and he's an idiot" -Prof. Farnsworth (Futurama)
I have seen the movie yesterday (French theaters :)), and slashdotters who enjoyed the first trilogy and disliked the first to episodes of the prequels should not worry too much.
;)
;)). Everyone will enjoy Chewie's appearance too.
;)
The first episode was way too childish and had very slow development. The second one had stupid conversations but this time, Star Wars is back.
This time, there isn't much useless talking. Of course there is still some. Even if Anakin/Padme dialogs are better than before, I still find them unnatural. But everything goes fast in the movie and there is no time to get bored at least in the first watching. Don't tried to look it many times yet.
The movie starts impressively at the heart of a battle of the Clone Wars. And Palpatine's game is clear from the very start. It's told to be particulary dark, but I don't think so. Of course Darth Vader is not really a good citizen, and he certainly does some things that may be worse if they were filmed by wanting them to be real dark. But in this case, not really. It's just like in the ESB when Darth Vader kills Captain Needa & co. It just happens, plain fact, few emotions.
There is also great comedy in the movie. The audience was laughing many times, especially with Artoo who is the true hero of this movie (just kidding, but it is certainly his best performance!
About visual effects, well, it's still good, but I'm not that a fan of special effects. I find Yoda is too well rendered, in fact, he doesn't look real in the movie (less than in TaoC I think). But it's not shocking after a while. For fans, there's a lot of light saber fights, of course.
Once again, Ewan McGregor does a good job playing Obi-Wan, he may definitely become that old retired man called Ben on Tatooin. Btw there is real news about his retirement (ie, what was he doing all this time ?).
Palpatine is great too.
Well ROTS is simply the movie it should have been, and the two other prequels should have had the same quality. The matter is, George Lucas hadn't enough to tell. Two movies would have been enough, maybe... Or addind some stories to his "Grand Vision"
There are *GREAT* moments in the movie too, not only "good enough" moments. There is especially one moment I find really great (think 66 !).
For the first time in the prequels, it felt just like real Star Wars. Certainly makes me (and you, soon) hope for the sequel trilogy, even if I don't think it will come true.
Gimme a damn break, who says this guy is a world authority on the subject? Just because he's seen too many movies, I guess the poster just let his guts do the writing.
Another film by an old dog with few new tricks.
There's no shame in using sub writers
A blog I run for the wealth
I was at the Star Wars saga marathon on Monday at the Empire Cinema, Leicester Square, London, England. we saw all the SW movies, including Sith, starting at 7am and finishing at 11.30pm.
;"Absolutely not...but I am working on Indiana Jones", which got a pretty bid roar from the crowd.
George Lucas and others came in before Sith. The film was good, very good.
Anyway, George snuck back into the cinema and stood at the back watching our (very positive) reactions to the movie, he then also came back at the end of the film. This never happens at these kinds of showings and remember, the PREMIERE was happening not 100 meters away at the Odeon cinema in Leicester Square.
So, in answer to the chants of "we want 9", he said
Remember, there is to be a live action SW in the future, so the next film, if there is to be one, (my guess is that it) will be spun from that series.
I've largely turned to Metacritic for movie reviews these days. They convert the rating systems of various sources into a standard 0-100 rating, then give you the composite ratings of "experts" as well as visitors to the sites.
It really lets you get a feel for the general sentiments surrounding the movie (or video game, or cd/dvd... etc) while allowing you to disregard the handful of skewed reviews.
This is not the sig you're looking for.
Great review from the new yorker here:
http://www.newyorker.com/critics/cinema/
Jazz is not dead, it just smells funny.
Lucas should explore this theme further by framing SW VII, VIII, and IX as a metaphor on the struggle between Tibet and China. The rescuers will be the Australians. They will be the rebel force.
The leader of this band is the daughter of Princess Leia.
Christian Science Monitor says bad acting, bad dialog, but visually spectacular.
(which means it's no different than the first two - and frankly, 99% of Hollywood's offerings for the past 20 years).
Of course, I'll watch it because I need to relieve the tension of the uncompleted story, that's been left in this state since I read about Darth Vader and Obiwan's volcano fight in Starlog back in like, 1977 or something. Worth $9? meh.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I had the opportunity to see Sith because I do reviews for the local newspaper. I can't write this for the paper, but Revenge of the Sith is, quite simply, fucking awesome. This is the "Star Wars" prequel the haters have been bitching for since "Menace" came out, and if they don't cop to that when they finally see it, they're lying. As dark as "Empire" was, this movie goes a thousand times darker - from the triggering of Order 66 (which has all the Shock Troopers turning on the Jedi Knights they've been fighting beside throughout the Clone Wars and gunning them down), to the jaw-dropping Anakin/Obi Wan fight on Mustafar (where - after cutting his legs and arm off, Ben leaves Skywalker burning alive on the shores of a lava river, with Anakin spitting venomous sentiments at his departing mentor), this flick is so satisfyingly tragic, you'll think you're watching "Othello" or "Hamlet".
I saw a gorgeous digitally projected version of the flick, and lemme tell ya': this is a beautiful looking film. The opening space battle sequence is the best in any of the six "Star Wars" movies. Grievous and Kenobi's lightsaber duel is bad-ass, with Grievous rocking four sabers. The Clone Wars end rather early in the flick (about the halfway point), leaving the rest of the film to concentrate on Anakin's turn to the Dark Side, and the resulting slaughter of the Jedi.
Perfect example of how dark shit gets: remember the Younglings - the kid Jedis in training from "Clones"? As a result of Order 66, when Anakin invades the Jedi Temple with an army of Clone Troopers, he enters the Council room to find a gaggle of said younglings hiding behind the seats. They see Anakin and emerge, asking "What should we do, Master Anakin?" The query's met with a stone-cold Anakin firing up his lightsaber. The next time you see the kids, Yoda's sifting through their corpses on the floor.
Yes, it's just that dark - and rightfully so. This is the birth of Darth Vader we're talking about. The only comic moments in the flick are given to R2D2, and while good, they're all pretty few and far between; the order of the day is dark, dark, dark.
Ian McDiarmid and Ewan McGregor steal the show, but Hayden Christensen silences any naysayers who wrote him off as too whiney in "Clones". This is the flick that feels closest to Episodes 4, 5, and 6, because - for the first time since "Return of the Jedi" - there is a clear villain. And for all the shadow-play Palpatine has been upto in the last two flicks, his treachery is about as subtle as John Williams' score in "Sith." Whether he's slowly drawing Anakin toward the Dark Side during an opera/performance art piece with his promise of the Sith's power of life over death, or he's engaged in a balls-to-the-wall lightsaber duel in the Senate with Yoda, his "Little, green friend" (his words, not mine - which I kinda dug, because, interestingly, I think it's the first time anyone's acknowledged that Yoda is green in any of the "Star Wars" flicks), this is the Emperor's movie.
The last fifteen minutes dovetail nicely into Episode 4 (or just plain "Star Wars" for you non-geeks), and the movie is full of link-up moments as well.
At flick's end, Threepio and Artoo are given to Captain Antilles (with the caveat that the Protocol's memory be wiped).
The twins, natch, are split up. Leia heads to Alderann with Bail Organa, and Obi Wan hands Luke over to Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru (indeed, the closing shot is Owen holding Luke while looking out over the setting suns of Tatooine - mimicking the shot of the adult Luke doing the same in "Star Wars", complete with callback cue from Williams).
After he succumbs to the Dark Side, Anakin tries to convine Padme that he can overthrow Palpatine, and together, he and Padme can rule the galaxy as husband and wife.
Vader and the Emperor stand beside a younger Grand Moff Tarkin on the bridge of a Star Destroyer, overlooking the earliest construction stage of the Death Star.
Yoda telling Obi Wan that, as he heads to Tatooine to han
There is not one professional reviewer that does not also have an unfinished or unsold screenplay in their dresser drawer. They all are working in their second choice for a career. Their first choice would be film director or screen writer, the very people they criticize.
Not since I rented "Center Of The World" based on his positive review. What a pointless flick.
And Roeper I gave up on after he said the anime Metropolis had "crude animation" and he shot down the first LOTR film.
I'm not going to give any spoilers, but I will say that it is not good. It has slow, terrible dialogue similar to episode II, boring action scenes, probably the worst lightsaber battle I've ever seen, and a few scenes that are so amazingly cheesy they caused the audience to laugh - and this was FOX employees on the FOX lot.
This is not to say it is a complete loss. They've thrown in a lot of stuff to tie ep III and IV together, most of it unnecessary, some of it comical, but at least it is a resolution to some minor questions. Some of the action scenes are very good, and people have had different reactions at work to scenes that left me cold, so to each his own.
After I saw it and came home that night, I dreaded going into work because I thought my co-workers enjoyed the movie and I thought I'd have an annoying morning of being called a 'hater' and generally abused for being too picky. Much to my surprise, 85% of the people at work who saw it spent the morning bashing scenes, mocking dialogue and generally panning the movie. Only a few people (mostly old ladies, surprisingly) actually seemed enthusiastic, while a couple others said it was "pretty good".
To twist the knife: one person, who actually enjoyed episode I and II, thought this movie was boring and stupid. Multiple people fell asleep, at a 6pm showing.
It's up where? ;P
In other news, if you read the overall summary of the Star Wars saga on www.starwars.com (under the section where they talk about the Sith and the various Darths) there are HUGE parallels to several political struggles throughout history. What I find really interesting is how Palpatine uses the attack of a small group of people to acquire more and more power and impose less and less freedom on the people under his rule. Hmmm... who does THAT sound like? Is George Lucas making a polical statement with the most recent installments? Maybe that's why they suck so much. Whenever someone gets an agenda and attempt to put a veiled message in a work, the work usually suffers. Trust me, I agree with the message, but I think it's caused the Star Wars entertainment factor to suffer.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
"The world's authority on reviewing movies, Roger Ebert"
Yeah right. I can assure you that absolutly nobody knows this guy outside of the USA. Thanks.
BoD
...to the degree they have adopted Western culture.
Has anyone seen the absolutely awful ads for this movie with the tagline "Sith Happens"? I could see that for a Star Wars Parody movie... just sad, sad, sad.
SITH HAPPENS! HAhahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahah...
MORTAR COMBAT!
I concur. An interesting supporting cast, a villain who's not just a copy of Vader or Palpatine, and those wacky ysalamiri. (Fun to pronounce! Not as fun as 'noghri', but fun!)
But, alas, they include the original cast, and unfortunately, real actors age. Eh, it's good to wipe the SF-on-film slate clean. No more Star Wars, no more Star Trek. Wonder what's next.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
She might have really liked it, but it still reads pretty mediocre.
Is Lucas a genius for making two completely unacceptable films just to reduce expectations of the 3rd?
.. Given what passed for dialogue in the last two prequels (and AOTC actually made it into porno flick bad dialogue) I can't imagine not cringing when I go see this. If I'm gonna see Natalie Portman deliver this leaden junk, there had better be skin-tight tops and hot grits.
But I'll go see this. But I won't go until the matinee discount.
And I'm sure at least a star got added because Ebert agrees with Lucas' politics. He's a political reviewer, so that's some bias to filter out, but at least he documents his bias within the review, and his zero-star reviews are brilliant (especially the review of his Fellow Traveler Rob Reiner's 'North').
This is Slashdot, surely it should have been measured in centons, microts, galactic revolutions or something. Minutes? WTF?!
Square minutes don't have length. It is a rate of change measurement, although an odd one (undoubtedly non-metric). Perhaps the question is "how quick?", or "how slow?"?
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
I didn't read those books, I read some published by Bantam. See http://timeline.echostation.com/timeline/ for a timeline including books, movies and events (I didn't know there were that many books).
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Nah, I think it was funnier that Watto (the gigantic ugly blue flying rat with the huge, hooked nose) spoke with a bit of a Yiddish accent.
I, for one, welcome our new crypto-Jewish slavemasters.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I think the main problem with the S-W movies and reviewing them fairly is that I was 15 when the first one came out, and now I'm 42. MY expectations of a movie have certainly changed over that span. There have also been a few blockbuster sci-fi movies released in that time which serve for comparison. I'd say no matter what, our collective expectations are at an all-time high, and there's simply no way to match that first experience of the giant Imperial Star Destroyer coming on-screen in pursuit of the rebel blockade runner. None of this will diminish the new experience for me, however.
Six score characters.
Brevity being wit's soul
I have enough space.
Ebert said something good about a Star Wars movie. Looks like he is on the /. shit list now.
The supposedly best of the first three was Empire strikes back, which is the darkest of that bunch.
So now, not suprisingly he best of these three is the darkest film as well. It could be Lucas just does better making those kind of films.....
He obviously cannot write love scenes, so maybe after SW he needs to concentrate on retro Film noir pictures.
My prediction for Lucas's next three films.
remake of the Maltese falcon.
Maltese Falcon: The Fat man strikes back
Maltese Falcon : Return of Spade
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
Hayden should go back to playing sexualy traumatized homosexuals, who want to kill themselves. Only this time he should succeed. I don't care if there's a film crew there or not.
After all, Han Solo boasted that the Millenium Falcon made the Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs. He was boasting about the speed of the ship, and parsec is a measure of distance. Maybe Roger's mis-statement had some unintended linkage to Lucas' unit confusion (grin).
In AOTC, the love scenes with Hayden made me want to flee the theater. The meadow scene in particular is something I found horrifying and trying.
In Sith, I actually ENJOYED Hayden's acting for the most part! He was not nearly so whiny and his annoyances and frustrations made more sense.
Part of that is better story but really he was also more settled into the role as well.
In fact in all of Sith there was only one line that made me roll my eyes at the sheer cornyness of it, and that line was uttered my Portman.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I've started to think for a while now that maybe George's huge mistake was that he chose to make Ep1-3, rather than Episodes 7-9. I mean, we all know how it's going to end, and we all know the points the plot HAS to pass through, we all know who HAS to survive, etc, etc. There's no real freedom in there, except to fill in the minor details which don't advance the overall plot. The only "wow" factor he has up his sleeve is "wow the CG looks good".
If he had made 7-9 instead, the story could go and end where he wanted, where the movie took it, where a logically paced movie naturally ended.
"Because it's there." - George Mallory, when asked why he wanted to climb Mt Everest, March 18, 1923 (New York Times)
If you judge this movie by "star wars" standards, it's very good and probably the best of them all.
I was on the first star wars the first day it came out, and went back immediatly to see it three times in the following weeks.
As years went by, i found the movies great, but was really disappointed by the ewoks. To the point that people that disliked jar-jar appeared very young to me. "This is the kind of stuff Lucas put in his movies for the youngsters you know". Yes, it's boring.
I didnt find episode one or two bad and wasnt bored watching them. But i didnt find them good either. I just didnt want to go back to watch them. And I had a lot of fun making fun of them when they were aired on tv last weeks.
I liked the Amidala character, tho'. period.
But this one made me want to go back and watch it again. It really brought back the fun of watching a sw movie in me and I was pretty sorry for the anakin character in the end. I mean really sorry.
It even made me want to watch the 3 following episodes again. To follow them from the point of view of the vador character this time.
Poor sad stupid bastard. I mean it.
So is it a great movie?
No.
My favorite directors are Kurosawa and Tavernier who can do a movie with action and emotion and intimacy and with a deep philosophical side at the same time (and with great well directed actors).
Is it a great "star wars" movie? You bet it is! The best!
Guys, did you seriously read through the Ebert review though? He spent two full paragraphs talking about a line of dialogue and the observation deck of the spaceship. And this is the most important voice in the industry? Does ANYONE think this is a worthy review of a work that has been 28 years in the making?
Anyway, I saw the movie two weeks ago - agonized over my review - and then sat dumbfounded as I saw that review posted. Couldn't believe it. I have to think he was getting ready to head off to Cannes.
He's cited my work before, so if you want to check out the review I worked a long time on, feel free to go to http://www.zertinet.com/
I'm going to post a longer, 2000-word, comprehensive review tomorrow.
I am not sure why, but I can't really recall any "physical" humor from the first two prequels I really found all that funny (even the non Jar-Jar stuff like 3PO in AOTC).
But what I really liked about Sith was that most of the moments of physical humor, were actually funny! There were also fewer to be had making such humor the seasing it should be instead of a distraction.
This is an aspect of Sith I'd not seen mentioned in a review before, but I feel is an important reason why so many reviewers like it. It's the flip side of Jar-Jar's antics which actually detracted from moments that would have otherwise been decent parts of the previous films, leaving an overall bad impression in your mind (and the reason why the Phantom Edit was such an improvement). With physical humor that works it enhances instead of detracts and adds to your enjoyment increasing your overall impression of the film.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Thought you said "Huge Heifer" for a moment there. Surely George wouldn't do anything like that!
Is there any reason to give spoiler alert for star wars? I was watching a history show about the Jacobyte rebellion in Brittain on TV the other day, and facetiously commented " I know how this ends, Diana dies in a tunnel in France and Charles gets remarried". Same thing here, as it has to bridge eps. II and IV.
Mod me off topic.
Oh, and Anakin becomes Darth Vader!
More music, fewer hits
You live in a small world.
I caught Smith at Zellerbach Hall last year in Berkeley and he has said quite plainly that he would not TOUCH the Star Wars franchise. I'm the one that asked him the question. And, yes, I'm also the one that started the 'Los Angeles steals our water' controversy.
Anyway, he said he doesn't want to be accused of raping people's childhoods by making a Star Wars film. So, no, Kevin Smith will NOT happen, though I'm certain he'd do a good job.
Just as long as Affleck keeps his mug out of it.
Useless opinions, worthless observations, and more!
Man, you're lucky your liability for copyright infringement and massive distribution of Salon's intellectual property can be limited, via some keen legal judo, to give bucks.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Yes, I work in a big media group and was lucky to be on a premiere tuesday. I will try not spoil anything, but I can tell you this:
- WATCH Clone Wars before, or you won't understand many things. General Grievous, for example, is not "introduced", he's not considered a "new" character.
- What I did like most was the focus on how a society, democracy, can fall. Somewhat of a "larger view" of the things. Remember "The Fall of the Roman Empire"?
- The most dark and adult movie of the 6. Actually, there's a moment so terribe that can be only suggested, but not showed.
- Good Plot, but I wasn't totally convinced why Anakim turned to the Dark side - I mean, he could be in a somewhat "gray" side, but this is just me, watch and draw your conclusions.
- Great action, maybe the best of the 6. Opening sequence is AWSOME.
- Speeches are bad, but there are some good ones ( you can find at least 2 explicit political references, one from the Emperror, other from Vader). The one I liked more was Amidala's conclusion when in Senate
- Actors fine, Samuel Jackson very good.
- Oh, and Jar-Jar doesn't open his mouth.
All said, it would be unfair to compare this one with the latest 2 - forget about them. This one brought back the magic of good old Star Wars, but in a more adult way. Have fun!
there's a few films where you wonder what he was thinking (like his positive review of "Anaconda").
I liked Anaconda: It's decent for a movie about a giant snake.
Once you're willingly going to see a movie about a giant snake, you let go of the premise when formulating a opinion on the actual quality of the movie itself, as opposed to rating the idea behind the movie.
Much like when I talk to people who've never heard of Firefly, I make sure to tell them right up front that it's Space Cowboys. If they can't deal with the concept, there's no point in continuing, they know all they need to know to base their opinion. If the concept of Space Cowboys is something they can swallow, then I tell them about the wrtiting, editing, lighting, acting, SFX, drama, pretty people, and all the other ways in which Firefly was excellent.
You can't take the sky from me...
Let me say first, that whilst Lucas has created a good universe and good action films, he is definitely not perfect. No need to repeat his flaws, they get dragged out in every SW thread here, and I agree with most of them. No, the SW universe is not as deep and rich as Tolkien, but Lucas has told a good story (even though there are holes, shallow acting) and it is still enjoyable.
I wouldn't call myself a fanboy, although I think SW was one of the first movies I saw, and I've enjoyed them since (naturally TPM is the weakest as it is the foundation for the others - ironically, AOTC and ROTS will make TPM a marginally better movie because it now has increased relevance to the overall plot, but lets face it, TPM is not flash).
That said, I enjoyed ROTS, and think it will probably become my favourite SW movie, above ANH and TESB. SW is about Anakin, not Luke, and ROTS is _the_ episode that goes into the most detail in Anakin's story. The OT is more about Luke, which whilst it is an important part of the overall story, it is now clearly a sub-plot of the whole.
ROTS benefits by being the last movie released of the six, much like ROTK benefited by the groundwork done by the first two LOTR movies. Everyone was up to speed with the universe the movie took place in, and hence a lot more can be communicated to the viewer. ROTS doesn't disappoint and answers most of the questions people have and at first viewing it appears to provide an excellent bridge from PT to OT. A lot happens in ROTS.
It was interesting coming home and watching the first 30-45 minutes of ANH. The scene where Obiwan is telling Luke about the Clone Wars and his father - you now know so much more of that story, and realise that that story is much bigger than Luke's role. It definitely changes the context of the OT.
Given the weaknesses of TPM, AOTC and ROTJ, I'd say that many SW fans favourite movies may now become ROTS, ANH and TESB. Watching these three in a row probably will give the best watching of the SW universe in years to come. It may even make ROTJ seem like a lame finish to the Anakin story. I think the peak of the SW universe will be centred around ROTS and ANH.
Be interesting to see other comments as they come in.
This is not exactly a spoiler, but people really don't seem to understand an important aspect of General Grevious that otherwise might be destracting to you - the coughing.
Basically an important aspect of the Grevious backstory is that he was some kind of great warrior before, but then was in a terrible accident and lives inside of the Grevious suit, where the only organtic parts left are the brain and the lungs. Yes, it's kind of an echo of Vader.
Knowing that explains the coughing when otherwise he might just seem like a droid. I think this was really only mentioned in the Labyrinth of Evil book. It's a really good idea to read that (use the Library, Luke!) and also watch all the Clone Wars to really get some good backstory that's not touched on at all in the film.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I've become increasingly fond of Kenneth Turan's reviews for both the L.A. Times and NPR. He's very similar to Ebert in that he looks at every aspect of the movie, from story arc to character development, to shooting style and overall "playability". He's always fair, and he displays a genuine love for film that's getting harder to find in the snarky world of in-your-face journalism.
He's also written a nice little book called, Never Coming to a Theatre Near You about movies that he particularly enjoyed, that barely got any screen time. It gives a great insight into the mind of a critic.
For the curious, here's his review of Episode III.
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
You can also listen to Ebert and Roeper's review.
ALthough there are critiques to be had, the nice thing about Sith is that it's simply more fun even with a few open questions.
I agree with her review that Sith is nice because after it's over you have some questions that are actually interesting to ponder. And you're at least having fun even as these questions are being raised.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
John Podhoretz [NY Post] hated it:
Jason Appuzo [Liberty Film Festival] objected to the needless insertion of politics:
I will say this:
It is, IMHO, easily the best of the last three.
The effects are great, and are in place. They don't overpower the movie.
Some of the the stuff seemed more like an attempt to try and generate a little hype for a future Christmas toy (Obi Wan's mount - You'll know what I'm talking about when you see it and, more to the point, hear it).
However, the transition of ship design and MOST IMPORTANTLY ship INTERIORS to the "old school" look tied it all together.
There are lots of hints the styles of episodes 4,5 & 6, and they only become more frequent as the movie goes on.
Saw it in DLP at a trade screening, and I've got to say, I walked out fulfilled.
Don't take the "younglings" with you unless they know it's all make believe...
Best,
/me sips his coffee and ponders a new sig...
You should be able to see epsiode 3 followed by episode 4 and have it not look like you're jumping from 2005 filmmaking technology to 1977 era special effects.
What would have been cool would be to slowly shift the look over the course of III back to 1977 filmmaking technology. Do it gradually so it's not jarring. Then if you watch the films back-to-back it would look better.
Of course, if George wanted my opinion, he'd ask me!
Best Buy can have you arrested
Dear Concerned Reader,
We were recently informed of your inquiry about Mr. Ebert's review. Hopefully, this message will be of assistance to you. Nothing is wrong with the words "square minute." Mr. Ebert refers to the word "square" to mean "complete" or "solid." In other words, he means "complete minute" to denote perpetuation, as opposed to fluctuation.
Perhaps, you are more familiar with the saying "square meal" to refer to a meal that is complete. "Complete," in the case of a square meal, means that the meal contains enough portions to alleviate hunger and/or provide adequate nourishment, according to your body's needs.
By saying "square minute," Mr. Ebert indicates a lack of fluctuation. Fluctuation, in the case of Mr. Ebert's point, would mean that -- at certain periods per minute of the acting -- the characters would convey believable and sympathetic emotions. According to Mr. Ebert, however, that is not the case.
Once again, we must reason that "square minute" means "complete minute, a minute without fluctuation." This might be Mr. Ebert's attempt at mild hyperbole. As is more likely the case, Mr. Ebert has a square point ("complete point", "solid point"): the acting is shit.
Sincerely,
International Ebert Linguistics Foundation
And the first google ad right below this article here?
Download BitTorrent Now
Thousands of movies. Tutorials Millions of MP3s. Videogames
I read it as "Download the BitTorrent Now." What? Really? Where? Isn't Lucas going to get pissed?
You know, I want to see this movie purely to see the transition from Anakin to Darth Vader. I was a little turned off by Revenge of the Clones, but I'll watch it to continue history. :)
[%] Cingular Ringtones
I saw it yesterday at 8PM Eastern Standard Time. It was very good. Not the blood bath that people said it would be (lightsabers cauterize the wound, no blood!), but it did have a LOT of death and was quite the dark story. As the article says, the love scenes still aren't the best, but overall, it is a great movie.
*SPOILER WARNING*
Anakin is Darth Vader!!
<_<
According to Google, it's about 3.24*10^20 m^2. Now, the surface area of the Earth is 5.11*10^14 m^2. Because, you know, time and space are all the same and whatnot.
So, a square minute would cover about a million earths.
Man, that's a big minute.
Of course, one could also measure the actual surface area of the film. Assuming it's projected in standard 35mm (that is, 24mm by 36mm). Since the sound is irrelevant here, we'll assume we're just talking about that, at a rate of 24 frames per second, ignoring space between the frames. So that's 0.576 meters for a second of film. A minute would be 34.56 meters. Squaring that gives around 1200 square meters. Now, if we divide that area by the size of an individual film frame, we get like a million and a half, which means... eh, I'm tired of this.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
This is the guy who also gave Anaconda (Ice Cube and John Voight hunt badly rendered CGI snakes in the Amazon jungle), The Phantom (Billy Zane running around in purple leotards) and The Phantom Menace four stars.
But I did read his review of Sith and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in this case, if only because there's been so much positive buzz from other quarters.
Nonsense; all Star Wars ships run at the same speed, it's the in-hyperspace navigation which can make the difference. The length of Solo's route was under 12 parsecs, hence he made the run faster.
Really, I read that somewhere.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Came from Lucas and weren't an adlib from Harrison Ford. I bet it was the latter.
In Sith he's not so whiny, and you can really see where he'd be annoyed with things going on around him. Although you are not supposed to exactly like him, you can at least understand the path he's taking and feel some empathy for him making bad choices (some of which are pushed by those around him).
I liked Sith because it came about that the Jedi council are far from infallible and made some pretty bad choices themselves.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
and it was positive: A.O. Scott in the New York Times.
a r.html
Registration required (and fix the slash'ed URL):
http://movies2.nytimes.com/2005/05/16/movies/16st
Or for a perceptive scathing (and amusing) review, see Anthony Lane in the New Yorker (right now at http://www.newyorker.com/critics/cinema).
They're making His Dark Materials into a movie. Haven't read the book, but I was told it's sorta like a secular humanist version of Narnia. And there's Narnia itself.
.
But, well, that's fantasy. There's A Scanner Darkly
But none of that looks like it could spawn a real franchise. Damn You, Fox!!! Now Firefly will be, at best, a decent movie trilogy. Imagine what Babylon 5 would have been squeezed into seven and a half hours. Bah.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
He borrowed the good ideas of so many people, it would have been sad if the whole hadn't reflected the parts.
I'll give you a couple of examples, there's plenty more:
The choosen one of millenial prophecies comes from this planet.
Capital of the Galactic Empire, from there goes forth a fleet of giant spaceships to enforce the central authority on far away worlds.
Lucas doesn't create: He recycles. There's nothing wrong with recycling, he did it well, but it's just not the same thing as having original ideas.
You can't take the sky from me...
"That's like the NBA unions kicking Shaq out. He may not be the BEST player ever, but he's certainly the biggest gorilla in the room for the moment."
i guess we found the source of the open proxy trolls. take your nazi filth elsewhere you dumb ass cracker
Thats just what I needed. Reading those reviews helped to lower my expectations a great deal. Now I should be able to enjoy the movie. Thanks!
Sig cancelled due to lack of interest
The Grauniad is a "loony left" paper in the UK with a political axe to grind (let's bash the Yankee moneymakers!) and little time for any SF, good or bad. Their ultimate directors are people like Lars von Trier (Oooh! Dogma is so iconoclastic!) or Ken Loach, writer of kitchen-sink dramas about squalor in post-Thatcherite Britain. Star Wars will never find any favour with The Grauniad, because it says little about the daily reality of people's lives - i.e. they don't believe in escapism. "Embrace the misery that is your life!"
I can't say I'm IN a terrible hurry to go and see Sith, I can't stand fighting queues, but (as others have already said) Ebert's review is more valuable because of its clarity. Neither tPM or AotC get an entry in my Great Movies list, but Sith is still one of my "should see" movies this year. (But what about Batman Begins..?) Comparing The Grauniad's reviewer to Ebert is like comparing Film to The Movies...
(this is not a
If I had a dime for every misuse of there/their/they're (or your/you're or its/it's) on Slashdot alone, I'd retire a wealthy man.
Test yourself!
Doug
I just got back from seeing it at the midnight premiere here, and it was an enormous stinking piece of turd. There are many many reasons why, but this pretty much sums it up: You have a situation where EVERYONE knows exactly what will happen. Anakin becomes vader, palpatine emperor, and most of the jedi get slaughtered. To make the movie even passingly interesting, Lucas HAD to do something more than simply connect point A to point B with his lovely CGI line. He did not, and thus the movie failed. You come out of the movie having gained nothing more than when you went in, except a numb behind, and a growing hatred for all things Star Wars.
I just came back from the advance screening of Episode III and my thoughts on the movie are both positive and negetive. Not going to spoil anything what happens, to me its an all-out buck for most intensive action yet seen in a film. You like action, theres plenty and it will make you drool (still whiping face). If you can deal with more sudden changes in emotion then a girl going through menopause then this movie is for you.
I am a huge Star Wars fan, George Lucas is a creative genious. The breath and width of his characters is incredible. But what annoys me with this film is that he doesnt use those characters we all love to their full potential and characters that are new just jump into a scene as if we know all about them. The film is rushed, plain and simple. It is the best out of the first 3 sagas but I believe that Episode III should have been Episodes II and III and make the first 2 episodes into 1.
Now the story I do actually like, I think it fits in to the scheme of things really well, but the execution is poor. I man like Lucas who people admir and a source of inspiration for all I believe let us down. He is like a football hero who has come out of retirement to the game he loves but not have the game inside him as he once did. I would believe that the fans should have had a much bigger involvement in the making of the 3 films. People live and breath Star Wars and base their careers off the inspiration Star Wars has given them. I have played games, read books and watched movies based on Star Wars and the ideas those people have reworked with Lucas's own ties in so well. I just cant come to the fact that it ended like this.
I'm just curious... why is this person the icon for movie reviews? Does it matter what Bob, Joe, or Dan think? They more he is paid, the less I value his opinion anyway.
"Lucas is a fine director and all"
Give me the title of a film to prove your hypothesis.
Okay who's the best barometer?
:)
1) Ebert who's paid by a newspaper who's editors rely on ad revenue from the same movie.
2) RottenTomatoes.com, who caters to a jaded cynical crowd, much like those here on slashdot (and also relies on ad revenue).
3) yourself?
Then again, once you pay and get into the movie theater, you can't get your money back if you didn't like the movie, so let's just all agree that very few of us slashdotters will be satisfied with a Star Wars movie ever again and either we need to accept being screwed or just shut up and go home. I mean seriously!?!?
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Rather than post the entire review, here is the link to the story from CNNs site.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Anyone who really is a fan of Star Wars should already know this.... Point of Fact:
The following report was posted on pulpmovies a site run by an internet comrade of mine and subsequently echoed by several other sources, including a developer of Star Wars Galaxies MMPORPG:
"You didn't hear this from me, but you might be curious as to why everyone at ILM just signed NDA's (Non Disclosure Agreement) saying that they will not discuss Star Wars EP7, 8, or 9.
Since they're not being made, why the NDA's? Of course, since when has the flannel one been consistent?"
Kevin Costner. Come on now, if you have ever seen "The Postman" you would understand. Maybe Tom Petty would even make an appearance
"Insert Sig Here"
I like David Brin's take on it from 6 years ago:
http://www.davidbrin.com/starwarsarticle1.html
Specifically follow-up point #5. He's going the same direction that you're talking about. I agree with you that it could have made a significantly more interesting over-all story.
But that would have been asking audiences to think about what they were seeing. Can't have that!
-B
I'll cut to the chase. The first fifteen minutes of the movie left me with great hope, the fights were great (Aside from the greatest slaughter of Physics I've seen in a five minute interval), the characters used moves and powers from the games which was great to see. Then up to a point I'd say it was a great action movie, that you could sit down and enjoy without thinking or nit-picking, but unfortunately eventually a combination of the dialogue, various silly sounds/special effects, parts of scenes that were unintentionally funny, various pieces terrible CG, minature models and use of the blue screen dragged it down, along with plot elements that are just like the first two movies: Silly elaborate machines or creatures used for no purpose other than to look distinctive, combined with ludicrous physical scenareos (Such as where Obi Wan chases Grevious through a working area containing nothing but a huge empty, unused and unoccupied industrial space, or the end battle where pressing a few buttons makes a structure - That sits in lava itself and has lava lashing up against it - suddenly fall apart and be damaged by lava (on that note why the hell would machines on a lava planet/moon need to collect lava individually, when the entire structure is sitting in lava?)). Scenes like this simply augment an action scene just like a game - and it's just as obvious as the factory scene in Episode II.
But what absolutely killed the movie for me was the dialogue. In scenes with Padme and Anakin, just think and contrast it with one of thos e day-time soaps, and you'll find that they're almost identical, the music is even right. But above all, I can't believe that all the dialogue in the last five minutes couldn't break the movie a few notches for anybody who sees it. Hearing Padme say 'Luke!' and 'Leia!' clearly while dying is cringeworthy, but wait for the dialogue in the one of the last scenes with Vader. Once you hear that deep voice say the name 'Padme', then see Vader throw a hissy-fit then in the spirit of almost every melodrama actually end the scene screaming 'Nooooooooooooooo!!', you'll know how I felt.
In brief, since it is late:
Yes, that script on the web is the real thing, some scenes are even removed (such as one on Kashyyk with one of the Wookies feigning death)
Are there great parts? Of course! A lot of the action scenes are incredible, and the scenes where the various Jedi get killed are very well done also and remind me of KOTR. Unfortunately, the great action is almost all there is.
Is it better than the previous two movies? Yes, it definately is. Does that make it great in it's own right? In my opinion no.
Well that's my opinion on it. I'm not the most hardcore Star Wars person around, and I'm not going to say that I hated the movie. I wouldn't be melodramatic and say that watching it is punishment. It simply isn't good or great. I think that when you take away everybody's great hates from the prequels such as Jar Jar Binks and midichlorans (which gets a mention in III), you find that the rest simply isn't that good.
Misc stuff:
At the premiere they had a giveout of a poster/tickets for the best dressed, and in the lineup was a vulcan in a TNG uniform who won, just like in the online video.
I took a laptop into the cinema to watch Empire Strikes Back in the 1.5 hour wait, and was asked to turn it off and put it under the chair due to 'piracy laws'. She also asked a guy with a PDA to get rid of it.
Some people were trying to line up for seats two days early at the best screen in the city. However the theatre was giving them queue numbers and shooing them away. The patrons were complaining about being denied the experience of waiting in line overnight for a chance to see Star Wars, since it is the last new Star Wars. The theater retorted that current technology makes lines unnecessary.
They did such a good job for the Steel, Auto and Airline industries...
Blar.
The New Yorker has a . They don't seem to be quite as excited as Ebert, though. Also, the : "This is by far the best film in the more recent trilogy, and also the best of the four episodes Mr. Lucas has directed. That's right (and my inner 11-year-old shudders as I type this): it's better than 'Star Wars.'"
I really don't think the comment was racist. Haven't you ever heard the line. "What you give a 600 pound gorilla?" "Anything thing he wants." I've heard this used for a fair number of white guys, and companies run by white guys. All he's say ing is Shaq can get/do nearly anything he wants. As he's currently one of the best players in the NBA. He is the "big fish in the pond" so to speak. Of course now I'm likely a racist for comparing Shaq to a fish;-)
IANALBIPOOGL (I am not a Lawyer, but I play one on GrokLaw.)
Ebert Gives 'Sith' Positive Review
If you were face-to-face with a pissed off Sith holding a double bladed light-saber, you'd give him a postive review too!
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/17/s tar.wars.overview/top.star.wars.04.jpg
I just have to ask: Is there any way that the editor/webmaster could have been blind to the inuendo on this one? This has gotta be intentional.
"Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."
Nice way to steal somebody else's material, troll-boy
Neverwhere was made into a miniseries. Six episodes, with reportedly horrible acting. I have it, but never got around to watching it.
Bah, if they did anything really good SF or fantasy, they'd make another "I, Robot" or "LXG" out of it.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
This website gives you an aggregate rating of people who have similar tastes with your own.
http://movielens.umn.edu/
Blah Blah Tacos
It was the pop culture of the 1970s and early 80s that made the original trilogy cool. There was an innocence to society that we will not find again for a long time, and the original Star Wars trilogy was perfect because it was a great story that didn't take itself too seriously.
The prequels take themselves way too seriously. And what's lacking most of all is a Han Solo character. I swear to God if you took Han Solo's character and put him in the real world, he'd be a 70s used car salesman.
There is no character to relate too in the new trilogy, so no good review will make me that excited...But I plan to see the movie at 6:00 AM tomorrow morning!
From the blurb: "Episode III" has more action per square minute, I'd guess, than any of the previous five movies, and it is spectacular.' Bad dialogue as usual
Uh, isn't that the same thing that turned Matrix fans off about Matrix II? Let's face facts, when you have a film with more time dedicated to car chases than any two of the three Mad Max films you gotta wonder how much you can hold the audience's attention. The same applies here; how many saber fights can one human endure in 2.5 hours? And even more to the point is that what makes Star Wars good?
To get beyond the "troll" potential of the post; I liked Star Wars : A New Hope for what it was. I never got into the other films and I think that, IMHO, too much action and not enough story is dull. Especially in a sequal. Eye candy can only carry a film so far.
Maybe that's why I also had less and less interest in the LOTRs films. For me, JRRT's LOTRs was about the focus of a very small group of people in the midst of a near-world-ending struggle. This got lost in Jackson's attempt compared to JRRT's written version. The epic battles just became filler to me and in ROTK it was almost overwhelming. I still liked all three films but against popular opinion I liked Fellowship the best. It just gave me the feel of JRRT's vision.
Am I asking too much from film?
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
"Sith. What kind of a word is that? Sith. It sounds to me like the noise that emerges when you block one nostril and blow through the other..."
"Mind you, how Padmé got pregnant is anybody's guess, although I'm prepared to wager that it involved Anakin nipping into a broom closet with a warm glass jar and a copy of Ewok Babes..."
"The general opinion of 'Revenge of the Sith' seems to be that it marks a distinct improvement on the last two episodes, 'The Phantom Menace' and 'Attack of the Clones.' True, but only in the same way that dying from natural causes is preferable to crucifixion..."
"I still fail to understand why I should have been expected to waste twenty-five years of my life following the progress of a beeping trash can and a gay, gold-plated Jeeves..."
"If you ever got laid (admittedly a long shot, unless we can dig you up some undiscerning alien hottie with a name like Jar Jar Gabor), and spawned a brood of Yodettes, are you saying that you'd leave them behind at the first sniff of danger? Also, while we're here, what's with the screwy syntax? Deepest mind in the galaxy, apparently, and you still express yourself like a day-tripper with a dog-eared phrase book. 'I hope right you are.' Break me a fucking give..."
Single reviewers are often unreliable, having bias and agendas of their own. If you want a more objective approach to the popularity of a film, you should look at sites that provide an overview of all reviews for a given film.
Unfortunately most reviewers try too hard to be a critic and fail to tell us how the movie is. Ebert makes it absolutely clear that this new Star Wars is heavily flawed, but you will be overwhelmed so by everything else that you will not care. I have agreed with Ebert's opinions on every movie that I have seen, including the fact that the point of Episode I is not the plot or dialogue or acting, but the visuals; while Episode II concentrates too much on dialogue and fails miserably. He's not just another slick reviewer giving you the low-down on acting, dialogue, special effects, etc.; he is telling you that you will probably enjoy it.
(I also trust Ebert so much because he has been reviewing movies longer than most of those reviewers trying their hand at the art.)
Takashi Miike gets my vote
WTF? 'Kiri kiri kiri!'
Princess Leia keeps sits alone in a bare room, with Chewbacca tied up inside a bag in the corner.
Later, she cuts off Han Solos leg with some piano wire.
I'd *love* to see the fan's reaction to that one.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
I didn't mean to imply that the pervious efforts did not have a lot of care poured into them - but like you say the end result was somewhat more disjointed. This one just feels really good...
I was also speaking partly out of a talk I had with the wife of a person on the artists team (Eric somebody). She was mentioning how much work he had gone through on this one, not sure if he was involved in the others.
I think you are right about this one coming off better because Lucas was able to step back and let very talented people shine through.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If he had made 7-9 instead, the story could go and end where he wanted, where the movie took it, where a logically paced movie naturally ended.
But if you look at what has happened, he was able to do what he wanted in EP1, then a little less in EP2, then finally in EP3 was constrained with dovetailing against the original movies.
It is thus not a coinceidence that the movies get prgogressivley better as he gets closer to the source material. If he had done as you said and made 7-9, he basically would have started with something like Ep1 and then got even WACKIER since he would have no constraints at all. Do you really think that would have been better?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The thing is that this movie is really breathtaking, the action is nice but there is also a lot of work on really fantastic environmnetal effects that are just really pleasing to see.
There are some movies that are just worth seeing in a theater, and if there ever was one this is it. This is the kind of movie that could determine which future HD DVD format will win (not sure if that battle is still ongoing or if the truce has held).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I wonder how many waves of the hand it took to get that review?
It's funny you should mention that, because I saw Gene Siskel just the other day and, for the very same reasons you mentioned, I asked him what he thought of Episode III.
His review was succinct, but to the point: "BRAINS!!!!"
So there you have it! The other reviews who claim that the Star Wars films are mindless have been rebuffed by *both* Siskel and Ebert! With an endorsement like that, I can't wait for this movie!
(Okay, go ahead and mod me "-5, tasteless" now.)
Boundless Expansion, Self-Transformation, Dynamic Optimism, Intelligent Technology, Spontaneous Order- BEST DO IT SO!
That is the best way to see it since you also get season two (not on DVD yet), which is even more important to see really. It costs $30 a year to join but they have enough other stuff (including other video) to make it worthwhile.
I think they made a real mistake not having both seasons of Clone Wars out yet since it really adds depth to the movie having watched these beforehand.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Now there would be a review I would trust....
And hopefully it will be available soon, looks like he's back!
http://www.bigempire.com/filthy/
...like in, acceleration of action as the movie wears on?
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
If only Jar-Jar Binks could get shot first ...
I'd like to see what his son's mitochondrian counts are like...
emerald demon writes: ...but I assumed that Ebert was going to go for the minimum for giving his thumb up--two and a half stars
To correct the text of this post, the lowest star rating that Ebert gives a "thumbs up" to is 3 out of four stars. If a movie got two and a half stars it would be a thumbs down.
Mace Windu. No shit! Shit, motherfucker! Lets go bust some caps in that motherfucker. And by us, I mean me. Stay here, punk, before I smack you around again. Punkass bitch!
Anakin:But I wanted to go to Tosche Station and pick up some power converters....
To me that came off quite different. What I thought at that point is that the Jedi basically helped turned Anakin to the dark side because they would never trust him - to me he did not come off whiny at that point, but justafiably frustrated because he knew they would probably loose without him and that by not including him it meant they still did not really trust him.
To me the process of turning was more subtle than you lay out because it was not just Padme that did it, it was the combination of that and the Jedi council being afraid themselves. And that's what I really liked about it, that in the end the Jedi's own fear was the undoing of them.
I also did think the transition seemed a little quick at the end but I could see where he would give in once he had comitted to that side.
Yes it could have been done better but to me in the last one he was pretty whiny and here I hardly saw him that way at all.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That was only a tiny part of what drove him over. Padme was another part, and the Jedi beaing too afraid to ever trust him another. All of these things gave Palpatine the tools he needed to convert Anakin.
If someone never trusts you why should you trust them?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The CGI affects are good, they make most of the movie. Acting is wooden, Palpatine is the most enjoyable of them all until he shows his bad side which is mostly expressed by his bad teeth.
Chewbacca does the Tarzan cry and gets on top of a ship by swinging on a rope. We get three seconds of Jar-Jar at the end but he makes no sounds.
The movie was heavily helped by the 21 meter (yard) wide screen that made the graphics look spectacular. I can't really tell how it feels to see it on a smaller screen when you get to pay more attention to the actors.
Despite some damaged artistic circuits, Lucas may still have a bit of grey matter running intact after all. These are his words at Cannes regarding the latest Star Wars installment. .
-FL
The above was modded off topic? Ahh. Perhaps I should have opened my post thusly. .
"The Star Wars film recently reviewed by a famous film critic was also commented upon (two days ago) by its director with the following words. .
You know; just to make sure the people in charge of moderation today really had the relavent points clearly deliniated in big, fat, red marker. Okay? Okay.
-FL
This is an excerpt from a document that details how the three-branch system of government appeared, and why. It then goes into the problems of rule by one, rule by many, and rule by all. It gets long winded...
http://www.sms.org/mdl-indx/polybius/intro.htm
--------
In Book VI of his Histories (6.4.6-11; cf. 6.3.5), the ancient Greek historian Polybius outlines three simple forms of constitution--each categorized according to the number of its ruling body: monarchy (rule by the one), aristocracy (rule by the few), and democracy (rule by the many).6 According to the historian, these three simple constitutions each degenerate, over time, into their respective corrupt forms (tyranny, oligarchy, and mob-rule) by a cycle of gradual decline which he calls anacyclosis or "political revolution" (6.9.10: politeiw=n a)naku/klwsij; 6.4.7-11; cf. 6.3.9). 7
For monarchy, he claims, inevitably degrades into tyranny. Tyranny is then replaced by aristocracy, which in turn degrades into oligarchy. Oligarchy then is overthrown by democracy, which ultimately falls into its own corresponding distortion, mob-rule (or ochlocracy). In Polybius' analysis, the cycle then starts up again (monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy) since anarchy inevitably creates a void that some new demagogue will fill.8 'Anaku/klwsij, the sliding from one form of constitution into another, is unavoidable because of the inherent weakness of each simple form of constitution.9
The catalyst for the decay in each simple form, Polybius says (6.7.7), is hereditary succession--the automatic handing down of the privileges of a particular form of government to future generations without their ever having to internalize for themselves the discipline necessary to maintain those privileges.
Each of the three simple forms of constitution serves well enough at its inception, since founder kings arise out of their very excellence of character, aristocracies (by definition at least) form from the noblest of society, and democracies too embrace the highest ideals at the outset. The problem lies not with the initial impetus that forms these governments but with the fact that they each suffer entropy, or internal decay.
Polybius explains his theory in fuller detail, describing the mechanism by which hereditary succession weakens the state. When the crown is inherited generation upon generation, kings are no longer then chosen by excellence of leadership but by accident of birth. When monarchs are born to privilege, they no longer have any incentive to serve the state (since their privileges are no longer tied to their performance as leaders). They eventually expend their daily energies in merely fulfilling the desires of their own appetites. Having become arrogant and self-serving, the last in the line of tyrants is pushed aside by those who are close enough to the throne to notice his corruption, namely the members of the aristocracy (Polyb. 6.8.1).
They, in turn, serve the state well initially. After all, these were the nobles so offended by the king's excesses that principle drove them to take action against him. Unfortunately, here again, when the grandchildren of these nobles inherit position, they are ill equipped to handle the power of rule (since they were born to privilege and identify less and less with the problems of the common man). The aristocracy then degrades proportionally by each generation into an oligarchy, just as the kings degenerated into tyrants (6.8.5). The oligarchs then are banished or killed by the people, who finally assume the responsibility of ruling themselves.
The people also govern well, at first. As long as there are any living who remember the days of oppression, they guard their liberties with a jealous vigor. Nevertheless, as future generations inherit the same privileges of democracy as their ancestors, yet without effort, they cease to cherish those benefit
Lucas borrows much.. I completely forgot about the tricking the ewoks into believeing the rebels are diety figures.. the entire concept of how the Foundation controls their remote portion of the old-empire is by creating a religion based on the powers of technology.
At least Assimov was clear about why the Foundation is good, while Lucas' universe is a jumbled mess leaving giant gaps for people to plug their biazzare interpretations into.
Anyway, I know you write this in jest.. but Lucas' univserse isn't a product of immaculate conception, Issac Assimov never gets his due for the huge influence his novels have excerted.
If you can name a more well-known reviewer, please do tell.
"Worldwide" is a bit overreachig to be sure, but he is pretty well known even outside the states to anyone that likes movies a lot.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Kerry Conran and Robert Rodriguez could each take one.
/. crowd likes, these two have a better chance at it than anyone but Spielberg.
I don't care who the
-- Boycott Shell
I'm going to make one risky point here. I liked that scene: Anakin's near nervous breakdown after the death of his mom, because it gave me the one thing that I felt was entirely lacking from the original trilogy.
Lucas has created this whole mythos that negative emotion - "anger, fear, aggression" - are risky for Jedi in a way that they aren't for other people. As if those emotions are addictive, or overwhelmingly compelling, or something. That if you don't religiously avoid them, you can get sucked to the Dark Side against your will.
Yet in the whole first trilogy, I just never bought it. In the RotJ Luke vs. Vader battle scene, supposedly Luke was right on the edge, but Mark Hamill just never sold it. I watched him Get Real Mad (TM) and open up a Can of Whoop Ass (TM) on Vader, but I never once actually felt any real risk that he would go to the Dark Side. It sure looked like all the world as if Luke could get as pissed as he wanted, kick as much ass as he needed, and still be good old Luke. As much as I loved the original movies, I had to just take it on faith that "negative emotions are dangerous for Jedi".
In Anakin's nervous breakdown, for all the other faults of that scene and movie, I felt like the actor managed to bring across the sense of anguish: that the character was succumbing to a madness and psychological instability that plausibly led to the Dark Side. It made the "risk of bad feelings" mythos real for me for the first time in five movies.
Otherwise, bash the first movies however you will and I won't defend them, even if I like them more than most slashdotters seem to. (It seems out of fashion to enjoy Eps I and II, these days, but when did I ever care about being cool?)
But that one moment definitely added something the series needed.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
I mean, Ebert doesn't often make himself buddy buddy with the film industry, but they still give him screeners... I think he needs to rip them ;)
I haven't posted in so long, my sig is out of date.
It's obvious that Ebert has been seduced by the Dark side. Why else would he give Episode III a good review? Remember what Yoda said "Always two there are, no more, no less. A Master and an Apprentice." First Siskel and Ebert. Now Ebert and Roeper.
I give Ebert's review "two thumbs down".
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
'To say that George Lucas cannot write a love scene is an understatement; greeting cards have expressed more passion.'"
That just makes it more like real life and easier to relate to, especially for us geeks. Besides, Antonio Bandineroz (spell?) was never able to levitate fruit over to his lover.
Table-ized A.I.
No, the one who gets me is Yoda. May I take the opportunity to enter a brief plea in favor of his extermination?
But of course. Yoda is evil!
Yesterday evening I have seen the movie in a Dutch theater at 21:30 localtime. And it's absolutely impressing and stunning how everything fits together . I think I'm going to the theater a couple of more times this week. What I really liked were the battles between Anakin and Count Dooku, Obi-Wan versus Grivious, Mace Windu versus Palpentine (who in the fight becomes Darth Sidious!), the battle between Palpentine and Yoda and last but definetly not least, the battle we have been waiting for since the beginning, Anakin versus Obi-Wan.
been thinking waaaaay too much about this.
bad bad bad bad bad.
(There may be spoilers)
Whatever spinoffs are in the pipeline, and with Tim Zahn's books (supposedly good) existing under a grandfather clause, I say that it should all end here - where III dovetails with IV.
No more SW movies.
I don't like most of the alterations that have "enhanced" the DVD set of IV-VI, specifically the re-inserted Jabba scene in IV, and the ice cave feeding scene and emperor retrofit in V. The original VI was ruined by the Ewoks so much that the "enhanced" space combat compensated for it.
As far as ep. I goes, if you like Jar-Jar, you probably like Scooby-Doo too. I'm not judging, just observing. Muppet Yoda sucks.
II proves that Lucas can't write/direct non-tragic normal love-scenes. ILM Yoda rocks.
III moves me as a SW fan - the technology and the artistry are so unbelievably good that they are goodly believable. It's the best SW movie since V (which Lucas didn't direct).
III has Lots of action and eye-candy. There is just enough camp, humor, and intimacy that the movie works for me. I was completely satisfied for my $8 bucks, but the peanut gallery will always say that it could have been done better.
My domino piece is that Anakin & Padme at least had enough medical coverage so you could induce labor or perform a c-section and she wouldn't have to die. And what about jedi healing? And if Anakin really loved her, he could leave the Jedi order and become an, erm "pilot" or "househusband?"
The scene where Anakin is named DV totally sucks too. You'd figure that the Palpatine would give him a direct beatdown so that Anakin would notice the shoe up his behind.
Also, Mace and Anakin should have had at least _a_ moment together to establish an emotional tie-in as fellow Jedi and where they stood in relation to each other. Even a 30-second non-council confrontation between the two would establish _some_ kind of relationship between the two.
And as for killing the kids - you'd think that Anakin would be smart enough to have them all face the doors w/lighsabers out - and then he'd cut them all in half from behind while leading them in a meditation exercise.
Plus, I think Yoda should at least have been able to cut off one of Palpatine's legs.
Signed,
A peanut in the Gallery
p.s. With No More, there will be No Less.
One cutscene after the other. A lot of footage was tied up in CG flyovers. Not a lot of plot, character, and dialog for your $.
* One star.