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.'"
... then the movie *must* be good. Personally I don't find his opinions all that indicative of quality film.
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.
'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.
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.
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.
I vote for John Woo.
Either him, or David Cronenburg.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
kevin smith
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
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.
Timothy Zahn already wrote the next three... There good too! ;)
(ps: I'm a nut and own about 3/4 of the starwars books. )
-=fshalor
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?
B.S.
At this point, Spielberg can do virtually anything he wants and not get kicked out of the director's guild. For directing Episode I they're going to kick him out? And not become a laughingstock? 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.
My little site.
People pay too much attention to thumbs and stars.
Ebert's a pretty smart guy, and he knows a lot about film. But sometimes, especially when he's reviewing something that is more of a flick than a film, if you know what I mean, he's, well, a bit enthusiastic. It's like he can reach back into his childhood and remember what it was like just to enjoy something just because it was fun not necessarily well made or original. Stuff like the old Tarzan or Flash Gordon serials.
I'm not sure what this says of him as a critic. If his function is to raise the cultural level of society, maybe he's a lousy critic. But I do think most people can read an Ebert review and know whether they will agree or disagree with him on a movie, so maybe that is is function.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I also agree that Spielberg is way over rated. He's technically a good director. He understands how to use the camera to get the best shots, but he has no connection with his audience. He continuosly beats us over the head with the story...
Because of that I don't think Spielberg would help Star Wars at all. Spielberg has never really been praised for getting the most out of his actors (which is Lucas' because weakness). And Lucas doesn't really have a problem framing, shooting, and editing a movie. What could improve these movies is a very good dialouge coach and a screen writer who knows how to adapt Lucas' vision to the page.
That being said, I still love the prequels and I'll be in the theater at 12:01 tonight.
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
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...
Which means that he hires good cinematographers, which he does.
Spielberg - and Lucas - are hack directors in the traditional Hollywood sense. They turn out modern versions of the B-movies of the past, gangster movies and disaster films and westerns oh my. Except for THX1138 and American Grafitti neither has shown the least amount of ability to write fleshed out characters, inviting dialogue or interesting human interaction. They are at their best when manipulating tried and true set pieces and esy, overblown themes. In this sense, they are perfect Hollywood directors - they produce easy to digest, inoffensive tripe.
As you can guess, I will not be at the premiere, but that's what makes a horse race.
I am a believer of momentum and curves.
Pray, tell ... What is an objective review? Do you mean a checklist of things that a good movie should have? Like
A review is useful precisely because it is subjective. This is why I respect the opinion of people who share similar movie tastes as mine, since I am sure I can enjoy those movies. In other words, I expect a biased review.
A list of subjective opinions does not make an objective system, either, imho.
Don't listen to the trolls. I only know who he is because I spend an unholy amount of time on the internet. Never in my life have I heard him mentioned in any Danish media. I suspect that less than 10% of the people in the world who aren't American know who he is.
Personally I think the biggest problem with Ep1-3 isn't so much the story. Yeah so we know where it goes, but that doesn't me it the ride to get there can't be exciting.
No the problem is money. Lucas has way too much of it. Especially for the first film [New Hope] there was a severe budget crunch. They were limited in both money and time. I think this forces a film team to make decisions that in the long run are good for the film. If you have no boundaries, you are more likely to throw in little bits that really have no business being in the movie. If you are limited, you are forced to trim the fat and leave the good bits. With the prequels, Lucas had no limits. He effectively had infinite money and time in which to make these films. As a result he wasn't forced to REALLY think about which parts worked to help the film and which didn't.
Then again his dialog sucks either way, especially with love scenes. The general story of Ep 1 and 2 really aren't bad at all. They could have been great movies if the dialog [and to a lesser degree the acting] were better and if they'd been forced to really be picky about what they filmed.
Nothing to see here
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
With respect to Lucas: Who has written the worst Star Wars films?
With respect to Spielberg: You have a point. I would counter by saying that, IMO, Spielberg is often unable to get good performances out of well-written work, and has a penchant for adding his own terrible writing to others works, as in the endings to AI and Schindler's List.
I am a believer of momentum and curves.
There isn't a director on the planet who would do star wars more justice then kevin smith -- the ultimate fanboy. he has the knowledge, and the power to make the perfect star wars movie. it'll never happen, but goddamn it would be awesome if it did.
The doctors' and lawyers' unions have done a pretty good job for their industries.
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).
Ironic that labor unions are supposed to protect the best interests of their members from the unscrupulous actions of management. People can't even pick which jobs they want to do without getting blacklisted.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
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/
It does, but it wasn't in the message I was responding to.
People who have problems with they're grammer need to think when their typing to there audience.
But really, I think the spreading incorrect usage of "loose" (in place of "lose") bugs me most. I usually don't say boo about grammar issues because this is a very ephemeral medium and people are just quickly tossing off ideas. As long as I can understand the idea they were trying to get across then I just deal with their idiosyncrasies.
Cheers
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.