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.'"
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.
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.
Most importantly, Ebert would tell you to ignore the star rating. He says he puts that there only because it's expected by the readers and required by the newspaper. It's totally lacking in context, for one thing: many people would rather see a two-star chopsocky than a four-star tearjerker. He tries to rate them relative to the expectations of the audience, but it still leaves a lot to be desired.
Beyond that, even if you disagree with him on taste, you can learn a lot from his reviews. His skill is to be able to say why he liked a movie, or disliked it, and you can often use that to judge your opinion by his.
He's a good writer. Or at least I think so. His reviews are fun to read. I find that's different from most reviewers, where the review looks like:
* 1 paragraph snarky comments
* N paragraphs of plot summary
* One sentence each for the leads, the director, and a few other details
It helps to be familiar with the reviewer's baises. Ebert is a huge fan of anime, so he adores some films that bore me silly. One advantage Ebert has over some other reviewers is that he's been at it forever, so there's a large body of reviews to calibrate your taste against.
Ebert will tell you he's a critic, not a reviewer. His goal is to understand why movies succeed and fail. As an actor and director myself I find reviewers infuriating since they rarely understand the craft and usually misapportion blame and credit.
Hey, if you've found a reviewer out there whose tastes match yours completely, bonus. If you're into genre pics, like horror or scifi, it may be easier to find somebody whose taste better matches yours; Ebert's taste runs in favor of dramas and literary types.
For many people, Ebert fits that bill. If not, enjoy the movies anyway.
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
To be fair, Chrstensen wasn't given that much to work with, either script-wise or direction-wise. Under the best of circumstances, making a role like this compelling is difficult, and circumstances here are not the best.
I have a theory that classically trained actors do better with science fiction and fantasy roles than actors with a more natural style.
If you have to recite a laundry list, say it with flair.
Hey, Ian McKellan was great as Gandalf, but he was also great as Magneto. Granted Magneto has a back story and all that, but I doubt McKellan read any comic books to get into the character's head. I bet he just quickly perused up the script, then headed back into the Shakespearean lumber room, emerging having nailed together a tragic villain performance the way Norm Abrams can transform a discarded shipping pallet into a piece of fine furniture.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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
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.
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
You cannot seriously be talking about Darth Vader. The child prodigy? The "chosen one" who became the apprentice of the legendary Jedi? The character who then, in greed, loneliness, and rage for power, embraced evil -- slaughtering innocents, assualting his own child, and somehow, in the last seconds of his life, redeeming himself by turning against the very evil he had succumbed to -- that is difficult to make compelling? Jesus Christ, that is like the biggest fanboy apology I have ever heard in my fucking life. This is one of the greatest villians of our time. Not only that, he is a fucking complicated mess of psychology, if someone would just portray it right! This character should be disturbed, confused, hurt, lonely, seeking validation and acceptance. Instead, we got a mechanical arm and petulant whining. I think people complain and mock both Lucas and Christensen precisely because it should have been brain-dead easy to make this compelling. How the hell could he screw up something that left such an indelible impression for so many years? How could we get such dreck?
Personally, I think that Lucas's obsession with technology provides a disappointing counterpoint to Peter Jackson's focus on the human aspects of a story. But I'm going to see SW3 on Friday afternoon in an all-digital showing, because I'm just that much of a lost cause.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
This is one of the greatest villians of our time.
... [redemption]", then convince me it didn't take skill to make it credible.
Not really. That honor goes to Mr. Lecter...
In a way, you're right, there is some potentially interesting stuff there; never said otherwise. Looked at in the context of the whole series, the Dark Lord of Episode IV appears pretty pathetic.
But -- intensity is not equal to subtlety.
You're talking about Good and Evil; Destiny; you know -- Cosmic Stuff. We're talking about a character who was conceived through virgin birth -- like Jesus or Merlin. How does an actor turn up the amplitude to breath life into all that stuff without ranting like a fool or a amateur in a fan flick?
What he doesn't do is draw on his life experiences to show a hidden facet of his personality. Real life evil is banal. It leaves the house, pecking the wife on the cheek and tossling the kids' hair, then mechanically tortures a political prisoner bcause it was following orders. That's not what we're talking about. We're not talking about an evil person -- we're talking about Evil personified with a capital E.
And thats why fans hate Christensen's performance. If you set aside your dissatisfaction with Christensen for a minute, you see that he plays Anakin as shallow, weak and a bit narcissistic. Which is a completely psychologically naturalistic and plausible portrait of evil, but doesn't cut it as Evil. What fans want is more like what a Japanese Noh actor does: don the mask and speak through it with supernatural power.
Now, if you set aside your dissatisfaction with me for a minute, you'll see I'm actually agreeing with you for the most part. Christensen completely failed to squeeze the juice out of the part in Ep 2. But it's not because he's a bad actor. He's just not the right kind of actor for this kind of part. I enjoyed Patrick Stewart as Captain Picard, but I doubt I'd enjoy him as Will Lohman.
I think people complain and mock both Lucas and Christensen precisely because it should have been brain-dead easy to make this compelling.
There you're wrong. Show me a performance that convincing combines "greed, loneliness, and rage for power, embraced evil -- slaughtering innocents, assualting his own child, and
Personally, I think that Lucas's obsession with technology provides a disappointing counterpoint to Peter Jackson's focus on the human aspects of a story.
Which makes my point. Vader is a demi-god -- that's very clear if you've read your Joseph Campbell. Christensen is the wrong kind of actor for this, and Lucas is the wrong director for fixing that. By contrast, McKellen is as close to a perfect actor to play Gandalf (another demi-god) as you could wish for, and Jackson is wonderfully gifted at shifting between cosmic battles and tiny, human scaled details. One of my favorite scenes in RotK wasn't even in the book. It's where Gandalf and Pippin are crouched behind a wall in Minas Tirith, and Gandalf explains to Pippin what it feels like to die. There's a wonderful human warmth to that scene, at the same time it has cosmic implications. It's a perfect combination of a superb actor, sensitive direction, and an uncommonly wonderful bit of screenwriting.
That's having material to work with.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.