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.
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.
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
Actually, I thought the point there was pretty clear: it wasn't his mom's death (or the manner, or timing of it) per se, it was the anger at his own limitations, manifested as his inability to stop or reverse what happened. Mom's death brought it home to him, but what really got him was the knowledge that he's powerful, but just not that powerful... and he takes the route of partially blaming the Jedi (and Obi Wan) for being held back.
This is pretty much like every teenager's episode of thinking that just because bad crap happens in life, that the universe must be particularly out to get them.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
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