Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Star Wars Prequels Media Movies

Ebert Gives 'Sith' Positive Review 681

Posted by timothy from the third-time's-the-charm dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ebert Gives 'Sith' Positive Review More

Ebert Gives 'Sith' Positive Review

Comments Filter:

  • Even Ebert acknowledges we may see SW 7-9 ... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Hulkster ( 722642 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @11:23AM (#12566899) Homepage
    For the Star Wars fans out there who don't RTFA, this was at the bottom: " Note: I said this is not necessarily the last of the "Star Wars" movies. 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.

    But clicking on the submitted link [suntimes.com] is worth it just for the headline picture and the funny caption.

    Use your Google Toolbar to help Folding@HOME [powder2glass.com]

    • Re:Even Ebert acknowledges we may see SW 7-9 ... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Timesprout ( 579035 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @11:29AM (#12566977)
      Isn't there already some sort of tacit agreement in place regarding this? I believe Spielberg was extremely keen to direct one of the current trilogy but Lucas refused (claimed has some sort of story to tell apparently) but that in lieu, a further trilogy would be more probable than possible and Spielberg could have one of them.

    • It'll happen.. (Score:5, Funny)

      by MisanthropicProgram ( 763655 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @11:51AM (#12567238)
      Luke goes over to the Darkside...one of his kids has to redeem him....his kid, Luke Jr., goes over to the darkside. Luke's grandkid has to save his kid....and so on, and so on, ...

      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!

      • Re:It'll happen.. (Score:5, Funny)

        by david.given ( 6740 ) <dg@cowlark.com> on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @12:43PM (#12567831) Homepage Journal
        The Star Wars franchise becomes bigger than Microsoft and IBM combined!

        It is a period of civil war. Rebel actors, being filmed in a hidden studio, have won their first great Oscar for a film that is not part of the evil Star Wars franchise.

        During the ceremony, Rebel spies managed to steal the script for the franchise's ultimate weapon, JEDI XXX, a pornographic film with enough power to destroy entire genres...

    • Absolutely NO to SW 7-9 (Score:5, Informative)

      by seamus_waldron ( 304343 ) <seamus_waldron AT apj DOT co DOT uk> on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @11:57AM (#12567295) Homepage
      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.

      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 ;"Absolutely not...but I am working on Indiana Jones", which got a pretty bid roar from the crowd.

      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.

    • Should Lucas have made 7-9 instead ... ? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by simong_oz ( 321118 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @12:16PM (#12567521) Journal
      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.

      • Re:Should Lucas have made 7-9 instead ... ? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ender- ( 42944 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @12:45PM (#12567860) Homepage Journal
        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.

  • If Roger Says So.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Opalima ( 744615 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @11:25AM (#12566911)
    ... then the movie *must* be good. Personally I don't find his opinions all that indicative of quality film.

    • Re:If Roger Says So.. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by The Barking Dog ( 599515 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @11:29AM (#12566966) Homepage
      It's rare to find someone - even a professional film critic - with whom you'll agree 100% on every single film. What's more important, I think, is that you can watch the same film and see how the other person formulated their opinion, regardless if you agree with it. Roger Ebert is one of the few critics where I can successfully apply that test, even if there's a few films where you wonder what he was thinking (like his positive review of "Anaconda"). CABIN BOY rocks!

      • Re:If Roger Says So.. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Golias ( 176380 )
        even if there's a few films where you wonder what he was thinking (like his positive review of "Anaconda").

        Roger Eberts single film credit is that he co-wrote a Sid Meyer soft-porn movie called "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls." The man really likes boobies.

        That's important to remember whenever he reviews any movie featuring Jenifer Lopez. He raved about The Cell, and gave Gigli three and a half stars out of five.
      • 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'

      • John Podhoretz hated it. (Score:5, Informative)

        by mosel-saar-ruwer ( 732341 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @12:40PM (#12567795)

        John Podhoretz [NY Post [nypost.com]] hated it:

        THE LAST STAR WARS
        It opens next week. I saw it, and here's the thing: It's unbelievably bad. O I'm telling you this because movie critics won't. So far all the early reviews -- all of them, from Variety to the Hollywood Reporter to Time magazine -- have been favorable. Why? Because while the movie critics of my long-ago youth were middlebrow snobs suspicious of populist entertainment, today's critics have turned into toadies. They are afraid of being on an audience's bad side, afraid that a movie they will pan might really strike a chord. Since it's a foregone conclusion that the final Star Wars is going to make a jillion dollars, the safe thing for critics to do is say nice things about it. The only nice thing I can think to say about it is that it's not quite as mindspinningly wretched as its predecessor, Attack of the Clones, but it's plenty awful anyway. Even Yoda gives a rotten performance. Go see it if you must when it opens next week, but at least you got one fair warning here.
        http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp ?ref=/thecorner/05_05_08_corner-archive.asp#062506 [nationalreview.com]

        JAR JAR BINKS
        [JAR JAR BINKS SPOILER]
        http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp ?ref=/thecorner/05_05_08_corner-archive.asp#062515 [nationalreview.com]

        Star Wars VI
        THE FINAL Star Wars is, as writer-director George Lucas promised, a tragedy--but it's not the tragedy Lucas thinks it is. Ever since he began making his second set of Star Wars movies a decade ago, Lucas said that Episode III: Revenge of the Sith would be the unvarnished story of the young knight Anakin Skywalker's degeneration and conversion into the black-helmeted, black-outfitted Darth Vader, the villain of the first three films. The tale of woe it really tells is that of George Lucas himself, the final chapter in the sad degeneration of a vital, vivid, and highly amusing moviemaker into a dull, solipsistic, and humorless incompetent. Lucas had more than a quarter of a century to figure out why Anakin Skywalker went bad. And here's what he came up with: [SPOILERS FOLLOW]
        http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/ 000/000/005/611ajqxt.asp [weeklystandard.com]

        "HOLD ME, ANNAKIN! HOLD ME AS YOU DID BY THE LAKE ON NABOO!"
        Just a little taste of what Cornerites are in for if they go to see Star Wars at midnight. Enjoy.....suckers.....
        http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp ?ref=/thecorner/05_05_15_corner-archive.asp#063403 [nationalreview.com]

        Jason Appuzo [Liberty Film Festival] objected to the needless insertion of politics:

        [LOTS OF SPOILERS]
        This is in large part what irritates me about Lucas' recent remarks. He's actually created a good storyline here, and he's publicly clouding it with nonsense about Bush and the current war. Politics has nothing to do with Anakin's turn to the Dark Side. Revenge of the Sith takes a largely dismissive view of politics, and of movements (whether Jedi or Sith) that assert deep insight into human relations. This is why Vader's late utterances about "his Empire" - a clear dig at Bush - ring so phony, so out of place. Politics are not what have been motivating Anakin for the previous 2+ hours - then, out of nowhere, he starts speechifying like an adolescent Napoleon.

    • Absolutely. He has been slipping quite a bit lately. This [salon.com] review from Salon (required to watch an ad to read the whole thing) seems to put it like I think it might wind up being:

      I suspect this picture is pretty close to what fans were hoping for, and for their sake, I'm glad it's markedly better than the two that preceded it. But "Revenge of the Sith" is still crap

      and by the way, Ebert has been giving more and more "crap" good thumbs up lately. That's one of the reasons the late Siskel is missed--he b

      • If you actually read any of Ebert's stuff, you would know that he says to ignore his star ratings. Ebert isn't a great film critic because he always gets it right or only likes what are unanimously considered good movies, but because he writes his opinion and explains why he arrived at his conclusion. No one is going to agree with a film critic all the time because opinions vary from one person to another. However, if you read his reviews, whether you agree with him or not, you can still see the value in th

      • Multiple reviews for the same movie. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by khasim ( 1285 ) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @11:50AM (#12567221)
        That's what I liked about the old Siskel and Ebert show. You got multiple reviews for each movie.

        Ebert likes this one, despite the wooden acting and pathetic dialog, because of ... the effects?

        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.

    • Re:If Roger Says So.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jfengel ( 409917 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @11:46AM (#12567178) Homepage Journal
      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.

  • But enough about Star Wars... (Score:5, Funny)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @11:26AM (#12566930) Homepage Journal
    Lucas is working on Indiana Jones IV [canmag.com]

    return to the temple of the revenge seeking crusader

  • "Episode III" has more action per square minute

    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!

  • Whoop-de-fuck (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @11:28AM (#12566952) Homepage Journal
    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.

    • Re:Whoop-de-fuck (Score:5, Informative)

      by Drakonian ( 518722 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @11:32AM (#12567017) Homepage
      Sure:

      Alexandra DuPont [aintitcool.com]

      It's a girl, not a guy.

      • Check that review. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by khasim ( 1285 )
        From the link you posted:

        Q. Is this the greatest "Star Wars" movie ever?

        A. Not even close. That honor still belongs to "Empire," followed closely by "A New Hope." Both those films have an urgency to them that "Episode III" could never muster. But "Sith" edges out "Jedi" - if only because "Sith" lacks Ewoks, and because "Sith"'s Emperor comes off as more than a cackling, flour-dipped prune who speaks in sound bites while lightning spews out of his fingers.

        She might have really liked it, but it still r

    • Re:Whoop-de-fuck (Score:3, Informative)

      by Jurph ( 16396 )
      I've got one more: Kenneth Turan [livejournal.com], the L.A. Times and NPR movie critic. He's right more often than he's wrong, and he and Ebert agree on this one. The link is to my LJ, where you can also see his reviews of the first two. Enjoy.

    • Re:Whoop-de-fuck (Score:5, Informative)

      by EvilNight ( 11001 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @11:42AM (#12567133)
      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.

      Rotten Tomatoes [rottentomatoes.com] is one of the best examples of this. They simply assess a review as either favorable or unfavorable and do away with the less empirical ratings. They count up the total number of positive versus negative reviews, and give a percentage. They'll link every review, include a blurb from each, and pick the most well written ones (positive and negative) and put them in a sidebar.

      Their film ratings so far on Star Wars are...

      A New Hope - 93%
      Empire Strikes Back - 98%
      Return of the Jedi - 80%
      Phantom Menace - 62%
      Attack of the Clones - 65%
      Revenge of the Sith - 84%

      Looks like it's on par with Jedi in the opinion of most critics.

      • Re:Whoop-de-fuck (Score:3, Informative)

        by Scrameustache ( 459504 )
        Rotten Tomatoes is one of the best examples of this. They simply assess a review as either favorable or unfavorable

        Keep in mind their system isn't perfect. I've read reviews they had that were posted as "rotten" and the reviewer seemed to like it, but he put forth what he thought were the flaws up front, and then subtlely listed the qualities.

        Still a good way to get a general feeling of how it's being recieved by the "community" though.

    • Re:Whoop-de-fuck (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jedinite ( 33877 ) <[slashdot.com] [at] [jedinite.com]> on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @03:55PM (#12570239) Homepage
      I saw RotS last night, at an industry screening (thanks to a contact within our local Pepsi distributor).

      Disclaimer - because this is important. If the name didn't give it away, I'm a fanatic fanboi - I've owned the domain jedinite.com [jedinite.com] for an eternity and used to host some decent Star Wars related content there. I lost about a year of my life to Star Wars Galaxies, just because it said "Star Wars" on the box. I own and have read all the books. I've read and even written fan fiction. Total fanboi. But I'd now categorize myself as more of a "former fanboi" - Lucas pretty much lost me with Ep I and II. I hated them that much. Star Wars (specifically Empire if questioned) went from my default answer to "What is your favorite movie" to a place in my life normally reserved for that one bad eighties pop album you would never want to admit to your friends that you still listen to on a regular basis...

      All that being said, Sith is GOOD. It isn't great. Its not a movie you'll walk out of going "it was AMAZING!!1!!1!!!one!". But compared to EpI and II it looks like Citizen Kane...

      -----

      SEMI-SPOILERS FOLLOW
      (detailed discussion of the flaws in the movie from my perspective)

      -----

      -----

      -----

      My biggest gripe with the movie is that its still not dark enough. It is dark, much much darker than Ep I or II. But it doesn't do a good job communicating emotion at all - there are very few times where I felt connected to Anakin or Padme. McGreggor's Obi-Wan is the only character that makes you feel emotionally involved in the story at any depth.

      Ultimately, the biggest flaw is the fall of Anakin to Darth Vader just simply isn't done well. The storyline is there - Lucas has given us all the pieces. It makes sense if I sit here and explain it to someone who hasn't seen the movie or someone who's not familiar with the series at all (bear with me)

      This kid has all sorts of abilities, and a serious attachment disorder because his only companion growing up is his mother. He's separated from his mother at a young age to train to further his abilities. He has a vision of his mother being killed, and he rushes to her side, but not in time to prevent her death. He blames himself for not developing his abilities quickly enough, for not being strong enough or powerful enough. He falls in to a forbidden love, and they marry in secret, and become pregnant. All this time he is being manipulated by an evil father figure and is put in the middle of a major conflict between his best friends and this evil father figure. And then he has another vision, identical to the one he had of his mother being killed, except its his forbidden love dying in childbirth. This vision combines with his acute fear of abandonment and slowly sends him over the edge, doing unspeakable things with the goal of saving his wife's life because he cannot lose the one other thing he's ever loved in his life...

      Now how George Lucas shows this in Episode Three:

      Anakin: (woodenly) I'm happy. Now I'm angry. Now I'm scared. Now I'm good, but wait I'm not so good. You're going to die! I can't lose you!

      Padme: (completely disinterested, looking at her nails and chewing gum) oh Ani. Hold me like you held me on Naboo. Or whatever...

      Darth Siddious: Even though every bit of your training says you're opposed to this, you should come over to the dark side. All the cool kids are doing it. Because its got, like, powers and stuff. And it could probably save your wife from dying. Seriously, it could. There was this one guy, one time, who could keep people from dying. Except I killed him, so he wasn't really that good at it I guess. But he TOTALLY had the real ultimate power to keep people from dying. So you should totally become a Sith Lord.

      Anakin: (in danger of being

  • Expectations (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Council ( 514577 ) <rmunroe@gmaPARISil.com minus city> on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @11:29AM (#12566970) Homepage
    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.

  • This is priceless: (Score:5, Funny)

    by isotope23 ( 210590 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @11:30AM (#12566988) Homepage Journal
    "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.....

    • Well, the love scenes in the OT, while not great, were not painful and embarrassing to watch either. I guess the difference is they were only two or three lines, and Harrison Ford and Carrie Fischer can act.

      So Lucas shouldn't write a love scene longer than two lines.

      • "I love you."
      • "I know."

      is the limit of his abilities there.

      Also, Lucas only knows how to give one direction to actors: "Faster, more intense." While fine for a "love" scene in a porno or a light saber battle, that doesn't really cut it

  • A quote from a review.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by NightWulf ( 672561 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @11:31AM (#12566990)
    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."

  • A translation (Score:4, Funny)

    by ajs ( 35943 ) <ajsNO@SPAMajs.com> on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @11:31AM (#12567005) Homepage Journal
    I had some trouble understanding this article, but after using Google to translate it English -> Japanese -> English -> German -> French -> English, I think I understand better:
    World ' of the examination of film and Roger Ebert; The authorization of an S "this examination of the star war... released episode III: Revenge on Sith. Because of the thing oncCSe DÉBARASSE outward journey, to which "that Ebert does give to this inch the line? it was that Ebert and Roeper however had there 2 inches with this, with regard to me... two and it half star with regard to me conscious to accept you inside became. What 3, it is it read, is? with regard to me rejoice, as for the half examination starred. Thing him, where it enjoyed that that allows klein-numerierten the thing, with the proof however, the free sector him ' them s-Weisenweise with regard to those. ' in ' episode III "with thus vielem, as 5 films adjust before indeed some-a 1 minuzioeses I ' of him, around much line being more, attaching, in the assumption of D, with regard to that the large one. ' thus, it is; * normally bad Diamantro?: The thing ' which cannot write the scene of love with of George Lucas; The starting word too is a moderate expression; As for that much you indicated the diagram in state of greeting leaning ';
    Yes, much better...

  • Intelligent Reviews (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @11:32AM (#12567016)
    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

  • Roses are Red... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Shadow Wrought ( 586631 ) <shadow.wroughtNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @11:34AM (#12567033) Homepage Journal
    'To say that George Lucas cannot write a love scene is an understatement; greeting cards have expressed more passion.'

    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!

  • Bad acting too (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Fiver- ( 169605 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @11:35AM (#12567038)
    '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.

    • Re:Bad acting too (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hey! ( 33014 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @11:58AM (#12567301) Homepage Journal
      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.

      • Re:Bad acting too (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anthony Boyd ( 242971 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @01:43PM (#12568594) Homepage
        Under the best of circumstances, making a role like this compelling is difficult, and circumstances here are not the best.

        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.

        • Re:Bad acting too (Score:5, Insightful)

          by hey! ( 33014 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @02:23PM (#12569067) Homepage Journal
          This is one of the greatest villians of our time.

          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 ... [redemption]", then convince me it didn't take skill to make it credible.

          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.

  • What is it with this "complex politics" idea?!? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ianscot ( 591483 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @11:35AM (#12567041)
    Ebert's going through the motions in my book. He's mouthing a lot of the commonly accepted wisdom of the usual media sources, and adding almost nothing of his own real reactions.

    The one that really disappoints me is -- from the review:

    After "Episode II" got so bogged down in politics that it played like the Republic covered by C-Span,

    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.

    • Re:What is it with this "complex politics" idea?!? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Civil_Disobedient ( 261825 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @12:20PM (#12567570)
      Totally, completely agreed.

      I just can't get over the fact that all of Darth Vader's evil, all three and a half episodes of it, all those blown up ships, lost rebel lives, hell, lost Empire lives, stems from just narrowly missing his Mom's death and the hands of (christ, it sounds so stupid) SANDPEOPLE.

      Gimme a friggin' break. Maybe if she'd been killed by a Jedi, that might have worked. I still don't understand why the Jedi Council couldn't have just bought her freedom in the first place. They can afford all these fancy ships, all those hundreds of robes, they can outfit their Jedi-University with all manner of flashing-light geekiness, yet they can't friggin' buy the freedom of THE CHOSEN ONE's own mom?

      • Re:What is it with this "complex politics" idea?!? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @12:30PM (#12567683)
        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.

  • On the subject of episodes 7-9... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by zenmojodaddy ( 754377 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @11:36AM (#12567050)
    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.

  • What did you expect... (Score:3, Funny)

    by __aaclcg7560 ( 824291 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @11:37AM (#12567070)
    Ebert should give a positive review. I would find his lack of faith disturbing.

  • Are we really surprised??? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by WankersRevenge ( 452399 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @11:37AM (#12567072)
    I mean, come on, he gave a great review [suntimes.com] to the universally panned Phantom Menace, and an equally good review [suntimes.com] 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 [rottentomatoes.com] (which looks to be positive so far).
    • 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

  • Google's objective review page (Score:5, Informative)

    by unk1911 ( 250141 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @11:38AM (#12567079) Homepage
    Google has a very good non-biased, objective review system in place. Check it out for this movie:

    http://www.google.com/reviews?cid=ba601666fe1a2e79 &oi=showtimes&fq=Star+Wars--Episode+III:+Revenge+o f+the+Sith/ [google.com]

    It pulls from many different sources

    • Re:Google's objective review page (Score:4, Insightful)

      by kaalamaadan ( 639250 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @12:37PM (#12567757) Journal

      Pray, tell ... What is an objective review? Do you mean a checklist of things that a good movie should have? Like

      1. Boobies
      2. Humor
      3. ...
      4. In Soviet Union...jokes

      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.

  • IV (Score:5, Funny)

    by imdx80 ( 842737 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @11:42AM (#12567128)
    Any plans for a episode IV?

  • The danger of the Star Wars franchise (Score:5, Funny)

    by SimianOverlord ( 727643 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @11:47AM (#12567197) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • My Review (no spoiler) (Score:3, Informative)

    by A.K.A_Magnet ( 860822 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @11:55AM (#12567276) Homepage
    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.

    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! ;)). Everyone will enjoy Chewie's appearance too.

    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.

  • Metacritic (Score:3, Informative)

    by krypt0s ( 72886 ) <krypt0s&yahoo,com> on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @11:57AM (#12567296)
    I've largely turned to Metacritic [metacritic.com] 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.

  • CSM review: more of the same (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jafac ( 1449 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @12:00PM (#12567323) Homepage
    Christian Science Monitor [csmonitor.com] 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.

  • I have seen it (Score:4, Informative)

    by SAN1701 ( 537455 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @12:31PM (#12567690)
    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!

  • Just seen ROTS in New Zealand (Score:4, Informative)

    by rediguana ( 104664 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @12:35PM (#12567727)
    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.

  • Just saw the movie (Score:3)

    by Bigthecat ( 678093 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @01:52PM (#12568712)
    Hey guys, just a quick note. I just saw the Episode III premiere here in Australia (midnight). Few spoilers ahead...

    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.

  • CNN: Overexcited 'Sith' fans (Score:3, Funny)

    by Embedded Geek ( 532893 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @02:09PM (#12568918) Homepage
    The following photo appears on CNN's front cover in a story about the excitement (regretably, my choice of words, not theirs) over "Revenge of the Sith."

    http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/17/s tar.wars.overview/top.star.wars.04.jpg [cnn.net]

    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

Congratulations! You are the one-millionth user to log into our system. If there's anything special we can do for you, anything at all, don't hesitate to ask!

Close