Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
—Photos
—About this Film pdf
—Spiritual Connections
I clearly remember my first Star Wars viewing experience. It was The Empire Strikes Back. The year was 1979. I was eight years old. I still hadn't seen the first film. (I was too young to see it in the theater in 1977, and we didn't have VCRs back then.) So I could hardly wait to finally see my heroes in action.
Just prior to leaving for the theater, I stopped by my older sister's bedroom and said, "Do you realize the significance of the film we are about to see? Do you really?" She looked at me like I was nuts. I probably was.
Once we got to the theater, I don't think I blinked for the next two hours. Never mind the fact that I already knew the story inside and out. I'd read the graphic novel and the storybook, played with the action figures, and discussed the film ad nauseum with my friends. I was primed. And I was not disappointed.
Fast forward twenty-six years: Just prior to leaving for the theater, I turned to my wife and said, "Well, I predicted this could potentially be the best Star Wars film since The Empire Strikes Back--and the first good film in this second trilogy. The critics seem to agree with me, so here's hoping."
As with Empire, I had already read the graphic novel version of this film. And even though that and the trailer gave me some hope that Episode III would finally redeem the first two stinkers in this second trilogy (see my review in the Comix section of this web site), I am sorry to say that George Lucas has let me down again. Who was I kidding? I knew the trailer for this film was too good to be true. Perhaps I should have left it at that.
Honestly--and this is coming from someone who recently started collecting vintage Star Wars action figures again--if this film didn't have the Star Wars label on it and it had been written by a relatively unknown screenwriter, do you really think anyone would have bought the script, much less made it into a movie? Set your nostalgia aside for a moment, and you'll see what I mean. It's okay, you can admit it: This film stinks! Okay, maybe I'm being a little harsh. But I was literally falling asleep during many points in this movie, and I don't think it had anything to do with the fact that I am now 34 and that I was at a 10:00 showing. That's when I usually go to movies, and I never fall asleep! Oh to be eight years old again... Would I have written a different review from the one I'm writing now? Somehow I don't think so. Then again, there's no way I would have been writing a review, because I wouldn't have been allowed in to this film.
Sure, Revenge of the Sith features many of my favorite Star Wars characters, both old and new. It's also chock full of stunning digital landscapes and epic battles. But despite all of this grandeur, the film is about as emotionally engaging as a Tide commercial. Great, George, you finally have all the toys you need to realize your vision. There's just one problem: Your vision called. It said you lost it long ago in a galaxy far, far away.
I know, I should probably stick with tradition and go into the spiritual questions this film raises, such as "How does a good person turn bad?" But I think the only pertinent question here, spiritual or otherwise is, "How does a good filmmaker turn bad?" (For more on the spiritual questions, see my review of the graphic novel.)
I've read enough about George Lucas to know there is an auteur inside of him just dying to get out. THX-1138 is more than ample proof of that fact. So why has George kept that side of himself hidden for so long? Was it money? Power? Fear of failure? Whatever the reason, we--the children of Star Wars--need that part of George to come back out and assert himself. By the sounds of it, George needs it to happen even more than we do.
For that reason, I'd like to give George Lucas some advice that comes straight from the Godfather of roasted chicken himself, Kenny Rogers: "You've got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away, know when to run."
George, you've been holding 'em for a long time. Thank God you're finally folding 'em. It's time to walk away now. Heck, run for your life, George. Thanks for all the great memories, for firing my imagination as a kid, for inspiring me to follow in your footsteps as a professional imagineer. Now please, please go off and inspire us again.
—Overview
—Photos
—About this Film pdf
—Spiritual Connections
25 Comments:
HA ha! Kevin finally has the courage to post a VERY NEGATIVE review! It must have been his contact with the "dark discontented side", ie me, which has inspired him thus...
Was it THAT bad, Kev??
I mean, going by other reviews on Yahoo and things, and things I've heard about audience reaction, from premieres and previews (they all cheered when Anakin is made into Darth, when he put the mask on for the first time, apparently - which links into one of my favourite themes, about audiences liking VILLAINS - THIS is a prime example of that, and a villain which all the audience seem to love... I've put some comments on one of Maurice's blogs, plus I think I've commented on your review of the graphic novel....)
Well anyway, I've heard from audience reactions, that most of them LOVED it.. and it's taken HUGE box office figures, says Yahoo news.
Yeah, here we are, on the UK Yahoo site:
http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/050520/242/fjfy6.html
"Star Wars packs 'em in"...
Says it took an estimated $16.5 million at midnight screenings in North America on May 19.
Another story said that it's been doing pretty well all weekend...
Some of it's marketing, of course!
Mind you, so did the first two sequels! There's not been a box office flop among them.
Someone said, however, that fans of the first lot are not always too keen on the second lot!
HA! More poetic justice! Maybe NOW you know, just how I feel about "later versions" of Batman such as Frank Miller's! Complete and utter bloody letdown!!
Still - WAS "The Revenge of the Sith" SO "emotionally uninvolving"?
What, with Darth "I am your father" Vader and everything???
As a kid, I liked Darth too - he was another favourite villain! Though I never wanted to be him! (Whereas I positively copied the Joker... not too literally, mind... but well enough... and my reliance on THAT archetype came in great usefulness at one particular time - in fact, you could say that I am SO attached to him and to his eternal adversary the Batman, because, in my late teens, at slightly different periods, each one in turn DID SAVE MY PSYCHOLOGICAL BACON!! So them I owe eternally... because otherwise I might already be dead!)
I really must go and see this "bad" movie....
As for being an "auteur", well, Kevin, despite my LOVE of movies and popular culture in general, that shows you, I must REALLY be a "prole", because I only FOUND OUT what the WORD "auteur" meant recently, after looking it up after having read it in an article on wsws.org about something else!!
I just don't like pretentious this and that! Although I do speak French, pretty well actually, and "auteur" literally means "author" - well, I know what it means in the moviemaking sense now! It means director with total creative control. "Artist" as it were. This is supposed to mean you're "it" if you're a movie director, so far as I can see!! Ants' pants.
(But actually I don't see what's wrong with movies with a whole throng of authors, like animations, like Disney movies!!)
So you reckon George Lucas is an auteur on the strength of "THX-1138", do you? I'm sure I've seen that on late-night TV over here a couple of times. Isn't it sci-fi, about some people, a man, who lives in this totally totalitarian, artificial underground society, where everybody's movements are controlled, where there are all these robots walking around... And at the end he escapes out of an escape hatch and into the sunlight, no? Yeah, I liked that!
Kevin, I'm disappointed with your Episode III review. Firstly because it doesn't tell me really very much abou the movie! And secondly because I would have LOVED a spiritual discussion in this context, about "How does a good person turn bad", in THIS context, Lucas' archetypal context!! And Darth Vader IS one of the greatest movie villains!
DIDN'T the movie explore that idea, then?
It MUST have done!
I fear that you're relying too much on nostalgia, and on an older style of film-making! (See, I'M making that accusation now! Oh how the Joker in the back of my mind doth laugh!)
I still like you (more than you can know); I still want to be your friend and fellow movie reviewer on this site - and am conscious that I still owe you, rather, for saying something bad (actually pretty evil) when we first "met"! The comment is on record! I was definitely not behaving myself...
But Kevin!!
"How does a good filmmaker turn bad?"
I must go and see it!!!
I'm going to put myself out and drive to Wadebridge and do so!
Haven't been to the cinema since January... (Schumacher's "Phantom"... I suppose people who saw it first at the theatre might moan about that, too!!)
It's generally too much hassle for me now.
Still, time to venture out again!!
Just as a matter of interest though: Did this movie attempt to "impress" the viewer too much, by "swamping" their senses and reflexes with too many of what I call "pointless" fights, over the top special effects, explosions that were just put in there for no reason?
(As there was in "Batman Returns", for example!!)
DID it try to be too "macho" and end up ridiculous?
Because that IS a major fault of modern moviemakers!
If Lucas fell into this pit this time around - you can blame modern capitalism, AS it is in the post-Reagan era - FAIRLY and squarely!!!
Hey Liz,
Good to hear from you. Sorry I've been lax on responding lately.
Yes, I finally broke down and shared my true feelings. Not that it hasn't happened before.
Was it THAT bad? Yes, it was that bad. As far as I'm concerned, if Lucas had compressed Episodes 1-3 into one film that told how Anakin turned in Vader, he might actually have had a good movie. As it is, he's drawn this thing out for what, six years? One melodramatic moment after another. In the words of Popeye, "I just can't stands it no more!"
I know other people are raving about it. Even my favorite film critic Ty Burr--the brutal but honest "Simon Cowell" of film reviewers, in my opinion--gave this film an A-. But it just doesn't make sense to me. And you know what a Star Wars fan I am.
Yes, I like villains, too, Liz, but I much prefered the few scant details we had of Vader's origin than actually seeing it up there on the screen. My imagination played it all out much better than Lucas did. As screenwriter William Goldman says, a good character is a mysterious character. And yet, Lucas has spent the last decade giving us a play-by-play on the back story of one of the greatest movie villains of all time. Agggh!
Yeah, this movie is breaking records, as did the Phantom Menace. But as I said in my review of the graphic novel, nostalgia sells! Lucas has guys like me by the short and curlies. We're addicted. We have to see this stuff, just in case that old magic happens again. It really doesn't matter if its any good.
I look at the two Star Wars trilogies the same way I look at the original Star Trek and all of its latter day incarnations. In my mind, the original Star Trek rules. The other stuff is just completely different. Same brand name, same locations, etc., but it doesn't hold a candle to original. Perhaps I've reached the curmudgeon stage of my life, but they just don't make things like they used to. And "they" includes George Lucas. There's nobody else to blame for this fiasco.
You said: "HA! More poetic justice! Maybe NOW you know, just how I feel about "later versions" of Batman such as Frank Miller's! Complete and utter bloody letdown!!"
Liz, I know EXACTLY how you feel! Boy do I know how you feel. Thank you for pointing this fact out.
You asked, "WAS 'The Revenge of the Sith' SO 'emotionally uninvolving'? Let me put it this way: I would rather kiss a Wookie than watch this film again. I know, I know: you can probably arrange that!
To learn more about Lucas's artistic side, I highly recommend the latest issue of Wired magazine, which features an exclusive interview with George. In it, he talks about what influenced him during the creation of THX. I have to mention that two Canadian filmmakers in particular piqued his interest. You can probably read the article on Wired's web site by now (www.wired.com).
Liz, I'm sorry you're disappointed with my review. I guess you can't fairly call it a review. It's more a rant by a disappointed fan. Speaking of which, if you want to see my negative side, check out my rant against "Farenheit 9/11." Besides, I already commented on the story and spiritual angle of this film in my review of the graphic novel, so I didn't want to be repetitive.
As far as this movie's discussion of "How does a good person turn bad?" goes, there's really not much to say. It's so simplistic and melodramatic that it really drives me crazy. Okay, I'll give it to you straight: It's all because of a woman! Not that I'm blaming women... He did it for Padme. He was trying to protect her, so he went over to the dark side to get that power. Yawn. I will say though that this film is a good example of how often we can turn into the things we hate, often while chasing after a virtue.
Liz, I'm not relying on nostalgia or an older style of filmmaking. Let me remind you that I am a screenwriter, and that my main issue with all three of these latter day episodes has to do with story. My main beef? There really isn't a story, at least not a story compelling enough to merit three films' worth of telling. There's no content to these films.
"How does a good filmmaker turn bad?"
I thought I answered that in my "review": By allowing other things to de-rail his vision. I am a writer by trade. I know all about this sort of thing. How does a good writer go bad? I'll tell you, by chasing money, fame, control--by giving in to fear, basically.
You asked, "Did this movie attempt to "impress" the viewer too much, by "swamping" their senses and reflexes with too many of what I call "pointless" fights, over the top special effects, explosions that were just put in there for no reason?" Answer: Yes. But it was all so ho-hum. I mean, I have no idea why General Grievous went to the trouble of making all those robots of his. The Jedis sliced through them like scythes through corn. Utterly ridiculous waste of time. Can you imagine the poor, hapless animators who devotes months of their lives bringing such scenes to life? Oh, the horror!
I think one of the main problems with these latter three films as well is that George seems to have lost his sense of humor. These films actually take themselves seriously. Meanwhile, if you examine the first trilogy, things are always pretty light. Lucas was well aware that he was making fluff for the popcorn crowd. But now, it seems like he is substituting Star Wars for those serious, experimental films he always says he's finally going to make. I'm sorry, but I don't buy it.
Anyway, I hope that lengthy response provides some grist for the mill...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Liz,
I'm sorry, but I had to delete your last post because it was simply too long. I will respond to it off-board. In the future, do you think you could limit your on-board comments to 500 words or less? Just allows room for more people to get involved.
Thanks!
K
So, you're a blog admin?
How come the other posts which were deleted on another of your blogs, then, said "deleted by the author"?
And you said I couldn't delete my own posts...
So who can? Other reviewers?
Paid-up Christians?
And - this is odd here - did my reply to your post, the one that mentioned the spam, get posted? It said it did, but I've refreshed the page and can't see it!
Well - you've got spam, and you haven't spent much time deleting it!
liz,
I'm not sure why the different message, but I do know that two people can delete comments on this blog: David Bruce, the webmaster, and me. I will hunt for that spam. I'm surprised it's there, because I'm usually notified as soon as a comment it posted on my blog.
It obviously doesn't notify you every time, Kevin, Maurice said so too...
For one thing, I've got a small comment waiting on your Hunter S. Thompson "mourning" blog... The ONLY one on there to date... Showing interest, asking you to say more about this guy who you obviously - idolized?
That's been sitting around for a while inviting response!
Thought I'd tell you that through this site, for I forgot in my last e-mail.
But I think I'll leave you alone for a while though; because my intuitive senses tell me you're a bear with a sore head after that Lucas letdown!
Ah well. This is what easily happens when one puts ones faith in fictionsmiths. THAT is one of the reasons I turned away from fiction, to the REAL paranormal - which is one of the main ideas that got deleted in my above post, friends!!
NO it didn't - not the above idea - I tell a lie! It got put on to the "Revenge of the Sith: graphic novel" page by Kevin!
As did that previous comment I sent about the lurking spam!
I CAN'T WORK OUT HOW THAT GOT ON THERE, by the way!
Because it wasn't my intent to put it on that page! (I must have got confused!)
Oh well, delete it all if it's messy!
By the way: CALLING ALL HJ fans - can you mollify Kevin by leaving some of your own comments, now, about "The Revenge of the Sith"? The Movie?
Where are you all??
Come out, come out!
oh, kevin. look what position you've put me in: me and liz teaming up against you!!!
(-:
i'll meet you half way, this trilogy could have been reduced to two less indulgent productions. lucas is not known for his ability to write engaging dialogue. his best movie (Empire) was a shared writing credit, i believe.
his biggest sin was the cinematic equivalent of "telling not showing". how do we know anakin loved padmee? because he said so, not because we believed it through dialogue or something emoted on screen.
still--ignoring the acting and writing in lieu of being caught up in spectacle--i'd be willing to give this 3.5/4 stars.
here's how i rank them:
1) Empire Strikes Back
2) A New Hope
3) Revenge of the Sith
the rest are varying degrees of mediocre. all you star wars geeks can continue to put the original trilogy on a pedestal, but i got one word for you: ewoks!
I hear what you're saying re: spectacle, Maurice. However, even though Lucas is largely responsible for instigating the tools that make such a spectacle possible, I don't think he uses those tools nearly as well as others--i.e. Ridley Scott and Peter Jackson. I also think that as his ability to portray his stories has increased, the quality of the stories he is trying to tell has decreased. I love spectacle, too, but only if it has substance as well.
My ranking:
1) The Empire Strikes Back
2) A New Hope
3) Return of the Jedi (I think the excellence of the Jabba's palace sequence trumps the cuddliness of the Ewok sequence.)
Oh Maurice! I do hope you're right! I've committed myself to rushing out and seeing this one now!
Anyway, you know - I had the EXACT same idea as you - TWO films to cover the "backstory" of Anakin Skywalker, and then Anakin as he turns into Darth, and then... What could be next? Because they would have to have a third or it would be lopsided.
Ewoks indeed!
I don't understand: Why two films about Anakin? Where would the break be?
Ask Maurice. He'll know.
Hey Kevin,
Thanks for your honest and courageous review of Episode III: Revenge of the Brutal Writers and Actors. I went to see it the other night, and couldn't agree more with your comments (and that's not just because I know you and want to remain clear of your Dark Side). I laughed out loud when you invoked the timeless wisdom of Kenny Rogers, and then sighingly echoed your longing for Lucas to once again inspire us. I need to check out his early stuff.
I, too, so wanted this film to succeed on all (or at least 'many') levels--not just the box office. But for me, it just didn't. Like so many other millions of people, I adored the first three films. Star Wars (1977) was the first movie I remember seeing in the theatre as a child, and I was blown away. I'd never seen anything like it. And, along with those same millions of people, I wanted to believe the many critics who praised Episode III as being far superior to the 'other two'. But while watching it, I was at various points bored, NOT gripped by the storyline (we've seen good onscreen folk conflicted and seduced by darkness in MUCH more compelling ways before...Frodo, for example), NOT impressed by the special effects (except for maybe the multi-sabered Grievous...OK, the effects WERE impressive, but as most people know, special effects alone do not a good movie make) and almost audibly amused by the wooden dialogue (I think Hayden C's ability to furrow his brow alone landed him that role. Thankfully, there was some relief in the latter part of the film when he did much less talking and more fighting). The only time I remember laughing was when Yoda knocked over those two guards. My sincere apologies to any hardcore fans who may be reading this...I don't remember whose chambers he was entering at the time, or what the guards were called. I do remember that they were wearing red and that I actually laughed pretty loud at that. In fact, I may have laughed a little louder than I normally would have, just to try and loosen people up a little.
Now, I know my taste in movies has changed since I first saw Han, Chewie and 3PO on the big screen those many years ago, but I felt we deserved a film that was 50 times better than what we got. I'm not sure what's more disappointing: the film itself, or the fact that so many people really feel it was a great improvement on the other two. I'm sad to say it, but I agree with you wholeheartedly: this film wasn't worth my time or money.
Keep up the good work, Kevin.
Wow, Nelson. You just made my day! I feel like a prophet who has just been honored in his hometown. :)
Nice. And hopefully, in the spirit of Yoda, 'your prophecy misread will not be.'
i can't tell you how much fun i have disagreeing with you. (though i'm sure the appeal of two nerds dueling it out has limited appeal to others!)
i wanted to let you know that i am about to go through my deep space nine collection. i was going to do a review of the series (something along the lines of "it's about time there was a black jesus"). i thought i'd give you the heads up in case you wanted to review the original series.
yes, the spiritual nerd gauntlet has been thrown.
Maurice, I love your style. Revenge of the Nerds it is. I'd love to write something about the old series, the competing ideologies it represents, it's views on man, technology, reason, emotion, space, and metaphysics. But that will have to wait until AFTER I write my review of Miller's Dark Knight and Moore's The Watchmen. Otherwise Liz might put another Miller on her hit list--me!
No, Kevin, I love you too much!
In the Agape sense, of course!
I can't help it! A site, this one, has FINALLY appealed to my emotions, as well as my intellect. And it has fed my social side.
There has to be a biblical quote about being hungry, and finding food at last - but I can't think of it at all. Guess I'll have to buy one of those metal Bibles.
Why should I mind your review of "Deep Space Nine"?
How can I object to that?... I get lost with all the multiplicity of Star Trek serials, you know, I know my way around them vaguely. This was the one on the space station... Wasn't it the one with all those delightful, horrible little Ferengi on it - who I absolutely LOVED, can you believe it, because although they were capitalists, they were VERY honest about it... And they had just about as mischievous ideas as I did - and it's not often I find a character like that in the modern conformity...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1489920,00.html
Take a look at this, as a matter of interest, Kevin! I've also left it on Maurice's blog!
"'George Lucas could be messing with your head' - Pumba the homosexual warthog [actually the relevance of this article is political, not sexual], Ozzy, and now George Lucas. The boycotters of the right are hilarious."
Yes they are - and apparently a right wing "patriot" group stupidly named "pabaah" or something like that - are boycotting Lucas' movie!!
Now, medear... SUPPOSING the liberal Left (well, all the left, but I know there's more liberals than pinkos) organised boycotts of movies THEY didn't like... ahh...
Thanks, Liz. I'll have to check out this article. In the meantime, re: your previous comment about hunger, check out John 4:5-14, for example or Matthew 5:6.
K
(No it's not! It's me, Liz!)
Finally been to see the film as I promised, at Wadebridge this very night. Nice old 2-screen cinema. Quite a goodly audience for a rainy Friday night.
(I thought I'd better go and watch some stuff for a change, so that I could comment better!!)
Well, what can I say about this... It was certainly worth £5! It would have been fun to see it, not alone, but with a sci-fi fan, but I don't currently have any as friends nearby...
It was good entertainment, and the special effects were, indeed, excellent. Darth Sidious was probably the best thing in it. LOVED those lightsabers! I haven't seen them on the cinema screen for years; and they're just as impressive as I remember from the first time... The way they buzz in stereo... It seems so real; like they're real weapons. You know, Kevin, I do believe that "The Empire Strikes Back" was my first experience of this trilogy at the cinema, and as with yourself, it bowled me over...
What wasn't so bad as you said - those robots getting sliced, for one thing! (Or burnt!) I thought you meant, like, spaceships cutting through fleets of them, or something! It was only a bunch!! NOt THAT wasteful! And you'd expect the Jedi to make mincemeat out of a few paltry androids, wouldn't you? Actually the meanest scene was with Artoo, when he plunged something into a robot's chest, made it "bleed" oil - and then set the oil, and therefore the other robot and its fellows, alight! You might have thought he'd have sympathy with a fellow robot, but no, no... (Maybe that's the scene that affected you negatively!)
Anyway, I picked this up as just a way to (albeit somewhat humorously) "get away" with "Kill Bill/Sin City" style violence in a 12a movie!! If it was HUMANS getting treated in that manner, it would be a no-no; androids, however, even sentient ones, are OK... Hmmm... I think there's an undercurrent of anti-android "racism" in these movies... Note how the robots are always the "comic relief", too... Like black maids in old Hollywood. I would love humans to have the technology that was displayed in this movie; but I would hate them to mistreat their androids.. In fact, I rather DREAD the idea of humans being ABLE to create other sentient beings, from "naught": for I know they will surely mistreat them... A movie on this theme would be a good idea: it's high time for one and I don't just mean I Robot.
But no, I don't think it had the "spark" of the first few movies, but then nothing DOES any more, because everyone's palates are SO jaded.... And for THIS, you can bloody well blame Quentin bloody Tarantino, Alan bloody Moore, Frank bloody Miller, and a whole host of crappy violent "futuristic" filmmakers!!!
NOTHING can cut through that soured palate any more! EXCEPT, I believe, for something never seen before, like CGI, and the very offbeat, clever humour it often exhibits, in something like "Shrek".
The totally unexpected! THAT is what the heart and mind crave! Therefore, if you made a sci-fi movie about... I don't know, a bunch of socialist dwarfs - something no-one had ever seen BEFORE on US screens, anyway... You might also succeed in cutting through the crap!!
Yes, everything in the Star Wars series was so fresh, the first time around... The way the spaceships all looked so USED and beat-up and lived-in; they had little dings and stains on them - I'm glad they kept them! I'm glad they kept the Seventies-sci-fi-style clothes, hairstyles and colour schemes, as well.. (The sets were blooming EXCELLENT, as per usual; indoor and outdoor; including the "other worlds", the tame lizard monsters, etc etc... if you'd seen that when you were 10, it would have given you a jolt!! )
I am so SICK of all these "futuristic" movies - including Batman - which all try to look "dark" - ie, have an interior design palette that ranges from blue-black to brown to jet black... Yuck yuck yuck! And TOO many of them now choose to do it, you see... They got it off Alien 2 ("Aliens") and copycat movies, is where they got it....
And that is where stupid dingy comics got it from too... I know where I've seen everything before!!! That's the trouble with me - I have too good a memory for things like that!
Anyway, I thought the visual style blended in perfectly well with my mental images, still quite sharp, of the first set.
One can't fault Mr Lucas' visual imagination.
NOW I will have to go away and watch the WHOLE six movies in sequence on DVD; hopefully on a wide screen TV, to really mull over the whole thing...
As I said, I saw the first of the second set, "The Phantom Menace" on TV. And then I watched the second on a friend's satellite channel, but she kept yakkiting all the way through, so that was no good...
Yes, well, I didn't notice loads of wooden dialogue, or anything like that. Too slow it was, as Yoda might say, that is true. I DO agree with Maurice, I think, above, that Anakin's love for Padme was too much told, not shown... And I DIDN'T see his motivation for killing those Jedi kids, the "younglings". OK, so that's what Palpatine wanted, but Anakin in my view WOULD NOT HAVE COME SO FAR (that is to say into evil) so FAST! He needed a chance to get used to being evil, and more bad experiences.
Otherwise it's bad psychology, rather like Alan Moore's kind of writing.
Yeah. But the MOTIVATION about him doing it to save Padme was pretty sound in conception - bit of dramatic irony there - it's just that it wasn't scripted properly, just as you say...
The young actor Hayden Christensen didn't have that much of a range, but neither was he a total washout. Ewan McGregor in contrast was much better as Obi-Wan. I feel that he initially "recaptured" some of the humour, in the early fight scenes, where he reminded me, with his cultured quipping, of a WWII British fighter ace in an old war film...
Yoda made a pretty good show. (I always loved Yoda.) It was interesting seeing him angry for once! Whoever said that the funniest bit was Yoda knocking the two tall guards over at once - by Jedi mind power - was right; it got the definite laugh in the theatre!!
(Has anyone actually worked OUT that movies these days just AREN'T that funny, or entertaining, more often than not?? Moviemakers don't seem to try very hard any more for laughs and moments of light relief... Instead we have prats like Tarantino, as I have said, going on in an interview that he knew how to make people laugh with "cartoon violence" in "Kill Bill"... Ie, you're supposed to laugh if a movie has particularly gruesome moments... CIA mind programming to run Gitmos and concentration camps, I reckon... The Nazis tried something similar.)
But "Sith" was all right.. It just needed a bit more passion and fire, though! Not real fire - the fire planet was convincing enough!! Emotional fire. My MOTHER would have shown them how! Hire Poles!!
It should have been more opera, and less.... whatever it was. Cod politics. I made some scrutiny of the "obvious political" remarks, and found them too innocuous and mildly delivered, to make a real DIFFERENCE, an impact on the minds of the audience.. this aspect TOO could have done with more fire!! Though I did think a bit on: "whoever is not with me is my enemy" - yup - that's a pretty good English rendition of what Hitler said: "Wer nicht mit uns ist, ist dagegen".... You'd expect a Vader to think in that way. Or a Bush - true.
Never mind, Kev. You can take comfort in the fact that the godless left didn't much rate this movie, either - David Walsh came down on it almost as hard as he did on "Sin City". Here is his review. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/may2005/star-m31.shtml
I can see some truth in what he says, as what you said... But I really don't think it's as bad as all that. Get rid of the "Sin Cities" and all the rest will follow in place!!
Anyway, I had to give him a bit of a bollocking in an e-mail, because he said things like: Yoda has a dime-store philosophy, and things like that. I told him he shouldn't speak of whereof he knows nothing, namely religion (I'm determined to draw a line around that, a magic circle which no Marxist may dare cross); and that Yoda was my favourite character; and anyway, he shouldn't just complain: I said: "Don't just moan, make your own." The WSWS has funds. It could produce a socialist cartoon at the very least. Even just a pilot!!! To show people: how it is to be done... From their point of view!
If I had the funds of some of these groups, you wouldn't see ME sitting around going "whine, whine... this is rubbish, whine..." I'd just write and commission the drawing of and publish PRECISELY THE COMICS AND STUFF I WANTED... NOTHING COULD STOP ME!! Including copyrights, I would just go abroad and ride roughshod all over them... I would be like these wicked Chinese/Russians that publish unofficial cod versions of Harry Potter... but the thing IS, they reckon they've got the moral right to, because in them, they're reintroducing their OWN culture's mythology, which otherwise might be swamped by the new... I AGREE with that point of view, totally! And if I were Rowling, I would simply LET them do it... but she's not THAT socialist!! Or anarchic!
But I am! And I'm bad!!!
Liz K, Dark Lord/Lady of the potentially possible, over and out!!
Kevin? Dear? Any further comments? On what I've just said above?
Sorry for leaving a long one again - it's just that, this time, it was pretty much on-topic, was my reaction after actually seeing the movie in the cinema - gasp - and it was also harking back to what you and Maurice said!!
Anyway, I don't think you can complain, as this movie seems to have attracted quite a nice lot of comments onto everybody's blog here who invites them.
You got lots of comments, Kev, and I even tried to round you up some more... But I've got a little reservation about publicizing these blogs, which I COULD, I go to all kinds of places on the net, but as I said, I have reservations... Which I will discuss further with you (via e-mail?) at some near future point.
Anyway, to sign out on this one, here's one further site ref:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050607/325/fkl6e.html
"Star Wars keeps Sin City from top of UK box office" - by a large way, I'd say!!
PRAISE THE HEAVENLY POWERS!! PRAISE GAIA AND ALL THE ARCHETYPES, Jungian and Campbellian, that this is SO!
So you see my friend, George Lucas, is, after all, good for at least SOMETHING, in these entertainment-impoverished times of mass media corruption.
Hey Kev
I know this movie is a little long in the tooth, but I thought I would throw my two cents in.
I have heard a lot of mixed reactions to this set of movies. I see it like this:
These two trilogies although relying on the same set of events, are really two different kinds of storytelling. Episodes 4-6 were a more personal, lighthearted story of people swept up into an epic adventure, giving in to banter, sarcasm and many sharp jabs. The story was always surprising. It endeared us.
Episodes 1-3 really held few surprises. We know exactly where its going, who's a part of it and what happens in the long run. Is that not already setting many childhood fans up for disappointment?
This is also not just about Anakin changing. How does a good person turn bad is one question to a larger one : how does a democratic society turn into an evil empire when good people are involved? Lucas bit off a lot to tell this story, but i think he does well in describing it. Its not as personal a story as the first trilogy, save for the troubled boy growing up with exceptional power. It deals with politics. Not as exciting as a band of freedom fighters rebelling against a corrupt system.
I think the dialogue was painful at times, especially when Anakin delivered. ( his talking about sand i episode 2 had a hilariously awkward delivery)
Anyhow, I think my review is more on the defensive side of the pendulum. I respect your love for the original, it will never be touched, but I think this last installment holds up to all it intended to.
Post a Comment
<< Home