It is currently June 16th 2025 8:28 am




  Page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
Post Posted: May 14th 2005 10:39 am
 
User avatar

Join: February 16th 2005 7:56 pm
Posts: 99
Location: UK
Prog5000 wrote:
when I came across the the daily sport.


As do millions in Britain every day.


Post Posted: May 14th 2005 10:57 am
 

Join: August 27th 2004 12:41 pm
Posts: 13
I know Travers has a reputation for being a quote-whore, but whoring for Kool-aid brings it to a whole new level.

What next, "the only way to enjoy this film is to pig out on Big Macs and Super-size fries" or "after watching this film, go home and wash your clothes with Tide Fresh Scent, you'll enjoy the movie a whole lot better after that!".


Post Posted: May 14th 2005 11:07 am
 

Join: November 10th 2003 6:58 am
Posts: 427
ctumole at TF.N posted the Ebert/Roeper transcript. They will have a more complete review on next week's show:

----------------------------------------

Show opens with a scene from the battle of Kashyyk.

Roeper: The most anticipated movie of the year, the decade, the century, finally comes to theaters...I'm Richard Roper

Ebert: And I'm Roger Ebert. Well here it is at last "Star Wars Episode 3 Revenge of the Sith". It opens Wednesday at midnight. This is an early review, after 28 years the Star Wars series concludes with a final shot showing two characters facing a dawn of what we know will be parts 4,5 and 6.

By starting in the middle and returning to the beginning, Lucas loses some suspence since we already know that Anakin Skywalker will become Darth Vader.

But the transition is in a way all the more facinating as we see a younger and a more innocent Anakin (played by Haden Christensen)in love with Padme (played by Natalie Portman).

Their twins will be the future Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia. As the movie opens, Anakin and a young Obi-Wan Kenobi (played by Ewan MacGregor)are flying to the rescue of the kidnapped Chancellor Palpatine.

Palpatine (played by Ian McDermid)has an uneasy relationship with the Jedi Council and tries to shake Anakin's loyalty to the Jedi.

Can Anakin be trusted? Mace Windu, Obi Wan and Yoda have their doubts about this untested young man.

That's Samuel L. Jackson as the powerful Jedi Master Mace Windu and of course Frank Oz as the voice of Yoda.

Finally the hostility surfaces in a duel to the death on a firey volcanic planet.

Revenge of the Sith is filled with action, including a thrilling dogfight, a sensational crash landing, maybe a little more dueling by lightsabers than you really need since since the swordsman are so good it takes forever for anyone to actually get hurt.

The weakness is in the dialogue. It's flat when it should be poetic and exciting. They seem to be working from a limited vocabulary of basic english.

This would be a bigger problem if the characters spoke more but they don't, except for Chancellor Palpatine who is eloquent and snakey as he seduces Anakin over to the Dark Side.

Thumbs Up

ROEPER: Yeah the Chancellor is the real villan in this chapter. Big thumbs up for me Roger. And you're right about the dialogue THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN A WEAKNESS IN THESE MOVIES.

But that's a small part of this saga. I do like the action sequences alot. I think this movie has something that the most recent two had none of and that is it has a heart. It really does. I mean the Natalie Portman character Padme..

EBERT: Yeah

ROEPER: I mean she's playing this as real drama. She's seen the man she loves going to the dark side and it's really breaking her heart and it feels authentic.

EBERT: Yeah, the last third of the movie is stronger thanks to that emotional content. But at the same time I wish that in a way he(Lucas) would have pumped up the dialogue you have people saying things like 'They're worried about you, they think you're under too much stress'. I mean come on.

ROEPER: Yeah. Hey absolutley

EBERT: I mean its just pedestrian clunky dialogue.

ROEPER: Maybe they should have brought someone like David Mamet to punch it up

EBERT: Somebody like Jackson (Samuel L.) is such an eloquent actor and here he is just intoning. THAT'S JUST A WEAKNESS OF THE SERIES.

ROEPER: But of the recent movies this is the best...

EBERT: Yes it is

ROEPER: I actually think it's the best one since Empire Strikes Back. Maybe the third best out of the 6.

EBERT: What this one does, it goes back to the great tradition of Space Opera, and action, and science fiction and gets out of those long dialogue passages that were not only badly written but also endless.

ROEPER: Yeah and as you mentioned of course the suspense isn't all quite there because we know what's going to happen.

EBERT: Yeah we know

ROEPER: But that also gives the scenes alot more resonance.

EBERT: The scene where Anakin turns into Darth Vader and how that mask is applied ...

ROEPER: Powerful stuff

EBERT:....that's a good scene.

ROEPER: So two thumbs up for Star Wars.


END REVIEW.


Post Posted: May 14th 2005 11:24 am
 
OBGYN
User avatar

Join: August 25th 2004 12:31 pm
Posts: 3644
Yup, that's pretty much it!

By the way, neither E nor R said that they would "have a more complete review on next week's show." Not sure where that came from.

They probably will recap it, but I doubt it will be "more complete."

Also, as I stated before, in the closing recap they criticise the PG-13 rating.


Post Posted: May 14th 2005 11:38 am
 

Join: November 10th 2003 6:58 am
Posts: 427
neither E nor R said that they would "have a more complete review on next week's show."

Ahh, I see, I assumed the 'early' reviews were filled out later, but I see with Crash, the 'early' review was actually longer.

Crash early review:
http://tvplex.go.com/buenavista/ebertan ... 50425.html

Crash review two weeks later:
http://tvplex.go.com/buenavista/ebertan ... 50509.html


Post Posted: May 14th 2005 1:06 pm
 
User avatar

Join: October 12th 2004 9:34 pm
Posts: 2577
Location: Toronto, Canada
I cringe every time during the scene in ESB when Han, Leia, Chewie and the droids visit a recovering Luke.

"I don't know where you get your dillusions laser brain"

"laugh it up fuzzball"

"why you stuck up, half witted, scruffy looking, nerf-herder"

"who's scruffy looking"

Every single person I've shown the OT to has said the acting and dialogue is god awful. You have to explain to them it's made to be that way, to copy the 1930s serial style.

The dialogue in the PT can be outright garbage for not only having corny lines, but poorly written purely exposition dialogue, but don't excuse the OT, because it has the same flaws. The actors in the OT are just much better at making it work in context. I would take Ford, Hamill and Fisher any day of the week over who we have now. It's also because they had less pressure back then. They were just having fun making a movie. The PT actors seem to get too stiff.


Post Posted: May 14th 2005 1:35 pm
 

Join: January 23rd 2005 6:08 pm
Posts: 94
I also got the indication that Portman and Christensen didn't take they didn't take the job seriously - especially Portman. It seemed she thought she was too good for the job. The OT people just seemed, as you said, to be having fun with the job. They liked doing it.


Post Posted: May 14th 2005 2:53 pm
 

Join: March 15th 2005 7:57 pm
Posts: 289
joe_h wrote:
Quote:
He once remarked to George, "You can write this shit, but you can say this shit."


Well, he was obviously wrong about the second part, because they said it well indeed.



Actually I saw Ford admit he was wrong in an Interview in the last few years. I forget which one it was. 20/20 or somethingg like that.


Post Posted: May 14th 2005 2:55 pm
 
User avatar

Join: March 19th 2005 12:39 pm
Posts: 395
Hipnotik wrote:
nah they're right, as it's been mentioned a gajillion times before, the dialogue is worse in the PT. at least in the OT i don't cringe very often. in the PT i cringe about every 10minutes. that's fucking sad.


In my experience, when I cringe often watching people talk in a movie, it's a good indicator it actualy resembles real life communication. When the dialogue is simply bad, unnatural I'm annoyed, slightly disgusted maybe, but never embarassed, even when I like the film overall.


Post Posted: May 14th 2005 3:05 pm
 
User avatar

Join: February 22nd 2004 1:16 pm
Posts: 630
Christensen and Lucas answer fan questions (Hayden in ROTJ, Yoda's origins, the TV shows, etc.):


http://movies.channel.aol.com/feature/starwars/unscripted.adp


Post Posted: May 14th 2005 3:27 pm
 
User avatar

Join: April 20th 2005 5:08 pm
Posts: 111
JimDangle wrote:
For some reason I cant get an AOL media plug-in.

What does it say about Yoda's origins?


You just need to accept the Active X to install the plug-in. I assume you have SP 2. Also, if you have the Microsoft Antispyware, allow it from that program as well. And if you have Norton, you need to allow it through that. Christ on a fucking crutch that's a lot of work.


Post Posted: May 14th 2005 3:43 pm
 
User avatar

Join: April 20th 2005 5:08 pm
Posts: 111
That was really good. I like how Lucas acknowledged that he knew some of the fans were not too happy about his decisions as far as Episode I are concerned, and he basically said in a very nice way: "fuck off."

Lucas just does and says what's on his mind....I love him :mrgreen:


Post Posted: May 14th 2005 3:50 pm
 

Join: April 12th 2005 9:54 pm
Posts: 53
I didn't have a problem with Natalie Portman's performance in AOTC so much as I think she was miscast. She seemed all of 13 in TPM, yet in AOTC (which is a decade later, she looks all of 14. It reminded me of the scene in Private Parts, where an obviously 40-something Howard Stern is supposed to play an 18-year-old college student. The difference was that Stern's miscasting was played for laughs.


By the way...


... Baba Booey!


Post Posted: May 14th 2005 3:51 pm
 
User avatar

Join: May 19th 2004 1:42 am
Posts: 65
DoubleSith wrote:
Christensen and Lucas answer fan questions (Hayden in ROTJ, Yoda's origins, the TV shows, etc.):


http://movies.channel.aol.com/feature/starwars/unscripted.adp


This deserves its own thread. :meatwad:


Post Posted: May 14th 2005 4:02 pm
 
User avatar

Join: May 11th 2005 3:52 pm
Posts: 39
Location: The dark side of the moon
It really does deserve its own thread, great link. :D He finally answers why he put Hayden in ROTJ, which is of course what we thought all along.


Post Posted: May 14th 2005 5:03 pm
 

Join: March 12th 2005 5:31 pm
Posts: 15
To a vast majority of non-SW fans, the acting and writing in the OT movies is superior to the PT movies. That's why the PT movies catch so much flak. Get over it.


Post Posted: May 15th 2005 12:19 am
 

Join: September 6th 2004 7:03 pm
Posts: 41
I suggest we fart in the direction of this Mr. Travers.


Post Posted: May 15th 2005 3:03 am
 
User avatar

Join: March 10th 2005 6:55 am
Posts: 158
Location: Los Angeles
JediStrider wrote:
I wonder what it would be like if Mamet had taken a crack at the script


MACE: I don't trust him.
YODA: Who?
MACE: The Chosen One
YODA: The Chosen One?
MACE: Yeah, The Chosen One.
YODA: You don't trust him?
MACE: Who?
YODA: The Chosen One.
MACE: Yeah, The Chosen One. What did I just say?
YODA: Just now?
MACE: Yeah, just now.
YODA: You said you don't trust him.
MACE: Don't trust who?
YODA: The Chosen One.
MACE: The Chosen One?
YODA: Yeah, The Chosen One.
MACE: That's right. That's what I said.
YODA: So you're saying you don't trust him.
MACE: Who?
YODA: The Chosen One.
MACE: The Chosen One?
YODA: Yeah, The Chosen One. You said you don't trust him.
MACE: Who?


David Mamet is the greatest modern wordsmith the way Kenny G is the greatest modern musician.


Post Posted: May 15th 2005 4:57 am
 
User avatar

Join: May 19th 2004 1:42 am
Posts: 65
joe_h wrote:
Here's something funny. Just to show you what and dickweed Peter Travers is, the film Monster-In-Law is getting ripped by the critics. It's currently sitting at 17% positive rating. But Travers gave it a good review.

But tonight on the show MSNBC at the Movies, he and another critic were discussing films. They came to Monster-In-Law, and the other critic just ripped it, calling it a horrid film. What did Travers do? He agreed with him and ripped it also, even though he gave it a good review.


Yes, I saw it as well, Next week MSNBC at the Movies will have the whole show dedicated to SW, let's see if Travers uses his line....

"Drink the Kool-Aid. Wear blinders. Cover your ears. Because that's the only way you can totally enjoy Revenge of the Sith"

I hope the other guy "critic" (who is young and kinda cool) likes ROTS and starts a fight a la Ebert & Roeper with Travers.


Post Posted: May 15th 2005 1:21 pm
 

Join: March 12th 2005 6:13 pm
Posts: 30
And that was actually one of the scenes where Hayden's acting wasn't that bad. Except for the Obi-Wan's fault part I found that part pretty good.


Post Posted: May 15th 2005 2:45 pm
 
User avatar

Join: April 20th 2005 5:08 pm
Posts: 111
Fine, let's not remember the Patriot Act or the smear campaign that the Bush (read: Karl Rove) machine has launched against anyone (Republican or Democrat) that does not absolutely agree with them.

It's very Palpatine-ish if you look at it. They tried to destroy John McCain (then he sucks their dicks at the RNC last year). Look what they did to that senator from Georgia who lost three limbs in Vietnam. Ruined his political career, all because he voted for the democrat's version of the Patriot Act and not Bush's version.

Plus, ultimatums like "you're with us or against us" are complete bullshit. The world is not full of absoutes like Bush and his compatriots somehow believe it is. Actually, a lot of politicians want you to believe that, regardless of party.

I don't think Lucas wrote EPIII with the current US political climate in mind. I think it just eerily echoes it way too much, and Lucas is just saying, "hey, we could be heading that way."


Post Posted: May 15th 2005 3:35 pm
 
User avatar

Join: March 6th 2005 5:16 pm
Posts: 95
Location: Germany
Quote:
Not another lecture. Not on the economics of politics!

;)


This just in:

Quote:
Inside sources at Cannes revealed that Natalie Portman will be featured as a key character in another installment of a popular science-fiction/horror movie franchise. The much anticipated film will be directed by David Fincher, a name not totally unknown to fans of that saga...


Post Posted: May 15th 2005 4:16 pm
 

Join: August 24th 2004 8:30 pm
Posts: 289
Location: The Empire State
Bush certainly isn't a dictator, but the slow erosion of personal liberties and the derision of any different points of view, not to mention the current fanatacism to further weaken the system of checks and balances, are what have people concerned. And while Bush isn't as far down the road as Hitler or Palpatine, not by a long shot, that doesn't mean he hasn't taken the first steps along that road. Like it or not, Revenge of the Sith is a reminder (subtle or otherwise) of the dangers of giving too much power to anyone in the name of security. Obviously there are enough similarities between the film and the politics of today for people to be making the connection.


Post Posted: May 15th 2005 4:23 pm
 

Join: January 23rd 2005 6:08 pm
Posts: 94
I think simply dismissing some of the Bush administration's activities as
"questionable, like any other ruler" is a bit disingenuous. So is comparing him to Lincoln.

Democracy can thrive easily under gun control laws - check out Japan, Australia and much of Europe. Even if the general populace has their rifles and shotguns, the military will still have their bombers, machine guns and tanks. But the Patriot Act is not a minor thing, nor are the expansions being made on it. Nor are arbitrary wars or attacks on the checks and balances. As well, integration of fundamentalist/dominionist Christianity and government certainly has its parallels with the new Sith Empire.

But the hell with all this. I'm not letting politcs ruin May 19th. :)


Post Posted: May 15th 2005 4:39 pm
 
User avatar

Join: March 6th 2005 5:16 pm
Posts: 95
Location: Germany
Been there, done that. We discussed the liberals vs conservatives, Democrats vs Republicans, treehugging hippies vs breastthumping rednecks issue extensively in this very thread a couple of days ago. As well as the mirroring of this issue in Episode III - or better the lack thereof.

This is pure redundancy and I guess these "political" posts will, again, be deleted sooner than later in order to trim this 19 pages monster. ;)



EDIT:

I'm starting to search the "Internet" for some german reviews.

Here's the first I could find: http://www.filmszene.de/kino/e/episode3.html

8/10 "eyes" in this review.
I won't bother to translate it all; the review lists the usuals suspects as crucial points: great visuals, action, score, wooden acting, a lack of an "emotional centre" and a character to identify with. All in all a reconciliatory end to the Star Wars saga.

Another one here: http://www.moviesection.de/v3/filme/1544

They seem to be pretty sheep and rated all SW movies 5/5 with the exception of TPM (4/5).


The next 8/10 review:

www.filmstarts.de

Reviewer slams the overuse of digital animation and characters, but loves Yoda. Whatever. The actors are better than in the first two prequels; the final part of the movie as a grand end to the PT.


More:

5/6 in this review

85% in this one

5.5/6 review from Switzerland; and a nice Christopher Lee interview in english

According to this review, Lucas finally finds his absolution with EP III.


Post Posted: May 15th 2005 6:14 pm
 

Join: November 10th 2003 6:58 am
Posts: 427
Holy hell! A.O Scott at the New York Times gives it a positive review!

-----------------------------------------------------

Some Surprises in That Galaxy Far, Far Away

NY Times ROTS Review By A. O. SCOTT


May 15 - With "Episode III - Revenge of the Sith," the "Star Wars" cycle at last comes to an end - or rather to a middle, since the second trilogy, of which this is the final installment, comes before the first in faraway-galaxy history even though it comes later in the history of American popular culture. Like many others whose idea of movies was formed by (and to some extent against) the galactically later, terrestrially earlier "Star Wars" trilogy, I was disappointed by "The Phantom Menace" and "Attack of the Clones." So I approached the recent press screening of "Episode III" in New York warily, and perhaps a little wearily, though to balance my own trepidation I brought along two fans whose enthusiasm in 2005 easily matched my own in 1977, when I was a little older than they are now and when "Star Wars" - oh, all right, "Episode IV - A New Hope" - landed in my hometown.

I was anticipating, at least, a measure of relief: finally, this extravagant, ambitious enterprise, a dominant fact of our collective cultural life for nearly 30 years, would be over. But I was hoping, a little anxiously, for more. Would George Lucas at last restore some of the old grandeur and excitement to his up-to-the-minute Industrial Light and Magic? Would my grown-up longing for a return to the wide-eyed enthusiasm of my own moviegoing boyhood - and my undiminished hunger for entertainment with sweep and power as well as noise and dazzle - be satisfied by "Revenge of the Sith"?

The answer is yeth.

This is by far the best film in the more recent trilogy, and also the best of the four episodes Mr. Lucas has directed. That's right (and my inner 11-year-old shudders as I type this): it's better than "Star Wars."

"Revenge of the Sith," which had its premiere here yesterday at the Cannes International Film Festival, ranks with "The Empire Strikes Back" (directed by Irvin Kershner in 1980) as the richest and most challenging movie in the cycle. It comes closer than any of the other episodes to realizing Mr. Lucas's frequently reiterated dream of bringing the combination of vigorous spectacle and mythic resonance he found in the films of Akira Kurosawa into American commercial cinema.

To be sure, some of the shortcomings of "Phantom Menace" (1999) and "Attack of the Clones" (2002) are still in evidence, and Mr. Lucas's indifference to two fairly important aspects of moviemaking - acting and writing - is remarkable. Hayden Christensen plays Anakin Skywalker's descent into evil as a series of petulant bad moods. Natalie Portman, as Senator (formerly Queen) Padmé Amidala, to whom Anakin is secretly married, does not have the range to reconcile the complicated and conflicting demands of love and political leadership. Even the more assured performers - Samuel L. Jackson as the Jedi master Mace Windu, Ewan McGregor as Obi-Wan Kenobi, Jimmy Smits as Senator Bail Organa (note the surname) - are constrained by their obligation to speechify. Mr. Lucas, who wrote the script (reportedly with the uncredited assistance of Tom Stoppard), is not one to imply a theme if he can stuff it into a character's mouth. Ian McDiarmid, as Supreme Chancellor Palpatine, who transforms from a rancid political hack into a ruthless totalitarian before our eyes, gives the most powerful performance; Yoda, the spry green Jedi master voiced by Frank Oz, some of his finest work in this film does. (R2-D2 is also in fine form).

Anyway, nobody ever went to a "Star Wars" picture for the acting. Even as he has pushed back into the Jedi past, Mr. Lucas has been inventing the cinematic future, and the sheer beauty, energy and visual coherence of "Revenge of the Sith" is nothing short of breathtaking. The light-saber battles and flight sequences, from an initial Jedi assault on a separatist stronghold to a fierce duel in the chambers of the Senate, are executed with a swashbuckling flair that makes you forget what a daunting technical accomplishment they represent. Some of the most arresting moments are among the quietest - an evening at home with the Skywalkers, for example, as they brood and argue in their spacious penthouse overlooking a city skyline set aglow by the rays of the setting sun, or a descent into the steep, terraced jungle landscape of the Wookiee planet. The integration of computer-generated imagery with captured reality (in other words, what we used to call movies) is seamless; Mr. Lucas has surpassed Peter Jackson and Steven Spielberg in his exploitation of the new technology's aesthetic potential. Even the single instance where the effects don't quite work - a climactic battle superimposed on a filmed eruption of Mount Etna - suggests not a failure of vision but a willingness to try what may not yet quite be possible.

But every picture, however ravishing, needs a story, and the best way to appreciate how well this one succeeds is to consider the obstacles it must surmount in winning over its audience. First of all, though there are a few surprises tucked into the narrative (which I won't give away), everybody knows the big revelation of the end, since it was also the big revelation at the end of the previous trilogy: Darth Vader is Luke's father. We also know, for the most part, which of the major figures are going to survive the various perils they face. So an element of suspense is missing from the outset.

More than that, the trajectory of the narrative cuts sharply against the optimistic grain of blockbuster Hollywood, in that we are witnessing a flawed hero devolving into a cruel and terrifying villain. It is a measure of the film's accomplishment that this process is genuinely upsetting, even if we are reminded that a measure of redemption lies over the horizon in "Return of the Jedi." And while Mr. Christensen's acting falls short of portraying the full psychological texture of this transformation, Mr. Lucas nonetheless grounds it in a cogent and (for the first time) comprehensible political context.

"This is how liberty dies - to thunderous applause," Padmé observes as senators, their fears and dreams of glory deftly manipulated by Palpatine, vote to give him sweeping new powers. "Revenge of the Sith" is about how a republic dismantles its own democratic principles, about how politics becomes militarized, about how a Manichaean ideology undermines the rational exercise of power. Mr. Lucas is clearly jabbing his light saber in the direction of some real-world political leaders. At one point, Darth Vader, already deep in the thrall of the dark side and echoing the words of George W. Bush, hisses at Obi-Wan, "If you're not with me, you're my enemy." Obi-Wan's response is likely to surface as a bumper sticker during the next election campaign: "Only a Sith thinks in absolutes." You may applaud this editorializing, or you may find it overwrought, but give Mr. Lucas his due. For decades he has been blamed (unjustly) for helping to lead American movies away from their early-70's engagement with political matters, and he deserves credit for trying to bring them back.

But of course the rise of the Empire and the perdition of Anakin Skywalker are not the end of the story, and the inverted chronology turns out to be the most profound thing about the "Star Wars" epic. Taken together, and watched in the order they were made, the films reveal the cyclical nature of history, which seems to repeat itself even as it moves forward. Democracies swell into empires, empires are toppled by revolutions, fathers abandon their sons and sons find their fathers. Movies end. Life goes on.


Post Posted: May 15th 2005 6:29 pm
 

Join: July 27th 2004 6:00 pm
Posts: 39
Quote:
Here's a hilarious Indian review which claims that Lucas ripped off Mahabharata


It just goes to show you how universal the SW saga is and that Lucas draws inspiration from mythologies from all over the world.


Post Posted: May 15th 2005 6:42 pm
 

Join: July 27th 2004 6:00 pm
Posts: 39
Quote:
Maybe this whole political angle people love to point out has gotten the liberal media slobbering all over Lucas' cock.


Wrong. The left leaning Village Voice trashed ROTS.

Quote:
Anakin's defection from Jediism to Sithdom should provide the film's backbone, but neither the script nor Christensen delivers the needed nuance. "If you are not with me, then you're my enemy," warns the newly minted Darth Vader to his mentor Obi-Wan Kenobi (the still respectable Ewan McGregor). "Only a Sith deals in absolutes," Kenobi counters. Attendees at the New York preview screening responded with cheers, taking the exchange as a blatant Bush bash, but the line also betrays the failure of Lucas to portray the elder Skywalker's moral downslide with anything close to complexity


http://villagevoice.com/film/0520,halter1,63970,20.html


Post Posted: May 15th 2005 7:17 pm
 
User avatar

Join: December 1st 2004 9:42 pm
Posts: 433
Hmm, let's see, what'd I miss. Ebert and Roeper give two thumbs up, quite good news, NYT gives a positive rewiews, shocking news! I give this AO Scott credit for having the balls to give it a glowing review. Sucker bitches like Travers and the Village Voice took the easy way out and basically just wrote about how much better critics they are then everyone else. (or rather how much better critics they think they are...)


Post Posted: May 15th 2005 9:13 pm
 

Join: April 3rd 2005 7:06 am
Posts: 21
I suppose according to Travers's dumbfounded logic Ebert, Roeper and AO Scott drink Kool aid too.


Post Posted: May 15th 2005 10:53 pm
 

Join: November 10th 2003 6:58 am
Posts: 427
3.5 stars (out of 4) from USA Today. Anyone noticing a pattern? :mrgreen:


Post Posted: May 15th 2005 10:57 pm
 

Join: January 23rd 2005 6:08 pm
Posts: 94
The New York Times gave a Star Wars movie a positive review. If the Wall Street Journal follows suit, the world may very well be ending.


Post Posted: May 15th 2005 11:04 pm
 

Join: January 23rd 2005 6:08 pm
Posts: 94
^^ He wasn't citing the Village Voice as an authority, he was countering CoGro's theory that the "liberal media" was conspiring to like the movie because it could be perceived as a jab at President Bush.


Post Posted: May 15th 2005 11:38 pm
 
Site Admin
User avatar

Join: May 25th 1977 7:00 am
Posts: 1669
Paul LePitit from the Sunday Telegraph here in Sydney gave it **** out of 5. :)


Post Posted: May 16th 2005 12:27 am
 
User avatar

Join: August 26th 2004 6:38 am
Posts: 85
Last night I was watching a review on the local news, It never fails to amuse me how, people either know Star Wars or completely butcher the living shit out of it, It was something to the nature of.


"The last Star Wars opens Wednsday night, millions of Trekkies will be lining up outside of theatres to watch how Luke Skywalker turns into Darth Vader, old friends return like Chewbacca, Yoda and C-3PO, and of course lots of lightsaber fighting and lines like May the Force be with you are to be expected, just like all the Star Wars movies this one promises lots of action and trademark computer visual effects.

So what did you think? It was fun, I mean I felt like I was watching the old Star Wars again, I can't remember so many lightsaber duels in one Star Wars movie, and the special effects are just mindblowing...I was impressed with emotionally packed this was for a SCI-Fi movie, which I usually find to be kind of dry and ususally flat, This one entertains".

Trekkies made me laugh...and yes that was a woman butchering the first part.


Post Posted: May 16th 2005 5:59 am
 

Join: March 7th 2005 4:07 am
Posts: 44
http://www.newyorker.com/critics/cinema ... rci_cinema

This review is rad. :roll:


Post Posted: May 16th 2005 6:28 am
 
User avatar

Join: May 19th 2004 1:42 am
Posts: 65
Holy shit Ebert's review is up!

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith


BY ROGER EBERT / May 16, 2005

Cast & CreditsObi-Wan Kenobi: Ewan McGregor
Anakin/Darth Vader: Hayden Christensen
Padme: Natalie Portman
Chancellor Palpatine: Ian McDiarmid
Mace Windu: Samuel L. Jackson

20th Century Fox presents a film written and directed by George Lucas. Running time: 140 minutes. Rated PG-13 (for sci-fi violence and some intense images). Opening Thursday at local theaters (midnight screenings Wednesday at select locations).



Printer-friendly »
E-mail this to a friend »


George Lucas comes full circle in more ways than one in "Star Wars: Episode III -- Revenge of the Sith," which is the sixth -- and allegedly but not necessarily the last -- of the "Star Wars" movies. After "Episode II" got so bogged down in politics that it played like the Republic covered by C-Span, "Episode III" is a return to the classic space opera style that launched the series. Because the story leads up to where the original "Star Wars" began, we get to use the immemorial movie phrase, "This is where we came in."

That Anakin Skywalker abandoned the Jedi and went over to the dark side is known to all students of "Star Wars." That his twins Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia would redeem the family name is also known. What we discover in "Episode III" is how and why Anakin lost his way -- how a pleasant and brave young man was transformed into a dark, cloaked figure with a fearsome black metal face. As Yoda sadly puts it in his inimitable word order: "The boy who dreamed, gone he is, consumed by Darth Vader."

As "Episode III" opens, Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) and his friend Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) are piloting fighter craft, staging a daring two-man raid to rescue Chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid). He has been captured by the rebel Gen. Grievous (whose voice, by Matthew Woods, sounds curiously wheezy considering the general seems to use replacement parts). In the spirit of all the "Star Wars" movies, this rescue sequence flies in the face of logic, since the two pilots are able to board Grievous' command ship and proceed without much trouble to the ship's observation tower, where the chancellor is being held. There is a close call in an elevator shaft, but where are the guards and the security systems? And why, for that matter, does a deep space cruiser need an observation tower, when every porthole opens on to the universe? But never mind.

Back within the sphere of the Jedi Council, Anakin finds that despite his heroism, he will not yet be named a Jedi Master. The council distrusts Palpatine and wants Anakin to spy on him; Palpatine wants Anakin to spy on the council. Who to choose? McDiarmid has the most complex role in the movie as he plays on Anakin's wounded ego. Anakin is tempted to go over to what is not yet clearly the dark side; in a movie not distinguished for its dialogue, Palpatine is insidiously snaky in his persuasiveness.

The way Anakin approaches his choice, however, has a certain poignancy. Anakin has a rendezvous with Padme (Natalie Portman); they were secretly married in the previous film, and now she reveals she is pregnant. His reaction is that of a nice kid in a teenage comedy, trying to seem pleased while wondering how this will affect the other neat stuff he gets to do. To say that George Lucas cannot write a love scene is an understatement; greeting cards have expressed more passion.

The dialogue throughout the movie is once again its weakest point: The characters talk in what sounds like Basic English, without color, wit or verbal delight, as if they were channeling Berlitz. The exceptions are Palpatine and of course Yoda, whose speech (voiced by Frank Oz) reminds me of Wolcott Gibbs' famous line about the early style of Time magazine: "Backward ran sentences until reeled the mind."

In many cases the actors are being filmed in front of blue screens, with effects to be added later, and sometimes their readings are so flat, they don't seem to believe they're really in the middle of amazing events. How can you stand in front of exploding star fleets and sound as if you're talking on a cell phone at Starbucks?

"He's worried about you," Anakin is told at one point. "You've been under a lot of stress." Sometimes the emphasis in sentences is misplaced. During the elevator adventure in the opening rescue, we hear "Did I miss something?" when it should be "Did I miss something?"

The dialogue is not the point, however; Lucas' characters engage in sturdy oratorical pronunciamentos and then leap into adventure. "Episode III" has more action per square minute, I'd guess, than any of the previous five movies, and it is spectacular. The special effects are more sophisticated than in the earlier movies, of course, but not necessarily more effective.

The dogfight between fighters in the original "Star Wars" and the dogfight that opens this one differ in their complexity (many more ships this time, more planes of action, more detailed backgrounds) but not in their excitement. And although Lucas has his characters attend a futuristic opera that looks like a cross between Cirque de Soleil and an ultrasound scan of an unborn baby, if you regard the opera hall simply as a place, it's not as engaging as the saloon on Tatooine in the first movie.

The lesson, I think, is that special effects should be judged not by their complexity but by the degree that they stimulate the imagination, and "Episode III" is distinguished not by how well the effects are done, but by how amazingly they are imagined. A climactic duel on a blazing volcanic planet is as impressive, in its line, as anything in "Lord of the Rings." And Yoda, who began life as a Muppet but is now completely animated (like about 70 percent of what we see onscreen), was to begin with and still is the most lifelike of the non-humanoid "Star Wars" characters.

A word, however, about the duels fought with lightsabers. When they flashed into life with a mighty whizzing thunk in the first "Star Wars" and whooshed through their deadly parabolas, that was exciting. But the thrill is gone.

The duelists are so well-matched that saber fights go on forever before anyone is wounded, and I am still not sure how the sabers seem able to shield their bearers from attack. When it comes to great movie sword fights, Liam Neeson and Tim Roth took home the gold medal in "Rob Roy" (1995), and the lightsaber battles in "Episode III" are more like isometrics.

These are all, however, more observations than criticisms. George Lucas has achieved what few artists do; he has created and populated a world of his own. His "Star Wars" movies are among the most influential, both technically and commercially, ever made. And they are fun. If he got bogged down in solemnity and theory in "Episode II: Attack of the Clones," the Force is in a jollier mood this time, and "Revenge of the Sith" is a great entertainment.

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.


Post Posted: May 16th 2005 6:38 am
 

Join: March 10th 2005 8:04 am
Posts: 49
The boy who dreamed...
Whatever.


Post Posted: May 16th 2005 6:51 am
 

Join: July 27th 2004 6:00 pm
Posts: 39
Ebert also says Grievous is voiced by "Matthew Woods."


Post Posted: May 16th 2005 8:05 am
 

Join: April 2nd 2005 9:01 pm
Posts: 14
Ebert's review was okay, but certainly not great (in terms of quality - I loved his TPM review, one of the best film reviews I've ever read).

It's amazing how little he seems to know (or how much he has forgotten) about what Star Wars is all about - to even suggest that there would be more Star Wars films due to pressure from Fox shows a fundamental misunderstanding of, amongst many other things, who owns the rights to the films.

And he certainly needs to stop second guessing direction - it was pretty lame to have a go at the emphasis on 'did I miss something?' in the elevator scene. Ironically, I actually think Lucas nailed it and Ebert has it completely wrong. There was no emphasis, rather an increase in pitch at the end of the sentence indicating that a question was being asked. It's good voice acting, possibly due to good direction. Perhaps Ebert should leave directing, good or bad, to the professionals, and start reviewing movies again rather than nitpicking things he really doesn't comprehend too well.


Post Posted: May 16th 2005 8:15 am
 

Join: January 23rd 2005 6:08 pm
Posts: 94
I just heard on the radio Bill O'Reilley is going to review ROTS today, or soon at least. That should be interesting....


Post Posted: May 16th 2005 8:35 am
 

Join: April 28th 2004 8:45 am
Posts: 299
I wonder if he will say it's "dopey."


Post Posted: May 16th 2005 9:49 am
 
User avatar

Join: December 1st 2004 9:42 pm
Posts: 433
Ebert's last two Star Wars reviews have been pretty disappointing in that he goes off on some serious tangents that take up the majority of the review. Last time it was the Digital thing, this time its the dialogue (which at least has something to do with the actual quality of the movie).


Post Posted: May 16th 2005 11:01 am
 
User avatar

Join: December 1st 2004 9:42 pm
Posts: 433
I'm going away for a little while (don't worry, I'll still be seeing EIII Thurs morning :) ) and won't be able to post. So I just wanted to give a quick shotout to all you MFers who made my wait for ROTS quite enjoyable. This site kicks ass, the posters are hilarious, informed and intelligent, and MF has really filled a void left when I realized tf.N sucked some serious balls. For a long period of time I had nowhere to share my Star Wars fandom. So MF came up big, particularly since this is the last time we'll be waiting for a Star Wars movie (or is it...)

So enjoy ROTS fellow MFers, I know I will. :heavymetal:


Post Posted: May 16th 2005 11:07 am
 

Join: July 25th 2004 5:09 pm
Posts: 101
Ebert's review - overthinking it? Christ, just sit back and enjoy the friggin' movie. Don't go "ooh, why is there a need for an observation deck.."? That's one of the reasons why Ebert's reviews annoy me sometimes.


Post Posted: May 16th 2005 11:22 am
 
I am Jack's bowel cancer

Join: May 2nd 2005 4:19 pm
Posts: 444
Location: NorCal
I was able to watch the review this morning and Ebert does go on a tangent. I agree with some of his reviews but I could care less about what he said with sith. Only 2 days and some odd hours more and then I can stop reading what people think and have my own frigin opnion on the greatness that is Star Wars! We're going to the movies bitches! :heavymetal:


Post Posted: May 16th 2005 11:34 am
 

Join: May 13th 2005 9:57 am
Posts: 17
Still can´t belive that its only 51 1/2 hours until I´m gonna see the film..

And the seconds keep ticking.. :mad:


Post Posted: May 16th 2005 11:34 am
 

Join: April 4th 2005 3:20 pm
Posts: 45
hypertext wrote:
I was able to watch the review this morning and Ebert does go on a tangent. I agree with some of his reviews but I could care less about what he said with sith. Only 2 days and some odd hours more and then I can stop reading what people think and have my own frigin opnion on the greatness that is Star Wars! We're going to the movies bitches! :heavymetal:


Damn right. It seems to me that Ebert did what a lot of reviewers seem to be doing when reviewing ROTS. They'll go on these tangents ranting about one thing or another that no ordinary moviegoer would care about and then give it a positive review. It's almost as if they're just covering their asses. If someone gives him shit about giving ROTS 3 1/2 stars he can say that he wrote about how bad the dialog was. If someone gives him shit about saying that the dialog was terrible he can say "Hey, fuck you. I gave it 3 1/2 stars." :whateva:

Phew...I feel better now.


Post Posted: May 16th 2005 11:39 am
 

Join: May 12th 2005 12:40 am
Posts: 35
I can't stand the critics when they say the dialogue is horrible, especially SLJ's. Ebert referred to his act as intoning... Um, yeah, maybe so if that's the way he wants to connotate it. That's his character's role--nature, right? He's a serene, somber Jedi after all. *Sigh*

The dialogue isn't anything to rave about, nor is it as bad as the critics perceive it to be either.


Post Posted: May 16th 2005 12:58 pm
 
User avatar

Join: July 28th 2004 3:05 pm
Posts: 11
Location: Someplace
I guess I'm wondering why everyone is nitpicking Ebert's review when he gave the film 3 1/2 stars (half a star from a perfect score)? Seems kind of like everyone is doing exactly what they are complaining about him doing to the film.
Just an observation.


Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next



Jump to:  
cron




millenniumfalcon.com©
phpBB©