Yeah, it´s really grating to see alot of positive reviews get shot down and their sources ridiculed but CHUD people get a free pass.

From Empire Movies

...I'll even admit to feeling a little lump in my throat in the final seconds of the movie - although I'm not sure whether it was because of the movie - or because this chapter of my life is now complete...

http://www.empiremovies.com/reviews/reviews.php?id=3109

Review from Edgar Wright (Co-writer and Director of Shaun Of The Dead & Spaced, long time SW nut who didn't enjoy the previous 2 prequels) @ empireonline.co.uk

http://www.empireonline.co.uk/site/news ... s_id=16773

I chalked it up as negative with a disclaimer. Perosnally, I'd call it neutral, but hey, I'm just going follow RT for the time being. RT has always had an anti prequel bias tho, I feel, and I'd probly call them on it and send their editors angry emails if I had more time.

This just in, Revenge of the Sith is an anti-Bush tirade. I love how assholes think.

Yup...these freekin morons shouldn't be allowed to write.

Wtf is wrong with that dude? Anti-Bush?

I don't particularly care about modern day politics. And SW is certanily not an allegory for any specific historical event, as we have already mentioned.

I find it scary that political extremeists on any issue see persecution or the need to witch hunt in the most innocuous things.

It's a space western with laser swords, not a political documentary.

The same type of people think Spongebob is gay and infecting the children, or all christians want to revoke the separation of church and state and kick the heathens out of the country.

You have to admit, the "If you´re not with me, you´re my enemy..." was cutting it close. Maybe Bush just uses timeless absolutist-rethoric?!

you do realize George is a Republican?

There is no slam on Bush. Yes...the whole 'you're with us or against us' term was coined by George W. Bush. That phrase has never, ever been said before in cinema or in real life. Give me a fucking break.

You must think Jar Jar and Watto were intentionally racist too.

I hope that kid gets raped at gun point.

I do believe he said in a recent interview he wasn´t.

The German interview?

He's a conservative by nature, he's had his qualms with the Republican party, with Reagan most noteably. But he's a Republican.

He's expressed his political affiliation dozens of times in non-Star Wars contexts and interviews. I don't get why there was this huge question about it all of a sudden.

Think of the reviews this way:

When someone does the ritual chant of "Episodes 1 and 2 were bad..." think of it as a public speaker clearing his throat before a lecture.

By the way, aba -who's the redhead? She looks like Alicia Witt with a bigger, fatter ass. You know -improved!

liberal in what sense? Of course he's a liberal in terms of his filmmaking. Perhaps in certain societal values....but if I cared enough to scrounge through magazines I have of him expressing his support for Republican candidates or search the Internet for similar articles, I would find them. Regardless, that's not the point. The point is, Revenge of the Sith is not directed at George W. Bush. If you find similarities, it's a result of your own political association and your ability to overanalyze.

He's mostly liberal, actually I've never read anything that would suggest otherwise. He's big supporter of the enviroment, gun control, and abortion rights. So socially he's liberal. He may be more conservative when it comes to his taxes, but many rich people are.

Someone can be liberal and be a Republican. American politics is a mess in terms of terms, a liberal in the classic sense has just as likely a shot at being a Republican as a Democrat. But lets not get into politics.

I believe he meant socially liberal. And it truly doesn't matter, I don't like his movies because of or despite his political affiliation. However I do not doubt more people will draw the parallels between Emperor Palpatine and the current American President. One hundred dollars says Fox News will do an op-ed piece.

I'll just wait until Bill O'Reilly discusses it so I know what to think

O'Reilly will do some hack job where he says "Americans don't need political commentary from rich isolated elitist like Mr. Lucas when they take their family to the movies."

Don't forget "secularist." He'll call him that, too.

But let's not lower the discourse to politics. Let's guess who'll post the next review.

I say Dark Horizons, and that it'll be negative because the writer there really doesn't like Star Wars.

OR, a reasonable and intelligent person won't liken Palpatine to Bush at all, especially since the Empire was modelled after Nazi Germany, not Bush's America.

This debate will not exist outside of a few dense reviews that need to draw attention to facts outside of the actual film to criticize it.

Fortunately the movie-reviewing gig is just filled with reasonable and intelligent people

Here's hoping it doesns't come to that. Though if it's revealed Luke's foster parents are gay...oy....

It's me!

(yes i'm serious)

This is The Crying Game all over again.

Poor Jelperman. He's not going to get an erection anytime soon once the news hits him.


That stacy3po chick was hot tho, where'd she go. Twenty bucks says she was just a sock of a guy who wanted attention.

This I gotta see. No offense to my main man Manny Ramirez, but if I had just picked an icon with a chick w a nice rack and got a screen name that insinuated I was female, man would I be popular on any sci-fi/fantasy message board.

guys, must you always ruin my fun...

I like to toy with them first before the big reveal....be a cocktease...

and yeah stacyr2d2 went to the reservation to have e-drama and more flirting

i just checked Rotten Tomatoes, the freshness rating is still 100% with average rating of 7.8

My compliments!

Thanks, you're sweet

Where ya from?

I think the following are most likely to piss on ROTS. The Asterisk beside each name means that not only will they pan the movie, but they probably won't watch it to begin with.

Rex "Honest Officer, I don't know how those CDs got into my pocket!" Reed *
Michael Atkinson *
That asshole fron the San Diego Union-Tribune
The Gost of Pauline Kael*
The asshole from The New Yorker*


Honorable mention should go to Peter Travers, who has reversed himself on not one, not two, but THREE Star Wars films. Back when he wrote for People Magazine, he panned TESB, saying it wasn't as good as ANH. Now the retarded lemming says it's the best.

http://filmfreakcentral.net/screenrevie ... odeiii.htm

Film Freak Central didn't have many good things to say. I don't know how some of theses reviews can be so harsh while others are basically raves.

The Tomatometer is now at 9 fresh, 2 rotten.

From that review:

"This lack of cheese presents its own set of problems, however, as Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (hereafter Episode III) is a lot like watching paint dry, with the manic light shows coming off at best as some slack particulate hustle."

"Watcing paint dry"? Puh-lease, none of us here are going to think that when watching this movie, this guy is obviously a person without a soul. There have been few movies I've ever seen in my life that I would say are like watching paint dry, this guy is just out to bash. His opinion, as with every other reviewer means nothing to me. Though I would like to see Roger Ebert's review just because he's reviewed 'em all and I kinda like him.

Also Walter Chaw from Film Freak said that Lucas' views on women are as antiquated as his views on minorities which is a result of being locked up in skywalker ranch with yes men. He apparently got this from the prequels.

If we are going to get a negative review can the author not make himself (or herself) sound like a complete psycho?

Yeah, that's quite absurd to say the least. Sounds like he's pushing his own ideas instead of reviewing the damn movie like an adult.

While I said I would like to see his review, it's not because I want his opinion. Whether Ebert likes it or not will not make me see the movie or not, I'm just interested in what he has to say about it because he's like the only critic that I recall reviewing the last 2 and even the OT and I've been following his reviews of them, so it will be interesting to see what he thinks of the last one. Plus, wouldn't it at least be cool to see some SW commercials with "Ebert and Roper give it 2 thumbs up". Sure it doesn't matter what they think, but those thumbs up might sell some more tickets.

Chaw is the epitome of dork critics and sheep who still resent Lucas for raping their childhood. What a fucking dumb review. The whole review is littered with dumb comparisons between this movie and the OT, dumb expectations, and an inability to want to understand this story.

The criticisms aren't even logically.
- The films poor because it does not explain why Obi-wan is called Ben in the OT (who gives a fuck).
- The scenes are spectacular but then they are not spectacular because characters die too easily (obviously he missed ROTJ).
- Acting is bad but no specific reasons. And fucko the acting in ANH (and every other film) was average at best
- Disjointed narrative but does not stress why.
- Film is bad because Jedi’s strike out in anger. Obviously Chaw missed Lucas’s point that ROTS is designed to show the Jedi at their lowest.
- And surprise surprise the highlight of the film is Chewbacca – an OT character -

And this review gets tallied up on the Rotten Tomatoes fresh meter. Give me a fucking break.

Walter Chaw is a fucking asshat, as usual.

God that guy irritates me. Hates the Prequels with a passion. And the stupid fuck said the Dawn of the Dead remake "was better than the original in any number of ways."

Fuck him. He can suck our collective balls right along with Gene Shalit.

I think that Ebert is getting past his anti-digital bias... a few films that he totally ADORED like Sin City and Collateral were both shot either totally or 90% digitally.
However, I really hated is review of AOTC... because it wasn't a review of the film, but of the camera and way it was made - which isn't the god damn point! And his 're-review' still didn't make sense... he panned the movie on things that he LOVED about TPM! WTF?

Yeah-Ebert didn't review a movie, he reviewed a camera. How ignorant is that?

Sorry, but you didn't read the interview with George Lucas in the german newspaper "Süddeutsche" (ONLINE) I translated and posted a couple of weeks back, did you? You should.

George Lucas is AS LIBERAL AS IT GETS. That's a fact.

Everybody knows Star Wars references to the european dictatorshpis of the 1930s and especially the downfall of the german Weimar Republic, but to assume that Lucas' choice of imagery (burning Jedi temple) and wording ("with or against me") does not, at least, allow a certain interpretation of criticism of recent developments in the political system of the USA, strikes me as ignorant. And this is not a political "bleeding heart liberal VS conservative hillbilly" thing, this is about the threats to democratic systems, especially in times of crisis.
Do yourselfes a favour and read Chalmers Johnson's "The Sorrows of Empire. Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic" to get my point. A very interesting book written by an expert of southeast asian history, who, unlike Noam Chomsky, is not a hardcore left wing.

My political 0.02.

EDIT:

I did want to contribute to that "political" discussion and mentioned the "Süddeutsche" interview, because:

a) it took me several hours to translate that damn german interview and nobody thanked me for that



b) the (potential) allusions to the current state of, and dangers to, the US american - as well as all western - democracies in Epidode III, will be discussed by reviewers in Europe, no doubt about that.

Ebert's review probably won't be up until like the Wednesday it's released. He's usually pretty late with them. He's probably my favorite critic, not because of his tastes, but because he's got some great writing and usaully makes some nice points. Even if I don't agree, at least it's an interesting read.

I think he'll like it. He liked the Phantom Menace quite a bit. He might've liked Clones if not for some blurry camera, and he's loosened up quite a bit in his old age.


EDIT: This damn movie just needs to get here. There's no more spoilers and now I'm fucking specualting about reviews.



My bad, uh, thanks. That was a good interview. Glad you took the time.

You just know for a fact that this guy is fat, lonely, ugly, and masturbates to pictures of little girls and or boys.
Walter Chaw!


That said, I'm adding his crappy ass review to the tally. Still hoping RT's editors will change the Gonsalez review to positive, since it pretty much was.

Edgar Wright review:

http://www.empireonline.co.uk/site/news ... s_id=16773



There's also a curious feeling to the film, in that along with the high drama and high tragedy, there's a much bigger sense of fun. When you get to the final moments of 'Sith', you feel like you've watched a really good soap opera or a Bollywood film. Vader's big moment is especially like this. It's cliched, it's silly, it's camp, but it rocks.

+

THAT. Is the essence of Star Wars. Why is it so hard for people to understand that?

Judging by the reviews, you can tell who's Republican and who's Democrat (or immature and mature). Some get all pissy and whine how Lucas shouldn't have tainted Star Wars with a political statement. In reviews where whining isn't going on, the political aspect isn't even mentioned one way or another.

These movies are meant to be timeless, and its smart writing that allows it to applicable to our everyday lives. Everyone today says the OT was a message about Vietnam, and in all these documentaries no one is upset about that. Even if it was an anti-Iraq message, why would one line make a movie worse?

1st Post from a lurker. I've been keeping up with this post and I haven't seen a link to this article. It's from the Chicago Tribune. Sorry if it's already been posted.

Dark lords: Anakin, Affleck

Mark Caro
Published May 5, 2005
For those who griped that the "Star Wars" movies have been too kiddie, here comes "Star Wars: Episode III--Revenge of the Sith." The flick will be the first PG-13 movie of the series, and not only features Anakin Skywalker's bloody mutilation, but also (SPOILER ALERT!) his taking a light saber to the junior Jedis in training. It happens off camera, though.

Chatting Wednesday at George Lucas' scenic Skywalker Ranch north of San Francisco, where the movie was unveiled to journalists the previous night, producer Rick McCallum came up with an interesting analogy for Anakin's actions.

Q. Do you think some audiences are going to have a problem with Anakin mowing down a bunch of kids?

A He has to kill those kids because that's the only way he can get that power to be able to eventually work with Palpatine [the dark lord] to figure out a way to save his wife. He does it for kind of the right reasons, but if you put it in perspective, I always think of it as like watching Ben Affleck and Matt [Damon]. They wrote this thing ["Good Will Hunting"], they have this background together, they grew up together, they're best friends, and they're two totally different human beings right now. One is laid back, cool, does his work, works as best as he can, tries to be a good actor. The other one has taken the Dark Side, the dark route. It's just amazing.

Q. Because Ben Affleck has embraced the whole celebrity aspect?

A Yeah, the power thing.

Q. He hasn't killed little kids, though.

A No, but, can we take this out of [real] Ben? Take the hypothetical Ben in three or four years . . . career down the slide . . . and he's given a choice to be able to resurrect his career, which is probably the most important thing to him, the fame aspect of it. Would he do anything? Who knows?