Lucas really said that? HAHA, he just totally owned Ben Affleck. That's awesome.

No, Rick said it. Either way, Ben gets it bad!

I know enough German to have been able to read that interview, and he (GL) seemed to really want to say he was definitely not a Republican, and was bludgeoned into stating it by the end of the interview. With regard to the content of ROTS, though Jesus was the first one I know of to say the 'with or against me' line, it's hard to believe that in a film by a Bay Area Liberal (as he characterises himself in the interview), this would be a conicidence.

Further, if anyone's read Labyrinth of Evil, Palpatine refers to the three Trade Federation planets as a 'Triad of Evil', and there is a 'Homeworld Security' department on Coruscant. Granted, Lucas didn't write the book, but really.

I also thought it odd that the TF's home planet is Cato Nemodia. Cato Institute anyone?

I don't think it is US politics in particular. Parallels could be drawn with countless countries at many points in time throughout history. Focussing on Bush and his buddies just seems narrow minded. It is as if that is the limit to the politics that the reviewer was either aware of or thought the reader could understand.

Anyway, in general I take the reviews with a pinch of salt. I mean its just opinions. To be honest, a review that discusses the good and bad points is so much more interesting and objective than one that just praises a movie.

Having said that, I find that particular reviewers criticism of the opening crawl and first scenes to be kind of odd. I mean, the crawl sets the stage for the opening scene of the movie and tells you why the battle is taking place. Considering another reviewer seemed to have missed the point of the whole battle, it would appear that some folks either aren't paying attention, aren't reading, are too lazy to read, or can't read.

So yeah, the criticism I've read so far really isn't the kind of thing that will affect my enjoyment of the movie.

Yeah, some of these reviews, the writer just doesn't even seem to know what they're talking about. Even in the positive reviews. They refer to 'Senator' Palpatine, and express confusion as to what the Clone Wars were all about. I know that a major theme of AOTC is the confusion clouding the minds of the Jedi, but I think the narrative makes it pretty clear to the viewer what's going on.

I don't need for these guys to know who Shaak Ti is (I don't), but for God's sake, if they can't follow Palpatine's very simple story through these movies, it's little wonder I and II get shat on to the degree they do.

think you might be confused... Here's the cinemablend review:

http://www.cinemablend.com/review.php?id=965

Nothing about politics there

Call me cynical to a fault, but I doubt some of these jokers even saw the movie. Leonard Maltin felt the need to explain how he got to see it and so did Kevin Smith. I call bullshit on reviews unless:

A) The reviewer is from a reputable source like a regular newspaper or TV station. www.jarjarrapedmychildhoodandlucasisthedevil.com (aka Film Threat) don't count.

OR

B) The reviewer offers some kind of proof he actually saw it.

Gee, someone in the movie business is a [Gasp! Argh!] LIBERAL! Lucas shouldn't be a surprise since he based the Emperor on Nixon. Why not? Everyone knows Republicans are evil! Well, not evil -but as Obi-Wan Kenobi would say: "eeee-villle".

It's funny how all the people who say that Lucas has made ROTS into a political statement against America's current regime forget that at the time of TPM's release in 1999 America had a democrat president with a very different outlook. Unless the suggestion is that George has developed 'pre-cognitive abilities' allowing him to see the current state of the nation when he set the ball rolling on the prequels some 9 years ago.

PS: And i'm pretty certain Bush is anti-cloning!

Here's even more proof to back up Lucas' liberalism (not that that's a bad thing, mind you, as I count myself among the looney left's numbers):

http://wired-vig.wired.com/wired/archive/13.05/lucasqa.html

What this interview also clarifies are the claims some hold that the characters or events in the Star Wars films are based on specific historical figures:

Can someone link to Carl's comments? Or paste them here?

What was "Micah's" opinion and comments?

I don't take his comments as too bad.. that's pretty much what everyone's been saying. Not as good as ESB or ANH (could anything ever be? doubtful) but best of the prequels.

Unless you thought TPM and AOTC were complete crap, I think ROTS will be most pleasing.

Just to raise some other points about the content in the negative reviews.

"But what truly drives a stake into the heart of the thing is the hypocrisy and anger of the film. Every single Jedi Knight, at the moment of their greatest crisis, betrays that which they most believe in by succumbing to rage and vengeance. Instead of bringing Palpatine to trial, Windu decides to go vigilante and collect the old guy's head, while Obi-Wan turns his back on Anakin as he endures unimaginable--and graphic--torment. I grew up thinking it was noble and good to walk the "light" path, and I wonder what this new generation Lucas is targeting will grow up to believe." - FilmFreak

I kind of thought that was a major plot point of this movie and the other two prequels. The jedi and their way of thinking ARE flawed. In ESB, Yoda says that even with the intention of doing good you can become an agent of evil. That is essentially what Mace becomes in ROTS. He goes with the intention of bringing the chancellor to justice and yet plays a key role in the final choice made by Anakin, and therefore all the subsequent events.

Considering we are often being told by critics how brilliant the original trilogy was and how pathetic the prequel trilogy is, you'd think these folks would at least pay attention to the story set out in the original trilogy. It seems to get brushed under the table when it suits them. I mean there are three more episodes in which the remaining jedi display great nobility and redeem themselves following mistakes they made. If anything Luke is incredibly noble in his compassion for his father.

Furthermore, one of the things I have totally enjoyed about each of the prequels is that it has given me new takes on the original trilogy. Each time a new prequel has been released I have gained a different perspective on the old movies, which means that I have enjoyed them in a different way. This seems to have escaped a lot of people. I'm not digging here, I just don't understand their view. People say bring back the magic etc...to me each of the new movies not only have key qualities of their own, but have brought back the magic of the old movies in many different ways.

"The fact of what Revenge of the Sith is....the big finale of a six-part sci-fi adventure saga that began 28 years ago...delivering the Big Payoff in fulfilling a tale foretold in The Empire Strikes and Return of the Jedi...depicting at long last the beat-by-beat of Annakin Skywalker's final descent into the fires of anger and ego, leading to his transformation into the malevolent Darth Vader...can't help but bring a certain satisfaction.
And it kind of does. Sort of. But oooh, man...the stuff you have to sit through. Roughly two hours and 15 minutes worth, not counting the end credits.

Which not that many people stayed for, by the way, at Thursday afternoon's all-media screening at Manhattan's Zeigfeld Theatre. (Which started 40 minutes late, by the way...incredible.) An awful lot of people got up and bolted as soon as the words "directed by George Lucas" hit the screen." - Hollywood Elsewhere

Firstly, why on earth would anyone go to a screening of a movie so clearly obviously directed by George Lucas and then leave when they are shown in letters that it is directed by George Lucas. Shock horror. Are these folks just stupid, or are they not doing their homework?

Secondly, I haven't seen ROTS, but in all the versions of TPM and AOTC I have seen none of them include "Directed by George Lucas" at the start of the movie. Unless this ROTS screening is an exception (and I am willing to accept that it is) then the reviewer may well just be spouting bullshit.

Ah ok. Actually, I wasn't sure which one he was getting at, since he was also talking about the movie starting late. OK I see your point anyway. But even in that case, as you say, it really isn't a sign that people hated the movie.

One thing I've noticed is that here in Japan is people tend to stay for the end credits more. Back in the UK pretty much everyone always bolted for the door at the end of movies.

Besides sitting in cinema seats for two hours plus makes my butt sore. Return of the King was a marathon of discomfort for me. My girlfriend and I stayed for the end credits, which were admittedly very beautiful in themselves, but seriously I'd kind of got bored of trying to get comfortable in that chair. Great movie though.

Staying for the credits is a class move.

People work damn hard, even on movies that suck for no fault of their own. Giving them 2 minutes of your time is the only thank you they ever get.

Showing respect is a good thing, karma-wise, yo.

_Mike

Leonard Maltin's seen the movie? And has he commented on it?

What's weird about filmjerk is that he gave ep 2 an A- and said great things about the whole thing pretty much, and calls ep 3 the best of the prequels but seems not nearly as excited. He also gave it a lower rating.

People are weird.

Edit: Also the Berardinelli review is up. 3.5 out 4. He has been a fan of the others as well.

Berardinelli review

Yeah it would have to pretty much. I remember my junior english teacher was talking about star wars for some reason and he was saying how the end of ROTJ made no sense because here was someone who devoted their entire life to being evil and just decided to be good at the end. I, being the nerd that I am about this stuff, spoke up about it and said that wasn't the case. I don't remember what happened after that but my point (I think) is that I am sure most people's views of what they see in the OT will drastically change. I know mine has already.

Also I was in high school awhile ago so this exchange wasn't very recent.

David Ansen from Newsweek:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7773581/site/newsweek/

Newsweek would be a key review to have positive if the film is to be successful critically.

I'm looking forward to the empire magazine ( http://www.empireonline.co.uk ) review. Empire is both the biggest selling and most respected film magazine in the UK, and was pretty positive about both the prequels to date, so i'll look forward to the view they have on 3, which should be up around 8am GMT Monday.

I don't know if anyone has posted this yet, but here's another UK based review.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/07/wstar07.xml

from the review by Stefan Halley(HeroRealm.com)
"Sadly, Ian McDiamid’s Palpatine is almost cartoonish with his character. From his butt crack head to his overly dramatic delivery of lines, Palpatine is about as scary as Boris Badenov from the Rocky & Bullwinkle cartoons. "

Please...overly dramatic? And people complain the acting is wooden in Star Wars films? come on! give me a break.

Here's some quotes from the Newsweek review:

"Lucas closes the 'Star Wars' saga with 'Revenge of the Sith.' As Anakin finally gets bad, the director finally gets good."

"Lucas manages to turn the audience's familiarity to his advantage: like a jigsaw puzzle whose final form has always been known, the fun is in discovering how the last pieces fit. When that massive, menacing black Vader helmet clamps down on the deformed head of the boy we used to know as Anakin, the frisson has a mythic kick."

"This is the most savage and despairing of the "Star Wars" movies. The surviving Jedi knights are forced into exile, and the Empire consolidates its evil power. This glimpse of intergalactic hell inspires moments of epic grandeur that haven't been felt since "The Empire Strikes Back."

"First up, we are served a fairly rousing if madly busy aerial battle in which Anakin and his mentor, Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor), fight off crablike flying Droids in their attempt to rescue Supreme Chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) from the clutches of General Grievous. Before the movie gets good—and it does, in the final 45 minutes, achieve a genuine dark power—we also have to put up with the usual Lucas liabilities: graceless dialogue, wooden acting, overcluttered compositions and undercooked characters, and an utter inability to stage a convincing love scene."

Here's a review from the San Francisco Chronicle.

That's not a review. It's an EDITORIAL trying to use ROTS to further the retard's political views.

Did people from CHUD steal your babies or something?

That's completely unconfirmed at this point. That same poster also created a thread called "Who are the most pathetic latino people,Puertoricans or Mexicans?"

Not exactly reliable. I'm still waiting for someone else who watched ET this weekend.

Aw geez, Ebert. You were so much more fun when you were overweight.

Dieting has messed with his epicure taste!

Spielberg cried watching ROTS.

I enjoy Eberts reviews so I look forward to reading his whether he likes it or not. Personally I doubt he was on ET and gave his review away this soon before the film. He usually releases it the day of the film. Why would he release his review this early? Until someone else can back this claim up I wouldn't put much weight into it.

I'm not doubting Ebert may hate the film, I just doubt he would release a review 11 days before the movie comes out when the purpose of holding out is to get people to watch his show, buy newspapers and visit his website. Why give the exclusive to ET?

That would be 3am here in the Big Easy, I doubt I'm awake. Would be nice to get confirmation on this, especially with so many going off on Ebert simply because of a review that may not even exist.

I really can't believe so many people are buying this. Especially when the only report of anyone seeing this is the one guy on RT. Like I said its not Ebert hating the movie part thats unbelieveable, its Ebert giving a review out this early that I don't buy.

Also there's no mention of it on Entertainment Tonight Website, which I'm sure if they were airing a review they'd be whoring it out....

http://et.tv.yahoo.com/


The thing is that Ebert has been on various shows before and has always told the host that he won't discuss a review until the television show with the review has aired. I don't buy it. The funniest thing is seeing all these insecure fans whine about Ebert giving it a bad review, if he had praised it they'd all be saying how much they love him. Yeah his AOTC review was pretty much a rant against digital film making but for the most part he's a solid critic, thats not to say I agree with him all the time or even most the time, but I enjoy reading his reviews.

Ya knows it bad when we're now reviewing, reviewers, reviews lol

Someone should make a site where people review movie reviews.

Am I the only person who couldn't care less what reviewers are saying? I can predict right now what the movie will be like. Who cares what the critics think?

I was pointing the finger at myself as well, notice i said "we're." I wasn't attacking you . I was just making an observation.

Of course I'm interested in what the critics think. Whether we like it or not, the media controls the hype for this movie, and hype is exciting and feels good. If you are content with having your Star Wars excitement completely contained within yourself and don't care about sharing it, good for you, but you're not otherwise you wouldn't be on this board. The reviews = hype = excitement, its just another stage in the waiting process and a very fun one.

Granted, I think the critics don't know much about film and their opinions aren't worth more than mine or yours, its just a matter of the feelng of anticipation which the reviews bring. How can they not get you amped?

Because I don't give a shit if this movie gets terrible reviews or excellent reviews. It doesn't affect my enjoyment of it.

Yes I do. Just not TPM.

Why are you on the board? Star Wars doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Why are you on the board?

An even better question for him: why are you in this thread?

I'm on this board to get info about Episode 3. I guess I can just lurk, but it's not as fun.

I just felt like asking out loud what the hell difference does it make what the reviews say. We all know what's in the movie and we all know we'll like it. So what's the point of reading reviews?

What's the big deal about me asking?

Nothing, we're just saying that there is a difference between LIKING the movie itself, and ENJOYING the anticipation, hype, and general public sentiment surrounding ROTS. Obviously a reviewer is not going to affect my opinion of the film, no one is. Reading reviews is fun. At least for me. It gets me excited for the film. That's seriously all I'm saying I'm not trying to argue w you, I just think you're tying to make yourself look better than everyone else for some reason.

Oh, if only that were true. Then I could turn the fuckin' computer off. But I've been outside, lately, and it appears to be worse.

Two people at TF.N say the ET show did not mention Ebert or ROTS. Looks like the RT post was just spam.

all the geniuses around here make me feel stupid on a daily basis.

Why are you always the dark cloud lingering over everyone's parade?

I was just listening to the final track of the ROTS CD. As drunk as I am, I can still safely say that those last few minutes are going to make me tear up like a little bitch.

Wow. 9 more days.

i haven’t teared up at a movie since planes, trains, & automobiles (when you find out John Candy is homeless). but i think old ben might get one or two out of me at the end.

Hmm.. The Slant Magazine review seems to be a positive review to me. It's rated two and a half out of four, which is greater than 60%, which on Rotten Tomatoes would be a positive review.. So, I don't know why Rotten Tomatoes gave it a rotten review, when it had a positive score.