Well, I think it mostly depends on the individual. Most of the complaints about SW tend to be that way.

When you let the movie take you where it's meant to take you, the things like that are rarely a problem. For example, Luke's "NoooOOOooooOOOOoooo" in ESB never bothers me, because I'm always really into the movie at that point. The music, the framing of the shots, the wind, the desperation on Luke's face, Vader's cape billowing in the wind... all of it just makes me totally buy that scene.

When Luke screams, it's the cry of a person whose entire sense of personal identity has just been tactically nuked. His father was his hero, but... his father is... THAT guy? NOOOOooooOOOOooooo!!!!!!

But if you're not into that scene at that moment... if you're not totally into it... what you see is a grown man crying like a baby. His whole face distorts, he looks like your newborn cousin, red and rubbery and vaguely like a potato.

And he sounds like it, too.

It's all about context. Same thing, it's like... the romance in AOTC. People complain about it because the dialogue sounds like two high-school kids on Shakespeare, "I love thee more," "No, I love thee more, for thou art wearing a leather bustier."

But at the end of the day, you can take the view that, hey, you know what? They ARE two kids... in ESB Han and Leia were people who had been around the block, who both had a strong sense of who they were. Anakin and Padmé were kids who were denying a lot about their situation and pretty much HAD to step into a fantasy world to make their romance work.

It's infatuation more than romance. It's not healthy. And that's exactly the point, because Anakin's infatuation skews his perspective and makes him all the easier a target for Supreme Chancellor Skullfuck.

So that Vader "Noooo" bit in ROTS? Hey, I'll judge it when I see it. I'll like it or I won't. But Lucas hasn't tended to let me down...

Yeah, I actually agree about the romance dialogue. I''m not going to defend Lucas dialogue writting skills, they aren't the greatest, to say the least. But the romance dialogue was unfairly criticized (w/ the exception of perhaps the sand dialogue...). That's how people fucking talk to each other when they are infatuated for christs sake. Are people so damn jaded they don't remember what it was like being young and or in love.

A few lines I'd love to have George take back from AOTC.

"So have you, grown more beautiful I mean, well for a senator I mean."

"Oh Ani, you'll always be that little boy I knew on Tattooine"

"Don't worry, we have Artoo with us (uncomfortable laugh)"

"I don't like sand..."

The entire conversation concerning Padme's first boyfriend.

Padme's ha ha ha ha, I'm a terrible actress laugh following "negotiations with a lightsaber."

"....now that I'm with you again, I'm in agony." actually, that whole scene should be re-shot with digital actors and new dialogue.

"I truly deeply love you, and before we die I want you to know."

Manny, I'm glad you agree. You don't have to sound so surprised, though. I agree with most of what you say when I read your posts.

Plus, your username makes me laugh. It was funny when Kerry said it, and it's funny now.

CoGro, you have my utmost respect, but I disagree with you... none of those lines bother me. Like Manny said, people talk goofy when they're in love. They can be standing hip-deep in horseshit and to them it's a beach in Oahu, and every line drips of really, really bad poetry.

I actually love the "So have you... uh, grown more beautiful, I mean... umm, uhh, for a, Senator, I mean..." bit. Or, for that matter, the "I hate sand," bit.

It's awkward as all fuck, but again, it's meant to be.

I ask you to try and think back to the very, VERY first time you laid a pickup line on a woman. Did it come out as cleanly as you wanted? Were you Zaphod or were you Arthur?

I'm Arthur every damn time. And, unfortunately, so is Anakin. Oh, I know EXACTLY what to say. I can hear the perfect Solo delivery in my head. But when I open my mouth I trip all over it and when the words hit the air, they sound... really, really retarded.

Anakin's a Jedi who has no experience with women. His best pickup line was one he laid on her when he was 9, and it was said in earnest. "Are you an angel?" Now he's grown up and he's trying too hard.

Even the forced laughter can be read as, "damn, we really are not quite comfortable with each other," and totally work within the context of the scene. Last September I visited a girl I've known online for six years. It was only our second meeting face-to-face, and the first had only been for 20 minutes. On top of that, our online relationship, in the early days, had been of a youthfully blissful and overly romantic nature.

So when we got together, back in September... for the first time in two years and the second time EVER... it was INCREDIBLY awkward. For starters, I was perpetually disconcerted by how beautiful she is (there I was being Arthur again, when I really needed to be Zaphod) and she's so much less talkative in person than she is online. And what do you say to that person when you're sitting across the table from her in Texas Roadhoase, watching her moisten a peanut shell with her tongue, knowing the history you have with her, and that she's dating some cross-eyed fool from Lincoln Nebraska? You try to make a joke, and it comes off poorly, and you both laugh nervously, and look at each other exactly the wrong length of time, and then take an unnecessary amount of interest in the bread crumbs on the table.

You can't tell me those scenes in AOTC are bad. They are awkward and unsettling because they remind us of some of the most personal moments in our lives that we would really rather forget. For that, they are incredibly *honest* scenes.

Yes I admit freely that Lucas is no Frank Miller where dialogue is concerned - hell he's not even Lawrence Kasdan - but for all that, Lucas DOES know what he's doing. He's just not great at selling it.

CoGro and all, I can't really defend that dialogue which I myself (while I enjoy the prequels) found quite cringe-worthy in action, but it's lessened now when I read them and I think of what actually happens in ROTS - the final film provides a better context for some of the dialogue, even if the delivery was awkward.

Again it is hindsight, and doesn't make the dialogue Shakespeare all of sudden, but stuff like "don't worry we have artoo with us" becomes a bit more interesting when you realize artoo is somewhere lurking about three years later when anakin more or less kills her himself. Same thing with the "before we die" line. Also, many reviews and the ROTS book itself refer to the area where Anakin gets cooked as "sand" i.e. " Part of you will always lie upon black glass sand beside a lake of fire... " (ROTS)

That Filmforce IGN review is so stupid.. could their bullet point nitpicks be more dumb?

There is maybe one or two people at IGN who generally like Star Wars, but they are not in the position to review it for Filmforce.

The rest are haters who already decided to hate it before they even saw a trailer.

That was a well written piece from Moriarty. Actually I've liked the 3 main Sith reviews posted on AICN (which suprised me), each had a different flavor (hell even Harrys had its charm).

Eh, of course it's stupid. It's FilmForce.

TheForce, FilmForce, FanForce, GladForce, G-Force...

FilmForce came into existence when the self-important cads at TF.N decided to branch out beyond just talking about SW. I guess they realized that after 2005 there would be no new SW movies and they needed to turn a profit somehow, so they set up FilmForce to give themselves a safety net.

I never read FilmForce. I read CHUD sometimes but I'm getting sick of them, too. I'm sick of the self-importance of it all. About the time Nick started using CHUD as a platform to launch his "Ron" cartoons, I began to feel that he really, really needs to get over himself. As if "The Steady Leak" didn't prove that.

It's amazing what passes for news over there.

"Devin's Balls Drop, story at 11."

It's very telling that I still read AICN after all these years. Site has its flaws but at least those guys are honest about who they are. Harry might be easy to buy, but at least his enthusiasm is always genuine. I believe that he really is that much of an overgrown child.

To put it in perspective:

I get the love story. I try and explain to others exactly what you explained to me. I know the rationale behind the dialogue, I know Anakin is a confused obsessive compulsive emotional catastrophe and I know Padme is torn between what she knows is right and her infatuation with the man she should not love. But that doesn't make the lines any better, or performed any better. Natalie Portman is the weaker link, and I think she kills the love story more than Hayden. The editing of those scenes is just not good, and if it was shot tighter perhaps the lines wouldn't be an issue because we as viewers would be thrown into their emotional states much better. But the scenes are staged so poorly that I just wish they could be re-done.

I understand the story very well, I can assure you of that, but the film could have sold that same love story more successfully if it was done a bit better.

Keep in mind I do like AOTC quite a bit. I just think it's the least polished of all the films.

Definitely--that's always been memorable to me, too. It might be a small moment,
but the subtlety of it sells their romance to me better than almost anything else in AOTC.
A close runner-up is the semi-embarassed smirks they both have after
the "agressive negotiations" line in the arena.
Maybe I'm imposing something that isn't there onto that scene,
but I can almost feel them cringe together at the dialogue.

Also Glen went in and edited his review to link to Drew McWeeny's review and call him a "less level-headed" reviewer. Guess the new way for IGN to review things is to single out and bash the critics you don't agree with.

AICN liked the movie so it looks like Glen just wrote a bad review to bash AICN where he used to work to bash Harry and Moriarty.

Drew McWeeny is Moriarty at AICN. Glen Oliver of IGN Filmforce linked to Moriarty's review and called him "less level-headed" after calling the critics on RT blind.

"I love that Noooo. The only thing that ruins that scene is Vader's helmet being blown by the stupid wind machine. It looks like it's going to pop off or fly off at any second."

What about that lousy synching with Hamill's mouth? "NOOOOooo!!!" <still lingering on, as his chops stay shut>

LOL, word. Kerry probly lost a lot of votes with his display of baseball knowledge...or lack thereof. Anyway, I didn't intend to sound surprised at agreeing, it's just everyone takes for granted the assumption the romance dialogue was bad.

Glen Oliver gets to "choose" his movie is rotten? That guy is a real jackass who wants to make himself stand out from other critics.

I'm waiting for a negative review that actually talks about the film. Just do what I do chaps - ignore completely.

There is however enough 'consenus' so far to suggest the following

Nat Portman phoned in her performance and/or hasn't much to do other than give birth and die.
Some of the dialogue will make you groan
Some people may find certain plot-points too 'unbelieveable'/rushed
McGregor and McDiammid rule all.
There's some amazing action scenes and saber fights...
...Though apparently Yodas is better than Anakin/Obi-wan...
...and not as good as Darth Maul's.

Agreed?

More of a general view of the saga as a whole, but pretty cool anyway.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/4529451.stm

Same here. A positive review from the Onion A/V Club is definitely a big deal. Of all the reviewers out there, that is the one source I turn to that I feel I can trust when it comes to films. I find myself agreeing with their opinion more often and than not, and they are, as Harpua said, very critical, but they're also usually fairminded.

The cool thing about The Onion A/V Club is that they usually prefer art flicks over popcorn movies, but they don't write off the popcorn movies either. Like myself when I'm judging a movie, they let each one stand on its own merits and judge it for what its worth. They will admit, "hey this is just a lot of eye candy, but this time it worked and its worth shelling out money to see."

I just read the IGN review...what a bunch of crap they wrote. They picked the most minor details and complained about it.

for example, they were complaining about the Clones being "brain washed"....hello? did you see Attack of the Clones? the part where they talked about how the Clones have been altered to specifically follow orders?

geeeez

The guy was just being an ass and embarassed himself. And embarassing yourself when you work for IGN is a considerable feat.

Moving on, I'm thrilled The Onion AV Club liked it - those guys are tough reviewers. Getting past them means something.

I don't mean to be a complete nerd about it but that IGN review is pretty stupe. He seems to knock the film because of his own misinterpretations and perhaps a desire to ascertain that 'coveted' green, rotten tomato badge.

Jedi can't fall great distances without force control, Anakin can't see Padme is going to have twins because the force isn't x-ray, Sidious clearly engineered the clones to respond to Order 66 and the Jedi cannot do much more than send knights across the galaxy to counter the threats posed by the separatists. Yet in his review these points are cast aside in favour of negative and pretentious babble. Hmph.

Isn't that the second review that's at or above 60% that rottentomatoes has counted as rotten? If you take that into account there has truely only been 1 negative review on rottentomatoes so far...

From the IGN review:

Were the Clones imprinted with "sleeper programming" when they were hatched at the clonery (which would serve to exemplify the horrific, and boundlessly patient, depth of the Sith's long-term plans)? Does Palpatine have a brainwashing device of some sort? Is a piggy-back zombiefication code imbedded in Palpatine's trans-galactic snuff command to the Clone armies? Or, are the Clones simply brainless and stupid? If so, I'm selling a bridge in Brooklyn, and I've more than a few tasks for them...

I guess he didn't remember AOTC.

LAMA SU: You'll find they are totally obedient, taking any
order without question. We modified their genetic structure
to make them less independent than the original host.

I’ve been lingering around these boards for a while, but haven’t posted anything until now.

Apart from the wooden acting that some people complain about, people have to understand that that’s the way the character’s nature is. I remember some reviewers complaining about Mark Hamill in ROTJ about how he appeared bored. I didn’t think so. I guess people didn’t take into consideration that he’s now more mature, somber, and calm because he’s pretty much a Jedi Knight now.

Same goes with SLJ’s character as Mace. I don’t refer to his acting as wooden. It’s just the way his character is – the somber type. If you don’t like it, than I guess you can complain about Buddhist monk’s personality as well. That’s what the Jedi are supposed to be in a sense… Like monks. That’s what they resemble. No attachment, desire, etc. And that is what the prequel trilogy has a lot of.

I never had any problem with Samuel L. Jackson's acting, except some of his facial expressions in TPM to Yoda were quite funny.

EDIT: BTW, I think Samuel L. Jackson knows how to act the way he's told to.

Yeah the IGN review is silly. He obviously doesn't even understand the films. To say that Anakin "sensed" his mom is just wrong. He had visions. From ep 1, "He can see things before they happen." Not to mention all of the other points he goofed up. Why is IGN reviewing movies anyway?

Still waiting for a rational, intelligent negative review...

Or maybe Lawrence Fishburne? I still think Samuel L. Jackson does a good job. But, look at how Fishburne played Morpheous...

For what it's worth, IGN's mixed review counted as a rotten on RT.

IGNs crappy review is just going to confuse people who dont know alot into thinking there really are inconsistencies, just because upon failing to find problems, he turned things that made sense into big mistakes.

http://tvplex.go.com/buenavista/ebertandroeper/today.html

For those of you that want to see Ebert probably shred Revenge of the Sith, Ebert & Roeper will be reviewing it this Saturday on their show. Hopefully they'll be fair with their reviews (but they probably won't).

I lost faith in them since they slated Gladiator, for looking "fuzzy and indistinct". Hello? Colour grading anyone? Rupert and Eoper are also often in the minority, ironically recently claiming Kingdom of Heaven to be an epic only Ridley Scott could produce.

That was only Ebert, not Roeper. Roeper wasn't on the show yet when Gladiator came out. I remember that Ebert had a guest when he reviewed Gladiator, a lady named Joyce something. She loved it and she couldn't believe he hated it.

I'm looking forward to hearing the E&R ROTS discussion.

His complaints certainly do carry merit, and it would be foolish to deny the ramblings of a man who has seen the thing over the spurious remarks of a million message board dwellers. But, in truth, his review lacks weight and collapses under his own cynicism. Answering rhetorical questions about the flack you're going to receive on account of the prose you're midway through writing, does not a good review make.

edit:

Ah, I stand corrected. Living in the UK, I only read the review on the Internet quite recently.

Someone who knows the history of Star Wars please refresh my memory:

Eventhough Kasdan gets most of the credit for Empire's script, didn't Lucas hand him a script that is pretty much what we got on screen written by Lucas? I know Kasdan brought a lot to the table with that script but I'm almost sure that Lucas had Empire plotted out as it is on film with the script he gave to Kasdan to polish up....

Am I off?

The negative reviews almost have an air of jealousy to them. Like they don't want people to enjoy themselves.

The Onion AV Club already has a preview of ROTS in the Summer Movie Preview, though it seems to be more tongue in cheek:

http://www.theonionavclub.com/feature/i ... issue=4119





Good news that they're gonna give it a good review though, since they slammed TPM and AOTC.

Yup. Travers is a fuckface.

It's how these critics insult the fan base that gets to me. Fucking pisses me off.

It really seems to me that Travers went into this movie knowing exactly what kind of smartass negative shit he wanted to sling. Real professional, there... NOT.

The only reviewer I give a monkeys about is Johnathon Ross in the UK. He's a big comic book and adventure film fan and reviews films for what they are, not for what he wanted them to be. Usually he's dead honest and I usually tend to agree with his reviews. From what I've seen of the reviews so far I'd say the people who went in hoping to see a good SW film saw a great one, the dickheads who went in with an attitude neednt have gone in the first place. I saw a bunch of my mates today who are not big SW fans. All they wanted to talk about was ROTS. They're aged 28-45, and buzzing like fuck now.

Johnathon Ross is funny.

Well to be fair I love all five films (no I don't think they are perfect) but am honestly glad that it's going to be over. I'm 24 and have been into Star Wars as far back as my earliest memories, I don't even remember HOW I got into it. No one in my family is nearly as into it as myself. So during the 80's I loved the OT, during the 90's it was about the SE's and the upcoming prequels. So now it's finally over in the mid 2000's. It's sad yes, but man, I can finally move on with my life.

I love this quote out of the NYT empire review.

"After one has one's fill of the special effects and after one identifies the source of the facetious banter that passes for wit between Han Solo and Leia (it's straight out of B-picture comedies of the 30's), there isn't a great deal for the eye or the mind to focus on. Ford, as cheerfully nondescript as one could wish a comic strip hero to be, and Miss Fisher, as sexlessly pretty as the base of a porcelain lamp, become (is it rude to say?) tiresome."

I just hate being considered a sheep b/c I like Star Wars. I probly know more about filmmaking than this dickwad Travers. Have these dudes ever written or made a movie? No, they are all college dropouts who couldn't even follow through on their advertising degree. If they just watched the movie and gave me their review I wouldn't have a problem, but insulting (a large group of) people is whack.

Sure, it's stupid but don't let it get to you. What do you care if people think you are a "sheep?"

Exactly. It's not something to be ashamed about, unless you're the Triumph Star Wars type. That's quite a few steps over the line IMO.

I don't mind being called a sheep, its the negative connotations he associates with it. I mean, I'm undeniably a huge Star Wars nerd. But it doesn't mean I can't judge movies any worse than him.

i didn't wanna sift through 16 pages of stuff, but if it hasn't been posted, Filmforce has posted their review of it.

http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/612/612085p1.html

Already posted and debunked.

Glen, as a former AICN writer, used his uninformed review to lash out at every critic to give the move a positive review and single out AICN in a bashing attempt. It's filled with complaints of things explained in the previous two movies and is seriously unprofessional in its bashing.

So what movie did Travers review that he never saw?