Saw Revenge of the Sith just now.

[valis2]

dphearson was absolutely correct...I don't think small children should see this movie at all.

The people in front of me brought their baby (fine, too little to know or retain anything), and their three year old and four year old boys, and made no move to shield them from any of the violent bits.

I can't even bring myself to do a thorough review. So I'll just say a few things.

I liked 20% of the movie.

I think Ian McD did a smash-up job with his role. An absolutely smash-up job. I think everyone else had a few moments, but for the most part just delivered some dialogue so George could have warm bodies walking about.

Ewan's huge amount of facial powder was so tremendously disturbing that I kept getting distinctly bothered by it and not paying attention to the dialogue.

The action was boring. The only thrilling bit was the battle between Anakin & Obi-Wan at the end.

The stupid lizard Obi-Wan rides for part of the movie bothered me tremendously.

I thought Hayden did a pretty decent job in this movie.

I thought Anakin went a bit quickly from zero to killing "younglings".

This movie suffers from the same problem as tPM & AotC. NO HAN SOLO. There isn't anyone with an ounce of charisma, spark, or life in the movie. Everyone is too melodramatic, calm, and too damned epic in their acting. There isn't a bit of spontaneity or warmth, really, except a teeny bit from Anakin. I wrote an entry about tPM which said that it suffered from the Too Many Jedi Syndrome.

Here's what I said about it then:

In a New Hope, we have only one full-fledged Jedi, dispensing calm and inner peace, gentle, easy with the world. That's great, especially when you have a cocky youth, a rogue, a prissy robot, and a tough Princess to balance it out. He becomes a wonderful balancing mechanism. We have lots of energy being thrown out by the characters, dialogue, tension, and he is able to smooth out some wrinkles. One Jedi is perfect.

But then, in the Phantom Menace, we have two Jedis. Ah. So then both characters are tremendously calm, quiet, and careful. And then the audience...or maybe just me...grows bored. We have no tension, because everything seems so...peaceful. The fight sequences are energetic, but then you have the scene in which Obi-Wan and Quigon are in a submarine with Jar-Jar. They are so calm about nearly getting eaten by various giant fish, and Jar-Jar is freaking out in such a hyperbolic manner, that I just went into full "Ugh" mode. And that's what happened to me with the third Matrix. We have all of these characters, and all of them are speaking in a highly metaphoric, highly melodramatic, deadly tone, that much tension and drama is lost. It seems that when everything is so dispassionate and emotionless, and so melodramatic, that it just heads into the unbelievable realm. Not every piece of dialogue has to be the difference between life and death. In the first movie, we have Mouse and other characters who are high-key and interesting. But by the third movie nearly all of the higher-energy characters are gone, and we're left with only the mythic characters, and it just becomes too...over-the-top.

And I still think it applies.

I'm sick of the "Hey look! A little funky robot! Wasn't that neat? Aren't I clever?" moments.

I'm angry because R2-D2 has somehow become Supah Droid, capable of nearly anything. There was tension in 4, 5, and 6 because you knew they weren't really capable of that much, and you were afraid something would happen to them. Now that R2 can destroy two battle droids at the drop of the hat, what tension is left?

Speaking of those *&@$%^&*@$ droids, I just have this to say. WHY do they speak using imperfect grammar? WHY do they run in terror from Obi-Wan? Oh, for that old-time ha-ha effect. What was I thinking.

It was really apparent at the end of the movie that the technology from the first three movies way outstripped the technology from the latter three. When the famous suit was being fitted on Anakin I was thinking, ah, yes, check out the rayon cape! And the buttons on the front of it...so seventies. Heh.

If the movies had been released consecutively, would this movie have been perceived as better, or worse? I have a feeling that the choice would be worse. By going back, the movies are given this extra resonance that they wouldn't have had if they had been released consecutively. We know where it is going, so we have this tremendous feeling of sadness for Anakin. We know what is going to happen, so everything has a deeper meaning. Putting on Darth Vader's helmet has a lot of significance, because we know that he is facing twenty years of living in that suit and being the pawn of his master. Seen without the context of the latter three, I think it wouldn't be as moving.

I'm glad that I saw it in the theater, but I have to say, I was really excited because I thought it was going to be something great, but I felt almost nothing for this movie, except for Palpatine/Vader. I think having seen them will give more insight and depth to the original three, and I'm glad that I have them on DVD. Yes, it has come full circle.

ETA: I forgot to mention how much I hate most of the names. Dooku? General Grievious? bwa hahaha! So ludicrous.

And General Grievious was the stupidest character...why, why, why would he cough? Why did he need to wear a cape? Ugh. No lungs! Nothing to cover! So stupid.

ETA: And why would Padme die of a broken heart like that? It would have made much, much more sense to have her die on the volcano planet as Obi-Wan attempts to save her children. Much more sense. Instead it was silly, really. She didn't seem the kind of woman to just let herself die.

ETA: And why spend all that time working on Wookie costumes to use them for barely five minutes? Why was the Wookie subplot so short?

Comments

[morricone1900.livejournal.com]

since I know you REFUSE to put me on your friends list ;) , i assume you haven't read my thread on this same topic:

http://www.livejournal.com/users/morricone1900/37832.html


In certain ways I agree with you wholeheartedly (Ian McD out-acted everyone in the picture, despite having lines that were just as cliched as anyone else's), but in others I can't agree, particularly where Hayden was concerned. He LOOKED good throughout, but his line readings were like he was stoned, except perhaps in that first action scene.

I make an assessment (along different lines) of the comparison between our original band of heroes and tne new bunch in my thread, so I won't repeat it here.

I too was very moved by the setting up of the Tattooine scene and the reproducing of Luke's adopted father standing in front of the same two suns in front of which Luke will later stand, with John Williams playing the same theme in solo french horn.

It's interesting to me -- the guy I went to see the movie with didn't like it as much as I did. I don't feel particularly attached to this movie franchise any more (I was enormously disappointed with Return of the Jedi and loathed Phantom Menace). I was pleasantly surprised to find Attack of the Clones as enjoyable as it was, and I think this Sith picture is easily the best since Empire Strikes Back. But I suppose my expectations were not very high. and when my friend (who saw it with me) talked about some of the illogical things in the movie, which really irritated him, I felt like although I was vaguely aware of the same silly things (Greivous' cough being one of them), they didn't bother me that much because I find the whole saga pretty lightweight and superficial. I can't take any of it seriously, so certain lapses in logic don't matter as much to me as they might in, say, a Star Trek movie where there's supposed to be a little more underlying consistently or logic to the universe of that franchise.

I also am not alone in vehemently believing that Lucas should not have directed these movies...he should have produced and gotten real directors to direct in each case. Yes, we know that in a film world created largely in CGI and through elaborate computer design and post-production, it would be hard to communicate the full extent of his vision to another director. But ANY other decent director would have gotten better performances from this cast, in all three of the more recent episodes. It's not a coincidence that the best film of the entire series, EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, also had the best director. Lucas is a producer and writer, not a director. Yes he is a film visionary, etc. etc. -- but don't put him behind the camera when there are actors present, unless those actors can thrive without him. Some, like Ewan and Ian, can do so. But Hayden and Natalie -- that's among the worst acting in any major release in, um....decades? It's not entirely their fault -- after all, they have a director who doesn't know how to make dialogue work or motivate or inspire actors.

I DO think that John Williams has written his finest score in over 15 years here, though.

[morricone1900.livejournal.com]

my Lucas-bashing reminds me of an anecdote I recently heard again concerning AMERICAN GRAFFITI. in an interview about that film several years ago, Ron Howard said that he and the cast were not so much awed by Lucas but by legendary cinematographer Haskell Wexler, who shot the film. this quote reappeared in the media recently because Wexler's son Mark has just released a contentious, warts-and-all documentary about his father.

btw, i can agree (in a general way) about your han solo point. i felt myself missing that level of casualness in this new film. i do think that ewan came about as close to that winning rakishness in this new trilogy as anyone, though of course not in this movie. I didn't really notice the "powder" thing -- I just noticed that his beard looked really fake much of the time and for whatever reason he didn't really even look like himself much. i wonder if he had some kind of skin problem and they had to cover-up his natural facial tone more?

which reminds me (i'm being really stream-of-consciousness tonight!) that part of the weird "maturation process" for Luke Skywalker was definitely the subtle but marked changes to Mark Hamill's face caused by the the automobile accident he had after the first film. not since montgomery clift had a young actor come back to the screen looking so grimly altered by facial damage, no matter how good the reconstructive surgery had been.

[valis2.livejournal.com]

Yes, they had to do that attack in tESB in order to make a reasonable explanation for Mark Hamill's changed looks.

The Han Solo element in aNH really makes it fun. It really adds a dash of sparkle. When everyone is standing around speaking in ominous tones for nearly the entire movie I get a bit bored, unless the melodrama is really good.

[valis2.livejournal.com]

since I know you REFUSE to put me on your friends list ;) , i assume you haven't read my thread on this same topic:

But you keep giving me links to the relevant topics, so I don't need to! *giggles*

I can't agree, particularly where Hayden was concerned.

I only said he did a decent job. I mostly felt that he was adequate, and then there were a few points I felt he did a good job...there were a couple moments where I was moved by his acting.

And as to getting a different director? I could not agree MORE. He should have left the reins to someone who can motivate actors. George is so busy with the CG that he doesn't pay attention to the other points, I think.

His "auditions" consist of him pretty much just picking who he wants to do the role and then having a two hour conversation with said person about the weather and the roads, I've heard. No readings.