Friday, June 03, 2005

Drew & John Review "Revenge of the Sith"

SPOILERS!!!!
DO NOT READ THIS POSTING IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN STAR WARS EPISODE III: REVENGE OF THE SITH!
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

Andrew Gronosky's review of Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith:

It has been a long time since the last C-G movie review and "C" and "G" are now living in different states, but in case you are living in a plastic bubble or caring for a young child and have not yet seen Revenge of the Sith, here is what I think of it.

The rating: Mitigated ass. Like so many others.

"Revenge of the Sith" is a weak movie. Not an apallingly bad movie, just weak. Don't get me wrong - there are apallingly bad parts, or rather aspects, of the movie, but there are mitigating factors. Extensive mitigating factors, in this case.

First, the bad aspects. The plot is way too busy. Anakin's slide from being the Jedi golden child to telekinetically-strangling Lord of the Sith could be a compelling story - if told by someone other than Lucas. Time that should be spent on developing Anakin's character and adding some depth that foreshadows his fall, instead is squandered on patching numerous holes in the plot of the other five movies. We end up with a film that should have been titled, "Star Wars: the Lame Apology." To Lucas's credit, he does provide a believable motive for Anakin to turn to the Dark Side, but when it happens it's like flipping a switch - poof, now I'm EVIL. Lucas proves himself stunningly inept at pathos even when it is called for. Lucas should not be allowed to write dialogue. Ever. Fortunately there is less of it than in the last couple of movies. The fight choreography sucks. That is a damning indictment of a movie that is supposed to be about, and predominantly comprised of, lightsaber duels. The duels are stupid and boring. Watch the Darth Maul battle from Phantom Menace and compare with Obi-Wan vs. Darth Vader.

Now, the mitigating factors. First and most importantly, you get a lot of what you expect from a Star Wars movie. Big explosions, space battles, lightsaber battles, rampaging Wookies, panoramic alien vistas. Eye candy, and lots of it. It would be better if there were some attention paid to getting the audience invested in the characters - I
felt so detached from the Wookie battle it was like watching my nephew play a video game - but first and foremost this is a special effects picture, and it doesn't disappoint. I suggest you find a theatre with a really good sound system. It makes a difference. More surprising to me is that Lucas got artistic on us. Not in a purely visual way, either. In my opinion, the difference between pulp entertainment and actual art is that art has some kind of relevance to social or intellectual matters: it has meaning. There is a point behind "Revenge of the Sith," and while Lucas drives his point home with all the grace and subtlety of a battering ram, there really is an idea he is trying to communicate. This elevates him and his movie considerably in my esteem. For whatever that's worth.


So there you have it. The movie is totally predictable, and goes off on so many tangents to tie up loose ends that it feels like a scavenger hunt, but now I at least know what Lucas was talking about when he made that flap about having a story to tell. There are those who will think the theme of his is dumb, but then I thought "The Matrix" was extraordinarily heavy-handed and lots of people thought it was brilliant and deep. There's no accounting for taste, especially when the lowest common denominator is involved. Let me just say, I'm glad he had the guts to use his last movie to actually say something to the audience. Spielberg could have done it in one movie, but then there would not be enough CGI.

Over and out,

-Drew

John Michael Decker's Review of Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith:

While I must admit that I largely agree with most of Drew's comments regarding Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, I still must confess to enjoying the film far more than he did. In fact, I would go so far as to say that, in many aspects, I found it more satisfying than Return of the Jedi. After the disappointing Attack of the Clones and the nearly unwatchable Phantom Menace, I have to confess I went into the movie with my expectations pretty low. I knew that Lucas was going to have to scramble to connect the dots between Revenge of the Sith and A New Hope at the cost of the story. I knew that he is not the most gifted person in regards to writing dialog ("Oh Ani, hold me like you did by the lake on Naboo." Shudder). And I knew that Hayden Christensen's performance as Anakin was both whiny and annoying. Not to mention the fact that there is zero chemistry between Christensen and Natalie Portman. I knew all this going in. And yet, despite all those things, I found myself having fun. That's what you're supposed to do at the movies, right?

My first pleasant surprise was the fact that Lucas has returned to the tradition of balls to the wall action that permeated Episode's IV, V and VI. Could the lightsaber duels have benefited by the chirography of the great Ray Park (AKA Darth Maul)? Sure, but I still found the fights fun and diverting (especially the duel between Obi-Wan and General Grievous). Even the Yoda fight worked for me this time. I can't even say exactly why. It just did. The lightsaber fights are a strange animal. Hell, the best lightsaber duels were in the Phantom Menace (the worst of the Star Wars movies) and the most uninteresting duel (chirography wise) was in A New Hope which was my second favorite film in the series. And although it could have been longer, all the Wookie stuff was very cool. Chewbacca rules!!!

My next pleasant surprise was the fact that apparently George Lucas has dusted off his copy of Hero With a Thousand Faces and returned to the kind of archetypal story telling that was so sadly lacking in episodes I and II. I speak specifically of the myth of the boy hero who goes to God (or in this case, Yoda) to ask if he can have the power over life and death (with the best intentions, to save a loved one), but is told that is beyond him. So the hero then makes a deal with the Devil (Palpatine) and ends up getting burned. Literally in this case on the lava planet, which I think is intended to pass for Hell or the river Styx. Sure, Lucas is ham fisted in his approach (Anakin goes from being concerned about Padme to slaughtering children pretty rapidly), but Lucas only had two and a half hours to tell his story. Perhaps if he didn't squander so much film on crap like Jar Jar Binks in Episode's I and II he could have shown this transformation more gradually, but he didn't, so there you go. My point is that although Anakin's decent into the dark side was sloppy, I let it work for me in the context of this morally black or white, serialized universe.

My next pleasant surprise was Ian MacDiarmid's performance as the evil Palpatine. I love a villain who is willing to totally let go of his human dignity and grovel like a little girl until he gets the upper hand. That kind of scenery chewing in the grand tradition of Space Opera is quite enjoyable and made my inner geek smile. I also found his seduction of Anakin to be very well done. Palpatine was listening to Anakin's concerns in a fatherly way while the Jedi council had their heads up their collective asses. Too concerned with the war that Palpatine had engineered to see the evil unfolding right under their Jedi noses. They were just asking to be wiped out by all the Boba Fetts.

Is this a perfect film? Of course not. Is it a flawed gem that is worth your time and money if you are willing to just let yourself have some goofy fun? I say, hell yeah. Just one geeks point of view...

Decker out...

5 comments:

Unknown said...

Isn't anyone going to comment on the Star Wars reviews?

Unknown said...

Here's what Super-Dave had to say about Episode III...

This stuff was much more fun when I was seven. Sexboy (AKA Drew)is on the nose but I would rate it "alright." Lucas had so many people helping him with this film
that are not in the credits that I can only imagine how bad it would be if he had done it alone. Would it have killed him to bring in David Mamit to help with the dialoge or something. There is not
one line that I can recall from the movie and I liked it more than Sexboy! I did like how the main
villian wasn't to low to snivil to save his life. Well Ukal (AKA John)and I did have a good time together. Unleashed with Jel Li is much better if your going to watch a movie with your brain off.

later,

Super-Dave

Unknown said...

B. Coakley explains the C-G Rating Scale and chimes in on Revenge of the Sith...

A introductory refresher note on the C-G Rating Scale:

The C-G Rating Scale ironically arose from a modeling
error on the part of one Breyt Coakley and one A.
Christian Gronosky (The Great Playwright). C&G were
initially of the opinion that there were a handful of
really good movies, a handful of really bad movies,
and a bunch of movies in-between.

Upon several years of dilligent application of the C-G
Rating Scale, C&G observed something entirely
different. About half of all movies meet the middle
category criteria. About half of all movies meet the
lower category criteria. We correctly observed,
however, very few exceptionally good movies.

Top Three Categories:
1) ?
2) ?
3) ?
I cannot remember the names of these categories, as
very few movies fall here. A few notable examples of
exceptionally good movies are: The Godfather,
Shawshank Redemption, and Conan The Barbarian.

Middle Three Categories:
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe they
are:
4) Rent
5) Rent if drunk
6) Mitigated @$$

Bottom Three Categories:
Again, feel free to correct:
7) Unmitigated @$$
8) Do not rent
9) Avoid at all costs (e.g. Rob Roy)

Where to place Revenge of the Sith? As your faithful
movie critic, we will find an answer.

Good points:
------------
Crazy Bus Studios (Zing, The Great Brubaw, Tapu,
Coakley, among others) endorses Joseph Campbell's 1949
book "The Hero with a Thousand Faces". As a producer
of quality films, Crazy Bus finds enduring value in
the work of sociologists who, among other things, have
attempted to abstract the essence of the hero.

Although Lucas was better at incorporating these
elements into Episodes 4-6, he TRIES to remain true to
this.

What remains better is Lucas' attempt at socially
responsible commentary on civilization and it's
institutions, with the Sith representing "State", and
the Jedi representing "Church".

And lets face it, Wookies rock.

Bad Points:
-----------
Anakin wines way too much.

I feel personally cheated that the Wookies have an
ancillary role in this movie, yet we have an entire
movie about an Ewok planet. If Crazy Bus ever edits
the Star Wars episodes, it will remove all references
to Jar Jar Binx and Ewoks.

Randall from Clerks would advise Lucas to "sith or get
off the pot". Lucas needs to choose. Choose what?
Lucas tries to do too many things at once. He wants
the Sith to simultaneously embody "State" and "Evil".
He wants the Jedi to simultaneously embody "Church"
and "Good". This mixes his metaphors and weakens his
message.

"Good vs. Evil"
By having the prophecy of Anakin restoring balance to
the force by slaughtering Jedi, Lucas partially
condemns the Jedi as a "religious institution". One
recurring, simple message of the New Testament is a
condemnation of "human tradition", be it Judaic (or
Catholic, or Jedi...) There are myriad problems with
people mistaking "human tradition", which in itself is
a false idol, for "goodness". False idols are
anything that distract from the only value adding
activity: being a good, helpful, kind, and loving
person.

Lucas COMPLETELY misses the mark of "Good". He points
out how the Jedi are at odds with both the Sith, and
both at odds with goodness. How about some active
commentary (missing from all 6 episodes) on "Good"???
Lucas takes no stance on Moral Absolutism, Moral
Relativism, or morality in general. Paralleling
religion, the world of Lucas does not contain
individuals who read the New Testaments, lead good
lives, and don't adhere to particular dogma. Does
Lucas believe this is unimportant? Unachievable?
Does Lucas have no hope? With respect to morality,
Lucas does not take a stand; he merely portrays the
Jedi as being purple, and the Sith as being green.
Weak.

"Church vs State"
Perhaps Lucas means to draw instead a "Church vs
State" analogy. J.M Roberts "Short History of the
World" teaches us, that over the millenia and
centuries, the world has been moving toward a greater
state of civilization, and that pockets of
barbarianism are slowly, but surely disappearing. So
if Lucas means the Sith to be the State, and the Jedi
to be the Church, what is his point? Seriously, where
is he going?

"Balancing the Force? Alternative to the above?"
In balancing the Force, the Anakin prophecy says there
should be equal Jedi and Sith. So what is Lucas'
message?

a) The Jedi are good and the Sith are evil, and good
can't exist without an equal amount of evil? No.
Lucas partially condemns the Jedi. Weak.

b) All human institutions have good and evil
components, and we only achieve power by checks and
balances? Perhaps. But that's a pretty bleak outlook
on religion. Weak.

Lucas either doesn't know what his message is, or is
trying to convey a non-coherent message. At best he
is a mirror: observing, tweaking, and reflecting,
without interpreting. Leaders have vision; Lucas
doesn't have enough.

Summary: The fact that Lucas even got me thinking
about these issues makes me advocate renting the
movie. I also got enough raw entertainment value from
the action. Revenge of the Sith does not make the top
categories for two reasons:
1) Failure to explicitly address the above.
2) Failure to leave me implicitly overwhelmed after
seeing the movie.

Coakley Rating: (4) Rent. Alcohol is not necessary
to find entertainment value in this movie.

Unknown said...

GrimJeff has his say about Episode III...

I saw SW:RoTS last night. You know, it's funny: I liked the other two
movies in the trilogy better than most others, and although I liked RoTS the
best of the three, I wasn't overly blown away by it. I felt that Lucas was
trying almost too hard to make it fit into the setup for the 4th SW movie.
One continuity bit that bugged me: It showed them working on the Death Star.
Wasn't that station a big surprise in "A New Hope"? This would seem to imply
that it was around for 15-18 years before that. Also, I found Anakin's fall
to the dark side a little abrupt. When he saw Palpatine turning hideous in
the face of Windu's attack and then Palpatine wiped out Windu after feigning
weakness...it just didn't flow for me. I do like how he was Darth Vader
before he donned the armor. The fight between Kenobi and Darth Vader kicked
ass, as did the fight between Yoda and the Emperor.

Remember to keep next Friday open for Mack and I. I'll be in touch.

Peace Out.

Jeff
Grimjeff

Unknown said...

Just for fun, here is Drew's C-G Rating for the Dungeons and Dragons film from 2000...

Well, Coakley and I finally went to see Dungeons and Dragons last
night. I feel kind of bad for talking him into going with me.

There was one other person in the theatre besides us. I think that
says a lot. He walked out somewhere in the middle. I think that says
even more.

The short review: Mitigated ass.

The long review: If you don't have fond memories of goofy D&D games
you played when you were 13, do *not* see this movie- it has nothing
to offer you. The characters are one-dimensional, the plot is highly
predictable, the action is gratuitous and exaggerated. *Sniff* Just
like the games I played when I was a kid.

The movie is basically all right, except for the parts where people
talk. I am not even going to discuss Jeremy Irons.

Now I said that this movie was "mitigated" ass. What mitigated it?
Well, it was not the CGI dragons: they were one step up from a
papier-machee Homecoming Parade float. Mostly, for me it was the hot
chicks in armor. There was some decent swordplay. The movie was shot
in and around Gothic cathedrals in Prague, so the scenery was great.
In spite of Courtney Solomon's beastly directing (I pray that he will
never work in Hollywood again), he managed, somehow, to capture the
atmosphere of a badly-run, goofy kids' D&D game. That was worth some
nostalgia points with me. And at the risk of spoiling the "plot," I
thought it extremely cool that it was the goody-two-shoes Empress who
actually started the civil war by summoning a horde of dragons to
torch her own capital. What do you know, there was a major plot event
that wasn't a cliche.

Now, on the negative side- where to begin? *Do not* listen to the
dialogue. Actual quote: "That's the trouble with you thieves- always
taking things that don't belong to you." Umm, yeah Damodar, you hit
the nail on the head there. The villains are not scary, they're plain
silly. The uniforms of the Crimson Brigade make them look like Mighty
Morphin Power Rangers. What is up with the blue lipstick? I never
thought anyone could overact worse than William Shatner, but now I
know Jeremy Irons can. Some of the magic and monsters were
recognizable from canonical D&D, but I guess they were not stupid
enough, because Solomon had to insert some of his own ideas. Why a
purple guy with 3 eyes? What are those tentacles coming out of that
guy's head? And to top off the parade of stupidity, there's Marlon
Wayans.

I think this movie would be best viewed on a large-screen TV using a
VCR with a fast-forward button, so you can zip through the talky bits
and get on with the sword fights and the hot chicks in armor.