Page 1 of 3
Off-topic: NY Times says Episode III is better than Star Wars
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 3:30 pm
by Grotius
OK, this has almost nothing to do with WITP, except that I suspect that many fans of naval/air combat are also fans of "Star Wars." Anyway, today's NY Times has a very favorable review of "Star Wars Episode III - Revenge of the Sith." It's "by far the best film in the more recent rilgoy, and also the best of the four episodes Mr. Lucas has directed." Yes, "it's better than Star Wars."
The reviewer likes the story a lot, and says "the inverted chronology" of the six movies "turns out to be the most profound thing about the 'Star Wars' epic." The films "reveal the cyclical naturae of history." It is a "measure of the film's accomplishment" that the fall of Anakin is "genuinely upsetting, even if we are reminded that a measure of redemption lies over the horizon in "Return of the Jedi."
The reviewer doesn't say it's perfect. "Mr. Lucas's indifference to two fairly important aspects of moviemaking -- acting and writing -- is remarkable." The acting is uneven; Christensen and Portman may be better than in the previous movies but still lack the "range" required of their parts, but on the other hand Jackson, McGregor, Smits, Oz, and especially McDiarmid do a very good job. As for writing, Lucas "is not one to imply a theme if he can stuff it into a character's mouth." Still, the reviewer finds the dialogue and acting here much improved over the first two. And it's easy to forget that the acting in Star Wars itself wasn't always first-rate either. ("Have you been in many battles?" And remember the line about power converters.)
Anyway, a surprisingly enthusiastic review from a newspaper that's not easy to please. Sounds like a not-to-be-missed final installment of Star Wars. If indeed it is final.
RE: Off-topic: NY Times says Episode III is better than Star Wars
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 3:38 pm
by wild_Willie2
The first movie was real RUBBISCH.
JARJAR was really annoying and the movie was a bit of an anticlimax, (pod racing excluded). The second movie was much better than the first, and as far as I have seen the movie trailers of part 3, that will be great. “RISE, DARTH VADER”.
Going to see it with some mates on Thursday…….
RE: Off-topic: NY Times says Episode III is better than Star Wars
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 3:38 pm
by rtrapasso
Anyway, a surprisingly enthusiastic review from a newspaper that's not easy to please. Sounds like a not-to-be-missed final installment of Star Wars. If indeed it is final.
Originally, after Star Wars (the first movie, now episode 4) came out and was a success, Lucas said that it was to be a 9 part series, with episodes 7-9 talking about the eventual liberation of the robots, iirc (although i am not sure that was the main theme of the last 3). A friend made a big deal over the fact the only characters in all 9 episodes would be R2D2 and C3PO.
RE: Off-topic: NY Times says Episode III is better than Star Wars
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 3:40 pm
by Mr.Frag
The saving grace to this one is that EVIL WINS!!!!
That alone is worth the price [:D]
RE: Off-topic: NY Times says Episode III is better than Star Wars
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 3:42 pm
by Mike Solli
ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
The saving grace to this one is that EVIL WINS!!!!
Finally!
RE: Off-topic: NY Times says Episode III is better than Star Wars
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 3:45 pm
by CapAndGown
ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
The saving grace to this one is that EVIL WINS!!!!
That alone is worth the price [:D]
Does that mean the Japs can win in WitP too???

RE: Off-topic: NY Times says Episode III is better than Star Wars
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 3:47 pm
by Hartley
Yoda has just returned from a diplomatic mission to a planet inhabited by bipedal gorillas because, as he explains in the rounded tones of an opponent of the John Bolton nomination, "Good relations with the Wookiees I have."
Later, a defeated Yoda sighs: "Into exile I must go." You half-expect him to be followed by six other dwarves chanting, "Hi ho, hi ho / Into exile we will go . . . "
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... 1ajqxt.asp
RE: Off-topic: NY Times says Episode III is better than Star Wars
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 3:52 pm
by DuckofTindalos
ORIGINAL: Hartley
Yoda has just returned from a diplomatic mission to a planet inhabited by bipedal gorillas because, as he explains in the rounded tones of an opponent of the John Bolton nomination, "Good relations with the Wookiees I have."
Later, a defeated Yoda sighs: "Into exile I must go." You half-expect him to be followed by six other dwarves chanting, "Hi ho, hi ho / Into exile we will go . . . "
[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]
RE: Off-topic: NY Times says Episode III is better than Star Wars
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 3:58 pm
by DrewMatrix
To have a really good movie you need a really good Bad Guy. I have hopes this will be a really good movie.
RE: Off-topic: NY Times says Episode III is better than Star Wars
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 3:59 pm
by DuckofTindalos
The best bad guys are fallen good guys.
RE: Off-topic: NY Times says Episode III is better than Star Wars
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 4:05 pm
by Mr.Frag
You half-expect him to be followed by six other dwarves chanting, "Hi ho, hi ho / Into exile we will go . . . "
You need warnings on posts like that "Put down your drink before reading further!"
RE: Off-topic: NY Times says Episode III is better than Star Wars
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 4:06 pm
by Nikademus
ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
The saving grace to this one is that EVIL WINS!!!!
And he didn't need 4:1 odds to do it either...... [;)]
RE: Off-topic: NY Times says Episode III is better than Star Wars
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 4:08 pm
by Speedysteve
Should be good from what i've seen. It will be good to see the bad guys win for once!
Annoyingly i'm on holiday from when it's released (this Thursday) for a week and a half! [8|]
RE: Off-topic: NY Times says Episode III is better than Star Wars
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 4:09 pm
by DuckofTindalos
I'm giving myself a ticket for this film for my birthday. It's going to be sooooo excellent!
RE: Off-topic: NY Times says Episode III is better than Star Wars
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 4:11 pm
by Speedysteve
ORIGINAL: Nikademus
ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
The saving grace to this one is that EVIL WINS!!!!
And he didn't need 4:1 odds to do it either...... [;)]
Surely the film is biased then? [;)]
RE: Off-topic: NY Times says Episode III is better than Star Wars
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 4:12 pm
by DuckofTindalos
Nah, the film just wasn't programmed by 2BY3 and distributed by Matrix [;)]
RE: Off-topic: NY Times says Episode III is better than Star Wars
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 4:14 pm
by CapAndGown
ORIGINAL: Speedy
ORIGINAL: Nikademus
ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
The saving grace to this one is that EVIL WINS!!!!
And he didn't need 4:1 odds to do it either...... [;)]
Surely the film is biased then? [;)]
Lucas is obviously a dark-side fanboy.
RE: Off-topic: NY Times says Episode III is better than Star Wars
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 4:16 pm
by Speedysteve
Temrinus. Once more couldn't have said it better myself. To be more precise it hasn't been 'modified' by Frag [;)]
RE: Off-topic: NY Times says Episode III is better than Star Wars
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 4:18 pm
by Speedysteve
ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown
ORIGINAL: Speedy
ORIGINAL: Nikademus
And he didn't need 4:1 odds to do it either...... [;)]
Surely the film is biased then? [;)]
Lucas is obviously a dark-side fanboy.
I think he gives Tie's a 60 year fighting bonus
RE: Off-topic: NY Times says Episode III is better than Star Wars
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 4:41 pm
by wild_Willie2
Luckily for the Jedi, the movie comes out under 1.5, fragments less than 15% can still rebuild into a full order. Had the movie come out under a later patch, BEY BEY JEDI ORDER [:D][:D][:D]