Bart_Boge
Well-known member
Ok, I'll admit it.
I saw it.
And I liked it.
So I'd better explain myself:
I thought the dialogue was stiff. If Lucas actually had someone come in and "fix" it up, as I have heard, I can't imagine how gawd-awful the original screenplay must have been. Obviously George is surrounded by bung-hole sniffing syncophants who do nothing more than fulfill the function of yes-men to a self-made billionaire. Not that anyone with the courage to intervene would make any impact anyway; his ear is 24 karat gold-plated tin to any real criticism by now. How do you tell the the most economically successful filmmaker of all time that he sucks? And why would he believe you?
Lucas should have begged Kirschner to direct it and Kasdan to write the screenplay (the Empire Strikes Back team). Had they done that, this movie would have been one of the greatest science fiction movies of all time, even eclipsing the Empire as the best Star Wars film.
Movie making is all about illusion. Therefore, I disagree with 90% of the posters here about the CGI. My impression was and is that ILM is now so good at what they do that imagination is the only limit to cinematic scope and vision. Everything is possible. I thought the CGI was absolutely perfect; rich in texture, depth and realism. The ticket price to see this piece of cinematic art on a big screen is worth it for the CGI alone.
Having said that, I also liked the Godzilla remake for its CGI. But I went into that movie expecting a stupid plot with lots of camera mugging by Matthew Broderick. Which is exactly what I got. But my wife and I both had fun and laughed ourselves silly though it because our expectations were properly calibrated.
Revenge of the Sith was harder to anticipate, however. Episodes I & II were so horribly written and emotionally shallow that it looked as though the magic was completely gone from the franchise. But still--as a fan you hope and pray that someone or something could intervene and compell George to make the last installment meaningful. And the hype was that this one would be better.
It was better. A little better. Amidst the wasteland of terrible lines and wooden performances, some real emotion was conveyed. The final scene with Vader and Palpatine was devastating--to wager it all, everything you believe in for one goal, and then lose it all--that realization is a crusher. Padme's funeral was actually far sadder and profound than her death scene, but then again there was no clunky dialogue to ruin the moment.
Without changing any visual element, casting choice, or plot device, this film could have gone from an eye-rolling CGI-fest to a milestone, Academy-Award winning piece of film art--if only a real director and screenplay writer could have been employed. Natalie Portman is not a bad actress, but she doesn't have the screen presence or experience to pull meaning out of the sixth-grader dialogue. Heck, even Liam Nesson, a fabulous actor, couldn't hack his way though a Lucas script convincingly.
I saw it.
And I liked it.
So I'd better explain myself:
I thought the dialogue was stiff. If Lucas actually had someone come in and "fix" it up, as I have heard, I can't imagine how gawd-awful the original screenplay must have been. Obviously George is surrounded by bung-hole sniffing syncophants who do nothing more than fulfill the function of yes-men to a self-made billionaire. Not that anyone with the courage to intervene would make any impact anyway; his ear is 24 karat gold-plated tin to any real criticism by now. How do you tell the the most economically successful filmmaker of all time that he sucks? And why would he believe you?
Lucas should have begged Kirschner to direct it and Kasdan to write the screenplay (the Empire Strikes Back team). Had they done that, this movie would have been one of the greatest science fiction movies of all time, even eclipsing the Empire as the best Star Wars film.
Movie making is all about illusion. Therefore, I disagree with 90% of the posters here about the CGI. My impression was and is that ILM is now so good at what they do that imagination is the only limit to cinematic scope and vision. Everything is possible. I thought the CGI was absolutely perfect; rich in texture, depth and realism. The ticket price to see this piece of cinematic art on a big screen is worth it for the CGI alone.
Having said that, I also liked the Godzilla remake for its CGI. But I went into that movie expecting a stupid plot with lots of camera mugging by Matthew Broderick. Which is exactly what I got. But my wife and I both had fun and laughed ourselves silly though it because our expectations were properly calibrated.
Revenge of the Sith was harder to anticipate, however. Episodes I & II were so horribly written and emotionally shallow that it looked as though the magic was completely gone from the franchise. But still--as a fan you hope and pray that someone or something could intervene and compell George to make the last installment meaningful. And the hype was that this one would be better.
It was better. A little better. Amidst the wasteland of terrible lines and wooden performances, some real emotion was conveyed. The final scene with Vader and Palpatine was devastating--to wager it all, everything you believe in for one goal, and then lose it all--that realization is a crusher. Padme's funeral was actually far sadder and profound than her death scene, but then again there was no clunky dialogue to ruin the moment.
Without changing any visual element, casting choice, or plot device, this film could have gone from an eye-rolling CGI-fest to a milestone, Academy-Award winning piece of film art--if only a real director and screenplay writer could have been employed. Natalie Portman is not a bad actress, but she doesn't have the screen presence or experience to pull meaning out of the sixth-grader dialogue. Heck, even Liam Nesson, a fabulous actor, couldn't hack his way though a Lucas script convincingly.
