|
|
Post by dinadan on May 20, 2005 0:06:26 GMT -5
Well, Revenge of the Sith--I have to say, this has been the absolute best of the prequel trilogy. I only wish that the other two were made to this standard. It wasn't without its flaws, although they did manage to cover up H.C.'s flat acting with some great performances by E.M. and N.P. The Emperor was suitably over the top; but, I have to say, the interpolation of the Emperor/Yoda fight with the Anakin/Obi-wan fight really ended up letting Yoda and the Emperor upstage the Main Event (you know what I mean). The "how I became a flaming torso" scene really did sort of feel anticlimactic--although that could be due to the fact that I've been expecting it for about the last 17 years of my life. That being said, the assault on the Jedi Temple was one of the best pieces of cinema I've seen in a long while--and the 'birth of the empire' scene has one of the film's most memorable lines: Padme says to Bail Organa "And so liberty dies--with cheers and applause."
Best of the PT, but The Empire Strikes Back doesn't have to fear being nocked out of it's #1 overall rank anymore. Still, go, see and enjoy--you won't regret it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Riothamus on May 23, 2005 8:11:24 GMT -5
Woohoo! I'm planning to see Sith end of this week. Since Star Wars is one of the few things I want to think critically about (after all, the OT is part of my childhood,) I rather suspect I'll enjoy it. Word so far's good, and I'm glad you liked it, dinadan.
|
|
|
|
Post by laurelin on May 23, 2005 10:32:20 GMT -5
Hmmm...I thought some of Ms Portman's acting was subpar, myself, although she was definitely better than Christensen.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinadan on May 23, 2005 14:11:04 GMT -5
I dunno...I think HC does a fairly good job of acting bad--by which I mean, portraying "troubled" characters (Life as a House, after all, was smashing). He can't pull off "charming, good boy" quite as well--and I think if you'll notice, where he was still trying to do that, those were his flat scenes. That being said, NP's acting is only as good as the material she works with. Her character definitely had the worst written parts she's had in any of the three films (including TPM). However, the overall experience was savory...I'm going to watch it again this week sometime--so I'll have more detailed opinions then.
|
|
amodman
Mabinog
[M:395]
The Nightcrawler
Posts: 226
|
Post by amodman on May 24, 2005 21:14:50 GMT -5
I liked it...to an extent. It is probably the best movie there is and ever will be with completely wooden acting. There were just a lot of things that bugged me to get me to completely enjoy. Foremost - the bad acting. Christensen is actually decent at acting psycho, unlike anything else, but they barely gave him any chance to do that. Portman, apparently, got worse in acting, and so did the guy playing Obi-Wan. It irks my mind the scene where he watches Anakin in the security recording and in a completely dry and uncaring voice with absolutely no facial expression just says, "I can't take any more of this."
The plot itself was good...with some glaring confusingness. Why did we never see any of the other knights other than a few? Why were Yoda and Obi-Wan the literally only ones to come to the Temple message? How exactly did it take them 20 years to complete an already started Deathstar but not even one to almost complete a second? Why did Yoda decide to just give up in his duel when it didn't seem he had lost at all? etc.
edit: I forgot to mention, am I the only one that though Grievous was absolutely and utterly horrible? He seemed more comical than menacing, evil, or even threataning.
|
|
|
|
Post by Child of Immanuel on May 28, 2005 11:48:21 GMT -5
Has anyone seen "The Ghost and the Darkness"? I thought it was pretty well done, focusing more on character development than the standard hunting tale. And it has a nightmare sequence that actually made me believe it.
The only points I really disliked- the main character's accent is inconsistent, the cowboy's accent is the worst I've ever heard, and the missionary is an idiot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Riothamus on May 30, 2005 8:50:07 GMT -5
Never seen it. But for idiot missionaries, there's nothing quite like The Mosqueto Coast--a movie which I otherwise love.
Revenge of the Sith SPOILERS: [With advance apology for what might be seen as "gushing," though I've tried to be as precise and concise as I can....]
I have, as noted before, up to now been willfully blind to the faults of the prequels. The world that is GFFA is too amazing to quibble. Fortunately, Episode III gives me relatively little to quibble about. Natalie Portman, bless her lovely heart, isn't given nearly enough to do. The romantic dialogue smells to high heaven, and there are a few inconsistancies with the other films (it's never explicitly stated, for instance, that Leia remembers her mother through the force.) And Obi-Wan, in the end, comes off as a bit of a jerk, leaving Anakin to be burned alive; one could wish that some reason had been given--some obstacle in his path that prevented him from rescuing his friend.
But boy, oh boy, this is the most fun I've had at the Cinema in the last three years. While it doesn't make it's predecessors any better (indeed, they actually suffer,) it's sufficient in itself and merges beautifully into Episode IV. General Greivious is the best disposable villain in the new trilogy, beyond a doubt, but the shining star of this movie is Ian McDarmid. He hams it up with glee. He also is largely responsable for restoring a great deal of mystery to the force (I didn't realize it was missing, though, until I saw this film.) And his insistance on going beyond "narrow views" of the force were very interesting to me (for reasons that can be guessed.)
In all, it's not The Empire Strikes Back--but it certainly beats I and II all hollow, and VI as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by CynanMachae on May 31, 2005 10:23:36 GMT -5
Hmmm...I thought some of Ms Portman's acting was subpar, myself, although she was definitely better than Christensen. Amen. The movie was good, but I give it an "OKAY" simply because the acting was worse than in ANY other movie I've EVER seen. |
|
|
|
Post by Lady Bookwyrm on Jun 5, 2005 16:26:58 GMT -5
Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants
Ok...I'll admit it, I thought I would HATE this movie. It seemed like the typical teeny-bopper chick flick. But then my 11 year old sister dragged me to it. For the first 15 minutes or so, all I could think was, "This is so stupid...shallow...cliche...let me fall asleep soon!"
But then the plot really picked up, and the movie ended up being a very pleasant surprise. It wasn't quite as mushy as I thought it would be...in fact, not that much at all. I cried a lot during the movie, and it dealt with a lot of important issues, like where your loyalties lie, death, suicide, family, sex, and how to move past it all. The characters were much deeper than I gave them credit for at first, and overall, I really liked the movie.
I would say it almost like Steel Magnolias, only on a younger level. 4/5 stars
|
|
|
|
Post by Child of Immanuel on Jun 5, 2005 19:12:32 GMT -5
I hated the book... it was so depressing.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgan on Jun 9, 2005 5:25:25 GMT -5
OK. Everyone sit down. *waits* Sitting? Good. I finally watched LOTR for the first time. *waits for gasping to stop* Actually, I've only seen I & II - III was already checked out from the library. Hopefully, I'll get my hands on that next week. I must say, I was pleasantly disappointed. I never saw it because I didn't think I could sit for 3 hours 3 times, to watch a movie about a simplified plot of which I already knew the ending. It was not nearly that painful, and now I wish I would have seen it originally. I think much of the "mystique" is lost because I don't have to wait 2 years for the next movie....I just have to get off the recliner. The acting is superb for the most part, and it doesn't get bogged down as much as I would have thought. Nonetheless, I certainly had some correct misgivings. The special effects were frequent and spectacular, but not really anything we hadn't seen before. Nothing that really jumped out at you as "Wow, how did they do that?" The storyline is predictable to me, and it's not because I've read the books - I haven't. Also, the hobbit shire looked like a setting out of Jim Carey comedy. I'm not sure if it was their intention or not, but I thought it was tacky. All in all, I enjoyed what I've seen thus far and I know that the 3rd part will not disappoint. I still think it is highly overrated, especially considering the time and budget. I hope that's not blasphemy. I just wanted to get that confession out.  |
|
amodman
Mabinog
[M:395]
The Nightcrawler
Posts: 226
|
Post by amodman on Jun 12, 2005 17:11:30 GMT -5
Honestly, what special effects these days would be surprising? I thought LOTR looked amazing...can't imagine much better, except perhaps the lack of the cheesy ogres that looked a wee bit faky. I also don't understand the complaint on the Shire...I loved that scenery. It's about exactly how it is described in the books, and you're bloody kidding me you've never read LOTR! Perhaps the plot was predictable seeing as how slews of today's fantasy has been modeled after Tolkien's model.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dred on Jun 13, 2005 11:13:58 GMT -5
Has anyone seen "The Ghost and the Darkness"? I thought it was pretty well done, focusing more on character development than the standard hunting tale. And it has a nightmare sequence that actually made me believe it. The only points I really disliked- the main character's accent is inconsistent, the cowboy's accent is the worst I've ever heard, and the missionary is an idiot. I've seen it and have to agree with you. I enjoyed the movie as it was much more than just a hunting story. You're right about the accent. I noticed that but tried really hard to ignore it. |
|
|
|
Post by CynanMachae on Jun 14, 2005 17:23:19 GMT -5
Okaaaaaaay... My brother brought his laptop and DVD player home from college so I've been watching a few more movies than usual...
We've watched Van Helsing, which was awesome. We've watched Ocean's 11 & 12, which are now on my top ten movies list. We've watched SoUE, which, though it starred Jim Carrey, sucked.
|
|
|
|
Post by laurelin on Jun 14, 2005 21:19:49 GMT -5
I've been meaning to see Ocean's Twelve. It's good, then?
|
|
