Again, I can't wait to see it. I loved Hayden Christiansen in SHATTERED GLASS. What a performance. I think this talented and gorgeous actor has many more wonderful performances up his sleeve.
Toochis
David Kusumoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
David Kusumoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well since few have chimed in, I might as well.
I think it's one of those things where you almost feel too guilty liking
"Sith," so disappointing the series has been since "The Empire Strikes
Back," the first sequel back in 1980 -- and SO not Oscar worthy (never has
been and never will). We saw "Sith" Thursday night. About a third of the
reviews I've read were mixed (most were qualified raves, excepting the
absolutely rotten, snarky, venomous and poisonous review by Anthony Lane in
this week's New Yorker; truly unconstructive and one of the foulest /
crudest reviews I've read in that otherwise fine rag in a long time).
So I went in with obviously lowered expectations.
Well I came out liking "Revenge of the Sith" a lot. I gave it an "A-"
compared to the other five Star Wars movies. (Not an "A-" compared to all
films.) And I liked! it 10 times more than both Matrix sequels combined.
It's ridiculous to put this film up against "all-time classics" which brag
superb acting and storylines. But "Sith" recaptures the pop culture
mythology of "Star Wars" that disappeared after 1980 -- and hijacked forever
after the cutesy Ewoks took over as the "fearsome warriors" I laughed at in
1983's "Return of the Jedi."
The new film is riveting in a simplistic way and feels shot out of a cannon
from the opening credits. It has none of the slowness of the first two
"prequels." It's engaging because it leads into all that was introduced in
the first Star Wars in 1977. Excepting the brilliant opening battle
sequence (which felt like a wonderful 30 minute rush), most of the scenes
felt no longer than two minutes, using multiple pans, wipes and checkboard
dissolves. The film runs 2:26 but doesn't feel like it. And I don't care
what the critics say, Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman a! re fine with
what little they've been given. People seem to forget the first Star Wars
film was refreshing because it was sleek and spare, absent of acting
fireworks and driven by a serial- / comic-book like structure that had been
dropped into the middle of high-traffic "R" rated anti-establishment films
of the 1970s like "Network," "Coming Home" and "Taxi Driver."
Where the pre-quels went wrong -- amid their high-tech special effects -- is
they disconnected themselves from the fun mythology of the "Star Wars" of
1977 and 1980. So Lucas proved himself a fluke as the fine director of the
classic "American Grafitti" and the first "Star Wars." But with "Sith" he's
back in fine form. Lucas will never win an Oscar with his name on it for
directing or writing or anything. But I put "Sith" up there with the 1977
and 1980 Star Wars movies.
Also, the new film boasts one acting performance that is arguably Oscar
worthy -- and it comes from I! an McDiarmid, the guy who appeared in the 1983
film as Emperor Palpatine/Darth Sidious -- but whose character was
referenced throughout the entire series. He's the guy Darth Vader "bowed"
to throughout the first trilogy. You couldn't miss him -- he was the gnarly
old man in the death hood. Well, here he returns as Chancellor Palpatine --
a middle-aged man before he was deformed -- a man filled with political
treachery and intrigue -- a fantastic villain. His dialogue and delivery
are riveting -- and the result is a picture filled with darkness. Truly,
when you see "Sith" -- I think you'll come out feeling "Sith Episode III"
(2005) -- followed by the original "Star Wars Episode IV" (1977) -- are the
best "chapters" / self-contained bookends in the series. Seeing Darth Vader
back on the big screen for the first time in 22 years is glorious -- but
he's on far too short -- and says far too little.
"Sith" actually has you wanting more. And tha! t's always a good sign. No
big happy ending in this film, but people clapped nevertheless.
Of course I'm not talking Scorcese, Coppola or anything close to cinema
greatness. But "Sith" re-delivers what knocked us out in 1977. What's
unbelievable to me is the durability of the Star Wars franchise, now 2
generations old. Twenty-eight years have gone by in a flash -- and right or
wrong, its impact on the world's pop culture is impossible to dismiss. By
Christmas, when "true" Oscar worthy pictures come out "on purpose," e.g.,
"Memoirs of a Geisha" directed by "Chicago" director Robb Marshall and Mel
Brooks' "The Producers," "Sith" will likely be on DVD and forgotten except
for the usual technical categories.
OK, that's it from me.
-koose.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a me! ssageVisit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
