Revenge of The Sith

boring thread so far!

it was decent, better than the other prequels. plenty of terrible dialogue, some weird jedi-power inconsistencies, etc. good war scenes, of course. neat emperor.

the mirror-image frankenstein sequence was seriously on the cusp of awesome and ridiculous. i could not tell you it was more of either.
 
I guess my main criticisms are that the dialogue was pretty bad at times, and the acting wasn't so great.
Also, I didn't quite get why anakin decided to "turn to the darkside" for good at the moment he did; it seemed a little awkward. But the movie was awesome.
I'd elaborate more I guess, but I don't want to ruin anything for people who haven't seen it.
 
The acting or dialogue wasn't great in this movie but it's up to snuff with the original trilogy. I just saw Jedi and Empire recently and there is no shortage of poorly delivered, crappily written dialogue and lame acting in those movies ("I don't know where you get your delusions, laser brain!").
 
Firedwarf said:
The acting or dialogue wasn't great in this movie but it's up to snuff with the original trilogy. I just saw Jedi and Empire recently and there is no shortage of poorly delivered, crappily written dialogue and lame acting in those movies ("I don't know where you get your delusions, laser brain!").
dawg you cited bad acting as the reason you hated donnie darko.
*wince*
 
Bad acting is one of many reasons. e: I don't remember ever saying I disliked it only because of the bad acting because there is so much more about that movie that drives me insane.
 
Firedwarf said:
Bad acting is one of many reasons. e: I don't remember ever saying I disliked it only because of the bad acting because there is so much more about that movie that drives me insane.
oops, must've been someone else who told me that was what they hated about it. n/m
 
well, the assassinations of the Jedi (while a cool sequence overall) had some "what, a Jedi was slain by two clone troops? huh" moments. I rationalized it by saying that they were ambushed/taken by surprise, but if you notice many of the ambushed Jedi did realise they were being attacked and thus should have been able to put up more resistance (or Lucas should've had them honestly be ambushed, like shot dead in the back without noticing "something's amiss". Force-precognition does not always work). I was miffed by that scene where the Jedi tried to save Jimmy Smits and got killed WITHOUT surprise by a couple of clone troopers. some friends explained to me that it was a young Jedi, not even a Padewan, really, which is a good explanation. except that Luke was able to do much more as a super-novice and that can't entirely be explained by WELL LUKE IS SUPER POWERED! another scene I'm thinking of is where Mace Windu and two Jedi go to arrest the Emperor (inexplicably not taking Anakin's warning seriously at all and not modifying the party going to meet Palpatine, incidently) and the Emperor kills the two accompanying Jedi in less than two seconds (and they're not surprised). I can accept that the Emperor is totally awesome, but their inability to muster ANY resistance is kind of unbelievable.

one thing this movie really did is crystallize an opinion I had lurking in the back of my mind during Episodes I & II. namely, that the prequels TOTALLY mishandle/ruin Yoda. in the prequels, Yoda is always portrayed in combat as an attitude-heavy chip-on-his-shoulder little bastard. every time he fights, you expect to hear matrix-like dance beats as he curls up his lower lip and makes a face like COME ON, GET SOME! that is soooo not like Yoda in the original films, and I don't think it can be explained away by saying "well yoda had a change of heart after he was beaten by the Emperor!" because they're clearly trying to keep Yoda as the wise, passive-but-powerful type in the non-combat scenes. (I also thought that the end of the Yoda-Emperor combat was mishandled--Lucas did not clearly show that Yoda had been beaten and had to retreat. the whole group I went with was like "ummm did Yoda lose, or fight him to a draw? even if he lost, he BARELY lost!" he really should have gotten pounded at the end and barely escaped in order to give legitimacy to his attitude of "I failed, I'm going into exile".)
 
there were also several instances that made very little sense but which a Star Wars geek friend of mine (who read the script a year ago) said were explained/given context by scenes that Lucas ended up cutting from the film (example: the totally out-of-the-blue and mispaced "By the way, I'll give you Qui-Gon's number" bit at the end. In the original script, there were scenes that talked about Qui-Gon and foreshadowed the ghostly-contact thing. a second example is the dissolution of the Republic and the underuse of Bail Organa--they cut lots of scenes which had Padme working to save it involving Organa)

This plays into a larger problem with later Lucas--he writes a decent script (plotwise, leaving out dialogue shittiness) and films it all with the intention of cutting stuff later to make a manageable film. but he doesn't take into consideration that a lot of parts of the film play off of and depend on other parts, so the finished product looks misshapen to everyone else. I actually do that a lot when I write papers--I cut stuff, read the paper over, and fail to recognize that I didn't fully explain what I intended to, because the alarm bell that should go off in my head has a vague notion that I DID mention Item X or Fact Y earlier. even though I actually ended up removing it. so I udnerstand it's a natural feature of writing, but it is a major failing.