Let's get the obvious statements out of the way first: It was better than the episodes I and II, how could it not be? There are plenty of plot holes if you start to ask the right questions, there are also plenty of room to make up a justifiable explanation for all of it. It suffers from having to conform to a sequel that was made in 1977.
There is no doubt that Lucas has the gift of creating a huge sci-fi universe, and even the story is pretty good. Having to be told in a non-sequential order pretty much killed the chances of success for the first three episodes. If he were to make episodes that happened after episode VI they would be better. The acting in this film is pretty bad. Yoda and Obi-wan are the only good actors and Yoda is computer generated (That's not to dis CGI, that's how bad the real actors were). Anakin's turn to the dark side is also pretty trivial (being excluded from the Jedi council because of his youth) and is played out rather simplistically. It wasn't a waste of $5, but I don't think I'll see it again.
May 23, 2005
Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith - 5
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I personally think the film was filled with better actors, but when you're working with poor dialogue and scripting, it's hard to act well.
You rated this movie far too high. It was a horrible piece of tripe, with an attempt to salvage it through special effects. Every time you think Lucas will learn from his mistakes, he proves you wrong. I'd put it at a 2, and that would be generous.
Post a Comment