Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith

Director: George Lucas
Main Cast: Ewan McGregor, Natalie Portman, Hayden Christensen, Ian McDiarmid
Writer(s): George Lucas
Director of Photography: David Tattersall
Producer: George Lucas & Rick McCallum
Editor(s): Roger Barton & Ben Burtt
Original Score By: John Williams
Release Date: 2005 May 19

I'm a self-proclaimed Star Wars fanboy. I was the kid you saw walking around in the Return of the Jedi silk-screened T-shirt carrying the lighted retractable battery-powered lightsaber and all my action figures stored in the Darth Vader head carrying case. This was my childhood reality.

I was undeniably saddened after seeing the first prequel. Could it be that my beloved alternate universe, my heroic sci-fi fairytale had been so utterly undone by its very maker? The first viewing of the abomination that is Episode I left my midichloreans boiling, but I'll save that for another time. For now I'll focus on Episode III.

Revenge of the Sith made strides to improve what had been destroyed by its predecessors, but it did not fully succeed. I was motivated to see Episode III primarily out of obligation to the franchise and to do my part in further supporting the Lucas Empire. Despite my obvious pessimism, my anticipation was high. Unfortunately, it was with mixed feelings that I left the theater.

Having just watched Episode II, the first thing I noticed about III was the improvement in the editing. Not being afraid to stay with a particular storyline as it developed into something significant was a tremendous achievement over its predecessors. The addition of a new co-editor may have had a hand in this accomplishment. Many recent and highly successful films have built their storytelling upon multiple parallel plotlines and Episode III was no different and faired about average in its execution of the technique. There were a few instances, particularly with Anakin and Padme, that felt forced and quick. It was almost as if Lucas knew he had done a poor job at building the depth of the relationship in the first prequels and wanted to throw in some extra sentiment to make up for it. Overlooking the few flaws here and there, the editing exceeded by leaps and bounds the previous two films and provided a sturdy backbone on which the story could be built.

Since I have started in on the Padme/Anakin relationship I'll lay it to rest. I just didn't buy it. The relationship was developed in a very awkward manner. Call it the dialogue, the editing, the directing, the acting, I don't know, but this connection was key to the story and it was performed less than impeccably.

For as much as Anakin was supposed to have loved Padme, he didn't seem too affected when he was "breaking [her] heart". Call me crazy, but if my pregnant wife was crying and upset about something that I was doing I would probably stop long enough to evaluate whether she had a valid point before I just blurted out, "I'm doing this for you". This would be especially true if we were standing on a shaky outcropping 30 yards from an erupting volcano. To be fair, maybe the Dark Side overrides everyday common sense, as well as making your eyes yellow and bloodshot.

It seemed that Padme's primary job in this film was to stand or pace around, look pregnant, and worry about Anakin. Portman is far too skilled an actress to be left just doing that. Also, how is it that no one else in the galaxy noticed that she was pregnant? It seemed like from the scene right after she told Anakin her womb was blossoming, but no one seemed to mention anything about it. Perhaps her baggy ballroom gowns hid the growing belly or maybe everyone thought she had just been putting on a few pounds lately and was afraid to mention it. Nevertheless, I found this odd. Her death was rather convenient too. I saw this merely as a convenient plot point to further move the epic forward.

Throughout the film there were some dastardly misguided scenes. The first of two that stick out most in my mind is the oil scene with R2 and the droids. C3PO and R2D2 have always provided a sort of dry roll-your-eyes kind of humor (perhaps, James Bond was C3PO in a former life), but to me this was simply too over the top. But worse than that, if it can be imagined, was the scene where the Supreme Chancellor told Vader that Padme had died because of his anger. It was like watching Plan 9. Vader stumbles forward and melodramatically shouts, "NOOOOOOOOOOOO!". A moment that really should have been wrought with horror, anguish, frustration, and pain was more like watching a mechanized mannequin look up to the third floor petite section while pondering what to have for lunch. It's very sad that instead of feeling the pain of losing someone I cared about I found myself with a sheepish grin wondering if this scene could have in some way been salvaged.

The dialogue in this film improved little over the previous disasters. "Hold me like you did by the lake in Naboo". Is it really possible to deliver this line with a straight face? I would love to see an outtake reel. Lucas is a great visionary, but he should leave the screenplay writing to the experts.

One thing that typically allows me to buy into the fantasy worlds created by the movies is that they stick to the rules in which the characters must exist. The Sixth Sense is perhaps the best example of this, where multiple viewings hold few or no flaws, but there are many others as well. If rules for an alternate world are set down they should be meticulously followed to maintain believability. In one scene the Jedi are jumping fifty feet in the air and in the next they are hanging from a ledge struggling to climb up. Set down the rules and stick to them. Every action that violates the guidelines Lucas has created leaves the audience critical of its reality and prevents them from being fully engulfed in the story being presented.

Lucas's true brainchild, in my opinion, is Industrial Light and Magic. The Star Wars prequels, while they have made enormous amounts of revenue are frequently little more than showcases of ILM's digital prowess. This Episode was more successful than the previous, but only in some ways. The landscapes more believable, the ships more realistic, the movements, textures, and lighting much more accurate are examples of how 21st century technology have helped to build the universe that is Star Wars. While they were exceptional, I grew tired of their abundance and omnipresence. 99.9% of the actors screen time was spent in front of a blue/green screen. Perhaps this is why it was difficult to act appropriately? The effects were great, but perhaps a bit overused and, for me, frequently detracted from the storytelling.

On the positive side, McDiarmid, McGregor, and Oz were fantastic. In my estimation, they made up for much of the movies misteps. McDiarmid as the Supreme Chancellor put a face to the evil that is the Dark Side. He was cunning, conniving, and ruthless. McGregor as Obi-Wan was such a spitting image of what I imagined would be a young Alec Guinness that I could have sworn they were related outside the film. Yoda's new image (CG) was nothing compared to the nostalgic mismatched sentences and wise comments that Oz brings to the character. Once again he captures the essence of the smallest Jedi master.

John Williams masterfully blended the themes from Episodes IV through VI into those from I and II to create a mesmerizing blend of emotions. At times the music left me in awe. It captured the nostalgic feelings that I remembered so vividly from the older of the six movies. Another oustanding performance, from perhaps the most recognized film composer of all time.

In general, the Star Wars films are essentially an epic battle between good and evil. Much of this war can be summarzied in the "turning" of Anakin. Even though the struggle between good and evil in Anakin was not expertly depicted, there were points where I found myself wanting him to choose the side of good and forsake the destiny the whole audience knew he was headed for. That simple fact must mean that Lucas had done something right.

During the film I was able to pick out some interesting moral dilemmas from the film's plot. Anakin was faced with what he thought was the unavoidable death of his beloved wife. He succumbed to the Dark Side and turned from what he knew was right with the promise that he may be able to deliver her from her destiny. It raised the question in my mind: At what point would I sacrifice my faith in the Good, True, and Pure to save those I love? Does that point exist for me? It is a question easily answerable from the comfortable seat in which I currently sit, but when faced with the reality of such a situation I am pained to think of how I might react.

The Star Wars films are heaving with spiritual concepts. Most have New Age connotations, but some parallels to other beliefs can undoubtedly be made. The Dark Side in Episode III is clearly presented to Anakin in such a way as to deceive him. He is promised power beyond what he currently has and knowledge that will make him stronger. The power to see what the Jedi do not want him to see or know. A true Deceiver, such as the Chancellor, is crafty and hides lies within the truth. "The Jedi won't tell you everything. I can teach you the ways of the Dark Side. This will make you more powerful than you can imagine". He seems to say that Anakin can gain wisdom only by succumbing to his predisposition to evil. I was struck by the parallel to the Genesis account of the Fall of Mankind. In a film with overwhelmingly New Age notions, this was a interestingly accurate and graphic depiction of the consequences of the first sin.

Apparently there were other underlying messages to be found. For those viewers that thought there was a modern day political commentary with regards to President Bush and the war on terror, I guess I missed the whole thing. Frankly, though, I don't really care to find it. And I'll leave it at that.

Bottom Line: Episode III left me with a bittersweet tast in my mouth. Bitter because the saga has ended and with an imperfect conclusion. Sweet because the film, while not sidestepping all the landmines, was able to avoid many of the traps the other two prequels so easily fell into. The acting was acceptable with some shininig moments, the editing and effects improved, the storyline fantastic, and the dialogue clunky, at best. Despite my overall positive impression I'm still not sure whether I liked the film for its merits or simply because it was so much better than Episodes I and II. I'd say a mostly solid completion to a mostly solid American pop culture phenomenon.

A biased, 7 out of 10

~RG

Online Short Film Festival

Amazon.com and the Tribeca Short Film Festival have teamed up to let viewers decide what short film should be declared the winner. The field has been narrowed from over 1000 films to the top 5 finalists. You can watch and rate the selected few at Amazon.com & Tribeca Short Film Festival Finalists.

Short film festivals are well known for their often bizarre and controversial products. Watch a few and see what you think. It could be an eye-opening experience.

~RG

Kingdom of Heaven

Director: Ridley Scott
Main Cast: Orlando Bloom, Liam Neeson, Jeremy Irons, Ghassan Massoud
Writer(s): William Monahan
Director of Photography: John Mathieson
Producer: Ridley Scott
Editor(s): Dody Dorn
Original Score By: Harry Gregson-Williams & Stephen Barton
Release Date: 2005 May 6

Ridley Scott, of Gladiator fame, has put together quite a cast for this Crusade. Balien, played by a rather one-dimensional Orlando Bloom, is a blacksmith and the bastard child of a lord. Conveniently, Godfrey, the stoic I'm-looking-for-someone-to-carry-on-my-legacy Liam Neeson, finds Balien, his son, making swords in a non-descript village. Having just lost his wife and unborn child to suicide, a far too underdeveloped portion of the storyline, Balien is distraught and angry and doesn't react amicably to his father's abrupt appearance. These emotions may be hard to discern by the nuances of the character, but there are some brutal actions against a pick-pocketing priest that provide some indication that the peasant is emotionally distraught and, in some respects, not terribly stable. Given the opportunity by his father to become a lord and join the Crusades, Balien hesitantly accepts the challenge to go to the Middle East to live like a royal. Not unlike Pirates of the Caribbean, Orlando moves from being a peasant sword maker to an untarnished hero, the difference here is that there is no damsel to rescue and the transformation is almost instantaneous, so quick in fact that the death of his wife and his grievous deeds are quickly forgotten. We get mention of it only to hear that he goes to the Holy Land in hopes that his good deeds will "earn" her way out of Hell. (Suicide here is considered an unforgivable sin, damning the individual to Hell.)

The earning of one's salvation is clearly refuted in the Bible. This is a misconception of the truth of the Gospels. Balien falls for this mindset as was taught him by the "religious" leaders of his village. The decision of salvation of an individual is left to God alone. The idea of Balien, however hard he tries, earning his wife's eternal life is inconsistent with the fundamental message of Christianity. Despite that, it seems evident that he, within the context of the film, is motivated by his emotional distress and the religious disinformation that he receives regarding the state of his deceased wife and child. This serves as an obvious distortion of the message Christ but is, perhaps, contextually appropriate given the time period and undoubtedly acts wonderfully as a catalyst to move the plot forward. This will not be the only case of misconstrual of Christian beliefs in this film.

Following the acceptance of his father's invitation is a short scene of training Balien to be a knight. His education is quickly subsided when the group of not-so-merry men is attacked by lawmakers from Balien's village, come to fetch him for his crimes. The gruesome fight commences with some dastardly outcomes for many of the players, although not our beloved hero. Frankly to this point, I cared little about the death of Balien's wife, child, or anyone else in the film for that matter. Tha my sound harsh, but each of the dead characters' identification with the audience was underdeveloped. The pace of the story was far too swift to provide an emotional attachment whatsoever.

This was particularly true with Balien. Everything happened too quickly. He's a blacksmith. He's a knight. He's a warrior. He's a general. He's a savior. After the first ten minutes of celluloid runs by Balien commits no major atrocities, but becomes the driving force of good and truth for every scene. He is perfect and and in that notion somewhat uninteresting. This to me was the fundamental flaw of the film. Lack of character development of the one person we were to care most about, Balien. One may argue that his savageness on the battlefield or promiscuous relationship with the princess was "unheroic" and I would not necessarily argue that point, but nevertheless his demeanor is decidedly mundane. Even at 2 hour and 25 minute running time, Scott and Monahan leave us wishing we could know him and everyone else in the film much better.

This movie has all the look and feel of Gladiator, with none of the heart. The use of soft coloring filters, overexposed landscape shots, and graphic slow-motion battle scenes were all pages right out of Scott's Academy Award winning epic. But Kingdom doesn't live up to its predecessor, although it feels suspiciously familiar. Particularly this seems true with the battle scene styles. They are so close, in fact, that if you were to change the costumes of the players and the location, each battle could be transplanted seamlessly between the two films. Nevertheless, I liked it. Scott has a way of filming combat, especially historical war, with grisly realism. The blood spatter, the impaling of people on swords and spears, and the craziness of hundreds of warriors all fighting in a small area with excruciating detail that makes even the strongest stomach cringe. (Or in some cases, like the lady sitting behind me in the theater, exclaim boisterously with every hit, "Ahhhh! That hurts! Why would they do that? I don't think I can watch this!--Please don't. If you must make comments at every turn do us all a favor and leave. I, and I'm sure everyone else, would appreciate it. But I digress.) There is some battle scenes, however, that are overly tedious.

The extended scenes of the siege of Jerusalem were drawn out and boring. With such skilled recent films to draw comparisons with (read: Lord of the Rings) it is surprising that a film of this caliber moved at such a beleaguring pace. While the battles probably did last for days, or even weeks, the audience is not all that interested in feeling like that is how long they must endure them as well.

The sets and locations were incredible. Aside from the few scenes of obvious computer generated ancient Jerusalem, we are treated to expansive desert shots that seem to put you in the heart of the heat and dryness. Much of the interior shots were well constructed, well lit, and quite beautiful as well. We would expect no less from a multi-million dollar epic historical war piece or from Scott for that matter.

The main juxtaposition here was the battling religions. Admittedly, the Crusades were not a positive time in the history of the Church. Priests calling out, "It is not murder to kill infidels", doesn't exactly communicate the message of forgiveness, grace, and mercy that was the central pillar of Christ's ministry. And there were many examples of such disgraceful abuse of religious office througout the film. In fact, so many blatant depictions existed I wondered if Scott wasn't on his own personal Crusade, rather than dealing with the actual historical context. There was one memorable positive and truthful moment involving a Christian religious leader. Speaking to Balien, this counselor says, "What God desires is here and here"; pointing to Balien's head and heart. This was, in my opinion, one of the most honest moments of the film. If one assumes that the head and heart are representative of the fundamental essence of a human being, then this is truly what God desires. He wants us to be men and women of grace, mercy, and love; vessels of His truth.

Muslims, however, were painted in the film with far more restraint and compassion than the Christians. There were some characters with definable weakness and a thirst for blood, but in general this was not the case. And even these "evil" characters were undeniably less savage than those on the side of the Church. In fact, the Muslim population of the film was primarily represented by their king, Saladin (a magnificent Ghassan Massoud). He was a man with a desire for peace. But he struggled with protecting his people and their historical and religious landmarks and living in harmony with those who had invaded. He was not a savage nor a radical, but simply a man that wanted the best for his people.

Bottom Line: Scott and Monahan create a beautifully filmed movie. The fast pace of the story and lack of believable character development leaves little behind to admire but the scenery, the well choregraphed battle scenes, and the credits. Quite honestly I was not sad to see it end. Too many characters possessed only bad traits and others only good traits, the characters had little internal struggle. These caricatures did not play well for a story line that is primarily about development of those characters. This film is probably worth seeing for the visuals and has some thought-provoking dialogue, but blame the editing and the directing for the rest of the annoyingly preconceived journey.

A disappointed, 6 out of 10.

~RG

Phantom of the Opera

Director: Joel Schumacher
Main Cast: Gerard Butler, Emmy Rossum, Patrick Wilson, Minnie Driver
Writer(s): Joel Schumacher & Andrew Lloyd Weber
Director of Photography: John Mathieson
Producer: Andrew Lloyd Weber
Editor(s): Terry Rawlings
Original Score: Andrew Lloyd Weber
Release Date: December 22, 2004

The film was undeniably high-caliber. The casting was right on the money, except perhaps for Phantom who had the look, but whose voice lacked some of the intoxicating depth that was present with others I have heard perform the part. Christine, Raoul, and Carlotta (a surprising Minnie Driver) were all wonderful in their performances. The sets were perhaps some of the best I have seen, ever. Highly detailed, appropriately ostentatious, brilliant and dark, ornate and subtle, in a word: spectacular. The costumes left little to be desired, as well. Each dress and suit seemed beautifully made and contributed to the overall feel of the film. The lighting and blocking of the actors reminded me of circa 1950's films, particularly the long shots of Christine. Soft lighting, dramatic poses lent an ethereal quality to her character. Transformations between time periods and dream sequence special effects were well put together and were a step above what could be done in live theater. Overall the production quality of the entire picture was very good.

The film, however, lacked the emotion that I experienced when watching the live performance. Perhaps my expectations were set too high, but the lack of ambient sounds during the pre-recorded singing, the sometimes obvious lip-synching during the more powerful performances often made me feel as though the actors were simply standing there staring at each other lovingly with their mouths hanging open. The music, as Weber always is, was fantastic and even most of the performances quite good. It was the disconnectedness between the breathtaking visuals and the orchestration the left me feeling empty, hollow, as though I was watching a beautiful silent film and listening to a great CD at the same time.

Also, the use of the camera did not pace well with the music or the story. Here the cinematographer, or maybe the director, I believe missed the mark greatly on how the use of the forceful eye of the camera could have made the story more amazing, rather than less. And when I say forceful eye, that is exactly what I mean. Watching the performance live means you are free to focus on whatever action you like that is shown on the stage. In the film, however, you are strong-armed into watching whatever the director or editor felt was most important at the time. This came off feeling deliberate and uncomfortable, particularly during the fast moving scenes. And while over-acting and melodrama is often appropriate to communicate the story onstage and even seems quite natural, it does not play well on the big screen where close-ups and long shots dominate.

The heart-wrenching story is what drives this movie more than anything. While it doesn't end quite like you may expect, a tough thing for most American moviegoers to handle, there are some deeply moving moments. Christine is forever indebted to Phantom for his brilliant tutelage, yet we find out that Christine has also shown the Phantom a measure of unconditional love on a couple of occasions that he may feel indebted to repay in some way. Despite the Phantom's obvious manipulations and violent tendencies Christine genuinely cares for him, perhaps even loves him, though it seems more a pitiful love than one truly wrought from ideas of romanticism or friendship. Their relationship is reminiscent of Quasimoto and Esmerelda from Hunchback of Notre Dame. The audience will not tolerate them being together, but on the same token cannot bear their unblemished heroine being cruel to even the most vile creatures. Pity is the only logical outcome to the situation. Raoul, as pitiful as he himself is at times, is expertly placed waiting in the wings to capture her passions so as to not disappoint.

The film left me mostly unaffected. The filmmaking, in my opinion, got in the way of the story telling. But there were some amazing moments, such as the masquerade ball and the opening auction scene. Weber doesn't let you escape his powerful music and while it sometimes lacks the significance it should have, it does not leave you feeling wholly unsatisfied.

Bottom Line: This was a film with beautiful sets, costumes, and one, generally, well cast. The move to the film medium was not expertly executed (not quite the normal Schumacher train wreck, but not without fault either) and leaves the audience feeling empty and disconnected from the normally emotional and monumentally moving story.

A disengaged, 7 out of 10

~RG

Introduction II-Some more thoughts to begin the journey

The ultimate Artist has created us to appreciate beauty, to be emotionally stirred by our surroundings. We should not be calloused to Him using things of this world to move our hearts. This is by no means an excuse to ignore our conscience, but it is a call to admire the abilities He has given to create such masterpieces. Don’t be afraid to watch things that challenge you. Some movies do not entertain us, but provoke us. They force anger or fear out of us; that’s okay. Perhaps, that is the point. Allow your reactions to fester. Discuss them with someone. Talk about them here.

I believe that perhaps the most powerful effect of art, and in this case more specifically film, is the power to stimulate thought and, in turn, spur discussion. It has always been my hope that film viewers will not merely watch, but listen, feel, and respond to what they see or hear. Armageddon may carry a similar message as Casablanca, but the presentation of one is so greatly superior to the other that, I for one, cannot be moved in the same way. But that does not make one less “art” than the other. The ability of a movie to make you smile or feel patriotic is equally acceptable to creating emotions of anger or sadness.

Contrary to many people's beliefs the best films have not been produced in the last decade. The public has been watching movies for over a century. What makes us think that filmmakers are just starting to get the idea of how the art form works? Watch a film from before you were born. Pick one, any one. Watch it for what it is. Don’t be disappointed by the lack of CG or rapid-fire editing techniques. Appreciate what will probably be long scenes, heavy on dialogue and light on action. Look for lighting, staging, facial expressions, and camera angles. All of these things force the vision of the viewer into a desired response. What responses do you have?

I want to try to reveal the underbelly of the movies. Why is it that Sydney Lumet and Christopher Nolan are not the household names that Tom Cruise and Halle Berry are? Simply because some artists do their best work behind the camera should not excuse us from withholding our praise. Movies are so much more than actors. Those on the screen are only the beginning of the vast group of artists that make up the vision of the film. There is no single auteur. We live in a world as social beings, unable to prevent ourselves from reacting to others. Admittedly, some may bend more than others to the whims of those around them, but none is exempt from this effect. So then, why are film directors, producers, or writers less idolized than most actors? One word can describe this effect: exposure. Let’s expose the movies and their makers.

~RG

Introduction-What is this all about?

I am just a Regular Guy. I am not qualified in any way to give my opinion on films. I am no expert. I have no formal training or education in the field. I cannot list my many accolades or accomplishments in cinema or in any art for that matter. What I am is a film lover.

I believe that this medium leaves so few senses unaffected that it nearly replicates, in many ways, actually experiencing what is being viewed. It has the potential to move us in a way that a sculpture or painting cannot. It is possible to walk away feeling nauseated, overjoyed, depressed, or enraged. It is from this place of response that my passion stems.

It is not the intent of this ranting to describe a film's horrific gore, the number of times the word f--- is used, or to graphically outline the breasts and buttocks that the actors expose. There are plenty of places to find this information. These things will not be mentioned insomuch as they do not gratuitously permeate the tone or overwhelm my reaction to the themes presented by the film. What I will provide is simply this: my opinion. I will give my honest view of a film. I will attempt to look at it as an piece of art, giving my views on performances on and off the camera, themes, personal reactions, and their effects. My preconceived bias will not be left at the door. I will not attempt to be objective. Personal prejudice will be explicitly uncovered at every turn. My past, my faith, my family, my education, my emotions will all be in attendance, unabashedly. This concept may not appeal to you. I accept that. That is why this is my forum and not yours. The freedom to participate, observe, or eschew lies solely in your hands.

Every piece of film is a work of art. Some art is good, some is poor. Some art is appreciated, some is overlooked. Some artists are revolutionary, some are mainstream. Some artists are punished for their visions, some are compensated. Some artists sign their name, some crouch behind a pseudonym. Let's look at the movies not as an ever more expensive form of entertainment, but as a moving piece of canvas. Let's think about what the director, the writer, the photographer, the actor is trying to communicate. Let's allow each extracted emotion to overtake us. Let's rip open the layers of the story and get to the heart of what is inside. Let's learn life lessons. Let's contemplate intellectually. Let's talk about movies. Remember though, in all these words, I'm just a Regular Guy.

~RG