You can put glitter on ‘Sith,’ but it still stinks
The tagline used to promote “Star Wars: Episode III -- Revenge of the
Sith” is, “Sith Happens.”
It’s a funny little play on words that alludes to the story of
Anakin Skywalker’s transformation into the evil Sith Lord, Darth
Vader. If truth in advertising laws applied to entertainment, then
the tagline would have been, “This movie is a piece of Sith.”
The new “Star Wars” movie is so painfully bad that only the
hardcore “Star Wars” freaks should bother with it.
Given the hype over the last few weeks, so much has already been
said about “Revenge of the Sith” that it’s hard to say anything new.
The bad things you’ve already heard about this movie are all true.
The dialogue is atrocious. The acting is wooden and passionless. The
story is confused with unimportant and uninteresting details about
the politics of the Jedi. There’s a lot of creativity without
direction or purpose.
It’s like watching a big budget middle-school play written by an
eighth-grade science fiction geek.
The blame for this mess rests solely on the shoulders of George
Lucas. He wrote this drivel and he directed the actors to deliver it
badly.
It’s too bad he didn’t take the hint when his fans recut his last
two movies. A fan made a copy of “Star Wars: Episode I -- The Phantom
Menace,” recut the film and passed it around on VHS retitled as “The
Phantom Edit.” Likewise, “Attack of the Clones” was also recut and
became “Attack of the Edit.” I have no doubt that “Revenge of the
Edit” will soon be available on the Internet.
How bad is the dialogue in “Revenge of the Sith?” Here’s an
example:
“Oh Padme, you look so beautiful.”
“It’s only because I’m so in love with you.”
“But I love you even more.”
George Lucas got paid how many millions to come up with that? This
is one of the few times I’ve heard an audience laugh at a movie
because it was so awful. It makes you wonder whether Lucas was
inspired by the brilliant writing of Ed Wood. No one is expecting
Shakespeare, but there are high school students who can write better
than this.
How bad is the acting? Hayden Christensen (Anakin Skywalker/Darth
Vader), Natalie Portman (his secret wife Padme) and Ian McDiarmid
(Supreme Chancellor Palpatine/ Darth Sidious) are positively awful.
It’s hard to do great work with lousy material, but their banal
approach to these characters makes a trip to the dentist seem like
fun.
Often times their characters have very little to say, but spend a
long time saying it. Most of the one-on-one scenes between Portman
and Christensen, and McDiarmid and Christensen, could be cut without
altering the story.
Ewan McGregor, Samuel L. Jackson, and Jimmy Smits fare a little
better, but not much. They do their best when they behave like
utility characters who are merely advancing the story. All of the
performers are at their best when they say very little and stay out
of the way of the action.
On the positive side, “Star Wars” movies are ultimately about the
special effects and this movie does come through with some exciting
visuals. George Lucas’ company, Industrial Light and Magic, is the
best at what it does. The light saber battles are great, especially
the one between Obi-Wan Kenobi (McGregor) and the six-armed General
Grievous. This is a fight that would make Ray Harryhausen proud.
Over the last couple weeks, I’ve heard a few comments repeated
that I’d be remiss if I didn’t address.
First is that “Revenge of the Sith” is too dark for children. I
didn’t see anything in this movie I thought was too intense for kids.
However, this movie is probably too long for most small children. You
might want to think twice about asking the wee ones to sit quietly
for 2 1/2 hours in a movie theater. Also, some of the very young
children may not understand why the hero turns evil. That
transformation might require some explanation by mom and dad after
the movie.
The second is the rumor that “Revenge of the Sith” is a veiled
commentary on the tyrannical reign of George Bush and the GOP. You
have to stretch pretty hard to make this parallel work. There’s
nothing in the content of this movie that would make any sane and
rational person draw this conclusion on their own.
My theory is that 20th Century Fox concocted the rumor to help
generate a buzz. Follow the money and look at who really benefits
from this rumor. It’s not the GOP, and it’s not the Democrats.
On one hand, it’s not really fair to compare “Revenge of the Sith”
to the first “Star Wars,” but comparisons are unavoidable. Neither
“Revenge of the Sith,” nor its two predecessors, are in the same
class as the original.
Part of the problem is that the cast of “Revenge of the Sith” just
doesn’t have the punch of actors like Sir Alec Guinness, James Earl
Jones and Harrison Ford. Part of the problem is that no one has the
clout to tell George Lucas to edit his story.
The original “Star Wars” was the Beatles of science fiction
movies. It changed the way movies were created and made a permanent
impact on our culture. The ubergeek culture it spawned is full of
fanatics that border on cult. I knew otherwise-normal people who went
to the theater every week for months just to watch that movie over
and over and over.
Nowadays, the idea of watching a realistic-looking space ship fly
around and explode just isn’t as mind blowing.
“Revenge of the Sith” doesn’t measure up to what a “Star Wars”
movie should be. Taken on its own merits, it’s a movie with a lot of
problems. I recommend skipping this one. If you get really curious,
you can rent the video and exercise the fast forward button
liberally.
* JIM ERWIN, 40, is a technical writer and computer trainer.
Mother-in-law throws a few jabs
Mother-in-law jokes and jabs are the bread-and-butter routines of
many stand-up comedians and television sitcoms. Hollywood has decided
to come up with a few punch lines of its own by creating a
“Monster-in-Law.”
Usually the source of comical suffering of relatives, the
mother-in-law in this story inflicts more pain upon herself then the
generous portions she heaps upon her potential family-to-be.
Viola (Jane Fonda) is a media diva, enjoying the celebrity status,
wealth and success of the rich and famous. She delights in being the
center of attention as a daytime talk show host. The network Viola
works for, however, demands higher ratings. So they give her the
boot, replacing Viola with a much younger woman.
Viola seeks comfort and attention in the one person who gives her
unconditional love and support -- her son, Kevin.
Kevin, however, has also replaced Viola with a much younger woman
-- his fiancee. At least that is how Viola reacts to the news: that
she has been replaced.
Rolling over without a fight when she lost her job, Viola decides
to pour her energies into fighting to regain her position as the only
woman in her son’s life.
Confident she will succeed, Viola nevertheless resorts to
carefully orchestrating dirty tricks and schemes that initially get
the best of her unsuspecting future daughter-in-law. Charlie
(Jennifer Lopez) takes a while before catching on. Once Charlie does
catch on, she, too, decides to fight back, in just as underhanded and
mean-spirited a way as Viola. Meanwhile, Kevin the son, remains
clueless and oblivious through the ordeal.
Jane Fonda plays Viola with guts and gusto. But unlike Viola, Miss
Fonda is moving on with her career. Throughout her life, she has
progressed through her roles as she has in years, playing a young
bride in “Barefoot in the Park” (1967), a hooker in “Klute” (1971)and
a divorcee in “9 to 5” (1980).
Now Fonda has made the transition to playing the mother of an
adult. After a 15-year absence from filmmaking, some viewers may pay
less attention to the story line than on how she looks. Jane Fonda is
an ageless beauty, but in her 60s, she’s a role model, more for her
career longevity than her looks, even if she is the original queen of
the workout video.
Wanda Sykes, playing Viola’s personal assistant Ruby, is
responsible for a good percentage of the laughs. Ruby plays a key
role in Viola’s life. Ruby helps keep Viola out of trouble, while
also helping Viola make trouble and be in trouble. Sykes and Fonda
have a mischievous chemistry, reminiscent of Lucille Ball and Ethel
Mertz.
Director Robert Luketic has made his career in comedies.
“Monster-in-Law,” however, is rougher around the edges then his
earlier films, “Legally Blonde” and “Win a Date With Tad Hamilton.”
“Monster-in-Law” has one-too-many lead characters and not enough
story plots.
The love story between Charlie and Kevin develops and progresses
without moving beyond very minor problems that are resolved in
minutes, when stretching out those problems until the end would keep
viewers waiting to see what was going to happen. And the problems the
couple grapples with are unoriginal, like when one is seen kissing an
old flame.
The hilarious story line involving Viola getting fired never
develops any further. She is seen getting the boot at work, but there
would be more laughs if we could see Viola giving the boot back to
them at some later date.
“Monster-in-Law” plays out like a kids’ cartoon, the type
involving two characters who spend the entire story running back and
forth taking turns beating each other to a pulp without suffering any
lasting side effects, such as puffy lips or hangovers.
* PEGGY J. ROGERS, 40, produces commercial videos and
documentaries.
All the latest on Orange County from Orange County.
Get our free TimesOC newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Daily Pilot.