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.