Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Fantasy » alt.fan.tolkien » OT Last of the broadsheet reviews of Ep III
OT Last of the broadsheet reviews of Ep III [message #45846] Fr, 20 Mai 2005 21:02
Yuk Tang  
First of all, the Guardian's url, as pointed out by Morgil
http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Critic_Review/Guardian _Film_of_th
e_week/0,4267,1482359,00.html



And the Telegraph review. Requires registration, so here are some
quotes. There's a quote from the Sunday Times at the end, so there may
be more fun yet to come fm the Sundays, now that the Dailies have
delivered their verdict.



' Bad dialogue, poor acting, clumsy storytelling: the final instalment
in George Lucas's 'Star Wars' saga is a big let-down, says Tim Robey'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml;sessionid=VCQPTBNJFLPNNQFIQM
GSM5WAVCBQWJVC?xml=/arts/2005/05/20//bfstarw20.xml&menuI d=564
&sSheet=/arts/2005/05/20/ixfilmmain.html&secureRefre sh=true&_requestid=
78557

'Two verdicts seem to be doing the rounds on Star Wars Episode III:
Revenge of the Sith. The first, cheerily being propagated by fans
around the planet, is that it's much, much better than Episodes I and
II, the prequel to the original trilogy everyone wanted all along, and
generally damn good fun.

'To this, by way of guiltily subscribing to the second view, I can only
say: have they seen it? If this mightily disappointing slab of cinema -
so very far, far away from a satisfying pay-off to Lucas's overall saga
- is the movie we were all supposed to be holding our breaths for, more
fool us.

'It's hard not to have a lot of affection for the original trilogy.
With their hand-made effects and game performances, the movies had a
scrappy honesty and brio, as well as faith in the non-stop,
unpredictable momentum of old-fashioned storytelling. One of them,
Irvin Kershner's The Empire Strikes Back (1980), had more: a tortured,
mythic spirit, edging towards its climactic revelation - "Luke, I am
your father!" - with a moody confidence that held us spellbound. Geek
appeal was transcended, immortality in the popular mainstream ensured.

'The script is at least as painful as it was in the last two
instalments - worse, if anything. "At last the Jedi are no more!"
trumpets the increasingly hammy McDiarmid. "Not if anything to say
about it I have," responds Yoda. Come again? Extremely annoying his
topsy-turvy speech gets. The only way Lucas can prevent all the endless
talk from sending us into a coma is to splice these conversations into
something more eventful, like the rather good bit where Obi-Wan hunts
down the droid chief General Grievous. But it's a cheap delaying tactic
which means that all his best action sequences are doled out in choppy
segments. Call this skilful editing you really couldn't.

'And the acting - boy, oh boy, the acting. McGregor, very good in other
things, looks unmistakably and rightly sheepish about his Alec Guinness
impression. Samuel L Jackson can bring none of his usual furious cool
to the characterisation-free-zone that is Mace Windu. And Christensen -
less Anakin, more mannequin - makes Orlando Bloom in Kingdom of Heaven
look good. Conversion to the Dark Side registers here as an epic,
deepening sulk, so much so that our man's readiness to embrace the evil
aspects of the Force can be measured at any given moment by the precise
hang of his lower lip. The performance gives off so little passion,
personality or human fire that when Portman announces she's pregnant,
you look at the startled father-to-be and think, How?'



--
Cheers, ymt.
Re: OT Last of the broadsheet reviews of Ep III [message #45848 ] Fr, 20 Mai 2005 22:07
Morgil  
Yuk Tang wrote:
> First of all, the Guardian's url, as pointed out by Morgil
> http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Critic_Review/Guardian _Film_of_th
> e_week/0,4267,1482359,00.html
>
>
>
> And the Telegraph review. Requires registration, so here are some
> quotes. There's a quote from the Sunday Times at the end, so there may
> be more fun yet to come fm the Sundays, now that the Dailies have
> delivered their verdict.
>
>
>
> ' Bad dialogue, poor acting, clumsy storytelling: the final instalment
> in George Lucas's 'Star Wars' saga is a big let-down, says Tim Robey'

<snip>

And here is some sort of summary of what American critics have said:

http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&cf=critic&id=18084 06061

"In sum, Revenge of the Sith is darn good, easily the best of the
prequels, and perhaps even a rival to The Empire Strikes Back..."

So American critics are generally praising it with the same
enthusiasm that Brits are trashing it. Any idea what might
be the reason behind this?

Morgil
Re: OT Last of the broadsheet reviews of Ep III [message #45857 ] Sa, 21 Mai 2005 01:43
Beeblebear  
"Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6lg2a$n43$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> Yuk Tang wrote:
>> First of all, the Guardian's url, as pointed out by Morgil
>> http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Critic_Review/Guardian _Film_of_th
>> e_week/0,4267,1482359,00.html
>>
>>
>>
>> And the Telegraph review. Requires registration, so here are some
>> quotes. There's a quote from the Sunday Times at the end, so there may
>> be more fun yet to come fm the Sundays, now that the Dailies have
>> delivered their verdict.
>>
>>
>>
>> ' Bad dialogue, poor acting, clumsy storytelling: the final instalment in
>> George Lucas's 'Star Wars' saga is a big let-down, says Tim Robey'
>
> <snip>
>
> And here is some sort of summary of what American critics have said:
>
> http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&cf=critic&id=18084 06061
>
> "In sum, Revenge of the Sith is darn good, easily the best of the
> prequels, and perhaps even a rival to The Empire Strikes Back..."
>
> So American critics are generally praising it with the same
> enthusiasm that Brits are trashing it. Any idea what might
> be the reason behind this?
>

Because the British have some taste?

--
--
Chris Lyth (clythJFK [at] ifis.org.uk - shoot the president to reply)

"Man invented language to satisfy his deep need to complain." --
Lily Tomlin
Re: OT Last of the broadsheet reviews of Ep III [message #45867 ] Sa, 21 Mai 2005 08:30
Morgil  
Beeblebear wrote:
> "Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d6lg2a$n43$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...

>>So American critics are generally praising it with the same
>>enthusiasm that Brits are trashing it. Any idea what might
>>be the reason behind this?
>>
>
>
> Because the British have some taste?

It can't be that since both groups praised the LotR movies
in quite the similar way. There has to be something else.

Morgil
Re: OT Last of the broadsheet reviews of Ep III [message #45868 ] Sa, 21 Mai 2005 11:51
Beeblebear  
"Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6mkiv$b7i$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> Beeblebear wrote:
>> "Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:d6lg2a$n43$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>
>>>So American critics are generally praising it with the same
>>>enthusiasm that Brits are trashing it. Any idea what might
>>>be the reason behind this?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Because the British have some taste?
>
> It can't be that since both groups praised the LotR movies
> in quite the similar way. There has to be something else.
>
That's because the LotR films are well made and rather good.
The SW prequels have, for the first 2 at least, been utter shite.
I might go to see Ep III but only if >90% of the people whose taste I trust
go to see it and proclaim it to be at least as good as Empire Strikes Back.

--
--
Chris Lyth (clythJFK [at] ifis.org.uk - shoot the president to reply)

Sex is like air. It's not important unless you aren't getting any.
Re: OT Last of the broadsheet reviews of Ep III [message #45869 ] Sa, 21 Mai 2005 12:00
Morgil  
Beeblebear wrote:
> "Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d6mkiv$b7i$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>
>>Beeblebear wrote:
>>
>>>"Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:d6lg2a$n43$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>>
>>>>So American critics are generally praising it with the same
>>>>enthusiasm that Brits are trashing it. Any idea what might
>>>>be the reason behind this?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Because the British have some taste?
>>
>>It can't be that since both groups praised the LotR movies
>>in quite the similar way. There has to be something else.
>>
>
> That's because the LotR films are well made and rather good.

How would the American critics know that if they have no taste?

Morgil
Re: OT Last of the broadsheet reviews of Ep III [message #45873 ] Sa, 21 Mai 2005 15:28
Beeblebear  
"Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6n0r7$iqo$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> Beeblebear wrote:
>> "Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:d6mkiv$b7i$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>>
>>>Beeblebear wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:d6lg2a$n43$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>>>
>>>>>So American critics are generally praising it with the same
>>>>>enthusiasm that Brits are trashing it. Any idea what might
>>>>>be the reason behind this?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Because the British have some taste?
>>>
>>>It can't be that since both groups praised the LotR movies
>>>in quite the similar way. There has to be something else.
>>>
>>
>> That's because the LotR films are well made and rather good.
>
> How would the American critics know that if they have no taste?
>
I told them.
I also told them that if they didn't agree, bad things would happen to
them...
--
--
Chris Lyth (clythJFK [at] ifis.org.uk - shoot the president to reply)

99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
Re: OT Last of the broadsheet reviews of Ep III [message #45880 ] Sa, 21 Mai 2005 17:01
Flame of the West  
Beeblebear wrote:

>>So American critics are generally praising it with the same
>>enthusiasm that Brits are trashing it. Any idea what might
>>be the reason behind this?
>
> Because the British have some taste?

The Telegraph reviewer sounds like one of those types
that never likes anything. You can tell because he
doesn't limit himself to trashing the movie under
review but insults various other actors and movies
along the way. I tend to tune out such reviewers:
how can you tell if a movie is any good from someone
who hates everything?


-- FotW

Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.
Re: OT Last of the broadsheet reviews of Ep III [message #45885 ] Sa, 21 Mai 2005 18:15
Yuk Tang  
Flame of the West <jsolinas [at] comcast.net> wrote in news:r-SdnW8o4O-
v0BLfRVn-iw [at] comcast.com:
> Beeblebear wrote:
>
>>>So American critics are generally praising it with the same
>>>enthusiasm that Brits are trashing it. Any idea what might
>>>be the reason behind this?
>>
>> Because the British have some taste?
>
> The Telegraph reviewer sounds like one of those types
> that never likes anything. You can tell because he
> doesn't limit himself to trashing the movie under
> review but insults various other actors and movies
> along the way. I tend to tune out such reviewers:
> how can you tell if a movie is any good from someone
> who hates everything?

Hence 'Last of the broadsheet reviews', ie. all the reviews that are
worth anything have been listed, without selection or bias. The
Indie, Ragudian and Times have all given RotS 1/5, but surprisingly
(to me at any rate) the Torygraph was the most vitriolic of them all.
Incidentally, the same reviewer gave a fairly, or at least
relatively, positive review of Ep II. What's happened since that
made him sceptical about Star Wars and Lucas?

So I put it to you all, given all his numerous failings, is Peter
Jackson a worse director and filmmaker than George Lucas?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?
xml=/arts/2002/05/16/bftim16.xml

'It's enough, though, for him to have re-established a basic intimacy
with the audience that he all but alienated last time. If The Phantom
Menace was an attention-seeking brat of a movie, Attack of the Clones
has grown up considerably. Let's just hope that the revelations of
adulthood make all the adolescent trauma worthwhile.'


--
Cheers, ymt.
Re: OT Last of the broadsheet reviews of Ep III [message #45892 ] Sa, 21 Mai 2005 19:26
Morgil  
Yuk Tang wrote:

> So I put it to you all, given all his numerous failings, is Peter
> Jackson a worse director and filmmaker than George Lucas?

It's always been pretty clear that PJ is a better director then
Lucas of 2000. After seeing Ep III it can also be said that LotR
trilogy is better then the new Star Wars trilogy, mostly thanks
to FotR. If we would exclude the first pair, Episodes II and III
would beat TT and RotK.

However, none of this, and no amount of bad reviews of the RotS
by the British press, changes the fact that the original Star
Wars movie is still superior to anything Jackson has ever made,
as is the original trilogy to LotR. And to decide overall who
is the better director, we would have to taken account their
entire careers, Bad Taste, Heavenly Creatures, American Graffiti
and THX-1138, and create some kind of system of how to compare
these different movies. Not worth trouble IMO.

Morgil
Re: OT Last of the broadsheet reviews of Ep III [message #45899 ] So, 22 Mai 2005 02:25
Yuk Tang  
Morgil <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in news:d6nqvm$5gb$1
[at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi:
> Yuk Tang wrote:
>
>> So I put it to you all, given all his numerous failings, is Peter
>> Jackson a worse director and filmmaker than George Lucas?
>
> It's always been pretty clear that PJ is a better director then
> Lucas of 2000. After seeing Ep III it can also be said that LotR
> trilogy is better then the new Star Wars trilogy, mostly thanks
> to FotR. If we would exclude the first pair, Episodes II and III
> would beat TT and RotK.
>
> However, none of this, and no amount of bad reviews of the RotS
> by the British press, changes the fact that the original Star
> Wars movie is still superior to anything Jackson has ever made,

Disputable 'fact'. I far prefer FotREE. As the chap who's dragging
me to RotS said, SW is 'fun', but the PJ creations have more depth,
probably as a result of the source. But then there is other, non-
Tolkien-based stuff that adds to the depth, eg. acting, showing that
Jackson is a capable director in his own right.


> as is the original trilogy to LotR. And to decide overall who
> is the better director, we would have to taken account their
> entire careers, Bad Taste, Heavenly Creatures, American Graffiti
> and THX-1138, and create some kind of system of how to compare
> these different movies. Not worth trouble IMO.

So why all the abuse?


--
Cheers, ymt.
Re: OT Last of the broadsheet reviews of Ep III [message #45905 ] So, 22 Mai 2005 04:55
Flame of the West  
Yuk Tang wrote:

>>However, none of this, and no amount of bad reviews of the RotS
>>by the British press, changes the fact that the original Star
>>Wars movie is still superior to anything Jackson has ever made,
>
> Disputable 'fact'. I far prefer FotREE. As the chap who's dragging
> me to RotS said, SW is 'fun', but the PJ creations have more depth,
> probably as a result of the source. But then there is other, non-
> Tolkien-based stuff that adds to the depth, eg. acting, showing that
> Jackson is a capable director in his own right.

I agree. I thoroughly enjoyed the first SW trilogy, but
the LotR trilogy is better and FotREE is better than any
one of the SW movies. And I still think that they will
have more staying power - we're hearing so much about SW
because the prequel movies are still coming out. In 20
years the LotR movies will be much better known than SW.
Part of the reason, frankly, is that George Lucas has
degraded the SW franchise both by putting out an inferior
prequel trilogy and by his constant meddling with the
original films. It would have been best if he had quit
while he was ahead, i.e. in 1983.


-- FotW

Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.
Re: OT Last of the broadsheet reviews of Ep III [message #45908 ] So, 22 Mai 2005 08:30
Morgil  
Yuk Tang wrote:
> Morgil <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in news:d6nqvm$5gb$1
> [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi:
>
>>However, none of this, and no amount of bad reviews of the RotS
>>by the British press, changes the fact that the original Star
>>Wars movie is still superior to anything Jackson has ever made,
>
>
> Disputable 'fact'. I far prefer FotREE.

Well, to each his own. IMO FotR might have been a good
competitor, if Jackson hadn't been so hooked on special
effects, action scenes, chases, landscape shots, etc.
and if he had had the good sense to trim it down to an
effective two hours movie, and remove some of the most
ridiculous bits and change others.

>>as is the original trilogy to LotR. And to decide overall who
>>is the better director, we would have to taken account their
>>entire careers, Bad Taste, Heavenly Creatures, American Graffiti
>>and THX-1138, and create some kind of system of how to compare
>>these different movies. Not worth trouble IMO.
>
>
> So why all the abuse?

Maybe it's you.

Morgil
Re: OT Last of the broadsheet reviews of Ep III [message #45910 ] So, 22 Mai 2005 08:42
Morgil  
Flame of the West wrote:

> I agree. I thoroughly enjoyed the first SW trilogy, but
> the LotR trilogy is better and FotREE is better than any
> one of the SW movies. And I still think that they will
> have more staying power - we're hearing so much about SW
> because the prequel movies are still coming out.

And the reason for their success during the 20 years before
the prequels would be...

In 20
> years the LotR movies will be much better known than SW.

LOL! That's like saying Harry Potter books will outlast LotR.
Good luck with that prediction. :-)

Morgil
Re: OT Last of the broadsheet reviews of Ep III [message #45911 ] So, 22 Mai 2005 09:53
Morgil  
Yuk Tang wrote:
As the chap who's dragging
> me to RotS said, SW is 'fun', but the PJ creations have more depth,
> probably as a result of the source. But then there is other, non-
> Tolkien-based stuff that adds to the depth, eg. acting, showing that
> Jackson is a capable director in his own right.

I have to say that I don't believe LotR movies on their own have
that much depth in them. I think that what you and FotW see as
'depth' in the movies, mostly comes from the reflections of the
book which the movies trigger. Like the often cited scenes with
Sean Bean, it is not the scenes themselves, but what they add to
the character of Boromir that you know from the books, which creates
the illusion of the depth. If you would only look them in contrast
of the other scenes in the movie, most of the depth would just vanish.
This is of course only my theory, and I don't expect much agreement
from you to it, but it is the reason why I don't put much weight
in the arguments of LotR movies having 'depth'.

Morgil
Re: OT Last of the broadsheet reviews of Ep III [message #47180 ] So, 22 Mai 2005 11:15
Yuk Tang  
Morgil <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in
news:d6pdqn$asq$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi:
> Yuk Tang wrote:
>
> As the chap who's dragging
>> me to RotS said, SW is 'fun', but the PJ creations have more
>> depth, probably as a result of the source. But then there is
>> other, non- Tolkien-based stuff that adds to the depth, eg.
>> acting, showing that Jackson is a capable director in his own
>> right.
>
> I have to say that I don't believe LotR movies on their own have
> that much depth in them. I think that what you and FotW see as
> 'depth' in the movies, mostly comes from the reflections of the
> book which the movies trigger. Like the often cited scenes with
> Sean Bean, it is not the scenes themselves, but what they add to
> the character of Boromir that you know from the books, which
> creates the illusion of the depth. If you would only look them in
> contrast of the other scenes in the movie, most of the depth would
> just vanish. This is of course only my theory, and I don't expect
> much agreement from you to it, but it is the reason why I don't
> put much weight in the arguments of LotR movies having 'depth'.

Actually, I specifically described it as non-Tolkien-based stuff to
preclude this argument. So the added bits like Bean in the snow,
Bean in Lorien, etc. would be discounted from this description. What
I was talking about was more general filmmaking depth, such as
acting, cinematography, etc. Star Wars, whatever affection one has
for it, has never gained praise for its acting. LotR has received
praise for its actors in a number of roles. There is no denying
that. And is there any camerawork in any of the Lucas-directed SW
films that compares with the opening of TTT? Or the synergy between
the two in the Riders of Rohan scene, which, whatever one's opinion
of its effectiveness, must have taken guts to combine a one-take shot
with copious movement of the handcam.

You might discount the above as Tolkien-based too, since the project
was based on a Tolkien concept, but that argument only goes so far
before you dismiss _any_ adaptation of Tolkien, including the (muchly
praised in these groups) BBC radio versions. If Tolkien did not
leave any direction for how his idea may be staged, then any such
direction would have been added from the outside. And such direction
should be acknowledged, whether good or bad.

I'm not arguing with your opinion of whether or not the PJ films are
good or bad; that's your own affair, not mine. I'm arguing with the
basis of your opinion, especially the style of your argument. Such
as your statement that it is too soon to say if PJLotR will have any
staying power like the SW trilogy, but which does not stop you from
abusing it at every opportunity. Apply your standards equally across
the spectrum.


--
Cheers, ymt.
Re: OT Last of the broadsheet reviews of Ep III [message #47181 ] So, 22 Mai 2005 12:42
Morgil  
Yuk Tang wrote:
> Morgil <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:d6pdqn$asq$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi:

>>I have to say that I don't believe LotR movies on their own have
>>that much depth in them. I think that what you and FotW see as
>>'depth' in the movies, mostly comes from the reflections of the
>>book which the movies trigger. Like the often cited scenes with
>>Sean Bean, it is not the scenes themselves, but what they add to
>>the character of Boromir that you know from the books, which
>>creates the illusion of the depth. If you would only look them in
>>contrast of the other scenes in the movie, most of the depth would
>>just vanish. This is of course only my theory, and I don't expect
>>much agreement from you to it, but it is the reason why I don't
>>put much weight in the arguments of LotR movies having 'depth'.
>
>
> Actually, I specifically described it as non-Tolkien-based stuff to
> preclude this argument. So the added bits like Bean in the snow,
> Bean in Lorien, etc. would be discounted from this description.

Read again. I specifically said that it was the stuff that scenes
like that *added* to book characters which created the illusion.
A guy playing in the snow with two smaller dudes is not very deep
on its own, but when you add it to the Boromir of the book, it
works quite well.

What
> I was talking about was more general filmmaking depth, such as
> acting, cinematography, etc.

Really? For me that all is just the surface, and the depth comes
from the story, dramatic structure, and generally all the stuff
that gives you something to think about after the movie is over.

Star Wars, whatever affection one has
> for it, has never gained praise for its acting. LotR has received
> praise for its actors in a number of roles. There is no denying
> that. And is there any camerawork in any of the Lucas-directed SW
> films that compares with the opening of TTT?

IMO the camerawork in LotR is incredibly shallow if anything.
The endless helicopter-shots and camera stunts all *look* cool,
but aside couple of exeptions, it's all just eye-candy for no
apparent deeper purpose to me, and lot of it is simply copied
from more talented filmmakers.

Or the synergy between
> the two in the Riders of Rohan scene, which, whatever one's opinion
> of its effectiveness, must have taken guts to combine a one-take shot
> with copious movement of the handcam.

Technically brilliant like most of it.

> I'm not arguing with your opinion of whether or not the PJ films are
> good or bad; that's your own affair, not mine. I'm arguing with the
> basis of your opinion, especially the style of your argument. Such
> as your statement that it is too soon to say if PJLotR will have any
> staying power like the SW trilogy, but which does not stop you from
> abusing it at every opportunity. Apply your standards equally across
> the spectrum.

All I'm saying is that it is too soon to claim that the
current popularity and the critical praise of the LotR
*proves* that my view of their poor quality is incorrect,
whereas similar claim of Star Wars would have more ground.

Morgil
Re: OT Last of the broadsheet reviews of Ep III [message #47183 ] So, 22 Mai 2005 13:22
Christopher Kreuzer  
Yuk Tang <jim.laker2 [at] yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

> What I was talking about was more general filmmaking depth, such
> as acting, cinematography, etc.

Talking of which, another damning indictment of the third Star Wars film
(Revenge of the Sith) is that I enjoyed one of the trailers for the film
more than the film itself. Specifically the trailer for 'Sin City'. The
graphics and imagery were really striking, seemingly drawing heavily on
the graphic novels on which the film is based. Also, on the way out of
the cinema, I passed an advertising stand for the Narnia film. Again, I
thought to myself "I'd have preferred to see that film". Though maybe
both 'Sin City' and the Narnia film will also be a big let-down, and I
should try to avoid hype when planning to see films. That worked when I
went to see the 'Fellowship of the Ring' film without seeing any
trailers or preview stills, but I got caught up in the hype for 'The Two
Towers' and 'The Return of the King', and set my expectation levels too
high.

Christopher

--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
Re: OT Last of the broadsheet reviews of Ep III [message #47184 ] So, 22 Mai 2005 15:39
Flame of the West  
Morgil wrote:

>> So why all the abuse?
>
> Maybe it's you.

That can't be since your abuse is not limited to Yuk Tang,
but to pretty much anyone who criticized SW.


-- FotW

Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.
Re: OT Last of the broadsheet reviews of Ep III [message #47185 ] So, 22 Mai 2005 15:49
Flame of the West  
Morgil wrote:

> And the reason for their success during the 20 years before
> the prequels would be...

They're good movies, and we're relatively close
to the era in which they were made. But all the
special effects will begin to look hokey in the
future as we get used to ever-better movie
technology. That will be true of LotR's effects
as well, but there's more to LotR than gee-whiz
action and CGI. That's less so with SW.

> In 20
>
>> years the LotR movies will be much better known than SW.
>
>
> LOL! That's like saying Harry Potter books will outlast LotR.

Not at all, since HP is already fading. At least
the LotR-vs-SW debate is about the future, not the
present.


-- FotW

Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.
Re: OT Last of the broadsheet reviews of Ep III [message #47189 ] So, 22 Mai 2005 16:08
Morgil  
Flame of the West wrote:
> Morgil wrote:
>
>>> So why all the abuse?
>>
>>
>> Maybe it's you.
>
>
> That can't be since your abuse is not limited to Yuk Tang,
> but to pretty much anyone who criticized SW.

I'm not aware of any abuse by me to Yuk Tang, you, or
anyone else critisizing SW. I have noted quite enough
abuse *by* them, as well as slander and accusations
which they always refuse to specify when challenged,
or retract when proven incorrect.

Morgil
Re: OT Last of the broadsheet reviews of Ep III [message #47190 ] So, 22 Mai 2005 16:18
Flame of the West  
Morgil wrote:

> All I'm saying is that it is too soon to claim that the
> current popularity and the critical praise of the LotR
> *proves* that my view of their poor quality is incorrect,
> whereas similar claim of Star Wars would have more ground.

It's always been acknowledged that RotJ was a letdown
after the first two movies. We didn't know it at the
time, but that was not a momentary letdown but the
beginning of a downhill spiral. Ewoks were bad enough,
but Jar-Jar was much worse. The situation in the
future will be very different from that of the last
twenty years. Before 1999, the Star Wars series
had two out of three excellent films. Now, it will
be two out of six, and the two excellent ones have
been adulterated by all the changes. Looking back
from 2020, the SW series as a whole will be a lot
less impressive than it was in 1990. If anything,
it will be an object lesson of an excellent unassuming
film project ruined by its own commerical success.
The first two will continue to stand out as great
films, but only in memory since they are only
available in messed-up form, and will be viewed with
a touch of sadness since everyone will know what a
letdown the rest of the series was.

Do you not agree that it would have been better if
Lucas had left the SW project alone after 1983?


-- FotW

Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.
Re: OT Last of the broadsheet reviews of Ep III [message #47191 ] So, 22 Mai 2005 16:26
Morgil  
Flame of the West wrote:
> Morgil wrote:
>
>> And the reason for their success during the 20 years before
>> the prequels would be...
>
>
> They're good movies, and we're relatively close
> to the era in which they were made. But all the
> special effects will begin to look hokey in the
> future as we get used to ever-better movie
> technology.

I think the special effects have looked as 'hokey' as they're
ever gonna be for quite a long time now already. Doesn't seem
to be effecting their popularity.

That will be true of LotR's effects
> as well, but there's more to LotR than gee-whiz
> action and CGI. That's less so with SW.

That would be quite a trick since the original Star Wars
movies didn't have any CGI. Face it - Star Wars has already
proven it doesn't need state-of-the-art special effects
and gee-whiz action to be successful - LotR, not so much.

>> In 20
>>
>>> years the LotR movies will be much better known than SW.
>>
>>
>>
>> LOL! That's like saying Harry Potter books will outlast LotR.
>
>
> Not at all, since HP is already fading. At least
> the LotR-vs-SW debate is about the future, not the
> present.

Really?? Details please!

Morgil
Re: OT Last of the broadsheet reviews of Ep III [message #47192 ] So, 22 Mai 2005 17:09
Morgil  
Flame of the West wrote:

> Do you not agree that it would have been better if
> Lucas had left the SW project alone after 1983?

Not really. Whatever Lucas has done since 1983 does not
take anything away from the original movies, just like
PJs movies don't take anything away from the books.

Besides, if history has taught us anything it is that
Lucas likes money. When the demand gets high enough
he will release the original movies unchanged in DVD.

Morgil
Re: OT Last of the broadsheet reviews of Ep III [message #47200 ] Sa, 21 Mai 2005 23:50
Derek Broughton  
Flame of the West wrote:

> Beeblebear wrote:
>
>>>So American critics are generally praising it with the same
>>>enthusiasm that Brits are trashing it. Any idea what might
>>>be the reason behind this?
>>
>> Because the British have some taste?
>
> The Telegraph reviewer sounds like one of those types
> that never likes anything.

But isn't that a requirement for _being_ a reviewer? I can't figure out why
these people (a) go into the business when they hate movies; and (b)
inflict their reviews on us - I don't need to hear about movies they hated.
If they can't find _any_ good movies, just tell us about the least bad ones
they saw. (OK, I realize with something like Star Wars, you _have_ to
review it, but why tell me about the other 50 movies you hated this year)
--
derek
Re: OT Last of the broadsheet reviews of Ep III [message #47206 ] Mo, 23 Mai 2005 00:31
Yuk Tang  
Derek Broughton <news [at] pointerstop.ca> wrote in
news:n1n4m2-1g7.ln1 [at] othello.pointerstop.ca:
> Flame of the West wrote:
>> Beeblebear wrote:
>>
>>>>So American critics are generally praising it with the same
>>>>enthusiasm that Brits are trashing it. Any idea what might
>>>>be the reason behind this?
>>>
>>> Because the British have some taste?
>>
>> The Telegraph reviewer sounds like one of those types
>> that never likes anything.
>
> But isn't that a requirement for _being_ a reviewer? I can't
> figure out why these people (a) go into the business when they
> hate movies; and (b) inflict their reviews on us - I don't need to
> hear about movies they hated. If they can't find _any_ good
> movies, just tell us about the least bad ones they saw. (OK, I
> realize with something like Star Wars, you _have_ to review it,
> but why tell me about the other 50 movies you hated this year)

But the reviewer actually relatively liked Ep II when it came out.
Something must have happened in the meanwhile that's made him that
much more cynical about the Star Wars films.

Reading the text again, the only other films the review mentions are
the original trilogy.

'It's hard not to have a lot of affection for the original trilogy.
With their hand-made effects and game performances, the movies had a
scrappy honesty and brio, as well as faith in the non-stop,
unpredictable momentum of old-fashioned storytelling. One of them,
Irvin Kershner's The Empire Strikes Back (1980), had more: a
tortured, mythic spirit, edging towards its climactis revelation -
"Luke, I am your father!" - with a moody confidence that held us
spellbound. Geek appeal was transcended, immortality in the popular
mainstream ensured.'

Doesn't sond much like he hates every film he sees. The assessment
of the original trilogy, in terms of the film that stood out and the
qualities that made it stand out, also chime with that of myself and
people I know, despite we being but a small unrepresentative
subsection of society, as Morgil tells me.


--
Cheers, ymt.
Re: OT Last of the broadsheet reviews of Ep III [message #47210 ] Mo, 23 Mai 2005 02:31
the softrat  
On Sun, 22 May 2005 10:18:44 -0400, Flame of the West
<jsolinas [at] comcast.net> wrote:
>
>Do you not agree that it would have been better if
>Lucas had left the SW project alone after 1983?
>
Yes. However I do not think that PeeJay's LotR's will go down in
history either except as an early use of massive cgi. (And Lucas beat
him to the punch on that one, too.)

I *love* Star Wars. It is the finest space opera flic of my lifetime.
It successfully parodies all its predecessors, something which
Spielberg's 'Indiana Jones' flix failed at. However GL has
successfully demonstrated more than once that he cannot carry a great
concept beyond one movie. All of the SW's sequels and prequels are
just crowd-pleasing junk movies for the 14 year old crowd, even for
the 47 year olds who remain 14 in heart, mind, and soul.

As PJ's LotR and the movie _Troy_ and that horrible _Ulysses_ and many
others demonstrate, Hollywood and all of its clones cannot do an epic,
apparently because they don't understand them. So they 'improve' them.
The Made-for-TV versions of _Earthsea_ and _Dune_ show that they don't
understand science-fiction either.

I was trying to remember....the best Hollywood epics which come to
mind are _The Ten Commandments_ and the first half of _Cleopatra_. The
best sci-fi movie prior to SW's was _Forbidden Planet_. And all of
these have stupid dialog and bad acting. (Cleopatra is redeemed in
part by La Taylor and R. Harrison.)



the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:softrat [at] pobox.com
--
"I get to go to lots of overseas places, like Canada." --
Britney Spears
Re: OT Last of the broadsheet reviews of Ep III [message #47213 ] Mo, 23 Mai 2005 03:06
Graham Lockwood  
On Sun, 22 May 2005 08:39:21 -0500, Flame of the West wrote
(in article <nOydnWJsC-LgFg3fRVn-og [at] comcast.com>):

> Morgil wrote:
>
>>> So why all the abuse?
>>
>> Maybe it's you.
>
> That can't be since your abuse is not limited to Yuk Tang,
> but to pretty much anyone who criticized SW.

Tolkien rules! Lucas drools!



---
Graham
Re: OT Last of the broadsheet reviews of Ep III [message #47214 ] Mo, 23 Mai 2005 03:20
Graham Lockwood  
On Sun, 22 May 2005 10:09:27 -0500, Morgil wrote
(in article <d6q7be$oq2$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi>):

> Flame of the West wrote:
>
>> Do you not agree that it would have been better if
>> Lucas had left the SW project alone after 1983?
>
> Not really. Whatever Lucas has done since 1983 does not
> take anything away from the original movies, just like
> PJs movies don't take anything away from the books.
{snip}

Except that "the original movies" are almost impossible to acquire now, due
to Lucas's further revising. A better comparison would be if PJ had come out
with his movies and then gone back and edited "the original books" to be more
consistent with the movies and then banned the REAL original books from ever
being published again.



---
Graham
Re: OT Last of the broadsheet reviews of Ep III [message #47220 ] Mo, 23 Mai 2005 08:16
Morgil  
Graham Lockwood wrote:
> On Sun, 22 May 2005 10:09:27 -0500, Morgil wrote
> (in article <d6q7be$oq2$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi>):
>
>
>>Flame of the West wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Do you not agree that it would have been better if
>>>Lucas had left the SW project alone after 1983?
>>
>>Not really. Whatever Lucas has done since 1983 does not
>>take anything away from the original movies, just like
>>PJs movies don't take anything away from the books.
>
> {snip}
>
> Except that "the original movies" are almost impossible to acquire now, due
> to Lucas's further revising.

Yes, but they would be even harder to acquire if Lucas had
completely abandoned the project in 1983. At least now he
has published the 1995 unedited and digitally remastered
video versions. :-)

Morgil
Re: OT Last of the broadsheet reviews of Ep III [message #47221 ] Mo, 23 Mai 2005 08:33
Morgil  
Yuk Tang wrote:

> 'It's hard not to have a lot of affection for the original trilogy.
> With their hand-made effects and game performances, the movies had a
> scrappy honesty and brio, as well as faith in the non-stop,
> unpredictable momentum of old-fashioned storytelling. One of them,
> Irvin Kershner's The Empire Strikes Back (1980), had more: a
> tortured, mythic spirit, edging towards its climactis revelation -
> "Luke, I am your father!" - with a moody confidence that held us
> spellbound. Geek appeal was transcended, immortality in the popular
> mainstream ensured.'
>
> Doesn't sond much like he hates every film he sees. The assessment
> of the original trilogy, in terms of the film that stood out and the
> qualities that made it stand out, also chime with that of myself and
> people I know, despite we being but a small unrepresentative
> subsection of society, as Morgil tells me.

Hmmm, you said you and your friends were formerly Star Wars fans
who now have radically different views of the films and Lucas.
I don't see the reviewer stating anything similar to that.
Could it be you're twisting my statements again in a pitiful
attempt to gain sympathy for your cause?

Morgil
Re: OT Last of the broadsheet reviews of Ep III [message #47241 ] Mo, 23 Mai 2005 22:45
Jette Goldie  
"Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6mkiv$b7i$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> Beeblebear wrote:
> > "Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:d6lg2a$n43$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>
> >>So American critics are generally praising it with the same
> >>enthusiasm that Brits are trashing it. Any idea what might
> >>be the reason behind this?
> >>
> >
> >
> > Because the British have some taste?
>
> It can't be that since both groups praised the LotR movies
> in quite the similar way. There has to be something else.

I feel RotS is a bit of a curate's egg.



--
Jette Goldie
jette [at] blueyonder.co.uk
Some people are like Slinkies . . . not really good for anything, but
you
still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.
Re: OT Last of the broadsheet reviews of Ep III [message #47243 ] Mo, 23 Mai 2005 23:25
Pete Gray  
In article <birke.38046$G8.35303 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
jet [at] blueyonder.com.uk says...
>
> "Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d6mkiv$b7i$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> > Beeblebear wrote:
> > > "Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:d6lg2a$n43$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> >
> > >>So American critics are generally praising it with the same
> > >>enthusiasm that Brits are trashing it. Any idea what might
> > >>be the reason behind this?
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > Because the British have some taste?
> >
> > It can't be that since both groups praised the LotR movies
> > in quite the similar way. There has to be something else.
>
> I feel RotS is a bit of a curate's egg.
>
You mean it's actually rotten, but you're too afraid to say so?

--
Pete Gray

Say No to ID Cards <http://www.no2id.net>
<http://www.redbadge.co.uk/no2idcards/>
Re: OT Last of the broadsheet reviews of Ep III [message #47271 ] Di, 24 Mai 2005 19:41
Jette Goldie  
"Pete Gray" <news [at] redbadge.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cfc5a9ca5e482979896cf [at] news.zen.co.uk...
> In article <birke.38046$G8.35303 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> jet [at] blueyonder.com.uk says...
> >
> > "Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:d6mkiv$b7i$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> > > Beeblebear wrote:
> > > > "Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:d6lg2a$n43$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> > >
> > > >>So American critics are generally praising it with the same
> > > >>enthusiasm that Brits are trashing it. Any idea what might
> > > >>be the reason behind this?
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Because the British have some taste?
> > >
> > > It can't be that since both groups praised the LotR movies
> > > in quite the similar way. There has to be something else.
> >
> > I feel RotS is a bit of a curate's egg.
> >
> You mean it's actually rotten, but you're too afraid to say so?


Oh no, it's actually quite good in bits!


;-)


--
Jette Goldie
jette [at] blueyonder.co.uk
Some people are like Slinkies . . . not really good for anything, but
you
still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.
Re: OT Last of the broadsheet reviews of Ep III [message #47278 ] Di, 24 Mai 2005 20:15
Derek Broughton  
Jette Goldie wrote:

>> > I feel RotS is a bit of a curate's egg.
>> >
>> You mean it's actually rotten, but you're too afraid to say so?
>
> Oh no, it's actually quite good in bits!
>
>
> ;-)

Chesterton? My dad always used to use that line (though it was "good in
parts").
--
derek
Re: OT Last of the broadsheet reviews of Ep III [message #47333 ] Mi, 25 Mai 2005 20:07
Jette Goldie  
"Derek Broughton" <news [at] pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:2j7cm2-7gp.ln1 [at] othello.pointerstop.ca...
> Jette Goldie wrote:
>
> >> > I feel RotS is a bit of a curate's egg.
> >> >
> >> You mean it's actually rotten, but you're too afraid to say so?
> >
> > Oh no, it's actually quite good in bits!
> >
> >
> > ;-)
>
> Chesterton? My dad always used to use that line (though it was
"good in
> parts").


Well, actually I got it from "Punch" about 30 years ago <g>



--
Jette
"Work for Peace and remain Fiercely Loving" - Jim Byrnes
jette [at] blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Re: OT Last of the broadsheet reviews of Ep III [message #49692 ] Fr, 27 Mai 2005 22:21
Pete Gray  
In article <C93le.39620$G8.31629 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
jet [at] blueyonder.com.uk says...
>
> "Derek Broughton" <news [at] pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
> news:2j7cm2-7gp.ln1 [at] othello.pointerstop.ca...
> > Jette Goldie wrote:
> >
> > >> > I feel RotS is a bit of a curate's egg.
> > >> >
> > >> You mean it's actually rotten, but you're too afraid to say so?
> > >
> > > Oh no, it's actually quite good in bits!
> > >
> > >
> > > ;-)
> >
> > Chesterton? My dad always used to use that line (though it was
> "good in
> > parts").
>
>
> Well, actually I got it from "Punch" about 30 years ago <g>
>
The original in 1895:
< http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/20/messages/163.htm l>
Copy of the cartoon here:
<http://www.fictionalcities.co.uk/related.htm>

--
Pete Gray

Say No to ID Cards <http://www.no2id.net>
<http://www.redbadge.co.uk/no2idcards/>
Re: OT Last of the broadsheet reviews of Ep III [message #49749 ] So, 29 Mai 2005 18:41
Derek Broughton  
Pete Gray wrote:

> In article <C93le.39620$G8.31629 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> jet [at] blueyonder.com.uk says...
>>
>> "Derek Broughton" <news [at] pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
>> news:2j7cm2-7gp.ln1 [at] othello.pointerstop.ca...
>> >
>> > Chesterton? My dad always used to use that line (though it was
>> "good in
>> > parts").
>>
>>
>> Well, actually I got it from "Punch" about 30 years ago <g>
>>
> The original in 1895:
> < http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/20/messages/163.htm l>
> Copy of the cartoon here:
> <http://www.fictionalcities.co.uk/related.htm>

Thanks both Pete & Jette for bringing that up and digging up the origin.
All I have of my father is the memories (and the genes), and it's
bittersweet to have the background to a favorite saying of his.
--
derek
Re: OT Last of the broadsheet reviews of Ep III [message #49757 ] So, 29 Mai 2005 21:58
Jette Goldie  
"Pete Gray" <news [at] redbadge.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d003aa9271b48df9896d1 [at] news.zen.co.uk...
> In article <C93le.39620$G8.31629 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> jet [at] blueyonder.com.uk says...
> >
> > "Derek Broughton" <news [at] pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
> > news:2j7cm2-7gp.ln1 [at] othello.pointerstop.ca...
> > > Jette Goldie wrote:
> > >
> > > >> > I feel RotS is a bit of a curate's egg.
> > > >> >
> > > >> You mean it's actually rotten, but you're too afraid to say
so?
> > > >
> > > > Oh no, it's actually quite good in bits!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ;-)
> > >
> > > Chesterton? My dad always used to use that line (though it was
> > "good in
> > > parts").
> >
> >
> > Well, actually I got it from "Punch" about 30 years ago <g>
> >
> The original in 1895:
> < http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/20/messages/163.htm l>
> Copy of the cartoon here:
> <http://www.fictionalcities.co.uk/related.htm>
>


Yup, they used to re-run "classic" cartoons from time to time.


--
Jette Goldie
jette [at] blueyonder.co.uk
INTERACTION - the 63rd Worldcon
"A European Worldcon in Glasgow"
http://interaction.worldcon.org.uk/
Vorheriges Thema:COTW LOTR Appendix AI.ii & AI.iii
Nächstes Thema:Re: Chapter of the Week LOTR Bk6 Ch3 Mount Doom
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 12:22:30 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,06743 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered