It Doesn’t Suck

“Sith” isn’t the best time I’ve ever had at the movies, but I enjoyed myself quite a lot. If that’s the right word for it: as many early reviews and a minimal knowledge of the timeline of the Star Wars universe might suggest, it’s actually a pretty dark film in places. I saw someone saying that they’d take any child to see it who had also been comfortable with Return of the King. No way. The violence in ROTK is too intense in many places for a very young child, but this is something completely different. It’s not just specific scary bits, but an entire story about how the good guys lose.

On the Star Wars charts, I’d actually rate it right under “Empire” and “New Hope” in terms of the overall satisfactions it delivers. As many early reviews have noted, it’s got some absolutely cringe-worthy dialogue in the middle, and the romantic material is toxic. I was actually wincing in pain at how bad it is in places. That’s the “Ewok” of this film, the element that really drags it down, but the romance doesn’t get as much screen time as those little hairballs did. The plot also creaks and groans in a few parts in terms of the effort necessary to get all the players into the proper locations for the grand finale, but the pay-off is big. Some of it really feels right in terms of those images you had in your head way back in 1977 when you tried to imagine the backstory of these characters.

There’s still a few geeky loose ends that I’m puzzling over, but nothing that the creative labors of continuity freaks couldn’t sort out reasonably easily. I’ll leave those for a week or two. But if you’re at all interested in this film, I’d say yes, yes, it’s worth seeing, and worth seeing reasonably soon. I don’t think it will disappoint anyone who likes “Star Wars”, though it won’t redeem “Star Wars” for those who have never liked it.

This entry was posted in Popular Culture. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to It Doesn’t Suck

  1. DougLathrop says:

    I dunno, Tim–I thought it basically sucked. For me, even the admittedly eye-popping effects couldn’t counterbalance the mostly flat performances and what is possibly the most tooth-achingly awful dialogue I’ve ever heard in a movie theater. We’re talking MST3K-level awful here.

    It had its moments, and I’m glad I saw it for closure’s sake, but I can’t say it was a good movie.

  2. Timothy Burke says:

    Flat performances, yeah. Though I thought Ewan McGregor did pretty well with adding a spark to his more routine battles, and a real little shock of actual acting once Anakin goes off to the dark side. I also thought McDiarmid was pretty good, especially before he goes into his fright-mask mode for good.

    Hayden Christiansen was just a bad choice for this character: he couldn’t do anything but play him like a sullen teenager, and in this film, something more needed to come out. Natalie Portman has been consistently shit in all three films, and that was still true here.

    Sam Jackson finally got his moment, but yeah, I also wasn’t that impressed with his work here.

    The dialogue of course never helps any of them, and often no actor alive could do much to redeem it. The dialogue in the first three was sometimes just as bad, but it was ok because the films were so much lighter in mood and their genre positioning. Here Lucas is so terminally serious that there’s nothing to excuse the dialogue.

    But. I really thought that Palpatine’s seduction of Anakin was pretty decent, and that once the shit starts to hit the fan (basically after Anakin realizes that Palpatine is the Sith lord the Jedi have been looking for) the movie kicks into high gear and is really pretty damn entertaining. The opening set-piece battle also has its moments, and I thought Obi-Wan’s later duel with Grevious was pretty visually interesting and well-staged.

  3. kieran says:

    Hold me, like you did that night on Naboo!

  4. kieran says:

    I’m sorry, I haven’t even seen the film. I just can’t get that night– er, I mean that line out of my head.

    I feel that with Star Wars films, the shit has been hitting the fans since the closing credits of The Empire Strikes Back.

  5. emschwar says:

    Some spoilers below, but if you care, you’ve probably already seen the film anyway.

    I wish I could remember where, but I read a reviewer whose opinion was that Natalie Portman intentionally did the worst job she could in revenge for the lousy material she was given to work with. Seeing the scenes where she pleads with Anakin to give up the Dark Side certainly lent it plausibility, it not proof– you want to talk petulant teenagers, she looked like a spoiled rich girl told she’d have to drive her own limo to the prom.

    But overall, I agree, the story was great– and story has always been Lucas’ strength. The dialogue was indeed crap, but Ewan McGregor handled his awkward lines beautifully– I really felt it when he yelled, “You were supposed to be the One!” at Anakin; thinking back on it a day later, I still feel the sense of betrayal and hurt he put into that line.

    McDiarmid was wonderful as Palpatine (at least, pre-mask); he gauged Anakin’s reactions perfectly, and it was impressive, if a bit sad, how tightly he played Anakin up to the point where he pledged himself to Palpatine. I also was touched by Yoda’s resignation when he admits he’s lost, that he can’t beat Palpatine; it was a rare moment of vulnerability in a character that up until then (and afterwards, for that matter) shows none to anyone.

    One thing that I, and several co-workers noticed; why do you suppose they refer to the young Padawans Anakin kills as “younglings”? My theory was that many, possibly most, were non-human, and calling them “children” is slightly misleading, but that kinda falls down in that all the ones we actually saw were apparently human. A co-worker theorized that it was a way to dehumanize them, and perhaps thereby allow Anakin to soften the impact of what he’d done to himself, but the Jedi (well, both of them) themselves used the term as well. The only reason it stands out is that it’s a curious euphemism in a story that wouldn’t know subtlety if it dressed in pink garters and stood on a table, dancing and singing, “Subtlety is Here Again”. (Apologies to Blackadder for that one).

  6. pxib says:

    It has been pointed out before, and not by me, that what these first three episodes are missing is Han Solo. Nobody is sauntering through the storyline, winking at us and rolling his eyes. Droids and goofy aliens are funny because they’re cute. Jedis like Obi-wan are funny because their laughter is unexpected. Han Solo was funny because, amidst set-pieces absurd in their scale and scope, he stayed one degree removed. Sarcasm is a beautiful thing, and episodes one through three could have used a little reminder that, even onscreen, somebody knows just how painfully silly Star Wars can be.

  7. waxbanks says:

    Possible motivation for ‘youngling’ vs children: same as the motivation for showing all these dead kids with nary a drop of blood or sign of violence (they look like they’ve gone to sleep on the floor). Ten-year-olds aplenty will see this film, and Lucas has a touch of the kindly grandfather to him these days. I suspect he’s just guarding their delicate sensibilities (atop which, they’re Jedi in training! They ain’t just kids anyhow. So there’s at least a small story rationalization for the choice).

    The weird flatness of the first two prequels seems a little clearer after seeing Sith. The Jedi are these superhuman types who have to sit on their hands through roughly 1.8 very long movies looking concerned but not really doing anything about it. Episodes One and Two were essentially the longest, most involuted Act One in the recent history of drama – and Acts Two and Three happened in the space of an hour and a half in Sith (starting, respectively, with the second Dooku duel and Order 66). You’ve almost got to give Lucas credit for the amount of attention he paid to worldbuilding and stage-setting in those two Episodes (though it’s a pity he forgot about the Writing and the Acting and the Directing, et cetera).

    Ditto pxib re: sarcasm – I think Lucas probably got so into his Story that he forgot it also had to work as Movies. Oh well.

  8. Gary Farber says:

    “Hold me, like you did that night on Naboo!”

    So far as I can tell, the immense hilarity in this is that “Naboo” is, like, a silly word. It’s not even in English! I recommend that folks who feel this is a precious point not read Carolyn Cherryh, or science fiction or fantasy in general. Their heads are apt to explode. Probably good to avoid any real languages that aren’t English, too, and also anyone who is Afrocentric.

    “We’ll always have Paris” is probably equally hysterical if you think “Paris” is a knee-slapper.

    “I feel that with Star Wars films, the shit has been hitting the fans since the closing credits of The Empire Strikes Back.”

    Probably best to make sure that one demonstrates that one is above all those millions of people stupid enough to enjoy any of the later films as frequently as possible, then. It’s both polite and illustrates the superiority of one’s own taste. A twofer.

    Re “younglings”: “… but that kinda falls down in that all the ones we actually saw were apparently human.”

    I suggest rewatching the relevant scene in Attack of the Clones.

  9. Timothy Burke says:

    Aw, come on, Gary, there’s a huge damn difference between the manner in which “We’ll always have Paris” and “Hold me like you did that night on Naboo” is delivered. It’s not the line per se, it’s the execution. Let’s also not do the “you’re being mean to SF” thing: a very significant number of people who have no problem with fantastical names for things have a big problem with the way Lucas executes his romance scenes.

  10. kieran says:

    Probably good to avoid any real languages that aren’t English, too, and also anyone who is Afrocentric.

    People who say they didn’t like all of Star Wars must be narrow-minded racists!

    Probably best to make sure that one demonstrates that one is above all those millions of people stupid enough to enjoy any of the later films as frequently as possible, then. It’s both polite and illustrates the superiority of one’s own taste.

    People who say they didn’t like all of Star Wars are only saying this because they think it makes them look superior to those who did! There are no independent reasons not to like all of Star Wars!

    Give over, Gary. If it’s as epic as all that, it can surely sustain some criticism, never mind a bit of fun poked at the conversational world of Padme and Anakin, which appears to be constructed from CG elements, just like the spaceships in the background. As Carrie Fisher says on the bonus DVD documentary, “So I think I got, ‘Governor Tarkin, I thought I recognized your foul stench,’ which, you know, I don’t know about you but I’m always talking like that. We used to say you can type this stuff, but you can’t say it.”

  11. emschwar says:

    Timothy: I have to agree, it’s the delivery. There’s nothing inherently wrong with “Naboo”, though I admit it does make me want to giggle a little in a way that “Kif’ and “Chanur” don’t. It’s just the terrible acting that surrounds that line.

    I just rewatched Star Wars last night, and the one thing it has (besides Han Solo, and I do miss his archetype in this prequel series) that’s lacking in this prequel trilogy is a sense of fun. I get the feeling watching it that the actors were largely goofing around, having a great time (with the exception of Sir Alec Guinness, anyhow), and in general enjoying themselves. This time around, they seemed very serious, as if they Had To Tell A Story(tm), and weren’t having nearly as good a time with it.

  12. joe o says:

    I thought they did a good job with this one. It was just a mistake to have a pre-star wars trilogy. The first two movies were really just marking time.

  13. Gary Farber says:

    “Gary mentions that he’s not entirely sure why Palpatine stages his own kidnapping.”

    I added an addendum with later thoughts on this, by the way.

    “…a very significant number of people who have no problem with fantastical names for things have a big problem with the way Lucas executes his romance scenes.”

    Sure. I’m less than fully impressed myself. See also the comments on the dialogue that I added to one of my posts.

    “People who say they didn’t like all of Star Wars must be narrow-minded racists!”

    No, I wasn’t trying to say that, and I apologize for any such implication. I’m simply as irritated at how careless much of the criticism is, as some are at the flaws of the films, not saying that the films can’t or shouldn’t be criticized.

    “If it’s as epic as all that, it can surely sustain some criticism, never mind a bit of fun poked at….”

    Sure. It’s just that I find the on-target criticism and mockery amusing and interesting, not the casual swipes of those who never liked any of it in the first place. But I’ll not harp further on that. I’ve already posted my own views on the flaws of the dialogue.

  14. Gary Farber says:

    “It’s left open how Yoda finds Dagobah and how long he’s been there when Luke arrives in ESB. ”

    In the earlier script scene-by-scene I didn’t bother to link to, it’s clearly stated that Yoda gets dropped on Dagobah by Bail. Dagobah, it’s established elsewhere in the EU, was the choice because of the Force Spot that Luke later encounters the “version” of Darth Vader, which supposedly conceals Force probing over a larger area, thus concealing Yoda.

  15. Timothy Burke says:

    You know, reading all this stuff about Bail Organa makes me realize that this is one of several places where the script for all three films kind of drops the ball.

    It’s one thing to tell a story of Machiavellian plotting and conspiracy, but what it really lacks is:

    1) A sense that the plotters can lose. Ok, we know they’re not going to lose, because this is a prequel. But it would be nice if from the very beginning there had been a small group of Jedi and Senators who were suspicious of Palpatine but who couldn’t convince anyone else, who were trying to counter-plot and investigate. Suppose that Qui-Gon goes to Naboo even though he’s not ordered to, because he thinks something’s up. Suppose Obi-Wan investigates the Kamino cloners on his own iniative, and comes close to really cracking the plot rather than being led by the nose. But this would probably require Yoda to be something other than all-knowingly wise. Unless Lucas made Yoda not the head of the Jedi Council but instead a sort of wise old respected mentor whom doesn’t quite have the pull in the Council that he used to have, which might also have had dramatic appeal.

    2) Along the same lines, the whole story really needs a Cassandra–a single character who for some reason really sees the whole plot unfolding, but isn’t believed even by the counter-plotters.

Comments are closed.