posted
Okay. Not just big, but there is a possibility that SW fans will object to the interpretation. And it's just chock full o' spoilers.
I found this (not quite) tirade here: http://www.lileks.com/index.html . I tend to agree with his observations. The CGI characters were more "real" than the live actors.
Another reason I'm posting this lengthy article here is that this article will vanish at midnight (central daylight time) and I wanted to preserve it for awhile so we could comment on it.
I leave you to read:
Finally saw Star Wars, and I'm wondering: am I just too old, or is George Lucas overrated? All the things that made the movie wonderful were the creation of other talents, specifically the armies of code-slaves who crafted all the digital effects. All the things that made the movie stink were the direct result of Lucas' lead pen and inability to direct human beings. Maybe I'm too old and have lost my Childlike Wonder. But I don't think so. Here comes some heresy:
I liked Jar-Jar.
I'm not kidding. Liam Neeson is a great actor, but he played the role as if he was trying to remember if he'd left the iron on at home. Ewan McGregor is a fine actor, and he shone at the end when he actually had something to do, but most of the time, he didn't have anything to do. The kid who played Darth Mikey was bad. His mom was acting through a fistful of quaaludes. Natalie Portman - good-looking woman, but a sock puppet without a hand has a wider dramatic range. Samuel Jackson was good for the 2.7 seconds he was on screen; it was nice Yoda again to see, although apparently he had lumbago even then.
The only actual acting that took place was inside a computer, and I've yet to read a review that points this out. It was two movies: one made of skin & sinew, one made of bits & bytes, and the latter outacted the former in every single instance. I had come prepared to hate Jar-Jar, and at first I tried. But then I noticed that whatever scene he was in, I was watching him; I was never bored when he was in the action, because he moved, he shouted, mugged -- everything the other characters weren't doing. His face had expression and his vocal tonalities spanned more than three notes. For God's sake, the Hutt had more star quality than Liam Neeson did. The purple-winged junk dealer, who looked a lot like a Muppet I can't remember, had more presence. The evil hand-walking pod-racer guy was an ACTUAL CHARACTER. If I had to pick which creatures were the products of a computer, it would have been the human actors.
And that's Lucas' fault. He can't write dialogue; he can't shape a scene; he can't direct actors. He can dream the great dream, and for that we thank him. But he fails in the particulars, over and over again. The scene where he's talking to Darth Damien's mother, and she lets it slip that the lad didn't have a father - for God's sake, this is a portentous moment; at the least, Lucas is making a bid that his myth is on an equal footing with Christianity. But the mother might as well have noted that her son had a big Pez collection. The first meeting between R2D2 and C3P0 should have brought grins & wet eyes to the audience, but it had all the emotional impact of two boxcars coupling.
Of course, the acting's always been bad. Let us never forget Luke's great fever-dream oration: Dagobah. Dagobah system. Or the miserably unconvincing byplay between Solo and Leia in the opening bars of Episode 5; were it not for the I love you / I know exchange (which, I believe, Lucas didn't write) the entire relationship would seem even more contrived than it was.
Great battle sequences. Pod racer scene: wonderful. (I swear I saw Manny Calavera from "Grim Fandango" in the stands.) Best use of computer animation I've ever seen. Coruscant was great, even if Lucas stole that idea from Asimov. (It's Trantor.) But: Why did big-head frog boss get the last scene? This is a gaffe right up there with the Wookie being cheated out of a medal at the end of Ep IV. It was all summed up for me in the opening moments. Those blue letters on the black screen, that font - I was instantly pitched back to 1977, feeling the same electric trill of expectation. Then the logo crashed on the screen, and I grinned, stupidly. Okay! Here we go! And I grinned again at the very words "The Phantom Menace" - it's such a perfectly stupid name, and it either stirs your inner 12 year old, or it does. It did. I started to read the text as it marched into the starfield . . . and I had to read it twice. What's this about? A dispute over taxation and trade routes?
Thrill! as import duties come down. Gasp! as currency futures are battered by robot arbitragers. Swoon! as Darth N'Sidious slaps ruinous tariffs on nerf pelts.
Best sound: the engines of the bad guy's pod racer.
I'll stop now.
I'll also buy it on DVD, because, well, because I want to see it again. And another time after that.
------------------ American Society of Newspaper Editors motto: "Proudly Maintaining the (Continued on Page A-4)". www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/
posted
Why is this article going to be disappearing at midnight?
------------------ "Some people call me the Space Cowboy. Yeah! Some call me the Gangster of Love. Some people call me Maurice. Whoo hoo! 'Cause I speak of the Pompatus of Love!" - Steve Miller Band's The Joker
posted
Sadly, Baloo, I have to agree with a lot of the above article. The Christianity bit was a bit much. I found myself wondering if she was the ultra-virtuous liason of some high-ranking man who'd rather keep her mouth shut lest she soil her love's reputation, or if Lucas was really going out on a limb to try and set himself up on an even higher pedastal then we've placed him on. There were two problems that damned the film from the start. The first was that it was far too short. The lines by main characters were short, terse, and rushed; I'm not sure this is the feel Lucas wanted, but lines do not cinematography make. Much more should have been done with scenery and camera angles to achieve the feel of a beginning of a great epic. The second problem is something I doubt could have been avoided. This (as far as I could tell) was the pilot for the special effects that would have to be used for the net two movies, which, with the coming Clone Wars, are going to be much more intense than this one. Mistakes were going to be made; new techniques had to be invented; this was the time to do it. Jar Jar Binks was the centerpiece of this experiment. I think this was on Lucas's mind. I'm happy he decided to play it conservative and save his best, most refined effort for the next two. In closing, I think this is a great beginning to the six film arc. Unfortunately, I grew up in a time when the first three are too engrained in my mind for me to separate myself from their legacy and enjoy the first on its own merits. However, given the circumstances, I am pleased with the final product, and I have faith Lucas is going to keep improving his style.
------------------ "Warfare is the greatest affair of state, the basis of life and death, the Tao to survivial or extinction. It must be thoroughly pondered and analyzed."
"...attaining one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the pinnacle of excellence. Subjugating the enemy's army without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence."
posted
uh...okay. *loved the movie* sure it had its flaws, but what doesn't? i loved the innuendos and things and wouldn't have changed a thing. cept i wouldn't have let Qui-Gonn get killed pooey on them.
------------------ Clones are People Two
"The Force is like duct tape: it has a dark side and a light side, and it holds the universe together" ([[[[[[*]}�������������������������
posted
I think Mr. Lileks missed the point here. I thought Liam Neeson made a great Jedi Knight. Emotions cloud your perceptions of the force, fear leading down the dark side, and all that, I thought the part was just right. After seeing the film for the third time, Jar Jar has grown on me. As to Anikan's beginings, Qui-Gonn told the council he believed the boy may have been concieved by or because of "Metaclorions". I didn't catch that point the first two times I saw the film. I don't really like the explanation, but I don't think Lucas was going for a Virgin birth here either. Mr.Lileks is doing what all the critics have done so far. Forgotton that these films were always for kids and should be taken that way. He said that he was going to buy it on DVD, and watch it a few times. Maybe he got it after all, and just doesn't know it yet. I'll grant him the part about "Trantor".
The film had it's problems the woman playing the Mother was bad, the kid wasn't all that good. The CGI character were better in some instances, then the real actors, but not always. I would rather have George Lucas as Director, than Frakes.
------------------ ALL GOOD THINGS
[This message was edited by The Excalibur on June 09, 1999.]
posted
Yes!! ohmigosh! i just figured it out! it HAD to have been that 'virgin birth' type of thing! remember what...erm....whatever her name was, Annikan's mother said? she bore him, she raised him, she cared for him, the rest she can't explain. there was no father. In her own words! *twilight zone music* wow.....hehehehehehe cool...
------------------ Clones are People Two
"The Force is like duct tape: it has a dark side and a light side, and it holds the universe together" ([[[[[[*]}�������������������������
posted
There is a small dialogue in the film which struck me. Anakin compared Amidale (Padime) to an angel. Angels are said to exist at a planetary system. Angels are associated with the Christian religion. Some other points-Jar Jar Binks will be in the next two films and Mr. Lucas was holding back on the first film's effects.
IP: Logged
posted
I enjoyed the movie the second time around, because I was able to concentrate my focus on key points instead of seeing everything at once. The first time it is far to fast to catch everything. I also remember the first time I saw Star Wars: A New Hope as an adult and thought the dialog and acting was rather hokey. But as I rewatched the film I began to pick up the subtle hints, either laid down purposefuly, or picked up and expanded on in the latter movie. I remember being completely surprised by Vader's admission of fathering Luke, but Owen and Beru's conversation hints at family trouble.
I don't know about the rest of you but Anikan acted just like an eight year old boy. I doubt Jake Lloyd had to act very much. His mother seemed weary of her situation and oddly at ease with Anikan's leaving. I think she knows something. I don't know of a mother today that would let their child leave them for an extended period of time without a deep-seated trust of the childs custodian. Sure they are Jedis, buit an environment like Tatooine would instill wariness into anyone. She knows something--a prophecy perhapes?
What I didn't like was Yoda's statement that Anikan has much fear in him, yet Anikan displayed absolutely no fear in the Naboo fighter. I'm thirty, having never been in aerial combat, I'm sure that space combat would leave my pants soiled. Being shot at is not adventurous, it's terrifing, and it should have been for an eight-year-old, Force or no Force.
posted
That's a good point, Cargile. If you recall, though, Yoda also pointed out the fear he felt in Anikan--he was afraid to lose his mother. While it doesn't seem related at all, even as Anikan stated, chances are it is VERY related. Perhaps we shall see in the next movie
------------------ Clones are People Two
"The Force is like duct tape: it has a dark side and a light side, and it holds the universe together" ([[[[[[*]}�������������������������
posted
now that i've read almost 2/3 of the book, my advice if you want some insight into why he will likely be eventually swayed by the Sith--read the novel. it goes into a lot more detail, and i found it curiously helpful
------------------ Clones are People Two
"The Force is like duct tape: it has a dark side and a light side, and it holds the universe together" ([[[[[[*]}�������������������������
pooey on them. 
Printer-friendly view of this topic
