CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › The Guardian on Star Wars
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Guardian on Star Wars

post #1 of 32
Thread Starter 
Peter Bradshaw nails it!

"Henceforth you will be known as Darth Vader!" These dire words, addressed to a tormented Anakin Skywalker as he crosses the threshold to the much-mentioned Dark Side, mark the definitive moment of his Luciferian journey, which will end with him in a black, neo-Wehrmacht helmet-mask, with incipient emphysema and a walk that makes him look as if he has had concrete hip replacements.

It supposedly forms the mythic heart of the gigantic Third Episode of George Lucas's colossally inflated Star Wars prequel trilogy. Yet when this moment happens - after what seems like seven hours of CGI action as dramatically weightless as the movement of tropical fish in an aquarium - I looked blearily around the cinema and sensed thousands of scalps failing to prickle. We had all been bored into submission long ago.

George Lucas is now not so much a director as chief executive-cum-potentate in charge of a vastly profitable franchise empire in which striking back is not an option. And within this empire's boundaries, Lucas is so mind-bogglingly powerful that none of his lieutenants dares tell him the truth: that yet another Something of the Something title, after Attack of the Clones and Return of the Jedi, is pretty annoying. (It's actually his fourth, if you count the original script title to the first Star Wars: Adventures of the Starkiller.) But here at any rate, finally, is the end of the road, or rather the middle of the road - the moment in 1977 where we came in. Lucas has taken three pointlessly long and artificially complicated movies to get to the point: precisely how did Luke Skywalker's father come to embrace the forces of darkness?

Hayden Christensen is Anakin, the talented but mercurial Jedi pupil of Obi-Wan Kenobi, in which role Ewan McGregor wears a big and bushy beard, to indicate the aged wisdom that we know is his destiny. Their mighty contest is to be at the centre of this movie, during which in quiet moments leading characters will gaze out over massive futuristic cityscapes resembling the photorealist artwork once used for 1970s sci-fi paperbacks: pointy buildings with swarms of pointy aircraft criss-crossing overhead, often bathed in crimson sunsets.

Once again, McGregor speaks in a simperingly lifeless Rada-English accent, a muddled and misconceived backdating of the Guinness original - the young fogey with the light-sabre. In boringness he is matched by that Jedi master of woodenness: Hayden Christensen, the flatliner to end all flatliners. As an actor Christensen must show the terrible embryo of future wickedness within himself. And how does he do this? By tilting his head down, looking up through lowered brows and giving the unmistakable impression that he is very, very cross. If Princess Diana had gone to the Dark Side, she would have looked a lot like this.

So why does Anakin desert the forces of light? It is his passionate love and concern for his pregnant wife, Princess Amidala, coupled with a sense of his own slighted dignity that are to be the tragic and fateful factors leading to the most unconvincing evil act you can imagine, an event weirdly neutralised by the bloodless unreality that surrounds everything. The vicious Anakin massacres - oh, horror! - a bunch of innocent Jedi children.

But that is not how Lucas's solemnly high-flown script chooses to refer to them. With sub-Shakespearian gravitas, McGregor intones: "Not even the younglings survived." I'm sorry, not even the what? Is that their surname or something? Are Mr and Mrs Youngling going to come home to find a nursery bloodbath?

One of the things about the previous film, Attack of the Clones, that made you think things might be looking up was the terrific performance by Christopher Lee as the sinister Count Dooku. Almost the very first thing Lucas does here is kill him off. It is a crippling blow that leaves us with a range of scandalously dull secondary characters. People such as Senator Bail Organa, played by Jimmy Smits, and Samuel L Jackson as the fiercely uninteresting Mace Windu. They are acting as if on some kind of medication.

As with everyone else - certainly with McGregor and Christensen and the incorrigibly clunky Natalie Portman as Princess Amidala - a heavy blanket of self-consciousness descends, under which they must act out the stilted myth on which depend the hopes and expectations of millions of fans. There are zero comic moments. C-3PO is allowed on to whinge briefly and unfunnily.

Revenge of the Sith has some almost decent things. Yoda is good value as ever, though his character is never allowed to breathe in the airless galaxy Lucas creates, and there is a good sequence at the end showing the "birth" of Darth Vader while Princess Amidala is delivered of her twins. It has what the rest of the film so conspicuously lacks: a spark of real dramatic life. But it comes far too late and it is over immediately. How depressing to compare any of this with the fun and gusto of Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher and Mark Hamill in the first movie. As for the elephantine trilogy as a whole, it was all too clearly a product of George Lucas's overweening production giant Industrial Light and Magic. No magic, little light, but an awful lot of heavy industry.
post #2 of 32
Have you even seen ROTS? Because, if you haven't...you can't truly say that Bradshaw nailed it.

All he delivered was the same sort of critical rant that has been tossed at the Prequels since Day One.
post #3 of 32
This is the third torpedo The Guardian has launched at the good ship Star Wars in as many days.

I think it's safe to say they aren't fans.
post #4 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff Foster
This is the third torpedo The Guardian has launched at the good ship Star Wars in as many days.

I think it's safe to say they aren't fans.
Yeah, their 40 Reasons To Hate Star Wars was a lame idea, lamely executed. Just made them look like bitter old curmudgeons.
post #5 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Whitehead
Yeah, their 40 Reasons To Hate Star Wars was a lame idea, lamely executed. Just made them look like bitter old curmudgeons.
I got into a monster of a row with a friend who thought that article was "pretty difficult to disagree with".

Sometimes I think I might be better off standing in front of a brick wall banging my head to a gooey mess.

Let's face it, in 2005 kicking George Lucas is like kicking a puppy:

Just because you can doesn't mean you must.
post #6 of 32
That's it. I'm voting Tory.
post #7 of 32
I hazard that if most people were to watch Revenge of the Sith, as a standalone film, that had nothing to do with Star Wars, it would probably be perceived as an overly CG, badly structured, awfully acted mess.

I imagine that the Guardian Review reflects that.

I remember This Guy's (Bradshaw) take on LOTR. He hated Fellowship, and the TTT.

After ROTK, he formally apolagised for the other 2 reviews, and pretty much hailed the trilogy as a masterpiece.

For all of us, ROTS was supposed to do that. After reading the CHUD reviews, I doubt that it's gunno happen.

I have a bad feeling about this. That once we've watched it and got excited about it (ala AOTC), we will be lucky to watch it more than once on DVD... if that.
post #8 of 32
Generalisations are the path to the darkside, young padawan.
post #9 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Clarke
That's it. I'm voting Tory.
Things aren't that bad, Andrew.
post #10 of 32
Quote:
But that is not how Lucas's solemnly high-flown script chooses to refer to them. With sub-Shakespearian gravitas, McGregor intones: "Not even the younglings survived." I'm sorry, not even the what? Is that their surname or something? Are Mr and Mrs Youngling going to come home to find a nursery bloodbath?
Haha, made me laugh. My condolences to the Younglings of course.

And that '40 Reasons To Hate Star Wars' was also chucklesome.
post #11 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by cognizant
And that '40 Reasons To Hate Star Wars' was also chucklesome.
That article is really dumb.
post #12 of 32
At least they dont take the saga so seriously.
post #13 of 32
There's a difference between taking something seriously and writing a bunch of lame and stretching paragraphs because the writer obviously can't come up with anything really decent or funny. It's poor writing and poor journalism, bringing up stupid points that completely miss, along with vague recycled ramblings from the Easy Riders, Raging Bull crowd.
post #14 of 32
The "40 Reasons" article is crap not because there are no criticisms that can be levelled at Lucas/Star Wars but because they've all been reiterated so many times over the last six years that simply trotting them out again is lazy. There are valid points in there, but there's nothing new - just the same old boring gripes and nitpicks. It's the film criticism equivalent of "White people are like this, but black people are like that"

Not to mention, some of the reasons chosen are really stretching. It's the fault of Star Wars that Dorling Kindersley went bust? No, it's the fault of Dorling Kindersley for stupidly overstocking on Star Wars merchandise.

The fact that we don't see anybody eating meals in the movies is a reason to hate Star Wars? The fact that the guns look like "popguns"? That it won 6 technical Oscars while another film didn't?

There is a need for people to point out the silly ubiquity of Star Wars, but by making most of the complaints petty or unrelated chaff the feature comes across more as sour grapes.
post #15 of 32
See, as you've proven to me, they dont take it seriously...

Besides, nearly every magazine out there has had a similar time-wasting feature like this, comes hand in hand with anything SW related happening in the media.
post #16 of 32
The one that really gets me is the 'Star Wars Killed Intelligent Cinema' whine.

You'd swear septuagenarian Greek philosophers penned every movie released prior to 1977.
post #17 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by cognizant
See, as you've proven to me, they dont take it seriously...
Good for them. But there's a difference between not taking something seriously and doing something worthwhile with that irreverence.

Ripping on Star Wars is obvious and easy, like shooting last years fish in a thirty-year-old barrel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cognizant
Besides, nearly every magazine out there has had a similar time-wasting feature like this, comes hand in hand with anything SW related happening in the media.
Exactly my point. It's played out.
post #18 of 32
Ok, I agree its unoriginal and has been done to death, its lazy writing.

But it still made me chuckle in a few places. Should I prefix Darth to my name now?

(dont answer that)
post #19 of 32
Sci-Fi Universe's "50 Reasons Why Return of the Jedi Sucks"?

Funny as all fuck. Mostly because of Dana Gould. (And despite Mark Altman having worn out his welcome as that mag's helmer YEARS beforehand.)

Cutting, shredding, and disembowelling the SW creator...yet it tends to elicit chortles from even the "George-Can-Do-No-Wrong" Lucas-chirpies.




The Guardian's pieces (and anything by Peter Bradshaw in general)?

Pure toss. More bottles of whine pressed and squeezed and aged from the same moldy old sour grapes.
post #20 of 32
I think Geoff has a point. There's a generation of film critics that have grown up with the belief that Star Wars is the reason there are no more Taxi Drivers or Conversations being made. And they have an agenda of attacking Star Wars, since it's the grandaddy of blockbuster moviemaking.

Which is of course, utter toss. The golden age of film-making was bound to end and it had nothing to do with Lucas and everything to do with big corporations buying studios and MBA holders running them.

And let's not forget that Taxi Driver lost the best picture oscar to Rocky...
post #21 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Whitehead
Yeah, their 40 Reasons To Hate Star Wars was a lame idea, lamely executed. Just made them look like bitter old curmudgeons.
The whole Guardian arts section seems to be the epitome of the Intellectual Snob.
Which seems to me to be bit of a contradiction with a paper that considers it self to be a voice for the downtrodden masses, but I have stopped trying to figure that one out a lone time ago.
post #22 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastronikolas
I think Geoff has a point. There's a generation of film critics that have grown up with the belief that Star Wars is the reason there are no more Taxi Drivers or Conversations being made. And they have an agenda of attacking Star Wars, since it's the grandaddy of blockbuster moviemaking.

Which is of course, utter toss. The golden age of film-making was bound to end and it had nothing to do with Lucas and everything to do with big corporations buying studios and MBA holders running them.
IMO, the "golden age" of cinema is whatever age I'm living in.

Life is short, and I don't have time to pine for rose-tinted yesteryears.
post #23 of 32
These guys at "The Guardian" are a bunch of stuck of bitches.
post #24 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leto II
I found that whilst in high school, probably 8-9 years ago. I hadn't really started analyzing any of the media I injested, up until I read that article, and found myself agreeing on most of the points. I also laughed my balls off, if I recall.

To the folks, wittier than I: What, pray tell, is a stuck of bitch?
post #25 of 32
There are some good but obvious points there badly handled, and really, Vader's shuttle? Again, stretching for ideas.

It's funny though that they don't reprint the opposing list of great things in the movie, which also appeared in the same issue of the magazine as the worst list.
post #26 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legless Dog
I found that whilst in high school, probably 8-9 years ago. I hadn't really started analyzing any of the media I injested, up until I read that article, and found myself agreeing on most of the points. I also laughed my balls off, if I recall.

To the folks, wittier than I: What, pray tell, is a stuck of bitch?

Someone who "injests" differently than stuck UP bitch, perhaps?
post #27 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastronikolas
I think Geoff has a point. There's a generation of film critics that have grown up with the belief that Star Wars is the reason there are no more Taxi Drivers or Conversations being made. And they have an agenda of attacking Star Wars, since it's the grandaddy of blockbuster moviemaking.

Which is of course, utter toss. The golden age of film-making was bound to end and it had nothing to do with Lucas and everything to do with big corporations buying studios and MBA holders running them.
Right. Every Biskind wannabe talks about the '70s as the era of great films like The Conversation, Mean Streets, Nashville et al., when most people were going to see Earthquake, The Towering Inferno, The Poseidon Adventure-- the Armageddons and Con Airs of their day.
post #28 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fett
There are some good but obvious points there badly handled, and really, Vader's shuttle? Again, stretching for ideas.

It's funny though that they don't reprint the opposing list of great things in the movie, which also appeared in the same issue of the magazine as the worst list.
Actually, it's right here:


http://www.filmthreat.com/Features.asp?Id=173
post #29 of 32
So according to Mr. Bradshaw Padme is a "Princess". Interesting. Nice job of fact checking.
post #30 of 32
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barkatthemoon
So according to Mr. Bradshaw Padme is a "Princess". Interesting. Nice job of fact checking.
Scandalous!
post #31 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by LightningLouie
Right. Every Biskind wannabe talks about the '70s as the era of great films like The Conversation, Mean Streets, Nashville et al., when most people were going to see Earthquake, The Towering Inferno, The Poseidon Adventure-- the Armageddons and Con Airs of their day.
That is an excellent point.
Supposedly 1970 was when counterculture film was at it's height. But the biggest money maker that years was not "Midnight Cowboy" or "Mash" or"Easy Rider" but the first "Airport". I beleiver the "Butch Cassedy" was #2...not exactly daring films, either of them, although "Butch" was enormously entertaining and "Airport" is unwatchable".

And in 1971 the Biggest money maker was "Love Story" a film which nowdays, to paraphase Oscar Wilde's statement about one of Charles DIckens' more overly sentimental passages, only the most heartless will fail to laugh at....

Seeing the past through rose colors glasses is something I think we are all guilty of, but I agree these "Jaws and Star Wars" ruined the film business people take it to extremes.
post #32 of 32
1970 was not when it was at its height. And no one claimed that those films were burning up the box office, although both GODFATHER films made a ton of money and won a ton of Oscars. Many of the other films also did well. The obsession with box office is a modern, that was born with JAWS and STAR WARS. Release patterns were incredibly different, box office expectations were different, longevity was different - the whole industry was different. Even mentioning EASY RIDER shows how little you understand - the movie is seminal not because it topped the box office but because it earned so much in comparison to what it cost.

While Biskind's thesis is simplistic it holds some water, not the least for the fact that Spielberg and Lucas were the most successful filmmakers of the time, could have done what they wanted and neither has ever made a movie that could be seriously be considered pushing the boundaries of anything but technology.

Anway, the 70s wasn't a golden age because the films did well but because they could get made. Before STAR WARS and JAWS the movie industry had not been a huge moneymaker in the way it became, where a film can make so much money in 6 weeks. A movie like GONE WITH THE WIND has made, adjusted, more money than any other, but it did it over weeks and months and years. JAWS and STAR WARS created a feeding frenzy.

Would the corporatization of the studios have meant a loss in quality with or without those two films? Sure. But those films gave the studios a blueprint of how to build the machine they wanted, the money generating event film. Imagine a studio system predicated upon THE GODFATHER.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Franchises
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › The Guardian on Star Wars