Not all will agree with me, but hear me out on this one… ;-)

I nominate Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith as the worst movie of 2005.

There have been some really bad movies already this year, but there are two categories that people need to acknowledge; those movies that know they are bad… and those that don’t have a freakin’ clue.

Lucas’ Revenge of the Sith gets the… Wachowski Award; for wrecking something really cool and not realizing it.

Congratulations, George!

I totally disagree with you on this! Now the prequals may have not been the clasics the the originals were, but I think this was easily the best of the prequals and shouldn't get worst of the year! It was still very entertaining to see it fall together!

quote:

Originally posted by Brian:
I totally disagree with you on this! Now the prequals may have not been the clasics the the originals were, but I think this was easily the best of the prequals and shouldn't get worst of the year! It was still very entertaining to see it fall together!

And that’s my main disappointment with the movie… it didn’t “fall” together. It was a deliberate method of story telling, to the point of factual, that left nothing to the imagination.

When I look at art, I see something suggestive… something for my own interpretation. Revenge of the Sith tried too hard to “explain” things rather than “suggest”. It was, in my opinion, the worst story telling I’ve seen in a very long time… to the point of insulting one’s intelligence.

I’d argue very strongly that if someone else had produced the prequels the way they are now, these movies would not have the acclaim they currently have. Take away Lucas’ name and the Star Wars label… and you’re left with a very mediocre trilogy and a laughable conclusion.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Echolocating,

finally someone says whats on my mind. Starwars III was maybe one of the worst movies i have ever seen. it was soft, acting was atrocious, and the writing was even worse. the only redeeming quality about this movie was seeing Darth Vader being born, but even that was ruined by George Lucas's brilliant idea to make him act. this movie felt like a pg-13 movie, i probably would have to be younger than that to enjoy a movie this childish. worst of 2005 yes please.

I actually thought that there was some stupid stuff that was native to star wars. R2d2 being stupid is just star wars. I didn't like it, but it was bearable. I liked most of the acting. I thought McDiarmid was great. He delivered a few weak lines, but his character was awesome. Christiansen was much better this time around, but the love dialogue was still quite awkward at times. At least they had more chemistry.

quote:

Originally posted by keitht7:
I actually thought that there was some stupid stuff that was native to star wars.

Yes, I agree.

I continually wonder, why do I like the original trilogy over the new trilogy? The only thing that comes to mind is that when George Lucas was being stupid with his script, very talented actors took it upon themselves to deliver those God-awful lines with a certain something that none of the actors in the new trilogy even remotely acknowledged. Han Solo had some terrible lines, but Harrison Ford pulled them off with devilish charm. C3PO was given horrible dialog throughout, but Anthony Daniels’ wonderful accent and verbal emotion overcame the enormous hurdles… and who will ever forget James Earl Jones’ commanding performance as the voice of Darth Vader.

In Episode 6, I saw Lucas’ childish ideas beginning to be the focus of the series (I’m sorry… Ewoks are neat, but there’s no friggin’ way they could have been any help against the Empire. Stones and sharp sticks, my ass.), but the actors seemed so comfortable with their roles that even some of the obviously childish and border-line ludicrous parts were digestible.

The problem with the new prequels was that George Lucas picked, for the most part, all-star actors who shine through intelligent scripts. I think these very talented stars were all taken off-guard by George’s retarded directing and ridiculous script. However, in the original trilogy, you had almost an entire cast with virtually no experience… and a director who wasn’t as cocky as he is now. The result was something where stars were born.

EDIT: I'm obviously very negative towards the new Star Wars prequels. I believe the following link to be a much more intelligent argument against Episodes I, II, and III. I’m just too cynical to have the patience to diplomatically point out the shortcomings of the new Star Wars movies. If you don’t think the new prequels are bad movies, read this link… CLICK HERE …and tell me that this guy is out to lunch on his opinion. You are entitled to disagree with him, but his comments may help you realize how the Dark Side has clouded your taste in film. ;-)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Echolocating,

quote:

Originally posted by Cody K.:

In Episode 6, I saw Lucas’ childish ideas beginning to be the focus of the series (I’m sorry… Ewoks are neat, but there’s no friggin’ way they could have been any help against the Empire. Stones and sharp sticks, my ass.), but the actors seemed so comfortable with their roles that even some of the obviously childish and border-line ludicrous parts were digestible.

The problem with the new prequels was that George Lucas picked, for the most part, all-star actors who shine through intelligent scripts.

The ewoks are (in theory) a great idea. I think it would have been a great story line to see a relatively primative race of bears over throw by sheer numbers, the technological might of the Empire. The exectution sucked, they looked like karebears and were more goofy than anything.

With your later point, I think the problem was that Lucas did it all himself. He did a good job with Star Wars: ANH, but the other two in the trilogy were done with help from others, if not mostly by others with Lucas consulting. That's why they shinned. He should ahve done this here. He shouldn't have takent he reins himself, he should have been content with a writing credit and passed up a directing one also.

quote:

Originally posted by keitht7:
The ewoks are (in theory) a great idea. I think it would have been a great story line to see a relatively primative race of bears over throw by sheer numbers, the technological might of the Empire. The exectution sucked, they looked like karebears and were more goofy than anything.

It’s really funny that you say that because I was thinking about commenting on the lack of rainbow colored insignia’s on the Ewok’s chests. Ewoks… STARE!!! ;-)

quote:

Originally posted by keitht7:
With your later point, I think the problem was that Lucas did it all himself. He did a good job with Star Wars: ANH, but the other two in the trilogy were done with help from others, if not mostly by others with Lucas consulting. That's why they shinned. He should ahve done this here. He shouldn't have takent he reins himself, he should have been content with a writing credit and passed up a directing one also.

Good point. I’m sure we can all agree that there were MANY problems… all stemming from our dear friend, George.

However, George did get a lot of help with Episode IV… click here , but notice how George didn’t win anything. Some interesting foreshadowing to today’s prequel disaster… and wonderfully compliments your argument for the main problem with Episode I, II, and III, keitht7.

One of the things I’ve always enjoyed about the original trilogy was the superb editing. There was no “needlessly long” shots of wonderfully constructed miniature models and fantastic alien costumes. The editing focused on the story, setting, and pacing; not perfectly, but damn near.

Again, I highly recommend reading the link I posted in my previous reply, if you haven’t already done so.

I read it over again, and I have a few disagreements.

First he claims that Palpatine coudl never be as menacing as Tarkin. I completely disagree, I thought one of the things that was actaulyl done well over the course of the PT was showing Palpatine show his true colors and come alive, so to speak, with evil plans.

Secondly, he talks about the characters being replaced with organizations. While I sort of agree with him, the battle between the Sith and the Jedi practically IS the story, the battle of those forces within Anakin more precisely, is the story.

Thirdly, while I understand what he's saying about the characters in the dogfights, I disagree. I like the grand scale. Maybe it's just my personality, and I suspect it is, but I like to see what is going on topically. I think that more of the large scale battle shots should have been included in the OT. I think showing a Rebel crusier get decimated by a Star Destroyer would have A) showed the might of the empire and B) emphasized the limited window of time that the soldiers/ewoks on the planet had to take down the sheild. I think that the personal shots shoudl be in there to some extent, large scale battle shots would definitely lend itself to making the OT full of epic space battles. A few flybys showing the x wings avoiding TIEs going in for the run on the Death Star in ANH or alot of intense fire between alot of fighters in RoTJ would have been great.



Also, on a side not, Lucas did try to give some personalities to his characters later on. Commander Cody for instance. I think this is ther stupidest thing ever, but this guys seems to think that it was on the right track.

I have to major problems with the prequel trilogy.

First the scripts. Lucas took a 15 year hiatus and this is what he came up with? Not only is the dialogue atrocious, the plot development sucks too. Lucas isn't a screenwriter and shouldn't pretend to be one. TESB had far and away the best script because it was written by Lawrence Kasdan (The Big Chill, Body Heat, Raiders of the Lost Ark), someone who actually knew how to write.

Secondly he's become so enamored with technology, he's forgotten how to make a good film. Despite the advancements in CGI over the past 20 years, those old films still look a lot more real to me. ROTS looked like exactly what it was-- some actors standing in front of a green screen.

quote:

Originally posted by keitht7:
I read it over again, and I have a few disagreements. First he claims that Palpatine coudl never be as menacing as Tarkin. I completely disagree

I don’t know… Peter Cushing looked so serious and evil. His desire to stop the Rebels at any cost was very believable. McDiarmid reduced the potentially morally savage Emperor to a cackling old lunatic. Strangely enough, I didn’t mind Ian’s performance, but only when compared to the rest of the cast. He still overacted his part… much to George’s delight.

quote:

Originally posted by keitht7:
Secondly, he talks about the characters being replaced with organizations. While I sort of agree with him, the battle between the Sith and the Jedi practically IS the story, the battle of those forces within Anakin more precisely, is the story.

Yup, I agree… but he doesn’t dispute the story. You liked the organizations and grand politics. He, like me, wanted to care about the characters, but he couldn’t because the movie was “epic” and not “opera”. He believes Lucas does space opera wonderfully (original trilogy), but doesn’t know how to deliver space epics (prequel trilogy). The new prequels could have told the same story, but as an opera, and the movie would have been much better. This, I believe, is his opinion… and I agree with him. I think that’s why I focused on the character acting as a main problem with the new movies, but the idea of “epic” vs. “opera” was something that I hadn’t thought of… and now, I agree with that opinion because it better fleshes out the core area I was most disappointed with. That being, I couldn’t bring myself to care even remotely for any of the characters in Revenge of the Sith, but I did enjoy the story.

Every Star Wars fan loves the story. I’ve said it before, George Lucas has an amazingly vivid imagination. However, the new prequels are too much about the grand story and fail to acknowledge the individual characters. For example, was Obi-Wan heart-broken that Anakin turned to the Dark Side? Were Obi-Wan and Anakin really all that good of friends? Did he really question his choice to honor Qui-Gon’s request to train Anakin? Did he feel regret? I didn’t get definitive answers when watching the movie. I could have done without the awesome, yet pointless, General Grievous… and more character development.

quote:

Originally posted by keitht7:
Also, on a side not, Lucas did try to give some personalities to his characters later on. Commander Cody for instance. I think this is ther stupidest thing ever, but this guys seems to think that it was on the right track.

I agree. Commander Cody’s character (damn him for having my name) felt awkward… because if a movie is not focusing on character development, why even bother giving screen time to a character of ill importance… in the “grand” scheme of things. However, Lucas was on the right track with the idea of focusing on characters… for an opera, but he had a brain fart and forgot that he was making the new prequel trilogy and character development isn’t that important when making an epic movie. Then again, it could have all been about marketing a new action figure... who knows. ;-)

EDIT: Wait a minute… Temuera Morrison played Commander Cody… and also played Jango Fett; meaning Commander Cody is a clone of Jango. I can hardly remember the details of Revenge of the Sith… what was Commander Cody’s significance in the war again? I mean, what is the impact of a clone in Commander Cody’s military position? Forgive my ignorance. Did Commander Cody have anything to do with Order 66? (Some may think I'm contradicting myself with my facination for the story behind the new prequels... as I said, I love the overall story, but the execution sucked.)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Echolocating,

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:
Secondly he's become so enamored with technology, he's forgotten how to make a good film. Despite the advancements in CGI over the past 20 years, those old films still look a lot more real to me. ROTS looked like exactly what it was-- some actors standing in front of a green screen.

Here’s a quote from an interview with Michael Bay in Entertainment Weekly regarding a meeting with Ewan McGregor for the leading male role in The Island. It paints a quick, yet disturbing, picture of George’s fascination with computer graphics.

quote:

“The first question Ewan had was ‘Do you do a lot of bluescreen?’” says Bay. “And I said, ‘What? You a little tired of George?’” McGregor laughed at the Star Wars reference and the two quickly hit it off.

I don’t know… even Ewan had to admit that George was a little too CG crazy in his latest trilogy. ;-)

Many noteworthy directors always comment on the effectiveness of real sets and the better performances gained through acting with real physical characters and set pieces. When there are no distinguishable people in a shot, CG is great, but George thinks otherwise… and took it to the extreme.

Good comment, ericg75. ;-)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Echolocating,

quote:

Originally posted by Cody K.:
I don’t know… Peter Cushing looked so serious and evil. His desire to stop the Rebels at any cost was very believable. McDiarmid reduced the potentially morally savage Emperor to a cackling old lunatic. Strangely enough, I didn’t mind Ian’s performance, but only when compared to the rest of the cast. He still overacted his part… much to George’s delight.

He did and I really like Peter Cushing and thought he did a great job. To be honest, cackling aside, I loved McDiarmid. He tended to overact a little too much in the prequels, but I definitely liked the scenes in which he would slow the meter of his voice and we could really see the emperor coming out. I loved the OT emperor though. "Oh..I'm afraid this battle station will be quite operational when your friends arrive." Was probably one of my favorite lines and He really was truely evil with his laughing while Vader and Luke fought and you know, he had to just see visions of Obi-Wan vs. Anakin.
For me, I actually thought that the emperor was a very morally insane man. You saw the greed that he had and his plans all along, and him manipulating Anakin really was done well. He takes him under his wing and used him. One of my favorite parts was when Mace Windu had cornered Palpatine and he was saying, "Oh, don't kill me" he kept taking quick glances at Anakin almost as if to see if his role-playing was working. While I didn't love ROTS that much, this was just a brilliant scene.

quote:

Originally posted by Cody K.:
Yup, I agree… but he doesn’t dispute the story. You liked the organizations and grand politics. He, like me, wanted to care about the characters, but he couldn’t because the movie was “epic” and not “opera”. He believes Lucas does space opera wonderfully (original trilogy), but doesn’t know how to deliver space epics (prequel trilogy). The new prequels could have told the same story, but as an opera, and the movie would have been much better. This, I believe, is his opinion… and I agree with him. I think that’s why I focused on the character acting as a main problem with the new movies, but the idea of “epic” vs. “opera” was something that I hadn’t thought of… and now, I agree with that opinion because it better fleshes out the core area I was most disappointed with. That being, I couldn’t bring myself to care even remotely for any of the characters in Revenge of the Sith, but I did enjoy the story.

Every Star Wars fan loves the story. I’ve said it before, George Lucas has an amazingly vivid imagination. However, the new prequels are too much about the grand story and fail to acknowledge the individual characters. For example, was Obi-Wan heart-broken that Anakin turned to the Dark Side? Were Obi-Wan and Anakin really all that good of friends? Did he really question his choice to honor Qui-Gon’s request to train Anakin? Did he feel regret? I didn’t get definitive answers when watching the movie. I could have done without the awesome, yet pointless, General Grievous… and more character development.

You make an interesting distinction and I understand what you are saying. I do indeed love the characters, but I thought that just in the same way that the characters in the OT emphasized Rebels vs. Empire, the orginizations in the prequels really help to define the way that the characters are developed. Things like the Jedi being against Anakin and Padme, the senate losing power, the CIS being a tool to appoint Palpatine. Honestly, my mouth started watering when I saw the end of AOTC and Dooku tells Palpatine that it has been started, because I knew exactly what was happening.

quote:

Originally posted by Cody K.:
I agree. Commander Cody’s character (damn him for having my name) felt awkward… because if a movie is not focusing on character development, why even bother giving screen time to a character of ill importance… in the “grand” scheme of things. However, Lucas was on the right track with the idea of focusing on characters… for an opera, but he had a brain fart and forgot that he was making the new prequel trilogy and character development isn’t that important when making an epic movie. Then again, it could have all been about marketing a new action figure... who knows. ;-)

EDIT: Wait a minute… Temuera Morrison played Commander Cody… and also played Jango Fett; meaning Commander Cody is a clone of Jango. I can hardly remember the details of Revenge of the Sith… what was Commander Cody’s significance in the war again? I mean, what is the impact of a clone in Commander Cody’s military position? Forgive my ignorance. Did Commander Cody have anything to do with Order 66? (Some may think I'm contradicting myself with my facination for the story behind the new prequels... as I said, I love the overall story, but the execution sucked.)

Commander Cody was just the clone commander that was fighting with Obi-Wan on Mustafar. This is exceedingly stupid, because why is he the onl clone with a name? Why do they name clones, it doesn't make any sense to me. It raises far too many questions. Also the issue of seeing his face was a big one to me. You never saw the face of the stormtroopers and I think it made them much more menacing. I think having a bunch of clones with all the same uniforms on would have been scarier. And why Cody? Seems like a blatant ripoff of Commander Cody and teh Lost Planet Airmen, either the book or the band. Idiot, Lucas, idiot.

Okay if you want to attack episode 1 and 2 i have no defense, but in my opinon lucas redeems himself with this final installment. You can set and nickpick at this movie all day and i admit it has its flaws, but for it even to be mentioned as one of the worst films of the year is sickning. You were probably saying hey i know what why not start a huge debate and post star wars episode 3 as one of the worst films of the year. It dosent even come close. For the record im not a fanboy! This is a good may i even say borderline great film and i believe the best in the series behind empire of course.

I’m glad you admit that Episode I and II are terrible movies, but with this third installment… nothing really changed. The only redeeming quality that this movie has is the birth of our most beloved villain, Darth Vader… and even that was a laughable.

You raise a valid point though… is it the worst film of the year? In my opinion, yes. I tend to read movie reviews first and partake based off of friends’ recommendations… and out of all the movies I’ve seen in 2005, this was the worst one (and by far the most disappointing).

My wife and I, without a word of a lie, almost walked out. We’ve never had that desire to do so in a movie theatre before. This movie was so anticlimactic in it’s delivery and entirety.

With that said, am I not entitled to nominate this movie as the worst of 2005?

quote:

Originally posted by SOUTHPARKCURT:
You were probably saying hey i know what why not start a huge debate and post star wars episode 3 as one of the worst films of the year

Way to add fuel to the fire, dude. ;-)

Interesting points cody. I almost agree. I liked both of them. They weren't great, but I like them for what they are. Same thing with 3, but you make an excellent point about the redeeming quality here that really kept people going back.

Anyone saying "this was the best movie I've ever seen" (of which I have seen a few) should be shot.

I own the Episode I and II DVDs… and I’ve only watched them once. Why would I buy them if they were so horrible? I’m a Star Wars freak, I guess. I love Star Wars. I want to marry Star Wars. There, I said it.

One could easily argue that Episode III isn’t the worst movie of the year, but I’ll probably never be able to unequivocally say that. Why? Because I don’t go out of my way to watch bad movies. I won’t ever see Son of the Mask. I’ll never pay any money to see the new Deuce Bigalow. Dark Water? What’s that… a movie or something? The worst movie I’ve ever watched was Space Truckers… and it was so bad, it was good.

Like I said earlier in this thread… forget that this is a Star Wars movie. Forget how cool Boba Fett is and how we’ve all wondered how the one, who was to bring balance to the force, was corrupted and manipulated by the Dark Side. Instead… grade this movie on its merits as… a movie. Was the character development good? How about the camera work? What about the acting and dialog? How was the pacing and editing? Was the plot solid? Were the elements that grabbed the most screen time, really important to the story?

When I think with my “Star Wars” hat on I think the movie was okay. When I take that hat off… it’s a really bad movie. Does that make sense? That’s the only way I can describe how I feel about this film. It’s a ridiculously bad movie, in my opinion… but it’s Star Wars and most of us like Star Wars a lot. Thus, there in lies the difficulty in critiquing this movie. We all liked it before the first day of shooting even started.

quote:

Originally posted by keitht7:
Anyone saying "this was the best movie I've ever seen" (of which I have seen a few) should be shot.

Unfortunately, there isn't enough bullets in the world. We'll have to hold a Star Wars convention somewhere really far away... and when enough geeks attend, we'll nuke the place. ;-)

I don't know if it's necessarily the worst film of the year, but it's damn close. I could not believe the reviews that this movie received, and often wondered if the critics were watching Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith or Million Dollar Baby, because if the former were anywhere near as good as the latter, we wouldn't be having this conversation...

Anyhow, things that make III horrible include:

1) Hayden Christiensen-like Jake Lloyd the absolutely wrong choice to portray this character and, like Lloyd, absolutely excrutiatingly horrible to watch. "Is it possible for a Jedi to learn this power?" What power, Mr. Christiensen? The power to make us all fall asleep; while simultaneously literally and figuratively sucking a beach ball through a coffee straw?

2)Not Caring When Important Characters Die-a strange phenomenon that began when Liam Neeson died in The Phantom Menace and here, where Natalie Portman dies. Actually, both of their deaths were a welcome relief.

3)The Droid With AIDS- What the hell was that stupid thing that coughed and cackled all the time, and had all those light sabers? He looked like some dude with AIDS in a bathrobe walking around sick or something. Who the fuck thought up this shit?

Yes, it sucked. It really really sucked.

But it did lead to one of my favourite pieces of film criticism of the year: the Anthony Lane review in the New Yorker. I especially loved his "prize for the least speakable burst of dialogue", which he describes as having grown into "a fiercely contested tradition" over six Star Wars films, before acknowledging "Sith"'s clear-cut winner:

"You're so beautiful."
“That’s only because I’m so in love.”
"No, it’s because I’m so in love with you."

"For a moment," comments Lane, "it looks as if they might bat this one back and forth forever, like a baseline rally on a clay court."

Hehehe. It still makes me chuckle.

I haven't really liked any of the three recent STAR BORES films, but I thought this one was the best of the recent three. The previous one, with that horrible performance by Hayden Christensen, was the nadir as far as I am concerned.