Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Valkyrie (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Bringing historical films to the screen can be a challenge for a number of reasons. First, the filmmakers often have to condense events that happened over several weeks and months down to a two to three hour format. Secondly, holding the audience can be tricky especially when it covers an event where the outcome is well known. The final and perhaps most important obstacle is that of casting. For every George C. Scott who nailed the iconic figure of Patton there are countless others that have to be kind, not been up to the task.
Such is the case with the new World War II drama “Valkyrie” which follows a group of Nazi officers who plotted to kill Hitler and end the war. The film stars Tom Cruise as Colonel Claus Von Stauffenberg, a respected officer who is recruited into a conspiracy of high ranking Nazis and other officials who plan to end the war by killing Hitler.
The film concentrates on Von Stauffenberg’s attempt to recruit others into the plan as he attempts to devise the best way for he and his fellow conspirators to carry out their plan and in doing so, keeping suspicions of themselves. This is no easy task as not only must they make sure that only people whom they trust to be likeminded or sympathetic to their objectives can be difficult as the simple mention of their intentions is treason and would result in all of them being put to death.
The plan is named Valkyrie after a policy that was put in place to restore order should anything catastrophic happen. A unit under the command of General Friedrich Fromm (Tom Wilkiknson) would be dispatched to secure vital locales. This is key to Von Stauffenberg’s plan as he realizes that should their plan succeed, they will have to work quickly to round up the S.S. and install a new government before anyone else could. The S.S. would be accused of starting the coup, and with them and Hitler out of the picture it is assumed they will soon have complete control of the country.
As the film unfolds with amazingly very little tension I started to note at how badly out of his league Cruise is especially during his scenes with Terrance Stamp, Bill Nighy and Kenneth Branagh. Director Bryan Singer does a good job establishing the look and tone of the film, but sadly the film never really builds tension. Once again the issues fall on Cruise who is so utterly out of place that you would swear that he was playing himself. The cast refrains from any German accents which was supposedly at the request of Singer, but sadly this only further alienates Cruise from the mostly European cast. His Von Stauffenberg is a very bland character who has a wife and children, but aside from that we learn little about him as a person and how he came to take the steps he did. Many people were unhappy with Hitler and there were many prior attempts on his life, but we learn little more than a desire to preserve Germany. I also would have liked to get more back story on his fellow conspirators as Von Stauffenberg most surely did not act alone in life and in the film.
As it stands the numerous release delays underscore that what was a good idea quickly becomes weighed down by Cruise and a script from Oscar winner Christopher McQuarrie (who wrote the amazing “The Usual Suspects”)that plays a bit too loose with historical events for my taste.
Such is the case with the new World War II drama “Valkyrie” which follows a group of Nazi officers who plotted to kill Hitler and end the war. The film stars Tom Cruise as Colonel Claus Von Stauffenberg, a respected officer who is recruited into a conspiracy of high ranking Nazis and other officials who plan to end the war by killing Hitler.
The film concentrates on Von Stauffenberg’s attempt to recruit others into the plan as he attempts to devise the best way for he and his fellow conspirators to carry out their plan and in doing so, keeping suspicions of themselves. This is no easy task as not only must they make sure that only people whom they trust to be likeminded or sympathetic to their objectives can be difficult as the simple mention of their intentions is treason and would result in all of them being put to death.
The plan is named Valkyrie after a policy that was put in place to restore order should anything catastrophic happen. A unit under the command of General Friedrich Fromm (Tom Wilkiknson) would be dispatched to secure vital locales. This is key to Von Stauffenberg’s plan as he realizes that should their plan succeed, they will have to work quickly to round up the S.S. and install a new government before anyone else could. The S.S. would be accused of starting the coup, and with them and Hitler out of the picture it is assumed they will soon have complete control of the country.
As the film unfolds with amazingly very little tension I started to note at how badly out of his league Cruise is especially during his scenes with Terrance Stamp, Bill Nighy and Kenneth Branagh. Director Bryan Singer does a good job establishing the look and tone of the film, but sadly the film never really builds tension. Once again the issues fall on Cruise who is so utterly out of place that you would swear that he was playing himself. The cast refrains from any German accents which was supposedly at the request of Singer, but sadly this only further alienates Cruise from the mostly European cast. His Von Stauffenberg is a very bland character who has a wife and children, but aside from that we learn little about him as a person and how he came to take the steps he did. Many people were unhappy with Hitler and there were many prior attempts on his life, but we learn little more than a desire to preserve Germany. I also would have liked to get more back story on his fellow conspirators as Von Stauffenberg most surely did not act alone in life and in the film.
As it stands the numerous release delays underscore that what was a good idea quickly becomes weighed down by Cruise and a script from Oscar winner Christopher McQuarrie (who wrote the amazing “The Usual Suspects”)that plays a bit too loose with historical events for my taste.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Darkest Hour (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Not buggering it up.
As Doctor Who repeatedly points out, time is most definitely a tricksy thing. As I think I’ve commented on before, the events of 1940-45 are not in my lifetime but were sufficiently fresh to my parents that they were still actively talked about… so they still appear “current” to me. But I find it astonishing to realize that to a teen viewer this film is equivalent in timeframe to the sinking of the Titanic! #ancienthistory! So I suspect your connection to this film will be strongly affected by your age, and that was definitely reflected in the average age at my showing which must have been at least 60.
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
Becs (244 KP) rated The Crucible in Books
Oct 2, 2019
I absolutely love Arthur Miller and anything regarding witches/ the Salem Trials. So, the crucible for me is a five-star novel. Can we just take a moment to admire the writers of the 50’s and older as they don’t seem to be getting much hype lately? Like, literary classics are deemed school reads and not your typical everyday read. THIS NEEDS TO CHANGE.
Reading these in school and then giving them a reread five years after graduating, has shown a new light onto these novels. And has made me appreciate them more as a whole compared to when I read them in high school. If you haven’t read many literary classics, I recommend starting with something by Arthur Miller or George Orwell. Yes, they may be a bit hard to get into at first, but give it time. That’s the key when reading any book!
The Crucible by Arthur Miller
Genre: Literary Classic, Historical Fiction, Plays, Drama
Synopsis: “I believe that the reader will discover here the essential nature of one of the strangest and most awful chapters in human history,” Arthur Miller wrote of his classic play about the witch-hunts and trials in seventeenth-century Salem, Massachusetts. Based on historical people and real events, Miller’s drama is a searing portrait of a community engulfed by hysteria. In the rigid theocracy of Salem, rumors that women are practicing witchcraft galvanize the town’s most basic fears and suspicions; and when a young girl accuses Elizabeth Proctor of being a witch, self-righteous church leaders and townspeople insist that Elizabeth be brought to trial. The ruthlessness of the prosecutors and the eagerness of neighbor to testify against neighbor brilliantly illuminate the destructive power of socially sanctioned violence.
Written in 1953, The Crucible is a mirror Miller uses to reflect the anti-communist hysteria inspired by Senator Joseph McCarthy’s “witch-hunts” in the United States. Within the text itself, Miller contemplates the parallels, writing, “Political opposition… is given an inhumane overlay, which then justifies the abrogation of all normally applied customs of civilized behavior. A political policy is equated with moral right, and opposition to it with diabolical malevolence.”
WIth an introduction by Christopher Bigsby.
Audience/ Reading Level: High School +
Interests: Plays, Drama, Witches, the Salem Trials, Arthur Miller, Literary Classics.
Point of View: Third Person Omniscient
Difficulty Reading: With every literary classic, you run into the problem of the first 30% of the novel being a bore or hard to get into. The Crucible was only a bore in parts but taking the novel as a whole, it was a pretty easy read.
Promise: “I believe that the reader will discover here the essential nature of one of the strangest and most awful chapters in human history.”
Insights: The Crucible is based on true events and Arthur Miller has a way of explaining everything that was wrong with the way people lived. I.E. Woman did not have rights until the early 1920’s. This didn’t stop some countries/states to still not allow the woman to have rights. But taking The Crucible into perspective, the women that were charged with witchcraft were unable to explain themselves to the men. The men believed the accusers either because they were sleeping with them or because they were their family. Luckily, nowadays we don’t have this extreme of situations but it still does exist. The Crucible teaches all of its readers, young or old, many valuable lessons that are sometimes hard to witness. Plus, Miller correlates the events in the Crucible to the anti-communist McCarthyism of the 1950s.
Favorite Quotes: “I speak my own sins; I cannot judge another. I have no tongue for it.”
“Because it is my name! Because I cannot have another in my life! Because I lie and sign myself to lies! Because I am not worth the dust on the feet of them that hang! How may I live without my name? I have given you my soul; leave me my name!”
“You are pulling down heaven and raising up a whore”
What will you gain: A love for another literary classic and a love for Arthur Miller if you do not already love his writing. Plus, a great historical read.
Aesthetics: The witches, the trials, the way people take sides, I mean I can’t say much more without giving spoilers away. We wouldn’t want that, now would we?
“It is rare for people to be asked the question which puts them squarely in front of themselves”
Reading these in school and then giving them a reread five years after graduating, has shown a new light onto these novels. And has made me appreciate them more as a whole compared to when I read them in high school. If you haven’t read many literary classics, I recommend starting with something by Arthur Miller or George Orwell. Yes, they may be a bit hard to get into at first, but give it time. That’s the key when reading any book!
The Crucible by Arthur Miller
Genre: Literary Classic, Historical Fiction, Plays, Drama
Synopsis: “I believe that the reader will discover here the essential nature of one of the strangest and most awful chapters in human history,” Arthur Miller wrote of his classic play about the witch-hunts and trials in seventeenth-century Salem, Massachusetts. Based on historical people and real events, Miller’s drama is a searing portrait of a community engulfed by hysteria. In the rigid theocracy of Salem, rumors that women are practicing witchcraft galvanize the town’s most basic fears and suspicions; and when a young girl accuses Elizabeth Proctor of being a witch, self-righteous church leaders and townspeople insist that Elizabeth be brought to trial. The ruthlessness of the prosecutors and the eagerness of neighbor to testify against neighbor brilliantly illuminate the destructive power of socially sanctioned violence.
Written in 1953, The Crucible is a mirror Miller uses to reflect the anti-communist hysteria inspired by Senator Joseph McCarthy’s “witch-hunts” in the United States. Within the text itself, Miller contemplates the parallels, writing, “Political opposition… is given an inhumane overlay, which then justifies the abrogation of all normally applied customs of civilized behavior. A political policy is equated with moral right, and opposition to it with diabolical malevolence.”
WIth an introduction by Christopher Bigsby.
Audience/ Reading Level: High School +
Interests: Plays, Drama, Witches, the Salem Trials, Arthur Miller, Literary Classics.
Point of View: Third Person Omniscient
Difficulty Reading: With every literary classic, you run into the problem of the first 30% of the novel being a bore or hard to get into. The Crucible was only a bore in parts but taking the novel as a whole, it was a pretty easy read.
Promise: “I believe that the reader will discover here the essential nature of one of the strangest and most awful chapters in human history.”
Insights: The Crucible is based on true events and Arthur Miller has a way of explaining everything that was wrong with the way people lived. I.E. Woman did not have rights until the early 1920’s. This didn’t stop some countries/states to still not allow the woman to have rights. But taking The Crucible into perspective, the women that were charged with witchcraft were unable to explain themselves to the men. The men believed the accusers either because they were sleeping with them or because they were their family. Luckily, nowadays we don’t have this extreme of situations but it still does exist. The Crucible teaches all of its readers, young or old, many valuable lessons that are sometimes hard to witness. Plus, Miller correlates the events in the Crucible to the anti-communist McCarthyism of the 1950s.
Favorite Quotes: “I speak my own sins; I cannot judge another. I have no tongue for it.”
“Because it is my name! Because I cannot have another in my life! Because I lie and sign myself to lies! Because I am not worth the dust on the feet of them that hang! How may I live without my name? I have given you my soul; leave me my name!”
“You are pulling down heaven and raising up a whore”
What will you gain: A love for another literary classic and a love for Arthur Miller if you do not already love his writing. Plus, a great historical read.
Aesthetics: The witches, the trials, the way people take sides, I mean I can’t say much more without giving spoilers away. We wouldn’t want that, now would we?
“It is rare for people to be asked the question which puts them squarely in front of themselves”
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
After three long years of waiting, countless internet rumors, and high expectations, the final big screen Star Wars film, Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith has arrived to the delight of millions of fans worldwide.
The lavish and dark film chronicles the fall of the Republic, the demise of the Jedi Knights, and the creation of Darth Vader amongst several plotlines that complete the Prequel Trilogy.
While many critics and fans had mixed reactions to the previous films in the Prequel Trilogy, the rumors of a much darker more mature Star Wars had even the most jaded curious to see just how dark creator George Lucas was willing to go.
The film opens with the familiar main theme by John Williams and the scrolling text that updates the viewers that the Clone Wars that started at the end of the last film are still raging, and that the Separatist movement under the leadership of Count Dooku (Christopher Lee), have kidnapped the Chancellor of the Republic (Ian Mc Diarmid), and a desperate battle over the capitol planet of Coruscant has ensued.
In a dazzling blend of colors, action, and motion, two fighters piloted by Obi Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor), and Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen), weave in and around countless fighters and capitol ships engaged in deadly combat. To say that it is an overwhelming visual display would be an understatement, as it is simply jaw dropping to see the detail that the magicians at Industrial Light and Magic have crafted.
Obi Wan and Anakin are spearheading the rescue effort that eventually puts them not only against Dooku, but the new villain, the deadly cyborg General Grevious and this is all within the first 15 minutes of the film.
Upon returning the Chancellor to Coruscant, Anakin is greeted by his wife in secret, Padme, (Natalie Portman), who informs him that she is expecting their baby.
Overjoyed by the news, and to be home after many long months away fighting, Anakin as if in a true Shakespearean tragedy proclaims that he has never been happier in his life.
Anakin’s peace is soon disrupted as he begins to have visions of his wife dying in childbirth, since these are the same type of visions Anakin had shortly before the death of his mother years earlier, he becomes obsessed with protecting his wife.
As further political intrigue unfolds, Chancellor Palpatine appoints Anakin to be his representative on the Jedi Council in a move that does nor sit well with the Jedi Elite, especially Mace Windu (Samuel L. Jackson), who begrudgingly accepts the appointment but does not bestow the title of Master upon Anakin causing further friction for the emotional Anakin.
It seems that the Jedi do not trust Palpatine and are convinced he is up to something, and will not relinquish his emergency powers that were granted to him during the war.. Towards this end, The Jedi Council tasks Anakin to spy on his friend the Chancellor and report what he has learned to the council.
This in turn causes much conflict in Anakin as he is torn between his duty as a Jedi and his friendship with the Chancellor. Since Obi Wan has been dispatched to hunt down General Grevious, Anakin is without his usually confidant and mentor leaving Palpatine to influence Anakin and turn him toward fateful decisions that will eventually change the course of the galaxy.
While filled with plenty of political intrigue, and dazzling action sequences, what drives this film is the gripping, human drama of the characters. While the viewers know what is to become of Anakin, seeing the path he takes is what makes this film a true tragedy as he does what he does for noble reasons. In a true Faustian tale, the devil does not reveal himself nor his true intentions until it is already well past the point of no return.
Lucas is careful to show Anakin as a sympathetic and loving person, who has matured from the spoiled character that he was in the last film. While at times the dialogue of the film may seem to some to be very basic, the tragic turn of events in the film helps to underscore the central themes of love, friendship, and betrayal.
The supporting work in the film is solid, especially the emotionally packed work of Mc Gregor and the maniacal performance of Mc Diarmid. My only real regret is that Portman did not have a larger role or more for her character to do, that being said, the film works on all levels.
Visually the film is amazing as the exotic locales, action, and computer generated characters such as Yoda and Grevious are a marvel to behold. It is amazing how much technology has advanced since the last film, but once again, Lucas has set the bar very high for others to follow.
Lucas has taken in my opinion some very undeserved criticism for the Prequel Trilogy, and Sith should dispel those who said that his best work was behind him and that he should have turned the directing duties over to another as this film once again underscores that he is one of the most gifted visionaries ever, and has created the ultimate saga for the ages that is second to none, and one that has and will stand the test of time.
Sith is a riveting and emotional film, that holds nothing back, it is the darkest Star Wars yet and is easily the best of the Prequel trilogy and on par with any of the classic originals, and is a true masterpiece that will delight fans old and new.
The lavish and dark film chronicles the fall of the Republic, the demise of the Jedi Knights, and the creation of Darth Vader amongst several plotlines that complete the Prequel Trilogy.
While many critics and fans had mixed reactions to the previous films in the Prequel Trilogy, the rumors of a much darker more mature Star Wars had even the most jaded curious to see just how dark creator George Lucas was willing to go.
The film opens with the familiar main theme by John Williams and the scrolling text that updates the viewers that the Clone Wars that started at the end of the last film are still raging, and that the Separatist movement under the leadership of Count Dooku (Christopher Lee), have kidnapped the Chancellor of the Republic (Ian Mc Diarmid), and a desperate battle over the capitol planet of Coruscant has ensued.
In a dazzling blend of colors, action, and motion, two fighters piloted by Obi Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor), and Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen), weave in and around countless fighters and capitol ships engaged in deadly combat. To say that it is an overwhelming visual display would be an understatement, as it is simply jaw dropping to see the detail that the magicians at Industrial Light and Magic have crafted.
Obi Wan and Anakin are spearheading the rescue effort that eventually puts them not only against Dooku, but the new villain, the deadly cyborg General Grevious and this is all within the first 15 minutes of the film.
Upon returning the Chancellor to Coruscant, Anakin is greeted by his wife in secret, Padme, (Natalie Portman), who informs him that she is expecting their baby.
Overjoyed by the news, and to be home after many long months away fighting, Anakin as if in a true Shakespearean tragedy proclaims that he has never been happier in his life.
Anakin’s peace is soon disrupted as he begins to have visions of his wife dying in childbirth, since these are the same type of visions Anakin had shortly before the death of his mother years earlier, he becomes obsessed with protecting his wife.
As further political intrigue unfolds, Chancellor Palpatine appoints Anakin to be his representative on the Jedi Council in a move that does nor sit well with the Jedi Elite, especially Mace Windu (Samuel L. Jackson), who begrudgingly accepts the appointment but does not bestow the title of Master upon Anakin causing further friction for the emotional Anakin.
It seems that the Jedi do not trust Palpatine and are convinced he is up to something, and will not relinquish his emergency powers that were granted to him during the war.. Towards this end, The Jedi Council tasks Anakin to spy on his friend the Chancellor and report what he has learned to the council.
This in turn causes much conflict in Anakin as he is torn between his duty as a Jedi and his friendship with the Chancellor. Since Obi Wan has been dispatched to hunt down General Grevious, Anakin is without his usually confidant and mentor leaving Palpatine to influence Anakin and turn him toward fateful decisions that will eventually change the course of the galaxy.
While filled with plenty of political intrigue, and dazzling action sequences, what drives this film is the gripping, human drama of the characters. While the viewers know what is to become of Anakin, seeing the path he takes is what makes this film a true tragedy as he does what he does for noble reasons. In a true Faustian tale, the devil does not reveal himself nor his true intentions until it is already well past the point of no return.
Lucas is careful to show Anakin as a sympathetic and loving person, who has matured from the spoiled character that he was in the last film. While at times the dialogue of the film may seem to some to be very basic, the tragic turn of events in the film helps to underscore the central themes of love, friendship, and betrayal.
The supporting work in the film is solid, especially the emotionally packed work of Mc Gregor and the maniacal performance of Mc Diarmid. My only real regret is that Portman did not have a larger role or more for her character to do, that being said, the film works on all levels.
Visually the film is amazing as the exotic locales, action, and computer generated characters such as Yoda and Grevious are a marvel to behold. It is amazing how much technology has advanced since the last film, but once again, Lucas has set the bar very high for others to follow.
Lucas has taken in my opinion some very undeserved criticism for the Prequel Trilogy, and Sith should dispel those who said that his best work was behind him and that he should have turned the directing duties over to another as this film once again underscores that he is one of the most gifted visionaries ever, and has created the ultimate saga for the ages that is second to none, and one that has and will stand the test of time.
Sith is a riveting and emotional film, that holds nothing back, it is the darkest Star Wars yet and is easily the best of the Prequel trilogy and on par with any of the classic originals, and is a true masterpiece that will delight fans old and new.