Tuesday, May 17, 2005

Sith boom bah.

"The general opinion of Revenge of the Sith seems to be that it marks a distinct improvement on the last two episodes, The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones. True, but only in the same way that dying from natural causes is preferable to crucifixion."
--Anthony Lane, The New Yorker.

Postscript: Oh, how I love Metacritc Users and the wise 'n pithy things they write. "Dan R." disagreed with Anthony Lane's assessment of Sith. He gave the film a 9 out of 10 and commented: "Very good movie. Only problems were the acting and the script." I'm so relieved to hear that those are the film's only problems.

Postscript, the second: I feel compelled to point out that "Dan R." is no "G. Lee." G. got no love for the Punch-Drunk Love and and he wants the MetaUniverse to know:
"PT Anderson?" More like "PT Barnum". This movie proves that a sucker critic is born every minute. Punch Drunk Love is laughably pretentious excrement. It plays like Paul Thomas Anderson rented a ton of French movies and determined that they used icons and symbols to achieve depth. So he put meaningless icons and symbols in his movie, but forgot the depth. Half the theater was laughing AT the movie even before the film cut to floating colors for two minutes. There are great actors in this film, but they almost look embarrassed. The script is incompetent, the comedy is forced, the end result is a festering pile of faux-intellectual refuse.

Yes! Take that Barnum! (And stuff those symbols and icons while your at it.)


Post a Comment

<< Home