Posted on 05/06/2005 7:38:34 PM PDT by wallace144
I imagine that Revenge of the Sith is very much the film Lucas's fans want to see, but are some of them ready for an anti-Bush diatribe? Though every Star Wars film until now has existed in an insular comic-book world, a lot has happened since 1999 and 2002 in the real world and Lucas dares, for the first time, to address how the hollow political conflict in his franchise correlates with the reality outside its panels. (It would have been stupid not to strike a parallel.) Revenge of the Sith's two greatest moments tap into the uncertainty of our own political climate: the dazzling battle between Yoda and Darth Sidious (an outstanding Ian McDiarmid) inside the beautifully spiraling Senate hall evokes Democrats and Republicans scrambling for power and the with-us-or-against-us Anakin's obscenely over-the-top final duel with Obi-Wan (Ewan McGregor) is prefaced none-to-subtly with the Jedi master declaring, "Only a Sith deals in absolutes." Lucas's political gestures would be easier to appreciate if he himself didn't trade in absolutes and generalities (you know the drill: the darker the couture, the closer you are to the dark side), but it's still a welcome step forward. Pity we had to wait so long for it, but, as they say, better late than never.
(Excerpt) Read more at slantmagazine.com ...
my thoughts exactly.
Well, we could always play the "who is this character supposed to be" game. LOL!
They're just not That Big A Deal.
I have never seen any Star Wars movie and I never will. From the hundreds of clips I've seen over the last three decades, it appears to be geared for 10-year old boys. I never understood the big deal.
The remark about "absolutes" simply reflects Lucas's bogus-mysticism. Move on nothing to see here.
Your loss.
Actually Lucas did the same political message with his first three, but managed to make the Jedi so deadly dull in the process that Darth Vader was actually the most interesting (and often secretly admired) charactor in the first three movies.
ohfercryinoutloud.
we could easily say it is anti clinton in bosnia if it had come out in the 90's.
sometimes a cigar is a cigar.
LMAO, the Bush haters can't even attend a movie anymore without perceiving some ridiculous back-handed affirmation for their Bush hating mental illness?! It's a Sci Fi movie but they somehow have to incorporate their own sickness into the movie to feel better about themselves! How pathological are these people?? They go to a Star Wars movie and read into Lucas' hackneyed dialogue affirmation for their pathetic Bush hating mental illness?? Do their diseased minds even possess the capability of freeing themselves even for 2 hours from their roiling Bush hate?? Good gosh, get these people some therapy! I'll put it on my credit card!
That's okay. I'm not a 10 year old boy and I like them. But then there are probably movies that you like that I don't.
Agreed. This is dumb.
Oh come on.
Look at where this review comes from...Slant magazine. One of the most left-wing websites on the internet. Any movie that has a bad-guy in it is a allegory towards the Bush administration, according to Slant. This reviewer completely de-legitimizes his whole review with this garbage.
Lucas planned out the plot for Episode 30 years ago. If John Kerry had won in 2004, the plot for Revenge of the Sith would have been exactly the same. Would Mr. Gonzales still have written the same review, complaining about Kerry? Of course not.
I am a huge Star Wars fan, but like many people, I felt disappointed in the first and second prequels. This third prequel is getting rave reviews so far. It looks like George Lucas has redeemed himself. Give this new movie a try. It will remind you of the original trilogy.
I never woulda guessed that Dubya was such a badass Evil Sith master! Hope he meets up with Kim Jong Il and Osama and slices them in half with his lightsaber!
hmmm, perhaps he is one of those garage virgins whom "evil" shatner asked if they had ever kissed a girl. (old SNL skit)
Don't be so sure. I mean, I don't think that the movie as a whole will come across as identifiably anti-Bush; Lucas surely wouldn't risk pissing off an audience looking for nothing but a couple of hours of escapist entertainment by beating them over the head with his far-left San Francisco politics.
But I don't see how this one line of having a bad guy basically quote Bush word for word with the 'with us or against us' bit and having it rebutted by the good guy can't be taken as a small, but deliberate shot by the San Fran liberal against Bush. I mean, why use one of Bush's most famous quotes if this is not the intention?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.