2. digital
  3. 1023161113

Attack of the Clones

I haven't been to a movie theatre in quite awhile. With 30K tied up in Home Theatre equipment what's the point? Crappy picture and terrible sound I think I'll pass.

But wait! What's this in the local paper? They've just opened up a new digital theatre just thirty minutes from my house and STAR WARS II is the feature presentation. Some buddy pinch me, this can't be happening.

What to do, what to do, ARE YOU KIDDING??? I love Star wars. This is actually a no brainier.

Fast forward three minutes later. I'm on the computer printing out two tickets for the next show (Smart move) Next drive to and arrive at said theatre 1 1/2 hours early (real smart move)

The lines were just starting to form for the Sunday mourning matinee. By the time the box opened an hour later the line was clear out of the parking lot.

The doors open with twenty minutes till Showtime. Everyone is jockeying for position, but I'm no rookie, I head straight for the center of the theatre at a rapidly accelerated pace. I position myself just slightly back of dead center and perfectly centered left to right. (YOU KNOW THE SWEET SPOT!) In my opinion I was now sitting in the best seat in the house (Phase two accomplished).

The lights dim and here come the digital trailers. THE MATRIX II, AUSTIN POWERS III and MEN IN BLACK II. That in itself was nearly worth the price of admission.

The next three hours were shear ecstasy. I was in total awe. A crystal clear digital video picture with fairly decent digital sound, what a concept. All I could think was " I got to get me one of these!!"

Finally a theatre I can enjoy a movie in. This will probably be the only theatre I ever go to until a few more digital screens pop up around my hometown.

I conclude by saying check out one of these theatres at any cost, it will be well worth the time and effort invested.

That's all for now and may the Shwarts be with you!!!
128x128glen

Showing 8 responses by sugarbrie

sugarbrie
3,854 posts
 
The current movie is facinating to watch because it is actually a cartoon with real actors inserted. The reverse of Roger Rabbit.
sugarbrie
3,854 posts
 
All a theater needs to do is get a digital projector, assuming they already have the digital sound system. A theater in Fairfax, VA just bought one and is featuring Star Wars II also.
sugarbrie
3,854 posts
 
I will agree that Star Wars I & II could have been better. Lucas should have hired an outside director and spent his time just on technical issues. Lucas seems to direct the actors so they fit into the special effects, instead of pushing for good acting scenes, and then tailoring the special effects to fit the actors.

I also agree with Ben that it is just a fun movie and not meant to be Citizen Kane II. I remember similar bad reviews of The Matrix. The makers of The Matrix were lovers of kung fu movies and action hero sci-fi comic books. They wanted to bring the feel of those comic books to the big screen using real actors instead of the usual animation. Some reviewers who trashed the film were looking for some "deeper meaning".

Back then I got a chuckle reading a couple bad reviews of The Matrix, where the reviewer actually said it felt like a comic book thinking their comment was not a compliment; when of course it meant the filmakers succeeded.

sugarbrie
3,854 posts
 
Latest opinion of readers of Roger Ebert's online review of digital (which he liked).


http://www.suntimes.com/output/answ-man/sho-sunday-ebert02.html

sugarbrie
3,854 posts
 
Yoda is a developed character. We know him and understand him. Frank Oz brought him to life. Yoda was a muppet up until the current film.

The Jedi played by Samuel T. Jackson for example is just a prop. Even Jar Jar Binks has more going for him than poor Jackson's character. Natalie Portman's character is unknown also. She is Luke and Leia's mom; other than that she has no soul.

Don' get me wrong, I like the films. But as I said before, simply putting the actors and characters before the special effects would have made a world of difference. This is not hard. It just requires a real film director.

Saying Star Wars II is a kids film and we grew up is a cop out. "Babe" is a kids film with real characters (human and animal), that adults can all identify with and love. It can be done.

sugarbrie
3,854 posts
 
Note the actors getting most of the praise are all the British actors, not the Americans. Roger Ebert has commented on this. The British school of acting is to work from the outside in. The British actors are able to invent and force a persona on a character they are going to play. The American school works from the inside out. Since Lucas has not given the characters much of a soul or motivation, the American actors are totally lost; there is no character to develop; where as the British actors know basically what there character is (bad, good, evil, naive, strong, weak, etc), so they just invent a character.

This is one of the reasons why the producers of the Harry Potter movie insisted on having an entire cast of British and British trained actors.

sugarbrie
3,854 posts
 
Ben, I am just passing on Roger Ebert's comments from the Sun Times. Roger comments have no relation at all as to why Lucas chose which actors. It had to do with why in Roger's opinion it seemed that the British schooled actors faired very well as far as their performance in the picture; while the American schooled actors generally came across flat.

To repeat: The american school teaches actors to feel like the character feels inside; and to try to become them and project that out. Not given much to feel inside to project out by the script and the direction, they all generally seemed flat and wooden.

sugarbrie
3,854 posts
 
I liked the film as I said before. It was about as I thought it would be.

I guess the best example of what Roger Ebert was talking about is Samuel T. Jackson (an experience American actor). I can think a dozens of movies where he brings interesting characters to life including the recent "Changing Lanes" and "The Caveman's Valentine". In this movie he is just a prop reciting lines to advance the plot. He was given nothing by Lucas to work with, so he looks lost in the film. I don't think those older British actors were given any more material to work with than Jackson, but their different experience and training enabled them to just "wing-it" or make it up better.

I am back to the wishing that a creative and inventive director was hired who could have filled in the blanks. I think it is no accident that the best of the Star Wars films is "Empire", where an outside director was hired and then "Return". Lucas directed the first movie, but that was at a time when he was an active working director and todays computer special effects were in their beginnings. I think "Phantom" was the first film he directed since Star Wars (a 12 year lay off). Since he originally had no plans to finish the saga, he was basically retired from directing.

On the technical side of the business I think Lucas is a total genius; and is one of the fathers of computer effects along with Douglas Trumbell (2001, Close Encounters).

More to discover