Friday, December 31, 2010

Plinkett reviews Revenge of the Sith

The latest excellent movie analysis from Red Letter Media. This time, it's more than 100 minutes on exactly why Revenge of the Sith is such a bad movie. The third segment makes the most interesting observations. (If you've never watched one of these, be forewarned, there's some very macabre humor.)

He also thanks Lucas for not ruining Han Solo by shoe-horning him into the film (like poor Chewbacca). And then he imagines what the young Han Solo action figure would have been:

(The babies are Luke and Leia.)

I would say the most disappointing aspect of Revenge of the Sith was that the design was so weak. I can't think of a single vehicle, character, or setting introduced in that movie that was special. In fact, Grievous was a tremendous disappointment after being so interesting in the Tartakovsky cartoons.

*Buy Polish Star Wars posters art eBay.


  1. If you watch the Star Wars movies in the order of their release it is a great metaphor for George Lucas' life. Starts out as a young idealistic filmmaker, ends up as semi-robotic machine. His father wanted him to be a businessman, not a movie guy, and he ends up a businessman not a movie guy. (stinky the hutt and Jar Jar pretty much show a powerpoint from the marketing department has the final say as to what goes in the movies as far as I can tell)

    The third movie was way weak on the idea end, but best of the prequels, and it would have blown people's minds out of their skulls if it was released in 1984.The irony is that as a privately owned company, he should be free to act as an artist, but instead allows the business end of stuff to wreck the art more than in a huge media conglomerate. fascinating stuff.

  2. revenge of the jedi was changed. Because a Jedi wouldn't seek revenge. Its not the Jedi way.