Chen G.

It's not the kids. It's the director. The adult actors are also either laying it too thick, or are just bland. Yes, they sort of adapted into working with Chris Columbus between the two films, so they are a bit better.

Explanation is fine. Repetitions are not.

To me, its plain bad. Superman the Movie has a charming quality to it, but its such a long first act as it is. The rear projection looks atrocious, the villain is completely un-menacing, and the end is literally the definition of Deus Ex-Machina.

I suppose if you like the nostalgia and kid-film aspect of the first two films than they'd appeal to you more. To me, they're too jouvenile, too slow (Sorcerer's Stone at least has the excuse that its the first film) and horrendosly acted.

As for the score I'd need to take another look at it. Hadn't listened to the bloody thing in years. But the film? Yes, its darker than Sorcerer's Stone, but that's a very low bar to clear. In both films, I think Chris Colombus pulled his punches on material that was genuinely dark. Even when he tried to go along with it during the Basilisk sequence, he unintentionally mired it with repetitive exposition that saps all the tension from it.

Eh?!

Hey, I'm an academic. Splitting hairs is what I do. But the point that I'm getting at is that films aren't just about "likeable characters". Its about what avenues does the plot of the film push them into, emotionally.

What you're looking for isn't so much characters as much as it character development: The idea that a character evolves and undergoes a certain personality change throughout the ordeal that is the story of the film. The growth of the character evokes a sense of gratification in the audience. The greater the change - the bigger the arc. Rey, for instance, overcomes a certain insecurity that has to do with her abandoment on Jakku and this idea of her insistence on returning to that place. Spirituality in Star Wars is achieved when the characters' arcs are informed by the rules of the universe, namely the concept of The Force.

So, by "spirituality" you just mean "drama", than.

I don't know how much of the actual film does this permeate, and how much of it is the marketing making us think that's what the movie's centerpiece is about. I think Rian Johnson said (in response to some of the buzz of the first trailer) that he isn't going to dig too deep into the concept of The Force. Spirituality in films like this is always a very fine line to tread. Done wrong and it will be just demystifying.

That they did. Too bad its horse-excrement... How is a western audience supposed to relate to Yoda's advice to Anakin on the matter when all he essentially tells him about his visions is "oh, well. That's too bad."

Its freaking depressing, is what it is! Emiliana Torrini's interpretation is the absolute best.

Williams' principal themes are almost always long-lined and multifaceted ideas. Luke's theme has that opening fanfare (in the opening crawl), the very bold A-phrase and the more lyrical B-phrase. What's new is that where he approached female characters in Star Wars with romantic themes, here he scored Rey from the point of view of a grandfather.

Yeah. I think Yoda has a bit more weight in the fight. Its much more physical in terms of Yoda getting bashed and it does a good service to the character of Palpatine by having him defeat Yoda. The fight uses the environment (one of the oldest rules in the book) effectively, and it is much more based on The Force than on lightsabers, which is more fitting to those characters. And, unlike, the duel with Anakin, its concise. I'm not going to argue that its particularly good cinema, but once you move from the confines of three movies into six (or nine, in retrospect) you'd want to see the character of Yoda in a confrontation, and this does deliver to some degree. It sure is better than anything in Attack of the Clones, although that's a low bar to clear. I like that the duel, like the entire back-half of the movie (good structure!) shows how Palpatine relishes in how evil he is. He is by far the character that "owns" the movie.

The Grievous duel is okay, despite a curious and horribly misframed close up of McGregor's eyes. The duel between Palpatine and Windu suffers from Ian McDiarmid's lack of skill with lightsaber stuntwork. Although to be fair, the same is true of Sir Alec Guiness in the original Star Wars. The duel between him and Yoda is better, as is Anakin's duel with Dooku. Its a good Star Wars movie. I like it!

I also gave it another listen and I love the more classical feel of the music for Bilbo. In the Lord of the Rings, the music evolves from folk music to more orchestral and sophisticated music. In The Hobbit, there is also a bit of development from a more classical sound into the more romantic sound of the rest of the music of Middle Earth.

These scores are so abundant in leitmotives, there's always going to be somekind of an embarrassment of riches.

I always saw Bilbo's Adventure as his main thematic identity, and that theme does carry on into the next two films. I like the Dwarves and their music so I don't mind that the story (and the music) became Dwarf-dominated.

Han Solo's death isn't poignant. It plays more to illustrate Ren's ruthlessness than the tragedy that is at hand. I like that moment in Revenge of the Sith much better. As for Kylo being exhausted and previously injured - yes, that's right. Although to be fair, it isn't appearant in the way he fights with Rey. And again, that he survives all the blows (not to mention the planet rupturing under him) is unblieveable to me. When I first saw the movie, I almost thought he died.

I do believe that that's what was going through the filmmakers minds when they lost those themes. I think they just found them a little to bold for the tone of the later two films. It makes sense on paper and I don't mind it all that much while watching, but I do think one or two cameos would be nice. Since Shore binds Thorin's theme to the Company theme, Thorin's theme sort of carries on the associations of the Company theme. In the Extended Edition, we are also introduced to the House of Durin (in its definitive form) much earlier, so it takes the place of that theme nicely. For the general audience, the Laketown theme takes the place of the company theme in terms of something they can hum.

It has the ingredients of a good action scene because it utilizes the environment of the battle. But for me its a bit convoluted and overlong. It's over-choreographed to the point that it robs it of its intensity. There's a moment where both combatants twirl their sabers with hitting one another where you realize it's all about making the fighting looking cool. In that sense, I do like the battle in The Force Awakens better because they just use their light sabers to deliver BLOWS. It feels more driven by anger and there's a true desire to kill behind each blow. Also in Revenge of the Sith, there isn't dialogue throughout, and the way that the duel is won is both anticlimactic and undermines the supposed power of Darth Vader, and both those issues are also true of the duel in The Force Awakens: throughout seven films, lightsabers have been shown to be pretty deadly. But Kylo takes a couple of hits (and a shot from Chewbacca's blaster for good measure) to little effect. That Rey is stand her ground and than turn around to defeat him, and that even Finn can sneak a blow at him, does undermine his prowess. The Force Awakens also has nothing that comes even close to that "you were the chosen one!" monologue in terms of emotion. Nor does the Music!

Both the scores and the films can be broken down to certain dramatic elements, which can be discussed in relative objectivity. Like I said, I like the prequel scores way better. Even Attack of the Clones at least had that wonderful love theme for the average filmgoer to rest his or her hat on. Also, the quality and quantity of the orchestral (not to mention the choral) forces - cannot be beat by a small Hollywood freelance orchestra. As for the films, The Force Awakens has two advantages: it has great polish in terms of production value, and it has better characters. But Revenge of the Sith has better drama. It's a tough call for me.

I should rephrase: I like that entire musical "set-piece". Not just the march - all of it. It's genuinely good music. But: As good as it is, it's flawed. It doesn't undo it's effectiveness, but it does mire it. Even if it weren't flawed, a good moment doesn't save" the film. Or the score for that matter.

Really? It's in 3:14 of "The Hidden Valley". Its the same melody as the diegetic "Valley of Imladris", I'm sure. It's almost like a new, secondary theme for Rivendell.

Yes, the Imperial March in the end is very nice. In fact, I like most of the material in the finale: The Emperor's theme leading into a solo soprano voice (an unusual choice for a Star Wars score!), the love theme completly unleashed, etc... But I have to say that using it so blatantly distrupts the narrative of the trilogy, musically. The Phantom Menace and most of Revenge of the Sith do nothing short of a fantastic job in teasing the march, without stating it in its full militaristic guise. There are even good uses of it in Attack of the Clones: see the moment just after Anakin's confession.