Where's my pot of gold?

LEPRECHAUN (1993)

Reviewed By Jerry Saravia

"Leprechaun" is a lethargic bore of an alleged horror movie. Alleged because there is no real horror in it at all. The idea of taking an Irish fairy and turning him into a slasher villain might appeal to those who like Frosty the Snowman and Santa Claus as deranged killers, but not me.

Warwick Davis plays the leprechaun who wants his precious pot of gold, a bag of a hundred gold coins. At the beginning of the film, a man named O'Grady has stolen the leprechaun's gold from Ireland and has relocated to a house in North Dakota. Leprechaun finds him, curses him with a heart attack (though the old Irish coot doesn't die) yet the little fairy finds himself encased in a crate with a four-leaved clover on the lid that imprisons him for a decade. Flash forward one decade and a mentally-handicapped painter (played by Mark Holton, whom you might remember from "Teen Wolf") inadvertently pushes aside the clover, lets the leprechaun loose, and finds his bag of gold. All the action takes place in the dilapidated O'Grady house where a young woman (Jennifer Aniston) and her father move into the house that needs to be painted. Of course, Aniston finds herself attracted to one of the painters, and blah, blah, blah.

Davis does the best he can do with a one-dimensional cretin but the filmmakers opt to introduce the character so early on (as in the opening sequence) that there is no level of surprise. Plus, the script never makes it clear how you can kill a Leprechaun - bullets do no harm but a four-leaved clover aimed inside his mouth might, provided the clover has a green glow. The body count is low for a slasher pic of this kind, which is fine by me, but why not make the leprechaun solely mischievous, rather than a monster who can use a pogo stick as a weapon! The best scene is when the leprechaun careens down a main road in a toy race car with the police in tow, asking him to pull over. But the rest of the movie is full of automatons rather than actors and an annoying leprechaun who keeps screaming, "Where is my pot of gold?" And to think there are five sequels to this movie simply makes the mind spin around and wonder how many gold coins the filmmakers got away with. I say stick with "Troll 2."

Coppola raises a humanized Count from the Dead

 BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA

 Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

The 1922 silent masterpiece "Nosferatu," and its 1979 remake by Herzog are clearly the most lucid, atmospheric interpretations of the famous novel by Bram Stoker. There have been several remakes and sequels in their wake, so why keep remaking the oft-told story? We all know it by heart. Francis Ford Coppola's "Bram Stoker's Dracula" is a visual symphony of horrors and an overblown, campy knock off of the legend. That's not to say that it isn't fun, it surely is, but scary? Not at all but it still compelling.

Coppola's "Dracula" starts off very promisingly and maintains an eerie, fairy-tale tone with nightmarish overtures from start to finish, complete with silhouettes, shadows, old transitional wipes such as irises, beautiful if ostentatious imagery and really fancy camera tricks, especially when we first visit Dracula's castle. Some of this represents Coppola's best directorial work ever and every image is stunning and truly remarkable with dissolves that are truly hypnotic.

The acting is uneven throughout. Gary Oldman ("J.F.K") plays Dracula fairly straight with an astonishing array of body movements and language (he's a bloodsucking, white-haired, venemous creature in the beginning) - I initially thought back in 1992 that his performance lacked passion and verve. It doesn't - he truly loves his Mina, the reincarnated love of his days as Vlad the Impaler. Keanu Reeves as Jonathan Harker is merely incompetent and unbelievable in a period setting - he reminded me too much of his Bill and Ted antics. Sir Anthony Hopkins overacts to the hilt as Professor Van Helsing, and has a moment where he smells Mina's fragrance reminding one of Hannibal Lecter. Winona Ryder, however, steals the movie as Mina (Harker's sweetie) and she is appropriately passionate and sexy, especially in the love scenes. She has that chemistry with Oldman that makes for some very erotic love scenes, in and out of the bedroom.

This "Dracula" is something of a technological marvel and a touching love story, more so than I had thought. It somehow works in the big egostistical way that some of Coppola's lesser efforts have. At times resembling more of a horror spoof, it is extraordinarily well-made and the snowy climax at Drac's castle is terrific, suspenseful stuff. Dear old Francis still leaves so little to the imagination and the gore is piled on scene after scene with none of the cold, chilling atmosphere of "Nosferatu" or Lugosi's "Dracula." The scene with the vampiric Lucy (Sadie Frost) approaching her tormentors as she carries a human child is not nearly as horrific as a similar scene in John Badham's 1979 "Dracula" version with Frank Langella.

Over-the-top, overstuffed, overdone and undernourished in certain character details (especially characters played by Cary Elwes, Bill Campbell and Richard E. Grant), Coppola's "Dracula" is never boring and somehow fun in a crude way. This Count does not suck and is given a measure of peace and humanity that has escaped many previous versions (and it practically tears away at Stoker's Victorian conventions with sexual acts galore). This is also one of those films that stays with you with its visual grandeur, gorgeous costumes and practical special-effects and a truly sympathetic Dracula.

Keep the Air Alive with Hard Harry

PUMP UP THE VOLUME (1990)

Reviewed By Jerry Saravia

 

When Hard Harry speaks in front of a microphone in his own pirate radio show, people listen. Hard Harry is in fact a teenager, and his listeners are largely teenagers (or so he assumes). "Pump Up the Volume" is a movie struggling to find answers in a new decade that was as empty as the 1980's were greedy. There were no easy answers, but there were tough questions that need to be asked.

Christian Slater is Hard Harry aka Mark Hunter, the disillusioned and quiet teenager from back East. He had friends then but his father (Scott Paulin), a district superintendent at the new Hubert Humphrey High in Arizona, decided to move the family to this new, anonymous town. Mark can talk to his friends in New York by way of a ham radio signal. Instead Mark decides to use his transmitter to communicate with his peers, whom he can't otherwise communicate with. A Goth girl named Nora (Samantha Mathis, who appears less Goth-like than Fairuza Balk) does notice Mark and suspects he is the DJ speaking to the masses when he returns a library book on the controversial Lenny Bruce. She follows him one day to find him taking out his mail from his P.O. Box - this is where he receives his letters that he reads on the air (especially if they come with phone numbers which he promptly calls).

His peers gather around parking lots and listen attentively to his show, broadcast every night at 10 pm. Things get awry when Hard Harry calls a suicidal listener - this one guy is ignored in school and kills himself. Of course, Harry doesn't expect this to happen, not to mention an ongoing revolution at school that raises the ire of parents and the teaching faculty. Meanwhile, Harry resists going on the air yet Nora eggs him to go on - he started this mess and he has to continue.

"Pump Up the Volume" is written and directed by Allan Moyle, who crafted the wonderful, dreamlike "Times Square" and also helmed the flawed yet unremarkably entertaining "Empire Records." Moyle listens to his teen characters and to Hard Harry - they suffer so much alienation from an adult world that can't and won't listen to them. Christian Slater is stunning in scenes where he talks about the world, the lack of imagination and that "all the great themes have been used up and turned into theme parks." He really comes alive as the DJ who listens to Leonard Cohen (two different versions of "Everybody Knows" are heard), Stan Ridgway and the Beastie Boys, and so amazingly forlorn and shy as Mark who can't say two words to Nora who is drawn to him. It is the adult characters who come across as indifferent and cliched, especially Annie Ross as the cartoonish principal who expels students for reasons that have nothing to do with academic records. We even have James Hampton as the head of the FCC who is nothing more than a political stooge who stays inside his limo.

When Moyle sticks to the disaffected teens and to Hard Harry's ramblings, the movie has power and is vital. Nothing can beat Cheryl Pollak as Miss Pretty Girl who decides to throw her cosmetics into a microwave and watch it explode! If the film had focused just on the teens without seeing it from the blander-than-thou point-of-view of the adults, "Pump Up the Volume" might have become a pop masterpiece. Interestingly, in the decade that followed, slackers were the new voice (sort of) and reality shows and grunge music took over signalling a catchphrase that had little to do with reality - Generation X. For all its flaws, "Pump Up the Volume" was pointing at some truths that never got addressed or put in any context in the strange, commercial 1990's. It is a shame. So much for, as Hard Harry puts it, "keeping the air alive."

Brainless Home Alone clone with a Cruel Twist

DON'T TELL MOM THE BABYSITTER'S DEAD (1991)

Reviewed By Jerry Saravia

I confess: I love the title of this movie. I thought for sure it was going to be a delightful black comedy about a nasty incident that could leave everyone in deep trouble. Alas, as often the case with movies that have great ideas, it all goes to hell, leaving us with a disposable teen comedy about maturing. Dead on arrival is more appropriate.

Christina Applegate has the lead role as Sue Ellen "Swell" Crandell, who at first is left to care for her three brothers and two sisters after Mom leaves for Australia for a new job! Of course, they are not left to their own devices when Mom surprises them with a mean babysitter (Eda Reiss Merin) who calls the children maggots. Well, before one starts to figure all the complications and comic frenzy that will ensue, the babysitter dies in the first ten minutes! Before you can say, well, how are these kids going to cope with this situation, the babysitter is left in front of a mortuary and cruelly placed in the luggage! And then the movie forgets there was even a babysitter as we see Sue applying for a designer job so she can take care of the family for the rest of the summer. Um, so what about the title? Why not call this "Home Alone" for the thoughtless MTV generation that, I believe, has outgrown the John Hughes formula for all it is worth by a different title? Originally, it was called "The Real World," and speaking of MTV...you see where I am going with this.

Applegate doesn't hold the big screen that well (yes, I had a crush on her at one time thanks to "Married With Children" but times change). There is one performance that works, though, and that is Joanna Cassidy as the vice president of the clothing manufacturing company that Sue works for. Cassidy is bright, elegant, engaging, but what the hell does her role have to do with the rest of the movie? Same with reliable actors like Jayne Brook, Josh Charles and David Duchovny in such thinly veiled roles that make no impression.

"Don't Tell Mom..." is the kind of movie with a solid premise that is abandoned for the sake of making yet another teen comedy about growth and maturation. The ending will be enough to make one gag at how incredulous the whole affair is. Keith Coogan, by the way, is the miscast stoner brother who, by listening to Julia Child and cutting his long hair, becomes wholesome and appealing. What universe does this movie think it belongs to?

A Gentle, caring Al Pacino

AUTHOR! AUTHOR! (1982)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Along with the forgettable "Bobby Deerfield," "Author! Author!" may be the least known Al Pacino film of his entire career (of course, even lesser known is "Chinese Coffee" or "The Local Stigmatic"). That is a shame because Pacino shows his gift for comedy and it comes through with obvious hard edges. There is also a gentleness we often don't see from Pacino.

Pacino is an Armenian Broadway playwright, Ivan Travalian, who lives at home with a largely absent wife, Gloria (Tuesday Weld), and their four or five kids (I lost count). Ivan needs another big Broadway hit to keep his townhouse and his kids and wife happy. Nothing is as easy as it seems. Gloria is clearly having an affair yet remains mum about it. After Ivan is desperate for honesty from her, she admits to it and claims she needs a new husband (apparently, she is a serial wife!) Ivan is left with the kids to take care of, as most of them are stepchildren and foster children. Some of them leave the house to be with Gloria and her new husband, others with other stepparents, and so on. This drives Ivan nuts, to the point that he confuses names of his associates in the theatre world with other people, and he is also having problems with the second act of his play. Just when things could get worse, a movie star (Dyan Cannon) expresses interest in starring in his new play. Ivan and the actress have a fling and she ends up moving in to his apartment.

Talk about complications, and Pacino is the only actor alive who can make a messy existence tolerable and funny. One of Pacino's gifts is how much he can insinuate without doing his trademark hollering. He has moments where he does holler, particularly the scene where the producers of the play come to his house and ask him for a rewrite of his second act, while Ivan juggles a personal problem with a stepfather who wants custody of the daughter. All this leads to Ivan driving all the way to Connecticut from New York in a cab, and back (I'd hate to see how much that fare costs).

But Pacino also evokes Ivan's romantic side, and how easily women could fall for him (consider the scenes with Dyan Cannon who laughs at his wild antics). And there is a precious moment, exceedingly well- directed and timed, where Ivan is in his office typing, listens to a phone message where Cannon reveals her sexual demeanor while one of Ivan's sons stops in his tracks and listens attentively. It is Pacino's sly smile that sells the scene.

"Author! Author!" was not a success at the box-office and it may be because the public thought this was a family-friendly Al Pacino romantic comedy - they would've rather seen Pacino in "Godfather" mode possibly. A shame really because it is not a romantic comedy, though it has some elements of both. Instead it is a genteel, insightful adult drama of a man trying to keep his family together. As directed by veteran Arthur Hiller, this is not a sentimental family film nor does it end with the usual expectations (let me say that Dyan Cannon's character has some surprises in the narrative). It is Pacino at his most reserved and at his funniest, minus much of the hollering of course.

Interview with Pat Tallman: Actress, Stuntwoman, Philanthropist

INTERVIEW WITH PAT TALLMAN: ACTRESS, STUNTWOMAN, PHILANTHROPIST

BY JERRY SARAVIA

Pat Tallman as Barbara in the vastly underrated Night of the Living Dead (1990)

Tallman as a demon in Army of Darkness (1993)

Pat Tallman in her film debut, 1981's Knightriders

I first took notice of Pat Tallman when I saw the 1990 remake of "Night of the Living Dead." In the film, she plays Barbara, Johnnie's seemingly mousy sister who is attacked by zombies, survives, flees to a seemingly empty house and survives more zombie attacks. Unlike Judith O'Dea's Barbra character from Romero's 1968 original, Tallman's Barbara survives and becomes a warrior, a heroine who will help fight the fight - namely to get rid of all zombies. It is a stunning transformation and her character is possibly the first of its kind in the zombie genre, a precursor to Danai Gurira's Micchone in TV's "The Walking Dead."

Of course, "Night of the Living Dead" is not all she is known for. Tallman is known in the sci-fi world for not only her role as Lyta Alexander in TV's "Babylon 5," but also multiple roles in "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" where she played Nima, Nurse Tagana and a weapons officer. She also played a Romulan, the evil Kiros and a security officer in "Star Trek: The Next Generation." She was also memorable as a she-demon fighting Bruce Campbell's Ash in "Army of Darkness."
   

Pat Tallaman as a Romulan/Alien in Star Trek: The Next Generation

When Pat isn't in the Trek or Babylon universe or fighting zombies (especially in 2009's "Dead Air"), she performs stunts and has done several (44 different credits) in everything from "Creepshow 2" to "Long Kiss Goodnight" to the first two "Austin Powers" movies to "Jurassic Park" (Laura Dern's stunt double) as well as "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, "Star Trek: Voyager" and the film "Star Trek Generations." And when she isn't acting or performing stunts, Pat Tallman is highly dedicated to helping abused kids in a charity called Penny Lane, a charity first introduced in the 1960's by Evalise Markovitz. Pat's own program that she began a decade ago is called "Be A Santa," which helps kids from Penny Lane celebrate Christmas.  


1.)  I couldn't help but notice that you started out acting before doing stunts. Why choose the dangerous, physical world of stunts?

Pat Tallman: It was something I fell into. Budum bump.

I always wanted to be Errol Flynn. I had taken fencing lessons in college and loved stage combat. When I got to New York, I took period sword technique classes, as a hobby. I met some stunt people in those classes and it all went downhill from there!   
 
And usually the way it is with stunts is you kind of apprentice with people that are already doing it. They teach you what you need to do, and if it looks like you show promise & can do the work & have the right attitude, then they'll give you more small jobs. I started with the soaps, which didn't have major stunts because of the budgets and how quickly they shot them. Stunts would mostly involve falling & small fights & things you normally wouldn't want to do with the actors. That's the kind of thing we did and I was very good at fights. Because it's choreography like with dancing. I doubled Tina Louise from Gilligan's Island in a really terrible movie called 'The Pool' falling out a balcony. And I had the right height and color to double for her. It was really exciting. I remember I had to just topple over this balcony & I fell into boxes, because it wasn't that high of a fall. 20, 30 feet. I remember the stunt guys being very indulgent and sweet with me.   
 
2.) When you are doing stunts, does the film director reach out to the stunt coordinator or, in your case, the stuntperson for the kind of stunt they want performed? Or do you make the suggestions, or is it all dependent on the director?

P.T.: The stunt coordinator, the producers and director figure out what they want (and can afford). Then the stunt coordinator communicates that to his stunt people.

Pat Tallman in 1997's Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery

3.) You've acted in a bit part in addition to doing stunts for "Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery." Which do you prefer, acting or stunts?

P.T.: I wasn’t acting in a bit part. It was a stunt job. Because I can act as well, I was very suited for this job.
I did what I wanted to do as a stunt woman. I am looking forward to acting and producing now.
 
4.) I suppose this is a tough question but do you think stuntwomen get a bad rap, or is it any stuntperson? Having interviewed another stuntwoman, Leslie Hoffman, I wonder how often do you get credit for the stunts or is there more than one occasion where you are uncredited, as in "Long Kiss Goodnight" or "Addams Family Values?"

P.T.: I don’t think it’s a question of a ‘bad rap.’ The SAG contract states that stunt credits are at the producer’s discretion and you know that going in. Folks go to the movies or watch their favorite shows not because they want to see a stunt double. They want to see their favorite actor doing exciting things.

5.) I've read a book called "Burns, Falls and Crashes: Interviews with Movie Stunt Performers." Any stunt that you absolutely will not do, such as fire?

P.T.: I won’t do what I do not think I am qualified to do. I don’t know why you say fire. I am experienced in burns and have done them. I will not do motorcycles, since I have no experience with them.

Pat Tallman as Lyta in Babylon 5

6.) In terms of acting roles, what is your favorite role, the one closest to you?

P.T.: Lyta and Barbara are both very fond memories. I am very proud of my stage work such as Rosalind in As You Like It with the Riverside Shakespeare Company in NYC.

7.) Now that you have worked with George Romero a couple of times, any chance you might appear in another "Dead" film? (they apparently using some of the same cast members, including Tony Todd, from the 1990 remake for yet another remake).

P.T.: No. I don’t ever go backwards. Been there, done that.

8.) Is there a role you would love to play, something literary or otherwise?

P.T.: I am looking forward to what comes and what I can create as a producer.
 
9.) I like to ask about charities. How did the Penny Lane charity come about?

P.T.: Penny Lane is a wonderful group home for kids who are in serious need. It really spoke to me. These kids have no one and next to nothing. They are very troubled, difficult kids. This became a passion for me: to help these children. I love the people at Penny Lane who work with these kid every day.

You can read about it here http://www.pennylane.org on my site at http://www.patriciatallman.net and on my social media. Thank You!

Patricia Tallman's Facebook page
Twitter: @patriciatallman
Google Plus: +PatriciaTallman

Darth Vader turns to Evil

STAR WARS: EPISODE III - REVENGE OF THE SITH (2005)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Original Review from 2005

 "Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith" is an unpretentious, darkly humorous ride, and quite possibly the most significant "Star Wars" film since "Return of the Jedi." It is chock full of glorious action setpieces, double crosses, deceit, some political mumbo-jumbo (no filibustering this time), and plenty of lightsaber battles (oh, and Jar Jar Binks who doesn't utter a single word). As eye-poppingly entertaining as it is, it sets a more sinister tone for the series, ending more on a bang with a cold heart than a joyous, heartwarming one. In other words, this film comes as close to the spirit of "Star Wars" and "The Empire Strikes Back" than either of the last two prequels.

Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) is as reckless as ever as the Jedi who longs to be a Jedi Master. In the opening sequence, Anakin and his master, Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan MacGregor), are trying to rescue the Supreme Chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) from the clutches of a Sith lord, Count Dooku (Christopher Lee), and some evil, skeletal droid commander named General Grievous who seems ready to cough up a lung. Count Dooku, as you may recall from "Episode II," was the Emperor's right-hand man and apprentice. After Dooku's brief exit, General Grievous seems to be the last hope for the Emperor in his desire for the Sith to rule the galaxy. Or so we think.

Meanwhile, Anakin is dealing with joining the Jedi Council and wondering if he should spy on the Chancellor. Naturally, the Chancellor wants Anakin to spy on the Jedi Council. There is also the growing anger within Anakin, fully exploited by the Chancellor who, in a riveting scene, describes the seduction of the Dark Side of the Force. The lure, the seduction is there, but will Anakin turn and believe the Chancellor's Jedi conspiracy theory? And what of Anakin's secret marriage to Padme Amidala (Natalie Portman), who is now pregnant with twins? Romance, marriage, Luke and Leia! A Jedi craves not these things.

Unless you live in a galaxy, far, far away, you know very well that Anakin Skywalker will become Darth Vader, the Dark Lord of the Sith who ruled the galaxies and surrounding systems in the original trilogy. It is the transition that we are interested in, the eventual transformation into the dark helmeted, leather-strapped, machine-breathing Darth Vader, and I am happy to say that it works beautifully. George Lucas handles it as well as one can imagine, and Hayden Christensen brings that seething, slow boil to the character in a startling way. Though the actual turn to the Dark Side is somewhat abrupt, what follows is not. We see a hooded Anakin marching to his own beat as he helps destroy all the Jedi knights, fearing they will destroy the Senate and the Chancellor (a misguided fellow, this Anakin is). His capricious longing to be the most powerful Jedi ever is evident, and we watch with uncomfortable ease as he decimates all the Jedi without mercy.

So what else can you expect in "Episode III" besides Anakin's gradual transformation? There are lightsaber battles galore, including General Grievous armed with four lightsabers! Obi-Wan riding a huge lizard while the Clone Wars are fought! The wise Yoda rubbing his head as he strongly feels the disturbance in the Force, though this little green gremlin is still aces with a lightsaber. Samuel L. Jackson's Mace Windu fully engaged with his purple lightsaber. There is also the dastardly, powerful Emperor whose verbal tongue, corroded with the Dark Side, is as consuming as his knowledge of the Force. And there are the lava lakes of Hell, or more appropriately Mustafar, where Anakin faces Obi-Wan in "Lord of the Rings" fashion. We are talking the depths of Hell here, folks, and even less inviting than Mordor. We are talking about the declining and eventual eradication of goodness of Anakin Skywalker.

Being a minor fan of the last two prequels (oh, heavens, don't say it is so Jerry. You actually liked "The Phantom Menace"? Hate mail to be delivered by torpedo), "Revenge of the Sith" certainly delivers with a major bang, and writer-director Lucas has pulled out all the stops for a grand finish. Every sequence is jaw-dropping in its visual imagination of new worlds and wondrous new galactic spaceships. The lightsaber battles are as grippingly intense as ever. There is a battle with the Wookies that will have fans cheering (yes, indeed, Chewbacca does fleetingly return). And, as in the previous films, people indoors face enormous windows where dozens of ships are headed somewhere (the air traffic jams must be horrendous considering a war is going on). In terms of special-effects backgrounds, lavish cityscapes and incorporating seamless CGI with live action, George Lucas and his ILM team have outdone themselves yet again. Just looking at the opening sequence, bordering on the usual laser beam battles amongst cruisers and TIE fighters, the ships move with such three-dimensionality that you may end up on the edge of your seat. Considering that Lucas is re-releasing this saga in 3-D, it will be even more awesome than ever (UPDATE: Apparently not. Some theatergoers found the 3-D effects in "Phantom Menace" to be fuzzy).

All effects aside, "Revenge of the Sith" is occasionally uneven despite a lightning pace and several frenetic action scenes. I admire the innocent relationship between Anakin and Padme but it is still wooden compared to Han Solo and Princess Leia's romance. In fact, Christensen and Portman are at their best when tension grows between them - her gradual shock and his malevolent side works nicely in contrast. The Wookie battle is terrifically fun to watch, but it is so short that you'll wonder what the purpose was (I suppose Master Yoda was looking for new armies to recruit). The movie also has a slightly weak section involving the destruction of the Jedi Knights - we see two or three of them killed but what about all the others? Darth Vader is supposed to have hunted down and destroyed all the Jedi Knights. A scene involving an implied killing of "younglings" may be a little too intense for tots, but more violence (did I just say that?) may have paved the way to understanding Anakin's emergence into evil.

These criticisms are highly subjective. "Revenge of the Sith" may not be as grandiose in its emotional context as say "Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" but this is Star Wars, not the land of Frodo and friends. There is nothing as revelatory as Vader's famous line to his offspring, Luke, in "The Empire Strikes Back," but there are still a few surprises in "Sith." The malicious nature of Palpatine and (spoilers ahead) his twisted Darth Sidious, also known as the Emperor, is almost Shakespearean in tone, especially as he persuades Anakin to turn to evil. Yoda is the biggest marvel of this prequel trilogy as he expounds on his philosophy using backward oracular phrases. His rousing confrontation with the Emperor is a spectacular display of action and seamless animation - Yoda is no longer a puppet held by Frank Oz, as you all know. Brief appearances by C3PO and R2-D2 (who supplies a lot of the film's humor) are welcome.

But major kudos must go to Hayden Christensen, no longer the wimpish, rebellious teenager of "Attack of the Clones" - he shows how cruel and malevolent a Sith lord can be. And the sad conclusion of his destiny is truly tragic and paints a new picture on the original trilogy.

"Revenge of the Sith" is superb entertainment guaranteed to please most "Star Wars" fans, if not all of them. George Lucas has given us his final hurrah to a thirty-year endeavor that began with the most influential phenomenon of the twentieth century. For many of us (myself included), "Sith" is as fitting a reminder of that nostalgia as "Star Wars" gets.