Saturday, October 18, 2008

TCW - "Destroy Malevolence"

In this week's episode, Obi-Wan and Anakin board a heavily damaged Separatist warship in an attempt to rescue a Republic governmental official, with the surrounding space battle causing the ship to crash. Sound familiar? *COUGHREVENGEOFTHESITHCOUGH* Yeah, that's what I thought.

I'm honestly not sure what to say about this episode, hence my review being three days late.
While it was nice to see some more lightsaber action, there wasn't really a "wow" moment. There was plenty of action, but nothing amazing. Furthermore, it was very anticlimatic. After all that fighting and chasing, the Malevolence [SPOILERS!!] goes down in a small explosion off in the distance.

Some high points:
  • Anakin's force-push on Padme to protect her from the droids
  • The train system on board the Malevolence
  • Obi-wan's force-push on the destroyer droid
Some low points:
  • The droids are completely useless
  • The dialogue wasn't the best
  • The Malevolence's whimper-of-an-explosion


I did like seeing Padme not being annoying for the first time since The Phantom Menace. Also, we do need more lightsaber battles in The Clone Wars, so it's good to see them here. It looks like there were in fact a lot of duels between heroes throughout the wars, rather than only in the events of the films.
This is a nice idea, but I do think that it detracts from the power and meaning of the battles in Revenge of the Sith. While some of the dialogue between Grievous and the jedi seemed to hint that perhaps they had fought many times before, the duel with Dooku seemed very much like a "Part 2" of the duel from Attack of the Clones, and that Obi-Wan and Anakin hadn't met Dooku since the Battle of Geonosis.

This episode certainly wasn't bad, but wasn't all that amazing. It might have worked better to have Padme's rescue happen last episode, rather than after the Malevolence was already essentially beaten. Oh well. As part of a three-part story arc, I can give "Destroy Malevolence" a three out of five.

0 comments: