What was the point of this, George?

Rating: 2/10 (9 September 2009)

I remember when this film came out, I kept putting off seeing it. And putting it off, and off. Then it came out on video, and I finally rented it. I think I was putting it off because I instinctively knew it was going to be awful, and I was right. It is one of the dullest, most atrociously acted films I've ever seen. The acting was stody and boring, and considering the acting talent involved (Liam Neeson, Ewan McGregor, and Samuel L. Jackson), you'd think Lucas could have done something spectacular with them. Alas, no. Lucas has said numerous times that he detests directing (this was the first film he's directed in over 20 years since the original Star Wars film), and his contempt for directing shows. It feels like a sonambulistic exercise, intent on putting us to sleep, and it has an overall lackadaisical feel that really irks the viewer. Many who saw this were extremely disappointed because they loved the originals so much (the original 3 are far superior than this tripe). They more than likely felt a sense of obligation and loyalty to see this film and the progressively worse prequels. They grew up with the original Star Wars films, and they went away disappointed and angry at the fact the prequels were inferior in every way to the originals... Lucas's dialogue is wretched, his pacing is totally off, and he seems to be killing time here. There's no real enthusiasm here, in front of the camera or in back of it. Perhaps the actors picked up on the fact that Lucas didn't give a damn about his own film, so why should they? I sometimes think Lucas purposely made bad prequels so he wouldn't have to film the final 3 chapters. And why did he decide to make the prequels? If he made the 3 films that were supposed to take place after Return of the Jedi, he would have had no real creative restraints. Who knows why George Lucas does what he does? I haven't a clue, other than I really disliked this film.