More to say about a bad film

Rating: 4/10 (12 June 2002)

While it might not be cricket to write more than one review for a film on imdb.com, AOTC necessitates it simply because the film is supposedly representative of one of the most well-known icons of modern Western mythology and storytelling. Star Wars is established in the minds of people worldwide, young and old, to the extent that there has even been a push to create an official religion called "Jedi". So AOTC has a lot to live up to. To all of those who say that AOTC and TPM are just movies, I have to state that it would be nice if that truly was the case. But such an effort has been made by many to integrate Star Wars into our thinking that one must expect at least a better story than something from the makers of TV movies of the week.
Some reviewers claim that AOTC is hurt by bad acting. I disagree. Take a look at the other works of the main and secondary actors. Natalie Portman does Chekhov plays with Kevin Kline, for heaven's sake! You do *not* get asked to perform in such plays if you cannot act. Hayden Christensen was extraordinary in "Life As a House" so please do not confuse his performance in AOTC with bad acting. That's what logicians call a specious syllogism.
Some reviewers slavishly praise Lucas for even making the films. I disagree. George Lucas knew going into this project that he had a choice in making the prequels. He could make a trilogy with mass appeal, or he could make a trilogy that *he* would want to see. Or he could try extra hard and give the trilogy a depth and dramatic power that would surpass the first trilogy's legacy. Of course, to do that would require making *HARD* decisions like personally deciding what he could or could not do well. And George Lucas is not a student filmmaker needing the support of Coppola anymore. He literally has *hundreds* of millions of dollars and guaranteed financial success behind him.
Some people see Star Wars as entirely belonging to George Lucas and they even thank the stars that George is not beholden to Hollywood blowhards too famous for diluting or meddling in the creative efforts of visionaries. Well, kiddies, do not forget, please, that the other extreme is just as bad: a film made by someone too famous and worshipped to be beholden to anyone but yes-men and sycophants.
Some reviews mention the child actors in TPM and AOTC and categorically condemn them from having any part in successful and well-made movies. Does that logic apply to "The Sixth Sense" or "Poltergeist" or "Harry Potter" or half the films directed by Steven Spielberg? Or might it be the fault of the DIRECTOR??? Does Jake Lloyd deserve that much blame for TPM and its failures? Is that realistic, or are the critics looking for a scapegoat other than ... the DIRECTOR???
These are the reasons AOTC is going to get judged more harshly by the fans and critics who know that it could have, SHOULD have been a better film than it is. This is a film franchise that has EVERYTHING going for it, so it should evolve and unfold at least to the same standards as the original trilogy. But this is George Lucas we're talking about here, a man who had to have Greedo shoot Han *first* in (Star Wars: Special Edition) or change Luke's line to R2-D2 in ESB from, "You're lucky you don't taste very good," to "You're lucky you got out of there." (Think about how much time and money was spent just to make these changes in the Special Editions before you argue creative license on George Lucas' part.) This is the decision of the director, who seems now decidedly politically correct and without any edge. Movies about war need to be made by a director who has *some* kind of edge.
If it was just all that, I would say that Lucas has no business directing his films as he clearly does not appear to handle all the nuances of key scenes. Lucas is just plain missing the point of directing and we, the audience, lose. But he also does not do something a writer and producer is *obligated* to do (by his/her profession) and that is scrupulously and intelligently maintaining story continuity and a logical consistency to the storyline. George does not do this in either Star Wars prequel, and again, the audience suffers.
Some will *then* argue that AOTC is a setup for Episode III, so it can be forgiven some atrociously laid out exposition. Actually, good writing makes a single episode in an ongoing story stand on its own merits. ESB has a horrible cliffhanger and still managed to stand on its own or people would *have* to watch ESB back-to-back with ROTJ every time they saw it. How many reading this who have seen ESB had to watch ROTJ to understand ESB? It is for this reason that TPM and AOTC are inferior films because they are written like books in a juvenile series, and not like integrated but stand-alone movies. It is why they get top heavy in exposition and confuse some of the audience. Put another way, it's bad storytelling.
"Oh, come on!" I hear you say, "It's 'Star Wars,' not the Bible! It's only a movie!!" Well, it is NOW. Twenty-five plus years ago, "Star Wars" broke ground and set standards for motion picture action films not done since "The Adventures of Robin Hood," and "The Empire Strikes Back" raised the bar both technically and from the viewpoint of really advancing a saga. And the entire series was about adding a believable spiritual ingredient to a traditionally two dimensional genre. Modern myths do NOT happen every day! But now, to quote Mel Brooks, it's all about "moychendizing"! *sigh*