The Whole is Greater than the Sum of its Parts

Rating: 8/10 (19 May 2002)

Having spent the last hour wading through dozens of reviews here, I'm frankly shocked at the poor quality of the reviews. What matters is the RESULT and not the method. Consider Shakespearean Acting: it's wooden and contrived, but the sum of the dialogue and the acting just happen to work.

Set aside the special effects (which were more than good enough to suspend belief) and the plot(well, old George still has a few twists left in him after all, and there was a lot of material to squeeze in) which were on-par or better than the original trilogy. Let's talk acting: Portman does a great job as royalty (stiff sense of duty and propriety), Chistensen does an outstanding job as a conflicted teenager (awkward with emotions, awkward in love, just plain awkward), and McGregor is spot on as the parent who doesn't know how to deal with a brat. These are not the simple, innocent characters of the first trilogy; instead they all have conflicts that anyone can relate to. Bingo -- that's the effect of both good storytelling and good acting. You might not like royals or bratty brooding teens, but don't blame the actors, they've done a good job portraying exactly that.
So, all in all, is this a well-told story? Yes. Is it as good as the original trilogy? Yes, and maybe more.