Now if only we had a real director and scriptwriter.

Rating: 7/10 (22 May 2005)

Star Wars movies are always a bit difficult for me to opine on. On the one hand, I'm not a Star Wars fanatic; I simply enjoy the movies. So how am I to comment on the sublter things that I may not appreciate? On the other hand, no matter how much fan service you put in or how creative the worlds you shape are, a bad movie is a bad movie no matter what type of fan you are.
Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, I am happy to say, is not a bad movie to me. While it suffers from the most obvious problems of the first two in the latest trilogy (and in fact some problems of the original trilogy), the end result is ultimately a quick-paced, action-packed and sometimes even moving spectacle that I hope would satisfy any Star Wars fan, and any moviegoer looking for some fun.
On the pacing front, the movie is pretty fast. There is little time for boring political banter or negotiating with a flying Watto. Lightsaber battles are fast and furious, and what lies in between are scenes that develop the impending evil threat that takes over in the original trilogy. (Ian McDiarmid is fantastic.) It all culminates in an epic, moving, thrilling final battle - followed by that ultimate tie-in that fans have known about and waited for, for 20 years, never before seen on the big screen.
This fast pacing, perhaps, is the film's biggest strength but also its biggest weakness, as it leaves little time for Anakin to really convince me in the audience of his plight. We are supposed to believe that the reason he turns to the Dark Side certainly merits it. Well, thinking about it again, I suppose it's plausible, but again - it comes down to the way the acting portrays Anakin's pain and desperation. Which is to say, not very convincingly. Is Anakin's cause believable? Possibly. Does Christensen's acting lead me to believe his pain? Not likely, not at least until the end of the movie. Could Lucas have written in something else in addition to at least mitigate this? Probably. (To go on a tangent once again, Christensen is certainly a decent actor - just not in Lucas' hands.) Although I must say this. It's so easy (and almost chic in some circles) to laugh at his acting from Attack of the Clones, and it wouldn't be fair to make the same "this kid just can't act" blanket-statement here because I see him trying in some spots, I really do; at least more than he did in Attack of the Clones. But, as Neo from The Matrix ultimately realizes, it is inevitable. Lines will be delivered with no emotion whatsoever, save for a furrowed brow and quasi-angry eyes.
This is a major blow, because Hayden's character is such an important part of the entire Star Wars saga - it could be argued that the entire series, I through VI, is in fact *his* story.
Thankfully, Natalie Portman turns up her acting enough to actually be convincing. Ewan McGregor has many less stupid lines this time around, and his smiling and somewhat cynical demeanor (when things aren't going terribly wrong) are becoming reminiscent of the late Alec Guinness' portrayal of that same character. He even has a pivotal, emotional few lines near the end which had a few people around me sniffling and wiping tears. Ian McDiarmid does a fantastic job playing what is essentially an evil monster (listen to all of his cackling and the strange noises me makes throughout the latter part of the movie), and is the highlight of the acting front.
All in all, the acting is definitely not as wooden as it was in Attack or Phantom, and in some spots is even more competent than in the original Trilogy (which was filled with smiley, campy but at least enjoyable acting).
Other negligible weaknesses include the usual Lucas trademarks - over reliance on the slapstick humor of R2D2, weird instances of robots that appear to be "sick", horrible names (Dooku, Dooku, Dooku...), and the like. And finally, why on Earth do human beings allow George Lucas write dialogue? Fortunately, I enjoy that the movie is dark. Tim Burton Batman dark -maybe, maybe not, but this is something that may have your kids grabbing onto your arm more than any other in the six-piece series. This is not to say that dark movies are better, but given the context of this film's story, it *needed* to be dark and would have been unconvincing otherwise.
Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith is certainly not one of the greatest of all time, and it's debatable whether or not it's better than or as good as any of the movies in the original trilogy. However, the fact that I'm even debating that should tell Star Wars fans that this movie is thankfully *not* a mockery of what they've come to know and love, like the first two episodes may be seen as. It should also tell filmgoers who aren't die-hard fans (like me) that the movie isn't a waste of time by any stretch of the imagination.
Though of course flawed, it is a fast, pretty and emotional saberfest that brings the series full-circle to 1977, to that young man on Tatooine who was yearning to get out and fly the skies in the Academy. It probably won't change your mind about the series if you've never been into it, but for everyone else - enjoy. (And revel in the fact that we won't have to see Lucas direct or script-write another Star Wars.)