Not bad for a Star Wars movie - though that's not really saying much

Rating: 6/10 (22 May 2005)

I had had a difficult day and needed some mindless entertainment. I wasn't disappointed. Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith has had some of the worst elements of the series pruned - gone are most of the irritating cuddly little creatures aimed at the spin-off toys market (there's no shortage of other spin-offs), and the disingenuous racist stereotypes suggested in other episodes seem to have been cleaned up. It even has a degree of political correctness with a throwaway jibe that recalls George (bad Jedi: "If you're not with me, you are my enemy") Bush and the parallels with modern day dictators (whether they trumpet a corrupt democracy or a brutal regime behind their warmongering) are apparent. One of the flaws of other Star Wars episodes has been the simplistic 'ultimate good versus ultimate evil' debate - in this one, the two warring sides are seen as separated more by pain, fear, misunderstanding and miscommunication than anything else. There are slightly less overtly religious references, although 'The Force' still has an elitist hierarchy based on some poorly defined universal power. Probably the only character you'd trust to run anything might be the genuinely peace-loving and diplomatic Padme, a female icon played by Natalie Portman and love for whom sparks off more 'evil'.
What of the film itself? As Star Wars films goes, it's not bad, but that isn't saying much. The dialogue is mostly trite, the acting wooden, and the cinematography could be aimed at a 12-year old with learning difficulties. Some of the special effects are quite nice - I particularly liked the cityscapes. If you've followed any of the other episodes and not been permanently turned off you'll probably go just to see what you're missing - and to get to see the genesis of the big bad Daath Vader. But it is a film that, without the marketing and money poured in to it, would still be firmly in the Saturday children's matinée slot if there still was one. The robots make funny, cutesy little squeaks (even in the vacuum of space or when trying not to be heard by other robots), affect gay walks, or (especially the baddie ones) sound a bit like they've strayed from a Mickey Mouse cartoon. In the old days, if you got confused as to who the good guys were, you could usually assume the black man was the bad guy. Nowadays that would lose too big a sector of the market so it's the ugly, deformed people who are bad guys (or bad robots): cute (or good-looking) equals goods guy. If good guys go bad they reassuringly become ugly or have funny eyes.
Portman (who has a better stab at some real acting than any of the others) has a character that maintains or the traditional stereotypes of the subjugated woman - her main function in the film is to have babies. Remarkably, in a galaxy where the most unimaginably advanced medical techniques are routinely available in the blink of an eye, women, even quite important and well-placed women (ie important in relation to men) can die of childbirth. The fear that she will die in this way prompts superstitious Jedi warrior Anakin Skywalker not to seek out more reliable doctors and surgeons but to go a dangerous route to greater supernatural power to somehow 'protect' her. Women, being such weak creatures are (not unsurprisingly) largely noticeable by their absence in the important affairs of state where men decide how to blow each other up. It would be nice to think that George Lucas was suggesting this as irony - unfortunately he probably is not. His grasp of human rights is about as sturdy as any well-oiled social liberalite that, like the Republicans he lambastes, probably couldn't pronounce the names of half the places that America wages war on. Team America: World Police had a clearer take on such things. Unfortunately George Lucas is still on a galaxy far, far away, even if it will pump revenue back home to him, if not for light years, at least for a very long time to come.