An improvement on previous prequels, but that's about it...

Rating: 5/10 (23 May 2005)

George Lucas conceptualized a world that would eventually capture the hearts of millions. With the help of talented individuals like John Williams, Ben Burtt and Ralph McQuarrie, he brought it to life. For many of the children of the 70s and early 80s, the Star Wars phenomenon served as a monumental inspiration that would resonate throughout their lives. Mr. Lucas' contemporary attempts to return us to a galaxy far, far away don't seem to have quite the charm that the original Star Wars trilogy did, but Star Wars - Episode III: Revenge of the Sith comes the closest of all the prequel trilogy films to recapturing the feel of the original vision as it was presented to audiences over twenty years ago.
One could argue that nostalgia has tainted the perception of older Star Wars fans or that twenty plus years of built up expectations make it impossible to deliver a follow-up film that is as widely accepted and loved as the original trilogy films. The fact remains, however, that while Revenge of the Sith is a stunning film visually, it's hard to say that any negative criticism levied against it is just the result of OT fan-boy bias. Mr. Lucas did have his work cut out for him in creating this final installment of his beloved franchise. Certain fatuous events were set into motion in Episodes I and II that could not be undone in Episode III. As such, it's hard to judge Sith solely on its own merit (or lack thereof) given that the foundation of its story was more or less laid down in the first two prequel films. Midi-chlorians? Immaculate conception? Jar-Jar Binks? How did these ideas pass through Star Wars QC? What it really all boils down to, though, is that Sith suffered from some of the same setbacks that its prequel predecessors did: too much style, not enough substance. Take for instance the character of General Grievous. Conceptually, this was a cool character. General Grievous: a half-droid, half-alien military mastermind who dabbles in lightsaber combat. This had the potential to be a great character for our protagonists to come up against. But he shows up out of nowhere very late in the game (i.e. the third film of the prequels) and for what? To run away repeatedly? Why the silly cough? Is this what passes for character development in the Star Wars universe these days? This character undoubtedly took a lot of time to create and bring to the screen, but he served little to no purpose. Anakin's abrupt turn to the Dark Side (what should have been the most interesting point in the whole saga) is a part of the story in desperate need of some beefing up, yet we spend time watching General Grievous strut around in serious need of some Robitussin. Background characters like the ones we saw in the Mos Eisley Cantina of Episode IV can be fascinating without needing a lot of back-story, but Sith throws allegedly important characters into the mix that serve no other purpose than to move the plot along by getting main characters to chase them to the next scene. I would've preferred a more congruent, believable story to spending screen time needlessly on characters like Grievous, Tion Medon and even Count Dooku. I would've been very happy if I could've seen Darth Maul develop into a deeper character and eventually serve as the apprentice Anakin kills and replaces.
I might be in the minority, but I felt like the dialogue and acting in Sith were not quite so deplorable as a lot of critics would have you believe (with one or two glaring exceptions). Ian McDiarmid steals the show as the evil Darth Sidious. I'm sure we've all been wondering when the wise and noble Jedi were going to pick up on the fact that their nemesis was right under their noses, and the scenes involving Sidious/Palpatine are pretty darn satisfying (though, the interaction with Mace Windu was a bit over the top). Ewan McGregor delivers a more emotionally attached performance than he was able to pull off in Attack of the Clones. That isn't intended to be a criticism of Mr. McGregor, but a nod to the fact that he was given more of an opportunity to actually act in Sith. On the not so impressive side, Hayden Christensen's Anakin has a manner that's just too contemporary for me to buy him as an up and coming Jedi with power heretofore unseen in the Jedi Order. His interaction with Natalie Portman in particular seems unbelievable and contrived, though in his defense, that might not be the fault of his acting. In spite of a few problems, his performance is improved compared to Episode II. There was only one moment in Sith where I just rolled my eyes and sighed at the cheesy dialog (Jar-Jar is more or less a no-show for Episode III, thank the maker), but it was pivotal. I feel so bad for James Earl Jones. The guy was 50% of what made Darth Vader so cool and interesting and frightening and and he was given some real garbage to spout out during the "Franken-Vader" scene. "Nooooooooooo!!!" Give me one huge break, please.
With all of that said, Revenge of the Sith is an entertaining, if conceptually overloaded, film. It is arguably the best prequel film, but it wasn't the end I felt the saga deserved. Given the weak framework put in place by Episodes I and II, the deflated end to the once critically acclaimed sci-fi/fantasy chronicle can't all be blamed on Revenge of the Sith. Unfortunately, though, I was left wanting more when the curtain closed on Star Wars (and by that, I don't mean an encore). I'll continue to imagine an Anakin/Obi-Wan back-story that would have been ideal from my own perspectiveone free of midi-chlorians, Jar-Jar and fatherless Jedi.