The Best of the Prequels DOES NOT Equal a "Good Movie"

Rating: 6/10 (24 March 2012)

Let me just say straight off that I'm a huge Star Wars Fan and in my eyes, the Original Trilogy are some of the greatest films ever made. Now that that's out of the way let's review this: There are some positives about this movie - not many - but there are positives. First off, let me list the positives. Thankfully, this movie is a massive departure from the previous two in terms of the tone. Gone are the days of JarJar Binks' idiotic slapstick and cringe-inducing child actors in pivotal roles, (Jake Lloyd anyone?). Also, in spite of the bad acting running rampant through this, and all other prequels, Ian McDiarmid does do a pretty admirable job in the role of Palpatine. He's the best actor and (coincidentally) does the best job with the material given to him in the film. Lastly, let's recognize some pretty damn good special effects. The special effects were outstanding, despite being the only real backbone to the film and not an interesting story of any kind. This brings me into the negatives of the film, and there's A LOT, so let's dive right in. First of all, as I just said, there isn't much of a story left. What I mean by that is that after the horrid debacle of the previous two films, the only thing that's really left to happen in this movie is the actual transition of Anakin Skywalker over to the Dark Side of the Force. Now, I'm sure that you (like I did when I was a kid) thought that would be a really cool concept: The movie could take it's time to develop the one defining catalyst that pushed Anakin over the edge after years spent in war and strife. You finally get to see the one singular second that forces Anakin to become Darth Vader and live a life of servitude and misery. And we as an audience could finally be redeemed from two films of crap...But no, we get the most stale, manufactured, insincere, boring and unbelievable character arcs in film history. I mean come on, I could buy the whole thing where Anakin reacts on impulse and severs Mace Windu's hand at the chance to save his wife from imminent death, but when it actually happened, it just seemed to me like that if Yoda had been there and run into the room at that very second and handed Anakin a MilkyWay, he wouldn't have turned to the Darkside. Basically, the entire Star Wars Prequel Saga tried (and failed I might add) to tell a similar story to Citizen Kane. Is that a common comparison? Yes. Is it inaccurate? No. Let me compare the two side-by-side and you decide for yourself if the characters and story are similar: CITIZEN KANE - A young boy is taken from his home at a young age and separated from his beloved mother. Flash forward to his young adult hood and we see that he is a brazen, idealistic person with a code that he lives by called the Declaration of Principles. Finally we see him mature into a very powerful and successful business man who has everything he wants, but eventually his power corrupt him and he becomes an arrogant and belligerent jerk who forces everyone he loves away from him. He eventually dies a very miserable and lonely man. OK, now there are obviously big differences in locations, events and people outside of Kane/Skywalker, but the basic character motivations that affect them are the same. Why were the Star Wars Prequels not just one movie, very similar in structure to Citizen Kane? I can tell you it's not because it couldn't have been done. In fact, George Lucas did base the original Star Wars movie off of an Akira Kurisawa film entitled "The Hidden Fortress". The Hidden Fortress is essentially the same story as Star Wars, but it's told in a way with Robots and not Japanese Peasants. Same rule applies to The Prequels and Citizen Kane. The reason why the prequels became three movies and not just "The Star Wars Prequel" is because Star Wars and its accompanying sequels are titled "Episode IV, V, & VI", respectfully. I'm sorry to break it to all you fan boys out there, but that's why we have 3 crappy movie and 3 great movies in this franchise, and not 4 great movies in this franchise. Now, moving away from the story and how it relates to other things, let's discuss the acting further. Ewan McGregor is pretty good in the role of Obi-Wan and Natalie Portman does a very good job with her crappy role. That's it. Now, moving onto the CGI in the movie. It is very good, but it's only good in its own right. What I mean by that is that though it's technologically impressive, it's wrong in the context of the story. There's no reason why there needs to be CGI everywhere in a scene that just involves two characters talking. It could (and should) just be a practically built set with CGI out a window or something. This is especially true considering that every single scene in this movie that is not intensive in CGI is shot like a soap opera in shot-reverse shot. Not only is this a sign of lazy filmmaking, but it's also a constant reminder of the lost potential that this and the other prequels had. While I'm on the subject of storytelling, the tone of this movie is A LOT darker than the other two prequels. That's good in the sense that we don't have to sit through anymore horribly idiotic scenes that leave us adults rolling our eyes. That being said, why was this movie SO DARK? I understand that Darth Vader was a bad guy, but did he have to be a homicidal maniac that killed small children? NO. Not needed. I'm going to stop before this gets ridiculous. Thanks.