Not totally flawless but certainly the best of the prequels and also the most entertaining

Rating: 8/10 (21 May 2005)

Almost thirty years in the making, George Lucas' "Star Wars" space opera has finally reached its conclusion (or has it?) and we are now able to judge the series as a whole.
The good news is that "Revenge of the Sith" is not only the best of the prequels, but the darkest installment since "The Empire Strikes Back." The bad news is that it isn't half as good as "Empire" and not even as entertaining as "Return of the Jedi." The good news is that Jar-Jar Binks is only in one scene and doesn't say a single word. The bad news is that cartoon-ish CGI action sequences take his place and add to Lucas' increasingly childish ambitions.
There's more good news and bad news. The fan-reviled Hayden Christensen, as Anakin Skywalker, has less dialogue than he did in "Attack of the Clones." Also, less time is spent on the love story between he and Padme (Natalie Portman). Unfortunately, when he does speak, or when they are required to be intimate, the movie stumbles  Christensen delivers every line in the same monotonous boredom that his devolution into the dark side doesn't seem all that big a deal  except for dark circles under his eyes and a jaundiced complexion, he appears identical to his earlier self. Another flaw in Lucas' story is that Anakin's decision to become a Sith Lord is too sudden; although there is ample emotional conflict in Anakin's past and present leading up to this, Lucas spends such little time detailing these feelings that Anakin really doesn't carry much weight as a character; when he turns, we don't feel anything significant is happening.
The fault really lies within the material itself. Lucas should have employed a talented co-writer to polish up the script, as he did for the original trilogy. Not to sound unfair, but Lucas is simply no Mamet or Tarantino. His exchanges are clumsy, awkward and occasionally nonsensical. Lucas adds a mythic vibe to his jargon that is unnecessary; for example, his referral to children as "younglings," or the whole "Thy will shall be done Master" attitude. I know it's supposed to take place "a long time ago," but that doesn't mean it has to sound quite as fake as it does. (The actors' sordid delivery doesn't help much, either.) In terms of new characters, the one everybody's been talking about is General Grievous, a half-alien/half-mechanical hybrid with special abilities. Disappointingly, however, Grievous is a huge letdown. As a villain, the robotic General is hardly menacing; it's hard to fear a character that incessantly coughs, wheezes and cowardly runs away every time a conflict occurs. Not only is Grievous a wimp, but also when he finally reveals his four lightsaber-wielding robotic limbs, the pay-off is anti-climactic  in less than a minute he's handless. I am told he was much scarier in the animated "Clone War" films; let's hope so.
It seems as if I'm complaining a lot, huh? Not really. These are just some of the things I disliked about "Sith." On the plus side, the last hour of "RotS" turns into a brooding, menacing feature; like "The Return of the King," the entire layering of the film itself becomes clouded, caustic and caliginous  somber shades oozing through every frame.
The final battle between Obi-Wan and Anakin was far more exciting and entertaining than I thought it would be  coming from someone who feels the novelty of the lightsaber battles faded away with the quality of the predecessors. Instead, I found Obi-Wan and Anakin's fierce showdown is emotional and tragic  it is also centerpiece to the best moments of acting in the entire new trilogy (Obi-Wan shouting at Anakin about how he failed him is pessimistic, depressing and real -- arguably the most genuine sample of dialogue from any other prequel.) The reappearance of Darth Vader could probably have been presented slightly more dramatically than it is here (inter-cut with birth/funeral sequences), and Lucas' modifications to the famous suit  namely the thinner face area, more rounded helmet and distinctly fake-looking mid-section  make it look like a Halloween costume. But then the heavy breathing is heard and we all know, Darth Vader is back! Yoda gets some good scenes here and there's a cameo from an old friend halfway through the movie. The parts involving Emperor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) are very entertaining and his battle with Mace Windu (Samuel L. Jackson) is exciting. There are some really dark moments (such as Darth Vader's unexpected killing spree), even if they don't always feel totally genuine.
Overall, "Revenge of the Sith" is not a flawless film and it does not solve all of the problems inherent in the other prequels. But (and this is a big "but") Lucas DOES fix up some stuff  as I mentioned above, Jar-Jar is pretty much gone, the lightsaber battles are more exciting, and most importantly the last hour picks up such a relentless, ferocious pace that it almost entirely redeems the earlier misfires. On top of that, it's stuffed with nostalgic references to the original trilogy that will surely whet every fan's lustful appetite.
So while I can't necessarily say "Revenge of the Sith" is bereft of the criticisms of the other prequels, it's a generally solid closure to the trilogy and definitely the best of the three "Star Wars" prequels. I was willing to ignore many of its flaws because I was having such a fun time  and to be honest I think that's partly the case with every film in the entire "Star Wars" saga. The difference here, as compared to "Phantom Menace" and "Attack of the Clones," is that "Revenge of the Sith" is actually an entertaining movie  and as a result you'll probably be willing to enjoy it as such and disregard the more frustrating moments.