Much better than the last two, this motion picture is

Rating: 5/10 (10 June 2005)

I realize there's a whole generation of American moviegoers who erroneously believe American cinema - or cinema itself - didn't begin until 1977 with the release of "Star Wars."
The reason the 1970s is the greatest decade for American films is not because of "Star Wars." Those of us who remember when "Star Wars" was first released know that most of America's best films were made before we heard of Luke, Leia, Han Solo and Obi Wan. Just look at some the remarkable movies released before Lucas unleashed "Star Wars" - the first two "The Godfather" films, "The Conversation," "Brewster McCloud," "McCabe and Mrs. Miller," "Nashville," "Badlands," "Network," "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore," "Taxi Driver," "The Parallax View," "All the President's Men," "Sugarland Express," "Dirty Harry," "The Man Who Would Be King," "Five Easy Pieces," "Klute," "Fat City," "Lenny," "Chinatown," "Mean Streets," "The Last Picture Show," "Deliverance," "The Sting" and Lucas' own, "American Graffiti." One could easily argue the decline of greatness began with "Star Wars."
Nevertheless, I enjoyed Lucas' initial trilogy. Never considered them to be the greatest works of cinema, but they have their thrilling, popcorn quality. And I was quite satisfied with those three.
Then, he went and spoiled it all with the second trilogy. I know ardent "Star Wars" fans consider all the films masterworks, but "The Phantom Menace" (1999) and "Attack of the Clones" (2002) were garbage. They might have looked good - and several renowned critics fell over themselves trying to praise the films as if they were obliged to do so because the great Lucas directed them - but the films were crap. The stories were dull, the acting atrocious (even with the likes of Liam Neeson, Ewan McGregor and Natalie Portman) and they were utterly needless exercises in excess.
Of course, the biggest joke was Lucas calling himself an independent filmmaker a few years ago. John Sayles in an independent filmmaker. George Lucas is an independently wealthy filmmaker backed by a huge Hollywood studio for his mega-million dollar, f/x-laden movies. Let's see, who's "Revenge of the Sith" peddling these days? A burger joint, chocolate and soft drinks. Independent filmmaker, indeed! I still am not convinced the world of cinema needed the second trilogy. That doesn't mean I didn't like "Revenge of the Sith," the third (and, we hope, final) installment in the "Star Wars" saga. This one's certainly better than the first two in the second trilogy. Then again, Lucas would have been hard pressed to do worse than those two films.
"Revenge of the Sith" has two things going for it. It's sufficiently dark and more cynical than its two predecessors and Jar-Jar Binks doesn't show up until the very end and only for a quick glimpse. That alone makes this one far superior to "The Phantom Menace" and "Attack of the Clones." By tapping into Anakin's ugly nature, Lucas is able to explore the intricacies of human nature. His story takes on a much more grim view of his characters, not just Anakin, but all of them. Too bad, he has Hayden Christensen playing Anakin. I'm sorry, but this chap's terribly wooden as an actor. He's incapable of expressing any emotions honestly or convincingly - it's always evident he's trying too hard. This guy makes Mark Hamill seem like a master thespian. Of course, this time Lucas gives Portman nothing to do other than to stand around looking pregnant and stilted. This enormously talented actress gave her three worst performances in this trilogy.
Whether intentional or not, Lucas seems to draw parallels to a post-9/11 America. The Senate votes to give Chancellor Palpatine (played rather well by Ian McDiarmid) broader powers for the sake of security and when he chooses to expand his empire to the cheers of the senators, Padmé (Portman) laments, "So, this is how liberty dies - with thunderous applause." And later, Anakin-turned-Darth seems to channel George W. Bush to advise Obi Wan about taking sides.
As much as those little digs are fun, the film's biggest problem is the writing. Lucas might be a talented filmmaker, even a visionary artist. But the guy cannot write good dialogue. He suffers from James Cameronitis. There's a reason the screenplay for "Titanic" (1997) wasn't nominated for an Oscar - it stunk.
Why the heck didn't Lucas call in a talented screenwriter to fix the dialogue? I thought Lucas would be smart enough to realize how putrid his dialogue was when he read his script. Watching talented actors, such as Portman, Samuel L. Jackson and McGregor, deliver some of the lines made me cringe. Good thing their payday was so big.
Lucas doesn't spend a lot of time showing the elimination of the Jedi, who crumble rather timidly. There's also a huge plot hole at the end involving Obi Wan. I realize why Obi Wan does it; if he'd acted logically, the whole story comes apart, as does the first trilogy. But given what a smart fellow Obi Wan is supposed to be, his actions make little sense.
"Revenge of the Sith" is critic-proof. It's definitely the best of the more recent bunch. The special effects are downright spectacular and the story moves along at a sufficiently robust pace. But, for me, the magic wasn't there. It was an enjoyable diversion, nothing more. I realize that offends those who worship at the feet of George Lucas. But one thing this film proves is that the likes of Jackson, Portman, McGregor and Christensen are just no match for the likes of Ford, Fisher and Guinness.