Thank the maker! This painful cinematic experiment is over.

Rating: 2/10 (17 June 2006)

I like Star Wars--the original movies are watchable but certainly not high art. They took A movie technology to illustrate a B movie-kind of story. Mainly for kids but with some ideas and moments that adults can enjoy. Lucas had a vivid imagination--and with help/guidance from gifted artists like Ralph MacQuarrie and a competent producer like Gary Kurtz, was able to get two decent escapist movies..when Kurtz left, we got Return of the Jedi.
Revenge of the Sith is the only movie worth judging as a prequel to the 1977 film, because it addresses all the issues that one expected to see in the Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones. How Darth Vader came to be, the Emperor, the Lava planet duel, etc. If this film had been the one to premiere in 99, I don't think Star Wars fans would have been quite as shocked or as disappointed--at least initially. Unfortunately, because we have had two previous prequels to endure, any novelty effect of seeing the Emperor don his hood for the first time and C3PO and R2D2 standing in a familiar ship corridor is lost. You go into this movie just hoping it wont be as unwatchable as the previous ones.
Unfortunately, it isn't any better.
I give this movie 1/2 star star for the the running lizard creature and another half star for 2-3 lines of dialogue (with political overtures) that were a bit amusing given the current state of world affairs, and 1 star for the visualization of the Lava planet--which is about what i had expected when I first read of the scene in the Return of the Jedi novelization of 1983.
But that's it. I am harsher on Lucas than other filmmakers because he had total creative freedom, millions of dollars and 20 something years to make a decent movie-and he failed miserably. Some movies can have a handful of scenes or moments where you can suggest how they might have done things differently--but with the prequels--they fail from the concept itself. People who can watch these films and actually believe that they fit into the style of the previous ones(at least SW and ESB) or any other film where there are characters and plots that one cares about, are cinematically illiterate. I pray they never get behind a camera.
I am not quite sure how Lucas did it, but he managed to write and direct a story where we care nothing about any of the characters. The action scenes are mostly flat--with none of the excitement you find in say, the asteroid chase from ESB.
Look at John Williams musical cues for this film and you can see how uninspired it is--I don't blame JW for this--surely he uses the dramatic thrust of the film to rev it up--and couldn't find anything to latch on to for inspiration.
Acting wise-there is one scene near the end between Macgregor and Portman, and Portman and Christensen, where I almost felt I was watching a real movie. That moment did not last long. The rest of the time, good actors are struggling. Samuel Jackson looks confused. Christopher Lee held his own for the few fleeting seconds he was in the movie.
The Jedi come across as the most incompetent and witless band of knights you ever met--cruel, unwise, and militaristic--and the poorly conceived, convoluted method that Palpatine uses to come to power is awkward at best. Darth Vader's introduction provides little excitement. At least if he went on a Jedi Knight killing rampage the audience could have a moment of nostalgia. But Lucas wastes every chance to exhibit showmanship or storytelling prowess(which was never his strong point).
Stylistically, these movies are meandering, half-baked attempts at Classical Rome political intrigue, with none of the serial adventure spirit that you found in SW and especially ESB.
In short, the prequels are no fun. And at the end of the day--isn't that what it's all about?