What a piece of junk!

Rating: 2/10 (26 May 2005)

That's right Luke, you're origins were poorly thought-out.
Being a Star Wars fan, a movie buff, a writer and a student of literature, I find it quite easy to judge this film based on its merits as a story, not a sci-fi story or a Star Wars story, but just a story presented in a motion picture. That being said, Star Wars Ep. 3 is not good. From it's 10-second scenes, confusing story arc and dialog one might expect from a middle school student in a humanities class, this latest installment of George Lucas's bungled epic did not disappoint--meaning that I half-expected the non-plussed reaction of me, my friends and all those who came to the theater with an open mind. Now, I realize I'm not going to change anyone's mind with my comments. Like Republicans or religious fundamentalists, hardcore Star Wars fans will take whatever flashy nonsense they can get and defend it vehemently. My aim in this comment is to chide those professional film critics who actually approve and applaud George Lucas for his stubbornly misguided film-making.
I'll admit that Lucas was once something of a visionary, as is evident Star Wars Ep. 4, his life's work. He poured every ounce of his creativity into it and produced what many call the weakest film of the original trilogy. That should say everything about his talent as a film-maker. After New Hope, he took a lesser roll in the creation of the second and third installments, opting out of writing or directing either of them. Still, one might argue that it was his ideas and general design that fueled the remaining trilogy, writing or not. But I assert that the visual origins of Star Wars lies solely in the resume of concept artist, Ralph McQuarrie. Looking at his original art prints for Episodes 4, 5 and 6, one can see an almost direct translation to the big screen. He should be given credit for those memorable places, people and ships. The fact is, George Lucas was only mildly talented to begin with and relied mainly on attaching his name to everything he worked on to gain recognition. Indeed, the brilliance and mystique associated with LucasFilm is completely self-perpetuating and has no real substance when closely examined.
Episode 3 has more problems literary-wise than I could possibly write on these boards. Truly, my friends and I wished we'd each had notebooks in the theater to keep track of all the laughable lines and situations later on. Then again, I'm not enough of a bad movie masochist to want that type of reminder with me months down the road. I'll instead end my comment with a brief summary of my arguments as to why Ep. 3 (as well as 1 and 2) is not good.
Here goes: The dialog is terribly written, the dialog is poorly acted (can't really blame the actors for this; I'm sure it's hard to put feeling into a conversation with the color blue), the animation is abundant but exceptionally cartoonish (Stargate SG1 and Atlantis both have superior animation, perhaps because they use it much more sparingly), the story arc has no pace or drive, the main character is woefully miscast (The most tragic hero in sci-fi is presented by a goofy child and a love-sick teen, both without a shred of real talent for this sort of work), the design elements in George Lucas's Prequel galaxy is absurd (What evolutionary processes could ever transpire to yield that crazy Dr. Suess planet with pink grass and giant purple mushrooms? In an infinite universe, it's certainly possible, but really stupid nonetheless) and finally, Lucas is entitled to create within his universe whatever he wants, change whatever he wants, but if he's going to blatantly deny the works of countless other contributing authors (of which he originally approved) and even in some instances contradict his own original stories, the least he could do is make a superior story, a better film, instead of just a different piece that suits him currently.