Not bad, but Lord, it wasn't *that* good!

Rating: 5/10 (4 September 2002)

The inspiration was the space opera serials of the '30s to the '50s and numerous other sources, with the result that this movie is almost startlingly unoriginal. The script was not great. The acting was achingly uneven, from the brilliance of Alec Guinness and Peter Cushing to the awkward mouthings of Mark Hamill. The special effects were amazing only in their ubiquitousness; the techniques used were venerable -- and have been considerably "spiced up" in the currently available video editions. Yeah, it was lots of fun, but beyond that it had no meaning or enduring value. So what inspired the fanatic following enjoyed by the Star Wars franchise?
According to George Lucas, he was guided by the work of mythologist Joseph Campbell, who was able to distill from the world's folklore the foundational elements of myth. These are principles and images that resonate; our response is almost biologically hardwired. Using Campbell for a blueprint, Lucas constructed a modern retelling of the hero's journey. In this he didn't do a bad job, because the resonances are certainly there. This I think is key. It fools into thinking we are seeing a great story, because its structure causes us to react to it as we would to any number of other great stories. But the story cannot fill this structure. The mythological resonances blind us to the gaping plotholes, the shallow characterizations, the poor acting, and that godawful dialogue.
A really harsh critique of this film is required not because it deserves it by any absolute measure -- indeed, under other circumstances it would really be too lightweight to merit the attention -- because against all reason it has become a standard by which all other movies of its genre are judged. There are far better candidates for that role than this.