Weakest of the original trilogy: still enthralling

Rating: 8/10 (24 July 2014)

Return of the Jedi has a number of difficult responsibilities. It has to wrap up what was, at the time, the most impressive trilogy of films in the history of cinema. It had to follow Empire Strikes Back. All loose ends had to be tied, and be a cathartic conclusion. What's impressive is that it handles such mammoth tasks admirably, and is for the most part let down only by odd choices and vast ambition.
Picking up following the uniquely dark ending of Empire, Return of the Jedi is split into two parts: first, the quest to rescue Han Solo from Jabba the Hutt; the second to stop the Galatic Empire plot to build a second Death Star. The latter part simultaneously shows the rebels fighting to destroy the death star and Luke's confrontation with the dark side of the force.
One can immediately say that Return of the Jedi is an ambitious conclusion. The sheer amount of minor characters across the film develop a much larger world. Even minor additions such as the extra red cloaked guards that accompany the Emperor add depth and world building. Scenes are larger and bolder. The many areas, ships and buildings of Jabba's 'base' show a sense of scale more clearly than the tricks of size that Empire (and to a lesser extent, New Hope) used. Consequently however, the use of effects has to be increased, and in a way that hasn't stood the test of time as well as the earlier two films. 'Green screen' type scenes are somewhat more noticeable, though they in no way detract from the experience.
What certainly does work is the cathartic finale. While making the film the lightest of the trilogy was disjointing after the darker-style Empire, it certainly allowed the conclusion it has. Jubilation doesn't feel out of place. As an aside on 'out of place', one can single out the Ewoks, who -just about- work because of this. And so the general arc, beginning in Episode IV, is satisfying and more impressively works, where so many successful trilogies fall at the later hurdles (Matrix being the most glaring, but also The Godfather, Pirates of the Caribbean).
It's instead the choices that are made elsewhere that are at fault. The most glaring is the 'recycled' death-star idea; the twists in that story don't take away from a lazy feeling. But its more the quasi-retconning (if not factually, emotionally so) that seems odd. The 'sister' revelation seems (and considering the changes from the original drafts, is) out of place. Luke's sudden mastery of the force and his Jedi powers are unexplained, if necessary. The decision to sideline Vader, and make the Emperor the main antagonist, is questionable (though brave) considering how strong Vader's presence has been throughout the earlier two films. The Emperor exudes evil, but without the backstory of Vader appears merely two-dimensional. That's not to fault Ian McDiarmid, who commands the screen.
The most problematic part is the decision to have Lando being the only known character to fight in the dogfight against the Death Star. Already the most minor of the primary characters, it lacks the emotional weight of the original Death Star run. This, and the incongruity between the lighthearted Endor section and the darker Jedi element, mean the final climax is a bumpy ride of frustrating editing.
The film is rightly regarded as the 'weakest' of a successful trilogy, but what exactly does that mean? It's not as much of a criticism as it seems- this is no Godfather Part III. It simply doesn't quite reach the heights of its predecessors. Which was not an easy task in the first place. It may not end on the peak, but it ends on a high note.