Director Report Card: George Lucas (2005)

6. Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith

Everything that has a beginning has an end. When “Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith” came out, it was the end of an era. It didn’t matter that the previous two prequels were mediocre and perceived as such. “Star Wars” was and is a genuine pop culture phenomenon and, as far as we knew at the time, this was going to be the last “Star Wars” movie ever made. That alone warranted a huge amount of hype, maybe even more then what proceeded “The Phantom Menace.” When “Episode III” received easily the best reviews out of the entire prequel trilogy, it only seem to confirm fans’ anticipation. Time has passed and there’s a new “Star Wars” movie just around the corner. Now, the opinion of “Revenge of the Sith” is less unanimous.

The galaxy is gripped by war. The war between the Galactic Senate and the Separatist Armies has drained the resources on both sides. Senator Palpatine has been granted more and more power. When Chancellor Palpatine is kidnapped by the Separatists, Jedi Knights Anakin Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kenobi are sent in to rescue him. A relationship between Skywalker and Palpatine begins to form. Anakin is haunted by nightmares that Padme, his pregnant wife, will soon die. Palpatine lures Anakin over to the Dark Side, with a promise of powers that will allow him to prevent this premonition from coming to pass. With Skywalker by his side as his new apprentice, Palpatine reveals his master plan: To destroy the Jedi order and rule over the galaxy as an all-powerful Emperor.

Since the beginning of the prequel trilogy, George Lucas has been insisting that the entire “Star Wars” cycle is the story of Anakin Skywalker’s rise, fall, and redemption. If one takes this idea seriously, then “Revenge of the Sith” is the fall part of the cycle. Anakin succumbs to the Dark Side for all too human and understandable reasons. He fears death and loosing the ones he loves. Instead of accepting the Jedi’s mystic belief about accepting death and moving pass loss, he is consumed by them. “Star Wars” has never been an especially deeply emotional series. It botches in some other ways too. Yet “Episode III” is built upon some sturdy, strong ground. The film also shows the rise of the Empire, setting up the original series by chopping away all the fat that clogged up the last two pictures.

Before we can get to the truly compelling stuff about Anakin’s fall to the Dark Side or the destruction of the Jedi, we have to first get on with all that business about wars and stars. Large portions of the film are concerned with the same intergalactic battles and political hand wringing that characterized Episodes I and II. The opening battle scene has the camera swooshing around Anakin and Obi-Wan’s star ships as they cruise through a crowded, CGI battle field. The escape from the ship is full of dramatic dives down elevator shafts and yet more droids being sliced through with ease. Once again, the light saber duels are too acrobatic, fighters swirling their blades around in an unnecessary ways. Or spinning through the air in ridiculous manners. There’s far less focus on the Separatist Army and Galactic Council, as if even George Lucas was growing tired of such matters.

Since this is a “Star Wars” movie made after 1983, there’s a gimmicky element to the movie. As always, Lucas is deeply invested in introducing new characters, vehicles, and aliens that can be made into toys. General Grevious had previously been introduced on “The Clone Wars” animated series. Within the movie, he’s a wheezing, towering robot who spins pilfered light sabers around like a cyclone. Like Boba Fett or Darth Maul before him, Grevious is another visually compelling but kind of useless villain. His role is rather small, his contribution to the plot is minimal, and his death scene lacks impact. There are robe-wearing droid sentries, grappling hook guns, and spinning wheel vehicles that seem unlikely to function. Obi-Wan spends a large portion of the battle riding a giant lizard that makes an annoying noise. All of these things make bitching action figures but limp characters. Further fan pandering comes when the Wookie home planet is visited. A whole race of shaggy bigfoots is fine. Chewbacca appears, as seemingly the only original character that hasn’t shown up in some form yet. Yet I wonder if this stop was necessary.

“Episode III” roots itself in some honest emotion and features some satisfying pay-off, correcting some flaws of the previous two episodes. Yet one major problem remains intact. Hayden Christensen continues to be a massive weenie. Even after a movie that ends with him becoming the most iconic cinematic villain of the last century, Christensen is still not convincing. His performance evolves in new, awful ways. Anakin grows from the petulant, whining teenager of “Attack of the Clones’ into the dull, constipated adult of “Revenge of the Sith.” The opening scene, where Skywalker scraps robots off Kenobi’s space-jet with his space-jet, Christensen seems visibly bored. After killing a man in cold blood, he acts more confused then shocked. He brings no pain to Anakin’s descent, making the character seem more self-assured then conflicted. His fears, grief, and pain comes across as gassy whining.

“Episode III” is the first “Star Wars” movie to be rated PG-13. (Considering the current state of sci-fi/action flicks, it is unlikely to be the last.) This is a break from the previous films’ PG ratings. On the page, “ Revenge of the Sith” is no more violent then the earlier movies. Limbs are still cleanly, bloodlessly hacked away with light sabers. Robots, spaceships, and droids die harmlessly in explosions or via laser blasts. However, the film’s treatment of violence is different. There’s a cruel streak to what happens. This is basically a kids’ movie that has the main character murdering children. When Anakin strikes down the Separatist warlords, the camera lingers on their pain as he wantonly cuts them down. When the Jedi Order is exterminated, the murders are focused on, the heroes of the Republic betrayed by their friends. One Jedi is gunned down. Another is cruelly exploded. The violence is not especially explicit. But it has weight and effect, driving home a point.

Hayden Christensen’s lead performance may be a joke. As with all of the prequel films, the quality of the other actors are all over the place. Natalie Portman mostly worries for the men in her life, her ability further strangled by Lucas’ stiff dialogue. Samuel L. Jackson seems barely interested in the material. Other supporting turns are better. Ewan McGregor embraces his inner swashbuckler, imbuing Obi Wan with an adventurer’s spirit the movie needed more of. His cocksure performances is the most interesting thing about the movie’s overly long battle scenes. Frank Oz turns Yoda into a fully formed character with only his voice. Christopher Lee, though his role is small, still brings plenty of dignity and grace to the part.

One actor clearly dominates the film. Ian McDiarmid has had to hide his sinister intent under a smile in the last two films. His master plan fulfilled, McDiarmid can cut loose as the Emperor. Boy, does he ever! He decimates the scenery, screaming about “unlimited POWAH.” Even when buried under the Emperor’s make-up, he hams it up furiously. I don’t know if it’s a good performance. It’s certainly not a subtle one. Yet it’s definitely an entertaining one and enlivens whole portions of the film.

Though “Revenge of the Sith” has its problems throughout, the film comes together for a truly satisfying last act. The Republic as we know it is destroyed. The Emperor assumes power. The Jedi is hunted down and exterminated. Anakin has committed fully to the Dark Side. The newly christened Sith Lord even neatly handles the dangling subplot of Padme. All that is left are two fights. Anakin and Obi-Wan duel over a lava planet. They leap on moving platforms over the molten magma, not unlike video game characters. In the Senate, Yoda and Palpatine come to blows. Seeing the two elderly master fight is surprisingly powerful. These are strong characters, unleashed, pulling no punches. I especially like Palpatine tossing around the floating platforms or Yoda shrugging off Force Lightning. Anakin and Obi-Wan’s fight is less visually dynamic. However, I admire the film taking its time. The fight goes on for several minutes, going in all sorts of angles. While Christensen’s performance is typically flat, Ewan McGregor brings some much needed gravity to the scenes.

“Revenge of the Sith” could have easily been titled “The Birth of Darth Vader.” The movie grants Vader’s creation the proper weight. We see Anakin’s visceral transformation, his skin burning off from the lava’s heat. (Never mind that the heat would have roasted him alive long before this.) Strapped to a table, his surgery is painful, Skywalker screaming in pain. Vader’s mask being lowered onto his face is given the attention this obviously momentous occasion needs. He rises from the slab, like the Frankenstein Monster. A low key version of the Imperial March plays on John Williams’ score. He breathes through his iconic breathing apparatus for the first time. Anakin Skywalker is dead. Darth Vader lives.

And then the movie undermines the drama of this sequence with some unintentional comedy. Yes, I’m talking about the “NOOOOO!” scene. Such an overwrought dramatic cliché being inserted into such an effective sequence sinks the scene. There are other moments of unintentional humor in “Episode III.” Stumbled or awkward lines bury key scenes. “Killing younglings!” Or “To me, the Jedi are evil.” The audience shouldn’t laugh when a hero becomes a villain. Or when children are killed. The writing of George Lucas makes both of these things so.

What perhaps saves “Revenge of the Sith” is a strong sense of dramatic ironies and parallels. Early on, Palpatine tells a story about his Sith Master, Darth Plagueus. He mentions how his lord conquer death for everyone but himself. Likewise, Anakin ends up bringing about the events he worked so hard to prevent. Originally, the film was going to include a scene where Palpatine informs Anakin that he created him, manipulating the Force to lead to his birth. In other words, he’s his father. That would’ve been distracting and relegating the revelation to subtext is ultimately more effective. As Padme gives birth, squirming on the operating table, Anakin’s transformation into Vader happens on a different operating table. These are two births of different types. In the film’s final minutes, two people look ahead to different futures. Vader and Palpatine glare at the under-construction Death Star, foreshadowing the Empire’s reign. Meanwhile, Uncle Owen holds a baby Luke in his arms, the sun rising before him. An empire rises while a new hope looms in the distance.

“Revenge of the Sith” is easily the best film of the prequel trilogy. Many of the ridiculous story decisions of the last two pictures are dealt with. The story builds a satisfying, dramatic scenes unseen in the last two movies. There are still problems, mainly in the acting and dialogue sections. Yet it successfully concludes one story while setting up another. This is probably not anyone’s ideal conclusion to the epic “Star Wars” cycle. But Episodes I and II prove that it could have been a lot worst. At times, it’s even pretty good. [Grade: B]

As a director, George Lucas seems more-or-less retired. Disney owns "Star Wars" now and is determined to release as many new films as possible. Lucas himself has been kicked upstairs, his own creation taken away from him. It's actually kind of sad. He created something that millions of people love dearly but eventually became incredibly bitter about that fanbase. Though he occasionally mentions wanting to return to making small, experimental movies, I think the odds of seeing "Directed by George Lucas" on a movie again is extremely unlikely. "Star Wars" will continue on without its father.

Thus concludes my retrospectives for both Lucas and "Star Wars," at least until that new one comes out. I've got some more stuff planned for November so stick around. 

Director Report Card: George Lucas (2002)

5. Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones

The reaction that faced “Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace” was mixed, to say the least. But it’s not like Episode II was never going to get made. “The Phantom Menace” was, predictably, a huge box office event, becoming the highest grossing film of year and racing all the way up to the second spot on the all-time highest grossing chart. Whether or not George Lucas learned anything from the first prequel’s response is debatable. When you’re as successful or popular as Lucas is, you’re probably shielded from most criticism. “Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones” would face nearly as much criticism as its predecessor and suffers from many of the same problems. Yet I’m confident in saying it’s the superior of the first two prequels.

In the decade since the last star war, the politics of the galaxy have grown even hotter. A separatist army threatens to break away from the Galactic Republic and plunge the galaxy into civil war. Someone within the separatist movement wants Padme Amidala of Naboo, now the planet’s senator, dead. Obi-Wan, now a Jedi master, and Anakin, now his arrogant if powerful apprentice, are sent to protect her. Obi-Wan’s investigation of the assassin leads him to a planet where a clone army has been created, uncovering a conspiracy. Anakin, meanwhile, falls deeper in love with Padme and makes an awful discovery about his mother.

A complaint I had about “The Phantom Menace” is that its plot was needlessly complicated compared to the elegant simplicity of the original trilogy. Well, “Attack of the Clones” isn’t much better in that regard. There’s still a two-prong conspiracy at work here. You see, Senator Palpatine is also the Sith Lord, who is secretly funding the separatist movement. As a politician, he gathers more and more power in response to this conflict. A villain benefiting from a war he himself creates is an interesting idea. Unfortunately, “Attack of the Clones” does not take a direct A-to-B route to get there. There’s some false leads, with the Trade Federation still floating around along with some other shifty, corporate organizations. A more concise writer then George Lucas probably could have made this plot work. In his hands, it's jumbled and often difficult to follow.

However, “Episode II” is mostly a superior film to “Episode I.” First off, it utilizes its cast much better. In the previous episode, Ewan McGregor was mostly wasted as the teenage Obi-Wan, relegated to a supporting role that left him with little to do. “Episode II” elevates himself to a lead role. Left to his own for most the film, McGregor gets to be a man of adventure, investigating leads and being a general bad ass. Speaking of bad asses, Samuel L. Jackson’s Mace Windu is actually given something to do. The last act has the Jedi master swinging a purple light saber around in the middle of the action. Best of all, Christopher Lee is brought into the “Star Wars” fold. Lee easily overcomes the ridiculous name he’s given. Lee brings an unbelievable dignity to the part of Count Dooku. Lee was always respectable, even in the lowest of material, and this film allows Lee to lord over lots of people. A legendary figure, Lee’s presence elevates the entire movie around him.

While some actors that were underutilized last time get more to do this time, there’s still a major problem. Many established names auditioned for the role of Anakin Skywalker. Ryan Phillippe nearly got the part, while Lucas reached out to Leonardo DiCaprio at one point. Instead, an unknown named Hayden Christensen won the role. Christensen has one of the most obnoxious screen presences I’ve ever seen. From his first scene, Christensen is whining. The character is meant to be an arrogant teenager. The writing is too good in this regard, as the audience frequently hates Anakin. Even after loosing his mother, and massacring a village of Sand People in his grief, Christensen isn’t believable. He always comes off as petulant and irritating. Christensen has never gone on to much of a career probably because he’s so fucking annoying in this movie. It’s hard to believe that Darth Vader, ruthless leader of the Imperial army, started out as this wienie.

While “Attack of the Clones” was generally better received then “Episode I” but one aspect was heavily criticized. While Anakin and Padme are left on Naboo, their romance blooms. Or it’s suppose to anyway. The romance in “Episode II” is embarrassing. If Hayden Christensen’s attempts at emoting rage or arrogance is bad, his attempts at being a romantic lead are even worst. Then again, I don’t think anyone could make Lucas’ attempts at romantic dialogue work. Natalie Portman, a wonderful actress who looks wonderful in a series of elegant gowns, also stumbles under the terrible dialogue. “I don’t like sand” is the most infamous example of Lucas’ attempt at romantic dialogue. When Anakin starts talking about how he burns for Padme, I actually think that’s even worst. Anakin frolicking with some sort of space cow is supposed to be charming but is just uncomfortable. The entire subplot is like that, making the audience cringe in the worst way. The romance is utterly impossible to believe.

In “The Phantom Menace,” the many references and call-forwards to the earlier/later films were often distracting. C3PO’s random appearance was only the most egregious. “Attack of the Clones” does a slightly better job with this. The fans adore Boba Fett despite the fact that he never did anything interesting in his movies. “Attack of the Clones” has another Fett, Jango Fett, Boba’s father. Unlike his son, Jango actually does something. He gets to blast people with his ray gun, fly through the air on his jetpack, and faces off against monsters and jedi. The second episode also shows the origin of R2D2 and C3P0’s partnership. Threepio is incorporated into the film in a far more organic way. The puns and buffoonery he gets up to are embarrassing. However, the scenes between the two droids are actually quite charming and amusing.

Some origins, however, are harder to rate. The very first “Star Wars” movie featured an off-hand reference to the Clone Wars. For years, fans wondered what in the world that could be. “Attack of the Clones,” naturally, expounds on this. And not in the most satisfying way. First off, we learn that the Clone Wars is called that because the victorious army was made up of clones. That’s odd. Aren’t wars usually named after who the aggressor was? Secondly, the origin of that clone army is a bit strangled. Basically, the clone army became the empire’s stormtroopers. And each one has Jango Fett’s face, a frankly bizarre screenwriting decision I can’t justify. It’s not as ridiculous a reveal as Anakin building C3P0 in his bedroom or the midi-clorians but it definitely creates some pauses. (Oh, we also find out how Luke got an Uncle Owen, for all that’s worth.)

Mostly, “Episode II” is better than “Episode I” because it has far better action. The second prequel is just as CGI heavy as the first, if not more. However, the effects have aged a lot better. You can actually believe the various CGI droids, monsters, and vehicles exist on the same plain of reality as the human actors. (There’s also less kiddy bullshit, excluding Obi-Wan’s odd trip to an alien diner.) Take, for example, the early scene of Anakin and Obi-Wan chasing an attempted assassin through Corusant. It’s an exciting sequence, the characters diving between moving vehicles and careening around buildings. Unlike the super-safe action in “The Phantom Menace,” there’s actually a bit of danger and excitement in these scenes. Obi-Wan’s duel with Jango Fett is even better, as the characters dangle over the ocean in the pouring rain. The following space chase is also effective, as the bounty hunter’s mines clip through an asteroid field.

Proof that Episode II utilizes its effects way better comes near the end. After Anakin, Obi-Wan, and Padme are all captured by the bad guys, they’re put in gladiatorial combat against a trio of monsters. Unlike the ridiculous CGI creations in “The Phantom Menace,” these creatures feel alive, having weight and character. They’re just generally neat too. One is a dinosaur-like beast, his facial markings resembling an executioner’s mask. The other is a giant praying mantis-like crab creature. The final one is a weird rat/tiger monster. Watching the heroes survive and dismantle these beasts is loads of fun. Natalie Portman in the tight white uniform, which is quickly torn away, had the same effect on a new generation as Carrie Fisher in the iron bikini did on the previous one. The sequence later explodes into an all-out war between the Jedi and an army of battle droids. After years of hearing about how bad ass the Jedi Knights were, actually seeing them in mass combat is a satisfying sight.

As much fun as those sequences are, “Attack of the Clones” eventually degrades into too much combat between zeros and ones. The human element is removed entirely as we’re treated to long sequences of droids, battleships, and clone troopers firing at each other. By the time the weird tanks on giant wheels roll in, any semblance of humanity is once again gone. Just minutes ago I was having fun with this stuff. Now, it’s a heartless CGI orgy of destruction. “Attack of the Clones” is actually the longest of all the “Star Wars” movies and these scenes could have easily been clipped. What are you gonna’ do? Also weird are the rough zooms Lucas utilizes a few times. Since all of these films are homages to old Hollywood sci-fi serials, I’m not sure why he would employ a thoroughly modern technique like that.

The ultimate bit of fan service in “Attack of the Clones” occurs near the end. Count Dooku easily beats back Obi-Wan and Anakin. After he’s been such an annoying jerk throughout the whole film, it’s satisfying watching Christopher Lee beat the shit out Hayden Christensen. The movie even makes that silly Force Lightening a creditable threat. Out of the shadows waddles Yoda. For the first time, we see the wrinkly, green muppet pick up a light saber. We see why Yoda is such a respected warrior. He leaps and spins through the air, fighting off the Sith Lord’s abilities. Some people have criticized the sequence as ridiculous or comical. When I saw “Episode II” in theaters, people were cheering. Hate me for it but I still think it’s awesome. It’s the kind of silly, unaware fun these prequels maybe needed more of. I especially love how, right after the sword fight, Yoda hobbles back off with his cane.

The dialogue is still stiff, bloated, and quotable for all the wrong reasons. The romantic subplot is a tumor that drains the entire film. Hayden Christensen is woefully unprepared. The plot is still self-serving in complications. On the plus side, the CGI is incorporated much more cleanly. The action is exciting and focused. The characters are given more to do. Jar Jar has less then ten minutes of screen time. Comparing “Attack of the Clones” to “The Empire Strikes Back” won't do the prequel any favors. Yet it’s still a major step up from “The Phantom Menace.” Maybe George Lucas can learn… [Grade: B-]

Director Report Card: George Lucas (1999)

4. Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace

“Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace” was perhaps the most anticipated film in cinema history. It was the first proper “Star Wars” film released in sixteen years and the first time George Lucas himself had directed a movie since the original film. In that time, the public’s love for the series and the fandom obsession with it had only intensified more. Though the re-edited “Special Edition” re-releases were frowned upon by hardcore fans, the films reignited “Star Wars” fever, leading to a new wave of toys, books, and merchandise. What excited people even more was this being “Episode I.” The new film would fill in the backstory of the universe’s most beloved characters, showing us Darth Vader became Darth Vader. Even better then that, they’re would be two more movies after this one. Hell, the premiere of the movie’s trailer was an event, people buying tickets to unrelated films just to see it and leaving afterwards. The hype for “The Phantom Menace” was unparalleled.

When people actually saw the movie, that hype soured into disappointment. “Episode I” is the film that made George Lucas simultaneously the most beloved and hated man in nerd culture. Though a huge financial success, many people were more then happy to share their disappointment with the film. In the years since, “The Phantom Menace’s” reputation was only grown harsher. A lot of people hate the movie and even more seem to hate what it represented. For many, this signaled the point when “Star Wars” went from the grandest science fiction universe ever put to screen and became an excuse to sell French-kissing Jar Jar Binks lollipops. What does someone like me, whose interest in “Star Wars” has always been casual at best, think of this widely loathed feature?

Set decades before the events of the original trilogy, “The Phantom Menace” takes place in a very different far, far away galaxy. The Galactic Empire has yet to rise. In its place is the Galactic Senate, where senators from hundreds of planets argue and squabble about issues. One such squabble gets serious when the Trade Federation blocks contact from the lush, swamp planet Naboo and threatens war. Two Jedi Knights are sent in as negotiators. What they don’t know is that the Trade Federation is in cahoots with a Sith Lord, an evil Jedi, who has conceived a conspiracy that will bring him to power. Fleeing an assassination attempt, the Jedi and the Queen of Naboo land on distant, desert planet Tatooine. There, the Jedi meet a young boy who will change the course of the galaxy.

The very first “Star Wars” was a simple story. Lucas himself has admitted it's not much more then a tale of good versus evil, the good rebels fighting the evil empire, with Luke’s progression from boy to man happening alongside the war. The prequel is no more complex in its themes. Its story, however, goes off in all sorts of unwieldy directions. There’s way more political intrigue, with lots of screen time devoted to the Senate arguing and deciding about what to do. Trade regulation does not seem like the most exciting basis for your epic, sci-fi adventure. I’ll admit, as a kid, I never entirely understood what the Trade Federation’s goals were. Even as an adult, the how and why of what the Trade Federation is doing isn’t explained the best. Turns out, it’s all a long plan for Senator Palpatine to come to power, ensuring the existence of the Sith-controlled Empire. Watching “The Phantom Menace” in theaters back in 1999, all that shit was years off. While Lucas’ world is no less vivid, the story within it is less clear.

What strikes me the most about “The Phantom Menace” is how completely different it looks compared to the original trilogy. The events of this film and the next two takes place long before “A New Hope.” Then why are the robots, spaceships, and technology so much more advanced? Even as a kid, I understood that effects had come a long way in sixteen years. Yet you’d think Lucas would be more interested in maintaining visual continuity between the two trilogies. More pressingly, what was cutting edge in 1999 looks incredibly dated in 2015. The CGI effects now come off as incredibly cartoony. Look at the Gungan mounts, which are weird space camels, or the one pod racer, who is just a big yellow head. These characters don’t have the interior logic that the aliens of the original trilogy had. They don’t look like things that could actually exist. Moreover, the movie’s reliance on CGI quickly becomes a weakness. The computer generated characters lack heft or weight. They don’t look like they exist on the same field as the live actors. They don’t, of course. But effects should strengthen the illusion of the movie, not wreck it.

One special effect, specifically, definitely brings the whole film down. Is there a more hated character in all of sci-fi fandom then Jar Jar Binks? He’s introduced shrieking, wailing, and nearly getting a more important character killed. Throughout the film, he contributes little to the story. He’s supposed to help Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan navigate the Naboo ocean but they seemingly do okay on their own. He does nothing but cause non-plot-related trouble on Tatooine. During the war on Naboo, he stumbles, screams, and survives only through pure luck. He adds nothing to the plot. Jar Jar is also incredibly annoying. His voice is annoying, a high-pitch mush-mouthed whine that is frequently difficult to understand. He has both the vocal dialect and the attitude of a blackface minstrel performer. Not only is this racist, it’s also embarrassing. (Also not helping the movie are the other characters that can easily be read as offensive Asian or Jewish stereotypes.) That Jar Jar is in so much of the movie effects the viewer’s enjoyment of it.

Why Jar Jar is in the film is a question worth asking. Lucas himself has been quoted as saying the character was there to appeal to young kids. This isn’t the first time George has done this. “Return of the Jedi” was negatively affected by cutesy Ewoks and lots of new, unnecessary vehicles that could be made into toys. Lucas has said that all of the “Star Wars” have been intended to be children’s film. Lucas misunderstands, seemingly thinking a children’s film must be juvenile. That attitude gets us a farting space camel, Jar Jar stepping in alien poop, and incompetent droids that speak in obnoxious voices. It gets us flippy-floppy aliens and vehicles that seemed to have been designed as toys first and characters second. The entire tone of “The Phantom Menace” is soft and harmless, removing any danger or tension from the story. There’s nothing wrong with a “Star Wars” movie being a children’s movie. The problem is a film this expensive, technical, and involved shouldn’t be a bad children’s movie.

“The Phantom Menace” shows some of George Lucas’ other flaws as a writer. The reveal of Darth Vader being Luke’s father was a shock. Princess Leia being Luke’s sister was a less natural reveal, coming out of nowhere and having little effect on the plot. Not only is everyone related in a galaxy far, far away, everyone knows each other too. Luke and Leia’s mother was close friends with Senator Palpatine. R2D2 just happened to be on the same ship. The most baffling decision was to have Luke’s dad create C3PO. What are the odds that the robot that would crash-land on the same planet fifty years later just happen to be created there? For that matter, what are the odds that Qui-Gon would end up on a planet where a powerful Jedi-in-the-rough was born? Or that Vader would never think to search his home planet for his son, in all the time he led the Empire? The Force works in mysterious ways. So does hacky screenwriters.

Some time before “Episode I” was filmed, George Lucas had rolled with the obvious retcon that the “Star Wars” saga is the story of Anakin Skywalker, of his rise, fall, and redemption. Though he’s not the main character of the film, Anakin is given undue importance to the story. He has no father, being conceived by the Force. His midi-chlorians – an awkward attempt to justify the spiritual with the scientific – are weightier then anyone else in the galaxy. He’s a brilliant inventor at only nine years old, creating highly advanced droids and pod racers in his bedroom. He succeeds in the pod race by pure luck. Later, he jumps into a space ship fighter jet, masters its controls in seconds, flies into space, survives a war zone, and successfully destroys the villains’ ship. In fan-fiction parlance, Anakin Skywalker is a Marty Stu, a character who is competent at everything, has no apparent flaws, and succeeds at every endeavor the plot throws at him. The characters’ unearned hyper-confidence is another result of the movie’s kid-friendly focus. The stiff, childish performance of Jack Lloyd does not justify the character’s extravagant abilities.

As the prequel trilogy went on, fans would become more critical of George Lucas’ ability to write dialogue. This massive flaw is readily apparent in “The Phantom Menace,” though. Lucas assembles a cast full of talented actors but few of them are capable of navigating his egregiously bad dialogue. Natalie Portman and Keira Knightley play the duel role of the Queen and her decoy. Both of these talented actors are saddled with the film’s stiffest dialogue, smothering any hints of a decent performance. Samuel L. Jackson, an explosive performer when utilized correctly, sits in a chair, reading broad dialogue in a calm, bored voice. Ewan McGregor, another fine performer, seems similarly baffled by Obi-Wan’s dialogue. It doesn’t help that the character has little to do until the last act. McGregor marches along to the script’s clunky beats, trying and failing to imbue Lucas’ rigid writing with some sort of natural life. Even Yoda, who was brought to life so vividly in “The Empire Strikes Back,” becomes a mouth piece for awkward, unnatural exposition.

Despite a horribly dense screenplay that leaves little room for likable performers, a few actors emerge from “The Phantom Menace” with their dignity intact. Liam Neeson’s career has evolved from notable bit-player, serious performer in serious movies, a wise mentor in popcorn genre fare, to action hero throat puncher. “Episode I” launched that third act of his career. Neeson, even when trading barbs with cartoon characters, maintains a respected air of wisdom. He turns Qui-Gon, one of the most thinly written parts in the script, into a fully formed character. Ian McDiarmid reprises his role as Senator Palpatine, before he became the evil Emperor. Though the movie ladles on foreshadowing of Palpatine’s future villainy, McDiarmid is still having a ball. Every wink and glad hand is laced with malicious intent. He is simultaneously incredibly charming and likable, while hinting at a capacity for great evil. Which is perfect for the character.

A main factor in the movie’s advertising was the character of Darth Maul. At first, Maul looks like another Boba Fett. That is, a villain that looks cool but doesn’t’ actually do anything. Maul is certainly striking looking – those red facial streaks and forehead horns make an impression – but he actually does contribute something to the story. Ray Park’s physical performance exudes complete control and vicious purpose. He’s a genuinely threatening presence. As an action movie, “Episode I” is less successful then it sets out to be. However, the climatic light saber duel between Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan, and Maul is impressive. The flips and saber spins are acrobatic and exciting. John Williams’ score propels the scene with energy and mythic importance. It’s the only time the movie’s stakes actually feel real. That a major character dies in the duel only hammers this point home.

It’s a shame the rest of the movie’s action sequences aren’t that intense or exciting. The pod racing sequence got a lot of press at the time. The scene isn’t bad and it’s appropriately speedy. A sequence of Anakin’s pod flying into the air still works. However, today the scene’s reliance on poorly aged CGI drains it of tension or thrills. That Anakin, such a thin character, is at the center of it doesn’t help matters. The Jedi slicing through Battle Droids also doesn’t impress, since the droids are such comical characters and such obvious CGI creations. A similar problem sinks the battle between the Trade Federation and the Gungan forces. The constant Jar Jar schtick undermines the seriousness of the situation. Meanwhile, the laser shields and floating tanks seem horribly ineffective. Even the space battle at the end, the titular war among the stars, feels hopelessly untethered. That a nine year old with no flying experience can not only survive, but win the war, makes the war seem like no big deal.

It’s true that “Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace” never could have lived up to the hype surrounding it. That’s the risk of being probably the most anticipated film in cinema history. The reviews at the time were mostly negative and the fan reaction was even worst. “The Empire Strikes Back” got some disappointing reviews to, when it came out. There has been no reevaluation of “Episode I”s” quality in the years since. It’s just as flimsily plotted, overly juvenile, and excitement-free now as it was then. The saga would continue but the fan base’s faith in their mentor’s abilities would be forever shaken. [Grade: C]

Recent Watches: Return of the Jedi (1983)

When I was a kid, “Return of the Jedi” was my favorite of the “Star Wars” movies. Looking back, this makes a lot of sense. By the time “Return of the Jedi” came out, “Star Wars” was a huge marketing machine. Toys, bed sheets, lunch boxes, and even Saturday morning cartoon shows were just some of the ancillary products. Realizing this, George Lucas intentionally made changes to the final entry in his original trilogy in order to appeal more to kids. When the movie came out, not too many complained about this. In the days before continuing cinematic sagas were guaranteed, people were just overjoyed to have a new “Star Wars” movie, to finally see the conclusion to the story. Now, fan opinion is more divided. Some continue to love “Return of the Jedi” while others see it as a bit disappointing.

In the year since “The Empire Strikes Back,” this war among the stars has become more heated. Determined to stomp out the Rebel Alliance once and for all, the Empire has started construction on a new Death Star. Stationed above the forest moon of Endor, the Emperor himself is overseeing its construction. Meanwhile, Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia endeavor to rescue Han Solo from alien gangster Jabba the Hutt. Afterwards, the rebellion flies toward Endor, seeking to destroy the new Death Star before it destroys them. There, Luke has to confront his father.

Allow me to digress slightly and discuss George Lucas’ other well-known creation. The second Indiana Jones movie, “Indiana Jones and the Temple Doom,” was widely criticized upon release for being too dark. The third movie, “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade,” was made much sillier and softer in response. Despite most everyone liking “The Empire Strikes Back,” Lucas and his teams seemed to have made a similar over-correction with “Return of the Jedi.” Episode six wants to give people more of what they liked before. Perhaps there was a pressure to ensure the final part of the story would please everybody. Thus, we have a second Death Star, another duel between Luke and Vader, another visit with Yoda, another land war on a specifically characterized planet, and another character being revealed as a family member. At times, “Return of the Jedi” feels too safe. Its willingness to revisit elements from previous films – with less satisfying results – is a symptom of this.

One must also address the continuing toyification of “Star Wars.” George Lucas had an invested interest in this. Famously, 20th Century Fox did not believe the original “Star Wars” would be successful, instead betting on “Damnation Alley” to be their big science fiction film of the summer. Because of this, Lucas talked the studio into giving him full control over the “Star Wars’” merchandising rights. The massive demand for “Star Wars” toys, more-so then even the actual movies, is what made George Lucas a billionaire. Perhaps this is why “Return of the Jedi” seems to focus on introducing new vehicles, aliens, and gadgets. There are lots of new spaceships fighting among the Rebel forces. The movie features a lot more new alien species, some of them rather cuddly. Characters that look cool but actually add nothing to the story, like the Imperial Guards, are introduced. Presumably because the AT-AT toys were hella’ awesome, the movie throws in another walking vehicle, the far goofier looking AT-ST. Hell, Luke even gets a new colored light saber. Toyetic elements aren’t necessarily bad. There’s no doubt the mechanical and creature design of these films remain as top-notch as ever. Yet it’s a sure sign of the series’ changing sensibilities.

“The Empire Strikes Back” shocked the hell out of people by revealing that Darth Vader, the series’ most imposing villain, was actually the father of Luke Skywalker, the virtuous hero. That was a huge shock because it was so unexpected. In the concluding third chapter, Luke Skywalker gains another family member. Turns out Princess Leia is his sister. Unlike the Vader reveal, this revelation serves little purpose. Mostly, it just makes the universe seem a lot smaller. Apparently, everyone is related in a galaxy far, far away. A random farm boy on Tatooine, a princess of the Galactic Republic, and a high-ranking Sith Lord all being members of the same family strains belief. Of course, we all know the real reason Leia becomes Luke’s sister. It was to defuse the Luke/Han/Leia love triangle. To dispel all notions of the male and female leads getting together, to make room for Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher’s romantic chemistry. Mostly, it just ends up adding a kind of creepy incest subtext to the first two films. There wasn’t a more elegant way to bury that plot line, George?

Like I said, introducing a bunch of cool shit you can make toys of isn’t necessary a bad idea. The first act of the movie is full of all sorts of awesome aliens and monsters to make rad action figures out of. And it’s the best part of the movie. Finally getting to see Jabba the Hut, after hearing about him for two movies, must’ve been very satisfying in 1983. He doesn’t disappoint either, the giant, decadent slug monster being appropriately imposing and horrifying. His palace is full of all sorts of weird creatures. The adorable Max Rebo, the hideous Bib Fortuna, the chattering Salacious Crumb, the pig-snouted Gamorrean Guards, the Rule 34-spawning dancing girls: All make an impression. After attempting to sway Jabba with his Jedi powers, the gangster attempts to feed Luke to the imposing Rancor. The hero fighting a giant monster positively recalls the sci-fi serials that inspired “Star Wars.” (The Rancor Trainer also crying after the creature’s death is another nice touch, showing that even hideous monsters are loved by someone.) In addition to being a lot of pulpy fun, it continues to show that our heroes exist in a wilder, more diverse universe then is always immediately obvious.

The battle above the Sarlacc pit is some of the most satisfying action in the film. The heroes leaping around the floating platforms is a dynamic sight. It’s great to see Luke actually kicking so much ass, slashing foes with his light saber and yanking henchmen out of windows. Once on Endor, there’s the exciting Speeder bike chase. Now iconic, the hover-bike race features lots of explosion and high-speed action. I wish all of “Return of the Jedi” was this good. The siege on the Death Star is fine, I guess. The model work continues to be excellent and the camera is more immersive then in Episode IV. However, the risks seems much lower. The Rebels’ victory seems more self-assured. The ground war on Endor has a similar problem. There’s some shooting and fighting but no actual sense of danger. By this point, the Stormtroopers are totally incompetent, defanged threat. The Empire seems like less of a universe conquering regime and more like a bunch of easily foiled cartoon bad guys.

Let’s talk seriously about the Ewoks. Before there was Jar Jar, the “Star Wars” character die hard fans despised the most were the Ewoks. Their marketability is plain. They’re four-foot tall teddy bears. They speak in adorable gibberish. Unlike many of the other aliens of “Star Wars,” they’re a primitive species, residing in grass huts and defending themselves with rocks and spears. This is how fucking cute the Ewoks are: One of them flies through the air on a ridiculous hang-glider. I don’t hate the Ewoks. Yes, they’re fairly preposterous. The way they defeat the Imperial Forces is, frankly, unlikely. Apparently, the Ewoks were meant to represent the Viet Cong which is either brilliant or incredibly tasteless. Characterizing them as primitive cannibals doesn’t help their case much. But their villages, suspended among the trees, are cool. Endor is a pretty neat location and the movie makes the most of it. Would I have preferred a planet full of Wookies, as originally planned? Oh yeah, for sure. But the sickly adorable Ewoks aren’t without their charms. They did, after all, introduces the world to Warwick Davis.

Something that made “Empire” so impressive is how intimate the struggles of its characters’ were. Luke Skywalker’s character arc – realizing his greatest enemy was his father and confronting his inner darkness – was especially compelling. “Return of the Jedi” seeks much of the same emotion. Luke spends the last third of the movie aboard the Death Star, egged on by his dad and the Emperor. This removes the hero from the final conflict. It also makes the Dark Side seem incredibly petty. The dilemma is supposed to play like this: Luke’s emotions are fiery and unbalanced. This leaves him at risk to the Dark Side and he must resist his anger and rage. Instead, this makes the protagonist look ineffective and inactive. When Luke grabs his light saber and goes at the Emperor, it’s what we want to see. We want a hero that takes action! The duel between Vader and his son plays like an inferior version of the fight from “The Empire Strikes Back.” The Emperor, though a visually imposing character, doesn’t do much. His ability to sway and manipulate people doesn’t come across very clearly. (His ability to shoot lightning bolts from his fingers, meanwhile, is hopelessly silly. How come he didn’t do that shit sooner?)

During production of the prequel trilogy, George Lucas was fond of saying the entire saga had been about the rise and fall of Anakin Skywalker, right from the beginning. This is blatantly untrue. However, “Return of the Jedi” does create a redemptive arc for its villain. Darth Vader’s humanity is emphasized throughout the movie. We discover that he hasn’t killed Luke because he genuinely cares about him. Behind the robotic suit and terrifying voice, a human heart still beats. Vader turning against the Emperor doesn’t play the best. It comes a bit out of nowhere. One minute, Vader is passively watching his boss roasts his son. The next, he lifts the bad guy over head and tosses him to his death. Similarly, Vader being fatally injured isn’t delivered smoothly. All it takes to debilitate his system is a few shocks from the Emperor’s Force Lightening. However, the confrontation between father and son is touching. As Vader dies, he looks at his boys with his own eyes for the first time. The two have absolution, finding a common ground in the last minutes of his life. “Return of the Jedi” is too devoid of emotion and heart for most of its run time. Those few scenes, though, shows that it could’ve had more.

Considering what a massive cultural phenomenon “Star Wars” became, perhaps it was impossible for any film to be a satisfying final entry. Yet in its desperate attempt to please at all cost, “Return of the Jedi” seems to forget to create a touching final scene. Vader and the Emperor is dead. The Death Star has been destroyed. Our heroes are reunited. The bad guys lost and the good guys won. So what’s our resolution? Everyone parties with the Ewoks, Luke burns his dad’s body, three ghosts show up, and then we cut to credits. That’s… Underwhelming. For being such an epic story, there’s surprisingly little pomp and circumstance in these final moments. Compare the joyous ending of “A New Hope” to this one and tell me I’m wrong.

After relative little tinkering in the various re-releases of “The Empire Strikes Back,” George Lucas’ desire to fuck with everything returns along with the Jedi. The early scenes of Jabba’s palace are crowded up with more CGI creations. The Max Rebo Band now features some excessively distracting new characters. The lead singer has been entirely replaced, singing and dancing in a more outrageous fashion. And what’s with the hairy guy screaming directly at the camera? Christ, that’s annoying. The simplicity of the Sarlaac, a terrifying vagina dentata lurking in the middle of the desert, is mucked up with more tentacles and a beak. The Blu-Ray release added even more unnecessary non-sense. Anakin’s Force Ghost is now given Hayden Christenson’s face, a move likely to confuse first-timers who watch the series in release order. The Ewoks now blink for some reason. Some of the changes give the impression that Lucas is purposely screwing with the fan base. The celebratory climatic montage now features planets from the prequel trilogy. Among them is Episode I’s Naboo, the screeching voice of Jar Jar Binks’ obviously audible in the crowd. Before his heroic sacrifice, Darth Vader now screams the widely mocked “Noooo!” from Episode III. Why? Why do any of these things? At best, they add nothing to the movie. At worst, they are utterly distracting.

I should probably mention at some point that Richard Marquand, a thriller filmmaker with little experience in science fiction, directed “Return of the Jedi.” This was after David Lynch and David Cronenberg, both of whom likely would’ve made much stranger movies, passed on the film. Marquand gets little credit. Lucas mostly exited “Empire Strikes Back” after the scripting phase was done. On “Jedi,” he was involved every step of the way. It is Lucas’ sensibility, not Marquand’s, that defines the film. Maybe “Return of the Jedi” would have been better if Lucas had taken a back seat. That’s something we can debate endlessly. Though flawed, “Return of the Jedi” isn’t bad. There are plenty of entertaining or effective moments throughout. Its biggest sin is simply not being as good as either of the proceeding episodes. Perhaps no movie could’ve been a satisfying conclusion to a series this huge. I guess we’ll find out when Episode IX comes along… [7/10]

Recent Watches: The Empire Strikes Back (1980)

George Lucas has given conflicting statements about how much of the “Star Wars” saga he planned out. Sometimes, he says the entire series was planned out from the beginning. Other times, he admits he made everything up as he went along. There’s far more evidence to support that latter statement. It wasn’t until he was writing the second draft of “The Empire Strikes Back” that it became Episode V, the groundwork for a six part cycle being laid then. The same draft is when Darth Vader became Luke’s father. Nobody knew the first “Star Wars” would become such a phenomenon. Nobody knew that the public would demand a sequel. The enormous success of the original obviously showed that people wanted to see more of this galaxy. Predictably, “The Empire Strikes Back” became a massive success. Today, many consider the middle chapter the best part of the trilogy. Some go even further, considering it the greatest movie ever made.

Since the destruction of the Death Star, the Empire has increased its efforts to stomp out the rebel forces. Darth Vader, in particular, has become obsessed with finding Luke Skywalker. The Imperial army locates the new rebel base on the ice planet Hoth. Following the battle, the heroes of the rebellion split in two different direction. Han, Leia, and Chewbacca try to avoid the Empire despite the Millennium Falcon’s broken warp drive. Luke, taking instructions from Obi Wan’s ghost, seeks out the Jedi master Yoda on the swamp world Dagobah. Eventually, the splintered team come back together at Cloud City, where Vader confronts Luke and Han faces the bounty on his head.

Normally, when writing a screenplay, it’s advised not to split the story into halves. That’s screenwriting 101. Keep things orderly and simple. Somehow though, the middle sections of trilogies like to tell two-fold stories during their second entries. “Star Wars” did it. “Lord of the Rings” did the same. Astonishingly, it worked. “The Empire Strikes Back” has Luke and the Han/Leia team existing in separate plot lines for most of its run time. The story of half of the players running from the Empire keeps the pacing speedy and exciting. Cutting back to Luke’s training on Dagobah allows the story some breathing room. When the heroes are reunited in the final act, it feels satisfying and exciting. Unlike the simple A-to-B progression of the first film, “The Empire Strikes Back” feels more interesting and daring.

A criticism I had of “Star Wars” is that few of the characters struck me as emotionally complex or compelling. Luke, the story’s hero, seemed especially dry. The sequel sets out to correct this. “The Empire Strikes Back” is all about Luke’s growth as a character. From the first scene, it’s apparent he has matured. The fresh-faced boy of the first movie is now a war veteran, hardened by the battles he survived. Yet he retains a certain rebellious spontaneity, driven by his emotions. Once he seeks out Yoda, he learns how easy it is to fall to the Dark Side. “Empire” strives to make the struggle of the Jedi clear. The Force brings immense power. Using that power for anything but pure intentions is a slippery slope. Darth Vader is said to have fallen to the Dark Side because he wanted things to be easy and simple. It’s a very human struggle and one that makes the concept of the Force more interesting to think about. Luke’s journey, meanwhile, has him confronting the darkness inside him, that’s inside all of us.

My favorite part of the first movie was the droids and the Wookie. So it shouldn’t be a surprise that I think Yoda is a great addition to the “Star Wars” universe. Today, we’re so used to seeing Jedis that aren’t human. In 1980, the idea of a wrinkly, green muppet being the greatest Jedi master of all must have come as a shock. And let’s talk about Yoda being a muppet. Like Jim Henson’s iconic creations, we never think of Yoda as a puppet. He’s a fully formed character, with an incredibly expressive face and a full range of motion. The puppeteers truly give a great performance. Frank Oz provides a voice for Yoda that is not totally dissimilar to Grover’s or Miss Piggy’s. Mostly, I just love the gimmick of Yoda. He’s such an unlikely character. His appearance and introduction are misleading. His wisdom is tempered by an oddball streak. His style of speaking has been widely parodied. Yet it shows an alien organism wouldn’t necessary think or speak like you or I do. Yoda’s just great, right? We can all agree on that.

“Star Wars” teased romantic relationships between Leia and both of the male leads. The Princess seemed to have an interest in the fresh-faced boy hero. The space smuggler, meanwhile, shared some spicy sexual tension with her. “The Empire Strikes Back” runs with the Han/Leia relationship almost immediately. From the beginning, he’s trying to get her to admit that she likes him. Though she denies it at first, she easily falls to his charms. Two scenes come to mind. Han confronts Leia in the hallways of the Hoth base, debating leaving with her. Secondly, while working inside the Millennium Falcon, the two have another encounter. Both times they lock lips. Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher’s chemistry helps things along considerably. The interplay between the actors and the film taking its time with the relationship earns the events of the last act. When Leia tells Han she loves him, and he admits he knows, it feels believable. The romance provides even more personality to the sequel, making it a richer emotional experience then its predecessor.

The movie also earns points for focusing more on the criminal underworld of this far away galaxy. Han’s status as a wanted man, for continuing to deny Jabba the Hut what he’s owed, is repeatedly brought up. While running from the Empire, Han settles in Cloud City. While Cloud City is a compelling location – a Jetson’s style structure suspended in the atmosphere of a gas giant – its residents are the most important part. Lando Calrissian is a rogue like Solo. He’s a gambler, a free spirit, and a bit of a hustler. However, Billy Dee Williams’ brings an entirely different style to the part. Williams’ smooth-as-silk romantic style should need no introduction. He nearly charms Leia away from Han. Williams is immediately appealing and brings a further burst of energy to the sometimes overly square “Star Wars" universe. That Lando can’t entirely be trusted is interesting too. It shows that there’s more grey in this war between the Rebels and the Empire then previously thought. Good people compromise their morals to survive sometimes but selfish acts doesn’t make someone evil.

In an odd way, “The Empire Strikes Back” is less of an action film then “Star Wars.” Nothing that happens among the stars could truthfully be considered a war. The most military action happens on Hoth. The snow-covered ice world is certainly interesting to look at. The movie introduces some exciting new vehicles as well. The AT-AT walkers have rightfully become iconic. Lumbering across the tundra like giant elephants, they’re suitably intimidating while still looking cool. The action that follows, like the Rebels’ lassoing the AT-AT’s feet or Luke tossing grenades into the vehicle, works well on-screen. “The Empire Strikes Back” is more character-oriented. This is probably why most of the big action set-pieces occur in the first half-hour. The only space-centric action we get is the Falcon dodging a fleet of Star Destroyers, eventually heading into a scientifically inaccurate asteroid field.

While lacking spaceship battles, “Empire” does make time for more dynamic light saber duels. During his training with Yoda, the film realizes the Force’s potential a little more. It’s strong enough to lift an X-Wing from the swamp muck but focused enough for Luke to levitate small rocks. The light saber battles in “Star Wars” were stiff, short-lived affairs. Vader and Obi Wan’s duel didn’t feature any dynamic sword swinging. When Luke and Vader fight, it’s far more exciting. The duel is shot gorgeously, the fighters silhouetted against the interior engines of Cloud City. The swinging light sabers collide, producing sparks. We feel the weight and power of the weapons for the first time, such as when Luke dings Vader’s armor or the villain slices off Skywalker’s hand. The duel also shows that the Force can be both a tool and a weapon, as Vader tosses Luke through a window with it.

The sequel’s most iconic contribution to pop culture is its dramatic reveal. Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker’s father. Though the twist is foreshadowed throughout – like during Darth’s conversation with the Emperor – it still left jaws on the floor back in 1980. Luke’s most hated enemy being his father speaks to the sequel’s theme, that darkness is a part of all of us. As a dramatic moment, it’s hard to top. Vader’s adamant statement that “You know it to be true,” followed by Luke’s blood-curdling scream, dissolves all doubt in the viewer’s mind. Though “Empire” continues for a while afterwards, this is clearly the movie’s dramatic climax. Skillfully combining the story’s themes while being beautifully orchestrated, there’s a reason the scene is so famous and beloved.

We tend to think of all the “Star Wars’” movies as George Lucas’ projects. However, we can’t overlook that George did not direct “The Empire Strikes Back.” Instead, he handed the keys off to Irvin Kershner, his former film professor. Kershner’s style is more intimate. He doesn’t focus as much on the serial-style wipes or symmetrical wide shots as Lucas did. Instead, he seems to delight in putting viewers in tight places with the character. Whether it’s Yoda’s cramped hut or the tight corridors of the Falcon, he seems more concerned with the character’s emotions than the epic battles. Maybe this is why “The Empire Strikes Back” is a more mature, complex film then the first one. The sequel would get Kershner, a more dramatically minded director, a few sci-fi/action jobs he was ill-suited to, like “Never Say Never Again” or “RoboCop 2.”

There’s more to discuss with “The Empire Strikes Back.” What about John Williams’ iconic Imperial March, music nearly as beloved as the original’s classic opening theme? Or the huge asteroid worm that puts in an appearance, one of my favorite gags in the film? How about how much surprising emotion Chewbacca gets out of several strangled groans and growls? Or the appearance of Boba Fett, a character fans adore despite him not doing anything? While I still can’t call myself a “Star Wars” devotee, there’s little doubt in my mind that “The Empire Strikes Back” is the most accessible of the trilogy. It’s beautifully structured and written. Kershner finds the human heart inside this alien-filled sci-fi epic, making a more nuanced and developed picture. [9/10]

Recent Watches: More American Graffiti (1979)

Though George Lucas’ next film would inevitably overshadowed it, you can’t overlook that “American Graffiti” was a huge hit in its day. A film few people had any expectations for, it wound up becoming one of the highest grossing films of the year. “American Graffiti” isn’t the kind of movie that normally gets a sequel. After the enormous success of “Star Wars,” I suppose George Lucas could get any project he wanted made. Lucas didn’t write or direct “More American Graffiti,” instead handing it over an inexperienced comedy writer named Bill L. Norton. The sequel grossed only a fraction of its predecessor, was critically shrugged at, and continues to be overlooked.

Beginning two years after the events of “American Graffiti,” the film follows most of the same characters over the course of four different New Year Eves. At the end of 1964, John Milner struggles to win a local drag race. In 1965, Terry toils as a soldier in Vietnam, desperate to go home and mistreated by his superior officers. In 1966, Steve and Laurie’s marriage has hit a bump after she requests to get a job. A series of coincidences sees the two involved in the student protests of the war. In 1967, Debbie is living among hippies in San Francisco. The film cuts between the four days, showing how far the characters and the world had come throughout the tumultuous second half of the decade.

“More American Graffiti” is a much darker story then the original. The first film was a simplistic coming-of-age story, built upon nostalgia for a simpler age. By the time, “More American Graffiti” is set, that simpler age has passed. Vietnam, the student protest, women’s lib, and the drug culture are all issues discussed in the film. Even the story set closest to the first film’s period has a dark cloud floating over it. In 1964, John Milner hangs out with many of his friends, Steve and Laurie just married, Terry about to be deployed. He spends the day trying to score with a hot Icelandic girl that speaks no English and trying to best his rivals on the drag stripe. It’s a funny, sweet story built around Paul Le Mat’s easy, laid-back charm and his ability to mine complexity out of simple writing. However, viewers of the first movie know that John is killed by a drunk driver that night. As he drives home, he looks forward to the next day, to his date with the girl and winning more races. These things will never happen, his promising young life cut short. It cast a normal day for him in a sadder, more serious shade.

The sequel is more ambitious in terms of story too. Instead of covering the events of one night, “More American Graffiti” is spread over four time periods. The four days are distinguished with visual gimmicks. Toad’s adventure in Vietnam is shot like grainy war footage. Steve and Laurie’s marital troubles appear like a TV movie. Debbie’s hippy troubles are shot through multiple frames, a style patterned after “Woodstock.” It’s an interesting visual shorthand to tell the time periods apart. More often then not, it’s also rather distracting. Cutting between the different settings also means the film’s tone is constantly changing. The low-key character drama of John’s race day, Debbie’s hippy misadventures, the tragi-comedy of Toad’s time in Vietnam, and Steve and Laurie’s mostly serious student protest adventure don’t jive together in necessarily the best way.

Sticking the light-hearted “American Graffiti” cast in more serious settings leads to an uneven execution. Sticking Charles Martin Smith in the Vietnam certainly allows the actor to stretch his acting chops. His calm reaction to the a soldier’s sputtering, agonized death, while his more refined officer grows sick, certainly speaks to the character’s growth. However, there’s a problem with the 1965 sequence: “M*A*S*H” already existed. The film’s attempt at an irrelevant but respectful take on the horrors of the Vietnam War, even the specifics of a home-sick soldier bristling under his superiors, feels derivative of that landmark film. The conclusion is satisfying enough. The sequence, where Terry befriends one of the Pharaohs from the first film only to him suddenly shot down, is effective. However, the sequence doesn’t really say anything about Vietnam.

That’s kind of a problem all of “More American Grafitti” has. Unlike the original, which imbued a simple story with loads of meaning, the sequel struggles to find anything new or interesting to say about these important historical events. Look at the Steve and Laurie’s story line. It begins in a compelling place. Laurie wants to get a job, tried of being just a housewife. She leaves Steve in a lurch, the guy unable to take care of his kids on his own. She winds up involved with the student protest on the local college, thanks to her rebellious brother. There are good sequences here. Laurie shows solidarity with the students when she joins them in a sing-along. Steve bullshits some information out of a stoner, before similarly bullshitting his way onto the campus. His reaction to being treated like one of the protesters is amusing. Ron Howard and Cindy Williams actually give decent performances. However, if the protest story was ejected and the focus placed back on the actors, the segment would’ve worked better.

The sequel provides an example of this itself. The 1967 sequence has Debbie living among the hippy scene, eventually befriending a band of wacky musicians. Though there are passing references to the political scene of the time – an early moment has an uncredited Harrison Ford as an abusive cop – it mostly focuses on Debbie’s life. Candy Clark really gets to shine in the part. She maintains the flightiness that defined her character in the first film but now she’s noticing that flighty life-style maybe doesn’t work for her. It provides some solid supporting parts for a likable Scott Glenn and a more experienced Mackenzie Phillips. It leads to a truly satisfying conclusion, Clark choosing a new direction in her life. The movie even seemingly strips away its own visual gimmick, that being focused on less as the story progresses.

Richard Dreyfuss was the only major character from the first film not to return from the original. His absence is definitely felt. “More American Graffiti” certainly features some solid performances, funny moments, and some interesting ideas. However, it never collects into a satisfying whole. That “More American Graffiti” wouldn’t repeat the success of the original isn’t surprising. I can’t imagine people in 1979 had much nostalgia for the turbulent late sixties. George Lucas – who did some uncredited work on the picture – even declared the picture a failure. Director Bill L. Norton’s most notable feature after this one would be “Baby: Secret of the Lost Legend,” the filmmaker slipping into obscurity soon afterwards. I had never even heard of the sequel before I found a DVD double-pack of the two movies years ago. “Further American Graffiti” was not to be. While not really successful, and minor compared to the original, the sequel isn’t bad either. It has some intriguing elements and should be sought out by fans of the first picture. [7/10]

Director Report Card: George Lucas (1977)

3. Star Wars

Talking about “Star Wars” critically seems like an insurmountable task. Is there a more iconic movie in cinema history? “Star Wars” towers over blockbuster movies, which it would define. It would change the direction of cinematic science fiction forever, movie goers favoring spectacle-heavy action hybrid from now on. Moreover, the movie’s influence on nerd culture is impossible to overstate. The film opened lovers and newcomers’ eyes to a world they had never even imagined. Many say it’s the greatest film ever made and many more consider it their favorite. The point I’m making is that “Star Was” is, was, and shall always be enormous, in terms of both box office and pop culture effect. Confession time: I’ve never been a huge fan of the series.

Stepping away from the massive legacy it spawned, and stripping away the convoluted mythology George Lucas invested it with, “Star Wars” is a simple story. The Rebel Alliance wages a guerrilla war against the evil Galactic Empire. The Empire’s latest super-weapon is the Death Star, a massive satellite that can destroy planets. Princess Leia has stolen the blueprints for the Death Star. Before being captured by the Empire, she downloads the plans to a droid and drops them on a desert planet. A farm boy finds the droids, which leads him to Obi-Wan Kenobi, an elderly member of an ancient order of space wizards. The four soon team up with a mercenary pilot, the entire group soon being tossed into the Star Wars. You all know this already.

Something Lucas proved he was good at with “THX 1138,” and even “American Graffiti,” was his astonishing skills at world-building. Lucas has always been good at arranging divergent pieces into a whole that seems sensible and runs on its own clearly defined logic. “Star Wars” is not only the best example of this within George Lucas’ career but probably within all of popular fiction. “Star Wars” begins with a ship sailing over the audience’s head, taking us to various alien planets, full of strange creatures, political intrigue, and tacks on a space religion that grants its users magical powers. More importantly, all of these elements fuse together into something that seems sensible. Much of “Star Wars’” success is owed to it seeming simple to understand. Audiences immediately latched onto this universe from its opening minutes. A fantasy world set among the stars, it gels in an appealing manner, letting viewers in on this fictional universe as quickly as possible.

“Star Wars’” massive success is honestly surprising. Because this movie is kind of weird. It’s easy to imagine the same world-building that would make the film such a hit rubbing audience’s the wrong way. “Star Wars” drops us into a world full of guys in funny helmets, robots and laser guns that make goofy noises, and all sorts of weird aliens. Atop of that, it piles on a weird, pseudo-Eastern religion that involves laser swords and psychic powers. The characters have funny names, like Moff Tarkin and Chewbacca. It’s sounds preposterous to say this about one of the most successful films ever made but “Star Wars” is surprisingly noncommercial at times. As the years would reveal, George Lucas writes kind of goofy stuff. This is at times all too obvious in “Star Wars.” For as popular as the film would become, it’s full of weird, quirky, childish, and silly ideas.

The groundbreaking special effects got people in the theaters. But what kept them coming back, again and again? “Star Wars” trades freely in literary archetypes. Luke Skywalker is the ordinary boy who stumbles into a great adventure, transforming from an inexperienced child into a hero. Han Solo is a rogue with little moral center who develops a conscious and begins fighting for a cause. Princess Leia is a princess that needs rescuing. Obi Wan is the wise odd siege, C-3PO and R2D2 are the comic relief sidekicks, and Darth Vader is the ruthless yet charismatic villain. Rooting such a wild world in such simple characters was probably a really good idea. Maybe you can make your universe as oddball as you want, as long as the characters are someone everyone can relate too. If your story is ultimately a simple tale of good vs. evil, maybe anyone can enjoy it.

As I mentioned above, “Star Wars” never really excited me much as a kid. And those archetypal characters are why, I think. There was never an emotional entrance into this world for me. There’s little connection between Luke and his family. His desire for greater things seems born-in, instead of developing naturally out of his situation. Han Solo is a textbook definition of a “cool” character, someone who doesn’t care what anyone thinks and does what he wants. Yet his character arc involves him loosing that edge, becoming another member of the Rebel army. Obi Wan is so preoccupied with delivering exposition about the Force that it leaves little room for him to develop humor, heart, or traits. Darth Vader is obviously the most interesting character in the film, a merciless villain who is also a studied member of the Force. He’s undeniably evil yet has principals all his own. Yet in this first film, Vader is a glorified henchman, strong-arming Leia, chasing after Luke, and taking orders from General Tarkin. Maybe it says a lot about me that the robot that doesn’t talk and the Wookie have always been my favorite characters.

Part of “Star Wars’” appeal that needs no explanation is its visual design. The costumes, sets, props, and production design of “Star Wars” are awe-inspiring. Let’s start with the stream-lined Stormtrooper suits. The lines flow effortlessly while the contrast of black and white colors make a strong visual impression. Darth Vader’s helmet is similar in how immediately iconic it would be, it’s curving lines and sharp points combining to make an instantly recognizable silhouette. Or look at R2-D2. Though identifiable as a robot from the second he appears, he also didn’t look like any other robot before on-screen. An incredibly simple shape is gifted with an extraordinary amount of personality. The spaceships too are intuitive. The simple shape that inspired the X-Wing is right there in its name. The Death Star is a massive sphere. The Millennium Falcon is an advanced G-shape. The Tie-Fighters are an orb with two huge fins. What’s impressive is that the ships are simple to identify but also full of detail. The sets are the same way. The influence “Star Wars” had on sci-fi production design is impossible to express. The way the movie looks still resonates nearly forty years later.

I think how much you like “Star Wars” perhaps depends on when you saw it. By the time I saw ‘Star Wars” on video, young-me had already been introduced to classic monster movies, superhero comics, Sonic the Hedgehog, and a few other things that would dominate my nerdiness. However, I’ve always liked robots and monsters and “Star Wars” has those things in spades. Look no further than the Catina scene, which features all sorts of bizarre creatures. There’s even a space werewolf in there. Personally, Hammerhead and the sloth/spider-looking thing have always been my favorites. Chewbacca expresses so much with his guttural animal moans. His shaggy appearance, laid-back demeanor, and tendency to threaten violence against people are also charming. Basically robotic variation on Laurel and Hardy, C3PO and R2D2 have defined personalities of their own while also contributing to the plot. And what is Darth Vader, if not the combination of a robot and a monster? The parallels are so strong that he was even played by David Prowse, who had been Frankenstein’s Monster twice before.

But what about those tricky Jedi? “Star Wars’” enormous success and massive influence meant it would probably spawn a religion anyway. There was no need for devotees to improvise, as “Star Wars” has a built-in religion. The ancient order of the Jedi would be expanded on significantly in the sequels and spin-offs. In this original movie, the Jedi are a mysterious gathering of monk-like individuals, nearly extinct. The Force is barely explained, summed up as an energy field that connects all living things. Jedis can, apparently, manipulate the Force to control people’s brains or move stuff with their minds. The Jedi’s purpose is to add a mystical quality to the story, adding space age wizard to this space age western. But can we admit that the Force isn’t much more then a sloppy plot device, getting our heroes out of a few select, tight squeezes? As a kid, all of this stuff went over my head. Mostly, I remember the light sabers, probably the coolest weapons ever put to screen. Damn, they’re still cool.

Among the many iconic aspects of “Star Wars” is its cast. Though some of the actors would go on to bigger careers then others, each one has a secure place in pop culture history. Mark Hamill’s fresh-faced looks and youthful energy allows him to embody the innocent, maturing Luke. Harrison Ford nails the cocky attitude and effortless bravado necessary for Han Solo. Despite the character being varying degrees of a jerk, Ford is still incredibly likable. Princess Leia could have been an undefined damsel in distress but Carrie Fisher gives the character an attitude and ability for action that contrasts nicely with her male co-stars. Alec Guinness brings an incredible gravitas to Obi Wan, even if the character spends most of the movie wandering around the Death Star. Maybe the most important performance in “Star Wars” isn’t even on-screen. James Earl Jones’ voice as Darth Vader is the most iconic villainous voice in cinema history. His reverberating baritone makes every line drip with sinister intent. Yet Jones also brings a level of respect and seriousness to the part. To a lesser degree, Anthony Daniels’ prissy, British accent goes a long way towards defining C-3PO. Lastly, Peter Cushing brings a quiet cruelty and refinement to Tarkin, making the bad guy a ruthlessly effective professional.

George Lucas has spoken at lengths about the influence “Flash Gordon” had on “Star Wars.” The iconic opening scroll and campy wipe pans were all taken from those serials. The unspoken influence “Flash Gordon” had on “Star Wars” is in its approach to science fiction. In the mid-seventies, sci-fi was a genre full of ponderous thoughts about the nature of man and technology, with a frequently downbeat tone. “Star Wars” does the swashbuckler-style thrills those serials did on a big budget. The image of Luke swinging over a chasm, Leia in his arms, seems obviously inspired by the serials of day past. As an action film, “Star Wars” is well-assembled and entertaining. The various shoot-outs with the Stormtroopers have just the right level of chaos to them, conveying the panic the characters must be feeling. The extended shoot-out in the Death Star maintains lots of humor and fun, despite the high stakes. (Don’t look for acrobatic light saber fights though, as the duels are rather stiff here.) The characters caught in a trash compactor is probably the most thrilling sequences in the film. The space battle between the Imperial forces and the Rebel armies is less exciting to me, though well organized. You can only see a spaceship blow up so many times before it looses its novelty.

What’s the first thing you think of when you think about “Star Wars?” If it isn’t any of the film’s iconic images, it’s the film’s iconic music. John Williams is responsible for some of the most famous movie scores of all time. The man has an incredible talent for producing easily hummed main themes. The “Star Wars” theme greets the viewer with a resounding overture, the blaring brass promising a world of adventure. The music also further connects the movie to its influence, being blatantly influenced by the pirate movie scores of the thirties and forties. The score’s softer moments are good at invoking a sense of mystery, proclaiming how weird and alien this galaxy can be. And who could resist the catchiness of the Catina music, which is nearly as recognizable as the main theme? Williams’ music is so linked to “Star Wars” that you can’t imagine one without the other.

You’d think producing one of the most successful and famous film series of all time would prevent a man from being insecure. Yet George Lucas has shown a repeated need to tinker with his beloved creation. As early as 1981, Lucas was changing things. That’s when he added “Episode IV” to the beginning of the scroll, morphing the elegant “Star Wars” into the overly verbose “Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope.” Infamously, in the late nineties, Lucas would fiddle with the film even more. The newly inserted CGI hasn’t aged well. The reptiles the Stormtroopers ride on stick out horribly and the computer-generated shots of X-Wings really break up the flow of the final battle. Some scenes are added without reason, such as a short sequences of robots hanging out around the Tatooine market. Yes, Greedo shooting first is dumb. With every new release, George has trifled with the film more. Some of the differences are barely noticeable. Other completely disrupt the pacing of the film. Two questions come to mind. Mostly, why?, as people seemed to like “Star Wars” just the way it was. The second question is why does Lucas resist making the original version available? Maybe someday.

It’s easy to be cynical about “Star Wars.” It’s a merchandising juggernaut. Or one of the films that brought the seventies age of cinematic experimentation to an end. Yet it also opened people’s eyes to wonder, to the magical thing movies can do. I can’t truly share in that wonder. Maybe it’s because this one didn’t get me at the right time. Maybe it’s because my sensibilities are just different. But “Star Wars” is hardly a bad movie. At times, it’s a pretty great one. It’s a landmark film for many reasons. For it’s effects, it’s mythology, it’s music, it’s contribution to cinema. [Grade: B+]