Zero Stars For Star Wars VI (Spoiler Alert)

The final Star Wars is, as writer-director George Lucas promised, a tragedy -- but it's not the tragedy Lucas thinks it is.

Ever since he began making his second set of Star Wars movies a decade ago, Lucas said that Episode III: Revenge of the Sith would be the unvarnished story of the young knight Anakin Skywalker's degeneration and conversion into the black-helmeted, black-outfitted Darth Vader, the villain of the first three films. The tale of woe it really tells is that of George Lucas himself, the final chapter in the sad degeneration of a vital, vivid, and highly amusing moviemaker into a dull, solipsistic, and humorless incompetent.

Lucas had more than a quarter of a century to figure out why Anakin Skywalker went bad. And here's what he came up with: Anakin is afraid of losing his wife Padmé in childbirth. Padmé tries to reassure him: "I promise you I won't die in childbirth," she says, offering a touching expression of her faith in the range of health-care services that were available a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. That over-deliberate line of dialogue is typical of Revenge of the Sith, which joins its immediate predecessor Attack of the Clones on a very short list of films that deserve to compete for the Worst Script Ever Written.

"Hold me, Anakin!" Padmé tells her husband. "Hold me like you did by the lake on Naboo!"

No performer living or dead could pronounce the word "Naboo" without sounding like a moron, and Lucas matches that authorial infelicity with dozens of others. One of the movie's villains is named "Dooku," and it's a pity that Lucas didn't arrange for Dooku to visit Naboo, because that could have generated a truly memorable piece of dialogue, like "You should never have come to Naboo, Dooku!"

Later in the film, Vader's mentor Obi-Wan Kenobi tells Padmé that her hubby has murdered some children: "He killed younglings at the Jedi temple!" She storms off and confronts him: "Obi-Wan says you killed younglings!"

Padmé's anger and shock seem a mite surprising, since in Attack of the Clones her then-boyfriend Anakin had told her about another occasion on which he had killed some kids. This is spoken in a soliloquy that suggests what Macbeth might have been like if it had been written by George Lucas: "I killed them! I killed them all! They're dead, every single one of them! And not just the men, but the women and the children, too!! I slaughtered them like animals! I HATE THEM!"

But I digress, because that speech isn't in the film under review -- and there are plenty of other hilarious examples of bad writing on display in Revenge of the Sith.

For example: Obi-Wan uncovers the killing of the younglings by checking out some hidden video at the Jedi Temple. The wise old creature Yoda, who may be the most intelligent person in the universe, but seems to have learned English by reading old Time magazines, warns him: "Obi-Wan, watch the surveillance tapes you should not!"

Yoda has just returned from a diplomatic mission to a planet inhabited by bipedal gorillas because, as he explains in the rounded tones of an opponent of the John Bolton nomination, "Good relations with the Wookiees I have." Later, a defeated Yoda sighs: "Into exile I must go." You half-expect him to be followed by six other dwarves chanting, "Hi ho, hi ho / Into exile we will go . . . "

Anakin is invited to attend the theater as a guest of the president of the republic (a scene that allows Lucas to let us know that the favored form of entertainment in the highly advanced Star Wars galaxy is a Cirque du Soleil show performed inside a blob of translucent Jell-O). The president tells him about the Dark Side of the Force, and how it can be used to bring people back from the dead. Anakin decides he wants in. To which the only possible response is: That's it? The entire universe is thrown out of balance and evil defeats good all because one petulant and whiny guy doesn't want Natalie Portman to buy the farm?

"Dialogue is not my thing," Lucas has said. "I don't like writing, and I don't like scripts." But there is a whole lot more to a script than just the dialogue. There are also small matters such as plot, motivation, and character development. How is it possible that Lucas could have satisfied himself with the notion that the destruction of the galactic democracy and the triumph of evil over good could all have sprung from a single lousy pregnancy? Granted, Mrs. Darth Vader wears some very fetching beaded outfits -- plus, she's a senator just like Hillary Clinton, only decades younger and way better looking. Even so, this is astoundingly thin gruel on which to hang six movies made over a period of 28 years.

Back in 1977, we were told in the original Star Wars that Darth Vader "was seduced by the Dark Side of the Force" -- that Vader had become a villain because he had been consumed by a lust for power, so that he could boss people around, blow up planets, and, generally speaking, control the universe. Like all great villains, the Darth Vader we saw in the first Star Wars actually loved being a bad guy. He enjoyed being able to choke annoying underlings by pinching his thumb and forefinger together. He relished his swordfight with his old mentor Obi-Wan Kenobi. He didn't even mind slicing his own son's hand off (in the second film) just to prove a point.

But the Darth Vader we see at the end of Revenge of the Sith hasn't been seduced. He's been tricked. He's not a villain. He's a schmuck.

And what of George Lucas? He is, by leagues, the most commercially successful moviemaker in history. Forget the billion-plus dollars he has earned from the Star Wars movies. Industrial Light & Magic, the special-effects firm he began with his Star Wars profits, grosses $1 billion per year.

But what happened to the director who made the thrilling mood piece American Graffiti, that deceptively casual account of a bunch of teenagers in a California town in 1962 hanging out on the last summer night before the school year begins? What happened to the guy who revolutionized science fiction by making an outer-space adventure that managed to be cheerful, exciting, and lighthearted?

The tragedy of George Lucas is that he made billions of dollars, and all it did was turn him into a drag.

"What I got was a punk who was pissed because he didn't get his way. His whole conversion to the dark side was pathetic and weak."

this was without a doubt almost the worst possible job lucas could have done on pre-vader. a petulant teenager? WHO is sympathetic to this character?

casting the first movie at maybe 18ish or so age, the second mid or late 20's, the the final older, with competent writing and a much more credible development of the character, would have really been something.

i guess he sold some of those custom-scene video games though.

I have been a fan since I walked into a theatre knowing NOTHING about SW in 1983. It was just the first ticket booth in a mall theatre and I wanted to sit in air-conditioning and rest for a bit while my sister shopped. I saw it all backward after that.
So I came at all of this as an adult- and one who really can't stand Sci-Fi-so SW was something special.
It's not special anymore- not these last 3 films. And it doesn't TRY to be. Everyone connected keeps saying ' it's just a movie', and finally they have succeeded in making something that ECLIPSED all other films into just another 2 hours to sit and not think. What kind of filmmaker WANTS to lessen the impact of his work?
One thing I do disagree about- Lucas is a genius, but not as a storyteller or director or writer. He is a genius at tailoring his films( SW at least) to the moral climate of the audience.
Iin '77 we wanted dilineation between good and bad, dark and light. We WANTED the good to win and the bad to lose.
Now, more than a generation later, moral absolutes are bad- those who believe in them, ridiculed. So Lucas gives us a morally relativistic SW where the 'guardians of peace and justice' evidently couldn't decide what was wrong and right much less dispense justice.
And this is what the current audience( the current generation he is aiming for) wants and believes. The only use GL has for the original SW fans is as a nostalgia market, because we are the ones who can put $500 X-Wing models on our Gold Cards.
As for Anakin-the entire idea behind the 'fall' was to have shown a good man going bad. Trouble is, he hasn't shown us a 'good' Anakin-just a petulant teen with anger management issues. Where was the shining Knight doing good deeds?
Many adult fans of my acquaintance say that their reaction to the film was- ' somebody kill the SOB' and ' he got what he deserved'. GL never created a character we could love and care about, and so pity . He didn't lose his good, pure soul when he 'fell'. Vader didn't kill the 'good man' that was Anakin- he UNMASKED the nasty, petty man he was from the beginning.
What we see in the PT is how George Lucas' personal morals and beliefs have gone from moral to amoral. And that's a shame.

WD,

Re: Anakin's fall.
You're completely right. I was amazed that at the end of the movie two things stuck out about Sith 1) GL never convinced me that Anakin was a good guy. Not from TPM when he was a kid (the child was ambitious, was a glory hound/adrenaline junkie and thought second about his mother -- supposedly a key to his 'falling' to the Dark Side). He was petulant and dangerously over confident - he almost got himself and Obi-Wan killed in AOTC, and he wasn't THAT strong -- he got himself b!tch slapped inside of 5 seconds when he fought a skilled warrior (Dooku). I never liked the guy, never thought he loved his wife, and thought he was a fair weathered friend to his mentor, Obi-Wan.

You can't have a fall if there's no room to fall. He was not a good guy: Obi-wan was, Yoda was, Luke et al were, but Anakin got what he asked for. That all seems, kinda dumb.

2) GL crammed about 3:15 worth of movie into 2:20. He really needed to chill and let the movie tell itself. He left out a few key scenes that would have added sooo much to the storyline and to character development. But his pace throughout the PT was awful. TPM was about an hour worth of movie and AOTC about 1.5 hours -- he could have done that in one movie a heck of a lot better and then showed things crumbling in the second movie and then ended with a drama consisting of politics and (at least perceived) personal betrayal. Wouldn't have made for too many sword fights, but you would have connected with the people to the same degree or depth (but in a vastly different way) that folks did in the OT.

ClearBlueSky:
Ah yes, the OT had the kids saving the day (yeah 60s! mentality) and had all of the hope and excitement of a true believer's perception of a revolution. the PT had 'the man' as an undeniable force that would cruch all in it's way. All of the goodness in the galaxy wiped off the map by one (insane) man's ambition. If I were to get hit in the head any harder, I'd have to bring some advil. Ugh!

The staggering absurdity of a Jedi espousing moral relativism in the face of plain and simple evil was beyond the pale. While I do contend that GL has areas where he is supremely talented, I get the feeling that if you were to engage him in a conversation about politics, he would sound like a 9 year old.

My overall thoughts: GL has to be one of the larger control freaks in Hollywood. If he had let Kasden (sp?) write the PT and someone with talent direct and edit the movies, he would probably have not only twice the scratch, but also an incredible artistic gift to humanity-- an theatrically solid and emotionally meaningful intergenerational allegory that blended ancient myth with stunning visuals. Instead, as other posters pointed out, we're left with what we have, IMO the greatest could've been/what ifs in the history of movie making.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.