In The Big Inning...

Simply put, George Lucas is a jackass. But I think we've already covered this. Still, that's pretty much what Episode III proved to me. And not because I think it was a horrible movie. But, rather, it confirms him as a raging egomaniac who knows how to create a compelling plot, with complex themes, but not how to tell a story. And, honestly, that's what movies are all about: Telling stories.

We were invited out to see Episode III, and decided to go for it. We originally had no intention of seeing it in the theaters - we laughed our asses off at Episode II at home, and were damn glad we didn't pay 10 bucks apiece for that piece of garbage. But the reviews for III weren't that bad, and we didn't want to be antisocial, so we went for it. Personally, I don't like to give Lucas any of my money, but it's tough to be morally consistent all the time.

And, for the first time in a long time, I actually enjoyed a Star Wars movie in the theater. (Probably the last time that happened was when the first 3 were re-released in the theaters, with the "new" footage.) But the positives of this one really just underscored the shortcomings of the previous two. Honestly, I don't think it was good moviemaking. He was just coasting off of the quality of the previously-developed characters. But still, those characters and their resonance gave important to all of the events that transpired in Episode III. And that's exactly what was missing from the first two - relevance.

The events of Episode I and II were so far removed from Episodes IV-VI that they just didn't matter. It didn't have to be that way. If Lucas had a smidgen of talent left, he would have figured out a way to create a compelling story line in the first trilogy. But he was so enamored of his little world that he thought the audience would care about minutiae. Think about what happens in Episode I. Pretty much nothing. Compare it to the grand significance of "saving the galaxy from evil", or the excitement of "a small rebellion fighting against a dominant galactic empire". Episode I is about some boring galactic politics and a small planet that we don't care about. Episode II is about some boring galactic politics and, well, something else that I don't remember.

I can tell you what happens in the Episodes IV-VI and why it's important. I saw Episode II less than two years ago, and honestly have no clue. Episode III was compelling. You could see how these events were important. How they led to the rise of the Empire. It gave the whole movie an ominous undertone, and made you care about the characters, which is something that Lucas has clearly proved that he is no longer capable of on his own. And you know, it was fine. It made for an entertaining movie.

So, why is Lucas a jackass? Because Episode III renders the first two completely unnecessary. This would have been entirely sufficient, and provided some nice "closure" (pre-closure?) to the whole series. I didn't need to know a whole movie to find out where Anakin came from, and another movie to see Anakin and Padme fall in love, or whatever emotion it was they were supposed to be expressing. Summarize that in 5 minutes of exposition at the beginning, and move on. As Keith Phipps of the Onion A.V. Club said, "And though Sith finally finds some life in the old saga, was it worth it in the end? Did we have to go through all that to get back where we began?"

Of course, there are other glaring flaws that I'd be remiss if I didn't mention. Much has been written about the dialogue, and most of it's dead-on. He never could write dialogue, and it's not that easy to overlook. The more laughable lines completely break off any suspension of disbelief I might have achieved. Reviewers just accept this as a given, but it's pretty unforgivable. He basically writes as though he takes the Star Wars world way too seriously. Han Solo was able to inject a sense of humor into the original trilogy. Here, Lucas is reduced to using R2D2 for comic relief.

Also, much has been made about Lucas's revolutionary special effects. But (and I'm not the first one to say this), he has basically taken the "special" out of the effects. There's way too much going on the screen to focus on any of it. He didn't used to do this, but now he seems to have something to prove. Also, in his efforts to use more and more effects, he's rendered the screen "flat". I don't know what it is, but even the best digital effects lack some "life". Compare Episode III to some of the battles in the original trilogy, and I think even though some of the effects may be look outdated, they'll also seem more visceral. Furthermore, for the most part, you can tell almost exactly what's going on. The end of Episode IV is a great example of this. Basically, he used to do a lot more with a lot less. Compare General Grievous to Boba Fett. Who was cooler?

So, that's about it. I had a good time at Episode III. It was interesting (although somewhat implausible at times) to see how Anakin became Darth Vader. Ewan MacGregor and Ian McDiarmid held the acting together enough to not make me completely fall over laughing. Although, I gotta say, that stupid squeaking beast the Obi-Wan rode looked and sounded terrible. Really, it was cringe-inducing.

We know why the first two were made: To fulfill Lucas's ego and to line his pockets. It was pretty savvy from a business standpoint. But imagine if Lucas had only made Episode III and that was it. What would your opinion of him be? I imagine it would be pretty high up there. But not, he's just an egomaniacal, greedy, two-bit hack. Was your reputation worth it, George?