Rank & Review: Star Wars
There have been many space fantasy sagas, but there is only one "Star Wars." It has endured for forty-three years, becoming one of the longest-running franchises in film history. Today, the Marvel Cinematic Universe may be the top franchise, but "Star Wars" was the first of its kind.
In recent years, the "Star Wars" franchise has seen healthy expansion under Disney's ownership. Another "Skywalker" trilogy has just concluded, there have been two theatrically-released spin-offs, and with the new Disney+ streaming service, even more stories are being told in that galaxy far, far away. So, given so many theatrical releases, how do they stack up as a whole? As a side note, though some lists include the "Star Wars: The Clone Wars" animated movie because that was released in theaters, this list will be omitting that release. This is Rank & Review: Star Wars.
11. Attack of the Clones
With "Attack of the Clones," it was clear George Lucas was trying to address some of the complaints from "The Phantom Menace." But, he ended up making new mistakes, mainly the uncomfortable and thoroughly unromantic chemistry between Anakin Skywalker and Padmé Amidala. Ideally, as the people who later bring Luke and Leia into this world, you'd want to be invested in these two characters and their relationship. What we get is the furthest thing from a romance. The result is two actors reciting cringey dialogue to each other in various dull locations, and debating who loves the other more. There is no chemistry, Anakin comes off as an obsessive creep, and Padmé seems rather unfazed by his many unappealing advances.
As a story, "Attack of Clones" comes off as incapable. Obi-Wan Kenobi's side-quest mystery may lead to the discovery of the clone army, but for Jango Fett's part, it feels like he has to play dumb in order to give the Jedi a chance at catching on. Why Jango didn't hunt down and kill Padmé while Anakin and Obi-Wan were distracted with the other hired goon is beyond me. Even if you ignore the nitty-gritty details, you're left with a plot that largely contributes nothing to Anakin slowly becoming Darth Vader. As a trilogy that was meant to tell how Anakin's turn came to pass, this film doesn't do much in the way of building up to that. For that reason, "Attack of the Clones" can easily be skipped and you wouldn't miss anything.
As a Yoda fan, the portrayal of the character in this prequel trilogy is problematic. Part of what made Yoda special was Frank Oz's puppetry. When Oz is acting through that puppet, he imbues the character with loads of personality, mannerisms, and emotion. So it's ultimately disappointing to see that version of Yoda replaced with a stiff and lifeless CG construct. This creation is not nearly as entertaining. It looks like ones and zeros doing exactly what it's programmed to do, with no emotion associated with it. In addition, Yoda wielding a lightsaber seems revisionist. What with "Empire" showing that he was so in-tune with the Force that he didn’t require a lightsaber to show he was powerful, this inclusion was a rejection of that established idea.
Fans of the animated "Clone Wars" series may appreciate the establishing of Anakin and Obi-Wan's partnership, but "Attack of the Clones" otherwise has little else going for it.
10. The Phantom Menace
George Lucas has repeated multiple times that his target audience for the prequel trilogy were young children. When I was younger, I loved the original trilogy, so I looked forward to watching the prequels, but that excitement wavered after seeing the first of the prequels, "The Phantom Menace." Even as a kid, I found the story boring, the comedy completely unfunny, and the characters devoid of personality.
Fast forward all these years later and my issues with "The Phantom Menace" remain. Its main issue is the acting. There are some great actors in this film, but their performances lack much emotion. Everyone's so monotone in their delivery, from Liam Neeson to Natalie Portman. Actors like Samuel L. Jackson, who is famous for his yelling and energized deliveries, are reduced to soft-spoken, basic personalities. There's no passion in any of the characters. There are hardly any raised voices at all. The only character in the film whose delivery doesn't sound monotone is Jar Jar Binks, and I think we can agree he isn't the most engaging individual. Jake Lloyd as Anakin Skywalker wasn't the best choice, as evidenced by his performance, but he's at least varied in his vocal tones, despite the lackluster writing.
The politics of the prequel trilogy was never a major complaint of mine. They are good for what they are. However, making them the center of this trilogy was a mistake. There could've been some alternative ways Lucas could've gotten his political points across, without diving head-first into trade federations, taxations, and treaties. If Lucas was going to tell Anakin's fall accurately, Anakin should've been the main character from the start. We should open with Anakin, not Qui-Gon Jinn and Obi-Wan Kenobi on their way to do negotiations, but I digress.
What "The Phantom Menace" has going for it is an iconic finale, with John Williams's "Duel of the Fates" playing over the Qui-Gon/Obi-Wan vs. Darth Maul fight. The choreography is good and the music raises the excitement. It would have benefitted from more stakes and more character investment. As is, it's a better finale than this lackluster film deserves.
9. Revenge of the Sith
"Revenge of the Sith" shares many of the same problems as its two predecessors. It retains the uncomfortable dialogue between Anakin and Padmé, the awkward deliveries from certain actors, and the fake CG Yoda design. As it happens, however, "Sith" just so happens to have other positive areas that make those faults seem less significant.
Hayden Christensen is more palatable this time around, and he has many good moments throughout on his own and with Ewan McGregor's Obi-Wan. Anakin and Obi-Wan share the screen for a sufficient amount of time, enabling the film to showcase the pair's bond, something that "Attack of the Clones" lacked. At long last, Ian McDiarmid seems allowed to have fun as Palpatine, which results in a chilling performance that does also have its share of silliness. In terms of action, "Sith" has the most of the three prequels, and a majority are well-paced and hold up in the effects department, though there are some exceptions. John Williams's music is more well-rounded when compared to "Phantom" and "Clones," both of which had some stand-outs, but never worked together as a whole.
From a story perspective, ''Revenge of the Sith" finally tells the turn of Anakin Skywalker, which is both its strength and weakness. The first two films padded themselves out with filler to justify the three-movie arc, so "Sith" doesn't have that issue. However, its telling of Anakin's turn doesn't have the impact that it should, and that's because neither "The Phantom Menace" or "Attack of the Clones" did enough to build-up Anakin to make his fall more tragic. Both his relationship with Padmé and his partnership with Obi-Wan weren't properly supported. Thus, it weakens the emotional impact of "Sith." Moreover, I feel the writing in "Sith" doesn't properly support Anakin and Obi-Wan's break-up. They have a great fight, but the wrap-up to that fight is sloppy. Obi-Wan may say he considered Anakin his brother, but his decision to leave Anakin to burn bluntly contradicts that. As the storyteller, Lucas needed to create a situation where Anakin could become Vader without muddling Obi-Wan's character.
"Revenge of the Sith" may have certain advantages and is definitely the best of the prequels, yet its emotional impact is undercut by the lack of build-up for Anakin's fall and the sloppiness of the conclusion.
Hayden Christensen is more palatable this time around, and he has many good moments throughout on his own and with Ewan McGregor's Obi-Wan. Anakin and Obi-Wan share the screen for a sufficient amount of time, enabling the film to showcase the pair's bond, something that "Attack of the Clones" lacked. At long last, Ian McDiarmid seems allowed to have fun as Palpatine, which results in a chilling performance that does also have its share of silliness. In terms of action, "Sith" has the most of the three prequels, and a majority are well-paced and hold up in the effects department, though there are some exceptions. John Williams's music is more well-rounded when compared to "Phantom" and "Clones," both of which had some stand-outs, but never worked together as a whole.
From a story perspective, ''Revenge of the Sith" finally tells the turn of Anakin Skywalker, which is both its strength and weakness. The first two films padded themselves out with filler to justify the three-movie arc, so "Sith" doesn't have that issue. However, its telling of Anakin's turn doesn't have the impact that it should, and that's because neither "The Phantom Menace" or "Attack of the Clones" did enough to build-up Anakin to make his fall more tragic. Both his relationship with Padmé and his partnership with Obi-Wan weren't properly supported. Thus, it weakens the emotional impact of "Sith." Moreover, I feel the writing in "Sith" doesn't properly support Anakin and Obi-Wan's break-up. They have a great fight, but the wrap-up to that fight is sloppy. Obi-Wan may say he considered Anakin his brother, but his decision to leave Anakin to burn bluntly contradicts that. As the storyteller, Lucas needed to create a situation where Anakin could become Vader without muddling Obi-Wan's character.
"Revenge of the Sith" may have certain advantages and is definitely the best of the prequels, yet its emotional impact is undercut by the lack of build-up for Anakin's fall and the sloppiness of the conclusion.
8. The Rise of Skywalker
Rather than stick to what plan there was left following the controversial episode eight, "The Rise of Skywalker," in its frenzy to please everyone, costs itself a good finale. "The Last Jedi" didn't help the situation as it resolved many questions from "The Force Awakens" that were clearly meant to be resolved in two movies, not just one, leaving this film in a difficult spot. Nevertheless, the least it could've done was stick to what "The Last Jedi" did. Instead, it changes the script once more, revisiting brief ideas from "The Force Awakens" and settling for an underwhelming scavenger hunt as a plot for most of the film. It lasts until the third act, where the Resistance wins the battle against the Final Order through exploiting a weakness that the bad guys couldn't fix to save their lives. It's not exactly new territory for Star Wars.
"The Rise of Skywalker" feels like the product of a major studio throwing narrative consistency out the window in a desperate attempt to win over audiences, using blatant reveals and fan service. Thus, instead of coming across as well-earned, they feel hollow and manipulative. Moments like Chewbacca being awarded his medal from the first movie, Rey being a Palpatine, Rey and Ben's final kiss, and the fleet of ships emerging to battle the Final Order, which is unmistakably derivative of "Avengers: Endgame," are moments that are clear fan service instead of organic parts of the story. Only one moment of fan service was organic and that was Luke lifting his X-Wing out of the ocean. Of the many things ignored in "The Last Jedi" by this movie, J.J. Abrams and company followed through on that initial tease and delivered a nice moment that allowed Luke to come full circle from "The Empire Strikes Back." That moment felt earned. These other instances felt so sloppily stitched together that they failed to elicit a reaction.
After spending three movies with these characters, you would think we'd be invested in Daisy Ridley's Rey, John Boyega's Finn, and Oscar Issac's Poe, but that's far from the case. Rey, Finn, and Poe never felt like complete characters. One was only defined by a question of identity, another started strong yet lost steam completely, and the other never quite got off the ground. I like these actors, but their decent work is in service of a script that's repetitive, played-out, and feels so last-minute. "The Rise of Skywalker" is not a complete loss, but it is a disappointing film.
7. The Last Jedi
Where "The Last Jedi" works best is with Luke Skywalker. Though Mark Hamill may have publicly disagreed with Rian Johnson's take, at least he committed to it and gave his all. "The Last Jedi" takes a thoughtful dive into Luke as he's guilt-ridden over causing the rise of Kylo Ren and the deaths of his many students. Luke's only loss in the original trilogy was the loss of his hand, so adding this more complex take gives this character, who was the epitome of hope at once, something to struggle with. People may have thought this was tearing Luke down. I disagree. I think giving him these problems and flaws only adds greater success to when he reclaims his sense of hope. Now, there's no doubt that "The Last Jedi" could've made introducing this new side of Luke more palatable, considering the cliffhanger of the last film was this major moment of Rey handing Luke his lightsaber. Maybe you could've had Luke just hand the saber back to Rey, have him refuse, say no or something like that. But no, you have to have him throw the saber behind his back to get a cheap laugh, even though the situation called for something more reverent. Not exactly the best move, Johnson.
Rey and Ben Solo's growing Force connection is another strong point. "The Last Jedi" continued to showcase new Force abilities that add to the mythology of "Star Wars." It's no longer just making things float or doing mind tricks on someone. There's more to it, and I appreciated seeing that. Both Daisy Ridley and Adam Driver deliver strong work, and you feel the connection, even while their relationship goes into familiar territory of one trying to convince the other to turn to their side, which was done before with Luke and Vader, causing it feel less dramatic. Rey's conversation with Luke about the history of the Jedi and Sith may be my favorite moment of the film because it's the main hero finally highlighting the flawed ideologies of both sides. For so long, I've asked myself this: "What is balance, if one side is constantly beating the other?" This film acknowledges some of that hypocrisy, but I wish the film would’ve delved into that more. I feel it could've had we gotten rid of the lesser stuff in the film.
Everything with Finn, Poe, Rose, and the Resistance drags this movie down for me. Having waited two years to see this next chapter, only to find that half of it is a slow, gas-sensitive space chase was incredibly dissatisfying. I don't feel like what's done adds as much as Johnson might think it does. The logic behind some of these characters is hypocritical and inconsistent. Trying to imitate the Marvel method of often improvised quips and one-liners, the humor in "The Last Jedi" especially falls flat. The "Holdo Maneuver" is great, but the rest is a big drag. After all, why does Finn, the renegade Stormtrooper, need to be preached to by two separate individuals that war is wrong. He already knew that. It just feels like wasted time.
"The Last Jedi" functions better as a stand alone film than as part of a trilogy. It debunks some of the questions set-up in "The Force Awakens." Some of these questions were riddled with the "Star Wars" formula, so I appreciate the boldness and the message that comes attached with it. The message that bloodlines aren't what make you a hero and that you could be incredibly in-tune with the Force, despite having little-to-no experience with it. The Force is just like any other skill and you learn some faster than others. However, by not answering the already-established questions, adding to them or adding questions of its own, there's a feeling at the end of "The Last Jedi" that there's nowhere else to go with a third and final film, other than to see the good guys win, which Disney would never not do. So points for being bold, introspective, and original, Johnson, and minuses for being redundant, slightly unfulfilling, and formulaic.
6. Solo: A Star Wars Story
"Solo: A Star Wars Story" is something that the other ten movies aren't: a stand alone Star Wars with a lightweight tone. The trilogies are tied to their individual installments and though "Rogue One" may have also been a stand alone Star Wars film, it proved itself to be a somber affair by its end. "Solo" maintains a light and nimble tone, making it the easiest to watch at any time.
"Solo" was a famously troubled production, from directors quitting or being fired to the film having to undergo extensive reshoots. Even so, the resulting film is a fun, if flawed, space-action thrill ride. In regards to Han's origin story, certain decisions don't work. How Han got "Solo" as a last name was a question that didn't need to be asked as it only results in an awkward scene. Also, the film doesn't support the idea that Han was a rogue and scoundrel before becoming a rebellion member. In "Star Wars," Han kills Greedo in cold blood and he only cares that he gets paid for his efforts, which makes it more heroic that he put aside self-preservation and greed to help Luke during the Death Star attack. Here, in "Solo," he doesn't seem to be any sort of rogue or scoundrel. Stealing from other thieves is a cop-out as well as killing other bad guys. Knowing Disney, they likely feared walk-outs if people saw Han directly wrong the innocent in any way, shape, or form, but very few people showed up anyway, so maybe you could've done that, Disney.
Alden Ehrenreich made for a strong young Han Solo. The actor wisely does his own thing while also showing Harrison Ford-like tendencies and behavior in his performance, which doesn't undermine his own contributions. He portrays Han as this character who feels like he wants to be a rogue and loner, even if it's clear he's a good guy at heart. That makes not having more anti-hero or villain-like behaviors from him more understandable and forgivable, as it's an interesting route for Han, knowing how he later becomes part of the Rebellion. His meeting and building a partnership with Chewbacca is one of the best parts of the film, and, hey, we actually saw Chewie rip some arms off. The rest of the cast deliver decent performances, with the exception of Donald Glover as a young Lando Calrissian, who gives as strong a performance as Ehrenreich does.
For all of its good deeds, unfortunately, "Solo" bombed at the box office, the first Star Wars film to do so. It deserved better recognition for turning out as well as it did all things considered.
5. The Force Awakens
If it's one thing J.J. Abrams has consistently proven over the years, it's that he's able to successfully revamp stagnant franchises. Between "Mission: Impossible III," "Star Trek" (2009), and "Star Wars: The Force Awakens," Abrams has revitalized these respective franchises and launched them into a new period of growth and success.Compared to "MI: III" and "Star Trek" (2009), "The Force Awakens" is more beholden to franchise formula. As everyone has repeatedly outlined in annoying detail, it's basically the original film, just tweaked slightly. I get that "Star Wars" was a film inspired by age-old storytelling tropes, but this film repeats more than it should've. "The Force Awakens" doesn't go off into a bold, new direction as it mainly functions as a test that this franchise, under Disney's direction, could do Star Wars well, which it does.
By far and away the best part of "The Force Awakens" is Harrison Ford's return as Han Solo. With so many fans still burned by his lackluster return as Indiana Jones in 2008's "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," it was a pleasant surprise to see Ford back to top-form as the scruffy-looking nerf-herder. When he steps back onto the Millennium Falcon with Chewbacca beside him, it's as if he never left. Of course, he's older, but semantics. His humor was on-point as was his attitude. Be that as it may, Han's death was a massive miscalculation on this film's part. Not only did it seem like Ford getting his way after so long - he originally wanted the character to get frozen in carbonite in "Empire" and never come back - but not having Han, Luke, and Leia together for one film, at least, was a major missed opportunity.
As for the new characters and storylines, while "The Force Awakens" suffers in my mind from knowing how it all ends, I still enjoy these new elements that would've served this trilogy better had the two sequels followed through on what this film established. Daisy Ridley never faltered as Rey performance-wise and her dialogue was good. John Boyega got a fantastic start as Finn, or FN-2187. I mean, name a better idea for a protagonist than a renegade stormtrooper running away from war. Unfortunately, he never went anywhere else after this film wrapped up, so it's bittersweet seeing the potential that, regrettably, was never capitalized on. Once again, I never thought Oscar Issac's Poe Dameron took off as a character. Back then, he seemed like Han Solo-lite and that opinion never changed, even as we got more movies. Adam Driver's Ben Solo/Kylo Ren was the only consistent character in this trilogy. He seemed like he had a solid plan, even if it had more to do with formula than I'd like. Nevertheless, Driver delivered strong work in each movie.
In all, I'd say "The Force Awakens" was a good start for what led to a muddled trilogy. It's value is slightly depleted in that sense, but it still has merits of its own worth appreciating and revisiting.
4. Rogue One: A Star Wars Story
Personally, of the Disney-distributed Star Wars releases, I've more enjoyed the stand alone projects because that's when the series felt like it was broadening its horizons and not feeling pressure to recycle beats of the past. With the sequel trilogy, it seemed like Disney was more motivated to reflect what the Original Trilogy did, thus limiting the amount of new elements it could bring to that new trilogy of films, which didn't help them in the end. With these stand alone endeavors, suddenly, it feels like Disney is actually comfortable experimenting with pieces of the Star Wars lore and telling stories that are not about the Skywalkers. Now, I believe Season 1 of "The Mandalorian is the best Star Wars that Disney has produced, but "Rogue One" is the best of their movies.
This is the first time that Star Wars presented its conflicts like an actual war. In the past, the battles between the Rebels and the Empire, the Republic and the Separatists, and the Resistance and the First Order were presented with a certain pristine quality to it. It felt shiny, clean, and very much like we were spectators to these battles and not so much in them ourselves. Well, with "Rogue One," we got that in-depth touch. The action in "Rogue One" is unpolished, rough, grimy, and matter-of-fact. I don't mean "unpolished" like the CGI ain't up to par, but the airships, the weaponry, and machinery all look used, which adds to the realism of these situations. All these touches build to an action-packed finale, we're seeing an actual war take place, complete with starships dropping off new soldiers for battle. Then it's followed by the coolest Darth Vader fight ever. In addition, because time has passed and CGI has evolved, the full magnitude of the Death Star is felt. Once, it used to be a quick flash of a laser and before you knew it, Alderaan was gone. Here, the filmmakers restrain the amount of power the Death Star unleashes, giving you only a simple taste of the terror it is capable of unleashing.
I feel the film gives ample and rather unsavory detail to its tech, a reflection of how it deconstructs the flawless nature of the Rebels, once thought to be perfect heroes and now more complex than initially perceived. Remember how "The Last Jedi" "tore down" a beloved character by giving him flaws? "Rogue One" provided a similar outlook on the entire Rebellion a year before, and no one lost their minds then. Seeing a look of the Rebellion behind closed doors and actually have members carry out or being asked to carry out questionable actions enriches this side we once whole-heartedly called the "good guys." It's a great way to develop some of these new characters, and also helps get the Rebellion on track for when we see them in the Original Trilogy. Also, Disney, killing off your entire slate of protagonists is gutsy, and I wish we saw decisions like that from you more often.
At times, the dialogue can be overwritten when it could alternatively be more to the point. Aside from that, this is the kind of Star Wars I want to see more of from Disney in the future. "Rogue One" is a smaller story being given the war movie treatment, and a majority of it works. Not quite the perfect Star Wars movie, but pretty darn close.
3. Return of the Jedi
Part of the reason why "The Rise of Skywalker" fell flat is because we've already seen the heroic rebels win the battle against the evil empire. "Return of the Jedi" is the Star Wars trilogy capper that works to its full, intended effect. It pulled off a satisfying finale and was the apparent end of Star Wars, at least for a while.
Despite being at number three, "Jedi" stands shoulder-to-shoulder with its two predecessors. The film greatly benefits from being able to deliver the payoff to many of the well-established story threads. Seeing where Luke and Darth Vader's relationship concludes is a profoundly rewarding experience, as Vader is finally redeemed in the act of saving his son. It may be so well-known to the point of parody, but when set apart, it's quite the experience.
This trilogy has always found a balance between appealing to kids and adults, with it continually opting to include adult themes and ideas through more innocent means. The Ewoks, which are often accused of being too silly for this franchise, are a perfect example of that storytelling strategy. Their battle against the Empire and seemingly ineffective strategies are based upon stories from real-life warfare. If that doesn't convince you, look at Luke's rejection of the Dark Side. It's one thing to say no, but after he sees himself react with anger towards Vader, he's disgusted with himself and outright turns away from his feelings of anger. Now there's a hero, one that's willing to walk away and defeat evil through the power of love, a father's love for his son.
"Return of the Jedi" matches its predecessors in quality, delivering a crowd-pleasing "good triumphs over evil" finale that satisfies all, and is absolutely one of the best installments even after all these years.
2. Star Wars
No amount of Maclunkies - thanks, Disney+ - will ever change the quality and impact of "Star Wars." It's a film so game-changing, its influence knows no bounds. It's overplayed, but it's overplayed for a reason. After all, this is where so much pop culture was born.
"Star Wars" has found itself inspiring young children for generations. I can't exactly pinpoint when and where I saw this movie for the first time, nor can I recall the feelings I initially had. However, I still find myself returning the original set of movies continually, without fail. The original "Star Wars," if it were released today, would still delight audiences. There's no doubt about it. It has themes and ideas that are universal. Yes, "Star Wars" is founded upon myths and legends that have been around for thousands of years, yet it still is important because it rings true to everyone. Everyone, at some point, has questioned their place in the world and has wondered what they were meant to accomplish. "Star Wars" speaks to that longing to belong and be someone, and it tells people they were meant to accomplish something special. It presents an example for standing up for all that is good in the face of insurmountable odds. Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, and Leia Organa are the quintessential trinity of heroes. There's something almost magical about their pairing, as they've gone on to be such meaningful individuals in pop culture. Other side characters like Chewbacca, C-3PO, and R2-D2 are also so memorable because of their personalities and role in the story.
Honestly, there's not much to dislike about the original "Star Wars," except for the Special Editions. There are people who say that "Star Wars" is dated, but how many of them are talking about the original version? When contemporary audiences are watching the films now, they're likely seeing some cut of the film that wasn't actually run in theaters until years after the film debuted in 1977. It's a sad truth, honestly. Now, my family happens to still own the original trilogy in their original cuts on VHS, but I wager that's not common among most households. The original cuts of the original trilogy are hard to come by. The readily-available versions are the cuts that have Greedo shooting first, crappy "new" CGI, and other pointless additions. Now that they own Fox, Disney should look into re-releasing the original cuts of the original Star Wars trilogy on whatever the highest format is these days. People deserve to witness history itself, not a variation of it. The thought that someone may live a full life and never actually see "Star Wars" itself is a distressing and depressing thought.
"Star Wars" endures for a reason, and there's no doubt that it will continue to do so far into the future.
1. The Empire Strikes Back
If "Star Wars" was about the hopefulness and innocence of youth, and how good is capable of winning the day, "Empire" injects a dose of reality. Yes, good can win, but sometimes the sinister forces at work are going to have their day. Not everything is going to be peaches and cream after one good day. Having that good day only sets yourself up for bad days, and in this film, the heroes are dealing with quite the bad day. The opening destruction of the Rebel base in Hoth sets the stage for a series of losses for Luke, Han, Leia, and the rest of the Rebel alliance. Han, Leia, Chewie, and 3PO are narrowly avoiding capture while Luke is instructed to seek out an old Jedi master and learn the Force, which is easier said than done.
Mark Hamill shines throughout this trilogy, but most notably in "Empire" because the film is the midpoint in his character's arc. Luke's not quite the innocent youth we first found on Tatooine, yet he's also not the confident Jedi warrior we see in "Jedi." He's got a mix of the two in this film, having some innocence, but also dealing with anxiety over the state of the rebellion and the pressure to have to save the day. His "whininess" is just a product of him trying to sort through so much responsibility. Even more so, as we all know, the Jedi are somewhat detached from the world, and Luke clearly isn't, which complicates his training with Yoda.
"Empire" also benefits from introducing two of my favorite characters in the franchise. One is Yoda, a perfect match of puppetry and iconic voice acting from Frank Oz. Lucas, director Irvin Kershner, and company were afraid of the character coming across as a Kermit the Frog knock-off. Instead, they crafted yet another enduring character with a one-of-a-kind speech method. Yoda's wisdom makes for some of the best moments in "Empire." My other favorite character is Lando Calrissian, played by Billy Dee Williams. He enters the film with twice the suaveness of Han, and perhaps twice the charm as well. He has a certain light-heartedness and playfulness that helps alleviate the dread that the characters are feeling. Even if it all turns out to be a ploy, he later proves in "Jedi" to still provide that fun-loving presence.
Han being frozen in carbonite, Luke losing a hand and his father's lightsaber, and the final knife twist of Darth Vader being Luke's father are iconic moments that were spoiled to me by other movies before I had gotten around to seeing "Empire," but are moments that are as resonate as ever. With John Williams's music as well as the acting, story, and intriguing ideas, "The Empire Strikes Back" is the best Star Wars movie.
Mark Hamill shines throughout this trilogy, but most notably in "Empire" because the film is the midpoint in his character's arc. Luke's not quite the innocent youth we first found on Tatooine, yet he's also not the confident Jedi warrior we see in "Jedi." He's got a mix of the two in this film, having some innocence, but also dealing with anxiety over the state of the rebellion and the pressure to have to save the day. His "whininess" is just a product of him trying to sort through so much responsibility. Even more so, as we all know, the Jedi are somewhat detached from the world, and Luke clearly isn't, which complicates his training with Yoda.
"Empire" also benefits from introducing two of my favorite characters in the franchise. One is Yoda, a perfect match of puppetry and iconic voice acting from Frank Oz. Lucas, director Irvin Kershner, and company were afraid of the character coming across as a Kermit the Frog knock-off. Instead, they crafted yet another enduring character with a one-of-a-kind speech method. Yoda's wisdom makes for some of the best moments in "Empire." My other favorite character is Lando Calrissian, played by Billy Dee Williams. He enters the film with twice the suaveness of Han, and perhaps twice the charm as well. He has a certain light-heartedness and playfulness that helps alleviate the dread that the characters are feeling. Even if it all turns out to be a ploy, he later proves in "Jedi" to still provide that fun-loving presence.
Han being frozen in carbonite, Luke losing a hand and his father's lightsaber, and the final knife twist of Darth Vader being Luke's father are iconic moments that were spoiled to me by other movies before I had gotten around to seeing "Empire," but are moments that are as resonate as ever. With John Williams's music as well as the acting, story, and intriguing ideas, "The Empire Strikes Back" is the best Star Wars movie.
Conclusion
This has been my ranking of the Star Wars movies. I hope you enjoyed it. Don't forget to share your own ranking in the comments. I welcome any civil debate as I'm sure my list is not the same as each of your personal lists. I'm Dallin, your resident film fanatic, and I'll return soon with another review. Thank you for reading.
Comments
Post a Comment