Post by Deleted on May 5, 2018 22:11:06 GMT
Question above. Why is Episode III widely considered the best of the Prequels and heads and shoulders above Episodes I and II by a good majority of people? I don't understand how can like this film but not like the first two Prequels at all, nor do I think Episodes I and II were in anyway a letdown and that this film somehow "saved it" when it didn't need saving to begin with.
For one thing, Revenge of the Sith is not even my favorite film of the Prequels and I consider it to be the weakest film of the PT and arguably the weakest film in George Lucas' Star Wars Saga for real legitimate reasons. And one of those reasons is because I feel Anakin's turn to the Dark Side was rushed and not fleshed out enough. I also think that the film had the worst acting, dialouge, action scenes of the Prequels and nowhere is this more apparent than the Mace Windu vs. Chancellor Palpatine lightsaber duel. That lightsaber duel was so rushed and overly choregraphed and Ian McDiamrid looks riduclous and stupid when he attacks Windu with force lighting again and yells "UNLIMITED POWER!!!" The film just went a little too far with the action and special effects and that it lacked any truly memorable and iconic witty and quotable lines while the first two Episodes had tons of them and the humor was silly in it as (and not in a good way). I've also never been a big fan of Ian McDiarmid's performance as Darth Sidious in this one because I thought Ian McDiarmid really hammed it up when he finally became the Emperor and became a Scooby Doo villian.
For me, ROTS was like the Return of the Jedi of the trilogy in that it was a very flawed conclusion to what I consider two very good films. I feel like with this film, George Lucas was more concerned with cashing on nostalgia for Darth Vader and was a little more concerned with selling toys with this one just like he was with Return of the Jedi. I also felt the film should have been split into half because it had two much story too tell and it way relies too much on spectacle to sell it self, whereas the first two Prequels are more like my Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back, with The Phantom Menace easily being the best of the trilogy.
For one thing, Revenge of the Sith is not even my favorite film of the Prequels and I consider it to be the weakest film of the PT and arguably the weakest film in George Lucas' Star Wars Saga for real legitimate reasons. And one of those reasons is because I feel Anakin's turn to the Dark Side was rushed and not fleshed out enough. I also think that the film had the worst acting, dialouge, action scenes of the Prequels and nowhere is this more apparent than the Mace Windu vs. Chancellor Palpatine lightsaber duel. That lightsaber duel was so rushed and overly choregraphed and Ian McDiamrid looks riduclous and stupid when he attacks Windu with force lighting again and yells "UNLIMITED POWER!!!" The film just went a little too far with the action and special effects and that it lacked any truly memorable and iconic witty and quotable lines while the first two Episodes had tons of them and the humor was silly in it as (and not in a good way). I've also never been a big fan of Ian McDiarmid's performance as Darth Sidious in this one because I thought Ian McDiarmid really hammed it up when he finally became the Emperor and became a Scooby Doo villian.
For me, ROTS was like the Return of the Jedi of the trilogy in that it was a very flawed conclusion to what I consider two very good films. I feel like with this film, George Lucas was more concerned with cashing on nostalgia for Darth Vader and was a little more concerned with selling toys with this one just like he was with Return of the Jedi. I also felt the film should have been split into half because it had two much story too tell and it way relies too much on spectacle to sell it self, whereas the first two Prequels are more like my Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back, with The Phantom Menace easily being the best of the trilogy.
