I'm Sorry, But The Prequels Are Not Good

Look, I hate to be "that guy." Sometimes. Other times, it's actually kind of fun to watch people get mad at your unpopular, if somewhat more informed, opinions. That's one of the perks of learning about film. If you understand what makes a good film good, then you're allowed to consider your opinions somewhat more valid than that of the general moviegoer. And I don't say that to offend anyone. I state that as a simple piece of cold logic. If you're more experienced in a given area, you're more qualified to provide input in that area. And abiding by the rules of this cold logic, I came to a conclusion that a lot of people won't like: the prequel trilogy, or at least when judging each individual film by its individual merits, is kind of bad. It always has been. And there has never been a time when the prequels have magically become good. And I assure you, I wanted to like the prequel trilogy of Star Wars. I really did. For a long time, In fact, for a long time, I did like it. I used to be a massive Star Wars fan. I read every Star Wars book I could get my hands on. I spent all of my allowance on Lego Star Wars sets as a kid. I learned just about everything there was to know about the galaxy of Star Wars. However, as time went on and as I acquired more and more knowledge about what makes a good film good, my opinion of the prequels, to put it bluntly, soured. I know that people love these movies, and there's nothing wrong with that. I once loved these movies, and I would be lying if I said that I don't still find some manner of enjoyment in them. People are allowed to like what they want to like, and people are allowed to hold the opinions they want to hold. However, I'm going to have to burst your bubble, come out, and say it: the prequels were bad. Granted, some were better than others, but none of these films are truly great or even arguably good. The plots are disorganized. The characters are poorly acted. The visual effects are distractingly bad. And Jar Jar Binks commits the unforgivable crime of existing when he is the way he is. This article is pretty much going to be a "mega-review" where I break down the good and bad things about each film in the prequel trilogy of Star Wars, unfortunately, more of the latter than the former.

Back in 1999, excitement over George Lucas's first entry in a prequel trilogy to his beloved original "Star Wars" trilogy, which was titled "Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace," was at a fever pitch. Lines at theaters were long. Everyone wanted in on what many were hoping would be the experience of a lifetime, and so I imagine that many were surprised when critics and audiences alike walked away from the film....disappointed. George Lucas had made what many (including me) consider to be, **gasp**, a bad movie. So, why exactly is "The Phantom Menace" a bad film? Well, let's break down 3 reasons why I and many others consider it to be sub-par.

1 - The premise of the film was sub-par. We waited 16 years for...a trade war? Political bickering? Now, there's a place for films that center around politics. In fact, there are some extremely good movies that center around or touch heavily on politics. To name a few, titles such as "The King's Speech," "The Death of Stalin," "All Quiet on the Western Front," and "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb" all excel in terms of characterization and plot while also leaning heavily on overwhelmingly political plot points. There is a time and a place for films and franchises that lean heavily on politics. However, "Star Wars" is not one of those franchises. The Senatorial bickering and tense negotiating that took up so much time in this film ultimately felt like filler that took away from what should have been the focus of the film in the first place: Anakin Skywalker. If I were to re-write "The Phantom Menace," I would set it more or less entirely on Tatooine, focusing on a tense game of cat-and-mouse between two Jedi and a child they believe is the chosen one and a mysterious, dark warrior with a rare saber staff hunting them. When in doubt, trim the fat from your film. This approach would have solved many issues with "The Phantom Menace," would have grounded the story in a more intimate human reality centered around the hardships of living on Tatooine, would have given opportunities for character development the room to breathe, and as a bonus, we would never have been introduced to Jar Jar Binks.

2 - The acting in "The Phantom Menace" was poor. There's just no way around this one. The performances in this movie range from tolerable to downright terrible. While some of this may be due to bad dialogue and direction, what we ultimately got with "The Phantom Menace" was a mess of unbelievable and unconvincing performances that completely took me out of the experience of watching the movie. If the acting in the film had been better, the narrative flaws may have been easier to forgive. However, it wasn't, so that's water under the bridge by now.

3 - The film ultimately just didn't need to be made. We already had a solid trilogy of films. There was absolutely no reason to make these movies other than to make some money. Now, that's not to say that they never should have been made. A movie doesn't need to justify its existence. I just wish that this film would have taken the time to. I also wish that its plot and characters had been deserving of recognition, but as we established, that's just not the case. Not only does this film fail to connect intimately enough with the original trilogy, but it's also pretty disconnected from the other two films it's supposed to share a trilogy with. Not a good look.

Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace - 4/10

Fast-forward to 2002. Yeah, I guess "The Phantom Menace" was disappointing, but maybe George Lucas can right the ship with "Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones!" Well, long story short, he didn't really do that. And granted, this film isn't nearly as bad as "The Phantom Menace." This time around, the premise of a plot to assassinate a senator that reaches far deeper than anyone in the Republic could possibly imagine is incredibly interesting as opposed to the monotonously boring and ill-conceived trade war tangent. The budget for this movie was huge and would today be valued at around $180 Million. The worldbuilding looked interesting, and come one - who doesn't adore the premise of a story of forbidden love? This movie had everything working in its favor, and yet, when all was said and done, the creators still managed to screw it up. "The Attack of the Clones" ended up being another disappointment churned out by a franchise that seemed to have outlived the magic that the original trilogy possessed. There are a few major reasons why "The Attack of the Clones" was so disappointing, and I'm going to list those below. Apologies to all of you "Star Wars" fans out there.

1 - I'm going to state the obvious: the infamous romantic arc between Anakin and Padme, which was kind of the crux of this film, had absolutely zero chemistry. Only try the pickup line "I don't like sand. It's coarse and irritating, and it gets everywhere. Not like here. Here, everything is soft and smooth..." if you want to drive every romantic interest out of your life. OK, that may sound like a nitpick, but what I'm getting at is that the plot arc that the rest of the film was supposed to support was weak. It was poorly plotted, poorly acted, and logically out of place. I get that the film needs Anakin and Padme to fall in love, but surely there are smarter ways of going about making that happen, and there was also ample opportunity for someone to step in and say that the chemistry just wasn't there between Anakin and Padme and that something needed to change.

2 - The acting from the rest of the cast is also pretty flat. I'm looking at you, Boba Fett. The acting in the film almost sounds like a final read-through rather than a finished product. The emotions of the characters either present themselves in an over-dramatic way (for example, Anakin Skywalker) or in an underwhelming fashion (point in case, Obi-Wan Kenobi and Padme). There is no sense of nuance in this film in regards to the acting jobs, and once again, this can probably be chalked up in some way to bad dialogue from the writers, but the fact remains that the acting in this film is also very bad, just like in the first film.

3 - The pacing of the film was very dragged out and underbaked. "Attack of the Clones" had an issue that stood out to me like a sore thumb: a few of the plot points, namely Obi-Wan trying to track down the source of a Kaminoan dagger, were needlessly drawn out to match the length of other plot points, namely the infamous romance between Padme and Anakin. And maybe at least something interesting could have been going on for half the time? Well, no. Most of the time, Obi-Wan is just walking around, talking to people, and flying around in his ship. Granted, this arc does periodically lend itself to some pretty spectacular setpieces, but it's mostly just an unneeded plot continuation that exists to drag out the runtime of "Attack of the Clones" in a futile attempt to make this film look more impressive than it really is.

Now, "Attack of the Clones" is not nearly as bad as "The Phantom Menace." It has some elements going for it. The environments, even if the visual effects can be underdone at points, are quite impressive. The Coruscant Underworld was one particular environment that really stood out to me. It was dark and dingy, yet quite colorful, decorated with men trying to sell you deathsticks, and simply put, it was fun to look at because so much was going on within the frame. Kamino was interesting, if a bit sterile, and Geonosis was an intriguing world with a pretty creative ecosystem. However, these strengths aren't enough to right the self-sinking ship that "The Attack of the Clones" tends to be. Bad acting and bad pacing make sure of that.

Star Wars Episode II: The Attack of the Clones: 5/10

And finally, in 2005, we find ourselves approaching George Lucas's conclusion to his Prequel Trilogy. I was too young to care about movies at the time, but I imagine that the audience wasn't too hopeful for these films by this time, but surprisingly enough, despite its problems, "Star Wars Episode III: The Revenge of the Sith" actually turned out to be the strongest film of the prequel trilogy, even if it does have some incredibly poorly-crafted working parts. One aspect that sets this film a notch above its predecessors is that a whole half of this film is....actually pretty good. The fall of Anakin Skywalker was an ultimately tragic arc, even if some aspects of it were underbaked, and you could even say that "Revenge" is one-half of an excellent film. Personally, I don't know if I would go so far as to call it "excellent," but I would definitely stick my neck out and say that "Revenge" is one-half of a good movie. Unfortunately, that other half is just as bad as some of the weaker parts we've seen in other films from the Prequel Trilogy.

1 - Enter Review Episode III: The Revenge of The Bad Acting. This trilogy is at least a coherent one regarding a single factor: the quality of its acting. And no, that's not a good thing. The performances in "Revenge of the Sith," while apparently quite meme-able, are also at best tolerable and at worst laughably bad. I'm sorry. It's the truth. And while that may once again be due to bad dialogue courtesy of George Lucas, I kind of doubt it. Two things bother me about this film regarding its performances: the first is that people don't talk like they do in the movie, and the second is that there is an annoying combination of overacting and underacting in this film once again. The ideas of nuanced performances and natural dialogue seem a little bit lost on the actors and writers once again, and while the performances are sincerely not as bad as they had been in previous films, they are still noticeably under-par. Which is disappointing. In all honesty, I was rooting for this film.

2 - This film is one half of a good movie, but the other half is really weak. As I stated earlier, the second half of "Revenge of the Sith" is actually pretty good, and this is why I place it a notch above any of the other films in the prequel trilogy. The emotional beats of the second half of this film land, at least for the most part. The score was nothing short of haunting. And, as the Jedi go extinct, you genuinely feel the hole they leave behind, even if you never really got to know any of them, and this changed my attitude towards the original trilogy in some surprising and beneficial ways. However, I still can't forgive that opening act of the movie, which accomplished very little that wasn't in some way reversed later in the film. On top of that, the film started in the middle of the action. We'd missed what is probably the largest assault on the Capitol of the Republic. Ever. But I digress. In short, most of the first half of the movie just didn't need to exist. This reminds me of a quote from Stephen King: "Kill your darlings, kill your darlings, even when it breaks your egocentric little scribbler's heart, kill your darlings." In short, the quote means that if something in your story doesn't push the plot forward in a meaningful way, get rid of it, no matter how painful it may be. I can't help but feel this way about the opening half of this movie. Almost nothing important happens, and I can't help but get the feeling that there had to have been a more effective and efficient way to tell this story.

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith - 6/10

However, despite its flaws, by the end of "Revenge of the Sith," I found myself strangely satisfied with it, even if it was just because at the very end of the movie, someone was able to stare out over the setting suns of Tatooine with "Binary Suns" playing over the top of it all. And this isn't something I was able to say about either of the other prequels. And, even if this trilogy may not be cornerstones of reputable and airtight filmmaking, despite the claims of the incredibly wise and respectable men of r/StarWars. But in spite of all its flaws, the prequel trilogy was still an imaginative escape from reality. I'll always enjoy these films to one degree or another because I grew up on them. I imagine that this is probably the driving force behind the "the prequels were actually good" movement. The wide-eyed and imaginative children who grew up watching these films are adults now. However, as for me, I'll never ever be able to honestly look these films in the eye and say that they were competent films because the fact remains that this is simply not the case. I'm sorry, but the prequels are not good.

Colossians 3:17