|
 f the three original trilogies, "Return of
the Jedi" has always been considered acceptable, but not overly good.
Made in 1983, just three years after the superlative "Empire
Strikes Back", the final installment in George Lucas' space
adventure ends with a whimper. The film is mostly saved by the continuation
of Luke Skywalker's journey from farm boy to adult Jedi, as well as Luke's
confrontations with Darth Vader and the Emperor (Ian McDiarmid). And the
other thing the film does right is give fans of the franchise a reasonably
good and satisfying resolution.
"Return of the Jedi"
picks up where "Empire" left off, with Han Solo (Harrison Ford)
frozen in carbonite and held in the palace of intergalactic gangster Jabba
the Hutt. When Solo's friends finally locate him and attempt a rescue, all
does not go well. Leia (Carrie Fisher) ends up captured and Luke, now a
full-fledged Jedi, has to rely on an elaborate plan to save the day. Han
Solo, meanwhile, has since been freed from his position as a wall ornament.
But since this wouldn't be much of a movie if the good guys didn't win, the
good guys of course win in a battle in the desert, where popular bounty
hunter Boba Fett redefines the word "lame" by getting himself
eaten by a giant plant or some such.
With Jabba dispatched and Solo freed, the good guys
rejoin the Rebel fleet, now preparing for a final strike against the
Empire. It seems the Empire has started construction on a new Death Star,
and this time the Emperor himself will be present. The Rebellion sees this
as a chance to end the war once and for all, but first they have to
destroy the forcefield station located on a moon orbited by the Death
Star. Can Han Solo's strike force bring down the shield in time? Will
Lando Calrissian (Billy Dee Williams) trash the Millennium Falcon? Will
Luke Skywalker defeat the Emperor and at the same time keep from turning
to the dark side? What are you, kidding?
Taken as the final chapter in a 3-story arc,
"Return of the Jedi" is a success. The trilogy's many story arcs
are all resolved in a satisfactory way, and I don't think fans will be
disappointed by how everything turns out. And really, who can be
disappointed with the sight of Princess Leia in slave get-up? But as a
standalone episode, "Jedi" has the distinction of trying to have
its cake and eat it, too. Most of all, the movie suffers from tonal
imbalance. It wants to be dark and brooding, but that's a bit hard with
Harrison Ford's entire dialogue consisting of him cracking wise. And don't
even get me started on the Ewoks.
One curious thing to note about "Jedi" is
that the special effects hasn't progressed as far as one expected. In
fact, much of "Jedi" looks cheesy from a technical point of
view, which is a surprise because tech has always been something the films
excelled at. Lucas and company have returned to mostly practical effects,
and this is most obvious in the Ewok battle scenes. The Special Edition
treatment is clearest in the space battles, where CGI ships have been
added to give the battle a cluttered, frenzied feel. They look good, but
the fact that all the participants are second-tier characters makes them,
well, less important.
Which leads me to this conclusion: the Special
Editions have, for the most part, added few reason to even exist in the
first place. As such, I'm really not sure why the original prints were
even tarnished to begin with. Does having 10 more Tie fighters or 10 more
Stormtroopers in a given scene really make a difference? I think not.
Where the Special Edition does make itself most known
in "Jedi" is at the end. With Darth Vader killed, his spirit
returns the way Obi-Wan's "spirit force" did, and there is a
scene where the elder Darth Vader, now back to his old Anakin self, stands
with the deceased Yoda and Obi-Wan Kenobi to witness the rebels
celebrating their victory. The Special Edition has taken out the elder
Anakin and replaced him with a younger version that looks to be in his
'30s. (Online reports have said that the younger Anakin is in fact actor
Hayden Christensen, who played Anakin Skywalker in "Attack
of the Clones", and is scheduled to play Anakin again in the
third prequel, "Revenge of the Sith".) Is this true? I don't
have a clue, except to say this: if it was Christensen, the makeup was
brilliant.
As to rather the above alterations make a difference
depends entirely on your feelings toward the trilogy. As a cursory fan, I
could do without them. What difference does digitally replacing the older
Anakin with a younger version make? To tell you the truth, I don't know
why Lucas even bothered. Does adding a couple of more creatures in the
background, or tinkering with a scene here and there, make the films any
better? This reviewer thinks it was all a big waste of time and money.
With hindsight firmly in hand, I believe "Return
of the Jedi", although not great, was a nice way to cap off the
trilogy. The scenes with Luke Skywalker as he confronts the Emperor and
Darth Vader are worth having to endure the brutal insanity of watching
heavily armed, armored, and (supposedly) well trained Imperial
Stormtroopers get beaten to a pulp by midgets in furry costumes flinging
rocks, rocks, and more rocks. Really, it's all a bit silly and childish,
and coming off the grittiness of "Empire", something of a
letdown.
(Ironically, most people wouldn't have been so
disappointed by "Jedi's" lack of sophistication if it hadn't
been for the greatness of "Empire". And again, I must question
why George Lucas insists on doing almost everything himself. The hokeyness
of "Jedi", no doubt, came straight from his typewriter.)
|
