gipper1

"Well, that's the real trick, isn't it...The "how" and the "who" are just scenery, prevents 'em from asking the most important question: Why?" -- Mr. X, "JFK"

To clarify, the Galactic Republic did not fall in a massive conspiracy which would make Oliver Stone's "JFK" look like a game of CLUE. But the above paraphrased quote from Stone's 1991 assassination film speaks a truth about what lies at the heart of "Revenge of the Sith".

Why did Anakin Skywalker do it? Finally, at long last, this question is answered by George Lucas in a meaningful, not-nauseating (though certainly not flawless) way. 'Episode I' was a dose of bitter medicine, with way too much "scenery". It seemed like it took 'Episode II' forever to establish some semblance of a point. Finally, now, in Episode III, we get to "the point".

As a younger fan of Star Wars, my introduction was of course through home video. When Obi-Wan and Yoda would talk in "Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi" about the self- destructive path down which Skywalker/Darth Vader went, I imagined in my mind that it was a relatively simple story: headstrong young man, impatient, insecure, and greedy for glory, surrendering himself to the easy yet evil methods of acquiring power. Basically, I figured Skywalker was Lucas' Machiavelli.

In a sense, as seen in this film, he is. In his mind, the end will justify the means, even as it corrupts his soul and destroys his body. But there are an intriguing number of layers and emotions which go in to the final decision. Lucas is displaying a different sort of film-making ambition, choosing to dissect the riddle, "What is the nature of 'evil'? How does man distinguish between good and evil?" And in the various dimensions and answers of this question - Palpatine's shriveled and calculated manipulations of young Skywalker, Anakin's heartfelt but immoral desire to save those he loves, Obi-Wan's conflict of duty and brotherhood - this prequel attains what was critical to the first trilogy and sorely lacking through much of the two most recent films: complexity and development of the characters.

I will concede that several scenes, though not all (which in and of itself is a major step forward from the first two prequels), contain dialogue that is, shall we say, definitely NOT the product of razor-sharp intelligence. But then, no Star Wars film was ever meant to be confused with a David Mamet play. Also, let's debunk a myth which seems to have grown with time and say the following: George Lucas was never a brilliant wordsmith. Legendary are the stories of how much Alec Guinness hated the script of the original "Star Wars" and supposedly concocted his character's death to escape further speaking of those "bloody awful lines" (that's a direct quote). Mark Hamill, in the DVD documentary on the original trilogy, recalled thinking at auditions, "Who TALKS LIKE THIS?"

The original Star Wars trilogy clicked so well because the story reflected genuine personality and depth in its characters. While "Revenge of the Sith" does not quite get to the level set by the 1977 original or "The Empire Strikes Back", it does a damn good job none-the-less. The film has a distinct, dark, raw intensity as it ties off most of the loose threads and known (though never previously explained) mysteries of the Skywalker saga. As David Ansen of Newsweek noted, the outcome of this jigsaw puzzle has always been known, and as result there is a sense of satisfaction at finally realizing how the pieces all fit together.

That return to philosophy in the stars, the "space opera" style which inspired him so long ago, results in a film that Lucas and the legions "Star Wars" fans can be proud of. You may have noticed in this review that I've yet to mention the spectacular special effects or exciting fight scenes. They are certainly present, but for the first time in the prequel trilogy Lucas has successfully made a film which is about more than stringing the audience along until the next mind-blowing action sequence.

Don't get me wrong, M. Night Shyamalan has proved to be a master of psuedo-suspense films. I say 'psuedo' because his movies transcend pass the big noise and shock of being pure horror to touch deeper themes. His films, while intending to scare you, are not only about the big scream - they are also about the little touches, the voices in your head, the feelings in your heart.

"The Village" joins the ranks as another film of superb craftsmanship. Unfortanately for Shyamalan it winds up being his least effective, probably because he makes it more emotionally complex than it needs to be. Adrien Brody picked a hell of a follow-up to his Oscar-winning leading role, because his supporting job here doesn't register at all. He is the obligatory subplot who winds up being "pivotal" - Night, you did that already with Phoenix's character in "Signs". It worked a lot better then too.

There's also some odd moments of misdirection, Night choosing to use a wide shot when maybe a close-up would tie us better to the moment. This makes some of his more brilliant sequences all the more tough to swallow, cause you're caught saying, "Do it more like that!"

As for the film's plot and "surprise" twist, I won't go into the details and instead focus on the big picture. Most films of this type, where they intend to lead the story in one way before pulling the rug out from under you, fall victim to the before and after effect. In essence, the suspense and the dread and the anticipation of what comes next is often better than what actually comes next. When the secret is revealed, you may indeed be shocked, and if you're like me the actual method of revelation will have your pulse moving, but afterwards your thoughts will be, "Is that all there is?"

Night's films have always been at some level about suspension of disbelief, and "The Village" probably requires the most. Like "Unbreakable" he has constructed an average sum out of some brilliant individual parts. In short, "The Village" is too much of a peak and valley film, emotionally, psychologically, etc., to rank it up there with "The Sixth Sense" or "Signs".

It may be time for Shyamalan to move in a different direction, utilizing his indisputable film skill for a radically new purpose. "Ocean's Eleven" showed us the jazzier side of Steven Soderbergh. I know at one point Night was asked for a screenplay to the next Indiana Jones movie, which once again seems to be stuck in development hell. How about another "Stuart Little"? Ha! Relax, Night, you don't need to be THAT different.