i view it as a series teeming with phenomenal ideas that were marred by execution. an ambitious story with a lot to say politically, written and directed by a man well known since the OT to be less than stellar at dialogue and no longer as interested in actor direction as he was VFX technology (which isn’t an inherently bad thing, i just think he should have hired a writer)
i think its main downfall was lucas’ overindulgence. the OT was as good as it was because he was still relatively unknown and therefore had people (his wife, the actors and other crew) who weren’t afraid to curb his worst impulses and touch-up his rough dialogue. in the PT he had full creative control and massive industry sway; people weren’t about to tell THE man who invented the action blockbuster “no”. a notable example is a lot of hayden christensen’s disparged acting choices being to be a result of him, an unknown theater actor, wanting to please george lucas even if he thought anakin should be acted a different way.
that doesn’t mean there weren’t moments of brilliance, or that things didn’t improve as the trilogy went on. revenge of the sith is the obvious high point, with both the opera scene and the back-and-forth between anakin slaughtering the trade federation while palpatine overthrows a democracy before the senate’s very eyes being particularly inspired.
(“so this is how liberty dies. with thunderous applause”, is the most metal line said in star wars ever george kinda went crazy no lie)
ROTS is my favorite star wars movie, but that doesn’t mean i think its the best one. i can appreciate what good the prequel trilogy has and still acknowledge the ways it missed the mark.
That is very well reasoned and concise post. I personally do not like ROTS much, but am happy to see others post they do and explain what they enjoyed about it.