SECOND HELPINGS: Return of the Jedi (1983)

After the emotional gut-punch of The Empire Strikes Back, George Lucas intended to wrap his Star Wars trilogy up with a crowd-pleaser. Instead, he delivered a film that still has hardcore Star Wars fans drawing lines in the sand to this day. For some reason, there is not much middle ground on Return of the Jedi. You either love it or you don’t. I’ve never understood the lack of middle ground but, then again, I happen to love this film.

When I was a kid, this was my favorite of the original trilogy films. As I grew up, I came to understand the flaws of Jedi and it fell to the bottom of the list (again, original trilogy only). I still think that this film is more fun to watch than Empire but that’s probably because I don’t mind the Ewoks as much as some people do. More on them later though. First we should consider the most important elements of the film.

The central conflict of the film is pretty lazy. A second Death Star certainly poses a threat to the Rebel Alliance but it’s nowhere near original. This latest time around, the stakes have changed what with the Emperor on board and no thermal exhaust port trenches to make easy work of destroying it. Having Luke aboard during the Rebel’s assault might have increased the tension but I realize now that I never honestly thought about Luke being in danger. I am not sure why that is. Perhaps I just assume the hero will survive.

The rescue of Han Solo from Jabba’s palace at the beginning of the film allows Lucas to add a plethora of exotic creatures to the Star Wars universe. It’s a fun portion of the film to watch without being too cutesy and includes a lot of good filmmaking. Luke’s escape from the rancor is an ambitious sequence but it hasn’t aged very well. Still, the whole first portion of the film serves to get the gang back together and charges up the audience for an almost unwinnable battle.

Luke’s mission to secure his father’s redemption is interesting, as it almost becomes an obsession that threatens his allegiance to the light side of the Force. Darth Vader and the Emperor push Luke to the edge, making for some very tense and emotional drama. The Emperor is an interesting villain because he does not look imposing or threatening at all like Vader, though he does unleash some terrifying Force skills near the end. He is brilliant but cocky. Sure, he managed to single-handedly start a rebellion that brought down the Republic and put him in a position of absolute power, but he relies too much on the strength of his Empire and not enough on the Force. Perhaps he felt he had grown strong and secure enough that the Force was irrelevant to maintaining his power.

Now for all the hate directed toward the Ewoks. What gives? I concede that they are overly cute and an unlikely victor over Imperial forces but they provide some much needed comic relief in what is otherwise a very serious film. And the Ewoks alone do not conquer the troops on Endor. They provide enough chaos and distraction to allow the Rebels to take the upper hand.

In some ways, Return of the Jedi is a more dramatic rewrite of the original Star Wars. The rescue of Han Solo mirrors the against-all-odds rescue of Princess Leia. Then there is the obviously parallel second Death Star and the triumphant ending. It’s not a total ripoff because the characters are much more developed by this installment but I can see why these elements might turn some people off. The music also isn’t as dynamic as Star Wars or Empire but I don’t know if that could be avoided as it incorporates many of the character themes from the other films.

In the end it matches the uplifting climax of the first film with a little more cheese along the way. I can’t help but think that the people who hate on this film probably hold Empire as their favorite. I’m not saying that is a bad thing but sometimes a happy ending can be a good thing. You just have to accept it and let it happen. I am more than okay with this film, even if I do think it is the weakest of the three. It’s a great closing chapter to a dynamite trilogy.

ORIGINAL RATING: 4 out of 5

NEW RATING: 4 out of 5

SECOND HELPINGS: The Empire Strikes Back (1980)

Much like my Second Helpings review for Star Wars, I really don’t think I am capable of adding something new to the conversation about this film. Hopefully my personal musings will be equally, if not more, enjoyable to read as they were for Star Wars.

With Empire, George Lucas gives his Star Wars universe staying power by showing that the first film was more than just a one-off adventure flick. After all, blowing up a space station in the remote stretches of the galaxy would hardly bring the Empire to its knees. The audience is drawn deeper into the lives of Lucas’s characters. Luke is called upon to develop the Force sensitivity he displayed in the first film while Han Solo is forced to scramble against all odds to protect Princess Leia from the Imperial forces hot on their tails.

Pretty much everything in The Empire Strikes Back is better than the original Star Wars. There, I said it. The world did not come to an end, so let’s all agree that Empire improves upon its captivating predecessor. Lucas used his own money to produce the film and his doubling of the production budget is evident just about everywhere.

Shooting for an authentic look and feel over studio fakery, Lucas once again starts a Star Wars film out on location. The snowy wastelands of Norway provides a spectacular landscape for the Rebel Alliance’s secret base. I think shooting in the elements helps the brain buy into what it is seeing because the finer nuances of nature just can’t be faked. Lucas does pretty well at fooling us by crafting Yoda’s swampy Dagobah hideout though.

Speaking of Yoda, what an accomplishment! In our world he is just a puppet but you’d never know from watching the film. Between Frank Oz’s puppeteering and careful cinematography, Yoda is a fully believable and powerful presence in this film. I always wonder what it is like for actors to deal with inanimate costars on set. Obviously there are dozens of set crew members around but to be able to completely buy in and commit to interacting with a puppet takes skill. To make it all work out believably on screen is something special.

Had this film been another caper film like the first, Empire would have been a bust. Thankfully, Lucas and his co-writers push deeper into the lives and emotions of our main characters. Luke’s journey to study under Yoda draws out the awe and mystery of the Force while Han and Leia’s attempts to evade Imperial Forces has all the action we loved from the first film plus a little romantic heat. It really is great to have Han and Leia stuck with each other for much of the film. Their head-butting banter from the original was brilliant and getting more of it this time around is a pleasure. It reminds me of old school Hollywood like Rhett Butler and Scarlet O’Hara’s bickering when all they really want to do is lock lips with each other.

The Empire Strikes Back is a darker, deeper, and all-around more mature film than Star Wars. The fact that it lacks a triumphant ending like its predecessor may leave some viewers feeling deflated but without the dual cliffhangers of Darth Vader’s revelation and Han Solo’s imprisonment, the good guys would just be lucky to escape. Both cliffhangers force more action and emotion from our characters immediately and it also sets up the events for the eventual sequel. Even the music of Empire shows growth over the original film’s fantastic soundtrack (which I somehow failed to even mention in my Second Helpings review for Star Wars). John Williams gives us a second signature piece for the series with Darth Vader’s theme, “The Imperial March.”

I personally may still prefer the story arc and high adventure of Star Wars over Empire but I can no longer deny that Empire is an improvement over the original in many ways. But I still cannot grant it equal status on my rating scale just yet because without Star Wars, Empire never would have even existed. Maybe that means I am giving Star Wars a little extra credit because of its impact and influence on the industry and pop culture after all. Sue me. Maybe after a few more viewings I’ll be able to determine if Empire works as a stand-alone film. If it makes sense without the context of the first film, maybe it will slide up a notch. We’ll have to see.

ORIGINAL RATING: 4.5 out of 5

NEW RATING: 4.5 out of 5

SECOND HELPINGS: Star Wars* (1977)

To say that I have anything new or original to add to the conversation about Star Wars would be lying. This is one of the most popular and most dissected films of all time. Seeing as it is approaching middle age, I think everyone else has covered just about every possible angle of this film well and good. This affords me the opportunity to casually reflect on a personal favorite.

Even before I got serious about analyzing and reviewing movies, I loved Star Wars on a number of levels. As a kid, your imagination runs wild and Star Wars was just the kind of fantastic adventure you might dream up running around the backyard: heroes, villains, damsels in distress, a longing for something outside of the ordinary routine- it’s all in there. Heck, it’s even got swords and dogfights. What more could a little boy ask for?

This brings up a very important point. Star Wars has always performed well for kids. Empire gets dark but Jedi returns to a more kid-friendly tone for the most part. George Lucas may have tried to replicate that wow effect for the younger set too much with the prequels because the story of Star Wars still holds up for adults in terms of quality. You cannot say that about the prequels.

I must admit that the story in the original Star Wars is much simpler than anything else that came later. Despite its straight-up action-quest saga trajectory, all of these elements are carefully crafted from archetypes from history, mythology, and literature that resonate with most people as long as they are written well.

The story structure itself is built upon story elements that we have all seen or read many times before. Lucas prevents his film from feeling generic and derivative thanks to the characters he populates his universe with. Luke is still your bland, wide-eyed kid who becomes a hero but everyone else is remarkable. Han Solo’s bad boy persona meets a worthy match in Princess Leia. More than just a damsel to save, she is strong and determined to have her say. As an added bonus, she’s a pretty good shot too. Darth Vader is menacing thanks to the dark costume and James Earl Jones’s booming voice. The droids provide comic relief and Chewbacca turns out to be more than just a reminder that you’re watching a sci-fi film.

While they may not look like a whole lot now, the visual effects in Star Wars pushed the movie industry forward. This film also changed what kind of movies audiences crave, for better or for worse. Hollywood has always crafted big spectacle films but they were always limited by effects capabilities of the day. George Lucas tossed the doors wide open on what could now be done visually. Personally, I still love the use of real, albeit miniature, ships with intricate structural detail. It makes all the close-ups look like the real deal.

In 1977, Star Wars was a breezy, exotic tale stitched together with visual flair and a lot of fun. To this day, it continues to be all of that (though visual effects have far surpassed what Lucas had ever dreamed of in the 70s) and there is something special and powerful about that. The Empire Strikes Back and, to a lesser extent, Return of the Jedi gave more depth to the Star Wars universe and the story unfolding before our eyes, so assertions that the original film is not the best of the three may in fact be valid.

However, I don’t think Star Wars is a film remembered more for what it meant or did for the art of filmmaking than for its content (as is the case for films like Citizen Kane). Nor is content more important than the technical aspect (as in High Noon). Both the story and its cultural and industry impact are at least equal in my mind, which justifies Star Wars retaining my highest ranking. Empire may be a better story but Star Wars came first and it was an all-around doozy.

ORIGINAL RATING: 4.75 out of 5

NEW RATING: 4.75 out of 5

Sabrina (1995)

A light-hearted remake of a Hollywood classic (which I have not seen), Harrison Ford oozes his usual charm while trying to woo a young woman away from his engaged brother to protect his family and the family business. Filled with old school cinema sensibilities in mind, there’s a disconnect somewhere in the execution that prevents Sabrina from becoming anything really special.

Sabrina Fairchild is the daughter of a modest chauffer, who works for the powerful Larrabee family. Growing up, she has always been in love with the younger of the Larrabee boys, David (played by Greg Kinnear), who has never so much as noticed her. After spending time in France, she returns to the Larrabee estate a fashionable and sophisticated woman. David is smitten with her but this is no good for business. David is already engaged to a woman from a powerful family who is in the process of merging with the Larrabee Corporation. Shrewd businessman and David’s elder brother, Linus (Harrison Ford) takes it upon himself to woo Sabrina away from his brother so the marriage and merger will not be harmed.

Ford is charming as ever as Linus Larrabee and Greg Kinnear pulls off the love-struck brother well enough but Julia Ormond fails to perform as the titular Sabrina. Perhaps it’s because Ormond, at 30 years old, is supposed to be playing a girl in her early 20s. She clearly doesn’t look that young. Perhaps this was a necessity to help mask Ford’s age (already in his early 50’s at the time). Either way, it’s pretty obvious that there is a large age difference between Sabrina and Linus and this makes it hard to buy the chemistry and romance to develops between them. Sure, older men fall for young women all the time but even as charming as Ford is, it’s hard to see Sabrina give up her doting on David for his older brother.

Ford and Kinnear have some amusing scenes together but Kinnear’s wide-eyed, idealistic attitude does grow to be a bit annoying before he snaps out of it at the end. He and Ford end up switching places on the spectrum, swapping capitalism for romanticism and vice versa. It’s the kind of convenient ending that worked back in the escapist cinema of the 40s and 50s but it just doesn’t resonate with modern audiences.

Women will likely enjoy the romance and sweetness but there is very little that is memorable about Sabrina. There’s no unique camerawork to speak of, few memorable lines and no standout performances. All you get is a marginally good time that comes and goes.

RATING: 3 out of 5

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

Nineteen years after he rode off into the sunset, Indiana Jones returns to the big screen once more, for better or for worse. Older, slower, greyer and less agile, Jones is still keeping with his professor-by-day-adventurer-on-the-weekends antics. It’s not as easy as it used to be, but he’s still got plenty of sass, spirit and grit to dish out to those who stand in his way.

As a longtime fan of the series, I was always going to enjoy this film. It’s Indiana Jones we’re talking about here. The real question is how much I was going to enjoy it. The answer is “just enough.” At the very least, an Indiana Jones film needs to be bright, loud, exciting and humorous. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull accomplishes this well enough but it meets only the bare minimum of those requirements. When the best thing you can say about an Indiana Jones film is that it’s an Indiana Jones film, something’s gone wrong.

Kingdom suffers some of the same problems that plagued Temple of Doom. First, the artifact driving the events of the film isn’t one many people are familiar with. Crystal skulls, though now mostly dismissed, were once objects of great mystery. The film ups the ante and gives them supernatural capabilities, which is why the bad guys are out for them.

The villains in this film are, much like Temple of Doom, somewhat underwhelming. While the Soviet Union was certainly scary back in the day, it’s hard to be intimidated by them as villains because we know how the Cold War turned out. The Cold War itself was a big anticlimax in the end, so the Soviet threat in this film was much of the same. Maybe it's because the Nazis actually did something with their military might. Granted, it’s also an Indiana Jones movie, so you know the bad guys won’t win. The other problem with the villains is that there really isn’t much character development behind them. They’re there, they’re bad, and they’re there often enough to reinforce that they’re bad.

Also similar to Temple of Doom, there is less globe-trotting and more action sequences that hog up too much of the spotlight and are over the top. Part of the fun of Indy flicks is seeing lots of exotic locations. Here, we’re treated to two American locations and the Amazon. It’s not quite enough diversity for my liking. The long chase and fight sequence in the Amazon rain forest overstays its welcome and becomes increasingly absurd the longer it plays out. The opening scene has its share of flaws as well, which is a shame because the opening scene always helps set the tone for the rest of the film. After Indiana Jones hides himself inside a lead-lined fridge to protect himself from a nuclear blast, my expectations were sufficiently lowered for the remaining 100 or so minutes.

The big action sequences bring out one of the problems inherent to Kingdom itself. Being the modern age, stunts are now bigger and flashier, often using lots of CGI to pull off the most dangerous parts. While an attempt is made to have the stars perform many of their own stunts, there is a noticeable amount of CGI present. These kinds of effects weren’t around for the first three installments, so the abundance of effects shots in this film is jarring at times. Sometimes it felt like they were trying to do too much while combining real actors and digital effects, making the CGI work very obvious and not up to par.

The writing is probably the weakest in the entire series. There’s plenty of wit and wisdom being thrown around but there are also times when it seems like the actors weren’t really sure what to do with their lines. Lucas helped with the screenplay and after the uninspired dialogue of the Star Wars prequels, it’s no wonder his mediocre writing skills show through.

Another thing that irritated me a little was all the references to Indy’s age. Harrison Ford himself requested there be more references to Indy’s age and fading abilities throughout the film but it became something of a running gag that didn’t sit well with me. Perhaps it’s because, subconsciously, we find something very wrong about seeing out heroes get older. The first three Indiana Jones films were made over a nine-year period when Harrison Ford was young and vibrant. Ford hasn’t lost his any of his charm and grit but seeing wrinkles and grey hair on our beloved hero is sobering. Heroes are supposed to be timeless, making James Bond’s continual reinvention every so often seem all the smarter. Such a recasting would have been inconceivable, so credit must be given for making the most out of what the filmmakers had available to them.

In the end, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is one part reunion (seeing the return of Marion Ravenwood) and one part continuation of the action-adventure saga. Thankfully, it does not appear as if George Lucas and Steven Spielberg intended to use the film as a launching pad for spinoffs focusing on young star Shia LaBeouf. While the door doesn’t entirely shut on the possibility of yet another sequel, the film ends on a note that could signify the end of the Indy era.

I think that most fans of Indiana Jones never really wanted there to be a fourth movie. Instead, I think that many of us were simply in love with the idea that there could be a fourth movie. Upon receiving Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I think there are a number of us who wish we could give it back, myself included. It’s the weakest in the series and may undermine some of the magic of the original three but it is another dose of Indiana Jones, which can’t possibly be a bad thing.

RATING: 3 out of 5

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)

After the dark-toned journey of Temple of Doom, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg bring the beloved Indiana Jones back into the light for one last hurrah. Featuring plenty of girls, guns and globetrotting, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade pulls out all the stops and recreates most of the magic that captivated audiences in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Trilogies are oftentimes fickle things. The original is almost always the best, the second installment usually disappoints to a degree (though there are exceptions), and the third chapter can go either way. This film closes out the Indiana Jones trilogy in the best way possible- returning to its roots.

Last Crusade recaptures the light-hearted heroic swagger of old adventure serials that made Raiders of the Lost Ark so fun. Indy’s got his sass back and Harrison Ford oozes charm from start to finish. The Nazis are back as the chief antagonists, seeking an artifact with great power. Said artifact is the fabled Holy Grail; something that Western audiences can easily wrap their heads around. To cap it all off, Indy travels to several gorgeous foreign locales, including Venice, Berlin and Petra (serving as the exterior of the fictional resting place of the Grail).

There are enough differences to prevent this film from feeling too formulaic though. The opening segment once again shows Indy chasing after an artifact but it occurs in Indy’s youth. This opening segment serves a dual function- it shows how Indy first got into high-stakes artifact chasing adventures and it also sets up his relationship with his father, who plays an important part in the film. The addition of Henry Jones is a welcome breath of fresh air as well. Instead of flirting with a woman or bossing around a kid, Indy has met his equal in his father. Sean Connery and Harrison Ford have brilliant chemistry on the screen.

While I normally get annoyed when father-son conflict resolution is injected into an otherwise good plot, I didn’t mind it one bit during this film. Indy’s issues with his father are legitimate but handled with enough light-heartedness that it never becomes the kind of thing you roll your eyes at. Their bonding never seems forced, which makes it more effective, I think.

One of the problems with Temple of Doom was that its action sequences sometimes went a bit too far over the top. Perhaps this was to make up for the dark tone. Fortunately nothing in Last Crusade approaches the level of silliness as the mine cart chase or the airplane/raft escape. The action pieces are spectacular but don’t steal the show. The focus remains the characters that we love to root for.

Some of the special effects in this film show their age quite a bit but they were pretty good when the film first came out. Sometimes this is a hard issue to see around, particularly with older movies where the bluescreen work is painfully obvious. Having grown up with movies from the 80s and 90s though, it is pretty easy for me to gauge the quality of the effects based on my knowledge of other films from the same era. So Last Crusade does pretty well in that department, despite looking silly 20 years later.

Reviews for Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade were somewhat mixed when it was released but it has been embraced by fans of the original. Not everyone prefers this third installment to Temple of Doom but most of us Indy fans do. I’m a sucker for this film. In some ways it is more fun than Raiders but, when you get right down to it, the original set the tone for the series. This film saw the Indy series seemingly finish on a high note that lasted for 19 years. Last Crusade redeems the series from Temple’s bleakness by borrowing just enough of what Raiders did right with a helping of originality mixed in.

RATING: 4 out of 5

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)

Set one year before Raiders of the Lost Ark (making this George Lucas first actual foray into prequels), Indiana Jones finds himself dodging bullets and assassins while trying to rescue enslaved children at the same time. It’s a tough job, but somebody’s got to do it. Fortunately, Indy is up for the task. Unfortunately, Temple of Doom fails to relive the glory of its predecessor. While certainly no failure by any means, this film does disappoint on a number of levels.

It is impossible to avoid comparing Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom to Raiders of the Lost Ark. Both films are built around the same motifs, emulating and exploiting the character elements of old time adventure serials. The trouble lies in the fact that Raiders emulated and exploited those elements so perfectly and Temple changes the formula ever so slightly to avoid redundancy. These changes are not all for the better though.

Indy’s companions (for it is difficult to consider them true sidekicks) now consist of a smart-mouthed Chinese boy named Short Round and an airhead night club singer named Willie, who is along for the ride because Indy didn’t have ample enough time to ditch her while trying to escape from Shanghai with his life. Short Round injects some youthful humor into the mix, which is good considering the darker tone of the film, but Willie is more or less annoying from the start and fails to grow on you much. But she is a necessary component to the story and provides romantic tension and sight gags where needed.

The quest Indy embarks on this time around is not one of his own choosing. After escaping a plane crash in the Himalayas, Indy and his friends float down river to India where some locals beg him to find their stolen children, believed to be enslaved by a Thuggee cult in a nearby palace, and a sacred stone that protected their village. Saving the children is noble but the stone is a bit too foreign for most viewers to get a handle on. Despite Indy’s explanations about ancient Sankara stones and their supposed powers, the archeological side of the story isn’t as gripping. Western audiences can wrap their minds around the Ark of the Covenant but magical Indian rocks are a stretch. It also doesn’t help that Indy isn’t as passionate about this quest as he was in Raiders.

A lack of many geographical set pieces also holds the film back slightly. Raiders saw Indy traveling all over the globe, hitting virtually every single continent. Temple only offers us a glimpse of Asia. While this is the most forgivable change to the Indy formula, it is also one of the most noticeable. Very few iconic locations are used and the oft-lampooned Indy-map sequence doesn’t really pick up much mileage this time around.

The most noticeable change is the darker tone of the film. While Indy’s tongue-in-cheek attitude and cocky swagger still pervades, Temple of Doom touches on some dark territory. Cults, enslavement of children and human sacrifice have a way of sobering an audience up. Instead of sitting on the edge of your seat with excitement, this film will have you sitting more against the back of the chair with a look of half excitement and half concern on your face.

I think the biggest reason that Temple isn’t adored as much is because Indy, the unflappable hero who can do no wrong, turns to the dark side. Though only brief, Indy’s conversion to the forces of evil is unsettling. The archetypal hero can have his dark moments but to be shown as fully corruptible? That crosses the line for me and I’m sure it’s the same with many fans.

Now it’s time to get positive! I understand the reason for many of these changes. Had Temple of Doom stuck with the formula laid out in Raiders it would have felt like a cheap copy of the original. Short Round and Willie were added to balance out the darkness in the story (it’s easy to see why Indy doesn’t stick with her after the film but one does have to wonder what happened to Short Round). The globetrotting was scaled back because the story required it. Lucas and Spielberg recognized that certain elements that had made Raiders such a blast had to be cut out because they didn’t fit into the story they were trying to tell. Making sacrifices for the sake of the story is admirable and I respect Lucas and Spielberg for that. It’s just unfortunate that the story they told isn’t quite as gripping.

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is still a rollicking good time. There’s plenty of action and adventure to get your heart racing and adrenaline pumping. Once again, Spielberg pulls out all the stops in crafting fantastic action sequences (dated though they may look now) that are still a thrill ride to watch. Yes, this sequel/prequel isn’t quite as good as the original but hey- this is still Indiana Jones we’re talking about.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Raiders of the Lost Ark* (1981)

There’s really nothing I can say about this film that hasn’t already been said before. Raiders of the Lost Ark launched the Indiana Jones series and solidified both Harrison Ford and Steven Spielberg as Hollywood titans. It is a near-perfect blend of action, romance, humor and drama.

Raiders of the Lost Ark sets itself apart from many other adventure films because the main character, Indiana Jones, is a scholarly archeologist. He’s not just a smug, dashing hero- he’s also a brilliant researcher who knows his stuff. The inclusion of real artifacts into the tale is a big plus. Looking for the much fabled Ark of the Covenant provides for both archeological and religious information that is both interesting and enlightening. This rare blend of education and entertainment is the driving force behind the success of the film and its sequels.

Harrison Ford was in the middle of the Star Wars saga when he did this film and it proved his worth and acting chops, as he plays the debonair yet gritty Dr. Jones to perfection. He makes the character his own and does so in a believable fashion. The supporting cast also does a tremendous job in their respective roles, creating one thrill ride of a film that is great from start to finish.

While a few of the special effects show their age nowadays, Raiders of the Lost Ark pushed the envelope back in 1981. The stunt work is very carefully choreographed and the script wastes no time advancing the action and the storyline simultaneously. This is such an enormous benefit that many Indy clones and knock-offs fail to pull off. Instead of shifting focus from the action and the information, Raiders of the Lost Ark keeps its sights on both sides of the equation the whole way through.

It is because of this that the film is so darn engaging and fun. Jones is too charismatic not to like and the quest for the Ark is too interesting and important not to care about. Viewers become heavily invested in the characters, the action and the purpose by the end of the film, which all makes for a triumphant picture. The addition of John Williams’ legendary score helped solidify Raiders of the Lost Ark as one of the most important and memorable films of all time.

As goofy and unlikely as some of the action and decisions may be, you can’t deny this tour de force. It is one of the rare great films that can be watched and enjoyed endlessly, no matter how many times you have seen it before. Raiders is one of my all-time favorite movies, but my rating is certainly not tainted by subjectivity. This film is hailed by many critics, actors, directors and (most importantly) movie goers as one rapid-fire thrill ride that’s sure to please (it was even nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars!).

I made sure to make this one of my milestone movies and it is a more than worthy addition to this site.

RATING: 4.5 out of 5

American Graffiti* (1973)

It’s the last night of summer in 1962. Several teenage friends are enjoying their last taste of freedom in their small town in different ways. Some are looking for love, others for answers, and some for one last thrill before they are split up and forced into adulthood. Fueled by a stellar soundtrack that is quite literally a who’s who listing of 50s and 60s rock icons, American Graffiti helped fuel the surge of nostalgia for the 50s during the tumultuous 70s.

Many people are surprised to learn that this charming film was directed by Star Wars creator George Lucas. Lucas’ sense of timing and multi-layered story makes the film work. There are intersections between the storylines that make the film cohesive and you never follow one character for too long that you either lose interest or forget the other subplots.

Stylish, funny, and all around enjoyable, American Graffiti is an American classic about classic America. While times have changed, the moods and feelings expressed by the teenage cast still resonate with today’s youth. Often imitated, but never duplicated, American Graffiti is one of the best coming of age tales ever made.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

Return of the Jedi (1983)

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!

I’m finally willing to admit that Return of the Jedi is inferior to the first two films of the Star Wars saga. There, I said it. Jedi has always been at least tied with the original Star Wars as my favorite of the bunch. Maybe it’s because they mark the beginning and the end of the original trilogy, or maybe I just like Princess Leia in a gold bikini.

Jedi brings the beloved story of Star Wars to a close. It’s not necessarily the ending everyone was expecting, so there is room for complaint if your hopes for the series weren’t quite met. Not everyone will be pleased with the story’s resolution. I was. I think that Jedi brings the series to a fitting end, despite recycling a little conflict. The Empire builds a second Death Star. Not exactly original, but who cares! We Star Wars geeks embrace the challenge of squaring off against another battle station. The stakes are also much higher this time, making it more than just a second round.

While returning to many familiar themes, the music of Jedi isn’t quite as memorable. Outside of Jabba’s palace band and the intro piece to the fight above the Sarlaac, there aren’t many new musical pieces that are memorable. While not really a problem, as the revisited themes are epic in and of themselves, it does take away some minor points from the film.

Visual effects are kicked up yet another notch, providing us with amazing fight scenes and one heck of a journey into the innards of the Death Star. Many claim that the Ewoks are the film’s undoing. I disagree, but I do acknowledge that they were a bit too cutesy and likely put George Lucas on the dark path to creating Jar Jar Binks. But we’re thinking happy thoughts here, so no more mentioning of the prequels.

While Return of the Jedi may be the weakest of the trilogy, it is still a great film. Lucas brought us the goods and pulled out all the stops. The pacing, story and adventure is right in line with its predecessors, and it provides an ending that very few will complain about, capping off what is quite possibly the most legendary film series in history.

RATING: 4 out of 5

The Empire Strikes Back (1980)

Often times this film is lauded as superior to its predecessor, the original Star Wars. It can sometimes be hotly disputed even amongst die-hard fans. Empire has several superior elements: a better story with more well-rounded and developed characters, a deeper exploration of the mythology of The Force, and a grittier overall attitude and demeanor as opposed to the flash and camp of the original.

The only reason that Empire doesn’t rate higher than Star Wars is because Star Wars came first. Without that first chapter in a galaxy far far away, we wouldn’t be able to dig into this darker sequel. Empire is truly a triumph over the original, but respect is owed to its foundation.

The Empire Strikes Back picks up some time after the events of Star Wars. Darth Vader is actively pursuing Luke Skywalker across the galaxy, while Luke is called to learn about The Force from a mysterious Jedi master long thought to be dead. Relationships are forged and challenged at every turn, while danger lurks in the shadows and danger is imminent.

John Williams’ impressive score builds on the themes from the previous film and creates even more memorable pieces that have become part of our cultural awareness. Having trouble? “Use the Force Luke.” Want to introduce someone we’re not meant to like? Play the Darth Vader march. And who could forget “I am your father!”

Empire is much more emotionally involved and really pulls the audience in. There are also more elaborate effects and superb scenery that blur the line between location and studio filming. By the end of the film, there’s no question as to who to like and who to hate. Any potential vagueness is out the window, setting George Lucas up for his third and final installment of the original Star Wars trilogy.

RATING: 4.5 out of 5