
I don't want to be misunderstood -- I like the movie a lot, I'd watch it again tomorrow, and I like the fact the movie is upbeat as opposed to the overall darkness of EMPIRE. Still, it's hard to argue this isn't objectively an inferior movie to the two pictures that came before it, as JEDI's mid-section grinds to nearly a halt before it wakes up prior to the end.
And weirdly, I think I've always felt that way. I was 8 when this movie came out and I saw it once originally, then again in the 1985 re-release. I didn't love it. I had action figures from STAR WARS & EMPIRE from my childhood I played with -- but by the time JEDI came out, I didn't want any more. I didn't want the Ewoks and I didn't need any of the playsets. I think I had moved onto STAR TREK and was fully invested in Kirk and Spock.
What happened?
People like to criticize director Richard Marquand, but I'm not sure -- the more I see this film -- that any of it was his fault. I'd probably blame the screenplay by Lucas and Kasdan, because after a great, rousing start on Tatooine, JEDI just kind of sits there for nearly an entire act.
In fact, that mid-section needed some work -- some action, some dramatic movement (the stakes for no character actually changes other than Luke and his battle with Vader). It really is missing "something." Instead of the crackling pace of STAR WARS and EMPIRE, we get to Endor...and stay there. Instead of exciting set-pieces...we meet the Ewoks. Instead of dramatic, suspenseful confrontations...we get the Ewoks and the Rebels throwing rocks at now-hapless stormtroopers and befuddled Empire scum.
I get kids enjoy some of that...and it's mostly fine...but the pacing of it is SO stodgy. Maybe it was just that the overall energy level on the movie was low. But speaking of that -- it's funny Harrison Ford has always said he wanted Han to get killed off and was there only for the contractual obligation. But within the scenes, I find he's ironically the only one ACTING most of the time. At least he looks like he cares. His mugging and reaction shots are fun. On the other hand, Carrie Fisher might as well have been in another movie, her performance as Leia lacks any kind of intensity and she seems far removed from the character who was "taking charge" in EMPIRE (and frankly, maybe she was pretty hazy at the time for real, if you know what I mean). Hamill is okay, but his "serious Jedi Luke" doesn't seem like he has any of the zest of the character in the previous two movies. Maybe that was the point -- to show the progression of Luke from a farm boy to this stoic Jedi Knight -- but it's not much fun either. Barely cracking a smile, he looks like he's at a funeral. Even Obi-Wan looked like he could cut loose at times!
What works is the opening 30 minutes, and then all the Vader-Luke-Emperor scenes in the last 30 minutes. Those bear Marquand's dramatic strengths and they work. And I agree with Paul who said watching the prequels really does ADD to these moments. Ian McDiarmid is hugely underrated. His Emperor is delicious -- scary enough for the little ones, but almost with a wink to the adult audience that what you are watching is a kids fantasy through and through. He's hammy and just delightful, the best part of the prequels and a big asset to this movie when it needed something to juice up the sleepiness.
I've outlined what I prefer about the theatrical cuts to the Special Edition edits -- including Williams' rescoring, which doesn't work for me, and the added FX at the end, which I feel are unnecessary and dull down the last scene, which is really well-executed as it is -- but whatever cut you watch, the flabbiness of RETURN OF THE JEDI is still there. After all this time, it's still a compelling mystery to examine why this concluding part -- fun and entertaining as it still is -- didn't click on the same cylinders as its two classic predecessors.