Top 10 Star Wars Performances

[The Deadman]

https://411mania.com/movies/top-10-s...-performances/

Star Wars was never really known for its standout performances, but some of the work involved was still quite good! Here were the best of the bunch!

10. Ewan McGregor

Ewan had a very tough job. He had to both portray a beloved character previously done by a much celebrated actor, and he also really had to carry the prequel trilogy more than anyone else (especially as things started to gradually fall apart with Christensen and Portman). While he could not always make chicken salad, he did an admirable job bringing a character to life which made him one of the very few to do so over the course of the three films. Hopefully, he gets a chance to do really well in the Disney Plus series.

Best Performance: Revenge of the Sith
Worst Performance: The Phantom Menace

9. Frank Oz

Yoda is obviously ridiculous in every way, and the only reason that Baby Yoda is a phenomenon that Disney is printing money off of is the work of Frank Oz. While financial success should never be used to measure artistic success, it is in fact remarkable that the voice work of this ****ing muppet made such an impact in the biggest franchise in the world. The margin of error was small, but Oz connected dead in the middle.

Best Performance: Empire Strikes Back
Worst Performance: Attack of the Clones

8. Mark Hamill

Okay, hear me out. Yes, Hamill is almost certainly the weakest actor of all the major parts in all eleven Star Wars films. That being said, the original trilogy simply flops if Hamill cannot pull it off. There were a lot of major characters to the story, but at the end of the day LUKE SKYWALKER had to work or the whole thing would fall apart. He had to the insolent teenager who grew overconfident then finally humble all the while delivering ridiculous dialogue and acting with puppets and robots.

Best Performance: Star Wars
Worst Performance: Rise of Skywalker

7. Alec Guinness

Along with Cushing here and Brando in Superman, the idea of elevating broad superhero/blockbuster flicks with world class actors really has been a dominant element of moviemaking for forty years now. Even with merely coasting through his scenes, Guinness added such gravitas and credibility to the material that truly strained credulity. He made this stupid story about wizards with laser swords seem just believable enough to get emotionally invested in. It’s only a shame we did not get more of his work.

Best Performance: Star Wars
Worst Performance: Empire Strikes Back

6. Liam Neeson

As bad as The Phantom Menace truly is (and it’s BAD), Liam Neeson’s Qui-Gon Jin does actually feel like a human being in an actual world. While that bar is truly too low, it does mean that Neeson’s work in this film only gets better with age as it stands in comparison with all the highs and lows the other actors of the prequels got to experience. He was kind of an unnecessary character in the grand scheme of things, but he held down the fort!

Best Performance: The Phantom Menace
Worst Performance: n/a

5. Daisy Ridley

Unlike the other heroes in the sequel trilogy, Ridley always got to benefit from actually having something to do. (Remarkably, no, I am not counting rescuing the deer in Canto Bright as something for Finn to do.) Ridley had the unenviable task of making a chosen one character interesting, grounded, and not cringe. She basically pulled it off! It’s a shame the writing went completely off the rails in the third one and essentially any chance of this new trilogy having any goodwill historically!

Best Performance: The Force Awakens
Worst Performance: Rise of Skywalker

4. Ian McDiarmid

McDiarmid coming in and out of this series over forty years and always being on point for this stupid ****ing character has been if nothing else very impressive. While he never did less than what was needed in any individual film, the real shame is probably that we never got more of his character on his political rise. He was such a good little creep in those Phantom Menace scenes as we did a wonderful impression of an empathetic human being.

Best Performance: Return of the Jedi
Worst Performance: Rise of Skywalker

3. Carrie Fisher

Yo, Carrie Fisher is just sooooo good in these movies. While Han Solo was not given much to do and got by on Harrison Ford being Harrison Ford, Fisher also did not get much to do but managed to convey a deeper inner life to Leia that was always clearly there. Her arc was internal which is a copout in some ways but also a testament to the work she did.

Best Performance: Empire Strikes Back
Worst Performance: The Force Awakens

2. Harrison Ford

Harrison Ford is simply one of the biggest movie stars ever. He is the definition of sex. He is the definition of charisma. He could be Han Solo in his sleep and clearly did on multiple occasions. And it ruled every second. Of the old guard, he was clearly the best in the sequel trilogy and his presence alone really helped keep The Force Awakens afloat, and he even managed to provide one of the few genuine positive moments of Skywalker. A legend in his defining role.

Best Performance: Return of the Jedi
Worst Performance: n/a (Harrison Ford rules)

1. Adam Driver

There truly will not be a better moment in the sequel trilogy than the last words of the great Kylo Ren, master of the Knights of Ren, than him saying “Ow.”

Best Performance: The Last Jedi
Worst Performance: The Force Awakens

[Leo656]

I seen that this morning. It'd be a masterful troll job if it weren't so f*cking obvious, putting Darth Emo at Number One and everything.

[oldmanwinters]

Originally Posted by The Deadman

Worst Performance: n/a (Harrison Ford rules)

I think I'd have to put Rise of Skywalker into that slot. For being a ghost/hallucination/whatever, he looks like he just rolled out of bed, put his outfit on, did one take, then went out to lunch. It left me with more of a feeling of "what was that?" than "oh, the feels," and I don't think it left a comparable impact that Force-Ghost Alec Guinness did in the Original Trilogy.

[sdp]

why was harrison ford even in episode 9? He isn't a force ghost, he had no reason being there.

Jake Lloyd was great in Episode I for the most part, I like him more than Hayden. Hayden was pretty bad all around. I think a teenage Jake Lloyd would've looked more like OG ghost anakin from ROTJ but of course we weren't going to wait that long for an episode II.

Not a fan of Natallie portman in any of the films . Ewan McGregor isn't a great Obi Wan, Liam should've been Obi Wan since he was such an awesome Jedi Master. Temuera was awesome as Jango, despite having a character so easily to dislike on paper, he made him good.

From the original trilogy I ever liked Lando in ROTJ, he's fine in ESB. Leia is pretty worthless in ESB. The emperor is excellent in every movie except in 3.

Sequel trilogy I really like Kylo in Ep 8 only, Finn in episode 7. I never liked Rey I don't think or the han solo/wedge hybrid. Leia was also awful in those movies, I think her scenes in Ep. 9 were the best she had in those movies.

[Leo656]

I gotta say, even though I'm more of a Prequel Apologist than most people (while conceding that they do have some serious problems), what amazes me the most about them is that how with the exception of Ewan and Liam Neeson who were way above everyone, those movies are full of some pretty good/great actors giving some career-worst performances. I've said it more than once, but unless they literally only did one take of everything (which is entirely possible) there's almost no chance that the takes that made it into the films were the BEST takes of those scenes. But then again, with all the stuff we've heard about how disinterested Lucas was with anything that wasn't an SFX shot, I can almost believe that he just went full-on "point-and-shoot" on everything without ever thinking twice.

I honestly like the story of the Prequels. But man, the acting in them really undermined the entire exercise. I think the Emperor's whole "No... no... NO, YOU will die!" thing in "Revenge of the Sith" is the most accidentally laughable delivery of what should have been a serious moment in any movie I've ever seen. Everyone jokes about Vader's big "NOOOOOOOO!" but I swear that Palpatine scene is worse.

Originally Posted by sdp

Ewan McGregor isn't a great Obi Wan

Lies. Lies and slanderous filth.

[IMJ]

Since the release of the Revenge of the Sith I've always seen it that, given what we got, a perfect prequel trilogy could have simply shifted things so that the Phantom Menace simply didn't exist. If it went like this it would've been perfect:

Star Wars Episode I - Attack of the Clones
Star Wars Episode II - Revenge of the Sith
Star Wars Episode III - a movie about Vader, in the burn suit going around hacking Jedi to pieces while Obi-Wan was on the run and eventually settles on Tatooine.

Just wipe out the Phantom Menace and end it with a movie of Vader, in the suit the whole movie.

[sdp]

I'm also a prequel apologist since they did plenty of cool things but I they definitely have tons of things wrong with them. They're not franchise killing like the sequel trilogy. The Phantom Menace is the best prequel, it could do with a better ending than blowing up the main ship since it's a rehash and anakin doing it is a bit silly but whatever, I do like having a little kid anakin for at least one movie.
Ep II would be better had the love story been written better or done completely different, those moments are just bad. I like the rest of the film. I think Ep III is a mess, it has some cool moments but many choices made me mad.

[oldmanwinters]

Originally Posted by IMJ

Just wipe out the Phantom Menace and end it with a movie of Vader, in the suit the whole movie.

It is somewhat surprising Disney didn't prioritize a movie like that, before they lost faith in their "Star Wars Stories" with Solo. Seems to me like a no-brainer to print money; even if the movie is terrible you know every Star Wars fan will see it at least once in a theater.

[Leo656]

I think 90% of the Prequel hate is simply because they DIDN'T do the "Vader On A Rampage" movie. I think that's the only bit of "prequel" business most people actually WANTED to see, and that they were fine sitting through the buildup so long as we got that in the end, and not getting that just sent people over the edge.

I get that, but I personally don't think that would have been much of a movie. Cathartic, maybe, but more a "collection of scenes" than a "story". The hook of the Prequels was the Rise and Fall of Anakin, and we got that. A whole movie just wallowing in him being evil might've been redundant.

I'unno, I like Phantom Menace. Mostly. If nothing else, if you lose that movie you lose the Obi-Wan/Qui-Gon/Maul fight, which is maybe the coolest thing in the entire Prequel Trilogy, along with losing the seeds of Palpatine's entire scheme. Plus, it's kind of necessary to see Anakin when he was "pure and innocent" to really drive home the tragedy of what he becomes later on. Joining the story of him once he's already a whiny teenager diminishes that significantly. It could be a tighter movie, but I wouldn't drop it completely so much as revise it. Narratively, it's too important to the Big Picture.

I'd actually argue that Ep. II is more harmful to the point they were trying to make than Ep. I, since Anakin was SO unlikeable in that movie that by the time the end of Ep. III came around you'd completely lost all empathy with him.

I think the Prequels are mostly what they should've been, story-wise, but that the execution was lacking.

[sdp]

I think most fans realized that star wars needs George Lucas for ideas and someone else to direct them for him. That was the issue with the prequels, too much george and with disney no george. A balance needed to be had which is what the original trilogy had. I'll still take too much george over none since the prequels are definitely more fun than the sequel trilogy.

Originally Posted by oldmanwinters

It is somewhat surprising Disney didn't prioritize a movie like that, before they lost faith in their "Star Wars Stories" with Solo. Seems to me like a no-brainer to print money; even if the movie is terrible you know every Star Wars fan will see it at least once in a theater.

Well they kind of sneaked it in with rogue one when they realized it was a boring film and they did those reshoots. I do think it was their intention when they were doing those star wars stories, there was tons of potential there, I'm not sure why they decided with a death star origin story and recasting a young han solo for whatever reason.. but then again all of Disney's star wars decisions are mind boggling weird and horribly mismanaged.

[Andrew NDB]

Yeah, a lot of people, myself included, expected Episode III would be "The Jedi Purge," with Anakin already Vader by the end of II. They kind of lost momentum by wasting Episode I on him as a kid in a movie that is largely unimportant next to the II and III that we got.

But they're still decent and miles above anything in the ST. I don't care if they used real sets in the ST. They're garbage.

[Original TMNT Cartoon Fan]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I think 90% of the Prequel hate is simply because they DIDN'T do the "Vader On A Rampage" movie.

It wouldn't matter. Most fans would complain:

It isn't the Star Wars I grew up with in 1977!

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by oldmanwinters

It is somewhat surprising Disney didn't prioritize a movie like that, before they lost faith in their "Star Wars Stories" with Solo. Seems to me like a no-brainer to print money; even if the movie is terrible you know every Star Wars fan will see it at least once in a theater.

Originally Posted by Leo656

I think 90% of the Prequel hate is simply because they DIDN'T do the "Vader On A Rampage" movie.

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Yeah, a lot of people, myself included, expected Episode III would be "The Jedi Purge," with Anakin already Vader by the end of II. They kind of lost momentum by wasting Episode I on him as a kid in a movie that is largely unimportant next to the II and III that we got.

I loved Episode I when it first came out, but I was also dazzled by the SFX and the amazing lightsaber stuff at the end. Qui Gon and Maul were great characters too. But the real truth is that movie is ultimately trash and even Liam Neeson can't save it with a great performance.

In some ways, you can re-invent a prequel trilogy by psychologically ignoring Episode I, and then watching II, III and Rogue One as a new prequel trilogy. But the best answer would be to simply shift II and III down in a trilogy and make that 3rd "Vader on a rampage" flick as Leo described it.

[Leo656]

But again, where's the "Good Anakin" contrast if you do that? As well as how he fell into being a Jedi in the first place? Where's his entire narrative arc without Episode I?

By definition, the story of the Prequel Trilogy was about the Rise and Fall of Anakin, and was designed to be sort of a "cracked mirror" reflection of Luke's journey through the Original Trilogy. If we join the story at a point where Anakin's already a Jedi, already a whiny, unlikeable teen, and already corrupted - as he was in Episode II - then you dilute a huge chunk of what that entire story was designed to be about in the first place. Maybe you'd have more excitement but the message of it all would be sort of lost. What you're left with is a story of a guy who's already an asshole, becoming a bigger asshole because of inevitability, because we KNOW he has to become an asshole due to the events of the Original Trilogy. But then we still don't really know anything about his backstory, what he was like before the Jedi, his relationship with his mother that was the entire seed of his fall, or if he was ever even anything but the prick we see him as from Ep. II and beyond... none of that. Those aren't things that would have been properly served by some clunky exposition in the beginning of Ep. II. The Prequel Trilogy was written as a tragedy, and there is no "tragedy" if we never see Anakin's upbringing or the time when he was innocent. We need to see him as naive and hopeful, first, or it all falls apart.

Nah, dropping Episode I doesn't work. I know people hate Ep. I, and it's definitely clunky and over-reliant on CGI razzle-dazzle, but too many narrative threads and pacing issues for the next two movies (and Anakin's entire character arc) still depends on it. From a writing standpoint, it's too important to lose even if it could've been done better.

I know most people only wanted or cared about a movie where Vader slices a bunch of people up with his lightsaber and didn't care about the rest, but to Lucas's credit, he was trying to tell a story, and a story is more than a collection of scenes. For better and worse, the entire Prequel Trilogy is very much a three-act opera. In some ways, it's arguably a tighter storyline beginning-to-end than that of the original trilogy, which was very much booked on the fly and therefore full of sloppiness and inconsistencies when taken AS a trilogy rather than just "three movies in a row telling one long story". It's not a question of which were the "better movies", obviously, but knowing where they were going from step one of the Prequels inarguably helped them to ensure that there was more cohesion throughout.

[Xav]

No James Earl Jones, John Boyega or Billy Dee Williams? What kind of racist list is this?