answer: transformation into Darth Vader is more like the
paragraph_question: question: Why is our act subpar?, context: I think everyone judges every Star Wars movie by what is considered the best of the batch, the original Star Wars of 1977 and "The Empire Strikes Back" of 1980. Compared with those movies, this movie is not so great. Compared to the other two prequels, it is the best of the three. It turns away from the tortuous details of Senate politics that infected its predecessor, "Attack of the Clones", and tries to get back to the action, relationships, and moral dilemmas that are at the heart of the "Star Wars" series. However, this film has many flaws that could have been eradicated with more of a conscientious effort by creator, director, and writer George Lucas.It basically forms a straight line, plot-wise, from Episode Two to Episode Four with no surprises and little character development, and depends upon what you already know about the entire Star Wars mythology to invest you in this movie and its characters rather than the action and dialogue of this one particular film. Also, there is little use made of either Natalie Portman's  Padme Amidala - who actually has very little screen time - or the excellent Samuel L. Jackson, who is completely wasted given the small part that his character has in this film. Why employ such a great actor if you are going to give him lines that any extra could deliver?Additionally, for someone who has spent the last ten or fifteen years learning and living the ways of the Jedi, Hayden Christensen's Anakin Skywalker seems to have very little inner turmoil making a sudden and complete transformation from protector of innocents to the apprentice of evil. He irrationally uses his desire to ensure his wife's safety - when there is no perceivable threat to her health other than his own premonitions - as an excuse to savage anyone who might get in his way and even some who couldn't if they wanted to, such as the "younglings" that he slaughters in the Jedi temple at Palpatine's behest. Thus the so-called transformation into Darth Vader is more like the flipping of a switch - more binary than analog.The best performance is that of Ian McDiarmid as Chancellor Palpatine/"The Emporer". He has a serpentine smoothness about him as he subtly plants doubts in Skywalker's mind about who is really on the side of evil while deftly handling all of the warring factions of the Republic so that people will actually be grateful when he takes complete power.In summary, if you have seen all of the other Star Wars films you will probably enjoy this one because it fills in all of the gaps and answers all of the remaining questions. However, with some more effort in the direction and writing, those questions could have been answered with much better dialogue and characters that were more three-dimensional. 
sentence: Thus the so-called transformation into Darth Vader is more like the flipping of a switch - more binary than analog.
paragraph: I think everyone judges every Star Wars movie by what is considered the best of the batch, the original Star Wars of 1977 and "The Empire Strikes Back" of 1980. Compared with those movies, this movie is not so great. Compared to the other two prequels, it is the best of the three. It turns away from the tortuous details of Senate politics that infected its predecessor, "Attack of the Clones", and tries to get back to the action, relationships, and moral dilemmas that are at the heart of the "Star Wars" series. However, this film has many flaws that could have been eradicated with more of a conscientious effort by creator, director, and writer George Lucas.It basically forms a straight line, plot-wise, from Episode Two to Episode Four with no surprises and little character development, and depends upon what you already know about the entire Star Wars mythology to invest you in this movie and its characters rather than the action and dialogue of this one particular film. Also, there is little use made of either Natalie Portman's  Padme Amidala - who actually has very little screen time - or the excellent Samuel L. Jackson, who is completely wasted given the small part that his character has in this film. Why employ such a great actor if you are going to give him lines that any extra could deliver?Additionally, for someone who has spent the last ten or fifteen years learning and living the ways of the Jedi, Hayden Christensen's Anakin Skywalker seems to have very little inner turmoil making a sudden and complete transformation from protector of innocents to the apprentice of evil. He irrationally uses his desire to ensure his wife's safety - when there is no perceivable threat to her health other than his own premonitions - as an excuse to savage anyone who might get in his way and even some who couldn't if they wanted to, such as the "younglings" that he slaughters in the Jedi temple at Palpatine's behest. Thus the so-called transformation into Darth Vader is more like the flipping of a switch - more binary than analog.The best performance is that of Ian McDiarmid as Chancellor Palpatine/"The Emporer". He has a serpentine smoothness about him as he subtly plants doubts in Skywalker's mind about who is really on the side of evil while deftly handling all of the warring factions of the Republic so that people will actually be grateful when he takes complete power.In summary, if you have seen all of the other Star Wars films you will probably enjoy this one because it fills in all of the gaps and answers all of the remaining questions. However, with some more effort in the direction and writing, those questions could have been answered with much better dialogue and characters that were more three-dimensional. 
sentence_answer: Thus the so-called <hl> transformation into Darth Vader is more like the <hl> flipping of a switch - more binary than analog.
paragraph_answer: I think everyone judges every Star Wars movie by what is considered the best of the batch, the original Star Wars of 1977 and "The Empire Strikes Back" of 1980. Compared with those movies, this movie is not so great. Compared to the other two prequels, it is the best of the three. It turns away from the tortuous details of Senate politics that infected its predecessor, "Attack of the Clones", and tries to get back to the action, relationships, and moral dilemmas that are at the heart of the "Star Wars" series. However, this film has many flaws that could have been eradicated with more of a conscientious effort by creator, director, and writer George Lucas.It basically forms a straight line, plot-wise, from Episode Two to Episode Four with no surprises and little character development, and depends upon what you already know about the entire Star Wars mythology to invest you in this movie and its characters rather than the action and dialogue of this one particular film. Also, there is little use made of either Natalie Portman's Padme Amidala - who actually has very little screen time - or the excellent Samuel L. Jackson, who is completely wasted given the small part that his character has in this film. Why employ such a great actor if you are going to give him lines that any extra could deliver?Additionally, for someone who has spent the last ten or fifteen years learning and living the ways of the Jedi, Hayden Christensen's Anakin Skywalker seems to have very little inner turmoil making a sudden and complete transformation from protector of innocents to the apprentice of evil. He irrationally uses his desire to ensure his wife's safety - when there is no perceivable threat to her health other than his own premonitions - as an excuse to savage anyone who might get in his way and even some who couldn't if they wanted to, such as the "younglings" that he slaughters in the Jedi temple at Palpatine's behest. Thus the so-called <hl> transformation into Darth Vader is more like the <hl> flipping of a switch - more binary than analog.The best performance is that of Ian McDiarmid as Chancellor Palpatine/"The Emporer". He has a serpentine smoothness about him as he subtly plants doubts in Skywalker's mind about who is really on the side of evil while deftly handling all of the warring factions of the Republic so that people will actually be grateful when he takes complete power.In summary, if you have seen all of the other Star Wars films you will probably enjoy this one because it fills in all of the gaps and answers all of the remaining questions. However, with some more effort in the direction and writing, those questions could have been answered with much better dialogue and characters that were more three-dimensional. 
paragraph_sentence: I think everyone judges every Star Wars movie by what is considered the best of the batch, the original Star Wars of 1977 and "The Empire Strikes Back" of 1980. Compared with those movies, this movie is not so great. Compared to the other two prequels, it is the best of the three. It turns away from the tortuous details of Senate politics that infected its predecessor, "Attack of the Clones", and tries to get back to the action, relationships, and moral dilemmas that are at the heart of the "Star Wars" series. However, this film has many flaws that could have been eradicated with more of a conscientious effort by creator, director, and writer George Lucas. It basically forms a straight line, plot-wise, from Episode Two to Episode Four with no surprises and little character development, and depends upon what you already know about the entire Star Wars mythology to invest you in this movie and its characters rather than the action and dialogue of this one particular film. Also, there is little use made of either Natalie Portman's Padme Amidala - who actually has very little screen time - or the excellent Samuel L. Jackson, who is completely wasted given the small part that his character has in this film. Why employ such a great actor if you are going to give him lines that any extra could deliver?Additionally, for someone who has spent the last ten or fifteen years learning and living the ways of the Jedi, Hayden Christensen's Anakin Skywalker seems to have very little inner turmoil making a sudden and complete transformation from protector of innocents to the apprentice of evil. He irrationally uses his desire to ensure his wife's safety - when there is no perceivable threat to her health other than his own premonitions - as an excuse to savage anyone who might get in his way and even some who couldn't if they wanted to, such as the "younglings" that he slaughters in the Jedi temple at Palpatine's behest. <hl> Thus the so-called transformation into Darth Vader is more like the flipping of a switch - more binary than analog. <hl> The best performance is that of Ian McDiarmid as Chancellor Palpatine/"The Emporer". He has a serpentine smoothness about him as he subtly plants doubts in Skywalker's mind about who is really on the side of evil while deftly handling all of the warring factions of the Republic so that people will actually be grateful when he takes complete power. In summary, if you have seen all of the other Star Wars films you will probably enjoy this one because it fills in all of the gaps and answers all of the remaining questions. However, with some more effort in the direction and writing, those questions could have been answered with much better dialogue and characters that were more three-dimensional.