Star Wars: AOTC Reviews Pour In

Dork King writes "The New York Time's Review of AOTC (free reg, yada yada) notes that Attack of the Clones doesn't look good for fans. Thankfully, I'm not a fan." Also, dw5000 writes "The BBC has a favorable review of Attack of the Clones on its news website, as well as an executive summary of what the UK papers are saying about AotC. The populist tabloids love it, while the broadsheets are giving cautious approval. Hmm. Maybe I won't wait for DVD ..." I also noticed Variety has a review up as well. Also, for those who have lost all hope for Star Wars, I submit to you the date of the Spider-Man sequel: May 7th, 2004. You should know that spoilers exist in one or more of these stories. Beware!

Comments

Overwhelmingly Positive Reviews

[TheMonkeyDepartment]

The reviews have, for the most part, been overwhelmingly positive. Chris Gore's review at Film Threat is a good example. He says AOTC is second only to Empire Strikes Back in quality. (It is important to note that he thought Phantom Menace was total crap, in fact he was one of its harshest critics.)

Re:Overwhelmingly Positive Reviews

[spike hay]

For those to lazy to register:

AFTER sitting through "Star Wars: Episode II -- Attack of the Clones," I'm tempted to quote an evergreen Public Enemy song: don't believe the hype. But really, belief is beside the point. The promotional machinery around the "Star Wars" franchise exists beyond fervor or skepticism; it is a fact of life. When the fifth installment in George Lucas's pop-Wagnerian cycle opens nationally on Thursday (after being shown at the first TriBeCa Film Festival on Sunday afternoon), the event will have all the spontaneity and surprise of an election day in the old Soviet Union.

Advertisement

Like weary Brezhnev-era Muscovites, the American

moviegoing public will line up out of habit and compulsion, ruefully hoping that this episode will at least be a little better than the last one, and perhaps inwardly suspecting that the whole elephantine system is rotten. Even the true believers camped out on the sidewalks with their toy light sabers (or the ones at the screening I attended who burst into applause at the appearance of the 20th Century Fox and Lucasfilm company logos) seem more dutiful than enthusiastic.

Already I can hear the equally habitual murmurs of protest: Oh, come on, lighten up! It's only a movie.

Well, for one thing, given the scale and expense (reportedly $140 million) of the enterprise, not to mention its ability to command the money and attention of audiences around the world, there's nothing "only" about it. And for another, while "Attack of the Clones" is many things -- a two-hour-and-12-minute action- figure commercial, a demo reel heralding the latest advances in digital filmmaking, a chance for gifted actors to be handsomely paid for delivering the worst line readings of their careers -- it is not really much of a movie at all, if by movie you mean a work of visual storytelling about the dramatic actions of a group of interesting characters.

Twenty-five years ago the first "Star Wars" picture, which we are now supposed to call "Episode IV -- A New Hope," offered a revelatory combination of whimsy and grandeur. The big, archetypal themes were there and would emerge into sharper relief through the next two films, but they were leavened by a cheeky sense of fun grounded in Mr. Lucas's love of old serials and B-movies. The solemn drama of Luke Skywalker's Oedipal struggle with Darth Vader was offset by, among other things, the twinkling Gable-and- Lombard sexiness of Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher as Han Solo and Princess Leia. The special effects were spectacular and elaborate, but there was also something jaunty in the inventiveness that produced them.

That was a long time ago. In reviving the saga, and setting out to chronicle Luke's genealogy and the earlier history of the Jedi order, Mr. Lucas seems to have lost his boyish glee. As the effects have grown more intricate and realistic, their ability to yield pleasure and astonishment has diminished.

"Clones" takes place 10 years after "Episode I -- The Phantom Menace," and it is as thick with exposition as an undergraduate history course. An early reference to disgruntled miners on one of the moons of Naboo elicits a spasm of anxiety: will this be on the final? Footnotes to the earlier (which is to say, to the later) episodes are interesting in a scholastic kind of way. Now, at long last, we know the parentage of Boba Fett, the vengeful bounty hunter from the first three films.

But where are the clones? Send in the clones! Patience, young Jedi. They're already here, on a distant, storm-tossed planet, waiting for their big climactic battle scene. First, however, you must attend to the political turmoil that threatens the stability of the republic. Separatists in far-flung solar systems, apparently in cahoots with the dark side, are causing all kinds of trouble, and the beleagured Jedi and the fractious senate are ill equipped to contain it. This leads to some earnest palaver among the sinister chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) and the Jedi elders, who include Samuel L. Jackson, Jimmy Smits, Ewan McGregor and Yoda, as well as assorted masked and computer-animated space knights and politicos.

Mr. McGregor, revisiting the role of Obi-Wan Kenobi and looking ever less likely to age into Sir Alec Guinness, must also undertake some intergalactic police work, trying to find those responsible for an attempt on the life of Senator Padmé Amidala (Natalie Portman), who has become a legislator after her tenure as the elected (and apparently term-limited) queen of Naboo. (Jar Jar Binks, the notorious duck-billed racial caricature from "The Phantom Menace," has also returned, accent and all. Now you may call him Senator Binks. Whether this makes the character less offensive or more is something to ponder.)

Obi-Wan's apprentice, Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen), is assigned to be Padmé's bodyguard. He promptly falls in love with her, which occasions some of the most embarrassing romantic avowals in recent screen history. The gifted Anakin also manifests some of the traits that will eventually pull him over to the dark side: arrogance, a hot temper and contempt for democratic institutions. It is clear by now that the purpose of the saga is to do for Anakin/ Darth Vader what Robert A. Caro has been doing for Lyndon B. Johnson, but Mr. Lucas lacks Mr. Caro's feel for human psychology and his insight into the workings of politics.

The story of a young, ambitious knight's corruption, set against a backdrop of incipient civil war, has enormous potential, but Mr. Lucas (who wrote the script with Jonathan Hales) is, at best, a haphazard storyteller. He also has lost either the will or the ability to connect with actors, and his crowded, noisy cosmos is pyschologically and emotionally barren. Mr. Christensen and Ms. Portman are timid and stiff, and uncertain of their diction. They alternate between the august tones of high-school Shakespeareans and the suburban soap-opera naturalism of "Dawson's Creek." Only Mr. Jackson, Frank Oz (the voice of Yoda) and, later, the formidable Christopher Lee seem comfortable in their performances, perhaps because they know better than to take the proceedings too seriously.

Now is perhaps the time to say that the special effects -- the scaly critters and planetary landscapes, the swordplay and the spaceship chases -- demonstrate impressive polish and visual integrity. But now is also the time to say: so what? Yes, the battle scenes and the monster rallies are superior to anything in "The Mummy," "The Mummy Returns" or "The Scorpion King," but that lowbrow franchise at least has the good sense to acknowledge its silliness. "Attack of the Clones," in contrast, like "The Phantom Menace," lumbers along in the confining armor of bogus wisdom.

There are two moments, one early and one late, in which the sententious hooey is cast off and some of the old "Star Wars" spirit peeks out. The first is an aerial chase through traffic-clogged skies, in which the great cinematic challenge of conveying flight is breathtakingly surmounted. The other is a light- saber duel between the evil Count Dooku (Mr. Lee) and Yoda. Watching the elfin, leaping Yoda mix it up with the tall, graceful British bad guy momentarily dispels the ponderous tedium that has come before, but it is too little, too late.

Given Mr. Lee's long career in horror films, the contest also recalls one of those debates that erupt among third graders about the relative prowess of fictional characters. ("No way could Batman beat up Superman. He doesn't even really have powers." "Yuh-uh, 'cause what if Batman had some Kryptonite?" "Yeah, but neither one of them could beat the Incredible Hulk.") Could Yoda beat up Dracula? Good question. But the more relevant one is whether Anakin Skywalker can beat Spider-Man. The answer, young Jedi, is in your hands.

Re:Overwhelmingly Positive Reviews

[wmansir]

It's odd how I hear all these fanboys saying that 90% of the reviews are positive, or the critics hate/don't get Star Wars movies. Let's take a look at the early results:

At this point Clones has 58%.

As a comparison, TPM as a 58% positive review rating. Compared to Star Wars at 97%, Empires at 97%, and Jedi at 79%.

If we look at the cream of the crop section (AKA the real film critics), TPM has a miserable 33% positive, but still beats Clone's current rating of 25%.

Having seen the movie...

[Obiwan Kenobi]

...thanks to a friend of a friend of an executive, I can tell you that the movie is a Star Wars fans' dream. I'm going spoiler-free this time out.

The Good:

The visuals are amazing. From start to finish, while Lucas may be in love with the computers a bit too much, what is here is fantastic and you will definitely hear gasps during several points of the movie.

The Yoda battle. If you've seen the TV commercials you know what I'm talking about. If you haven't, think green, think three feet tall, think Jedi. He's not called a master for nothing.

Ewan McGregor. The man is a genius and his little ticks and manerisms put him in the character so well it makes the rest of the actors look bad. The Score. Oh man, Williams sealed the Oscar nod about twenty minutes in. You'll see what I mean. It's beautiful, beautiful stuff.

What's Bad:

The dialogue stinks. While witty banter is sparse, and mostly kept to the great Obiwan/Anakin discussions found in different spots, make not mistake that the romance story's wooden, dead-before-it-leaves-their-mouths lines are cringe-inducing.

Hayden Christenson. Not bad, per se, just..eh. Not a lot going on here. He tries too hard and sometimes it's hard to swallow. He does nail it in a few key scenes, most specifically near the climax of the movie, and that's what counts.

Jar-Jar. Even when he's reduced to 10 minutes of screen time, the damn guy still irritates the shit outta me.

Overall, this is a fun romp that as a film stinks, but as far as Star Wars and all that that implies, this is a fanboy's dream and not even Spider-Man comes close to the deep, heroin-junkie-like need to watch the movie again as soon as you see the end credits.

Prepare to geek out.

Ripoff

[miracle69]

This movie is an obvious ripoff of two highly successful movies from two different eras: Strange Brew and Spiderman

Let's Compare.

Strange Brew : Star Wars EP II
Flying Dog : Flying Green Muppet
Plot to take over world : Plot to take over universe
Evil hockey players : Stormtroopers
Beer is source of power : "Midichlorion" microbrew
Bob and Doug : Obi and Anakin
Based on Hamlet : Based on ancient myths
Max von Sydow : Ian McDiarmid

Clearly, this movie is just a poor-rehash of Strange Brew with one twist - Spiderman special effects and the "spider sense" redone in an effort to trick the viewer into liking this poor-rendition of the greatest movie ever made, Strange Brew.

I don't buy it.

Kooookokokokokokokooooooo!

AOTC

[Anonymous Coward]

Since I have nothing witty to say, I will state for the record that Chewbacca is a better actor than Worf.