|
Advertisement |
Overall Rating
 Awesome: 27.08%
Worth A Look: 17.19%
Average: 16.48%
Pretty Bad: 14.18%
Total Crap: 25.07%
23 reviews, 560 user ratings
|
|
| Star Wars: Episode 2 - Attack of the Clones |
by MP Bartley
"Forgive me friends - I was wrong!"
|
I'd just finished posting my four star review of 'Star Wars when a good friend of mine took a look at it. "Four stars? Is that all?" he frowned. "It certainly is" I replied. He then proceeded to take a look at the other reviews that I've done over the years. "So you give the first Star Wars four stars, but Attack of the Clones five?" he said in slight bemusement. "Er, yeah" I said suddenly not feeling very confident in my rating. "Mate, have you actually seen the film since you reviewed it?" he then asked. And it was then that I realised that I actually hadn't. He then made a very good point that if I truly thought it was a five star film, shouldn't I have had an inkling to watch it again at least once? And I realised that ever since the first night I saw it, I haven't given it the least bit consideration, as opposed to every other five or four star film I've reviewed which I still champion to this day. So after a quick trip to the video store (funnily enough I could get a copy quite easily) I let it play again...and what I saw was not the film that I remembered.In the interest of fairness I also took another look at some other films I highly rate but hadn't seen for a while to see if my initial opinion still applied. And they all did...with the exception of this.
In my criticism of 'Star Wars' I offered the explanation that part of the reason it's so over-rated is because it holds a special memory of a time and a place, of seeing it for the first time, to a certain generation. I think it's only fair that this same criteria applies to 'Attack of the Clones'. Because when it was released I was working at my local cinema and as a treat for the staff a special midnight showing was arranged the day before release. The entire 80 or so staff turned up with friends, a lengthy quiz was had and a cheap bar was put on. Surrounded by friends, cheap drink and with winning the quiz a good time was had by all. And then we watched the glitzy and superficially fun 'Attack of the Clones'. And it was this sense of enjoyment that filtered through to my review. Folks, I'm truly sorry - I'm hanging my head in shame. Never again shall I let beer and a good time get in the way of a truthful and accurate review.
Because 'Attack of the Clones' is far from a good time by itself.
Granted some things still work in the sober light of day. Ewan McGregor is enjoying himself immensely as Obi-Wan and thankfully has a lot more to do. The opening chase on Coruscant is still a dizzying joy, better than anything to be found in 'The Phantom Menace'. And Natalie Portman's still gorgeous.
But sadly, a gorgeous girl does not a good film make, particularly when saddled with the usual atrocious Lucas dialogue. The attempt at playful, romantic senator ("I'd never tease a senator!") is sniggersome at it's attempt at depth and feeling. Note to George: a tragic romance needs more than rolling around in fields. What is this 'The Wonder Years'?. And his attempts to make Anakin a twisted and dark character extend to such strokes of 'characterisation' as: "I hate sand. It's coarse...". The flaws I was willing to over-look the first time around simply stand out as being jaw-droppingly bad. Anakins bad dream does look like he's having a wank. Samuel L Jackson as a Jedi is one of the worst casting decisions ever made, trying to look menacing while growling "This partys over". Who is he, a Jedi or Shaft?
And when in my first review I noted that I wasn't sure whether to laugh or cheer at the Yoda/Dooku fight, I know now - it's to cringe actually. The sight of Yoda pinging about like Sonic the Hedgehog is a bad enough sight, but when combined with a body double with Christopher Lee's face superimposed shoddily on top, you realise it's one of the worst scenes you'll ever have the misfortune to see.
Other random irritations: why is Anakin's mother Jewish? When she's dying I expected her to sigh "oy vey". Who thought Hayden Christensen would be able to bring depth to the role? Who thought a giant kitten would be a good monster to have at the end?
And for all the backgrounds that Lucas can make look pretty (it is dazzling on the eye sometimes), it's also clear that he's suffering from the Stephen Sommers curse of CGI over-load. Not for George the troublesome task of hiring actors and directing them, no he'll create an army of CGI stickmen! The rain will be CGI! Apples! If anyone's got to shoot up in the air we'll CGI it! No cheap and nasty wires for George! there's none of the subtlety that say, Peter Jackson has, of combining CGI with real actors. Do you remember real people George?
There's a famous Quentin Tarantino quote when explaining why he used stuntmen instead of CGI for the climax of 'Kill Bill Volume 1' (I'm paraphrasing here) "If I'd wanted that amount of computer graphics I'd have stuck my dick in a Nintendo". Sadly George has apparently been ramming his into a Nintendo for years and has no intention of stopping until he produces his own virtual child. And that is why ultimately 'Attack of the Clones' is such a let down. It's a bad glossy teen-romance with bad, glossy effects. Just look at the final battle scenes: actors waving their hands at CGI stickmen whilst George waits to happily to colour in the dots later. There's no sense of realism here, and little tension or interest.This is the first and last time I'll ever change a review so considerably. Sure, some films I may be wavering between ratings but they'll always stay roughly the same. Here however, I committed the cardinal mistake of letting the occasion gloss over the actual quality of the film. And the quality is lacking indeed, as 'Star Wars' is now nothing but a over-rated and ruined franchise name to join the Matrix sequels and 'Terminator 3'. But hey, at least I got drunk and won the quiz!
link directly to this review at https://www.efilmcritic.com/review.php?movie=5827&reviewer=293
originally posted: 05/17/02 00:18:29
![[printer]](/images/icon/printer.gif) printer-friendly format
|
 |
USA
16-May-2002 (PG)
DVD: 22-Mar-2005
UK
N/A
Australia
16-May-2002
|
|
Articles 
subscribe to this feed![[AllPosters.com]](/images/icon/ap.gif){kind=icon}
