Why Menace was better

Rating: Null/10 (4 October 2002)

A friend of mine recently gave me a bootleg copy of AOTC, and I began to warm up to it after a couple of viewings, partly because the confusing details of the dissent and division in the Republic became clearer (which I find to be the most interesting part of the prequels). But also because it was a bootleg: the poor quality countered the overdone CGI effects and made the film seem visually closer to the original trilogy.
When I originally saw AOTC in the theaters, I had to fight the growing realization that I actually preferred "The Phantom Menace" to what was expected to be the better prequel. Not that "Menace" stood up to the original trilogy, but it never made itself out to be more than a kid's movie, and in that sense, it delivered. Lots of explosions, lots of lightsabers, lots of neat tricks and treats.
In AOTC, we get more of the same. But where is the love story that Lucas was promising for three years? I have never seen Hayden Christiansen in anything else, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he is a better actor than his performance leads us to believe, inasmuch Natalie Portman comes off as emotive as a rock, as well. And it's not due to any fault of hers. Lucas insists on writing their dialogue in a stilted, formal language. And while it makes sense that a Senator and Jedi apprentice would be raised to speak in such a high manner, what they say is hardly clever or convincing. Lucas aims for a Shakespearan flavor and lands somewhere in the Hallmark Zone.
We know that these two must hook up at some point, because we know that Luke and Leia are born somewhere along the way. And Lucas seems fine with letting that foreknowledge validate their romance by its lonesome. We're rushed through their romance (as well as the wonderfully claustrophrobic clone plant) to get to the Big Finish, where clone troopers, droids, Jedis, bugs, ships, and CGI beasts can battle it out. The prequels are proving to be nothing more than a showcase of what ILM can do with their toys; they are the cinematic equivalent of a Broadway musical. The producers rely on the fact that you already know the story behind "A Christmas Carol" before you take your seat. The real show is in how they bring it to life with special effects and song and dance and other techniques that fail to tell the story adequately.
Which is fine and dandy for Broadway. Just about everyone knows the story behind "A Christmas Carol" and "Les Mis." They can enjoy the sights and sounds and be satisfied with them alone. But we don't know the one behind the prequels, and Lucas doesn't seem concerned with telling it in a convincing manner. Exposition is his main tool, and it only serves to confuse the audience. With all the name-dropping of Jedis past and present, we only recognize Count Dooku for who he is because Christopher Lee played the exact same character in "The Fellowship of the Ring."
And this a shame, because the story behind the Republic's fall is fascinating. The Empire is born within its structure, and the way that this unfolds is the freshest idea that Lucas has served. But crammed conversation isn't the best way to bring it to life, and the mystery behind the supposedly dead Jedi who ordered the clones for the Republic hardly amounts to the same cliff-hanger in "Empire."
The rest is tired imagery. Would the familiar, anti-hero Fett costume need to be in this film if it was well written? Another asteroid field? Another goddamn desert? This last detail angered me the most. What about rain-drenched English moorland? Or a tundra? If Lucas is only interested in the visual effects, then he could at least serve up some new landscapes.
As for the rest of my complaints, they are more personal and trivial: the Americana popping up in Coruscant diners and sports bars; the quick cut-away when Anakin finally goes nuts and massacres the Tusken Raiders (oh god how I was waiting for that scene for these last three years. I would gladly give up the Yoda-lightsaber bit to see Anakin flipping out and killing with pure, vengeful rage); etc, etc. They're my own gripes that I would still have if the film itself measured up to the original trilogy or even the preceding "Menace." I'm sure that comment about "Menace" will incite a lot of disagreement, because, yes, AOTC's story is more interesting. But it isn't told very well. Episode 1 achieved what it set out to do-- entertain the kids--while 2 failed to deliver what it promised-- entertain the adults.