Portrait of the Tyrant as a Young Man

Rating: Null/10 (13 January 2003)

Let's face it, there will be no capturing of lightening in a bottle twice. The Star Wars saga as we know it is just that, the one we knew. The films we have been given the past few years in the guise of SW films are new beings entirely, so we should treat and approach them as such. But even so, thats still no excuse George, for bad movie making. Onto the review.
When you build a house, you need a blueprint to start with, thus when you contemplate making a movie your blueprint is and should be the screenplay and script.....strike one against this film, right out of the gate. The script is ham-fisted and quite frankly seems lazy and thrown together. The dialogue is painful in many places and though it may lack the over-seriousness of other blockbuster film franchises in theaters now (cough), it is lightyears away( HAH!) from the dry humour and wit of the first SW saga and lacks all that saga's charm. The script does its job in that it advances the plot and storyline, but does it in the meanest way, lacking totally in any subtletly, structure and without the great character interaction that *made* the first SW ( e.g. Luke&Darth Vader, Han & Lea, Han and Lando's friendship, the mysteriousness of Yoda, R2D2 & C-3PO hell, even the Imperial pions were more memorable than some of the more prominent SW characters) George please, I'm begging you, put step away from teh keyboard and turn off the computer b/c you cannot write for s**t!
I do feel that much of the blame for the so-so performances in many stances can be blamed on the bad script. I think when people say that 's0 and so' cant act, what they really mean to say is 'we cared about and loved the characters in the first Saga, they got us emotionally involved, they made us laugh, cry, cheer and boo'. So when people say 'so and so cant act' what they mean is 'so and so didnt make us care' which really means that 'so and so' probably wasnt given the material to do so. So, the next time you critique Portman's or Christensen's performance, consider the source material. However, even truly atrocious lines can be ameliorated a bit by good acting, or the right approach. In this regard I think the standouts were Ewan McGregor who seemed more comfortable and was definitely convincing as the older, and more somber Obi Wan, den mother to Anakin. I also thought that Christopher Lee, who pulls blockbuster double duty, was also great as the tongue in cheek Count Dooku ( the scene with him and Obi on geonosis is hilarious). Natalie Portman was decent enough as Padme, but I feel for her b/c she had many of the worst lines in the film to try and deliver and make believable, which she did to an extent. I even thought she showed some real emotion in the 'confession scene' ( well, til she got to the line " I truly...deeply"...OY!) And yes, if you look close enough, her character did evolve from the first film, as she is no longer queen she is also not quite as stiff and distant, though still properly dignified, being a senator and all. So, kudos to Portman who looked fabulous as well in the film. Which leaves Hayden. Now, dont stone me but....I didnt think he was truly awful. Again, he had some truly horrible and nonsensical lines to say ( "I will even stop people from dying..." Huh?!) but still, he nailed some aspects of the future Darth Vader dead on. Simply put, the boy has great eyes, which he used to great effect to show Anakin's dark, brooding, surly and intense side. The only problem was, he wasnotficient enough in showing some of the boyishness of Anakin- the youthful exuberance and innocence,. The perfect performance would have been to combine the darkness which he displayed well with say....some mannerisms reminiscient of a young Luke Skywalker( think A New HOpe and the first half of Empire); after all, the apple dont fall far from teh tree right? As for the other performances in the film, again I think the actors did the best with what they had to work with, which wasnt much, so the best that can be said is that they are all professionals.
I'm ambivalent about the direction. On the one hand I think it did little to nothing to help the viewer connet emotionally with the characters( then again, with that script....). There were a few arresting shots here and there, but I think different choices would have made a bigger emotional impact on the film. For instance, I would have loved to have seen more of Anakin's rampage on the Tuskans, and I definitely think the clone battle could have been grander. So, once again, George gets bare marks for advancing the story. On the other hand, considering that most of the movie was filmed on bluescreen, its quite an achievment for George in combining all the elements together. Which brings me to my last point- the CGI. Now, I dunno, I think in theory an all digital films is fascinating, but so far in practice its less than stellar. Its too unnerving, and it ruins the suspension of disbelief. To me it also smacks a bit of laziness. The CGI colors are vita-brite, but then again, great cinematography gives the same effect. And its a bit jarring where every scene you see that subtle white outline around the characters that lets you know that they arent really 'there' but are on a blue screen...is it too much to make a set? George cant be strapped for cash. With all the great CGI characters in movies nowadays ( Dobby, Gollum) I have to believe George can do a better job than he did with Ep II ( I for that matter), and that gives me hope for EP 3. One final technical note...the cinematographer needs to be fired. Movie making rule 101- never make the actors look bad in a close-up, their faces should be shot to within an inch of perfection during a close up( see padme and anakin during the 'in the grass' scene). Whoever did the cinematography should be replaced with someone who can work with sunlight effectively.

Now, as flawed as this film is...I still managed to enjoy it somewhat. Basically, the film is eye and ear candy, and if you have a decent home theater system, you owe it to yoruself to experience it on DVD. Plus, ham-fisted as it was, I am a sucker for a love story and well....Ok, Im a female, I thought Hayden was a very good looking, and yes I found his eyes very sexy so there. I maintain the film is still irredeemable, but I like it despite flaws the size of a deathstar and it was ten times better than EP I so, I give it a solid 2.9 stars out of 5. AN