In defense of Attack of the Clones...

Rating: 5/10 (17 May 2005)

i give it only has a 5/10. Why? The acting is very wooden, and of course the CGI was terrible. But, I can only deduct 3 stars because of this. Why? First off, acting was NEVER the strong point of Star Wars (Remember Princess Leia in the first one, talking in a British accent in a few scenes? Jesus!). The cast here is assembled of good actors. With the exception of Ewan McGregor and Ian McDirmid and Christopher Lee(Who pull their roles off brilliantly), Hayden Chistensen and Natalie Portman overacted to actually make the horrible script sound good. They tried to hard - if you saw them in other films they did, I think you'd get a different perspective on their acting. But it was the writing. As for the computer effects, well it looks too cartoonish in many places. Even Yoda's sword fight didn't impress me. So, what was good about this movie? Well, you do see traces of Vader every now and then. You see the Clone Wars unfold and the 'plans' for the Death Star. I give Attack of the Clones 7/10 because it must be deliberately weak to pave way for Revenge of the Sith, which I am sure will be far more superior to this one. You could only wish that George Lucas would have had a plot line that would have accommodated the more superior special effects of the original trilogy. That's right - I do believe the effects from A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi are way better than these. Oh well, you can't win 'em all.