A satisfying mixed bag

Rating: 8/10 (20 May 2002)

Most of you who have even thought about watching this movie have seen some comments by critics. While it is a good idea to judge movies by your own standards, sometimes you can avoid stinkers by listening to what the critics specifically dislike and like. And, of course, if their dislikes are similar to yours, you can follow their lead.
Here are comments from some critics, followed by my own assessment:
1. The acting is horrible.
This is true, somewhat. Of all of the lead actors, only Ewan McGregor (Obi-Wan Kenobi) is at least passable; Hayden Christensen (Anakin Skywalker) and Natalie Portman (Senator Padme Amidala) are both pretty awful. McGregor seems to be playing Alec Guinness (who, of course, originated the role in 1977's Star Wars), and this has been perceived as a knock on him. Personally, I think it was the wise way to go. We all know that Obi-Wan dies in Star Wars (Episode IV), so what McGregor was trying to do was kind of morph into Guinness, to make it easier for us to take the transformation from McGregor in the upcoming Episode III to Guinness in Episode IV.

Christensen, at first glance, seems woefully miscast and overmatched. One of the knocks on him is that he just comes off as your typical teenager (in the movie, he's 15). The critics sometimes fail to remember that Mark Hamill's Luke Skywalker in Star Wars was just as petulant and moody, so this is more of a character issue than an actor issue. However, Christensen's line readings are atrocious, and some of the writing of his character is banal. In one scene, for example, he rails against Obi-Wan to Senator Amidala - how he's underappreciated by Obi-Wan, how he doesn't get to do nuffin, and so on. Real fascinating stuff - not. And the scene drags on a bit too long, making the character move from gritty angst to just plain obnoxiousness. Of course, bear in mind that Anakin does grow up to be the evil Darth Vader, and the lad's fits of pique are George Lucas's way of showing us how he's already struggling with the Dark Side of the Force.
Portman was excellent in Episode 1, but she's completely flat in this one. Sometimes people unfairly compare her character to Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher). Fisher brought spice to the character, whereas Portman brings a more regal attitude. Yes, she's a can-do Senator (formerly Queen, don't ask how). Bringing different things to the table is fine, but again - remember that Amidala will be Leia's mother, so some of the virtues found in Leia should appear, you would think, in Amidala (and in Anakin). In addition, the chemistry between Christensen and Portman is completely nonexistent. You'd find more sexual vibes between a nun and a eunuch. This is definitely the result of bad casting - your lovers HAVE to appear to love each other, and they were very unconvincing. I could see the audience wincing each time Anakin and Amidala began to talk in that low voice that's supposed to essay passion. Snore!
Samuel L. Jackson, who plays Jedi Master Mace Windu, gets a much larger role here than he had in Episode I, and he even gets to kick ass, himself. Great to see Sam wielding a purple lightsaber! One of his generation's greatest actors - and is anyone saying he's slumming? Hell, no. Was Alec Guinness slumming? Or Peter Cushing? Or the indomitable Christopher Lee (interesting note: in the past several months, Lee has appeared in two of the highest-grossing films, both epics, Attack of the Clones and Lord of the Rings, playing characters that are disturbingly similar)? Sam Jackson rocks. He just plain rocks.
2. It's poorly written.
I can't agree with this assessment - I thought it was pretty well written. One benefit to seeing the first trilogy after the second is that we can see origins more clearly: If X happens in Episode II, we know that explains Y in Episode IV. I liked a lot of the little details - the beginnings of Boba Fett, for example. And if you look hard, you'll see Greedo from the first Star Wars in there, too.
3. It's FX-driven.
It sure is, and I'm glad it was. Now, when Star Wars came out, everyone was all agog over the effects, because there had never been anything like it before, and the movie showed a long-distant vision of the future. But here in 2003, we've seen a lot of space movies and a lot of not-so-special effects. The novelty's worn off a little, and we're not as enthralled. But don't get me wrong, the effects in this movie are excellent; they're just not unique anymore. (Still, as one critic noted, the ship that's bringing Amidala to the conference sounds like it's running on propellers... what's up with that??)
Of course, in lieu of a million space fights, we get a lot of lightsaber-play. If you remember your Jedi history, all of the Jedi were wiped out during the Clone Wars (Obi-Wan explains this to Luke in Star Wars). This movie leads right up to those wars, and many of the Jedi in this movie don't make it through to the end. But man, while they're around - lots of great fights. In fact, the greatest Jedi of them all, Yoda, gets to kick ass, something that could never be done in 1977, or 1980, or 1983. In fact, the scene pitting Yoda against the evil Count Dooka (Christopher Lee) is magnificent, almost worth the admission on its own.
At any rate, although the movie is loaded with effects, that's not the only reason we're watching. The truth is, many of us have bought into the mythos of Star Wars, and dammit, we care about these characters. And I think our curiosity about some things was satisfied by this movie.

One of the best indicators of a movie's quality is the feeling one gets as the movie concludes. Do you feel happy or satisfied? Good. Frustrated? Bad. Looking for more? Great. And that's where Attack of the Clones, despite its Grade-Z subtitle, succeeds magnificently. You want very much to find out what happens to the gang in Episode III. A movie can enjoy no higher praise than to leave its audience wanting more.