It seems that so few people get it...

Rating: 8/10 (10 May 2005)

To understand this movie, and why it is the way it is, I think it is essential that this film, like all of the other Star Wars films, be seen as parts of a whole. This is all one big saga, really.
Now, it wasn't always quite that way, as can be learned by studying the series' history, and that is why the original Star Wars film, Episode IV, is the only film that really works as a solo piece.
But once Lucas began writing these films to fill out a trilogy, and then later, a six-piece epic, the style and pacing of the films took a major change, and each film -- even Empire Strikes Back -- ended up being made as a film that really cannot stand alone.
Thus, The Phantom Menace, as it is made, naturally is the least compelling of all six. Why? Because it's 'act 1.' You have to think about all of this from the perspective of each film being its own part in a larger story. Comparatively, if you only watch the first 25 minutes of a single, self-contained movie, is it going to seem complete or especially interesting? Most likely not, because the purpose of such a section of the story is to introduce characters, form the back story, etc. The middle parts and the final climax of a story are always the best -- it's just storytelling basics.
Enter Attack of the Clones. Most of the introductions are over with, and we're sent on a more high-energy ride. The film does a great job of telling the stories it has to tell. The pacing of the film is far-improved. The sets, especially Kamino and Geonosis, are very well done, and the acting from everyone is actually quite improved. I never thought of Anakin's acting as wooden... he acts like all of the other Jedi -- stiff and speaking in a very monotone way. Natalie actually doesn't do too bad, either, however, after seeing more recent films Garden State and Closer, I realize that she could have tried a little harder.
But then again, the one place I found the film lacking was not so much in its directing, but in the screen writing. The dialogue was a little dull. And I have heard complaints about the way the film is cut, with very short takes and the like. Has anyone been paying attention? The series has always had very short takes. And that brings me to another point: Many of the complaints people have about Episode II have been present in the entire series. C'mon, people. The acting has never been that great. The only actors in the series that have ever really had any measure of brilliance in their parts have been Harrison Ford and Ian McDiarmid. And it's totally like-father-like-son with Hayden and Mark Hamill. Young Anakin is whiny, young Luke is whiny. Luke grows out of it by Return of the Jedi, and I think we will see Anakin do the same with Episode III.
Bottom line: Episode II is a great ride with excellent action scenes, a compelling story and a good sense of drama. The love story does fall a bit flat, but it is because of bad writing rather than horrible acting. Again, the film doesn't really become of paramount excitement until the last half hour, but then again, in the larger scope of things, the story is just beginning to build into its primary point of conflict. I reiterate: With Attack of the Clones, we're just barely entering the most interesting part of a much larger tale. Let's keep it in context, OK? In conclusion, I wouldn't consider myself a hard-core fan of Star Wars. Not at all. I have no reason to blindly defend the films. But I think many of the criticisms are unfounded, and much of the blind praise is also unfounded. The series as a whole, unless Episode III totally crashes and burns (which doesn't seem to be the case, check out some of the early glowing reviews on rottentomatoes.com), it seems as though the series as a whole will become one of the most brilliant epic tragedies in history, and for some time to come. It's hardly perfect as a whole, but it features a simply brilliant story arc of Anakin from innocent youth to redeemed evil lord.