Attack Of The Critics

Rating: 10/10 (22 May 2002)

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones has one fatal flaw - It has the name "Star Wars" attached to it. Being as such, the movie has been unfairly prosecuted by film critics, which in turn has turned into a negative media spin that develops into bias in the subconscious minds of the average moviegoer.
There is a definite double standard when it comes to the Star Wars franchise. Most critics are quick to talk about the quality of acting involved. Somewhere along the line, the acting in the original trilogy must have went from "mediocre" to "academy award quality" in the minds of movie critics. I'm a big fan of the original trilogy, but the quality of acting was never a big selling point on any of the original three movies. However, since Episode I, people have been disappointed with the dialogue and overall tone of the performance by the actors involved. To start with, the dialogue isn't any worse than the words spoken in the original trilogy. And as far as the acting goes, the main characters involved in this movie (as well as Episode I) are Jedi Knights. And if we've learned anything from The Empire Strikes Back, a Jedi is at his best when he or she is without anger, fear or aggression. Since that is the condition that Samuel L. Jackson must shape his performance around, why were people expecting him to be the Jedi version of "Jules" from Pulp Fiction?
As far as Hayden Christiansen's performance goes, I didn't think he was any worse than Mark Hamil in the original Star Wars. Of course he was "whiny". He was supposed to be. He plays a 19 year old young man that is beginning to realize his talent and potential; who feels that he is being held back from using his skills. If this were a movie about football or basketball, his character would be a perfect fit. However, since people already know going into the movie that he eventually becomes one of the most ruthless villains on the silver screen, they don't accept this performance as being realistic.

Most reviews also harshly criticize the conversion of Yoda from puppet to computer generated character. So, let me get this straight, a static puppet is preferred over the shaven muppet we saw in Episode I? I thought that the digital Yoda was an improvement on the character and it allowed him to be an even bigger part of the action and the story. The facial expressions were more telling and they were able to effectively portray his frustrations with the events surrounding him.
As far as everything else goes, this movie was more exciting than The Matrix and more fun that Lord of the Rings. By the way, no one seems to criticize the use of an overabundance special effects in those films (when did people get anti-special effects anyway?). If this is science FICTION then why do people have a problem with Lucas and his digital creations? I could understand if this were "Shakespeare In Love: Episode II - Attack Of The Bard". There is a difference between a period piece set A Long Time Ago and a fantasy film set A Long Time Ago In A Galaxy Far, Far Away (that last part makes a difference).
I liked the movie. I had fun. It didn't change my life, but people are acting as if they were expecting to leave the theater and re-evaluate their place in the world. If you haven't seen it yet, go in with an open mind and judge for yourself. It's only a movie. The ticket for Star Wars will be the exact same price as the ticket for "Undercover Brother". Please, keep it all in perspective. I don't care if you like it or not. I've already seen it and I enjoyed it. Not everyone will. I just don't understand when all of the critics became clones themselves.