Far from what it could have been

Rating: 7/10 (27 May 2002)

I struggled with myself to give this movie a 7/10, against impulses that were saying "2 or 3". Trying to be objective, I will admit that the stupidly named movie is better than the average junk that Hollywood tries to pass off as entertainment these days. It's actually quite entertaining, and features some fairly spectacular special effects.
However, for an entry into a series with as much world-wide fanatacism as Star Wars, I cannot help but consider it to be a terrible disappointment. Not as disappointing as "The Phantom Menace" I'll admit, but then I was more prepared for disappointment this time.
Whilst it has splendid CGI that creates some luscious science fiction environments and spectacular battle sequences, George Lucas really should have surrendered script (and probably directorial) duties to somebody younger and more talented. Given that everybody on the planet will probably see the movie at some point, there's no real excuse for not spending money on the best and brightest out there. But it's all too painfully clear that Lucas wanted to keep the spotlight on himself - a spotlight he simply doesn't have the talent to fill.
The basic story for "Attack Of The Clones" is not bad - there's some intrigue, some heroism and some evil. You can see the pieces falling into place that explain how the situation arose that we find ourselves in at the beginning of the first Star Wars. The script that delivers the story is just awful though. It lumbers along like a blind elephant, clumsy and contrived and corny as hell. And the dialogue - ouch. Tedious and inane. A good script writer could have turned Lucas' story into something majestic and moving, but Lucas only manages to hover between 'passable' and 'really embarrassing'. Perhaps it's because I work in the industry, but I also found it embarrassing where Lucas has clearly planned his action scenes with an eye to the spin-off computer games that pad his wallet even further. Be sure there'll be at least half a dozen different games released to capitalise on the movie financially.
This in itself would have been enough to make the movie disappointing, but our disappointment is further compounded by the acting/casting. Who chose Hayden Christensen for Anakin? *Why*? The lad is completely wooden, and totally devoid of charisma. His delivery of the already bad dialogue is so monotonous that he seems to be sucking the life right out of the viewer whenever he speaks. This is meant to be the young Darth Vader? The rear parts of my anatomy would have played the part better. Hayden Christensen is definitely the final nail in the coffin of any hopes that Attack Of The Clones would be a worthy successor to the Star Wars legacy. Ewan McGregor helps to hammer that nail in too. He can act very well - he was a great smack addict in Trainspotting - but he is terribly miscast as Obiwan. Lucas' dialogue for Obiwan is already bafflingly juvenile, and McGregor's delivery adds further incongruity to the character Alec Guinness made legendary.
So, yes Episode II is better than average - but the average Hollywood movie these days is completely dreadful, so this is not a great accolade. With the money Lucas had available to spend, it should have been so much more - but he was obviously unwilling to sacrifice some of the limelight by spending the money on writers with talent. Ultimately, I'm sure he'll make enough money not to care too much, but let posterity show him to have grown to be something of an ass.