I recommended the film to a relative and we saw it together
question: Does this story is good enough?, context: I saw the first Star Wars film in the summer of 1977 - before George Lucas knew he had a hit on his hands and started retroactively numbering the sequels - so I started in on the ground floor with Episode 4: A New Hope. I recommended the film to a relative and we saw it together. Then I saw it with a friend, then with another, and so on, until I had seen the (still-unsubtitled) film ten times. I eagerly awaited the next (fifth) episode (The Empire Strikes Back, 1980), and impatiently anticipated the "third" (sixth) episode (The Return of the Jedi, 1983). Afterward known as the Star Wars Trilogy, I was thrilled with the action and adventure, although the quasi-religious "Force" they talked about seemed irrelevant to all that, if not downright ridiculous.Then something happened. Maybe it was a sequel too far. Maybe I got older, maybe the characters weren't as interesting, or maybe the films just got more and more ridiculous. By 1999, when Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace came along, I had had enough of that George Lucas world a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. In this latest installment of his tired series, Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones, I was disappointed to find no image, no line of dialog, that didn't disappear from my memory as soon as it dissolved from the screen.Oh, yes, Episode II is a technical marvel: here, the sets are totally computer-generated; the aliens are truly inventive and all computer-generated; the visual effects are seamless and brilliantly computer-generated. I even liked seeing tiny Yoda dancing with his light saber in battle with the evil Count Drac-, er, Count Dooku (played with CGI face by Christopher Lee!). But I felt double-crossed by the dialog and cheated by the characters. Ewan McGregor as the young Obi-Wan Kenobi - played memorably in Episodes 4-6 by the late Sir Alec Guinness - was at least entertaining to watch. But the love dance between the maturing Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) and the Princess Padm&eacute; Amidala (Natalie Portman, who actually has talent) was entirely bland and unconvincing. Get a clue, kids: love means passion.The Star Wars franchise George Lucas created inhabits a godless-yet-spiritual universe, with an uneasy alliance between technology and a pop-theology. Among people made uncomfortable by human progress and the dizzying advance of technology, perhaps this is more comfortable - also more masculine, that is, more appealing to male teenagers and less intellectually demanding - than the more explicitly god-free universe of Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek, however cool it is to see Jedi priests swing their light sabers. Personally, I prefer Trek to Wars, principally because I see more potential for improving the human condition with technology than with theology - even the generic, anti-intellectual, anti-technology, anti-progress variety called The Force.That is my objection to Star Wars in general. As to Attack of the Clones in particular, I see Lucas's deep investment in Computer-Generated Imagery (CGI) that might as well be cartoons for all they help the film. I am not opposed to CGI per se. But I do think it should work to elucidate, not invalidate, the story and the characters. The subtitle contains less poetry than truth. 
Does this story is good enough?
I recommended the film to a relative and we saw it together .
I saw the first Star Wars film in the summer of 1977 - before George Lucas knew he had a hit on his hands and started retroactively numbering the sequels - so I started in on the ground floor with Episode 4: A New Hope. I recommended the film to a relative and we saw it together. Then I saw it with a friend, then with another, and so on, until I had seen the (still-unsubtitled) film ten times. I eagerly awaited the next (fifth) episode (The Empire Strikes Back, 1980), and impatiently anticipated the "third" (sixth) episode (The Return of the Jedi, 1983). Afterward known as the Star Wars Trilogy, I was thrilled with the action and adventure, although the quasi-religious "Force" they talked about seemed irrelevant to all that, if not downright ridiculous.Then something happened. Maybe it was a sequel too far. Maybe I got older, maybe the characters weren't as interesting, or maybe the films just got more and more ridiculous. By 1999, when Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace came along, I had had enough of that George Lucas world a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. In this latest installment of his tired series, Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones, I was disappointed to find no image, no line of dialog, that didn't disappear from my memory as soon as it dissolved from the screen.Oh, yes, Episode II is a technical marvel: here, the sets are totally computer-generated; the aliens are truly inventive and all computer-generated; the visual effects are seamless and brilliantly computer-generated. I even liked seeing tiny Yoda dancing with his light saber in battle with the evil Count Drac-, er, Count Dooku (played with CGI face by Christopher Lee!). But I felt double-crossed by the dialog and cheated by the characters. Ewan McGregor as the young Obi-Wan Kenobi - played memorably in Episodes 4-6 by the late Sir Alec Guinness - was at least entertaining to watch. But the love dance between the maturing Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) and the Princess Padm&eacute; Amidala (Natalie Portman, who actually has talent) was entirely bland and unconvincing. Get a clue, kids: love means passion.The Star Wars franchise George Lucas created inhabits a godless-yet-spiritual universe, with an uneasy alliance between technology and a pop-theology. Among people made uncomfortable by human progress and the dizzying advance of technology, perhaps this is more comfortable - also more masculine, that is, more appealing to male teenagers and less intellectually demanding - than the more explicitly god-free universe of Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek, however cool it is to see Jedi priests swing their light sabers. Personally, I prefer Trek to Wars, principally because I see more potential for improving the human condition with technology than with theology - even the generic, anti-intellectual, anti-technology, anti-progress variety called The Force.That is my objection to Star Wars in general. As to Attack of the Clones in particular, I see Lucas's deep investment in Computer-Generated Imagery (CGI) that might as well be cartoons for all they help the film. I am not opposed to CGI per se. But I do think it should work to elucidate, not invalidate, the story and the characters. The subtitle contains less poetry than truth. 
<hl> I recommended the film to a relative and we saw it together <hl> .
I saw the first Star Wars film in the summer of 1977 - before George Lucas knew he had a hit on his hands and started retroactively numbering the sequels - so I started in on the ground floor with Episode 4: A New Hope. <hl> I recommended the film to a relative and we saw it together <hl>. Then I saw it with a friend, then with another, and so on, until I had seen the (still-unsubtitled) film ten times. I eagerly awaited the next (fifth) episode (The Empire Strikes Back, 1980), and impatiently anticipated the "third" (sixth) episode (The Return of the Jedi, 1983). Afterward known as the Star Wars Trilogy, I was thrilled with the action and adventure, although the quasi-religious "Force" they talked about seemed irrelevant to all that, if not downright ridiculous.Then something happened. Maybe it was a sequel too far. Maybe I got older, maybe the characters weren't as interesting, or maybe the films just got more and more ridiculous. By 1999, when Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace came along, I had had enough of that George Lucas world a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. In this latest installment of his tired series, Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones, I was disappointed to find no image, no line of dialog, that didn't disappear from my memory as soon as it dissolved from the screen.Oh, yes, Episode II is a technical marvel: here, the sets are totally computer-generated; the aliens are truly inventive and all computer-generated; the visual effects are seamless and brilliantly computer-generated. I even liked seeing tiny Yoda dancing with his light saber in battle with the evil Count Drac-, er, Count Dooku (played with CGI face by Christopher Lee!). But I felt double-crossed by the dialog and cheated by the characters. Ewan McGregor as the young Obi-Wan Kenobi - played memorably in Episodes 4-6 by the late Sir Alec Guinness - was at least entertaining to watch. But the love dance between the maturing Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) and the Princess Padm&eacute; Amidala (Natalie Portman, who actually has talent) was entirely bland and unconvincing. Get a clue, kids: love means passion.The Star Wars franchise George Lucas created inhabits a godless-yet-spiritual universe, with an uneasy alliance between technology and a pop-theology. Among people made uncomfortable by human progress and the dizzying advance of technology, perhaps this is more comfortable - also more masculine, that is, more appealing to male teenagers and less intellectually demanding - than the more explicitly god-free universe of Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek, however cool it is to see Jedi priests swing their light sabers. Personally, I prefer Trek to Wars, principally because I see more potential for improving the human condition with technology than with theology - even the generic, anti-intellectual, anti-technology, anti-progress variety called The Force.That is my objection to Star Wars in general. As to Attack of the Clones in particular, I see Lucas's deep investment in Computer-Generated Imagery (CGI) that might as well be cartoons for all they help the film. I am not opposed to CGI per se. But I do think it should work to elucidate, not invalidate, the story and the characters. The subtitle contains less poetry than truth. 
I saw the first Star Wars film in the summer of 1977 - before George Lucas knew he had a hit on his hands and started retroactively numbering the sequels - so I started in on the ground floor with Episode 4: A New Hope. <hl> I recommended the film to a relative and we saw it together . <hl> Then I saw it with a friend, then with another, and so on, until I had seen the (still-unsubtitled) film ten times. I eagerly awaited the next (fifth) episode (The Empire Strikes Back, 1980), and impatiently anticipated the "third" (sixth) episode (The Return of the Jedi, 1983). Afterward known as the Star Wars Trilogy, I was thrilled with the action and adventure, although the quasi-religious "Force" they talked about seemed irrelevant to all that, if not downright ridiculous. Then something happened. Maybe it was a sequel too far. Maybe I got older, maybe the characters weren't as interesting, or maybe the films just got more and more ridiculous. By 1999, when Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace came along, I had had enough of that George Lucas world a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. In this latest installment of his tired series, Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones, I was disappointed to find no image, no line of dialog, that didn't disappear from my memory as soon as it dissolved from the screen. Oh, yes, Episode II is a technical marvel: here, the sets are totally computer-generated; the aliens are truly inventive and all computer-generated; the visual effects are seamless and brilliantly computer-generated. I even liked seeing tiny Yoda dancing with his light saber in battle with the evil Count Drac-, er, Count Dooku (played with CGI face by Christopher Lee!). But I felt double-crossed by the dialog and cheated by the characters. Ewan McGregor as the young Obi-Wan Kenobi - played memorably in Episodes 4-6 by the late Sir Alec Guinness - was at least entertaining to watch. But the love dance between the maturing Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) and the Princess Padm&eacute; Amidala (Natalie Portman, who actually has talent) was entirely bland and unconvincing. Get a clue, kids: love means passion. The Star Wars franchise George Lucas created inhabits a godless-yet-spiritual universe, with an uneasy alliance between technology and a pop-theology. Among people made uncomfortable by human progress and the dizzying advance of technology, perhaps this is more comfortable - also more masculine, that is, more appealing to male teenagers and less intellectually demanding - than the more explicitly god-free universe of Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek, however cool it is to see Jedi priests swing their light sabers. Personally, I prefer Trek to Wars, principally because I see more potential for improving the human condition with technology than with theology - even the generic, anti-intellectual, anti-technology, anti-progress variety called The Force. That is my objection to Star Wars in general. As to Attack of the Clones in particular, I see Lucas's deep investment in Computer-Generated Imagery (CGI) that might as well be cartoons for all they help the film. I am not opposed to CGI per se. But I do think it should work to elucidate, not invalidate, the story and the characters. The subtitle contains less poetry than truth.