Attack of the Clones (movie review)

[Craig S.]

Figured I may as well start this one, as I'm guessing a few people will see it over the weekend. I'm not a big Star Wars fanatic, but I managed to catch it early.

My impressions:

Much better than the first one, maybe because they didn't have the annoying young Anakin. The action scenes were excellent, and the plot seemed a little more structured.

I don't want to give away any of the plot, so I'll just say that I enjoyed it more than expected. Not a great movie, but not as horrible as A.O. Scott makes it sound in the NY Times (and I know he's not alone among the critics in panning it).

If anyone sees it, please share your thoughts.

[Slippery Pedro]

I heard that the actor who played Anakin this time was not so hot. Will see it in a week or so.

On the way to work yesterday, I saw mobs lined up, outside the movies, at 9 AM, waiting to get in - figured I'd let the buzz die down a while before going.

[Skip]

Sidebar to SP - yeah, now that the SW crowds are in full fervor, I guess I'll finally go out to see Spidey.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

What about Jar-Jar?

[Craig S.]

Originally posted by Ytown Tribe fan
What about Jar-Jar?

Jar Jar is unfortunately in the second one. Thankfully, his part is pretty minor, and he's not quite as grating on the nerves as in the first episode.

[moose]

I haven't seen it yet (but of course I will soon!!!), but as I said before Episode I was released - How good can I and II really be?

I'll explain:

IV, V, VI were great because they were action movies with cool stories. But, to lay the foundation, Lucas will need to cram a bunch of stuff into I-III, notably I and II. Thus they would seem to have been doomed to be story-movies with some cool action.

This slight reversal of the formula just doesn't make for as good cinema. I think III will be far enough along to be more action-oriented.

Finally, let's make something clear: We're judging new movies against a near-impossible (IMO totally impossible) standard - movies that were not only incredible, but are now REMEMBERED as incredible [ie, "Mickey Mantle would have 1200 home runs against today's pitchers - trust me, I saw him play" type of thing - yes there are differences (we can watch ROTJ this afternoon), but it's similar I think].

Anywho, they can have my $10 if they want. Any Jar-Jar reduction is good Jar-Jar reduction. :D

[chrisfostermusi]

Anakin sucked big time! He won't be in #3 you can bank on that

Obiwan played a pretty good role

The "Girl" was OK

Action scenes were overdone, story line to weak to compensate.

On a scale from 1-10 I give it a 4.

Don't waste your money, have your friends tell you about it.

[chrisfostermusi]

Originally posted by Craig S.

Much better than the first one, maybe because they didn't have the annoying young Anakin. The action scenes were excellent, and the plot seemed a little more structured.



I would have taken the young anakin 10 times over the dolt they had for this movie.

[Skip]

Originally posted by chrisfostermusi

I would have taken the young anakin 10 times over the dolt they had for this movie. That's strong. Young Anakin was about the worst child actor I've seen in a long time. I haven't seen this one yet, but the new Anakin seems to look the young/confused/arrogant part in the trailers. Is it that he can't act, can't speak lines, has no chemistry with the other actors, ...?

[chrisfostermusi]

Originally posted by Skip
That's strong. Young Anakin was about the worst child actor I've seen in a long time. I haven't seen this one yet, but the new Anakin seems to look the young/confused/arrogant part in the trailers. Is it that he can't act, can't speak lines, has no chemistry with the other actors, ...?

Young Anakin was a kid, and a therefore I give him a lot of leeway. (maybe I shouldn't) I don't remember him being so bad. The guy in #2 I thought had weak acting skills. I didn't buy his role at all. He just looked like a young stud playing a leading role in a big movie. He was not at all realistic to me. Not to mention I think his character developement in the movie did not match his personality. Trust me they could have done a lot better. Obiwan's look and role were realistic. You bought into his role. Over all I thought the casting was weak. Had they been assembled together in another movie (one that was not presold to a cult following), it would have exited the theatres in a week.

Chris

PS Yoda with a light sabre was a huge stretch for me. Here is a being who can't walk without a crutch, next thing you know he is doing backflips and such in the movies final duel..... get real. Maybe the force should heal his hip first, then put the sabre in his hand.

[chrisfostermusi]

If you haven't seen Star Wars yet, go see Spiderman again. That was a good movie.

[Skip]

Originally posted by chrisfostermusi

Over all I thought the casting was weak. Other than American Graffitti, Lucas seems to have had issues with casting throughout his movies. I guess he is too tied into the story being the "star". I hope to catch Spidey for the first time this week; Clones in a few weeks, when the wackos (present company excepted :) ) have moved on.

[Craig S.]

Originally posted by chrisfostermusi
Young Anakin was a kid, and a therefore I give him a lot of leeway. (maybe I shouldn't) I don't remember him being so bad. The guy in #2 I thought had weak acting skills. I didn't buy his role at all. He just looked like a young stud playing a leading role in a big movie. He was not at all realistic to me. Not to mention I think his character developement in the movie did not match his personality. Trust me they could have done a lot better.

Well, I'll never agree that Hayden Christiansen is worse than Jake Lloyd. Even for a child actor, Lloyd is horrid. That being said, I agree that he was miscast in this role. I found him whiny, and I wasn't convinced with his performance. I could see Ewan's Kenobi developing into the character played by Guinness, but I still can't see Anakin turning into Darth Vader.

Hayden Christiansen was excellent in "Life as a House," so I think he may be a decent actor. Unfortunately, like Skip says, Lucas is not a great casting person.

As a final thought, how did George Lucas spend 20 years working on these movies, only to have them not even be half the film that the first 2 were? I think "Empire Strikes Back" is easily the best of the bunch, with "A New Hope" second. Since then, though, it's been a rough ride.

[JamesI]

For Empire and Jedi, he was more willing to listen to other people's opinion, and he had some good actors, mostly Ford and James Earl Jones as Vader's voice. No he does what he wants, but still I think ep 2 is pretty good. Christansen isn't right as Anakin, but Ewan McGregor is good as Obi-Wan.

[KCBOOMER]

If this wasn't a SW episode it would be gone be week 2.

[Craig S.]

Originally posted by KCBOOMER
If this wasn't a SW episode it would be gone be week 2.

I wouldn't go that far. Since when does being a bad film mean that it disappears quickly?

Some films from the last couple of years that topped $100 million:

Jurassic Park III
Planet of the Apes
Gone in 60 Seconds
Big Momma's House
Charlie's Angels
Lara Croft: Tomb Raider
Fast and the Furious
Mummy Returns

I picked these ones because they were generally panned by critics and even many moviegoers, but they certainly did well. Being a good or bad film really has little to do anymore with money made and time spent in the theater.

[chrisfostermusi]

Originally posted by Craig S.
"Empire Strikes Back" is easily the best of the bunch,

Ditto

[gyb13]

Originally posted by Craig S.
Jurassic Park III
Planet of the Apes
Gone in 60 Seconds
Big Momma's House
Charlie's Angels
Lara Croft: Tomb Raider
Fast and the Furious
Mummy Returns
I am proud to say that I watched but one of these films

[Skip]

Originally posted by gyb13
I am proud to say that I watched but one of these films I saw two, Tomb Raider (lousy) and Mummy Returns (on video, ok in a dopey way, no worse than the first).

[Slippery Pedro]

Getting back to Star Wars and the knocks on the kid - and, please note I have not seen it yet - I just want to point out that Mark Hamil's (sic?) performances would never been confused with the work of DeNiro, Hanks, or Denzel.

Is the new kid THAT bad?

[Skip]

But... Hamill got to play off of a legimately good actor (Ford) and a decent actress (Fisher); plus the whole thing was new and shiny back then. I agree with your basic premise though. As I said before, with the exception of American Graffitti, and having Ford slip over into SW from AG, Lucas has been an atrocious caster of actors.

[Craig S.]

Originally posted by Slippery Pedro
Getting back to Star Wars and the knocks on the kid - and, please note I have not seen it yet - I just want to point out that Mark Hamil's (sic?) performances would never been confused with the work of DeNiro, Hanks, or Denzel.

Is the new kid THAT bad?

I don't think he's anywhere near as bad as Hamill. Actually, I think Jake Lloyd's acting in the first one was closer to Hamill's.

[JamesI]

Originally posted by Skip
But... Hamill got to play off of a legimately good actor (Ford) and a decent actress (Fisher); plus the whole thing was new and shiny back then. I agree with your basic premise though. As I said before, with the exception of American Graffitti, and having Ford slip over into SW from AG, Lucas has been an atrocious caster of actors.

I'd have to agree Lucas wanted Tom Selleck for Indiana Jones, but settled on Harrison Ford. Selleck is a good actor, but he couldn't have pulled of Indy.

[Craig S.]

Originally posted by JamesI


I'd have to agree Lucas wanted Tom Selleck for Indiana Jones, but settled on Harrison Ford. Selleck is a good actor, but he couldn't have pulled of Indy.

It seems ridiculous to picture that now. I wonder what that would have done for their respective careers.

[Skip]

Originally posted by Craig S.
Actually, I think Jake Lloyd's acting in the first one was closer to Hamill's. Very good analogy. I believe the best word here is "wooden". Every time I hear Hammil deliver the whining "Ohh Gee, I wanted to go into ... to pick up some power converters" line early in the first movie I fall on the floor laughing.

[moose]

Originally posted by Skip
Every time I hear Hammil deliver the whining "Ohh Gee, I wanted to go into ... to pick up some power converters" line early in the first movie I fall on the floor laughing.
Worst. Acting. Ever.

[SmedIndy]

People are saying that Christiansen's work in Life As A House was brilliant, so we shouldn't be knee-jerk about it.

[satchel]

Having seen this movie, I'll throw my opinion in the ring.

The acting was awful, but as this thread has hinted this may not be the actor's fault. George Lucas has a gift and a vision, but he cannot direct his way out of a paper back. He hired a real director for "Empire" and "Jedi," and he should have done the same here.

Time magazine put it quite well: "He can animate a pixel, but not a Portman."

This movie was like the little girl with the little curl. When it was good, it was visionary, beautiful, and entertaining. And when it was bad, it was chew-your-arm-off-and-beat-yourself-to-death-with-it-to-end-the-misery awful.

[gyb13]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
People are saying that Christiansen's work in Life As A House was brilliant, so we shouldn't be knee-jerk about it.
Hayden was good in LAAH, but not 'brilliant'

[Skip]

I still haven't seen it, but here's the review from my 9 year old son:

"It wasn't even Star Wars. It was just a love story. The only good part was the last 30 minutes." If Lucas loses the kids, he's really in trouble.

[Craig S.]

Originally posted by Skip
If Lucas loses the kids, he's really in trouble.

Well, he'll always have the creepy-40-year-old Star-Wars-obsessed demographic.

[Skip]

Originally posted by Craig S.
Well, he'll always have the creepy-40-year-old Star-Wars-obsessed demographic. And just what do you mean by that, eh? You trying to tell me something? That birthday is just a bit too close - I'll have to call a moratorium on comments about "40-year-old" anythings in Netshrine for a while, creepy or not. :(

[Craig S.]

Originally posted by Skip
And just what do you mean by that, eh? You trying to tell me something? That birthday is just a bit too close - I'll have to call a moratorium on comments about "40-year-old" anythings in Netshrine for a while, creepy or not. :(

I'll change "40-year-old" to "non-child". Not a shot at any ages - I'll be 40 soon enough, too. :)

[Max Power]

Just got back from seeing it. Thought the effects were incredible - - very seemless. I can see the points made about it:

1. The kid's acting
2. Too much love story
3. Good scenes exciting, bad scenes kinda boring
4. Silly things like Yoda doing back flips and then needing a cane to walk

but, to me, the biggest issue was the story line - - - this is not a movie for the less than Stars Wars fanatic.

I'm sorry; but, I would have to think that any kid under 12 seeing this movie would have a hard time following what the heck is going on, outside of chase, fight, or love scenes.

[gyb13]

Originally posted by Max Power
4. Silly things like Yoda doing back flips and then needing a cane to walk
Now is that silly or just Jedi mind tricks? You know, make your opponents underestimate you so that you then take them by surprise?

[Duque]

Originally posted by Max Power

but, to me, the biggest issue was the story line - - - this is not a movie for the less than Stars Wars fanatic.

I'm sorry; but, I would have to think that any kid under 12 seeing this movie would have a hard time following what the heck is going on, outside of chase, fight, or love scenes.

Saw it last night - and I have to admit this was the part of the movie that was really interesting - all the double and triple-crossing and political machinations going on. But, even then, I found it hard to really understand til towards the end of the film, and I can see where a lot of kids would be lost.

I also didn't buy the whole spry Yoda thing - though it was a huge fan favorite - for a guy who is supposedly a pacifist, Zen Master type.

Though I did think Christopher Lee was perfectly creepy as the villain.

[Craig S.]

Originally posted by Duque
Though I did think Christopher Lee was perfectly creepy as the villain.

Just as he was in "Fellowship of the Ring." Great work in both of those films.

[johnny]

Without special effects you have nothing here...

One of the great things about the 1st 3 movies was the memorable lines...everyone should know a few of the lines from heart, cuz they stick with you. But this one...dialogue was awful. Love story was boring.

As far as Lucas goes, we have created a monster.

[WiredTiger]

Just saw it last night. Was waiting for the geeks to clear out. I am a geek but not a wait in line kind of geek.

Impressions:

1.) The acting was actually quite bad. And I am now thinking that it is Lucas's fault. I've seen the actors in other movies and they've been fine so I don't know what's wrong here. Maybe the actors are having trouble acting with figments of the director's imagination?

2.) The special effects were very good.

3.) The story was OK, not great but not horrible.

4.) Less Jar Jar is better.

5.) The Fett's aren't really a tough bunch. Daddy Fett was killed off pretty easily in that battle. And Junior Fett didn't last very long in Jedi and was basically comic relief.

6.) Star Wars I and II are so mediocre that they are actually starting to make me doubt my opinion of III, IV and V. I love Empire Strikes Back and Star Wars is a classic but Return of the Jedi is OK.

[JamesI]

Originally posted by WiredTiger

1.) The acting was actually quite bad. And I am now thinking that it is Lucas's fault. I've seen the actors in other movies and they've been fine so I don't know what's wrong here. Maybe the actors are having trouble acting with figments of the director's imagination?
.

Lucas has never been a good director. The only movie he directed well was the original Star Wars. After that, he stopped directing and let other people direct Empire and Jedi. If he would have done that with Ep 1 and 2, they would have been better because the actors are good, they need a good director.

[WiredTiger]

Originally posted by JamesI


Lucas has never been a good director. The only movie he directed well was the original Star Wars. After that, he stopped directing and let other people direct Empire and Jedi. If he would have done that with Ep 1 and 2, they would have been better because the actors are good, they need a good director.

Can we please get David Fincher or Sam Raimi for Episode III? Lucas can write and do the special effects.