Monday, December 29, 2008

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones

2002

1.5/4 Stars

When Episode II came out, many felt that there was nowhere to go but up for the new Star Wars prequel trilogy. When I first saw this movie six and a half years ago, I would have said that it was a marked improvement over the Jar Jar laden Phantom Menace. Having just re-watched Attack of the Clones this afternoon however, I would have to disagree.

Why is "Attack" worse than "Phantom"? The answer is dialogue. In an effort to develop "space chemistry" between Padme (Natalie Portman) and Anakin (Haydn Christensen), Lucas has fallen back on atrocious verbal exchanges and clunky acting. While the script was bad in Episode I, there is more dialogue here and the film suffers.

Clocking in at 142 minutes, the movie takes too long to develop and get off the ground. The "evolution" of Padme's feelings for Anakin could have been shown in one or two well-written scenes, but instead it is shown over several (ridiculous) sequences. My personal favorite involves Anakin riding a bloated space-cow-tick in a beautiful green pasture. The rest of the plot, explaining the beginnings of the Clone Wars, is also convoluted (like much of "Phantom"). However these aspects are slightly more bearable than the love scenes.

One of the few highnotes of the film takes place in an entirely computer generated sequence involving Obi-Wan Kenobi involved in a skirmish with Jengo Fett in an asteroid field. The two fighter ships weave in and out of the frame, dodging countless rocks. Both sound and visual effects are tremendous in this scene and create a sense of high-speed action. Beyond this however, the rest of the action pieces feel flat. The conveyor belt battle (that "foreshadows" Anakin's evolution into a machine) is absurd and the light-saber fighting seems less exciting than it did in Phantom (sorry Yoda).

Overall, this movie tells a clumsy story that is saturated with CGI. It does, however, manage to set up Episode III, which will be reviewed shortly.

No comments:

Post a Comment