Before I say anything at all, I need to make it abundantly clear that this movie is better than "Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace." I need to make it clear from the outset because this movie will get a lower rating. I know that doesn't make sense, but hear me out. I gave the last "Star Wars" movie a nine out of ten, but in hindsight, it probably deserves a six or seven. I can't change the rating, though. When I write a review, the only reason I would ever go back to change anything about it is to fix a spelling or grammatical error. Other than that, I gotta just accept what I wrote. So even though this one has a lower rating, it IS the better movie. Okay? Okay!
When "The Phantom Menace" first came out, I really had my hopes up. After waiting sixteen years for a movie, that'll tend to happen. I saw it, and though I was mildly disappointed, the fact that I finally got to see the new "Star Wars" movie was a thrill for me, and I was very forgiving with the movie's many flaws (and there really were many flaws). Critics and fans alike bashed the movie, so I defended it, and I convinced myself that I liked it more than I really did. I've seen it again over the last couple of weeks, twice, in fact, and it's true, "The Phantom Menace" is a disappointing film. I still say that some people were too critical, but I gotta say, I expected a lot more from the movie.
While working on the next episode of the "Star Wars" saga, it would seem as though George Lucas heard the many complaints, and addressed them. Most fans would agree that the biggest problem with "The Phantom Menace" was an annoying character by the name of "Jar Jar Binks." You'll all be happy to know that his screen time has been reduced considerably in this movie. He's in it, and every moment he's on the screen makes me wanna scream, but mercifully, it's not often that you see him. Fans wanted more action. Done. Fans wanted a darker, less kid-friendly movie. Done. The thing is, I don't think George Lucas made these changes to make the fans happy, I think this movie was supposed to be like that anyway. Aside from "Jar Jar," the other main problem with the last movie was the dialogue, and it's actually worse in this one. George Lucas even got help from another writer this time, but it wasn't enough. This movie would be a lot better if the dialogue wasn't so bad. Those who have been bashing the movie have been complaining that the love story isn't convincing. Indeed, if the dialogue was better, the love story WOULD be convincing. The problem wasn't with the acting. I don't care if you're Robert De Niro, your acting doesn't look very good if your dialogue is shitty. Many critics have unfairly attacked the acting, but the acting in this movie is fine. It's the dialogue that sucks.
Okay, now that I got all that outta the way, I can say this: "Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones" kicks ass! Yes, the dialogue sucks, but dammit, nothing can prepare you for the good things in this movie, and I assure you, the good far outweighs the bad.
Oh, I need to interrupt myself here before I forget. A few months ago, there were rumors that a certain annoying boy band (the second syllable of the boy band's name happens to rhyme with "stink") were to make a cameo appearance in "Attack of the Clones." I first dismissed it as a silly rumor, but then I heard that it was true, there actually was footage of them shot for "Attack of the Clones." All the "Star Wars" geeks (which includes me) went nuts. We filled out petitions, posted in message boards, and bitched and moaned about this for a while. I don't know if that's the reason, but it was later reported that George Lucas, in response to his pissed off fans, edited them out. He was eventually interviewed and said that he would never make an editing decision based solely on fan reaction, but I'm happy to say that the boy band is nowhere to be found in this movie. Perhaps they were deep in the background, totally incapable of being seen clearly, and if that's the case, fine. I just didn't wanna see their faces, ya know?
Before seeing this movie, I read a buncha reviews. I did my best to steer clear of spoilers, and fortunately, I didn't run into any, but I DID read a lot of negative reviews. Roger Ebert, a critic I admire, and the only one I really pay attention to, totally trashed the movie. I think he went overboard, because some of what he had a problem with was completely ridiculous. There's one scene in the movie that will probably go down in history as one of the best scenes in the saga. I won't say what it is, but even that's a scene he has a problem with. The negative reviews I read, excluding Ebert's, praised this one scene, so I dunno. Roger Ebert's a great critic, but lately, it seems like he's got a stick up his ass. Oh, and for the record, Roger Ebert loved "The Phantom Menace." Maybe it's time for me to find a new favorite movie critic.
So yeah, I read a buncha reviews, and they were evenly split. The legit movie critics were about 50/50, but most of the fans really enjoyed the movie. They felt that it was flawed, but a lot better than the last one, and very entertaining overall. The consistent opinion is that it has a good first half hour, but it's followed by an hour of horrendous dialogue, way too much exposition, and the unconvincing love story. But after that, there's 45 minutes of some of the best scenes in the entire "Star Wars" saga. Some even said that those 45 minutes were better than anything in "The Empire Strikes Back," which is widely considered to be the best film in the "Star Wars" saga. I would have to agree with that assessment. The first half hour is really good. The ball starts rolling pretty quickly, and there's a chase scene that's gotta be seen to be believed. It makes the pod race scene in "The Phantom Menace" dull by comparison. As for that hour in the middle, yeah, I have to agree, though I probably don't hate it as much as many of the other people. It has it's problems, but it also has some real bright spots, like the scene with "Anakin Skywalker" and the Tusken Raiders. As for the unconvincing love story, it's not as bad as I expected, and like I said earlier, the only real problem is with the dialogue. The acting is really good, and no matter how bad a scene is, if it includes a close-up of Natalie Portman's face, I'm a happy man. If it shows her belly, I'm even happier.
Oh, I have to interrupt myself again. Alright, now, it's no secret that my favorite part of the female body is the belly (a flat belly, that is). Well, there are two outfits that Natalie Portman wears in the movie that shows off her belly. One is during the middle of the movie. Her outfit is one that happens to show off her belly, and it's beautiful. But the second time she wears an outfit that shows her belly, it's because a monster tears the bottom half off. The thing is, it's laughably bad how it's done. You may have seen the commercial where she's scratched on her back by a monster. Well, in the movie, though the creature only scratched her back, it was apparently enough to completely tear off the bottom half of her shirt. It's hilarious. There's this fight going on, cut to Natalie Portman getting scratched on her back, cut back to the fight going on around her, and then cut back to Natalie Portman, and you'll notice that the bottom half of her shirt is gone. It disappeared! That's okay, though. I got to see Natalie Portman's belly again. The end justifies the means.
Okay, I told you all about the cool first half hour and the bad hour in the middle, and now I gotta tell you about the last 45 minutes. Actually, forget it. I don't wanna do that. I don't wanna say too much, nor do I wanna get your hopes up too high. Just rest assured that the last 45 minutes are awesome. And you're never gonna look at "Yoda" the same way again.
The visual effects are amazing. Truly amazing. George Lucas has raised the bar exponentially. Again. As good as the visual effects are in "The Phantom Menace," they're leaps and bounds better in this movie. It's not that the effects are bad in "The Phantom Menace," it's just that here, well, it's breathtaking.
I strongly advise that you keep far, far away from spoilers, by the way. There are some really nice surprises in this movie, not the least of which is the origin of "Boba Fett." I always wondered who he was, and how he came to be. Well, in this movie, you find out.
I read a lotta reviews for this movie, and a lotta people complained about the acting. I happen to like the acting, and the cast did an exceptional job. Ewan McGregor (after "The Phantom Menace," he did "Moulin Rouge" and "Black Hawk Down"... not bad) is excellent as "Obi-Wan Kenobi." He has the right amount of humor, dignity, and badass-ness (I just made up the word, but it's a good one, I think). Ewan McGregor is a great actor, and he's the perfect guy to play the younger "Obi-Wan." Hayden Christensen is very good as "Anakin Skywalker." I first saw him in "Life as a House," and I thought he was really good in that. He was also in "The Virgin Suicides," but I don't remember him in it. Interestingly enough, "The Virgin Suicides" was directed by Sofia Coppola (daughter of Francis Ford Coppola), who had a bit part in "The Phantom Menace." But yeah, Hayden Christensen is very good, despite what you may have heard. It's just that almost all the lines that the poor guy got were the worst lines in the movie; some were even more whiney than the infamous "power converters" line that Mark Hamill had to say in "Star Wars" (now known as "Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope").
Then there's Natalie Portman. Oh yes, the most beautiful woman on earth, and one of the best actresses on the planet, the great Natalie Portman. I've seen just about every movie she was in (I think the only one I haven't seen is the Woody Allen one, "Everybody Says I Love You"), and believe me when I tell you that she's never looked more beautiful than she does in this movie. Nothing comes close. Yes, her acting is really good, but her beauty... her beauty is extraordinary.
As for the rest of the cast, Ian McDiarmid (who was in "Sleepy Hollow") is great (and chilling) as "Supreme Chancellor Palpatine." It's a huge and important role, and Ian McDiarmid is excellent in it. Samuel L. Jackson is very cool as "Mace Windu," and we get to see him get medieval on a few asses. His role is bigger than it was in "The Phantom Menace," and that's certainly a good thing. And I'm sure he loves cracking jokes about swinging his purple lightsaber. Christopher Lee (an icon of old horror films... recently, he was in "Sleepy Hollow" and "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring") is perfect as "Count Dooku." And it's cool that the man who has played "Dracula" several times gets a name like "Count Dooku." Finally, Jimmy Smits (he was in two very popular TV shows, "L.A. Law" and "NYPD Blue") plays the pivotal role of "Senator Bail Organa." He's not in this movie very long, but I'm sure that his role will be expanded in the next one.
The director of "Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones" is George Lucas. It's amazing that this is only his fifth time directing. His feature film debut as a director was with "THX 1138" in 1970 (it was based on a short film he had directed earlier), and then he directed "American Graffiti" in 1973. Four years later, in 1977, he directed "Star Wars," and that was the last time he directed a movie until he directed "The Phantom Menace" in 1999. Contrary to popular belief, he didn't direct "The Empire Strikes Back" (it was directed by Irvin Kershner) or "Return of the Jedi" (that was directed by Richard Marquand), though he certainly ruled over those movies as though he WAS the director. I think he's a pretty good director (the wipes really ARE kinda cheesy, but I respect the feeling he's going for by using them), though I don't think he's very good when it comes to working with his actors.
As for writing, forget about it, George Lucas is horrible. I mean, he's great when it comes to the big picture, the concepts, and the generalities, but when it's time to work on the screenplay, get into specifics, and write the dialogue, it ain't pretty. This time, he had help from Jonathan Hales (he helped write "The Scorpion King"... he was one of the writers for the TV series, "The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles"), but I don't think he was the right guy for the job. Maybe Brian Helgeland, Frank Darabont, or David Koepp woulda been better choices. Jonathan Hales is too much like George Lucas.
I should mention that "Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones" was shot on a camera specifically built for George Lucas. It was shot on special 24-frame-per-second digital video using a high-definition progressive scan camera developed by Sony and Panavision. The result? Well, it looks just like film. Regular video, even high-end video, looks like video. It has a "cold" look to it that's just not as pleasing to the eye as film, which has a "warm" look. This new camera that Sony and Panavision made produces images that look just like they were shot on film. There was a single instance where I thought the shot looked a little bit like video, but that was only one shot, and I may have been seeing things. What George Lucas truly wanted was for the movie to be shot digitally and then projected digitally. Unfortunately, not many theater owners are willing to comply. At least, not yet, so the digital images were copied on film. There ARE some theaters that are projecting it digitally, though. Unfortunately, there are only three movie theaters in Florida doing it, and none of them are anywhere near me. But trust me, I WILL see the movie via digital projection. Sooner than later, I hope. And when I do, I'll let you all know what I think of it.
So that's it. After three years of waiting, I finally got to see this movie, and I really like it. The hard part is gonna be waiting ANOTHER three years for the next one, because it's gonna probably be even better. It's certainly gonna be darker, and everything that has been set up in the last two movies will lead up to the next one. It's gonna be awesome. I have a feeling that the next one will be the best one in the entire series. At least, I hope so.
Scale of 1-10: 8