“Attack of the Clones” is more animated than live-action but still one of the best-looking movies of 2002. High points include chases through an asteroid belt, a planet completely covered with city, and any number of delicious orange sunsets against which the characters are silhouetted. At one point there’s a fight in a robot assembly plant, which is a lot like a level out of “Contra” for the original Nintendo. I also like the waterfall where Anakin and Amidala exchange pointless nothings; it looks like a composite of several real-world waterfalls, or perhaps one waterfall multiplied and mutated. There are palaces and mansions galore, with spires and stairwells and columns and giant windows. As I said before, this film looks great. But virtually every setting is computer-generated and not a place where the actors physically stood, which means that instead of interacting with their surroundings the characters basically stare at each other and labor over obvious plot points. I’m a sucker for pretty pictures, and since “Attack of the Clones” is splendid to look at, like a storybook come to life, the dull parts must have been really long and dull for me to dislike the entire movie.
Speaking of animation: the Yoda of the last four films, the handiwork of Frank Oz and the late, sorely-missed Jim Henson, has been replaced with a computer-generated cartoon. The cartoon is not offensive, but my immediate reaction upon seeing it was “I’m not seeing Yoda, I’m seeing a cartoon Yoda.” This allows him to “throw down” with Christopher Lee near the film’s end. The scene is technically impressive, as Yoda whizzes through the air like Sonic the Hedgehog, but while it may be high on craft it is low on art. It vulgarizes the philosopher the original trilogy made Yoda out to be. Audiences deeply impressed by Yoda’s skills with a lightsaber would probably be happier if, instead of parting the Red Sea, Moses had just made another army appear to smash Pharaoh.
The “Star Wars” movies have always been good about throwing in little touches. Part of the charm of the original trilogy was that, despite everything being futuristic and high-tech, so much of the galaxy had a rusty, junky, lived-in look to it, with wires hanging out and chairs that had been used to put out cigarettes. For the most part “Attack of the Clones” is clean and tidy, like “2001: A Space Odyssey” (or maybe what “2001” was criticizing). But there are a few nice touches, like a floating robot replacing a window that Obi-Wan jumped through earlier, and the completely dilapidated condition in which we find the robot C3PO.
I wanted to like “Attack of the Clones,” God knows I did. I went in hoping to at least be entertained by great images and exciting battles, and I was, but the boring bits in between were just too much. Improbable and silly as they are, the other four “Star Wars” movies are exciting, with fun characters, and move at good clip. “Attack of the Clones” does not.
P.S. My word processor knows the words “Yoda,” “Skywalker,” “Chewbacca,” and “Obi-Wan,” but not “Kenobi,” “Anakin,” or “Vivaldi.”
WHAT MY DAMN WIFE THINKS (as I dawdle at the laptop she labors with long-stinking bags of garbage I kept saying I would take to the curb): “By far the most annoying part of this film was the completely improbable and horribly written romance between Amidala and Anakin, in which her character from ‘The Phantom Menace’ is conveniently and entirely re-written to suit the needs of the plot. No longer is she a serious, reserved political figure who cares most for her people, but a silly, scantily-clad girl who says ‘no’ when she means ‘yes,’ and ‘yes’ when she means ‘no,’ and abdicates her duties when she’d rather rush off on a wild goose chase with the arrogant, bratty Anakin. (And why has he aged 10 years, while she looks exactly the same? Is there a really good spa on Naboo?) Two stars.”
Finished June 6, 2002
Copyright 2002 Friday & Saturday Night.