My Reasons for putting Attack of the Clones with the Greatness of the first three. 1) Yoda whoops some serious behind in this movie, but must train Luke to defeat Anakin because he can't. I think this adds greatly to the character of Vader as it establishes a great Jedi that can still cut the mustard. 2) Metachlorians? What are those? 3) Bad Acting. It just completes that Star Wars feel. 4) I feel the characterization of Anakin is great. He's being taught by Obi-wan, is a teenager with Hormones screwing him up, still shows his mechanical tendecies, loses his mom, and has twisted ever since Phantom by Palpatine. All that together would lead to an angry punk that fights for friends, but is indecisive and akward. He also has a scene that he shows his loyalty to Palpatine. Attack of the Clones has its flaws, but so did all the other Star wars movies...including empire. Star Wars III could easily exceed all others if it does one thing. Kill Jar Jar.
The first SW was great because it was new. Nothing like that had been done before. Lightsabers, Wookiees, Solo, The Force. It was incredible. One of the best movies ever. Empire was great also. The action and drama was outstanding. Lucas went through "tough times" before making Jedi. He went through his divorce, etc. The Star Wars series was going to last around 6 movies instead of just three. (The next two after Empire were going to be "The Search for Solo"). It was here that he wimped out. He decided to just wrap things up, and the movie was not up to par with the first two. Like a second Death Star? That is pretty weak... (Luke was originally going to confront the Emperor inside the core of the planet Courscant) And this is the first movie people really started to complain about some things (Ewoks). Phantom Menace was for the kiddies. That really sucked. Plus too much CGI. Star Wars had a believable feel to it that the prequels do not. I thought Clones would be better, but I was also disappointed in the Character of Anakin. He is a dork. I thought he should of been an all around superhero, then have his fall to the dark side. To me that would of been more compelling. Oh Well. I think the book is almost better than the movie. I am looking forward to the last one, but not as much as I wanted to be. And I want to be spoiler free this time.
Any film which has the line "You came in that thing? Your'e braver than I thought!" in it, has to be good! Man, I crack up everytime I hear it.
The dialogue in Episode II was absolutely horrendous. It got especially bad when Master Windu (Samuel Jackson) busts into the arena towards the end and proclaims (like a Jedi master) "This party's over!" Total garbage. Speaking of the arena scene, am I the only one that thought it was ripped entirely from "Gladiator"? Also, I really could do without Anakin and Amidala rolling around in the grass. Star Wars has deteriorated and I'm not the only one who sees it.
Yeah, Lea's buns did look all nice rapped up in a circle on the side of her head, braided like they were, but her Bum was much nicer.
Informative you were... Thinking you were not.... My Sarcasm you did not detect... the force is not strong in you young Codell.
Things wrong with Star Wars: Episode 2 1. Obviously, as everyone has been saying, the dialogue is some of the worst in recent memory. Christopher Lee had the worst line in the film: "I see that our powers of the force are equal, master Yoda. We must test our skills with light-sabres" (paraphrase). I heard that line and slapped myself... it's just ridiculously bad. 2. The villain was not developed at all. Think about it: in the original Star Wars, Darth Vader was on the screen in the first 2 minutes; he was established early on. In Episode 2, we don't even see Chirstopher Lee until the last 1/3 of the movie, so by the time it gets to the final battle, it's like: "Who the hell are you?" 3. George Lucas is obsessed with computer-animating things, and technology right now simply isn't good enough to pull it off. Many of the creatures looked awful; I actually liked Yoda far better when he was a puppet... some of his expressions in the new movies look ridiculous. 4. HAYDEN CHRISTENSEN. He can't act worth a damn. He may not have been given much, but in any case, he came off as a whiny little *****. I liked him better in Life as a House, where he played a screwed up teenager/part-time gay prostitute. The whininess seemed slightly more appropriate. 5. The only dynamic character in the movie was Natalie Portman's hair.
One of my favorite bits in Clones was how Jar Jar Binks creates the empire by moving the motion to give palpatine "extra" power/troops. It epitomises his uselessness. BTW i agree 100% that he should be killed.... preferably slowly & with a great deal of screaming (good way to use all the CGI & THX sound stuff... a 10min "death of Jar Jar scene" would work, and i would sit thru it all smiling). I actually liked the story line development (minus the hollywood love story): how you see Anakin slowly moving to the dark side; palpatines hooks in everything; yoda in his prime was fun to watch. The writing isn't meant to be Shakespear, so if you view it with that in mind, it makes it quite watchable (when was the last time someone took to an arnie movie for poor scriptwriting???). The battle scene rocked, except some of the Jedi died too easily (how on earth is a jedi caught unaware of the person hidden from (direct) view 1 meter away! ). Clones almost replaced Empire (which i saw 13 times as a new release at the cinema... i feel old now) as my fav SW movie.... almosst
In my opinion, the difference is that the special effects were played by humans. The more detail that goes into a character, the better the screen time is. Hans Solo has nothing to do with it. The direction is just sub par. In other words Nomar, you are right.
I agree. I think it's pretty much dialogue. Not sure who to blame it on, but Anakin can still have problems, and still be an Anakin who we respect as we watch him turn to the Dark Side. I don't know; I've never see the old James Dean flicks but how about a rebel who you can root for as opposed to just want to slap around for being a dork. There's still hope for III. III can settle the corpses rolling in their graves over the first movie if Lucas can sell us on Anakin's turning to the Dark Side.
There are tons of corny things in Episode II. Crappy dialogue, stupid situations (Shmi Skywalker stays alive just long enough to see her son, and why did they want her anyways, just to torture, as a hostage?), too much CGI. One of the big problems I have with the CGI is that Lucas uses it in situations where an actor would have been just as easy, heck, even easier, than inserting a CGI character. When their in town on Tatooine and people are walking in the background, a bunch of the aliens are CGI...and their humanoid...it could have been done much easier with actors, and would have looked much better. Something about Lucas's brand of CGI, it just "glows" too much in the movies. It makes me upset to think how in a movie like Jurassic Park, the mix of puppets, animatronics, and CGI flowed so seamless, yet in Star Wars its so obvious. I'll give Lucas some credit though, that last 30 minute battle scenes was pretty cool, I don't care if it was from Gladiator or not. That's what CGI is for...battle scenes, and spaceships, not for a replacement of actors in the background. I also liked that they gave Portman some slinky garb in some of the scenes. That backless dress when they were at the "lake house" on Naboo, out on the porch. The scene where they first kiss...pretty cool, and that push up corsett thing when they were by the fire place...not bad. And I agree, some of those Jedi died way too easy...Jango died way to easy too. I guess Windu is supposed to be some great master so it should be easy, but I thought Jango would be tougher to kill off, especially after giving Obi-Wan all he could handle on the landing platform. Oh well, I'll quit ranting.
i think you guys expect way too much out of these movies...lucas created these as an answer to the western movies he used to go see on saturday mornings as a kid...the feel of a continual soap opera. honestly, if you're looking at backgrounds and saying, "man, this sucks...that could have been done so much better," then you're taking these films way too seriously. at their very heart, they are movies geared towards kids...the dialogue in every single one of these movies is weak as hell...but who freaking cares!??? they're fun to watch.... by the way...think jango died too easy? wait till you see how his son, bobba, dies in return of the jedi!
The Force can have a strong influence on the weak minded. The tusken raiders were being controlled by Palpatine who wanted Shmi to die in Anakin's arms to nudge Anakin to the darkside.
You're comparing apples and oranges. Ah-nold movies are full of one-liners and are devoid of characterization (and plot). Ah-nold has a habit of killing anything that moves in his movies. He doesn't need Shakespearean dialogue to do it. Star Wars. OTOH, is known for great characters, like Han Solo, Yoda, Lando, etc. The dialogue should be decent in order to make that character likeable and interesting. This goes for ANY movie. So, fine, let's compare Ah-nold one-liners to SW: "Just being around her again is intoxicating." = CRAP "I like you, Sulli. That's why I'm going to kill you last." = PURE GENIUS "... So have you. Grown more beautiful... for a senator, I mean." = CRAP "Consider this a divorce." = PURE GENIUS "This is such a drag." = CRAP "Here is Subzero. Now, plain zero." = PURE GENIUS "If Obi-Wan caught me doing that, he would be very grumpy." = CRAP "See you at the party, Richter!" = PURE GENIUS "Yippee!" = PURE CRAP "I need your clothes, your boots, and your motorcycle." = PURE GENIUS If a character doesn't have good dialogue (i.e. it's awkward or corny), then it's hard to root for them or even care. Essentially, after watching Episode I & II, I couldn't give two sh**s about anyone in the movie (with the exception of McGregor's Obi-Wan, who actually tries to make his lines interesting). I was only riveted by the CGI, action, and video-game feel. In the original trilogy, I actually liked the characters and cared about what happened to them. They had charisma and chemistry. The dialogue, although very corny at times, was passable, and didn't distract from the rest of the movies. Hell, Chewbacca didn't say a single line of intelligble speech in the entire series, yet he was more dynamic in the old series than any character (save Obi-Wan) in the new ones. That, my friends, is pathetic. When Episode I came out, people had mixed reviews. The quote I heard the most was "I'm sure Lucas will redeem himself in Episode II." When Episode II came out, people also had mixed reviews (although they favored II over I). The quote I heard the most was "Yes, Episode II was better, but not quite vintage Star Wars. I'm sure Lucas will redeem himself in Episode III." When Episode III comes out... Oh, nevermind. I think you get the point.
MadMax, your post was the nail on the head! You're too right... These movies are for kids. Kids don't get hung up on dialogue. For goodness' sake, the thread was started by someone who was born AFTER each of the trilogy films were gone from the big screen (see profile). And most of you think the triligy was the best because it reminds you of a simpler, more carefree time in your own lives. Sure, being obvious in dialogue may stink in a movie intended to be dramatic... but this movie is about action, fast movement, wierd characters, and pure fun... for pre-teens at that! Furthermore, if you'll watch the extras, deleted and documentaries, from the bonus disc in the dvd, you'll see more of what "us picky adults" wanted to see. You'll get more explanation about why Dooku showed up late in the film... because Lucas wanted him to be halfway in our minds, "is he good? is he bad?" Sure we adults new he was bad, he's in black. But the kids have good guys in black (MIB, Matrix, MI:2) in a lot of movies... If you'll just stop reading into the movie before it ever releases, and or see through your original child-like eyes, you'll be satisfied. My 3 year old son like Episodes I, II, IV, V, and VI equally... to him it's all "Stire Works"... he has a blast with the droids, the aliens, the lightsabres, the explosions, the colors... he's a child, and these are children's movies that just happen to appeal to a wide adult audience because we were all children (or not even born yet) when the first came out. If you don't have kids, find some kids (relatives' or friends') and sit down and watch ANY of the StarWars movies with them. If you see them enjoying it, and you will, THAT MY FRIENDS is what StarWars is all about. That is the goal George Lucas had in mind. Don't see anyone ripping SPY KIDS do you? Or AIR BUD? Let kids' movies be kids' movies. If they bother you, maybe you grew up more at heart than you want to admit. Relax. It's only StarWars. Do. Or do not. There is no try.
Gee, my kids (and most of their friends) didn't like either Episode I or Episode II, so I don't know that their being geared for kids gets them off the hook. It's not as if my kids are watching Kurasawa movies in their spare time, either. They're regular boys who you'd think would be fans of these movies. And while they didn't dislike them, they didn't find them memorable, either. Neither has watched either TPM or AOTC a second time. I think you underestimate kids (and overestimate these movies) by saying these movies are the same for them as the original trilogy was when we were that age. I agree that kids' standards aren't as high as those of adults (most of the time, though I've met adults who liked Armageddon, so....), but that doesn't mean they don't have standards at all. TPM and AOTC have not met the standards of the kids I know. I do think that making a movie to appeal to three year-olds is skewing a little young even on the pre-teen scale. (My kids are currently 13 and 9, by the way. They were, obviously, 10 and 6 when The Phantom Menace came out). I would argue, too, that just because I saw the original trilogy when I was a kid doesn't mean that I excuse the problems within them based on memories of a happier time when I watch them now. For one thing, that period in my life was not always a happy, simpler time (parent's constantly fighting and then divorcing during that period), but more importantly, I see movies all the time that I used to like when I was a kid. I will always see the things wrong with them, and often will wonder to myself why it was that I ever liked that movie in the first place. But for the best of those movies I saw as I child, they still hold up. Sure, there are flaws in the original trilogy, but they are still better movies than the new ones. When I watch the original trilogy on tape now, I still like them not because of some past I'm remembering, but because they just still fit as movies that I like. If I were seeing them for the first time, I would probably like them just as much.
