response 126 of 304:

May 17 18:52 UTC 2002

I think Attack of the Clones is a good movie, but then again I'm not
emotionally attached to the original Star Wars movies.  I think each movie
should be seen standing alone and not compared tot he others... I know others
think that is just purely crazy...

This one leans more towards the first movies than Ep I did and I think (or
I'm reading too much into the series) that Lucas is visually (and sort of
"feeling" wise) taking us fromt he light side to the dark side.  The first
movie was very vibrant very colorful very lively/funny/campy/stupid (according
to some)/bright this one is slightly darker in theme and in costume and
lighting and if my theory is right then the next one will be even darker then
we know the last 3 are filmed darker and are less colorful... I think it's
a transition from a time of little worry to a time of great suffering...

That being said I think the campyness of the first one will be appreciated
in sequence.  Ep II takes us closer to the flow of the first 3/last 3 movies.
The cinematography is more similar the dialogue more similar and the costumes
much more similar... it's a process... remember the world of Ep I, II and even
III is not the world of SW, ESB, and ROTJ 

response 128 of 304:

May 18 03:50 UTC 2002

Saw Attack of the Clones, enjoyed same.  on a scale of 1-10 we both gave it
an 8.  Some of the dialogue is poorly written, some of the jokes very campy.
Fight scenes were somtimes confusing.

response 130 of 304:

May 18 08:11 UTC 2002

I saw Ep II, again.  I still like it.  I think of the rebellious Luke, played
by Mark Hamill, from A New Hope (that title pretty much excuses the poor
"Attack of the Clones" title), and then I think of the rebellious Anakin,
played by Hayden Christiansen, from Attack of the Clones.  It's better,
actually.  The scene in the basement has an eyebrow raiser or two, but it's
haunting--and again shows how tough it is to make a movie where we know what
the character is going to become.  The scene is well done, though.  

I have a serious, serious complaint about the editting and the pacing.  This
is essentially the same problem I have with FOTR, but critics are far likelier
to overlook such problems in a movie like LOTR part I that they really want
to like.  It's just as bad, though--music seems to drown out changes in mood,
important scenes and issues that should have extra emphasis and drama blend
into the rest of the narrative, etc.  Exact same problem.  Is there an editor
strike in Hollywood that we don't know about?

Actualy, there was one problem that I didn't notice in LOTR, the poorly timed
transitions.  There are a number of scenes that either start a shade early,
where they actors appear to be in position, but without the scene really
starting yet, or end a shade late, witht he actors finishing the scene and
then holding their finishing positions, waiting for the camera to shut off.
Notable examples include Anakin's conversation with Chancellor Palpatine after
the decision is made to ship Amidala offworld, and the end of the scene where
Anakin and Amidala are (innocently) rolling around in the tall grass.  Wow,
that does sound bad, and when they finish, Amidala is ON TOP OF Anakin, and
they're gazing into each other's eyes, and you expect them to kiss or to say
something or to do just about anything, and they... just stay in that position
for several seconds.  Even a change in posture or expression.  


Man, my typing sucks.  No "Cat Fancy" magazine for me, though, it's just a
lousy keyboard position.  Anyway, we're getting a better chance to analyze
how the casting differs from the first (but really second) three movies.  The
second trilogy has a talented kid who goes through all the angst of teenhood,
a strong-willed political mover of a woman, a scoundrel pilot with a quick
word for everything, and two droids.  In the first trilogy (chronologically),
we have the talented kid who goes through all the angst of teenhood (wash,
but Anakin has better hair), a strong-willed political mover of a woman (but
all of her take-action scenes seem fake--she's very charming and sensible in
the scenes where that is called for, but when she has to turn into the "this
is what we're going to do and this is how we're going to do it" superbitch
that her daughter winds up resembling, it falls flat.  Advantage Leia) and
an even-handed Jedi Knight whose wildest days are behind him (advantage Han,
but that's a character issue).  

The difference is Portman, who looks great on screen whenever she isn't firing
a gun or running (my god, never show a shot of her running again, George).
She's attractive and pleasant and gives the appearance of being thoughtful,
but her character is also supposed to be strong-willed and capable of
authority and action when it is required.  The only time I can recall in the
first two movies where this action does not feel forced is when Amidala is
dropped on the droid conveyor, and instead of screaming and waiting for
SpiderMan to swoop down from the rafters to save her, she starts running up
the belt and dodging the obstacles.  Naturally, we can't have this in a summer
blockbuster movie, so they dump her in a big, inescapable pot and have R2
rescue her.  Every other instance, such as the assualt on the palace in Ep
I or the rallying of troops to futily attack the hangar in Ep II, feels like
a script read.

Contrast that with Carrie Fisher.  I think most WWF Wrestlers would have
jumped into the garbage chute in Ep IV with the authority she sent Han and
Luke with.  Her heavy-handed anger management of Chewie whilst Chewie's paws
were wrapped around Lando's windpipe in Ep V was lucidly convincing, too. 
What Natalie Portman needs is a determined, slightly angered expression that
can make us belive that she's actually upset.

Whoops, that was along.

response 132 of 304:

May 18 08:48 UTC 2002

i rented From Hell this evening and was pleasantly suprised.

response 134 of 304:

May 18 19:04 UTC 2002

If you wath Willow, you'll see all the same characters as in Star Wars, all
over again.  I think George doesn't like to mess with the formula too
much.

I believe I heard him say that he thinks his editing is his greatest
strength.

response 136 of 304:

May 18 23:03 UTC 2002

I wonder if the graininess (I saw it too) was deliberate to obscure 
transfer-to-film problems.  I want to see the digital version on a big 
screen to see what turns up--these are hard details to move over.

The Lightsaber duels were done, uh, uniquely.  Most of the battle 
between Anakin and Dooku focused on closeups, adding to the intensity 
but never giving the viewer a solid idea of what was physically 
occurring between the two.  I'm not sure if this is deliberately done 
because one of the actors can't hold up the choreography, or if it is 
done because they don't want the lightsaber battle to get too much epic 
focus when it's not the most important one in the film.  

There was some realism-a lot of the action involving lightsabers (the 
conclusion of Mace Windu's big duel, the conclusion of the duel between 
Dooku and Kenobi) happens shockingly fast, which is presumably how it 
would happen in real life.  It takes you off-guard, though, when you're 
used to seeing fights that build up toward the climax, and you can tell 
from the frenetic movement of the actors that it will end soon.  I 
really like the lightsaber combat scenes in the first two movies for 
the more natural feel.  And the best and most important battles in the 
entire series are already slated for Ep III.

response 138 of 304:

May 19 01:24 UTC 2002

More natural, as in, more closely resembling how an actual sparring 
duel between two combattents would take place, with allowances for the 
characteristics possessed by said lightsabers in the fictional universe 
of the story.

What's your problem with lightsabers, Rane? This is a borderline sci-
fi/fantasy space opera we're talking about, not religious dogma or 
important literature.  Lightsabers are a figment of the creator's 
special effects unit, just like warp drive or all-powerful rings or 
people that can't recognize their best friends when in disguise (I'm 
talking to you, William Shakespeare) or Lara Croft's breasts.  It's 
called fiction.

response 140 of 304:

May 19 03:22 UTC 2002

I still don't know why Potter gave it four stars.  Sometimes I understand,
sometimes...  well, there's a reason that he doesn't do very many movie
reviews anymore.

response 142 of 304:

May 19 15:01 UTC 2002

   Really.  If Christopher Potter likes a movie, chances are good that
most of the people I know and I will detest it.  Every now and then
Potter gets something right, though.

response 144 of 304:

May 19 17:09 UTC 2002

  I found "Attack of the Clones" painful to sit through.  Every time I
  thought the movie might manage to achieve adequacy things immediately
  took a turn for the worse..  I'd rate it about a five or so on a ten
  point scale.

response 146 of 304:

May 19 18:10 UTC 2002

Re #138: touchy, aren't we? Even fiction is subject to criticism if it
is inconsistent or contradictory. But my question about "natural" was
just pointing out the irony of using the term for something that does
not exist in reality. You can call actions with "lightsabers" many things,
but not "natural". Who sets the criteria for what is natural or unnatural
with an unnatural object?

response 148 of 304:

May 19 19:18 UTC 2002

        I saw Spider-man yesterday.  Very good size crowd in the 
theatre, but very quiet.  I applauded the music by Danny Elfman
and no one followed.  No cheering or applause during the movie.
I started a round of applause at the end, start of the credits.