Sunday, Jul 6, 2008
Readers respond to Stephanie Zacharek's "Attack of the Clones" review. Plus: "X-Files" fans gripe one last time.
May 23, 2002 | Read Stephanie Zacharek's review of "Attack of the Clones."
When I first read Ms. Zacharek's review, I suspected that her groans were the result of a faux-intellectualism that had no appreciation for wonder, beauty and fun. I am sorry to say that I was wrong. "Attack of the Clones" sucks.
Not only was she not missing the point in declaring how god-awful it was, but she was being too kind to Mr. Lucas' latest offering. Yes, there are a few whiz-bang-neato scenes, but there are far more moments of torturous lameness.
One final note: As a long-time but relatively light-weight "Star Wars" fan, I can say that I never imagined Yoda would fight like a frenetic green housefly, crazily careening off of walls. I always imagined his saber flying around his body in a wild tempest of motion as he stood, calm and dignified, in the eye of the storm. His mini-kung-fu posing was just too much.
Never again will I so easily dismiss Ms. Zacharek's opinion.
-- Matthew Burack
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but I wonder why Stephanie Zacharek would review a movie she had no intention of watching objectively.
There are many fair reviews of "Attack of the Clones" that are negative. At least those reviewers were paying attention.
Ms. Zacharek apparently doesn't know or care anything about "Star Wars" or the rather simple (as opposed to convoluted as she says) plot would be clear. Episode 2 fits neatly in the six-movie arc of "Star Wars" and accomplishes its goals. Those goals include: Showing how the Empire is born, how Anakin turns into Darth Vader and how Luke and Leia come to be. Of course, Episode 2 must presume that the viewer watched Episode 1. Episode 2 cannot on its own be a complete story because it has always been a portion of a greater story.
Ms. Zacharek faults Lucas for stealing from "Fifth Element." The scene she speaks of takes place on the planet Coruscant, which was featured briefly in the special edition of "Return of the Jedi" and has been a part of "Star Wars" for decades. In any event a futuristic city with flying vehicles is a sci-fi staple. As for the alleged "Gladiator" scene, Ms. Zacharek cannot mean to suggest that "Gladiator" was the first movie to use that scene.
It's clear that the verdict on "Attack of the Clones" was decided before Ms. Zacharek entered the theatre. I just wonder why she felt compelled to share her vitriolic nonsense with the world.
-- Torrick Ward
Does Stephanie Zacharek even like movies? I have long since stopped paying attention to any of her reviews, because they are almost always negative and almost always wrong. The latest installment of "Star Wars" may not be a masterpiece, but I was hardly running from the theater. Please. What planet does Ms. Zacharek live on anyway? She clearly doesn't know a fun, entertaining movie when she sees one.
-- Terra Davidson
Hoo boy. It sounds like the reviewer decided that if she was going to be damned, she might as well be damned for a reason. Good for her. I certainly enjoyed the review more than the fence-sitting "It was okay. Good special effects!" from my local paper, and she summed up the problem with the "Star Wars" universe masterfully.
-- Kris Nelson
I expected far greater from you and Salon. Your review was laughable given how far off the mark it was. I suggest you consider the context in which this film was made. [For me] and many of my contemporaries(fan-boys as you so claim), who at age 8-15 saw "Empire Strikes Back" in the theatre originally, who on averaged owned $50 of related toys, this installment is everything we've always wanted to see from Lucas. He illustrated all of our fantasies ... the events we had heard of in lore but could only imagine.
Yet the depth of the film reaches beyond the sheer eye candy, and your meager attempt to be sensational would have been bearable had you made any mention of the larger elements and themes involved in the film. You make no mention of the social commentary put forward in both the hesitant use of cloning, the negative effects of consumerism and technology's general negative effect on the nurturing family. I suggest you read a bit of Joesph Campbell if you wish to take a further stab at intent (given your limited attention span maybe the books on tape would be better).
Context is the key, and to write a review of the single most influential story of a generation without placing it in context is simply poor journalism. Remember this is Salon, not Rolling Stone or Spin. (It appears you yearn to run in those circles given the lack of intelligent insight you warrant your work.)
Oh, and since when did ones religious beliefs dictate what one looked like? Talk about stereotyping: "Looked like a Jew?" You should be ashamed of yourself. You are entitled to your opinion but save your high school era fashion attacks and stereotyping for the simple-minded magazines you so long to write for and leave these pages open for perceptive free thought so that we may tackle the greater issues.
I propose this: "Attack of the Clones" is the greatest of Lucas's cautionary tales. He asserts that western society ineffectively operates based on perceived knowledge and not true wisdom. Your review is a standing testament.
-- Ryan Troy
Get Salon in your mailbox!