I can't resist pointing out to Stephanie Zacharek that Kermit the Frog actually does ride a bicycle in 1978's "The Muppet Movie." Pre-CGI, it is an animatronic Kermit on a bicycle presumably being towed, or at least kept upright with invisible cables. Nevertheless, a heck of a trick for those last innocent days of special effects.

-- Mike Gebert

Stephanie Zacharek's dismissal of "Attack of the Clones" is an opinion I've heard before, almost as if she ransacked every other reviewer's list of cliched criticisms without looking at the larger picture. There are many valid points -- the choppy editing, the embarrassing scenes involving the "Sound of Music" romance -- but is a "Star Wars" movie in which characters are allowed to show real emotion really that bad? There are a lot of things that I wish Mr. Lucas would have done differently, but I found that my involvement with the characters was light years beyond (and more exciting) than Episode One, and the film was actually paced better than the lackluster "Return of the Jedi," which also suffered!

Maybe I have just come to accept Lucas's ideas on his own terms. Is that so wrong? "Star Wars" has always existed in a filmmaking vacuum, but I'll take it before I see one more lifeless and forgettable action flick like the trash Hollywood has regurgitated over the past few years ("The Mummy Returns," for example). Yes, Lucas was way too expository and should have followed through on the No. 1 rule of storytelling (show, don't tell), but everything in here was a vast improvement on the telling of Episode One, and I don't feel that Ms. Zacharek's supported her argument well. Yoda returned to his playful -- yet at the same time dark and powerful -- nature hinted at in "Empire," Sam Jackson got to act like Sam Jackson should, and Portman and Christensen got to be real people. Even Watto (which is the name of the junk dealer, btw), a CGI creation, got to show some humanity when he recognized that his former slave Anakin was now a powerful man. Touches like this hearkened back to the realism of the first two films of the series. Was it better than "Star Wars" and "Empire?" Maybe not. but it was entertaining, and it elevated my imagination, as all good science fiction/fantasy should.

The other thing that critics seem to hate about the "Star Wars" prequels is the fact that the films are talky and too political. I've actually found the prequel films to be, despite their flaws, very frightening metaphors for what is happening to the world--and namely America--right now. A President who knew of evildoings but lets them happen anyway (Palpatine/Bush). A chancellor who is "beleaguered with problems" and leaves office in disgrace despite his political brilliance (Chancellor Valurum/Clinton). The out-of-control influence of business on politics (the Trade Federation/Enron). The impact of technology and cloning ('nuff said). Maybe that is an oversimplification on my part, but this is myth and metaphor and "Star Wars" is now doing what Star Trek used to do so well before the powers that be at Paramount gave up on real storytelling -- that is, provide a reflection of our own reality.

"Attack of the Clones" is not the greatest film ever made, but its themes and situations were a vast improvement on "The Phantom Menace," and provided me, if no one else, with two and a half hours of "Star Wars" entertainment that felt like "classic" "Star Wars". It also gave me a lot to think about. Most films should be so lucky if they can do one or the other.

-- Adam Throne

It's one thing to have intelligent criticisms of the film, and another to shower contempt upon it and all its fans for no readily apparent reason. This kind of vomit is an embarrassment! Stephanie Zacharek is right about one thing, it's virtually impossible to review this as "just" a movie. It works on levels other films don't even have access to, because moviegoers have an extraordinary relationship with "Star Wars". If I want terrific script and acting, I wouldn't look to any of the "Star Wars" films. I think "Attack of the Clones" succeeds pretty admirably in what it tries to do, and while it's not beyond reproach, it's a wild, enjoyable ride people will flock to see.

-- Elizabeth Durack

Man, the review you posted for "Star Wars" Episode II: Attack of the Clones" was brutal. While I do agree with some of the comments therein (Ewan McGregor is the most emotionally connected actor in the film, the love story between Portman and Christensen's characters is cliched and forced -- no pun intended) I don't think the film was horrible.

"Star Wars" geeks are going to love the Yoda-Dooku battle. They are also going to love seeing the creation of the clone army, Jango and Boba Fett, Mace Windu (Samuel L. Jackson kicks ass and you know it), and the entire "Gladiator" battle.

I also have issues with the statement, "Lucas seems to have gone out of his way to make the plot complicated." Episode I was so childish and simple that the fans want an Episode II with some meat in it. What your reviewer calls "complicated" others would call "intricate."

-- Joseph Prisco

I'm certainly not one to defend George Lucas to the death. But why do I get the feeling that Stephanie Zacharek wrote her Episode II review before she saw the movie? Her critiques of the movie seem to be subordinate to the self-indulgent glee she takes at refusing to give in to mass culture. She gives herself away when she writes in the first paragraph about how daring it is to give a "Star Wars" movie a bad review and warns of torrents of mail from angry fans. "Look at how countercultural I am! Take that, Darth Lucas!" Well, Ms. Zacharek is hardly a voice in the wilderness; if she doesn't like the movie, she should get in line with A.O. Scott, the Onion's A.V. Club, that bastion of nonconformity Entertainment Weekly, and many others. Episode II may indeed stink (I haven't seen it yet), but I'd rather hear so from a review that isn't so proud of itself.

-- Rob Goodman

Recent Stories