I find it interesting how, even after the "Why don't you people listen to film critics?" message thread, nearly everyone is anticipating seeing Star Wars Episode 2 despite the overwhelming evidence that the movie shall suck. In fact, the best thing I've heard about the movie is that it's supposed to be better than Episode 1. (As our resident New Zealander said yesterday: "Smashing a brick against your head is better than Episode 1." Stating that "it's supposed to better than Episode 1" sounds like a ringing endorsement to see this at matinee prices, if not wait for it to be available on home video.)

One of the movie critics whose columns I read on a weekly basis is Roger Ebert. While I agree with him on most of the films I've seen, I disagreed with him on the most-recently overhyped movie. His major detraction to Spider-Man was the obvious CGI Peter Parker/Spider-Man characters early on in the film. Yes, it's true -- during the first few jumps across the rooftops of Manhattan and Brooklyn the computer-created actor did move unrealistically. Later in the movie, the Spider-Man and Green Goblin characters seemed to be animated much better (or at least looked like they were obeying the basic laws of physics). It is my theory that when the audience was first shown Peter Parker doing Spider-Manesque stunts, Ebert noticed the imperfect animation and, knowing that the movie would feature more of the Spider-Man character swinging around, it soured the movie for him. First impressions.

Now for the upcoming Star Wars movie, Ebert's criticisms are different. Apart from the CGI effects (which, as Stephen pointed out, didn't look that good in the particular theater Ebert screened the movie in as they should be in other theaters), his comments were about the clunky dialogue in the first half of the movie.

When it comes to CGI being used in movies and television, I'm more likely to gloss over mistakes and imperfections. Saying a movie is bad because the newest animation technique doesn't seemlessly blend the animated with the live action is like saying Jason and the Argonauts was bad because the skeletons were obviously the products of stop-motion animation.

But when it comes to dialogue being clunky, lines read as if the characters "seem more like lawyers than the heroes of a romantic fantasy", that I am less likely to forgive. "...that first hour consists of dialogue, as the characters establish plot points, update viewers on what has happened since "Episode I," and debate the political crisis facing the Republic. They talk and talk and talk." This excerpt from his review is what I'm worried about:

"In the classic movie adventures that inspired "Star Wars," dialogue was often colorful, energetic, witty and memorable. The dialogue in "Episode II" exists primarily to advance the plot, provide necessary information, and give a little screen time to continuing characters who are back for a new episode."

Watch an few action/adventure movies. Heck, watch any movies. Now when you're watching, pay attention to the dialogue, how much is actually said. If you listen for it, you'd be amazed at how concise it is. The first half of Attack of the Clones sounds like it's going to be as exciting as an episode of Meet the Press if you add a chase scene.

The second half seems to be given over to a love story that -- if Ebert is correct -- is painful to listen to. I liked how the Han/Leia romantic angle was treated in Empire Strikes Back. It was something that was there, but it wasn't the focus of what was going on. In this new movie, the love story between Anakin and Padme appears to be the main focus. Add that the script was written by Lucas and directed by Lucas, I'm afraid that movie-goers are in for some trite dialogue exchanges for a full 124 minutes.

-FP