Most critics agree that Attack of the Clones is an improvement on The Phantom Menace, though fewer are willing to call it good. Praise clusters almost entirely on the final act: the Geonosis battle, Yoda’s lightsaber duel and Christopher Lee’s Count Dooku are named again and again as the moments the film comes alive. The digital effects and spacecraft design are admired even by reviewers who dislike everything else. Variety is the warmest, finding clearer storytelling and a real step forward in acting and score.
The reservations are just as consistent. Stiff performances, flat dialogue and a romance without chemistry appear in nearly every notice, with Roger Ebert dismissing the film as a technological exercise short on delight. The spread is wide, from Variety’s near-rave to Sight and Sound and Screen Daily, who find it exhausting and forgettable. A later piece in /Film argues the film was ahead of its time on politics and noir, a minority view.
V
Variety
8 May 2002 · Todd McCarthy
80*
Lucas has produced a grand entertainment with clearer storytelling, exciting action set-pieces, a dramatic love story through-line and improved acting and score. McCarthy calls it a big leap beyond the prior installment and a satisfying balance of the series' qualities.
Read the full review →T
The Telegraph
16 May 2002 · Tim Robey
75*
The critic calls the film a pleasant surprise and an improvement on Episode I, noting it meets expectations without overhyping and darkens effectively in later acts. They single out the improved Yoda action sequence and Christopher Lee's Count Dooku for praise.
Read the full review →G
The Guardian
10 May 2002 · *** · Peter Bradshaw
70*
The critic finds the script clunky and many performances poor, singling out Jar Jar Binks and Natalie Portman's acting for complaint, but praises the remarkable effects and the rousing final act with Christopher Lee as Count Dooku. Overall, it is called an improvement on The Phantom Menace and a watchable, entertaining spectacle.
Read the full review →N
The New Yorker
13 May 2002 · Anthony Lane
70*
The film improves on its predecessor with considerable visual style, beautiful spacecraft and grand digital invention, despite an incomprehensible plot and stiff acting. Lane highlights the delirious fun of the action sequences and the potential of liberated digital technology.
Read the full review →S
Slant Magazine
8 May 2002 · Ed Gonzalez
60*
The critic calls it a modest step up from The Phantom Menace thanks to trimmed fat, visceral action, and better pacing in places, but faults the soulless factory-like production, rudimentary character links, hokey romance, and uneven storytelling. The Geonosis battle sequences earn particular praise for being riveting.
Read the full review →T
Time Out
20 February 2014 · ★★★ · DW
60
After a slow start in the prior film, this entry delivers thrilling early action and strong turns from Christensen and McGregor, though it suffers from heavy exposition as a bridge in the saga; the final act with lightsaber battles and Yoda provides exciting payoff.
Read the full review →The review finds the film patchy with flat dialogue and an awkward romance but praises the restored spectacle and action in the final act, especially Yoda's lightsaber fight, positioning it as a functional if unvital bridge in the saga.
Read the full review →R
RogerEbert.com
10 May 2002 · ★★/4 · Roger Ebert
50
The film disappoints as a technological exercise lacking juice, delight, memorable dialogue or emotional depth. Ebert praises the computer imagery but criticizes the stiff, formal performances and clichéd romance.
Read the full review →H
The Hollywood Reporter
5 May 2002 · Kirk Honeycutt
50*
The critic notes improvements over The Phantom Menace, including reduced Jar Jar Binks, stronger action sequences, and a more adult tone, but finds it fails to recapture the spirit and fun of the original trilogy due to slow exposition, stilted dialogue, wooden performances, and overreliance on CGI. The standout praise goes to the rousing rescue and climactic battle in the final quarter.
Read the full review →Better than The Phantom Menace thanks to more rounded characters and sharper dialogue in places, but still inferior to the originals because action and effects take precedence over script and characters.
Read the full review →L
Los Angeles Times
13 May 2002 · Kenneth Turan
45*
The prequel is a bit better than the last but still lacks heart, with off-putting characters, stiff line readings and a romance burdened by lack of chemistry. Turan praises some action sequences and the climactic Yoda appearance but finds the film emotionally empty overall.
Read the full review →N
The New York Times
10 May 2002 · festival review · A. O. Scott
40*
The prequel is more a demo reel for digital effects and an action-figure commercial than a compelling movie with interesting characters or storytelling. Scott notes some strong battle scenes but finds the saga lacking in human psychology and genuine pleasure.
Read the full review →An improvement on Episode I with astonishing visuals and some strong acting, but the film is pretentious and exhausting, lacking humour or suspense; sloppy storytelling and colourless characters drain the adventure despite impressive design and spectacle.
Read the full review →S
Sight and Sound
1 June 2002 · Andrew O'Hehir
30*
The critic finds the film enjoyable enough as derivative space opera with strong action sequences and digital settings, but ultimately forgettable and discontented, criticizing the sulky teen romance, abysmal dialogue and Lucas's inflated mythopoetics that fail to recapture the original's spirit.
Read the full review →/
/Film
16 May 2022 · Rafael Motamayor
65*
The critic views the film as a flawed but ambitious mess that was ahead of its time in tackling political themes and noir elements within a blockbuster. They single out the detective subplot following Obi-Wan and the introduction of Count Dooku for praise while noting it does not fully succeed.
Read the full review →Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate