Star Wars: The Phantom Menace
Starring: Liam Neeson, Ewan McGregor, Natalie Portman
Written & Directed by: George Lucas
U.S.A., 1999
How good is this movie?
Arguably, the worst crime this film ever committed was being a Star Wars movie. If it wasn’t, if it was just another sci-fi action movie about interplanetary battles, it probably would have gained easy acceptance as a fun Star Wars–like adventure film. But the fact that it was billed as a Star Wars movie meant that people went into it expecting something like the original trilogy. And instead they got something that, despite superficial similarities, differs from the original trilogy in almost every way. Given that, it couldn’t help being a disappointment. But what if we put that aside for a moment and evaluate it as a film in its own right?
Well, it’s actually a pretty good movie! It’s very pretty to look at, with interesting sets and imaginative creatures. The action sequences are great, including battle scenes, fast-paced lightsaber fights, and the thrilling podrace sequence. And, if you’re paying attention, the story of Palpatine’s rise to power is pretty engaging.
The film has its weaknesses, such as the famously annoying Jar Jar Binks. And as an origin story for Darth Vader it feels a bit disappointing. Jake Lloyd isn’t terrible, but he’s not charismatic enough to be compelling as such an iconic character. I would also have come up with a different origin story for C-3PO and left out the virgin birth. And the midi-chlorians. But, over all, I’d still call it quite watchable and entertaining.
How ace is this movie?
Sex and romance do not feature in this movie at all. Most of the characters are preoccupied with other concerns, and even the one child character was produced non-sexually. As in other Star Wars movies, it is platonic bonds that tend to drive the characters, such as Shmi’s maternal love for Anakin, Qui Gon’s mentorship of Anakin, Obi Wan’s loyalty to Qui Gon, Anakin’s friendship with Padmé, and Queen Amidala’s sense of duty to her people.
Any other thoughts?
I said at the beginning of this review that this movie feels different from the original trilogy “in almost every way”, and I meant it. The original trilogy and the prequel trilogy may both be sci-fi action adventures with similar props, but in pretty much everything else they’re as different as can be. The original trilogy takes place in a “used future” that feels grimy and tactile; the prequel trilogy takes place in a shiny, candy-coloured CGI fantasyscape. The original trilogy feels like a children’s story made for grown-ups; the prequel trilogy feels like an adult story made for kids. The original trilogy is a Romance, with antecedents in fairy tales and Arthurian legends; the prequel trilogy is a Tragedy, with antecedents in ancient Greek theatre and Shakespeare. The original trilogy works primarily on the personal level; the political situation is the backdrop against which the heroes’ stories play out. The prequel trilogy works primarily on a grand level; the characters exist to be figures in a political drama. The original trilogy features a romantic sub-plot that is cringingly awful at times; the prequel trilogy… okay, maybe these films have something in common!
My point is that these are two very different series. I think fans sometimes fail to recognise that, and that can lead to misunderstandings between them: fans who love the original trilogy often don’t understand how anyone could love the prequel trilogy, and fans who love the prequel trilogy often don’t understand how anyone wouldn’t. For the first group, part of the problem is that they’re focused on the ways the prequel trilogy differs from the original trilogy. They’re right – it is very different – but that doesn’t mean it’s bad. If you stop comparing it to the original trilogy and view it as a series in its own right, you can see that it has plenty of strengths, and that people who love it have genuine reasons for doing so. For the second group, I suspect their familiarity with the prequel films makes them miss the differences between them and the originals. If you’ve grown up with the prequels as just another piece of the Star Wars saga, it may be hard to understand how disconcerting some people find them. But people who grew up with the original trilogy often had some pretty definite ideas about what a Star Wars movie was, and the prequels did not fit well into that pattern.
Unfortunately, because both trilogies are marketed and sold under the Star Wars label, there’s an assumption that they need to be talked about together. There’s pressure to uncritically accept the prequels as part of the Star Wars story, ignoring their flaws or the ways they sometimes clash with the originals. Some fans rebel against that by denying the existence of the prequels altogether, but that’s also not fair, since it ignores all those films’ merits. It reduces the issue to a simplistic question: do we accept the prequels as “Star Wars”, or do we reject them as “not Star Wars”?
However, just because Lucasfilm or Disney tells us these things go together doesn’t mean we have to think of them that way. We can evaluate them separately and come to separate conclusions about them. What constitutes “Star Wars canon” can differ from person to person. For you, it might include only Star Wars (1977) but not The Empire Strikes Back or Return of the Jedi; only the original trilogy but not the prequels; only the original trilogy and the prequels but not the sequels; or only the original trilogy and the Expanded Universe but none of the other films. But even if you don’t include some movies in your “canon”, you can still watch and enjoy them. If for you the prequels are just sci-fi adventure films with no relationship to Star Wars, then watch them as sci-fi adventure films with no relationship to Star Wars. And if for you the prequels are integral to your understanding of Star Wars, maybe watch the original trilogy on its own some time (ideally, the original cut) and try to understand why it’s beloved in its own right.
Personally, I’ve been a Star Wars fan since back when there was only the original trilogy, and the original trilogy is still the only thing I think of as “canon” Star Wars. There are things I like about the prequel trilogy and things I don’t like. The same goes for the sequel trilogy, and the Thrawn trilogy, and the stand-alone films. But – with a slight exception for Solo – none of them really affects my understanding of Star Wars; the prequel trilogy may as well be a completely unrelated story, and the sequels are glorified fan-fic. You may feel differently about the movies. You may accept the prequels or sequels into your canon. You may even be a fan of only the prequels or only the sequels but not the original trilogy. All the movies (and the books, and the T.V. shows) have their strengths and weaknesses. Like them for what they’re good at and dislike them for what they’re bad at.
Don’t just like or dislike them because they “are” or “are not” Star Wars.
3.5 Stars; 3 Aces
This analysis was partly inspired by the video “What Do We Want From a Star Wars Movie?” by Patrick (H) Willems.
Ace Film Reviews 
What an accurate analysis!
I’m curious — how does <u>Solo</u> affect your understanding of <u>Star Wars</u>? I just checked — I had commented on your <u>Solo</u> review where I talked about how much I enjoyed it because I could disassociate it with <u>Star Wars</u>. And that seems very much in line with what you are saying about the prequel trilogy here in this review.
(I personally had watched the prequels first, so those were my idea of what <u>Star Wars</u> is. When I watched the prequels, I was surprised by how different they were.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
“What an accurate analysis!”
Thanks! 🙂
“I had commented on your Solo review where I talked about how much I enjoyed it because I could disassociate it with Star Wars.”
Yeah, I remember you saying that, and I think it’s a valid way to view the movie. As you say, it’s similar to how I view the prequels. For me, the main thing Solo did was to make Han more likeable. In the original trilogy, Han is presented as a hard-boiled cynical gunslinger who doesn’t care about anyone but himself. But in Solo we can see that Han wasn’t born that way; it’s just that life has been hard on him and he’s had to adapt in order to survive. I also found that Solo changed the way I watch the end of Return of the Jedi. I’ve always found Han’s last-minute fit of jealousy (when he thinks Leia is in love with Luke) quite obnoxious, not to mention irrational. But after seeing Qi’ra (the previous love of his life) unceremoniously dump him, I started seeing it more as a “once bitten, twice shy” situation. Han’s not (just) a suspicious territorial asshole; he’s been hurt in the past and it makes him insecure!
Solo also highlighted something that I think is there in the original trilogy but that I hadn’t noticed before: Han seems to latch onto people quite easily. Consider his relationship with Luke in A New Hope. They only know each other for about a day, and they spend most of that time bitching at each other, yet just before the Battle of Yavin Han asks Luke to run away with him, and he forgoes paying off his debt to Jabba the Hutt in order to come back and save him. In the past I might have attributed that to Luke’s magnetic personality, but maybe it actually says something about Han and how badly he wants friends. He has a similar dynamic with Rey in The Rise of Skywalker, offering her a job within half an hour of meeting her.
In other words, Solo turned Han into a big softie, and I like him much better for it! XD
In contrast, I find the other movies all have either neutral or negative effects on the original trilogy. I’m okay with most of what the sequels did, but I don’t really want to think about everyone dying sad and alone while watching Return of the Jedi. Rogue One didn’t add much to my understanding of A New Hope. And parts of the prequels actually make the original trilogy worse, such as Padmé dying in childbirth (which contradicts what Leia tells Luke in RotJ) or the midi-chlorians. So I ignore all those films when watching the OT.
“(I personally had watched the prequels first, so those were my idea of what Star Wars is. When I watched the prequels, I was surprised by how different they were.)”
You mean you watched the prequels first and then were surprised by how different the originals were?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ahhh, I see! I hadn’t thought about it all that deeply, but this analysis about Han all makes a lot of sense!
Yes, that’s what I meant to say, but I mistyped.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Ahhh, I see! I hadn’t thought about it all that deeply, but this analysis about Han all makes a lot of sense!”
Yeah, I don’t think I thought all that consciously at first. When I saw Solo, I think my reaction to it was similar to yours. But a few years later I re-watched the OT, and I was surprised to find myself viewing Han differently because of the new perspective Solo had given me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“(I personally had watched the prequels first, so those were my idea of what Star Wars is. When I watched the [originals], I was surprised by how different they were.)”
Yeah, I imagine most people who start with the prequels think of that as quintessential Star Wars. It’s actually interesting to me that you picked up on the differences between the two sets of movies. I had sort of assumed that people who grew up with the prequels saw them as “Star Wars” but understood that the original trilogy was also “Star Wars” and so were able to roll the two up together into one coherent package without noticing how different they are. But it sounds like you did pick up on the differences – even if you were coming at them in the opposite direction from me.
Now I’m curious: how did those differences affect your understanding of the series? Did you find the different style of the original trilogy off-putting? Did you prefer it? Did you decide, like me, to view the OT and PT as completely different stories? Or were you able to accept them both as Star Wars, just with different visual and narrative styles?
LikeLike
I don’t think I found it off-putting, just surprising, because I was expecting more of the same. I don’t think I preferred any one way or the other. Coming from the bright, shiny, special-effects-heavy prequels to the grittier, and fewer special-effects-heavy prequel was a little jarring. But of course, it made sense given that the technology for those special effects didn’t exist back then. I think I did view them as separate stories because of how jarring it was. And I viewed them each as Star Wars, just different kinds of Star Wars. The originals are the classic Star Wars that everyone raved about and many of the adults I had encountered grew up on. The prequels were the new kind of Star Wars that I grew up on.
But truthfully, it’s really the Phantom Menace that I grew up on. Somehow, I had watched that one several times. I think I watched Attack of the Clones only 1-2 times. I believe I fell asleep the first time, and then I rewatched it again and I can’t say I liked that movie at all. Revenge of the Sith, I believe, I watched a little bit more often. Anyways, the point is, PM and RotS form the core of the prequel Star Wars I grew up with, and AotC is just…there.
LikeLiked by 1 person