movie: The Phantom Menace Review

[mellowtigger]

For those of you who don't read Slashdot, I must share this opportunity to see some good filmmaking.

Someone has created an excellent review of the movie "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace".  It'll take an hour of your time to see this "movie review" movie.  It's not just a dry enumeration of the failings of the original movie.  The creator put his own head under the axe by creating an actual movie with its own entertaining diversions (with actors, sets, etc.).

It is excellent and well worth your time. It is, unfortunately, divided into 7 parts for YouTube distribution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxKtZmQgxrI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG1AWVLnl48
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdQwKPVGQsY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOlG4T1S2lU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBvp1r2UpiQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORWPCCzSgu0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIWKMgJs_Gs

If nearly 70 minutes of criticism isn't sufficient to give you an idea of the awfulness of the original movie, I'll add my own anecdote to the steaming pile.  The movie was so bad that I completely boycotted the second movie.  George Lucas (or anyone else) did not earn a single penny from me.  I would have boycotted the 3rd movie as well, but I downloaded an advance copy of the script and decided that it had enough redeeming value to make it worth the price of admission.

The 1st movie really was that bad.  If you paid money for a dvd or any other "merchandise", then I really do feel bad for you that your addiction compels you encourage the continuation of such mediocrity.  :(

Comments

[chernovog.livejournal.com]

I disliked the prequel trilogy, and personally liked the third the least. However when it comes to film, taste reigns supreme and mediocrity is subjective. People whose taste I trust liked the films, but they had different expectations and experienced them very differently than I did.

The Star-Wars-addicted straw man in the last sentence is very insulting, by the way.

[mellowtigger]

Yes, it is insulting, but it was intended that way because it's not a straw man argument.

"Collecting" and "joining" are addictive behaviors I've seen in several environments. Most familiar to me is the world of online gaming. People pay money (and also pay monthly subscriptions) to titles that they complain about because of the (legitimate) flaws. The only way to convince companies to release products that are high quality is to refuse to pay them money until the product meets the desired standard.

Instead, however, people pay money anyway because they simply can't stop themselves. Addictive game-collecting and group-joining behavior. EverQuest was called EverCrack for a reason. Visit the forum for any game at http://mmorpg.com and there will be many examples of exactly this counter-productive behavior.

I see parallels with movie production these days. People really do need to learn how to make a personal choice that stifles their own short term gratification in favor of long term principles.

Gamers try to get involved in beta-testing programs. That way, they get to (legally) download the game and try it out for free before offering money for it.

Movie watchers don't have a try-before-you-buy option. They either download (illegally) copies of the film, or they have to suppress their desires until all their friends have seen the film and told them that it wasn't worth the money so their desire withers away.

I advocate in favor of withholding money from undeserving projects while simultaneously giving money to worthwhile projects.

[whitewing.livejournal.com]

I was avoiding commenting on this because that last sentence was so very insulting.

Your whole assumption is that I not only couldn't have enjoyed the Star Wars movie (which I did completely) because you have deemed them so bad, but only my addiction to them made me enjoy them and purchase the DVDs. This so far from the truth.

This is the straw man because you made an argument for me (that I don't find true) then knocked it down in an insulting way as to get no form of rebuttal.

You think the movies were that bad. I don't.

I thought Gladiator was awful. Others didn't. I doubt their addiction to roman movies made them purchase the DVD either.

I firmly and completely vote with my money. I have told people this for years.

[mellowtigger]

But what I would like to hear (rather than "everyone has different tastes" which is a truth too broad to be educational) is an explanation of why somebody liked it and why some other viewer should look to it for particular good experiences.

I linked to 70 minutes of gleeful hatred of the film, chock full of reasons why it was bad filmmaking. Can you link (or, even more fun, write from scratch) an account about how the film entertained you?

I'll be the first to admit that some movies I go see at the theater for no reason other than computer animated explosions. (The latest Transformers movie was like that.) Ninety minutes of adrenaline may be good entertainment, but that's not the same as good filmmaking.

[whitewing.livejournal.com]

While I can tell you about why I liked the films, I simply don't have time right now at 1 am before I leave on a long trip to write it out.

However, here is what I found elsewhere.

http://chris.pirillo.com/star-wars-prequels-vs-the-original-trilogy/

http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/2009/03/why-the-star-wars-prequels-are-actually-good-part-1/