A new, amazing, thorough and hilarious critique of The Phantom Menace - Page 2

For me, I would use The Simpsons as an example. I think the first decade or so of the show was one of the best and funniest shows in the history of television but I think that the last 10 years of the show has ranged from OK to utter crap but those newer episodes are never going to dampen my enthusiasm or change my feelings for the great episodes of the series.

Well said, Chad. Unfortunately there are a lot of people unable to do the same.


On a side note, I watched about the first minute of that video and had to turn it off. If anyone could sit through 70 min. of that guy's voice they're a better man than I. Seemed like it would be about as funny as swine flu.

One of the funniest things I've ever seen on the web.
I didn't expect to sit through all 70 minutes of it, but found it compulsively watchable.
More than that, I found it a remarkably well thought out deconstruction of a movie that itself hadn't been well thought out beyond it's most superficial trappings.
See, for me, I could have envisioned being motivated to lavish nearly that same amount of critical attention on Return Of The Jedi - this was the first SW movie I experienced to be a brutally crushing , moviegoing disappointment.
After that, all the criticisms that were heaped upon TPM and the rest of the prequels by (the now older) fans were a big "duh!" to me. I never understood why so few people hadn't dismissed Lucas as a still competent filmmaker long before 1999. The Special Editions revealed explicitly what Lucas's values were as a storyteller circa that time period and how much they had changed. I never saw the prequels as a huge surprise.

Anyways, as far as the 'review' goes- very well done incorporation of clips from the other films as well as the documentary to make his (serious) critical points, as well as providing LOL punctuation. Not every joke hits the mark- but for me the % was overwhelmingly positive. And most of the criticism was surprisingly sound and serious- and applies to MANY overproduced films, especially in the fantasy adventure genres.

In fact, I think this same level of criticism could easily be applied to The Dark Knight, with equal devastation.
I'm surprised given how much money and attention this had, that more thoughtful fans haven't turned on it already.
I think my anticipatory/ reactive trajectory for that film was comparable to many SW's fans experience with the prequels (and TPM specifically). It's taken me over a year to come to accept that this movie- with so many admittedly wonderful individual elements- is a sloppy, incoherent, and foolish mess in aggregate.
A lot of people will dismiss that- until someone sits down and steps you through how idiotic the film is within it's own universe, the way this guy has done with TPM.

BTW, as funny as the review is, I just about fell out of my chair laughing at that Red Dwarf clip that played afterward. The perfect punctuation to the whole thing.
Edited by Paul_Scott - 12/20/09 at 7:38pm

I really enjoyed that 70 min piece (found it via DF).

But what impressed me was that it was also a nice primer on story telling and movie making.

Absolutely.
Lots of basic principles addressed there that any aspiring storyteller should always be conscious of.
For that reason I think this is a helluva piece of work. Anyone dismissing this for being just more snarky SW criticism is really missing out.

I loved the originals and watched them in the theater.
I enjoyed the Prequels as well; I dont find them up to the originals, but I can sit with my 8&10 year old and they cheer like crazy at all the right moments.

 

I rarely ask anything of a film except to entertain me.  That's it.  There are some films that I will praise for their efforts to do more then that, to provide meaning to their effort.

While the Prequel trilogy isn't the greatest thing ever, in comparison to some of the dreck that has managed to rack up box office (Transformers2?  GI Joe the movie?) it's a film I can still enjoy with my kids.

I get that someone didn't like it.  And they felt compelled to write a book about it and some people who are still angry think it's funny.  I'm wondering what's wrong with him that he's so obsessed about it.  Imagine someone doing this same effort with regards to "Godfather III" which I will contend is a far greater sacrilege against the original content.   Or going for twenty minutes about how "Bewitched" the movie is a destruction of good family memories?

We'd think they'd gone mental. 

So, I have to admit, I won't waste time watching through a 70 minute destruction of a film.  If i wanted that, I'll wait for an MST3k version.   And at the moment they pop up on Bluray, I'll grab them right away.  Because just as the original is part of my childhood, my kids enjoyed them.  So..

Enjoyment is always up to the viewer.  But I'd watch "Phantom Menace" in a marathon before I'd have any desire to watch "Transformers2" again..

Quote:
I don't understand how in a forum dedicated to the (fundamentally luxurious) hobby of discussing movies--raving and ranting on them-- people can say that a clever examination of the work of one of the most important filmmakers is a waste of time. Or that in a forum dedicated to watching movies from today and from 60 years ago--restoration and re-release of Snow White ring a bell?--can say that examining a movie from a mere decade ago is pointless?

The style of the piece might be offputting. You might think it's outdated and misguided anti-fanboyism.  But it's smart work: taking the addled voice of a nutball, he plays the Jester; the fool who can tell truths in guise of jokes. The examination is specifically relevant as it considers the downfalls of the "genius" taking sole creative control of his work with no peer input (see also Spielberg retooling aspects of E.T.). More importanly, it is relevant today: consider the three minutes starting at minute 7:00 of Part 6, considering the use of combat and conflict in storytelling. I would wish that every would-be maker of Ironman or Transformers could watch this tutorial on storytelling and learn from it.
Edited by DaveF - 12/20/09 at 9:09pm

>SEARCHING FOR FUNNY

. . . . .

>FUNNY NOT FOUND. DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE Y/N?

>

Seriously, that guy slurs like he had a stroke and then he gets all insulting to people who might actually like 1-3. I couldnt make it past 45 seconds let alone an hour plus.

Secondly - lets assume that the prequil movies are as bad as The Haters say. We'll give Phantom Menace a pass for being the first Wars movie in 16 years. Lucas could have filmed a cinderblock with lightsaber sounds dubbed over the top and it would have made millions. but for the sake of argument, lets say that TPM was a hideous story telling failure. Why then did Attack of the Clones go on to make a bazillion dollars?

Or, lets say that TPM and Clones were both absolutely dreadful movies. Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice etc, etc. Why didn't Sith stall at the box office, making like only 150 bucks for the whole run?  Why didn't people learn their lesson if "They" hated 1 and 2? (Extending that thought a little bit further, if Lucas raped their childhoods as badly as they say, then why was Indy 4 reasonably successful at the box office. If everyone was tired of his shenanigans, surely Indy would have totally failed.)

I'm not saying that TPM wasnt a weak movie. It had the feeling of 16 years of directoral rust coming off of the hull for sure, and I could have done with less Wacky Jar-Jar. But compared to a utter shithole of a script like Transformers 2 (or GI Joe) or an incoherantly edited mess like the Borne flicks, TPM looks like freakin' Citizen Kane.

The first mistake you are making Matt is to think the point of the piece is just to carp in a fanboy way over TMP, because he was disappointed in it as a SW film.
There is a bit of truth in that since the first (two) films were amazing pieces of cinema- fantasy or otherwise.
They were supremely well made, going beyond mere production gloss. They were entertaining stories told very well. But that isn't the main gist I was taking away from this.
It seemed to me, the guys point-of-view is that TMP is simply a very bad movie (a weak conceptual story told in an incompetent way), and when he uses specific comparisons to the OT it is only to illustrate more clearly why and how TMP fails at being a quality fantasy film in general.
You and Tony and others may love it to death- but it really is a dreadful piece of work full of mind numbing inconsistencies, contradictions, inane plot development and foolish clutter.

I can understand someone being put off by the morbid and off color humor in that crops up in pt 2 and after, but the only people seeming to have a problem with this can't even make it a few minutes into the first part.
Edited by Paul_Scott - 12/20/09 at 9:33pm

I don't hate The Phantom Menace as much as most people do, but even I will admit it is a giant turd compared to The Dark Knight. To say that TDK should undergo the same kind of intense scrutiny as Episode I truly blows my mind. It's not often I'm rendered speechless by comments on this forum, but this one certainly had that effect on me.

Then again, we obviously see things quite differently if you found this moron's obnoxious ramblings "one of the funniest things you've ever seen on the web".

don't have time to go through the entire thing but i am impressed w/ a good chunk of the 1st part =). "most impressive" ;)

I should go back and change that to- "with almost equal devastation".

TDK doesn't have the legion of inanities that TPM contains, but it has enough to choke on for me.
I can't make it 10 minutes in anymore without wanting to knock my forehead against the wall to unconsciousness.
Here's a few questions- The school bus is leaving a gaping hole in the side of a building.
Were all the other buses in on the heist? That's a lot more people that he would have to kill.
If they weren't, did they all lack radios? Wouldn't real drivers see there was a poser here and alert the cops that are starting to converge on the bank as the scene ends?
If they were part of the gang- how easy was it to steal a fleet of school buses undetected?
Why does an un-deputized vigilante get a pass for setting off explosives in a densely populated area, yet off duty cops with hockey pads and automatic weapons are not to be taken seriously- who put Batman in charge?
Does having the bat signal on the police department roof mean that the city endorses Batman? wouldn't that open the city up to monstrous litigation over property damage and safety when Batman is setting off explosives to 'intimidate' people? How hard is it to run up a cursory profile of someone who has access to highly advanced weaponry?
Are Abe Lincoln and Elvis the best these guys can come up with?

If the film is consistently throwing things at me that I can't logically accept or question the validity to, then I can't buy into the characters, the premise or stakes of the conflict.
TDK is a hard sell for me now because I see so many sequences that I can't get past.
It's nowhere close to  the 'thinking person's'  action movie that so many of us thought it was at first glance.

Paul:

 

while I won't go into it, because it's unpopular, you hit on some issues.. I admit, I really dislike TDK (and BB) and still think "Batman: Mask of the Phantasm" is BY FAR .. and I mean LEAPS AND BOUNDS the best Batman film.

I understand the nature of the argument of something as "not a good film"  and that's fine.  Like I said, a big part of anything to me is whether or not I find it personally entertaining or not.  I'm sure we all have tastes.  But to me, picking apart a film to say "here's why it's bad" just is a matter of laying out your own personal tastes.
 

For example, there are tons of films I hate, but that doesn't mean they are bad films.  I saw "ET" the first time in the theater and -walked out-.  I thought it was so bad that half way through it I quit and went home.  Outside of Postcards from the Edge, it is the only other film I have ever physically walked out of.  
 

It doesn't mean the film itself was a horrible work, it just wasn't for me.  I personally didn't like it, and found it too hard to get through.  Meanwhile, I sat all the way through "Battlefield Earth" which was absolutely god awful and laughed my ass off at how bad it was.

I don't revere TPM as "a great work" like I said, it was fairly mediocre with a few really fun moments.  But it's something I'm happy my kids enjoy.
 

Sometimes films just exist for their own reason.  I think it's great that this person cares enough to spend time to critique the film.  Again, he has every right to do it, and I'm sure it reaches home with a lot of people who were disappointed with the film.  
 

I'd be much more interested if he made the same effort with sequels that harmed more significant pieces (my example of Godfather III is a good one) or remakes that harmed even the basic point of the original.  "Stepford Wives" remake may have been one of the great bastardizations of a work, but it isn't alone.

To each there own, but I don't think there is a definitive "good/bad" with film.  After all, while most of my favorites are also favorites for others, the fact that I'd include "Back to the Beach" in my Top-25 films or believe "Little Shop of Horrors" is one of the most underrated films in the last few decades wouldn't match everyone's taste.  But that's why they churn out movies.  

(and, just as a point of reference, I believe that Revenge of the Sith IS the film I wanted, and I find it one that is incredibly re-watchable and love the hell out of it)

He is spot-on with his points about the story, plot, and character (or lack thereof) in The Phantom Menace even though it's done in an over-the-top (but entertaining) way. 

Matt
while I agree that what entertains us is largely subjective, I disagree that there few if any objective principles that can be applied to distinguish a good work from a bad work.
And I think this applies to creative outlets beyond film- or at the very least in terms of storytelling across different mediums.
For the arts in general there is structure, clarity, harmony.
In storytelling specifically you have plot, character, themes, etc.
Whether you like a given plot, character, theme etc is a subjective call.
But I think there are objective elements at play that inform and influence, sometimes unconsciously, our subjective reactions.
For example, we don't respond as enthusiastically to a character whose motivations are murky or inconsistent as we would to one who is clear and consistent- whether he is a bad guy or a good guy.
Han remains a fairly consistent character from the first moment we meet him. When he does have a change of heart, it is after his primary motivation has been satisfied (greed= he gets paid off) and it is motivated by the influence the other characters have had on him. Though see him show up to help Luke save the day is a pleasant surprise, it's not an unwarranted change of character. Would anyone disagree that Han (or Vader, or Luke, etc) were examples of 'good' characters?

I said before but I think it's a waste of time to spend so much of your life agonizing over not liking a movie that came out 10 years ago. If this was 1999, I could understand that it was still a fresh to wound to the man. However, it's been 10 years so it's way past time for him to say "Fuck that movie" and just stop thinking about it. I'm sure all of the people posting in this thread that hate The Phantom Menace have managed to do the same so I find it weird and sad that someone can't do that.

Keep in mind that I'm not saying it is or isn't funny, I'm not saying that he is or isn't correct in his critique but I'm fairly certain that if this was any other movie that is as 'old' as The Phantom Menace, people would be wondering why this guy was still worried about it.

I'd say a lot of it is wishful thinking, as in "I really want these films to be good, and they do have the 'brand name' on them...".

Actually, his comments are quite insightful and intelligent, but since you only watched about a minute of what he had to say, you wouldn't know that.

I did not watch the whole clip so I will take you up on this:

Han Solo - Is a loner who is always thinking of himself and just trying to survive the easiest way he knows. He knows what he wants, lives by the moment and tries not to let anything or anyone get in his way. I liken him to the old fashion cowboy , 30s gangster wannabe, modern day street wise hustler type.

Darth Vader - My impressions before the prequels. He is power hungry as you can get. Bent on ruling the universe at any cost he is basically enslaved to his own evil desires and feels that he has to do what he does. While he states that he would rule the universe with his son, that shows there is still some human compassion left in his almost robot like personality.

Lando Calrissian - Basically a businessman who enjoys a profit and still tries to do the right thing when needed. He thinks he is a good guy and that is what drives him to make some decisions that might not be good for the bottom line.

Amidala - Reminds me of a young, naive, ideologist  who generally wants the best for the people she rules. This drive to do what is "right" gets her into situations that she hasn't completely thought through. But it is her 100% belief in what she is doing that drives her "failure is not an option" mentality. The only thing that I say that is way out of her character is when she show sympathy to Anakin after he kills all the sandpeople. Based on all her other actions, I would have thought that she would dis-own him after that.

Anakin - As a boy he is young and innocent. He wants better for his family and friends and like most kids wants to have fun. As the teenager / young adult, he have unprecedented powers, but like most older teens, he can't be told what to do or how to do it. He believes that he is invincibly and that his power makes him right. He has a lot of strength, but not the experience and wisdom to use it correctly. This lack of wisdom leads him to make the biggest mistake he could in the name of doing what he thinks is right.

Darth Maul - Not much character or personality. Just a thug doing what his master instructs him to do. Basically the bad guy put into a movie to die in the end. (red shirt and red eyes and red stripes on his face)

Darth Sidious - A pure evil leader bent on universal domination and power. (like a Hitler) He is playing a game of power because he finds it entertaining. He has no allegiance to anyone - family or friends. Everyone and everything is expendable as long as he achieved his goals.  I often wonder what these people bent on universal / world domination would do once they achieve their goal.

The protagonist of all the episodes is Anakin/Darth Vader. His inner battle between good and evil and the mistakes and redemption that are made. I think episodes 1,2&3 really help put a man and his reasoning behind the dark character that is so ruthless in episodes 4,5 &6. I have often wondered what real life Hitlers and mass killers were like as children. Did they have a normal childhood with parents that loved them? What course of events lead them down such a dark path in life? Episodes 1,2&3 help answer these questions for Darth Vader.

I freaking hate to do this but, personally, Episode I's protagonist is the plot, not a character.  But more than asking that question, I think the appropriate question to ask is why is Episode I set up the way it is...?

Personally, I think if Lucas had made the film just one film, that question wouldn't be asked.  He would've adjusted the story.  The difference between Episode I and Episode IV as introductions to the world is that Lucas didn't know if there would be an Episode V after Episode IV. With Episode I, he knew  he'd make two more...hence how the film is set up.  It's literally set up like an opening chapter to something much, much larger. 

The world, the plot, and the action are the hooks to get you into this world.  The real story begins in Episode II.

I will find out soon enough when my son is old enough but I'm curious to see who he latches on to when I introduce him to Star Wars with Episode I.  What character will it be?

Prequel apologist, I know....sue me.  I love the damn moves.

Guys, if we're gonna deconstruct every movie, than they all fail.

Why doesn't Glinda tell Dorothy to click her ruby slippers together as soon as she has them on her feet?

 

How did the Frankenstein Monster know where his creator lived, and how did he find Elizabeth's boudoir?

How could Scottie Ferguson not know that Madeline Elster and Judy Barton were one and the same person?

The list could go on and on. TPM is far from a masterpiece, but TDK is a very fine piece of film making that has no more plot holes or problems than any other film.

drobbins,

Here's the problem with your assessment about Episode I's protagonist...if there were no other Star Wars films and this was the first, who's story is it?

This is why I've always thought that the protagonist is more the plot than any character.  This is the opening act.  If we had no knowledge of the Original Trilogy or what is to come in Episodes II and III, what you take away from the film is that there was an intergalactic blockade on a peaceful planet.  The Queen ultimately has to fight for her people with the help of two Jedi Knights...

We latch on to Anakin(in a way) because he's a tangent to the story...and what Qui-Gon feels about this boy.  But even that is gone after they leave Tatoonie.  The plot and the resolution to the plot is what keeps us watching(well, some of us.).

Very true, Larry.

I didn't need more than a minute to realize that I didn't have a bit of interest in what he had to say....the same way I feel about the majority of your posts, Robert.

Totally agree.

I already gave a few 'WTF' lapses, and that was just within the first 10 minutes of the film. The other 130 minutes contain plenty more.
I could go down a list and tick them off,  but it wouldn't be nearly as entertaining as the TPM reviewer made his criticism, so I'll save everyone the tedium.
Good stories hold up well to deconstruction. weaker stories require gymnastic rationalizations, and poor stories completely fall apart with the more thought you put into them.
Few movies , if any, are flawless. But I think you can find a whole bunch of classics (and underrated contemporary films) that are thoughtfully constructed, that can be pulled apart and examined, where each part remains sound, yet contributes to a greater sum.

Luckily I can enjoy a movie without picking every single part of it to death. I think I'd make myself miserable if all I did while watching a film was look for its flaws. Instead, I watch movies to be entertained and a film either achieves that goal for me or it doesn't. For example, all I'd heard the past few months was how great Inglorious Basterds was, how it was arguably Tarantino's best effort and one of the best movies of the year. I watched it the other night and was absolutely bored to death. Does that mean it's not a good film? No, but I certainly wasn't entertained by it so on that level the movie was a fail for me. If The Dark Knight has a bunch of plot holes I personally could care less because I was entertained more by that film than have been by any movie in a long time.

I don't think most of your arguments were very good at all.
For instance:


This was a joke. An obvious, hit you over the head joke(and maybe some people don't find it funny), but still a joke.





It's made clear that the department makes no official endorsement of Batman, but that Jim Gordon(who is not the Police Commissioner yet) has an "officially frowned upon" connection with him. We hear the Mayor denying any official endorsement of Batman when he's being interviewed on live television. The Bat Signal is called "faulty equipment"; no one admits what it is. And governments and city officials denying that they have a connection with people or organizations doing illegal things is a part of popular storytelling, is it not?

And, this is Batman. The comic book character has existed for seventy years, and for about 68 of those years Batman was summoned by Commissioner Gordon to police headquarters with a skylight called the Batsignal. No one figures out that Bruce Wayne is Batman, even though this would seem to be a cinch for the police or at least the FBI(still, Bruce does at least have a better disguise than Clark Kent ). Even in a "realistic" approach to the material, people expect there to be a Batsignal, a Batmobile, a secret identity, a utility belt filled with gadgets and other unrealistic elements. Without them, it wouldn't be Batman.

 

Edited by Larry Sutliff - 12/21/09 at 3:22pm

That's fine Brent.

The first time I watched it, I was swept up in the films relentless pace and left the theater feeling quite entertained (or at the very least, that I got my money's worth).
It was on subsequent viewings, where I could sit back and process just what was going on, that I started seeing big lapses of logic and structural problems. They stick out like sore thumbs to me now.
I'm not contending that the film is no longer entertaining (although it is much less so to me now), just that it has far too many problems based on simple logic to still be congratulated on being a thinking mans action movie.


Also, while discussing storytelling in general is probably germane, I don't want to get hung up on TDK minutiae in this thread. If someone wants to move the discussion to a TDK thread, I'll expand on the problems I see with it.
Though I will understand if no one wants to
Edited by Paul_Scott - 12/21/09 at 11:34am