Ebert's Review of TPM

Found this on the net today. He makes great points about the film and the saga. He hits the nail on the head as to what the films are, and have always been, about. I think ppl who dislike expect more than that and don't like it. It's also a good read.
(Oh, and it's interesting to note that he is one of few critics who liked TPM but disliked AOTC. It's the other way around in most cases).

found this on the net today. Ebert makes some excellent points about the film and why I think people miss the boat on what the film, and the saga as whole, is about(i've highlighted those points). I consider him to be the best and most honest critic out there today, and his opinion is the only one I listen to on a film.

STAR WARS: EPISODE I--THE PHANTOM MENACE
*** 1/2 (PG)

BY ROGER EBERT

If it were the first "Star Wars" movie, "The Phantom Menace" would be hailed as a visionary breakthrough. But this is the fourth movie of the famous series, and we think we know the territory; many of the early reviews have been blase, paying lip service to the visuals and wondering why the characters aren't better developed. How quickly do we grow accustomed to wonders. I am reminded of the Isaac Asimov story "Nightfall," about the planet where the stars were visible only once in a thousand years. So awesome was the sight that it drove men mad. We who can see the stars every night glance up casually at the cosmos and then quickly down again, searching for a Dairy Queen.


"Star Wars: Episode I--The Phantom Menace," to cite its full title, is an astonishing achievement in imaginative filmmaking. If some of the characters are less than compelling, perhaps that's inevitable: This is the first story in the chronology and has to set up characters who (we already know) will become more interesting with the passage of time. Here we first see Obi-Wan Kenobi, Anakin Skywalker, Yoda and R2-D2 and C-3PO. Anakin is only a fresh-faced kid in Episode I; in IV, V and VI, he has become Darth Vader.


At the risk of offending devotees of the Force, I will say that the stories of the "Star Wars" movies have always been space operas, and that the importance of the movies comes from their energy, their sense of fun, their colorful inventions and their state-of-the-art special effects. I do not attend with the hope of gaining insights into human behavior. Unlike many movies, these are made to be looked at more than listened to, and George Lucas and his collaborators have filled "The Phantom Menace" with wonderful visuals.


There are new places here--new kinds of places. Consider the underwater cities, floating in their transparent membranes. The Senate chamber, a vast sphere with senators arrayed along the inside walls, and speakers floating on pods in the center. And other places: the cityscape with the waterfall that has a dizzying descent through space. And the other cities: one city Venetian, with canals, another looking like a hothouse version of imperial Rome, and a third that seems to have grown out of desert sands.


Set against awesome backdrops, the characters in "The Phantom Menace" inhabit a plot that is little more complex than the stories I grew up on in science-fiction magazines. The whole series sometimes feel like a cover from Thrilling Wonder Stories, come to life. The dialogue is pretty flat and straightforward, although seasoned with a little quasi-classical formality, as if the characters had read but not retained "Julius Caesar." I wish the "Star Wars" characters spoke with more elegance and wit (as Gore Vidal's Greeks and Romans do), but dialogue isn't the point, anyway: These movies are about new things to look at.


The plot details (of embargoes and blockades) tend to diminish the size of the movie's universe--to shrink it to the scale of a 19th century trade dispute. The stars themselves are little more than pinpoints on a black curtain, and "Star Wars" has not drawn inspiration from the color photographs being captured by the Hubble Telescope. The series is essentially human mythology, set in sp

 

Man, he really understands Star Wars. Maybe more people will be able to see the films in this light in the future. We can only hope...

 

Yes, and if I recall correctly he gave Phantom Menace three and a half stars and AOTC two and a half, mainly because of the love story. And on many respects, even tho I do like Attack of the Clones, I agree TPM was the better movie.

 

Hmmm, interesting review.

 

Unfortunately, he did an almost about-face with AOTC. Blame it on his "hearing" problem

 

Ebert was dead on with his Phantom reveiw so his about face on Clones was surprising. All the reasons he praises TPM are the same reasons he critizes AOTC. What's up with that. He didn't mind that TPM's dialogue was average (his opinion) yet he can't get over it for AOTC.

 

Very good read. Nice post, jbird.

 

Meh........critics.

Hit the nail on the head, didn't I?

 

He does seem to be making a sincere attempt to understand the films. But he also seems to be playing apologist. That is, he seems to go a bit easy on the movie's faults.

Admittedly, his review puts a very good spin on the film, and is close to what I feel is an appropriate perspective. But it never addresses the perhaps inexplicable feeling of displeasure that I had at watching it. Many people, for whatever reason, didn't enjoy the films, and it doesn't seem like he makes much of an attempt to explain that.

 

This is a review that reflects very much how I feel about TPM, and in fact all of the Star Wars films. Sure the dialogue is campy, just as it always was with the OT (although I didn't think so when I was 8 years old). The only real disagreement I have with this review is this line:

"... [Star Wars movies] are made to be looked at more than listened to ..."

I think the music and sound effects are two of the most important elements of Star Wars films, and that is as true for TPM as any other.

EDIT: clarity

 

That was a pretty good review, though it's too bad(and wierd) Ebert didn't like AOTC. Personally, I love both the Prequels. Anyways, Lord Dark Helmet is right about the sound. Lucas may not care too much about the dialogue, but he definitely cares about the music and sound effects.

 

very nice, i got into a good argument with my film teacher that thinks that NT should have never been made. He said there was no breakthroughs and it was just boring.

Well that being said i was fairly upset. I try not to let NT bashers get to me but they do.

 

Saying something is boring is a matter of opinion. I won't dispute that opinion of your teacher. But saying the prequels have had no breakthroughs is ridiculous.

 

I think the music and sound effects are two of the most important elements of Star Wars films, and that is as true for TPM as any other.

I agree completely.

 

I dig Ebert a lot. I truely believe that he's one of the only critics that actually enjoys movies nowadays. Even if I don't agree with him I can usually see where he's coming from, though to be honest his review of AotC almost made me puke. Have issues with the romantic dialogue and political mumbo jumbo all you want, but don't give a movie the thumbs down just because it wasn't shot on film. All we should care about is the message itself, not the medium it's delivered by (I'm so proud of how quasi-profound I made that sound . That or I just made an ass out of myself).

On a more on topic note... uh... nice review. Me agree.

 

But saying the prequels have had no breakthroughs is ridiculous.

Breakthroughs in what? TPM had the best effects I've seen to date, but it wasn't new effects, it was current technology done well.

 

Well, one of breakthroughs of TPM were the digital characters, in particular Jar Jar. It helped pave the way for more realistic and truly physical interaction between "living" CG creations and live actors.

 

Digital cameras used for AotC. A complete, fully functional CGI character that interacts with humans.

 

kinda ironic coming from Ebert, that he didn't mention the lack-luster script, the dry dialogue, the wooden acting, or anything much other than that it looked cool

I still say TPM was a failure in terms of the rest of the saga

by itself, it would've been a fine movie, but it has a reputation, a story, and standards to live up to if it's supposed to be part of the same stories that the OT gave us

 

I like Ebert, but he's too contradictory of himself sometimes, especially when it comes to special effects. Besides his differing opinions of the Prequels, most recently I've noticed him being contradictory of himself again. He praised Van Helsing and The Day After Tomorrow mostly because of the special effects. However, he disliked Troy, using the argument, "I think people are tired of CG armies" (or something along those lines).

So he praises two films because of the "overuse of CG", and dislikes another film for the "overuse of CG".

I would call that contradiction.

 

Ebert's gotten a little goofy since Siskel died. He's way too political now, and he's doing that back and forth stuff a lot. I mean, he gave Garfield 3 stars. It's one of the most trashed movies I've seen on rottentomatoes ever.

 

Kind of odd Ebert would complain AOTC of getting too political. I thought TPM had much more of that, something I actually didn't mind. Lucas actually cut out alot of the politics in AOTC.

 

Well - the originals were "morality plays" and were meant to be listened to. So, I can't agree with his assessment of what Star Wars, it is a fairly good review.

I LOVE the beginning paragraph.

 

TPM definitely is a pretty movie. But I don't go to movies just to see prettyness. I want story. Which is why I will probably never love TPM, though I certainly do have a fondness of parts of it (I love the Queen Amidala thing and all the politics)

I do think that Ebert got perfectly though the reasons WHY the characters fell flat: this is part one of a trilogy. It had to set things up. I appreciate TPM much more after seeing AotC. I can only hope that this will increase even more when I see RotS.



The Cleric 007

 

I just don't understand how some people end up not loving these films.