More Maul please, the Dark Side is a politician.

Rating: Null/10 (4 June 1999)

This is a good film. The more I think about it, the more I like it - primarily because I'm looking at it more and more in the context of how it will fit in with Eps IV to VI.
I'm not going to get into Jar Jar, the uncomfortable acting, the incredible widespread use of English, the demystifying of what the Force is (blood transfusion anyone?) or the best sword play on screen since "The Princess Bride".
Quite simply, I think that Darth Maul needed more time on screen. Why? Because good stories have good tension. Maybe it's the "will they/won't they" variety. Often, it's the "good v bad" theme. I remember when Lucas originally tried to sell the Ep IV, one of the reasons that studios turned him down was that the "good v bad" theme was too simplistic. They were wrong. It's the interplay between "good" and "evil" that made Eps IV to VI so great, as individual stories and as a set. Lucas drew very clear lines of who was good and who was bad and then amazed us with a story about how the two intertwined.
While Ep I told a tale about the Trade Federation and the good people of Naboo, the real tension in the Star Wars saga is about the good guys and the bad guys. The Sith have been around for a long time and so have the Jedi. Why, then, was more not done to emphasize the heritage of these sides of the same coin? Ep I could have used Maul & his Master more to paint the dark side. As it was, the dark side was really only represented by a politician. The real and threatened danger of the dark side should have been a lot more palpable, which could have been achieved with more use of the Dark Apprentice. That would have helped establish the "good vs bad" theme which is the glue for the Star Wars epic.