A Good Prequel

Rating: 6/10 (30 June 2019)

Introduction:
The Phantom Menace is a good movie. I'm not afraid to say it. I think it's a good movie. I believe the criticisms against this film, are invalid. They should be reevaluated. And like many, I use to hate the film, and be another sheep. But upon thinking it over, thinking about the problems with the film, and the criticisms that I knew were weak or hypocritical: and I came to the conclusion that the Phantom Menace is a good movie. It's probably my least favorite prequel, but I still enjoy it. The Phantom Menace is a criminally underrated movie, that gets unnecessary amounts of hate.
Defense:
Common criticism and complaints against the Phantom Menace include, a bad script, bad acting, too much needless CGI, and Jar Jar Binks. I believe all these criticisms are ridiculous and invalid.
1. Bad Script
The supposed horrible script is not amazing, but it's certainly not terrible. Many complain that the film contradicts the original trilogy, with mediclorians. As according to the film, they are the force. Which is not true. They are a way of measuring the force. They are not the force itself. So it doesn't contradict what Yoda said. Or many might complain that it removes the fantasy elements from the films. No it doesn't, because the organisms are not the force itself. And even if it does, so what? I don't see the problem. Look at this film's IMDb page, and look at the genres, it is labeled as a fantasy film.
But that's not what people complain most about, it's the badly written characters, or the fact the film doesn't a center character. But are they badly written? I would say no. And I believe the center characters are Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan, it can have two. I will discuss all the characters, and explain how they are written fine.
Qui-Jon is a Jedi master who doesn't fully believe in the Jedi Code, an important part of this trilogy. He is not a slave of the Jedi teachings, and can often disagree with them. Obi-Wan is very different from that, he is a little more devoted to the Jedi teachings. Anakin is a hopeful little slave boy, who has a dark future ahead of him. And many might complain about the choice to make Anakin 9 years old. But George Lucas, who created Star Wars, as creator has the freedom to do what he wants. And can really only be criticized in this field if he contradicts himself, which he doesn't do. Padme, even though he puts up a bland and emotionless exterior, shows more emotion, when she's not performing her duties as Queen.
Darth Sidious is the dark puppet-master of the films events. Manipulating the characters, and planning bigger things for the future. Darth Maul is his emotionless assassin, who hunts down and kills who he's told to, without mercy. So I never got this argument.
Also, many complain that the characters aren't focused on enough. But, if it was a character driven story, it is a valid criticism. But it's not, it's a setting driven story. As they go from location to location. And galactic politics mostly drives the story. So the characters are focused on enough for this kind of story.
So, the criticism of the writing has been debunked.
2. Bad Acting
The supposed bad acting in this film is another criticism I don't understand. If this was any other film, it would be bad. But in the context of the film, the performances make sense. The Jedi are established as emotionless, and as I mentioned before, when Padme was being the Queen of Naboo, she would put on a bland exterior. But when not performing her queenly duties, she was quite a fun person.
And the acting of Jake Lloyd wasn't terrible, as he acted like a real child. And the chemistry he had with the actor playing his mother was very convincing.
I think the claim that the film has bad acting needs to be better thought out. Because the way this film is written, the acting serves it's intended purpose, and is bland by design.
3. Needless CGI
People complain that the effects and CGI is overdone and unnecessary. Well, what if I told you the criticism is invalid? And that the film the has more practical effects than CGI? The film has real sets, real props, and real models. The Naboo Palace was a set that was built. Many of the ships they fly in were real models and actual sets. And many of the pod-racers were actual models built. And well yes, there is CGI. That shouldn't be criticized.
At the time it looked amazing. Jar Jar Binks, love him or hate him, was the first fully CGI character. Which should be commended not condemned. How come when somebody revolutionizes film making, they are praised, someone like Dziga Vertov, who pioneered many filming techniques in the 1920's, technique still used today? But when George Lucas does something arguably more inventive, he's hated? It's hypocrisy!
4. Jar Jar Binks
Now here's the elephant in the room, Jar Jar Binks is a terrible character. And I agree with this one, mostly. Many claim Jar Jar is pointless, and doesn't add anything. And you can hate this characters all you want, I'm that big a fan of him. If you don't like a character, that's fine. My issue the fact that many claim he's pointless. When he isn't, if our heroes didn't come across him, how would they get to the Gungan City. They didn't know where it was. But no, pointless. He also serves the purpose of being comedy relief. Something C-3PO and R2-D2 did, and personally, I wan't a fan of them either. Jar Jar Binks is fine, and so is R2 and 3PO.
Conclusion:
After debunking all that criticism, is your mind changed? If not, that's fine. Your opinion is your's to have. And I shouldn't force you to like something. The film is not 100% perfect, but it's not deserving of hate. If you upon reevaluation still hate the movie, I don't feel the need to force my opinion on you.