The title is perfect...

Rating: 1/10 (27 August 2000)

Phantom: the story is vanishingly thin.
Menace: five more films are planned.
Those who love this movie loved it before they entered the theatre. Is there any chance that the uncommitted will be won over?
A friend of mine who liked this movie justified his opinion thusly: "Star Wars is all about dumb fun".
I never really saw it that way. It's true that Star Wars, front and center, is synonymous with ground-breaking special effects and white-knuckle adventure. However, the implausible thrills were always tempered with a higher sense of purpose, allegory, dare I say "intellect"? Not exactly Woody-Allen-cerebral; never in your face, but always pervasive. You know what I'm talking about.
With the present episode, the higher level has been stripped away, and the no-brainer elements are turned to eleven. If you are a moviegoer who demands theatrical devices such as plot and character development, you are likely to cringe your way through this movie. Two hours of tooth grinding and slapping yourself on the forehead may necessitate dental care and a trip to the neurologist. If, however, you have not yet reached puberty, or if "dumb fun" is your criteria for the Star Wars series, then put the grey matter in neutral and enjoy.
For better or worse, this is what The Phantom Menace has to offer:
1. FX, FX, and more FX... a computer generated graphic in every frame. If the film has a salient strength, it is the exciting race and battle sequences courtesy of digital technology. Unfortunately, too much of the movie seems contrived as an excuse for the inclusion of special effects "wizardry". Also, in the "everything is possible" world of computer visuals, there is little need of ingenuity (required in the earlier movies). There is LOTS of grandiose, intricate, but ultimately sterile digital scenery. No one will ever scratch their head saying "now, how did they do that"? A programmer was paid to make it happen. Finally, while digital characters replace the rubber-mask technology of yesteryear, there is the uneasy feeling that in ten years' time the digital "Watto" will be no more convincing than the rubber-masked "Greedo".
2. Historical context for future episodes. But, ouch! Maybe it was better not to know? Attempts to lay political groundwork for the later episodes are weak, introduction of key players from later episodes weaker still. Less justifiable is the use of story elements that are inconsistent with the later episodes, such as a biological basis for The Force. I will concede that Lucas is a genius if he can tie up numerous inconsistencies introduced in this episode which do not hold true for the later episodes. Meanwhile, I'm not holding my breath.
3. The story (?) is meandering at best, and at worst an excuse for stringing together a series of special effects scenes. It is hard to see the story as anything other than an afterthought, devised in the editing room after all of the scenes have been shot and/or programmed. Enjoyable if you are enthralled by the thwarting of a droid army takeover of a backward planet ruled by an overdressed child-queen, all thinly veiled as an embargo. "Depth" is "achieved" through frequent superficial religious references. Don't ask why. This is "dumb fun", remember?
4. Characters old and new. The aforementioned emphasis on special effects leaves little time for character development. Yes, you will love Ben Kenobi in Star Wars- you may cry over his fate in that movie, but there is scant opportunity to love him at present. Likewise, you may fear his satanic visage, but given his paucity of screen time you'll never get to know the real Darth Maul. Who knows, maybe he's a sweetheart deep down (just like the more famous Darth)? Also, the silly computer generated characters (one in particular) will almost certainly irritate any viewer with a sense of discernment. On the other hand, said character finally introduces much-needed flatulence humor to the franchise. Isn't it about time?
I can't recommend this movie. It is a one-trick-pony, where special effects are the be-all and end-all. Other aspects of theatrical storytelling are addressed grudgingly or ignored completely. The story rings false, and major players are either reduced to cameos (Samuel Jackson), undeveloped (Darth) or grating (you know who). Sorry George, I was willing to meet you half way, but you just couldn't put down the mouse. (Or the marketing textbook...)