To the critical people: Star Wars had the same supposed flaws.

Rating: 8/10 (12 June 1999)

The things I have to say have already been said here, but because of the huge number of comments on here, I'm sure many people don't read beyond the last day posted or so. So I am going to repeat what I feel and what others have already said, in hopes that someone will actually read this.
Yes, the acting was not particularly good. But does anyone remember the acting in Star Wars? Hello, they cut a scene with Luke in it (with Biggs) because his acting was so bad. And if I had to judge Harrison Ford's acting merits on that one movie, I'd have said his career wouldn't go very far. The dialogue often left something to be desired. But since when did Star Wars ever have amazing, thought-provoking dialogue? If you want a movie with lots of talking, go see a romantic comedy.
As far as comments that the special effects were not much better than those in the original Star Wars movies... What bloody movie are you watching? Are you trying to tell us that Lucas could have created an underwater world in 1977? Are you trying to say that a Greedo, who looks like his head is made out of plastic, is as realistic-looking as Jar-Jar, or that the virtually immobile Jabba is as good as the new computer-generated one? Sorry, but I prefer my aliens to look like something out of this world, not someone in a costume.
No plot? This movie is one of three, so Lucas took the chance to use Episode 1 largely as a set up for the next two movies. It's not really meant as a stand-alone. It's supposed to leave unanswered questions, like who the REAL menace is (note the title, "PHANTOM Menace", for those who haven't figured out that the Trade Federation was not the enemy and who the enemy really is). I also find it strange that some complain about no plot while others complain the plot is too complex- so which is it? Formulaic plot and characters? Of course. But what was Star Wars, if not the ultimate formula movie? Polarized good versus evil, bad guy all in black, good guy in white, scoundrel-with-a-heart-of-gold, etc. Star Wars was not original in any of its individual elements, only in the way it strung them together. In any case, lack of originality does not make a movie bad; what is important is the way the story is told, not the events within it.
I think over the last 22 years or so, some have developed an inaccurate view of Star Wars. It seems like many people who loved Star Wars but didn't like the Phantom Menace have convinced themselves that all of these "undesirable" characteristics weren't present in the original Star Wars. This notion of Star Wars as a perfect movie seems to have developed simply because people enjoy it so much, and to acknowledge the deficits it has, if one insists that such things detract from a movie, would make them question just why they think this movie from their childhood is so wonderful. But it is easy to do this with a new movie that doesn't have two decades of warm fuzzy memories built around it.
Has anyone ever seen the English Patient? Well, there was a movie that was supposed to be about characters and dialogue and it was awful. All they did was create characters I cared nothing about and even disdained. The acting was good, but the plot lacked originality, and the dialogue clearly failed in making me feel for the characters. Yet few say these things about a movie they liked. Perhaps what is really happening is people don't like a movie and are simply looking for reasons, and it just so happens that some of the reasons they cite exist in the very movies they love so dearly. But then, maybe that's just my opinion.