Clue (1985)

In what is said to be the first film based on a board game, audiences are handed a delightful mad-cap dark comedy with plenty of screwball antics. It may be easy to dismiss Clue as little more than a gimmick, what with its source material and three different endings, but it is also a lot of fun to watch. A good viewing experience counts for quite a bit and Clue is more than just a guilty pleasure.

Six strangers attend a mysterious dinner event at a secluded New England estate. The butler reveals that a seventh guest, Mr. Boddy, is the one secretly blackmailing them all and informs them that the police are on their way. Boddy counters by encouraging the guests to kill the butler, destroy the evidence, and everyone walks away. When the lights go out, Boddy is killed, leaving the guests to sort out whodunit before the police arrive.

This film was a mixed bag with critics when it was released and I can see why, if you assume that those critics only got to see one ending of the film. On home video, two endings are presented as possibilities and the third as the real ending. The two false endings involve a single mastermind behind all the killing. In the ending listed as the real one, there are multiple murderers for multiple reasons. It’s hard to swallow the two false endings because they border on ridiculously intricate to pull off. The mass chaos of the third ending is both amusing and much more believable.

The more familiar you are with the murder mystery genre, the more you will probably appreciate this film. Most of the characters are based on stereotypes from the genre, so there is actually quite a bit of subtlety and nuance to Clue. If you’re not familiar with the genre much at all, you will still find it amusing for the witty banter and physical comedy. Either way, there is something to like here.

As for the other aspects of the film, they all do their job but they don’t stand out. The sets give off the right stuffy-mansion-playing-host-to-murder vibe and the music is appropriate to the genre as well. The combination of ingredients makes this film a good time for most, which elevates it above mere guilty pleasure status. It’s harmless fun that no one should fault you for watching or passing over when you come across it on the TV.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

Ray* (2004)

When I watched this film with my wife, it was the first biopic I watched in over a year (no, Magic Mike doesn’t count) and the first good biopic I had seen in almost two years. Watching Ray reminded me that biopics can be more than just Oscar bait. The filmmakers certainly sugarcoat Ray Charles’s life toward the end of the film but they do not shy away from dragging us through the mud and muck that Charles endured. Disability, racism, womanizing, and addiction haunted Ray Charles through much of his life but his ability to overcome most of his personal demons is every bit as inspiring as the talent he possessed.

The film starts out when Ray Charles is a young boy growing up on a sharecropping plantation. As if growing up in poverty and watching his brother drown in freak accident weren’t enough, Ray started losing his sight at just seven years old. Determined to prevent her son from accepting a life of helplessness, Ray’s mother forces him to adapt to his new world and trains him to listen and feel his way around a space. Upon discovering a knack for the piano, Ray surprises many on his way to the top of the music business. Blindness may not hold him back but other demons haunt him every step of the way.

Like most biopics, Ray is almost always focused exclusively on its titular character. We learn and see very little that does not take place within the immediate vicinity of Ray Charles. It’s a limiting perspective but also a necessary one when a film tries to cover as much time as Ray does. What the film lacks in introspection from its supporting cast is made up for in Jamie Foxx’s performance.

One of the biggest gripes against biopics comes when the lead actor or actress doesn’t look enough like the film’s subject. It can be even more trouble for musical biopics when characters cannot bring the stage presence or signing ability of the film’s subject. Neither is the case here, as Jamie Foxx looks, moves, sings, and howls like the late Ray Charles. Foxx benefits by having half of his face covered by Ray’s signature dark sunglasses most of the time but looking the part is only part of making a biopic work. Foxx is believable and infuses his character with humanity, both the good and bad parts.

If you know little about Ray Charles’s life beyond his music, this movie will probably leave you thinking a little less of him. Yes, it shows how Charles overcame a number of obstacles in his life but it also shows his stubborn unwillingness to give up a few too. This is not the squeaky-clean, Diet Pepsi-hawking Ray Charles you know from TV but biopics are all about showing a little dirt and a few rough edges. Had the whole film had been as hagiographic as the on-screen epilogue (basically saying he was a wonderful man the rest of his life), audiences would have revolted and the film would have been a disaster.

Overall, Ray is a very strong film built on Jamie Foxx’s exceptional performance. There are a few odd, almost trippy visions that Charles has that don’t make a lot of sense and are never fully explained. Most of them are designed to send us into a flashback but it’s a very weird way to segue through an otherwise normal dramatic film. Foxx alone makes the film worth seeing but tidying up a few of the other pieces would have nudged this film into my ‘great’ category.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

Finding Nemo (2003)

This is one of those films that everyone assumes you saw. Dozens of jaws dropped over the years when friends and acquaintances found out I had not, in fact, seen this yet. Go ahead and tell me that it’s about time so you get it out of your system. I’ll wait. Ready? Okay. While a decade of hype might normally leave me feeling underwhelmed, Finding Nemo actually lives up to its reputation as a beloved and entertaining film.

After losing his wife, Marlin (Albert Brooks) grows exceedingly protective of their son Nemo (Alexander Gould). After an act of rebellion results in Nemo being taken away by humans, Marlin takes what few clues he has and sets off on a journey to rescue his son. While Nemo gets to know his new tankmates in Sidney, Australia, Marlin enlists the help of Dori (Ellen DeGeneres), a cheerful fish with short-term memory issues.

The animation in this film is just gorgeous. Pixar’s artists go to great length to capture the subtleties of aquatic environments, not to mention their mesmerizing color palettes. Very little of the underwater action looks like it defies physics. Rather than hold the various sea creatures in static positions, you see their fins moving to keep them relatively still or they bob up and down as they shift their bodies to navigate the ebb and flow of underwater currents. This attention to detail does not go unnoticed by the subconscious mind or to those of us who pay attention to that sort of thing.

Storywise, Finding Nemo is pretty simple but effective. A father’s unfailing love causes him to risk it all to find and rescue his child. What good, loving parent wouldn’t do the same? While working out father-son issues on film can easily turn cheesy, schmaltzy, and/or preachy, the writers find a way to avoid most of the pitfalls. The split storylines of Marlin’s determination and Nemo developing self-confidence show each character growing individually, which makes their relationship at the end of the film work. There’s no one-sided revelation to the resolution and that is appreciable.

Since Pixar films are not musicals, it really forces the animation, story, and characters to be that much better. Marlin starts out overprotective to the extreme, which is wince-inducing but also comical. Dori’s memory issues help jazz up her archetypal sidekick role. Marlin appreciates her eagerness (which is usually the annoying thing about sidekicks) but her constant amnesia frustrates him to no end. His loyalty and conscience prevent him from abandoning her. Nemo, on the other hand, is just a kid trying to cut the apron strings, so both father and son work really well. The misfits Nemo meets in Sidney are all very entertaining which prevents Nemo’s side of the story from growing too depressing.

I had a very difficult time rating this film. The story is very strong and the characters are all very engaging but there are a few minor quibbles with content that goes way over the heads of children. Reformed sharks holding an intervention to prevent a peer from falling off the wagon and eating a fish? That’s a bit much. Also, while it blows my mind how Pixar manages to improve their animation quality film after film, I felt as though I couldn’t rate this film higher than Toy Story. Sure, Nemo looks better and nails all the other ingredients but should Toy Story hold a higher place for coming first? It’s a similar struggle that I have with Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back. Perhaps additional viewings will help me sort it out.

RATING: 4 out of 5

Little Fockers (2010)

Call me crazy, but I’ve always enjoyed Meet the Fockers over Meet the Parents. Some try to argue that the sequel brought down the quality of the series but I think it holds its own just fine. This poorly conceived dud, however, deserves all the criticism thrown at it.

Greg and Pam Focker (Ben Stiller and Teri Polo) are preparing for their twins’ fifth birthday party while also nearing the completion of building a new home. When Greg’s father-in-law Jack Byrnes (Robert De Niro) approaches him about becoming the heir of the Byrnes-Focker family throne, Greg reluctantly accepts. This leads to even more scrutiny and opinion from Jack about how Greg’s children should be raised. As if brochures for private schools and delayed construction schedules aren’t enough, Jack inadvertently uncovers aspects of Greg’s secret promotional work for an erectile dysfunction medication. Rather than question Greg about the few pieces of evidence he finds, Jack assumes Greg is having an affair and sets off on a mission to bring down his son-in-law.

A chief problem in this film is that Greg’s children (the titular little Fockers) aren’t featured enough. The humor in the Meet films is largely situational and it works best when Greg is trying to impress his father-in-law. In Meet the Parents, Greg was trying to make a good first impression on his future in-laws. In Meet the Fockers, Greg is trying to give Jack a good first impression of his parents. This time around? It feels more like Jack is trying to cement his legacy rather than Greg trying to do anything impressive.

There are only a few scenes where Greg has humorous moments with his kids. The rest of the time he’s arguing with Jack or sneaking around to do his promotional work. I can see Greg finally being at the point of sticking up for himself and dishing it right back at Jack but sometimes these moments feel a little too mean-spirited for a goofy comedy. When, at long last, the two come to blows, the fight scene alternates between being too corny and too serious.

Greg is a nice guy and means well. Jack should know this by now, so his jump to the conclusion that Greg his a cheating scoundrel is unrealistic. What we really need from this film is Jack to make a few choice comments about parenting styles, Greg to try to impress Jack and fail, and conclude with Greg being himself and showing Jack that that results in a loving bond with his children. Instead, we get more cheesy post-CIA paranoia antics, a lot of crude humor stemming from the nature of Greg’s side work, and not enough of what made the first two installments work.

Astounding as it may seem, Little Fockers came just $20 million short of matching the box office haul of Meet the Parents. Ordinarily that may suggest an additional sequel but I highly doubt one will surface given the terrible reviews it got from critics and audiences alike. Maybe it was the change in director or a change on the writing team. Or maybe the concept and characters were milked for all they were worth after two films. Whatever the case, the well seems to be mostly dry and what little is brought up in the bucket is tolerable at best but leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

RATING: 2.25 out of 5

SECOND HELPINGS: Return of the Jedi (1983)

After the emotional gut-punch of The Empire Strikes Back, George Lucas intended to wrap his Star Wars trilogy up with a crowd-pleaser. Instead, he delivered a film that still has hardcore Star Wars fans drawing lines in the sand to this day. For some reason, there is not much middle ground on Return of the Jedi. You either love it or you don’t. I’ve never understood the lack of middle ground but, then again, I happen to love this film.

When I was a kid, this was my favorite of the original trilogy films. As I grew up, I came to understand the flaws of Jedi and it fell to the bottom of the list (again, original trilogy only). I still think that this film is more fun to watch than Empire but that’s probably because I don’t mind the Ewoks as much as some people do. More on them later though. First we should consider the most important elements of the film.

The central conflict of the film is pretty lazy. A second Death Star certainly poses a threat to the Rebel Alliance but it’s nowhere near original. This latest time around, the stakes have changed what with the Emperor on board and no thermal exhaust port trenches to make easy work of destroying it. Having Luke aboard during the Rebel’s assault might have increased the tension but I realize now that I never honestly thought about Luke being in danger. I am not sure why that is. Perhaps I just assume the hero will survive.

The rescue of Han Solo from Jabba’s palace at the beginning of the film allows Lucas to add a plethora of exotic creatures to the Star Wars universe. It’s a fun portion of the film to watch without being too cutesy and includes a lot of good filmmaking. Luke’s escape from the rancor is an ambitious sequence but it hasn’t aged very well. Still, the whole first portion of the film serves to get the gang back together and charges up the audience for an almost unwinnable battle.

Luke’s mission to secure his father’s redemption is interesting, as it almost becomes an obsession that threatens his allegiance to the light side of the Force. Darth Vader and the Emperor push Luke to the edge, making for some very tense and emotional drama. The Emperor is an interesting villain because he does not look imposing or threatening at all like Vader, though he does unleash some terrifying Force skills near the end. He is brilliant but cocky. Sure, he managed to single-handedly start a rebellion that brought down the Republic and put him in a position of absolute power, but he relies too much on the strength of his Empire and not enough on the Force. Perhaps he felt he had grown strong and secure enough that the Force was irrelevant to maintaining his power.

Now for all the hate directed toward the Ewoks. What gives? I concede that they are overly cute and an unlikely victor over Imperial forces but they provide some much needed comic relief in what is otherwise a very serious film. And the Ewoks alone do not conquer the troops on Endor. They provide enough chaos and distraction to allow the Rebels to take the upper hand.

In some ways, Return of the Jedi is a more dramatic rewrite of the original Star Wars. The rescue of Han Solo mirrors the against-all-odds rescue of Princess Leia. Then there is the obviously parallel second Death Star and the triumphant ending. It’s not a total ripoff because the characters are much more developed by this installment but I can see why these elements might turn some people off. The music also isn’t as dynamic as Star Wars or Empire but I don’t know if that could be avoided as it incorporates many of the character themes from the other films.

In the end it matches the uplifting climax of the first film with a little more cheese along the way. I can’t help but think that the people who hate on this film probably hold Empire as their favorite. I’m not saying that is a bad thing but sometimes a happy ending can be a good thing. You just have to accept it and let it happen. I am more than okay with this film, even if I do think it is the weakest of the three. It’s a great closing chapter to a dynamite trilogy.

ORIGINAL RATING: 4 out of 5

NEW RATING: 4 out of 5

SECOND HELPINGS: The Empire Strikes Back (1980)

Much like my Second Helpings review for Star Wars, I really don’t think I am capable of adding something new to the conversation about this film. Hopefully my personal musings will be equally, if not more, enjoyable to read as they were for Star Wars.

With Empire, George Lucas gives his Star Wars universe staying power by showing that the first film was more than just a one-off adventure flick. After all, blowing up a space station in the remote stretches of the galaxy would hardly bring the Empire to its knees. The audience is drawn deeper into the lives of Lucas’s characters. Luke is called upon to develop the Force sensitivity he displayed in the first film while Han Solo is forced to scramble against all odds to protect Princess Leia from the Imperial forces hot on their tails.

Pretty much everything in The Empire Strikes Back is better than the original Star Wars. There, I said it. The world did not come to an end, so let’s all agree that Empire improves upon its captivating predecessor. Lucas used his own money to produce the film and his doubling of the production budget is evident just about everywhere.

Shooting for an authentic look and feel over studio fakery, Lucas once again starts a Star Wars film out on location. The snowy wastelands of Norway provides a spectacular landscape for the Rebel Alliance’s secret base. I think shooting in the elements helps the brain buy into what it is seeing because the finer nuances of nature just can’t be faked. Lucas does pretty well at fooling us by crafting Yoda’s swampy Dagobah hideout though.

Speaking of Yoda, what an accomplishment! In our world he is just a puppet but you’d never know from watching the film. Between Frank Oz’s puppeteering and careful cinematography, Yoda is a fully believable and powerful presence in this film. I always wonder what it is like for actors to deal with inanimate costars on set. Obviously there are dozens of set crew members around but to be able to completely buy in and commit to interacting with a puppet takes skill. To make it all work out believably on screen is something special.

Had this film been another caper film like the first, Empire would have been a bust. Thankfully, Lucas and his co-writers push deeper into the lives and emotions of our main characters. Luke’s journey to study under Yoda draws out the awe and mystery of the Force while Han and Leia’s attempts to evade Imperial Forces has all the action we loved from the first film plus a little romantic heat. It really is great to have Han and Leia stuck with each other for much of the film. Their head-butting banter from the original was brilliant and getting more of it this time around is a pleasure. It reminds me of old school Hollywood like Rhett Butler and Scarlet O’Hara’s bickering when all they really want to do is lock lips with each other.

The Empire Strikes Back is a darker, deeper, and all-around more mature film than Star Wars. The fact that it lacks a triumphant ending like its predecessor may leave some viewers feeling deflated but without the dual cliffhangers of Darth Vader’s revelation and Han Solo’s imprisonment, the good guys would just be lucky to escape. Both cliffhangers force more action and emotion from our characters immediately and it also sets up the events for the eventual sequel. Even the music of Empire shows growth over the original film’s fantastic soundtrack (which I somehow failed to even mention in my Second Helpings review for Star Wars). John Williams gives us a second signature piece for the series with Darth Vader’s theme, “The Imperial March.”

I personally may still prefer the story arc and high adventure of Star Wars over Empire but I can no longer deny that Empire is an improvement over the original in many ways. But I still cannot grant it equal status on my rating scale just yet because without Star Wars, Empire never would have even existed. Maybe that means I am giving Star Wars a little extra credit because of its impact and influence on the industry and pop culture after all. Sue me. Maybe after a few more viewings I’ll be able to determine if Empire works as a stand-alone film. If it makes sense without the context of the first film, maybe it will slide up a notch. We’ll have to see.

ORIGINAL RATING: 4.5 out of 5

NEW RATING: 4.5 out of 5

SECOND HELPINGS: Star Wars* (1977)

To say that I have anything new or original to add to the conversation about Star Wars would be lying. This is one of the most popular and most dissected films of all time. Seeing as it is approaching middle age, I think everyone else has covered just about every possible angle of this film well and good. This affords me the opportunity to casually reflect on a personal favorite.

Even before I got serious about analyzing and reviewing movies, I loved Star Wars on a number of levels. As a kid, your imagination runs wild and Star Wars was just the kind of fantastic adventure you might dream up running around the backyard: heroes, villains, damsels in distress, a longing for something outside of the ordinary routine- it’s all in there. Heck, it’s even got swords and dogfights. What more could a little boy ask for?

This brings up a very important point. Star Wars has always performed well for kids. Empire gets dark but Jedi returns to a more kid-friendly tone for the most part. George Lucas may have tried to replicate that wow effect for the younger set too much with the prequels because the story of Star Wars still holds up for adults in terms of quality. You cannot say that about the prequels.

I must admit that the story in the original Star Wars is much simpler than anything else that came later. Despite its straight-up action-quest saga trajectory, all of these elements are carefully crafted from archetypes from history, mythology, and literature that resonate with most people as long as they are written well.

The story structure itself is built upon story elements that we have all seen or read many times before. Lucas prevents his film from feeling generic and derivative thanks to the characters he populates his universe with. Luke is still your bland, wide-eyed kid who becomes a hero but everyone else is remarkable. Han Solo’s bad boy persona meets a worthy match in Princess Leia. More than just a damsel to save, she is strong and determined to have her say. As an added bonus, she’s a pretty good shot too. Darth Vader is menacing thanks to the dark costume and James Earl Jones’s booming voice. The droids provide comic relief and Chewbacca turns out to be more than just a reminder that you’re watching a sci-fi film.

While they may not look like a whole lot now, the visual effects in Star Wars pushed the movie industry forward. This film also changed what kind of movies audiences crave, for better or for worse. Hollywood has always crafted big spectacle films but they were always limited by effects capabilities of the day. George Lucas tossed the doors wide open on what could now be done visually. Personally, I still love the use of real, albeit miniature, ships with intricate structural detail. It makes all the close-ups look like the real deal.

In 1977, Star Wars was a breezy, exotic tale stitched together with visual flair and a lot of fun. To this day, it continues to be all of that (though visual effects have far surpassed what Lucas had ever dreamed of in the 70s) and there is something special and powerful about that. The Empire Strikes Back and, to a lesser extent, Return of the Jedi gave more depth to the Star Wars universe and the story unfolding before our eyes, so assertions that the original film is not the best of the three may in fact be valid.

However, I don’t think Star Wars is a film remembered more for what it meant or did for the art of filmmaking than for its content (as is the case for films like Citizen Kane). Nor is content more important than the technical aspect (as in High Noon). Both the story and its cultural and industry impact are at least equal in my mind, which justifies Star Wars retaining my highest ranking. Empire may be a better story but Star Wars came first and it was an all-around doozy.

ORIGINAL RATING: 4.75 out of 5

NEW RATING: 4.75 out of 5

SECOND HELPINGS: Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (2005)

After the big Star Wars hype machine let us down for Episode I and II, we hardcore fans tempered our expectations for this third and final prequel installment. It’s true what they say- if you keep your expectations low enough, you’ll never be disappointed. Episode III, while far from the concluding chapter I had hoped for, hits several of the prerequisite marks well enough to make it the only prequel film that’s actually worth watching.

The first prerequisite is Anakin’s turn to the dark side of the Force. This is by far the least satisfying story element in the film. While Anakin has always had a chip on his shoulder and a need to prove himself, his conversion just isn’t very believable. Chancellor Palpatine tells him the dark side holds the key to preventing death, a major concern of Anakin’s after a series of nightmares involving his wife’s death in childbirth. Then, after being placed on the Jedi Council by Palpatine, Anakin gets all huffy when he isn’t granted the title of Jedi Master. Well duh! You don’t earn that title via political appointment. In the original trilogy, Anakin was said to have been seduced over to the dark side. Based on what I see in this film, he more or less gets played like a sucker and is duped into becoming evil. That is an incredibly difficult pill to swallow.

The emergence of the Empire finally occurs after a lot of build-up over Episodes I and II. To be honest, I am still a little iffy on this element as well. I can see robots turning on their masters through a change of programmed commands but sentient beings? I have a hard time believing that a person can be conditioned and brainwashed to the point of lacking any independent thought. Sure, Palpatine now has a grand army at his disposal but it never feels like there is enough hierarchical structure on his side to pull off a galactic coup.

Sure, the separatist movement was a clever ruse to achieve absolute power but how many people can be expected to believe that the Jedi tried to take over? One does not simply smash-and-grab their way to power and hold onto it without a lot of people in on the plan. Kudos to Palpatine for playing both sides as suckers but who exactly do you move into power positions underneath you now? With Anakin killing all the separatists (unknowingly eliminating the only possible evidence to show him he’s a sucker), he doesn’t really have anyone visibly supporting him anymore. I have a hard time believing that there are any hardcore loyalists left. That and the fact that long-time Star Wars fans knew all along that Palpatine and Darth Sidious are one and the same takes away from the overall reveal.

Technically, we don’t really need to see the birth of Luke and Leia Skywalker but it is a nice inclusion. Lucas boogers it all up by having Padme die shortly after delivering the twins, thereby rendering Leia’s faint recognition of her mother in Return of the Jedi impossible. I think Lucas could have had a few more people working with him to maintain continuity but by this point, we really shouldn’t be surprised to see this sort of silliness in a prequel film. It was nice to see Obi-Wan and Yoda plot out how to hide the twins though.

You may be wondering by now how this film is worth watching if all these little details still fail to please me. The humdinger of all prerequisites for this film is the battle between Anakin and Obi-Wan that cripples Skywalker to the point of needing the iconic mechanized suit that defines Darth Vader. There had to be a battle, it had to be on a volcanic planet, and Anakin had to lose several limbs and get messed up pretty bad. Despite Lucas’s overreliance on visual effects, the long-awaited duel is done mostly right. Obi-Wan pours his heart out to save his friend but Anakin has slipped too far to the dark side. This is the only point in the prequels where Anakin’s story feels tragic, making it worth the wait.

Overall, the emotional arc of this film (and the whole prequel trilogy) is stunted. More time was invested in fancy visual effects than crafting the kind of emotional story arc audiences need. Yes, the first Star Wars film was fairly simplistic in its structure. Empire and Jedi made up for that. Lucas returns to his roots by giving us a feast for the eyes that is more dressing than meat. Anakin was never presented in a sympathetic light, which diminishes the entire prequel trilogy and the entire Star Wars saga should you choose to watch it in episode order. Lucas got that one critical scene right and for that I still give him kudos. If not for that, this film would probably score a half-point lower.

ORIGINAL RATING: 3 out of 5

NEW RATING: 3 out of 5

Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones (2002)

After taking the box office by storm but underwhelming anyone over the age of 10 with The Phantom Menace, Star Wars is back in action with the second installment of the prequel trilogy. Despite a darker tone and much less Jar Jar Binks, parts of this film are agony to sit through. By retaining total control over the script and the film’s direction, Lucas creates another dud that I hold to be worse than its predecessor.

Ten years after the invasion of Naboo, times have only grown darker and more frustrating for the Republic. A separatist movement led by Count Dooku (Christopher Lee) threatens the stability of the galactic government and the Jedi are stretched thin in their attempts to maintain order. After two assassination attempts on now-Senator Amidala (Natalie Portman), Jedi-in-training Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) takes her into hiding for protection while Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) heads to the far end of the galaxy on the trail of the bounty hunter responsible for the assassination attempts. While protecting the senator, Anakin must balance his affection for her while discerning the meaning of his nightmares involving the slave mother he left behind on Tatooine.

Once again, the story has some promise but the execution is sorely lacking. The presence of a sedition group is quite interesting but we never delve enough into it to be engrossed by it. Starting the prequel trilogy at this point would have made things better. I also enjoyed Obi-Wan’s uncovering of a secret army, though I despise the retcon that makes Boba Fett a clone. Sedition, secrecy, and assassination plots would make for a pretty awesome film.

The only pre-requisite is the budding romance between Padme and Anakin. George Lucas botches this royally with wooden dialogue that is borderline cringe-inducing. Anakin’s affections are painfully and awkwardly obvious but we never see that same spark rise out of Padme. I believe this is largely due to the fact that there is zero chemistry between Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman. It’s easy to see why some people thought Portman was the problem because her performance drags even with an adult co-star to work with this time around.

The real problem is actually that Lucas has no idea what to do Padme’s character. She helps the plot pivot a little bit but she’s really only around to give birth to Luke and Leia in Episode III. I’m not sure if the character even warrants being a main character but Lucas thrusts her into that position, leaving Portman hanging onto a weak co-star and an even weaker script. She may fill the prequel’s need for a Princess Leia type character but Lucas doesn’t give the character enough meat and it’s clear that Portman struggles with that.

Another major problem is Lucas’s overreliance on special effects. Sure, the original trilogy films were effects heavy for their time but a lot of those effects were made possible through camera trickery and miniatures. Nowadays, CGI allows Lucas to create the worlds and creatures he’s always dreamed of. Some special effects look great initially but fail to impress when flesh-and-blood characters have to share the screen with them. Real actors just don’t seem to occupy the same space as the fake ones and that is a problem.

Overall this film is half-baked and that is almost to be expected. You can’t blame Lucas for presenting these stories as if audiences are not familiar with the original trilogy. Unless you have never seen the first three films, every piece of the plot to cause unrest in the galaxy is obvious and disguising Palpatine’s face feels annoying and unnecessary. You can’t fault Lucas for these details but you can fault him for all the bad ingredients he puts into this unsavory concoction. Well-written scripts matter, as do believable visual effects. Absent these, George Lucas looks like a kid displaying what he thinks is the world’s greatest sandcastle made from plastic molds. He’s working really hard with the technology at his fingertips but he fails to stretch himself and make anything truly creative.

RATING: 1.75 out of 5

SECOND HELPINGS: Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (1999)

Given the colossal expectations and hype leading up to this film’s release, is it any wonder that it rocked the box office but flopped in the eyes of millions, if not billions, of Star Wars fans? The original Star Wars came at just the right time to achieve such a dominant following. Home video devices were in their infancy, allowing one generation to share the joy of watching (and some could argue over-watching) Star Wars and its two sequels with younger siblings, cousins, children, and now even grandchildren. The magic of the original trilogy is practically ingrained in our cultural psyche, so how could George Lucas possibly make anything capable of satisfying legions of fans expecting greatness?

There are a lot of things that are wrong with The Phantom Menace and I think that the number of problems is why so many people think it is the worst of the prequels. I maintain that Episode II: Attack of the Clones is the worst but please don’t think I am sticking up for this film. It is certainly flawed and deserving of much of the criticism hurled at it.

First we tackle the filmmaking basics- Phantom Menace has poor writing and some terrible acting. While I appreciate George Lucas’s utilization of modern makeup and visual effects to incorporate more non-human species as main and supporting characters, some of these characters come across as half-baked and others just look like they are there to showcase cool effects. It had to be tricky to create characters for this trilogy because we already know who is in the original trilogy. Creating a set of dynamic and engrossing characters would be tough because audiences would have to deal with their deaths during this trilogy or we would feel gypped if they just disappeared after Episode III.

Unfortunately, we got the exact opposite of this problem. Ewan McGregor does fine as young Obi-Wan Kenobi, here finishing up his training to become a Jedi and not yet a master but we’re never concerned about him because he obviously needs to survive the new trilogy to be part of A New Hope. Jar Jar Binks seems positioned to be the prequels’ version of Chewbacca but he was so obnoxious that Lucas largely wrote him out of the next two to appease the fans. Natalie Portman’s Queen Amidala is stiff and keeps mostly to the sidelines. The only new character of any quality here is Darth Maul and he gets chopped in half at the end.

The whole point of the prequel trilogy is to provide the backstory of how Anakin Skywalker transitions from pilot to Jedi to Darth Vader. With the main character being Anakin, audiences were understandably disappointed by Lucas’s decision to have Anakin be a child in the first film. God bless Jake Lloyd but his character comes across as whiny rather than streetwise thanks to a terrible script that holds back every member of the cast.

Then there are the finer details that drive nit-picky people like me crazy. Why is the technology in this film, only some 30 years before A New Hope, so much more advanced than what we saw in the original trilogy? Lucas was obviously held back by the technology of the late 70s and early 80s but there is a huge rift in consistency that breaks the suspension of disbelief. I just cannot believe that in 19 years from the end of Episode III to the start of A New Hope that technology across the galaxy, even that used by the Empire, would regress to the state it is in during the original films.

Some fans got really bent out of shape over Anakin being the builder of C-3PO. It does not make much sense to me either but you had to expect to see the droids in the prequels somehow. This brings to the fore the reality that was probably the hardest to accept with this film. Despite what people came to believe over the years about events in the Star Wars universe both before and after the original trilogy, Star Wars belongs to George Lucas(until Disney’s recent acquisition anyway) and whatever he says goes.

The Phantom Menace’s status as the ‘worst of the prequels’ is largely due to fan reaction to all the ways Lucas mucked up their understanding of the Star Wars universe. Maybe they wanted Anakin to be a Force-sensitive version of Han Solo, or they didn’t need the Force to be explained away by science, or they just really hated Jar Jar Binks. That doesn’t mean the entire film is bad.

I see a lot of potential in The Phantom Menace. Its script is underwritten and the CGI effects are far too numerous. It opens a huge can of worms with all the minor details, plot points, and retcons, all of which are easy to get caught up in complaining about. But there is some good stuff here too. I liked the podrace sequence, even if it was a ploy to sell a videogame, and Darth Maul makes for some intense lightsaber dueling.

Start with Anakin as an adult with a chip on his shoulder, maybe secretly running supplies past the blockade of Naboo, and you’re already halfway to a decent movie. I’ve got plenty of other suggestions but that’s all beside the point. What The Phantom Menace really shows is that, while George Lucas may be a really good idea guy, his early writing and directing success was either a fluke or he lost his touch pretty quickly. He should have listened to some of the criticism and brought in people to help make the next one better. He didn’t though, setting up the prequel trilogy to disappoint fans further.

ORIGINAL RATING: 2.25 out of 5

NEW RATING: 2.25 out of 5