the vynsane asylum

Liam Neeson did very well with his role. Portman tried, but the writing took all the wind out of her sails - McGregor came through when it counted most - at the end of ROTS. Samuel L Jackson was forced to play someone other than himself for once and couldn't pull it off as far as I'm concerned. This is me looking back with my current view towards the prequels anyhow.

The Phantom Menace is the best of the prequels.
Yeah, that's right, I said it.
I like it.
Fuck you.

Diabolical wrote:The Phantom Menace is the best of the prequels.
Yeah, that's right, I said it.
I like it.
Fuck you.

I completely agree. It is the only one of the three I can watch. Ewen McGregor probably did the best job of any of the actors.

TPM feels more like a SW film, and could've been the relatively weak start to something good. AOTC and ROTS had no such excuse.

I fourth that. Although ROTS is very watchable I think TPM is just more fun. And I don't even mind Jar Jar Binks (yeah I just that it).

Slicker wrote:I fourth that. Although ROTS is very watchable I think TPM is just more fun. And I don't even mind Jar Jar Binks (yeah I just that it).

I've always liked Jar Jar and hate the way he was shunned in Episodes II and III. Sure, he was a little over the top, but TPM needed the comic relief since Artoo and Threepio were barely together and there was no real Han Solo-esque smartass.

Perhaps we are in the early stages of a group article for the eventual website.
"God Bless Jar Jar Binks or: How I Learned to Stop Bitching and Love Episode I."

I do like most of Episode III, but Ian McDiarmid (or however you spell it) is distractingly bad - He makes Jake Lloyd look good.

Not to mention that, given the structure these movies follow, Jar Jar was clearly being set up for great things, and was more or less dropped.

Please don't take offense, guys...but I'm floored by these comments about TPM being watchable and the best of the prequels, while the other 2 are worse. I just can't get over how strange that is because I've never read or heard any opinions like that except for here at vynsane. Well, and maybe from JT.

Fine if you want to say the prequels in general are shit, whatever, at least that jives with the general consensus out there about the prequels being inferior.

But to say TPM is in any way "good" compared to 2 and 3? That's one of the most silly things I've ever heard within Star Wars fandom. I watched TPM on Bluray not long ago (I still need to watch 2-6 on Blu) and believe me, I was a fan of this movie when it first came out and I still do think it's got some good moments, so I do like it (I think it's approximately 66% entertaining, 33% boring, and 1% hoping it gets better in 2 and 3). AOTC is much improved over it, with ROTS improving upon that and I can't believe people can see it in an opposite light???

Again, if still-a-kid logged in here tomorrow and told me "the prequels are shit and you're a moron for enjoying them", I'd say ok fine, but it baffles me how TPM can get ANY respect while saying the other 2 are poor. It honestly baffles me.
I guess where I'm coming from is that I've read a lot of mainstream criticism of Star Wars prequels in general, so I get that, but I've never read a critic saying how TPM was enjoyable while 2 and 3 got shitty. Status quo is just that the prequels in general are all shitty.

TPM to me feels like a fun movie at times, with lots of boring moments that makes it feel like a 4 hour movie.
AOTC slows down at times so it feels like a 3 hour run-time here and there (no I'm not referring to the love scenes).
ROTS moves along briskly (aside from the drawn out Palpatine escape scene in the first act) but overall it moves quickly, great pace for me.

Again, no offense to any of you TPM fans...I just think it's strange. Merry Deucemas and all good things.

I have several friends who don't frequent nerd boards like this who agree. TPM just feels more like a Star Wars movie at every level.

Paradoxically, TPM has a rather dull story and is the least important movie of the three. The whole movie could've been two lines of dialogue at the beginning of AOTC. But AOTC was pretty choppy, and suffered from both John Williams and Ben Burtt essentially phoning it in and doing half-assed jobs (compared to their normal greatness). The love story was the most important thing, and it was rushed, with stilted dialogue. Basically, it was, "I haven't seen you in years." "Me neither." "I love you." "I love you too."

ROTS was on track to save the trilogy. It was the one that was the most important, that could break a trilogy started by two awesome films or save one started by two weaker ones. But the Grievous subplot, cool though it was, was completely unnecessary. We needed the character development in Anakin that the other two lacked. Instead, we get him suddenly turning bad in completely unbelievable fashion simply because of a bad dream--even after Sidious admits he's full of shit. Some of the non-Grievous visuals looked rushed, and the cinematography was even more a departure from the first four movies than AOTC had been.

Keep in mind, even a bad Star Wars movie is better than most other movies. But Lucas dropped the ball, and I mostly think it was a lack of input from capable advisors.

I've been saying I like TPM more than the other two for a long time. The first part of AOTC isn't too bad, but it goes downhill fast after that. The CGI got annoying and it seemed more like a video game than a movie. I'm not sure if I just don't like Hayden Christensen, or if I hate Anakin. I suspect it is a little of both, plus bad dialog. I think I saw ROTS three times and just never could get into it. That's how I realized I was over Star Wars completely...or at least the prequels.

As I said in another thread, I don't normally like movies where kids are the central character, so it is even more puzzling why I like TPM at all.

I heard on a radio show last week that some people accuse John Williams of ripping off other composers. Never heard that before and I didn't bother to look it up to get more info.

Having seen Hayden Christensen in other things where he doesn't suck, I place the blame for poor performances in the Prequels on the bad script and awful directing. Lucas always says he doesn't like directing actors and sees it as a necessary evil that he rushes through so he can get to the part he does enjoy: the editing. Which shows in all the Prequels.

I haven't seen any other Hayden Christensen films, so I will take your word for it.

Ran wrote:I haven't seen any other Hayden Christensen films, so I will take your word for it.

He is good in both Shattered Glass and Life As A House.

I have always been a fan of Episode I, flaws and all. I just find it to be a fun flick.
In the past I've rarely mentioned it because I never felt like getting into some stupid, pointless argument with simple-minded people who automatically disregard everything I say because I like it and come back with "the movie sucked."
Now I'm not saying I don't like Episodes II and III. I do like them, but over time their star doesn't shine quite as bright anymore. I think I like many moments in each film more that the entire film itself.

Hayden Christensen was never a problem for me, mainly because everyone is generally terrible in Star Wars movies. Neeson was great in TPM and McGregor delivered the best performance in all of the PT in ROTS, but beyond that, not much unless you count Natalie Portman looking hot as a great performance.

One reason I prefer TPM over AOTC and ROTS is the bad guys. I've made no secret of my general distaste for Darth Maul, but he towers above Dooku, Palpatine and Greivous as a villain.
-Grievous, like Maul, looked cool, but he lacked menace (no pun intended) - all he did was fight, run, repeat. Give the guy a damn cough drop!
-Tremble before the 90-year-old man! Christopher Lee may have been a badass in his day, but nothing intimidating about him here.
-And there's Sidious/Palpatine. Serious child-molesting creeper here. He was cool as the shadowy Sidious in Episodes I and II, but I couldn't help but laugh at how amazingly bad he was as Palpatine in all 3 flicks. And the people at the other site who said he deserved an Oscar nomination for ROTS? Ha ha ha!

Three things that really bug me about AOTC and ROTS:
-The shoehorning of everyone but Han into Episode III (which we almost had). Sure most kinda had to be there - Obi-Wan, Yoda, Artoo, Threepio, Luke, Leia, Owen & Beru and Vader. But the Millennium Falcon, Death Star, Tarkin (with supersized head) and Chewie (who never shut the fuck up)?
-The almost total abandonment of Jar Jar Binks. It seems like George Lucas doesn't listen to anyone but himself in every other instance, so why listen to the fans here? As 'nark said, he was clearly meant for more. In the decade between flicks, Lucas could have toned him down by maturing Jar Jar and made him part of the core group, rather than Palpatine's patsy in AOTC and a background character in ROTS. Hell, he could have given him a real story arc and killed him heroically at the end of ROTS (by saving the twins or something).
-The Fetts. More fansturbation. Completely pointless and unnecessary.

I agree with DB - what the fuck is up lately???? - the inclusion of the Fetts was stupid. Like Skeez, my order of preference for these (though it has changed over the years, and may change on a post-by-post basis, is that the "good parts" of the movies got more frequent, and better, as the trilogy progressed.

The performances in AOTC and ROTS do not get better with age though, whereas TPM just kind of stays the same - I think that's why now, years later, TPM is being looked at more positively by comparison.

The saber duels in AOTC and ROTS were also very anticlimactic. Especially the Yoda fights.