Added: 2 years ago
From: RedLetterMedia
Views: 3,716,251
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (9,834)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Ten years plus and Star Wars, Episode One: The Phantom Menace is still alive, well, and just as entertaining to billions of fans as it was when first released. It was a great decade reading "abomination", "rape", and "abortion" that peppered all comments from the "I'm too cool to like anything" status quo. But, Feb. 10th will prove once again that Star Wars - ALL SIX OF THEM - are awesome movies and are not going anywhere but will remain in the hearts and imagination of billions of fans!!

  • go fuck ur self star wars is awsome ur just mad that star wars is more cooler then star trek

  • Wait, are people defending these movies? No... No, I'm sure they weren't...

  • @agentm31 I know, right?! People are actually going against the sulky, "I'm too cool to like anything" wannabe hipster crowd?! The out right nerve!!

  • You are stupid... Ewan McGregor played the part of Obi Wan perfectly! He was mildly sarcastic just as Obi Wan is meant to be. And a lot of other stuff you said was wrong, yes the movie could have had better story but what you gonna do...

    P.S. Your voice was annoying

  • You sir are an idiot. Phantom menace had one of the best lightsaber battle/music in the series!!! Originals are better but come on. Your review sucks major dick and its a bit harsh. Enjoy the movie and stop bein a prick about details -____-

  • @MrMalik53 That's a pretty fucking retarded statement there son.

  • @Kaminaught Not as retarded as your statement there son.

  • Dude your voice is so fking annoying !maybe u where going to make some sense but because ur a fking retard lots of us just move along

  • I turn 13 this month and my favorite SW film is ESB. Though I do really like Revenge of the Sith, the first two prequels were shit spare a few scenes.

  • I'm amused by the people that don't understand this is a mini film company and that the voice is a put-on...

  • Imbeciles. Next thing you'll be complaining about is how he can't pronounce "protagonist". 

  • @tommyandmilo Are you guys saying that since he's doing these voices and mispronouncing these words on purpose, these things are automatically immune to criticism? You know, in Star Wars, George Lucas works with archetypal characters and melodramatic/cheesy dialogue on purpose, right? Why are people going on and on about those things? >_>

  • My exact reaction to the first few seconds of this review:

    Oh god, what's wrong with your voice? Are you serious? Who goes on the internet sounding like-

    HAHAHAHAHA.

    Your son. This'll be fun.

  • If the bitch doesn't know who Qui Gon is...then why the fuck would you ask her about star wars....and your voice, why is it all fucked up?

    Get a life

  • Comment removed

  • @officialslimshady94 Think the point is, she saw the movie and she doesn't bloody well remember because Qui Gon is a boring, badly written character. The voice is because it's part of the character he is doing(it gets played up more as the reviews go on). And he has a life. This is the guy's living. His job is doing reviews like this on Red Letter Media, and he does it quite well. So don't whine just because you'd like to keep Lucas on his pedestal.

  • @willthack13 "So don't whine just because you'd like to keep Lucas on his pedestal." Oh, you mean the same way your vainly attempting to keep RedLetter on a pedestal? He's a performer. And, a bad one at that. The review is pointless and only feeds the need of lonely fanboys like you to be "part of something" to try to make your miserable, hatefilled lives seem worth living.

  • @skip8619...Folks said the same thing about Seth M of Family Guy. Mentally Disturbed animated film maker, yet Seth has created his own Empire of Mental Disorder and everyone still loves him. Why is that? Most Plinket reviews are right on. I think he's funny at times and the Larry Flynt voice is alright.

  • Even if they weren't great in Phantom Nenace Liam Neeson, Ewan McGregor and Natalie Portman are godo actors in like everything else.

  • Obi Wan in episode 1 was still an apprentice he was complaining a lot to show you what he was like in his youth we only saw obi wan or ben kenobi in the older star wars films as a mysterious old jedi who knew about Luke's father. Episode 1 to 2 and the animated star wars shorts show how obi wan and anakin formed a bond through thick and thin. By right there should have been more than 3 prequels because there was too much story thrown away.

  • Comment removed

  • lol. Charlie had Willy Wonka when he "got the girl".

  • On February 12th this abomination of a movie is coming back to theaters. Let the people know how much it sucks by sharing this review through facebook, twitter, and reddit on the same date the movie is released.

  • @AlfredoFilmGeek Yes, please do institutionalize more people with this horrible propaganda! :D

  • @AlfredoFilmGeek 10 years plus and Star Wars, Episode One: The Phantom Menace is still alive, well, and going strong! Maybe you and your ilk should stop banging your hate-filled heads against the wall...

  • this guy is a fucking dumbass

  • ive got two simple words for you: FUCK YOU! your criticism is completely out of place and your voice just sucks man..dont make videos if you talk like that..ok now that was enough insulting.. following your argumentation it came clear to me that you didnt study any kind of literature courses because you definetely have no idea how plots and characters are constructed..theres no protagonist? buhu! PM is the beginning of the saga whose protagonists are obi wan and anakin..they are still growing up

  • @daAnT1990 Fuck yourself.

  • @daAnT1990

    are you completely retarted? its totally obvious that he disguises his voice because hes playing a psychotic rapist in his review. and if you had any idea about films yourself, you would see how his criticism is completely on the spot.

  • The chracter usally gets the girl *charlie hugs willie wanka*

  • WHOSE FUCKING IDEA WAS IT TO RE-RELEASE THE PHANTOM MENACE IN 3-FUCKING-D???

  • @LolRageGuy I sense a little rage there, guy.

  • Great review

  • Who else is going to be watching this review on February 10, 2012? If you know the significance of the date, then you will get what I mean.

  • @blackhole73 I'm not going to be watching this review. I'm waiting for the Special Edition where the pizza roll shoots first.

  • I feel like I'm the only one who actually enjoyed the prequels.

  • lol ep. 1 coming to theatres in 3D

  • Hey! We know some of these people from Half in the Bag! Awesome.

  • Lol at the butthurt Lucas fanboys. Starwars will be better off without him

  • In one of the final commentaries from George he said that he no longer wants to make anymore movies because every time he makes one, every one puts it down. He said why would he want to make anymore. So, it wasn't George Lucas that "ruined" Star Wars, it's all you over-opinionated, whiny assholes that agree with this redlettermedia jerk. Thanks motherfuckers, now there will never be any new Star Wars anything now. STAR WARS, EPISODE ONE: THE PHANTOM MENACE in theaters Feb. 10th!! VICTORY!!

  • You're probably joking, but you're repeating the same logical fallacy as that Agahnim guy, and pretty much everyne else that defends these movies, that it is physically impossible for someone to fairly review these movies and think thats they're awful because almost everything in them is horrible. And because they don't like them, they must have some personal vendetta vs Lucas, or are hypocitcally reviewing vs. the originals, or can't see their "amazing complexity" i.e....

  • @skip8619 That's a mighty fine strawman you've built for yourself. How about arguing against what I've actually been saying. The bias is overwhelming, by gawd!

  • ...like "they have no story", even though they're more intricate than the originals; or "it's all about mindless action", even though there's less action than the originals; (cont.)"

    hahahahaha Nice strawman I got huh? THE VERY FIRST COMMENT you resonded to me with dismissed any legitimate criticism of these films as people complaining about how they're "different" just like you said to him and countless other people that people are just "dissatisfied" and "can't really look at...

  • ...their "flaws" with any sort of honesty." And you even criticize me for being 13 years old when this came out because I was biased because I watch the originals innocently and then I lost my innocence when I turned 13 and then hypocrically criticized EP I!

    This whole time I though you were some 50 something year oldman that remembered when the OT came out and the criticizems people had back then and you were saying it was unfair for people to not apply those same criticisms to the..

  • ...prequels. And then I looked at your profile....YOU'RE YOUNGER THAN ME! Which makes that argument make absolutly no sense, which is typical of your arguments. Which is another example of how you LIE CONSTANTLY. Your statements as so far beyond the pale of logical argument that It boggles the mind how someone could arrive at them through logical though processes. For example when you quote a source your statement is ore often then not are 180 degrees from what a person would...

  • ...I'm not saying you should agree with me just that you need to provide substance to back up your statement. I just went into detail on how the way the film was shot, and why it is boring and not compelling. You just keep talking about behind the scenes footage." And the thing you said to me about the green screens, minatures and matte pianting, I've watched numerous making of starwars documentaries and never in my wildest dreams could I come up with a statement as dumb as you did...

  • ...Yes the did use green screens on some things like othe space shots in the originals, but what was put in the green was then done by artists, not a guy of a macbook hitting enter. The most advanced computer system they had back then was probably the programmable camera crane that let them repeate life like camera movements hundreds of time without a human cameraman and the memory of it was probably something like 500 kilobytes. And you said that they used alot of minatures and...

  • ...and matte painting on the prequels. Thye a few on Ep I , but could you please show me more one or two miniatures they used in Ep II or III. 99% of the effects for them are done by actors standing in front of a blue screen, interacting with people wearing blue body suits, throwing them onto blue mats. Your tactics of defending these movies could honestly be used to defend any movie regardles of how good or bad it is. If Plinketts review of "Cop Dog" was posted on here, I wouldn't...

  • ...be surprised if you went over there and started defending that movie with the same arguments. You could just copy and paste your comments and it would have the same effect. You would say "Whats wrong with the plot, or the cinematography, it has great character progression, it has great acting." and then when someone tries to give you examples of why it doesn't have one or more of those things, you would say "thats just an opinion" and then say "if thats true then why when I watch..

  • ...Cop Dog is my head filled with memorable phrases, and reminded of great movies of the past." And then you'd say in whatever phrasing "Why can't people just accept that they're disappointed with Cop Dog and not create half-formed reasons for why the movie is bad" Sound familiar? To anyone with half a brain its obvious that you have some existing agenda and are not coming at these films impatially. He expressed it perfectly: oberon358: "@Agahnim18 christ man i don't even know...

  • ...happened it Lucas had made Ep.I in 1977 instead of Ep.IV, like what would have stayed the same, what would have changed, how people whould have reacted to it. And you thought that was a good oppurtunity to preach your message of " people who say the the same things about EP IV, they're so winy, they're so hypocritical, the prequels and the originals are almost the same." Which is the most IDIOTIC LIE. And is the basis of all your lies which you repeat over and over and over again..

  • ...you say that people who reviewed the Originals in the 70's had the same criticisms as people of the prequels do now. Then why didn't those reviews in the 70's say that the movies had wooden acting, the actors could double as cardboard cutouts, the characters had little to no development, the dialogue was horrible and had no memorable lines, the stories were tedious and boring, the romantic dialogue was cliche and painful, etc. etc. etc. etc. And why in the 70's were the SW...

  • ...films not panned, lambasted and lampooned as complete jokes and disasters of film making, or win a bunch of razzies, if they existed back then, for worst screenplay, worst supporting actor, and be nominated for worst pictire and worst director? If your underlying argument is true I want you to put your money where your mouth is and quote some reviews, from the 70's and 80's, not from now, that actually say those things or something like that. But even if you could find those...

  • ...reviews, you would say, as you have actually already said, "those are just opinions", which, one, contradicts your previous argument, and two, brings me to possible the most important point. Why is it that everyone has an opinion, yet everyones opinion is invalid besides yours. Because you seem to be coming from a postion of objectivity when you say that main underlying reason for dislike of the prequels is bias and hypocrisy because the same flaws exist in the Originals...

  • ...yet when someone tries to debate you on whether or not said similarites exist, you say their arguments are just "opinions", no more valid than anyone else's, even (supposedly) yours. Regardless of any sort of evidence, exegsis, logic, etc. So your opinions=objective, other people's opinions=subjective, your opinions=valid, other people's opinions=invalid. Which leads us to the endless logical loop that you create, which can only be the result of a deliberate troll...

  • ...or a mentally deranged person. Hence my refrences to an "altered state of conciousness." You make up evidence, twist facts, and lie to give weight to your arguments, to try to make them seem objective and then when someone responds in the same way, you say their arguments are just "opinions" and are subjective and are made no more valid or affected by evidence. The only reason people like you exist online, especially on youtube, is because with the character limit its very hard...

  • @skip8619 Pardon me but.... who the fuck are you talking to?....

  • Agahnim18. I usually delete the @thing because I think it looks stupid.

  • I see.... I didn't realise that was an option. He must have really fecked your hackles up.

  • @GreatScottPilgrimage Yeah, he mad.

  • @skip8619 Skip, man, you're not even arguing with me any more. You've erected a big, bad strawman out of delusion and anger and are just taking shots at that. You're doing the same to me that I see people do with the prequels all the time: hatefully twisting and turning facts, fabricating others, ignoring others, taking things out of context -- all in order to support your irrational and far too exaggerated rage.

  • @skip8619 Continue if you want, but I'd rather discuss the movie and argue our cases there, instead of ducking into a bash-fest where nobody has to think or arrive at any meaningful conclusions. I mean, it took you this many posts just to make out that I'm an idiot? Really? Why not take that time and effort to defend your opinions of the films instead of attacking detractors? That's what I'VE been trying to do, for the most part.

  • @skip8619 NOTE: Just because I say I see people doing the above, it doesn't mean I'm lumping everyone into one category. I've NEVER said or hinted at any such thing. That's your faulty comprehension skills messing you up.

  • .../time consuming to do a detailed rebuttle of someone and to break down their crap and exposes them, like I am doing here. Also, with how the comments are set up, you can usually harrass someone like you have done until they just give up. But I have the fortunate/unfortunate characterisc of being "troll bait", meaning I respond to every attack in kind, especially ad hominem attacks which was the first one you made and most have been since. And I draw the ire of them because of it.

  • @skip8619 Dude, write a fucking book or something. All focused on your vast, cool intellect and detailed rebuttles concerning pointless shit. If you had a job, you would be able to consume your time with more important matters - like relationships, nature, social interaction (not virtual), and real time enjoyment of what the real world has to offer. And, I know you self-inflated ego will respond to this - go ahead, I don't have time to read a 50000 word essay on a comment page...

  • @luis6079

    Oh boo fucking hoo, if he can't take critique why in the hell did he start making movies in the first place?

  • ...doesn't have a mental disorder that gives them an altered state of reality. And the same critisms aren't being repeated all the way from Roger Ebert down to someone who has never seen the original movies, that "...I was amazed, at the end of Episode II, to realize that I had not heard one line of quotable, memorable dialogue." and "There is not a romantic word they exchange that has not long since been reduced to cliche." or "Wooden characterizations and dialogue don't help."

  • @skip8619 That's sad for those reviewers. I, and a ton of others, had very different experiences. Also, your quoted complaints can be found throughout the original films as well. In fact, back then, critics were saying the same things about the originals! :P

  • @luis6079

    Yeah, way for him to deal with criticism like a sulking 1st grader would. And it's all the critics' fault.

  • @twooffour Wait...what? You tried saying something important?

  • i agree with you but say this with me ok just so you get it right its PRO-TAG-O-NIST not PROTOGUINESS YOU INCOHERENT CUNT also stars 1-3 suck dick 4-6 were the greatest movies ever

  • Darth Maul vs Obi Wan Kenobi is one of the best duels in the whole series.

  • Qui Gon is a smart very wise calculating person. He is very cunning but also task risk that normal people would deem crazy.

  • i think the point is, why did Gorge need to make the prequels? when we already knew that Anakin Skywalker was Evil to begin with if we already know whats going to happen then whats the point in wasting everyones time with these shitty boring movies?

  • "They get the girl at the end as icing on the cake."

    *shows clip of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory*

    ...WONKA'S A GIRL?!

  • @TheLMan101 thatsthejoke.jpg

  • yeah 4,5,6 is best no doubt...

  • @smartass250 Not sure if trolling or somebody actually let a 7-year-old on Youtube...

    Aaaanyway, I can see where you're coming from (of course regarding the aspects of your comment that I was able to DECIPHER), and I agree with you on the Obi-Wan part (as he is my fav. character of the Saga) but I see no consistency issue: When they met for the first time, he indeed already was an experienced pilot, he had won the pod race at that point, didn't he?

  • "they can never be undone" *cries*

  • The only thing that I thought that sucked about the Phantom Menace was Jar Jar Binks. 

  • @AZsportshut

    And everything else.

  • ur voice is too fucked up to listen too

  • Please release a 3-D version of this review to coincide with the 3-D re-release of Phantom Menace.

  • Ugh. This isn't the place for this. Too hard to argue with the comments constantly scrolling on and the character limit. I'm about the quit this (for good this time :P).

  • 4:30 oh dear that was funny

  • You are just a big nerd.............

  • In short, Lucas wanted to tell a certain story, but couldn't fit it in one movie, so people misinterpreted it. He then felt compelled to show the tragedy he failed to bring across by adapting rushed scribbles he didn't care about (because it was a fairly tale) into a new trilogy.

    The bottom line is: Everything that happened to Star Wars was inevitable. The story about heroes was only superficial. The badass pure evil Darth Vader you all loved and grew up with, he never existed.

  • So, Lucas decided to adapt the few pages of backstory he had scribbled with in the original script into a prequel trilogy of movies. To allow people to see the tragedy of Darth Vader as it was originally intended to be. Lucas himself has said this: "I like the idea that the one person you thought was the villain is really the victim, and the story is really about the villain trying to regain his humanity. It ultimately becomes the story of Darth Vader's redemption."

  • This resulted in that Darth Vader became an icon of pure evil in the first film, cause that was the aspect of him emphasized at that part of the story. This icon took over everything, much more than Lucas intended. If it had been as he originally wanted it like one movie, that wouldn't have happened. He would have been revealed as this pathetic character at the end of the movie.

  • George Lucas originally wanted to make only one movie. This movie was going to be like a fairy tale, you didn't know what came before or after. You just knew the story, and the story’s subtitle was "The Tragedy of Darth Vader", he was the central character all along and he was a tragic and pathetic villain. Luke was the hero, and the story was about how Luke redeems his pathetic father. But when the story was to made a film it was too much for one movie, it became a trilogy of movies instead.

  • "they get the girl in the end as icing on the cake"

    bottom right: willy wonka hugging charlie bucket in the glass elevator

    lol'd

  • Jesus, 7 parts. I could just watch the movie and hate it myself.

  • 8:59 could not have been said better

  • neeohhh

  • fan-freaking-tastic - I've been waiting to see a decent disection of these prequels for ages. Top Job!

  • @kalsolarUK You should check out the Lard Biscuit analyzations, then. They actually pull from what's in the movie, unlike these "reviews".

  • @Agahnim18 thanks, I'll check those out!

  • @kalsolarUK :) Hope you enjoy them.

  • Haters.

  • I'm under 20, and I think that "The Empire Strikes Back" is the best movie ever made.

  • @TheRevivalMovies hipster

  • ...and Kevin Bacon

  • I just saw the whole saga for the first time this week end. Unlike you I liked the first part, and think the last 3 movies are garbage, actors can't play, story is borring and action scenes are ridiculous, that's like a Power Rangers episode that would be way too long, without the Power Rangers...

  • What's with your voice?

  • This is quite bias at times. And if you are going to interview a random sample of viewers, try and not pick people as clueless as that, I mean the woman didn't even know who qui-gon jin was?? come on, you expect us to take that seriously. If you weren't paying close enough attention to even remember the name of one of the central characters then you obviously lack the intellectual appreciation needed to provide a valid opinion. Try paternal, wise, reserved, kind, strong, content to describe him.

  • @jollyroger475 The point he was making with the viewers was that none of the characters in the Phantom Menace were memorable and didn't make an impression on the viewers. Even if you know little about the original Star Wars films, chances are you probably know characters such as Darth Vader, Yoda, Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia, Han Solo and Ben Kenobi. Also, if you actually watched this review to the end, then you'd know that none of those words can apply to qui-gon thingy.

  • @LordNazgulKing Why would he need to watch this biased review to "know" that those words supposedly don't apply to Qui-Gon Jinn? He obviously watched and listened(!!) to the movie itself to find out what he did. That's the best way to know about a movie, I say. :D

    About memorable characters: You will find only what you take with you. If you don't want to meet Lucas halfway and are too distracted reeling over all the new things and kids and squeaky voices, then that's your fault.

  • for an underrated reviewer go to johnny oldschool on google hes really good trust me :)

  • u sound like richard nixon

  • protahgoneist

  • I always wonder what would have happened if Lucas had made Episode I in 1977 instead of Episode IV.

  • @skip8619 I believe people would be complaining about IV, V, and VI being too different, then. :P

  • People don't critize/complain about the prequels because they're "different", they do it because they're bad. If Lucas has made Episodes I-III in the 70's-80's with the same good writing, characters, and storytelling that he made Ep. IV-VI with, then they probably would be have been classic movies. And then if he made IV-VI the same way he made I-III, with horrible writing, acting, bland characters, and a plot that makes no sense, then people's reactions would be exactly the same.

  • @skip8619 I think only their perceptions would have been the same. As Qui-Gon said, "Always remember, your focus determines your reality." You get what you want to get from things. You do know that when the original films were released critics bashed them for the acting and dialogue, for the incredible amount of cheese in them?

  • @skip8619 Did you also know that Empire was seen as a soulless, boring, cash-in of a sequel by some, on account of its vastly different feel and story and the fact that it doesn't have a traditional ending? Sounds familiar.

  • @skip8619 The difference now is that most of the star-gazed kids back then are grown up and have lost the ability to watch films and simply have fun. They demonize those things in the new movies that they'd learned to deify in the originals. Cheesy, melodramatic dialogue and acting, archetypal characters--that's been SW all along. Why are they suddenly bad halfway through the series?

  • But thats just the thing, the characters in I-III aren't archetypical, most of them are extremly bland, boring, and have no personality. I agree completly with what he said about you not being able to tell who the protagonists is, the antagonist, the lovable scoundrel, the princess, etc. There's way too many characters and they're all white bread. And about hypocrisy, I think thats the worst , but I'm saying the prequels and originals are like night and day, almost nothing alike.

  • @skip8619 They are archetypal, no matter how exciting you think they are.

  • I'm not an expert at reviewing art or anything but its pretty obvious they're not. Could you please give some evidence toward them being so. You talk so much about objectivity, then you do the same thing he asked the people in the video to do. Decribe the characters in the Phantom Menace without saying what they looked like or who played them.

  • @skip8619 That was one of the first things I did when I started posting here, and I did it multiple times, along with a bunch of others.

    Qui-Gon: Wise, kind, accepting, maverick.

    Padme: Headstrong, vulnerable, independent, altruistic, sometimes rash.

    Were those the only two "Plinkett" mentioned?

  • About your argument that people are "grown up" now and therefore hyper analyse the prequels instead of enjoying them like the originals. I was 13 when the Phantom Menace came out and I had watched the originals religiously for many years before then, and when I saw it I thought it was really cool, and then I saw AotC, and right away I thought it was terrible, and then I saw Revenge and I thought it was pretty good but still not the calibur of the originals, so there's an example...

  • @skip8619 Well, obviously that argument wouldn't apply to everyone. There are tons of reasons people might like or dislike these movies, some more objective and informed than others. :P

    You say you were 13, though? You were right on the cusp of losing your childhood innocence after having admittedly watched the originals "religiously" when you were younger. I'm sure that CAN have a psychological effect. >_> That also means you were around 16 and 19 when II and III came out.

  • You missed the point completly, why is your "objective and informed" standard better than mine or anyone else's. I was saying I was comparing all the Star Wars movies to the same objective standard, not being hypocritical. And the second part of your comment makes no sense, my childhood innocence had nothing to do with my ability to objectivly review the movies. By "religiously" I was speaking figurativly, and it did not impact my partiality.

  • @skip8619 It's not better than anyone else's objective and informed standards. Objectivity, knowing what you're talking about and avoiding BS, only takes you so far. Eventually, it becomes subjective. Just because you understand every character and the story and such, it doesn't mean you'll love the movie. Depends on what you were looking for. Now, if we're talking about my objective, informed opinions against someone's rabid and irrational ones, then yeah, mine are better. >:D

  • I was pretty smart for a teenager and still am now. And I've always been good at analyzing works of art, breaking them down, critiquing them. Why is it that when every you say something you're being "objective" yet when ever someone else that disagrees with you, they're being "biased" and "hypocritical". You call everyone else a hypocrite, but YOU are the hypocrite. There is no such thing as pure objectivity, but facts, sound exegesis ect. can make a subjective opinion more objective

  • @skip8619 Talisguy disagrees with me and I wouldn't call him a hypocrite. :/

  • But you confuse your subjectivity with objectivity, and then when someone goes against you, you call them a hypocrite for going against your subjective "objectivity" that somehow only you magically posses and no one else has.

  • @skip8619 Not trying to pychoanalyze you, of course. I don't know you. You're not the clean, untarnished slate you make yourself out to be, though.

  • I'm not as a whole, no person is, but your underlying argument is the main reason why people have such a high opinion of the original films and a low opinion of the prequels is because they are being biased, and critizing things in the prequels that a re the same in the originals but because the originals are holy or something , they don'thold to the same standard snd are hypocritical. And I'm saying thats absolutly not true, espically for me, I am being objective.

  • @skip8619 Not true for you (maybe), but I'm absolutely certain it applies to a ton of other people. That's just human nature.

  • ...of someone giving their opinion of the films right as they saw them. Not years later hypocritically hyperanalysing the prequels and leaving the originals untouched because they're holy or something. I compared each movie independently to the standard of what a good movie is, which is subjective of course, but is shared by large wide swaths of people. And the Original movies made that cut and the prequels didn't.

  • I think the real problem is that most audience members today are so brain dead that they think a movie with big explosions and a few cameos from some "big stars" is a good movie. Its half their fault for keeping on perpetuating it and half the directors' and producers' that keep making movies like that. Episodes I-III are good examples of movies made in our age, where a director can shoot the entire thing on a green screen, write a shitty script and still make a bazillion dollars.

  • @skip8619 There weren't many big stars in the prequels. Sam Jackson and...who else? What's wrong with green screen? They used blue screens A LOT in the originals. They also used A LOT of miniatures, models, and matte paintings in the prequels. Did you know? What's wrong with the script? This one (for this trilogy) was infinitely more intricate and multi-faceted than the original's.

  • @skip8619 I get my information from actual footage of the actual making of these films, and from interviews with people involved. Where did you get your obviously lacking info from?

  • Episodes IV-VI had old fashoned, tried and true movie making techinques like strong script writing, good cinematography to give emotion and help tell the story, good storyboarding, which back then you needed to make a good movie because you couldn't rely on smoke and mirrors, along withe the cutting edge SFX which tried it all together. But now, because technology is so advanced, filmmakers can abandon all those methods which used to make movies so good and just rely on SFX...

  • @skip8619 Except that they did heavily rely on smoke and mirrors back then. One of the big talking points back then was the incredible new SFX techniques in these movies. Like it or not, SW has always been a SFX extravaganza. What's wrong with the script? What's wrong with the story? What's wrong with the cinematography?

  • Once again you completly twist my comment to the exact 180 degree meaning of what it was. The scripts of the prequels for the most part are HORRIBLE, the dialogue is teribel and is just enough to move the story along, but it has no memorable passages and phrases, they have, as the reviewer describes in the video, giant plotholes that make no sense. The cinematography, if it can even be called that, for the most part is awful too cause its all done on a computer on a green screen.

  • @skip8619 Plotholes? I can follow the movies incredibly well. Where are these holes? Why are all these passages and phrases constantly floating around in my head if there factually are none? The cinematography, well, that's subjective as hell, but why does it make recall the old movies and why do I think it looks spectacular if they are factually wrong? Why are you arguing against my objectivity when you're throwing this stuff out as fact?

  • @skip8619 Well, to be fair, memorability of a line is subjective as hell, too. >_>

    *shows himself out again*

  • This is the last comment I will post of here in regards to you and people like you. In order for you to think these are good movies, one or more of the following things must be true:

    1. You love George Lucas and hate when people criticize him or his movies, or you just like to start fights with people on the internet, so you've decided to unfairly and biasedly defend the prequels, praising things in them that you would condemn in other movies. And always coming out with a positive...

  • view of them regardless of evidence. Which is doubly bad, because this is exactly what you accuse anyone who fairly makes a negative review of these of doing. Which makes you a double hypocrite.

    2. Your standards of what a good movie is, ex. screenwriting, characters, story, are so bad, that you actually think these are good movies. This isn't as bad as the first option because at least you're being honest, but still you should not be reviewing movies.

  • 3. You have some sort of mental disorder, i.e. schizophrenia, mania, that lets you see thing in these movies, such as that would construe positive traits, that no one in their right mind can possibly see.

    Regardless of how many of these things are true, you should not be reviewing movies or works of art until you learn what constitutes good and bad in them. If you just keep going like you are, it will be pointless because no one agrees with you...

  • ...In all the replies to your comments on this page, I yet to see one person who agrees with you. Ep.I-III have not gone down in history as being bad and disappointments because the mass of people was somehow bullied into believing so by a few, or everyone jumped on the "hate train" when it became popular to do so, or our generation somehow has different standards for judging art then previous ones, or any number of retarded arguments that I've heard from you and people like you...

  • ...They have gone down as such because 95 out of 100 people when presented with the same evidence will come to the same conclusion, and any future generation will judge them the same also.

  • ...to dazzle the audience and try to fool them into thinking it is a good movie. Episodes I-III are perfect examples of that along with almost all movies made today, ex. Avatar, IJ: Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I wish I could build a time machine and have 1985 George Lucas tell the present day one "Special effects are just a tool, a means of telling a story. People have a tendency to confuse them as an end to themselves. A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing." wow

  • @skip8619 Hey, just because you're too dazzled by the SFX to pay attention to story and character it doesn't mean they don't emphasize those first. Obviously, without those, there would be no movie. Lucas has stuck by that ideology all along. Why else did he devote so much time to Anakin's rise and fall, the Republic's slow and persistent crumbling, the Jedi's old-fashioned and blinding dogma, etc.? I'll tell you why: Because he was telling a story first and SFX were his tools.

  • "HEY" I'm NOT dazzled by the SFX as most modern directors want me to be and I do see the character for what they are, vapor, white paper, ambien, nothing. Lucas has absoultly not stuck to the philosophy expressed in that previous statement. He has abandoned all those tried and true filmaking techniques, because he thinks he can just rely on computers to make and win his film for him.

  • @skip8619 If you say so, my friend. There is a ton of story and character development in these prequels and that is not subjective. If I wanted to waste a ton of time and comment space, I could take you through the story and character arcs and character motivations right here, using only what is found in the movies. How am I able to do these things when there is "objectively" nothing there?

  • @skip8619 About the plot, well, again, "...your focus determines your reality." Maybe you should attempt to listen to it. >_>

    Ahem. This was nothing personal. Don't think I'm out to bash you. I just wanted to get this out there and your post was a nice opportunity. :P

  • Just for the record, I though Phantom Menace was the strongest of the three movies, Attack of the clones was terrible, and then Revenge of the Sith was good but still had some problems with it. But at least Episode I at least tries to be a standalone movie. II-III are like Lucas just ran out of energy and and tried to slam through the rest of the story before IV as clumsly and horribly as possible. I thought that little kid was better playing Anakin than Hayden Christenson.

  • Omg I can't believe I have to sit through 7 parts of a review with the voice of a man who sounds like he has been shot in the head with an elephant tranquilizer dart. Please redo a version without the head trauma/voice acting.

  • Obi-Wan is just like Trunks from Dragon Ball GT...

  • Pro-tag-on-nist

  • I do think Lucas probably wrote the script in no time and no one questioned him on it. He used to be surrounded by talented people instead of yes men.

  • @oldannyboy37 He had the basic story down since the 70s and started the script in '94. Far from "in no time." <_<

  • "they'll get the girl in the end."

    *Charlie hugs Willy Wonka*

    I hope you're not implying what I think you're implying. ಠ__ಠ

  • @TheArchfiend Thanks for telling me about this it's hilarious

  • the moment you mention Johhny Rico, i was like, OMG I LOVE THAT MOVIE

    good review so far, Archfiend said this would be a good watch, cant wait to see the other parts

  • and Kevien Bacon LOL

  • i really found the 1 episode the most interesting to watch,cause i'm 18 and i enjoyed this movie so much in my childhood,sorry that i will never understand how great the trilogy really is,but the 2nd episoce still sucks balls.just saying

  • I CAN'T WAIT TO SEE THIS IN 3D!!

    By that I mean; I can't wait to never see or care about it's re-release.

  • We all know you secretly want to see it Arch.