Navigation Salon Salon Arts and Entertainment email print
.Arts & Entertainment
Books
Comics
Health & Body
Media
Mothers Who Think
News
People
Politics2000
Technology
- Free Software Project
Travel & Food
_______
Columnists

 

- - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Search Salon


  
Advanced Search  |  Help

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Recently in Salon Arts & Entertainment

Movie Review
Endless love
Director Franco Zeffirelli never surrenders his sunny disposition in this semi-fictional adaptation of his memoirs as a youth in World War II-era Italy.

By Andrew O'Hehir
[05/14/99]

Movie Review
Disenchanted forest
Too many weak performances -- and no, not including Calista's -- prevent Michael Hoffman's opulent "A Midsummer Night's Dream" from being more than a mildly pleasurable exercise in ornamentation.

By Stephanie Zacharek
[05/14/99]

Movie Review
Boys to men
"Edge of Seventeen," a film about coming out and of age in the early '80s, trumps the current crop of nice-guy gay films.

By Daniel Mangin
[05/14/99]

Column
Father figure
Director Irvin Kershner, the unknown wizard behind "The Empire Strikes Back," talks about being Darth Vader, working with George Lucas and making the best "Star Wars" film.

By Michael Sragow
[05/13/99]


20th century boy
It's Ewan McGregor's old-time Hollywood charm that's making him a big-time Hollywood star.

By Stephanie Zacharek
[05/12/99]

Complete archives for Arts & Entertainment

- - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -




Star what?
10 reasons not to see "The Phantom Menace."

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Toby Young

May 14, 1999 | A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, the new "Star Wars" movie didn't suck. It was called "The Empire Strikes Back" (1980) and some critics -- Pauline Kael -- preferred it to the original. No such luck this time around. According to a few early reviews, "The Phantom Menace" is even worse than "Return of the Jedi" (1983). Nevertheless, industry analysts are still predicting it'll gross more than $100 million by the end of the Memorial Day weekend and eventually overtake "Titanic" to become the highest-grossing movie of all time. It's as if Obi-Wan Kenobi had performed a Vulcan mind trick on the entire population of the world. (Note to "Star Wars" fans: I know the correct term is "Jedi mind trick." I deliberately got it wrong to annoy you.)

For those of you who haven't been completely enslaved by the media-industrial complex, here are 10 reasons not to see it.




Get your "Star Wars" fix at bn.com



1. The episodes are in the wrong order: Part I

George Lucas is often praised as a master storyteller but what kind of storyteller begins with episodes four, five and six -- sorry, Episodes IV, V and VI -- then proceeds to Episodes I, II and III? Surely, on Page 1 of the storyteller's manual, it tells you to begin at the beginning. Of course, it's possible that the author of the storyteller's manual started straight in on the middle section on Page 1, but only an idiot would do that.

The trouble with prequels is you know in advance how they're going to end. I hate to ruin this for you guys, but Anakin Skywalker turns into Darth Vader and, in Episode 6 -- sorry, Episode VI -- he dies.

2. The light sabre

As a slightly backward 14-year-old, I was at least 10 years too old for "Star Wars" (1977) when it first came out. But I was still quite pleased when I discovered a toy light sabre in my Christmas stocking. My euphoria was short-lived. Even by poor merchandising standards, the light sabre left a lot to be desired. After inserting the batteries (which weren't included), you had to draw the curtains and turn out all the lights before it even remotely resembled the Jedi Knight's weapon of choice. Needless to say, the moment you engaged in any sort of duel, the light sabre crumpled like a blade of grass. Mine was broken by Boxing Day.

Who should we hold responsible for this piece of junk? Step forward, George Lucas. In 1973, following the surprise box-office success of "American Graffiti," Lucas renegotiated his contract with 20th Century Fox, insisting that he retain both the sequel and merchandising rights to "The Star Wars," as it was then called. The rest, as they say, is hysteria.

3. Anakin Skywalker's hair

OK, the "Star Wars," saga has never been strong on hair -- Princess Leia looks like she's wearing cinnamon roll ear muffs -- but the young Anakin Skywalker's locks are truly revolting. It's one of those sissy, just-washed helmets that no self-respecting kid would tolerate for a second, even on the planet Tattooine.

4. George Lucas is a capitalist running dog

According to Peter Biskind in "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls," a woman who worked on "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (1981) told Lucas her favorite film of his was "THX 1138" (1971). He gave her a puzzled look and said, "But it didn't make any money."

Like many children of the counterculture, Lucas has become an arch-capitalist. It's estimated that he made more than $3 billion in licensing fees from the original "Star Wars" trilogy. So far, he's already pocketed $1 billion in tie-in rights for "The Phantom Menace" and negotiated a promotional deal between Lucasfilm and Pepsico worth $2 billion. Does each of us really need to enrich him further by paying up to $9.50 apiece to see the wretched thing?

5. No Harrison Ford

Harrison Ford was by far the best thing in the original "Star Wars" trilogy and he isn't in "The Phantom Menace." According to Biskind, he was one of the few people involved bold enough to stand up to the tyrannical Lucas. "George, you can type this shit," he told the director on the set of "Star Wars," "but you sure can't say it."

 Next page | George Lucas is evil



 

Salon | Search | Archives | Contact Us | Table Talk | Ad Info

Arts & Entertainment | Books | Comics | Life | News | People
Politics | Sex | Tech & Business | Audio
The Free Software Project | The Movie Page
Letters | Columnists | Salon Plus

Copyright © 2000 Salon.com All rights reserved.