Re-reading the Ebert review reminds me of why I so enjoyed his reviews. Even though I thought The Phantom Menace was not very good, his love of movies in general shines through and makes me want to watch it again to try to experience the wonder that he experienced. I'm not too impressed with his dismissal of Star Trek thoughWith the film being released in the early days of the Internet and before having my own computer connected to the internet, I did have quite a few reviews printed. Reading Roger Ebert’s review, he does note that many of the early reviews were blasé although went on to give the film 3.5 stars out of 4. Variety’s review by Todd McCarthy, which was probably one of the early ones Ebert referred to, said it can scarcely help being a letdown but it’s bad that it disappoints in so many.
Ebert said:I am reminded of the Isaac Asimov story "Nightfall," about the planet where the stars were visible only once in a thousand years. So awesome was the sight that it drove men mad. We who can see the stars every night glance up casually at the cosmos and then quickly down again, searching for a Dairy Queen.
...
an astonishing achievement in imaginative filmmaking. If some of the characters are less than compelling, perhaps that's inevitable: This is the first story in the chronology and has to set up characters...I will say that the stories of the "Star Wars" movies have always been space operas, and that the importance of the movies comes from their energy, their sense of fun, their colorful inventions and their state-of-the-art special effects. I do not attend with the hope of gaining insights into human behavior... Set against awesome backdrops, the characters in "The Phantom Menace" inhabit a plot that is little more complex than the stories I grew up on in science-fiction magazines. The whole series sometimes feel like a cover from Thrilling Wonder Stories, come to life. The dialogue is pretty flat and straightforward, although seasoned with a little quasi-classical formality, as if the characters had read but not retained "Julius Caesar." I wish the "Star Wars" characters spoke with more elegance and wit (as Gore Vidal's Greeks and Romans do), but dialogue isn't the point, anyway: These movies are about new things to look at...But mostly I was happy to drink in the sights on the screen, in the same spirit that I might enjoy "Metropolis," "Forbidden Planet," "2001" "Dark City" or "The Matrix." The difference is that Lucas' visuals are more fanciful and his film's energy level is more cheerful; he doesn't share the prevailing view that the future is a dark and lonely place.
...
As for the bad rap about the characters--hey, I've seen space operas that put their emphasis on human personalities and relationships. They're called "Star Trek" movies. Give me transparent underwater cities and vast hollow senatorial spheres any day.
Star Wars — Episode I: The Phantom Menace movie review (2024) | Roger Ebert
If it were the first "Star Wars" movie, "The Phantom Menace" would be hailed as a visionary breakthrough. But this is the fourth movie of the famous series,
www.rogerebert.com