"GANGS OF NEW YORK" (2002) Review

"GANGS OF NEW YORK" (2002) Review

With the exception of a few, many of Martin Scorsese's films have been set in the City of New York - whether in the past or present. One of those films is his 2002 Oscar nominated film, "THE GANGS OF NEW YORK". 

Loosely based upon Herbert Ashbury's 1927 non-fiction book, "GANGS OF NEW YORK" had the distinction of being a crime drama about a gang war . . . set during the first half of the U.S. Civil War. Before I continue, I should add that the film was not only based upon Ashbury's book, but also on the life and death of a street gang leader named William Poole.

"GANGS OF NEW YORK" began in 1846, when two street gangs - the Protestant"Nativists" led by William "Bill the Butcher" Cutting; and the "Dead Rabbits", an Irish immigrant gang led by "Priest" Vallon; meet somewhere in the Five Points neighborhood of Manhattan for a fight. Near the end of a vicious street brawl, Cutting kills Vallon. A close friend of Vallon hides his young son inside an orphanage on Blackwell's Island. Sixteen years pass and Vallon's son, who has renamed himself Amsterdam, returns to the Five Points neighborhood to seek revenge against "Bill the Butcher", who now rules the neighborhood. Against the back drop of the early years of the Civil War, Amsterdam maneuvers himself into Cutting's confidence, as he waits for the right moment to strike and get his revenge against the man who killed his father.

There are aspects of "GANGS OF NEW YORK" that I either liked or found impressive. Considering that Scorsese shot the film at the Cinecittà Studios and the Silvercup Studios in Queens, New York; I must admit that I found Dante Ferretti's production designs serving for Manhattan rather impressive. Impressive, but not exactly accurate or near accurate. The movie looked as if it had been shot on a sound stage. But I must say that I admired how the designs conveyed Scorsese's own vision of Manhattan 1862-63. I also noticed that the color tones utilized by cinematographer Michael Ballhaus reminded me of the three-strip Technicolor process from the early-to-mid 1930s. Rather odd for a period movie set during the U.S. Civil War. However, thanks to Ferretti's designs and Michael Ballhaus' very colorful photography, the movie's vision of 1860s Manhattan had a theatrical style to it - especially in the Five Points scenes. I did not love it, but I found it interesting.

I could probably say the same about Sandy Powell's costume designs. They struck me as an extreme version of 1860s fashion, especially in regard to color and fabrics, as shown in the image below:



And there was something about the movie's costume designs for men that I found slightly confusing. Mind you, I am not much of an expert on 19th century fashion for men. But for some reason, I found myself wondering if the costumes designed for the male cast were for a movie set in the 1840s, instead of the 1860s, as shown below:



But if I must be honest with myself, I did not like "GANGS OF NEW YORK". Not one bit. The movie proved to be a major disappointment. One of the main problems I had with this film was that Scorsese; along with screenwriters Jay Cocks, Steven Zaillian and Kenneth Lonergan; took what should have been a character-driven period crime drama and transformed it into something nearly unwieldy. When you think about it, "GANGS OF NEW YORK" was basically a fictionalized account of a feud between American-born William Poole and an Irish immigrant named John Morrissey, the former leader of the real "Dead Rabbits" gang. And their feud had played out in the early-to-mid 1850s. Instead, Scorsese and the screenwriters shifted the movie's setting to the early years of the Civil War and ended the narrative with the New York City Draft Riots of 1863 in some attempt to transform what could have been a more intimate period drama into this gargantuan historical epic. I found this perplexing, considering that the Civil War had little to do with the film's main narrative. It also did not help that the film's narrative struck me as a bit choppy, thanks to Scorsese being forced to delete a good deal of the film at the behest of the producers. 

I did not have a problem with the conflict/relationship between Bill Cutting and Amsterdam Vallon. I thought Scorsese made an interesting choice by having Amsterdam ingratiate himself into Cutting's inner circle . . . and keeping his true identity a secret. This paid off when Amsterdam saved Cutting from an assassinating attempt, leading the latter to assume the position of the younger man's mentor. At first, I could not understand why Scorsese had included a romantic interest for Amsterdam in the form of a grifter/pickpocket named Jenny Everdeane. In the end, she proved to be a catalyst that led to Amsterdam and Cutting's eventual conflict near the end of the film. One of the few people who knew Amsterdam's true identity was an old childhood acquaintance named Johnny Sirocco, who became infatuated over Jenny. When he became aware of Amsterdam's romance with Jenny, Johnny ratted out his friend's identity to Cutting. 

But what followed struck me as . . . confusing. On the 17th anniversary of his father's death, Amsterdam tried to kill Cutting and failed. Instead of killing the younger man in retaliation, Cutting merely wounded Amsterdam, branded the latter's cheek and declared him an outcast in the Five Points neighborhood. An outcast? That was it? I found it hard to believe that a violent and vindictive man like Bill "the Butcher" Cutting would refrain from killing someone who tried to kill him. Perhaps this scenario could have worked if Cutter had tried to kill Amsterdam and fail, allowing the latter to make his escape. Or not. But I found Scorsese's scenario with Amsterdam being banished from Cutting's circle and the Five Points neighborhood to be something of a joke.

As for the movie's performances . . . for me they seemed to range from decent to below average. For a movie that featured some of my favorite actors and actresses, I was surprised that not one performance really impressed me. Not even Daniel Day-Lewis' Oscar nominated performance as William "Bill the Butcher" Cutting. Mind you, Day-Lewis had one or two scenes that impressed - especially one that involved a conversation between Bill the Butcher and Amsterdam, inside a brothel. Otherwise, I felt that the actor was chewing the scenery just a bit too much for my tastes. Leonardo Di Caprio, on the other hand, was crucified by critics and moviegoers for his portrayal of the revenge seeking Amsterdam Vallon. Aside from his questionable Irish accent, I had no real problems with Di Caprio's performance. I simply did not find his character very interesting. Just another kid seeking revenge for the death of his father. What made this desire for revenge ridiculous to me is that Bill the Butcher had killed "Priest" Vallon in a fair fight. Not many critics were that impressed by Cameron Diaz's performance. Aside from her questionable Irish accent, I had no real problems with the actress. I had a bigger problem with her character, Jenny Everdeane. To put it quite frankly, aside from her role serving as a catalyst to Cutting's discovery of Amsterdam's true identity, I found Jenny's role in this movie rather irrelevant.

As for the other members of the cast . . . I found their performances solid, but not particularly noteworthy. I thought Henry Thomas gave a decent performance as the lovelorn and vindictive Johnny Sirocco. The movie featured Jim Broadbent, Roger Ashton-Griffiths, Cara Seymour and Michael Byrne portraying true-life characters like William "Boss" Tweed, P.T. Barnum, Hell Cat Maggie and Horace Greeley. They gave competent performances, but I did not find them particularly memorable. The movie also featured solid performances from the likes of Liam Neeson, John C. Reilly, Brendan Gleeson, Gary Lewis, Lawrence Gilliard Jr., Stephen Graham, Eddie Marsan, David Hemmings, Barbara Bouchet and Alec McCowen. But honestly, I could not think of a performance that I found memorable.

My real problem with "GANGS OF NEW YORK" was Scorsese's handling of the movie's historical background. Quite frankly, I thought it was appalling. I am not referring to the film's visual re-creation of early 1860s Manhattan. I am referring to how Scorsese utilized the movie's mid-19th century historical background for the film. Earlier, I had pointed out that the Civil War setting for "GANGS OF NEW YORK" barely had any impact upon the movie's narrative. I think it may have been a bit in error. Scorsese and the screenwriters did utilize the Civil War setting, but in a very poor manner.

"GANGS OF NEW YORK" should never have been set during the U.S. Civil War. It was a big mistake on Scorsese's part. Day-Lewis’ character is based upon someone who was killed in 1855, six years before the war's outbreak. Scorsese should have considered setting the movie during the late antebellum period, for his handling of the Civil War politics in the movie struck me as very questionable. From Scorsese's point of view in this film, the Union is basically a militaristic entity bent upon not only oppressing the Confederacy, but also its citizens in the North - including immigrants and African-Americans. This view was overtly manifested in two scenes - the U.S. Naval bombing of the Five Points neighborhood during the Draft Riots . . . something that never happened; and a poster featuring the images of both Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass that appeared in the movie:



What made this poster even more ridiculous is that the image of Frederick Douglass was anachronistic. Douglass was roughly around 44 to 45 years old during the movie's time period. He looked at least 15 to 20 years older in the poster. 

In "GANGS OF NEW YORK", Americans of Anglo descent like Bill the Butcher were the real bigots of 1860s Manhattan. Not only did they hate immigrants, especially Irish-born immigrants, but also black Americans. I am not claiming that all 19th century Anglo-Americans tolerated blacks and immigrants. Trust me, they did not. But did Scorsese actually expected moviegoers to believe that most of the Irish immigrants were more tolerant of African-Americans than the Anglos? Apparently, he did. He actually portrayed one character, an African-American named Jimmy Spoils, as one of Amsterdam's close friends and a member of the latter's newly reformed "Dead Rabbits" gang. Honestly? It was bad enough that Scorsese's portrayal of Jimmy Spoils was so damn limited. I cannot recall a well-rounded black character in any of his movies. Not one. 

Scorsese and his screenwriters made the situation worse by portraying the Irish immigrants as generally more tolerant toward blacks than the Anglos. In fact, the only Irish-born or characters of Irish descent hostile toward African-Americans in the film were those manipulated by Anglos or traitors to their own kind. According to the movie, the violent inflicted upon blacks by Irish immigrants was the instigation of Federal military policy. By embracing this viewpoint, Scorsese seemed unwilling to face the the real hostility that had existed between Irish immigrants and African-Americans years before the draft riots in July 1863. Actually, both the Irish and the Anglo-Americans - "the Natives" - were racist toward the blacks. One group was not more tolerant than the other. The movie also featured Chinese immigrants as background characters. In other words, not one of them was given a speaking part. If Scorsese had really wanted the New York Draft Riots to be the centerpiece of this movie, he should have focused more on race relations and been more honest about it.

I really wish that I had enjoyed "GANGS OF NEW YORK". I really do. I have always been fascinated by U.S. history during the Antebellum and Civil War periods. But after watching this film, I came away with the feeling that Martin Scorsese either had no idea what kind of film that he wanted or that he tried to do too much. Was "GANGS OF NEW YORK" a period crime drama or a historical drama about the events that led to the New York Draft Riots? It seemed as if the director was more interested in his tale about Amsterdam Vallon and William "Bill the Butcher" Cutting. If so, he could have followed the William Poole-John Morrissey conflict more closely, set this film where it truly belonged - in the 1850s - and left the Civil War alone. I believe his handling of the Civil War proved to be a major stumbling block of what could have been an well done film.

"GANGS OF NEW YORK" (2002) Photo Gallery

Below are images from "GANGS OF NEW YORK", the 2002 loose adaptation of Herbert Ashbury's 1927 non-fiction book. Directed by Martin Scorsese, the movie starred Leonardo DiCaprio, Oscar nominee Daniel Day-Lewis and Cameron Diaz: 



"GANGS OF NEW YORK" (2002) Photo Gallery

"The Moral Landscape of the STAR WARS Saga" - The Jedi Order I

Here is the second article on moral ambiguity found in the STAR WARS saga: 


"The Moral Landscape of the STAR WARS Saga"

The Jedi Order – Part One

In the introduction, I had spoken of the majority of STAR WARS fans’ dislike of the saga’s Prequel Trilogy. Granted, this might be arrogant of me to make this suggestion, but I suspect that some of that dislike may have been centered on George Lucas’ ambiguous view of the major characters and their actions. 

This dislike of the Prequel Trilogy’s ambiguity seemed very apparent in the fans’ view of the Jedi characters. Many of them complained that George Lucas had ruined the Jedi, making them more fallible and ambiguous than they had been portrayed in the Original Trilogy. Judging from their reaction, I found myself wondering if many of them simply referred the Jedi’s portrayal, as was shown in the first two Original Trilogy films. A good example of this came in the form of the aged Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi’s description of his old Order in "A NEW HOPE":

"For over a thousand generations the Jedi Knights were the guardians of peace and justice in the Old Republic. Before the dark times, before the Empire."

On one level, Obi-Wan’s description of the Jedi during the Old Republic had been correct. The Jedi Order followed a mandate in which its members acted as diplomats, investigators, bodyguards and eventually, military leaders for the citizens of the Republic. In reality, they followed the mandate established by the Republic’s governing body, the Galactic Senate. Obi-Wan went on to describe the Order’s destruction in a few words:

"A young Jedi named Darth Vader, who was a pupil of mine until he turned to evil, helped the Empire hunt down and destroy the Jedi Knights. He betrayed and murdered your father. Now the Jedi are all but extinct. Vader was seduced by the dark side of the Force."

Judging from the words mentioned above and from what I have read from many blogs, articles and message boards, many fans ended up making the assumption that the Jedi Knights and Masters were ideal and selfless individuals who were barely capable of making any mistakes. When Lucas painted them as individuals with flaws that allowed Chancellor Palpatine to exploit in order to lead the Order to its destruction, many became angry and appalled. It seemed as if Lucas had destroyed their ideals. However, the last movie of the Original Trilogy - "RETURN OF THE JEDI" - marked the first time that the Jedi were portrayed in a less than personable light. In this particular movie, soon-to-be Jedi Knight Luke Skywalker discovered that both Obi-Wan and Yoda had lied to him about his father's fate and identity. So, it was not that surprising to me that Lucas had continued this path with his unflattering portrayal of the Jedi in the Prequel Trilogy. Personally, I found the Jedi a lot more interesting in the second trilogy. And I find it hard to believe that such ideal personalities actually exist – at least in real life. And in fiction, these ideal characters tend to strike me as boring and one-dimensional. Thanks to Lucas, the Jedi were presented as anything but one-dimensional.

Many fans have expressed the belief that if Anakin Skywalker had rigidly followed the Jedi Code, he could have avoided becoming a Sith Lord and instead, become the ideal Jedi Knight he was allegedly destined to become. I cannot say that I agree with this belief. I have my own ideas of the mistakes Anakin made that led him to become Darth Vader. But I will discuss that matter later in the article. Right now I want to focus on the views of the Jedi.

One of those views centered on how one should regard the Force – which is described as a binding, metaphysical and ubiquitous power in the Universe or perhaps beyond. In one of the first conversations between Jedi Master Qui-Gon Jinn and his padawan (or apprentice) Obi-Wan Kenobi in "THE PHANTOM MENACE", moviegoers learn that there seemed to be more than one viewpoint on how the Force should be regarded:

OBI-WAN : I have a bad feeling about this.
QUI-GON : I don't sense anything.
OBI-WAN : It's not about the mission, Master, it's
somethging...elsewhere...elusive.
QUI-GON : Don't center on your anxiety, Obi-Wan. Keep your concentration
here and now where it belongs.
OBI-WAN : Master Yoda says I should be mindful of the future...
QUI-GON : .....but not at the expense of the moment. Be mindful of the
living Force, my young Padawan.

Obi-Wan, along with other Jedi like Master Yoda, seemed to believe in what is known as the Unifying Force - in other words, they focused on the flow of time as a whole, in which visions of the future were of particular significance. Qui-Gon, on the hand, was a firm believer in supporting of what was known as the Living Force - which is viewed as "living in the moment" or relying heavily on instincts and concentrated more on sensitivity to living things; rather than fulfilling destiny, which was one of the main traits of the Unifying Force. There are STAR WARS who believe that by ignoring the Unifying Force philosophy, Qui-Gon failed to sense the danger that Anakin represented. Others believe that Yoda, Mace Windu and other Jedi Masters failed to prevent the Clone Wars that gave rise to the Galactic Empire, because they had ignored the Living Force philosophy and instead, lost themselves in looking toward the future rather than observing the occurrences unraveling in front of them before it was too late.

First of all, I do not believe that Qui-Gon had ever ignored the Unifying Force. It was he who had sensed Anakin might be the Chosen One that would bring balance to the Force in the future. He was also the one who sensed there was something else behind the situation regarding Naboo’s troubles with the Trade Federation. And when Obi-Wan reminded him that Yoda believe that the Jedi should be mindful of the future, Qui-Gon reminded his padawan that one should not be mindful of the future "at the expense of the moment". And I agree. I see nothing wrong in anticipating what the future will bring, but not to the point where it would blind me from being aware of the present. I also believe that the Jedi Order’s blinding attachment to the Unifying Force philosophy and inability to be aware of the present may have contributed to not only their downfall, but also Anakin’s downfall. Many STAR WARS fans would disagree with me. Not all, mind you; but many.

I am not saying that the Jedi Order was responsible for Anakin’s downfall. I believe that Anakin bears most of the responsibilities, due to the choices he had made in his life. But I believe that the Jedi did not help matters, considering how they trained their acolytes. One of the problems I had with the Jedi was their method in dealing with attachments. Their order had a rule against any of their members forming emotional attachments. They believed that such attachments can be destructive. Anakin’s murder of the Tusken Raiders in retaliation of his mother’s death in "ATTACK OF THE CLONES"; and his decision to help Palpatine massacre the inhabitants of the Jedi Temple in "REVENGE OF THE SITH" seemed to ably support the Jedi’s belief. However, I believe that the Jedi were not completely right. 

Yes, I believe that emotional attachments can be destructive, as shown in "ATTACK OF THE CLONES" and "REVENGE OF THE SITH". But they can also have positive effects, as shown in "RETURN OF THE JEDI". Many fans have criticized Lucas for failing to make a clear statement on the effects of love and emotional attachments. They claimed that Anakin’s downfall in the Prequel Trilogy contradicted Lucas’ message in the Original Trilogy about the positive effects of love and attachments. I believe that they had failed to take into account that there are no clear answers on how emotional attachments can affect someone. It all depends upon the situation or the moment. The problem with the Jedi was that they were either too stupid or too blind to consider that when it comes to forming or letting go of attachments, it all depended upon the moment. Instead, they adhered to a more narrow view on the subject. They believed that all attachments had a negative effect upon an individual and to become a Jedi disciple, one must let go of all attachments. Unfortunately, the Jedi never knew how to let go of attachments – correctly - or even know when was the right time to let go of attachments. In other words, they never taught their disciples and initiates on how to let go. Instead, they enforced this belief through a rule. 

Some fans have claimed that Anakin’s late entry into the Jedi Order at the age of nine, instead of as a toddler, made it difficult for him to let go of his attachments. I disagree. I do not believe that age had anything to do with Anakin's inability to let go of attachments. I believe that no one in the Jedi Order had ever really taught him how to deal with emotional attachments. Why? Because I believe that many Jedi Knights and Masters had never really learned how to deal with their own emotional attachments. I also believe that Jedi failed to consider that everyone is bound to form some kind of attachment in life. Including Jedi Masters, Knights and padawans. After all, most of them had been with the Order since they were toddlers. It was only natural that they would consider the Temple as their own and end up forming attachments to the Order and their fellow disciples. In order for them to learn to let go of attachments, I believe they needed to acknowledge that they had attachments in the first place. Even within the Jedi Order. And considering the circumstances between Luke, Vader/Anakin and Palpatine in "RETURN OF THE JEDI", I believe that the Jedi failed to acknowledge one other lesson. No one can simply let go of an attachment at the drop of a hat. There is a time when one must learn to let go . . . . and not to let go of an attachment. This is one lesson that the entire Jedi Order – Anakin Skywalker included – had failed to learn. 

I believe I better put an end to this article before I continue to ramble. I realize that I have more to say about the Jedi Order than I had originally intended. In the next article; I hope to go into more detail about the Jedi Order, and especially the actions - questionable or otherwise - of some of its members.

"STAR WARS: EPISODE I - THE PHANTOM MENACE" (1999) Review

"STAR WARS: EPISODE I - THE PHANTOM MENACE" (1999) Review

Sixteen years after the 1983 movie, "STAR WARS: EPISODE VI - RETURN OF THE JEDI" hit the movie screens, producer-director George Lucas returned to the world of STAR WARS for a new trilogy that depicted the years before the 1977-1983 movies, starting with the 1999 film, "STAR WARS: EPISODE I - THE PHANTOM MENACE".

"THE PHANTOM MENACE" was received very poorly by critics and veteran STAR WARS fans when it was first released in 1999. Many believed that it failed to capture the spirit of Lucas' saga first established in the first three films. Despite the negative opinions, the movie proved to be a blockbuster champion at the box office. But public opinion of the movie in the following thirteen years remained negative. In fact, public opinion has not been that kind to the two movies that followed. When Lucas announced his intentions to re-release "THE PHANTOM MENACE" in 3D, many either wondered why he would bother or accused the producer of trying to milk the STAR WARS cash cow even further. As for me, I received the news with mixed feelings. When the movie was first released in 1999, I must admit that I enjoyed it very much, even though I would never view it as one of my top favorite STAR WARS movies. On the other hand, I despise the 3D process. I despised the use of it in movies like 2009's "AVATAR" and my feelings for it had not changed when I last saw it used for "THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: VOYAGE OF THE DAWN TREADER". But my love for STAR WARS overcame my distaste for 3D and I went to see the movie.

Like other STAR WARS, this one began in a galaxy, far, far away . . . thirty-two years before the events of the 1977 movie. Instead of an empire, this story is set during the Old Republic in which knights and masters of the religious Jedi Order serve as "the guardians of peace and justice in the galaxy" on behalf of the Republic Senate. A Jedi Master named Qui-Gon Jinn and his apprentice (or padawan) have been dispatched by the Senate's Chancellor Finis Valorum to negotiate a peace between the planet Naboo and the Trade Federation, an organization who has decided to establish a blockade of battleships in response to a taxation on trade routes. The Federation has made this move on the "advice" of their partner, a Sith Lord (and enemy of the Jedi) named Darth Sidious. Unfortunately for Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan, the Trade Federation attempt to kill them on the order of Darth Sidious. Both Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan escape from the Trade Federation battleship and make their way to Naboo's surface, during the former's invasion of the planet. The pair enlists the help of Jar-Jar Binks and his fellow Gungans (Naboo's underwater inhabitants) to reach Queen Padme Amidala, the planet's 14 year-old ruler. They save her and her entourage, before making their escape from Naboo. Due to a failing power converter, the entire party make an emergency landing on the remote Tatooine in order to find the parts to fix the ship. In one of Tatooine's major cities, Mos Espa; Qui-Gon, Padme (who is disguised as a royal handmaiden), and Jar-Jar meet a young slave boy named Anakin Skywalker. It is not long before Qui-Gon Their meeting will prove to not only have major consequences on the outcome between Naboo and the Trade Federation, but also upon the galaxy.

My recent viewing of "THE PHANTOM MENACE" made me realize that after 13 years, I still love the movie. Nothing has changed my view of the movie, including the addition of the 3D effects. However, I cannot deny that "THE PHANTOM MENACE" was not perfect. I have my complaints. My major complaint was Lucas' addition of the 3D effects. They were not impressive. I had expected them to be, considering the outstanding 3D effects of the updated STAR WARS attractions at the Disney amusement parks. But the movie's effects proved to be a poor comparison and a not-so-surprising disappointment. My second complaint centered around the use of Tatooine as a setting. In fact, the saga's use of Tatooine has proven to be a major disappointment since the first movie, 1977's "A NEW HOPE". Aside from a few sequences, Tatooine proved to be a major bore. After Qui-Gon and Padme's first meeting with Anakin, I had to struggle to stay awake before the podrace sequence. Lucas' slow pacing and John Williams' less-than-stellar score nearly put me to sleep. The only movie in which Tatooine proved to be interesting from start to finish was 2002's "ATTACK OF THE CLONES". I realize that many STAR WARS fans dislike the Gungans and specifically, one Jar-Jar Binks. There are times that I feel I could write a detailed essay on the fans' dislike of Jar-Jar, but this is not the time or place for such an article. Although I harbor no dislike of Jar-Jar, there were a few times when I had some difficulty understanding his and the other Gungans' dialogue.

It may not be perfect, but I cannot deny that I found "THE PHANTOM MENACE" enjoyable as ever. George Lucas wrote a complex, yet comprehensive tale that set in motion the downfall of the Galactic Republic, the Jedi Order and most of the major characters. "THE PHANTOM MENACE" offered a great deal for all ages and tastes. It provided a complex political tale that culminated in an exciting military battle that freed Naboo from the clutches of the Trade Federation. It provided an exciting duel between the two Jedi - Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan - and Sith Lord Darth Sidious' apprentice, Darth Maul. The movie provided characters such as a nine year-old Anakin Skywalker, his Tatooine friends and Jar-Jar Binks for children. But the one thing that really impressed me was the exciting Boonta Eve Podrace that Anakin participated in order to win parts for Qui-Gon, Padme and their ship. In fact, if I had to choose my favorite sequence in the entire STAR WARS movie saga, it had to be the one featuring the podrace. This sequence began with the Skywalkers, Qui-Gon, Padme and Jar-Jar arriving at the Mos Espa arena and ended aboard the Nabooan starship when Qui-Gon introduced Anakin to Obi-Wan, following his brief duel with Darth Maul.

"THE PHANTOM MENACE" provided some solid acting, despite George Lucas' cheesy dialogue. This is no surprise, considering that a combination of solid acting and cheesy dialogue has been the hallmark of STAR WARS movies since the first one in 1977. Ewan McGregor, Natalie Portman, Samuel L. Jackson, Ahmed Best, Hugh Quarshie, Terence Stamp, Andrew Secombe and Ray Parks all did solid work. It was nice to hear vocals from STAR WARS veterans Frank Oz, Anthony Daniels and Kenny Baker. The movie also featured brief moments for British stars such as Keira Knightley, Oliver Ford-Davies, Celia Imrie, Brian Blessed, and Richard Armitage. But there were a few performances that stood out. One came from Ian McDiarmid, who returned to portray Senator Palpatine of Naboo aka Darth Sidious for the second time in his career. Unlike his portrayal of Palpatine in 1983's "RETURN OF THE JEDI", his performance was a great deal more subtle and layered with much charm. Jake Lloyd may not have been the best child actor in existence, but I cannot deny that his Anakin Skywalker was like a ball of solar energy that charmed the pants off of me. The good-bye scene between Anakin and his mother, Shmi was one of the most poignant in the saga. Both Lloyd and Pernilla August did such a superb job that their performances brought tears to my eyes. And aside from a few wooden moments, I thought he handled the role rather well. But if I had to choose the best performance in the movie, I would select Liam Neeson as Jedi Master Qui-Gon Jinn. First of all, he did a great job in conveying Qui-Gon's warmth and appeal. He made it easy for many to see why both Anakin and Obi-Wan viewed him as a father figure.

Since this is a STAR WARS movie, one might as well discuss the technical aspects of "THE PHANTOM MENACE". Without a doubt, it is a beautiful looking movie. It was so beautiful that I did not know who to single out. But I can think of a few. First of all cinematographer David Tattersall did a beautiful job in photographing the movie's locations of England, Tunisia and especially Italy. Thanks to Ben Burtt and Paul Martin Smith's editing, the podrace and the Battle of Naboo proved to be two of the best sequences in the movie. And what can I say about Trisha Biggar's dazzling costume designs? Just how beautiful are they? Take a look:

 

It seems a crime that Biggar's work was never acknowledged by the Academy Arts of Motion Pictures and Sciences or the Golden Globes. At least she won a Saturn Award for the costumes in this movie.

However, it was George Lucas who put it altogether in the end. Twenty-two years had passed between the time he directed "A NEW HOPE" and "THE PHANTOM MENACE". Personally, I thought he did a pretty damn good job. The 1999 movie was not perfect. And if I must be perfectly frank, I was not impressed by the movie's 3D effects. But I am glad that I went to see "THE PHANTOM MENACE" in the movie theaters again. It reminded me that the STAR WARS saga had not lost its magic on the big screen.