Entertainment
'The Phantom Menace' dominated 1999's box office. History has been kinder to it
May 19, 1999, in a galaxy not so far away …
Excitement for “Star Wars” is at an all-time high. The first new film in the beloved series that originally concluded with 1983’s “Return of the Jedi” is about to be released in 2,970 theaters, with a majority starting their first screenings just after midnight. (Ticket sales opened just the week before.)
Audiences have had 16 long years to dream about what George Lucas has conjured up for this new cinematic adventure. But instead of whatever they’d imagined, “Star Wars: Episode I — The Phantom Menace” involves a nefarious trade dispute, myth-altering midi-chlorians and Jar Jar Binks.
And although it becomes, for a while, the second-highest grossing film of all time, the divisive new chapter gains a reputation as one of the worst “Star Wars” movies ever.
The 1999 Project
All year we’ll be marking the 25th anniversary of pop culture milestones that remade the world as we knew it then and created the world we live in now. Welcome to The 1999 Project, from the Los Angeles Times.
Today, “The Phantom Menace” returns to theaters in celebration of its 25th anniversary. In the 19 years since 2005‘s “Star Wars: Episode III — Revenge of the Sith,” the much maligned prequel trilogy has, in many ways, been redeemed.
Just look at how its stars — including Ewan McGregor, Hayden Christensen and Ahmed Best — have been re-embraced by fans in their returns to the franchise in television projects such as “Obi-Wan Kenobi” and “Ahsoka.” Even the actors themselves have voiced appreciation that their original films seem to be regarded more positively. Becoming “more aware of the fondness that the generation that we made the prequels for has for those films … [has] meant a lot to me,” McGregor told NBC News in 2022.
And as the “Star Wars” franchise continues to grow, with upcoming projects including two new series, “The Acolyte” and “Skeleton Crew,” the second seasons of “Andor” and “Ahsoka” and at least two additional films, it has become increasingly apparent just how much of it is built upon a foundation laid down by the prequels. “Star Wars’” most recent successes would not exist if not for “The Phantom Menace.”
“The Phantom Menace” arrived saddled with many expectations. Audiences who grew up on “Star Wars” in theaters or on VHS tapes knew how Darth Vader’s story ended.
“The Phantom Menace” was going to show how it began, something only teased in the original films. Many fans camped outside movie theaters for weeks, just to be among the first to see it. Reports at the time mention that the line outside Westwood’s Village Theatre included about two dozen regulars ages 14 to 40 equipped with couches, recliners, beach chairs, video games and even satellite TV.
“It is only a movie,” The Times reported Lucas insisting during a press event during the lead-up to release. “We have tried hard not to let the film get over-hyped. . . . [It’s] a film for 12-year-olds . . . a Saturday-afternoon serial for children.”
From left, Natalie Portman, Liam Neeson, Jake Lloyd and Ewan McGregor in the movie “Star Wars: Episode I — The Phantom Menace.”
(Keith Hamshere / Lucasfilm Ltd.)
Set roughly 30 years before the events of the original “Star Wars” (which was re-christened “A New Hope” in 1981 after a re-release), “The Phantom Menace” introduced audiences to a 9-year-old Anakin Skywalker (played by Jake Lloyd), a child who would eventually grow up to become Darth Vader.
Anakin’s story begins when a diplomatic mission gone awry brings Jedi Knight Qui-Gon Jinn (Liam Neeson), his apprentice Obi-Wan Kenobi (McGregor), the clumsy and, to some, cringeworthy Jar Jar Binks (Best) and young Queen Amidala (Natalie Portman) to his home planet, Tatooine.
Many critics were underwhelmed. In his review, Times film critic Kenneth Turan described the film as a “considerable letdown” but “certainly adequate.”
It’s “not going to change anyone’s life or method of worship,” wrote Turan. “It’s only a movie, and … a much less impressive one than all the accompanying genuflection would have you believe.” (Lucas, for his part, noted in advance of “Phantom’s” release that the original trilogy got “generally bad reviews” and that he expected the same this time around as well.)
What “The Phantom Menace” did have were state-of-the-art visual effects: Lucas was uninterested in revisiting “Star Wars” until the technology caught up to his vision. The film boasts the first fully computer-generated supporting character in Jar Jar Binks, and regardless of one’s opinion of the character, that is a landmark, paving the way for “The Lord of the Rings’” Gollum and the “Avatar” films.
“The Phantom Menace” also included such memorable sequences as Anakin’s podrace and a lightsaber showdown (referred to by the John Williams theme that accompanies it, the “Duel of the Fates”) between our Jedi heroes and the film’s fantastically designed villain, Darth Maul.
From left, Liam Neeson, Ray Park and Ewan McGregor in the climactic lightsaber duel of “Star Wars: Episode I — The Phantom Menace.”
(Keith Hamshere / Lucasfilm Ltd.)
Still, audiences were much more vocal about the ways “The Phantom Menace” was a disappointment. Criticism of the film included concerns that certain new aliens like the Neimoidians and Gungans appeared to reflect racist tropes. (Lucasfilm rejected those claims as “absurd.”) Any thoughtful responses were drowned out by more vitriolic pushback on everything from the characters and acting to the story and execution.
It was an early glimpse into the darker side of the “Star Wars” fandom — and maybe self-entitled fandom in general. Jar Jar Binks actor Best has been candid about how the negative responses to his character led to his receiving online abuse and death threats. Such bad behavior intensified 16 years later, beginning with the release of the sequel trilogy, which saw stars John Boyega and Kelly Marie Tran becoming targets of racist backlash.
And the newer shows are arriving at a time when “anti-woke” superfans who can’t imagine a “Star Wars” galaxy (one already populated with nonhumanoid aliens) as diverse and inclusive have been increasingly emboldened to make racist and sexist remarks.
Luckily, the “Star Wars” fandom is not defined by that vocal minority.
In recent years, appreciation for “The Phantom Menace” has grown. The 2022 arrival of “Obi-Wan Kenobi,” in particular, had even skeptics reassessing the significance of the prequel trilogy.
“The nostalgia for the prequels can’t redeem those movies in full … But they’re quotable, they’re memeable, and they’re fun to rant against and argue about and rally around,” wrote the Ringer’s Justin Charity.
Part of the reason “The Phantom Menace” has been increasingly embraced is because for a generation of fans, “Episode I” was their first “Star Wars” experience. They‘re now old enough to defend what was to them just as foundational as seeing “Star Wars” in a theater was for kids in 1977.
The prequel films have also been further recontextualized by additional storytelling. Series like the animated “Star Wars: The Clone Wars,” set in the years between the events of “Attack of the Clones” (2002) and “Revenge of the Sith,” have fleshed out the universe. Live-action shows like “The Mandalorian” and “The Book of Boba Fett” have drawn on lore established in the prequel-era stories — with success.
The “Obi-Wan Kenobi” series revisits McGregor’s version of the title character for a glimpse at how the man at the end of “Revenge of the Sith” became the one in “A New Hope” (portrayed by Alec Guinness). Concepts like cloning and even midi-chlorians, the micro-organisms with ties to the Force first mentioned in “The Phantom Menace,” have also endured: The only reason the Mandalorian and Grogu even cross paths is because the remnants of the Empire are so interested in the latter’s midi-chlorian count.
Jake Lloyd and Pernilla August in “Star Wars: Episode I — The Phantom Menace.”
(Lucasfilm Ltd.)
In a larger sense, even shows like “Andor” can trace their DNA to the prequels, by being unafraid to enter into what is considered canon and challenge the assumptions of what is expected of a “Star Wars” story. The franchise has increasingly become one large tapestry where new titles build upon and reframe what came before — not a collection of three classics “owned” by gatekeeping fans. And while subsequent projects do not actually change the quality of past installments, they do sometimes lead to reassessment.
“The Phantom Menace” is also a precursor — for good and ill — of today’s modern media landscape of sprawling IP and interconnected universes like the Marvel Cinematic Universe, DC Universe and even Godzilla’s Monsterverse. Lucas’ enormous box office success not only made an eventual sequel series an inevitability but it also signaled to others that there were possibilities in revisiting dormant worlds to attract new audiences.
The bar for “The Phantom Menace” was set impossibly high — not necessarily by the films of the original trilogy but the audience’s relationship with them. But “Star Wars” movies are special because of their potential to make people fall in love with storytelling just as much as the world itself.
And for a generation that grew up on the prequels, “The Phantom Menace” did just that.
While a bit hollow as a character study, painting with broad thematic brushstrokes that often keep its hero at a distance, Young Washington is a compelling historical drama, with a grandiose scope that is rare in Hollywood, and an inspirational story befitting of America at its best.
About the Film
It’s trendy for Hollywood to disparage the United States with films that highlight how the country has fallen short of its lofty ideals (and the beauty of American liberty is that such critical self-reflection is possible). Last year’s One Battle After Another was the darling of the Academy Awards with such a tale. But this Independence Day, and in celebration of 250 years as a nation, audiences can be reminded that (like the men who founded it) America may be imperfect, but the American spirit is a noble and beautiful thing worth fighting for. Young Washington is the origin story, not just of one of those brave Founding Fathers, but of the patriotic spirit and noble values they inspired. While a bit hollow as a character study, painting with broad thematic brushstrokes that often keep its hero at a distance, Young Washington is a compelling historical drama, with a grandiose scope that is rare in Hollywood, and an inspirational story befitting of America at its best.
Director Jon Erwin (House of David, I Can Only Imagine) again proves to be one of the best all-around storytelling talents in Hollywood right now, faith-based or otherwise. Produced and distributed by Angel and Wonder Project, the film is among the most ambitious projects to emerge from the new wave of faith-based entertainment, even if Young Washington isn’t explicitly “faith-based” in a rigid sense. When I interviewed screenwriter Diederik Hoogstraten, he aptly referred to the storytelling approach as “values based.” It may not be a gospel-preaching cinematic tract (and it’s the better for it), but Christians will find plenty to affirm and celebrate here.
If we do count the film among the “faith-based” genre family, then it’s easily a peak achievement. It’s a visually beautiful and well-crafted film. For as good as the modern faith-based genre has become, few movies have warranted a theatrical viewing, being built more on wholesome narrative than visual spectacle. In contrast, seeing Washington gallop on a horse as cannon fire and the pandemonium of battle rages all around him is a full-blown cinematic experience that has rarely been achieved in the genre – other than perhaps Erwin’s own The House of David.
Young Washington is solid from start to finish, but it never fully soars. The film is more interesting than engrossing; good in most areas, but never quite great at any one of them. The clearest comparable, due to the subject matter, is perhaps Mel Gibson’s The Patriot (2000). Historical inaccuracies aside, that film packed a cinematic punch of action, spectacle, and emotional storytelling. Young Washington offers the first two but lacks the third. It’s a story that appeals more to the head than the heart, historically informative, but not making me feel much toward the story.
The creative decision to focus the story on a limited, formulative period of Washington’s early life shapes the film in significant ways. Many biopics fall into the trap of dutifully checking boxes, adapting a Wikipedia page more than unfolding a character journey. There’s still some of that with Young Washington, but the limited parameters lend the film a greater sense of focus and an opportunity to breathe. It feels like a story about something more than just putting historical events onto the movie screen.
At the same time, the film also feels like “part one” of a larger story, or a prequel for a film that doesn’t yet exist. The story seems constantly building toward something but then ends on the cusp of reaching it. Perhaps a future sequel is in the cards (although Middle Aged Washington doesn’t have the same ring to it), but the climactic pay off feels lacking. Interestingly, while the movie remains largely historically accurate (as far I can tell), the climactic final battle is more positively framed as a sort of inspirational victory, even when the historical battle was a crushing defeat. It’s perhaps an attempt to manufacture a thrilling third act resolution for a historical figure who was still only in the “first act” of his life. The decision mostly works, and that final battle is the film’s greatest triumph, but the story overall, as told, feels incomplete.
Also notable is that despite the intentionally patriotic release date, and centering on George Washington—arguably the American hero—the “Young” part of the film’s title means that the story pre-dates the revolutionary war. It sees Washington spend the duration of the runtime as a proud officer in the British army. Not quite the patriotic celebration the marketing has promised. Beyond existing knowledge of the historical significance of the protagonist, there is no real “America” at all, beyond a focus on his Virginian regiment, and some hints at the “American Spirit” that would one day define the nation (see themes below).
The fact that it has taken until the end of this review to discuss the character of George Washington himself is also telling. Unfortunately, he is the least interesting part of the film. The fault is not with actor William Franklyn-Miller, who does an admirable job. The problem is with the characterization. Washington has understandable motivations and inner conflict, but they are approached more from the perspective of an outside observer, rather than getting into his own headspace (we are told about struggles but rarely feel his turmoil). The film doesn’t probe deep enough into the root causes of these struggles, or the causes of his insecurity and drive for greatness. I left the film having learned about the events his early life, but without a better understanding of him as a man.
In the end, Young Washington boasts enough entertainment and quality filmmaking to please audiences. It’s a high floor, low ceiling type of film. There are no moments where the film fails to deliver consistent quality, but it just never seems able to achieve anything more. It’s good, but not great, which is something rarely said of George Washington himself. Still, I enjoyed it, and in retrospect, its legacy may be more for how it paved the way for the genre to enter a brighter future. Come to think of it, that sounds befitting of George Washington after all.
On the Surface
For Consideration
On the Surface—(Profanity, Sexual content, violence, etc.).
Language: There are three minor profanities (“d—” x2, “b—ard” x1).
Violence: There is plenty of wartime action, including men shot with rifles and cannon fire, although the action remains relatively bloodless. The most extreme violence comes when a man is hacked with an axe, although it is more implied than depicted on screen.
Sexuality: None.
Beneath The Surface
Engage The Film
The Makings of a Leader
George Washington was a larger-than-life person. By the end of the film, he is depicted as a near mythic figure (although, the scenes are adapted from details provided by several Pulitzer Prize winning biographies, so sometimes real life really is a Hollywood story). But one of the film’s central ambitions, and one emphasized in my interview with the screenwriter, is to humanize that mythical figure.
Early in the film, he is not necessarily even very likeable at times. He is stubborn, and his deep insecurities manifest as the appearance of pride and arrogance. His poor choices and refusal to heed wise counsel, such as the defeat at Fort Necessity, lead to serious consequences. Many biopics are hagiographical (such as the recent Michael), but Young Washington demonstrates the biblical truth that all men have sinned and fallen short of God’s standard (Romans 3:23). It answers the age-old question by suggesting that great leaders are not born great, they must become great.
In an early scene, George and his mother argue about their unfavorable circumstances. George’s mother wishes for her deceased husband back, but says, “Providence denied me this.” George responds, “Then providence is cruel!” His mother eventually counters, “God raises what is well grounded.” That exchange represents the heart of the film. We cannot control our circumstances, but we can shape our character (and allow God to shape it) to respond to them. As one character says, “Failure is the tutor sent by God.” Washington lacks the status and social advantages of others, and at first, he attempts to take it into his own hands to rise to prominence. Ultimately, after great failure, he learns that it is through humility and service that he can be used to do great deeds (Matthew 20:16). Interestingly, at the end of the film, even the pagan Indian tribes recognize God’s anointing on Washington’s life.
Entertainment
’47 Ronin’ director Carl Erik Rinsch sentenced to 30 months in prison for Netflix fraud case
Carl Erik Rinsch, the director of the 2013 Keanu Reeves action film “47 Ronin,” will serve more than two years in federal prison for defrauding Netflix of $11 million.
U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff on Monday sentenced 48-year-old Rinsch to 30 months in prison, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of New York, announced. Federal prosecutors convicted Rinsch in December of wire fraud, money laundering and other counts. A legal representative for Rinsch did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday.
Federal prosecutors indicted Rinsch in March 2025, alleging the $11 million went into Rinsch’s personal accounts. The filmmaker “quickly transferred” the money from the Rinsch Co. account, where it had been deposited March 6, 2020, by Netflix, through additional accounts until about $10.5 million wound up weeks later in a personal brokerage account. He lost more than half of that money in less than two months via risky investments in the stock market, the indictment said.
Though Rinsch told the streamer that his sci-fi show “White Horse” was progressing nicely, the filmmaker allegedly moved the remaining money into cryptocurrency and profited from crypto speculation over the next couple of years. The streamer had invested around $44 million in the show. Rinsch was accused of spending around $10 million on five Rolls-Royces, a Ferrari, watches, clothing, luxury bedding and linens, credit card bills, attorneys to sue Netflix for more money, and lawyers to work on his divorce.
He was arrested in West Hollywood and released the same day after agreeing to post a $100,000 bond to guarantee his appearance in a New York federal court.
Rinsch never finished the Netflix show.
During his sentencing, Rinsch and his legal team told the court his behavior was a result of mental health struggles and medication problems and they are working to address those issues with a new care provider, the Associated Press reported.
“I failed to recognize the danger of the state I was in,” Rinsch said, though his mental issues were not described in court, and his attorneys declined to provide further detail.
Ahead of the sentencing, Reeves — the star of Rinsch’s most notable project to date — penned a letter in May requesting “leniency and mercy as well as justice” in the filmmaker’s sentencing.
In addition to prison time, Rinsch must serve three years of supervised release, forfeit the $11 million and pay $700 in mandatory special assessments, according to Monday’s announcement. U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton said in the announcement: “Today’s sentence sends a deterrent message: fraud will not be tolerated.”
The Associated Press and former Times assistant editor Christie D’Zurilla contributed to this report.
Minions & Monsters, 2026.
Directed by Pierre Coffin and Patrick Delage.
Featuring the voice talents of Pierre Coffin, Trey Parker, Allison Janney, Christoph Waltz, Jeff Bridges, Jesse Eisenberg, Zoey Deutch, Bobby Moynihan, Phil LaMarr, and George Lucas.
SYNOPSIS:
Follows the Minions in 1920s Hollywood as they search for frightening creatures for their monster movie, partner with a green creature, and must save the planet after unleashing monsters.
Minions & Monsters comes with a genius creative choice to reinvigorate a tired schtick. The slapstick antics of the mischievous Minions have always felt partially inspired by comedic stuntwork from the likes of Buster Keaton (at one point, a house comes down over a Minion, paying homage) and Charlie Chaplin, so it’s seamless for director Pierre Coffin (who continues to voice all of them) to place them in the Golden Age of Hollywood. Yes, these movies are critic-proof and will crack one billion dollars regardless, and a case could be made that the filmmakers could have made bank once again going down an artistically bankrupt path, so it is refreshingly welcome that he (directing alongside Patrick Delage and crafting the screenplay with Brian Lynch) chooses to insert these yellow goofballs into a Hollywood love letter that doubles as an avenue for children and anyone else to develop an interest in the era.
Generally, when nostalgia-pandering is discussed or Easter Eggs flood a cinematic experience, it’s about placating fans and giving them what they want out of corporate obligation to put a film in the best position to succeed financially. Minions & Monsters is an animated feature that begins by rewinding the Universal Pictures logo all the way back to when it was The Trans-Atlantic Film Company, with an opening scene that uses The Horse in Motion, the earliest example of photography resembling a motion picture. From there, it’s an adventure involving Minions and Hollywood, giddy to reference anything it possibly can, from classic monsters to Humphrey Bogart to Westerns to Citizen Kane to a plot point that feels ripped out of the recent more cynical and vulgar Babylon, with the red-hot popular Minions struggling and failing to adjust to the transition from silent-era flicks to talkies.
There is a narrative here (more so than in the first two installments, which is a huge part of why this film works in addition to its sincerity) in that a present-day Hollywood museum tour guide (voiced by Allison Janney) educating kids about E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, The Matrix, George Lucas (voicing himself while locked inside a glass casing), and more, eventually comes across a pair of Minions named James and Henry with quite the sweet friendship and story worth telling. Its initial stages aren’t too far off from what we already know about Minions in that they have always existed looking for evildoers to serve, this time coming across a cyclops, a wizard, a mummy, a viking, and others that they inadvertently kill through slapstick means.
The chaotic up-and-down history leads them to Hollywood, disrupting the shooting of an intense train robbery scene, which sends its director Max (voiced by Christoph Waltz) into a neurotic panic until studio executives, the Bright Brothers (voiced by Jeff Bridges), express that they find these yellow demons utterly hilarious and captivating to watch as they wreak havoc. As previously established, good things don’t last forever, and the Minions find themselves shoved aside in a new movie-making landscape, but not before a montage celebrating numerous genres across silent-era films and leaving James and Henry with a dream to make “the best movie ever”, Minions y Monsters.
This is where the film slightly loses its way, transitioning into a more familiar animated feature/Minions story, as they bust out the sorcerer’s spellbook they found ages ago to summon Cthulhu as their monstrous antagonist. Instead, they conjure up a tiny blob named Goomi (Trey Parker, voicing a different character in the franchise this time while sounding like an amalgamation of about five different South Park characters with plenty of Cartman coming through) who can’t be what they need for the movie but can help find other suitable monsters, all while joined by sidekicks Philips and Howard (voiced by Bobby Moynihan and Phil LaMarr).
While James and Henry (who are joined by Ed as their cinematographer) try to make this dream happen, the other minions search for another villain to serve, stumbling across robot Dort (Jesse Eisenberg voicing a character riffing on Gort from The Day the Earth Stood Still), who turns out to suck at being evil even though he desperately wants to break bad. Rather amusingly, he befriends a suffragette (voiced by Zoey Deutch) in a completely bizarre, random subplot that mostly works because of how out-of-left-field it is. Nevertheless, it’s mostly filler material until the Minions meet their match in the climactic showdown that, unfortunately, has more in common with modern blockbusters than the classical Hollywood it’s trying to imitate, even if the enormous blob they’re up against looks icky, with gross animation details that deserve applause.
Setting that aside, it is noteworthy that even if there are still plenty of jokes with the Minions here that don’t land, it is also funnier when they are interacting with not only recognizable scenes, genres, and movies, but also what shouldn’t be forgotten. There is also a joyous friendship at the center holding it together, whereas I couldn’t tell you a damn thing about the Minions from previous movies other than that one of them was named Bob. Minions & Monsters is still more of the same, while also a testament and celebration of the beauty and magic of making and watching movies, with earnest love for the era that shines through. For the first time, the brain isn’t turning to mush watching one of these.
Flickering Myth Rating – Film: ★ ★ ★ / Movie: ★ ★ ★
Robert Kojder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=embed/playlist
-
Los Angeles, Ca54 minutes agoLos Angeles County man convicted of sex trafficking, abusing woman he was dating
-
Detroit, MI1 hour agoDetroit Tigers tee off on New York Yankees with 5 homers in win
-
San Francisco, CA1 hour agoPopular brewery shutters San Francisco location amid industry woes
-
Dallas, TX1 hour agoEight arrested after repeated attempts to enter World Cup matches without tickets
-
Miami, FL2 hours agoReports: Heat add potent bench scorer in Tim Hardaway Jr.
-
Boston, MA2 hours agoBoston Pops gearing up for major July 4th celebration: ‘You only turn 250 once’ – Boston News, Weather, Sports | WHDH 7News
-
Denver, CO2 hours agoColorado wildfires destroy more than 100 structures, force more evacuations
-
Seattle, WA2 hours agoWill Katie Wilson’s endorsements help or hurt Seattle’s position in Olympia?
