skyjedi2005 said:We know how the Phantom Menace performs when set against the standards of the oot, but how does it stand up against other films that came out in 1999?
I would ask the same for 2002 attack of the clones
and 2005 revenge of the sith.
What sci fi blockbusters have come out since 1999 that have done it better?
I could extend this all the way back to 1983 when the saga officially ended with the release of Return of the Jedi and was a closed subject.
But i'm more interested in sci fi/fantasy films of the nineties and 2000's that did a better job with their effects and story. List some wontcha.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_in_film
Good point. I think the prequels do okay when looked at from that perspective. I think though the biggest problem is the fact they carry the label of "Star Wars." An above average trilogy is greatly hurt by high standard of its predescessors. Same thing with Indy 4. I honestly thought it was one of the better movies of 2008. Did I think it was as good as the other three. Not close.
In other words, movies these days overall kind of suck. Does anyone else think Hollywood needs something like the next Star Wars to get it going again?
Better sci-fi/fantasy films in the same year.
2002: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
2005: The Chronicles of Narnia
2007: Stardust (I know a prequel didn't come out that year but I had to mention it because it's freakin amazing)
Matrix was too confusing for me and I hated the desaturated color timing for Lord of the Rings.