Is Star Wars: Episode I any better in 3D?

George Lucas is betting that a costly 3D conversion will convince audiences to endure the offensive Jar Jar Binks and tiresome taxation debates anew

Can a 3D revamp make Star Wars: Episode 1 — The Phantom Menace watchable? It's fair to say that the 1999 prequel is the least beloved of the six-film Star Wars saga. When it premiered 13 years ago, critics blasted its narrative obsession with trade taxation routes (yawn); its wooden performances; the creepy flirtation between Natalie Portman's Queen Amidala and 9-year-old Jake Lloyd's Anakin Skywalker; and, above all, the cringe-inducing stereotype known as Jar Jar Binks. Director George Lucas has since spent well over a year on a painstaking 3D conversion (debuting this weekend), which reportedly cost more than the original film. Should wary moviegoers risk $18 to check out the results?

Not a chance: This is still The Phantom Menace, so prepare to be disappointed, says Matt Maytum at Total Film. The plot is still "impenetrably dull" — assuming you haven't developed a fondness for intergalactic bureaucracy in the past decade. Anakin is as bratty as ever, and Jar Jar's "awkward racial stereotypes" are no more forgivable. As for the 3D conversion, the pod race benefits the most, "its speed-thrills boosted by arcade-style immersion." And that lightsaber duel finale "remains a series highlight, in however many dimensions." Everything in between: Still awful.
"Star Wars: Episode I — The Phantom Menace review"

The 3D is pretty good, however: This is "easily one of the best post-3D conversions I've seen," says Jason Jenkins at CNET. The newly dimensional pod race scene really is dynamite and the effects are, for the most part, refreshingly subtle. But the 3D occasionally gets in the way of a scene — most egregiously during Anakin's farewell to his mother on Tatooine. Other times "an object is pushed too far into the foreground," straining your eyes. And, while the 3D is "technically very good, it adds little to the overall experience" of the film. If you have kids, this is a must-see. Otherwise, save your cash.
"Is it worth seeing Star Wars in 3D?"

Either way, this is an industry-changing release: It's likely that this re-release will only attract families and Star Wars uber-fans, says Rafer Guzman at Newsday. But even if you don't fall into one of those categories, "keep an eye on this film." We've already seen Disney re-release its treasured animated flicks The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast to critical and commercial success. But this is the first time a studio "has converted an old, summer-style blockbuster into 3D." How it fares may decide whether the treatment will be applied to other popular live-action films that predate the recent 3D boom.
"Phantom Menace flies again in 3D"

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

Is Star Wars: Episode I any better in 3D?

George Lucas is betting that a costly 3D conversion will convince audiences to endure the offensive Jar Jar Binks and tiresome taxation debates anew

Can a 3D revamp make Star Wars: Episode 1 — The Phantom Menace watchable? It's fair to say that the 1999 prequel is the least beloved of the six-film Star Wars saga. When it premiered 13 years ago, critics blasted its narrative obsession with trade taxation routes (yawn); its wooden performances; the creepy flirtation between Natalie Portman's Queen Amidala and 9-year-old Jake Lloyd's Anakin Skywalker; and, above all, the cringe-inducing stereotype known as Jar Jar Binks. Director George Lucas has since spent well over a year on a painstaking 3D conversion (debuting this weekend), which reportedly cost more than the original film. Should wary moviegoers risk $18 to check out the results?

Not a chance: This is still The Phantom Menace, so prepare to be disappointed, says Matt Maytum at Total Film. The plot is still "impenetrably dull" — assuming you haven't developed a fondness for intergalactic bureaucracy in the past decade. Anakin is as bratty as ever, and Jar Jar's "awkward racial stereotypes" are no more forgivable. As for the 3D conversion, the pod race benefits the most, "its speed-thrills boosted by arcade-style immersion." And that lightsaber duel finale "remains a series highlight, in however many dimensions." Everything in between: Still awful.
"Star Wars: Episode I — The Phantom Menace review"

The 3D is pretty good, however: This is "easily one of the best post-3D conversions I've seen," says Jason Jenkins at CNET. The newly dimensional pod race scene really is dynamite and the effects are, for the most part, refreshingly subtle. But the 3D occasionally gets in the way of a scene — most egregiously during Anakin's farewell to his mother on Tatooine. Other times "an object is pushed too far into the foreground," straining your eyes. And, while the 3D is "technically very good, it adds little to the overall experience" of the film. If you have kids, this is a must-see. Otherwise, save your cash.
"Is it worth seeing Star Wars in 3D?"

Either way, this is an industry-changing release: It's likely that this re-release will only attract families and Star Wars uber-fans, says Rafer Guzman at Newsday. But even if you don't fall into one of those categories, "keep an eye on this film." We've already seen Disney re-release its treasured animated flicks The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast to critical and commercial success. But this is the first time a studio "has converted an old, summer-style blockbuster into 3D." How it fares may decide whether the treatment will be applied to other popular live-action films that predate the recent 3D boom.
"Phantom Menace flies again in 3D"

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

Eli Manning: A better QB than big brother Peyton?

After leading the New York Giants to a second Super Bowl victory in four years, Eli now beats Peyton in a key statistic: Championships

Has Eli Manning finally proven that he is, as he claimed in the face of much ridicule at the start of the season, one of the NFL's truly elite quarterbacks? After leading the New York Giants to a Super Bowl victory over the indisputably elite Tom Brady and his New England Patriots for the second time since 2008, the consensus answer is resoundingly "yes." But a new question arises: Does winning a second Super Bowl ring make Eli a better quarterback than his older brother Peyton? Despite having a legendary, record-setting career, the Indiana Colts QB — who was forced to sit out this season with a neck injury — has only won one Super Bowl. Does that mean Eli is better than Peyton?

Yep. Eli is better when it counts: Peyton may be "more decorated than his brother" when it comes down to regular-season stats, says Eddie Pryce at Bleacher Report. But Eli is "more decorated where it matters most." Quarterbacks shouldn't be measured purely on passing yards and QB ratings, but on the less tangible "greatness" factor. By that metric, Eli — with his two Super Bowl rings, two Super Bowl MVPs, and demonstrated ability as a reliable clutch performer — "has garnered much more widespread respect as a weapon in this league." When it comes to winning games late in the season, when it counts the most, Eli trumps Peyton, hands down.
"Who's the better Manning, Peyton or Eli Manning?"

No way. Peyton is a legend: Eli's boosters "can't be serious," says The Denver Post. Just a year ago, fans debated whether Peyton was a better quarterback than all-time greats Joe Montana, John Elway, and Johnny Unitas. Now, after missing just one season, his credentials have been so unceremoniously devalued that his inferior-in-every-way brother is being called a better QB just because he won a big game? Peyton averaged 4,218 passing yards over 13 seasons. That creams Eli's 3,447-yard season average. And it's not like Peyton hasn't won — he has a Super Bowl ring. On Sunday, Eli proved that he is great… but not that great.
"Super Bowl XLVI: Eli Manning? Better than Peyton? Only time will tell"

We put way too much stock in championships: This ridiculous conversation is symptomatic of a larger problem, says Brad Wells at SB Nation. "As fans and media, we overvalue championships." Using Super Bowl rings as a measure of greatness is lazy and doesn't stand up to argument. If his two rings makes Eli a better QB than Peyton, does it also make him a better player than Drew Brees, Steve Young, and Brett Favre — who have each won just one championship? Does two rings trump Peyton's four MVP awards? His 10 straight playoff bids? "Instead of rewarding winning," sports fans should reward "overall great play." And overall, Peyton is greater player than Eli.
"The inevitably stupid 'is Eli now better than Peyton' question?"

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

Are French moms better than Americans?

Apparently, tiger moms aren't the only ones who are superior. Writer Pamela Druckerman insists French mothers raise better behaved youngsters, too

American parents can't seem to catch a break. A year ago, we were told that Chinese "tiger" moms raise more-successful children than coddling Western parents. And now writer Pamela Druckerman has published a book, Bringing up Bebe, arguing that French parents are superior to their American counterparts, too. Drucker, an American who moved to Paris with her British husband 10 years ago, says French parents teach their kids how to "delay instant gratification" by refusing to cater to their every whim, and as a result, they bring up kids who don't gorge on snacks, don't interrupt, and don't throw tantrums. Are American parents really so inferior?

Maybe the French do have an edge: It sounds like parents in France have discovered a winning formula, says Samantha Schoech at Baby Center. By being firm — and not caving just to shut up a whining brat — they teach kids patience. And by instructing them to play by themselves, the French keep little ones from expecting to be "entertained" all the time. "Sounds pretty dreamy" — especially since they do it with "kindness, closeness, and love," instead of "spanking, yelling, time-outs or negotiations."
"Are the French better parents?"

But the French didn't invent firm parenting: I didn't buy the notion that tiger moms are superior because they make kids "do arpeggios till their fingers bleed," says Amy Wilson at The Huffington Post, "and I don't buy it now that I'm told les mamans françaises are way, way better than we are" because they put kids in their place. Druckerman acts like American childhood is "one long Willy Wonka Cruise" with no rules. But the firm parenting she admires is common in the U.S. — the French didn't invent it.
"Why '70s parents are superior to French parents"

And there is no single American parenting style: Enough with the "overgeneralizing," says Randye Hoder at The New York Times. The truth is, there is no "American parent" — we're Anglo, African-American, Asian and Hispanic; we're Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and atheist; and we're permissive, authoritative, and authoritarian. And plenty of American kids, of all kinds of parents, eat their vegetables, just like the French.
"Who says American parents are inferior?"

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here