"Star Wars: Episode I" returns to theaters today, in 3D. But let’s flash back for a few moments to May 19th, 1999 – the day “The Phantom Menace” was originally released. If you were a die-hard “Star Wars” fan, like I was, you were going to see this movie regardless of what the critics wrote about it. You ached to hear, once again, that familiar yet exciting 20th Century Fox fanfare before reading the opening crawl. You may have camped out on a dirty sidewalk for hours, days, weeks even, just so you could be one of the first to experience it.

But if you weren’t one of “those” fans, you might have waited and checked out the reviews before making the decision to see “The Phantom Menace.” The following is a sampling of what you’d have read.

The Story
“The plot has something to do with a trade embargo being waged against a small planet called Naboo, an embargo that turns out to be a disguise for a planned full-scale invasion. We’re never told what this tiny planet could possibly be worth to the enormous Trade Federation (the way we understand, in the first “Star Wars,” what the baddies stand to gain from the elimination of the rebel forces), so the story’s basic conflict has no weight.” – Charles Taylor, Salon.com

The Look
“There are new places here--new kinds of places. Consider the underwater cities, floating in their transparent membranes. The Senate chamber, a vast sphere with senators arrayed along the inside walls, and speakers floating on pods in the center. And other places: the cityscape with the waterfall that has a dizzying descent through space. And the other cities: one city Venetian, with canals, another looking like a hothouse version of imperial Rome, and a third that seems to have grown out of desert sands.” – Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times

The Gungan
“Yoda puts in a cameo, but the film's designated alien is Jar Jar Binks, a rabbit-eared ambulatory lizard whose pidgin English degenerates from pseudo-Caribbean patois to Teletubby gurgle. (Although Jar Jar can be construed as grotesquely Third World and the fish faces talk like Fu Manchu, the most blatant ethnic stereotype is the hook-nosed merchant insect who owns young Anakin.) Jar Jar and his fellow Gungans suck the oxygen out of every scene; their human costars seem understandably asphyxiated.” – J. Hoberman, The Village Voice

The Kid
“Based on what we see here, it doesn't seem like such an ineffable mystery that this kid will end up a wheezing, intergalactic power-mongering control freak. A slave boy who already fashions himself a Jedi knight, Anakin is a precocious brat -- the kind of kid who, in our own galaxy, might commandeer a playground and run everybody else off the jungle gym. If the psychological richness of the Star Wars movies is grounded in Darth Vader's movement in and out of the light, then it may be high time to create a new myth -- i.e., a new franchise.” – Peter Rainer, New York Magazine

The Final Word
“Nothing could live up to the hype of this film. Nothing. "Star Wars, Episode I: The Phantom Menace" is a movie. It's not the Second Coming. It's not even the First Coming, depending on your religious stance. It's just a movie. ... And while I'm saddened to report that it's a deeply flawed film in terms of both story line and character development, I'm happy to note that visually it's a marvel.” – Paul Clinton, CNN.com

"The Woman in Black" is more than just a horror film that brings a ghostly chill into February. It marks a big revival for Hammer Films, as well as big opening weekend and hopefully, once word starts spreading, will continue to draw more audiences who want to find out the secret of the woman in black. The thrills and reveals were certainly enough to make us jump out of our seats many times.

So without further ado, here are five reasons you should go see "The Woman in Black" if you haven't already.

Scares
First and foremost, "The Woman in Black" is scary. It's the type of horror film that builds and builds and builds suspense for much of the flick until it finally pays off in the second half of the movie, and that suspense is orchestrated very well. That can rest largely on the shoulders of Radcliffe, whose character Arthur Kipps finds himself often face-to-face (or rather, back-of-the-head-to-face) with the flick's titular ghost, as well as director James Watkins. And what's nice is the movie doesn't need to resort to gross-out horror or CGI-heavy effects to do so.

Nostalgia
There's a place for every type of horror film -- even torture porn -- but what makes "The Woman in Black" feel like such a breath of fresh air is that it marks a return to the gothic ghost horror genre. Much like the return of Hammer Films, the British film company helped produce the movie, "The Woman in Black" ditches more modern approaches to horror filmmaking to focus instead on building the suspense to the second act. Of course, there are a couple red herrings -- or a black raven or two, in this case -- thrown in to cause you to jump out of your seat, but we'd take that over "The Human Centipede" any day.

Ghosts
And that brings us to our third point: this is a classic ghost story in every sense of the word. Needless to say, the titular woman in black is haunting the tiny British town Arthur Kipps finds himself in for a pretty justifiable reason, and he takes it upon himself to solve her mystery and try to prevent her from causing further mayhem. You'll have to check out the movie yourself to find out if he succeeds.

The "Potter" Connection
It's impossible to go into "The Woman in Black" and not be intrigued to see what performance Radcliffe can give without Harry Potter's scar branding his forehead. The 22-year-old single-handedly carries much of "The Woman in Black," and does so well. Though the focus of the flick is more on its mystery than its stars, "The Woman in Black" offers Radcliffe a good opportunity to showcase that he's more than just the Boy Who Lived, and it's clear he took a lot of time picking out a project that was close to his heart.

Daniel Radcliffe, Father
Then again, it is a shocking transition to be so used to seeing Daniel Radcliffe, teenage wunderkind, and then suddenly be asked to buy Daniel Radcliffe, father of a three-year-old. It's a testament to his acting ability that he manages to pull it off pretty well, though I'm holding fast to the theory that I bought Radcliffe as an adult mostly because of his ability to grow facial hair. It's pretty convincing.

Are you planning on checking out "The Woman in Black"? If you've already seen it, then what did you think? Tell us in the comments section below or on Twitter!

I’ll say this about “Red Lights,” the Cillian Murphy- and Robert De Niro-starring thriller that premiered at the Sundance Film Festival on Friday night (January 20): I don’t think I’ve talked as much with people about a movie after seeing it since “Inception.”

Which is not to suggest writer/director Rodrigo Cortés’ feature (his follow-up to 2010 fest fav “Buried”) is anywhere near as perfectly conceived and executed as Christopher Nolan’s escapade within the dream world. In fact, “Red Lights” is honestly not a very good movie, though it’s difficult to say why without giving away all the twists, turns and what-the-eff moments.

While there is plenty to admire and scare during the film’s 119-minute running time (and much more to debate afterwards), there remain a handful of unintentionally hilarious moments that left the audience awkwardly laughing in the presence of the film’s talent, plus some head-smacking plot turns and a final montage that manages to be both pretentious and utterly vacuous — not an easy feat.

“Red Lights” begins with a compelling premise and cast of characters. Murphy and Sigourney Weaver play academics specializing in debunking paranormal activity. After a mysterious 30-year absence, De Niro’s world-famous blind psychic emerges back on the scene, drawing Murphy and Weaver into…well, we really should just leave it there. Because “there” is tense, uncomfortable and occasionally jump-out-of-your-seat scary — and it’s best to know as little about the plot specifics as possible.

You might not know much about the plot afterwards either. There are a few twists that make not a lick of sense. There are long stretches of monologue that, when subjected to any sort of Lit-101 scrutiny, crumble under their own substance-free inanity. There are plot strands that are picked up and dropped, especially at the end, seemingly less out of a sense of maintaining mystery than of purely shoddy storytelling.

Murphy, predictably, plays the obsessed investigator with aplomb. Weaver, after all these years, has the sci-gal thing down. De Niro, it seems, will take on any project so long as he gets to deliver a fiery monologue at some point. And Elizabeth Olsen, who was a breakout star at Sundance last year, is given nothing to do and almost less to say as the investigators’ research assistant.

It’s not the performances you’ll be talking about afterwards. It’s the odd choices in supporting cast. It’s the plot twists. It’s the plot holes. It’s the ending. Like it or loathe it, you’ll be talking afterwards. There’s not much more you can ask of a film than that.

The 2012 Sundance Film Festival is officially underway, and the MTV Movies team is on the ground reporting on the hottest stars and the movies everyone will be talking about in the year to come. Keep it locked to MTV Movies for everything there is to know about Sundance.

Beautifully shot and with a memorable, tough-guy-meets-vulnerable-dad performance from Joel Edgerton, "Wish You Were Here" keeps threatening to become a first-rate mystery tale about secrets, lies and sex.

Its story flits back and forth through time, unspooling a tale about a Cambodian holiday gone bad and the ramifications of an ecstasy-fueled party that leaves one man missing and the lives of his vacation mates in shambles. But there are a few weakly drawn characters and a rushed ending that leaves the timeline-hopping plot strands in an unsatisfying cinematic heap. It all made for an entertaining opening to the 2012 Sundance Film Festival on Thursday (January 19), but one that left us itching for some truly great festival films in the days to come.

Edgerton plays Dave, an Australian boat builder and father of two, who jets off to Southeast Asia with his pregnant wife, Alice (Felicity Price), her sister, Steph (Teresa Palmer) and Steph’s boyfriend, Jeremy (Antony Starr). They tour Cambodia’s towns, beaches and flea markets. The handheld camera work and rocking score make for a compelling travelogue in these opening scenes. One night, though, they pop pills (save, wisely, for Alice, who heads to bed early). The next day Jeremy is gone, and the remaining three are forever changed. What exactly happened on that drug-addled night is the mystery at the heart of “Wish You Were Here,” and first-time writer/director Kieran Darcy-Smith expertly builds suspense as secrets are revealed through flashbacks and emotional, present-day confessions.

Dave clearly knows more than he initially lets on about what happened in Cambodia, and Edgerton perfectly conveys, often with one glance as the camera stays locked on his gaze, the extent of his anxiety-ridden guilt. Price, too (a relative unknown on American shores), delivers a layered, affecting performance as she learns, along with the audience, the brutal truths at the center of the film. Palmer, though, is given little to work with in the script, a problem not only of character but of storytelling, since her actions are so integral to driving the drama forward.

Yet “Wish You Were Here” still manages to be a taut mystery — until, that is, the film’s final act, as Darcy-Smith rushes to wrap everything up, leaving plot holes aplenty and a healthy dose of confusion. We won’t give anything away, but we will say this. If the lessons of films like “Midnight Express,” “Brokedown Palace” and “Return to Paradise” weren’t already clear, let “Wish You Were Here” be the final word: travel abroad for the towns, beaches and flea markets — and skip the drugs.

If all that isn't enough incentive to check out "Dragon Tattoo" this week, here are five other reasons you need to see this movie.

Rooney, Rooney, Rooney
Need I say more? Rooney Mara is Lisbeth Salander, in a way that not even Noomi Rapace quite captured in my opinion. The "Social Network" actress' transformation into the titular tattooed computer hacker is breathtaking, her commitment to the character a sight that all movie lovers must behold. Mara isn't just a shoe-in for an Oscar nom next year — chances are very, very good that she'll be our next Best Actress winner.

Craig and The Vangers
Rooney steals the show, but her co-stars are all perfectly cast as well. Daniel Craig's Mikhail Blomkvist is a note-perfect interpretation of the crusading journalist of Stieg Larsson's novels. Christopher Plummer's Henrik Vanger is appropriately charming and tortured. Stellan Skarsgard brings it, as he always does. But the best co-star of them all: the cat. That poor, poor cat.

Hedestad
So much of the success of "Dragon Tattoo" depends on the visuals, and to the surprise of no one, Fincher does a brilliant job bringing this world from the page to the screen. The director's vision of Hedestad is a perfect replica of the Hedestad from my and, I suspect, many readers' imaginations. The film makes great use out of an unspeakably beautiful landscape to play host to such a thoroughly horrific tale. And speaking of horrific…

The Scenes
Yes, those scenes. You know the ones I'm talking about. Fincher's "Dragon Tattoo" does not shy away from or tone down the graphic nature of the tale's most deeply disturbing scenes. The only thing harder than watching these moments is trying not to watch — it's virtually impossible to look away from the horror Lisbeth faces and, in turn, delivers.

The Ending
As you've likely heard by now, the ending to Fincher's "Dragon Tattoo" deviates somewhat from the original Swedish novel and film. Don't freak out: it's a good change. Nothing drastic, but an important enough tweak that makes the mystery's big reveal play out smoother than ever before. "Dragon Tattoo" fans owe it to themselves to check out the American adaptation if only to see how they feel about the new, altered ending — and to see Rooney, Rooney, Rooney, of course.

Are you seeing "Dragon Tattoo" this week? Let us know in the comments section and on Twitter!