Talking About Stuff, with Mike and Christiana

Star Wars Episode III Review Update


Just a brief post to say that I've now just finished rewatching the original trilogy for the first time since seeing episode III and I have to say that upon reflection, I think Episode III was even more successful than I had intially realized.

It made me like the original trilogy more! Not just a "by comparison" way, but I found that, especially with Return of the Jedi, so many of the scenes have new depth and context that frankly made them even more powerful for me than they had been before.

Watching Darth Vader/Anakin look back and forth between Luke and the Emperor while Luke is writhing on the ground under the Emperor's force lightning, Anakin's death scene, and then especially when Anakin finally appears in force-spirit form at the very end, I have to be honest, I was tearing up a little. It gave all those scenes a new level of impact for me.

In fact, feeling the way I do right now, I'm inclined to forgive completely all the clunky bits of all three prequels. Note that forgiveness does not entail excusing or justifying. Just acceptance with love. Doesn't make those clunky parts any better, but so much of our perception of things depends on attitude.

We forgive the original trilogy its faults because we've loved it so long. I have decided to forgive the prequels as well. I'm letting go of my anger and my hate, and honestly, it feels pretty good.

.
Movie Review: Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith

So now, with a little more sleep...



First, the review for people who haven't seen it yet, then the discussion, which will contain spoilers.

Okay, so it's good. I know I said that already but it bears repeating. Now, it's important as always to distinguish between "good" and "perfect". Revenge of the Sith is good. Very good even. It has a few clunky bits here and there, but nothing that really made me grind my teeth or anything.

That's about the worst I can say about it, because there's so much that is so good. There is humor, in the first half at least, but finally it's decent character-based humor and not lame "jokes". The special effects are, quite simply, amazing. I know you're thinking: "Of course they are, ILM folk are FX gods." But you'll still be pretty impressed. They are considerably better even than Episode II. There's cool fighting, action, drama and the whole thing just really comes together in a very satisfactory way.

Now the specifics discussion. DO NOT read this if you haven't seen the film. It's already playing for crying out loud, just go out and see it, then you can come back here. I don't care if you feel like you know what's going to happen, execution and details are 90% of the thing, so don't spoil it for yourself.



.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Star Wars Episode III Review Update
  2. Movie Review: Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
  3. It's ten til three in the morning...
Movie Review: Kingdom of Heaven

Okay, I need to go ahead and get this review written or the movie will begin to fade in my mind and I'll never get there. Part of the problem I've had actually is that so many of the points I would make in a review have already been made rather well by Mike in his review.

But I suppose I can come up with a few things to say anyway.



Kingdom of Heaven

I'll begin with Ridley Scott, the director. He has, over the years, built up a pretty impressive resume, (Alien, Blade Runner, Thelma and Louise, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, Matchstick Men) but I think it's only with his last few films, that technology has allowed him to really develop his stylistic vision. Ridley Scott's films don't really look like anybody else's. To be sure, nothing in his bag of tricks is inaccessible to any other director, but the combination of all his little stylistic touches really form a distinct visual sensibility.

It's hard to really put your finger on it, but there's a couple of obvious parts. His films are always slightly grainy, often dark, and the colors are unusual. This last is mostly the part that I was referring to with the technology comment above. Computers now allow filmmakers to mess around with the color and contrast and look of their film in ways that were never before possible. To make everything look washed out without losing contrast, for example. I'm not enough of a cinematographer to know exactly what he's doing, but you can tell just with a still shot that the colors are unusual.

As an example, check out this still from Black Hawk Down. The contrast is very high, to the point where the trucks and the helicopters are nearly silhouetted against the background, and yet we still have the warm reddish-brown of the soil and a soft blue in the sky.

Compare it to this still from Sahara, which uses a more traditional color scheme.

He also has a couple of neat tricks with camera speed, etc, that can make action look choppy and exciting without losing "normal-time". Last of all, nearly every scene of his films feel like there's something in the air. Whether it's smoke or dirt or dust or mist or even just mood, the air just somehow feels thicker in a Ridley Scott film.

Okay, how about the cast? Well, Orlando Bloom certainly plays tougher than he has before, so that was a pleasant surprise, though I imagine a lot of that is the weight he put on, making him far more substantial in appearance and less elf-like. Liam Neeson is always great, as is Jeremy Irons. Edward Norton plays a king stricken by leprosy from behind a full mask. He was very good, although I couldn't help but feel just the teensy bit irrationally cheated. I like Edward Norton, you see, so when he's in a movie, I want to be able to tell it's him! If I hadn't known it was him, I certainly wouldn't have recognized him. There are a number of other good people, but if I go through them all I'll never finish this.

Action sequences are exciting, coherent and feel authentic. The plot is probing, thought-provoking, complex and interesting. It made me think about a lot of things, such as the idea that "for the greater good" one must commit a small evil, and whether there is any legitimacy to that line of thinking, or whether it simply represents a lack of faith. The movie could be read as endorsing any number of different viewpoints, but it rather seems to me that it is trying to avoid taking any particular stands. Though of course, that is actually taking a stand, in a way, suggesting that all morals involved were relative. *shrug*

To the extent that I had any complaints at all, they were minor. There were a few points where I felt that the film might be a little over-long, but I was never bored, and on any other night, I might not have felt that way at all. There's also one point late in the film where a bunch of people cheer that felt really false to me, but on the whole, it's an excellent film that I would recommend to anyone who enjoys period war films. Note also, that this is one of those films that is best seen on the big screen.

.
Movie Review: House of Wax

Why did I go to see this movie? I mean, out of all the movies I still want to see that are playing now, (Kung Fu Hustle, Kingdom of Heaven, Kicking and Screaming, Oldboy, Turtles Can Fly, etc.) why on earth would I choose this one?

House of Wax


Well, best I can figure is that sometimes, you just want to see a crappy horror movie.

Oh, and make no mistake, that's what this is, but at the same time, it's a bit frustrating.

See, there's actually about 40 minutes worth of good horror movie here. Seriously, and not in the "so bad it's good" way either. The climactic sequence in particular, featuring a fire in a literal "house of wax", is both original, scary, and impressive visually. That's about 20-25 minutes of quality movie right there. The rest of the 40 is scattered throughout.

Only trouble is that 40 minutes isn't long enough for a feature film, I guess. So they had to pad it with an hour of filler that is really pretty bad. And once again, not in the "so bad it's good" way.

Frankly, it's boring. I wasn't timing or anything, but I'm pretty sure it was a good forty minutes into the movie before anybody died. And honestly, in a modern horror/slasher movie, that's just unacceptable.

I'm sorry, but a mysterious pickup truck with bright headlights or someone filming you while you sleep with a camcorder is just not scary unless a legitimate threat has already been established. Furthermore, much of the plotting that forces these characters to be stuck in the danger zone is just that, forced. Sloppy too. Example: At one point the characters decide not to go to the football game that was the whole point of their trip, and to return to the creepy campsite, because of bad traffic!

Now, when I go to see a crappy horror movie, I want cheese cheese cheese. I want characters doing blatantly stupid things that no sensible person would ever do and paying for it with their lives in ways that are "poetic" in the sense that the verses composed by a five-year-old using Refrigerator magnet poetry kits are poetic. Example: Some guy on a ski trip keeps poking people with the poles, so naturally, he should die by being impaled on the ski poles. You see, the only reason he poked people with poles was so that the death-by-ski-pole-impalation could be "poetic".

That's why you go to a crappy horror movie. House of Wax is a little frustrating, because the bad parts don't follow the rules and the good parts are actually good. It leaves you off-balance.

*shrug* In the end, I thought that climactic sequence was sufficiently cool to make seeing the movie worthwhile, but boy, the crap you have to slog through to get there... ugh. Also can anybody tell me what the hell the roadkill collector guy contributed to the film? My answer: Nothing, except that he made the movie 15 minutes longer.

P.S. I suppose I would be remiss in my film review duties if I didn't comment on the presence of Paris Hilton in this movie. Truth be told, I didn't really have a strong opinion about her one way or the other, though I suppose what little opinion I had was slanted negative. She's spoiled, slutty, and from what I can tell, she's not terribly bright. (Though, that may be connected to the slutty persona she cultivates.) Still, it's not like she intrudes on my life in any way, so frankly, I don't have any motive to feel anything more than a vague distaste.

So, how is she in the film? Eh.

If I hadn't known who she was, I wouldn't have especially noticed her one way or the other. She's not entirely incompetent as an actress, which is not to say she's precisely good either. She screams pretty good and runs pretty good, which is really all that a role like this requires.

That said, I have to comment that when I saw the movie and her death scene came along, a guy near the back laughed and shouted, "Die, bitch!"

I've already explained that I don't much care for her, and half the reason to put her in the movie is to see her get killed, but the feeling I got from that guy shouting was not a "This is all in good fun" vibe, but rather a pretty disgusting misogyny. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but the fact is, she's a person too. Spoiled, slutty, dim, whatever, but still a person. This little episode didn't leave me feeling annoyed with the film, but did make me think that that guy was a tacky asshole that I probably wouldn't want to spend any time with.

So, message to anyone going to see this film, feel free to yell out, but not if you want to impress me.
Movie Review: The Station Agent

Gosh, it seems like all I've been putting up lately are movie reviews. But perhaps that's because all I've been doing lately is watching movies. Hmmm....

Anyway, you're not likely to have heard much about this one, but I'd urge you to give it a look anyway. It's a sweet little human comedy/drama, and I enjoyed it a great deal.



The Station Agent is a movie about people discovering that sometimes, the best way to deal with your own problems is to help somebody else deal with theirs.

Peter Dinklage, (whom many may recognize as the "angry elf" children's author from Elf,) plays Finbar (Fin) McBride, a dwarf who has withdrawn into the specialized community of train enthusiasts as a retreat from the rest of the world's staring eyes and pointing fingers. He's got a good friend in the owner of the hobby shop where he works, and he barely talks to anyone else, just keeping to himself and doing his best to ignore the people who laugh at him and make rude comments.

When his friend dies, Fin inherits a little piece of land in New Jersey, occupied only by an abandoned train depot. Since the shop is closed and his only friend is gone, he decides to go live there, away from the rest of the world, free to just read about trains in solitude.

Little does he know that he is in a sweet human comedy/drama, and will therefore cross paths with a pair of quirky characters with their own difficulties, and form a friendship that lifts all three out of their ruts.

Almost immediately upon moving in to the depot, Fin is run off the road not once, but twice by an absent-minded artist named Olivia (Patricia Clarkson). She's extremely apologetic and decides to do whatever she can to make it up to him, despite his repeated insistence that it's not necessary.

Fin also meets Joe (Bobby Canavale), a hot-dog vendor who has chosen an unlikely spot for his stand, namely, right outside the abandoned depot. Mostly, his customers are the local factory workers who stop for coffee on their way to work and for hot dogs on their way home.

Joe is the sort of person who is friendly and gregarious almost to a fault. He loves to talk, to anyone, about anything, so he's not necessarily suited to a business where he's alone so often. So when the taciturn Fin arrives, Joe moves in to form a friendship with a cheerful determination.

After observing that Olivia has left Fin a library book about trains, Joe stops fin before he can close the door.

Joe: "Hey listen, if you guys do something later, can I join you?"
Fin: "We're not gonna do something,"
Joe: "No, I know, but if you do, can I join you?"
Fin: "We're not gonna do something later."
Joe: "Okay, but, if you do?"
Fin: (long pause) "Okay."
Joe: "Cool."
Fin closes the door.

There is plenty of humor to be found in the way these three characters interact with each other, but the film is not all laughter. Each of these three characters has some serious baggage. Olivia is currently living in her vacation home, because her son was killed two years ago, and she has since divorced, leaving her old life almost entirely. Joe is actually from Manhattan, but his father has fallen ill, and so Joe has had to move to this tiny town in Jersey to care for him and to run his dad's hot dog stand in the meantime. And Fin finds that, his new friends aside, a small town in New Jersey is not necessarily the place to go to avoid staring eyes. The woman who runs the convenience store takes his picture.

But despite the problems that they all face, the friendship they form helps them through it. The lessons that sometimes you come back even after being told to leave. Sometimes you insist that someone do something for their own good. Sometimes the best thing you can say is nothing, and to simply be there for a person.

One of the most important things my dad has ever said to me was: "The biggest mistake you can make in life is to assume that other people don't have any problems." Each of the characters in this film has their own problems, and it's the discovery of other's problems and the support they lend each other that produces a powerful connection.

That's about it for the review except that I want to point out that Peter Dinklage is an exceptional actor, and he really brings a strong presence to every scene that he's in. I found myself thinking more than once that it's somewhat of a shame that the medium of film is such that he can only play dwarf characters. Now, it's true that many movie characters could be dwarves without necessarily changing the story very much, but in our culture today, it's almost a given that any character played by a little person will have to be about being a little person, thus making those roles show up more seldom. I really thought he was amazing in this, and I hope that he can find more roles as good as this one.

Also, one other note: Roger Ebert recently posted a series of letters exchanged with Daniel Woodburn, another prominent little person actor who most will know as Kramer's friend Mickey from Seinfeld. The letters discuss the use of words such as "midget", "dwarf" and "little person" and really get into the interesting concept of how words can have power. If you don't read the whole thing, just realize that "midget" is considered an offensive term, and that the better term is "dwarf" or "little person."

I'm not big on the whole politically correct thing in general, but when I do not want to offend someone, I have no problem whatsoever with using words that will not cause offense.
Movie Review: Meet the Fockers


The truth is, I didn't really have much interest in this movie. The first one was okay, but frankly I thought DeNiro's character was just too far out of the realm of normality to be believable, and the whole movie just felt out of balance as a result.

But when a friend of mine whom I don't normally see movies with, because she and I have fairly different taste in film, wanted to check out something at the cheap theater, I shrugged. What the hell? Even if I don't like it, I'm only out a dollar-fifty.

I had pretty low expectations actually, because I had heard a few people whose taste I don't share, saying things like "Meet the Fockers is the funniest movie ever!" and "It's my all-time favorite movie."

Well, it's NOT the funniest movie ever, but I was pleasantly surprised at how funny it was. I attribute this largely to the presence of Barbara Streisand and Dustin Hoffman (especially Dustin Hoffman) as Ben Stiller's parents. They are so off-the-wall in their own way that they provide the balance I felt the previous film was lacking.

Not only that, but the movie frankly has a better message than the last one did. Not that it's terribly important for films like this to have a compelling message, but when there is one, it definitely helps. The message of the first movie was essentially: "If you want to get married, you'd better learn how to kowtow and bend to every whim of your fiance's psychopathic father."

In this one, the message is more along the lines of: "When family is involved, you have to make nice even with people very different from you because the end result is worth it."

Plus, it's really quite funny. I won't go into any of the specific jokes, but suffice it to say that I was pretty entertained throughout.

.