Star Wars: Episode I -The Phantom Menace in 3D

Jar Jar Binks is an anomaly in special effects history. State-of-the-art technology and special effects wizards worked endless hours to render a photo-realistic character who had been written and directed so poorly and who's human counterpart actor performed so cartoonishly, it completely undid the effect.

 

*1/2 out of ****

Okay. I didn't watch all of this movie in 3D, just a few scenes which was enough to know that 3D does nothing for it. This is really an opportunity to talk about... I don't feel like saying it's full title so let's call it: The Ruination of Star Wars.

This is a movie I currently hate because it makes me mad at myself for all the time I wished for it, obsessively followed it's production online and in magazines, skipped school and stood in line all day with other fans when the tickets first went on sale, saw it... and spent a long time in denial of the disappointment it turned out to be. Yes. I was one of those people. I couldn't allow it to be bad in my mind. I'm embarrassed for defending the movie and more embarrassed that when I could finally acknowledge a few of it's many faults, I was preaching faith that the next one would be way better.

As a big Star Wars fan, it was kind of easy to filter out the crap that plagued this movie when I was seeing the first Star Wars episode to be released in sixteen years. The old familiar sights and sounds being delivered with state-of-the-art techniques made me bounce in my seat like a little kid. The things in this movie that seemed worth defending then, may still apply now. It is a gorgeous production and it may be the best-looking Star Wars movie ever. Every CGI effects artist, production designer, costume maker, stunt coordinator, location scout, and talented artist of any kind (besides the writer/director and mystified actors) who worked on this film believed they were working on a masterpiece and were giving it their all. This is one of the best-looking bad movies ever made. If you compare the look of this one to the two prequels that followed, it is astoundingly rich-looking by comparison. All of the artificial landscapes and city views in this film look so amazingly beautiful. What a shame they didn't really amount to anything more that the environment of a pitiful story for underdeveloped characters to inhabit.

The following is Star Wars fanboy criticism. If you are not interested and would rather get back to my review of this loathsome work as a movie, just skip over the BLUE TEXT.

The Ruination of Star Wars was a poorly written back-story. So much of it doesn't fit with what we know and assumed about the beloved Star Wars Universe: 

•The Jedi, who had fallen into legend by Episodes IV-VI, are a group of peace-officers who everyone in the galaxy seems to know about. Does it only take twenty years for the extinction of Knights who once resided in the galactic capitol and displayed their superpowers all over the galaxy to be forgotten or referred to as a 'hokey religion'? I always imagined them to be a secret group of protectors who officials in the Republic called upon in times of crisis but your average civilian didn't know much about.

•Technology in the past seems more slick and advanced. Droids seem to have less physical limitations. It only took a few decades for all robots to be reduced to rolling garbage cans or anthropomorphic tin men.

•Strange creatures and aliens are everywhere in the Republic. Where did they all go when it became the Empire?

•Anakin built C3PO? Whyyyy? What does that symbolize? What kind of meaning can be gathered by that kind of needless story coincidence?

•This movie introduces lots of characters like Qui-Gon Jinn and Queen Amidala who are supposed to be very important but who's legacy has no existence in the original trilogy. 

That list of inconsistencies goes on and on.

If this is all a back-story with the idea that you're supposed to watch all the episodes in a row, don't the prequels just give away all the surprises? The identity of Yoda, Anakin Skywalker being Vader, and Leia being Luke's sister are robbed of their drama in Episodes IV-VI if you watch I-III first. It is a shame that no one realized this before these movies were made, but the story of Anakin turning to Vader, even if it had been done well, is pointless. We already know what we need to about him through the original movies. What this movie and Episodes II and III needed to be solely about was how the Republic became the Empire.

Perhaps the worst expansion in this movie is the way the Jedi are portrayed. Now that the history of the Jedi has been brought to the big screen, I can honestly say I think they're the dumbest looking so-called wise men I've ever seen in fantasy. Everything that was cool about the Jedi in The Empire Strikes Back is ruined with this movie alone. Their conduct is pseudo-mystical. They're full of contradictions. Worst of all, they try to scientifically justify the Force which is an idea that is beyond terrible.

This movie has characters who are boring or annoying. The same can be said for the situations they're in. When it was written, I'm sure that this movie was constructed like many other action flicks: Come up with a bunch of cool ideas and action scenes. Then attempt to connect them together with plot and you have a story. It is the plot that seems very lackluster and hardly thought through. What wasn't so clear to me until recently, is that one of the worst things about this movie is that so much of the story doesn't make sense. It uses the cheap-trick of convoluted plotting to get the audience to think it's smart. When you break it all down, none of it is logical. This revelation came in full-force when I first saw the fantastic PLINKETT REVIEW which gave me closure on my frustration with The Ruination of Star Wars to this day. The review hilariously shed light on everything I didn't even consciously realize was wrong with this movie. There were so many instances when I thought to myself, "That's why that scene felt so weird!"

Screw the review I'm posting. Just go here to the Plinkett Review. If you're embittered over Star Wars and have never seen this. You owe it to yourself. It'll make you feel better.

In the end it is my fault that I put so much faith in Star Wars. It became an important life lesson to not idolize my heroes. Everyone and everything is fallible. Some more than others. 
 

George Lucas is completely responsible for the failure that took place here. The success of his beautiful space saga from years ago made him the unquestioned maestro he wanted to be. Lucas stands for everything that is true and right in the world of film and it's need for a voice and no interference from a meddling studio system. He also makes the worst case for such a cause. If some studio executives had the ability to interfere with Lucas's vision on this movie, it would have only been improved. The legacy of George Lucas will be that of a visionary man who changed movies forever with his entertaining innovative techniques and collaborators, became a powerful businessman as a result, gained the full artistic control he had always wanted, and had nothing interesting left in his soul to do with all that power.

It hurts to lose a hero.  

Moneyball

Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill in Moneyball

**** out of ****

Moneyball is a movie that feels so relaxed and flawless. I admit I missed this one in theaters. It was lower on my priority list because the subject didn't interest me. I'm not a sports fan. At the same time I knew that Bennett Miller (Capote) is a good director. Screenwriter Steven Zaillian can romanticize any subject as he did with child chess players in Searching for Bobbie Fischer. Co-screenwriter Aaron Sorkin can write intelligent people with attractive wit. Brad Pitt has a really good talent for picking interesting projects. This was a movie that didn't attract me and yet I knew it had all the artistic and intellectual support to deliver a great product and it did.

Here's a very good review from NPR.

Billy Beane is a very interesting character and this movie treats his true story with a kind of effortless grace. The movie never really tries too hard because the facts are so close to sports-drama escapism, it avoids the glamor most sports movies have. Actually it avoids the amount of game play most sports movies have. This movie is about the thinkers behind the game who dwell in a sterile enclosed environment as they discuss the survival of an underfunded baseball team. Wally Pfister's gloomy cinematography adds an unusual edge to a baseball movie.

 

Haywire

Michael Douglas and Gina Carano in Steven Soderbergh's Haywire

*** out of ****

Gina Carano may be the first female lead I've seen in an action movie, who seems like the equivalent of a male action star. This isn't just because of her amazing physical skills. I draw the comparison because of her acting limitations. She works well in this movie because it has been tailored for her and designed to show what she can do. For that, we get a pretty good show. She's a fascinating person to watch. I guess I'm trying to say that there's a bit of character to be desired.

Haywire is a movie that had a trailer that looked embarrassingly generic. Like Drive, it's a question of execution. Steven Soderbergh is the last person to make a genre movie in a run-of-the-mill fashion. We've had a lot of 'chicks who kick ass' type movies in recent years but they all star Hollywood actresses. This one stars a professional Mixed Martial Arts fighter. It's the supporting cast in this film, who are the movie stars.

Check out this AV Club interview with Soderbergh as he talks more on his 'no-nonsense' stance on film-making. I like where he mentions the action directors he borrowed from.

The diner scene in the beginning of this movie is a great example of how Soderbergh effectively frames the action. He avoids the typical shaky, quick cutting and gives us a perfect shots of two operatives spontaneously fighting in the middle of everyone eating breakfast. The assaulting moves appear to connect without the aid of editing. It's very effective.

David Holmes (A Soderbergh regular) does one of his best music scores ever for this film. Like his music for Out of Sight he creates smooth tracks that are kind of like neo-exploitation cinema music.

The story and screenplay by Lem Dobbs (The Limey)feels simply worthy of an action movie and nothing more. 

I was a bit disappointed to learn that Carano's voice was altered in post-production for this movie. It kind of reminds me of how Schwarzenegger was dubbed in Hercules in New York. It just seems like a cheat unfitting for a director who cares so much about what his performers bring to the screen. 

Martha Marcy May Marlene

John Hawkes and Elizabeth Olsen in Martha Marcy May Marlene

***1/2 out of ****

This is such a well-crafted psychological drama but it isn't the kind where you should expect a payoff. This is a movie about an unfortunate character who will be looking over her shoulder for the rest of her life. Martha Marcy May Marlene pulls you into the troubled mind of a girl who has escaped a cult. The form of the film, through editing and cinematography, seamlessly takes you on the main characters mental passage between the present and her time at the commune. This shows us a young woman who is in a seemingly safe place and has no feeling of liberation from the eerie fanatics who brainwashed her.

Elizabeth Olsen creates a character so convincingly confused and troubled, her face will be stuck in your mind for a long time after seeing this. John Hawkes as the cult leader has a sedated Charles Manson demeanor. Sara Paulson, as the main character's sister, continues to prove she is an extraordinary overlooked actress.

This is the first feature by writer/director Sean Durkin. I'll look forward to seeing more from him.

Here's Roger Ebert's review.

Bridesmaids

Kristen Wiig hammered on an airplane in Bridesmaids

**1/2 out of ****


Bridesmaids is a very funny viewing experience. That doesn't stop it's 125-minute running-time from making it feel indulgent. This is a movie I enjoyed as I watched it but in retrospect, it seemed kind of taxing for what it was. It's no surprise that this movie is produced by Judd Apatow, who I feel has had a great influence on modern comedy films but if there is a major shortcoming to that influence, it is the length of some of these features.

Maybe I'm the only jerk in the theater who can't laugh for more than two hours, but I'm a big believer in keeping comedies short. I think there could be a much better version of Bridesmaids with more editorial choices. I'm not calling these choices easy. Some of the funniest moments in this film have no connection to the story at all. I also think some of the bridesmaids, that is the title characters, didn't get enough screen time.


The film I saw was a pathos comedy about a woman who's life goes from being a mess to a personal crisis when her friend, one of the best things in her life she hasn't lost, is getting married. What's unconventional here is that she isn't threatened by the groom (Why would she be? He's played by Tim Heidecker -Great job!). She's threatened by the woman who was picked over her to be the Maid of Honor who shows her up in every way that wealth and unbelievable connections can. Then the movie jerks back and forth with no focus between the protagonist's troubled personal life and the funny bridesmaids.

Kristen Wiig's comic abilities shine as the lead in this movie, Rose Byrne surprised me as the annoyingly perfect and phony maid of honor character. Melissa McCarthy steals the show and generated the biggest laughs as the assertive and strange sister of the groom.

Some have incorrectly labeled this movie, 'The Hangover for chicks'. I like that this is a low-brow movie starring women. Frankly, I think there should be more movies of the type. But this movie isn't focused on the nasty misadventures of a group of Bridesmaids who let things get out of control. It's more like director Paul Feig (Freaks and Geeks), Apatow, and the editors did that. This is a movie that is sure to be enjoyed by men just as much as women. I just don't think it measures up to much more well-formed comedies.

Here's a nice interview with Maya Rudolf (The Bride in this film) and director Paul Feig on All Things Considered.

The Adjustment Bureau

Terence Stamp warns Matt Damon that humanity will pay a price if he follows his heart's desire in the disappointing, The Adjustment Bureau

**1/2 out of ****

What a lame ending! The Adjustment Bureau is otherwise a beautiful return to classic metaphysical science fiction or fantasy. It's based on a short story by Philip K. Dick and has the kind of paranoid fantasy world I would require from anything based on his work. It's almost like a light-hearted Dark City (a much better film). The plot is thought-provoking and seems to promise a profound outcome. Instead we're given an insulting childish cop-out that aims to emotionally satisfy as though the intellect of the audience had never been engaged.  

This is one of those 'almost great' movies that seems to work so well until you realize that an element of it's very foundation isn't in place. The atmosphere of the movie is beautifully mysterious. When you have John Toll doing cinematography and Thomas Newman scoring the music, you've already got something very rich. 

If you've ever seen Wings of Desire or City of Angels, you have a similar group of mystical men in suits who are part of what is called The Adjustment Bureau. They interfere with the passage of peoples lives in order to help humanity down the path of a preferable destiny. The main character has become aware of the Bureau and would rather cheat the destiny selected for him. For mysterious reasons they want him to stay away from the woman he loves.

Members of the Bureau are amusingly played with casual working-man attitudes by Anthony Mackie, John Slattery, and Terence Stamp (awesome). There is a kind of whimsey to how they covertly slip in and out of secret passages and short cuts in the city. There are a list of limitations these controllers have if they are to be cheated.

The most important achievement in this film, is that it succeeds where most romantic fantasies fail in making the love chemistry work. Matt Damon and Emily Blunt are wonderful in all the scenes they share. It's a shame these characters weren't given a film that was worthy of it's great Body Snatchers-like poster:

Watch Ignatiy and Christy discuss the film.

A Dangerous Method

Michael Fassbender as Carl Jung and Keira Knightley as his disturbed patient, Sabina Spielrein in David Cronenberg's A Dangerous Method

***1/2 out of ****

This is a very interesting story of three characters who represent the beginning of institutional psychotherapy. Carl Jung, Sigmund Freud, and Sabina Spielrein. The third person is someone I had not heard of until I saw this film. Actually I don't know very much about the history of psychotherapy, so I can say that I found this film constantly informative. 

A Dangerous Method is a film fueled by conversation. The interactions between Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud are competently performed by Michael Fassbender and Viggo Mortenson and there is an excitement to watching their theories develop. What is more interesting is that a product of their new direction for finding remedy for mental illness is Jung's patient, Sabina Spielrein and how the story suggests that she may have walked away with a more refined concept of psychoanalysis.

Speilrein is played with great devotion by Keira Knightley. In the early stages of the film her character is mad and creates an uncomfortable presence as she contorts herself physically with great tension while attempting to sit still in a chair and discuss thoughts she'd rather hide.

Some of the movies most profound scenes of dialogue involve Jung and another patient, the anarchistic Otto Gross, played by Vincent Cassel, who seems to be addressing the inner struggle of the films characters: Their refusal to find personal liberation with their findings. His beliefs give Jung temptation to follow his natural impulses and indulge his sexual urges for Speilrein.

I don't think that the central drama of the film is as strong as the ideas and the characters behind it. I am still amazed at how David Cronenberg can make such seemingly plain movies in terms of his cinematic approach and keep my intense interest. He's a director who doesn't storyboard. He figures out what kind of shots he wants on the day of the shoot. He has always been interested in the internal side of things whether it's a movie like this or a man transforming into a fly. It's no surprise to me that he wanted to make a movie about these people. Working screenwriter with Christopher Hampton (Dangerous Liaisons) was an interesting collaboration since Cronenberg films tend to be light on dialogue and this film is very dialogue driven.

I intend to see this film multiple times because it seems to offer a lot worth exploring.


Here is an interview with Christopher Hampton about the history behind the film.

  
and here is Cronenberg at the Venice Film Festival.

Shame

Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligan play brother and sister in an emotionally draining scene all performed in one static shot from Steve McQueen's Shame

 *** out of ****

Director Steve McQueen's film, Shame, is an exercise in greatness when considering how much acting, directing, editing, and music score have the power to convey substance. This is a movie about an emotionally distant sex-addict and his unpredictable emotional sister who has come back into his life, much to his dismay. The writing deliberately withholds their back-story which is almost all you can wonder about while viewing the film. I can imagine that this is a film that could give me more insight to it's frustrating characters through multiple viewings. This might become a great movie in my eyes if I saw it again, but I don't feel the desire. 

Michael Fassbender gives what I can imagine is a very brave performance. He's naked, frustrated, and buries his soul deep down. The cinematography and editing are naturalistic and non-linear revolving around long passages of his conquests for empty sex. The rest of the film concentrates on the way he hides from everyone in his life. The atmosphere is very cold. Carey Mulligan, as the sister, is quite good but I don't know if this the role she was born to play. She tends to shine playing 'innocent and curious'. But I'm not sure if she is ideal as the damaged type I saw in this movie or last year's Drive. It must be said that she delivers a beautiful singing performance of "New York, New York" during a lounge scene in the middle of the film.

This movie is very well directed. There is little gratification to be expected when viewing it. My stance at the moment is that it may be very rewarding for some people to explore but I found it a bit too alienating to want to go back for another look. 

Here's a four-star review by Ebert

and a debated review by the two critics on his show.