A Star Wars Examination, Part I - The Prequel Menace?

Intro

The world of Star Wars has been a major part of our entertainment landscape ever since the first Star Wars movie was released in 1977. It has spawned a massive chain of literature and merchandise; it's even given birth to animated platforms. There is no doubt that the announced Episodes VII-IX will only further the foothold the Star Wars franchise has on the entertainment industry.

With this in mind, I wanted to do a two-post "series" on my interaction with Star Wars. Part I will detail my most recent encounter with Episodes I-VI, particularly the prequel trilogy and its status. Part II will detail my thoughts regarding the upcoming trilogy.

Part I

I should say that in no way am I a Star Wars fiend. I am a fan and gravitated toward it rather than Star Trek as a child, yet I could not tell you what species Yoda is.* But I've watched the original trilogy probably fifteen times over the years. So I do enjoy it.

*Note: Upon further (albeit brief) examination, it appears that information is unknown.

I recently watched the prequel trilogy for the first time in almost a decade. I had seen The Phantom Menace 

multiple times since it's release, but I had not seen Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith since they opened.

I remember my initial reactions to the prequel trilogy as such:

- Episode I was annoying because too much time was spent on Tatooine. I didn't like the performance of the actor playing child Anakin, and the podracing scene was too long.

- Episode II was my least favorite. Hayden Christensen was awful and in way over his head. Considering the tone of Episodes II & III, he seemed doomed to fail. I also thought the first act was way too slow-developing.

-Episode III was my favorite, if only for the insane amount of action going on (there's something about the Mustafar duel when viewed at the theatre). Plus, we finally got to see the prequel trilogy link up with the original trilogy.

When I revisited these movies this time around, I tried my best to eliminate my old thoughts/expectations; after all, I have changed a lot in a decade. So let me just jump into my main thoughts.

1.  I think the prequel trilogy has inherent limitations and/or challenges since it is written to an ending. The rule of good screenwriting is that endings should feel surprising yet inevitable. I don't know if surprising is the right word, but whatever word I pick will still make the rule sound contradictory. A great example of this rule is found in Chinatown. 

Anyone who's familiar with the original prequel knows that the Anakin/Obi-Wan duel at the end of Revenge of the Sith can only end one way. The filmmakers are then tasked with a difficult burden: how to make it interesting enough (beyond the choreography) to keep the audience engaged. That's why the death of Qui-Gon Jinn is so effective; there exists nothing that tells us beforehand that he must live or must die.

I think the filmmakers manage these challenges much better than I initially appreciated. The story logic is very tight from prequel trilogy to original trilogy. And the story that gets us from prequel trilogy to original trilogy is told interestingly enough. The one exception--and perhaps it is the most critical one--is the character evolution of Anakin Skywalker.

2.  I just don't buy the Anakin arc over the prequel trilogy. Perhaps its because my opinion of Hayden Christensen remains unchanged. He just isn't up to task for this role. Given the tone George Lucas takes with Episodes II & III, it's vital that Anakin's shift from the Jedi to the Dark Side not be trivial. At one moment, Anakin's motivation is protecting Padme. Then it becomes protecting the Republic. And neither is necessary condition for the other. It seems the only justification for this discrepancy is Anakin's obvious emotional immaturity or confusion.

If that's the case, then I feel more annoyance than tragedy. I get that the death of Shmi is supposed to serve as the foundation for his instability, but he brought it upon himself. If he had been forced into the Jedi order, then I'd get that this loss is what ultimately leads him to betray the Jedi. (Think about it: he wants to keep Padme from the same fate as his mother, which happened because of his absence, which happened because of the Jedi. Now we get another facet of "revenge" from the title.)  So maybe Hayden Christensen's performance fails because his character's arc just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me... just a thought.

3.  I want to lend some balance to the negativity of the last point, so let me just say that George Lucas really knows how to frame action. The space scenes stand out as being particularly strong. There is always a bearing for the audience, which is important unless you are trying to instill into the viewers the sense of chaos and confusion that might accompany such events. However, there is none of that here (which is consistent with the prequel trilogy's overall style).

One of the concerns I have with the upcoming sequel trilogy is that J.J. Abrams' framing style differs from Lucas'. I don't know ::lens flare:: what kind of story to expect ::lens flare:: from the upcoming trilogy, but I bet the action ::lens flare:: won't be framed quite as clearly as that of the prequel trilogy.

Overall, I have a greater sense of appreciation for Episodes I-III. While the prequel trilogy is weighted with the feeling of "Oh, here's how we get from Point A to Point B," it is usually done so interestingly enough. In fact, if it weren't for the poorly written arc of Anakin, I'd say the prequel trilogy's identity is on a par with that of the original trilogy. Instead, we are left with an effective but relatively inferior entry into the Star Wars saga.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Look for Part II in the upcoming days. In the meantime, what do you think of the prequel trilogy? How does it stand on its own? How fair are comparisons to the original trilogy? (If they aren't, then perhaps a bulk of my post is misguided.) I look forward to reading your comments!

- Jordan

Ranking the Best Picture Nominees of 2012

(I'm not going to start with the typical two-to-three paragraph intro about why I haven't posted in awhile.)

***This list does not include Amour, the film from Michael Haneke. While I enjoyed his films Cache and The White Ribbon (which I liked a great deal), I imagine that this film would probably rank between #8 and #7 on this list. Again, this is just speculation without having seen the film. But I wanted to go ahead and publish this list.

While the best of the 2012 Best Picture nominees isn't enough to crack my Top 3 of 2011 (Midnight in Paris, The Descendants, and Hugo), I would say that the 2012 bunch is a stronger group overall.

So, without further ado, I present my ranking of the Best Picture nominees for the 85th Academy Awards. Feel free to leave your own ranking in the comments!

(I've included trailers so I can omit synopses.)

#8  Lincoln

Easily the worst of the eight films I'm ranking, Lincoln stumbles around as an intermediate history class. It's unfocused, lifeless, and rather boring at times. For once in my life, I am in total agreement with my movie critic nemesis, Rex Reed of the New York Observer. You should read his review to understand both our complaints. Frankly, I also thought Daniel Day-Lewis' performance ranks #4 out of the 5 Best Actor nominees (behind Denzel Washington, Hugh Jackman, and Joaquin Phoenix, in order).

For now, I'll use a line from Mr. Reed's review to sum up my feelings: "An endurance test with guest stars."

My rating: 1.5 stars

Click here for trailer

#7  Django Unchained

Don't get me wrong: "the worst" of Quentin Tarantino is better than the best of most. And Django is definitely not the worst of Quentin Tarantino, if such a thing exists. (Don't start with Death Proof, as I love that movie if for no other reason than Kurt Russell's performance.)

This movie featured some of Tarantino's best dialogue and highest tension. However, this film is unlike any of this other films in that the third act feels like a different movie entirely. It works at first, but then the comfort level that usually accompanies Tarantino films feels like a formality--almost like, "Here goes Quentin Tarantino again!" It just took me too far out of the movie to really work.

My rating: 3 stars

Click here for trailer

#6  Beasts of the Southern Wild

I call this movie a Southern fairy tale. I'm not even sure what that means or if it applies, but you will not have seen another movie like this once you finish it.

Most plot synopses have failed to capture the film, so if you find the trailer to be unhelpful in that regard, just trust this recommendation and watch it.

I will admit that going into the film I thought all the praise for Quvenzhane Wallis was probably hyperbole given her age, but I will be the first to say that she deserved every nomination she received. Without her work, the film would probably fall flat.

I also really like the score, which was robbed of an Oscar nomination.

My rating:  3.5 stars

Click here for trailer

#5  Les Miserables

I'm not gonna sit here and apologize for this film's ranking. I know many people who either didn't like it or were underwhelmed. I've already written many of my thoughts on the film; they remain true for the most part. If you want me to say that the film wears its heart on it sleeve (to its detriment, as no one can deny the claim in general), that Russell Crowe's performance is laughable, etc., then I'm sorry: I just don't believe them.

I am a huge fan of the source material (the musical, not the book) so maybe I am biased. But everyone carries their biases into the theatre. I'm not the first, and I certainly won't be the last.

My rating:  3.5 stars

Click here for trailer

#4  Zero Dark Thirty

Look, I'm a glutton for controversy. This film is easily the most controversial on the list for a multitude of reasons: its ethical positioning, its status as a good film,---you get the drift.

For the longest time, Jessica Chastain was my personal choice for Best Actress. Of course, that changed when I saw Silver Linings Playbook, but Chastain is brilliant here nonetheless.

If you don't already know, this film is about the decade-long manhunt for Osama bin Laden. So don't be fooled by the trailers thinking it's just about the compound raid. Because that would be a mistake.

I won't entertain the ethical complaints here because I find them preposterous. As for the complaints about the film as a film, then I probably can't convince you that your claims of the film being too long and/or boring are way off the mark. So I won't.

All I know is that I saw one of the smartest, most captivating "intelligence" movies (government, not personal) I've seen. It also happens to be one of the best of 2012.

My rating:  4 stars

Click here for trailer

#3  Argo

I know how ridiculous it looks to have this film #3 after I lobbied for it throughout Oscar season. At the time, I had not seen #2 or #1 on this list. I am glad that whatever momentum Lincoln had wasn't enough, as I could not fathom Lincoln beating Argo.

Argo is based on the true story of one man's undercover rescue mission of 6 U.S. diplomats in Iran. You would think that a film based on true events may seem predictable. But it's a tremendous credit to the work of screenwriter Chris Terrio and editor William Goldenberg that Argo is one electrifying and hilarious ride. The balance in tone that the film maintains is masterful.

A few other quick thoughts:

• I'm tempted to say this may be Ben Affleck's best acting of his career.
• This film shares Goldenberg and actor Kyle Chandler with ZD30, and both are set in the Middle East.  Conspiracy theory, anyone?
• The film also has Victor Garber, one of three actors responsible for one of my favorite movie scenes of all-time.  

My rating:  4 stars

Click here for trailer

#1  Silver Linings Playbook / Life of Pi

In keeping with the recent rare occurrence of Oscar ties, I've got these two films tied for my favorite of the 2012 Best Picture nominees. I won't say they couldn't be any different, but they are each unique. I've gone back and forth for weeks contemplating which is my #1, and I'd go back and forth over that time.

SLP features a career best performance from Jennifer Lawrence, whose performance reminds me of early Ingrid Bergman. (If you know me, this is one of the highest compliments I can accord.) Also, if you look at his four fellow Best Leading Actor nominees, you might think Bradley Cooper is a throwaway nominee here; this is not so. David O. Russell is an actor's director in the same way Woody Allen is; it's no coincidence then that SLP became the first film since Reds (1981) to feature nominations in all four acting categories. (Chris Tucker steals almost every scene he is in, which is something considering who accompanies him in the scenes.)

If great story comes from characters, then that's why SLP works. You'll laugh and cry, perhaps at the same time. You may find yourself laughing at scenes you think you shouldn't be or when no one else is: this is how life works sometimes, and the film's tone has caught some off-guard.

But I'd stake my credibility to recommending this film.

<><><><><><><><>

LoP was once considered unfilmable. I had never even read the book, and I was claiming that to be one of the big question marks I had about the film.

So surprise, surprise when I watched it. Spectacular, mesmerizing, transcendent in every regard. It's part allegory, part philosophy, part fantasy, part drama, part adventure. This movie has it all.

In addition to a beautiful story, the movie is a technical marvel. I know everybody and there mother wanted Skyfall to take the Oscars for cinematography and original score,--yes, I agree Roger Deakins is long overdue--but I can say unreservedly that LoP deserved them both.

It's one of the few films that has left me speechless and floored.

<><><><><><><><>

My ratings:  4 stars / 4 stars

Click here for LoP trailer

Click here for SLP trailer

Well, there you have it.

I would love to read your thoughts, comments, questions, rankings in the comments below. Surely I'm missing something with Lincoln, right? Maybe Life of Pi is in fact just another in a long line of bloated book adaptations.

I'll never know unless you say!

- Jordan

P.S.  Look for another "list post" soon. The theme will probably be along the lines of "The Most Enigmatic Movies," where we examine some of cinema's most perplexing and mysterious films. To no surprise of anyone who has seen the film, the following film will be featured...

I'm looking forward to it!

Predicting the 85th Academy Awards

Well, we are 8 days out from the 85th rendition of the Oscars. I still haven't seen all the major films this year, but you do not have to in order to predict these things. After a year-long hiatus, I am here today to submit my predictions for public scrutiny. My track record is pretty good (knock on wood), so feel free to consult these for an Oscar pool.

Or better yet...

In the comments section, post your own predictions. We will be doing all 24 "merit" categories. For a full list, please click here. Any sort of tiebreaker is TBD. If you want to participate, please post your comment by 6pm CST on Oscar Sunday (Feb. 24). I will revisit this page at that time and lock all comments to avoid editing/submissions after the deadline. However, feel free to come back and edit your predictions any time before then.

***Please do not brag about how well you did if you do not submit them. It's one thing to predict the Oscars; it's another thing entirely to go on record with your predictions. So join in with the rest of us in this little competition. Bragging is for closers, only.

1st prize: Not a Cadillac Eldorado

2nd prize: Not a set of steak knives

3rd prize is you're not fired.

____________________________________________________________________________

Before I list my predictions, I will give a few general thoughts about why this year reminds me of the 13th Academy Awards:

• Lincoln this year is The Grapes of Wrath from 1940. It's the critic favorite, and as such is most likely to go down in history as the best film of the year. (Sorry, fans of Amour.) Furthermore, like John Ford and Grapes, it's under the direction of a cinematic giant in Spielberg. Lincoln was also the early favorite before Argo's momentum gain. Rebecca was Hitchcock's first American film and is considered by many to be his first movie that announced him as a big-time filmmaker. Much like Ben Affleck--even though I loved The Town.
• Django Unchained reminds me of The Great Dictator. While The Great Dictator is a little more timely, Django is a more uncompromising condemnation of historical horror. Tarantino is just as revered by audiences today as Chaplin was in his day, and both films are the biggest box office draws respectively for their auteurs.
• Since Silver Linings Playbook is technically considered a romantic comedy, I'll just go ahead and stretch a comparison to The Philadelphia Story, although I do so very hesitantly. Maybe I can justify this further by offering both films as early entries for two rising stars, Katharine Hepburn and Jennifer Lawrence. (To be fair, Hepburn had already won an Oscar for her first nomination.) Also, both George Cukor and David O. Russell are known as "actors' directors." That is, their films tend to garner many acting awards/nominations.
• Our Town and Les Miserables are considered very faithful adaptations of their acclaimed theatrical sources.
• The Long Voyage Home and The Life of Pi are both... set at sea?

I'll stop now before it gets any more painful to read.

Without further ado, my predictions:

Best Picture: Argo

Best Director: Steven Spielberg - Lincoln

Best Actor: Daniel Day-Lewis - Lincoln

Best Actress: Jennifer Lawrence - Silver Linings Playbook

Best Supporting Actor: Robert De Niro - Silver Linings Playbook

Best Supporting Actress: Anne Hathaway - Les Miserables

Best Writing - Original Screenplay: Amour (Michael Haneke)

Best Writing - Adapted Screenplay: Lincoln (Tony Kushner)

Best Film Editing: Argo

Best Cinematography: Life of Pi

Best Production Design: Life of Pi

Best Visual Effects: Life of Pi

Best Original Score: Life of Pi

Best Original Song: "Skyfall" - Skyfall

Best Sound Editing: Skyfall

Best Sound Mixing: Les Miserables

Best Makeup and Hairstyling: Les Miserables

Best Costume Design: Anna Karenina

Best Animated Feature: Wreck-It Ralph

Best Foreign Language Film: Amour

Best Documentary - Feature: Searching for Sugar Man

Best Documentary - Short Subject: Inocente

Best Live Action Short Film: Death of a Shadow

Best Animated Short Film: Paperman

____________________________________________________________________________

If Argo beats Lincoln for Best Picture, it will be the same upset as Rebecca: the new blood (Affleck) beating out the established master and critical favorite (Spielberg). Plus, Argo will probably walk home with very few other Oscars (Rebecca only won 2 total). Life of Pi may have the most at the end of the night for its technical achievements, like The Thief of Bagdad. And if Argo wins Best Picture without wins from Alan Arkin or Chris Terrio, it will be the first film since Rebecca to win Best Picture without wins for acting, directing, or writing.

I'm looking forward to your predictions!

EDIT:  Easily my worst year predicting the Oscars. Sorry you had to endure reading these picks. I originally had Ang Lee for Director and Lincoln for Production Design but second-guessed myself for whatever reason.

The 1-Year Rewind

The 85th Academy Awards are quickly approaching, and it's that time of the year where all sorts of Top 10 lists are being revealed. Because I haven't seen a few of the big films to come out this year yet (Lincoln and Django Unchained are the two biggest examples), I don't feel comfortable producing a Top 10 list for 2012.

However, I always make it a point to watch all the Best Picture nominees for a year, and I recently saw the final one for 2011. So after seeing The Help for the first time a few days ago, I present a brief rundown and personal ranking of the Best Picture nominees for the 84th Academy Awards.

I would love to read your ranking in the comments below.

We'll go in ascending order.

9)  War Horse

I feel weird putting Spielberg at the bottom of any list. And while the worst of Spielberg is better than most, War Horse doesn't ring with the same authenticity and urgency that his other films do. While the film is aesthetically beautiful, the death knell for any film is when you find yourself indifferent toward the characters. Joey could have met the same fate as Boxer from Animal Farm, and I'd still be more upset during Orwell's story.

My rating: 2 stars.



8)  The Help

This is a good film. It's not the most contested claim to make about the film. But the problem seems to be that any descriptor beyond that is probably too much. It's neither earth-shattering nor revelatory material. It has a unique voice, and that's why I believe it received so much acclaim. That, and the performances. Pretty good work from everyone in avoiding the trap of producing two-dimensional characters.

My rating: 3 stars.


7)  Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

To be honest, this and The Help are pretty interchangeable on this list. Just too many stronger films for these solid-but-not-quite great films to rank any higher. Many people levied the "contrived" claim against ELaIC, and I think I agree to a small measure. There's nothing organic about the series of events that we encounter. There's more interesting frames in which to tell a 9/11 story. However, I was still overwhelmed by its emotion. I think this may be in part because the reception to many movies involving 9/11 has been lukewarm--to the point where United 93, a terrific movie regardless of label, has been tragically overshadowed. I couldn't help enjoy this movie, but maybe a part of me just wants a social fabric ready to embrace these stories.

My rating: 3 stars.

6)  The Artist

As a cinephile I'm supposed to be head over heels about The Artist. I'm supposed to rejoice at the celebration of cinema and the journey into a bygone era of Hollywood. And I do. The very nature of this movie, as a silent, black-and-white film, appeals to my senses. There's something about the sense of urgency in the acting and editing for silent pictures that cannot be captured by many "talkies."And its story transcends its setting; we see the "out with the old, in with the new" mindset in almost every aspect of our lives. I think that's why the film should quit being pegged as a great film for film lovers and rather simply as a great film.

(And that score... it is the epitome of "stirring.")

My rating: 3 stars.

5)  Moneyball

This may be Brad Pitt's finest performance. Between him and the screenplay, this is a terrific "sports" film. It's really not, though; I even think of it more along the lines of Margin Call or Wall Street than say The Natural or A League of Their Own. I can't stand baseball, and I was mesmerized. It is a joy to watch. The cast takes dialogue by Aaron Sorkin & Steven Zaillian that is ordinarily excellent to a whole new level. Every word seems real, every scene feels right. It's much more a story of two guys going against all odds than it is about a team in the hunt for a pennant. For once, you care more about what happens to our characters off the field than you do on the field.

My rating: 3.5 stars.


***

Now this is where it gets tricky. I had a hard time with the Top 4, although #1 was pretty clear from the get-go. However, I'd say it really had more to do with the battle for #3. I mean, no one really cares who third place is, but I love #4 and #3 so much it was like Sophie's Choice in my mind. I should also make it clear now that these next four films receive my highest rating of 4 stars.

***


4)  The Tree of Life

Pretentious. Muddled. Boring. Artsy-fartsy. These were just some of the nicer adjectives many people (not including critics, who are just as pretentious and unfeeling) used to describe this film. But Terrence Malick's films are treasures. Meditative and transcendent, almost like visual tone poems. If you aren't into movies (and by extension, stories) for characters, then you are missing the point will be left behind during a Malick film. The Tree of Life is arguably his finest and most touching film, although I'd give the nod to The Thin Red Line. It is about nature v. nurture; looking back on life, the universe, and everything; and even dinosaurs. To be fair, that scene may have been the breaking point for many. However, you don't LSD or even plenty of rest to get through it as some have claimed. All you need is is vision.

3)  Midnight in Paris

Many people have been to Paris who have had their romantic notions of the city completely deflated. I have not been to Paris, nor have I ever felt this overwhelming sense of grandeur. Don't get me wrong, I would like to visit it one day (even if that's only because I've only left the country for a few hours to visit Mexico). There's too much history, food, and shopping to be done. But what struck me about this movie was that it is Woody Allen's love letter to the city. If I ever love anything as much as Woody Allen loves Paris, I'd  be the Paula Deen to its butter. Seriously, though, I was completely on the side of Owen Wilson's character. (Like Brad Pitt in Moneyball, is this Wilson's career best?) Suddenly, Paris, je t'aime makes much more sense.

2)  The Descendants

I once pronounced Christopher Nolan the greatest auteur of our generation, but Alexander Payne may very well be the greatest filmmaker of our time. Much like the great writer/directors, Payne's voice is unmistakable. In fact, remember that Paula Deen-butter analogy? That might be me and Payne's movies. I don't know what it is about them, but their humor, sadness, and joy shine through in the most honest sense. What makes his films so different is that these qualities are effortlessly blended all at once. You will laugh out loud and snivel in conjunction. This film is no different. Sideways is one of my Top 10 movies of all time. And The Descendants makes a case for being my favorite Alexander Payne film. So, using some deduction, one might correctly conclude that this film and #1 on this list must also be near or even on that Top 10 list as well.

1)  Hugo

I've talked about movies that are celebrations of cinema, overtures to Paris, or achievements in visual splendor. Well, Hugo has all these things and more. I'll admit that I was only curious going in because it was Martin Scorsese doing 3D and a "children's" story. My contempt for 3D was triumphed only by this curiosity. But during and after the movie, I felt that "magic" that one feels only on the rarest of occasions. For me, this film works on every level. Even the 3D was inspired; if you are going to do 3D films, make them like Hugo. But this is not a children's movie; it's a movie for everyone. Anyone who has ever lived, laughed, and loved. Anyone who has ever seen what the tiniest amount of inspiration, imagination, and determination can produce. And anyone who values the magic of storytelling. I can say without reservation that Hugo earns my absolute recommendation.

***

Well, I set out to do a short little listing and blurb about each. As usual, I got carried away.

What do you think? How would you rank these films? Did the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences screw up their nominees again?(Again, I was only concerned with ranking the nominees for Best Picture of 2011. Many deserving films deserve a spot on this list but were snubbed.)

Let me know what you think!

P.S.  I hope you won't be deterred by any comments. With the exception of 12 Angry Men, I don't think I've ever seen a movie where I felt the need to force its greatness upon you. So by all means, if you hated The Descendants or were in love with The Help, please don't hold back.

Run, don't walk, to Zero Dark Thirty

Every year there is a film that is featured in the awards circuit that I find overrated.  Slumdog Millionaire and Babel come immediately to mind.  This year, I had a nagging suspicion that Zero Dark Thirty may have been that film for me.  This was completely unfounded and surprising, since I enjoyed Kathryn Bigelow's The Hurt Locker and believe Jessica Chastain to be one of the most talented actresses of our generation.

However, I'm glad to know that ZDT is in fact one of the year's best and deserving of the many awards it has racked up. (Any Oscar momentum it had from the critics' awards has probably been lost with the recent announcement of the Academy's nominees. Ms. Bigelow is nowhere to be found in the list of Best Directors.) 

It's safe to say this film has also received its fair share of criticism, most of it with regard to factual aspects.  It's hard to know who is right when it comes to these factual criticisms. But as a film, those criticisms don't really come to mind.

The film tells the story of Maya, a CIA officer who spends her entire 12-year career searching for bin Laden (UBL).  So for those who expect the film to center around the raid of the compound, you will be disappointed. But you will also be missing out. The raid is a part of the climax, but it was simultaneously an afterthought for me (if that makes any sense).  The decade-long search that comprises the first two hours of the film is storytelling gold.  In fact, Maya's reaction at the end of the film indicates just how important that journey is. While she is in fact the self-described "motherf**ker who found (UBL)," we see just how much manpower the delicate and nuanced the search required.

A technical, storytelling, and acting feat, the film easily earns a rating of 4 stars (****).

Check it out ASAP.  And if you've seen it, what did you think?

A Few Thoughts for the New Year: Les Mis, Sherlock, Luther, and TV Villains

It seems every time I sit down to write a post, I feel the need to write posts that would pass for college finals.  I realize that while there is an audience for and a merit to these kinds of posts, they create a mental block for me because I don't want to take 3-5 hours to write them. But most importantly, they may be creating a block for you.  While nothing means more to me than you putting time aside to read them, I don't ever want the reading and commenting to ever feel like a burden.

So, here's my first effort to quickly run through some very important things I've encountered out there in the land of entertainment.

First up, Les Miserables.

I should first say that the theatre audience was a good audience.  There was no intermittent clapping. I heard no talking. I saw no cell phones.  Throughout and at the end of "I Dreamed a Dream," you could have heard a pin drop.  It was an almost unparalleled viewing experience.

Now, based on the opinions I had heard going into the movie, I'd be lying if I said I went in with some inevitable expectations of the film.  Among their number:  Russell Crowe was miscast; Amanda Seyfried isn't in fact the worst part of the movie; the sung-through nature of the material doesn't work as well on the big screen. (After all, not every musical can be Jesus Christ Superstar.)

Well, for me, the film really worked.  On all levels.  The cast was phenomenal. INCLUDING RUSSELL CROWE.  Of all the reservations I had that were sculpted by others' opinions, none were more-so than the ones about Russell Crowe's (Javert) performance.  Well, I'm glad you folks were wrong.  And I say that as someone who's dream role is Javert.  This isn't a stage musical.  And while I'm not sure I possess the theatrical background to analyze his performance relative to that setting, I can say for a film adaptation, it works.  So much for me that he gave one of my favorite performances from the film.  He has had a habit lately of doing the same thing in different roles, but this performance was different and had nuances that I thought were perfect for Javert.  His voice sounded completely different from the rest of the cast, but I think an "unrefined" quality (whatever you want to call it) fits Javert like a glove.

Hugh Jackman (Valjean), at least in my mind, had some heavy-lifting ::rimshot:: to do because of the legacy Colm Wilkinson has left.

**Pause here to briefly explain my knowledge of Les Mis.  I've never seen a stage production.  Never saw the 1998 film.  Tried reading the book in the 3rd grade and gave up.  And the only version of the musical I've heard (and own) is the 10th Anniversary Concert.**

I've never heard a version of "Bring Him Home" that worked after hearing Mr. Wilkinson's.  And I just wasn't sure Hugh Jackman had it in him to be Valjean across all the years. Well, I was wrong (and it won't be the last time).  Hugh Jackman gave the performance of his career.  His voice worked for me.  It was refreshing finally to see all the performances in context of the story, especially Valjean.  Any nominations he gets will be earned and well-deserved.

Amanda Seyfried (Cosette) wasn't the end of the world that I thought she'd be. She held her own.  In fact, I'll go as far as to say she did a good job. And let's not even pretend like we didn't know what we were getting with Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen.  (Although Baron Cohen's constant flipping between French and British accents is puzzling.  I thought I convinced myself of why he might have been doing so, but I was probably overanalyzing as I tend to do.)

But there is one star that shines much brighter than the rest.  Anne Hathaway was nothing short of revelatory.  No other superlatives adequately capture what I feel about her performance. Definitely the best performance of the year.  Maybe of the (albeit early) decade.  But without question one of the most moving I've ever seen. There was no sobbing.  But I was in tears from almost the beginning, and whatever further reactions were on tap were halted by the most inescapable broken-hearted feeling.

I had planned a blog post about the merits of actors winning acting awards.  Many people/voters tend to believe there is that quintessential "Oscar scene" that many performances have or in some cases must have.  I tend to believe that while that sort of scene may be inevitable, putting much stock into one takes away from the rest of the performance.  So while "I Dreamed a Dream" is the one they'll show in all the award show clips, her performance isn't a one-scene pony.  Maybe those of you with musical theatre backgrounds can speak to the merits of her performance and whether they are earned or not, but I can only tell you how I felt. And for me she provides nothing short of a master-class.

I could go on and on about the merits of the technical decisions, story choices, etc.  But I'm gonna cut myself off here to avoid a repeat of the gargantuan The Dark Knight Rises post. Suffice it to say: for me, the film was a triumph.

I will say one quick thing about Tom Hooper.  Most of his work from a mise-en-scene standpoint is very consistent.  However, it is very different from that of typical American directors.  Now having re-immersed myself into British television for the first time since The Office with Ricky Gervais was a thing, I see where all of Hooper's decisions come from. (Considering his background, it makes sense.)

Now... about that British Immersion.

Sherlock had been recommended ad nauseum, and I had wanted to check out Luther because of Idris Elba's work on The Wire.  With the recent purchase of a Roku, we arrive at the following equation:

Roku + Amazon Instant Video = Awesome TV and No Productivity

I first went with Sherlock because of the sheer number of recommendations.  Well, this time, the expectations created by you all delivered. Which is saying something given the sort of acclaim it has generated among my friends.  It is the perfect combination of terrific storytelling and writing, tremendous acting, captivating drama, laugh-out-loud humor, and dynamic chemistry. 

People use the word "bromance" to describe Watson and Sherlock, but that does what Martin Freeman and Benedict Cumberbatch have given us a huge disservice. Their time together on-screen is essentially writing and acting at its finest.  (See, too, the Christmas party scene from Episode 2.01 "A Scandal in Belgravia.")

Luther is like Sherlock in that while both are very much crime "procedurals," they are more-so character studies. As a matter of fact, every description of Luther I read on Amazon, Wikipedia, etc., called it "psychological crime drama."  Boy howdy, is it!  The pilot completely fascinated me but gave a more grounded presentation of its "Moriarty" supervillain archetype Alice Morgan. 

The story of Sherlock is no mystery. But Luther is about Detective Chief Inspector John Luther for the Serious Crime Unit who is possessed by his work in a manner very similar to Sherlock. While their motivations are very different, their attention to detail is a cut above their contemporaries/colleagues. I couldn't help but make comparisons when I first watched.  But despite all I've said, they are very different characters and shows.

I think one reason Sherlock and Luther work so well for me is that they feature complete devotion to character, are based on very sharp and very smart writing, and feature two very intriguing villains.

In fact, just going off the top of my head, Jim Moriarty and Alice Morgan (despite only having been recent additions to my TV lexicon) belong right at the top of my Top TV Antagonists list. (Hearst from Deadwood is at the summit; I've never wanted to physically harm a fictional character as much as him. Also, Ben Linus from LOST deserves Honorable Mention.)

Before I go, I want to mention the 2012 slate of movies that came out this year.  Admittedly, I have fallen behind this year on staying up-to-date, so I am wary of putting out Top 10 lists of that nature.

But, I will say that Argo so far is my #1 Film of 2012.  Taking the prize for Most Overrated Film of the Year is Looper. Without going into one of my spiels, it simply failed because at the end, I didn't care what happened.  The screenplay worked for the first hour, but it never setup the stakes at the end convincingly enough. 

Finally, my favorite New Film of the Year (aka, the best film from any year that I saw for the first time this year) is Broadcast News.  If I could have back my Movie Ark picks, I'd probably put it on the list.  The film works on every conceivable level and features without a doubt one of the three best screenplays I've experience.  It receives a rare unqualified recommendation from me.

So what did you think of Les Mis?  Is my Russell Crowe assessment just wrong?

Do you watch Sherlock or Luther?  Thoughts, feelings?  Have a favorite moment?  Quote?  Episode?  Thoughts about what's in store for the next seasons? For the record, I rank the Sherlock episodes as
1)  2.01 - "A Scandal in Belgravia"
2)  1.01 - "A Study in Pink"
3)  2.03 - "The Reichenbach Fall"
4)  1.03 - "The Great Game"
5)  2.02 - "The Hounds of Baskerville"
6)  1.02 - "The Blind Banker".

If you aren't on Twitter or haven't seen my "poll," who are your Top 3 TV Antagonists?

Finally, what is your favorite film(s) of 2012?  Any disappointments for you?  (And if you say this blog post, I will find you.)

I hope to bring more to the table this year--sort of an unofficial New Year resolution of mine.  And I hope you will continue to visit and share in the discussion!

The Dark Knight Emerges (***Spoilers ahead!***)

"A hero can be anyone, even a man doing something as simple and reassuring as putting a coat around a young boy's shoulders to let him know the world hasn't ended."

Rarely have these words echoed more soundly than after all the events of this past weekend.  We remember those in Aurora who died, some protecting loved ones and even complete strangers.  We denounce those who failed to bring a pedophile to justice.  Batman's last words resonate in our own world at a time when heroes are both emerging and disappearing.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I promised myself I would not mention the Penn State scandal because I am just as tired of hearing about it as the rest of you probably are.  Regardless of where you stand on the issues (gun control, due process, NCAA sanctions, etc.), let us take a minute to remember the victims from both these tragic moments.


I was watching the movie Bobby yesterday, and this speech from Robert Kennedy played over the last eight minutes.  I was moved by it because 1) RFK is one of my favorite politicians and 2) I think, like Batman's quote, it rings more true now than ever.


I rarely speak politics, but this may come up later when our discussion of The Dark Knight Rises (TDKR) turns toward brief commentary.  [I say discussion because I hope you will comment (unlike on my last post), even if it's simply to add your outrage or agreement.]


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Let me just tell you where I stand on TDKR right off the bat.

That's right, TDKR gets my highest rating.  See my last post for a reminder of my critique system.  A 4-star movie can still be imperfect.  I can count on one and a half hands the number of perfect films I know. And even if TDKR were on the cusp of being perfect, the very few garbled lines from Sean Conne... er, Bane will keep me from assigning it as such.


It really wasn't a problem for me, despite being half-deaf.  I just need something to offer those who were not impressed by this motion picture.  If this film isn't a master class on acting, then it should be one on screenwriting, cinematography, editing, and self-awareness.


I will not recall the plot (like one of my traditional reviews).  Hopefully, if you're still reading, you've seen my spoiler warning, which serves another purpose in making sure I don't have to bother with the story.  That could take another hour of my time given the film's 165-minute running time.


Alas, the acting will not have to be defended here.  Unless you're Rex Reed, the film critic I am most at odds with both as a film critic and a filmgoer.  Even from those who are disappointed with Christopher Nolan's finale to the Dark Knight trilogy, the acting receives almost universal praise.


So where do most people find fault with this movie?  The screenplay.  "The fault, dear moviegoer, is not in the screenplay, But in yourself, that you are misguided."


Lord knows how much that last paragraph will get me into trouble.  "Pretentious," "arrogant," "off his rocker" they'll say.  But I don't see how anyone who watches the film with their expectations put aside would find this screenplay anything less than pretty good.  Expectations are only natural to have for a film like this and, furthermore, a filmmaker like Christopher Nolan. But I say that, indeed, Mr. Nolan gave us a product consistent with his story, vision, and previous films (including The Dark Knight, another 4-star film that is imperfect).


One criticism is the lack of a "compelling, complicated villain."  While Heath Ledger's Joker is one of cinema's all-time great villains, another villain like him would become tiresome in this film.  He represented chaos and anarchy in the last film.  He was no match for Batman physically.  His effectiveness came from his unpredictability, lack of cause, and mental prowess.  And Batman "won."  Yes, it took Batman pulling a Sydney Carton and eight years of reclusiveness, but the Joker lost.  


So we've seen Batman take on an enemy like that (maybe a second one, if we count Ra's al Ghul and ignore his cause).  What we haven't seen is an enemy that can cripple Batman physically.  We get that in Bane.  He represents the ultimate evil in my mind: evil with a cause.  Or so we think.  Is it just out of "love" for Miranda Tate/Talia al Ghul--whatever that means for him?  Or has he brought into The Process... er, League of Shadows? Whatever it is, he's compelled by something bigger than himself.  And that makes for the best of villains.


Another criticism of the writing was that the Nolan's introduced too many new characters and resorted to convention, using flashbacks and what-not. The Nolan's use of flashbacks is both reserved and consistent with Batman Begins. The Dark Knight saw an absence of this technique but that film had the advantage of dealing with a particular, brief, and fairly linear time in the life of Bruce Wayne/Batman.  What BB and TDKR were up against was that their stories covered many different times from the perspective of numerous characters.  And flashbacks can be very rewarding for viewers who pay attention or remember key scenes from the previous two films.  They offer a less boring way to advance or paint our characters (of the utmost importance for my sense of story) while offering emotional payoff to viewers.  (Can we all agree that whoever said "you don't have to see the first two"--this includes Mr. Nolan--sort of missed the mark?)


As for too many new characters, I can only offer the following:  since this story is about BW/Batman, this allows us to get a glimpse into his perspective.  If he's been Howard Hughes-ing for 8 years, what better way for the audience to understand this by having us play catchup along with him.  Also, it's only natural for new players to come into our lives.  Where were you 8 years ago?  Who were you with?  I know for us younger generation, we're in the midst of great change (graduating from all sorts of levels of schooling, trying to enter the workplace, starting new families, etc.).  So maybe some of you are past all that.  Or maybe some of you lead remarkably consistent lives.  Regardless, it happened from BB to TDK, and it happened from TDK to TDKR.  So, even if conventional screenwriting tells us to combine characters when necessary or to avoid flashbacks when possible, I hardly count these examples in TDKR as not having good reason for breaking these rules.


(On a side note:  in my screenwriting class, I was taught to avoid expository dialogue.  While this is a very good rule and the Nolan's violated it a few times in the movie, they sure know how to do it better than most.)


As for character's being inconsistent or their motivations shifting on a dime, that's really not something I can defend with 100% conviction, as it will depend upon each viewer.  In one of the few expectations/predictions I make for movies (and, more rarely, one that proved correct), I had a feeling Catwoman would realize the Bane/Talia plot was too evil, violent, and wrong.  The movie IMO gave us enough glimpses to see just why Selina Kyle had her turnaround.  And if you didn't buy these reasons, how about the fact that she just wanted to help a guy she had a thing for, the same guy whose life she had completely ruined?  Again, the whole issue with character motivations and driving action is usually a contentious point, one that is usually a matter of opinion.


How about the ending (aka, the last hour)?  If you felt it was predictable, I was taught one of the signs of good screenwriting is that the story usually has an ending that feels both unlikely and inevitable.  Again, just a matter of personal preference really.  If you felt things just happened too conveniently, I say that the script did an excellent job of setup/payoff.  We see details, hear dialogue, etc. that presents the information early on and comes about naturally.  [Like the autopilot thing;  it's not like they just said at the end, "Oh, hey, I discovered an autopilot feature you didn't tell me about."  We aren't so dumb to have to be shown everything.  We saw various other scenes where Bruce Wayne/Batman was making preparations or setting up schemes, so it doesn't require a wild leap of logic to assume that the autopilot was fixed.  And (I can't remember) if he did in fact lie about its functionality at the end, wouldn't it make sense for his grand scheme?]  If you felt that the social themes in the movie were lame--the good rich people open orphanages and all is right--, then I'd say that Nolan has gone on record (sorry I don't have a link for this claim) as saying while real-life social parallels may be present, they weren't intentional.  That may come across as a copout, but if true, then Bruce Wayne's legacy more than comes full circle.  It carries on the vision his parents had for Gotham.  It makes him a powerful symbol like the Batman.  For Nolan, the lynchpin of the trilogy comes early in BB.  (Read the link for an explanation.)


If we accept or recognize that scene's importance, then the ending is spot on.  Like Inception, the ambiguity at the end doesn't matter.  In Inception it really doesn't matter if the top keeps spinning. The point is, Cobb doesn't care.  He has let go.  (You see, Leo gets his chance to pull a Rose from Titanic.)  He is finally with his children, the thing he's wanted the most.  It's real enough for him.  Same with Batman.  Batman becomes an incorruptible symbol.  Not just someone to impersonate (hence why they included the scene of the copycat Batmans in TDK).  If someone carries on the symbol, that's fine.  If John Blake decides to become Robin, Nightwing, etc., that's fine, too.  But Bruce Wayne realizes what is important is for people see that true heroes are willing to do whatever it takes in the face of evil or for the love of an ideal or for whatever saccharine message you took away from the movie.


Those are the main criticisms I've read.  I beg of you to please give me some feedback.  Were these responses reasonable?  Terrible?  Any other points about the screenplay I didn't mention?


I focused on the screenplay because I have seen almost no criticisms about acting, technical aspects, etc.  Wally Pfister and Hans Zimmer were both at the top of their games.  The same could be said for Lee Smith (editing), keeping me engaged and coherent for all 165 minutes.  One note:  Wally Pfister will probably be absent from future Christopher Nolan ventures.  This is important because of Christopher Nolan's distinct visual style in his films.


Let us consider for a moment Nolan's place in the history of cinema.  I said after Inception he was our generation's Alfred Hitchcock. After TDKR, I am preaching it. By this, I mean he has his distinct visual style, storytelling methods, filmmaking techniques, familiar casts, and story types.  Most of his films are big on deception, both with regard to characters and the audience.  Sound like Hitchcock?  People like Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, Clint Eastwood, Woody Allen, and Ridley Scott are all great auteurs, but most of their films (especially their greatest ones, except Eastwood) have come before my generation was born. Tim Burton is really hit or miss for me.  David Fincher has to live with Alien 3 and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, otherwise his resume is right up there.  Quentin Tarantino may be the epitome of present-day auteur and the best dialogue writer of them all, but his films are also hit or miss for many folks. I can't really think of anyone else, so in addition to being my generation's Hitchcock, he is currently our generation's best filmmaker.


Does that make The Dark Knight trilogy the best of our generation?  What about all-time?  It's hard to compare genres, so this is tough.  Let's start with the original Star Wars trilogy.  For my money, The Dark Knight trilogy easily bests this.  The Empire Strikes Back is not the same movie for me that it is for most people.  Talk about a movie that suffers from pacing and expositional dialogue.  Those Dagobah scenes are the cure for insomnia.  The parallel action scenes/ending in Return of the Jedi is one of my all-time favorite movie moments and an obvious influence for Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy.  And while Star Wars is better than BB, the weaknesses of the second installment do that series in.  What about The Godfather trilogy?  In one of the few tired, borrowed lines I'll offer in this post, Part III really is that detrimental to the trilogy as a whole.  Here's a case where too many new characters becomes cumbersome.  They are to be expected given the time jump from Part II to Part III, though. But they are cumbersome in that we just don't care.  So much is at stake for the Corleone family in Parts I & II; not so much for Part III.


What about the LOTR trilogy?  Fans of the books are divisive about its merits.  That doesn't really concern me here.  It's a important debate, about how books and movie adaptations should function together, if at all. (Plus, what are we to do with the Extended Editions?) What does concern me is this:  the high points in the LOTR trilogy are at times better than the highs for the Dark Knight trilogy, but the low points for the Dark Knight trilogy are for the most part better than the lows for LOTR.  Admittedly, both trilogies offer very few lows.  But since the number of better highs for LOTR don't outnumber the highs in the Dark Knight trilogy by a great number, the standard then becomes which trilogy is better at its worst.  And for me, I can tolerate the Dark Knight trilogy lows more than those in LOTR.  Maybe it's because the story lows are steeped in a more relatable way.  Since story is so important, that's infinitely more weighted than the inconsistency in Gotham from BB to the latter two Dark Knight movies.  And I can't really hold the Rachel Dawes casting discrepancy against the trilogy, since it was in fact an upgrade in acting.  Maggie Gyllenhaal may sound more whiny, but at least she doesn't sound like she's just reciting lines.  So, for me right now, the Dark Knight trilogy is my favorite film trilogy.


A few other thoughts:


*The Stock Exchange scene took on a whole other dimension after hearing about the Aurora shooting.  While the incident admittedly never entered my mind after arriving at the theatre, it's chilling and devastating fallout was ever present during that scene.


As a matter of fact, Lisa Schwarzbaum had a very interesting article about how on-screen violence is becoming very disturbing for her.  I can't say I agree 100%, because like Christopher Nolan said, the movies theatre is a place I love to go, simply for the fact that we are removed, even if only for 80 or 180 minutes, from the world that surrounds us, transported to worlds as far away as other universes and galaxies or as near as our imagination.  I tend to remove myself from real life when I watch a film like this (the moment above aside).  But movies are great because they offer insight into the human condition.  From the depths of despair and evil to the peaks of greatness and heroism, they do in fact require some part of engagement (visceral and intellectual) from us. While she brings up some good points but without going into further detail, I do ultimately think it's a knee-jerk reaction.  What do you think?


*Maybe the ending to TDKR wasn't so original... Exhibit A.


*Sally Ride passed away yesterday. A very important figure for the space program.  I've always been a fan of NASA and space exploration.  So, I wanted to give a quick remembrance to one of the premiere figures for space programs.  Like the ones that give us this.  Or this.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That's it.


In an attempt to get this all published today, I may have left out some key points or topics. (Although, unlike my last post, I wrote down about a page and a half of notes to reference while typing this.)  That's inevitable with a post like this.


I thank you for taking the time to read all this. I gave it my all, even if that meant some of the pseudo-political stuff at the beginning, so thank you for bearing with me.  I believe every link posted is important to my post/our discussion; please give them a view.


Whether we are in complete agreement or whether I have offended you to the core or whether we simply disagree, please let me hear from you.  I feel strongly about this movie, but I am not out to change minds or convince people they are wrong.  That's not what I am about.  I just enjoy a good old fashioned movie dialogue. 


P.S.  Tell your friends and invite them to join the conversation.


P.P.S.  I don't think I ever explicitly came out with it, so let me set the record straight: The Dark Knight Rises > The Dark Knight > Batman Begins for me, although I can't say right now how large the gap is between TDKR and TDK.