Star Wars: The subtitle wasn't added until the Special Editions

Star Wars (1977)
It's hardly possible to separate this film, or its sequels from their historical importance. They made Sci-Fi what it is today with their combination of engaging "Hero's Journey" story-line, unprecedented practical effects and effectively intriguing setting. Not only this, but this, relatively short, low-budget film inspired the entire Star Wars Universe, that spanned over forty years of further films, games, TV shows, books, comics and one ill-fated Christmas Special. It inspired too, the new Star Universe that has superseded it, and the yearly sequels, prequels, and spin-offs that we can now expect in perpetuity from the house of mouse.

As a film review I'll keep it brief, and try not to make it too obvious. The pacing of this film to me, is near flawless, everything feeds into the next scene and builds the tension to a perfect crescendo as Luke learns to trust in the force over his computer and destroys the dreaded death star. All the characters are interesting and unique. Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) is the fish out of water, a talented pilot, and a decent shot, but clueless towards almost everything else he encounters. Han Solo (Harrison Ford) is the dashing rogue with eyes on the prize who grows a conscience by the end of the film. Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher) is a good-hearted and capable rebel, but a bit of a snob ("Will someone get this big walking carpet out of my way?"). Obi-Wan Kenobi (Sir Alec Guinness) is the Wise old Wizard who plays the role of mentor in Luke's journey. Chewbacca (Peter Mayhew) is there to be the space dog. The Villains are simple, and a bit cartoonishly villainous, but wonderful and enjoyable. Every line is quotable, every costume and set lovingly crafted and it will always be remembered and loved. The essential modern classic.

It does have flaws. Some of the effects are a little dated and the Special Editions add little that anyone really wanted or needed to the original cut. There are some hokey lines here that would have been crucified if they'd been in the prequels ("But I was going into Tosche Station to pick up some power converters!"), and the performances from some of the main cast are not always as good as we like to remember. The sabre duel between Darth Vader(James Earl Jones) and Obi-Wan is very basic in terms of the action, even if the story behind it still makes it work. The plot is quite simplistic. The themes of nature and human will-power overcoming technology and tyranny are nothing mind-blowing, at its core it's a straightforward contest of good and evil in which good prevails against overwhelming odds. It's a story that's been told for as long as people have told stories, and will doubtless be told again in different forms forever more. Not perfect, but in many ways, as good as any film can hope to get. George Lucas' best work, with help from John Williams (score), Ralph McQuarry (concept art) and many many others.

Action: 8/10
Plot: 10/10
Message: 10/10
Dialogue: 8/10
Characters:8/10
FX: 8/10
Overall Enjoyment: 9/10- Will always be amongst my favourite films and better than the sum of its parts.

Episode Three: The Reckoning

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith

This film was one I enjoyed in the cinema and still think is un-ironically quite good, but I will attempt to justify these feelings rather than simply fan-boying.

The themes in this film are fascinating to me. The fall of the Republic and the Jedi had been set up in Episode I, and we all knew it had to happen given the nature of these films as Prequels. We learn that  Chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid), having been voted emergency powers at the end of Episode II is more or less running the "Republic" as an autocrat at this point. The parallels between Palpatine and Caesar are clear and interesting, an ambitious, charming man who slowly seizes control, using war, temporary position, and terror as a means to do it. The collapse seems avoidable at so many points, despite we as the audience knowing what's going to happen, which reflects good storytelling. Not only this but it has some clear commentary on US politics from the early 2000's including the Iraq War and the War on Terror. Whatever the film's flaws, it has a worthy message both as a 'Still-Relevant' social commentary, and as a way of making ancient history engaging. It was, admittedly, a bit underdeveloped, and there are some interesting deleted scenes that expand on these themes that I feel shouldn't have been cut, but I can't help applauding the effort. Episode III, and the Prequels as a whole, were incredibly counter-cultural. The flaws of Democracy and its relationship with Tyranny, straight out of classical philosophy, are not often explored in film, certainly not in major, big-budget Sci-Fi films like Star Wars.

As for the film as a whole, it certainly has its flaws. Bad dialogue returns like a bad case of mould on a bathroom ceiling, which can ruin the tension of many important moments, especially the infamous "No" from the newly suited and booted Darth Vader. Many memes have been created that expose these corny lines, mostly from Anakin (Hayden Christensen), Padme (Natalie Portman), and Palpatine. These definitely detract from the film as a whole, iconic though they remain. Aside from this we have some woefully under-developed villains. Based purely on the films, Count Dooku and General Greivous get hardly any screen time and little to no backstory. To be fair to the film, these "characters" are there mostly as powerful forces for our protagonists to overcome, and didn't need to be terribly complex, but Dooku in particular had such potential as a great villain (being a fallen Jedi and Qui-Gon's former master) if he'd been fleshed out that I do think this is a problem.

Palpatine, Anakin, and Obi-Wan (Ewan McGregor) are the only ones who seem to make meaningful choices and receive development in this film. Palpatine is running the show as he has been all along, that's interesting and Ian McDiarmid has such fun with the role that it's very hard not to enjoy his character. Anakin gets constant and much needed development. We see him at the start of the film as more mature than in Episode II, risking his own safety to help those around him. The Anakin we see here is more believably the "good friend" that Alec Guiness mentioned in Episode IV back in 1977. We see his conflict throughout the film as well. We understand his frustration with Jedi, and see why he might be drawn to Palpatine. Some of the changes are a bit sudden in their delivery (10 minute gap between "It's not the Jedi Way!" and Killing Kids), but we see and understand why Anakin becomes Darth Vader. He was afraid to lose his Wife, and that attachment caused him to forsake everything else he cared about, and ultimately it destroyed him. Obi-Wan is also a character in this film. He finishes his arc started in Episode II by finally giving Anakin the recognition, praise, and love he had always wanted from him. Obi-Wan becomes the wise mentor and father figure that he wasn't in either of the other prequels. This development adds to the tragedy of Anakin's fall. The supporting cast are a bit lack-lustre in this one, Samuel L Jackson in particular struggles to make his lines work, but I feel this is mostly a problem with George Lucas's script and direction.

So what else? I liked the things that everyone else liked. The opening sequence in space is darn cool, as is the "Tragedy of Darth Plagueis" scene with Palaptine and Anakin. The closing scenes setting up episode IV are beautifully shot and scored and are just pure Star Wars magic. The action throughout is done well and is interesting to watch, even if the sabre duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan drags on a bit too long for my taste. As for what I didn't like, I think it'll be relatively uncontroversial. The clunky dialogue, the "She's Lost the Will To Live" moment with Padme and the over-use of CGI all detract from this film, along with what I've all ready talked about. None of these are a deal-breaker to me, but I can see why they would spoil the film for other people.

Action: 8/10 (could have been more practical and restrained in places)

Plot: 7/10 (Great ideas, mired by some bad decisions and poor execution)

Message/Themes: 10/10

Dialogue: 6/10 (improved over episode II but some of it is pretty horrendous)

Characters:7/10 (main characters are well developed, but side characters can be one-dimensional)

FX: 7/10 (Decent, but too digital)

Overall Enjoyment: 8/10- I think Episode III is an enjoyable film, a worthy addition to Star Wars and despite being flawed, it's something that I will definitely come back to again.

The Prequels then:

The Prequel Trilogy to me are tragic. In terms of their themes, their characters and in terms of the films themselves. They had so much to say, and so many ideas to talk about, but the delivery was just not there. George Lucas did his best, but his weaknesses (most notably bad dialogue and an over-reliance on CGI) prevented them from being good in the way that people wanted them to be. If the Original Trilogy is a masterpiece, a huge painting by a great master that changed the world, then the Prequel Trilogy is the attempt to do better. It was ambitious, and interesting and artistic, but ultimately it couldn't compare to the original work. That is the greatest tragedy for any artist. To make an early masterpiece and spend the rest of your career trying to do better, with success being impossible. We can all think of ways these could have been improved, but for what they are, I enjoy them, and probably always will do. 

If you've read my reviews so far, I thank you, sincerely. Episode IV should be up tomorrow, I'll come back to the TV series and Spin offs after my Episode VIII review.

Star Wars Episode 2: Electric Boogaloo

Star Wars Episode II: Attack of The Clones

Okay, so part two of my master plan to review all of the Star Wars films ahead of giving my thoughts about part eight leads me to having to think again about “Attack of The Clones”. Unlike Phantom Menace I remember having mixed feelings about this one when it came out, there were elements that I enjoyed, but the romance put me (and audiences worldwide) off, and overall this entry was a cringe-inducing nightmare, and now I will tell you why.

The film starts off with an intriguing opening set-piece where Padme (Natalie Portman) is almost blown up. This makes it clear that people want her dead setting up an important plot point early on. Unfortunately, this swiftly descends into clunky exposition for a good chunk of the rest of the film. Episode two starts badly by being set ten years after “Phantom Menace”. This might be realistic in terms of the story George Lucas was trying to tell but it’s immediately off-putting as the characters we started getting to know in the previous film are nearly all drastically different. When we last saw Anakin in Phantom Menace, he was a pure innocent. He was a little annoying at times, mostly as a result of bad dialogue, but fundamentally he was generous and smart, as well as being a fast learner. He was likeable, or at least that was the intention. The Anakin we meet at the start of “Attack of The Clones” is none of those things. He’s jealous, surly and really rather dim “I am a slow learner”, and maybe that is what the weight of expectation and puberty in a celibate order of super-powered monks does to you, but we don’t see that transformation, so it is grating and hard to accept. Obi-Wan too is different. In Phantom Menace he was a bit sarcastic, but ultimately good natured, and he decided to train Anakin in deference to his dead master. When we see him again here, he’s a bad teacher/parental figure. He berates his student in public, in ways that reveal a sense of inferiority towards Anakin and comes across as mean-spirited. This could have been interesting if we’d been able to see this relationship develop, and therefore been able to understand this change in our main characters, but we don’t. We are (mostly) told things about these people, not shown them, breaking story-telling’s cardinal rule. When we are shown things, they are shown through frankly embarrassing dialogue that makes it hard to sympathise with our protagonists. This cripples the film out of the front gate and it doesn’t really improve much as we go through the rest of the feature.

By starting en media res, Lucas has chosen an off-putting, strange, and poorly explained time to begin this story that Phantom Menace didn’t give us adequate grounding for. It really feels like there needed to be another film between these two that allows these characters to have room to change in a way that makes sense to the audience. I’ll come back to this idea when I talk about The Clone Wars film and TV series, as well as episode three, but it really feels like the Prequels needed more than three films to tell this story properly. So many plot threads are poorly explained through exposition, or rushed, or barely explained at all, and considering the amount of screen time given to the awful romance plot, this is a real shame, and a missed opportunity, as there are plenty of interesting plot threads in this episode.

Okay so I’ve moaned about the main characters and the setting, but I should also talk about what is good here. There are some good performances in this film, and they’re rare, so they stand out. Christopher Lee shines as Count Dooku (who could have been much more interesting if we knew anything about him), and Ewan McGregor makes most of his lines work, even though those lines are a bit lacking. There are also some good action scenes. The fights between Obi-Wan and Jango Fett (Temuera Morrison) were well done and felt very visceral and real. The first fight was good mostly due to a lot of it being hand-to-hand. That’s not something we’d seen much of in Star Wars before and it worked well for me. Their chase through the asteroid field with the sonic bombs is also cool and I remember watching that part in the Cinema and really enjoying it. John Williams’ score, and much of the cinematography, world design and such like is also excellent as always. Other than that, there is really not much about this film that works well. One or two moments between Anakin and Padme (the ones where they don’t talk) are okay, Samuel L Jackson and Yoda have one or two cool lines and the Bounty Hunter mystery with Obi-Wan has some good elements, but beyond this the film is just bad.

The Philosophy of “Clones” is hard to pin down because most of it is so rushed. It attempts to show the dangers of attachment through Anakin’s story with his mother, and is reasonably successful, but the dialogue seriously detracts from the impact of this, along with the seeming plot hole of why Anakin and Obi-Wan waited ten years without trying to free Anakin’s mother from slavery. The themes of a corrupt democracy return, and try to paint the rebel systems as sympathetic as a result, but it’s hard to take this seriously as we in the audience know the rebel movement is being controlled by the Sith. Perhaps this is an attempt to explore the idea of villains cloaking their villainy in moral ambiguity, but Star Wars makes moral ambiguity almost impossible with a literal light and dark side of the force. Finally, I take issue with this film’s portrayal of love. I can believe that Anakin fell in love with Padme at first sight, but we are given very little reason to think that Padme could love this man. His actions towards her in the film veer between clumsy and outright creepy. It may be the case that destiny (or the Force) want this couple to be together, but unless we are shown a convincing romance (or begin the film with them all ready a couple) it is almost impossible to believe that these people love each other. Love is something that rarely happens immediately. It takes work, a back-and-forth, chemistry and time. Little, if any, of this is displayed. For all Lucas’ attempts, (this story is a huge part of the film, and there’s a considerable amount more that was cut) he fails to make this convincing.

One or two final things to mention. Yoda should not, in my opinion, have a lightsaber. Yoda should be so powerful with the force that such things are frankly beneath him. It was a cool segment visually, but I feel it betrays the fundamental message of Yoda's character. That he is a master, not a warrior, a sage, not a samurai, a priest, not a knight. I much preferred the dialogue and force power exchange between Yoda and Dooku, and prefer to skip their saber duel every time. The duel between Anakin, Obi-Wan and Count Dooku is okay, but the choice to zoom right in on Anakin and Dooku so we can barely see their swords was a mistake in my opinion. Generally the action is too CGI heavy for me, and not very engaging aside from the fights between Obi Wan and Jango Fett mentioned earlier.

Action: 7/10
Plot: 5/10
Message: 5/10
Dialogue: 5/10
Characters:5/10
FX: 6/10
Overall Enjoyment: 5/10- Bad Film with some redeeming moments.

Star Wars Episode 1: The Good; The Bad; and the "Meh"

Okay, so in my last post I mentioned that the "two good star wars movies have already been ruined for me by the three mediocre ones and the three outright bad ones." I want to clarify this a little and maybe reconsider that statement, as it's been floating around in my head since I wrote it, and has made me think that perhaps I was being uncharitable.

So what I decided to do was to go through the Star Wars Movies, one at a time in Chronological Order (in universe) and give them a ruddy good seeing to (which is to say, reviewing them whilst talking about the Philosophy and themes and stuff). especially with "The Last Jedi" now out (no I haven't seen it yet).

Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace- 1999
This was the first Star Wars film I saw in the Cinema. I went with my family and it blew my little mind. It's the first film that I quoted endlessly and I absolutely loved it. I will try to put aside my nostalgia and be objective here however. Watching it again as an adult, I can see some of the problems that people had with it. Jar Jar Binks is much less funny on repeat viewing, and I can see and appreciate the complaint of racial stereotyping regarding the Gungans, Watto, and the Neimodians, even if that doesn't really spoil my personal enjoyment of the film. It is also true that it's hard to point to a single protagonist, and the plot is complex relative to the original films. People also mention that the CGI can seem gratuitous and dated. But I also think there's a lot to like here.

Phantom Menace may not have a single protagonist but it doesn't really need one. When we were first introduced to Star Wars, we knew nothing about this world, so we needed a clear fish-out-of-water protagonist to ask the important questions. But anyone watching Phantom Menace knows this universe's important elements all ready, and I see no particular problem with the film using different characters to fill the protagonist role at different points. This is a more complex story than the original trilogy, so it needs multiple characters to drive that story in a believable way. Anakin asks a lot of important questions that we as the audience want to know the answer to: "What is this big city planet?"; "What are those "Midichlorian" things Qui-Gon was talking about earlier?". Obi-Wan also asks these kinds of questions in the film: "What are the trade federation like?"; "Why doesn't Qui-Gon listen to the council?". Qui-Gon probably fills the role of main character the closest shared with Queen Amidala, as they are the ones who are making most of the choices that drive the story forward. In these roles, these characters worked for me. Most of them have arcs to boot. Anakin learns to trust his instincts, Obi-Wan learns to defy convention, Queen Amidala learns to use diplomacy and politics to her advantage (even if she is ultimately being manipulated). I never had much trouble following the plot of this one and I think the characters are they key reason for that.To go into the story more deeply, for all the whining about trade law being boring, it's also a realistic cause for a sudden armed conflict during peace time and the plot doesn't actually focus on it all that much. Midichlorians, whilst unnecessary also don't change anything. The force was established it the Original Trilogy to be genetic ("The force is strong in my family") and as a sci-fi word to add back-story to this and give an easy way to tell the audience about relative force strength, I honestly don't see the big problem with them. The story in Phantom Menace does use one or two lazy tropes (The Prophecy, The Droids all dying with the destruction of a single ship), but I think that overall it actually just kinda works.

Another thing that I like is that there's plenty of amazing action in this film and whilst there were things that could have been done better, (maybe some lines to break up the lightsaber duel on Naboo and give our beautifully designed villain some character?) this is an incredibly visually interesting film. Pod-racing is pure Star Wars and the effects for it still hold up seventeen years on. Liam Neeson as Qui-Gon, Ewan McGregor as Obi-Wan, Natalie Portman and Kiera Knightly as Queen Amidala and her decoy all give good performances supported by an all star secondary cast, who for the most part also do great jobs with the occasionally wanting material. Jake Lloyd (Anakin) is not bad, he gets some corny lines, but so did Mark Hamill back in 1977. Chancellor Palpatine is also a joy with Ian McDiarmid reprising his role from Return of the Jedi. Of the large cast of characters in this film, they all get some development, and they all feel like real people to me with the exception of the usual target, but we'll get to him later.

Phantom Menace does use a lot of CGI for the era. However, it also uses a lot of practical effects alongside the CGI, just like the original Jurassic Park film (which was the inspiration for Lucas to make this) and the majority of it, to my eyes at least, still looks damn good. Especially compared to the other two prequel films, I think the Phantom Menace's use of CGI generally works well and I can't really see why people dislike it so much aside from nostalgia for stop motion animation.

The only major aspect of this film that I truly dislike is Jar Jar Binks(Ahmed Best). But he's there primarily to entertain younger viewers, and I remember him doing that very well, for me and nearly everyone else my age at the time. I also don't think Ahmed Best's performance is bad, he was just given a terrible comic-relief character. Jar-Jar is silly and the CGI that renders him looks dated now to put it charitably, but he doesn't do enough to spoil the overall film which is I think, un-ironically quite good. If you judge it as a film on its own merits, it mostly works, as most viewers at the time agreed. If you compare it to the original trilogy you will be disappointed, because other than some homages, it's not trying to be the original trilogy. It was a risky film, full of artistic merit that unfortunately made one or two-ee little-bitty, mistakes.

Lastly then: What about the Philosophy? What is this film trying to tell us? Several things. Firstly it establishes early on the flaws that will lead to the fall of the Republic and the Jedi. The Jedi have been in charge so long that they are arrogant "I do not believe the Sith could have returned without our knowing". This shows us that power corrupts. Qui-Gon's response to this, that he is willing to go his own way for the greater good, sets up the Civil War in the form of the Clone Wars that will come in later. The Republic is mired in procedure and bureaucracy and the film uses this to give an intelligent, realistic critique of what can go wrong in a democratic system that is based on the history of the Roman Republic. As a message this is useful and not often explored in film. It's the setup to a Greek Tragedy, where A New Hope is the set up to a Hero's Journey. Philosophically interesting and well written, as far as the plot goes.


Action: 10/10
Plot: 7/10
Message: 8/10
Dialogue: 5/10
Characters:7/10
FX: 7/10
Overall Enjoyment: 7/10- Good Film.

Audiences...uh... Find a way.

I've been noticing a trend in popular culture recently. A trend of "safe bets". To back up my impression I did some cursory research about films being released next year.(https://www.movieinsider.com/movies/-/2018)
Of the dozen highly anticipated films being released in 2018 that I looked at, seven were immediately recognisable to me as sequels, prequels or otherwise being related to previously successful media. This is without taking 2017 into account, the year of Star Wars 8, Blade Runner 2 and the Emoji Movie amongst other things. This trend of safe, marketable names is often derided and commented upon, but I hope here to cast a fresh perspective on this.

What gave me the idea for this post was the recently released trailer for Jurassic World 2: Fallen Kingdom (which I thought looked good by the way), and it made me consider the message of the original Jurassic Park film. The moral of Jurassic Park was that complex things are fundamentally unpredictable. If you reach a point where you believe you have meaningful, complete control over a complex system, it is going to end about as well as taking to Twitter to come out as a Tory. This is touched on in Jurassic World with the idea of a "relationship" with the raptors. Full control is an illusion, a delicate balance that requires effort and discipline to maintain, as well as respect for, and understanding of, the system (or in this case animal). I saw an irony in this with the attitude of Hollywood towards film making. Those who make films, or at least many who market and produce them, believe they can successfully predict what films people enjoy and therefore what will be successful and make obscene amounts of money doing it. The trick is safety. Take an existing, popular work of art and stretch it for everything it's worth. To an extent, this is working for them. Many mediocre, or poor films in the last two decades have made levels of money that would embarrass a banker who'd invested all his bonuses in bitcoin, purely by association with other much better films/books/games/key-rings, etc. Key examples of this would be the sequels and prequels to Star Wars, Jurassic Park, and the Avengers.

There is little inherently wrong with making a film, or even sequels, purely for profit. If someone enjoys your product and there is nothing fundamentally harmful about said product, then by all means, make it, and make money doing it. What I would caution against is when this production reaches a point of sequels being planned every year in perpetuity as Disney is doing with both Marvel and Star Wars, and as Sony has repeatedly tried with it's super hero IP, and as many other Studios are considering going forward. This model of film-making is Jurassic Park. It is throwing money at creating a closed, controlled, perfect money making system. (Make brand, publish brand forever, make money forever) What this fails to realise is that people are a necessary part of that system and people cannot be reliably controlled or predicted forever. Their tastes change. They make mistakes. They spend half their lives wishing they were a skilled limbo dancer and never actually pursue it. As a result, somewhere along the line, Star Wars films will stop making money. People will lose interest. The people making them will eventually mess it up to the point where people don't trust the brand anymore. It will happen eventually. And when it does, we may say that's no big deal. They'll just stop making them at that point and move on to something else. But the problem with that is that by that point, the dross will outnumber the good stuff. At that point, the original works of art that inspired these films will be tainted forever. The two good Star Wars films have already been poisoned for me by the three mediocre ones and three outright bad ones (I'll let those of you who miss the point guess which are which). As such this becomes a kind of plague, finding good art and running it through the ringer. Sparing no expense of course.

What this shows me, besides the fact that Stephen Spielberg has no self-awareness whatsoever, is that capitalism is a bad custodian of the arts. The best, most original films, with the most room for a lasting legacy are usually produced independently, or on a tight budget, or by an insane, unreliable director, or as a tricky, risky collaboration. The best films are usually not produced as blockbusters, and blockbusters rarely have artistic merit as a whole product. This shows me that good art is usually produced in spite of capitalism, and not as a result of it. I'm not sure I know what the answer to this problem is. But I do know that I'm all ready watching fewer films in the cinema as a result of this trend. I would be saddened to reach a point where I watch none.