Change Your Image
damfinobk
Reviews
Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)
The Force Awakens, and the Haters Keep Hating
*** CONTAINS SPOILERS *** I am beginning to think with all the shade being thrown at this movie that Star Wars fans have become the new Star Trek fans, working hard to find fault with just about anything that doesn't fit their pre-conceived imaginations. Have we not forgotten the utter betrayal that began in 1999, the year that essentially split fandom straight down the middle with the release of ::shudders:: 'The Phantom Menace'?? I've read some things that straight up made me laugh, like how TFA is somehow WORSE than the prequels, that Finn is the new Jar Jar Binks, and that this movie was somehow boring.
Some people say Force Awakens straight plagiarizes Star Wars (1977) (I refuse to call it A New Hope, nor do I lend any credence to the so-called Special Editions). And if you only look at the surface, like Starkiller Base is a super-sized Death Star, a bad guy (who used to be a good guy?) in a mask (Vader/Kylo Ren), Luke Skywalker is a hermit, an untrained Jedi grows up on a desert planet, Starkiller Base is attacked by X-Wings... I think I hit about everything.
Boy, sounds like a straight up remake doesn't it? WRONG. Consider these following points: Starkiller Base enables The First Order to simply level the playing field, by blowing up all the Republic planets at once, thereby taking away the Resistance's main source of power and influence over the galaxy. This enables The First Order to now become a formidable enemy. In STAR WARS, the galaxy was already controlled by the Empire, and the Death Star was used to eliminate the need for a centralized government to control the systems. So really, how else could they make such a balance possible? Now we have what will appear to be an even fight, which never existed before in the Classic Trilogy.
Kylo Ren is "family", but unlike the prior trilogy, his lineage isn't kept secret for long, and for good reason: because fan boys would invariably call it an EMPIRE rip off. So they do it right here, the facts come out matter-of-fact, keeping just enough mystery long enough to keep the audience engaged in the possibilities. Further, Kylo Ren was once Ben Solo, who, after a short time training under Luke turns against the new Jedi order, and is swayed by Snoke. We don't know much about Snoke yet, but the idea of a good guy switching sides isn't new even in the Prequel Trilogy (Count Dooku anyone?). Either way, Kylo Ren is far from an established figure, unlike Skywalker. Also, Vader required his mask at all time, whereas Kylo Ren chooses to wear the mask.
Luke Skywalker's hermitage is far removed from the position that Obi-Wan took. Obi-Wan was assigned the duty of watching over Luke. Luke has no charge, his exile self-imposed. And Rey comes to HIM, not the other way around. Rey's upbringing on Jakku makes Luke's upbringing on Tatooine look like Leia's upbringing on Alderaan. Seriously, she's scavenging for scraps and lives inside a crashed AT-AT. Luke had the support of his family, who looked successful enough to own a farm and buy droids. Rey works all day for half portions of food. And just because the film leads you to think that she may be Luke's daughter doesn't mean she is, give the next movie a chance to go deeper into that. But, oh yeah, these haters know everything don't they? The film had two jobs: be entertaining and introduce a new generation of characters. If Disney did not use familiar terrain to tell its story, the film and its characters would be disregarded as non-Star Wars. The use of familiar terrain is also important in introducing the aforementioned GREY AREAS BETWEEN THE BLACK AND WHITE. How could they do that without reintroducing so many elements to this generation? You see, Disney did use elements from the Expanded Universe, and internet trolls are bitching about it. Well, if Disney did NOT use any of those elements, those same trolls will come out saying how Disney SHOULD have used the EU.
The first time I saw the film, I did have my worries. I felt the film did not satisfy my imagination, that it was a bit of a remake, because I was trying so hard during my first viewing to find what I wanted to find out of it. I saw the film a second time, and all those concerns went right out the window. The film is fast, at point relentless in action, but the point is every scene with any form of exposition is told using creativity, not "shot-reverse shot" methods of sitting on a couch we've come to associate with the prequels. The humor in this film is excellent, relationships flow naturally, and we can see why they are together by the end. And, MOST IMPORTANTLY, The Force is not ruined, and lightsabers are overused. The fights are not overly choreographed, but they seem and feel real. Be wary of people who like to share their thoughts so quickly. I decided to simply give it a second shot before making up my mind, and I wasn't disappointed.
Now, I suppose this film doesn't really deserve a 10/10. I think it should be 8/10, but thanks to the existence of the prequels, and how the film managed to avoid all the mistakes the prequels made, it deserves the two bonus stars for FINALLY give the world a FOURTH Star Wars picture. Looking forward to the next two.
The Three Stooges (2000)
Way off the mark, but entertaining as a film
If one is looking for the TRUE story of The Three Stooges, one should read either the rare book "Moe Howard and the Three Stooges" or the more recent and easily available "The Complete Three Stooges Filmography." Or even Wikipedia The Three Stooges, you'll get the truth. This film relies heavily on anecdotal stories, and suffers from an over simplification of their story. This is a case where the real story is far more interesting than what is seen here.
For instance, in the sequence where Jerome Howard shaves his head, in real life he did it of his own free will after being turned down initially by Ted Healy. Ted complained of Jerry not being right for them, so he left, and within an hour had shaved his face and head, and immediately created a new impression on their boss Healy. Jerry said "Don't I look girly?" to which Ted Healy thought was Curly, and the name stuck. In this film, Curly is basically forced into it by Larry and Moe, who have, in the film, already broken off from Ted Healy. Incidentally, the film skips over their film work with Healy at MGM.
Even how they get signed by Columbia is pure fabrication. The truth was far more interesting, where both Moe and Larry had signed two separate contracts on the same day. Columbia happened to get to Moe before Universal got to Larry. And when The Three Stooges join Columbia in the film (1934), Harry Cohn says that Buster Keaton is working for him, but that didn't happen until 1939. And the pathos re: Curly is pretty heavy, even making him fall down while during "Half Wits Holiday" (1947), when in fact he had a serious stroke off stage before the final pie fight was filmed.
However, if one could stomach pass such failing of fact for fiction, this film is pretty entertaining, and for someone who knows next to nothing about the Stooges, this may be factual enough for them. The performances are decent. Michael Chiklis's Curly is pretty decent and fun to watch. Paul Ben-Victor is also charismatic enough being the protagonist of a film. It's odd to see how Evan Handler's Larry is running around with his Stooge character's hair while out in public. Doubt Larry Fine walked around with his hair like a porcupine.
It goes through the story quickly, and with good comic moments. The reenactments are okay, but nothing could replace the real thing. The moments of them on stage are better because they can't be compared to the real Stooges. The framework is decent, cutting back and forth to an older Moe Howard dealing with his new life, and the coming revival.
Overall, enjoy it for what it is: a TV biopic. It's about a great story that should be told more often.
Maria Marten, or The Murder in the Red Barn (1935)
Slaughter in the Red Barn
BEWARE: SPOILERS ABOUND!! Not a perfect film, but moments are absolutely incredible. Talk about being ahead of your censors in 1935.
The story is one that the censors at the time probably would not want to have told. An older man (played by Slaughter) has a "one night stand" with a woman who looks at least twenty years his junior (the character of Maria Marten). He promises the young girl marriage, but on the brink of ruin, decides to marry a rich woman instead. A few months later, Maria finds she's pregnant, and unable to hide the fact anymore. Her father reacts, in perfect melodramatic fashion, by turning her out into the streets. Maria forces Slaughter into a compromising position, and what's left to do? But kill her of course! The rest IS the story.
Now, with that behind us, let me say this story is predictable, the direction for the most part is simple, the acting melodramatic, and the sound engineering is sub par. So now you ask yourself, why did I give the film 9/10 rating? The answer is simple: SLAUGHTER. Simply because of his perfect execution of the oft-overlooked performances of magnificent melodramatic villainy.
The scene with the burial of Maria Marten made me realize that George King's lackluster direction may have all been a set-up for this scene. It's not extraordinary, it simply establishes a perfect atmosphere for Slaughter's performance. This scene is only seconded by the "digging up" scene that comes later, where Slaughter really bares his acting chops!
Really worth seeing for Slaughter, but the story, which on the surface is quite simple, really comes to life in the last twenty minutes was left wandering what was coming next. Worth the watch!
9/10 stars!
Inglourious Basterds (2009)
Imperfect Bastards
Quentin Tarantino's new film "Inglourious Basterds" is an exercise in style and suspense, and was everything we have come to expect from Tarantino: wit, blood, and plenty of talk. The talk doesn't bother me, but it does seem to be the number one complaint anyone mentions. The dialog is thrilling, probably more so than the bloody violence scenes. Brad Pitt was solid, but the show is all Christoph Waltz as Col. Hans Landa. He absolutely steals the show as "The Jew Hunter." Let me rave first about "Chapter One" of the film, "Once upon a time... in Nazi occupied France." The scene reminds me very much of the lead up to the violence in Igmar Bergmann's "The Virgin Spring." The suspense builds to a horrible (and very real) climax that introduces us to the blood that we'll be seeing plenty of in later scenes.
However, I can be sure that thirty minutes of the film could've been cut without missing a single story point. The soundtrack at segments can be extremely well executed, bar one scene where Shoshanna Dreyfus is getting "dressed to kill." Now, if I'm not mistaken, it's a remix of a Johnny Cash song. (Now I could accept a lot of things where the soundtrack was concerned, but this was simply laughable.) Plot wholes abound, but if you don't pay too close attention to details, this won't bother you, as you will be paying more attention to the sharp dialog and the interesting characters too much to care.
And if you're looking for any sort of historical accuracy, don't watch it. Unfortunately for me, I am a big history buff, and it did distract me from fully enjoying the ending of the movie.
I'm leaving a lot of details out, some of them I consider too glaring to miss writing about, but I feel that it should be considered entertainment first and foremost. And where that is concerned, 80 percent of it is incredibly entertaining, especially Waltz, followed by Pitt. Judge for yourself. Either spend the 10 bucks, or rent it. Either way, you will walk away from the experience with plenty to talk about.