The Phantom Menace was a film that proved that Star Wars could flub. Big time. As three years clicked by we thought that the next one will be better. The nest one has to be better. Production stills and trailers and merchandise teased us with a film that could capture the feeling of the original saga. It didn't happen.
Attack of the Clones is set 10 years after the events of The Phantom Menace. Obi-Wan (Ewan MacGregor) and Anakin (Hayden Christensen) are master and apprentice in the Jedi Order. They've been given the assignment of finding the assassin of Queen Amidala (Natalie Portman). Anakin and Padme fall for each other and there's a battle with these mysterious clones from the title ordered years ago by a thought to be dead Jedi.
Just trying to describe the plot is exhausting. There is so much thrown at you that it's like throwing bricks at a ladybug in the front yard. There isn't as much political intrigue as in the last film, but it's been replaced by an enormous collection of CGI collections and over the top situations. By over the top I mean that the odds of all of these events falling into place in one film are a number so large I just don't want to deal with it. Kind of like thinking about the plot.
The problem with actually reviewing Attack of the Clones is that I don't know who to blame for the acting. Do I go after the actors themselves or do I attack George Lucas and his feeble attempts at writing dialogue. It is horrendous. It's as course and harsh as the sand Anakin can't shut up about. The scenes where the pair are falling in love are such drivel it hits the brakes on a film where even most of the action sequences can'r save it, as opposed to The Phantom Menace that could pull you back in a little bit. At least Christopher Lee is in it as the antagonist Count Dooku, the only performance worth noting. And maybe Ian McDiarmid. I guess those guys can work thru terrible writing.
Attack of the Clones is a bloated film with no real soul to it. It feels like a mass produced item (which it is at this point) playing fan service with a couple of cool scenes and appearances (Jango Fett and Yoda). Otherwise the film is a disappointment. It isn't worse than The Phantom Menace, but it's not better. It's even. The tone has shifted, nut there isn't anything there to hold on to. This film leaves a "meh" feeling because you know that the real payoff is in the next film. Where Empire succeeds as the middle chapter, this film fails at miserably. This film is yet another disappointment and further discredits the franchise it's a part of.
Saturday, December 12, 2015
Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (1999) **1/2
Ray Park as Darth Maul in The Phantom Menace |
I’ve had a saying that I’ve used for almost 20
years now in relation to The Phantom Menace. I compare the film to
waking up Christmas morning expecting some great present only to receive
socks. Nothing against socks. They have a place and
are quite needed, but there’s no flash with it. The same goes for The
Phantom Menace, a film that really doesn’t live up to the excitement of
the films that came before it.
The film follows the early adventures of Obi-Wan
Kenobi (Ewan MacGregor) and Anakin Skywalker (Jake Loyd), the boy found
in the Tatoine desert by Master Qui-Gon Jinn (Liam Neeson). In that
sentence the film sounds like it would have some
potential. Throw in trade routes, treaties, and Jar Jar Binks and you
derail any exciting ideas that are out there. Sadly, this is what the
film focuses on as it fails in many ways. Bloated with CGI
overindulgence and dialogue that is embarrassing the film
relies on its action, which it hands out in spoonfuls.
Looking back over 15 years later you can see
what a great film this could have been. The opening scenes with the Jedi
fighting droids and hiding on the planet of Naboo. The pod race. The
ending with three fronts and Darth Maul. If these
sections could have been bridged in a better way than this could have
been a far superior film than it turned out to be. Why, of why, didn’t
we get more Darth Maul when he was plastered on every piece of
merchandise back in 1999? There are the parts to a good
Star Wars film there, just not enough hardware to pull it together.
Would it have compared to the originals? No, but that’s ok. This film
was parsecs away from those films (error intended)
What The Phantom Menace represents is the
footing that the saga is built on. It’s buried deep underground and
doesn’t serve much purpose. It’s there doing its job, even if it’s an
ugly mess. Kind of like socks. I’ve softened a bit on the
film, but I can’t call it anything more than average. That’s it. An
average film equals a horrible Star Wars film. Even years later this is
still one of the most disappointing films of all time.
Sunday, December 6, 2015
Terminator Genisys (2015) **1/2
When I first watched Terminator Genisys I was mesmerized by it, chewing on how it returned to the original film and getting those chills because I thought that I was experiences James Cameron's 1984 masterpiece again. The thing about T:G is that once it's over and you're able to digest what you've just witnessed, you realize that there really wasn't as much there as you thought. We can call it celluloid fast food if you will. Comfort food taking you back to a time when Terminator films were good.
The film opens by giving us a physical representation of the night John Connor (Jason Clarke) sent (or is it sends) Kyle Reese (Jai Courtney) back to 1984 to protect Sarah Connor. We get to relive all those early scenes when Reese and the Cyberdyne Systems Model 101 arrive in Reagan era Los Angeles, but things have suddenly changed. Our favorite cyborg killing machine is met and destroyed by an aging Terminator unit (Arnold Schwatzenegger) and Sarah Connor is already a bad ass that saves Reese's life. And this time there's a liquid metal T-1000 on their tail, too. It seems that things happened before 1984 that changed everything and Reese and Sarah time travel to 2017 to stop what amounts to an over hyped app that will eventually become SkyNet, the evil computing system of the series.
There are many issues with this film and it's hard to find a place to begin addressing them, but we can start with casting. Emily Clarke delivers an acceptable performance as the rebooted Sarah Connor, Arnold returns to his signature role, even though he is goofy at some points that soils the memories of the original film, and J.K. Simmons is an underused treasure. That's the good, now let's get to the bad. Jai Courtney really doesn't feel like Kyle Reese. I can't blame it on me trying to place him in Michael Biehn's role since I can accept Emily Clarke in her role. He just doesn't feel right and it pulls you out of the film, but not as much as Jason Clarke's portrayal of resistance leader John Connor. Out of the numerous actors to play the part I would have to vote him the worst. The Terminators have more humanity to them than his performance and he is totally unbelievable as a man that would rally men and women to die for him. That performance is a mess.
As is the timeline, which becomes another issue. The viewer spends a large hunk of the movie trying to figure out how events and dates could have changed so drastically since we now know that what would have happened if events (such as Terminator 2: Judgement Day) did not occur. It makes you think, but not in a good way. It's very annoying and pulls you straight out of the film because you start looking for plot holes. The film ignores 3 and 4, which it should.
Overall TG is an average sci-fi action film that builds on being part of the Terminator franchise. You remember what you loved about the original film and bask in its ghostly glow for a good portion of this film, but you later reconsider what you saw and it begins to fall flat as you realize that this isn't James Cameron's first film, but a re-imagining that Hollywood loves to produced to keep the franchise and $$$ alive. Will a person rewatch this film? Yes, but for all the wrong reasons. It's not because it's a great film, but more a morbid curiosity on whether it will create those feelings again or if the viewer will only be duped once.
The film opens by giving us a physical representation of the night John Connor (Jason Clarke) sent (or is it sends) Kyle Reese (Jai Courtney) back to 1984 to protect Sarah Connor. We get to relive all those early scenes when Reese and the Cyberdyne Systems Model 101 arrive in Reagan era Los Angeles, but things have suddenly changed. Our favorite cyborg killing machine is met and destroyed by an aging Terminator unit (Arnold Schwatzenegger) and Sarah Connor is already a bad ass that saves Reese's life. And this time there's a liquid metal T-1000 on their tail, too. It seems that things happened before 1984 that changed everything and Reese and Sarah time travel to 2017 to stop what amounts to an over hyped app that will eventually become SkyNet, the evil computing system of the series.
There are many issues with this film and it's hard to find a place to begin addressing them, but we can start with casting. Emily Clarke delivers an acceptable performance as the rebooted Sarah Connor, Arnold returns to his signature role, even though he is goofy at some points that soils the memories of the original film, and J.K. Simmons is an underused treasure. That's the good, now let's get to the bad. Jai Courtney really doesn't feel like Kyle Reese. I can't blame it on me trying to place him in Michael Biehn's role since I can accept Emily Clarke in her role. He just doesn't feel right and it pulls you out of the film, but not as much as Jason Clarke's portrayal of resistance leader John Connor. Out of the numerous actors to play the part I would have to vote him the worst. The Terminators have more humanity to them than his performance and he is totally unbelievable as a man that would rally men and women to die for him. That performance is a mess.
As is the timeline, which becomes another issue. The viewer spends a large hunk of the movie trying to figure out how events and dates could have changed so drastically since we now know that what would have happened if events (such as Terminator 2: Judgement Day) did not occur. It makes you think, but not in a good way. It's very annoying and pulls you straight out of the film because you start looking for plot holes. The film ignores 3 and 4, which it should.
Overall TG is an average sci-fi action film that builds on being part of the Terminator franchise. You remember what you loved about the original film and bask in its ghostly glow for a good portion of this film, but you later reconsider what you saw and it begins to fall flat as you realize that this isn't James Cameron's first film, but a re-imagining that Hollywood loves to produced to keep the franchise and $$$ alive. Will a person rewatch this film? Yes, but for all the wrong reasons. It's not because it's a great film, but more a morbid curiosity on whether it will create those feelings again or if the viewer will only be duped once.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)