Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones is my least favorite film in the franchise. I did not care for it fifteen years ago when I saw it in theaters four times, and I do not care for it today. I can only describe how I feel about this movie by saying that it is only slightly better than The Phantom Menace.
Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones is the second chapter in the Star Wars saga, and tells the story of Obi-Wan Kenobis' investigation into an assassination attempt on Senator Amidala. During this time, Anakin Skywalker and Padme pursue a forbidden love. I have conflicting feelings about this film. I have never been one of these film fans that compares a sequel to its predecessor. I think that is unfair because I think every movie in an ongoing franchise should be judged on its own merits, and not on whether or not it is better than the film that came before it. That being said, The Phantom Menace is so unspeakably awful that you cannot help but hope and think to yourself, "I hope this is better than the last one". Even though I have never enjoyed Attack of the Clones, I do feel that there are more enjoyable ELEMENTS to this film than The Phantom Menace, and this makes the film marginally more watchable. So let us begin with the enjoyable elements first.
I absolutely love the planet and creature design in the film. From Geonosis to Kamino, the worlds and the creatures that inhabit them are quite interesting and visually spectacular. World building has always been one of George Lucas' strengths. Also, as before, the sound design is top-notch. Every machine, gadget, and creature has its own unique sound that brings the Star Wars universe to life. The action sequences, what action there is, are also quite well done. The last forty minutes of the movie has some of the best action in any of the Star Wars movies. What makes these sequences so unique is the way the camera is used. The way the camera quickly zooms in on the clone troopers, the tracking shots that follow the missiles, all of it is spectacular to witness. For me personally, I also find Boba Fetts' (Daniel Logan) origin quite interesting. Everyone just assumed that because of the armor he wears in the original trilogy that he was a Mandalorian, but in fact he is an unaltered clone of Jango Fett (Temuera Morrison) who is an established bounty hunter, and not Mandalorian either (he stole the Mandalorian armor on a previous mission that is not in the films). Seeing a young Boba Fett co-pilot the Slave I is a wonderful tie-in to the original trilogy. I also like that we see Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) fight Jango Fett without the use of his lightsaber. Up until this film, Jedi have always used their lightsabers in combat, but this film shows that the Jedi can actually put up a fight in hand-to-hand combat as well. Later in the film, we see the classic Lars homestead from A New Hope. I love this sequence because see things that make us nostalgic, like the blue milk and the workspace where Luke Skywalker first saw Princess Leias' hologram message, but we also see some connections to the Skywalker family as well. We learn that Owen Lars (Joel Edgerton) is Anakin Skywalkers' (Hayden Christensen) stepbrother, and that Owen Lars actually owned C-3PO (Anthony Daniels) for the first time when he was a young man. I also enjoy the fact that we learn a bit about Count Dookus' (Christopher Lee) history. We learn that he was once Yodas' (Frank Oz) apprentice, that he was Qui-Gon Jinns' master, and that he and the Geonosians actually collaborated on the design of the Death Star. I am also a defender of Yoda using a lightsaber in combat. I have constantly heard from other Star Wars fans that Yoda should not have a lightsaber. My question is why not?? He is a Jedi Master!!! Of course he would have a lightsaber, and the battle he has with Count Dooku is most impressive. Unfortunately, this is where the list of positive things ends for this movie. Now let us move on to the negative aspects...
The problems with Attack of the Clones start with the fact that the movie picks up ten years after The Phantom Menace, and a different actor plays Anakin Skywalker but the same actress plays Padme Amidala (Natalie Portman). That makes no sense. Why does this movie take place ten years after The Phantom Menace? An even bigger question would be why The Phantom Menace takes place so long before A New Hope? I cannot wrap my head around this concept. Also, the Jedi seemed to have given up on the Sith Lord they were looking for in The Phantom Menace. That seemed to be a big deal for them, and I do not understand why this was not part of the film. Also, why does Jango Fett hire Zam Wesell (Leeanna Walsman) to kill Padme? Why does he not do it himself?? Also, when Obi-Wan Kenobi is flying through the air on the assassin droid, why does Zam Wesell shoot the droid instead of shooting Kenobi??? During that chase scene, Obi-Wan says, "I hate it when he does that", referring to Anakin jumping out of the speeder to catch Wesell. I thought that Jedi did not feel hate?? Another thing that gets under my skin about this movie is that the Republic starts making the Clone Army BEFORE the Separatists start building their droid army!! This completely negates Yodas' feelings when he says, "Begun the Clone War has" because the Republic started the whole bloody thing!!! Speaking of Yoda, how does he not know about the planet Kamino but some random buddy of Obi-Wan Kenobi named Dexter Jettster (Ronald Falk) knows all about it???? And who the blazes is Sifo Diyas??? I feel like that character was meant to be some sort of pivotal plot point, and it just failed miserably. Also, for the love of Odin, Padme needs to stop calling Anakin "Ani". I let that pass when he was 9 years old, but he is 19 now. Stop it. Also, why does Anakin Skywalker take Padme Amidala home to Naboo to hide from the people that are attempting to kill her?? Would it not make more sense to just keep going about your everyday life as if nothing is happening?? From the assassins' point of view, taking her home would create an opportunity for her to be exposed. Another thing that bothers me, and it pains to talk about this, are the visual effects. Some of the visual effects, particularly in the arena fight, are horrendous. I would love to know who let this movie get past Editorial because it is quite clear that the actors are acting against a green screen background. Later, in the scene where Anakin tells Padme what he did to the Tusken Raiders, Anakin yells, "He's holding me back!" and then proceeds to throw something small across the room. This is just laughable. If I was as aggravated as Anakin was, I would have turned that place upside-down with fury. Also, there is a scene in the film where Yoda is instructing a class of younglings on how to use their lightsabers. Why are these children standing so close together wielding these weapons??? It is a miracle that nobody had a limb severed. Towards the climax of the film, Anakin and Padme stumble into a droid factory for what serves as an absolutely unnecessary action sequence. And why is C-3PO there??? Why did he leave Tatooine?? Oh, right. Because Owen Lars needs to not recognize him twenty-three years later when he buys him from the Jawas. However, do you want to know what particularly grinds my gears??? The fact that Mace Windu (Samuel L. Jackson) says, "We're keepers of the peace. Not soldiers." and then willingly leads an army of clone troopers into battle against the droid army of the Separatists!!! Also, in the battle in the asteroid field between Jango Fett and Obi-Wan, Jango Fett literally hits every single thing around Obi-Wan except Obi-Wan himself!!! How in the name of the Republic is this possible?!?!?! Also, at the end of the movie when Obi-Wan and Anakin attempt to capture Count Dooku and bring him in for questioning, Obi-Wan and Anakin leave the arena to go into battle, but Count Dooku is still right there in the underground section of the arena!!! They want to bring him in, and yet they just left the location where he is staying!!!! The climactic lightsaber duel between Anakin and Count Dooku is filmed atrociously. This is a sword fight. I do not want to see close-ups of the actors' faces the entire time!!!! Also, in the scene where Yoda is mourning the beginning of the Clone Wars, all the chairs in the Jedi Council Chambers are mysteriously missing. Did Yoda just use the Force to remove them??? What happened?!?!?!? And why are C-3P0 and R2-D2 (Kenny Baker) at Anakin and Padmes' wedding?? I guess it makes sense for R2D2 to be there, but C3PO would blab his head off about their wedding which is supposed to be a secret.
Whew. Okay, I was wrong. There are even less enjoyable things about this film than in The Phantom Menace. Seriously, where was the Script Supervisor this whole time??? I understand that George Lucas wanted to make these movies his way, but someone should have the power to say, "No, George. That's stupid." Now, let me talk about a couple of casting decisions that I actually support.
I actually like the way Hayden Christensen portrays Anakin Skywalker. He plays Anakin as someone who always has an undercurrent of darkness that cannot wait to be released. I personally enjoy this aspect of Christensens' craft because we realize that Anakin was truly destined to become Darth Vader. The scene where he tells Padme about murdering the Tusken Raiders is particularly haunting. If it were not for the creepy way he occasionally looks at Padme, I would have loved his performance. Christensens' scenes with Ewan McGregor, Ian McDiarmid (Chancellor Palpatine) and Natalie Portman are also well done, and provide good foresight into the future of all of these characters. I personally feel that this is an underappreciated performance by Christensen.
Samuel L. Jackson plays Mace Windu. Windu is a man who is calm and able to control his emotions, but when the action starts he is one of the best Jedi Knights in the Order. This is a well-rounded performance by Jackson because he plays Windu as someone who sets an example for the rest of the Order. Windu uses the Force for knowledge, not to attack. Of course, Jacksons' action sequences are the best part because we get to see him do what he does best. I remember hearing cheers of applause in the theater when Windu decapitates Jango Fett. I personally think this is an excellent performance by Jackson.
George Lucas is the director of Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones. As I mentioned before, the action sequences are incredibly well shot. The problem is that there is not enough of it. I think this film falters from focusing on the love story too much, and also the fact that there is no substance behind the droid factory sequence. If these problems had been fixed, this would have been a better movie. I also enjoy the romantic scenes between Anakin and Padme. The dialogue is over-dramatic, yes, but that is because Anakin is struggling to deal with his feelings. The problems with this film are with the script, not the direction. In my opinion, Lucas does a fine job with this film.
Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones is the worst film in the saga. It has enjoyable elements, but overall it is a bland film that suffers from plot issues. If you want to learn about Anakins' past as Obi-Wans' apprentice, then you will like the film for that aspect. Otherwise, you are better off skipping it.
Thursday, January 26, 2017
Tuesday, January 24, 2017
One Fantasy Tale To Rule Them All: Part Three
In my personal opinion, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is one of the greatest motion pictures ever made. Every single element of this film is absolutely flawless. This movie was also the first, and to date the only, fantasy film to win Best Picture at the Academy Awards.
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is the third part in The Lord of the Rings film trilogy, and tells the story of Gandalf and Aragorn making a stand against Saurons' army while Frodo and Sam edge ever closer to Mount Doom. I love the fact that this film is book-ended by the character of Gollum (Andy Serkis). Gollums' fate is tied to the Ring of Power, and the movie emphasizes that in an incredibly dramatic way. I also like the fact that, even though he is dead, Boromir (Sean Bean) is still an important character in the story. Faramir (David Wenham) is always living in the shadow of Boromir, no thanks to his father Denethor (John Noble), and his character arc in the movie is quite remarkable. Faramir also starts a romantic relationship with Eowyn (Miranda Otto) that is handled quite delicately, just as an actual relationship would be. This film also finally brings the fellowship back together in a way that feels seamless, and the reactions by the characters when they are reunited are genuine. I would have liked to see a scene between Faramir and Gandalf where Faramir tells Gandalf about his encounter with Frodo, Sam and Gollum, but that is my only complaint about this astounding cinematic achievement. To this day, I cannot watch this film without at least welling up, and that is because the story is overwhelmingly emotional. To put it simply, this is a film for the ages.
Elijah Wood returns as Frodo. Woods' performance in these films is fantastic because it is a mixture of fear, doubt and determination. At one point in the film, Frodo realizes that this journey will claim his life and he seems perfectly alright with that because he knew that was what was at risk from the beginning. Also, the scene with him and Sean Astin on the hills of Mt. Doom is incredibly emotional to watch simply because of what they have both been through up to this point. If Frodo Baggins is the role that Elijah Wood ends up being best known for, I do not think that would be a bad thing at all.
It is also my personal opinion that Sean Astin was robbed of an Oscar nomination for his role as Sam. He plays Sam as someone who is extremely protective of Frodo, and is determined to see him to Mount Doom to destroy the Ring of Power. It is because of his determination that you damn near burst into tears when Gollum frames him for eating the Elvish bread, and Frodo sends him away. I want to make a note here because what Astin does as an actor in this scene is so precise. These are not tears of sadness that Sam sheds. These are tears of anger and disappointment because Gollum has finally gotten into Frodos' head, and Sam realizes that there is nothing he can do now. It is too far gone. It is because of all this that you want to cheer and smile when Sam works his way back up the winding stair after he realizes what Gollum has done. Again, the scene with Sam and Frodo on the hills of Mount Doom is probably one of the best scenes in the entire trilogy because of all the emotions that both actors are playing in the scene. This is truly one of the best performances of Sean Astins' career.
Miranda Otto plays Eowyn. I have said for a long time that we need more strong female characters in film, and Eowyn is a great example of that. What is key about Ottos' performance is that Eowyn is so strong, but she never loses her femininity. She can be sensitive and fall in love with Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) in one scene, and then shove her sword into the face of the Witch-King of Angmar in the next. Ottos' scenes with Viggo Mortensen are quite well done because they are dramatic, but not emotional, which is hard to do. Also, her scenes with Dominic Monaghan are humorous to watch, and add levity to the film. Miranda Otto gives such a wonderful performance in the film.
Viggo Mortensen returns as Aragorn. I like the way Aragorns' character arc is handled because even though he finally embraces his heritage in this film, he is hesitant about it beforehand. So much so that when you see him wield Anduril for the first time, it feels like a breath of fresh air. Mortensen, without question, is a badass in this movie. To see him lead the attack on the Black Gate is to witness the definition of manliness, and when he turns and says "For Frodo", you shed manly tears. Mortensen is a natural leader of the cast, just as Aragorn realizes his leadership of the fellowship.
Peter Jackson is the director of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Like the previous two films, the battle scenes are so awe-inspiring to watch. The Battle of the Pelennor Fields is so breathtaking and just when you think it is over, a herd of mumakil come thundering in. The way Jackson uses the camera in this scene blows my mind every time I see this film. Jackson also knows that the relationships between the characters are what drive the story, and every single scene between Frodo and Sam, like the two scenes I mentioned before, bring so much emotion to the story. Another note I want to make about this film is the issue of "multiple endings" that some people have. I always felt as if these "endings" wrapped up the story in quite a beautiful way, and also stayed true to the source material right down to Sam having the last line in the film just as he does in the book.
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is epic in scale while also has an emotional story. There is something to be said about all different kinds of species putting aside their differences to battle a common enemy. I think we all could learn something from J.R.R. Tolkien. If you enjoyed the first two films in The Lord of the Rings series, you will absolutely love this film!!!
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is the third part in The Lord of the Rings film trilogy, and tells the story of Gandalf and Aragorn making a stand against Saurons' army while Frodo and Sam edge ever closer to Mount Doom. I love the fact that this film is book-ended by the character of Gollum (Andy Serkis). Gollums' fate is tied to the Ring of Power, and the movie emphasizes that in an incredibly dramatic way. I also like the fact that, even though he is dead, Boromir (Sean Bean) is still an important character in the story. Faramir (David Wenham) is always living in the shadow of Boromir, no thanks to his father Denethor (John Noble), and his character arc in the movie is quite remarkable. Faramir also starts a romantic relationship with Eowyn (Miranda Otto) that is handled quite delicately, just as an actual relationship would be. This film also finally brings the fellowship back together in a way that feels seamless, and the reactions by the characters when they are reunited are genuine. I would have liked to see a scene between Faramir and Gandalf where Faramir tells Gandalf about his encounter with Frodo, Sam and Gollum, but that is my only complaint about this astounding cinematic achievement. To this day, I cannot watch this film without at least welling up, and that is because the story is overwhelmingly emotional. To put it simply, this is a film for the ages.
Elijah Wood returns as Frodo. Woods' performance in these films is fantastic because it is a mixture of fear, doubt and determination. At one point in the film, Frodo realizes that this journey will claim his life and he seems perfectly alright with that because he knew that was what was at risk from the beginning. Also, the scene with him and Sean Astin on the hills of Mt. Doom is incredibly emotional to watch simply because of what they have both been through up to this point. If Frodo Baggins is the role that Elijah Wood ends up being best known for, I do not think that would be a bad thing at all.
It is also my personal opinion that Sean Astin was robbed of an Oscar nomination for his role as Sam. He plays Sam as someone who is extremely protective of Frodo, and is determined to see him to Mount Doom to destroy the Ring of Power. It is because of his determination that you damn near burst into tears when Gollum frames him for eating the Elvish bread, and Frodo sends him away. I want to make a note here because what Astin does as an actor in this scene is so precise. These are not tears of sadness that Sam sheds. These are tears of anger and disappointment because Gollum has finally gotten into Frodos' head, and Sam realizes that there is nothing he can do now. It is too far gone. It is because of all this that you want to cheer and smile when Sam works his way back up the winding stair after he realizes what Gollum has done. Again, the scene with Sam and Frodo on the hills of Mount Doom is probably one of the best scenes in the entire trilogy because of all the emotions that both actors are playing in the scene. This is truly one of the best performances of Sean Astins' career.
Miranda Otto plays Eowyn. I have said for a long time that we need more strong female characters in film, and Eowyn is a great example of that. What is key about Ottos' performance is that Eowyn is so strong, but she never loses her femininity. She can be sensitive and fall in love with Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) in one scene, and then shove her sword into the face of the Witch-King of Angmar in the next. Ottos' scenes with Viggo Mortensen are quite well done because they are dramatic, but not emotional, which is hard to do. Also, her scenes with Dominic Monaghan are humorous to watch, and add levity to the film. Miranda Otto gives such a wonderful performance in the film.
Viggo Mortensen returns as Aragorn. I like the way Aragorns' character arc is handled because even though he finally embraces his heritage in this film, he is hesitant about it beforehand. So much so that when you see him wield Anduril for the first time, it feels like a breath of fresh air. Mortensen, without question, is a badass in this movie. To see him lead the attack on the Black Gate is to witness the definition of manliness, and when he turns and says "For Frodo", you shed manly tears. Mortensen is a natural leader of the cast, just as Aragorn realizes his leadership of the fellowship.
Peter Jackson is the director of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Like the previous two films, the battle scenes are so awe-inspiring to watch. The Battle of the Pelennor Fields is so breathtaking and just when you think it is over, a herd of mumakil come thundering in. The way Jackson uses the camera in this scene blows my mind every time I see this film. Jackson also knows that the relationships between the characters are what drive the story, and every single scene between Frodo and Sam, like the two scenes I mentioned before, bring so much emotion to the story. Another note I want to make about this film is the issue of "multiple endings" that some people have. I always felt as if these "endings" wrapped up the story in quite a beautiful way, and also stayed true to the source material right down to Sam having the last line in the film just as he does in the book.
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is epic in scale while also has an emotional story. There is something to be said about all different kinds of species putting aside their differences to battle a common enemy. I think we all could learn something from J.R.R. Tolkien. If you enjoyed the first two films in The Lord of the Rings series, you will absolutely love this film!!!
Saturday, January 21, 2017
A Half-Star Film
I had heard awful things about the movie Burnt, so I was not looking forward to watching it. I am a fan of all the talent involved, especially Bradley Cooper, so I was disheartened to hear that. I was shocked when I finally watched it because, despite its problems, I actually found the film to be quite enjoyable.
Burnt is the story of Adam Jones (Bradley Cooper), a chef with a bad reputation who returns to London to redeem himself. First of all, I like the fact that Adams' reputation has caught up with him. He wants an old restaurant renovated, but that will only happen if he agrees to take blood and alcohol tests every week. I just wish that we had seen more of his "bad boy" persona. What exactly happened in Paris?? Ok so, he owes a couple of guys money but why?? I also would have liked to see a tad more of Adams' history with Anne Marie (Alicia Vikander). What you get in the movie is fine, but not enough to explain why it is okay for Anne Marie to pay off Adams' debt. We also never see the 2-star restaurant he used to work at. We hear so much about it in the movie that you would figure they would show it at least once. Also, Adam starts asking people to work in his restaurant when he does not even have a restaurant yet!!! Later in the film, Adam leaves a note in the basket of Helenes' (Sienna Miller) bicycle, but it is not even on screen long enough for us as the audience to read it. Come on, this is the kind of thing that I am learning in film school right now!! When something needs to be read on screen, you leave it on the screen for long enough for the person to read it twice. This allows enough time for the audience to read it!! Also, at different points in the movie, Adam tells Tony (Daniel Bruhl) that he sabotaged his restaurant, and then later he tells him that his friend Max (Riccardo Scamarcio) is in jail and will be out in two days. The problem is that we never see Adam sabotage Tonys' restaurant, and we also do not know how in the world Adam knows about Max. Oh, and at one point in the film, Adam hires Helene by costing her her job at the restaurant where she previously worked at. How, exactly??? We never actually see this happen. Now, you would think that because of all these plot issues that Burnt would be absolutely insufferable to watch. However, because of the great acting talent involved, and because of Adams' great character arc, this is actually a half-decent movie.
Bradley Cooper plays Adam Jones. Adam is a character who is driven to be the absolute best in the world, and he does not care how arrogant he has to be in order to achieve that. It is because of this that you may not like him, but you will respect him. Bradley Cooper is perfection playing cinemas' version of Gordon Ramsay. The scene where he goes off on his entire crew will give you goosebumps. However, it is the more intimate moments with Sienna Miller where Cooper shines. Bradley Cooper keeps turning in one great performance after another, and Burnt is proof that he is not slowing down anytime soon.
John Wells is the director of Burnt. First off, I love the way the environment in the kitchen is captured. The way the camera moves around the kitchen makes you feel like you are right there witnessing it all, and the details of the restaurant outside of the kitchen are meticulously done as well. I also like the way the inner workings of London are captured. These are not beautiful shots of the London landscape, These are shots of the neighborhoods, fish markets and restaurants. People often think of London as such a beautiful city. However, what Wells does with this movie is show us that the city operates just like any other.
Despite its flaws with the story, Burnt is a well-directed and well-acted film. Bradley Coopers' character arc in the film is one of a kind, and he has great chemistry with Sienna Miller. Truth be told, if you are a fan of Bradley Cooper you should check this movie out.
Burnt is the story of Adam Jones (Bradley Cooper), a chef with a bad reputation who returns to London to redeem himself. First of all, I like the fact that Adams' reputation has caught up with him. He wants an old restaurant renovated, but that will only happen if he agrees to take blood and alcohol tests every week. I just wish that we had seen more of his "bad boy" persona. What exactly happened in Paris?? Ok so, he owes a couple of guys money but why?? I also would have liked to see a tad more of Adams' history with Anne Marie (Alicia Vikander). What you get in the movie is fine, but not enough to explain why it is okay for Anne Marie to pay off Adams' debt. We also never see the 2-star restaurant he used to work at. We hear so much about it in the movie that you would figure they would show it at least once. Also, Adam starts asking people to work in his restaurant when he does not even have a restaurant yet!!! Later in the film, Adam leaves a note in the basket of Helenes' (Sienna Miller) bicycle, but it is not even on screen long enough for us as the audience to read it. Come on, this is the kind of thing that I am learning in film school right now!! When something needs to be read on screen, you leave it on the screen for long enough for the person to read it twice. This allows enough time for the audience to read it!! Also, at different points in the movie, Adam tells Tony (Daniel Bruhl) that he sabotaged his restaurant, and then later he tells him that his friend Max (Riccardo Scamarcio) is in jail and will be out in two days. The problem is that we never see Adam sabotage Tonys' restaurant, and we also do not know how in the world Adam knows about Max. Oh, and at one point in the film, Adam hires Helene by costing her her job at the restaurant where she previously worked at. How, exactly??? We never actually see this happen. Now, you would think that because of all these plot issues that Burnt would be absolutely insufferable to watch. However, because of the great acting talent involved, and because of Adams' great character arc, this is actually a half-decent movie.
Bradley Cooper plays Adam Jones. Adam is a character who is driven to be the absolute best in the world, and he does not care how arrogant he has to be in order to achieve that. It is because of this that you may not like him, but you will respect him. Bradley Cooper is perfection playing cinemas' version of Gordon Ramsay. The scene where he goes off on his entire crew will give you goosebumps. However, it is the more intimate moments with Sienna Miller where Cooper shines. Bradley Cooper keeps turning in one great performance after another, and Burnt is proof that he is not slowing down anytime soon.
John Wells is the director of Burnt. First off, I love the way the environment in the kitchen is captured. The way the camera moves around the kitchen makes you feel like you are right there witnessing it all, and the details of the restaurant outside of the kitchen are meticulously done as well. I also like the way the inner workings of London are captured. These are not beautiful shots of the London landscape, These are shots of the neighborhoods, fish markets and restaurants. People often think of London as such a beautiful city. However, what Wells does with this movie is show us that the city operates just like any other.
Despite its flaws with the story, Burnt is a well-directed and well-acted film. Bradley Coopers' character arc in the film is one of a kind, and he has great chemistry with Sienna Miller. Truth be told, if you are a fan of Bradley Cooper you should check this movie out.
Friday, January 20, 2017
Meal On Wheels
When the movie Chef was originally released, I had no interest in seeing it. However, over the past couple of years I have watched it multiple times, and I think it is an excellent film. Jon Favreau is such a wonderfully talented director and actor, and Chef is a prime example of his talent.
Chef is the story of a chef who quits his restaurant job and buys a food truck. In the process, he rekindles his passion for cooking and puts the pieces of his family back together. Right from the opening montage, we are shown what kind of character Carl Casper (Jon Favreau) is. This is a man who is loves cooking good food and the various shots in this montage, and every montage in the film for that matter, show plate after plate of scrumptious delights. We also see what kind of man Carl is in the kitchen. Carl is a genuine leader who expects the best from his crew, and his crew give him nothing less. The kitchen is Carls' domain and he likes to keep it that way, which is why he often butts heads with the restaurant manager, Riva (Dustin Hoffman). Carl wants to cook food he believes in, and hates conforming to the traditional menu of the restaurant even though tradition is why people keep coming back, and is also why he is able to keep his job. One of the great ironies of this film is that Twitter plays a part in Carl quitting his restaurant job, while at the same time being hugely important in the success of his food truck. This film shows that even a person of Carls' age can learn how important social media interaction can be. All in all, this film is a fantastic story of a man who sets out on the comeback trail, learns a few lessons and enjoys huge success along the way.
Jon Favreau plays Carl Casper. Casper is a man who puts his career before everything else, including his family, and we see that right from the beginning of the film. Even when he is in the car spending time with his son Percy (Emjay Anthony), all he can ever talk about is cooking. This is also why he lives separately from Inez (Sofia Vergara) and Percy. I love the way Favreau plays this character because he plays Casper in such a way that you can tell he is struggling to balance his career with his family, and this makes you feel sympathy for the character. I also like what Favreau does in dramatic scenes with Percy and Inez because he gets emotional without actually crying, which is extremely hard to do. He also displays his comedy chops in the scene where Casper goes off on Ramsey Michel. All around, this is one of Favreaus' best performances.
Sofia Vergara plays Inez. Inez is a woman who, despite the fact that she and Carl are estranged, she deeply cares for him, and what happens with his career. Vergara almost steals the whole show from Favreau because she plays Inez as someone who has a deep, emotional core. Her scenes with Favreau are well done, and they feel like a real family. Vergara is nothing short of great in the film, and it is because of this film that I became a fan of her.
Jon Favreau is also the director of Chef. First off, as I mentioned before, I love the montages where we see see Carl cooking. They show off his passion and talent spectacularly. I also love the part in the movie where Carl, Percy and Martin take a road trip in the food truck because you get beautiful glimpses of every citys' culture. The dramatic scenes between Carl and Percy also do a nice job of balancing the pace of the film. Much like Carl himself, this film has a quick pace to it, and the dramatic scenes slow the film down so that you can invest in the characters. Chef may just be Favreaus' best work as a director to date.
Chef is a wonderful movie that will make you smile until the end. I love when a high-profile director tackles a passion project because it makes you see them in an entirely different light. If you just love good movies in general, and especially if you love good food, this is definitely the movie for you.
Chef is the story of a chef who quits his restaurant job and buys a food truck. In the process, he rekindles his passion for cooking and puts the pieces of his family back together. Right from the opening montage, we are shown what kind of character Carl Casper (Jon Favreau) is. This is a man who is loves cooking good food and the various shots in this montage, and every montage in the film for that matter, show plate after plate of scrumptious delights. We also see what kind of man Carl is in the kitchen. Carl is a genuine leader who expects the best from his crew, and his crew give him nothing less. The kitchen is Carls' domain and he likes to keep it that way, which is why he often butts heads with the restaurant manager, Riva (Dustin Hoffman). Carl wants to cook food he believes in, and hates conforming to the traditional menu of the restaurant even though tradition is why people keep coming back, and is also why he is able to keep his job. One of the great ironies of this film is that Twitter plays a part in Carl quitting his restaurant job, while at the same time being hugely important in the success of his food truck. This film shows that even a person of Carls' age can learn how important social media interaction can be. All in all, this film is a fantastic story of a man who sets out on the comeback trail, learns a few lessons and enjoys huge success along the way.
Jon Favreau plays Carl Casper. Casper is a man who puts his career before everything else, including his family, and we see that right from the beginning of the film. Even when he is in the car spending time with his son Percy (Emjay Anthony), all he can ever talk about is cooking. This is also why he lives separately from Inez (Sofia Vergara) and Percy. I love the way Favreau plays this character because he plays Casper in such a way that you can tell he is struggling to balance his career with his family, and this makes you feel sympathy for the character. I also like what Favreau does in dramatic scenes with Percy and Inez because he gets emotional without actually crying, which is extremely hard to do. He also displays his comedy chops in the scene where Casper goes off on Ramsey Michel. All around, this is one of Favreaus' best performances.
Sofia Vergara plays Inez. Inez is a woman who, despite the fact that she and Carl are estranged, she deeply cares for him, and what happens with his career. Vergara almost steals the whole show from Favreau because she plays Inez as someone who has a deep, emotional core. Her scenes with Favreau are well done, and they feel like a real family. Vergara is nothing short of great in the film, and it is because of this film that I became a fan of her.
Jon Favreau is also the director of Chef. First off, as I mentioned before, I love the montages where we see see Carl cooking. They show off his passion and talent spectacularly. I also love the part in the movie where Carl, Percy and Martin take a road trip in the food truck because you get beautiful glimpses of every citys' culture. The dramatic scenes between Carl and Percy also do a nice job of balancing the pace of the film. Much like Carl himself, this film has a quick pace to it, and the dramatic scenes slow the film down so that you can invest in the characters. Chef may just be Favreaus' best work as a director to date.
Chef is a wonderful movie that will make you smile until the end. I love when a high-profile director tackles a passion project because it makes you see them in an entirely different light. If you just love good movies in general, and especially if you love good food, this is definitely the movie for you.
Tuesday, January 17, 2017
Fathers And Sons: Part I
For fifteen years, I defended Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace as a cinematic masterpiece. Then, a little over a year ago, my friend Joshua Thomas and I decided to debate the film on camera so that everyone could see it. It was then that I realized what a piece of cinematic dogshit this movie is.
Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace is the story of two Jedi Knights who encounter a young Anakin Skywalker while the supposedly extinct Sith look to reclaim their glory. Before I get started, I would like to make a case against Star Wars being deemed a "kids movie." I would like to emphasize that this film is called Star WARS, which implies that there will be much violence throughout. Also, if you care to look at the rating for these films, you will see that they are all rated either PG or PG-13 so it is probably a safe bet that no one under this particular age should be watching these films without parental supervision. So here we go: I am going to start with the good things about this film. I personally think the action sequences are top-notch. They are exciting to watch and, along with the lightsaber battles, they actually make the movie somewhat enjoyable. Many people feel that the lightsaber duels feel too choreographed, but in my opinion they have passion behind them and feel energetic. I also love the visual effects in the film, particularly in the podrace scene. The computer generated characters look incredibly realistic, and all the set pieces and different planets are designed in exquisite detail. I have heard many fans complain about the lack of the "used future" concept that was introduced in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. My argument against that is that this film takes place 30 years prior and the Empire has not taken control over the galaxy, and therefore everything is more glossy and pristine. Also, there were several things that were introduced in the original trilogy that raised certain questions: 1)Why does Darth Vader refer to the Emperor as Master? 2) How did the Emperor rise to power? 3) Who was on the Jedi Council, and what was its purpose? All of these questions are answered in this film: 1) We are introduced to the Sith and The Rule of Two. 2) Senator Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid), who is really Darth Sidious and deceiving both sides, begins to manipulate his way to being elected Supreme Chancellor. I also enjoy the political aspect of this film because Queen Amidala (Natalie Portman) has to deal with the Supreme Chancellor and the Senate making a decision on what to about the Naboo Crisis, and there is much conflict going on with this situation. 3) We see what the Jedi Council looks like, the characters within it, and what kind of missions they go on. I also absolutely love the sound design, and John Williams' musical score. Every individual ship and mechanical device has its own unique sound, and every bit of music in the film tells its own unique story. There has also been talk among fans about how the battle droids pose no legitimate threat. However, I like to believe that Darth Sidious is using the Trade Federation for their machinery while he concocts a brilliant scheme towards the creation of a clone trooper army. After all, Sidious is a puppet master who pulls all the strings. Therefore, he sees the battle droids as expendable. As far as the good things about this movie go, that is about it. Now on to the bad things:
In the opening crawl, it says that two Jedi Knights are dispatched to resolve the situation, but then we learn that Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) is not a Jedi Knight yet. Was George Lucas getting ahead of himself on this? Also, why do the Jedi Knights drink tea that was given to them by the people that are trying to kill them? In what twisted universe does that make any sense at all? Then we see Qui-Gon (Liam Neeson) cut through a blast door with his lightsaber, but yet he did not do that when they had to escape from the previous room that was filling with toxic gas?!?! Also, why does the queen take so much time to commend R2D2 for getting them through the blockade?? George Lucas should have skipped this part, and moved on to what the Jedi Knights have to say. Furthermore, R2D2 and Jar Jar Binks (Ahmed Best) serve no purpose going with Qui-Gon Jinn and the others to Mos Espa. Jar Jar even says, "This sun doing murder to mesa skin." They do absolutely nothing!!! Speaking of Tatooine, a good forty minutes of the film is spent on that blasted planet. You would think that because of how urgent of a matter it is for them to get to Coruscant they would find a faster way to leave Tatooine. On a related note, after Anakin (Jake Lloyd) saves Jar Jar from Sebulba, Qui-Gon thanks him and walks away while Anakin aimlessly follows him. There is nothing to indicate why Anakin would follow them, and yet he does so anyway. Later in the film, we see Governor Sio Bibble (Oliver Ford Davies) say things like, "The death toll is catastrophic" and "A communications disruption can mean only one thing: invasion." Should he not say, "The death toll is non-existent" because not one of the Naboo prisoners gets killed?!?! In fact, they are not even prisoners because nobody gets locked up!!! They just get escorted around the city of Theed by battle droids while the Neimoidians attempt to force Queen Amidala to sign the treaty. Also, is he absolutely sure that a communications disruption means only one thing?? Is he some kind of communications expert? Moving on to the treaty that the Queen has to sign, should the Neimoidians just forge the Queens' signature so they can proceed with making their invasion legal??? The only problem is, if the invasion is legal then there is no conflict in the story at all!!! Speaking of the conflict, why does the droid army land on the opposite side of the planet where the Queens' palace is located?!?! Why not just land near, or in, the city?!?! Later, when the characters leave Naboo and escape the blockade, R2D2 magically repairs the shield generator. My question is: is the shield generator not protected by the shields???? Why do the droid control ships immediately stop firing at them after R2D2 repairs the shields??? None of this makes sense at all!!!! Also, was it not the Supreme Chancellor who dispatched the Jedi Knights to Naboo in the first place? Yet, when they get to Coruscant, they do not even inform him of what happened. They just shrug him off, and go speak to the Jedi Council. Also, why exactly are the Jedi Knights incapable of warning the Naboo people about the droid army invasion BEFORE it actually starts?! There is a sequence later in the film where Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan and everyone else return to Naboo, and the entire Trade Federation blockade is gone. Where did they all go?!?!?! The climactic battle on Naboo at the climax is where things really begin to go wonky. Qui-Gon tells Anakin to find cover. Anakin obeys by CLIMBING INTO A SHIP?!?! Why???? He has more chance of being killed that way!!! This moment launches a series of events that I refer to as "accidental heroics". Anakin Skywalker is supposed to be incredibly strong with the Force, and yet everything he does while in the Naboo Starfighter is a result of sheer dumb luck. His piloting skills are purely accidental. Also, if Darth Sidious ordrered the Neimoidians to wipe out the Gungans, why do the battle droids take prisoners????
All of this negativity adds up to one of the biggest disappointments in cinematic history. Did George Lucas have an ego problem, and let his success go to his head? What happened to the genius that created the original trilogy? The world may never know. Anyway, moving on:
Liam Neeson plays Qui-Gon Jinn. Qui-Gon is a rebellious Jedi who does not follow the Jedi Code, and does not even bow when in the presence of the Jedi Council. Some would see this as disrespectful, but Neeson plays the character in such a way that makes Qui-Gon confident, and a tad arrogant, about why he is a Jedi Master. While Qui-Gon takes risks, he never does anything rash enough to get himself expelled from the Jedi Order. At the same time, he is calm and collected about every situation. This is a minimalist performance at its finest by Neeson.
Ewan McGregor, in the role that made him a star, plays Obi-Wan Kenobi. This younger version of Kenobi is headstrong, makes bad jokes, and even gets a little irritated at times. However, what McGregor does brilliantly is give subtle hints that he will eventually become the Alec Guinness version of the character. McGregor is fantastic in the role not just because of the fight sequences he is in, but also because he adds more dimensions to the character, as he does in Qui-Gons' death scene. This scene is emotional because of how well McGregor and Neeson delivered their dialogue. McGregors' performance as Obi-Wan Kenobi deserves all the praise it has ever received.
Ahmed Best plays Jar Jar Binks. I know that I am going to get so much hate for saying this, but I actually like this character for a couple of reasons: 1) Much like C-3PO and R2D2 in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, Jar Jar Binks is a funny character right down to his physical movements, and he is also extremely crucial to the story because 2) Without Jar Jar Binks, STAR WARS DOES NOT HAPPEN!!!! Without Jar Jar, Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan would have never made it to Theed to rescue Queen Amidala so that she could plead her case to the Senate and meet her future husband along the way!!! Never before has such a hated character been so important to the story. Congratulations, George Lucas!!! You have done it!!!!
Ray Park plays Darth Maul. What is ironic about Darth Maul is that he is probably the coolest character in all of Star Wars, and yet he dies ( not really, watch The Clone Wars) at the end of the movie. Park took a character that says 31 words in the entire film, and turned him into a menacing Sith apprentice. The fact that Park is a martial artist himself adds so much credibility to his physical performance as Darth Maul. If Darth Maul ends up being the role that Ray Park is best known for, that will not be so bad.
Jake Lloyd plays Anakin Skywalker. I personally love Lloyds' performance because it feels genuine, and not rehearsed in any way. His scenes with Natalie Portman and Liam Neeson are quite good, and his character he even displays bits of anger and impatience which we all know will come into play later in his life. This is a heartfelt performance by Lloyd.
George Lucas is the director of Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. Firstly, I have to say that the last forty minutes of the film is edited perfectly. All the characters get an equal amount of screen time that finally culminates in its epic finale. Also, Lucas a filmmaker always get at least serviceable performances out of his actors, and this film is no different. The problems are with the script, and story points. Could Lucas have used less bluescreen and filmed more footage on actual locations and sets? Probably. Is Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace a poorly directed film? I can only answer that by saying that I have seen worse. Is this film as good as Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope? Absolutely not.
Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace has many good elements, but because of the plot holes and illogical narrative the film falls short of being great . If this was the first Star Wars movie you ever saw, you might enjoy watching it for the nostalgia factor, but that is about it. If you are a Star Wars fan you will HATE this movie, so do not waste your time.
Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace is the story of two Jedi Knights who encounter a young Anakin Skywalker while the supposedly extinct Sith look to reclaim their glory. Before I get started, I would like to make a case against Star Wars being deemed a "kids movie." I would like to emphasize that this film is called Star WARS, which implies that there will be much violence throughout. Also, if you care to look at the rating for these films, you will see that they are all rated either PG or PG-13 so it is probably a safe bet that no one under this particular age should be watching these films without parental supervision. So here we go: I am going to start with the good things about this film. I personally think the action sequences are top-notch. They are exciting to watch and, along with the lightsaber battles, they actually make the movie somewhat enjoyable. Many people feel that the lightsaber duels feel too choreographed, but in my opinion they have passion behind them and feel energetic. I also love the visual effects in the film, particularly in the podrace scene. The computer generated characters look incredibly realistic, and all the set pieces and different planets are designed in exquisite detail. I have heard many fans complain about the lack of the "used future" concept that was introduced in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. My argument against that is that this film takes place 30 years prior and the Empire has not taken control over the galaxy, and therefore everything is more glossy and pristine. Also, there were several things that were introduced in the original trilogy that raised certain questions: 1)Why does Darth Vader refer to the Emperor as Master? 2) How did the Emperor rise to power? 3) Who was on the Jedi Council, and what was its purpose? All of these questions are answered in this film: 1) We are introduced to the Sith and The Rule of Two. 2) Senator Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid), who is really Darth Sidious and deceiving both sides, begins to manipulate his way to being elected Supreme Chancellor. I also enjoy the political aspect of this film because Queen Amidala (Natalie Portman) has to deal with the Supreme Chancellor and the Senate making a decision on what to about the Naboo Crisis, and there is much conflict going on with this situation. 3) We see what the Jedi Council looks like, the characters within it, and what kind of missions they go on. I also absolutely love the sound design, and John Williams' musical score. Every individual ship and mechanical device has its own unique sound, and every bit of music in the film tells its own unique story. There has also been talk among fans about how the battle droids pose no legitimate threat. However, I like to believe that Darth Sidious is using the Trade Federation for their machinery while he concocts a brilliant scheme towards the creation of a clone trooper army. After all, Sidious is a puppet master who pulls all the strings. Therefore, he sees the battle droids as expendable. As far as the good things about this movie go, that is about it. Now on to the bad things:
In the opening crawl, it says that two Jedi Knights are dispatched to resolve the situation, but then we learn that Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) is not a Jedi Knight yet. Was George Lucas getting ahead of himself on this? Also, why do the Jedi Knights drink tea that was given to them by the people that are trying to kill them? In what twisted universe does that make any sense at all? Then we see Qui-Gon (Liam Neeson) cut through a blast door with his lightsaber, but yet he did not do that when they had to escape from the previous room that was filling with toxic gas?!?! Also, why does the queen take so much time to commend R2D2 for getting them through the blockade?? George Lucas should have skipped this part, and moved on to what the Jedi Knights have to say. Furthermore, R2D2 and Jar Jar Binks (Ahmed Best) serve no purpose going with Qui-Gon Jinn and the others to Mos Espa. Jar Jar even says, "This sun doing murder to mesa skin." They do absolutely nothing!!! Speaking of Tatooine, a good forty minutes of the film is spent on that blasted planet. You would think that because of how urgent of a matter it is for them to get to Coruscant they would find a faster way to leave Tatooine. On a related note, after Anakin (Jake Lloyd) saves Jar Jar from Sebulba, Qui-Gon thanks him and walks away while Anakin aimlessly follows him. There is nothing to indicate why Anakin would follow them, and yet he does so anyway. Later in the film, we see Governor Sio Bibble (Oliver Ford Davies) say things like, "The death toll is catastrophic" and "A communications disruption can mean only one thing: invasion." Should he not say, "The death toll is non-existent" because not one of the Naboo prisoners gets killed?!?! In fact, they are not even prisoners because nobody gets locked up!!! They just get escorted around the city of Theed by battle droids while the Neimoidians attempt to force Queen Amidala to sign the treaty. Also, is he absolutely sure that a communications disruption means only one thing?? Is he some kind of communications expert? Moving on to the treaty that the Queen has to sign, should the Neimoidians just forge the Queens' signature so they can proceed with making their invasion legal??? The only problem is, if the invasion is legal then there is no conflict in the story at all!!! Speaking of the conflict, why does the droid army land on the opposite side of the planet where the Queens' palace is located?!?! Why not just land near, or in, the city?!?! Later, when the characters leave Naboo and escape the blockade, R2D2 magically repairs the shield generator. My question is: is the shield generator not protected by the shields???? Why do the droid control ships immediately stop firing at them after R2D2 repairs the shields??? None of this makes sense at all!!!! Also, was it not the Supreme Chancellor who dispatched the Jedi Knights to Naboo in the first place? Yet, when they get to Coruscant, they do not even inform him of what happened. They just shrug him off, and go speak to the Jedi Council. Also, why exactly are the Jedi Knights incapable of warning the Naboo people about the droid army invasion BEFORE it actually starts?! There is a sequence later in the film where Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan and everyone else return to Naboo, and the entire Trade Federation blockade is gone. Where did they all go?!?!?! The climactic battle on Naboo at the climax is where things really begin to go wonky. Qui-Gon tells Anakin to find cover. Anakin obeys by CLIMBING INTO A SHIP?!?! Why???? He has more chance of being killed that way!!! This moment launches a series of events that I refer to as "accidental heroics". Anakin Skywalker is supposed to be incredibly strong with the Force, and yet everything he does while in the Naboo Starfighter is a result of sheer dumb luck. His piloting skills are purely accidental. Also, if Darth Sidious ordrered the Neimoidians to wipe out the Gungans, why do the battle droids take prisoners????
All of this negativity adds up to one of the biggest disappointments in cinematic history. Did George Lucas have an ego problem, and let his success go to his head? What happened to the genius that created the original trilogy? The world may never know. Anyway, moving on:
Liam Neeson plays Qui-Gon Jinn. Qui-Gon is a rebellious Jedi who does not follow the Jedi Code, and does not even bow when in the presence of the Jedi Council. Some would see this as disrespectful, but Neeson plays the character in such a way that makes Qui-Gon confident, and a tad arrogant, about why he is a Jedi Master. While Qui-Gon takes risks, he never does anything rash enough to get himself expelled from the Jedi Order. At the same time, he is calm and collected about every situation. This is a minimalist performance at its finest by Neeson.
Ewan McGregor, in the role that made him a star, plays Obi-Wan Kenobi. This younger version of Kenobi is headstrong, makes bad jokes, and even gets a little irritated at times. However, what McGregor does brilliantly is give subtle hints that he will eventually become the Alec Guinness version of the character. McGregor is fantastic in the role not just because of the fight sequences he is in, but also because he adds more dimensions to the character, as he does in Qui-Gons' death scene. This scene is emotional because of how well McGregor and Neeson delivered their dialogue. McGregors' performance as Obi-Wan Kenobi deserves all the praise it has ever received.
Ahmed Best plays Jar Jar Binks. I know that I am going to get so much hate for saying this, but I actually like this character for a couple of reasons: 1) Much like C-3PO and R2D2 in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, Jar Jar Binks is a funny character right down to his physical movements, and he is also extremely crucial to the story because 2) Without Jar Jar Binks, STAR WARS DOES NOT HAPPEN!!!! Without Jar Jar, Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan would have never made it to Theed to rescue Queen Amidala so that she could plead her case to the Senate and meet her future husband along the way!!! Never before has such a hated character been so important to the story. Congratulations, George Lucas!!! You have done it!!!!
Ray Park plays Darth Maul. What is ironic about Darth Maul is that he is probably the coolest character in all of Star Wars, and yet he dies ( not really, watch The Clone Wars) at the end of the movie. Park took a character that says 31 words in the entire film, and turned him into a menacing Sith apprentice. The fact that Park is a martial artist himself adds so much credibility to his physical performance as Darth Maul. If Darth Maul ends up being the role that Ray Park is best known for, that will not be so bad.
Jake Lloyd plays Anakin Skywalker. I personally love Lloyds' performance because it feels genuine, and not rehearsed in any way. His scenes with Natalie Portman and Liam Neeson are quite good, and his character he even displays bits of anger and impatience which we all know will come into play later in his life. This is a heartfelt performance by Lloyd.
George Lucas is the director of Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. Firstly, I have to say that the last forty minutes of the film is edited perfectly. All the characters get an equal amount of screen time that finally culminates in its epic finale. Also, Lucas a filmmaker always get at least serviceable performances out of his actors, and this film is no different. The problems are with the script, and story points. Could Lucas have used less bluescreen and filmed more footage on actual locations and sets? Probably. Is Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace a poorly directed film? I can only answer that by saying that I have seen worse. Is this film as good as Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope? Absolutely not.
Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace has many good elements, but because of the plot holes and illogical narrative the film falls short of being great . If this was the first Star Wars movie you ever saw, you might enjoy watching it for the nostalgia factor, but that is about it. If you are a Star Wars fan you will HATE this movie, so do not waste your time.
Monday, January 16, 2017
One Fantasy Tale To Rule Them All: Part Two
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers was my least favorite film in The Lord of the Rings series for a few years. I could not get past the fact that nothing good happens in the film. However, as I started to understand the three-act structure of a play I began to understand why this film has such a dark tone.
It feels to me as if The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers is the underappreciated chapter in this film series. There is so much going on within the three separate groups of characters that it can be difficult to take it all in. However, I can honestly say that if you enjoyed the books, and the first film, then you will at least like this particular chapter in one of the greatest film trilogies ever made.
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers is the second chapter in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and is the story of Frodo Baggins and Sam Gamgee being led to Mordor by Gollum while the other members of the fellowship fight against Saruman and the Uruk-Hai of Isengard. If you watch The Lord of the Rings films as one movie, which is the way I look at it, The Two Towers is the second act in the story. Usually, the second act is where everything goes to hell, and we see the characters at their lowest points. From the death of of Theodred, to the battle of Helm's Deep, to the conflicts between Frodo and Sam and their subsequent capture by Faramir and his men, this entire film is extremely grim. Did the protagonists achieve victory at Helm's Deep? Yes, but at an extreme cost. The fortress was nearly taken, and if Gandalf had not shown up with backup in time all would have been lost. The Two Towers also splits up the screen time between the three separate groups of the fellowship with perfect precision, and also manages to end on a cliffhanger for each group. When I saw this movie in the theater I wondered how in the world this movie would not buckle under the pressure of having to tell three separate stories, but thanks to the director and screenwriters this movie flows perfectly. We also get to see the forming of a friendship between Gimli and Legolas, which brings levity to the movie. There is also see a flashback scene with Boromir, Faramir and Denethor which adds more evidence to Denethors' reasoning for his feelings towards Faramir. Also, there is an incredibly moving sequence where we see what will happen if Aragorn and Arwen are together. This is a sorrowful sequence that shows that, even if they end up together, Arwen will always be alone. When you combine this sequence with Hugo Weavings' monologue and Howard Shores' music, this is one of the most powerful sequences in modern cinema. Sams' speech at the climax of the film is also incredibly moving for a couple of reasons: First, if any other actor was delivering this monologue this sequence would have fallen completely apart. Sean Astin lends such an emotional weight to this particular piece of dialogue that you cannot help but wipe a tear from your eye. Secondly, during this sequence there are a couple of shots of Gollum with a sad expression on his face. The takeaway from these shots is that even though Gollum will stop at nothing to get The Ring of Power back into his grasp, he still does not understand all the evil that is spreading in the world. This film has the most emotional core of all the films, and you will find it hard not to weep before the end.
Obviously, the standout performance in The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers is Any Serkis as Gollum. The fact that this was done as motion-capture, and not just as a visual effect, is why the entire film works so well. Elijah Wood and Sean Astin were not acting against a bluescreen. They were alongside a real actor that could convey emotion, and make us as the audience believe in the character. Gollum looks incredibly realistic because of this, and Serkis' performance has been etched in stone as the man who revolutionized the motion-capture technique.
Peter Jackson is the director of The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. I love the way Jackson starts this film because we see what happens between Gandalf and the Balrog, and this adds more emotional weight to his reveal later on in the film. The wide shots of all the different landscapes are breathtaking to see, and all the set pieces and costumes are designed with meticulous detail. Also, the sequences in which the characters are preparing for battle at Helm's Deep are quite well done because we see all the characters individually getting ready, and then we see the wide shot of the orcs slowly marching on the fortress. This builds tension for the battle sequence and feels like you are experiencing it in real life because the characters are feeling it right along with you. In my opinion, this film feels more personal than the other two films in the series, which probably has to do with how hard Jackson and the screenwriters worked to craft this particular story, and Jackson once again does a masterful job of bring the world of Middle Earth to life.
It feels to me as if The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers is the underappreciated chapter in this film series. There is so much going on within the three separate groups of characters that it can be difficult to take it all in. However, I can honestly say that if you enjoyed the books, and the first film, then you will at least like this particular chapter in one of the greatest film trilogies ever made.
Tuesday, January 10, 2017
Historical Home Run!!!
While I am by no means a sports aficionado, I do love learning about its' history. The film 42: The Jackie Robinson Story expresses in great detail the aspects of Jackie Robinsons' life and career that most people might not know about. It is one of my favorite films in the past several years.
42: The Jackie Robinson Story chronicles Jackie Robinsons' life and career from 1945 to 1947. What makes this movie so brilliant is that it touches on key historical moments with the Brooklyn Dodgers organization that are an important part of sports history. While Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier in Major League Baseball is absolutely the driving force in this film, and executed to perfection, the other historical moments help you realize that the Brooklyn Dodgers orginization could have cracked and crumbled at any time. These moments also help you realize that what Jackie Robinson was doing was actually important for many people. One example of this is when Leo Durocher (Christopher Meloni) gets suspended for adultery, and the Dodgers need to hire a new manager. Yes, the Dodgers do have Jackie Robinson, but without someone to be the captain, the team would have fallen apart. Another moment is when Pee Wee Reese (Lucas Black) puts his arm around Jackie Robinson (Chadwick Boseman) at Crosley Field in Cincinnati. While this moment has been disputed among sports historians, I am glad it is in the film. This is an important moment for Reese because he is letting his family, friends and everyone else know that he does not care what they think. He supports Robinson and what he is doing for the sport. Obviously, the most important thing about this film is the story of Jackie Robinson. I love that the movie begins with Robinsons' start in the Negro Leagues with the Kansas City Monarchs, and that it shows his rise to the Major Leagues. While Robinson is famously known for playing with the Brooklyn Dodgers, I personally feel that showing how he got started is an important piece of history that the general public might not know about before seeing this film.We also see that, obviously, Jackie Robinson had a tough start to his career. Crowds booed, yelled racial slurs, and there was even a petition signed by certain members of the Brooklyn Dodgers that said that they refused to play with Robinson. Still, Robinson remained strong. However, there is an important sequence in the movie that I want to talk about. What makes it even more important is that this actually happened. There is a sequence in the film where Philadelphia Phillies Manager Ben Chapman (Alan Tudyk) is constantly insulting Jackie Robinson and yelling racial slurs at him. This scene is important because it shows that Robinson has just about had enough, and that it was extremely hard for Robinson to turn the other cheek at times. The next scene in the hallway under the dugout between Robinson and Brooklyn Dodgers general manager Branch Rickey (Harrison Ford) is incredibly emotional to watch because Rickey tells Robinson that he has to endure and let this all go because if he does not, then nothing that he has done in his career will have ever mattered. As excellent and inspiring as this film is, there are a couple of minor discrepancies that I have with it. First, Jackie Robinson calls his girlfriend, Rachel (Nicole Beharie), and proposes to her even though they are opposite sides of the country. That's all fine, but where did he get the ring and where did they get married? Those details were not clear. Also, I would have preferred to see this film end with the Brooklyn Dodgers going to the World Series instead of with them winning the division pennant. As much as they talk about going to the World Series in this movie, it seems fitting that that is how the movie should have ended. Other than these two minor flaws, this is one of the best sports history films I have ever seen, and I am proud to have it in my collection.
Chadwick Boseman plays Jackie Robinson. Robinson is cocky on the field and smooth with his lady, and Boseman captures those particular aspects of Robinson perfectly. Bosemans' acting chops particularly shine when he is expressing Robinsons' attitude towards segregation. Robinson walks into "white" bathrooms without hesitation, and never lets the people get to him. The way Boseman smiles after Robinson almost getting hit by a pitch just oozes an "Is that all you got?" attitude. Robinson resents segregation, and because of that he does not see what he is doing for sports as that big of a deal. He just wants to play baseball. This is an incredibly fine performance by an actor who got my attention immediately when I saw this movie in the cinema nearly four years ago.
Harrison Ford turns in a downright brilliant performance as Branch Rickey. Rickey is a man who, like Jackie Robinson, not only resents segregation, but shows incredible determination in bringing the first African American into Major League Baseball. He also offers reassurance and encouragement to Robinson when he needs it. Ford steals every scene he is in in this movie, and damn near runs away with the whole thing. His scenes with Boseman are fantastic, and the scene where Rickey listens to Robinsons' home run that solidifies their pennant win is incredibly emotional. In my opinion, he should have gotten an Oscar nomination for his wonderful work in this film.
Brian Helgeland is the director of 42: The Jackie Robinson Story. I love what Helgeland did with this film. The costumes, the historical baseball fields, and the classic baseball jerseys are all a sight to behold. What is important to note in this film is that every scene is about something. The story progresses in every frame, and that is a testament to Helgeland, who also wrote the screenplay. There is also a specific look to this film that makes it feel authentic. Helgeland created true art when he made this movie.
Since I first saw this movie nearly four years ago, it has since become a favorite of mine. I love learning history by watching movies. If you are a fan of sports, and/or sports history, you will definitely love this film.
42: The Jackie Robinson Story chronicles Jackie Robinsons' life and career from 1945 to 1947. What makes this movie so brilliant is that it touches on key historical moments with the Brooklyn Dodgers organization that are an important part of sports history. While Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier in Major League Baseball is absolutely the driving force in this film, and executed to perfection, the other historical moments help you realize that the Brooklyn Dodgers orginization could have cracked and crumbled at any time. These moments also help you realize that what Jackie Robinson was doing was actually important for many people. One example of this is when Leo Durocher (Christopher Meloni) gets suspended for adultery, and the Dodgers need to hire a new manager. Yes, the Dodgers do have Jackie Robinson, but without someone to be the captain, the team would have fallen apart. Another moment is when Pee Wee Reese (Lucas Black) puts his arm around Jackie Robinson (Chadwick Boseman) at Crosley Field in Cincinnati. While this moment has been disputed among sports historians, I am glad it is in the film. This is an important moment for Reese because he is letting his family, friends and everyone else know that he does not care what they think. He supports Robinson and what he is doing for the sport. Obviously, the most important thing about this film is the story of Jackie Robinson. I love that the movie begins with Robinsons' start in the Negro Leagues with the Kansas City Monarchs, and that it shows his rise to the Major Leagues. While Robinson is famously known for playing with the Brooklyn Dodgers, I personally feel that showing how he got started is an important piece of history that the general public might not know about before seeing this film.We also see that, obviously, Jackie Robinson had a tough start to his career. Crowds booed, yelled racial slurs, and there was even a petition signed by certain members of the Brooklyn Dodgers that said that they refused to play with Robinson. Still, Robinson remained strong. However, there is an important sequence in the movie that I want to talk about. What makes it even more important is that this actually happened. There is a sequence in the film where Philadelphia Phillies Manager Ben Chapman (Alan Tudyk) is constantly insulting Jackie Robinson and yelling racial slurs at him. This scene is important because it shows that Robinson has just about had enough, and that it was extremely hard for Robinson to turn the other cheek at times. The next scene in the hallway under the dugout between Robinson and Brooklyn Dodgers general manager Branch Rickey (Harrison Ford) is incredibly emotional to watch because Rickey tells Robinson that he has to endure and let this all go because if he does not, then nothing that he has done in his career will have ever mattered. As excellent and inspiring as this film is, there are a couple of minor discrepancies that I have with it. First, Jackie Robinson calls his girlfriend, Rachel (Nicole Beharie), and proposes to her even though they are opposite sides of the country. That's all fine, but where did he get the ring and where did they get married? Those details were not clear. Also, I would have preferred to see this film end with the Brooklyn Dodgers going to the World Series instead of with them winning the division pennant. As much as they talk about going to the World Series in this movie, it seems fitting that that is how the movie should have ended. Other than these two minor flaws, this is one of the best sports history films I have ever seen, and I am proud to have it in my collection.
Chadwick Boseman plays Jackie Robinson. Robinson is cocky on the field and smooth with his lady, and Boseman captures those particular aspects of Robinson perfectly. Bosemans' acting chops particularly shine when he is expressing Robinsons' attitude towards segregation. Robinson walks into "white" bathrooms without hesitation, and never lets the people get to him. The way Boseman smiles after Robinson almost getting hit by a pitch just oozes an "Is that all you got?" attitude. Robinson resents segregation, and because of that he does not see what he is doing for sports as that big of a deal. He just wants to play baseball. This is an incredibly fine performance by an actor who got my attention immediately when I saw this movie in the cinema nearly four years ago.
Harrison Ford turns in a downright brilliant performance as Branch Rickey. Rickey is a man who, like Jackie Robinson, not only resents segregation, but shows incredible determination in bringing the first African American into Major League Baseball. He also offers reassurance and encouragement to Robinson when he needs it. Ford steals every scene he is in in this movie, and damn near runs away with the whole thing. His scenes with Boseman are fantastic, and the scene where Rickey listens to Robinsons' home run that solidifies their pennant win is incredibly emotional. In my opinion, he should have gotten an Oscar nomination for his wonderful work in this film.
Brian Helgeland is the director of 42: The Jackie Robinson Story. I love what Helgeland did with this film. The costumes, the historical baseball fields, and the classic baseball jerseys are all a sight to behold. What is important to note in this film is that every scene is about something. The story progresses in every frame, and that is a testament to Helgeland, who also wrote the screenplay. There is also a specific look to this film that makes it feel authentic. Helgeland created true art when he made this movie.
Since I first saw this movie nearly four years ago, it has since become a favorite of mine. I love learning history by watching movies. If you are a fan of sports, and/or sports history, you will definitely love this film.
Monday, January 9, 2017
Fantasy Can Set You Free
Saving Mr. Banks is one of my favorite films in recent memory. Everything from the story, the acting and the character relationships all come together in a magical package. Of course, the fact that it is the story of how one of the most beloved Disney classics was made makes Saving Mr. Banks all the more special.
Saving Mr. Banks is the story of P.L. Travers' meeting with Walt Disney to discuss the adaptation of Mary Poppins for the big screen. What I love so much about this film is seeing how the story unfolds. We see from the very beginning that P.L. Travers (Emma Thompson) is conflicted about collaborating with Walt Disney (Tom Hanks) because on one hand Travers is afraid of what Disney will do to Mary Poppins, but at the same time she is completely broke and needs money, which she will get if she grants Disney the rights to Mary Poppins. This leads to some uncomfortable, and sometimes hilarious, meetings with Disney in which Travers insists on having her way. The scene where Travers goes off on Disney about using animation in the film is considerably tense to watch given the nature of the scene, and also because of the immense talent that spews from Emma Thompson and Tom Hanks. Finally, in an emotional scene where both Disney and Travers forgive the ghosts of their pasts, Travers realizes that Disney knows what he is doing. Saving Mr. Banks is a remarkable film filled with emotion and brilliant performances. It is an instant classic.
Emma Thompson plays P.L. Travers, and I daresay it is one of the best performances of her entire career. What is so brilliant about the way Thompson plays her character is that even though she is rather pessimistic about meeting Walt Disney, and downright rude to many people on multiple occasions, you can almost forgive it all because of how much her past haunts her. Also, just by Thompsons' body language and the way she expresses herself, you can tell that Travers is uncomfortable being in Los Angeles. The climactic scene where Travers sees Mary Poppins at the premiere is particularly emotional to watch because Travers knows that her past does not haunt her anymore. Thompson displays a wide array of emotions that make you feel for her character that will make you feel her characters' conflict right up until the end of the film.
Tom Hanks plays Walt Disney. What is truly wonderful about Hanks' performance is that he portrays Disney as a man who gets irritated by Travers, but never angry. Disney is a man who is willing to do whatever it takes to make Travers happy, so that even when he demands, "Get on the horse, Pamela!", he does so in the nicest possible way. There is a beautiful scene where Disney reminisces about giving up the rights to Mickey Mouse, and it is in this scene where he finally realizes the kind of struggle that Travers is going through. This is another landmark performance by Hanks that will go down as one of his best.
John Lee Hancock is the director of Saving Mr. Banks. What Hancock does so well is re-create 1960's Los Angeles as well as Disneyland. Everything looks completely authentic, right down to the premiere of Mary Poppins. I also love the way the flashbacks are used in this film. For me personally, flashbacks in movies can be annoying. However, in this film there are certain things that remind Travers of her tragic past, and then she snaps back to reality. These sequences not only suggest that Travers has not mentally dealt with the ghosts of her past but, from a creative standpoint, they also are done in an original way. I also want to point out that the characters of Travers Goff (Colin Farrell -- in a role that I believe he should have gotten an Oscar nomination for) and Ralph (Paul Giamatti). Ralph is much like Travers Goff in that he sees the good in everything, and does not let anything get him down. I believe this is why P.L. Travers gets along with Ralph so well, and I think this was a brilliant move by Hancock as a filmmaker to make these characters similar in nature.
Even though I have never seen Mary Poppins, Saving Mr. Banks makes me want to see it. This is a wonderful movie that has an extremely emotional core. This is a film that is for everybody, and I highly recommend it.
Saving Mr. Banks is the story of P.L. Travers' meeting with Walt Disney to discuss the adaptation of Mary Poppins for the big screen. What I love so much about this film is seeing how the story unfolds. We see from the very beginning that P.L. Travers (Emma Thompson) is conflicted about collaborating with Walt Disney (Tom Hanks) because on one hand Travers is afraid of what Disney will do to Mary Poppins, but at the same time she is completely broke and needs money, which she will get if she grants Disney the rights to Mary Poppins. This leads to some uncomfortable, and sometimes hilarious, meetings with Disney in which Travers insists on having her way. The scene where Travers goes off on Disney about using animation in the film is considerably tense to watch given the nature of the scene, and also because of the immense talent that spews from Emma Thompson and Tom Hanks. Finally, in an emotional scene where both Disney and Travers forgive the ghosts of their pasts, Travers realizes that Disney knows what he is doing. Saving Mr. Banks is a remarkable film filled with emotion and brilliant performances. It is an instant classic.
Emma Thompson plays P.L. Travers, and I daresay it is one of the best performances of her entire career. What is so brilliant about the way Thompson plays her character is that even though she is rather pessimistic about meeting Walt Disney, and downright rude to many people on multiple occasions, you can almost forgive it all because of how much her past haunts her. Also, just by Thompsons' body language and the way she expresses herself, you can tell that Travers is uncomfortable being in Los Angeles. The climactic scene where Travers sees Mary Poppins at the premiere is particularly emotional to watch because Travers knows that her past does not haunt her anymore. Thompson displays a wide array of emotions that make you feel for her character that will make you feel her characters' conflict right up until the end of the film.
Tom Hanks plays Walt Disney. What is truly wonderful about Hanks' performance is that he portrays Disney as a man who gets irritated by Travers, but never angry. Disney is a man who is willing to do whatever it takes to make Travers happy, so that even when he demands, "Get on the horse, Pamela!", he does so in the nicest possible way. There is a beautiful scene where Disney reminisces about giving up the rights to Mickey Mouse, and it is in this scene where he finally realizes the kind of struggle that Travers is going through. This is another landmark performance by Hanks that will go down as one of his best.
John Lee Hancock is the director of Saving Mr. Banks. What Hancock does so well is re-create 1960's Los Angeles as well as Disneyland. Everything looks completely authentic, right down to the premiere of Mary Poppins. I also love the way the flashbacks are used in this film. For me personally, flashbacks in movies can be annoying. However, in this film there are certain things that remind Travers of her tragic past, and then she snaps back to reality. These sequences not only suggest that Travers has not mentally dealt with the ghosts of her past but, from a creative standpoint, they also are done in an original way. I also want to point out that the characters of Travers Goff (Colin Farrell -- in a role that I believe he should have gotten an Oscar nomination for) and Ralph (Paul Giamatti). Ralph is much like Travers Goff in that he sees the good in everything, and does not let anything get him down. I believe this is why P.L. Travers gets along with Ralph so well, and I think this was a brilliant move by Hancock as a filmmaker to make these characters similar in nature.
Even though I have never seen Mary Poppins, Saving Mr. Banks makes me want to see it. This is a wonderful movie that has an extremely emotional core. This is a film that is for everybody, and I highly recommend it.
Saturday, January 7, 2017
Take To The Skies
When you hear the name Tom Cruise, one of the films that automatically comes to mind is Top Gun. This movie is the definition of an 80's summer blockbuster, and has gone on to become an instant classic. I firmly believe that Top Gun should be in every film connoisseurs' collection.
Top Gun is the story of a young pilot in the United States Navy who gets chosen to attend an elite fighter weapons school. What this film does beautifully right from the opening montage is introduce you to the world that you will experience in this film. Top Gun does a wonderful job of getting you excited to watch it just by its' credits sequence alone. I do have to say that I do not consider this movie to be just an ordinary action film for many reasons. Ironically enough, one of those things is the action sequences because of the subtext behind them. You truly get the sense of the kind of danger that fighter pilots bravely, and voluntarily, put themselves into every time they go up in the air. There are also great performances by the actors, and the main character, Maverick (Tom Cruise) has a troubled past that he is attempting to put behind him. As exciting as this film is, there are several plot holes that I need to address. At one point during flight school, Goose (Anthony Edwards) tells Maverick to execute the "Turn and Burn" maneuver to confuse their opponent, Jester (Michael Ironside). However, we then see Jester execute the maneuver first. How did Jester know they were going to execute that maneuver?? Also, how does Maverick know where Charlie (Kelly McGillis) lives even though he has never been to Miramar?? Another thing that bothers me about this film is that at one point in the film, Charlie is instructing the class, and giving performance reviews of the pilots' techniques based on the previous days' competition, except there is one problem: we never actually see that particular competition. Considering how incredible the aerial footage is in this film, I would have loved to see that. Also, why is there no altercation between Iceman (Val Kilmer) and Maverick after Goose dies? Isn't it Iceman's fault that Goose is dead? If Maverick and Goose were as close as the film claims they are, why isn't Maverick more upset about this??? Also, there is a shot in the film of Wolfman (Barry Tubb) calling someone to let them know that Maverick quit Top Gun, but we never actually see this happen. Considering how crucial of a story point this is for the movie, and for Maverick as a character, the film would have had more substance had we actually seen this happen. Also, during the climax of the film, Maverick is at Vipers' (Tom Skerritt) home for advice. Maverick says, "Sorry to bother you on a Sunday", which implies that he called, wrote a letter or something to that effect beforehand to make plans to see Viper. Again, we never actually see this happen. I feel that the story would have flowed more smoothly had a scene like this been included. Am I picking apart this film? Absolutely. Am I being too hard on such a beloved classic? Possibly. The bottom line is that this movie could have been better, but as it stands it is a decent film.
Tom Cruise, in the role that made him a star, plays Maverick. One of the other things this film does very nicely is introduce you to the characters. From the beginning we see that Maverick is cocky and arrogant, and because of this, not many people like him. However, at the same time we see that he is an excellent pilot. Also, the death of Goose is a crucial moment for Maverick as a character because it brings him down to Earth, so to speak. Maverick is hot-headed guy who lives in this fantasy world where nothing can hurt him when he is flying, and Gooses' death brings him back to reality. Cruise is fantastic in the role, playing all of these dimensions in such a well-rounded way. There is also an emotional side to Maverick that Cruise actually plays quite beautifully because he plays it in such a way that we see that Maverick has a vulnerability to him, but at the same time he does not show weakness. This is the role of a lifetime for Cruise that will go down in the annals of film history.
Kelly McGillis plays Charlie. Charlie is very much Mavericks' equal in terms of attitude, and she also offers consolation and encouragement when Maverick hits his low points. She is an intelligent woman who helps Maverick realize the kind of man he wants to be. McGillis shines in a role that, in the hands of a less capable actress, could have come across as just another pretty face.
Tony Scott is the director of Top Gun. First and foremost, the aerial footage in this film is absolutely spectacular. The scene in which Maverick is chasing Viper is particularly exhilarating to watch, and is filled with tension on many levels because you know Maverick has made a mistake in leaving his wingman and is being set up to be taken out, and yet watching him go toe to toe with Viper, the man who flew with Mavericks' father, is extremely exciting. For me personally, it is the mark of a good director to get good performances out of the actors. Scott not only does that, but the chemistry between the actors is great as well which speaks volumes about Scott as a director and the talent of the actors involved.
There are certain movies that come around once in a generation. I would put Top Gun on that list. While I am not in the camp of film fans who love and adore this movie, I do enjoy it. If you enjoy action "blockbuster" kinds of films, I would recommend it.
Top Gun is the story of a young pilot in the United States Navy who gets chosen to attend an elite fighter weapons school. What this film does beautifully right from the opening montage is introduce you to the world that you will experience in this film. Top Gun does a wonderful job of getting you excited to watch it just by its' credits sequence alone. I do have to say that I do not consider this movie to be just an ordinary action film for many reasons. Ironically enough, one of those things is the action sequences because of the subtext behind them. You truly get the sense of the kind of danger that fighter pilots bravely, and voluntarily, put themselves into every time they go up in the air. There are also great performances by the actors, and the main character, Maverick (Tom Cruise) has a troubled past that he is attempting to put behind him. As exciting as this film is, there are several plot holes that I need to address. At one point during flight school, Goose (Anthony Edwards) tells Maverick to execute the "Turn and Burn" maneuver to confuse their opponent, Jester (Michael Ironside). However, we then see Jester execute the maneuver first. How did Jester know they were going to execute that maneuver?? Also, how does Maverick know where Charlie (Kelly McGillis) lives even though he has never been to Miramar?? Another thing that bothers me about this film is that at one point in the film, Charlie is instructing the class, and giving performance reviews of the pilots' techniques based on the previous days' competition, except there is one problem: we never actually see that particular competition. Considering how incredible the aerial footage is in this film, I would have loved to see that. Also, why is there no altercation between Iceman (Val Kilmer) and Maverick after Goose dies? Isn't it Iceman's fault that Goose is dead? If Maverick and Goose were as close as the film claims they are, why isn't Maverick more upset about this??? Also, there is a shot in the film of Wolfman (Barry Tubb) calling someone to let them know that Maverick quit Top Gun, but we never actually see this happen. Considering how crucial of a story point this is for the movie, and for Maverick as a character, the film would have had more substance had we actually seen this happen. Also, during the climax of the film, Maverick is at Vipers' (Tom Skerritt) home for advice. Maverick says, "Sorry to bother you on a Sunday", which implies that he called, wrote a letter or something to that effect beforehand to make plans to see Viper. Again, we never actually see this happen. I feel that the story would have flowed more smoothly had a scene like this been included. Am I picking apart this film? Absolutely. Am I being too hard on such a beloved classic? Possibly. The bottom line is that this movie could have been better, but as it stands it is a decent film.
Tom Cruise, in the role that made him a star, plays Maverick. One of the other things this film does very nicely is introduce you to the characters. From the beginning we see that Maverick is cocky and arrogant, and because of this, not many people like him. However, at the same time we see that he is an excellent pilot. Also, the death of Goose is a crucial moment for Maverick as a character because it brings him down to Earth, so to speak. Maverick is hot-headed guy who lives in this fantasy world where nothing can hurt him when he is flying, and Gooses' death brings him back to reality. Cruise is fantastic in the role, playing all of these dimensions in such a well-rounded way. There is also an emotional side to Maverick that Cruise actually plays quite beautifully because he plays it in such a way that we see that Maverick has a vulnerability to him, but at the same time he does not show weakness. This is the role of a lifetime for Cruise that will go down in the annals of film history.
Kelly McGillis plays Charlie. Charlie is very much Mavericks' equal in terms of attitude, and she also offers consolation and encouragement when Maverick hits his low points. She is an intelligent woman who helps Maverick realize the kind of man he wants to be. McGillis shines in a role that, in the hands of a less capable actress, could have come across as just another pretty face.
Tony Scott is the director of Top Gun. First and foremost, the aerial footage in this film is absolutely spectacular. The scene in which Maverick is chasing Viper is particularly exhilarating to watch, and is filled with tension on many levels because you know Maverick has made a mistake in leaving his wingman and is being set up to be taken out, and yet watching him go toe to toe with Viper, the man who flew with Mavericks' father, is extremely exciting. For me personally, it is the mark of a good director to get good performances out of the actors. Scott not only does that, but the chemistry between the actors is great as well which speaks volumes about Scott as a director and the talent of the actors involved.
There are certain movies that come around once in a generation. I would put Top Gun on that list. While I am not in the camp of film fans who love and adore this movie, I do enjoy it. If you enjoy action "blockbuster" kinds of films, I would recommend it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)