Star Wars: A New Hope

At its core Star Wars: A New Hope is a simple swashbuckler film. It's the story of the daring hero rescuing the princess and defeating the bad guy. Whether in Camelot, Sherwood Forest, or the far reaches of space the story remains the same. But while people like Arthurian myths and the legends of Robin Hood nothing has achieved the level of adoration that people feel for Star Wars. In 1977 audiences were drawn in by the promise of special effects unlike anything they had ever seen, and while they were not disappointed, modern movie goers will not be as easily won over by such primitive visuals. No, the reason we love Star Wars is for its characters.

Each character is established the minute they step on screen. The movie does not waste its audiences time with lengthy introductions. In the opening scene we get a clear bad guy. Vader walks onto the set, picks a man up, interrogates him, and kills him. There is no sympathy and no remorse—he is an emotionless mask with soulless eyes. After being introduced to the hulking power of Vader the audience meets it next character in his exact opposite. Where Darth Vader is dark and massive Princess Leia is light and small. One all in black armor, the other all in white robes. One a mouthful of hard consonant sounds, the other an breath of vowels. Before she even says a word you know she is the damsel, and as soon as she opens her mouth you know she is not in distress. Leia spars words with Vader without fear. She stands her ground, patronizes him, and never falters. When watching The Adventures of Robin Hood you may root for Maid Marian because you're supposed to, but when watching Star Wars you root for Leia because she earned it.

Like King Arthur at the beginning of The Sword in the Stone, the hero of Star Wars is a naïve farm boy. Luke like Arthur before him, is the everyman. We're interested in Vader and Leia because they show themselves as interesting, but we sympathize with Luke because we watch him be forced into adversities beyond his control and we feel bad for him. It's necessary for the story that Luke isn't as strong as the other characters from the start because he's the one we are going to watch grow the most over the course of the series. But while his actions and dialogue make him kind of a whiny brat, the film makers put a tremendous amount of effort into everything else to make us like him. There is one very important scene just after we meet Luke that fully establishes him as a character. Luke walks out of his home and for about twenty seconds looks off, far into the sunset, he's lit by the red glow and the wind blows in his hair and as we watch this simple action the music swells with all of Luke's hopes and dreams and without having said a thing the audience wants him succeed.

If Luke is King Arthur, the boy destined for greatness, than Han Solo is Robin Hood. The thief with a heart of gold. Han wastes no time asserting himself as confident and careless of the law. Everything from his boots to his gun holster show Han to be the cowboy, the rogue. He hangs around rowdy bars, has a bounty on his head, and shoots first. Were A New Hope the only Star Wars movie made it would be Han who experiences the biggest character arc. Idealistically Luke, Leia, and Vader change very little, but Han goes from a cocky scoundrel who values his independence to a cocky scoundrel who values his friends.

The characters in Star Wars don't get lost in a complicated story or come second to the special effects. They are there to be at the forefront. They are there for the audience to connect to and love and hate and feel for. The story is told so the characters can shine through it. And by using such a simple and established story like the good guy fights the bad guy, it allows Luke and Leia and Han and Vader to have more depth than their archetypes traditionally do.

Ten out of Ten.

Star Wars Week

In honor of the rerelease of The Phantom Menace 3D I am going to not watch it. But I will watch and review all six Star Wars movies which I already have on DVD and see no reason to pay extra to watch again. I'm going to watch them in the order that they were released and I will try to be as objective as possible.

The Artist

The first three movie posters I passed as I left the theatre were for Wrath of the Titans, Star Wars: The Phantom Menace 3D, and Titanic 3D: a sequel to a generic action movie and two 3D rereleases. And it is with a defeated disposition that I accept this to be the majority of modern cinema. That being said Michel Hazanavicius' The Artist is a welcome departure from the doldrums of modern, commercially-minded, film products.

The Artist is a black and white silent film, and to be honest that was enough for me to want to see it. I like to see movies that throw away normal conventions and take a risk in their production, and the idea of making a silent movie and trying to market it to a modern audience seems to be a very risky business move. But when a movie studio takes that risk it's a good sign that they are more interested in the art of film than the product of film. There is nothing wrong with wanting to make money from your artistic ventures, but the fear of not making money should not frighten film-makers into playing it too safe and repeatedly creating the same product. So with the intention of having more people support what I consider to be a very artistic film, I highly recommend The Artist.

However...

I did have some problems with the film, and though I fully support its artistic boldness, I do want to give it an honest review. Towards the end of the movie I started to feel its length. The problem seemed to lie in the pacing of the plot. The movie begins in 1927 and follows the rise and fall of two actors over the course of the decade. The first actor is silent film heartthrob George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) who tries to find his place among the new talking pictures; and the other, the young, Hollywood upstart Peppy Miller (Bérénice Bejo). But George's fall and Peppy's stardom happens over the course single a montage towards the beginning of the film. The bulk of the film is dedicated to George feeling sorry for himself as he continues his plummet. Things do happen on his way down and he does make an attempt to pick himself back up, but ultimately it is his pride that drives him downward, and like Charles Foster Kane before him, I found the story of the fall kind of boring. I just have a hard time feeling bad for proud millionaires.

The cinematography is beautiful, the acting is great, and the writing is clever; John Goodman, James Cromwell, and Malcolm Mcdowell make nice cameo appearances. And if my biggest problem is that The Artist is too much like Citizen Kane then I guess I shouldn't complain.

Eight out of Ten.

Hugo

When I first heard that Martin Scorsese was making a family movie I was intrigued. It seemed like maybe crazy Uncle Marty was ready to calm down and make something for the kids. Hugo is just that. It's a movie that kids will find silly and exciting with lots of colorful settings and quirky characters. And it's something that moms will leave the theatre saying, “Aw, that was cute.” But I am neither a child nor a mother, so Hugo did little for me.

Hugo is the story of a boy who lives in a Parisian train station in the 1930s where he befriends the old and mostly forgotten George Méliès (Ben Kingsley). Depressed by the events of WWI Méliès wishes to forget his past, but Hugo's need to find meaning in a clockwork robot his dead father left him forces him to delve into Méliès' cinematographic history. Hugo seems to be Scorsece's way of honoring Méliès. In real life George Méliès made fun movies meant for entertainment and wonder. They were family friendly and full of magic, and that pretty much sums up Hugo. The only difference is that Méliès' film were rarely over fifteen minutes long where as Hugo goes on for over two hours.

All in all Hugo just felt a little lazy. Much of the plot is strung together by random encounters and there is a lot of foreshadowing that never comes to light. And for a movie so steeped in French stereotypes why was there only one French character? Nearly every side character spends their time in cafes eating baguettes and croissants, wearing berets, and listening to accordion music—and speaking with English accents. The worst of these is American actress Chloe Moretz's character: a presumably French girl with an awful English accent whose only purpose in the film is to introduce Hugo to inconsequential side characters. The only character important to the plot other than Hugo is George Méliès, and Hugo meets him in the opening scene. So I don't really know why she was in the movie other than to force an awkward romance.

Like I said Hugo has a lot of bright colors and wonderment. If you're easily drawn in by spectacle then you'll probably be able to overlook the weird plot holes and enjoy yourself.

Five out of Ten.

Grandma's Boy

Grandma's Boy is a commercial for the following companies:

Boost Mobile

Vitamin Water

Dell Computers

Konami Digital Entertainment – America

Microsoft Game Studios X Box

Glaceau

And those are just the ones I noticed in one viewing—the list at the end of the credits was much longer. The amount of product placement in this movie is disrespectful to the viewer. The filmmakers clearly didn't care what cluttered the screen as long as they got a check for rubbing it in the audiences faces.

I expected this movie to be funny in a guilty pleasure sort of way. Something that I wouldn't normally watch, but would be good for a few cheap laughs. I was wrong. I laughed twice. If I can sit through a comedy and distinctly remember how many times I laughed then something is broken. I've had people tell me it's great and I've heard people say they love it, but I did not. I tried, but I couldn't. If you're hosting a party and want a movie to put on that no one's really going to watch then put on Anchorman or Airplane or the news—anything but Grandma's Boy.

Grandma's Boy is poorly written, poorly acted, and poorly directed.

One out of Ten. 

The Birth of a Nation

If you're sick of movies like The Blind Side (2009) and The Help (2011) teaching you about the white man's burden then you might really love D.W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation (1915). The Birth of a Nation tells the story of the civil war and the subsequent restoration period from the southern perspective. In this film the KKK are the heroes and most black people are the bad guys (I say most because the film acknowledges that freed slaves who stayed submissive to their masters were good black people). The Birth of a Nation is silent, black and white, and just over three hours long, so I would have a hard time recommending it to anyone who did not fit into one or more of the following three categories:

1. You are interested in film history

If this applies to you then you'll probably enjoy this movie. The Birth of a Nation set the standard for feature length films and developed the narrative structure that has persisted in Hollywood to this day. Nearly every primitive special effect that Griffith invented for his films were used and reused by directors ever since.

2. You are interested in the American history

The history of The Birth of a Nation is a testament to the fluctuating view of race in America in the 1910s. It remains one of the most controversial films ever made, and upon its release was simultaneously celebrated and boycotted and banned all across the nation.

3. You are racist.

If you are racist and don't mind sitting through silent films then The Birth of a Nation is for you.

This film is definitely not for everyone. It's an important film and a well made film, but whether it's good or not almost seems irrelevant. A person living in our modern world is not going to watch a three hour silent film to entertained, but that doesn't mean The Birth of a Nation is not worth watching. This is a movie that you will either love for its historical importance or you simply won't watch.

Ten out of Ten.

Let the Right One In

Vampires are a pretty trendy topic these days and for whatever reason people love incorporating them into weird romances. Let the Right One In brings this to a new level of creepy by having its couple be awkward twelve year olds. Oskar is a reclusive kid who gets bullied at school and Eli is a vampire who has been twelve “for a long time.” He collects newspaper clippings about murders and she lives with a creepy older man who collects blood for her. They are both so strange and uncomfortable that it made it hard to care about them as protagonists.

Another minor issue I had with Let the Right One In is I was made too aware that it was adapted from a book. There are a bunch of little instances when the film introduces something that seems important and then never follows up with it. There was one scene like this that really seemed out of place. Oskar is visiting his dad's house (his parents are separated) and is having a good time, but then a man comes in and it gets really awkward. Oskar's dad starts drinking and then the scene ends. Neither the dad nor the other guy are in the rest of the movie. It seems likely to me that they both play a more important role in the book, but if you're going to leave most of that part out then why introduce them at all?

Neither the creepy protagonists nor the few loose threads are enough to completely kill the experience of the movie, and it was so gritty and dark it was definitely an experience. I feel like that's what people are usually looking for in their horror films, but as someone who's generally not a fan of the genre Let the Right One In didn't do much for me.

Six out of Ten.

Please Vote for Me

With all of the pandering and dirt slinging that we're used to in our political campaigns it's hard to imagine an election without them, and the Chinese documentary Please Vote for Me shows us why. Please Vote for Me follows the election for class monitor in a third grade class. Since the candidates are three Chinese eight year-olds they were all unfamiliar with the democratic method, but on day one they became just as sneaky and cut-throat as any seasoned American candidate.

The film is definitely an interesting look into what the competitive nature of democracy can do to people, and it has some pretty adorable moments when the children realize their tactics are hurtful to their opponents. My only issue with the movie is there was no feedback from the students. They were the ones experiencing a new concept, but once the election is over the movie just ends.

Please Vote for Me seems to be a very fair documentary. It doesn't try to force an artificial narrative. And the audience is able to decide for themselves which kids do the best. It doesn't play up the melodrama or seem gimmicky. The film makers took a very passive role in making this film, which is how I think a documentary should be—more natural.

Please Vote for Me is an interesting social experiment, and with a run time of just under an hour it's worth watching to see some kids slapped in the face with some cold, hard deomcracy.

Eight out of Ten.

Rubber

Quentin Dupieux's absurdist comedy Rubber follows the murderous exploits of a psychokinetic car tire. Rubber begins with a police officer telling a group of people in the desert that in every movie there is something that happens for no reason. One of his many examples being, “In the Steven Spielberg movie E.T., why is the alien brown? No Reason.” The people then watch the events of Rubber through binoculars as the tire rolls through the California desert destroying everything in its path and as it begins stalking a young woman (Roxane Mesquida).

Rubber is a film that asks you to entirely suspend your disbelief. And once you do that it's pretty fun. It's a campy thriller complete with gore and nudity and if that's something you're in to then you'll probably appreciate it. Overall it has the feel of a movie made by someone just having fun with a video camera, and I think that's precisely what it is. It has some artful desert images and a lot of interesting cinematography. And my only problem was the scenes of the tire just rolling along sometimes went on a little too long, but it was never a huge issue.

Rubber would be great for a casual movie night. It's light and silly and nothing in it makes sense so you won't miss anything if people are talking. I recommend taking a drink every time something happens for “no reason.”

Seven out of Ten.

My Neighbor Totoro

What I love about Hayao Miyazaki's films is the realistic depth of their characters. My Neighbor Totoro follows the story of two sisters, 10 and 4, who move with their father to the Japanese country side to be closer to their hospitalized mother. The movie is about the emotions of childhood and it captures them perfectly. The girls play and do chores in their yard and eventually meet Totoro, a forest spirit who lives in the woods next to their home. And though there are a number of animal spirits in Totoro, what I love about this film is its realism.

An old woman explains to the girls that their house and the woods near it are inhabited by spirits that only children can see. After that it is never really stated whether Totoro and his friends are real or just figments of the girls' imaginations. Totoro just sort of represents childhood, and Miyazaki has captured childhood perfectly. The girls run and scream and explore their home. They become nervous and happy and sad the way children do, and every emotion seems genuine. Nothing is cheesy or melodramatic.

The conflict of the film begins when the hospital sends a telegram stating that their mother's condition has worsened. The girls react differently, appropriate to how I would expect children at those ages to react, and I empathize with them both differently. The movie is much more dependent on the feelings of the characters rather than the happenings of its plot.

My Neighbor Totoro runs the gauntlet from adventurous joy to tear-shedding sadness, and it does it perfectly. It's full of imaginative and memorable characters, and I have nothing bad to say about it.

Ten out of Ten.

The Grey

A-Team and Smokin' Aces director Joe Carnahan's The Grey is an action film that's trying hard to more than just an action film. The problem however is that it was marketed as an action film, and that is what everyone will be expecting to see. All of the trailers depict a plane crashing in the Alaskan wilderness and a group of men, including Liam Neeson, fighting wolves to survive. The trailers show lots of running and yelling and brandishing of torches and lots of savage, snarling wolves. All three trailers also show Liam Neeson taping broken bottles to his hands to form glass fists. Now while all of these things were in the movie, they were not the main focus of the movie. And without spoiling anything, the glass fist thing is completely misrepresented in the trailer.

The Grey follows a group of men who have survived a plane crash on their way home from working at an Alaskan oil drilling company. As they fight to survive the harsh environment they realize they are being hunted by a pack of wolves. The focus of the film tries to be the characters, and most of the film is dedicated to them discussing their regrets and fears. It tries gives its characters more depth than the traditional action movie, and while that is possible and has been done perfectly in films like 28 Days Later and Spider-man 2, The Grey kind of stumbles on the line between goofy action and interesting drama.

I was surprised at first by the film's somber opening. It starts slow with Liam Neeson narrating and it establishes Neeson's character as a stoic loner on the verge of suicide. The camera is hand held and follows Neeson around very closely; it feels personal like a home movie. It took me out of the action movie mind set and I began to think that the film was going to have more depth than expected. I was then disappointed when the generic, predictable action sequences would start. And it was hard to take the themes of survival, suicide, and faith seriously when they were handled with clunky action movie dialogue.

I felt the best parts of The Grey were the couple of truly intense scenes which might discomfort some audience members, most notably when the plane is crashing. But by trying to achieve too much as both an action film and a drama, it left me disappointed by both aspects.

Five out of ten.