Latest Posts by zoostationjustdowntheline - Page 2

Lily would like to wish everyone a Happy New Year!

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire Film Review

An act.  A simple, defiant act from one person.  The intent was to call one man's bluff.  The result is the beginning of something far larger than one could have imagined, something that could change the world but leave a path of devastation in the process.  Can that person live with himself/herself knowing what the consequences of his/her decision will be?  Can he/she become the hero the larger picture desperately wants him/her to be? This idea is explored in the film The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, Francis Lawrence's adaptation of the second book in Suzanne Collins' massively popular The Hunger Games trilogy, and while it does suffer from "middle film syndrome," the stronger story, excellent acting, and thematic focus make it an improvement over the very good first film. In the 74th Hunger Games, Panem's District 12 tributes Katniss Everdeen and Peeta Mellark challenged the gamemakers and the Capitol by threatening to kill themselves and yield no winner.  The authorities acquiesced and let both live.  However, this act of defiance, coupled with Katniss' compassion toward a tribute from District 11, planted the seeds of insurrection that has been met with equally violent suppression.  President Snow, ruler of Panem, makes a deal with Katniss - sell the idea that her defiance was an act of love for Peeta and aid in quelling the burgeoning rebellious atmosphere or see her and Peeta's loved ones die. Katniss, loyal to her family above all, decides to continue the charade of love, but as the victory lap across the other Districts commences, she witnesses the oppressive state in action, and the charade collapses.  Snow decides that for the 75th Hunger Games, the third Quarter Quell, tributes that survived the previous Games are the only eligible tributes. putting Katniss and Peeta back into the Games.  However, this time isn't just about survival --- revolution is in the air, and Katniss has to decide if she can bring things back to the status quo or if she can become symbol of the revolution that is desired of her. The first film only hinted at the thematic elements that come into play throughout the entire story.  In Catching Fire, the exploration of violence and revolution and the personal cost of each comes to the forefront. Katniss, Peeta, and their mentor, Haymitch Abernathy, all are dealing with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.  Katniss is explicitly suffering from nightmares and emotional triggers, Peeta is struggling to move forward with his life, and Haymitch is severely self-medicating with alcohol.  Haymitch reiterates to Katniss several times that there are no winners of The Hunger Games, just survivors, and there is no end to the involvement in the Games as now they must be mentors to other tributes from District 12, reliving the horrors the Games gave them.  Compound that with having to keep up the show that Katniss put on involving falling for Peeta, and Katniss sees how the Games have eternally forced her to live a lie, crushing whatever spirit she has left. The first half of the film compares and contrasts this with the unrest and oppression of the Districts and the mindless disconnect of the Capitol.  The second half becomes more plot-driven as the 75th Hunger Games gets underway, causing the film to have a split personality, but the thematic focus is constant, and the brutality of the story's universe is felt with major impact. The screenplay drafted by Simon Beaufoy and rewritten by Michael Arndt (credited as Michael deBruyn) does a great job highlighting the thematic points without making them obvious, and the editing work by Alan Edward Bell as well as the cinematography by Jo Willems fix the incoherence of the action sequences in the first film, making a solid story worth watching.  James Newton Howard's film score accentuates the tonal shifts of the film without becoming overbearing. The strong acting that was the main reason to watch the first film is also much improved. Jennifer Lawrence has been nothing but a high-quality actress since her breakthrough in Winter's Bone, and her winning a well-deserved Oscar for Silver Linings Playbook has not caused her to settle.  The weariness and loss of innocence in Katniss' eyes and her struggles with PTSD draw the audience into the story more than before.  Her chemistry with everyone is natural, and her physicality balances her emotional frailty.  Jennifer Lawrence is still the number one reason why this film series has been successful.  Her talent seems limitless, and with how incredible she is at playing a wide range of roles, she may be this generation's Meryl Streep. Josh Hutcherson improves significantly in this film, not only holding his own against Jennifer Lawrence but also giving the film a counterbalance to Katniss.  While Katniss is struggling with nightmares, Peeta is simply stuck in neutral.  He knows he shouldn't have won the Hunger Games, and he's aware that Katniss' affections were a ruse, but his existence is a lonely one, and his only wish is to form some connection to the one person who is the reason he is still alive.  Josh Hutcherson stil exudes the same charm as before, but he now gives Peeta more gravitas, more baggage, more of what we wanted him to be in the first film - someone about whom the audience truly cares. Woody Harrelson evolves the darkly comic relief of Haymitch Abernathy in the first film to something more tragic --- a man who is eternally haunted by "winning" a Hunger Game.  He is who Katniss could become.  His alcoholism and sardonic demeanor is still played for laughs from time to time, but Haymitch now imbues that humor with melancholy and provide a reason for Haymitch to be the smart-ass that he is.  Woody Harrelson is just fantastic. Elizabeth Banks takes Effie Trinket, the symbol of Capitol disconnect, and gives her humanity, showing that her fashion and eloquence has become a facade for her compassion.  Lenny Kravitz continues to emanate charm, charisma, and style as Cinna.  Stanley Tucci and Doug Jones provide the necessary jovial counterpoint to the seriousness of the film as the co-hosts of the Hunger Games proceedings.  Donald Sutherland takes President Snow from the imposing father figure in the first film to the great manipulator in this film, and his calm demeanor accentuates the danger of his threats. The newcomers all hold their own against the series' veterans.  Jena Malone is exciting as tribute Johanna Mason, portraying pure id with her deliberate undressing in the presence of Katniss, Peeta, and Haymitch, her unfiltered voice, and her unhinged actions and reactions throughout the Quarter Quell  Jeffrey Wright and Amanda Plummer get to play superego as eccentric, intelligent tributes Beetee and Wiress, respectively, who carefully plan out how to utilize the environment to their advantage, and both shine in their roles.  Sam Claflin is wonderful as tribute Finnick Odair, the ego who helps Katniss and Peeta stay alive while understanding the long-term goal and reminding Katniss of "who the real enemy is."  Philip Seymour Hoffman is in reliably top form as new head Gamemaker Plutarch Heavensbee, and although his appearance is brief, his presence is felt, and it will be a pleasure to he him more in the next installment. The film does suffer a case of "middle film syndrome," mostly due to the nature of the story and how the first book was adapted.   The first film barely hinted at the burgeoning revolution, only showing one riot --- in District 11, and through its focus on the people of the Capitol as the primary viewership, a group that is isolated from the oppression.  The oppression was present, but the unrest was more of an afterthought --- the people of each District had found ways to live within the confines of Panem.  It makes transitioning to the second film jarring as now the oppression and unrest are felt in every frame.  This film succeeds in reintroducing everything and everyone without excessive exposition.  If one was to start watching the series with this entry, he/she would be able to follow the story pretty well with few questions. The ending leaves a bit to be desired emotionally and hangs the story at an ellipses than a defined period.  Many second films, or at least a film prior to the end, hang at an ellipses without completing its own arc --- the implied sole purpose is to set up the next film.  Even great and successful films such as The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers couldn't circumvent this.  The Empire Strikes Back had a plot-related ellipses, but that film had a complete emotional arc that was independent yet integral to the entire series.  With Catching Fire, by being more literal in its adaptation, the ending introduces new ideas and plot points just to set up the next film, and it makes the film feel incomplete. However, it could be recommended to start with this entry due to it being a different director.  Gary Ross did a successful job with the first film, but Francis Lawrence fleshes out the universe with impressive details and allows the actors to drive the story forward.  Aside from the exposition heavy ending, Francis Lawrence succeeds greatly at the "show, don't tell" approach. The best moment in the film, and the scene that is the one to beat in the entire series, is a brief but powerful sequence involving the announcement that the Quarter Quell will draw its tributes from only the surviving victors of every Game.  It starts with the emotional devastation of Katniss' family, followed by an angry and distressed Haymitch screaming and throwing an empty bottle at the screen, then a stunned and frightened Peeta having the gravity of the announcement push him into his chair, ending with Katniss, emotionally destroyed, running into the woods, gasping for air while screaming in dismay.  This reads like it's melodrama, but the way the director lets the actors play this moment, it's the most human, most emotionally devastating moment in the entire film.  The hope that Katniss accidentally instilled in the Districts after winning the last Game has left these three people in that moment, and it ultimately sets everything in motion for the rest of the story. This moment gives hope that Francis Lawrence will make the next films in the series better and better.  His touch has upped the ante of the series, and while it may be nothing more than the middle film of the series, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is a great adaptation, a very good film with powerful moments, and a sign that the series is in good hands.

Movie Rating: 8.5/10 A tense and thought-provoking first half gives way to a thrilling second half that don't gel together ideally but are wonderfully executed halves.

Film Rating: 8.5/10 The themes of violence from the first film evolve into revolution and reluctant heroism; even an open-ended conclusion doesn't diminish from overall

Hunger Games Film Rating: 9/10 The efficiency of the first film is traded for a fuller experience, one that is emotionally rewarding and viscerally entertaining.

Struggles with writing

I must admit something to everyone --- I have been attempting to write a screenplay for quite some time now.

The idea came to me while I was recollecting my film reviews and thinking about how most film critics haven't had a produced screenplay or actively participated in the filmmaking process (the notable exception to this is Roger Ebert and his script for Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. My educational background is in engineering, but one of my passions since high school was watching movies and films and becoming an amateur critic and cinephile. I love seeing the disparate genres and techniques, the history of American and international cinema informing and influencing specific artists and works, and evolving my idea of what makes a film or movie "good" or "bad."

However, I believed that my critiques would be limited in quality and understanding if I didn't at least attempt to participate in some part of the filmmaking process. In the film adaptation of High Fidelity, Rob Gordon, purveyor of "high pop culture," decides to try his hand at the music business by helping some local skater punks put out a record they recorded and he liked. As Laura, his girlfriend, highlights, he is now a part of the culture that he and his friends have observed and critiqued from a bird's eye view. With High Fidelity being one of my favorite films and with wanting to hone my critical eye, I was partly inspired by that plot development to participate in the filmmaking process by writing a draft script.

However, there have been several issues that have popped up throughout the process. The first and most important issue is that I haven't written fiction since junior high for assignments. I haven't lost my sense of imagination --- I've had several ideas for stories appear in my thoughts, and I can come up with a couple of big scenes that I feel would make a major impact. The problem is that I can't fill in the blanks when it comes to those thoughts. Since the beginning of college, I have been a glorified essayist as an amateur critic. Nonfiction has been my writing field. Writing critiques and essays come more naturally to me because the audience is me. The thoughts are mine. Everything said is what I want to say.

This informs of my second major issue --- Who is my audience?

Writing critiques and essays does require understanding of who the author wants to read his/her work, but the tailoring process, at least to me, is easier with these works because the end result is still clearly in the author's control. Compromises are made in the flow and diction, but the thoughts are pure.

When I write critiques or essays, my idea of the audience is people who want to read the "hows" and "whys" or for people who want to learn to read the "hows" and "whys." My critiques are never "cut-to-the-chase" works. I want to lay out what I thought was good and bad and then show why the structure is strengthened or weakened due to those proficiencies and deficiencies. Ideally, I want the "cut-to-the-chase" readers to read my critiques and become more inquisitive about the idea of "good" and "bad." Understandably, this is a flawed hope due to my writing approach being static and wanting more people to become elastic when it usually takes the approach to become more elastic to get the static readers. I still hold to my ideals, though, and it is why I see writing critiques and essays as a less compromising form.

My attempt at writing fiction stalls because my definition of the audience has now increased in size. I don't want to write a script that only caters to me (i.e. Michael Scott from The Office and his script for Threat Level Midnight). I want to write something that will keep someone's interest yet be authentic with the characters and their motivations. It's easy to write characters with my voice and thoughts, but I obviously can't make every character that way. It worked for Kevin Smith for a decade, but then it stopped working for Kevin Smith (one can only write so many permutations of Clerks before the idea loses traction). Once I think about the audience, I start to lose grasp of the idea, gaps begin to enlarge, and it all iterates until I have hit the point of overthinking.

My final major issue, and one that is specific to screenwriting, is this --- how the hell do I write something that is interesting for at least 90 minutes?

This issue is due to how the logical part of my mind works. I look at my ideas and develop a very basic plot. While looking at the plot, I fill in the blanks and realize that the plot could be completed in 15 to 30 minutes (if one thinks this is how writing for a television show works, that's only part of the battle --- a American season is at least 13 episodes, and coming up with a good story arc for several episodes is no easy task, so good luck coming up with the other 12+ episodes). Then I start thinking of subplots, but they start to appear arbitrary to the general plot, and the whole structure collapses in my head. The unwritten rule for a feature film is at least 90 minutes. If I can't come up with something that will hold for a third of that, then how will I be able to develop something for more?

I haven't even gotten to the actual writing part and have seen how difficult the process is. I have a deep respect for those who can write fiction in any medium. It takes a great deal of effort and focus just to get through the initial steps. Maybe I should focus on developing a short-film idea, maybe I'll never finish that screenplay or am not meant for fiction, or maybe the mental breakthrough will happen some ways down the road.

The goal of writing a screenplay is currently out of reach. It's frustrating as hell, but maybe I'll learn something from this journey to expand my horizons.

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith Review

    It was the most unexpected of situations.  George Lucas returned to the Star Wars universe by telling the backstory of the famed villain Darth Vader, born Anakin Skywalker, as a new trilogy.  The first film of this new series, Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace, had an unprecedented wave of hype surrounding it.  After its release, it was as if someone let the air out of the room.  While a significant financial success, the overall result was a tarnishing to the saga loved worldwide.  Its follow-up, Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones, tarnished the saga further.  What should have been a triumphant moment for American cinema became a textbook example of screwing with mythology.  Suddenly, everyone was wondering how the man who built a story that has become ingrained in many cultures could be the same man who made Episode I and Episode II.      As the inevitable conclusion to the trilogy approached, the anticipation was more muted.  Audiences wanted to see the next installment but not in the way Lucas intended - people expected the film to pale in comparison to the Original Trilogy, so now they were wondering if it was going to be the trainwreck in mediocrity its two predecessors were.     On May 19, 2005, Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith was released, and while the audiences were right in expecting it to pale to the Original Trilogy, they were surprised that the film was good - in some moments, very good.     Set three years after the end of Episode II, Episode III begins with the final battle of the Clone Wars - the Battle of Coruscant.  Supreme Chancellor Palpatine, the leader of the Galactic Republic, has been kidnapped by the Trade Federation, now under military leadership by General Grevious and Count Dooku.  Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi and Jedi Knight Anakin Skywalker are sent to rescue Palpatine in the midst of the massive space battle.  After the rescue, Anakin is given the honor of being a part of the Jedi Council but without the title of Master.  Furthering his seeds of discontent, he has recurring nightmares that his wife, Padme Amidala, will die in childbirth, pushing him to find power over the Force that the Jedi perceivably lack.  As Kenobi, Anakin's mentor and friend, is sent after Grevious alone, Anakin begins his descent to the Dark Side of the Force, eventually becoming Darth Vader and turning on the people he once considered allies.     Episode III paralells Return of the Jedi less in its structure and more in its nature - it has dual personality of being light-hearted and fun in some moments and dark and heavy in others.  Its duality is both a strength and a weakness, but the overall result is much better than its predecessors.     The acting is more natural than in Episode I and Episode II.  There are still moments of stiff line-reading, but they are not as prevalent as before.  Ewan McGregor continues to be a highlight, fully emulating what made Sir Alec Guinness iconic as Obi-Wan Kenobi while adding enough of his own vigor to make a mark fully on the character.  Natalie Portman finally gives Padme Amidala the personality she needed all this time, and while she still could have done a bit more with her, she at least seems like she's enjoying being in a Star Wars film.  Hayden Christensen still has no chemistry with Portman - just see the apartment balcony scene toward the end of the first act, the worst scene in the film, as an example.  However, he bounces off McGregor very well, showing the tight bond master and apprentice have and how tragic the breaking of the bond is after the turn to the Dark Side.  Christensen may never be physically imposing as Vader was in the Original Trilogy, but he knows how to be deadly and threatening when it counts.     The best role in the film, though, goes to Ian McDiarmid as Palpatine, the once and future Emperor.  He is what the prequels lacked - a thoroughly engaging and imposing villain.  He hams it up once his nature is exposed, but he allows Palpatine to be felt even when he is not on screen.  Ian McDiarmid breathes life into the prequels, showing what they could have been.     Everything in the film is more inspired.  The music by John Williams is alive again, mixing themes and motifs from all of the films to emphasize the emotional journey.  The cinematography by David Tattersall is more fluid, showcasing the action in all of its glory.  The technology has finally caught up with the vision, allowing the visual effects to shine in obvious ways such as the opening battle but also in subtle ways, namely the details in the wonderfully constructed features of the computer-generated Yoda.     Of the whole prequel trilogy storyline, Anakin's downfall and rebirth as Darth Vader is the most interesting and exciting plot point due to its nature.  There's no more meandering around to get to this point in the story.  We've had two films of build-up, most of it unnecessary.  This is when all of the action happens.  This is when all of the tragedy strikes.  This is when the audience cares.  This alone would make it a better film than Episode I and Episode II.     What makes it much better, and what is the biggest surprise, is that George Lucas fully flexes his screenwriting and directing muscles.     First is the surprising focus prevalent throughout the film.  The focus begins at the introduction with Anakin and Obi-Wan flying into the Battle of Coruscant.  Once their ships appear on-screen, the camera follows them into the battle, showing the scope of the battle without focusing on other random individuals for too long.  This focus also allows us to see how brotherly Obi-Wan and Anakin have become.  The audience has a connection.  Their banter becomes hokey, sometimes too hokey, but we are having fun with them.      In fact, about the first half of the film is mostly fun with a little foreboding menace.  About the second half is all menace.  Both halves work very well on their own, with one half not taking itself too seriously and allowing us to enjoy the ride while the other half becoming the depths of the Dark Side it needs to be and allowing us to feel for these characters.     Emphasizing the dark foreboding is Lucas borrowing the cross-cutting technique his close friend Francis Ford Coppola mastered.  Palpatine's formation of the Galactic Empire is cross-cut with Anakin's assassination of the leaders of the Trade Federation.  The birth of Luke and Leia is cross-cut with the birth of Darth Vader.  Both are done well, and both show the director Lucas was and still can be.     However, while the overall results are good to very good, its the details that hold the film back from greatness.     The lightsaber duels are well executed, but some moments devolve into pure visual splendor instead of maintaining emotional resonance.  This happens early on in the Anakin/Obi-Wan duel and is prevalent in the Palpatine/Yoda duel.  The music saves the latter duel, and the former has several intense moments that help keep it grounded overall.     The duality of the film becomes a struggle in the second act.  Everything involving Obi-Wan is fun and exciting, while everything involving Anakin is increasingly dark.  At times, the feeling is schizophrenic, throwing the audience in too many emotional directions to make sense.     The moment of Anakin's turn to the Dark Side could never reach the legend fans made it to be, but the moment becomes almost unintentionally funny due to stiff line-readings and poorly placed sound effects.  This is the most important moment in the entire saga to date, yet it doesn't resonate the way it should.  If the third act wasn't as strong as it is, this scene could have ruined the entire film.     The scene involving the birth of the Darth Vader we all know is well done until the end.  In a moment now immortalized as "FrankenVader," Lucas decided to pay homage to Frankenstein at the worst possible moment, ruining another resonating moment with something unintentionally funny, capping it off with a misguided scream from Vader.     Lucas also tries too hard to bridge the Original Trilogy and the prequels together with this film, either relying heavily on fan service without really getting into a better understanding of things or only providing half-explanations due to bridging the films being more important than making the ideas work on their own.     The maximum enjoyment factor in Episode III is found when watching with context provided from the Original Trilogy, but unlike Episode I and Episode II, there's a story worth telling within its runtime, and it tells it well.  It doesn't reach the quality of the Original Trilogy, but Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith is everything audiences wanted the entire prequel trilogy to be - good sci-fi fantasy. Blu-Ray Observations With technology catching up to how Lucas wanted to present his films, the Blu-Ray for Episode III is near-reference quality.  The visuals are balanced very well, and the colors are vivid.  Because of the digital nature of the production, the sterility of the computer-generated atmospheres Lucas inadvertently created come in full force, emphasizing how far away the film is visually from the Original Trilogy.  The audio, again, is superb, this time represented by how the hum and clashes of the lightsabers are crisp, clear, and impactful.  Overall, a great presentation. Movie Rating: 7.5/10 One-half light-hearted action and one-half journey into darkness, the two halves don't gel perfectly together but result in an exciting story. Film Rating: 7/10 What should be the key moments don't resonate, but the music emphasizes the heart of the matter, and what surrounds those missed opportunities carries surprising depth and craft. Star Wars Film Rating: 7/10 This is the prequel audiences wanted the other two to be.  It's not on par with the Original Trilogy, but unlike the other two prequels, this one is worth seeing at least once. Blu-Ray Rating: 8.5/10 Finally, the technology catches up with Lucas' vision, and the Blu-Ray presents it in full splendor.  However, it also shows how flawed that vision was with how sterile some of the environments are.

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones Review

    The hype and anticipation of Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace gave way soon after May 19, 1999 to frustration and disappointment.  What could have been the revitalization of a dormant series instead was a cumbersome movie mired in boring politics, forced performances, ruined mythology, and distant action - a far cry from what Star Wars is.  The main question from the fanbase now was "Is the worst over?  Does it get better from here?"     On May 16, 2002, George Lucas provided a response for the fans with the release of Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones: "Yes.  No.  Maybe?"     Set ten years after the the events of Episode I, Episode II begins with an attack on Padme Amidala, now a Senator representing Naboo in the Galactic Republic Senate.  This attack results in the Jedi Council calling on Obi-Wan Kenobi, now a Jedi Knight, and his padawan Anakin Skywalker to act as her temporary bodyguards while they find out who was behind the attack.  A pursuit of the assassin eventually leads Obi-Wan to the planet Kamino, a planet that has been contracted to create a clone army for the Republic to fight the Trade Federation, now in alliance with fallen Jedi Master Count Dooku.  The pursuit also forces Padme to flee to Naboo with Anakin as her bodyguard.  Their time together brings about feelings between the two and leads Anakin to reunite with is mother on Tatooine.  Everything comes to a head on the planet Geonosis, with Padme, Anakin, and Obi-Wan captured and the new clone army and the Trade Federation clashing in the first major battle of the Clone Wars.     Like Episode I paralleling the original Star Wars, Episode II parallels The Empire Strikes Back - The heroes are split apart, two of the heroes develop feelings, one of the heroes goes on a discovery quest, the central character gets tempted by the Dark Side of the Force and loses an arm, and the ending, one with significant complications, sets up the pieces for the next film.  However, like Episode I, the results are by-the-numbers instead of inspired.     All of the actors struggle to make the material work again, but unlike the last film, there are improvements.  The highlight of the actors is Ewan McGregor as Obi-Wan Kenobi.  His emulation of Sir Alec Guinness is impressive, making the only earned connection of this film to the original trilogy.  Samuel L. Jackson plays Samuel L. Jackson, but he adds some fun to the film's second half that the first film lacked.  Newcomer Christopher Lee has more menace and stature as Count Dooku than Darth Maul had all of Episode I, making him at least a more thrilling villain.     However, Natalie Portman and newcomer Hayden Christensen have no chemistry together as Padme and Anakin, making every scene they have together an endurance test.  Portman can do fragile and tender, but her line reading lacks passion.  Christensen comes off whiny and helpless, never inhabiting Anakin the way the audience would have imagined.  He is outclassed by everyone else in the film.     The music by John Williams is more uninspired this time around.  It may well represent his worst work in a Star Wars film - the love theme is a partial rip-off of his work on Hook, and other than random revivals of previous pieces, there are no memorable themes or motifs like in the other films.  The cinematography by David Tattersall is just as faceless as before.  The visual effects are an improvement over Episode I, but the universe looks too clean and crisp to feel real, especially the overly sterile and artificial representation of the clone planet of Kamino.     Again, though, these aren't the main problems.  George Lucas makes the same mistakes he made in the previous film as screenwriter and director.      The introduction to the film tries to provide excitement with the assassination attempt, but all of it plays too obvious and poorly sets up the instability in the galaxy.  Worse, it yields to more of the political discourse that sunk Episode I before it got started.  Once the heroes arrive, it becomes obvious how the trajectory of the film will go.  Instead of anticipating where the film will go next, the audience only anticipates when the film will end.     The love story is forced and inert, becoming unintentionally funny in its moments of awfulness.  The audience knows Anakin and Padme will fall in love because there is no other significant female character with whom Anakin is emotionally close.  The worst scene of the film, and arguably the worst scene in the film series, features the two of them fighting with their "developing" feelings for each other near a fireplace.  It's as if Lucas wanted to emphasize how they had a fiery passion for each other that they couldn't control but couldn't get the actors to do it themselves.  This scene and this plot thread is just a representation of an ongoing problem with the prequels - the characters are there to serve the plot, not the other way around.     The protracted third act on Geonosis is awkwardly structured.  It begins with a somewhat inspired survival fight within a coliseum - a way to one-up the podrace sequence from Episode I, though unsuccessfully.  It becomes a visual spectacular once the Jedi arrive and become warriors.  Once Yoda and the clones arrive, though, the fun vanishes and the boredome commences.  The majority of this portion are clones fighting robots - beings with which the audience has no emotional connection. This is the closest Lucas comes to being Michael Bay as he indulges in the visuals without once pondering what it all means.     However, the saving grace of the third act is the lightsaber duel toward the end of this sequence.  Although it is as stylized, choreographed, and overdone as the duel from Episode I - the red and blue lighting and Anakin losing his arm especially - the focus is solely on the duelists and nothing else.  We care about the duelists.  We want to see what happens next.  The reward for this anticipation - the introduction of Yoda the master fighter.  It's the most thrilling sequence of the film, full of visual splendor.  However, in the grand scheme of the series, it's a double-edged sword - it may be exciting, but instead of the simple pleasure of an old Muppet walking around with a cane waxing poetic about the Force, it takes every ounce of visual effects and acrobatics to create the excitement.     This is indicative of the prequels in general.  Instead of  taking, in the words of Han Solo, "simple tricks and nonsense," George Lucas thinks it will take the the most complex sequences to make the film thrilling.  Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones is two steps forward, two steps back for the series - it's more genuinely exciting, but more emotionally distant. Blu-Ray Observations Compared to Episode I, the Blu-Ray presentation is a significant improvement.  The visuals are sharp, but there is a softness to the image that can't be avoided.  Part of the problem is that this was the first major film shot and released completely digitally.  The technology was still in the early stages, and the Blu-Ray shows it clearly.  The contrast is a bit off as well, especially in the scenes in Kamino.  The audio is as excellent as all of the other discs, especially the reference quality of the seismic charges.  Overall, the presentation of Episode II is good but not great. Movie Rating: 5/10 Exposition dominates the proceedings, and the effects are still too sterile.  However, the surprising focus during the duel yields to the most exciting scene in the film. Film Rating: 2/10 All of the previous issues are still prevalent, and the love story is additionally terrible due to the lack of chemistry between two leads involved in that story.  Star Wars Film Rating: 4/10 It tries and fails gloriously to parallel The Empire Strikes Back, but Ewan McGregor's emulation of Sir Alec Guiness and the lightsaber duel in the third act are highlights of what otherwise is another frustrating installment in the series. Blu-Ray Rating: 7/10 Much better than Episode I but the flaws of 2002 digital film transferring are apparent.  The audio is fantastic, especially the seismic charges.

A Schaumburg February.

A tree in the Schaumburg winter.

An Ode to Star Wars: TIE Fighter

    You are a member of the Imperial Navy.  Your allegiance is to the Galactic Empire, whose leaders are two of the most feared men in the galaxy.  You fly with fellow naval enlistees and officers in fighter squadrons.  Your initial ships have no shields - two to five hits and you are done.  You are asked to take out fighters that are faster, more well armed, and more protected than yours.  Their mission-to-mission fighter numbers are greater than yours.  Your side suffered a great loss a couple of years back, and you are part of an effort to gain the upper hand again.  As you fight the Rebel Alliance, traitors, pirates, and defensive neutrals come into the mix, complicating your mission and further testing your abilities.     This is a summation of one of the greatest PC games ever made, and one of my all-time favorite games in general - Star Wars: TIE Fighter.     The mechanics of the game are a refinement to its excellent predecessor, Star Wars: X-Wing.  A flight simulator focused on space combat, the player flies starfighters for the Empire, attacking ships and installations to gain advantage, inspecting cargo to capture or destroy, and escorting starships to their destinations.  The controls are just as simple and complex as before, requiring nothing but a keyboard and joystick but demanding a strong multitasking ability.  The graphics were a step up, representative of its time but of a quality that many modern games lack.  The music utilizes the same iMuse system, changing music whenever specific events happen, usually when enemies or allies arrive.  The sound effects are pure Star Wars, high quality and all.     So what sets it apart from its predecessor, and why does it hold such high regard?     First is the introduction of secondary and bonus objectives.  If you wanted to win a mission, you only needed to complete the primary goals, but the game pushed you and actually rewarded you for going above and beyond the call of duty.  You would get additional decoration for completing all secondary objectives and all bonus objectives, adding to the sense of accomplishment.  Also, you could progress through the Secret Order of the Emperor, an additional achievement path that motivated completion.  Most importantly, the secondary and bonus objectives would yield additional plot points only hinted at when pursuing the primary objectives.  What was already a solid story becomes filled with twists and turns that make it one of the best Star Wars stories ever told, reinforcing the universe  created.     Second is the difficulty.  In Star Wars: X-Wing, rival fighters were predominantly unshielded with low firepower.  In Star Wars: TIE Fighter, you started out with those unshielded, low firepower fighters.  You learned how to maneuver in those fighters.  You learned how to fight in those fighters,  You learned how to dominate in those fighters.  Once you started getting ships with shields and firepower, you became an unstoppable force with the skills you learned in the weaker ships.  The difficulty slowly escalated as the missions progressed, pushing your abilities to the limit.  However, the challenge was always worth it, and getting through the missions became achievements unto themselves - the mark of a true classic game.     Maybe the most significant mark it made, and what really set it apart from most games, is its expansion of a well-known story to profound depth, becoming a comment on war in general.     As a Star Wars fan, I followed the story how it was always presented - from the point of view of the Rebel Alliance, primarily our hero Luke.  The Rebels want justice, equality, and fairness; the Empire wants nothing but power and domination.  The Rebels are compassionate, giving, and always on defense.  The Empire are cold, emotionless, and always on offense.  The story's foundation was on a basic struggle of good versus evil.     Star Wars: TIE Fighter changed that.     The music mechanics may be the same, but the approach is novel.  A triumphant fanfare related to the "Imperial March" is used for the allies.  For the Rebel Alliance, the "Rebel Fanfare" from the films is made more ominous, establishing not only that they are the enemy but that they should be feared just as much as you are.      The opening cutscene of the game lays out the struggle from the Imperial point of view - the Rebel Alliance is an organized uprising that represents anarchy, and the Empire wants to restore peace and order.      You weren't shooting Rebels down out of sheer ironic joy.  You're protecting the order the Empire established and helping bring peace back to the galaxy.  You didn't just deal with Rebels.  Two traitors made up significant plot points - one defecting to the Rebels, and one entirely working on his own.  Star Wars: X-Wing had one traitor storyline, but never as plotted out as the two traitor storylines in Star Wars: TIE Fighter.  There were also pirates and neutral parties that came into the mix, moreso than before.     These moments establish something upon which not even the Star Wars movies touched - the nature of war.  There is never something as simple as good or evil in war.  In the simplest wars, there are only two factions.  In most wars, however, there are several faction with which to deal.  No matter the faction, you serve something greater than yourself.  You may have personal gain from it, but none of it matters if you neglect to serve your faction.  Depending on the viewpoint, you are the hero in one side's eyes and the villain in another side's eyes.  In the end, it depends solely on which side you are.     Any other Star Wars game that dabbles in the antagonist's viewpoint does so with kid gloves.  Never has a Star Wars game fully immersed a player into the opposing side as much as Star Wars: TIE Fighter did, and this immersion and respect of the craft is something that elevates the game to something unforgettable, something classic yet modern, something of a masterpiece.  The flight simulator genre may be in its twilight years, but the impact can be felt across other genres and games, most successfully in the real-time strategy classic StarCraft.  Star Wars: TIE Fighter is deserving of its stature in the top echelon of gaming and remains one of my all-time favorite games.

Skyfall Review

    History has a way of defining a person, place, or thing.  There are two extremes to dealing with history - embracing it or burning it down.  The history of the James Bond film series is no exception, and the 50th anniversary of the release of Dr. No serves as a milestone for reflection on the series' history.     Two films define the series' dichotomous directions - From Russia With Love and Goldfinger.  From Russia With Love is the quintessential spy film - James Bond as a soldier for Great Britain, while Goldfinger is the quintessential spy movie - James Bond as a hero for the people.  Both present the series at its finest, and every subsequent film contain elements of both with varying results.  The rest of the best of the series - On Her Majesty's Secret Service, The Spy Who Loved Me, Goldeneye, and Casino Royale - were near-perfect balances of Russia and Goldfinger.     With Casino Royale, the history of the film series was scuttled and refreshed successfully, telling the story of Bond as a neophyte coming to terms with the cost of being the soldier and hero.  Quantum of Solace followed, and while parts of the film were well done, the overall result lacked the spark expected from a Bond film.     Skyfall, the 23rd entry in the James Bond film series, brings back the fun of the series while keeping the depth that Casino Royale brought, resulting in another near-perfect balance.     James Bond, after a failed mission that starts the film briskly, goes into self-imposed retirement, dealing with his failings as an agent and the failings of his superiors.  An attack at MI6 headquarters pushes him to return to the fold.  However, the star agent struggles to reintegrate into the spy life - his talents have worn down, and his emotions are unstable.  The impending world threat, a former MI6 agent named Silva, allows Bond slowly to gain his abilities and self-confidence.  Along the way, he sees the toll the threat has on his boss, M, who is dealing with an internal investigation on her from her superiors.  As the threat grows, Bond and M have no choice but to escape to Bond's family estate, Skyfall, and Bond has to face his past and his possible future.     That's a lot of plot points and thematic elements for a Bond film, but Skyfall never loses its focus, and all of the pieces come together in an impressive and fashion.     The script by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and John Logan is superb.  Constructed as a traditional Bond film, it has a deep respect for the history of the film series, yet it continues the deep emotional strides made with Casino Royale.  As traditional of a Bond film as the structure is, the writers made sure to defy expectations, peppering the structure with shocks and surprises, and the shocks never come at expected moments.  Even better is that the writers weren't afraid to pursue dark and challenging moments, be it the opening chase sequence, Silva's attack during M's hearing, and the final assault at Skyfall.  Purvis, Wade, and Logan found the perfect balance of the classic and the modern with their script.     The actors reinforce the emotional depth with excellent performances, never squandering any moments.     As the expected "Bond Girl" of the film, Bérénice Marlohe is a wonderful blend of sexiness and fragility.  Her character is removed from the equation just as she is getting interesting, the only real flaw of the film, but her moments with Bond are electrifying, filled with chemistry.  If Marlohe had been given more on-screen time, she would have been just as memorable as the rest of the cast, but she provides the audience with a good Bond girl.     Naomie Harris infuses Eve, a fellow agent of Bond's, with strength and independence.  Eve has a sexiness about her, not just in her beauty but in her wit and reliability as an agent.  Her moments with Bond are fun and saucy, and Harris will be able to build off of this great role since it is hinted that she will be a recurring character.     In a small but vital role, Albert Finney provides a strong foundation in the final act of the film as Kincade, the gamekeeper of Skyfall.  He gives Kincade a lived-in quality, someone who has seen the fall of the Bond family and is determined to keep the Bond history alive, however small of a life it may be.  He is a window to Bond's past, and Finney is an excellent mix of tragedy and levity.     Ben Whishaw is a delight as Q, the quartermaster of MI6 and Bond's armorer.  He is as mentally active in the mission as Bond is physically, and his dry, quick wit cuts through Bond without hesitation.  The chemistry between Bond and Q is undeniable, and with some of the dark turns the film takes, Whishaw is a welcome relief and fits perfectly into the Bond universe.     Ralph Fiennes is authoritative as Gareth Mallory, M's boss as the Chairman of Intelligence and Security Committee.  He's introduced as the governmental figure who rebels like Bond and M frustrate, but as the film progresses, his shades of grey are developed, becoming someone who fully understands M's struggle between fulfilling governmental duty while being an independent thinker.  Fiennes is another wonderful addition to the cast, and with his role being hinted at as recurring, he will be able to grow into the universe.     The Bond villain is a role that is known to attract fine actors, but sometimes the role doesn't live up to the actor who plays it.  This is not the case with Javier Bardem as Silva.  He's already played an iconic cinematic villain as Anton Chigurh in No Country For Old Men, and his Silva is destined to become  an iconic Bond villain.  Theatrical but infused with terror, Silva is never underestimated.  His approach to torture is more psychological, and he brings the audience to the brink with how successful he is with his plot.  This may be the first Bond villain in a long time who makes the audience feel like he could win, or at least force Bond into a pyrrhic victory.  As commanding and deadly as Red Grant and Rosa Klebb in From Russia With Love and as theatrical as Auric Goldfinger in Goldfinger, Silva stands among the finest Bond villains, and Bardem should take almost all of the credit for it.     Judi Dench has been M since Goldeneye, but this film may be her shining moment as Bond's boss and the head of MI6.  She has a personal connection to Silva, and she has a close relationship to Bond.  The terror and disappointment in her eyes when sharing scenes with Silva is amazing - she shows so much history with the villain without ever digging into the backstory, and it takes a lot of skill to be able to show that history without telling it.  Even more impressive is that she never takes over a scene when she isn't required, and her scenes at Skyfall are just tremendous.  M is trying to come to terms with her failings as a leader throughout, but Dench not only allows M to deal with these failings but also reinforce why she was the only leader who could have shaped Bond into who he is and trust him unconditionally.     In his third outing as James Bond, Daniel Craig has fully ingrained himself into the legendary spy.  He was a blunt instrument in Casino Royale and a vengeful warrior in Quantum of Solace, but in Skyfall, the spy life has taken its toll on him.  Craig has only been Bond in three films, but he carries a sense of torrid history not seen in any of the previous Bond actors.  He doubts himself and his superiors, but he knows that the mission is most important and strives to overcome his doubts.  What he sees in Silva is his own possible future, while a reference to Skyfall and his eventual return to his family's estate hints at his tortured past.  Bond is a man who is coming to terms with the loss his past contains while learning to appreciate the future M gave him, all the while containing the wit and class the character has had for the past 50 years.  His delivery of the one-liners still needs a little work, but that's a minor quibble compared to how fantastic Craig is as Bond, reinforcing his place as the second-best Bond, and arguably giving Connery competition as the best Bond ever.     The music has always been important in a Bond film, and Thomas Newman's score is a perfect blend of classicism and progressivism.  The James Bond Theme is prevalent as it should be, but some of the more progressive touches are welcome.  There are moments when the music becomes a cousin to the works of Brian Eno, focusing on ambient overtones from electronic instruments.  The balance between past and future is expertly captured by Newman's score, but the microcosm is at its finest with the theme song sung by Adele.  It's as if Shirley Bassey has been properly updated for the 21st century, which may be the highest compliment any Bond theme song could receive, and it stays in the head and gets into your soul.     A special note must be made about the cinematography by Roger Deakins.  His work in Skyfall elevates the film into a visual work of art.  He's worked consistently with the Coen Brothers, and he loves to play with colors.  Just look at the vivid yellows of Turkey, the blues of Shanghai, the reds and browns of Macau, and the greys and stone-like tones of the United Kingdom.  It is a master class in color-focused cinematography, and the framing is a perfect mix of grand and personal.  Deakins' work on Skyfall is nothing short of legendary.     Sam Mendes was the biggest wild card in the film as the director.  Winning an Academy Award for his directorial debut, American Beauty, Mendes is known as a dramatic director with no experience with action scenes, and some of his works have been considered pretentious.  However, Skyfall has no pretentions - Mendes makes sure it is the event film it is meant to be.  He structures the film as a traditional Bond film - a three-act work with a prologue and epilogue - and the film is the second-longest film in the series, but it is wonderfully paced, never overstaying its welcome nor having an overabundance of action or drama.  Everything feels necessary, allowing the audience to become fully invested in the film.  He knows how to work with the actors, and he understands what will make the biggest impacts.  The series has had classy directors before, but no one as unique as Mendes, and his artful eye does wonders for the film and the series.     Skyfall is a traditional Bond film with significant depth, heart, and soul.  It has the expert tension of From Russia With Love, the fun of Goldfinger and The Spy Who Loved Me, and the emotional consequences of On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Casino Royale.  It pays homage to the series' history while looking and moving forward, and it presents a story about the importance of history and the understanding that one may be defined by his or her past but is not controlled by it.  Skyfall is the closest a Bond film has ever come to being an art film, and it sits alongside the best in the series and the best in the genre. Movie Rating: 9.5/10 A somewhat underutilized Bond girl is a minor gripe to what may be one of the most thrilling action films since the turn of the century. Film Rating: 9/10 A Bond film that acts as a successful commentary on the effects of individual history with superb music and visuals that match the themes. Bond Film Rating: 10/10 Another classic that stands alongside From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, The Spy Who Loved Me, Goldeneye, and Casino Royale.

Bond Rating: 9.5/10 Although the delivery of some of the one-liners still needs a little work, Daniel Craig not only reinforces how effective he is as Bond, but he also arguably matches Connery's status as the greatest Bond.

Wreck-It Ralph Review

    Henry David Thoreau said in his novel Walden: "The mass of men lead lives of quite desperation.  What is called resignation is confirmed desperation."  A person faces this moment of resignation when realizing the monotony of his or her life.  How a person handles that moment defines his or her character.     Rich Moore's Wreck-It Ralph, the latest film from Walt Disney Animation Studios, is a beautiful, fully-rendered take on this .     Wreck-It Ralph is the villain of the Donkey Kong-inspired fictional arcade game Fix-It Felix, Jr.  The game sits in Litwak's Arcade with several other games.  After the arcade closes for the day, the games' characters come together in their own universe, living like humans do after a day of work - hanging out together, getting drinks, going home, and having parties.     On the 30th anniversary of Fix-It Felix, Jr.'s release, the characters throw a party to celebrate without inviting Ralph.  Fed up with being seen as only a villain, he decides to "game-jump" - leave his proper game and enter another - in order to prove that he can be a hero.  However, his game-jumping yields the possibility of not only closing his game up for good but also wreaking havoc on other games' viability in the arcade.  His journey leads him to Vanellope von Schweetz, a misfit in the candy-coated fictional racing game Sugar Rush who glitches uncontrollably and is feared to scare away gamers if she is allowed to actively race.  Both see the desire to be more than who they are seen to be, and both work together to try to make their dreams come true.     The sheer detail put into the universe crafted is astounding.  Not only are classics like Pac-Man, Tapper, Street Fighter II, and Q-bert mentioned, their characters play small but significant parts to the film.  The 8-bit style movements of the ancillary Fix-It Felix, Jr. characters start as a gag that slowly becomes a quirk that would have been unnatural to leave out.  Even the send-up of first-person action games in the construct of Hero's Duty and of racing games in the construct of Sugar Rush evolve to define their respective gaming environments.  A film of this nature could have simply rested on its laurels by making as many arcade game and geek culture references like this as possible.     What Wreck-It Ralph does so successfully is run askew of expectations, providing an exciting, engaging, and thought-provoking experience.     The voice acting is top-notch.  John C. Reilly turns on his lovable oaf mode for the title character.  Reilly is a versatile character actor, spanning drama and comedy  with ease, and he has perfected the lovable oaf through several of his films, but his Ralph is imbibed with more heart and self-assurance than usual.  Part outcast, part father-figure, all soul, Ralph is fully realized by Reilly.     Sarah Silverman inverts her raunchy schtick into something annoyingly adorable as Vanellope von Schweetz.  Her approach to Vanellope is very much like Lily Tomlin's Edith Ann character but more fully fleshed out.  Her chemistry with Reilly is impeccable, and her moments of sadness are as significantly felt has her moments of euphoria, and Silverman makes Vanellope a truly memorable figure of innocence.     Alan Tudyk channels Ed Wynn, the voice of the Mad Hatter from the original Walt Disney's Alice in Wonderland, with wonderful effect as King Candy, the hilarious and threatening antagonist of Sugar Rush.  Tudyk takes Wynn's vocal tics and amplifies them to 11.  His versatility is impressive, and he plays off Silverman and Reilly with ease.     Jane Lynch plays a variation of her Sue Sylvester from Glee as Sergeant Calhoun, the lead soldier in the light-gun game Hero's Duty.  Calhoun is someone that should have been in the film Aliens, a strong-willed and determined soldier whose deep fear of her game's antagonists hilariously borders on paranoia.  Her backstory is played for laughs as it should, but Lynch effectively takes that backstory and fills in the emotional gaps Calhoun would have had, making Calhoun an affecting creation.     Jack McBrayer is known for playing the sweet, innocent, "Mayberry-type" character.  What makes his approach to Felix notable in his repertoire is how rooted in Disney tradition Felix is.  Felix is the only character in the film who can do nothing but the right thing.  He's so rooted in in the moral high ground that he cannot help but be attracted to Calhoun, someone who is as determined to do good as he is.  He is Jiminy Cricket, Thumper, Flounder, and Zazu combined, and Felix never comes across as false or overdrawn under McBrayer's approach.     The writing, as done by Phil Johnston and Jennifer Lee, is tight and perfectly structured, using Pixar's Toy Story as a template.  The initial plot point - Ralph wanting a medal to prove he is a hero - gives way to several plot points, such as Vanellope's desire to be a full-fledged racer, Felix falling for the equally heroic Calhoun, Calhoun's backstory of a lost love, and the story of a long lost arcade game in which the character game-jumped and caused both his game and the other game were taken out of the arcade permanently.  The writing is so taut that each of these plot points are resolved and have significance in the overall story, and Johnston and Lee allow the audience to trust them to guide the story effortlessly.  The result is a fast-paced story with heart and soul, the best paced animated film from Disney in a long time.     Rich Moore has a long history with animation, directing several of the finest episodes of The Simpsons and having a hand in the finest episodes of Futurama.  Moore knows how to balance story and themes, and he allows the film to be unpredictable, trusting every actor and crewmember to carry the foundation of the film.     Maybe the most impressive aspect of the film is that foundation.  So many plot points, so many characters, so many references, so many details, but none of it feels overwhelming.  It's all because of the foundation.  Ralph is thirty years old, and being treated as the villain all these years has him facing his own quiet desperation.  He wants to be a hero.  He wants the appreciation Felix gets from the building tenants.  He wants to do good deeds without anyone fearing him.  He wants to break out of that desperation.     From this point, the film begins to address the following - what does it mean to be a hero, and is resignation the point of no return?  Ralph starts out purely selfish in his desire to earn a medal that shows that he's a hero.  After meeting Vanellope and becoming a part of her selfish game of becoming a full-fledged racer, their mutual selfishness gives way to a strong friendship based on doing anything to make the other person's dreams come true.  The natural evolution of their friendship is fantastic, and moments of struggle and hardship are fully felt.  In the end, the point of resignation shows what all of the characters are truly worth, and the film's ending is earned without succumbing to melodrama.     Walt Disney Animation Studios has ironically been seen as a step-sibling to Pixar as of late.  Starting with Tangled, Walt Disney Animation Studios has slowly built itself back to relevance.  With Wreck-It Ralph, Walt Disney Animation Studios has made a film that is on par with Pixar's repertoire and stands as the finest animated Disney film since the Disney Renaissance of the late 80's and early 90's.  Here's hoping that this is the beginning of another Renaissance. Movie Rating: 9.5/10 The best paced animated film Disney has released in a long time. Film Rating: 9/10 The Hero's Journey gives way to how to face the point of resignation - with head held high and the resolve that this is not the end. Disney Film Rating: 9/10 It's not a straight kid's film due to some of the subject matter, but it's perfect fun for the whole family. Video Game Film Rating: 10/10 By not being about a real video game in particular, the film focuses on the characters and on the arcade universe in general, becoming the greatest video game film ever in the process.

The Dark Knight Rises Review

    The final film of a trilogy is the most difficult one to pull off.  Everyone involved feels like they have to increase the scope of the story, but the trick is to maintain the spirit of the series without giving into excess.  Some trilogies, like Byran Singer's X-Men series and Sam Raimi's Spider-Man series, have a third film that almost everyone would like to forget ever existed.  Some third films, like Sergio Leone's The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly and Pixar's Toy Story 3, stand as masterworks in their own right and help transcend their representative series.  And then there are third films like Return of the Jedi and The Godfather Part III that are excellent in moments and forgettable in others.     Christopher Nolan started a new Batman trilogy with Batman Begins, one of the finest origin stories told in the comic-book superhero genre, and then continued with The Dark Knight, a film that expanded beyound genre limits and became not only a classic crime drama about anarchy and heroism but also one of the best films of its decade.     With The Dark Knight Rises, Nolan concludes his fantastic series with a third film that may not be entirely of the same level of its predecessor but is a prime example of how to complete a series in style and quality.     It's been eight years since the reign of terror by The Joker and the death of District Attorney and "white knight" Harvey Dent.  Batman has taken the blame for his death and other deaths at the hands of Dent, causing Batman to become an outcast but paving the way for a more peaceful Gotham City.  Commissioner Jim Gordon, knowing the truth about the night Dent died, keeps the lie up to keep the peace in the city.  One of the few people that believe in Batman's innocence is idealist cop John Blake, a man who is taken under Gordon's wing.  Bruce Wayne has retired Batman and become the Howard Hughes of Gotham City, much to the concern of his butler Alfred and his armorer Lucius Fox.      However, two threats arrive to destabilize the city and necessitate the return of Batman.  The main threat is Bane, a masked brute who, forged by a foreign prison and saved by The League of Shadows, plans to take control of Gotham City, leave it in mob rule, and let it rot from the inside out.  The other is a cat burglar named Selina Kyle who acts as a "Robin Hood" for her self-interest, taking advantage of any and every situation, such as stealing a valuable pearl necklace from Wayne Manor during a fundraiser, kidnapping a congressman for leverage on a deal with shady businessmen, and working with and against Batman at the turn of a dime.     This is a lot of information to take in, which leads to the film's main flaw - it takes an hour or so for the film to truly start, and that hour is filled with too many false starts and exposition to get pulled into it.  The story, developed by Chris Nolan and David S. Goyer, and the script, written by Chris Nolan and his brother Jonathan, is ambitious in scope and content, and the meandering is an unavoidable consequence.  Unlike Chris Nolan's previous film, Inception, the meandering doesn't mean that the film is too long - just that the structure needed to be refined.      Case in point - the first meeting between John Blake and Bruce Wayne.  Blake implores Wayne to bring back Batman for the sake of an injured Gordon.  During this discussion, Blake goes into exposition about his past, how he first met Batman and Bruce Wayne, and hints that he knows Batman's identity.  It's a well-acted scene that doesn't move because of its necessity to relay as much information as possible to the audience.  It's a necessary scene that needs rearranging to improve the flow.     The overall thread of the idealist John Blake is wonderfully done.  Joseph Gordon-Levitt shines as the orphan turned cop who sees the world in an optimistic light in spite of the world devolving around him.  He exudes a determination and strength as Gotham's last light.  He starts out wanting to be the white knight but slowly realizes that even the whitest knight has a touch of grey.  He represents the struggle of, as Gordon put it, structures becoming shackles, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt carries that burden superbly.     Gary Oldman, as the other important part of this thread, does an amazing job as Commissioner Gordon.  Gordon started out as that idealist cop, became affected by how the world came down around him, was given a spark of hope by the arrival of Batman, and eventually became the "grey knight," the man who did was was necessary to preserve the peace, even if sacrificing the truth destroyed his marriage and faith in humanity.  He has been long recognized as one of the finest character actors of his generation, and Gary Oldman shows more and more why he deserves the accolades he has still yet to receive.     The thread involving Selina Kyle is the self-contained thread, not requiring any knowledge of the prior films, and it is the best thread of the bunch.  Anne Hathaway steals every scene she is in, vamping it up and having as much fun as possible as the expert thief who does what is necessary and is working toward getting a clean slate.  Selina Kyle is known in the comic-book world as Catwoman, but she is never called that moniker in this film, and the role and the film is all the better for it.  She's smart, sexy, strong, and soulful, and Anne Hathaway does the role justice and almost steals the film with it.     The antagonist thread of the film, all involving Bane and references to the League of Shadows, is the weakest part of the film, but it does have its moments.  Bane's introduction, an in-flight infiltration and escape, is a spectacular set piece that feels inert, not providing the ignition the film needs.  Even Bane's stock exchange takeover seems too small an explosion for the film's lift-off.  It isn't until the city takeover when the audience is pulled into the action, with Bane's menacing visage and stature commandeering the screen with purpose.  His fights with Batman are tense, brutal, and exhilarating.  His backstory, although underdeveloped, provides just enough brushstrokes to give Bane some color.     Tom Hardy, bulking up for the role, fully involves himself as Bane.  His physicality is something of a first in the series - Batman has always been the dominating physical presence, but Bane easily takes control in this film.  His speech, somewhat muffled by the mask, is hard to understand at times, and is inconsistent in the accent - for a brief moment, Hardy inadvertently performs a Sean Connery impersonation.  Nevertheless, Bane is an intimidating figure, and Tom Hardy is more than up to the task to portray Bane as the menace he is meant to be.     The protagonist thread, the one dovetailing not only the threads within the film but the entire series, is wholly fulfilling if structured oddly at the beginning of the film.  Having Bruce Wayne be a recluse, then become Batman again, then be forced to stop, and then become Batman again, at least in the way the film does it, is tonally awkward, but it gives all of the actors the moments they deserve.  The theme of this thread - what it takes for a dark knight to save himself from the darkness - is expressed expertly, and the conclusion is almost perfect.     Morgan Freeman, having a more diminished role this time around, still provides levity to these serious proceedings as Lucius Fox, and his repartee with Bruce Wayne is still electrifying.  Marion Cotillard, as potential Bruce Wayne love interest and Wayne Enterprises board member Miranda Tate, doesn't have the greatest chemistry with Bruce Wayne, but she has a tenderness that balances her calculating nature, and although Miranda Tate is not developed enough, Marion Cotillard is a captivating presence.     Michael Caine, as Batman's and Bruce Wayne's batman Alfred, is the legend he is known to be.  As the heart of the series, Alfred is the sole reason the Wayne name still gives hope, still remains viable.  His role is given several monologues, and while some of them come off as unnecessary, Caine's delivery is nothing short of extraordinary.  He is more than a servant to Bruce Wayne and Batman - he is the last father figure he has.  The final moments of the film with Alfred are the most moving of the entire series, and it is all due to subtle care that Michael Caine has taken to develop Alfred.     It takes a bold and daring actor to give a comic-book superhero some gravitas, and throughout all three films, Christian Bale has evolved as Bruce Wayne and Batman, with his work in this film being the finest in the series.  From the first film on, Bruce Wayne has been a shell of his former self, and his dedication to being Batman is as much out of a desire to do good as it is out of a need to give himself purpose.  Bale grounds and centers the film with a man who cannot let go of his anger, seeing himself as the man Gotham needs him to be while eventually realizing the man Alfred and the deceased Wayne family would have wanted him to be.  Throughout the struggles he faces, he finds solace in a woman who is looking for the clean slate he so desperately needs.  Christian Bale brings the series-long arc full circle, becoming the actor everyone will identify with Bruce Wayne and Batman above all others, and giving the film world one of the finest performances in the genre.     Cinematographer Wally Pfister paints the screen with Oscar-caliber imagery.  The opening shot of Bane's introduction in an open field is something straight out of an epic film.  The browns of the pit the bore Bane, the whites and greys of a Gotham under siege, the blacks and blues of the city at night and the Batcave, and the varying colors of Wayne Manor all leave an indelible mark.  He won an Oscar for his work on Inception, but Wally Pfister tops himself with the work done in this film.     Composer Hans Zimmer comes back alone this time, effectively using the themes developed with James Newton-Howard in the previous two films, and creating a couple of new ideas that work to varying degrees on their own but are ingrained in the film successfully.  The simple piano-based motif of Selina Kyle is beautiful, capturing the sly yet longing nature of the character, and the percussive chant of Bane's motif stays in the mind and eventually turns from an ominous chant to a motivating positive force, showing how Hans Zimmer can turn preconceived notions on their head.     With the flaws and strengths, it all falls on the shoulders of director Christopher Nolan.  His work with the actors is still surprisingly impressive, his eye for set pieces continues to astonish, and his ambition serves him well for the most part.  However, his ambition causes the series to take a turn from the realism and believeability of The Dark Knight to expected comic-book superhero fare.  Nolan tries to make grand statements about the world at large, but the statements don't cut through like they did in the previous film, especially when trying to make reference to class struggles.     However, what the film lacks in biting commentary is made up by the scope of the story of Batman and the world around him.  The thrills are more blunt than before, but therein lies the charm of this film - it may be the most fun a story as dark as this could be.  The realism is gone, but the craftsmanship is undeniable, and the story, once it gets going, is a true roller-coaster ride.  Christopher Nolan may have changed the trajectory of the series away from what it could have been, but he relishes in the destination he has created, and the joy he had creating this universe is felt in every frame.  He even perfectly caps the series arc of Bruce Wayne with a quote from A Tale of Two Cities - "It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known."      The end result is a conclusion of a series that is crying for a different set-up.  The difficulty in judging this film is in the expectations - had The Dark Knight not existed or at least been a different film, this film could have been the standard-bearer for all comic-book superhero films to follow.  However, The Dark Knight does exist, and paraphrasing the Joker in that film, it changed things forever.  The Dark Knight Rises will always pale in comparison to its predecessor because it lacks transcendence, but it stands as one of the finest films of the genre and a wholly satisfying conclusion to one of the best film trilogies, and that is all for which one could hope. Movie Rating: 9/10 A meandering and start-stop first hour gives way to a thrilling, emotional, and fun conclusion. Film Rating: 8/10 It pales next to The Dark Knight, and its commentary is toothless, but how it concludes the main series arc is excellent. Comic-Book Superhero Film Rating: 9/10 It may not be the deepest, but it is one of the best, and it may be the definition of "serious fun." Batman Film Rating: 8.5/10 On par with Batman Begins, but following The Dark Knight means that it could have been more.

The Amazing Spider-Man Review

    It's been ten years since Sam Raimi unleashed his vision of the Marvel Comics superhero Spider-Man onto global audiences.   With dry wit, tight action, impressive structure, and soulful acting, Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy became the definition of the comic-book superhero film series for the 21st cetury, with Spider-Man 2 being the golden standard alongside Superman: The Movie for what the genre can and should be.     The series' importance carried through even after the release of Christopher Nolan's masterful and game-changing Batman tale, The Dark Knight.  While Nolan focused on rooting superhero mythology into an image of the current state of the world, Raimi followed the path of the genre as a means of escape, showing that both approaches can exist with equal success.      The third Spider-Man film failed to catch a fire among audiences, meaning that a new story from a new perspective was wanted.  Enter Marc Webb, director of (500) Days of Summer, to take the reins of Spider-Man and tell his own story of the hero from the beginning with The Amazing Spider-Man.     The trajectory of the beginning hits all of the basic notes of the origin story in the previous series' first film.   Peter Parker is a geeky New York high school student who doesn't fit in.  He lives with his Uncle Ben and Aunt May, inadvertently wanders near a secret project that leads to a radioactive spider biting him and giving him superpowers.  At first, he struggles to get comfortable with his abilities, but a personal tragedy brings him perspective and a raison d'etre, and a threat to New York City shows him the man he needs to be.     With there being only ten years separating the previous series' first film with this one, it could have been either lazy or boring to cover a lot of the similar ground.  Then why does it feel different?     1.) We are shown who Peter's parents are and, to a degree, why they left them in Ben and May's care.  This has a profound effect on Peter, showing why he is so intelligent, has a chip on his shoulders, and almost prefers not to fit in with his classmates.     2.) The love interest is Gwen Stacy, a geeky fellow student who works as an intern at Oscorp, the place where Peter's father's colleague, Dr. Curt Connors does research, and the place where Peter eventually gets his powers.     3.) The webbing he shoots is man-made, not an organic effect from the bite.  This emphasizes his intelligence and well as provides a sense of danger in a couple scenes.     4.) Spider-Man is seen as a vigilante more than a hero.  The police, led by Captain Stacy, want to lock him up as a criminal due to his outside-the-law crime-fighting activities.     5.) The criminal who caused Peter's personal tragedy isn't caught.  This gives Peter a sense of failure that he carries throughout his endeavors, knowing that what happened to him could easily happen to someone else.     These changes, as well as other stylistic choices, all keep the film fresh and engrossing, allowing the audience to see it as its own entity without reminding them of the previous origin story.  The comic-book universe has several storylines for one character that play out, some in parallel with each other, and this is something that could be difficult to accept on film. Credit must be given to everyone working on the film for trusting the audience to give the film its own chance.     The script, written by James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent, and Harry Potter alum Steve Kloves, is tight, having a constant sense of propulsion while allowing the audience to delve deep enough into the characters to want to join in on the ride.  It tries to balance the grittiness and reality of Nolan's Batman series with the dry wit and fun of Raimi's Spider-Man series, and, for the most part, works well.     The main actors shine thoroughly.  Andrew Garfield has immense talent, as his work in The Social Network and Never Let Me Go shows, but it is still a surprise how natural a fit he is as Peter Parker/Spider-Man.  He gives Peter the arrogance, heart, humor, doubt, and strength that fits perfectly for this film.  Garfield understood how to interpret Peter in this universe, and his interpretation is wonderful.     Emma Stone comes off as strong, snarky, tender, and sexy as Gwen Stacy.  Gwen's personality could take any man on, but she lets her guard down with Peter, and the tender moments with Peter are a sight to behold.  Her chemistry with Garfield is natural and flawless.  Even if the rest of the film was terrible, every scene with Stone and Garfield together would still make it worth watching.     Rhys Ifans as Dr. Connors is a conflicted man struggling with keeping a secret from Peter about his parents' whereabouts and with a formula that gives him his arm back but at the cost of becoming The Lizard.  Ifans' filmography shows his range, and he maintains the humanity of Connors when the script sometimes forces him into the Lizard's psyche completely.     The supporting roles work as well as they need to, but some are better than others.  Martin Sheen takes his role in Wall Street and focuses more on how he manages home life, making Uncle Ben the father figure we love and respect.  Sally Field isn't given enough time with Garfield to develop the connection they need, but her Aunt May is still welcoming.  C. Thomas Howell is a great embodiment of how the world sees Spider-Man.  Irrfan Khan plays a one-note character, but as one of Dr. Connors' bosses, he has plenty of menace.     However, of the supporting roles, Dennis Leary is the standout as Captain Stacy, Gwen's father.  His acting chops were honed on his show Rescue Me, and he takes the abrasiveness and New York pride of Tommy Gavin and files it down to a more sensitive, fatherly base.  He feels threatened by Spider-Man as the superhero is doing the job that the police are supposed to do.  This tension carries through the dinner with his family and Peter as a guest, and when he sees Spider-Man's true identity, he understands that while he may not agree with the concept of Spider-Man, he knows that the hero is an asset to the city and not a hindrance.  Leary is superb as the moral center of the film.     Director Marc Webb started out with music videos and short films before his impressive feature debut, (500) Days of Summer.  That film showed how comfortable he is with a good script and great actors, and that carries through here.  The best moments are the smaller ones, not only the scenes between Peter and Gwen but also when Spider-Man rescues a child from a threatened vehicle, when Ben and Peter are together, when Peter begins to get comfortable with the new powers, when Spider-Man is in full smart-ass mode, and when Spider-Man goes to the sewer to pursue the Lizard.  Webb understands the power of a delicate touch, and when he applies that touch, the film reaches the greatness of Spider-Man 2.     However, there are enough flaws that keep it from reaching those levels consistently.     First, the construct of the villain doesn't work as well as it should.  The design of the Lizard is too artificial, and when the Lizard starts talking about how he wants to create perfect beings, it's jarring because of how Dr. Connors was never wanting that to begin with.  The Lizard is an interesting villain in the comics, but he doesn't fit with the grittiness of the film.     The post-credit scene is also disconcerting because it introduces an unnamed figure and randomly expands the Parker's parents storyline and Oscorp into the sequel.  It takes away from the film holding up as its own entity, but at least it allows for future films to give this one some additional meaning.     The music by James Horner is faceless.  While Danny Elfman's work in the previous series didn't have a strong theme, it fit the film better than this score does this film.  Horner knows how to up the drama, but nothing from the music is memorable.     The Amazing Spider-Man is not the greatest Spider-Man film ever made, but it matches the first film in the previous series in quality, and the trajectory of the story along with the acting and directing makes me excited to see where this series goes next, and that is most important. Movie Rating: 8/10 The action is good, the drama even better.  The villain isn't a good fit, but this film doesn't skimp on excitement. Film Rating: 8/10 The sense of loss, doubt, responsibility, and love carries the film effortlessly, and the scenes with Gwen and Peter together are perfectly done. Comic-Book Superhero Film Rating: 8/10 It tries to balance Nolan's grittiness with Raimi's sense of fun, and while it doesn't work completely, it's a great example of how good the genre can be. Spider-Man Film Rating: 8.5/10 It may not be as fun as Raimi's series, but it has more heart and as much depth, and it's as good as the first film in that series.

My Week With Marilyn Review

Marilyn Monroe is and will always be an enigma.  A movie star by all accounts, Monroe had an ineffable quality that hypnotized men and women alike.  She was the definition of bombshell, but what set her apart from beauties of that ilk in the past, present, and future was that she had the ability as an actor to carry a movie on her shoulders and make it look effortless.

However, that talent was marred by personal issues that eventually led to her death in 1962.  She was plagued by a lack of self-confidence and the struggle to maintain her public image while never fully dealing with her private image.  These issues are well-documented in books, articles, and movies.  Simon Curtis' My Week With Marilyn presents a portion of these issues from another angle with varying results.

Based off of the non-fiction books The Prince, The Showgirl, and Me and My Week with Marilyn, the story is told from the point of view of Colin Clark, the third assistant director of The Prince and the Showgirl the adaptation of the play The Sleeping Prince.  Sir Laurence Olivier brings in Monroe to play the titular Showgirl, and while he gets the performance he wants, he struggles with her emotional and professional baggage, namely her new marriage to playwright Arthur Miller, her acting coach Paula Strasberg, and her knack for taking multiple takes to get the scenes right.  Clark, working through his infatuation with Monroe, strikes up a romance with her, witnessing her lows and her highs in front of and behind the camera.

This film is an acting haven, and the meat of the film lies with all of the actors bringing their A-game.

Michelle Williams becomes Marilyn Monroe.  The mannerisms, the emotional struggle, the effortless shifting between her private and public persona, all of it captured with skill.  All of the facial expressions are uncannily Monroe, and Williams makes sure never to come off as a cheap imitation.  That ineffable quality of Monroe is perfectly emulated, giving us Michelle Williams' best performance to date and maintains her standing as one of the finest actresses of her generation.

Kenneth Branagh fully commits to being Sir Laurence Olivier.  Branagh was the most obvious choice for Olivier - both are Shakespeare experts in theater and film, and both lay claim to the finest Shakespeare adaptations of Henry V and, arguably, Hamlet.  He presents the quiet desperation of an aging British stage actor coming to terms with the youthfulness of the American Method.  His lack of understanding counteracts with his fascination with one take that captures Monroe's perfection versus the many takes to get there.  With that resolve, Kenneth Branagh gives one of his best performances in a long time, and makes me eager to see him age with grace on screen and off.

As the audience's window to the story, Eddie Redmayne does a fine job as Colin Clark.  Clark is largely two-dimensional, and because he is a window for the audience, all that matters to us with him is that we see what he sees, but he allows us to feel his infatuation in all of its glory from conception to heartbreak, and Redmayne carries the film well.  It may not be the showiest acting, but Eddie Redmayne holds his own amongst acting giants.

The supporting rolls make impacts as well.  Dame Judi Dench is as wonderful as always as Dame Sybil Thorndike, a stalwart of British acting amazed by Monroe's magic.  Julia Ormond briefly shines as Vivian Leigh, showing the admiration and jealousy as an actress seeing her former glory passed onto Monroe.  Dougray Scott, unrecognizable as Arthur Miller, presents a husband who was captivated by his wife's public image while unable to deal with her personal strife.  Dominic Cooper, as one of Marilyn's entourage and a man who had been in a similar situation as Clark, personifies Clark's conscience and better judgment with ease.  Emma Watson, maturing gracefully from her stint in the Harry Potter series, is ever impressive in the small role of Clark's initial interest.

This kind of acting pedigree could have made any film great if there was a strong backbone to support it.  However, director Simon Curtis never balances his work with the actors with a firm grasp on the technical aspects of the film.

The nature of the story is basic - man falls for woman, woman eventually falls for man, man and woman have a jolly time together, man and woman eventually part ways.  There are a lot of more interesting details that pepper the story or could pepper it - British stagecraft versus American Method, Vivian Leigh and her eventual mental decline, Sir Laurence Olivier and his aging perspective - but those details are so briefly handled that they come off as missed opportunities.  In fact, those avenues are more interesting than the actual trajectory of the film.  The framework provided by screenwriter Adrian Hodges isn't enough to keep the audience's interest.

What's more frustrating is that the editing was sloppy, making what should have been a simple approach messy.  The flow of the film isn't consistent as it wants to move briskly with a story that has no choice but to take its time.  Scenes involving body doubles are obvious, bordering on unintentionally funny.  Equally heinous are the cuts within a scene between a close-up and a general shot that don't match.

The more subtle but still important error made by this film is that it tells a specific story with a general theme about Marilyn that everyone knows already - her public persona was in conflict with her private life.  No new insight is gained.  If the audience knows the general idea before seeing the film, what purpose does the film serve for the audience?

It's a fundamental question that Simon Curtis doesn't answer.  The purpose it serves for everyone else involved is to showcase talents either developed or developing.  The unfortunate thing about *My Week With Marilyn* is that it is unnecessary, not functioning fully as art or entertainment.  However, as a showcase for the actors and how the director works with the actors, it is a minor but unmistakable triumph. Movie Rating: 5/10 It's the basic story of a romantic fling between an ordinary man and a complicated woman.  Moments of humor and drama, but nothing special story-wise. Film Rating: 7/10 The acting across the board is the sole reason to see this film.  It's a master class in how to emulate well-known figures without becoming caricatures. Biopic Rating: 5/10 Michelle Williams is a wonderful Marilyn Monroe.  However, the story doesn't shed light on anything new about Monroe.

This is how "Numb" was during the Achtung Baby sessions.  An industrial rock hymn.  While the song it would eventually become is a staggering success, "Down All The Days" shows how many directions U2 were willing to go with their core.  And a beautiful approach this song would have been.

My Menace: a Star Wars: Episode I Review

In honor of the Blu-Ray releases of the Star Wars saga, I am reviewing each film in the series from Episode I to Episode VI. 

In 1999 George Lucas threw his hat back in the ring and released a brand new Star Wars film set before the hallowed Original Trilogy. The idea was a dream come true for die-hard fans that were born too late to enjoy the Original Trilogy on the silver screen. Now, they would have that experience, one that they would talk about for years to come. Even the casual fans anticipated this moment. In the months coming up to the release of Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, it was hard to find anyone that wasn't a fan. The fever had spread, and everyone wanted to get caught up in it.

On May 19, 1999, The Phantom Menace was released. What should have been a triumphant moment in cinema became a wash of disappointment and frustration. Some of the responses of the time were a bit too harsh, but the general consensus was that this wasn't the Star Wars film that was expected. Although a visual and aural marvel to behold, The Phantom Menace made too many cinematic missteps to be memorable, and the time between its initial release and its Blu-Ray debut has not been kind to it either.

Jedi Master Qui-Gon Jinn and his apprentice Obi-Wan Kenobi become caught in a web of political turmoil between the Trade Federation and the Galactic Republic-controlled planet of Naboo. After witnessing signs of invasion, the two Jedis, after literally running into a native called Jar Jar Binks, race to save the planet's monarch, Queen Amidala, and her aides. Upon escaping, the group make an emergency landing on the desert planet of Tatooine to make repairs. There they meet a young slave named Anakin Skywalker who has a certain peculiarity the Jedis pick up from him – an unrivaled strength in the Force. From here, the group strive to find some way to stop the Trade Federation's occupation of Naboo, first through politics by going to the center of the Republic – the planet of Coruscant – and then by insurrection on Naboo.

The Phantom Menace has everything you'd expect from a sci-fi action movie – an independent damsel in distress, battle-hardened warriors, unique creatures, a boy destined for greatness, gun fights, starship battles, and swordfighting. In fact, it tries to parallel the original Star Wars in its story and structure. However, the results are a mess.

Lucas decides right away that the film is to be child-friendly. A lot of the humor plays more to the childlike sensibilities, especially with Anakin Skywalker being a nine-year-old and with the Gungans and Jar Jar Binks devolving into racial stereotypes. However, the plot plays more like a Star Trek episode filled with politics and exposition, things that don't keep a child's attention. Add to that action sequences that try too hard to be child-friendly, and throw in a classic over-choreographed lightsaber duel that ends too graphically for a child, and what's on the screen is a hodgepodge of things that aim to please everyone but only please Lucas himself. This inconsistency in tone is the umbrella of all of the faults of the film.

The cinematography by David Tattersall is very basic, never playing with lighting and randomly using zoom-in and zoom-out to no effect. Not once does the camera capture the souls of the characters, with the closest moments being anytime Queen Amidala is in full make-up and costuming as her emotions must be conveyed with her eyes. Colors are used to establish settings but remain an afterthought of the design. The music by legendary film composer John Williams has flashes of brilliance, particularly during the lightsaber duel at the end, but ends up being basic as well.

From its release onward, the acting and performances in The Phantom Menace were legendary in their wooden nature. This is even more surprising considering the caliber of some of the actors. Liam Neeson portrayed one of screen's greatest heroes in Steven Spielberg's masterpiece Schindler's List, Natalie Portman had a shocking debut as a young girl falling for a hitman in Léon and eventually winning an Academy Award in the future for Black Swan, and Ewan MacGregor stunned worldwide audiences as a on-and-off heroin addict in the cult black comedy Trainspotting. Yet all three were diminished to standard line-reading with only Neeson rising above the din. Jake Lloyd was given the unenviable task of portraying the childhood beginnings of arguably cinema's most memorable villain, but he was too young to fully portray Darth Vader's beginnings.

However, the actors are only partly to blame. The most significant flaws of the film, and what would probably be considered the stem of the aforementioned umbrella, is the script and direction. George Lucas wrote the script himself, trying desperately to plant the seeds and begin the connections to the Original Trilogy. However, he neglects to tell a good story, filling all of the gaps with superfluous details. Too many times are actors describing what's going on before their eyes while the audience clearly sees it, something all screenwriters are taught to avoid. Worse, many humorous moments linger to emphasize that a specific moment is supposed to be humorous, another rookie mistake. The actors never elevate the material due to Lucas never making them elevate the material. What makes this more sad is that there are moments in the story worth exploring such as Qui-Gon's defiance of the Jedi Council, Obi-Wan's conflict between his expectations from the Council and his devotion to his master, and Anakin's separation from his mother planting the seeds of his eventual turn.

The visual effects circa 1999 are fantastic for its time but represent a period when computers had not reached the level of processing needed to make Lucas' vision a success. Many of the characters and settings are computer generated, and while the Gungans' expressions are wonderfully done, everything comes off as too clean and too artificial especially when juxtaposed with live actors. This is especially true during the final battles – space, ground, and lightsaber – of the film. The space and ground battles are largely animated and lifeless, and one location of the lightsaber duel is too sterile and obvious to be real. However, the podracing sequence on Tatooine is a technical marvel, an update to the chariot race of Ben-Hur that is thrilling when taken on its own. This sequence alone is the apex of visual and aural editing and mixing of the film, the one time when all of the elements join and become what Lucas envisioned.

But that's the problem – it's only a moment. In fact, the film is a series of moments that happen solely because Lucas wrote them to happen instead of feeling necessary. The Trade Federation is introduced as the antagonist because the film needed an antagonist. Darth Maul has a double-bladed lightsaber because Lucas feels that will fill the Vader-sized hole. All of the Galactic Senate scenes occur to establish why Senator Palpatine becomes the Emperor. Anakin wins the podrace because it's the only reason he leaves Tatooine. Nothing in the film ever feels earned. Sure, the podrace is wonderful, and the final lightsaber duel is a feast for the eyes, but there never is a reason for their existence except to fill the spaces in the runtime.

During the time that has passed between the initial release and it's Blu-Ray debut, films such as the canon of Pixar, The Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Dark Knight, and the Harry Potter series have defined what people expect with their entertainment – great storytelling, great action, great characters, and a sense of real danger. Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace partially succeeds at action but fails at everything else, and while it may not be a piece of cinematic travesty, it can be considered nothing more than a disappointment, especially compared to the Original Trilogy of Star Wars it desperately tries to match.

Blu-Ray Observations

Of all the films in the set, The Phantom Menace is the worst-looking one. This is due to the film being shot on film and then being post-processed digitally in its earlier days. None of the colors pop, and the image looks too smoothed and equaled out. It does fix the edge enhancement issues apparent in the DVD, but the overall look is too dull to make any impact. Worse, the effects look dated. The best example of this is the entire Battle of Naboo sequence. Granted, all of the shield effects still amaze, but the characters look too artificial compared to the rest of what's on the screen. The audio is as amazing as it was in the theater, but the new Blu-Ray transfer emphasizes all of the flaws and few of the strengths that The Phantom Menace had.

Movie Rating: 4/10 Moments of excitement are surrounded by scenes of pure exposition and sterile effects. It feels like you're being pushed rather than pulled into the movie, and that is not a good feeling.

Film Rating: 3/10 It's a textbook example of what not to do to reinforce a mythology, but there are a couple underdeveloped items that could have been interesting.

Star Wars Film Rating: 3/10 It almost sunk the entire series into self-parody, and beyond the introduction of Qui-Gon Jinn and the art of lightsaber dueling, it should be a forgotten chapter in the series.

Blu-Ray Rating: 4/10 The audio is fantastic.  The video, due to how it was processed, is the worst-looking one of the box set.  Even the original Star Wars looks pristine compared to it.