Mars Attacks!

Review #2160: Mars Attacks!

Cast: 

Jack Nicholson (US President James Dale & Art Land), Glenn Close (First Lady Marsha Dale), Annette Bening (Barbara Land), Pierce Brosnan (Professor Donald Kessler), Danny DeVito (Rude Gambler), Martin Short (Press Secretary Jerry Ross), Sarah Jessica Parker (Nathalie Lake), Michael J. Fox (Jason Stone), Rod Steiger (General Decker), Tom Jones (Himself), Lukas Haas (Richie Norris), Natalie Portman (Taffy Dale), Jim Brown (Byron Williams), Lisa Marie (Martian Girl), Sylvia Sidney (Grandma Florence Norris), Paul Winfield (General Casey), Pam Grier (Louise Williams), Jack Black (Billy-Glenn Norris), Janice Rivera (Cindy), Ray J (Cedric Williams), Brandon Hammond (Neville Williams), Joe Don Baker (Glenn Norris), and O-Lan Jones (Sue-Ann Norris) Directed by Tim Burton (#040 - Batman [1989], #107 - Beetlejuice, #132 - Alice in Wonderland, #196 - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, #262 - Corpse Bride, #316 - Batman Returns, #969 - Planet of the Apes [2001], #1257 - Pee-wee's Big Adventure, #1295 - Sleepy Hollow, and #1615 - Edward Scissorhands)

Review: 

“I wanted to do something fun with a bunch of Martians with big brains. Basically, make a modern version of Plan 9 From Outer Space or The War of the Worlds.”

Yes, there were two big-budget films about alien saucers coming onto Earth in 1996. Take one guess which ended up as the big audience hit. Of course, the basis for the film was a Topps trading card series of the same name which had a mix of gore and other such content that come with cards that made their debut in 1962 around the Cuban Missile Crisis that gave a couple of kids a curious glance and outcry from parents that led to the culling of production not long after. Alex Cox actually proposed doing a film in the 1980s but couldn't get past the scriptwriting approval stage. In 1993, Jonathan Gems approached Tim Burton about the idea of doing a film based on a Topps card property in "Attack!": Mars and Dinosaurs. Jurassic Park (1993) kind of influenced going away from the latter, to put it mildly. As such, when it came to the screenplay, it was done with a vast array of characters and situations involved, which included that opening sequence of burning cows. As noted by a handful of folks, the spaceship designs were inspired by the film Earth vs. the Flying Saucers (1956). Attempts to do stop-motion for the aliens were rejected due to costs, but the CG from Industrial Light & Music was stylized to have a cheap look on purpose. One other film used for inspiration by Burton and Gems was The Towering Inferno (1974), with them relating how they had watched the film a year prior while stoned. Gems was let go from the project by Warner Bros. (because they wanted Gems to take out that opening sequence) in favor of Larry Karaszewski and Scott Alexander (who had written Ed Wood (1994) for Burton) and then he was put back in a year later. Burton also wrote the screenplay but did not request credit. 

The film (Burton's seventh as a feature director) was made on a budget of $80 million with a good deal more spent on promotion. The film barely met the budget back, while Independence Day, released five months earlier, was the audience favorite when it comes to setting a trend for blockbusters in a sense. I don't think you need me to say which has aged particularly better, because Mars Attacks! is the superior film in every sense of the word Both films do an attempt at effects extravaganza-making in the manner of Irwin Allen, but this is the one that has the most fun along with not insulting one's intelligence. It is a star-studded delight that comes and goes as a pretty good pastiche of the 1950s B-flicks that doesn't insult them or turn into a puddle worse than the material. This time, it isn't big authority or heroic figures that deal with saving the day but instead the ones you don't really see coming. It kind of frustrates me, how could people of 1996 ignore the fun of this? Nicholson apparently took on the film because he enjoyed working with Burton on Batman so much. Weirdly enough, he makes the Peter Sellars of what might as well be the Dr. Strangelove of alien invasion films, because he plays two different roles. He gets to play a towering force of centrist weirdos and a swaggering puddle of sleaze (complete with a gag about his hair) - how can you resist? Close meanders in snobbery for that time required before the inevitable plop. Bening makes a useful hippie in a film filled with broad amusing stereotypes, which even includes the smallest use of DeVito one might expect. You've got Brosnan (one year removed from GoldenEye) getting to do exposition and silly snobbery next to Parker in bewildering chemistry that has some fun head-play. The most noted presence though is Brown, becuase there has to be at least one person who seems serious enough to take on Martian ass-kicking. Haas and Sidney make a charming pair when it comes to families that sure love to stay together and find the oddest way to take down aliens: one old crooner song. Jones apparently wanted to do something different and thus signed on for this film, where he gets to sing "It's Not Unusual" and pop in and out in escape. Ha. I imagine Steiger loved the bluster as much as the check, and that's alright with me. This was actually one of Fox's last live-action film appearances (prior to going public with his Parkinson's disease diagnosis in 1998), and it is fine to see him play a would-be bigshot before the inevitable. The Martians as a whole look pretty funny, particularly with the "ack" dialogue and their plastic features without needing to be explained too much when it comes to the art of "invaders for the sake of being invaders", where Marie doesn't even have to speak to make an eerie Martian as well. The 106 minutes run off pretty well for amusement when it comes to playing against the Establishment type, and it truly bewilders me that this didn't get the respect it deserved for its time. Over 25 years later, this is one of Burton's most underrated films as a director when it comes to entertaining vision in alien disasters and humor with a star-studded cast to back it up.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Thor: Love and Thunder.

Review #1862: Thor: Love and Thunder.

Cast: 

Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Christian Bale (Gorr the God Butcher), Tessa Thompson (Valkyrie), Jaimie Alexander (Sif), Taika Waititi (Korg), with Russell Crowe (Zeus), and Natalie Portman (Jane Foster / Mighty Thor) Directed by Taika Waititi (#1009 - Thor: Ragnarok)

Review: 

Do you remember Thor: Ragnarok (2017)? Well, it has almost been five years since that movie came out, so one could be forgiven for wondering just how there are now four Thor movies in the span of eleven years that all seem to be a bit weirdly different with interpreting its title character, as originally created by Stan Lee, Larry Lieber, and Jack Kirby in 1962. The previous movie was some sort of weird space opera pastiche while this one is a pastiche of adventure that was written by Waititi and Jennifer Kaytin Robinson. Let be me honest: each Thor movie has the unique experience of being watchable for once without really making me yearn to really see it twice. I think the original 2011 film was probably the most interesting experience I had with the main Thor films (the 2013 sequel is a blank), even if Ragnarok might have been the better of the films in actual execution (emphasis on execution, since it is likely the most average 8/10 movie seen in a movie theater). Of course, the renditions seen in the Avenger films are there too, but do you really count those? The fourth film has been described the director as apparently doubling down on the crazy that had been seen before in a quest for inner peace for the character, which Hemsworth has now played eight times. There are a handful of connections to other Marvel properties and potential ties for future things (which features the Guardians of the Galaxy), but I generally prefer to care about the actual title character rather than things on the side, because if I want to watch the Guardians, I would simply just watch Guardians of the Galaxy; in other words: I am trying to get pickier and pickier with what I see in a theater to use my time (it is summer, which means a possible pennant race sandwiched between finding ten movies that merit curiosity).

You know, if it was a movie about just finding inner peace with a quality villain for a tale that wants to imitate 1980s adventure in the vein of a Conan movie, one could be fine with that. Of course, in the search for finding some sort of feeling to fill oneself rather than nothingness, all that is found is a mediocre movie that you wish would get a grip and stick with one thing at a time for its 119-minute runtime. Perhaps this is unintentional irony, where the pursuit of inner peace is constantly interrupted by annoying quirks that refuse to simply get out of the way...which can be said about the directing style or the plot. Bale is the best part of the movie, and of course he only is present for about a half-hour, because the muddling mud of the movie means needing to shoehorn all of these other characters there to make it work without overloading itself for two hours (imagine the one playing the most listless character being the director). It may prove for some wild interest for those who are into what Waititi is selling, which is making a movie that presents spectacle without trying to hesitate in "ha-ha" moments of self-awareness and pathos...or it might prove nothing of interest to those who weren't already tuned to what had been done before with the previous Thor rendition. I am firmly in the middle in believing that the movie did prove decent entertainment while also being an inferior sequel that is average. Hemsworth does do well with what is needed in a mid-life crisis Thor in the best manner possible, which is to say that he still has the quality timing required for this role that he has cultivated beyond just being a beefy actor, serving his best Kurt Russell impersonation to suitable results. For someone who has seen plenty of destruction and changes (while only losing and later gaining an eye in all that time), his pursuit for some sort of meaning beyond just whupping people is at least something worthwhile. Portman was in the first two features to moderate effect, in that she was the one notable aspect of the non-superhero castmates before bowing out for a time from these kinds of films. Now taking elements from Jason Aaron's run of Thor comics for the character, one is reminded that she is a pretty good partner to rumble with Hemsworth, crisp in timing that uses her time in the mantle of Thor for a few moments in spectacle sandwiched with romcom that works for enough of it to make the actual endpoint...okay at best. One likes to see them together rather than whatever spectacle-ball could be thrown up next, especially when compared to something as clearly interesting as "screaming goats" or "knowing how rock creatures procreate" or "communicating with one's hammer". Silly is one thing, smirking at it is another.

Bale is the best villain of these movies because he brings a quality lacking in a number of these spectacles: humility and being more than just a name actor playing a special effect. It begs for more of him in the film, since he is present for basically ten minutes of the first hour (starting with a lengthy sequence to start the film) before it gets more interesting, as he brings a striking edge to a killer role with some sort of useful POV, one that looks for an end to his accursed situation. The fact that the climax isn't solely built on "effect-show" makes the conclusion at least makes the experience mostly worth it, as Bale has elevated a decently scripted role requiring effects work into something compelling (my favorite is him spooking some children who are trying to cheer up by listening to a story of Thor in conquest). Oh right, there is meant to be a supporting cast. This is where Thompson and Waititi come in, serving as mannequins that occasionally try to lend a hand to Hemsworth and Portman in relief. To be nice: at least they seem to be enjoying themselves? Interesting how the only useful one proves to be Crowe, putting on a Greek accent that fits the role in tremendous ego that of course isn't meant to be there for quite long. Sure, you could tease more of him later on, but it only underlies the point that some bits work better in actually lending charm or the feeling of anything than others. As a whole, it serves the spectacle crowd just fine while lacking that special spark in the element of depth or restraint to be anything other than an expensive mediocre movie, one that hopefully will not show signs of weariness when the inevitable follow-up lurks into theaters.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Annihilation.

Review #1581: Annihilation.

Cast:
Natalie Portman (Lena), Jennifer Jason Leigh (Dr. Ventress), Gina Rodriguez (Anya Thorensen), Tessa Thompson (Josie Radek), Tuva Novotny (Cassie “Cass” Sheppard), Oscar Isaac (Kane), Benedict Wong (Lomax), Sonoya Mizuno (Katie / The Humanoid), and David Gyasi (Daniel) Written and Directed by Alex Garland (#884 - Ex Machina)

Review:

"I try to figure out: What is the thing that I'm adapting? And in this instance, it was the feeling, the experience of reading the book; it was the atmosphere of the book. That was the thing that I was concerned about."

One never can hurt to find a worthy director within being a writer as well. Alex Garland fits the requirement since his first publication nearly 25 years ago. He was a graduate of the University of Manchester after studying History of Art. In 1996, his first novel was published with The Beach, based on his travels across Europe through backpack (which he described as satire against backpacking) that became a hit based on word-of-mouth praise - to the surprise of everyone, including Garland, which included a subsequent film adaptation that Garland observed its production (it was seeing the collaboration between the screenwriter, producer, and director that he felt looked like fun). Although he would write two more novels, he decided to take his interest to screenwriting with 28 Days Later (2002). He followed this up with work on Sunshine (2007) and Never Let Me Go (2010) before taking an "unorthodox collaboration" with writing Dredd (2012). Ex Machina (2014) was his first breakthrough as a director (alongside writing duties), a science fiction film achievement. One of the producers of that film (Scott Rudin) later approached Garland to read a particularly recent book named Annihilation (written in 2014 by Jeff VanderMeer), which he described as a "really strange, really quite beautiful book". It was the first of a trilogy of books called the "Southern Reach Trilogy", although Garland wrote the script when only one book had been released. He wrote it as a "memory of the book" that wanted to make a dreamlike kind of film.

What we have here is a fascinating movie that surely deserved better upon release. A dispute with the head of Skydance Media (one of the production companies behind the film) and leaders at Paramount Pictures meant that the film would have just under three weeks of release in theaters before it was readily available on Netflix to stream (a terrible decision, for those who desire cinema releases as first priority). Take one good guess why this occurred: imagine funding a science fiction film and then deciding it is "too intellectual" and "too complicated". This is literally the same major studio distributor that allowed mother! (2017) to go along unscathed without preview screenings, but here we are. One does not get the feeling of being talked down to here within its mix of science fiction and horror, this much is true. It most certainly is not too complicated to elude interest from an audience (older audiences might see an unintentional relation to Predator (1987), while most would note familiarity with H. P. Lovecraft's "The Colour Out of Space"), because it most certainly is an entertaining and useful experience in the means of human nature with self-destruction with a shimmer of terror. It isn't a film with an easily defined monster, but there is one easy detail to keep on the toes: the only thing that survives is the frightened pain of those who are taken by it, one that has turned the environment around it into something extraordinary and frightening at the same time. One works the film out on its own terms for 115 minutes with carefully planned unraveling, which makes for a wonderfully strange time to build towards pondering the means to get to its ending, for better or worse. Portman does pretty well with handling the capability of self-destructive nature around her with useful regard to the surroundings around her that isn't lost in a show of effects. Leigh keeps it carefully on-key with quiet planning for the inevitable, while Rodriguez and Thompson each do fine with building the layers of shaky chemistry between people entering the unknown with fears and interests to go alongside it all (which works mostly without a hitch). The others are fine, including Issac and his carefully constructed post-escape act between here and there. It proves efficient with visual sense to go alongside a fairly well-crafted atmosphere to inspire a few questions (mostly on the inquisitive side, although it could also prove interesting to pick at, such as its ultimate fate) that rewards those with patience to make it a worthwhile sophomore film for Garland. It wasn't a huge winner at the time of its release, but only time will tell how it does with those curious enough to look upon it somewhere in the margins for horror or sci-fi.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Cold Mountain.

Review #1536: Cold Mountain.

Cast: 
Jude Law (William "W. P." Inman), Nicole Kidman (Ada Monroe), Renée Zellweger (Ruby Thewes), Eileen Atkins (Maddy), Brendan Gleeson (Stobrod Thewes), Philip Seymour Hoffman (Reverend Solomon Veasey), Natalie Portman (Sara), Giovanni Ribisi (Junior), Donald Sutherland (Reverend Monroe), Ray Winstone (Teague), Kathy Baker (Sally Swanger), James Gammon (Esco Swanger), Charlie Hunnam (Bosie), Jack White (Georgia), and Ethan Suplee (Pangle) Written and Directed by Anthony Minghella.

Review: 
"I had never thought of myself as a director and found out that I was not. I am a writer who was able to direct the films that I write."

Writers matter to a good film, particularly ones that happen to direct it as well. Minghella had aspirations of playing music prior to going to the University of Hull, playing in a couple of bands at keyboard that credited writing songs as a precursor to writing plays (once stating that he saw his early plays as "being a format for music"). His first film came at the age of 24 that was filmed in his native Isle of Wight in under three weeks with A Little Like Drowning (1978). His studies in drama led to graduation from there before attempting to study for a doctoral thesis (with his big influence as a writer being Samuel Beckett) alongside lecturing at the school for a few years. He moved himself to writing for television for the BBC and ITV alongside doing his own plays and adaptations by the 1980s, which did receive notice, although it was Truly, Madly, Deeply (1990) that proved important, since it went from being made initially for television to being given a theatrical release that resulted in praise. His time spent adapting The English Patient to film in 1996 resulted in tremendous audience and critical favor. Before his untimely death in 2008, Minghella directed seven features while also serving as producer for several other films and doing work on the board for the British Film Institute.

This was Minghella's sixth feature film, and it is an adaptation of the 1997 novel of the same name by Charles Frazier, who loosely based it off the service of William P. Inman, a member of the 25th Infantry Regiment in North Carolina that Frazier has stated is his great-grand uncle. There have been quite a few war romance films that try to carry a torrid romance into an odyssey where the time spent together is just more lasting than the segments involving war (with the despair of said war being right there as well). This is basically right in the middle of quality in terms of epics, handling itself well in style and occasional moments of inspiration that cloud over its expected glacial pace and decent splitting of narratives that is best suited for seeing its supporting characters from time to time in the fields of North Carolina (or more specifically, Romania) for 154 minutes. I wish I liked the film enough to really call it good, but I at least get why it could prove more satisfying for those who seek it out. Law does just fine with a capable element of conviction in keeping level with evoking some level of quiet range that handles courtship and war just fine. Kidman, handling the other storyline of a film that needs to handle yearning alongside farm trouble, does just alright in tender care for drama that basically works out decent chemistry with Law in that we do generally await to see what happens next. Zellweger however proves the most interesting in generating a resourceful performance that shows some humor alongside resilience despite only showing up in the movie an hour into obviously dire proceedings. Gleeson provides a warm presence to otherwise dour times, while Hoffman and Portman make momentary appearances and do fine with they need to run with, while others such as Winstone seem really lacking in time needed. Honestly, while I do note the fact that there are quite a few films that can utilize two-and-a-half-hours for well effect and the fair performances here, I just only see a decent movie that seems a bit cold to me in being anything other than just careful in treading the waters of what you might already know about brutal wars and romances that are just too much for anyone to stay put and so on and so forth. It reminds me of what a good copy of a lost painting done from fairly accurate recollection - on the surface it looks nice and could probably pass for a classic, but if you look at it a little bit more you just might see it as just fine. In any case, it sweeps the board with fair flourish that will entertain those looking for what it yearns to show in passion and style that will win admirers in the art of patience or for its particular brand of telling said story more than those who don't find it as well-meaning.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith.

Redux Review #144: Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith.

Cast: 
Ewan McGregor (Obi-Wan Kenobi), Natalie Portman (Senator Padmé Amidala), Hayden Christensen (Anakin Skywalker), Ian McDiarmid (Supreme Chancellor Palpatine), Samuel L. Jackson (Mace Windu), Frank Oz (Yoda), Anthony Daniels (C-3PO), Kenny Baker (R2-D2), Christopher Lee (Count Dooku / Darth Tyranus), Jimmy Smits (Senator Bail Organa), Matthew Wood (General Grievous), Silas Carson (Ki-Adi-Mundi / Nute Gunray), Temuera Morrison (Commander Cody), and Peter Mayhew (Chewbacca) Written and Directed by George Lucas (#113 - Star Wars, #141 - American Graffiti, #142 - Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace, and #143 - Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones)

Review: 
Countdown to 150 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6...
At last, the end. The best of the bunch of prequels gets what I hope to live up to with the standard review, especially a redux - even if is more a blend of praise and slight criticism this time around. Enjoy.

Admittedly, finishing a trilogy can prove daunting, particularly when it is the culmination of a saga of a character as memorable as Darth Vader. This time around, there actually seems to be a real emphasis on making a tragedy alongside being entertainment. There are plenty of spectacle sequences along with a bit of depth - while also still having things to make light of. It isn't as inconsistent as the other two films, managing to find a heart of darkness that does seem to make this trilogy mostly worth it. For one thing, I actually seemed interested to view Anakin on screen beyond just lightsaber dueling. Sure, he always seemed to have problems with impulsiveness, anger issues, jealousy - and occasional lapses into ridiculous line reads. Christensen still struggles at times with the clunkier aspects of the dialogue at times - such as when he nonchalantly says to his wife that she'll die in childbirth. He shines best when conversing with McGregor or McDiarmid more so than Portman, who mostly is around just to linger in one set at a time without as much to really do. Their chemistry together isn't really too great, middling above teenage lyric posts on the Internet. McGregor proves efficient as ever, filling the noble roots set by Alec Guinness and completing the circle with charm. McDiarmid takes his time to go the ham of an actor on stage set by himself with Return of the Jedi (1983) - and I enjoy it just the same. Instead of being a phantom menace (pardon the pun) to the events around him, now he gets to be involved with actual fights, complete with snarls and cackles. Jackson gets something to do (and say), which I do enjoy when it comes to the film's key point for its first hour. Oz keeps the interest flowing as expected. Naturally, Lee is given four lines, disposed as quickly as expected from a trilogy that likes to jump from adversary to adversary before allowing its true puppet master to try and shine through. I would say that it might have been more interesting to have one villain throughout a whole trilogy before being disposed of (ignoring any sort of middle ground television show, of course) - but we're past that point of complaints, I guess. Smits is fairly serviceable; Wood is okay as a mediocre threat, which is quite the thing to say about a cyborg with four arms. Once the film disposes with the pretense of trying to build paper threats and actually showcases the true threat and Anakin's descent is when the film really does become an actual winner, complete with a worthy climax to alongside it.

I had forgotten to mention John Williams and his music score throughout these films, which it goes without saying are pretty well, but it really does shine here with the mood and pacing throughout the movie here, such as the aforementioned climax but also subtle moments such as the rumination sequence, where it carries a 90-second moment that shows off on a visual level with effective choice in composition. It isn't a perfect film by any means. It still meanders with wooden dialogue on occasion, while also feeling a bit too ridiculous with its justifications for Padme's fate (losing the will to live being a thing only a robot doctor would assume, I guess), but at least there is an actual sense of adventure present without being completely lost in a virtual screen. Sure, it does try to be a bit tidy with its ending, trying to seal things up with plenty of connections to before (much in the same vein that the other two had done), which does seem a bit overboard - but at least it sure has a well-done last shot to close on. Revenge of the Sith strives for a glut of action and story in a 140 minute run-time with plenty of drive and spectacle, managing to succeed on the last go on the prequel merry-go-round with very little in terms of hitches to interrupt the ride.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones.

Redux Review #143: Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones.

Cast: 
Ewan McGregor (Obi-Wan Kenobi), Hayden Christensen (Anakin Skywalker), Natalie Portman (Senator Padmé Amidala), Ian McDiarmid (Chancellor Palpatine), Christopher Lee (Count Dooku / Darth Tyranus), Samuel L. Jackson (Mace Windu), Temuera Morrison (Jango Fett), Frank Oz (Yoda), Anthony Daniels (C-3PO), Kenny Baker (R2-D2), Daniel Logan (Boba Fett), Leeanna Walsman (Zam Wesell), Silas Carson (Nute Gunray and Ki-Adi-Mundi), Ahmed Best (Delegate Jar Jar Binks), and Jimmy Smits (Bail Organa) Directed by George Lucas (#113 - Star Wars, #141 - American Graffiti, and #142 - Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace)

Review: 
Countdown to 150 Reviews, 10, 9, 8, 7...
As promised, a redux of the second prequel film. I described it as better than the first film, but not by much, and not much really does change, does it? At least these are reviews I can feel proud of, which I hope you enjoy.

These films, if distilled into a basic premise of the portrayal of the rise and fall of Anakin Skywalker, from adolescence to adulthood, could have made for some weird and wonderful tragic drama. The first film proved that trying to cover details from the past mixed with ill-advised story choices made for a film that collapsed under its own weight of hubris and anticipation from others. The only thing that changes this time around is that the anticipation is more of a dead calm, and the film manages to find time for improvement at the pace of a snail. While Lucas once again served as director and writer, Jonathan Hales was brought in to help co-write for the film, refining the script until right before production was to begin. The dialogue can't quite help the actors out again, a villain is introduced and wasted once again, and story motivations seem more appropriate for an opening film than a middle movie. You really could skip the previous movie and not really lose too much grip on the story, since you could basically sum up key events in one line or less. As I mentioned earlier, having to switch actors for your main character doesn't help matters, especially since the dynamic between McGregor and Christensen only really comes into focus on occasion. In trying to make a grander, more epic scale Star Wars with plenty of plot-lines, Lucas has succeeded in making two mediocre movies to drive his trilogy, finally finding some sense of focus by the time of its climax, with its Clone Wars aspect.

The film builds itself on the blooming relationship dynamic between Christensen and Portman's characters, having the passion of lines spoke by a computer program. A film romance works best when it actually seems the actors are truly invested in what the script wants them to say. The previous trilogy had a romance that was subtle without being overbearing in the slightest. Lucas wanted something more than just a scoundrel and a princess - a forbidden romance with a Jedi involved. Again, this works best when I actually feel that these actors really seem invested in what they want to do, and it slowly rises from slightly weird to slightly palpable, but that isn't enough in a film that plods along for 142 minutes. The acting still plays hit-and-miss, but McGregor and McDiarmid do turn out to be the key winners of the bunch, the former seeming much more interesting to be around with this time around - whether when bantering with Christensen like an odd couple or in battle, and the latter being as conniving as ever. Christensen doesn't fare too well with such a big role to fill as the eventual Darth Vader, feeling a bit too flat and occasionally grating, falling into the same trap as Lloyd had with being stuck with offbeat lines that make a shadow of a character. Portman is okay, but not too particularly inspired as the other side of the token, faring a bit better when running onto an action set than on some grass trying to talk about politics. Highlights include complaints about sand, attempts at humor that go hit-and-miss, and eventual action sequences on dusty planets that can't help but be like cutscenes once again. Lee is criminally wasted as the main adversary behind the true power, a character cut from bare cloth that isn't too particularly menacing, even with a legend like Lee. The fight with him and Yoda is amusing to picture and weirder to try and describe, since it's a CGI muppet against a mix of Lee (then in his late seventies) and a stunt double. Morrison is quiet, but alright for the necessary time needed. Jackson and Oz are given a few lines to carry, so that's a nice repeat of before I guess. The action sequences here doesn't seem as involving as one would hope, and the political drama is only slightly less pale this time around. The question isn't so much if this is a better film than the previous one as is it really a question of how it took so long to drive the story to some sort of meaningfulness. Lost in a shroud of effects, flashy costumes, and questionable motivations, Attack of the Clones is a mediocre sequel to a mediocre movie that is made lesser by comparisons of past and future of Star Wars films. I wasn't exactly bored by what I saw - I just felt much of the same mood that I did the last time.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace.

Redux Review #142: Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace.

Cast: 
Liam Neeson (Qui-Gon Jinn), Ewan McGregor (Obi-Wan Kenobi), Natalie Portman (Queen Padmé Amidala), Jake Lloyd (Anakin Skywalker), Ian McDiarmid (Senator Palpatine / Darth Sidious), Anthony Daniels (C-3PO), Kenny Baker (R2-D2), Pernilla August (Shmi Skywalker), Frank Oz (Yoda), Ahmed Best (Jar Jar Binks), Oliver Ford Davies (Sio Bibble), Hugh Quarshie (Captain Panaka), Samuel L. Jackson (Mace Windu), Ray Park (Darth Maul, voiced by Peter Serafinowicz), Terence Stamp (Supreme Chancellor Finis Valorum), Keira Knightley (Sabé), Silas Carson (Nute Gunray), Brian Blessed (Boss Nass), Andy Secombe (Watto), and Lewis MacLeod (Sebulba) Written and Directed by George Lucas (#113 - Star Wars and #141 - American Graffiti)

Review: 
Countdown to 150 Reviews, 10, 9, 8...
Well, it has now been 20 years since the release of this film, the first of the three Star Wars prequel films. Fans may remember the revised editions of the Original Trilogy reviews (originally published 3/30-4/1, 2012) back in 2016, in light of Star Wars: The Force Awakens being released months earlier. I figured it was time to revise some admittedly okay reviews (original publish date of 5/19-5/20, 2012) right before Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker comes out. I hope you enjoy these reduxes. 

Review: 
It goes without saying that Star Wars is one of the biggest media franchises of pop culture. It has transcended film, television, and beyond over the decades - the original trilogy is still beloved by many, whether from people who seeked it out upon original release or found it playing somewhere on their screen in the present day. Return of the Jedi was the last of these films for 16 years, with Lucas not being inspired to do further films of his saga until the advent of CGI led him to believe it could help him do what he felt was needed. The result proved polarizing, especially in the age of a growing Internet - and age doesn't really help make this film seem too much better. This is a film that bears more on spectacle and details than a fully developed adventure. Perhaps Lucas fared best when he had at least one other writer trying to guide story ideas into something more than just an assortment of old arch-types and myths. The space opera has now shifted into one with mixes of action and politics - which makes for a somewhat stilted result. Like before, there are plenty of creatures and worlds to look at, even if it seems a bit less involving to stick for. I appreciate the effects for what they try to deliver, since they hold up well for 1999 - but wondering what is a blue/green screen and what isn't does get a bit distracting sometimes. The story seems spread too thinly, distracted over whether to be a movie about the Republic or Anakin, spending too much time to really drive itself forward. To say nothing of the logistics of electing a queen at 14, or midichlorians (which is still something to ridicule even with the dawn of a further trilogy), or referencing things from the previous films (did you know who built C-3PO? Weird, I know), and so on. Making fun of these aspects is more interesting to do while watching the film rather than spend a paragraph writing, one must say. The film does fine with spectacle pieces like the pod race sequence or the Darth Maul duel, but the former verges on meandering and the latter is nearly distracted from its other battle at the same time to have the right impact. With all of these characters (new and familiar), only a select group seem truly necessary, but the dialogue doesn't give them many favors. The trilogy is meant to be a tragedy of Anakin Skywalker, and yet the first film can't really plant many seeds to make that start to bloom, perhaps since the initial focus is on a kid (after all, Lucas moved his age from initially being 12 to 9 to try and fit the effect of him separating from his mother better). It didn't need to be a rehash with him being a young adult like Luke, but Lloyd is fledged with an unenviable task of playing an eventual Darth Vader in only one go. Having just one actor (and a change in pace, no less) for three films might have made them roll with more impact - at least we would have been spared a kid Anakin asking someone if they are an angel.

In a sea of interesting acting choices, it should only prove fair to have them seem routine behind some sets and screens. Neeson seems a bit too pallid to evoke much drama, with his final fate not having as much impact as it likely could have. McGregor doesn't quite have his familiar role pinned down here, and the lack of a dynamic between him and his future student in Anakin doesn't help much. Portman is hindered more by a ridiculous decoy plot than anything, but at least she does make some sort of curious impression. Lloyd doesn't quite have the conviction to make this role work, but how can anyone turn dialogue such as "Now this is podracing" really work (while being on a starfighter - long story) without ridicule? Any time with him and Portman is just weird in general. McDiarmid does well with playing the subtle kingmaker of his own doing without hitting a snag. August is quietly effective, even when occasionally lost in the spectacle background. Best plays a role that Buster Keaton would likely laughed off as too clownish with effort - it may not work out well, but at least he isn't the only fault present. The others (including a criminally underused Stamp) are pretty forgettable, and Darth Maul proves to be a fair but not too inspiring threat. Obviously the real threat is supposed to be the bigger one to look into (even if you already know who said threat is), but it only served to make for a trilogy of cut-scene quality adversaries. The droids don't prove too imposing, either, just big stick-looking things to fill the screen. By the time it gets to its climatic battle sequences, it proves to be a glut of overload, though the Maul fight is a bit nice. At least the lightsaber fights stick out for their attempts at finesse. In the end, the movie is a mish-mash of old story types, a dash of hubris, and ultimately something ridiculous to behold for each generation of fans, old and new. Some can rush to defend it for its quirks, and I understand that basis all the same - to me, this is an average adventure compounded as a disappointing Star Wars film.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Thor: The Dark World.

Review #827: Thor: The Dark World.

Cast
Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Natalie Portman (Jane Foster), Tom Hiddleston (Loki), Anthony Hopkins (Odin), Stellan Skarsgård (Erik Selvig), Idris Elba (Heimdall), Christopher Eccleston (Malekith), Jaimie Alexander (Sif), Zachary Levi (Fandral), Ray Stevenson (Volstagg), Tadanobu Asano (Hogun), Rene Russo (Frigga), Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (Algrim / Kurse), Kat Dennings (Darcy Lewis), and Alice Krige (Eir) Directed by Alan Taylor.

Review
In retrospect, Thor (#041) was an exciting (if not somewhat flawed) movie. It may have taken a bit of time to get rolling, but it had a fine enough climax and established Thor as a quality hero, with Hemsworth doing a fine job in that film. In the sequel, he is also excellent, even if the film around is not exactly as thrilling as before. Hemsworth is believeable as ever, and his chemistry with others in the cast being good highlights. Portman is alright, though it seems she really isn't given that much to do. Her scenes with Hemsworth are fine. Hiddleston is memorable as ever, with enough trickery and charm, highlighted by his scenes with Hemsworth. Eccleston (admist a bunch of makeup) isn't that great a villain (a problem one could say about other villains in the Marvel films), but he is at least somewhat threatening.

While the effects are pretty good (aside from times when everything seems to be photographed in blue-greyish), the plot doesn't really seem to gel itself well, particularly with the Aether, though the Loki-Thor parts do help the movie get back its footing. The action is alright, with the climax being fairly decent enough. The rest of the cast is fine enough. It may not be up to the caliber of the other Marvel films, but it is entertaining and I'm sure that others likely will like this film a good deal more than I did. Take it for what it's worth, a comic book film with some instances of flair that work in most of the right places.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Thor.

Review #041: Thor.

Cast
Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Natalie Portman (Jane Foster), Tom Hiddleston (Loki), Anthony Hopkins (Odin), Stellan Skarsgård (Erik Selvig), Kat Dennings (Darcy Lewis), Clark Gregg (Agent Coulson), Colm Feore (King Laufey), Idris Elba (Heimdall), Ray Stevenson (Volstagg), Tadanobu Asano (Hogun), Josh Dallas (Fandral), Jaimie Alexander (Sif), and Rene Russo (Frigga) Directed by Kenneth Branagh.

Review
Greetings fellow viewer who clicked the link from the review of Thor: Ragnarok (2017) or simply wanted to see an old review. To provide some context, I have written a small piece of memories from this film, having seen it when I was 14.

In retrospect, I will say that Thor (2011) is a decent film, but it definitely pales a bit when compared to Iron Man or the film that followed this one, Captain America: The First Avenger. That's not to say that this is a mediocre movie, but it definitely has its issues, such as some of its human characters along with taking a bit of time to really get going. Hemsworth does a capable job, however, and Hiddleston and Hopkins are also fairly good standouts in a movie that has some dazzle in what proves to be fair entertainment.

The film is a exciting film that won't put you to sleep, as the film has action that is done well. The acting is good, especially from Hemsworth. The only flaw I find is that the film takes a little time to go, especially after Thor is banished to Earth. In a way, this is the penultimate film before The Avengers (The final being Captain America - #060).

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.