Ooh New Star Wars Films. Sort Of.

I was interested to hear that Rolf Harris impersonator, George Lucas was planning to "remake" The Phantom Menace in 2012 on the news today. "Hooray" I thought, they are going to rewrite the awful dialogue of the prequels, we won't hear the kid who became Vader saying "yippee", and with luck Jar Jar Binks would die horribly at the hands of the Trade Federation, preferably hoisted ny his own glowing blue balls (watch the film.), and watch Annakin and Padme babble godawful romantic non sequiters at each other, whilst seemingly monged up to their tits with Stacey's Mum of Eastenders medication for her nerves. But no, Lucas just plans to re release the films concurrently on an annual basis so they can be seen in 3-d. Lucas was apparently Luke warm (see what I did there!) about 3D films, but when James Cameron did Avatar, he felt he had to respond, and that lays bare the sad reality of popular film making today. It ain't about making good movies so much as shoving as much CGI and other visual wizardry onscreen in order to make loads of cash with your blockbuster. Sad to say that making pots of cash is still the primary ambition in the world of film. A good film may stir the heart, and rattle the senses, and raise a question or two in the viewer, but does that flog loads of popcorn as easily as just sticking a load of fake looking space battles and blue people who live on a planet with bullshit physics and can plug their psychic tails in a spacehorses anus (no really). It can be disheartening to see films like the Star Wars prequels, which while visually (and George certainly has the scope for visual direction) stunning, have lame stories, which wilt under the sheer volume of CGI per frame. How Avatars visually rich visuals disguised a simplistic and cliched central plot. Other directors are guilty of papering over the cracks of weak stories with loads of CGI'ery too, but because I'm nice I won't name names, even though Michael Bay is guilty of doing this ...... Oh all the fucking time!

No I was disappointed to discover that the "remake" of Episode I, TPM - was a cosmetic one. Because IT IS THE WRONG FLIPPIN DIRECTION!! WRONG! With a bit of work (start by getting Jar Jar Abomination off the screen) there was a trilogy of decent films in there to be teased out by a decent writer. Look at Empire and A New Hope, the ones that; from a writing point - Lucas had the least influence on and especially Empire, the greatest of all the Star Wars films. Lucas is not really a good screenwriter, but with good writers to do that and articulate this excellent visual and conceptual artists ideas to a tight and pathos laden teleplay, his visions came alive so memorably as they did in those excellent films. The core concept of the prequels was a good one, the secret sith baddy conspires to usurp control of the galaxy by bringing about its downfall, and civil war by playing both sides against the other - whilst corrupting the protagonist to the final conclusion thrown in too. I'd say it was almost foolproof and a good series of films could have been made from it. But this was squandered by over reliance on visual shit that was just there for the hell of it, and Lucas letting his ego take priority into not subconsciously facing up to his poor writing and [especially] dialogue skills, and subcontracting them to a co-writer, or fully separate writing team. You're not telling me that those three prequel films were ever script edited at all!! (or even looked over by a friendly team member who could offer a bit of kind advice) The amount of plot holes and leaps of logic that made it to the final product itself. It was kind of the reverse of the Star Trek films, where a preposterous core story was made good by a strong script. It was a good (I'd cautiously, almost say foolproof) central story was let down by a bad script.

And that was why my heart sank just that little bit further today. We had the chance to make something out of the prequels and instead all we'll get in 2012 is to have to wear some stupid spectacles at the cinema, to have remade scenes of pod racers whiz past our heads, Darth Mauls red pole being waved in our face, and Jar Jars ears smacking us in the chops when he treads in some shit in the Tatooine ghetto. Sadly a step back really.

Great Review on Youtube by "Red Letter Media"

If you ever want to see how Youtube might become one of the most promising doorways to small but talented amateur film makers. Then look no further than Red Letter Medias absolutely brilliant critiques cum deconstructions, cum ripping George Lucas a new one,- reviews of the Star Wars prequels. It is no exaggeration to say that these reviews are some of the most astounding bits of film making; from a layman in his home, to grace the youtube site. They combine top rate execution, with a brilliantly prepared and hugely insightful delivery, and have the added benefit of being ballachingly funny.

The reviews are presented as the musings of Harry Plinkett (the screen persona of Mike Stoklasa, a wedding video producer.) a sociopathic elderly pervert who murders prostitutes in his basement and ex wives, when he's not floridly critiquing three films that defiled a trilogy of great ones that came before;- on the alter of profit, and shitty special effects. Plinketts reviews will even be entertaining to a casual, or even a non-fan of Star Wars. They aren't the sort of nitpicky, fan boy review we might expect. The kind of thing where a wheezy looking American with spectacles and a beard point out that that droid standing around in the background in one tiny scene wasn't invented till after the death star blew up. No, this is a (70 and 90 minute respectively for the first two prequels) creative critique of where Plinkett / Stoklasa feels that Lucas sacrificed both story and characterisation, for special effects and shameless promotional merchandising, available in all good retailers. It is particularly telling when his friends can rattle off single word descriptions of the original trilogy characters, but can't describe the prequel characters at all. And when we see the reaction by the creators of "Phantom Menace" after the first rough cut screening at Lucases private cinema. Or when he shows us the contrasts between the cruder effects and choreography of the originals, in comparison to the flawless overkill to boringness we get in the prequels, and how less turned out out be more. I could almost hear Han Solo saying "Hokey FX, and a crappy script, are no match fort a good story at your side kid!" The critiquing of the (many) plot oversights is kept to the major ones, and not bogged down in pedantry. (unless used for comic effect.) This is a game for the fans of the genre, and the Confused Matthew reviews are tailored for a more fan friendly review.

My only criticism about the review is the interludes in Plinketts dingy flat, where we see he has prostitutes tied up in the basement. They seem like filler (I'm not sure what they are really for. Harry is self evidently a dirty old man.), and the (fake) misanthropy clashes with the reviews themselves. We sympathise with Harrys anger toward the way the films came out, with being repelled by graphically seeing what sort of man he is. So they can feel uneven at times.

Mike is obviously well read in the art of film making (he is after all, one himself.), and this is the key to the quality of his work. Besides the fact that he is full of the insider knowledge of a business most people know zip about, - his genuine anger about how three great movies have been harmed by three ill founded ventures; is contagious. With all the resources that these films had thrown at them, we can say along with Harry. "This is the Result???"

And that is the key to the success of the reviews. That is why we don't think that Mike has nothing better to do than bitch about some movie for over an hour. The prequels were; - on one level, a form of vandalism on a cultural icon. This review articulates precisely how personally some fans felt disappointed by these films, in a way that outsiders may think is strange. We saw how (I'll give George credit. HUGE) anticipation, and opportunity to build upon a well loved trilogy - was squandered by a bad script, and FX being used as the end, not the means to the end. Again as Harry once said in a review; "Gee! How uplifting."

Red Letter Medias site is here. http://www.blancscreencinema.com/redlettermedia/index.html

Review. Star Trek (2009) (Spoilerish)

You know if you go to this with an open mind, and can resist scrutinizing the movie against the established franchise (which isn’t a problem if you aren’t a Trek fan, so you may be in a better position than a Trekky to judge this film.) then this is actually a really enjoyable action romp. (Or is that trek?) This is a new film from a long and established franchise that has spanned decades, was on life support for about most of Voyagers run, and eventually flat lined when Enterprises low ratings (composed of three slightly nerdy single men, an ash tray and a dog) meant Paramount wasn't going to just sign cheques away no questions asked; to anything with "Trek" in the title. It's been rebooted and repackaged for a contemporary audience, in the mold of a FX laden adventure film. It doesn’t really ponder the human condition any more than it really has too (and it doesn’t have much of that either) which could be problematic to those who may have (justified) presuppositions as to what defines the franchise. I think the scene when Spock and Kirk debate the fate of the lead baddy at the end, will be most problematic to fan consensus (after all Trek has had many different writers) on what was Gene Roddenberry's (the creator of Star Trek) take on his shows philosophy and on its greater take on the human condition.

One thing it does do well and takes from the original series, which is chosen as it is the most recognisable part of the franchise to people new to Trek, is to recreate the great characterisation of the original crew. Particular stand outs are Chris Pine as Kirk. He fortunately doesn't try to impersonate Bill Shatner in the role, but delivers us a cocky but still likable lead. Kirk in the original was a seat of the pants guy (and doesn't believe in the no win scenario like this Kirk) but this was tempered by his experience and command role, this Kirk through the events in the movie has had differing circumstances, where he has had the lifestyle of a drifter and a rebel who has been through the school of hard knocks, and perhaps because of the tough knocks he's had we sympathise with him despite him being cocky. So he doesn't come across as a swaggering, priggish cock. Zachery Quinto is also excellent as Spock, he almost feels and looks like a young Leonard Nimoy, one of the best bits of casting I've seen. He also plays the role with subtle differences to the original. This one has more trouble bottling up his human half, (and this dichotomy of his half human status is most of the human element of the show.) and tolerating a certain young future captain. His "up yours" to the Vulcan council is a great scene (especially in regard to his mum. Freud would have a field day), and this leads too some harrowing scenes between the two on the bridge. The other bridge crew each get at least a look in (unlike much of the original) Karl Urban is superb as Dr. "Bones" Mccoy, as the cynical but thoroughly decent ships medic, Zoe Saldana adds a zesty bite to her role as Uhura, and doesn't come across as just background eye candy. Simon Pegg is comedy relief as chief engineer Scotty. The scenes of Kirks birth are played well and give the film an emotional and poignant punch at the beginning of the film to drive the rest of it along. We care about these people, and what's happening to them.
The film has been designed to appeal to a wide audience not just the trekky niche. This will inevitably mean it will appeal more to the non trekky elements, than the fan base, so someone who has never seen the show can enjoy it purely on its own merits, rather than needing a framework in the context of the franchise, which is more the case for the Next Generation films. In fact you could probably drop all the Trek references , and change the names of the ship and the planets /aliens and it would still work as a film. This means that it has quite a different feel to the older films. It's not a bad feel, but for me it was most noticeable in the scenery and visuals of the films. The warehouse shots of the Enterprise engine room and the abandoned base feel grungey and industrial, which don't seem to fit into the shiny Star Trek universe to well. But besides this, for the fans, there are subtle nods to all the shows in there. The people writing it obviously have a deep respect for the 60's show, and the action scenes are as tightly paced and exciting as the best of the episodes were.

The film has only two really majorish flaws with it. The first is that the execution of the plot can sometimes be a bit dodgy, with obvious holes in logic. Apparently federation planets don't have any surface defences whatsoever to fight back against a baddy Romulan ship that just sits there. Why is this mining ship of all things like the most powerful and biggest thing ever built? Where are these guys mining at? Mordor? All sci-fi mining ships are always grotty and rusty (in space??!!) The matter that makes black holes (literally a hole. So the laws of physics must have been rebooted as well.) I mean come on! But if you take all this with a pinch of salt you should be OK. The second, and more serious flaw is the main baddy Nero. He just never gets the characterisation he deserves as main villain. Eric Bana is a great actor, he was chilling, idiosyncratic and charming as the lead in Chopper but his talents are wasted here, and we get none of these on display. Just him standing about in the gloom glaring in the middle distance at everything and everyone, and I never felt we knew him or what motivated him. The other Romulans are really only there to be baddys to get shot.

But if you take it for what it is, a well paced action film with a bit of pathos here and there. It's a well spent two hours. Whether the more dedicated trekkie can make the leap, or whether it is the right direction for trek films in general (I thought a sort of high concept, ideas driven reboot like the new Batman films would have been nice) is another matter entirely.

Review. Avatar 3D (2009)

James Cameron seems to be on a personal mission to establish himself as a ground breaker in film. We have had the Terminator films, Titanic and now Avatar. Avatar isn't so much a film with some gratuitous CGI chucked in for good effect. It has simply redefined what special effects should be in a film. Avatar has pulled out all the stops, every cent of the 310 million dollars it reputedly cost to make has been spent in order to produce a cinematic experience truly unlike anything that has been before. Camerons uber-perfectionist style has meant that no stops have been left out to make the Navi and their homeworld: - Pandora, as believably possible as an alien world on a cinema screen can actually be. I was also impressed that the effects, whilst always in the forefront, were a means to an end, rather than the end themselves. If a CGI scene was put in, it was for a reason. So the film never felt laboured, or gratuitously self indulgent, unlike the Transformers films and the Star Wars prequels. I recommend the 3D version as well, it makes use of the effect without resorting to effects that are blatantly choreographed to take advantage of 3D, such as stuff on the screen, poking you in the face. Highlights for me are when protagonist, Jake Sully's (Sam Worthington) avatar first gets stranded in the Pandora forest and it's weird bioluminescant lifeforms. This felt like the weirdest David Attenborough documentary I'd ever seen, and a scene on a tree top near the vortex mountains. I literally had a wave of vertigo pass through me (no really). The FX are just that spot on. I really can't do them justice with words alone.

The actual plot of the film without giving away too much is a relatively simple one that's as old as the hills. The Blue skinned Navi are a peaceful race of forest dwelling primitives who have a deep affinity and connection with the life forms on their lands. But this way of life is threatened by a greedy mining colony of resource strapped humans, with their zealous, bankrolled marine privateer guards, that wants to mine unobtanium, some made up stuff that is very valuable, and wouldn't you know, is inconveniently plonked under the Navi territory. The humans have made Avatars, which are genetically constructed Navi, whose consciousness are controlled by humans in a lab. These remotely controlled Navi are designed to persuade their supposed countryman round to yielding land to the humans. There's only one way this is going to turn out, and this is the core of the film. It is essentially a morality tale about the need to respect mother nature, and not to exploit less advanced societies. It's hardly the most subtle example I've ever come across, but it tells a competent and focused story, showing us the conflict about how the humans are treating the Navi without going into some major league on screen sermonising. The film is atmospheric enough to show us the humans actions against the Navi, so we see for ourselves, rather than being hit about the head with the moral of the story. Which was a relief to me. It could have been a long 3 hours! The moral of the story as I said is old hat, but is a worthy one and if you want to put it across then you're OK with me. (I'm sure there will be some Republicans in the US ragging the film as green trash, at some point of it's showing.)

The Navi themselves are obviously based on the Amerindians (or common perceptions of them.) and the story is an allegory of the colonisation of the New World. These peaceable 12 foot tall, puppy eyed aliens are your standard nature loving (if overly rose tinted view of primitive societies.) low tech tree dwellers, but Cameron has added a little twist to this old trope, we see there is a pseudo scientific reason for why the Navi can mentally link with other life forms, and how the forest itself may be a giant ultra - consciousness. Has Cameron been tweaking about with the Gaia hypothesis? I'm not big on getting all sentimental about nature, but these (almost on the fringe of plausible) at least try to rationalise this green philosophy, rather than that lazy Hollywood cliche that Indi---,, sorry Navi are just at one with nature, cause they, er.. are like you know, - are. They also feel like real characters (some who probably walked,- alongside some of the plots, off Pocahontas, Last of the Mohicans and Dances with Wolves!)

The acting and dialogue in the film was also above par. Whilst it wasn't the most profound or richest of scripts I'd ever seen put to screen, and didn't have much in the way of plot twists or bombshells to drop. I had no real complaints. This is primarily a visual experience after all, and I don't begrudge it this. I don't think it was under any illusions that it was any other way. The script gets the film along, and never shrivels under the effects, or gets bogged down in exposition and muddled plotting, as I said it is a well paced, tightly woven piece. It would have been easy for the film to neglect the plot points of the toxic atmosphere (to humans) and the leads paralysis, but they are put to good use in the film, so well done there.

As I said this isn't the most subtle of stories I've seen, and my main qualms about the film are in this area. The baddy marines are a case in point. They seem to be hired from the "Rednecks and Hicks, Token Cipher Bad Guys" agency. Honestly when they are trotting out about every red-necked cliche, in the briefing scene at the end, I thought they were literally going to start denying evolution and climate change, whilst heckling Barack Obama as a communist who was born in Kenya. Likewise the Navi are a bit too squeaky clean, all the stubborn traditions, noble spirituality and puppy dog eyes are wheeled out to the utter limit. But then the film wants you to think that way about them, so we'll give that the benefit of the doubt.

But that aside. I really enjoyed Avatar. James Cameron has set out to rewrite the rules in visuals and my god he's succeeded. This is about as close as you can get to seeing a truly alien world as is possible. Brilliant effects with a zappy fast paced plot, that doesn't resort to self indulgent CGI scenes that are just window dressing, that maintains itself over a 3 hours that passes by quickly. That's no mean feat to pull off, and I recommend you go and see it soon as, you won't be disappointed.

Rating 8.5 / 10.