Star Wars: Attack of the Clones (6.5/10)

I'll start by saying this there are some good things in this movie. The effects are excellent, and more "crisp"-looking than those of The Phantom Menace. The fight between Yoda and Count Dooku is among the best moments in the entire Star Wars saga. I admire George Lucas for taking the risk of shooting this film with a digital camera. Although the camera itself was lower than 1080 resolution, the film still looks good, and Lucas ushered in the era of digital cinema -- which has since surpassed the quality of 35mm (and reduced the cost of production once imposed by celluloid -- and improved on-set workflow).

But the problem with this film is the central character -- Anakin Skywalker. I don't blame Hayden Christensen, who I honestly think is a good actor. The problem is that the character isn't well-written or defined, and Christensen isn't well-directed.

The fundamental issue with this film, for me, is that I just can't believe this childish, impulsive kid could ever become Darth Vader. Vader is without a doubt diabolical, but he is also consummately "zen" -- disciplined, controlled, resilient. He commits heinous acts, but he does so in a calm, even casual way. He chokes Imperial commanders with casual indifference. This is in stark contrast to Anakin Skywalker, who is a sentimental pansy with no resilience. He whines and complains, is boastful of his abilities and flies into uncontrolled rages.

My other issue with this movie is the useless tangent of introducing Boba Fett, as if he is some important figure in the Star Wars universe. In fact Boba Fett is actually a less-significant character than Admiral Piett or Admiral Akbar. He is potentially badass, but other than making-off with Han Solo in The Empire Strikes Back, Fett doesn't play an influential role, and his character never develops. He is, as Andy once described him, "an action figure in search of a character". Yet Attack of the Clones makes a big deal of Boba picking up up Jango's severed head, as if Boba will become as important to later events as Vader himself.

Further on Boba Fett, I also find it...weird that Jango Fett wants a cloned boy of his own. I understand George Lucas was raising several children by himself when he made this movie, so single fatherhood was a normal thing to him. But to me (and I suspect a lot of people) the idea of an adult man -- in particular a villain -- wanting someone to create a little boy for him comes off as creepy. Apart from that, why would a bounty hunter, who is constantly on the move and in dangerous situations, want to bring a child into all of that?

I find both the Coruscant chase and the arena sequences tedious, and despite the impressive effects, they stop the movie dead in its tracks. It's awesome when the Jedi appear near the end and the battle ensues however. Natalie Portman is better in this film than I originally gave her credit for, and she really sells the moment toward the end of the film when she tells Anakin "I love you". But the moment is shattered when he responds to her. Like I said, Attack of the Clones has some great moments, but it is just uneven, and overlong, with more than a few dry spots. It seems more preoccupied with "setup" than with actual story. (I actually fell asleep in the middle of it).

John Williams' contribution is an almost thankless effort, his extensive and complex scoring buried under sound effects most of the time (it's rumored he was livid over the way his music was so haphazardly re-edited over the climactic sequences).

I suppose I should finish things out with Revenge if the Sith.

-The Holdovers (2023): 10/10



What a warm hug of a movie. If anyone wants a film that's not only set in 1970, but beautifully evokes the humanistic cinema of the period (both in tone and look...despite being shot digitally, it has the grainy look of actual film stock of the era), I strongly recommend Alexander Payne's latest gem, with superb performance by Paul Giamatti and talented newcomer Dominic Sessa. With this and the French import Anatomy Of A Fall, I've seen two of the best films of the year within three days of each other (sandwiched around The Mehvels ). Emotional, engrossing and often very funny, The Holdovers is a gem, and may well become a seasonal standard for those sick of being forced to watch Elf with the kids for the hundredth time. Bonus points for some lovely Boston travelogue footage.

Paul MacLean wrote: ↑Sat Nov 11, 2023 11:46 am My other issue with this movie is the useless tangent of introducing Boba Fett, as if he is some important figure in the Star Wars universe. In fact Boba Fett is actually a less-significant character than Admiral Piett or Admiral Akbar. He is potentially badass, but other than making-off with Han Solo in The Empire Strikes Back, Fett doesn't play an influential role, and his character never develops. He is, as Andy once described him, "an action figure in search of a character". Yet Attack of the Clones makes a big deal of Boba picking up up Jango's severed head, as if Boba will become as important to later events as Vader himself.

This also rubbed me the wrong way. Heck, Boba isn't even referred to by name in ESB. He's always just called "Bounty Hunter". The only time his name is uttered is during the Sarlaac sequence in ROTJ where a dazed Han at one point shouts out to Chewie, "Boba Fett? Boba Fett? Where?" just before he ends up hitting the backpack in his blinded state that sends Boba to his demise in the Sarlaac which further underscores just how irrelevant his character always was and was strictly a toy action figure tie-in.

But so obsessed was Lucas on this point that he felt compelled to tinker further with ESB and swap out the original voice of Boba (actor Jason Wingreen from the classic Trek episode "The Empath" and several TZ episodes) with the Jango Fett actor which is another example of his lame tinkering with things after the fact.

Eric Paddon wrote: ↑Sat Nov 11, 2023 2:30 pm But so obsessed was Lucas on this point that he felt compelled to tinker further with ESB and swap out the original voice of Boba (actor Jason Wingreen from the classic Trek episode "The Empath" and several TZ episodes) with the Jango Fett actor which is another example of his lame tinkering with things after the fact.

I didn't even know that! I have not seen the post-prequels cut of TESB. Honestly, the only version of that film I own is the "despecialized" one!

When you get down to it, Lucas has done nothing but give us idiotic fan-edits of the SW trilogy and totally shirked his responsibility to rational archival preservation. New cuts should exist *alongside* the originals, not at their expense. And the irony is that I think it all stems from a petty desire to get even with ex-wife Marcia since she's not entitled to anything from the "special editions" as they post-date their divorce (and he was bitter over all the money he lost in the divorce settlement).

The only rational explanation for his love for dated 1990s CGI is that it cut his ex out of any funds from them.

For a man who was so invested in techology and film and watching movies at home, it makes no sense otherwise. Artistically nearly all of the changes from the now heavily aged CGI to Williams' weak Jedi rescoring of both the jabba palace scene and the folksy tune at the end, to the Hayden Christensen appearance are, especially in hindsight, dismal and unnecessary.

See below...

Paul MacLean wrote: ↑Sat Nov 11, 2023 11:46 am But the problem with this film is the central character -- Anakin Skywalker. I don't blame Hayden Christensen, who I honestly think is a good actor. The problem is that the character isn't well-written or defined, and Christensen isn't well-directed.

The fundamental issue with this film, for me, is that I just can't believe this childish, impulsive kid could ever become Darth Vader. Vader is without a doubt diabolical, but he is also consummately "zen" -- disciplined, controlled, resilient. He commits heinous acts, but he does so in a calm, even casual way. He chokes Imperial commanders with casual indifference. This is in stark contrast to Anakin Skywalker, who is a sentimental pansy with no resilience. He whines and complains, is boastful of his abilities and flies into uncontrolled rages.

Paul, in response to your review of AOTC...in recent years I have thought that maybe what Lucas was going for (in making Anakin whiney and impulsive) was a parallel between father and son. Luke was immature, whiney, and impulsive in A NEW HOPE - he had a three film character arc where he went from immature brat to mature selfless Jedi (previous to that Inagaki did the same thing in his Samurai Trilogy with Mifune's Miyamoto Musashi...maybe anninfluence on Lucas?). Unfortunately for the prequel trilogy Lucas had two films to develop a full character arc for Christensen's Anakin, and for me it doesn't work. The dialogue is atrocious and childish (I am not sure anyone could have made it work). At any rate, Luke went good and Anakin went bad...cut from the same cloth but ended up in different places. This is a theory I have (whether good or bad). For me AOTC is practically unwatchable.

THE FURY
7/10

Revisited this one for the first time in years. It's a sturdy, typically stylized Brian DePalma thriller that looks great and has a terrific cast, albeit in mixed degrees of effectiveness: Kirk Douglas mugs, Amy Irving is superb, Andrew Stevens just okay opposite her, and John Cassavetes in a just for the money villainous turn. Some of the set-pieces are great and John Williams' thunderous score gives the entire movie a touch of class it lacks in other portions -- especially that lame, downer ending, which comes close to sinking the entire film. I confess it still puts a really sour taste on the entire movie too.

Everything is out of print on this movie -- and, thanks Disney, will stay that way -- but Arrow's exclusive 2K remaster remains the best presentation far and away of this movie, since Twilight Time's disc was mastered from an older, inferior source.

THE HOLDOVERS
7/10

Alexander Payne decides to make a "70s movie" -- at least in period tone -- in this critically overpraised study of a middle-aged, Massachusetts boarding school professor (Paul Giamatti) stuck babysitting a group of students over Christmas break. These include a smart yet troubled teen (Dominic Sessa) whose mother leaves him stranded in the wintry "Barton Academy" along with several other kids, the school cook, and Giamatti's gruff civics teacher.

"The Holdovers" has one uproarious moment, several good scenes, and a strong performance from Da'Vine Joy Randolph as the cook, grieving over the loss of her son in Vietnam. She's terrific, utilizing a believable Roxbury accent, even though she seems a bit too young for the part, holding her own opposite Giamatti in a role carrying a high degree of sadness. Alas, David Hemingson's script is awash in far too much of the latter -- for example, it's not enough that Sessa's estranged parents leave him there: he also has a secret that becomes a contrived plot element, needed only to provide a climax to the picture.

The rest of the movie offers scant surprises, providing predictable dramatic beats for the characters and Giamatti most of all -- the actor doing little here but reprising his "Sideways" character in the role of a stuffy curmudgeon who's really pretty soft that we've seen on-screen countless times before. Payne captures the "look" of the 70s, I suppose, with lots of characters smoking in public, but there isn't a whole lot of cinematic feel or purpose to the exercise, which includes an old MPAA "R" rating logo before it starts, a "cutesy" Focus Features logo apropos to the period, and some low-key credits meant to evoke the era...but so what? That people were even more miserable in the 70s than they are today?

In fact, a lot of "The Holdovers" simply comes off like a group of scenes strung together, never generating the emotion of Payne's (far superior) "The Descendants" as it's stuck in a single gear throughout. What you see with these characters is basically what you get, and the film falls into a pattern of bickering/disclosing emotions/bickering pattern with writing that misses obvious opportunities to craft an actual dramatic arc. I kept hoping Payne would rally and provide an emotional send-off for at least some of its characters (if not the audience), but all we get is a minor-key finale that's like a bad cousin to the endings of other, similarly-set prep school movies like "Dead Poets Society" and "Scent of a Woman."

"The Holdovers" needed more mirth, more merriment to offset its tartness -- 'tis the season after all -- but Payne is mired in depression here, preferring dysfunction to deliverance, in a picture that also seems oddly pleased with itself.

LEO
8/10



Not your expected Netflix animated movie, this Adam Sandler production is an absolute delight. Following the adventures of an aging classroom lizard who can talk and imparts his life lessons to a group of elementary school students about to make the transition to middle school, "Leo" offers an enormous amount of heart, some big laughs, and intermittently effective songs as well. The plot is tight, and all of it imparts positive messages for kids, making it the very rare animated movie kids and adults can enjoy together.

Who knew Sandler and Robert Smigel ("Triumph the Insult Comic Dog"'s "operator" who also wrote the songs) could successfully navigate this kind of material so effectively, but they do, and LEO is a winner.

Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith (8/10)

Not so much a review (we've all seen it numerous times) so much as some musings.

Hayden Christensen is considerably better in this film than in Attack of the Clones. This film is the best of the prequels, with a more cohesive and focused storyline.

I think this film is still uneven though. The opening sequence on the battleship is silly (and people inside a ship orbiting a planet would not be subject to that planet's gravity if the ship listed to one side). The reaction shots of Palpatine during Anakin's fight with Count Dooku are awkward (I can almost hear George Lucas saying "Look afraid!" "Look surprised!" rather than coaching Ian McDiarmid to actually get in character). Palpatine's cheerful "Kill him!" also feels out of left field.

Count Dooku's demise is unsatisfying and unceremonious. Like Darth Maul, Jango Fett (and Boba Fett in Jedi) Dooku is bumped-off before his character ever develops. Then we're introduced to a new villain, General Grievous (who never satisfactorily develops either). Lucas should should have retained Darth Maul as the henchman in all the prequels, and have Palpatine finally betray and get rid of him, replacing him with Anakin (just as Palpatine later intended to replace Vader with Luke).

I still can't believe Anakin would go to the dark side simply to save Padme. Again, Anakin is too much of a patsy. He is boastful and wants recognition, but he doesn't seem especially ambitious. I just can't see such a person becoming Darth Vader. It would have been more believable for Anakin to be offered morally questionable opportunities for advancement from Palpatine ("the quick and easy path"), thus compromising his moral compass (while simultaneously eroding any feelings sentiment and compassion). Instead we have a weak, lovesick character who just wants to save his wife and unborn child -- and is willing to kill children to achieve that end.

That said, this film still contains some of my favorite scenes in all of the Star Wars movies. The scene where Palpatine "seduces" Anakin with the tale of Darth Plagueis is very intense and unsettlingly creepy. Yoda's duel with Palpatine is incredible (though one starts to wonder about this "butterfingers" problem afflicting the Jedi -- they keep losing their lightsabers in the middle of fights!). Obi Wan's monologue after defeating Anakin ("You were my brother Anakin. I loved you.") is passionate and heartfelt.

The effects are superb -- not just the fight scenes and space battles, but the images of Coruscant and the vast, capacious CGI sets. John Williams' score is great -- but like Attack of the Clones it fights an uphill battle against Ben Burtt's sound effects. (And seeing that the style of these scores and most of the themes were in place, I think Williams should have written a couple of new cues, and handed-off the rest of it to William Ross and scored Goblet of Fire instead!)

I also came away from this (I believe my fifth) viewing with a different perspective on Palpatine. I previously was under the impression that Palpatine's face was disfigured due to the effect of Mace Windu's lightsaber blocking Palpatine's Sith lightning -- a literal injury caused by their interaction. Now I view it differently. I think Palpatine's human form in the prequels was a disguise, and that in reality he was never human at all, and the stress of the fight with Windu simply "unmasked" what he really is -- an alien.

Palpatine was clearly referring to himself when telling Anakin the story of Darth Darth Plagueis' apprenctice, and as a "Sith legend" (apparently rooted in antiquity), it would indicate that Palpatine has a considerably longer lifespan than a human.

But finally, the problem with the prequels -- and their flaws -- is that it's hard to just dismiss them and move on. As they form the foundation of episodes 4-6 (which we all love) they are inextricably tied to them, and for that reason can't be ignored (unlike episodes 7-9). In order to truly compliment 4-6 the prequels needed to be great, but they just weren't. I wouldn't call the "noble failures" but they don't stand-up to the original trilogy -- and that's a shame.

Napoleon 6 of10

-My first trip to a cinema post-COVID. My cousin in Nashville who invited me down for Thanksgiving asked me to go out after dinner and you don't say no to that. The R-rated violence scenes (a cannon striking a horse in the entrails, the rather pointless scene of Marie Antoinette's beheading) I felt could have been trimmed. Overall, the film's real problem is that it's very pedestrian in the sense that it tries to encompass the totality of Napoleon's career from 1793-1815 but in the process a LOT of important context goes missing, especially when so much of the film is given to the relationship with Josephine and her failure to give him children. These scenes intrude too much and in the end those who didn't teach history like me wouldn't have the slightest idea how and why Napoleon was able to consolidate power in France and save it from the excess of the Revolution (the Code Napoleon goes unmentioned and there's only a bare hint that he mended fences with the Church after the Jacobins tried to stamp out all traces of it). Nor is there ever any sense of just what Napoleon's ambitions were rooted in a "Continental System" (the reasons behind the Battle of Austerlitz which gets the most treatment of the military campaigns other than Waterloo) and why he felt he needed to invade Russia (The Russia retreat I felt was dispensed with in too quick a fashion). The end result is more like a giant grade school level primer that tells less than what you would get in a good PBS documentary.

I still enjoyed seeing it as a family outing though as part of the Holiday season.

The Emerald Forest (8/10)

This was a favorite of mine in my youth, and for the most part holds-up well today -- which is not to say it is perfect (either cinematically, or in its Blu-ray presentation -- more on that below). There are a number of stilted moments (particularly in its first 15-20 minutes). Powers Booth and Meg Foster are handicapped by some awkward dialog, and compounding this is that all of the film’s dialog was recorded in post. It’s often necessary to do a little of this (owing to on-set noise) but every last line in this movie is dubbed, giving most of the dialog an artificial quality. An actor sitting in a comfortable isolation booth months after shooting is not going to match the performance they gave in a hot, sweltering rain forest.

A while back I read John Boorman’s “The Emerald Forest Diary”, which reveals how the director strove to create an authentic and believable portrait of a culture in a remote, isolated region — much as he did in Deliverance — his stringent research even went as far as living for a couple of weeks with a remote Amazonian tribe.

Yet, in spite of Boorman’s quest for realism, The Emerald Forest is ultimately more Excalibur than Deliverance — i.e. a stylized, even fanciful (and at times almost goofy) yarn as opposed to a “starkly realist” drama. Certainly the channeling of “spirit animals” and prescient visions depicted in the film stray into the realm of fantasy. Unlike movies such as Fitzcarraldo or The Mission, the natives in The Emerald Forest are all professional actors (some of whom are not even South American) and certainly have better-toned bodies (and perkier breasts) than those of tribal people with no access to modern medicine (or gyms).

Yet ironically, two of the film’s best performances come from Boorman’s son Charley (whose only previous acting job had been the child Mordred in Excalibur), and Dira Paes (an unprofessional with no prior acting experience) as his love interest Kachiri. Admittedly, Charley Boorman did not possess “movie star looks” (he wasn't exactly River Phoenix -- and this does compromise his screen presence a bit) but his performance is totally convincing, in the realms of both character and the physical demands of role. His and Paes’ scenes together also have a sensual, and believably romantic chemistry (and are among the film’s best moments).



Boorman handles the encroachment of “civilization” upon indigenous people gracefully; the environmental angle is addressed, but doesn’t hit you over the head — this is first and foremost an adventure movie — and Boorman also manages to sell the viewer on the allure of simple (albeit idealized), tribal living. The Emerald Forest even manages the impossible near the end of the film -- when the native girls are rescued from the brothel, they strip-off their “civilized” garments and return, naked, to their forest home, in what must be the only scene in movie history where women removing their clothing comes off as an act of purity.

Kino Lorber's Blu-ray looks very good -- but is marred by bad audio noise / artifacts in one sequence. I don't know how this got by the people mastering the disc -- maybe they mistook the audio anomalies for sound effects? But it is a truly unpardonable flaw -- one that should have been amended by a recall / disc replacement.

The Emerald Forest isn't a perfect movie (much-less a prefect Blu-ray presentation) but if you can excuse the brief audio glitches, and take the whole thing as a fanciful adventure, it is highly entertaining, with plenty of action, sensual beauty, exotic locales and visual splendor.

Did you buy the old disc or the new one? (Which came out two weeks ago)...



I don't know if that got corrected or not though. (The old disc doesn't have a commentary, the new one does. The newer disc also has a higher bit-rate and should also look a little better even though it's from the same source).