Star Wars: Attack of the Clones
My second screening of the film -- the first being with Andy and Joanne (which was also when I first met Joanne actually!).
My opinion on this films is unchanged. It is a comedown from The Phantom Menace. PM was undeniably flawed, but still sincere, entertaining and populated with likable heroic characters. AotC is more flawed, with fewer likable characters.
We have what is supposed to be an "epic doomed love story", like Romeo and Juliet or Tristan and Isolde -- which makes sense given the ultimate destiny of Anikin Skywalker -- except that the character of Anikan Skywalker isn't an "epic" character at all. He is more of a small town teenage punk, who is undisciplined, kind of stupid and a sentimental pansy who lacks any inner strength. I just can't see someone like that ever becoming Darth Vader, who is inscrutable (and none of this is helped by Hayden Christensen's performance).
My other big complaint about this film is that they had to bring Boba Fett into it. I suppose it is interesting that Boba Feet is genetically related to the stormtroopers, but although he was an effective character in Empire Strikes Back, Fett ultimately doesn't play that significant a role in the later Star Wars episodes. So why introduce him in episode II? Boba ponders the severed head of his father in an "Oooo, he's swearing revenge" moment. But there will never be a payoff for this moment, because later (in TESB) he's just a "villain for hire", motivated only by money, not a thirst for revenge. Moreover he was given a throwaway (even comical) demise early in RotJ, which further diminishes his significance.
There are some great visuals -- the big Jedi battle towards the end is cool. But the Coruscant chase, though impressively staged, is also far too silly -- I can't believe even Jedi knights could do those things! The whole "comic relief" with C-3PO's head getting mixed-up with a droid soldier is tediously unfunny, and I still cringe at the line "Hi, I'm Owen Lars, this is my girlfriend Beru." And what's with the whole climax being tracked with cues from Episode I? But this film is at least redeemed by Yoda's lightsabre duel with Count Dooku.
rate the last movie you saw
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7535
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: rate the last movie you saw
TROY - 3/10. I found the movie to be very long and very boring; Peter O'Toole looked out of place in the movie, and the music was insufferably bad...the wailing female voice was so irritating to me. It made me wonder what Garbiel Yared's (?) score for the movie sounded like. There were a few battle sequences that were interesting to me as far as techniques the Greek army used/may have used, but otherwise it just felt like a bloated epic that never found its footing. I am not a huge fan of Wolfgang Petersen (though I admit that DAS BOOT is an enthralling film to me); Eric Bana and Brad Pitt were the two dynamic characters in the film, and they did okay. I don't know...I just wasn't impressed.
THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI - 9/10. I had never seen this film until last week. What really stuck out to me was Lean's use of widescreen...the depth of field in each shot was amazing. There was so much to see and he used every inch of scenery to his advantage. I also loved how Lean built suspense towards the end of the film when the British/Japanese alliance find the evidence that the bridge was going to be blown up. I am not a huge fan of William Holden, and Alec Guiness is someone I could take or leave. I did like that their characters' personalities played off against each other in a way (Holden's reckless, carefree American arrogance against Guiness' composed, prideful British arrogance). I prefer LAWRENCE OF ARABIA to this film though - I found LoA to be much more interesting.
THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI - 9/10. I had never seen this film until last week. What really stuck out to me was Lean's use of widescreen...the depth of field in each shot was amazing. There was so much to see and he used every inch of scenery to his advantage. I also loved how Lean built suspense towards the end of the film when the British/Japanese alliance find the evidence that the bridge was going to be blown up. I am not a huge fan of William Holden, and Alec Guiness is someone I could take or leave. I did like that their characters' personalities played off against each other in a way (Holden's reckless, carefree American arrogance against Guiness' composed, prideful British arrogance). I prefer LAWRENCE OF ARABIA to this film though - I found LoA to be much more interesting.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 35761
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Did you watch the theatrical version Michael? Or the director's cut? Because I find the latter to be too long -- and it also does a disservice to Horner's score as well.the wailing female voice was so irritating to me. It made me wonder what Garbiel Yared's (?) score for the movie sounded like.
On the musical side, believe it or not, there was even more wailing female voice in Yared's score! (And more "ethnic" stuff too). I like Troy myself (more so the theatrical version) -- it's not great but there are some good performances and a compelling story line in there...plus Rose Bryne and Diane Kruger too (Bana and Pitt were pretty solid). Horner's score, for me, worked extremely well, and that love theme he wrote was terrific (unfortunately in the Director's Cut the score is hacked up and ruined by temped and tracked material, respectively).
Yared's score is, by itself, quite listenable -- but very melodramatic and underscored the movie like it was something out of the 1950s. For the amount of time he had to work on the film, IMO Horner did a superb job, and it's easy to imagine why Yared's music was tossed.
-
Monterey Jack
- Posts: 10550
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: Walpole, MA
Re: rate the last movie you saw
All I remember about Troy is the "Danger Motif" being drilled into my ears a thousand times during the beach landing scene and Pitt screaming "HEK-TAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!" over and over again. 
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 35761
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
LOL there is that part of his score, but the love theme is sweeping and grand -- old school, gorgeous stuff IMO. That part of the score really worked for me anyway.
In the director's cut, Peterson removed some of the love theme, put in the tracked Apes music, recycled other parts of his score, etc. Blecch!!
In the director's cut, Peterson removed some of the love theme, put in the tracked Apes music, recycled other parts of his score, etc. Blecch!!
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 9037
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: rate the last movie you saw
A Christmas Wihtout Snow (1980) (TV) 9 of 10.
-This is always an annual Christmas tradition for me as I regard it as an underrated gem of a TV movie, centered on a San Francisco church choir and their lives as they spend the weeks before Christmas preparing for a performance of Handel's Messiah, under the dominating choirmaster, John Houseman (a great variant of his Professor Kingsfield role). This is a TV movie that shows normal, decent people who are part of a church community, and who do have the normal flaws that all people have, but who nonetheless know how to stay together and how even despite their flaws are still fundamentally decent and not the closeted monsters in which churchgoers are depicted so routinely today. It's too bad I have to keep using my 1985 off-air recording of this, but I shall keep doing so until it is given a good DVD release!
-This is always an annual Christmas tradition for me as I regard it as an underrated gem of a TV movie, centered on a San Francisco church choir and their lives as they spend the weeks before Christmas preparing for a performance of Handel's Messiah, under the dominating choirmaster, John Houseman (a great variant of his Professor Kingsfield role). This is a TV movie that shows normal, decent people who are part of a church community, and who do have the normal flaws that all people have, but who nonetheless know how to stay together and how even despite their flaws are still fundamentally decent and not the closeted monsters in which churchgoers are depicted so routinely today. It's too bad I have to keep using my 1985 off-air recording of this, but I shall keep doing so until it is given a good DVD release!
Re: rate the last movie you saw
The cut I watched was around 2.5 hours; based on what you are saying I think I saw the longer director's cut. I think part of the problem for me is that The Odyssey and The Illiad don't really do much for me, so interpretations of those stories aren't stories I find to be interesting...or at least someone hasn't done them in a way that interests me. Greek mythology and Greek history/philosophy are cool in some respects and are essential background to understanding a lot about Jewish and Christian historical contexts on several levels though.AndyDursin wrote:LOL there is that part of his score, but the love theme is sweeping and grand -- old school, gorgeous stuff IMO. That part of the score really worked for me anyway.
In the director's cut, Peterson removed some of the love theme, put in the tracked Apes music, recycled other parts of his score, etc. Blecch!!
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7535
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: rate the last movie you saw
The Hobbit
Imagine if Casino Royale had been three hours, and wasted time setting-up plot devices for later Bond stories (that have nothing to do with Casino Royale itself), and Blofeld, Tracy di Vicenzo, Tiger Tanaka and Mr. Kidd & Mr. Wynt all made appearances. That's what this film felt like.
The Hobbit starts-off decently, with a much smoother unfolding of events than the LORT films -- at least early-on. The prologue (explaining how and why the dragon Smaug came to possess the dwarves' treasure) was not actually in the book, but is an effective effective means of setting-up the story, and worked (and looked) great. While I'm generally not a fan of Peter Jackson's visual style (nor the decision to use new Zealand locations), I found the first half hour or so of this film rather good. Martin Freeman is also wonderful in the role of Bilbo, and the entire cast are excellent really. I was very optimistic.
But after a while things started to go awry...
Peter Jackson insists on throwing-in far too many plot devices (and characters) not found anywhere in The Hobbit, in order to connect it to LOTR. Jackson draws on Tolkien's "world building" notes and other sources which formed the historic foundation for Middle Earth, but these are not part of the main narrative of LOTR (let alone The Hobbit), and only result in a lot of pointless (and irritating) tangents that slow the film way down.
It's as if Jackson was trying to make the Middle Earth version of The Phantom Menace -- a massive, epic prequel which sets-up the events seen on LOTR. But The Hobbit is not intrinsically an epic. It is a relatively simple adventure story, and not any type of "set up" for LOTR. Tolkien hadn't even thought of LOTR, the One Ring, or any of that when writing The Hobbit. The Hobbit is merely the story of Bilbo Baggins helping some dwarves to regain their treasure. Period. End of story.
Apart from that, this film is overstuffed with incessant action sequences. The "stone giants" scene (which occurs quite early in the book) is moved closer to the end of the film, where it is immediately followed by another action sequence where our heros are captured by orcs. You can't balk at the complexity and months of effort that clearly went into these sequences. But they are all far-too frenetic and confusing, and at times even laughable -- the stone giants scene has look and feel of a old Toho monster movie, while the escape from the orc caves is silly and preposterous. Toward the end of the film the action just doesn't let-up. It becomes overkill. It's like someone screaming in your face.
On top of that, Jackson makes some radical alterations to what Tolkien actually wrote...
Gandalf's cousin Radagast is among the film's characters -- and this slows things down, because he did not appear in the book (where he was only mentioned in passing).
In the film the dwarves are pursued by Azog, an orc warrior found nowhere in the book.
In the book, the dwarves do encounter elves -- in Mirkwood, where they are captured by those elves. In the film, they are guided by Gandalf to Rivendale and offered hospitality by Elrond (who is not in the book).
While at Rivendale, Galadriel (who was not in the book) suddenly shows-up, as does Saruman (who was also not in the book) and they all have a have a pow-wow with Gandalf about the "dark forces which are growing in the land" (a topic never addressed in the book).
Tokien also never used the word "orcs" in the book. He called them "goblins", which gives you an idea of just how much different the tone of The Hobbit is to LOTR.
Moreover, I never once believed I was in another world. I was thoroughly convinced by the worlds in the Star Wars movies, Harry Potter, etc, all of which which had a resonant verisimilitude. But I never once felt convinced (or emotionally engaged) by The Hobbit (and I loved the book).
And Jackson has no sense of narrative pacing. The padding of the script with irrelevant tangents detracts from the story, and the ostentatious action sequences piled one on top of the other leave the audience with no chance to "breath". The result is an extremely tedious, clumsy narrative.
Imagine if Casino Royale had been three hours, and wasted time setting-up plot devices for later Bond stories (that have nothing to do with Casino Royale itself), and Blofeld, Tracy di Vicenzo, Tiger Tanaka and Mr. Kidd & Mr. Wynt all made appearances. That's what this film felt like.
The Hobbit starts-off decently, with a much smoother unfolding of events than the LORT films -- at least early-on. The prologue (explaining how and why the dragon Smaug came to possess the dwarves' treasure) was not actually in the book, but is an effective effective means of setting-up the story, and worked (and looked) great. While I'm generally not a fan of Peter Jackson's visual style (nor the decision to use new Zealand locations), I found the first half hour or so of this film rather good. Martin Freeman is also wonderful in the role of Bilbo, and the entire cast are excellent really. I was very optimistic.
But after a while things started to go awry...
Peter Jackson insists on throwing-in far too many plot devices (and characters) not found anywhere in The Hobbit, in order to connect it to LOTR. Jackson draws on Tolkien's "world building" notes and other sources which formed the historic foundation for Middle Earth, but these are not part of the main narrative of LOTR (let alone The Hobbit), and only result in a lot of pointless (and irritating) tangents that slow the film way down.
It's as if Jackson was trying to make the Middle Earth version of The Phantom Menace -- a massive, epic prequel which sets-up the events seen on LOTR. But The Hobbit is not intrinsically an epic. It is a relatively simple adventure story, and not any type of "set up" for LOTR. Tolkien hadn't even thought of LOTR, the One Ring, or any of that when writing The Hobbit. The Hobbit is merely the story of Bilbo Baggins helping some dwarves to regain their treasure. Period. End of story.
Apart from that, this film is overstuffed with incessant action sequences. The "stone giants" scene (which occurs quite early in the book) is moved closer to the end of the film, where it is immediately followed by another action sequence where our heros are captured by orcs. You can't balk at the complexity and months of effort that clearly went into these sequences. But they are all far-too frenetic and confusing, and at times even laughable -- the stone giants scene has look and feel of a old Toho monster movie, while the escape from the orc caves is silly and preposterous. Toward the end of the film the action just doesn't let-up. It becomes overkill. It's like someone screaming in your face.
On top of that, Jackson makes some radical alterations to what Tolkien actually wrote...
Gandalf's cousin Radagast is among the film's characters -- and this slows things down, because he did not appear in the book (where he was only mentioned in passing).
In the film the dwarves are pursued by Azog, an orc warrior found nowhere in the book.
In the book, the dwarves do encounter elves -- in Mirkwood, where they are captured by those elves. In the film, they are guided by Gandalf to Rivendale and offered hospitality by Elrond (who is not in the book).
While at Rivendale, Galadriel (who was not in the book) suddenly shows-up, as does Saruman (who was also not in the book) and they all have a have a pow-wow with Gandalf about the "dark forces which are growing in the land" (a topic never addressed in the book).
Tokien also never used the word "orcs" in the book. He called them "goblins", which gives you an idea of just how much different the tone of The Hobbit is to LOTR.
Moreover, I never once believed I was in another world. I was thoroughly convinced by the worlds in the Star Wars movies, Harry Potter, etc, all of which which had a resonant verisimilitude. But I never once felt convinced (or emotionally engaged) by The Hobbit (and I loved the book).
And Jackson has no sense of narrative pacing. The padding of the script with irrelevant tangents detracts from the story, and the ostentatious action sequences piled one on top of the other leave the audience with no chance to "breath". The result is an extremely tedious, clumsy narrative.
Last edited by Paul MacLean on Fri Mar 09, 2018 12:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 35761
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Paul thanks for the detailed review. About what I expected. A 110 minute movie bloated out to 2.5 hours+ and spread over three movies so they can reap in the benefits of future installments.
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Andy-this is by a writer on the Palm Beach Post who is one of my closest friends. He has an interesting opinion on the 48fps rate, and in short, he did not like the movie, but it is a humorous read.
http://blogs.palmbeachpost.com/quickpul ... s-it-look/
http://blogs.palmbeachpost.com/quickpul ... s-it-look/
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7535
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: rate the last movie you saw
I saw it in 24 fps, but 3-D. I would have preferred to see it in the 48 frames and 2-D, but the theatre I went to was showing a preview of the new Star Trek movie, but only with the 24 frames version.Jedbu wrote:Andy-this is by a writer on the Palm Beach Post who is one of my closest friends. He has an interesting opinion on the 48fps rate, and in short, he did not like the movie, but it is a humorous read.
http://blogs.palmbeachpost.com/quickpul ... s-it-look/
Star Trek looks awesome by the way.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 35761
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Jeff -- thanks for the link!Jedbu wrote:Andy-this is by a writer on the Palm Beach Post who is one of my closest friends. He has an interesting opinion on the 48fps rate, and in short, he did not like the movie, but it is a humorous read.
http://blogs.palmbeachpost.com/quickpul ... s-it-look/
Paul, was it worth driving to Buffalo for the Star Trek teaser??
Re: rate the last movie you saw
I think Paul's review is the first one I've seen in which the beginning of the movie is praised and the end criticized. Usually it's the other way around.
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7535
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: rate the last movie you saw
It was worth it to to the friend I saw it with!AndyDursin wrote:Paul, was it worth driving to Buffalo for the Star Trek teaser??
Re: rate the last movie you saw
Someone sent me the 2-disc HOBBIT score today-looking forward to listening to it.