Showing posts with label 10 stars movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 10 stars movies. Show all posts

Friday, December 15, 2017

Star Wars: The Last Jedi (Star Wars Episode VIII)




Wow, what a movie!  This certainly deserves to be watched unspoiled.  Do not read this review unless you've already seen the movie.

****SPOILER ALERT*****


****SPOILER ALERT*****


****SPOILER ALERT*****


****SPOILER ALERT*****

I've already gushed before about how Star Wars has a big hold on me because of nostalgia--Here, Here, Here, and Here.  So no need to go through all that again.

Other than to maybe make one quick distinction, which perhaps I didn't make clear in all my previous posts. It's more than just simple nostalgia.  I'm nostalgic for a lot of things from my childhood, in the way that I have pleasant associations with anything from that time--Disney cartoons, and Dr Seuss books, and Transformers, et cetera, will all get a smile and a warm feeling out of me.
But Star Wars is more than just a pleasant reminder of childhood.  In my brain, I still associate Star Wars with all the excitement the movies gave me as a child.  It's not so much a warm-fuzzy nostalgia (although it's partly that as well) but it's a shiver of excitement that goes down my spine.
In this way, when the John Williams music starts, or when I hear the laser gun sound effects, I get that same shiver of excitement.   
If the Internet is any indication, most people my age feel this way.  We are easy targets for the Star Wars franchise, and probably tend to give it higher praise than it really objectively deserves.
But so what?  All of our primitive emotions are irrational, and most movies appeal to our primitive emotions.  Whether we like a movie because it's got good action, or romance, or sex appeal, or slapstick comedy, it's still the primitive animal part of our brain that is reacting to these raw emotions.  Nostalgia is just one of many irrational emotions that color our perception of movies.  So if you like a movie because of nostalgia, that's as good a reason as any.

That caveat out of the way...
Wow, did this movie thrill me.
And sure, a lot of that thrill was the nostalgic thrill of seeing the Star Wars cast again.  But there were also plenty of dramatic points, plenty of intense emotions.  Some great action scenes.  Some wonderful character moments.  Some really unexpected plot developments.
Right from the beginning, that scene with the attack on the dreadnought let you know that this was going to be an amazing movie.  You had all that drama, all that great suspense--would the pilot be able to open the bomber doors in time or not--and it was only the first 10 minutes of the movie.
From that point on, you knew you were going to be in for a great ride.
I was also caught by surprise a number of times.
Those scenes with Kylo Ren and Rey were really great.  I legitimately didn't know whether Rey was going to save Kylo Ren, or be seduced by him.  I was shocked when Kylo Ren killed Snoke, and the movie actually had me believing for a second that he was going to redeem himself.  Only for the next plot twist to kick in, and once again catch me out.

It also had the perfect balance between the old Star Wars characters, and the new ones.  Lots of great moments for Luke, Leia, Chewbacca, Yoda, C3PO, and R2D2.  But also lots of great moments for the new cast to shine.
I'm almost tempted to say it is the best Star Wars film yet.  
My only concern is I don't know how well it's going to hold up under repeat viewing.  (You need to think about the repeat viewings, after all.  This is Star Wars.  We're going to watch this film again and again and again until we're sick of it.)  A lot of the film's dramatic punches worked so well because of the element of surprise, or suspense.
That climatic showdown between Luke and Kylo Ren, for example.  The action choreography in that scene wasn't anything spectacular.  What made it a great scene was all the suspense that they built up, plus that final reveal at the end.  But when we re-watch this film, once the suspense and the surprise are all gone from it, will it become a bit of a bore?
Or what about the argument between Poe Dameron and Admiral Holdo? It was definitely great drama the first time around, but now that we all know how it will end, how exciting will it be to watch for the 5th time?
Check back in 10 years, I guess, to see how well the film has aged.  But for now, my feelings on just coming out of the movie theater is that it is, quite possibly, the best Star Wars film yet.

But of course, there are a few negatives I want to get off my chest...

Negatives
(The list of negatives will often exceed the list of positives, because negatives are easier to quantify.  My over-all impression of this film was good, but it's difficult to really put into words the feeling of excitement it gave me.  My nitpicks about the plot, however, can easily be put into words.  So here are my nitpicks.)

* As much as I love Star Wars, a big problem has always been that the Star Wars universe only has one story to tell--the brave Rebels fighting against the evil Empire.  It's incapable of doing anything else.
This narrative framework is so integral into the Star Wars mythology that even after the Rebels defeated the Empire in Return of the Jedi, they had to completely re-set history, and create a new evil Empire and a new rebellion in order to bring Star Wars back.
Granted, this is a problem that this movie inherited from its predecessors.  But I still thought this movie laid things on a bit too thick.  All that dialogue about how the Rebellion brought hope to the downtrodden of the galaxy was a bit too much for me.  We've already seen the Rebellion put down one evil Empire, and how much good did that do the Galaxy?  None, apparently.  Given that the Galaxy seems to be stuck in a never-ending cycle of rebellion, and the empire's rising and then rebellion again, this whole cycle is beginning to look more like Orwell's Animal Farm and a lot less like a story of hope and promise.

* Another problem that this movie inherited from the greater Star Wars franchise is that The Force has always been way too inconsistent, and because of this can be overused as a Deus Ex Machina by the writers.  There were a few times in this movie when The Force granted characters powers and abilities that were a bit too convenient, and which we've never had any indication of before.  Princess Leia getting the ability to survive in, and fly through, space.  And Luke projecting his hologram over millions of light years.

* As much as I loved this movie, the last 20 minutes did not live up to the rest of the movie, in my opinion.
This was partly just because I was suffering emotional exhaustion at this point.  I had already been on such a roller-coaster--so many highs, and so many lows--that I was losing my ability to care.  The dramatic reveals just couldn't carry the same punch anymore.
But also, Luke's death was really lame.
It was never really explained to the audience.  Why did he choose that moment to let go of his corporeal form?   (It will probably be explained in some future movie, but it left the ending of this movie feeling flat).
And in my opinion, it kind of undermined his victory against Kylo Ren.  Kylo Ren was so upset when he realized he had been fighting against a hologram, and he couldn't kill Luke.  It was a great moment.
...But then, Luke dies anyway?  I mean, I know that it was different, because Luke chose to leave his corporeal form of his own volition, and on his own terms.  But it still kind of seemed like he was giving Kylo Ren what he wanted anyways.

* This movie and The Force Awakens have both done a really good job of balancing the old generation of Star Wars with the new.  But now with Luke and Han's onscreen deaths (and Carrie Fisher's off-screen death) they have burned through all the original trio.
Episode 9 is not going to have the same nostalgic appeal.
I'm sure Luke will come back as a Force ghost, but it won't be the same, and will likely just be a cameo-appearance.  
(To be fair, of course they had no way of knowing that Carrie Fisher would die after the film finished filming.)

* The Force Awakens really ended on a great note.  I mean, it was frustrating, because it was a cliff-hanger, but it was such a great cliff-hanger (with the dramatic Star Wars music coming in just at the right moment).
The ending of this movie, however, was a bit flat and disappointing.  Some kid we don't even know staring off into space, and then the movie ends.

* Benicio Del Toro is a great character actor, and I love his acting in this movie.  That being said... what the heck was his character arc?  Is it just me, or does it feel like there must be a scene missing somewhere?

* Remember 2 years ago when we were so obsessed with the mystery of who Snoke was, or who Rey's parents were?
It seemed like J.J. Abrams had some big surprise waiting for us.  But now we get the answers in this movie, and it turns out there was no big reveal, and J.J. Abrams was just creating mystery for the sake of creating mystery.  Snoke is just some dude who is evil. Rey is just some orphan. (Actually I'm not sure whether to credit this as a positive or a negative.  You almost have to admire the showmanship of J.J. Abrams to create such mystery out of nothing.)

Okay, now that I've gotten all those negatives out of my system--it's a solid 10 out of 10 for me.  Minor complaints aside, all the drama, spectacle, and action that a Star Wars movie should be.  Possibly the best Star Wars movie yet.

Links
For my previous Star Wars reviews:
Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith ,
Star Wars VII: The Force Awakens ,
Star Wars: Rogue One ,

Video Review
Video Review HERE and embedded below:



Link of the Day
Noam Chomsky on Net Neutrality

Wednesday, July 05, 2017

La Révolution française (1989)--The French Revolution

(Movie Review)

Why I Watched This Movie
So, unfortunately, the story of how I came to watch this movie is going to start with a confession: I spend way too much time on Youtube.

Regular readers already know this, of course.  If it wasn't already self-evident from the amount of Youtube Videos I link to on this blog, I've also overtly confessed to worries about Internet and TV addiction in some of my past posts.

It remains my ambition to someday get my viewing habits under control, and live a normal life.

In the meantime, however, I'm going to review this movie I saw on Youtube.



Despite the fact that I personally watched this movie off of the small screen, I'm still counting it as part of my Movie Review Project because it is a real movie.  It got a theatrical release and everything back in 1989.

But I just stumbled upon it while surfing Youtube.

Background   

I never heard of this movie before it popped up on my Youtube page, but I've dug around a bit on the Internet, and apparently this movie was released in 1989 to celebrate the bicentennial of the French Revolution.
Somewhat surprisingly, they decided to go for an international cast.  So, for example, Sam Neill plays Lafayette  , Peter Ustinov plays Mirabeau, Jane Seymour plays Marie Antionette, etc.
Apparently the film originally got an international release in English.  (I'm not sure how that worked--did they dub the lines, or did they record two version of every scene?)  But the only version that anyone on the Internet is able to track down nowadays is the French version with English subtitles.

The film is very long.  Apparently it was long even in its theatrical release, but for the TV version they added back in all the cut material, and it's now over 5 hours long.  It's now broken into two parts:  les Années lumière (Years of Hope) and les Années terribles (Years of Rage).

My Viewing Experience

So, as a history nerd, and someone who's always been interested in the French Revolution, naturally I was salivating when I realized what I had stumbled across.

A few years ago, I had included The French Revolution on my list of real historical events that I wanted to see get the HBO treatment television mini-series treatment.

This was the next best thing.  At 5 hours long, it was essentially half an HBO season.  Close enough.

But it was 5 hours long!  I couldn't watch a movie that long on my tiny computer screen.  So, reluctantly, I clicked away.

But this movie haunted me for a couple of days.  I was really curious as to how they would portray all the different characters and events that I had read about in books.

Eventually, curiosity got the better of me.  "I'll just watch 10 minutes a day," I said.  "It won't be so bad for my eyes that way."
But then, once I got started, I had a hard time pulling myself away.
In the end, I ended up watching the whole thing in about 5 days.

The Review
If you like history, you will love this movie.  It is extremely faithful to the real historical events.

If you don't like history, you will absolutely hate this movie.  Because the movie is rushing to fill in all the events of the French Revolution, it doesn't have time to develop the character or motivation of any of its characters.  Consider yourself warned--there is nothing in this movie that would interest anyone who isn't a history geek.

As for me, I'm a history geek, so I absolutely loved this movie.  All 5 hours of it.  I was completely fascinated from beginning to end.

The film is, however, rushing way too fast to get through everything.  But I suppose you can't fault it for that.  There's a lot to get through.

5 hours seems like a long time, but when you consider all the different phases the French Revolution went through between 1789 and 1794, there is a lot of material to get through here.  And the film doesn't have time to linger.  We briefly get one shown one scene in one part of Paris, and then we're rushing off to somewhere else in Paris to document the next part of the revolution.

In a way, this is perfect for the modern short attention span.  The way the film keeps moving relentlessly forward is one of the reasons I found it so fascinating.  I had a hard time pulling myself away from the screen because I kept wanting to see what would happen next.

But the disadvantage is that although the film does a very good job of showing what happened, it doesn't do such a good job of showing how or why.
For example, every history student knows that Robespierre will eventually rise to power.  So from the moment you first see him, you know he will come to dominate things eventually.  And he does.  But the movie never really shows how he came to dominate the convention.  The movie just shows him as an uncharismatic, fussy, fastidious little man who somehow gets more and more prominent as time progresses.
Similarly, the audience is told that Mirabeau is an important figure in the early stages of the Revolution (as he was) but not really shown it.  (We don't get many scenes of Mirabeau dominating the assembly, so the audience just has to accept that he's important becomes the film tells us he's important.).
Similarly with several other characters.

But what can you do?  Considering this was originally a theatrical release, you can't very well ask for this movie to be any longer than it already is. You just have to accept that there's not enough time for everything, and accept the movie's limitations.

(I still hold out hope that someday someone will make a 5 season cable TV show about the French Revolution.  And then we can finally get into all the glorious details ).

Rating
Keeping in mind that this movie is only for the history geeks, as a history geek I give it 10 out of 10 Stars.

The History
I actually knew most of the history beforehand.  (I've been interested in the French Revolution for a long time--see herehereherehereherehereherehereherehere, here, here, here , here, here , here, here and here).  So there were very few surprises for me in this movie.
But I deprived a lot of pleasure from anticipating how certain events were going to be depicted, and then comparing my idea of these events to what the filmmakers showed.

And it would be an exaggeration to say I learned nothing new from the film--I did pick up a few new tidbits, and learned about a few new names.  (One of the advantages of watching a film on the Internet is that Wikipedia is right at your fingertips.  So I would often pause the film to look up a name, or double check and event, and that also helped me learn more.)

I also think I caught one or two minor inaccuracies.

There's no point in me writing down all my thoughts on the history.  I've got got other things I need to do today, and you can access Wikipedia just as easily as I can.

But I will write down a few things that struck me.

On the Plus Side
* I became interested in Camille Desmoulins a few years ago when I was reading a lot about the French Revolution.  He was one of those names that would pop up in every history of the French Revolution, and he seemed to represent the more romantic and idealistic side of the revolution.
But it was very hard to find any biographies about Camille Desmoulins.  At least in English.  (I searched Amazon.com, and found nothing.)
This movie puts Desmoulins front and center as one of its main characters.  So I was happy about that.

* I was also pleased that this movie found a way to work in the "No one loves armed missionaries" quote from Robespierre.

* Most movies about the French Revolution, and indeed many books about the French Revolution, completely leave out Jacques Hebert.  This is unfortunate, because if you want to understand Robespierre's actions you need to understand that he felt he was in danger both from the Left and from the Right.  If you leave out the story Jacques Hebert, you leave out all the pressure Robespierre was getting from the Left.
The movie didn't have time to develop Hebert, of course, but I'm glad they remembered to put him in at all.

Nitpicks
* I'm disappointed that the movie omitted such characters as Talleyrand, Thomas Paine, and Abbe Sieyès.  But I understand there was no room for them.

* Minor nitpick--Danton went to his death calmly, as depicted in the movie.  Desmoulins, however, was not as calm as he was depicted as being in the movie.

Other Notes
I've been interested in the French Revolution since high school.
But it's scary to think how much I've aged since my school days. I'm now at a point in life where I am older than pretty much all of the French Revolutionaries.
Danton and Desmoulins were 34 when they died.  Robespierre was 36.  Saint Just was only 26.
What have I done with my life?

Video Review
Video Review HERE and embedded below:



Link of the Day
Noam Chomsky (2017) "Nuclear War and Environmental Catastrophe" [FULL Talk + Q&A]

Sunday, April 09, 2017

Best of Enemies

(Movie Review)

Why I Saw This Movie
A co-worker of mine very highly recommended this documentary to me months ago.  I wasn't able to track a copy down in Vietnam, but when I was visiting home I used the Netflix account here to find a copy.

The Review
This is a documentary movie about the 1968 television debates between William Buckley and Gore Vidal.

This documentary won't be everyone's cup of tea, but if you're enough of a geek to be interested in this kind of stuff (someone who's either interested in history or media or the history of media) then it's fascinating.

The archival footage of the debates is entertaining in-and-of itself, but all the extra background the documentary goes into makes for a completely engaging story.

It's also fascinating to watch these debates from 50 years ago and realize how little has changed.
So many of the talking points from both the Left and the Right in 1968 sound virtually identical to the same debate we just had this past year.  It's eerie.

That, plus Buckley and Vidal's habit of "debating" by just exchanging personal attacks and largely ignoring the actual issues seems to be exactly the way most cable news shows operate nowadays.  Again, amazing how little has changed in 50 years.
(This documentary is heavily implying that the Buckley/Vidal 1968 debates helped create the current style of cable news debating.  Whether or not that's actually true, someone smarter than me will have to answer.)

Rating 
10 out of 10 Stars.  (Admittedly I'm biased.  Because this kind of historical political-debate news junkie stuff is exactly the kind of stuff a history political nerd like me would eat up.  But that being said, I still enjoyed this film immensely.  So 10 out of 10 it is.)

Links
My thoughts on Gore Vidal here.  My thoughts on William Buckley here.
Also, I'm pretty sure the Chomsky/Buckley debate, which I've linked to several times over the years (herehere and here), contains an inside joke reference to the famous Buckley-Vidal debates.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the part where Buckley threatens to "smash you in the goddamn face" is Buckley jokingly referencing the time he said the same thing to Gore Vidal. (Watch video from about 9:10)



(Actually, as a sidenote, the fact that Buckley appears to have a sense of humor here about this incident is different to the impression that the viewer gets from the documentary.  A minor quibble.)

Video Review
Video review here and embedded below:




Link of the Day
Noam Chomsky 2017 in Chicago

Tuesday, October 04, 2016

All The Way

(Movie Reviews)

The Review
This is another in the series of political historical dramas directed by Jay Roach and produced for HBO.
I absolutely love these films.
I loved Recount, I loved Game Change.  And I loved this film.

In a world where popular entertainment is becoming dumber and dumber, these smart political historical films are a welcome breath of fresh air.
The writing is smart, the history is fascinating, the acting and directing are superb.

Well done guys.  You've hit the ball out of the park once again.

Rating
I've got a few historical nitpicks which I'm going to get to down below, but in spite of some historical inaccuracies, I'm going to go ahead and give this film 10 out of 10.  It was entertaining, and it did a good job of teaching people about an important year in American history.

Historical Nitpicking
As I said in my review of Lincoln, I'm one of those annoying history purists who believe historical films should stay as true to history as possible.  And this is especially true of political dramas.  Movies like Braveheart or Spartacus get more leeway, because the entertainment value comes from the battles and the romance, and not from the history.
Movies that dramatize political maneuverings, however, are only interesting because they are historical.  If none of this had actually happened, no one would be interested in it.

But before I take this movie to task for inaccuracies, I'm going to admit right up front I don't know everything.  Nor did I exhaustively research this movie.  I caught a handful of things, but for anything I'm I'm not informed about, I'm just assuming the movie got it more or less correct.  If anyone out there knows better, let me know in the comments.  If I find out this movie took more historical liberties than I thought, I might be persuaded to bring down my rating.

I read these articles on the historical accuracy here and here.

From the above articles, I learned that John Lewis, not Stokely Carmichael, was head of SNCC during this time.  (This was something that I have to admit I would have completely missed if the above article hadn't pointed it out--although I should have remembered this, because I had already written about it in an old high school paper of mine, in which I mentioned that Stokely Carmichael replaced John Lewis as head of SNCC in 1966--not 1964).
Stokely Carmichael is better remembered today as the radical voice of the movement, which is obviously why the writers made the switch, but I think the omission of John Lewis was an unfortunate slight to John Lewis.

The FBI's infamous letter to Martin Luther King I already discussed in my review of J. Edgar, in which I quoted a historian who said that the letter was almost certainly delegated, and not written by J. Edgar Hoover personally.  I'll repeat here what I said then:

 I can understand why the movie wanted to have J. Edgar Hoover himself dictate the letter—from a cinematic standpoint that scene of J. Edgar Hoover yelling out that letter to his secretary makes for much more interesting viewing than a scene of Hoover delegating the task.
            And yet, from a historical standpoint, it’s worth remembering the letter was delegated, because it means that the FBI’s attempts to destroy Martin Luther King wasn’t just limited to Hoover’s personal idiosyncrasies, but was something the whole organization was responsible for.
* Finally, on the Vietnam War:
--the movie portrays Robert McNamara as the one pressing Lyndon Johnson on Vietnam.  However, recorded audio tapes from the white house show that it was the other way around--Lyndon Johnson was the one hounding Robert McNamara to make Vietnam more of an issue--see the documentary film The Fog of War.  Or just listen to this 2 minute youtube video here.



--the movie portrays the Gulf of Tonkin incident as an unwelcome complication to Johnson's plans.  However, Daniel Ellsberg in The Most Dangerous Man in America reveals that the White House and the Pentagon had already determined they were going to escalate in Vietnam, and were just looking for something they could use as an excuse.

Addendum:
One further thought which occurs to me belatedly: Watching this movie makes you realize what a struggle it was to get the Voting Rights Act passed in 1965, which makes me angry once again that the Supreme Court struck down the Voting Rights Act in 2013.

Link of the Day
Noam Chomsky The Cold War

Friday, May 22, 2015

Mad Max: Fury Road

(Movie Review)

The Negatives
*  A mindless action film--the bad guy is irredeemably evil, and exists just for the sake of being evil.   Watching this film does nothing to further your understanding of the human condition.

The Positives
* The greatest mindless action film of all time.

The Review
This was the most intense thing I've seen on the screen.  Ever.  I was completely blown out of my seat.
The thing is pure male id.  (Possibly not ideal for the average female viewer, although I'll leave that determination to the females themselves.)  But definitely not for the faint of heart.
But if you want a movie to wow you like you've never been wowed before, this is it.

Rating
10 out of 10 Stars.  (If all movies were judged on some sort of idealistic scale, probably no mindless action movie would deserve to rank higher than a 5.  But I'm judging this film against it's genre --for a mindless action movie, as a mindless action movie, it just completely blows every other movie you've ever seen out of the water.)

Links
Whisky Prajer's thoughts here.
Fredrik deBoer's thoughts here.  (The fact that both of these gentlemen gave this film such rave reviews was the main reason I was so receptive to seeing it myself.)

Link of the Day
Professor Noam Chomsky - Education is Indoctrination

Monday, December 22, 2014

The Grand Budapest Hotel

(Movie Review)

The Review
Admittedly not everyone likes Wes Anderson's quirky humor, but I'm generally a fan.  And I found this movie to be his best yet.  It was laugh out loud funny in several parts.  It had an interesting plot (lots of moving pieces, and it really kept you guessing as to where the story was headed) great characters, and lots of famous actors.  Also I loved the bizarre set-up of the movie (the flashback within a flashback within a flashback).  And unlike some of Wes Anderson's previous movies, it never dragged or got bogged down in sentimentality.

Rating
10 out of 10 Stars.  (Assuming you're a Wes Anderson fan, this is the best movie he's given us yet.)

Links
My other Wes Anderson reviews: Moonrise Kingdom, Fantastic Mr. Fox, and The Life Acquatic

External Links
I part company with the folks at avclub slightly on this--they give it a mixed review, I'm inclined to think this is Wes Anderson's best work ever.  Nonetheless, I'll take the liberty of quoting them only from the sections I agree with--the ones in which they're praising the craft of the film:
the writer-director applies several layers of narrative remove, his story beginning in a modern-day cemetery, as a teenager cracks the spine of a novel called The Grand Budapest Hotel. The film quickly rewinds to the ’80s to meet the author (Tom Wilkinson), then further back to the ’60s to encounter him as a younger man (Jude Law) staying at the once-mighty, now-dilapidated hotel of the title. There, the aging owner, Zero Moustafa (F. Murray Abraham), reminisces about his own 1930s salad days as a lobby boy (Tony Revolori) under the tutelage of concierge M. Gustave (Ralph Fiennes). These multiple narrators are crucial: Like a piece of juicy gossip passing through a crowd, the past becomes romantically distorted each time it’s retold.
Yes, I quite liked that bit as well.  Very clever, very interesting. And:
His visual imagination in overdrive, Anderson stages several inspired chase sequences, a daring prison break, a suspenseful pursuit through an empty museum—all accompanied by the thrum and jangle of Alexandre Desplat’s lively score. Even more so than usual, the director seems to have drawn inspiration from the morbid illustrations of Edward Gorey: His black-clad villains, played by Adrien Brody and Willem Dafoe, are right out of one of the artist’s macabre collections, as are the sudden flashes of darkly comic mayhem.

Link of the Day