Star Wars IX: The Rise of Skywalker

(Movie Review)

***SPOILERS***

My Perceptions Going Into This Movie
I suspect your own story is similar.
In the months leading up to this movie, I started hearing rumors about disasters going on behind the scenes.  Test screening audiences hated the movie.  Reshoots were still going on right up until the release date.  No one could decide on the ending. Et cetera.
Then the reviews got released for this movie, and they were pretty awful.
But then, after all the professional critics had gotten done trashing this movie, a lot of normal people started giving it positive reviews, and saying it wasn't nearly as bad as the critics had made out.

My Review
Yeah, it wasn't great.  Pretty mediocre.  I was bored for much of the movie.
But, it wasn't terrible either.  It was perfectly serviceable as the end of the trilogy. It didn't ruin the characters or the franchise for me.

Because this is Star Wars, and because people tend to have strong opinions about Star Wars, it always helps to keep some perspective.
When we were kids, Star Wars was so magical for us that we've come to expect that every movie in the franchise should re-create that magical feeling.  But this expectation was never realistic.  As more and more Star Wars films get cranked out, we have to realize that some of them will be good, and some of them will just be mediocre.  This is one of the mediocre ones.  It's not the end of the world, it just means that this film isn't quite as interesting or as exciting as some of its predecessors.

I also recognize that the 3rd film in the trilogy is bound to be the boring one.  The first two movies are where all the interesting plot lines are introduced.  But in the final movie, you can't introduce a lot of new interesting plot twists because your job is to start wrapping up the existing plot lines.
So I get it.  The film makers had a hard job in front of them, and they did the best they could with it.

But, in spite of all that, I do still have a number of criticisms of this movie.  So let's get into it:

Negatives
* In my opinion, the principle sin of this movie is that it's boring.
Admittedly not everyone agrees with this.  (I have several friends and family members who thought it was very exciting.)  So take my opinion with a grain of salt.  Your own impression might be different.
There was certainly a lot happening in this movie, but I think my problem was that there was too much happening, and not a lot of time for narrative tension to develop.  So although there was a lot of action happening on the screen, I wasn't invested in it.

* So at this point, it's very obvious that nobody had a coherent plan for this trilogy.  Character arcs that were set up in movies 7 and 8 were not satisfyingly paid-off.  Mysteries that we were encouraged to get invested in were not given logical resolutions.
(See: It Was a Total Lack of Planning That Killed Star Wars--via Whisky Prajer).

* Related to the above point:
The side-lining of Rose Tico was unfortunate.  It didn't make sense from a thematic standpoint, because her character had been built up so much in episode 8, that you would expect her character arc to continue in episode 9.
And it doesn't make sense from an in-universe standpoint, because there's a romantic relationship between her and Finn which is just abruptly dropped with no explanation.
The only thing that really makes sense is that she was sidelined because of the negative reaction her character got from a portion of the fandom and from online trolls.
Personally, I really liked the character.  I liked the idea of an ordinary working person who becomes one of the main characters.  And I thought Kelly Marie Tran's portrayal of her was really endearing.    So I wanted to see more Rose Tico.
Given all the racist online harassment that Kelly Marie Tran had faced from online trolls after episode 8, it was really disappointing to see episode 9 appear to give in to that online trolling by sidelining her character.

* Emperor Palpatine coming back from the dead:
I mean, I understand why they did it.  Kylo Ren needed to turn back to the light side in order for him to get redeemed and his character arc to be completed.  And if Kylo Ren is going to turn good again, then they need someone even more bad and more powerful for him to fight against.  And now that Snoke is dead, who else is left now?
But, it was still stupid.  Palpatine's arc was already over.  We already saw his rise and fall and final defeat.  To have him come back from the dead now just seems to undue the ending of the original trilogy.
Plus, this was never set up in any of the previous movies.
Plus, there was never any sort of explanation given in the movie as to how he came back.  Unless I missed something, there was just some sort of vague exposition about how the dark side gives you a lot of unexpected powers.  Which is a really unsatisfying explanation.  Plus, if that's true, then he can never be killed off, right?  Why should I be invested in Rey's climatic show-down with him, when I know he can never be killed?

* These show-downs with Emperor Palpatine never seem to make a lot of sense.  He tells you to kill him with your light saber, but you can't do it because if you do, then that's just giving into your hate, and he wins.  But if you kill him by any other way, then it's okay, apparently?

* These constant light saber battles between Rey and Kylo Ren are getting really tiresome.  Especially since we know that neither one of them wants to kill the other.  Rey wants to redeem Kylo Ren, and Kylo Ren wants to convert Rey.  Neither of them want the other one dead.  So why do they spend the whole movie hacking at each other with these really deadly weapons as if they wanted to kill the other one? We have to watch them fight and fight, but we know the fight is never going to lead to any sort of outcome.  Plus, we just got done seeing this in the previous movie.

* Okay, so I've made this same critique in all of my Star Wars reviews, but...
I'm of the opinion that the original Star Wars trilogy became popular in spite of The Force and not because of it.  The first Star Wars movie was all about space nazis, space pirates, and outer space fighter plane dog fights, with just a little bit of The Force mysticism overlaid.  But every Star Wars movie since then has focused in on The Force more and more until it's become ridiculous.
It's now apparent that both Kylo Ren and Rey have essentially god-like powers.  They can levitate things, heal the wounded, (bring back the dead?), arrest Star Ships in mid-flight, etc, which makes it very hard to create any tension or sense of danger around their characters.  It also creates a lot of inconsistencies.  From scene to scene, I was constantly thinking to myself, "But why doesn't she just use the Force to get out of this danger?  Clearly she has the power to do it because we just saw it in the previous scene."

* So how many times did it look like a certain character was dead, only for them to turn out to be completely okay?  I think 3 by my count.

* So what happened with Kylo Ren's death?  Did he exchange his life for Rey's?  Did the act of using that much Force just physically exhaust him?  What was going on?
I have the same problems with Luke's death in the previous movie.  And come to that, with Princess Leia's death.  (Although I know they were doing the best they could with limited footage they had of her.)

* That new droid: What was the point of it?  It contributed absolutely nothing to the plot.  I know we were supposed to find him cute, but I just found him annoying, and besides we already have more than enough cute looking droids in these movies.

* Ever since Return of the Jedi in 1983, when George Lucas decided to blow up another Death Star because he couldn't think of anything else to do, it's been apparent that the series has been out of new ideas.  But it's never so painfully obvious as it was in this movie.
The showdown between Rey and Emperor Palpatine was the exact same showdown that Luke had with Emperor Palpatine back in Return of the Jedi, even going so far as to re-use a lot of the exact same dialogue.  I was so bored during these scenes, because I had already seen this movie, and I already knew what was going to happen.  Meanwhile the battle in space to blow up the Death Star big large ship is also the exact same climax of every Star Wars movie.
In my 2015 review of The Force Awakens, I wrote:

I was so charmed by this film that I'm giving it a complete pass on its recycled plot.  But going forward, I think there is now a real question of how many stories Star Wars is capable of telling.  Are we just going to get the same movie over and over again 40 times over the next 40 years?  Because if we are, at some point I'm going to stop forgiving that.

I'm now at the point where I'm going to stop forgiving this.

* That re-purposed footage of Carrie Fisher didn't entirely blend seamlessly into the movie.  You could tell something was a bit off with the scenes she was in.  The dialogue didn't entirely seem natural.  Her interaction with the other characters wasn't entirely organic.  (I know this is one of those things that is nobody's fault, but I have to count it as a negative nonetheless because it's noticeable.)

The Cameos
So, some people online have been referring to the inclusion of old fan favorite characters by the derogatory term of "fan service".  But I actually like them.
I've never really liked that term "fan service" anyway. As if that were a bad thing.  The whole reason people are going to these movies is because they want to see what happened to the characters they love.  The fact that fans are invested in the characters is the reason that a franchise, any franchise exists.  (No one is going to see Star Wars sequels because they care about the politics of the Republic or the New Order,)
So yes, fans want to see their favorite characters back for one last hurrah.  There's nothing wrong with that.

Billy Dee Williams, by all reports, would have been perfectly willing to come back for episode 7 or 8 if someone had just asked him.  In my opinion, it's a pity they didn't include him earlier.  But at least we got to see him in episode 9.

Man, Billy Dee Williams is really looking old and frail.  You get the impression that the actor has a very restricted range of movement these days.
Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, and Carrie Fisher were all looking grey, but they at least looked healthy and energetic.  The same cannot be said for Billy Dee Williams.
But then, the dude is 82 years old, so what do you expect?  (Billy Dee Williams was always a bit older than the other actors.  He was in his early 40s when Empire Strikes Back came out.)  I hope to be as lucky when I'm 82.
In other words, it was a bit depressing to see what time has done to Billy Dee Williams, but not completely unexpected.  I was still glad they included him instead of not including him.

I'm also glad they were able to get a cameo in for Wedge Antilles.  Wedge is someone else that I was disappointed we didn't see in the previous movies.  According to Wikipedia:

Lawson has said he was asked to reprise his role as Wedge Antilles in Star Wars: The Force Awakens, but reportedly turned down the role because he believed it would have "bored" him.[8] However, Lawson later said he actually declined to appear in The Force Awakens due to a scheduling conflict, and would have appeared in the film had he been available.[9] 

Well, okay, so they got him for the final movie at least. 
But was that the most pointless cameo, or what?  He had no introduction.  He was only on screen for half a second, saying "Nice shooting Lando", and then that was it.  He never appeared again.
They couldn't have worked in anything for him to do?  They couldn't work in a brief hero moment for Wedge?
I guess I'm glad I got to see him briefly, but it's really hard to see what the point of that cameo was.

Same with Wicket the Ewok.  I'm guess I'm glad I got to see him for half-a-second on the screen, but it's really hard to figure out what the point of that cameo was.  I would have liked it if they had integrated him into the plot somehow.

Rating:
5 out of 10 Stars.  In spite of all my complaining about stuff, it was in the end a perfectly serviceable sequel.  Not great, not terrible.

Other Star Wars Reviews
Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith ,
Star Wars VII: The Force Awakens ,
Star Wars: Rogue One ,
Star Wars VIII: The Last Jedi ,
Solo: A Star Wars Story

Links:
Whisky Prajer's review HERE.

Video Review
Video review HERE and embedded below. I got caught off in the middle of my rant again.  The camera I'm using can only film for 30 minutes at a time before it shuts down.  But I said most of what I wanted to say, so I'm going to call this one good.  Apologies again for the abrupt ending.



Link of the Day
Relive Office Hours with Professor Chomsky on his birthday, Dec 7!

A Goofy Movie

(Movie Reviews)

Background
This movie came out in 1995.  It's kind of based on The Goof Troop TV show.
I'm just seeing it now.

More Background / My History with the Franchise
This movie is based off of The Goof Troop TV show.
Kind of.  Although they did sort of reboot things for the movie.  They changed some of the voice actors, got rid of some of the characters from the TV show (e.g. Peg, Pistol), and added in some new characters for the movie (Roxanne, Bobby, Stacy).

[Sidenote: I read online somewhere that part of the reason Disney retooled and recast the original premise for the theatrical version is because the Ducktales movie had under-performed at the box office, making the studio leery of directly transferring another show to the big screen.]

The Goof Troop TV show premiered on the Disney Channel when I was in 8th Grade.  And I did watch the TV show.

8th Grade is right about that age where you're beginning to feel embarrassed about watching cartoons, but you still watch them anyway.  (I trust I'm not just speaking for myself here, right?)
Plus, I had always been a huge Disneyphile growing up, so I was keen to keep track of what the Disney characters were up to, even if I did feel like I was outgrowing it a bit.
I liked Goof Troop. I don't remember it quite as fondly as some of the other Disney Afternoon Cartoons, but that could have been because this one came out right when I was growing out of the whole thing.  But Goof Troop was good Saturday Morning Cartoon fare.  It was a suburban comedy, which was different than the usual adventure-driven plot of shows like Ducktales, but it was different in just the right way.   It was funny seeing Goofy's life in the suburbs, and I remember each episode usually had a big wacky slapstick finish (e.g. an out of control fire engine careens around the neighborhood, etc.)

A Goofy Movie, however, came out 3.5 years later, which was right around the time I was graduating from high school.  At 18, I was definitely too old to be interested in this movie, and gave it a pass.

I do remember reading a couple reviews of it when it came out.  (Just because I read reviews of all new movies).  And I remember reviewers panning it at the time.

Strangely enough, however, the movie seems to have become a cult classic over the years.  At least with the generation that has come up since mine.
The Nostalgia Critic notes this in his review of A Goofy Movie.



And, I've got to say, although the Nostalgia Critic's review was my first hint of this, searching around a bit on the Internet has confirmed this for me.  There are a lot of dedicated fans of this movie among the under 25 crowd.

I'm too old to remember A Goofy Movie fondly, but of course I understand the phenomenon easily enough.  I am also nostalgic for all kinds of cartoons from my own youth--even the ones that weren't really all that great.
It's a funny thing nostalgia.  It prevents each generation from ever objectively viewing the media of their childhood, and it has a way of making today's trash into tomorrow's nostalgic classics.
You know all those stupid kids movies that everyone is complaining about nowadays?  Twilight, and The Emoji Movie and Peter Rabbit?  In 20 years they'll all be fondly remembered as classics by the generation that grew up with them.
(I'm given to understand that the same thing has happened with the Star Wars prequels.  People who were 5 years old when they came out are now full-grown adults now, and many of them don't understand what the problem with the prequels are.)

Anyways...where was I again?  Oh right, A Goofy Movie

Why I Watched This Movie
In spite of what The Nostalgia Critic said about this movie having become a cult classic, I felt no particular desire to watch the whole thing through from beginning to end.  (The Nostalgia Critic's summary of the movie more than satiated any curiosity I might have had).  If left to my own devices, I would never have watched this movie.
But, I ended up watching this movie because I my class voted to watch it.
I've been doing a lot of movie worksheets in my classes the past couple years.
I used to just pick the movies myself.  (My general philosophy is to never let the students pick the movie).  But over the past year my students have gotten increasingly picky about the movie, so I've had to do compromise more and more.  I've started providing them with a list of 6 movies, and they vote on which one they want to do.
The last time around, I decided to include A Goofy Movie as one of the choices.  Even though I had never seen it myself, I was influenced by the Nostalgia Critics video, and how this movie had become such a classic with the generation that grew up with it.  There must be something in it that would appeal to the target audience, right?
Well, my class voted to do this movie.  So over the past couple months we watched it in class (about 5 minutes per class with a worksheet).  And now that we're all finished with the whole thing, here's my movie review.

The Review
So... with apologies to the fans of this movie, I didn't think it was anything special.
Sorry.
I mean, I get the "being nostalgic for the movies of your childhood" thing.  I really do.  But for me, watching this movie for the first time at 39, it didn't have quite the same impact.

Which is not to say it's a bad movie.  It's a perfectly serviceable as a cartoon.  It's about everything you'd expect A Goofy Movie to be.
There are a few good laughs, some decent slapstick, and a suitable wacky ending with a careening out-of-control car.

But, the movie never really feels like a real movie.  It feels like an hour long version of the TV show.
It works great as a home video, but I would sure have felt cheated if I had driven to the theater during its initial theatrical release.

This movie was produced by DisneyToons Studios, which you may remember, was responsible for a plague of Disney sequels during the late 1990s.
As, as Lindsay Ellis says in her video essay on Disney Sequels the big problem with all of these movies was that they were produced by TV people, and they all had the pacing of a TV show and the stakes of a TV episode.

And boy is that ever true of A Goofy Movie.  The animation quality is a bit better than the Goof Troop TV show, but the plot, pacing, and stakes are geared much more for the small screen than for the big screen.

In fact, the plot is so thin that it can barely cover the 78 minute running time.
The plot is about Goofy's attempt to reconnect with his teenage son over the course of a road trip.  But it's one of those movies where (in order to pad the run-time) the relationship keeps going up and down.  They start out on horrible terms.  Then they come to appreciate each other.  Then, something will happen to reset the relationship, and they'll be back to being on horrible terms again.  (By my count, the relationship went from bad to good and then reset again 3 times over the course of the movie).

But, my students (8-10 years old) loved it.  They laughed at all the gags.  They kept commenting throughout the movie: "Teacher, it's so funny!"  And they broke into applause at the end.  So the film does seem to hit all the right notes with its target audience.

Other Notes
* Pauly Shore is in this movie.  (He plays Max's friend Bobby).  And he's doing his typical drugged-out-surfer voice shtick.
I absolutely hated Pauly Shore in the 1990s, when he was everywhere.  I thought he was the most annoying thing ever.
But... he's actually alright in this movie.
After watching this movie, I've decided that the key to Pauly Shore is that he works best in small doses.  He should never have starred in any of his own movies, but he works fine as a side character.  A little bit of his shtick goes a long ways.

Rating :
5 out of 10 Stars (Absolutely nothing wrong with this movie--it hits all the notes you'd expect it to hit--but nothing great about it either.  A solid 5 for being average).

Video Review
Video Review HERE and embedded below:



Link of the Day
Chris Hedges (Feb 27, 2018) - Interviews Noam Chomsky

Avengers: Age of Ultron

(Movie Reviews)

Why I Saw this Movie

...or, I suppose, the more relevant question is probably: "Why am I only seeing this movie now?"

I never made it to the theaters for this one.  2 years ago, when it came out, I was new in my city, and didn't have friends to go to the cinema with.
And if you don't see these big epics on the big screen, you've kind of missed your chance.  I mean, what's the point of watching all these action scenes on the small screen?
This is more true now than it was in my childhood.  The simple fight choreography of an Indiana Jones movie was perfectly watchable on the small screen.  But nowadays CGI packs so many moving elements into an action sequence, it's almost impossible to appreciate on the small screen.

...That, plus the fact that this movie didn't get great reviews also kept me from running out and grabbing a copy.

But, since all these Marvel movies fight together, I knew I had to see it sooner or later.
Watching Civil War, it was apparent that I had missed out on several plot points from Age of Ultron.  Also, I wanted to see where Thor and the Hulk had ended up before the new Thor movie hits theaters.

So, when this movie was on TV the other day, I thought I would check it out.

The Review
In my review of the first Avengers movie, I wrote:

Like a lot of people, before this movie came out I was pessimistic about how well it would manage to successfully juggle all the balls that it needed to keep in the air.  And, like a lot of people, I was pleasantly surprised to see that the movie pulled it off.

The first Avengers movie was juggling several characters and franchise continuity, but it still managed to actually be an entertaining movie on its own terms.

I suppose, in retrospect, it was too much to expect that lightening would strike twice.  Because, oh boy oh boy, does The Age of Ultron ever NOT pull this off.

There are two many characters and plot points, and as a result, nothing gets developed the way it should.

The movie slogs from plot point to plot point, but gives the audience very little reason to care about anything.

Ultron himself is barely introduced, and then goes evil almost immediately for no really good reason.

The Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver also barely get developed.  

And Vision! What is going on with Vision? Another character that gets created out of nowhere, has no time to get developed at all, and is just thrown right into the action sequences.

And then the movie tries to milk pathos out of Quicksilver's death, when we've barely been introduced to this character.

The pity is that the movie didn't need to introduce so many new characters.  We didn't need Quicksilver, the Scarlet Witch and Vision.  We would have been happy just to spend more time seeing Iron-man, Thor, and Captain America interacting.  (The movie does give us some good moments with the old characters, but not nearly enough).

The action scenes are decent.  (Marvel has always excelled at its action).  But this movie suffers by being the second outing of the Avengers.  We already saw the Avengers fight an invading horde of faceless badguys in the first movie.  It was kind of cool to see more fighting in the second movie, but it also got old much quicker.  (And for my money, I thought the movie dragged on too long).

On the plus side:

* Admittedly that fight between Iron-Man and the Hulk was really cool.

Rating :

5 out of 10 stars.  That's me being slightly generous to this movie, but the fact that most of the cast is established characters does give this movie some leeway.  The fact that Marvel already spent several movies building up the characters of Ironman, Hulk, Thor, and Captain America means they can get away with doing less in the subsequent movies.  Most of the audience is just happy to see these heroes together again.  And I count myself among that number.  So the movie gets a 5 based on that.

Marvel Cinematic Universe Links:
Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Iron Man 3, Captain America, Captain America 2, Thor, The Incredible Hulk, The Avengers,  Guardians of the Galaxy. Guardians of the Galaxy 2,  Civil War. Ant Man, and Spider-Man Homecoming.

Video Review
Video Review here and embedded below:



Link of the Day
Noam Chomsky "The Crisis of Immigration"

Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation

(Movie Review)

My History With This Franchise
I saw Mission Impossible 1 and Mission Impossible 2 back when they first came out (long before I started my movie reviewing project).  I didn't hate them, but I wasn't particularly blown away by them either.  (Mission Impossible 2 in particular got pretty ridiculous).  So I never bothered to catch up on Mission Impossible 3 and 4.

Why I Saw this Movie
It was playing at the cinema, and a friend invited me.

The Positives
* Competently made: the story, action sequences, chase scenes, and dramatic music are all quite serviceable.

* At this point in the franchise, they seem to have decided to make somewhat of an effort to imitate the spirit of the TV show by having an ensemble team, instead of just Tom Cruise out on his own.

* Speaking of which: Oh wow!  At some point in the movies I missed, Simon Pegg (of the Three Flavours Cornetto Trilogy Fame) had joined the series.  Bonus Simon Pegg point.

The Negatives
 * Am I allowed to complain about how the whole bad guy organization just wants to be bad and spread terror for no reason?  Or do I just have to accept this as part of the genre?
(Actually what am I even saying!  Of course it's just part of the genre.  See: every secret agent movie ever, going all the way back to Dr. No.  And even before Dr. No, there was the same thing going on in James Bond's literary antecedents, like Sax Rohmer.)

The Review
5 movies into the franchise now (and a franchise that had started off pretty cheesy to begin with).  You'd better believe my expectations were pretty low.
...And yet, it wasn't half bad.  Story held my interest, chase scenes were all decent, good suspense, good acting.  Simon Pegg.
It's nothing memorable.  (In 5 years time no one will remember this movie).  But a pleasant waste of time.

Rating :
5 out of 10.  (Completely serviceable, even if it's also completely forgettable.)

Link of the Day
Democracy is a Threat to any Power System

Of Mice and Men (1992)

(Movie Review)

Why I Saw This Movie: I was assigned to teach the novel Of Mice and Men to an advanced English class, and after we finished reading the novel we watched the movie together.

My History With the Novel: I first encountered the novel when my 10th grade English teacher read it aloud to us.  Since then, I have taught the novel (or the Graded Reader Version) 3 times to ESL classes.

My History With the Movie: I’ve managed to avoid seeing this movie until now, but of course I’ve been aware of it for years from various pop culture references, such as the various winks and nods to John Malkovich’s role in this movie in Being John Malkovich. 

The Review

          Very faithful to the book, and very well done for what it is.  This is probably the best adaptation of Steinbeck’s novel we can hope for. 

            But unfortunately, some novels don’t successfully transfer onto the screen, and this is probably one of them.  Characters who seem so lifelike and real in the book just come across as flat and boring on the screen.

Other Things I’d Talk About If I Wasn’t Limiting Myself to 100 Words

* At some point, the discussion should be had about what makes a successful novel, and what makes a successful movie, and why some unforgettable novels make for some very forgettable movies—but someone smarter than me will probably have to tackle that question.

Rating :

5 out of 10 Stars.  (It’s not a great movie as a movie, but it’s the best adaptation of the novel that we could have hoped for, and it’s competently done, so it gets at least a 5.)

Link of the Day

Noam Chomsky on Wikileaks

Cool Hand Luke

(Movie Review)

Why I Saw This Movie

          This is one of those classic movies that I suppose everyone has to see eventually.  On top of that, it had been highly recommended to me by numerous people.

Positives

* Some classic scenes, and some really classic lines (W).

* Wonderfully anti-establishment

* Wonderfully religiously irreverent

* sympathizes with society’s outcasts—the chain gain prisoners.

Negatives

* This film is too much in love with its main character—it makes the whole film feel like a vanity project for Paul Newman

* In common with other films from the 1960s, this film has annoying theme music that the director is determined to drive into your head by playing it and re-playing it over and over and over again.

* A long film, for most of which there’s no clear plot.

The Review

          I hate to give such a classic film a bad review, but I didn’t dig it as much as other people have dug it.  I like the idea of making films about society’s outcasts and underdogs, but I felt like this was undercut by having the central premise of the film revolve around not the ordinary prisoners, but about how cool everyone thought Luke was.  (The film felt like one big vanity project for Paul Newman.)  And although it did have some classic scenes, on the whole the film was overly long with no clear plot or direction.

Other Things I Would Talk About if I Wasn’t Limiting Myself to 100 Words

* Wondering how much of this film’s classic status is related to it being advantageously timed—it’s anti-establishment themes no doubt were lapped up by audiences in 1967.

* Actually as someone who generally sides with the anti-establishment crowd myself, I should perhaps be more on this movie’s side, but I thought the idea of Paul Newman as the super-cool rebel undercut the theme I would have liked to see instead—the idea of the common ordinary person struggling against oppression.

Rating:

5 out of 10 stars

 Link of the Day 

Noam Chomsky on Capitalism, Property, Technology, Government and the Social Order (1997)

Iron Man 3

(Movie Review)

The Review

            Three movies in is about the time that most other franchises start to go sour.  So I suppose it’s to the credit of this movie that it’s still competently produced.  (The screenwriters did a good job of sneaking in important plot points at the beginning that would pay off later.  The action scenes and special effects both good.) And if it’s formulaic—well, it’s a superhero movie, they’re supposed to follow a very set formula.

            Only major complaint: it’s getting ridiculous how many spectacular things the Iron Man suit can do.

Rating :

5 out of 10 Stars  (A pleasant waste of time, but a waste of time nonetheless.)

Links

See my reviews of the previous movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe: Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Captain America, Thor, The Incredible Hulk, and The Avengers.

Also, for the original source material that Marvel based The Mandarin on back in the 1960s, see my review of The Insidious Dr. Fu Manchu.  This movie very cleverly dodges the racist origins of The Mandarin character, leaving essentially only the name of the villain the same.  (Although it may have been better yet to drop the name as well and just go with a different villain altogether.)

Link of the Day
Noam Chomsky "The Militarization of Science and Space"

Iron Man 3: Movie Review

Inside Llewyn Davis

(Movie Review)

The Review

          Our culture is so obsessed with success stories, it’s easy to forget that the feel- good-succeed-against-all-odds typical Hollywood drama represents the rare exception, and not the rule.  The story of struggling and failing is probably more representative of the human condition.

            This is a film that caused me to reflect a bit, and I suppose that’s never a bad thing.  Although I’m not sure how much I’d recommend it for entertainment value.

            On the other hand, the references to 1960s folk music scene were pretty cool.

Other Things I’d Talk About If I Weren’t Limiting Myself to 100 Words

* I didn’t live through the early 1960s, but I suspect some of the language is anachronistic

Rating :

5 out of 10 Stars.  (Another movie that’s difficult to rate--I give this movie 8 for artistic value, 3 for watchability, and so I’ll split the difference with 5).

Links

* My review of other Coen Brother’s movies: Burn After Reading, True Grit, No Country for Old Men, Ladykillers 

External Links/ Why I Watched this movie

* This slate.com article explaining all the real life folk musicians the movie references is essential reading after viewing the film.  (Incidentally, stumbling upon this article is the main reason I bothered to check out this movie in the first place.)

Link of the Day 
Noam Chomsky (1995) "Prospects for World Order"

Inside Llewyn Davis: Movie Review