Dune (2021) Review

REVIEW

I saw the movie the night of October 21st. It was the most opportune time. It turned out to be a unique experience: the first time in my life I've seen a movie before its official release date. The theater was full and the audience attentive--and the movie is nearly 3 hours long!--but then I suppose fans are already committed. A good reason to go when I did! 

Below is my list of what I hoped to see alongside commentary: 

*Spoilers*

 

1. The movie focuses on Paul immediately in the opening scenes and doesn't get bogged down by its own mysticism/mythology.

 

The movie doesn't begin with Paul. It begins on Arrakis, Chani narrating. My initial reaction was disappointment--except that in a very brief sequence, the narrator lays out the Atreides versus Harkonnen struggle. Bang! External conflict instantly established!

The movie never loses this focus. The emperor's minions are brought into the story but never the emperor. I was highly impressed.  

After the brief opening, the movie immediately moves to Caladan. It is exactly how I always imagined it--if a tad more Scottish (seriously, there are bagpipes). Settings and dream sequences emphasize Caladan's abundance of water versus the lack of water on Arrakis. Finally! Someone gets the point!

2. The movie gives Jessica due credit as a fully rounded character. She is neither diminished nor dropped on a pedestal.  

Played by Rebecca Ferguson, Jessica is an impassioned powerhouse. She is not as complexly presented as in the book, but I can allow for the difference. As mentioned elsewhere, movies are by the dictates of their medium tethered to the images they choose to present. The 1984 movie tried to do too much. The Dune miniseries tried to narrow its focus at odd moments, giving the series a haphazard feel. 

Dune (2021) keeps the focus on Paul, where it should be kept. I agree with this choice.

3. Paul as potential prophet is established early on. He is portrayed as neither a yuppie nor a war leader. 

Paul is our perspective into the story. Paul being played by Timothee Chalamet makes a difference. 

He is, for one, how I imagine Paul. If he reached adulthood on Caladan, he would become a friendly, relaxed, thoughtful, charismatic, yet somewhat removed and enigmatic leader. Send him to Arrakis: he becomes something else. But the elements are there already. 

Early on in the movie, Paul endures the test of the Gom Jabbar. Thankfully (since I always thought it was kind of tacky), we don't see his hand burning. All we see is his face as he reacts to the test. Chalamet may not yet have Freeman's extraordinary range of subtle facial movements; he is rapidly getting there. 

4. The Harkonnens are intelligent rivals, neither too awful (if memorable) nor too "everybody has a dark side!" token symbols. 

I still don't get how the Harkonnens could be in charge of anything. One thing these movies fail to realize is that evil men like Stalin had supporters--among intellectuals and among leaders drawn to a supposed adherence to their own philosophical wishes. 

The Britishers in Star Wars are at least amusingly dry.

Bad guys in drab cities sitting around bare metal rooms without furniture and then sinking into sludgy, oily baths are kind of...blah.

Frank Herbert gives the Harkonnens an Ancient Roman Caligula vibe, which is at least somewhat explanatory (bread & circuses). The movie doesn't.

The Baron is darkly intelligent. But still, I would think he would have multiple uprisings and riots on his own planet to worry about--not much time to deal with Arrakis. Oh, look, his people would say, it's a bad guy! He hangs around rooms with no chairs!

In justice, the movie isn't about the Harkonnens but about Paul. I have to commend that decision again. 

6. The movie is intelligently paced--the last two-thirds of the story has a decent flow.

I likely would have realized the following if I had watched previews and read up on the movie beforehand. I didn't. 

The movie is Book 1. 

About 1-1/2 hours (I presume) into the movie, I thought, "What is with these Dune scriptwriters? They aren't leaving enough time for the last 2/3rds. It's going to be a mishmash (again)."

Then, about two minutes later, I thought, "You dummy, Kate. It's Book 1."

I was impressed.

It's still a problem.  

6. Complicated Dune politics are explored, or at least referenced, through characters like Liet-Keynes. Other characters are combined.

Liet is massively underused. The exigencies of the script may have left the writers no choice.

I mention above: only the emperor's minions show up. The emperor doesn't make an appearance in Dune (2021). Nor does Princess Irulan. They don't need to! The political problem plays out intelligently without throwing every character in the book at the screen. I was extremely impressed. 

7. The movie isn't preachy. Not sure how it can be but everything seems to be these days. So--the Fremen are complex, not irritatingly self-righteous as The Victims. 

The movie isn't preachy. In fact, it adheres closely to the book's notable action sequences. These sequences carry the political/religious context. 

 

The problem is that unlike LOTR--which was, granted, split into 3 books by its publisher, not its author--Book 1 of Dune doesn't have a natural conclusion/wrap-up. By focusing on Paul (let me say again: awesome script choice!), the movie was able to end not on an upbeat note (the book doesn't have many of those) but on Paul's acceptance of his fate on Arrakis--or at least, on as much of that fate as he can foresee. 

 

Still, it's not exactly the same ending as Frodo parting from the Fellowship or the rescue of Helm's Deep or, even, Bilbo et al. escaping the Misty Mountains. I'm not saying Dune (2021) fails. I'm saying...

 

See below.

I don't think anyone in the audience was disappointed. I did hear one young man say to his friend, "The 'original' [his word] was half the time and covered the whole story." To which, someone in his group mentioned something about Book 1. I muttered it to myself. 

He wasn't complaining, however! His voice was one of wonderment. As my theater companion said, "I guess...2022." (The sequel, which will cover Books II and III, might not come out until 2023.) Various audience members paused outside the theater to  exchange thoughts. I don't know if they all approved of the movie, but nobody was saying, "Wow, what a waste of my entire Thursday night!" 

It is nice to go to an opening night with people who already care.

IN SUM

I was completely engaged by Dune (2021). The movie is well-worth seeing on a big screen. The focus on Paul (and through him) is one of the smartest script choices for a book-to-movie I've experienced. 

It is a problematic book to bring to screen. 

Here's why: 

There is a strong shift in tone at Leto's death. As soon as Paul and Jessica escape into the desert, the story veers in a new direction.

In the book, to a huge extent, the reader is prepared for the shift by the opening chapter blurbs, delivered (mostly) in the voice of Princess Irulan. The fatalistic essence of Paul's life's course is established. 

In the 1984 version, this tone is established early on, which I commend. It is not the scriptwriters' fault that Kyle MacLachlan is the least fatalistic-looking person in the universe. 

Not exactly Keir Dullea.

The miniseries didn't attempt to establish the fatalistic tone. The writers relied on the break in episodes, which was smart and the best approach overall. 

The 2021 movie establishes Paul's unique personality and fate, but the new tone after Leto's death is glaring. The movie should have ended with the escape from the palace, possibly with the descent into the storm. 

But it then would have become the most depressing mystical sci-fi movie since Hal started killing people off out there on a lonely space station. 

COVID could be to blame here. The sequel is still in pre-production. If the movie had come out as originally scheduled, the sequel may have been more of a certainty. The studio could have afforded a cliffhanger. 

As it is, the film editors gave the movie a resolution of sorts. 

(I have to wonder, how many fans based on previews, not fans of the book or prior movies, are rushing home this weekend to check out the book/prior movies?)

It is an odd circumstance since in a way the editors/studio had to opt for some kind of resolution as opposed to an aesthetically coherent film. I don't fault them for the choice--but--

It is a difficult book to render on film. 

Hmmm, how soon will a director's cut come out?

PRIOR REVIEWS:

Dune (1984)

Miniseries, Part 1

Miniseries, Part II 

Miniseries, Part III

 

Mike Reviews the Latest Star Wars Movie

Let’s be honest. As a Star Wars fan, I’ve been hurt before. When the Prequels first appeared, I was as happy as everyone else, and I clung to the fantasy that those movies were good perhaps a little longer than other people. Soon, however, reality snuck up, and with Episode 3, I had to admit that Lucas had, in fact, let us down.

And so, I rejoiced when George finally decided to hand over the rights. Finally! We had a chance at redemption! The inclusion of JJ Abrams was also a positive. I’ve been an on and off fan of his as well. If JJ could rein in some of his tendencies, then we might just have a chance. (For the unaware, JJ Abrams loves mysteries . . . but he doesn’t like solving them or explaining them; as a result, many of his revelations are either absent or disappointing).

But then word started to leak. Sure, the old cast would be back, but so would the Empire. And the Rebellion. And, oh yeah, peace hasn’t come to the galaxy. This worried me, because more than anything else in the original series, the thing I loved the most was the happy ending. The bad guys were beaten, the heroes had found love or closure, and some characters even found redemption. It was perfect (well, perfect enough).

The Star Wars kid in all of us.

With this stark news, I couldn’t get excited. I refused. I was a tense, angry, frustrated fan that was still going to see it opening day . . . but there was no way I would be fooled again. I drew a line in the sand and swore that if the new movie crossed it, I would reject it and storm out of the theater. Some friends pointed out that I might be going about things the wrong way. And they were probably right.

Regardless, opening day I was there with my son. The opening scroll started, and I was a kid again, against my will. And to my surprise, I found myself happily laughing, clapping, and even cheering along with the film. As the film wound towards the final scenes, I found myself loving it dearly. But then . . . something happened.

It’s been months, so chances are you already know what happened. But just in case, SPOILERS lie ahead, young Padawan.

*SPOILER ALERT*

One of Star Wars' many Prerequisite Bottomless Pits

Throughout the film we discover that the new villain, a whiny emo clone of Darth Vader (who is oddly fun to watch), is actually the son of heroes Han and Leia. As the heroes rush towards the final battle, Han decides to try and save his son with an ill-advised heart to heart on a narrow bridge over the prerequisite bottomless pit. Things don’t go as planned, however, and the almost touching moment ends with Han being stabbed through the heart with a light-saber and then dropping into the conveniently located pit below.

I was mortified. This film, which had so skillfully coaxed out the young and exuberant Star Wars fan inside this man, suddenly, ruthlessly and traumatically murdered his childhood hero before his eyes. It’s like getting a beautifully wrapped present on your birthday just to find a decapitated head inside. My son was equally horrified. I was numb throughout the rest of the movie. Sure, there were some cool moments; I vaguely remember a light-saber fight, a big celebratory ending, and even some swelling music at some point. But my mind kept going back to that one horrifying moment, as Han tried to connect with his son, just to get a badly designed light-saber in the chest for his trouble.

The rest of the movie was a dull, emotionless blur for me. I was devastated, horrified, and angry. This wasn’t how Han decided to go out. He was a hero, dammit! He had earned a happy ending! At very least, as a rogue, hero, and true friend, he deserved to go out in a blaze of glory defending his friends: a kamikaze run for the ages. Instead we get a badly lit lifetime moment followed by millions of Star Wars fans crying out.

It’s hard to get past this moment. I’ve seen the film 3 times now, and all in all, I think my feelings for it lean positive. I like the new characters, though their pasts are all shrouded in Abrams' usual fog of mystery. The existence, motivations, and even structure of the villain is shady and unclear as is the need for the new rebellion. I’m confused why the galaxy would need a non-government run “Resistance” to fight what appears to be a rogue terrorist group. Rey, the new main character, is strong and compelling though it’s hard to imagine that the answers to her past will be as interesting as the mystery itself.

Abrams and THE star of Star Wars

The return of practical effects was welcome, and the return of old characters was wonderful. The film, on the whole, is a love letter to the old films. It’s when Abrams tries to move the Star Wars universe toward his vision that the movie struggles; not so much that his vision betrays the old films, but in that this new direction lacks the logic, reasoning, and emotion that served as foundation of the original trilogy.

In the end, it’s the death of Han and the method in which the film chose to do it that feels the most out of place. While I feel I understand the choices and what function the event serves in the story, the method in which it was carried out felt excessive and cruel. The film was looking for a shocking moment to sell it, and it found one; unfortunately, it may have lost some of the more sensitive fans along the way.

So, if you’re looking for a fun romp in the Star Wars universe, the new film may just be for you. But if the happy ending of Jedi means anything to you, you might want to stop there.

You can read more reviews by Mike (and about Star Wars) here. 

Star Wars Star Wars Everywhere!

It sprang into being in 1977, the imaginative masterpiece of wunderkid George Lucas--or at least a imaginative masterpiece after serious editing:

STAR WARS!

It was a huge hit, selling to packed theaters and spawning a franchise that is still operative today. It got Joseph Campbell all excited. It pushed fed-up actor Harrison Ford into the limelight. Star Wars inspired a generation of geeks, writers, and filmakers, changing American culture and cinema forever.

There are traces of its impact everywhere, especially in film and television.  In fact, it's fair to say that every non-period major television series made since features at least one Star Wars reference.  The influence of Star Wars is so profound, that when we talked about a tribute list, or a list of shows that all reference one source, Star Wars was the obvious choice.

Each of the titles on this list pays homage to Star Wars in its own way, ranging from pure imitation, proven plagiarism, to good-natured mockery.  While the impact of Star Wars has been much more profound than some funny references, there are few films that are being referenced just as consistently 35 years later.

Here's the list. Reviews will begin the weekend of June 22nd.

1. Family Guy: "Blue Harvest"
2. Spaceballs
3. Robot Chicken: "Star Wars"
4. Fanboys
5. Battlestar Galatica Pilot (1978)
6. Fifth Element
7. Friends: "The One With the Princess Leia Fantasy" (Season 3) and That 70's Show: "A New Hope" (Season 1)
8. Toy Story II
9. X-Files: "Small Potatoes" (Season 4) and "Jose Chung's From Outer Space" (Season 3)
10. Scrubs: "My Two Dads" (Season 1) and Phineas and Ferb: "The Chronicles of Meap" (Season 2)

The Club's review of Star Wars: A New Hope can be found here, including Mike and Kate's separate introductions to the franchise.

A sizzling  (and very entertaining) critique of the Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, and Revenge of the Sith can be found at Red Letter Media.

The Tempest

Shakespeare's Play: Tempest, 1611 (one of Shakespeare's last plays, often perceived as his personal farewell to the stage)

Definitive versions: Hallmark Hall of Fame version (1960) with Maurice Evans, Richard Burton, Lee Remick, and Roddy McDowell; Wishbone version. Interestingly enough, this play has very few true-to-the-original versions; The Complete Dramatic Works version with Michael Hordern, which isn't bad, is kind of it.

Retelling: Forbidden Planet (1956)

KATE SAYS the impressive thing about this movie is how uncorny it is. I went in expecting silly special effects, silly robots, and silly acting. I love Leslie Nielsen (mostly from Due South but also from Columbo), but I have to admit, the most memorable thing about Leslie Nielsen is that he did a whole bunch of corny films, and he always looks like he is about to crack-up. He CAN do serious acting, but most of the time, his attitude seems to be "Why bother?"

So I was immensely impressed by the film's serious vision and attitude. Consequently, although it is really an hour-long episode that has been unnecessary expanded to 90 minutes, Forbidden Planet has a much more modern/dramatic feel to it than much of the sci-fi that followed it on television and on the big screen.

Even by the time Star Trek: The Original Series came around, corniness had crept into the genre. The first season of Star Trek: TOS has some solid sci-fi episodes. But there's still a bit of a wink and a nod at the back of the scripts and the acting. Forbidden Planet, on the other hand, is not only completely serious about but completely enamored with its own sci-fi nature.

After all, the 1950s were the hey-day of science-fiction! Asimov was producing stuff. Sci-fi magazines were flooding the marketplace. And although I love my Stargate, I have to admire the mentality that produced Forbidden Planet without flinching.

First, I really like the military aspect of the movie (this is where Stargate unabashedly comes out ahead of Star Trek: we're military! so what? get over it). The relationship between the captain and his men is quiet, even affectionate, yet real in its expectations and discipline. I was seriously upset when the men started dying. And I was also seriously impressed by the crew's response to the planet's threat. Although the guns fail to take out the monster, they do hold it off. 

Second, Anne Francis steals the screen as Alta. She may be blond. And she may be innocent. But she's no dummy. She delivers her lines with panache, amusement, and strength. She does get dumber towards the end of the movie, but in a way, this is inevitable: she can either stay on the planet with a fruitcake or take her chances in an obviously male-dominated society. She isn't wrong to opt for the latter; it's called growing up.

Third, the special effects are quite impressive. I think this is mostly because they are so simple. There are a few breathtaking scenes that are so well-designed, I forgot I was watching a 1956 film.

And the attendant lighting, costuming, and camera-work give some scenes a truly classic, literary effect. Towards the end of the movie, Adams faces Morbius in his office. Morbius is seated, leaning forward over his desk. Behind Adams to his immediate right, "Doc" leans against a wall. Further behind Adams, Alta--now dressed in black--waits in the shadows. The scene is beautifully shot and blocked and expresses more than all the remaining dialog about the movie's relationships, including each character's intentions.

The one major snag to the film is the middle portion where the "this is sci-fi!" excitement gets out of hand. There's almost 15-20 minutes of showing off sci-fi gadgets, stuff that sci-fi shows now take for granted. It's kind of like the middle of Moby-Dick where Melville starts telling us how to cut up a whale. Well, okay, that's nice, Melville. What's going to happen next?

And Forbidden Planet does make you wonder what will happen next!

As for the Shakespearean influence, while I was watching the movie, my reaction was, "Well, sure, it's kind of like The Tempest, but not all that much." After reading up about different versions of The Tempest, however, I've formed the conclusion that actually Forbidden Planet may be the closest version out there. It certainly seems to capture Shakespeare's theme more than the others!

MIKE SAYS after watching Forbidden Planet, and then doing a little research, I'm inclined to believe that any similarities to The Tempest were probably accidental, and in the best case scenario, a screenwriter or director noticed the analogs and enhanced them in a later draft.  But, this doesn't really ruin the movie for me. Instead, it highlights what makes Shakespeare's work so impressive: his ability to capture and represent archetypical stories in a near universally understandable manner (well, except for the old English).

As for Planet, the film is remarkably beautiful and striking.  I watched the DVD on my Blu-Ray player, which upscales the quality of the film.  Couple this with my 43" flat screen, and well, frankly, the film blew my mind.  The image was crisp, the colors were bold and bright, and every single special effect was convincing.

The effects especially impressed me, as they were easily comparable to the quality of current television, despite the years since the movie's release.  The simplicity of the images and their use really helped sell them all the more.

The plot is simple, though again, only incidentally comparable to The Tempest.  The film is definitely true to its era, with pacing, acting, and editing that is very straight, ordered, and evenly paced.  If anything, it helps show the strengths and weaknesses of modern editing techniques . . . while the film doesn't buzz along, it's easy enough to follow, and a viewer feels free to blink without missing a key plot point.

I do have to agree with you, Kate, that the film does feel weighed down by extra exposition showing off the sci-fi world.  I imagine that those seeing the film for the first time were anxious to immerse themselves in this new world.  For viewers today, however, most of this stuff is old hat, and it's a little tedious to sit through.

Despite this, I was completely impressed by the film:  I can now understand how this is considered the father of modern sci-fi.  It seems that filmmakers of the last 50 years have merely been trying to convey what they felt when they first saw Forbidden Planet.  While we can watch it now in all it's glory, I don't think we'll ever be able to appreciate the impact this film had on a society still new to a genre that has spawned a generation of geeks . . . on second thought, that may not be a good thing . . .

The Dark Knight

When: 2008, Bale's 35th film

Genre: Superhero, Dark Fantasy/Sci-Fi, Nolan

Mike and Kate reviewed the first movie of Nolan’s series, Batman Begins as part of List 9, Superhero Movies.

Mike says watching The Dark Knight again in the aftermath of the giddy adventure that was Avengers is like getting a cute new puppy...and then finding out that your crazy neighbor ate it. While one is a fun and memorable experience, the other, while more emotionally potent, kinda takes the fun out of it.

Just to be clear, I love The Dark Knight. A universally accepted and loved (not to mention dramatically relevant) version of Batman was previously the high point of the past superhero-filled decade.  After the two Shumacher movies, it was pretty gratifying to have such a serious take on Batman.

The trouble is, Avengers reminded us of just how much of a party superhero movies can be, revealing The Dark Knight as the guy brooding in the corner...which is pretty appropriate, now I think of it.

Despite its heavy tone, the film is still one of the most epic movies of the genre; while length certainly helps this, the journey of each character, and the scope of the film and setting, hearkens back to the epic films of the classic movie era. Sad to say, but The Dark Knight may be our generation's equivalent to The Ten Commandments.

My favorite thing is just how much film noir flavors the movie.  Replace high-tech props with prohibition-era gadgets, and you'd have a 30's Gangster film with a much cooler detective. As Batman was created at the end of the 1930's, this is actually pretty appropriate.

Bale's performance is pretty impressive. While Batman's arc doesn't seem as large as that of the other characters, he still undergoes a journey from cautious hope to desperate sacrifice. While he definitely sports a different look in this film (the most telling sign is just how big the original Bat-suit is on him), he still pulls off a great Bruce Wayne/Batman: definitely the first actor to do so (meaning, previous actors usually are only good as Bruce OR Batman).

I love the look of the film as well;  the updated Bat-suit is the first film version that I actually like. Batman's comic look features far more cloth, and I was never sold on the whole rubber look.  The new, streamlined, agile suite really suits him better and requires far less of a jump in belief.

I enjoy the Joker, the retelling of Two-Face (Harvey Two-Face is SUCH a gangster name!), Michael Caine . . . everything but Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel Dawes. While Katie Holmes didn't exactly make the role endearing, I could at least endure her.  Gyllenhaal is downright annoying; her self-righteous and close-minded choice to cut ties with Bruce just makes the character's death that much more of a relief.

My only real regret in transitioning from this film to The Dark Knight Rises next week is the knowledge that the upcoming sequel was not what Nolan originally foresaw.  The Joker was important and had definitely not made his last appearance.  He will be missed in the coming film.  Despite some Batman & Robin inspired fears, I AM getting excited for next week.  I have some definite thoughts on what might happen, and they tend to go against the rampant rumors online.

My official call, which is COMPLETELY unsupported by anything floating around right now, is that Batman lives, Gordon-Levitt is just a cop, and the general public is going to be a tad disappointed because of that . . . at least at first. 

But hey, at least we're finally free of Bat-nipples, right?

Kate says I’ve always found the Joker completely disturbing, so I wasn’t completely committed to seeing The Dark Knight when it came out; this review represents only my second viewing. (I am far more willing to see The Dark Knight Rises.)

The Joker does come with an intrinsic problem—why would so many hoodlums help him? Terrorists follow an ideology. The Joker has nothing to offer his followers in terms of belief or loyalty, and psychopathy isn’t THAT common (which is kind of Nolan’s point).

However, the Joker as chaos/anarchy/badness-for-the-sake-of-badness does help Nolan sell his theme: Batman as anti-hero is a symbol, the dark side of heroism where difficult choices have to be made, not everyone comes out alive, and some things just have to be endured. (Plus Heath Ledger as the Joker is far more impressive than Nicholson; anyone can act nuts; it takes real skill to be a nutty criminal who acts marginally sane while saying nutty things.)

I get back to Nolan's theme below, but first, the negative:

The movie is too long. I’ve begun to notice that Nolan’s way of storytelling is to start with a premise, then let it unwind. The result, on the one hand, is stories with a natural, real-world feel despite the sometimes fantastic backgrounds. On the other hand, Nolan’s movies kind of go on and on and on without any obvious goal. By the time I reached 1:20 minutes of The Dark Knight, I had to keep reminding myself, “This is the MID-way point. The movie has eighty minutes to go.”

In a way, this unending-saga-with-seemingly-no-structure feel is due to the Spiderman 3 problem: too many villains. The Dark Knight has Harvey Dent (Two-Face), the Mob, Joker. In order to make it unwind in a natural way, the movie HAS to be over 2 hours long.

This is unfortunate because while the first 1/2 of the movie is kind of random and slow, the last 1/2 of the movie is magnificent—suspenseful, unexpected, strongly underscored by good performances and Nolan’s theme. The final exchange between Batman and Gordon delivers a sense of true sacrifice. The scene where Lucius types in his name and sees that Wayne kept his promise brought tears to my eyes (I also love the part where Reese realizes that his employer saved him despite what he planned to do).

Unfortunately, the second part of the movie wouldn’t have worked without the groundwork of the first part—it’s a pity movies can’t be like operas used to be where the audience would get a program with background/bring-you-up-to-date notes, so movies could start in the middle.

I doubt I’ll watch The Dark Knight again, but there are a few other things I like about it: the move to Wayne Towers, which I think matches not only Nolan’s vision but Bale’s look much better than Wayne Manor.

And the cast. This isn’t just a fun, neat cast like in The Prestige; this is an unbelievably high quality cast all the way from the top stars down to the mobsters, including people like Ritchie Costner (as Chechen).

And Bale, of course, does a great job. He has acquired a spare, almost gaunt lankiness that makes him far more attractive than during his heart-throb days. He has also acquired a Gary Oldman quality.

Gary Oldman can morph into any role. He isn’t Gary Oldman; he is...whoever. I think Bale has reached that point. During The Dark Knight, while I never forgot that I was watching Bale (after all, I was reviewing the movie for this list!), I never felt that Bale was anything other than Batman/Bruce Wayne. This, frankly, is seldom true of other movie superheroes (though with Stark/Downey, Jr., the blend of actor with superhero is kind of the point). Bale has gained that Gary Oldman quality where the actor dissolves into the character—which is fairly impressive.

NEXT WEEK: Dark Knight Rises--our second theater review!!

Equilibrium

When: 2002, 25th film

Age/Genre: Yeah, we skipped a lot; however, once we reviewed Little Women, we'd tackled almost every genre that Bale went on to explore between the ages of 20 and 28—family, drama, book-related, Shakespeare, musicals (we're saving voice-animation for Howl’s Moving Castle). At this point, #25, Bale’s portfolio becomes more and more action-oriented. Equilibrium is, in fact, Bale's second straight action flick.

Kate says in the world of not-so-strange-coincidence, I’ve written a story, that hopefully will come out this summer, which is the exact mirror of this movie: in my story, future society is all about the over-expression of emotion; people get good grades, jobs, contracts, etc. by crying and shouting and otherwise acting hysterically. My heroine’s problem: the over-emotionalizing “programming” didn’t take.

Which proves (1) that there are only so many ideas out there; (2) I have a proclivity for this type of sci-fi.

I’ve always enjoyed “What if?” sci-fi that asks improbable questions: What if people had no emotion? What if people had too much emotion? What if people could only say the word “if”?

The problem with this type of sci-fi is that it is easy (and fun) to start but incredibly difficult to end. Star Trek: TNG and Star Trek: Voyager would just say, “Oh, our hour is up” which, actually, isn’t the worst way to end this type of narrative.

Which is all to say: the beginning of Equilibrium is fantastic, the middle is “eh” and the ending is, well, um, huh?

Talk about deus ex machinas! (Spoilers follow.) The leader of the underground just happens to be a Messianic figure living right next door? Preston, who has EVERY reason to put the woman first over vague revolutionary ideals, DOESN’T put her first? (I’m not usually in favor of characters betraying their countries for l-u-v but in this case, it totally would have made sense.) The kids suddenly turn out not to be taking the emotionless juice?

The last point bothered me more than the rest. All in all, plot-wise, this is a tidy film (and I’ll get to my absolute favorite part in just a moment). But I really think Preston should have had more investment in those kids. If he is going to start a revolution, what’s he doing it for? So he can feel isn’t enough—he can feel on his own without involving anyone else.

What makes Preston altruistic, what makes Preston willing to slaughter literally hundreds of people? I thought the irony of connecting Preston’s choices to his feelings was clever (and sold the theme that emotion is worth the price), but it isn't enough to explain the enormity of what he does.

Preston does what he is does for a PRINCIPLE—and, well, that’s a whole other problem and a whole other movie.

Anyway, even from a writing point of view, the kids’ behavior needed to be set up more.

My absolute favorite part: how feeling is connected to little things. I love the scene when Preston wakes after not taking his meds and sees the sunlight. I love his humorous response to the dog’s yapping (love that dog!). I love the snow globe. (Beethoven is great, but I really love the globe.) I love Partridge's worn copy of Yeats. I love the “sex scene” with Mary that involves touching fingers. I love Preston rearranging his desk—these minor, beautiful moments are touching and real and sell much (if not all) of the movie's point.

The movie is worth watching. In fact, it is one of the few movies that I’ve seen where I thought, “You know, this would make a really awesome book” (rather than the other way around). It would be fascinating to read Preston’s process of thought/what he is thinking as he changes.

As for the cast: Bale is all grown up and acting fierce. Though the movie is not as good as The Matrix (despite the blurb on the DVD I borrowed), Bale is definitely a better actor than Reeves (not that Reeves isn’t good at doing his thing). The scene where Bale watches his wife getting ready for work is a great example of Bale's ability to transmit emotion without under or overacting: without saying anything, Bale betrays Preston’s longing for his wife, even though at the time the character doesn't understand his own behavior.

And Bale does completely sell the idea that Preston is changing internally. (Not an easy thing to do in a role where the character hardly discusses anything with anyone.)

The rest of the cast is notable. I mean, any movie with Sean Bean . . . Taye Briggs is thoroughly stunning although his character, Brandt, is wretchedly under-utilized. (Agent Smith is paid-off much better.) Emily Watson is my favorite kind of heroine—she doesn’t do much, but everything she does has depth. And I have to give a shout-out to Sean Pertwee (the “face” of Father). I first encountered Pertwee when watching the Brother Cadfael mysteries (he plays Hugh in the first series). As Father, he really sells the intellectual ideas behind the culture.

Unfortunately, Angus MacFayden as Dupont is thoroughly dull; Fichtner would have made a better nut-job with delusions of grandeur; wait, he kind of does!

But, again, Bale is astonishing. After watching him sleep-walk (in a good way) through Little Women, I have to say, action movies really are his forte.

Although next week will change our focus yet again!

Mike says I know the plot has holes. I know that a society such as the one presented in the film would also be problematic and is difficult to represent accurately with actors who CAN feel emotion. The truth is the film is far from perfect, and yet I still enjoy it immensely.

As opposed to your run of the mill small release, Equilibrium tries very hard to be a thinking man’s action flick, making a philosophical argument a little more enjoyable with bad-ass martial arts. Whether or not the film succeeds in this is really up to the viewer

Bale’s performance is strong, moving, and genuine. For me, he really sold his transformation. The film is also a definitive move back to the physical roles he seems to prefer. The only problem with Bale’s performance is that he conveys his emotional discoveries so well that it’s hard to imagine no one picked up on his offense sooner. Fortunately, this is worked into the story itself, with just about everyone knowing what is going on, but each letting Preston get away with it in order to meet their own agendas.

The film really is a fusion between action flick and dystopian drama . . . and the action definitely feels a little shoe-horned in, but it plays enough of a role in the story that it does work. That the action is spectacular helps to hide the odd pairing. While the idea of a martial art based around guns sounds a bit silly at first, it does make a sort of sense: Martial arts are often based around a simple weapon that is easy to get a hold of. In the right society, it would make sense for such a thing to develop.

Between the action and the plot, the success of the entire movie really comes down to Bale. Despite some admittedly significant flaws in the script, Bale’s phenomenal handling of both elevates the entire film.

Bale’s moving portrayal of his emotional journey is masterful, but my favorite scene in the film uses both action and acting. Finally accepted into the sanctuary of Father, Bale is subjected to a polygraph that will reveal him as a sense offender. While hooked to the machine, the main villain’s entire plan, including the manipulation of Preston’s own emotions, is revealed and victory is declared as the villains claim they tricked the hero into surrendering “without incident.”

 Preston is overwhelmed with rage, despair, and sadness to the point of exploding. Instead, the polygraph, which has been recording severe emotion, suddenly deadlines to the horror of the doctors. “No. Not without incident.” And, of course, gratuitous violence ensues.

I really do love this film, despite its flaws. And, to be honest, I desperately needed something to cleanse my pallet of Little Women. Thank goodness for action flicks!

Inception

Aired Date: July 16, 2010

Time Kate wanted to see it: I believe when Mike recommended it, sometime after it came out on DVD.

Reason Kate procrastinated: Actually, for me, this isn't procrastinating! It came out less than 2 years ago!

Category: Film, Sci-fi

Kate says BE WARNED! I will be giving away the ending.

To begin with, I love Hans Zimmer's scores.

Second, what an awesome cast! I referring specifically to Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the cool, gentleman Bourne, Tom Hardy as wry Eames, the excellent Ken Watanabe as Saito, Ellen Page as the lecturing team member who doesn't come across as too lecturing, Marion Cotillard as a rather complex manifestation of Cobb. Not to mention Lukas Haas showing up as Nash (man, that guy gets around!) and Cillian Murphy acting non-crazy while looking younger than he did in Batman Begins!

And Leonardo DiCaprio. I actually don't mind Leonardo too much despite Titanic. He isn't like Tom Cruise whom I have trouble watching in just about anything. It isn't Tom Cruise's personal life that bothers me; it's that every character he plays is a type of put-upon victim (chased by women he has to kill; persecuted by authorities he has to destroy), and I can't help but think it is a projection of Cruise's personality.

But DiCaprio deliberately, and interestingly, goes off-grid for movies, and he actually has the ability to do it.

Music and actors aside, I loved the milieu ("setting" sounds so drab for what Nolan has pulled off). Like in Batman Begins, the city-scapes feel authentic while also being fantastic and elaborate. They remind me of Miyazaki's animated city-scapes in movies like Howl's Moving Castle.

So what about the plot?

I was incredibly pleased that the ending didn't entail a dream-within-a-dream solution (I am aware that perhaps we are meant to think that; more on this later). The Leverage-type con was enough to hold my interest, but I would have been terribly disappointed if the whole thing had just been all-in-the-mind. Matrix did it, people. Can we move on now?

However, the major problem with the ending NOT being a dream-within-a-dream is that not all the "real" bits of the movie feel "real." The whole sequence in Morocco or wherever doesn't feel real at all--yet it is supposed to be. Additionally, some things are just off--like the kids haven't aged, which is weird. And why would Saito want to join the team? (It is possible that all along he really just wanted to have the layered dream experience, but this is NOT made clear.)

I do realize that questioning the nature of reality might be Nolan's point--for instance, the choice isn't Dom giving up limbo for reality but Dom giving up limbo for the better dream (with his children and intact team rather than with a faded projection of an angry woman). But it's the sort of thing that confuses the film's intentions; it also doesn't make me go, "Wow, how profound! That totally makes me, like, consider the nature of reality." It just makes me think the script-writers are lazy.

So I would have enjoyed the ending as much as the rest of the film (man, that elevator sequence is cool!) if the ending had been clearer in its conclusion (and been set up for better).

That said, the movie is definitely worth watching, and Nolan does seem far more concerned with having fun with sets than with making a big point (in fact, I think he may have forgotten the film's point)--which is rather refreshing! In fact, Nolan has the following to say (obtained from Wikipedia):

I choose to believe that Cobb gets back to his kids, because I have young kids. People who have kids definitely read it differently than those who don't . . . I've read plenty of very off-the-wall interpretations . . . The most important emotional thing about the top spinning at the end is that Cobb is not looking at it. He doesn't care.

Mucho thanks to Mike for sending me the above quote!

Mike says I'm still a little mad at Leonardo DiCaprio for The Aviator. That's not very fair of me, but it's true. To be honest, I was a little bugged by everything I had seen DiCaprio in through the years leading up to Inception. And by bugged, I meant I hated them. Fiercely. And even though I knew this had more to do with the director of those movies (wow, I really dislike Martin Scorsese), it was with some hesitation that I saw Inception.

The only thing that kept my hopes up was the thought "It's Nolan. He won't let me down."

And the cool thing is, he didn't. I loved the movie utterly and completely, groaning aloud at the end and still loving that Nolan wouldn't give me an easy way out; no, just like the rest of the movie, the ending gave me something to think about.

I was so blown away, I saw it again. The SAME DAY.

The great thing about the film, in general, is that this is hard core, deep concept sci-fi with almost no props, no obviously fantastical setting (yes, a dream is fantastic, but it doesn't LOOK fantastic, unless you look at just the right time), and explanations that rely on things most people experience everyday.

The uninformed passerby would assume that Inception is some sort of chase movie, or drama, and wouldn't pick up on the nature of the film until the later half, which, admittedly, does feature a man running up a wall and a massive city scape that could never exist in reality. That the film also works as a heist film only adds to the experience.

The actors are dead on in their performances, and every scene, line, and expression is a delight. I love that even though Cobb is the protagonist of the film, he's not really the hero. That honor goes to the suave and, ok, even I have to admit it, dead sexy Joseph Gordan-Levitt (though it pains me, and my wife is laughing at me over my shoulder, I can't deny the truth). As Arthur, Levitt fights the bad guys, saves the team and even kisses the girl.

And DiCaprio does a great job as Cobb, bringing just the right level of depth and guilt to the humbled genius.

Above all, the film looks amazingly. Each shot is beautiful, and the editing creates a smoothly disjointed dreamlike quality. While Kate is right that this does keep many parts of the film from feeling real, it does help punch in the dreamlike feel of the movie.

I love this type of movie--let's call it "build-free sci-fi"--where amazing things happen in completely familiar and believable environments. Even the "dream machine" is very simple and instantly understandable. Connect everyone and press the big button, and Presto! Shared dreaming. Wait, why is he floating? Oh, it's a dream? cool, I get it.

Now, I'm not claiming this film is simple or accessible to everyone, because that is in no way true. The film really does make you work to enjoy it. But I like that Nolan seems to avoid making it more complicated than he has to. Sure, these are deep concepts (Wait, a dream, within a dream, within a dream, and then they explore the subconscious? really?).

But this is a great, original film that truly delivers. Now if only my actual dreams were that cool!

Farscape: Premiere

Aired Date: March 19, 1999

Time Mike wanted to see it: A good friend started bugging me to see it somewhere around 2005, and I've been vaguely interested in seeing it since then. When I started using Netflix on my Xbox over a year ago, it instantly went into my instant queue....and stayed there, unwatched, for nearly a year.

Reason Mike procrastinated: It just looks...well, cheap. And cheesy. And there are so many other under-rated little known cable sci-fi shows that I've been meaning to watch (Sliders, Stargate), or have watched (Firefly, Babylon 5), that Farscape just kinda of got overlooked.

Category: Syndicated/Cable Low-budget Sci-fi

Mike says I really should have been more excited when, after years of putting it off, I finally sat down and watched Farscape. But really, I felt like I was doing some chore I had been avoiding until the last possible moment. And, sadly, I continued to feel that way through most of it.

I can say I was impressed with the pace of the first episode. It gets moving FAST, with John off the planet and far off into space within ten minutes. The inclusion of a veteran astronaut as John's dad was a little over the top, but admittedly a nice touch that should have received a little press.

The premise is run-of-the-mill sci-fi: traveler thrown into a far off place and searching for home is really a standard at this point, not to mention that any territory already explored by a Star Trek series is a risk, especially for a little known concept without any sort of brand recognition tied to it.

As such, I really couldn't help but draw the obvious comparison between Star Trek: Voyager and Farscape, which is a discussion that I would guess (without Googling to check) has raged across the Internet for years.

What Farscape has going for it is a strong male lead, a sexy and assertive female lead, and some funny one liners. And, in the end, that's about it. It's easy to guess that the political intrigue with the human-like species will progress through the remainder of the show, and at some point John will become leader of a rebellion rather than getting home (again, speculation).

Voyager, however, while being far than perfect, explores the idea of being lost in a far more interesting way. First off, humanoid characters are more interesting as main characters. Secondly, instead of focusing on one lone man experiencing new things, we get to see how an entire community reacts and adapts. We also get to see how the decisions of that community impact the cultures they meet on their way home.

As a fan of Firefly and Joss Whedon, I really do appreciate humor in my sci-fi, which Voyager was always a little light on. It seems that humor is a common element in cable sci-fi and usually it works pretty well. Star Trek, however, has always been a bit more serious, with its humor being a little more dry and subtle. Farscape's humor is perhaps the only real thing that might bring me back, though it's questionable.

While funny, the universe the show creates is just a tad too weird, as well as cheap looking, to really hook me. I am a little tempted to see what might be in store down the road, but, then again, I do have a long list of shows to see (one day, Stargate, I promise!)


Kate says this was the first time I saw anything Farscape-related! Bizarre, huh? It's bizarre to me. I've at least caught glimpses of Xena and Andromeda over the years, but somehow Farscape didn't make it on my radar.

Based on the opening minutes of the Farscape pilot, it would probably have stayed off my radar--if, that is, I wasn't reviewing the pilot for this list. The first few minutes of the pilot were supremely off-putting. I still have no idea why the astronaut's best friend, D.K., was in the pilot--and I have even less of a no-idea why a scientist working for NASA would dress and act like a punk rocker.

Luckily, I kept watching, and I will say that once John gets thrown through the wormhole, the episode really picks up. It delivers a great deal of information in an hour but not in an overly confusing or distancing way. In fact, "Premiere" is what Lucas should have done for Star Wars I, II, and III. The politics are simple but intelligent (if a bit wooden in delivery). The events unfold through John's eyes, so the viewer gains understanding at the same time he does. (The actor does a good job capturing John's confused resilience in the face of his new circumstances.)

Just as importantly, the hero, John Crichton, looks and acts the part (one reason I couldn't get into the recent Robin Hood series was because I never could believe in Jonas Armstrong as a leader). Ben Browder as John Crichton convinced me of his intelligence, resourcefulness, leadership and fundamental kindness ("Go. Go play") right away.

And I liked his sense of humor: "I'll fill you full of . . . little yellow bolts of light." (The pilot could have used more humor, though pilots are almost always overly serious.)

Plus John has a good relationship with the female lead, Aeryn--more than adequate sexual tension and strong character development issues.

Unfortunately, John and Aeryn bring me to my closing confession: although I enjoyed the pilot, I can't see myself watching much more Farscape. The problem: I had zero interest in anyone but the humans. The priest, Pa'u Zotoh Zhaan, was somewhat interesting, but D'Argo bored me, and the other main characters . . . Muppets. I've mentioned before that I like Muppets as Muppets; otherwise, I need human faces.

This lack of relatable characters is quite different from Star Trek: TNG and Stargate. With either of those shows, if I get tired of one character, I just start focusing on another. I enjoy Data episodes, Picard episodes, Riker episodes, Geordi episodes. Even Troi delivers some engaging plots. And though I'm not a huge fan of Klingon episodes in general, Worf does have some kickin' storylines (plus I can see his expressions).

Likewise, I enjoy Daniel episodes and Jack episodes and Samantha episodes and Teal'c episodes.

But, based on only the Farscape pilot (which is not, I grant, a very fair assessment), I would be invested in precisely two characters and since the show obviously focuses on their relationship, I would pretty much be held hostage to that one relationship.

I do watch shows where I am held hostage to one relationship, X-Files being the most notable example (Bones, Lois & Clark are two others). And there's no reason for me to suppose that Aeryn and John's relationship wouldn't engage me as much as Mulder and Scully's, especially since I like the characters. But I'm not sure there is enough there there to keep me watching.

X-Files: I Want to Believe

FRIDAY THE 13TH REVIEW!

Release Date: July 25, 2008

Time Kate wanted to see it: When I learned it had come out (some time between 2008 and 2009).
Reason Kate procrastinated: I'm a fan of the series and didn't want to be disappointed. Also, I don't want the dream to be over! (Plus I haven't seen very many episodes past the sixth season; I'm more invested in early X-Files than later X-Files.)

Category: Sequel

Kate says I enjoyed this, mostly because it was like watching a long episode of early X-Files! That's X-Files when the mythology was still cool and ambiguous (before it got way too confused). X-Files: I Want to Believe has psychics, medical doctors doing weird experiments, serial offenders, the same Mulder-Scully arguments, crazy Russians. And snow! (I got to give Chris Carter's kudos for his near-obsession with setting movies and episodes in deep winter.)

It really is not necessary to have seen the X-Files series through to completion. Unlike the first movie, which I quite like (I remember going to see it, Mike!), this movie could really have taken place at any point in the X-Files chronology--even Mulder & Scully living together isn't all that outside the box. In fact, I thought Chris Carter did a fine job summing up the background information in a clean, throw-a-away fashion. 

I will admit, I think the first three seasons of X-Files did produce better episodes than this one. But it is still nice that Chris Carter can produce the same fun more than a decade later. And some parts of this long episode, uh, movie, make more sense, such as Mulder and Scully having different jobs/interests. Also, the duo are relatively more direct about their relationship than in the series or first movie. Like Mike, I would have liked to see them work more together (perhaps, if the emotional arc could have come to a crisis earlier?)--in fact, in Seasons 1-3, Scully and the boy, with Mulder on assist, would have been one episode; Mulder and the crazy psychic, with Scully on assist, would have been another.

The one thing that seriously irked me was Scully pushing Mulder to get re-interested in the FBI and then balking when he, well, pulls a Mulder and gets really invested. I HATE this plot device, and I thought it made no sense. Scully is Mulder's rationalist lover, not his annoying girlfriend.

I thought it would have made more sense if Scully had tried to get Mulder interested in a minor, police issue (not realizing it would lead to the FBI), or if someone else had gotten Mulder involved or if Mulder had written a letter to the FBI, not expecting them to show up on his doorstep.

But the whole "well, I wanted you to stop hanging around the house, but I'm pissed that you couldn't just stop with a consultation" was stupid. Doesn't she know this guy at all? Mr. Obsessive himself?

She does, actually. So I thought the whole plot device was seriously unfaithful to the original characters.

However, it does its job of getting Mulder involved, and, once involved, I absolutely believe Scully would object to his obsessing--in her usual Scully way.

And I really liked the ending, Mulder saying, "Maybe the darkness finds us," and Scully saying, "I know it does" and her deciding in the end to go forward despite every rational reason to stop. That was a nice pay-off to the series.

And Skinner shows up! What's not to love?

Hmmm, I think I'll start rewatching my X-Files discs . . .

Mike says it's appropriate that Kate and I review this film now, nearly 13 years since we first saw the original film in theaters together. It was a fun time from what I recall, though I was there as a geek, and Kate may have actually been the fan. It was a fun, if odd movie, and I was excited at the prospect of seeing Mulder and Scully together once more when I heard a second movie was being released (by excited, I mean I saw it opening night in the theater).

The film starts in common X-Files manner, showing the audience a clue that begins the whole search for truth. Enter our heroes, cynical and faith worn in their lives, despite having what appears to be a comfortable long term relationship.

There are a lot of great moments in the first 20 minutes of the show, as the characters are all introduced, and the plot is laid out before us. There is some witty X-Files humor (the theme playing as we see a frame of George W. Bush), especially those that nod to the past, such as Mulder and his pencils.

The mystery laid out is a bizarre one, but compelling anyway, despite it's more gruesome aspects. And the return of the X-Duo is pretty satisfying. However...I found myself annoyed at how the "team reunion" seemed to be the team working apart. Mulder seems lost but seems to rediscover himself in the case. Scully, however, seems to have lost faith and is hiding in her new life.

One thing I did love about the film is that it treated the events of the series as old hat; yes, it happened, we know it happened, and some of that information is still relevant, so let's make some references! The movie is crammed with little name drops, references, inside jokes and the memories of big events. Mulder and Scully are living in the world that exists after the TV show, and the past is relevant, important, and worth talking about it.

Now, the movie itself isn't that amazing. Personally, I feel like I needed to hit the beach after watching it just to warm up. Second, while the evil guys are simply established, it was hard to fully grasp their motivations. and the investigation itself did seem to have a lot of coincidental lucky spots (granted, that's the upside of a psychic; you can get away with that).

We only ever see our villains in creepy moments that establish the threat and danger, but the main masterminds, either the doctor or the patient, never really have any lines (in English at least). We piece together that the purpose is to escape cancer, and perhaps gender crisis, by swapping bodies. This idea has so many holes, however, that it's more shocking and gross than emotionally wrenching.

The story with the most emotional charge is Scully's, but sadly it's also the section of the movie that doesn't really fit. Mulder and Scully really should be together. Or at least still be working on the same thing. The fact that the payoff for the Scully story is that she solves the case with a coincidental misprinted article is fairly weak, and is an obvious piece of deux ex machina.

The movie is ultimately about faith, whatever that may be placed in. Mulder and Scully both seem to find it again, but Scully's is the choice that carries the most weight and the largest consequences for her patient, although we never get to see the outcome. A confirmation of the audience's faith would have been welcome.

What makes the film work is the strong chemistry between Mulder and Scully, and the relative ease of the relationship they share. Sure, Frankenstein's monsters are cool and weird, but it was nice to be able to say goodbye to loved friends one last time.

Star Wars (1977)

Mike says Star Wars has long been a part of my life (the picture is my 4th birthday party; I'm opening a Slave 1 toy, and I had an R2-D2 cake!), and, aside from the teasing that comes with growing up a geek, I've always been glad for it.

A game I like to play with people is to ask them "What image first comes to mind when I say this movie title?" The most illuminating, perhaps, is when I say "Star Wars." For me, the first image that comes to mind, and always will come to mind, I think, is Luke and Vader crossing green and red sabres in the throne room. Being born in '79, Jedi was the first of the series I was old enough to really enjoy. For others, their image may be Luke shooting the Death Star, or Han gutting the tauntaun. What's so revealing about this question is basically discovering which Star Wars is YOUR Star Wars. In other words, what era are you from?

The next image that comes to mind is always Wicket. Not just because of Return of the Jedi but also because I remember sitting eagerly in front of the TV with my parents for the Ewok Adventure movies to start. So, unfortunately, I grew to love Star Wars long after it had traded great film-making for insane money-making. Yeah, I agree, not the strongest foundation for fanhood, but I made do. The Star Wars films come in and out of my memories of my childhood. They were always there, and I loved them. I remember buying the special editions in high school and seeing one of them in the theater. It was AWESOME!

And now, well, I'm really glad we watched the original theatrical release of Star Wars.

In college, I watched it in a film class as an example of the power of editing, and it truly is a great example! I've also seen a lot of documentaries on the making of the movies and that gave me even more appreciation for just how much Lucas owes the editor of the first film. Star Wars was originally shot almost as a documentary. There are countless horror stories about the first cut!

But the editor (whose name escapes me) came in and completely re-hauled the film, even creating some of the film's most memorable moments in the cutting room, such as the climatic attack on the Death Star while the Death Star is attacking the rebel base, and the Tuskan shaking his staff above Luke (achieved by rolling the film forward and back a couple times and looping the audio!).

For me, the original film will always pale next to Empire Strikes Back. It's sad but true. People were shocked when the prequels came out and, well, sucked. With flat acting and lame plots, the prequels are just worth forgetting. But when you go back to Star Wars, you see the warning signs there. It truly is the same director and writer of the prequels . . . Han's flat and encyclopedic explanation of light speed during a tense moment more than proves this.

What saves the film, and keeps it worth loving and watching to this day is the simplicity of both the plot and the effects. The effects aren't that dated and still are very impressive. The plot and story are phenomenal, but again, I'm more likely to credit the editor than the screen writer (sorry, George). The speed and pace of the film really compensate for a lot.

While I do think the performances pale a bit to the later two films, I'm more likely to blame the director than the actors. Each of them became iconic in their roles, and they really sell it in the first film despite some awkward lines. In the end, the movie really is an amazing feat of film making and is just plain fun to watch.

One of the great things about this film is that it's the perfect example of how setting and plot don't have to be bound to one another. While this is certainly a sci-fi setting, the story is straight swords-and-sorcery fantasy. From being given the sword of his father to facing the black knight, Luke is the hero in training who is taught the magical arts by the old wizard. And it's brilliant.

I've always been hesitant to get into any sort of argument deciding the better series between Star Wars and Star Trek because for me, they're not really comparable. Star Trek will always and forever be science first, and fiction second. The entire plot of Star Trek revolves around Man and his interaction with technology. Most Trek stories would be hard pressed to work in any other setting.

Star Wars, on the other hand, can be easily moved from one setting to another with almost no alteration to the plot. There's an artist, Siloff (pics are from his page; please check it out!), whose web page I love to visit. He's a toy hobbyist, and has created toys of Star Wars in settings from Steam Punk to WWII. And It Works! In the end, the story is so strong that the setting and visuals can be divorced completely from the story and be affected only moderately.

I hate to admit it, but George deserves some credit. He fed countless examples of pop culture into his brain and churned out a something truly special, something that honored what came before while being shaped into something bold and new. While I've been a bit disillusioned with Star Wars in the last few years, I still love the original films, and I always will. I suppose that I owe Lucas a little gratitude for that.

Kate says it is hard to imagine that either Mike or I will say anything terribly negative in our reviews of this specific movie, so I decided to begin my review with a little personal history.

I saw Star Wars: A New Hope when it came out in 1977. My family went to see it first. Once it was approved as kid-acceptable, we all went to see it again. This is back in the day when people WENT to movie theaters (this is slightly before VHS and definitely before DVD; yup, I can hear my joints creaking). The movie--this was not even the opening night--was sold out.

Of course, this scarred me for life. Ever since then, I have insisted on getting to theaters 45 minutes or more before a movie starts. This has, naturally, caused much confusion amongst my friends ("Why are we going to see The King's Speech more than an hour early a month after its release?").

But once I saw Star Wars IV, I was hooked. I was Luke one Halloween; the next Halloween, I was Princess Leia. One Christmas, I asked for a light-saber (you can see it in the picture; I was disappointed that it wasn't real!); the next, for a Princess Leia doll. A few years later, I read Lloyd Alexander's Prydain Series because the edition I saw had a Luke-looking person on the cover.

I went to see Empire Strikes Back with my sister Ann and spent the entire movie perched on the edge of my seat. I have never been so scared! Or enjoyed myself so much.

And then Return of the Jedi happened and the Ewoks, and I was a teen (War Games came out in 1983; behold, the teenager girl's brain), and for me, the magic faded. Mike with his Boba Fett action figure and Plinkett have brought much of that magic back. I can now re-appreciate what an amazing universe Lucas ushered the world into, even if he proved an unreliable guide.

Watching 1977 Star Wars IV confirms (almost) everything Plinkett argues in his reviews. In this original, fresh film, Luke isn't the secret son-of-a-Dark-Lord; Leia isn't his sister; R2D2 and C3PO weren't built especially for the hero. The story is truly one of extraordinary things happening to an ordinary person rather than some soap opera tale of dysfunctional rich people.

And despite the stilted dialog from the extras, the movie has a strong professional tone. The main actors are believable, taking their characters and interactions seriously. First, well, Alec Guinness: need I say more. Harrison Ford is dead-on as sardonic rogue. Anthony Daniels is hilarious. Peter Cushing is coldly reptilian. Carrie Fisher is sweetly regal and regally smart-mouthed. Even Mark Hamill is plausible. He doesn't have to be as subtle as the others since the whole point of the movie is his youthful naivety.

Oh, and the Leia-Han Solo sexual tension is already there.

The camera work is also professional. The scenes on Tatooine are downright majestic and so uncluttered! Especially compared to Star Wars I, II, and III! Really, Lucas shouldn't be let out unchaperoned. Not to mention, the cutting on Star Wars (1977) is so clean, it takes your breath away. The movie really moves, and the problems linking the scenes are clearly defined. Leia to R2D2 to Luke to Obi-Wan . . . Plus, the background explanations don't get in the way of the story. It's basically the Roman Empire versus the Gauls. Rather than a cliché, I prefer to think of this background as classic. After all, with so much human history to draw from, why reinvent the wheel?

Despite the cliché/classic motifs, the bad guys are refreshingly low-key. There's none of that so-evil-one-can-hardly-stand-it stuff. No twirling mustaches. No hideous laughter. I don't mean they aren't bad. Blowing up billions of people on a planet is BAD! But they aren't noticeably bad. They are efficient, tunnel-visioned, and coldly rational; Vader--in his insistence on the Force and on the political value of Leia's life--comes off as both more archaic and more human, in a totally sociopathic way, than the generals.

Likewise, the rebellion isn't some chest-beating exercise. It is smart warriors trying to think through a military problem (more American than French Revolution).

Yeah, the cackling emperor in Return of the Jedi really ruined things for me, and I'm afraid I think Lucas's downward spiral started there. Empire Strikes Back has its problems, but it is a still a tight story with decent pay-offs. Non-military Ewoks and over-the-top evil makes Return rather wearisome--though I would agree with reviewers that the final confrontation between Luke and his father is powerful (and created some awesome moments in Toy Story 2).

Leaving I, II, III, V, and VI alone, although I've always loved Star Wars IV in a nostalgic way, rewatching it made me appreciate how much it is worth loving for itself. This is a truly great film!

E.T. (1982)

Mike says Oy. Where to start? I have to say, upon reflection, E.T: The Extra Terrestrial may in fact be the stupidest name Spielberg could have picked for this movie. This is like making a comic book film with a character named "Super-hero" and then calling it Super Hero: The super-powered heroic human. Is this dumb and overstated? Yes, yes, it is. As is title of the film.

Anyway, as a kid, I watched this film countless times, I'm not sure why. And even then, I found it, well, boring. Watching it now, the pace of the film certainly sets it apart from modern day fare. Rather than filled with comedic crotch punches, explosions, and menacing, idiotic bad guys, the film is thought out, heartfelt, and takes its time to tell the story it wants to tell.

That said, it's an incredibly preachy story, and so full of cliches and stereotypes that even as a kid I probably could have told you exactly what would happen next.

Aside from all this, it's easy to see why the film has earned its classic status. Between the children's performances, the rather amazing performance of the puppet itself, and John Williams' stellar (though familiar) score, it really is a remarkable film.

I should mention that the version I watched was the re-release, with added scenes and effects. While I wasn't opposed to the updated versions of the Star Wars movies (at least, at first, until George KEPT DOING IT), this is the first film that really helped me understand how, well, offensive updating and tinkering can be. The film no longer works as a whole because it doesn't have a uniform look: the swap between puppet and cgi is severe, and the extra scenes really did belong on the cutting room floor where they were.

Oh, and can I say they pushed the clueless Mom too far? Cause they did.

Honestly, I'm a little perplexed by just how harsh I'm coming down on the film. It's a classic, and it really does deserve to be. But watching it again as an adult is really a revelatory process, one which shows the imperfections of something considered by many to be flawless. This is a film generally considered to be the best Science Fiction movie ever made. But many aspects of the plot are so fundamentally flawed (Kate mentions many of these flaws below), that such a declaration is almost insulting to a true science fiction fan.

And yet... I was still sort of excited when I found my son watching E.T the other morning. The feelings of disillusionment all sort of disappeared as I watched my son laugh as E.T. watched TV and got hit by the fridge door. He giggled when E.T. hid in the stuffed animals. He pointed and shouted with excitement when Elliot and E.T. flew on the bike. And he was absolutely blown away when E.T. and the kids all flew to the spaceship. Watching my son watch the film, completely caught away in its world, I smiled and remembered what it was like to believe.

Kate says I'll get the objections out of the way first.

Whenever I think about E.T., I remember a comedy routine I heard once. The comedian went to see E.T. with his girlfriend. When the movie reached the part where E.T. and Elliot fly the first time, the girlfriend leaned over and whispered, "Oh, that could never happen."

The comedian's response: "That?! THAT could never happen?"

The other thing that comes to mind is: why are extraterrestrials never out to make a buck (except in Star Trek)? Why are they either cute vegetarians or buggy villains?

And why can't these particular cute, vegetarian aliens count? Surely, they know they've left an alien brother, father, drone-buddy behind? And can't they remember where they last parked without E.T. "phoning" them? (I'm not sure I buy Elliott's argument that these are aliens of higher intelligence; if you can drive a star ship, shouldn't you be able to read a star-chart?)

Not to mention, it sure is a good thing the "bad guys" show up in the end! What was Elliott going to do otherwise? Have his life sucked out of him by some supposedly friendly being from another planet?

However, I'm not being fair. The movie isn't science-fiction; it is fantasy. It is about a boy whose ordinary life is disrupted and enhanced by a "goblin," something beyond belief or understanding.

And I think this is what our human fascination with aliens comes down to--that aliens will touch our lives with grandeur, change us forever, endow our world with magic. My problem is that although I love the idea, in my heart of hearts, I believe if aliens did show up, they would quickly become ordinary and prosaic, involving trade agreements and diplomatic blah-de-blah, stuff that doesn't involve me much now. Okay, sure, I would have a few EFHL (English as a First Human Language) students, but otherwise . . .

Setting aside the message, then, what strikes me most about the movie is the sheer professionalism. The child actors are not only natural but talented; Henry Thomas's performance is, considering his age, remarkably understated. The movie contains multiple memorable images: the guys with flashlights at the fence; the returned baseball; E.T. as stuffed animal; the liberated frogs; the revitalized flowers; the mom reading Peter Pan; the empty forest after Halloween; the arrival of the "bad guys"; Elliott's panic over E.T.'s death; the kids bicycling across the setting sun. Spielberg is a notable director for a reason!

And the images are surprisingly non-dated (I saw the non-updated version). Not only the clothing--Elliot in long-johns could be any kid in any era--but the cinematography has a fresh, modern feel. When I looked up E.T. on imdb, I was startled that it was made in 1982 (I did see it at the time; I just don't remember being only 11). I thought of it as a much later--closer to 1990s--film. (However, if it had been made in the 1990s, humongous cellphones would have given it away; humongous cellphones are what totally undermine X-Files' otherwise timeless look.)

By the way, in keeping with the previous discussion of symbolism, I never realized before how much E.T. represents a father-figure to Elliott. I think this piece of symbolism may be deliberate. Elliott insists that E.T. is male despite Gertie's tendency to dress him up in women's clothes. And at the end, Elliott chooses to stay with his mother--who is abruptly on the scene--rather than with his "new," beloved father who is going much further away than Mexico.

I have to mention: what about all those Star Wars references?!