1990
2/4 Stars
The original live-action Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles film is based on the gritty streets of 1989 New York. While a children's film without a doubt, there are a number of efforts made to give this film a darker edge. There are many examples- Raphael swears ("Damn!"), Casey Jones swings a hockey stick (and later a golf club) through Raphael's (and later Tat-Su's) head, Danny wears Sex-Pistol's shirts, April gets punched in the face, Shredder throws a knife through a TV screen with April's face on it (he then says "Silence her"), and my personal favorite- there is a 9 year old smoking a cigar in Shredder's lair. All of these darker moments are counter-balanced by "witty turtle humor". This humor consists of joke-a-minute cheese.
The plot revolves around a mysterious crime-wave in the city. A pesky reporter, April O'Neil (Judith Hoag), gets in too deep while investigating the crimes and becomes a target herself. Enter the four mutant turtles and their giant rat leader, Master Splinter, who step in to save the day. A pretty standard adventure story, with some good action, "Turtles" also has some questionable effects. My favorite involves Master Splinter practicing his karate moves in a birdcage, pre-mutation.
The story comes from a comic book and while absurd on the surface has a certain charm to it. The costumes the turtles wear are from Jim Henson and are as realistic as cartoon turtles can be expected to be. The villain in the film, Shredder, is a cross between the Wolverine and Darth Vader (at one point declaring from behind his mask: "I am your father.") His fate in the film is crushing ("I made a funny!").
Overall, a cheesy kids movie with a slight edge. Not terrible, but far from brilliant.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Chasing Amy
1997
2.5/4 Stars
Kevin Smith's "Chasing Amy" explores friendship, love, and sex from a decidedly 1990's perspective. In the course of exploring these issues, Smith tackles lesbianism, a subject where his knowledge is questionable. As is the case in all of his films, the driving force behind his story-telling is his snappy, clever dialogue.
The characters in this film- Ben Affleck's Holden, Jason Lee's Banky and Joey Lauren Adam's Alyssa- all deliver jabs and counter-jabs in two hours of witty banter. Throughout the delivery of this dialogue, the quality of acting ebbs and flows, delivering a product that feels somewhat uneven. Lee's Banky is the most consistent here, delivering raunchy, funny one-liners that keep the film from becoming overly self-important.
The film is often funny, but one gets the sense that Smith took on a bit too much in tackling the homosexual element. The scene involving a lesbian sewing circle in which one member announces: "another one bites the dust" after Alyssa discloses she is dating Holden seems to imply that most lesbians eventually turn to dating men in the end. Why is this in the movie? What is Smith really trying to say?
The major theme is that of Holden's own sexual insecurity. Alyssa has more experience than he does and he does not know how to handle it. This idea is best articulated by Smith himself late in the film during his cameo as "Silent Bob" when he tells his own tale of "chasing Amy". Rather than linger with this notion a bit longer, Smith goes for a shocker ending that is not entirely believable (although Adam's speech is well-acted).
Overall, an entertaining 90's film that hits on some points and misses on others.
2.5/4 Stars
Kevin Smith's "Chasing Amy" explores friendship, love, and sex from a decidedly 1990's perspective. In the course of exploring these issues, Smith tackles lesbianism, a subject where his knowledge is questionable. As is the case in all of his films, the driving force behind his story-telling is his snappy, clever dialogue.
The characters in this film- Ben Affleck's Holden, Jason Lee's Banky and Joey Lauren Adam's Alyssa- all deliver jabs and counter-jabs in two hours of witty banter. Throughout the delivery of this dialogue, the quality of acting ebbs and flows, delivering a product that feels somewhat uneven. Lee's Banky is the most consistent here, delivering raunchy, funny one-liners that keep the film from becoming overly self-important.
The film is often funny, but one gets the sense that Smith took on a bit too much in tackling the homosexual element. The scene involving a lesbian sewing circle in which one member announces: "another one bites the dust" after Alyssa discloses she is dating Holden seems to imply that most lesbians eventually turn to dating men in the end. Why is this in the movie? What is Smith really trying to say?
The major theme is that of Holden's own sexual insecurity. Alyssa has more experience than he does and he does not know how to handle it. This idea is best articulated by Smith himself late in the film during his cameo as "Silent Bob" when he tells his own tale of "chasing Amy". Rather than linger with this notion a bit longer, Smith goes for a shocker ending that is not entirely believable (although Adam's speech is well-acted).
Overall, an entertaining 90's film that hits on some points and misses on others.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi
1983
2.5/4 Stars
When Return of the Jedi was in pre-production, Star Wars creator George Lucas had his sights set on Steven Spielberg directing the film. After their success working together on "Raiders of the Lost Ark", pairing these two once more seemed the best way to ensure that the Star Wars cycle ended with the appropriate crescendo it deserved.
Unfortunately, this was not to be. For legal reasons, Spielberg was kept out and Lucas scrambled to bring in the lesser known Richard Marquand. Marquand, whose earlier experience includes a TV episode called "Big Henry and the Polka Dot Kid", creates a passable film in "Jedi" that lacks the same edge and excitement of Episodes IV and V.
While the film is shot reasonably well, the main deficiencies are in the story and script. The notion that a tribe of little bears called Ewoks could crush a legion of the Emperor's "best trained storm troopers" has long bothered Star Wars fans. Much like the Gungans of Episode I, Ewoks seem to be made to entertain children. The plot device of a second, new and improved, Death Star is also rather weak. The exciting climax of "A New Hope" that has Luke skimming the surface of the trench and taking out the original Death Star is thrilling. In "Jedi", the Death Star seems lightly defended and is easily destroyed.
Another element of the plot that is questionable is the notion that Luke and Leia are related. While Lucas would argue that this was his plan all along, in watching only the original trilogy (IV-VI) one gets the sense that this was merely tacked on to clean up a potential love triangle between Han, Leia, and Luke. Especially given that it comes right on the heels of the "stunning" revelation regarding the identity of Luke's father, the news of a sister seems less important.
There is also a lack of witty dialogue between Han and Leia. Their bickering has vanished in this picture and Han Solo has been replaced my a softer, mushier version of his former bounty hunter persona. When Harrison Ford was initially contacted about making the third film, he lobbied hard for Solo to be killed in Jabba's Palace. This did not take place, and instead the audience is left with a softer, less cynical Solo (the little bears like him though).
The low-point in the DVD release comes when there is an impromptu pop-song performed in Jabba's Palace by CGI "critters". Other Easter eggs include an appearance by Hayden Christensen and a very special new ending to the film.
There are some good moments throughout the film. More questions should be answered with the line: "because I'm holding a thermal detonator". The space dogfight action is pretty solid and the scout race through the forest is exciting. In the end, however, Return of the Jedi comes up a little bit short in delivering a brilliant finish to the story and tragedy of Anakin Skywalker.
2.5/4 Stars
When Return of the Jedi was in pre-production, Star Wars creator George Lucas had his sights set on Steven Spielberg directing the film. After their success working together on "Raiders of the Lost Ark", pairing these two once more seemed the best way to ensure that the Star Wars cycle ended with the appropriate crescendo it deserved.
Unfortunately, this was not to be. For legal reasons, Spielberg was kept out and Lucas scrambled to bring in the lesser known Richard Marquand. Marquand, whose earlier experience includes a TV episode called "Big Henry and the Polka Dot Kid", creates a passable film in "Jedi" that lacks the same edge and excitement of Episodes IV and V.
While the film is shot reasonably well, the main deficiencies are in the story and script. The notion that a tribe of little bears called Ewoks could crush a legion of the Emperor's "best trained storm troopers" has long bothered Star Wars fans. Much like the Gungans of Episode I, Ewoks seem to be made to entertain children. The plot device of a second, new and improved, Death Star is also rather weak. The exciting climax of "A New Hope" that has Luke skimming the surface of the trench and taking out the original Death Star is thrilling. In "Jedi", the Death Star seems lightly defended and is easily destroyed.
Another element of the plot that is questionable is the notion that Luke and Leia are related. While Lucas would argue that this was his plan all along, in watching only the original trilogy (IV-VI) one gets the sense that this was merely tacked on to clean up a potential love triangle between Han, Leia, and Luke. Especially given that it comes right on the heels of the "stunning" revelation regarding the identity of Luke's father, the news of a sister seems less important.
There is also a lack of witty dialogue between Han and Leia. Their bickering has vanished in this picture and Han Solo has been replaced my a softer, mushier version of his former bounty hunter persona. When Harrison Ford was initially contacted about making the third film, he lobbied hard for Solo to be killed in Jabba's Palace. This did not take place, and instead the audience is left with a softer, less cynical Solo (the little bears like him though).
The low-point in the DVD release comes when there is an impromptu pop-song performed in Jabba's Palace by CGI "critters". Other Easter eggs include an appearance by Hayden Christensen and a very special new ending to the film.
There are some good moments throughout the film. More questions should be answered with the line: "because I'm holding a thermal detonator". The space dogfight action is pretty solid and the scout race through the forest is exciting. In the end, however, Return of the Jedi comes up a little bit short in delivering a brilliant finish to the story and tragedy of Anakin Skywalker.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Lord of the Rings: Return of the King
2003
3/4 Stars
Return of the King won 11 Oscars in 2003. Whether this achievement should be viewed as belonging to the film alone or to the trilogy as a whole is subject to debate. While the Lord of the Rings trilogy it a tremendous filmmaking achievement, marked by beautiful special effects and great continuity, Return of the King is not the brilliant stand alone film that the Academy Awards would lead one to believe.
It is worth noting that this review is based on the extended edition of the film and not the theatrical release. This version clocks in at 251 minutes (as opposed to a mere 201 in the theatrical release). It is long. The majority of the added scenes in the film were weaker than those that were added back into the extended versions of Fellowship and Two Towers. The drinking game between Gimli and Legolas, Merry failing to motivate a pony, and the avalanche of skeletons are all examples of scenes that were rightfully cut initially and could have stayed that way.
This is a film that is about war, and there are long stretches where dialogue seems to consist only of words like "battle" and "honor". This contributes to a sense that the dialogue has perhaps lost a bit of its originality and edge when compared to the earlier films. There are moments in the battles that are powerful, however. Rohan's charge on Mordor's orc hoardes and Eowyn's courageous stand against the mighty Witch King are just a few.
There are touching moments in the film- such as Merry and Pippen's separation, Frodo's dramatic split with Sam, Gandalf's talk to Merry on death, and Aragorn's rejection of Eowyn. These are nice moments that are interjected between long hours of "battle" (and "honor").
The homoeroticism is back in this film, reaching its apex when Frodo is in bed and the hobbits come and jump on it. This is a few scenes before Frodo kisses Sam on the head and gives him one last loving look before taking his leave.
Speaking of this kiss, it is worth noting that this film has six endings. The kiss scene and the bed scene are two of them, almost acting as bookends for the four other endings. Director Peter Jackson must have felt that his epic story deserved an epic end. There is nothing wrong with this, but it does get a bit tedious- especially after having sat through the previous three hours of film.
This point, of the six endings, in some ways epitomizes why Return of the King is not the strongest of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It is still a very good (or even an excellent) film, but its tiring battles and multiple endings keep it from being as fresh, exciting, and fun as Fellowship.
In closing the review of the last of these films, it is important to note that the final stamp in the film belongs to the character of Sam. It was certainly Tolkien's vision, one that Jackson realized, that the story ultimately belongs to the quiet and humble gardener. The rest are all supporting characters.
3/4 Stars
Return of the King won 11 Oscars in 2003. Whether this achievement should be viewed as belonging to the film alone or to the trilogy as a whole is subject to debate. While the Lord of the Rings trilogy it a tremendous filmmaking achievement, marked by beautiful special effects and great continuity, Return of the King is not the brilliant stand alone film that the Academy Awards would lead one to believe.
It is worth noting that this review is based on the extended edition of the film and not the theatrical release. This version clocks in at 251 minutes (as opposed to a mere 201 in the theatrical release). It is long. The majority of the added scenes in the film were weaker than those that were added back into the extended versions of Fellowship and Two Towers. The drinking game between Gimli and Legolas, Merry failing to motivate a pony, and the avalanche of skeletons are all examples of scenes that were rightfully cut initially and could have stayed that way.
This is a film that is about war, and there are long stretches where dialogue seems to consist only of words like "battle" and "honor". This contributes to a sense that the dialogue has perhaps lost a bit of its originality and edge when compared to the earlier films. There are moments in the battles that are powerful, however. Rohan's charge on Mordor's orc hoardes and Eowyn's courageous stand against the mighty Witch King are just a few.
There are touching moments in the film- such as Merry and Pippen's separation, Frodo's dramatic split with Sam, Gandalf's talk to Merry on death, and Aragorn's rejection of Eowyn. These are nice moments that are interjected between long hours of "battle" (and "honor").
The homoeroticism is back in this film, reaching its apex when Frodo is in bed and the hobbits come and jump on it. This is a few scenes before Frodo kisses Sam on the head and gives him one last loving look before taking his leave.
Speaking of this kiss, it is worth noting that this film has six endings. The kiss scene and the bed scene are two of them, almost acting as bookends for the four other endings. Director Peter Jackson must have felt that his epic story deserved an epic end. There is nothing wrong with this, but it does get a bit tedious- especially after having sat through the previous three hours of film.
This point, of the six endings, in some ways epitomizes why Return of the King is not the strongest of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It is still a very good (or even an excellent) film, but its tiring battles and multiple endings keep it from being as fresh, exciting, and fun as Fellowship.
In closing the review of the last of these films, it is important to note that the final stamp in the film belongs to the character of Sam. It was certainly Tolkien's vision, one that Jackson realized, that the story ultimately belongs to the quiet and humble gardener. The rest are all supporting characters.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back
1980
3.5/4 Stars
The Empire Strikes back is widely considered the best Star Wars film ever made. It involves a deeper, more textured story than the original film and gives space for familiar characters to develop and grow. All of the main characters- Luke, Leia, Han, and even Darth Vader are shown to be more complex and involved than shown in the original film.
Empire begins with a salvo of action that does not let up for about forty minutes. The assault on Hoth and the subsequent asteroid field chase does not give the audience a chance to rest as the Empire and Vader are hot on the heels of the protagonists. With the exception of a somewhat silly looking ice monster that Luke fights in a cave, this sequence holds up very well. The tone is set- in this chapter of the story, the heroes are on the run.
Along the way, the love story between Han and Leia evolves in a way that feels far more organic than the Anakin/Padme story of the prequels. While there are still lines that should make the audience cringe ("scruffy looking nerfherder"), they somehow work. Perhaps it is because Ford and Fisher are allowed more room to act by the director, perhaps they are simply better actors. The bottom line is that Han's response to Leia's "I love you" is far more memorable than Anakin's diatribe about contrasting the coarseness of sand with the smoothness of Padme's skin. Put simply, it works.
Yoda makes his first appearance since Episode III (or first ever, depending on how one counts), and his return is welcome. His brand of "Jedi wisdom" and humor help to fill in (and even improve upon) the largely missing Sir Alec Guinness (Obi Wan).
The only complaint about this film is that it is just not as much fun as the original (Episode IV). It is a deeper and more sophisticated film, but it does not capture quite the same level of light-hearted excitement as the original. The main characters are bloodied (but not beaten) by the film's end and it is somewhat exhausting. Seeing a main character get tortured and then taken hostage and another character get maimed by a lightsaber is less fun than seeing the bad guy's mega-space-station get blown up by the good guys.
These minor complaints do not detract from the fact that this is an excellent film, especially given the success it had to live up to after the sensational Episode IV. As was discussed in the earlier review of "Two Towers", these bridging chapters can be the most difficult, and Director Irvin Kershner succeeds with flying colors here.
3.5/4 Stars
The Empire Strikes back is widely considered the best Star Wars film ever made. It involves a deeper, more textured story than the original film and gives space for familiar characters to develop and grow. All of the main characters- Luke, Leia, Han, and even Darth Vader are shown to be more complex and involved than shown in the original film.
Empire begins with a salvo of action that does not let up for about forty minutes. The assault on Hoth and the subsequent asteroid field chase does not give the audience a chance to rest as the Empire and Vader are hot on the heels of the protagonists. With the exception of a somewhat silly looking ice monster that Luke fights in a cave, this sequence holds up very well. The tone is set- in this chapter of the story, the heroes are on the run.
Along the way, the love story between Han and Leia evolves in a way that feels far more organic than the Anakin/Padme story of the prequels. While there are still lines that should make the audience cringe ("scruffy looking nerfherder"), they somehow work. Perhaps it is because Ford and Fisher are allowed more room to act by the director, perhaps they are simply better actors. The bottom line is that Han's response to Leia's "I love you" is far more memorable than Anakin's diatribe about contrasting the coarseness of sand with the smoothness of Padme's skin. Put simply, it works.
Yoda makes his first appearance since Episode III (or first ever, depending on how one counts), and his return is welcome. His brand of "Jedi wisdom" and humor help to fill in (and even improve upon) the largely missing Sir Alec Guinness (Obi Wan).
The only complaint about this film is that it is just not as much fun as the original (Episode IV). It is a deeper and more sophisticated film, but it does not capture quite the same level of light-hearted excitement as the original. The main characters are bloodied (but not beaten) by the film's end and it is somewhat exhausting. Seeing a main character get tortured and then taken hostage and another character get maimed by a lightsaber is less fun than seeing the bad guy's mega-space-station get blown up by the good guys.
These minor complaints do not detract from the fact that this is an excellent film, especially given the success it had to live up to after the sensational Episode IV. As was discussed in the earlier review of "Two Towers", these bridging chapters can be the most difficult, and Director Irvin Kershner succeeds with flying colors here.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
2002
3.5/4 Stars
The Two Towers is the second act in the three-part Lord of the Rings cycle. Generally, as the bridge between the introduction and climax, the second act can drag in comparison to the others. While "Towers" is not as stunning as "Fellowship", this is still a very strong film.
This is a darker chapter in the story that has the two villains in Sauron and Saruman growing in power while Frodo and Sam (along with Gollum) step ever closer to the dreaded Mordor. These developments are reflected in the darker tones of the movie and Frodo's increasing "ring sickness". Other characters from the original film are not left idle, as Merry and Pippen go on an adventure with Ents (walking/talking trees) and Aragorn teams up with his elf and dwarf companions in the fight to save Rohan and mankind.
Once again, the film has a mind-blowing level of detail throughout. The woodworking in Rohan and the details in the armor are remarkable. This enhances but does not overwhelm the viewing experience as the acting remains very good throughout. Highlights also include the tremendous Ent seige of Isengard and the surprisingly touching speech Sam delivers to Frodo at Osgiliath at the end of the film.
There are minor complaints that keep it from measuring up to the first film. While the CGI is generally understated and well used in the film (often the viewer forgets it is there), there are exceptions. The "Warg Riders" look somewhat artificial and the Warg battle scene is not a strong point in the film. The sets are less beautiful than they were in the first film (Helms Deep instead of Rivendell), but this is merely a reflection of the shift in storyline.
There is flair added to some of the characters- particularly Legolas and Gimli- that was not in the books and probably did not need to be included in the film. Director Peter Jackson refers to "Leggy moments" where Legolas does something absurd like flip around upside down before mounting a horse at full gallop or surf down a staircase on a shield while firing arrows with pinpoint accuracy. Gimli the Dwarf is used one too many times for comic gags that are not that funny- such as his dwarf toss jokes or his constantly being too short (too see a battle or to wear human chainmail). These devices may be used to make these characters more accessable to a younger audience, although JRR Tolkien would most likely cringe at these scenes.
The movie also contains a "creeping homoeroticism", particularly between Frodo and Sam (but also between Merry and Pippin). While this is not fully unleashed until "Return of the King", many have criticised that this was not what Tolkien had intended. Whether this damages the movie is subject to debate, but there is no question that there are many moments where Frodo stares longingly into Sam's eyes and says something to the effect of: "I couldn't be here without all you have done for me."
Ultimately, "The Two Towers" is an excellent film that does its job in carrying the story from the end of "Fellowship" to the beginning of "Return of the King".
3.5/4 Stars
The Two Towers is the second act in the three-part Lord of the Rings cycle. Generally, as the bridge between the introduction and climax, the second act can drag in comparison to the others. While "Towers" is not as stunning as "Fellowship", this is still a very strong film.
This is a darker chapter in the story that has the two villains in Sauron and Saruman growing in power while Frodo and Sam (along with Gollum) step ever closer to the dreaded Mordor. These developments are reflected in the darker tones of the movie and Frodo's increasing "ring sickness". Other characters from the original film are not left idle, as Merry and Pippen go on an adventure with Ents (walking/talking trees) and Aragorn teams up with his elf and dwarf companions in the fight to save Rohan and mankind.
Once again, the film has a mind-blowing level of detail throughout. The woodworking in Rohan and the details in the armor are remarkable. This enhances but does not overwhelm the viewing experience as the acting remains very good throughout. Highlights also include the tremendous Ent seige of Isengard and the surprisingly touching speech Sam delivers to Frodo at Osgiliath at the end of the film.
There are minor complaints that keep it from measuring up to the first film. While the CGI is generally understated and well used in the film (often the viewer forgets it is there), there are exceptions. The "Warg Riders" look somewhat artificial and the Warg battle scene is not a strong point in the film. The sets are less beautiful than they were in the first film (Helms Deep instead of Rivendell), but this is merely a reflection of the shift in storyline.
There is flair added to some of the characters- particularly Legolas and Gimli- that was not in the books and probably did not need to be included in the film. Director Peter Jackson refers to "Leggy moments" where Legolas does something absurd like flip around upside down before mounting a horse at full gallop or surf down a staircase on a shield while firing arrows with pinpoint accuracy. Gimli the Dwarf is used one too many times for comic gags that are not that funny- such as his dwarf toss jokes or his constantly being too short (too see a battle or to wear human chainmail). These devices may be used to make these characters more accessable to a younger audience, although JRR Tolkien would most likely cringe at these scenes.
The movie also contains a "creeping homoeroticism", particularly between Frodo and Sam (but also between Merry and Pippin). While this is not fully unleashed until "Return of the King", many have criticised that this was not what Tolkien had intended. Whether this damages the movie is subject to debate, but there is no question that there are many moments where Frodo stares longingly into Sam's eyes and says something to the effect of: "I couldn't be here without all you have done for me."
Ultimately, "The Two Towers" is an excellent film that does its job in carrying the story from the end of "Fellowship" to the beginning of "Return of the King".
Monday, January 5, 2009
Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope
1977
3.5/4 Stars
In watching the original Star Wars after having just watched the CGI saturated "prequels", the viewer is struck by a number of things. The first is that back when George Lucas created this film more than 30 years ago, he had to fall back on solid, well defined story-telling. Gone are the convoluted and twisted sub-plots about political power plays and cloners in deleted star systems. Instead, is a linear story following two droids as they stumble through a rebellion against an evil empire.
The characters all serve a specific purpose and are archetypes from classical story telling. Obi Wan is the mysterious wizard, Luke the young hero, Han the skeptical rogue. Although the dialogue is still sometimes clunky and awkward, what makes this so very different than the prequels is the way in which the actors handle these lines. There is an air of levity throughout the film. This was before Star Wars was Star Wars- before it had become a huge commerical success and had millions of obsessed fans studying every detail regarding TIE Fighter model numbers and ecological conditions on Hoth and Bespin. The three leads in Princess Leia (Carrie Fischer), Han Solo (Harrison Ford), and Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) seem to approach the script with a wink and a nod to the audience. It is as if to say, "We know that this is campy, but we're going to have fun with it anyway". The viewer is happy to be taken along for the ride.
There are flaws, but they do not do tremendous damage. The version of the film that I own on DVD is the re-release that includes some additional footage, such as the ridiculous and unnecessary exchange between Jabba and Han as well as the interaction between Biggs and Luke in the hangar bay. These scenes did not need to be put back into the film, but they don't upset the rhythm a great deal.
The special effects hold up pretty well. While not as break-neck as the pod race in "Phantom", the space combat is still up-tempo and exciting. What is striking is how the special effects support the story and the characters and not the other way around (Jar Jar).
Overall, this film is a classic with good reason. It is a good, fun, fast-paced action story with good characters and special effects that are far from overdone.
3.5/4 Stars
In watching the original Star Wars after having just watched the CGI saturated "prequels", the viewer is struck by a number of things. The first is that back when George Lucas created this film more than 30 years ago, he had to fall back on solid, well defined story-telling. Gone are the convoluted and twisted sub-plots about political power plays and cloners in deleted star systems. Instead, is a linear story following two droids as they stumble through a rebellion against an evil empire.
The characters all serve a specific purpose and are archetypes from classical story telling. Obi Wan is the mysterious wizard, Luke the young hero, Han the skeptical rogue. Although the dialogue is still sometimes clunky and awkward, what makes this so very different than the prequels is the way in which the actors handle these lines. There is an air of levity throughout the film. This was before Star Wars was Star Wars- before it had become a huge commerical success and had millions of obsessed fans studying every detail regarding TIE Fighter model numbers and ecological conditions on Hoth and Bespin. The three leads in Princess Leia (Carrie Fischer), Han Solo (Harrison Ford), and Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) seem to approach the script with a wink and a nod to the audience. It is as if to say, "We know that this is campy, but we're going to have fun with it anyway". The viewer is happy to be taken along for the ride.
There are flaws, but they do not do tremendous damage. The version of the film that I own on DVD is the re-release that includes some additional footage, such as the ridiculous and unnecessary exchange between Jabba and Han as well as the interaction between Biggs and Luke in the hangar bay. These scenes did not need to be put back into the film, but they don't upset the rhythm a great deal.
The special effects hold up pretty well. While not as break-neck as the pod race in "Phantom", the space combat is still up-tempo and exciting. What is striking is how the special effects support the story and the characters and not the other way around (Jar Jar).
Overall, this film is a classic with good reason. It is a good, fun, fast-paced action story with good characters and special effects that are far from overdone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)