Change Your Image
The_Fox
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (2019)
Don't get me wrong... it's a fun flick! But....
Although I don't consider myself to be a hardcore Star Wars fan - I haven't watched any of the TV series (yet) or read any of the books - I do enjoy the cinematic releases, and have watched them all. With that in mind, I must start off by saying that I consider all three films -- episodes 7, 8, and 9 -- to be a million times better than the prequels (which were just cringe-worthy in so many ways).
The new films are simply better made. The dialogue is leaps ahead of the dialogue in the prequels; the acting is far better; the "world" is much more real; and the effects are far more believable. (It is my understanding that The Phantom Menace was one of the first films to be shot completely digitally and made heavy use of green screens. That shows in the film's overly-glossy appearance.)
Part of what made the original trilogy (episodes 4, 5, and 6) work so well was that, despite their setting, they felt grounded in a sense of reality; the world felt real. The new trilogy's reliance upon real sets and improved effects (especially the fantastic lightsaber effects, which, from what I've read, used a combination of the more traditional "low-tech" techniques used in the original films and the fancier "high-tech" ones used in the prequels, resulting in far more realistic light reflections) makes the films a pleasure to experience and "live in."
However.
When I was watching The Rise of Skywalker in the theatre, I found myself of two minds. On the one hand, it was a fantastically fun film. And watching it with family made it all the more so. This is why I initially gave it a slightly higher rating (8/10). However, there were several occasions -- including one major, fundamental one -- when I found myself thinking, "Wait... what?"
The first such occasion -- which was also the "major, fundamental one" -- happened right off the bat, as soon as the crawl began! Yes, I'd seen the trailers that teased the return of Palpatine. But having the very first words of the film suddenly parachute him back into existence made for a rather... jarring experience. There was no buildup! There was no suspense! He was suddenly... back! So much lost opportunity....
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that he shouldn't have been in the film! I'm just saying that it wasn't handled well. And the same can be said for much of the film. It felt like it was trying to cram too much in. And it had some rather silly turns. For example, having the heroes literally *fall* into the solution to one of their problems (through that quicksand-like stuff) just undermined the journey that we're told Luke went on to try to achieve the same result.
Plus, why does Rey have to be a Skywalker at the end of the film? Her parents gave their lives for her; why wouldn't she want to honour them and restore the Palpatine name? Did the filmmakers start off by giving the film the title The Rise of Skywalker and then write themselves into a corner? It just felt forced. (No pun intended.)
And it felt, unfortunately, like the film was undermining the film that came before it. The Rise of Skywalker undoes a lot of what was fascinating about where The Last Jedi was going. I know that many, many fans would disagree with me, but, to me, The Last Jedi was a far better movie. It was an exciting movie. It was a movie that made me want to find out what happened next. Like, what does it mean that those young people have Force powers? Where could that take us? It was a movie with depth.
The Rise of Skywalker, on the other hand, despite being a fun blockbuster, just played things too safe. Sure, it brought closure to many aspects of the story... but it didn't bring closure to *all* aspects. In fact, it left a lot questions unanswered. And didn't answer all of the questions it *did* answer in as satisfying a way as it might have. Watching it made me wonder if a proper, well-thought-out story arc had been written in advance of the writing and filming of these new films.
Again, I enjoyed the movie. It was a heck of a lot of fun. J.J. Abrams is, indeed, a fun filmmaker! But to say that I was happy to find out he was coming back would be a lie. The Force Awakens, despite also being a heck of a lot of fun, was also incredibly derivative of A New Hope. The Last Jedi's plot wasn't perfect. (I also didn't think that the film's name was entirely appropriate... but, then again, that could be said for all three of the new ones. But that's a whole other story!) However, I still feel it was the most original and interesting of the new films. (Other than Rogue One, which isn't part of the main series.)
So.... The Rise of Skywalker.... A missed opportunity in some ways? Perhaps. On the other hand, would it have truly been possible to make a film that wrapped everything up according to every fan's desires? Of course not. Which is why I still give this film a 7 out of 10. 7 ain't bad, folks!
Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991)
A terrific adventure
What a fun film. It's a terrific adventure that has it all: romance, action, drama, humour, a fantastic soundtrack, and a great story. I remember seeing the ads for this as a kid and thinking, wow - that looks cool. And it still is.
So Kevin Costner might not have an English accent, as don't many others in the film. And so there may be many factual inaccuracies. Many films have factual inaccuracies but don't make up for that by being great films to watch. This film is certainly a lot more fun and entertaining than Russell Crowe's Robin Hood, which, supposedly, was far more historically accurate.
This film is a yarn - it is a Hollywood adventure that is well-filmed and, I have to say, really not too badly acted. For me, it was easy to get lost in the world the film creates, and that is one of the major things I look for in a film of this kind.
One of my favourites, for sure.
Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2007)
I don't understand the bad reviews....
This is about as good a film, for watching purposes, as I've seen in a while. Excellent acting, great cinematography, well-flowing editing, and just a pleasure to watch.
The dynamic between Elizabeth, Walter Raleigh and Bess is nicely played out, making clear the difficult and unfair position Elizabeth is in as a woman whose only way of truly maintaining power in the eyes of those around her, as much as they try to convince her otherwise, is to not subjugate herself to any man, as much as she wants to be with one for personal reasons. (Unfortunately this is still an issue that is not so far from home.)
Again, for "watching purposes," as I say - meaning, for the pure enjoyment of watching a well-made film - this is far better than a lot of the stuff out there, and certainly, in my mind, deserved more attention. The cinematography is gorgeous, the soundtrack cues timed perfectly, and the cuts move the film along very smoothly.
Not quite sure why the film isn't looked upon more favourably....
A River Runs Through It (1992)
Aspiring to be more than it is, this film just doesn't quite feel right
Although this film is shot beautifully and has great potential, it somehow doesn't seem to live up to that potential for me. I was always waiting for something to happen - and although I know this is not a necessary attribute for every film out there, it just felt like the film was consistently building up to something, wanting us to feel as though what was happening was direly important, but never quite delivering.
The acting was decent, although I believe the actors had more potential and were likely hampered by poor direction; Robert Redford isn't exactly the best actor, and at times it feels to me like Brad Pitt had been overly influenced by Redford's style of acting, as though Redford were trying to mold Pitt in his image.
The film does succeed in some respects. Although the plot never quite seems to get anywhere, the mood and atmosphere of the film are worth experiencing. It's just a shame it didn't feel more substantial to me. It wanted to take us somewhere... but somehow it just didn't take me.
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
Silly triteness spoils the technical effort
I had the luxury of seeing this film in apparently one of the only theatres playing it digitally in Toronto. Had I NOT seen it in the digital theatre, there would have been absolutely NO redeeming value to my having seen it at all!
The acting made me want to cringe - and, although I have heard much about George Lucas's specific decisions to film the romance segments in what he considered to be an old-fashioned "Golden Era of Hollywood" style (quotation not actually a quotation of his, but essentially equivalent to something he said to that effect), it simply comes across as weak writing, poor direction, and, I'm sorry to say it to all those fans of Hayden Christensen (and I must admit that I have NOT seen him in Life as a House), poor execution on the part of the actors (specifically Christensen and Natalie Portman). Not to say Portman isn't beautiful - she is, and that certainly makes for something good to look at. But THAT, my friends, is essentially the epitome of this experience - a beautiful film to LOOK at - especially digitally (although I have not seen it projected on film, so I cannot say for sure whether it is better one way or the other, but what I saw WAS really smooth) - and that's it!
But SO MANY lines, especially near the beginning of the film, just made me want to cringe! I couldn't believe my ears! The writing was just so poor! It's such a shame... I don't know... I have never been the biggest Star Wars fan, and perhaps this IS up to standards for the Star Wars films, but if it is, I'll have to re-assess my opinion of the Star Wars films!
I read an article lately that had the opinion that the new films aren't as good simply because they do not have a character like Harrison Ford's Han Solo (PRE-Special Edition Greedo-shoots-first edit) - something to do with the edginess (and Harrison Ford-ness, I would say!)of his character, or something! Well, I don't know if this is altogether true: Anakin, of course, has a "dark side," although it is marked by a whiny-ness that Solo never had! But SOMETHING is missing in the new series. Be it STORY or ACTING, or simply the fact that it is, by definition, a PREquel first of all (already setting it at a disadvantage), and second of all, it is directed by a director who had not directed a single film between the original Star Wars and Episode I! Why was The Empire Strikes Back such a success? Many continue to say it was due to the presence of Irvin Kershner as director, and that there were huge fights between Kershner and Lucas. Well, I don't know if this is true, but if Kershner did challenge Lucas, and what we see in Empire is the result of such a challenge, it certainly paid off, and maybe that is exactly what this new series needs: someone to stand up to Lucas, and FIGHT him! Not physically, but with the guts to tell him that what he is doing is WRONG, and his product is simply POOR! There is a rumour that nobody at Lucasfilm says "no" to George Lucas. Well someone ought to -- maybe that's what it would take to at least allow the third movie to make up for the previous two! How CAN he get better if no one is willing or prepared to give him the news? And if he HAS listened to negative reviews, it's important to realize that somewhere along the line even the MOST creative people need to accept some input! Someone really ought to say something to him... or else the third movie will be just as bad as the last two! Sadly, at this rate, it probably will be, anyway.