Episode VII

George Lucas and Kathleen Kennedy on the Future of Star Wars

My earliest memory from inside a movie theater is watching Princess Leia dissing Luke Skywalker for being too short to convincingly impersonate a stormtrooper.  I always remember the scene differently from how it was actually shot: some how, my 3 year old brain knitted together the stark black and whites from the hallways of the Death Star with this scene, so I always remember what is actually an all-black room as a high contrast black & white.

Weird, I know.  Maybe it was just a bit of information overload for my developing cranium.

Point being, while I'm a much more rabid Trekkie than Star Wars fan, I basically know the dialogue from Episode IV by heart.

I remember when the Star Wars movies were good.  Sadly, there's the kernel of a good story in the most recent trilogy, but the difference, as always, is in the storytelling details - the everyday choices made by a director on dialogue, on performance, on camera position, on edits.  SOMEONE could have made "The Phantom Menace", "Attack of the Clones", and "Revenge of the Sith" into good movies.

There was a time that the film snob in me completely dismissed the idea of someone else making Star Wars movies because they're really George Lucas' magnum opus, but clearly George Lucas doesn't agree with me, and he's probably right.

So, my thoughts?

1. Hire JJ Abrams and Damon Lindelof.  Unlike me, they really do froth at the mouth about Star Wars.   And my namesake has gone on record on more than one occasion about why this whole Mitichlorians garbage completely defeats the entire point about The Force.  A great starting place.
2. Do as many things practically and in camera as you can. The CGI is killing the dramatic tension of the action and it's distracting from the drama.
3. Two words: Mark Hammill.

Let's DO THIS.

Race Snapshot

Just in case anyone's keeping score, here's my current rankings of the summer blockbusters, so far, starting from the least interesting and working our way up in quality & enjoyment:

4.
The Chronicles of Riddick

Surprised? So am I. I had such high hopes for Riddick, but, in the end, it was alot of sound & fury, signifying nothing. That fabulous cast and the absolutely amazing production design and, honestly, a story I really like. But there's a big difference between a good story and a good screenplay. Lord knows this movie could have been a lot slimmer, and a lot punchier. I also think the action scenes are overdirected (two much camera movement and fast cutting), so that you can't actually get a sense of just how much danger the characters you care about are in. I'm actually pretty tired of movies that say that their main character is evil, but they're really just kind of bad-ass (i.e. Mel Gibson in "Payback"). Riddick would have been so much better if he really was a stone-cold sociopathic mass murderer, who just happens to be such a monster that he actually brings down an empire. So much more interesting, although it does have an extremely cool ending.

3. The Day After Tomorrow

This only gets a higher notch because of the sheer absence of suck-i-tude. But the absence of wackness does NOT equal goodness. It's definitely fun, but thin as paper. And pretty contrived. It's a nice little piece of speculative sci-fi, but the science is EXTREMELY suspect. But, in my continuing quest to elevate B list actors that I love, I'm totally digging Kenneth Welsh's transformation from homicidal ex-FBI occultist Windom Earle in Twin Peaks to a thinly veiled knock-off of Dick Cheney in this movie. Plus, the effects are awesome. And the killer cold snap is pretty f'n cool. And, as a fan of Dennis Quaid's since Dreamscape, I'm glad to see him finally cashing in as a leading man.

2. Troy

LOVED the costume design (somebody PLEASE give Bob Ringwood an Oscar for this!). Loved the battle scenes. LOVED the fact that this movie really captures just how much of a punk-ass bi-otch Orlando Bloom's Paris is. LOVED the Hector/Achilles duel. And Peter O'Toole made my day. But, alas, they do muck with the history a bit much for my tastes, and they really overplayed their hand with the whole "quest for immortality" thing. Pretty good, but not as good as...

1.
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

Surpised? Me too. I only really got interested in it based off the the great reviews and my love of Alfonso Cuaron's work on Y Tu Mama Tambien. But I'm SO glad I saw this film. So much fun. Even when the action was a little slow, there was always something interesting on screen that kept me riveted. It's amazing the difference a director can make. He had such a granular sense of detail in his depiction of Hogwarts, it felt like a real place, and not just a special effect on display. I usually hate scenes like the one where Harry rides the Hippogiff (kind of an eagle-horse) over a vast forest and nearby lake, but it was absolutely (dare I say it) magical. I'm so bummed they're getting a new director. Hopefully, he'll be back for the 5th film.

Shrek 2? Not my cup o' joe. Van Helsing? Not worth my time or money.

Hot on my list for the rest of the summer?
Spider-Man 2
The Bourne Supremacy
The Manchurian Candidate
Fahrenheit 9/11

The Conscience of A King
I usually only comment on specific movies at Macroscope when I think it's something worthwhile that you might miss in the daily roar of film advertising, so, it may seem strange for me to say something about the next installment of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, The Two Towers, here. Losing this film on the media radar would be the equivalent of forgetting your standing on planet Earth, giving all the promotional saturation its received. However, I would like to take a moment to comment on one aspect of the film you might miss.

Many folks say that the CGI-created Gollum is the most compelling character in the film, but, for my money, the guy I could not take my eyes off of was Theoden, King of the human city of Rohan, played by Bernard Hill. If you look closely, you may recognize Hill as the Captain of James Cameron's Titanic. It's an interesting bit of casting, since, in both instances, he's a man given the responsibility for the lives of a doomed people.

In light of my recent commentary about the morally questionable activities of the Bush administration in the wake of 9/11, my far more conservative brother (and father of two) made an observation that's haunted me ever since: "It's hard to stand on your morals when you're responsible for the lives of others." There's a look in the eyes of King Theoden as the full-weight of his mistakes and the horrible consequences of his actions begin to set in, that made me think of the look in G.W. Bush's eyes, later on that week after 9/11. One would hope that a leader acts in a way that he believes will be the most beneficial for his people. But, as history has taught us, decisions at that level always involve some kind of human calculus - what action will cost the fewest lives while saving the most? Bernard Hill's portrayal of Theoden reminded me that the cost of that job can quite often include your soul.

See the movie.

And watch his eyes.