Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace

There's an odd thing about The Phantom Menace. During the actual act of watching it, it doesn't really come off as being a bad movie. For the most part the actors range from competent to great, the plot line is intriguing, the pace is good, and there's plenty going on. But, once you stop and think really hard about it, the vitriol comes out and people curse the day they heard the name George Lucas.

Mind you, I can easily name a dozen or more Sci-Fi films that are way, way worse than this. The worst Star Trek movie, Star Trek V, makes this look like Casablanca. And this isn't even the worst Star Wars film ever (hello, Star Wars Holiday Special). For that matter, it's not even the worst of the theatrical Star Wars movies (hello, Clone Wars). But undoubtedly, it is the single most hated film in the franchise.

That's a tragedy since it's actually not a bad movie at all.

Of course much of the hate, besides being directed at Lucas, is directed at Jar Jar Binks, the eponymous comic relief. But as I pointed out previously, Jar Jar isn't even the film's biggest problem. He may be it's most obvious, but not it's biggest.

The biggest issue with the movie is  the same problem that some of the newer James Bond movies have had: it's too much of a cut and paste job. We're not only getting the same basic story, we're getting too many of the same exact scenes. This is most obvious during the film's big finale. It's a mash-up of the finales of the previous three films: the big space battle to destroy the evil Space Base (Star Wars), the light saber duel to the death (Empire Strikes Back), and the primitive planet natives rising up against the evil technologically advanced empire (Return of the Jedi). Mind you, almost all of the sequels and prequels repeat elements. It just comes off as slightly more pronounced here due to the long wait between Jedi and this.

I suspect that the long wait between films is also what doomed it to be a let down. After all, a generation of fans had a decade and a half to wonder what things were like prior to the events of the first movie. How did the Empire rise? What was Darth Vader like when he was Anakin Skywalker? What were the Clone Wars anyhow? Kids played with the toys and imagined their own adventures and had in their minds eye exactly what the prequels would be like.

So naturally when this movie came out and we find out the Emperor rose to power by manipulating a war caused by taxation and Anakin Skywalker was a ten year old who said "Yippee!", a bunch of adults threw a galaxy sized hissy fit. And that hissy fit has only grown in the 18 years since the film first debuted. Screams of Lucas ruining people's childhood have resounded to Dantooine and back by now. Which, of course, is just plain silly. Especially since this film--as almost all of the Star Wars films are--is really a children's film. It wasn't made for 40 year old men wearing Princess Leia costumes and play with action figures. It was made, as the original film was, for ten year old kids who play with action figures and who are far more likely to dress like a Jedi.

But then again, wars have been fought and dictators placed in power over more ridiculous things than taxes. And what exactly did people think a ten year old Anakin would be like? Did they expect him to run around chopping people down with a light saber?

If I sound snobbish and dismissive of the fans, understand that I myself am a Star Wars fan. I'm old enough to have seen the first film on it's original release in the theaters. I played with the toys. I've read some of the books and comic books. I played Star Wars video games on the Atari 2600. I was a member of the fan club and read the fan club newsletter (Bantha Tracks!) back in the day. I even cherished the disco version of the theme song put out by Meco!

I sometimes wonder what would have happened if the films had actually been made in episodic order. If this had actually been the first film in the series, would it still be as hated? I tend to doubt it. The action sequences are first rate.
Liam Neeson, Samuel L. Jackson, Natalie Portman, and Ewan McGregor all do first rate jobs. Darth Maul is a menacing enough villain, even if--like Bobba Fett before him--he doesn't quite live up to his potential. Yeah, Jar Jar is a bit annoying, but no more so than any other comic relief character before him.

Am I saying this is a perfect Star Wars film? Of course not. It has it's issues. All movies do. But the grown men in the Princess Leia costumes screaming that this was a rape of their childhood and the worst thing that ever happened to them need to get a bit of a grip. If this is the worst movie you've ever seen, I'm guessing you haven't seen that many movies. And if this film destroyed all happy memories of your childhood, then maybe your childhood wasn't as happy as you remember it being. And if this was the worst thing to happen to you ever, I'm guessing nobody you know ever died.

At the end of the day, we're talking about something that's just a movie. It's not the worst movie of all time or even the worst sequel of all time. Sure, it's the worst of the episodic Star Wars movies, but--like the worst James Bond movie--it's still better than most other series films out there. It's still entertaining. It had one job to do--to set up the other prequels and make you want to see those prequels. It succeeded in that. It actually did make me curious to see where the story would go. There's a lot of serials I can't say that about. You really want to see a sequel that systematically sets out to destroy everything you liked about the original film? Try Jaws: The Revenge or the Smokey and the Bandit sequels. This film looks like the greatest film of all time compared to them!

Favorite Friday: RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK (1981)

Full disclosure: Raiders of the Lost Ark is my favorite movie of all time.

I say that and people look at me like I have two heads. What nobody realizes, however, is that there is a difference between "favorite" and "best". It's not that Raiders is the best movie ever made. There are other movies that are better than it certainly. Or if not better, than more "important" than it in terms of what they have to say. Let's just throw it right out there: Raiders is pop entertainment. Two hours of pure pop entertainment, in fact. It's not a message film like On the Beach or Schindler's List. It's not meant to make you consider the human condition or anything like that. It is, at it's heart, a pure early 80s summer blockbuster, and one of the best at it.

Conceived as an homage to the great serials of the 1930s and 40s, in particular the Republic serials, Raiders has a simple premise. In 1936, the Nazis are looking for the Lost Ark of the Covenant, the fabled chest that allegedly contained the original Ten Commandments (the stone tablets, not the movie). The U.S. Government asks archeologist Indiana Jones to beat the Nazis to the prize. Jones reunites with an ex-lover whose father has an artifact the Nazis need to aid in their search. The Nazis call upon Jones number one rival Belloq to help them. The Ark is found and trades off who owns it several times before the end of the movie. Yep, that's about it.

Don't let the fairly simple description above fool you. I mentioned that Raiders was a throwback to Republic serials and nobody was better at simple premises than Republic serials. Raiders tells a simple, straightforward story but tells it thrillingly. Once the movie starts, it never really takes a breather. I would argue that it is one of the most action packed movies you'll ever see. Keep in mind, this was in the pre-CGI world, with actually stuntmen pulling off such mind blowing stunts as Jones being chased by a very large boulder to Jones chasing after a speeding truck on horseback to Jones being dragged behind said truck and climbing back on. That last mentioned stunt is a clever nod to one of the most famous serial stunts, typically called The Yakima Canutt Stunt, where the hero is sliding under a speeding wagon and climbs back on. Actually, that's the genius alone of the original Indiana Jones trilogy. Like the James Bond movies of the era, all the stunts are for real and all the more amazing for it.

Harrison Ford got the role of Indy when Tom Selleck had to turn it down due to his Magnum, P.I. commitment. I like Selleck and I've seen his audition. He's a fine actor, but Ford nailed Jones and made him into an iconic movie character. Ford IS Indiana Jones, a not entirely likeable good guy--he does have a touch of greed to him--who rises above the occasion to kick some Nazi rear. Karen Allen plays his feisty ex-flame Marion Ravenwood. She's the best of the heroines in the series, instantly recalling the true Serial Queens like Kay Aldridge and Linda Stirling. She may get into trouble, but she puts up a fight and uses her wiles to attempt to escape. The scene where she tries drinking head bad guy Belloq (Paul Freeman) under the table in an attempt to escape from him is alternately hilarious and suspenseful.

This is Spielberg's second movie involving Nazis. He's said that he regrets portraying them the way he does in this, especially after Schindler's List, which was his first time at portraying them as they really were. What Spielberg seems to forget, however, is that their portrayal in this movie is appropriate for the type of movie it is. It's a serial, after all, and anyone who has seen Spy Smasher or Manhunt in the African Jungles knows where the Nazis in this film were modeled off of. On top of that, the three main villains--Belloq, Toht (Ronald Lacey), and Dietrich (Wolf Kahler) are perfect representations of the best of the serial villains. They're a nasty, murderous bunch--in particular Toht, who threatens Marion with a hot poker in one scene and throws her into the Well of Souls in another. Incidentally, Freeman went on to appear (not as Belloq) on the early 90s Young Indiana Jones Chronicles.

Look, this is a movie that has it all: amazing action scenes, genuine suspense, and just the right amount of humor. It truly is representative of the classics of the serial genre and if it were an actual cliffhanger serial, it would be the greatest one of all. One can tell that Steven Spielberg and George Lucas had a genuine affection for serials. If you pay attention, you can even find every chapter break in it. Count them. There's 12 actual chapters in it. Plus, if you're a serial nut (like I am), you can tell which serials which scenes were nods to.

Proof of the greatness of this movie is the sheer number of imitators it spawned. This happened frequently back in the late 70s and early 80s. Jaws gave rise to any number of shark movies (and still does for that matter). Star Wars inspired movies like Battle Beyond the Stars and Starchaser: The Legend of Orin. Halloween begat Friday the 13th, My Bloody Valentine, and so on. Alien gave use movies like The Thing. And Raiders inspired movies like Treasure of the Four Crowns (truly awful) and Romancing the Stone (actually fairly decent). The problem with the Raiders imitators is that they just looked at the treasure hunter aspect or the serial aspect and missed the whole fun aspect. When Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow came out (another serial inspired film), I went to it eagerly. After watching it, however, I turned to a friend of mine and said "it just didn't have the wow factor Raiders did".

I'm quite certain that if you wanted to judge the best Spielberg movie, some artsy critic would point to something like Saving Private Ryan or Lincoln, both of which are excellent movies indeed. However, I'm not an artsy critic. I'm a film buff and while I recognize the superiority of those two movies, I'll go back to Raiders again and again and again and never get bored with it. I first saw Raiders at age 11 on the big screen in March of 1982. It captured my imagination then and 32 years later, it still captures my imagination. After all, isn't that what a favorite movie does?

Thoughts on Star Wars 7, 8, & 9

So, today it was announced that Disney has bought LucasFilm and will proceed to make Star Wars episodes 7-9, with the first one to be released in 2015. This news has been met with much rejoicing and some questions by fans, the main question being "will Disney release the original cuts of the films on Blu Ray?" Truthfully, that's an irrelevant question. IF it happens, and that's a mighty big if, it won't be for a few years anyway. The questions that should be asked should be asked of this new series that's coming.  For instance:
Who is going to direct these films (Lucas said he won't)?
Who is going to be in them?
Most importantly, what the heck are they going to be about anyhow?

I have some worthwhile suggestions for the first question anyhow. Spielberg is the most obvious choice, though I don't see him doing it. The directors of the Marvel Cinematic Universe films are also top suggestions. Anyone who can make a movie like Thor that interesting the way Kenneth Branagh did knows how to blend fantastic worlds and real characters and make it work. Joe Johnston has two very serial-like films under his belt: Captain America and The Rocketeer. And it goes without saying that if Joss Whedon's The Avengers isn't the all time best comic book movie ever, it's in the top five. Frankly, those are the directors you want attached to Star Wars. I think they, better than anyone else, would get it. Hell, they might even get it better than George Lucas himself!

The question of casting ties into the what will it be about question, and both are kinda sticky. As it's 7, 8, and 9 we're talking about, does that mean that Han, Luke, and Leia will be in them? If so, who is going to play them. I may be speaking for myself, but at this point, I don't want to see Harrison Ford, Mark Hammil, and Carrie Fisher reprising those roles. As much as I enjoyed Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, the first shot of Ford as Indy had me thinking "Oh my God! He looks ancient!" That was in 2008. By the time of 2015, Ford will likely look a day older than Moses. Hammil has looked like the Joker for a while now. As for Fisher...while she doesn't look awful, she sure doesn't look like she did in 1983. And while that statement may lead to a "so, like...duh!" comment from the readers, contemplate this: by the time the new Star Wars comes out, Fisher will be almost 60. Show of hands of people who really want to see a 60 year old Princess Leia.

Oddly enough, however, there really isn't anyone in Hollywood right now that I would care to see in these parts. I suppose an argument can be made for Robert Downey, Jr. as Han, Hayley Atwell as Leia, and Chris Evans as Luke, but I'd rather see them in the Iron Man and Captain America films (or The Avengers 2) than in Star Wars.

I suppose the original actors can be brought back in cameos or as the wise old sages and new heroes and villains be introduced. Then again, the wild age difference between Ford and Fisher would really come to light if such a thing were to happen. And I don't want people to think I'm just being mean spirited towards Ford. He's a fine actor--always has been--but hell, even Roger Moore recognized when he was too old to be playing James Bond. Sorry, Mr. Ford, your day as swashbuckling action hero is sadly over.

This brings up what the film will be about. This is perhaps even stickier than who should be in it. After all, if you watch the films now, you can plainly see that the saga goes full circle. Annakin Skywalker meets the Jedis, grows up to try to become a Jedi, loses his mind and goes evil killing little kid Jedi (but no actual adult Jedi...hmmm....), finds his kids, kills the Emperor, and dies doing so theoretically redeeming himself. At the end of Return of the Jedi, the main bad guys are dead and the heroes have triumphed. So what exactly can follow? What can possibly be the story? Is it 30 years later and some far flung remnat of the Empire rises up to cause trouble? Is it right after Jedi and the messy clean up has to happen? That one might make for a better one-off movie, but if it's the previous idea, then the danger becomes that the films just end up repeating themselves. We already kind of had that with Phantom Menace, which borrowed it's climax from all three previous films. Do we want it again? More to the point, do we need it?

I would argue no. When I was a lot younger, I really wanted Indiana Jones four. As I got older, I realized how little such a film was needed. And when it finally came out, while it was fun, I felt no need for a fifth film. I still hope that Spielberg gives up the idea of a fifth Indiana Jones film and just carries on with Tintin or some such. Similarly, now that the prequels are out--and one can argue the necessity of the prequels, too--I don't feel that 7, 8, and 9 are absolute necessities. In fact, I'd rather Disney not make these movies but instead concentrate on the Marvel films. I know they'll make the Marvel movies regardless, but I'm far more excited about those possibilities than anything that will go on in the future Star Wars universe. But, that's just me.