STAR WARS: THE CLONE WARS review
Posted by Jim at 12:01am.
Posted in Film & DVD Reviews , Cult, Animation, Action, Sci-Fi & Fantasy, USA & Canada.
Just when you thought it was safe to close the book on George Lucas’ galaxy far, far away, a new “Star Wars” film is arriving in theaters. Granted, prior to having seen it, this latest entry in the saga had a few things going against it. First and foremost, although it is “Star Wars”, thereby assuring my interest (on some level) as a lifelong fan, it is “The Clone Wars” – a once enigmatic period of Star Wars history that has since been well covered in a wide variety media. The best of those efforts, Genndy Tartakovsky’s “Clone Wars” animated shorts, were considered by many to be superior to the prequel trilogy which spawned them. Those shorts did a wonderful job of bridging the gap between Episdes II and III.
Now, three years out from the conclusion of the live-action “Star Wars” films, the once-cool notion of yet more gap bridging lacks much of the appeal it once had. We know how it all turns out, with Anakin going bad, and the war itself revealed to be a power-grabbing sham. Yet, Lucas is convinced that the fan appetite for more Clone Wars tales is ripe to the point of justifying a new computer generated animated television series. To release the feature length premiere episode of the series to movie theaters, at first glance, simply seems to be yet more commercial opportunism. So, despite all of this, is “The Clone Wars” worth a trip to the multiplex? In a word, yes.
I wanted to believe the hype - in this case the ever-so strategically implemented reveal-NOTHING promotional campaign - that the return of the “X-Files” would be a cinematic event worth celebrating. For such a super-secret hush-hush summer film, it’s rather surprising that “The X-Files: I Want to Believe” turns out to merely be a modest, and unfortunately, inconsequential film. Like “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” earlier this summer, “X-Files” is an under-baked effort that clearly intends to coast on a loyal fan base that is hungry to see their favorite characters in action once again, regardless of overall quality. For those people, the film may be marginally more enjoyable than it will be to the so-so fan, or non-fan. I’d count myself in one of those latter categories – never a rabid fan, but someone who’s seen enough “X-Files” to know that the show was capable of soaring to great heights, albeit also aware of it’s ultimate, maddening implosion – and for me, this film never fulfilles the promise of the series. This should have been the ultimate stand-alone “X-Files” episode. All of this is particularly disappointing, considering that the creator and mastermind of the series, Chris Carter, is not only the film’s co-writer, but also its director.
Anyone stating that Hollywood is creatively tapped out has obviously failed to account for Guillermo del Toro. At the risk of sounding cheese ball, raw imagination consistently comes to life in his films, and “Hellboy II” is the strongest example of this to date. Falling comfortably instep with 2004’s original “Hellboy”, yet managing to push the concepts and characters into entirely new places, this is a worthwhile sequel that constructively builds upon an already firm foundation, most notably its innovative comic book source material by creator Mike Mignola. Unfortunately when it comes to the box office in this already super hero-crowded summer, this film will no doubt find itself trying to live up to the name of its comic publisher - Dark Horse. But then again, the first film survived an uphill battle for recognition, resulting in an extended cut DVD re-release, a couple of great animated movies, and of course this sequel. So hopefully audiences will be willing to look beyond “Wall-E” and “Hancock” to throw the Big Red One a little love.
“Get Smart” is, hands down, the greatest film of the year. Oh, you think I’m lying? Would you believe… that it’s best comedy of the year so far? How about, that it’s probably the best major comedy to be released this week?
“There’s something happening here
The Hulk is back and this time he means business. And by business, I mean box office. If Ang Lee’s 2003 effort was the “artsy” Hulk movie that pleased nobody, (present company excluded, actually,) this is the Hulk movie that’s out to please everybody. The makers of this film have made darn sure to bring the elements that so many longed for, but were denied the first time around - and to leave out all that annoying psychological exploration that Ang Lee is so fond of. So, prepare yourself for the kind of cinematic property damage that you can only find on this scale between late May and early August. This is the “Hulk Smash!” Hulk of the classic comics, but infused with the 1970’s “Incredible Hulk” TV show origin, among other things.
For many years, Hollywood had been threatening to unleash a big-budget live-action adaptation of the iconic 1960s cartoon “Speed Racer”. Everyone from Johnny Depp to Nicolas Cage was rumored to be involved at one point or another. Now, at long last, the film has arrived, touting the unmistakable star power of… John Goodman?? Okay, to be fair, the cast of this film does a remarkable job of bring out the heart and vital family dynamic of the Racer clan. But the fact that the cast may lack marquee value doesn’t matter, as the true stars of this film are its makers, Larry and Andy Wachowski (of the Matrix trilogy fame). And in accordance to the visual whirligig that is this film, not once do they let you forget it. Dare I say it; they’ve opened door into some kind of new live action visual experience.
Already much has been said about “Iron Man”, so I won’t spend a lot of time being redundant. In terms of the strengths and weaknesses of the film, I am in general agreement with Blake, who posted a review to Twitch prior to this one. I do, however, want to comment on a few other aspects of “Iron Man”, focusing on its status and history with Marvel Comics. In short, how does it fare as an adaptation? Plus, I’ve got a few other thoughts for good measure.
1. No Country for Old Men
It’s often said that a hero is only as heroic as his villain is evil. By that logic, then perhaps the films on my Top 3 list are only as great as the entrees on this are crappy. Or not. In any case, here’s the bottom of my admittedly shallow barrel of 2007 movies…
It’s been said that if you fell in love with cinema via science fiction in the last few decades, you are most likely either a “Star Wars” person or a “Blade Runner” person. Regarding the relatively small pantheon of monumental sci-fi films of the past thirty or so years, the latter film has had to prove itself and allow itself to be discovered and rediscovered in ways that George Lucas’ space opera never had to endure. Ridley Scott’s postmodern visual feast may’ve been a critical and commercial bewilderment upon first release twenty-five years ago, but now has ascended to a place of glory among fans, critics, and film history. And rightfully so – “Blade Runner” is at once a vibrant visual spectacle and an intellectual endeavor bursting with ideas, possibilities, and warnings. The question is, exactly which version “Blade Runner” should history cling to most tightly?
Similar to the trembling refuges of Barrow, Alaska as portrayed in the film, horror fans have been long waiting in a state of uncertainty about “30 Days of Night”. Rarely has an anticipated genre film such as this had as many apparent plusses as obvious red flags. On the plus side, the source material is a highly acclaimed comic book series from horror icon, writer Steve Niles. On the negative side, the star is Josh Hartnett, who has never improved any project he’s been associated with. Likewise, promising newcomer David Slade, of “Hard Candy” fame, directed the film but Sam Raimi’s production company, Ghost House Pictures, which has yet to prove itself in any meaningful way to horror fans, (which, granted, is still relatively new,) put the film together. Well, those fans can breath a sigh of relief, as “30 Days of Night” is one of the most solid cinematic bloodbaths in quite some time.
Although Ang Lee’s “Lust, Caution” is only now going into wide release in the United States, much has already been said about the prestigious director’s latest film. Predictably, most of the fleeting attention has flown to the very graphic sex scenes, despite the fact that they don’t occur for quite a while, and on the whole, don’t add up to a great deal of the film’s 157 minute running time. More astute observers have covered even that fact. What hasn’t been said so loudly and so often is that “Lust, Caution” is most effective as a meditative tale of the personal cost of life as a female spy (Tang Wei). But this is not an NC-17 rated James Bond movie. True to Ang Lee’s previous filmography of angst-ridden stories of feminine despair (“Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon”, “The Ice Storm”), this entry unravels its protagonist in the most elegant of settings, in a telling so fused with dignity, you can practically see his collection of past awards just off-frame. The trouble this time is that Lee, apparently cashing in his obligatory post-“Brokeback” ticket to do whatever he wants, seems completely absorbed in his own hype. In that sense, it could be thought of as Ang Lee’s “Gangs of New York” or “The Serpent’s Egg”.
Fourteen is a tough age. So the mysterious agents of exposition often remind us in this latest adolescent fantasy yarn. As the forces of Hollywood gather to fill the pending void left by the Great One Harry Potter, Walden Media – that mighty arbiter of bible belt-approved fantasy films (“Holes”, “The Chronicles of Narnia” series) – has stepped up with this latest offering, “The Seeker”. (The actual onscreen title remains “The Seeker – The Dark is Rising”, although word has gone out that the official title is simply “The Seeker”. At least the overused song by The Who of the same name doesn’t play for once.) Equal parts transparent and thoroughly satisfying, this film came as a bit of a surprise. Engaging, well acted, and appropriately scary, “The Seeker” comes recommended for its intended age group.
Ever have the experience of getting stuck listening to a little kid’s endless “funny story”? At first the story seems amusing, so you engage a little, which causes the kid to go on even longer (hey, a willing, captive audience!), painfully prolonging the finale. Your initial larkish grin develops into a glazed-over stare accompanied by a half-hearted string of responses: “Then what happened?” “Yeah? Then what happened?” “And THEN what happened?” Somewhere along the line, you realize you’re being strung along, as it’s all about the journey of telling you the story, not the resolution, anyway. Well folks, the Farrelly brothers and Ben Stiller now have a “Kid” just like that – their remake of Elaine May’s 1972’s “The Heartbreak Kid”. What starts out as a promising, raunchy comedy slogs into an unending string of warmed over hijinx. Perhaps ironically, the final zinger that rolls around just before the end credits actually works better if you’ve checked out of this yarn at that point.