Andreas Matern takes a current release movie to task.
Episode III – Revenge of the Suckfest
I didn’t line up for days to watch George Lucas’ final installment of the Star Wars franchise. I did, however, see it on midnight – the first publicly available showing. I did see it again, two days later, to fully justify my feelings. In the end, I must say, Episode III – Revenge of the Sith, sucked.
It must have been terribly difficult to live up to fan expectations following the original trilogy. Star Wars is the greatest science fiction epic of our time. Lucas, a marketing genius and a passable writer-director, got insanely lucky with Star Wars Episode IV – A New Hope. He wasn’t as lucky with the three prequels.
Episode III should have been a writer’s dream. Take the most notorious evil character ever put on film and show the audience how he got there. Why does he need the uber-cool black suit to breathe? How did he not know that Luke and Leia were his children? How did he fall from being one of the most powerful Jedi to the Emperor’s lap dog?
The entire prequel trilogy is a mess. Terrible dialogue and horrific character development plague all the movies. They need to be completely redone if the fans are going to continue to Super Size their extra value meals for more Star Wars kitch.
In Episode III we see Obi Wan and Anakin take on Count Dooku – the latest in a line of apprentices to Darth Sidious – the Lord of the Sith. Dooku takes on both Anakin and Obi Wan in a fantastic light saber battle, only to lose his hands, and his head to Anakin. This is one of the few deaths in Episode III that is well done. Later, we see many of the Jedi slain by the Clone Troopers – Jedi who theoretically have wonderous powers are systematically shot down by bad copies of Jango Fett. We really needed more detail in their deaths – they should have died honorably.
The absolute worst part of Episode III began in Episode II – The Attack of the Clones. In both movies the viewer is subjected to the worst romantic dialogue of all time. Episode III is by far the cheesiest. I don’t know how often Lucas has made romantic advances on a woman, but, according to his dialogue, it hasn’t been since he was in the seventh grade. Padme’s death scene is so trite and juvenile that it should be cut out of the film completely.
The lightsaber scenes are impressive in this film. The final battle between Obi Wan and Anakin is worthy of the fans. I am a little unimpressed by the notion of an entire planet made of lava, but we’ll let that slide.
The single, worst part of the entire movie – and there are many bad parts – is how quickly Anakin is seduced by the Emperor. There’s no real drama involved, there’s very little doubt in Anankin’s mind that he needs the Dark Side. The Emperor just tells him that the Dark Side will help him save his wife, and he signs on. He falls from gallant Jedi to Dark Lord of the Sith in a cinematic heartbeat. Immediately after he takes his knee and pledges himself to the Sith he slays the “younglings” – children studying to be Jedi. No remorse, no “What have I done?” speeches, he just runs around killing people. Darth Vader is the epitome of evil. The biggest movie badass of recent memory. He kills people without a thought. He chokes his subordinates to death in front of his crew. He tortures people; he is the number one bad guy. All it takes for him to fall is the promise of keeping his wife alive? Episode II should have introduced us to Vader, and Episode III should have shown us his spiraling decent into the Dark Side.
The acting is, for the most part, better than the other prequels, but that’s not saying much. I don’t fault the actors. The dialogue is so atrocious that no one could do it justice. The special effects are breath taking, but, when one is exposed to over two hours of computer-generated scenes, one can only hope that they are expertly rendered.
Will I see the movie again? Of course. Science Fiction is all but dead in the cinema. The Matrix is over. Star Trek is over. Star Wars is over (for now, there are rumors of a live action TV series and more animated episodes). Science fiction buffs have a few things to look forward to. The hit TV series Lost and the Sci-Fi channel’s re-telling of Battlestar Galactica are worthy of watching. Hopefully, future writers and directors will look back at the Star Wars prequels and use them as examples of exactly what not to do.
Often times we do not have enough time or energy or a baby sitter to step out to the theater for the most recent movie release but still want some entertainment in the evening; this leaves us pondering the newest DVDs at the rental store attempting to find something that he and she would both enjoy. Shawn and Janet Fallo review a new DVD (while their son sleeps) from his perspective and her perspective.
Shawn and Janet Fallo let us know how they feel about Meet the Fockers.
The Cast:
Every once in a while, a movie comes along that redefines a genre, makes us celebrate the sprit of creativity and generally elevates the soul of the viewer. Meet the Fockers, alas, is not one of those films. It is, however, the pretty funny sequel to Meet the Parents. This film once again stars Ben Stiller as registered nurse Gaylord “Greg” Focker and Robert De Niro as the ultra-conservative, over-protective retired CIA agent Jack Byrnes. As you might imagine, De Niro is superb as the “straight man” to Stiller’s nervous, bumbling Greg. Teri Polo turns in a fine supporting performance as Pam Byrnes (Greg’s fiancé and Jack’s beloved daughter) as does Blythe Danner as mother-in-law-to-be Dina Byrnes. What really makes this movie worth seeing, though, is the addition of Dustin Hoffman and Barbara Streisand as Greg’s parents, Bernard and Roz. They both seem to revel in their parts as the overly open, madly affectionate, ultra-liberal Fockers—in short, the exact opposite of the Byrnes clan. Streisand is very funny as Stiller’s take-charge, Yiddish-talking sex therapist mother. While Hoffman’s goofy, adoring, ex-hippie Dad is simply hilarious. Together, Streisand and Hoffman sparkle with the kind of mischievous chemistry reserved for great comedic teams. Rounding out the cast is breast-infatuated “Little Jack” (Jack’s toddler grandson), Jinx the cat and Moses—the Focker’s very horny dog.
The Plot:
In this installment, Greg and Pam are finally planning on tying the knot. The catch, however, is that Jack has to meet and approve of Greg’s parents—bring them into his “circle of trust”—before he will give his blessing to the union. Sensing disaster, Greg lies about his parent’s careers and tries to coach them on being less like themselves. Unfortunately for him (and fortunately for us), a leopard can’t change its’ spots. As things begin to unravel, mayhem ensues with mix-ups, disasters, embarrassing revelations and …funny names (Randy Focker, Dom Focker, and Martha Focker to name a few).
He said:
There is high-brow comedy and there is low-brow comedy . . . this, thankfully, is the latter. Chock-full of sexual innuendo, flying foreskins and leg-humping dogs (and who doesn’t like a good humping dog scene?), this flick may not surprise or enlighten you, but it will entertain. Overall, Meet the Fockers isn’t what I’d call a classic, but it’s worth a rent. 3 out of 5 chuckles.
She said:
No matter where you jump in the movie, you will be entertained due to the high frequency of situational humor. However, I got the impression that there were several deeper messages that were part of the story. One of them is that no matter what you try to be, your true self will always come through so you might as well just be yourself. Another is that it is not too late to change, and you are never too old to feel young.
In addition, Meet the Fockers showed extremes of different philosophies of life and raising children, poking fun equally at both sides. Therefore, we all can learn from each other. All in all, it was fun, lighthearted, and definitely worth the rent!
We have all been in this situation--having frequented the video store enough that nothing is new in the New Releases section or we arrive late at the video store and all the fresh movies have been checked out. We are then faced with the hinterlands of the video store stocked with faded titles and mysterious movies of unknown quality. Eric Lewis provides a beacon in the treacherous waters of old videos by reviewing a closet classic.
The Shoes of the Fisherman
Directed by Michael Anderson
1968
2 hours, 44 minutes
Review by Eric Lewis
I have to admit, I'm something of a nerd. I only realized this after being asked to write the following movie review. I was told only that it had to be a film released prior to the year 2000. I immediately thought of The Shoes of the Fisherman, starring Anthony Quinn and Sir Laurence Olivier. It is certainly old enough, having been released in 1968. But it was the film I chose that made me realize that I am indeed, a nerd. You see, the film is perfect for me. I have been captivated by the two main subjects it deals with for as long as I can remember. These topics are The Cold War and the Vatican. Why the Vatican? Why the Soviet Union? I could just as easily have reviewed a b-rated zombie flick or even an earthy romance. But alas, it is the Bolsheviks and the Catholics that really do it for me.
I remember the days when Moscow seemed to be the most inaccessible and mystery enshrouded city on earth. I remember when it was cool to wear Russian words on your t-shirts and Soviet Military Hats and pins were very hot items. And I remember watching with awe the medieval pageantry of the Vatican rituals. The secrecy of its inner workings and the ancient history of its institutions amazed me. They still do. So it was decided, I would re-introduce the champagne guzzling world to The Shoes of the Fisherman, in the sincere hope that they take my advice and give it a go. Don't think of it as a religious epic. It is much more than that. Nor, is it a longer version of Spy vs. Spy or Scarecrow and Mrs. King. (remember that one??) It is a fresh take on the good old days of the Cold War, and a look inside the secret world of the Vatican City State. You will also be struck by the almost prophetic way the story mimics the true life events of recently deceased Pope John Paul II., the real life Cold War ending pope.
Joseph Stalin once mockingly asked "How many legions does the Pope command?" after learning of Vatican protests over Soviet expansionism. If only Comrade Joseph had lived long enough to see this film, he might have found the answer he was looking for. The Shoes of the Fisherman tells the story of an Ukranian archbishop (played by Anthony Quinn), recently released from 20 years in a soviet prison camp in Siberia. Soon after his release, he finds himself elevated to Cardinal, and with the blessings of the manipulative Soviet Premier Kamenev (Laurence Olivier), embarks on a journey to Rome that will forever change his life. Soon after his arrival in Rome, the Holy Father dies and the Ukranian joins the conclave to elect a new pope. Much to his dismay, he soon realizes that he is at the top of the list to take the highest position in Christendom and wear the Shoes of the Fisherman. (traditional name given to the slippers worn by the pope) He is elected, and the new Russian Pope Kiril Lakota, first from a communist country, quickly finds himself at the center of several swirling and dangerous conflicts. He simultaneously attempts to solve the issue of a major famine in China by offering to sell many Vatican treasures (including his own crown), and defuse an ever more probable nuclear war between the Soviets and the Chinese. These conflicts add volumes of drama to the already interesting and well filmed movie.
In a world where all good movies are at least 3 hours long, this one is manageable at 2 hours, 44 minutes. The talented cast was believable and emotional, and the on site filming was brilliant. I will admit that the ending seems abrupt and there are scenes that may seem tedious to someone not on par with my intellectual greatness, but the story is rich enough to maintain even the interest of a "Meet the Fockers" fan. (wink)
