We started a top 10 ranking at my office.
The ranking is solely based on personal preference, not on movies one may rank or think that are the best. My top 10 (in no particular order):
…and I am zeroing in the last three spots.
In an era where my thirst for comedy has wandered the endless plains of available cable and streaming options, in search of the next show that could be heralded as a worthy successor to the towering heights of creative, edgy and outspoken humor reached by Seinfeld or The Simpsons, a search one might find similar to that of finding intelligent lifeforms in our galaxy, I had recently been exposed to several propaganda pieces promoting That ’90s Show as a potential candidate of being considered in this discussion. With the hope that my search would be coming to an end, I watched the first season of Netflix‘s latest addition. Sadly, my hopes faded away as quickly as the bright sunlight does during winter days at high latitudes.
There are two reasons for the disappointment. One concerns the product, the other concerns the audience (me).
That ’90s Show has several flaws one can easily pinpoint in order to understand its shortcomings as a good comedy show, let alone a great one. I believe there should be an overall consensus that its predecessor –That ’70s Show– was a good sitcom. I would not quite label it as a great one, due to the last three seasons’ quality falling under the standard the show set -a discussion that deserves its own separate topic-. Still, 70s was a good show about a group of teenagers living in Wisconsin during the second half of the 70s, with several cultural references and settings relevant to the time the show is set, but more importantly, with characters that felt real, like actual people who were living in the 70s in the American Midwest. It also helped that the cast was solid and the actors exceeded all expectations placed on them. Needless to say, almost all of the young cast went on to embark on their own successful solo-careers. Personally, I always felt Ashton Kutcher was arguably the most talented member, not that the others were too far behind from his abilities. I could tell this from the first episode of the show. In contrast, That ’90s Show has neither settings nor characters that feel real.
From the first episode, the question that should come up in the audience’s mind is: “When is this taking place?” Within a few minutes, the show seems to establish that the year is 1995. In a matter of seconds everything goes downhill from there. My immediate thought was to wonder whether if the writers knew what it was to be a teenager in 1995. Moreover, did the writers research what it was to be a teenager in 1995? With so many resources available, including having access to contemporary shows of the time such as Beverly Hills -niche as it was-, My So Called Life, and Party of Five, it seems that the answer to both two thoughts was an resounding No.
The problem with the show is that it tries too hard to be a current (2023) modernized interpretation of how life was in the 90s, employing the narrative used in That ’70s Show, while featuring desultory attempts to bring the main characters together. The result of this blend is a traumatizing mix that can leave your brain sore after a few consecutive episodes. I had to pause every ten minutes or so to gather strength to keep watching, mainly because the plots thrive on the idea of political correctness in a way that is not how things worked in 1995. Of course the 90s featured feminists (Jessie Spano from Saved by the Bell), gays (Rickie Vasquez from My So Called Life), and african-americans blending in prominent roles in a white-predominant cast (The Quizmaster from Sabrina), but the characters were driven by the set they were in, along with their own individual values. It is hard to explain, but the same character type in That ’90s Show, behaves as if they are given a recipe of how to act, which also restricts their freedom of understanding why do they act the way they do. Simply put, the characters do not act like teenage Gen X teenagers, and they don’t even act like Millenial teenagers. They act like Gen Zs in a setting filled with vague references of the 90s. The script has so many out of place fatuous dialogues, it is almost impossible to buy into these kids being Gen Xers.
A particular scene that exemplifies my reasoning features a character joyfully smiling, signing and dancing to Alanis Morissette’s Ought to know in a very impassioned and lackluster way in the context how it should have been in the year 1995; instead, it looks as if the character were joyfully signing and dancing to Taylor Swift’s Shake it off. If you watch the scene, you will hear a needle scratch in your head. The character is interrupted and dialogue begins without any significance of what we had been showed moments before. A better approach would have been to portray the character passionately yelling the lyrics deep from their lungs, having their voice faltering more and more after every sang word in order to show a raw emotional state filled with feelings of a conflict to be explored in further episodes, because that is what Ought to know’s lyrics transmit, and that is how us teenagers back in the 90s digested the song. A parallel can be drawn back to the first episode of That ’70s Show when something similar happens to the characters listening to Todd Rundgren, which serves as an establishment of a plot that lasts for a few episodes; and the same has been done on other shows as well: there is a reason why an enfuriated Brenda Walsh listens to Losing my religion after breaking up with her boyfriend Dylan in Beverly Hills;or why a hopeless romantic Ross Geller dedicates With or without you to Rachel in Friends. Instead, this scene in 90s featuring Ought to know could have had any other song being played, danced to and sang, without generating any significant impact on the plot.
This loss of a geniune 90s feel impacts the second reason for my disappointment: the humor. Humor in the 90s was irreverant, dark, filled with satire and irony. Did the writers forget they had to focus on a decade that arguably can be referred as the prime comedic decade in entertainment history? The 90s were the decade of the prime Simpsons, Seinfeld, Southpark, Ren and Stimpy, VH-1, MTV, The Larry Sanders Show, and so on. Therefore, this leads to a mind-boggling question: who is the audience for this show? Is it the fans of That ’70s Show? Or is it the Gen Zs and Millenials? If it’s the former, then unless I (and everyone around me) lived inside a parallel 90s universe, the humor falls flat. If it’s the latter, then I wouldn’t be able to tell if they would appreciate the humor, but I would say they will have a specious impression of how life was in the 90s. Even details as trivial as the characters’ clothing and hairstyles are completely off.
Fuller House also failed in recreating the atmosphere that had been built by its predecessor Full House, but a point can be made that it probably was due to the main characters being completely different people from the ones we saw in the original show. That is: the three girls we met in Full House, were now full grown adult women in Fuller House, so they are obviously going to act differently from how they were in they younger days. This of course results in themes that will be more adult-oriented, rather than the family-oriented plots that were regularly featured in Full House.
I wasn’t expecting anything particular from That ’90s Show in terms of characters and plots, but having seen the end results, I have to say that I am disappointed at how trite the show is, and at the lost opportunities of having a nerd kid obsessed with getting the gang hooked on the internet, a confident yet green handsome kid with a “conquer-the-world” attitude, a passionate and naturally gifted sports kid, a down-to-Earth hardworking kid, an artistic kid, and spoiled kid. With so many avenues and storylines to fill, it would have been interesting to see this blend come together with an authentic feel of the realistic wants and needs that teenagers had back then: the latest videogame, the latest sport event, the concerts, the defiance of the 80s, the counterculture… and that new emerging thing called the internet.
In the end, my search will continue, as I keep looking for something that will bring back the basic roots of comedy that have been missing for quite a while now.
HR
A few days a go I watched what is arguably: the most anticipated film since the pandemic, the most anticipated film of 80s nostalgia, and the most anticipated film of action fans. Pretty much the most anticipated film in years.
I will start saying that generally speaking, Top Gun: Maverick was not a dissapointment. It actually was a great experience, but like Tron: Legacy, it left me with the following thought in my mind: “Is this it?” Unbeknown to me, Top Gun Maverick’s director coincidentally happened to be Tron Legacy’s director. Hence why throughout the film I kept getting this weird feeling: “This movie somehow feels very similar in tone and structure to Tron: Legacy.” After leaving the theater and critically disecting the film, I realized that the overall experience was also similar to Legacy.
Since I believe New York Time’s article is one of the best reviews of the film, what I will do is that I will make a quick summary of the what I liked and didn’t like of the film:
I liked:
I did not like:
Is it better than the original? No. Is it a fun film to go see in the theaters? Absolultely.
HR
I went to see this film based on a hunch that it would be something different, and I was not dissapointed. Two things stood out to me:
What an interesting film! Or should I say, prank played by James Wan?
HR
After dozens of recommendations, I finally decided to watch the first attempt at a Star Wars series (non-cartoon), which is The Mandalorian.
For many years now the Star Wars universe (movie-wise speaking) has been broken, and several divisions in the Star Wars fanbase have appeared given the controversial approach presented by the prequel trilogy, the animated series, the standalone films and the sequel trilogy. Needless to say I myself am surrounded by this division given that two of my best friends are hardcore Star Wars fans.
Once again, objectivity and subjectivity are part of a discussion that has messed up the interpretation of the Star Wars universe, and I think I may give it a more deepened analysis in a future video.
For now I will say that The Mandalorian is an effective series that can be highly rated based on its own merits and not just because it’s part of the Star Wars universe… and that’s a wonderful achievement.
HR
After years of keeping it on the backlog, last night I finally started to watch Star Trek. According to my calculations, it should take me three to four years to watch every season and every movie.
Wish me luck!
A few nights ago I was able to catch 12 Monkeys on the tube, which I hadn’t seen for quite some time and have always regarded it as a timeless classic in my all time great films list. It’s been 22 years since I first saw this film and I would say at least two since I last saw it. The recent viewing of this week made me realize that as time passes, 12 Monkeys keeps getting better and better. It made me elevate it to the status quo of masterpiece.
Like most masterpieces of cinema, 12 Monkeys has everything going on for it. So let’s go over the film’s elements one by one, beginning with the characters:
Bruce Willis is at his very best here. A lot of fans will argue that his best dramatic performance is on The Sixth Sense -and I can partially agree with that affirmation-, however I give a slight nod to James Cole in 12 Monkeys, because of his inner intensity that never drops, not even for a single second. Whether if it’s internal or external, Bruce is able to portray James’ never ending conflict within himself and the world that surrounds him -real or not-. One minute he’s an action hero, the next minute he’s a very fragile human being, the next minute he’s trying to make sense of a mind-boggling time-travel situation. His many facets in the film would even rival what many consider Bruce’s all-time best performance -John McClane in Die Hard-.
Madeleine Stowe is a pleasent and wondeful surprise. While you shouldn’t compare her to Isabelle Adjani’s Queen Margot or Meryl Streep’s whatever movie Meryl Streep is in, her performance as Dr. Kathryn Railly is so natural, you basically forget you are even watching an actress playing someone and instead you take her for real on both her actions and her words. Bruce also accomplishes this fact, which is an incredibly tough feat to achieve on both your leads, who from the second act forward look like two random people who are stuck in an unbeliveable sequence of events that make them question their own existence.
However make no mistake: if both Bruce and Madeleine get lost within their characters, it is Brad Pitt the one who is completely impossible to recognize. This is Brad at his absolute peak right here -and yes, I mean he’s even better than Tyler Durden-. Brad’s screen time isn’t long, however he steals the show every time he shows up. He’s sort of a mixture between Heath Ledger’s Joker, Anthony Hopkins’s Dr. Lecter, and Benicio del Toro’s Fenster, in the sense that’s he’s crazy (Joker), he’s noticeable (Dr. Lecter), he’s not essential to the main plot of the film (Fenster) and he leaves a mark in your mind (all three). Seriously, ask yourself: how much would Jeffrey Goines’ absence would affect the film or the plot? Trust me, not that much. But, he’s an unvaluable asset, because of the one single action he does that has a direct consequence on the events of the film -which is lead his father to believe that he is the one planning to attempt to steal the virus-. And why was this action triggered? Because of his brief stint with Cole back in 1990. Those are the small details that made me elevate 12 Monkeys to the status of masterpiece. From there and on, Jeffrey is just a huge misdirection tool to distract the audience -and the protagonists- from what is really taking place.
The structure of the film has drawn comparison to La Jettée and to another masterpiece you may have heard called Vertigo (many consider it the greatest movie of all time). I honestly believe that if 12 Monkeys had a bit more marketing, its status would keep growing stronger and eventually it could be mentioned in the same sentence as 2001. Like Scotty in Vertigo, I like how Cole’s arc gradually goes from completely sane to completely insane, while Railly’s arc goes from being completely sane to completely insane in a totally different way. Cole starts as sane believing in everything he has been told for his mission, but eventually becomes insane because he starts questioning reality and even doubts his own existence is real, to the point he starts believing in Railly’s theory that he simply is just another crazy person living in the 1990s. On the other hand, Railly goes from being completely sane because she believes in everything she has studied as a scholar and a professional, to then becoming gradually insane because she starts believing in Cole’s story and everything that surrounds and represents him. This juxtaposition of arcs of the main two characters in fascinating.
Then you have the little details. There are many key scenes, like the World War I scene, the spider scene, and the Railly at the Police station after being rescued scene; however one of the most memorable scenes is the one when Kathryn and Cole rent a room at a hotel for hookers. After paying the teller, he picks up the phone to ask if the pimp has a “new girl who is sort of shy.” At first, it seems like this small piece of dialogue is a filler, but instead it is actually a setup for what follows next, which is Cole and Kathryn’s intimate conversation being interrupted by the pimp showing up to confront them, which serves as setup for Cole taking off his teeth in the bathtub, hence serving as setup for the pimp then crying for help after being attacked by a woman and a crazy dentist.
Finally of course -or last but not least- we have the plot. I like how the time travel concept -which had been done by The Terminator, Back to the Future and La Jette- was handled, in the sense that they never attempted to fix or change the past or present to keep the timeline of the future intact. Instead, the time travel was just a resource to help people from the future. Hence no matter what Cole did or resist to do, things would develop exactly as they were supposed to, regardless of how hard you tried to change it. So many memorable moments affirm this, especially in the third act. My favorite one is after the voice message left by Kathryn, how she joyfully approaches James to celebrate that they’re crazy, when in reality it’s one of the first things we as the audience hear at the beginning of the movie.
In all, 12 Monkeys is a collection of very well crafted scenes, supported by memorable performances by Willis, Stowe and Pitt, backed up by a superb direction by the master of illusion, Terry Giliam.
HR
Disclaimer I: today’s article is spoiler free for Firefly. However, it does contain major spoilers of Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad and The Walking Dead.
Disclaimer II: do not watch Firefly. You have been warned.
A couple of days ago a friend of mine asked if I had finally watched the film “Serenity”. I gave him the same answer I’ve been giving for years: “I’m doing my best effort to avoid watching it, for as long as I can.”
I became acquianted with Firefly about nine years ago after reading several articles that praised it as arguably “The Best TV Series of All-Time.” It felt strange that I hadn’t heard about this show that was constantly rated 10/10 in almost every review I had read. Keep in mind that this was in 2007 -five years after Firefly had been cancelled-. I was initially skeptical of all the praise the show received. Normally I’m very skeptical when series and films are extremely overhyped, so to think that there was a TV show worth a 10 out of 10 ranking was kind of unthinkable. Then one Wednesday night I finally pulled myself together to watch episode one. Next thing I knew, I was at the end of episode fourteen -the last one of the series-. By that time it was dawn, the Sun had risen and I was late for work after having pulled an all-nighter. It didn’t matter though, because I had just finished watching The Best TV Show of All-Time.
Firefly was produced, filmed and aired during the fall of 2002. Its was created by Joss Whedon, who at the time had already been the successful creator of two great shows: Buffy The Vampire Slayer and its spin-off, Angel. Whedon of course as you may know, today rides the glorified surfboard of success carved by with the Marvel Universe, thanks to his involvement in directing the Avengers films.
Firefly’s cast starred a relatively unknown group of actors, but make no mistake: the unknown factor was inversely proportional to their performances on-screen. The plot was perhaps the most original, inventive, creative and unique idea seen on any television show up until that point, and -in my humble opinion, hold up even to this day. Everything else surrounding its production was nothing short of perfect. The attention to detail was particularly exquisite. Simply put, Firefly rightfully so deserves being called The Best Show of All Time, or in the worse case scenario, it deserves to be part of the conversation among other great shows that came after it. So why did such a great show fail back when it was airing in 2002?
For unknown reasons, it seems as if FOX Executives perceived that Firefly was the exact opposite of what everyone who has seen it think of it nowadays. Apparently, they didn’t understand the premise of the show and didn’t buy into the idea of having an extremely detailed and well-paced show with a deep character development that could be explored on for several seasons, similar to what we have today with Lost. They also didn’t understand the mixture of scenarios in a futuristic world that divided society and classes, kind of like we have today with Game of Thrones. They also probably couldn’t grasp the complex language spoken throughout the episodes and the implication (or lack thereof) that each line of dialogue had towards the plot, similar to what happens in Breaking Bad. They probably couldn’t believe that audiences would be able to live with the amount of suspense generated by the many cliffhangers the show had. And they probably couldn’t deal with the fast paced episodes where the characters are racing against the clock in order to survive, kind of like like it happens in 24. You probably noticed that all the shows I used as analogies, came after Firefly. I could go on…
It is not clear why when Firefly first aired, FOX Network Executives came up with a plan to ruin any chance it had to succeed right from the start. Something as simple as the order of the episodes was sabotaged by the network. Instead of airing the show’s first episode in its premiere, they aired the second episode. The following week, they aired episode #3, which was followed by episode #6. In the end, this is how FOX aired Firefly:
September 20, 2002: Episode #2September 27, 2002: Episode #3October 4, 2002: Episode #6October 11, 2002: -October 18, 2002: Episode #7Octobre 25, 2002: Episode #8November 1st, 2002: Episode #4November 8, 2002: Episode #5November 15, 2002: Episode #9November 22, 2002: -December 9, 2002: Episode #10December 13, 2002: Episode #14December 20, 2002: Episode #1
I am definitely no Television Executive, but I do know that when you air a sequenced episode plot driven show they way it was did by FOX -including airing the show’s Pilot/First episode last-, you’re pretty much setting up yourself for a monumental failure. Imagine if in Breaking Bad, Walter White was already killing the main antagonist in its second episode, or if Greg was already dead by the third episode of The Walking Dead. In addition to the episode airing disaster, FOX invested very lightly in the show’s marketing campaign, and most of the ads promoted it as an action/comedy show, instead of Sci-Fi/Adventure/Drama. Imagine if Game of Thrones‘ marketing campaign promoted the upcoming season as “Action/Comedy.”
Needless to say, Firefly’s ratings never took off, and after only airing eleven episodes, it was cancelled. The remaining three episodes were aired almost a year later in July of 2003. After that, Firefly was definitely gone forever, with its legacy now being carried on by 24, Breaking Bad, Lost, Battlestar Galactica, Game of Thrones, and even The Big Bang Theory.
Joss Whedon had planned Firefly to run for about four or five seasons, which makes sense when you see all episodes in the correct order. It was a show so ahead of its time the only parallel I can come up with is in terms of both production quality, profound complexity, variety of plots and social impact is Game of Thrones. It should be quite clear for anyone who watches its first season, that you there will be seven or eight more seasons. In contrast, Firefly’s fate can be summarized the following way: imagine you watch Game of Thrones’ first season, and all of a sudden with no warning, HBO cancels the show right after the Eddard Stark’s execution. That is exactly how every single person who has watched Firefly feels at the end of the fourteenth episode.
There are several reasons why every single person who watches Firefly, unavoidably rates the series a 10 out of 10. Apart from the plot, the high production values with careful attention to detail, there are many implicit and explicit motives to get hooked by the show. Even despite having less main characters than Game of Thrones or The Walking Dead, the depth and complexity of Firefly’s characters is so unique and incredibly appealing, that viewers will easily find one of them to relate to.
Joss Whedon made several attempts with other networks to pick up where FOX had left Firefly off, but unfortunately none came to fruition. Fans also sent tens of thousands of petition letters to FOX and other networks to try to revive the show. Only Family Guy managed to achieve this rare feat. After three years of failed negotiations, Joss Whedon released a film called “Serenity“, which is supposed to be somewhat of a transition between season’s one finale and the possibility of an eventual second season. The movie is rated highly by most fans who have seen it, however it drags a terrible side-effect: if you have the pleasure of watching Firefly in the correct sequential order as it was intended to be seen, the final episode (#14) ends with a very ambiguous scene that makes Inception‘s ending look as clear as crystal water. There are also at least dozens of unanswered questions from both the main and side plots that leave you with no other option but to wonder what direction the would have the show gone. From my understanding, Serenity tries to answer the ambiguous ending of Firefly’s final episode and it also tries to answer at least some of the dozens of unanswered questions; it also tries to give the viewer a glimpse into which direction Firefly would have headed. However from my understanding -and as to be expected- most of what it delivers is not enough and falls short from wrapping the series as viewers were expecting.
The cruelty of watching Firefly (like I said, in the correct order) is that as every episode goes by, you think things are getting clearer and you are actually understanding the show better, only to find out that as each episode goes by, the plot deepens more and you desire of knowing what will happen next grows. By knowing that the show only has fourteen episodes, your subconscious can’t help but to do a mental countdown as move forward, and you beg that things will end up in a satisfying manner plot-wise speaking. Eventually as you approach the finale, your mind and your heart beg for the inevitable: the series not to end. That’s why I haven’t seen Serenity and most likely why I will never watch it.
So remember, whatever you do after reading this review and as stated at the top, do not watch Firefly, unless you want to be left with a huge open and unfinished chapter in your life, in which you will spend a considerable amount of time wondering what was going to happen to Mal, Zoe, Wash, Inara, Jayne, Kaylee, Simon, River and Book, had the series continued through all its seasons as Joss Whedon intended.
There are many things in life I don’t understand and probably never will.
One thing that stands above is, why was the best TV series of All-Time, cancelled and was never revived?
HR
In my previous entry, I wrote about the planning, strategy development and overall direction a company leader needs to set in order to succeed, and provided an example utilizing an orchestra director’s as an analogy. This thesis can also be applied for filmmaking as well, and I believe most Hollywood directors, producers and script writers should be able to apply it. Today I will explore why I make this suggestion,
A few months ago, audiences all over the world were treated to Star Wars’ revamping into a supposed new universe created by a film called The Force Awakens, which as I reviewed, is a straight forward soft reboot and redefined unimaginative version of the original trilogy. Months later, we face the same path with The Peanuts Movie.
I take issue on this topic because Peanuts is my favorite cartoon.
I skipped this movie on its release because after watching the trailer, I immediately knew it was going to be a soft-reboot and redefined unimaginative product that collected the most well-known jokes of the original Peanuts Specials. I finally watched it a couple of nights ago, and it turned out to be exactly as I predicted.
Let me start by saying that like The Force Awakens, The Peanuts Movie is a good movie, if and only if you remove it from the Peanuts universe. This is: if somehow you magically have all your Peanuts/Charlie Brown/Snoopy memories erased from your brain in a similar mental treatment as the one portrayed in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, then only in that case there would be a definitive lauded appreciation for the movie. It’s funny, it’s witty, it’s romantic, and it’s a good kids film for adults. The thing is, like it happened with The Force Awakens, Peanuts Movie features and uses, the same Peanuts characters and in the same jokes and situations we have known for all our lives.
Original Peanuts Specials were ahead of their time. You never knew what would come next out of their mouths, as jokes were very subtle and sometimes even over the tone of a PG film. Of course, Schulz and Melendez knew how to get away with that. A fine example comes from a scene in which Sally and Charlie Brown are walking home together from a school day, and Sally shares to her older brother that her first grade teacher sent her to the principal’s office because she complained about the difficulty of the assigned class activity, which was to “Draw a Farm.” Sally complained about the absurdity of the task, particularly because she herself hadn’t even seen an actual farm, and went on to dare her classmates to see if anyone could be able to “draw a good cow leg.” At one point in the conversation with Charlie Brown, Sally says: “So I got sent to the principal’s office because I couldn’t draw a cow’s leg. I’ll bet Picasso couldn’t draw a cow’s leg when he was in the first grade. I’ll even bet Bjorn Borg couldn’t draw a cow’s leg!” This shows the subtle tone of the original Peanuts’ humor.
Peanuts Movie begins with the Linus and Lucy theme, a reminiscing memory of the Schultz days. Unfortunately as time goes by, it keeps refurbishing all the same old Peanuts’ jokes:
How could a few ideas should have been presented in a both funny and respectful way for all fans? Let’s take for instance Lucy’s Psychiatric help. Imagine if Lucy’s fees sign would have now read 50 Dollars instead of 5 Cents, and have Charlie Brown would walk-by, stop in his tracks, look at the sign, look at Lucy and say something like “Wow, last time I was here you charged 5 cents!” and then have Lucy complain or maybe say something about inflation since the last time Charlie Brown visited her, and then have Charlie Brown would glance at himself in disbelief and have no choice but to deposit a $50 bill in Lucy’s can, and have Lucy say something like “I love the sound of Grants Grants, Grants!” Of course, the bill wouldn’t make any sound because it’s paper, but that is the way Peanuts’ jokes work. They are subtle.
When you watch this film as a Peanut lover, you cannot get past the reality that every single joke or scene is something you have already seen before. It’s like the director or the script writer said, “We have to make a Charlie Brown film. Let’s take the most classic jokes, put them inside a blender and whatever comes out, that’s our film!”
Don’t get me wrong. I’m ok with re-using jokes, but not all jokes.
In Bon Voyage Charlie Brown, we see Charlie Brown, Linus, Patty and Marcie, flying to Paris as exchange students. Somehow, Snoopy and Woodstock not only manage to join them, but they become leaders of the trip. They fly on first class, they rent the car, they play a match at Wimbledon’s Centre Court, they go out partying and drinking at night and they manage to save the Chateau from a fire. In this film, not once, not ONE time do we see Charlie Brown flying a kite, PigPen being PigPen (with the exception of the farewell at the airport), Lucy working as a psychiatrist, Snoopy dogfigthing the Red Baron… and so on. Think about it: Bon Voyage only features four of the main characters (plus Snoopy and Woodstock), yet it’s still a very good movie!
I rate all Peanuts specials highly, and Bon Voyage is one of the best. Its humour is original and doesn’t come from old refurbished jokes, but instead comes from the absurdity of seeing infancy being lived as adulthood. Think about it: Snoopy -as ringleader of a group of kids- not only rents, but drives a car in a foreign country! To add more to the absurdity, he causes a major traffic accident by making a complete stop in a highway, the second after he leaves the rental dealership. He even gets road rage, flees the scene and the gang doesn’t feel the slightest contempt for the affected drivers.
To this day, I watch this scene and find myself replaying it dozens of times. This is Peanuts’ humour. Refurbished jokes are not.
Let’s pick another special -the one most people regard as the best- Charlie Brown Christmas. Peanuts fans know and are ok, with Lucy sitting on Shroeder’s piano. This is like a classic must scene of Peanuts, similar to Southpark having the four boys at the bus stop. The beauty of this sequence is that regardless of the context Lucy and Shroeder are in, the specials always manage to do something different in their interaction. We know Schroeder always plays Beethoven when he sits on the piano and we know Lucy hates that. But what happens when he plays something different?
I also couldn’t get why did Snoopy need a narrator most of the time he was onscreen. Since when does Snoopy need a narrator? Did the director forget that Sometimes Peanuts don’t even need to speak to deliver a timeless classic joke because the jokes come from the subtle context where they are set, as in this scene from the Thanksgiving Special:
Or in the one where Snoopy gets drunk on Root Beer? Snoopy, a dog, goes to a local bar to hang out with Woodstock, plays some big band music in the jukebox, and keeps ordering root beer after root beer. I was a kid when I first watched this and I knew he was actually drinking beer, because the glass may have said “Root Beer” but the content didn’t have to be Root Beer, or just Beer for that matter. Either way Charles Schulz wins and one kept wondering whether if Snoopy was really drinking beer or root beer. That is the joke, and not one word is spoken.
Finally, if the Thanksgiving Special had an original unique song, and the Christmas Special had one too, and Bon Voyage had one too, and Life is a Circus had one too… then why did The Peanuts Movie did not have one?
I am completely clueless as of why The Peanuts Movie had no other choice but to compile the most overused and typical jokes from all its history to create a film that cost $99 million dollars, where most of its content was refurbished.
HR
What can one say about a movie that has been in the works for more than ten years? For 32 years to be precise. What is there to say about the continuation of The Return of the Jedi, and the Original Star Wars Trilogy? Believe me: there is not much good to say.
Let me start by stating that my expectations were pretty low on this, to the point of considering The Force Awakens a success, if its quality was slightly better than The Phantom Menace (the infamous Episode I). Now as I sit and write this, I can say it was a good thing that I set the bar pretty low, in terms of Star-wise speaking. So, here goes my full review of The Force Awakens with spoilers include.
The Force Awakens is actually a good movie and I could even rate it as a very good one, if (and that is a huge conditional if) you remove it from the Star Wars universe. The problem is, The Force Awakens is part of the Star Wars universe. Therefore there are two angles to this review: one in which you remove TFA from Star Wars’ universe and it is actually turns out to be very good film with a good plot, good acting, good editing, characters that are involving and who are easy to relate to from an audience standpoint, good soundtrack, and everything else. So what is the problem with TFA then? I have two major concerns which I believe are its greatest flaws, and I have one minor concern, which I would gladly concede given that it is so hard to produce the perfect product that everyone was expecting with this film. So let me get into each one of them one at a time.
My first major concern: Killing Han Solo.
I am not who came up with this idea. Some say it was Harrison Ford himself, others say it was Lawrence Kasdan. The point is: why kill off the best character of the series -the most witty, the clever one, the scroundrel, the most likeable-, but more importantly, the best actor of the series? It probably would have been more believable, more dramatic and more intense to kill off Leia. Why? Because she’s a woman, she’s Kylo’s mother, she’s fragile, she’s related to Luke, she was meant to be a Jedi, and dozens of other reasons.
Killing Leia would have had a huge impact on the audience. Plus let’s face it, Carrie Fischer’s presence is not on the same level as Harrison Ford’s. The few minutes Fischer was on screen as Leia, the movie felt dragged and its plot moved at a dull pace. On the contrary, every time Harrison showed up on screen, he basically stole the show. Writing about it now, maybe that is why they killed him: because he would carry more interest than any of the other characters in the film, especially the new ones. This means that killing him was a business decision, and not an artistic decision.
There are other problems with Solo’s death of course, the most obvious being that the minute Solo stepped foot on that platform, everyone knew what was going to happen. It was all a question of how. Killing Leia instead would have been completely unexpected, out of the line, daring and surprising. It could have also left the door open to bring her back on Episode VIII as ghost. Han’s death instead felt rushed, predictable and unsurprising. Snoke already hinted that Kylo had to kill his father due some issues we are never aware of. This also creates another problem: the fact that it seems as it’s a norm in all films of the franchise to leave interesting context without any explanation, and simply not to talk about it. This is why having Leia meet Kylo as a mother to try to “bring her son home” would have been more effective. But then again… business above art, and Star Wars stopped being an art a long time ago.
My second major concern: Kylo Ren as a villain.
I am not really sure what happened here.
He started off great – menacing as anyone could picture a sith could be: heartless, capable and ruthless. He kind of feels what Anakin Skywalker should have been in the prequel trilogy: a young gifted force user who could not control his emotions and fell to the temptations of the dark side. That is how I pictured a young Vader, back when I watched the original trilogy.
The issues here begin with Kylo initially looking more menacing and intimidating than Vader ever was on Episode IV. But then somehow throughout the movie he kept continually forgetting the powers he had displayed on the first scenes, where we see him stop laser shots in mid-air, force-choke people, use mind force control, use telekenesis effectively, and in essence do anything you could imagine a dark side force user could do. By the end of the film, he looks like a trainee who had just started to get familiar with the force about a week ago, to the point where he almost loses a duel against a regular stormtrooper/janitor, and is immediately and easily defeated by the a teenage girl who had literally just became familiar with the force hours before facing him.
Speaking of these duels, ever since the original trilogy I had always believed that only Jedis / Jedi trainees could handle lightsabers. I will specifically point to the Empire Strikes Back scene where Han Solo rescues Luke during the snow storm. If you recall the scene, you will notice that he holds and ignites Luke’s lightsaber, however he looks uncomfortable holding it and it seems that there is something in particular with the weapon that he is unable to control. Maybe it was or felt to heavy, or maybe the raw energy coming from it generated pressure on him… who knows. The point is: the scene shows that Han and a lightsaber weren’t compatible, as in common humans and lightsabers weren’t compatible. I have always liked that little gem from the film, because it is one of those pieces of information the film feeds you without giving much detailed explanation. So unlike Luke who right from the first time he handles one -in Episode IV after meeting Ben Kenobi-, Han looks awkward with a lightsaber in his hand, probably because he wasn’t force sensitive person and lacked the natural abilities to handle it, unlike Luke. Now, in The Force Awakens, any stormtroopers/janitors or scavengers can hold and use lightsabers in an effective way. They can also defeat someone who has been training for years.
Then you have the mask. It seems like the mask was there only to hide a childish young man with serious anger issues. When Darth Vader was unsatisfied with the progress, he killed the soldiers and admirals in a cool and threatening manner. Kylo however destroyed his own computer instead. Personally, I didn’t have a problem with the mask, but I felt it was an unnecessary accessory. It probably would have been a better idea to initially show him without it, then have him put it on to transmit to the audience the aspiration he had of fulfilling his grandfather’s path towards the dark side, and keep the audience engaged between the revelation of apprentice versus leader he wanted to transmit. Instead, the mask is used as an intimidation device, which was only effective for as long as it is worn. Once removed, the aura of invincibility is gone.
Then we have my minor concern.
Do we really need more of lead female teen heroes ?
I am not anti-feminist, but the lead female teen hero thing is getting a bit old. I guess it is as it’s a matter of taste, however Daisy’s Rei is certainly no Mark’s Luke.
The rest of the movie can be discussed at lengths, highlighting points like:
So where does The Force Awakens stand against the original trilogy and the prequel trilogy? Well, it has no chance against any of the original films. Against prequels, it’s a more difficult judgement:
Time is making The Phantom Menace disappear into the depths of oblivion, thanks to Jar-Jar Binks, Jake Lloyd, and an uncharismatic Liam Neeson. The Force Awakens is better than The Phantom Menace by a longshot.
Attack of the clones had too many Titanic-alike scenes, and then of course there is Hayden’s wooden acting. Combine that with the boring politics and questionable plot decisions, and the result is obvious. The Force Awakens is better than Attack of the clones.
Revenge of the Sith was a complete disaster, with so much going on about everything, yet somehow managed to be the best of the prequels (not that it was too difficult). At this time I will say The Force Awakens is better than Revenge of the Sith. Like I mentioned a few paragraphs above, Kylo Ren felt more fulfilling as a villain than Anakin Skywalker. Also, not even Samuel L. Jackson could top Harrison Ford.
Overall, The Force Awakens is better than all the prequels, mostly because it is a safe bet. It’s a soft-reboot that has a better molding and a better setup than any of the prequels ever did. Still, this does not save it from having some questionable dialogue, like when the supreme leader Snoke says: “Bring Kylo Ren, I must complete his training.” Well no @#$% ! He almost got his ass kicked by a stormtrooper/janitor, and he was soundly defeated by a teenage girl. You are damn right he needs more training! And he also needs therapy to fix his anger issues.
The only remarkable thing this film achieved was the shattering of all the box-office opening weekend records, which makes for a successful ROI to everyone involved in setting up the high expectations true fans had on getting a great Star Wars movie… one we have been waiting for 32 years, which by the way, we are still waiting for.
In a nutshell, The Force Awakens is a glorious victory for Hollywood as a business model, and a sad defeat for all true film makers and fans.
HR
Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén