A long time ago...

... I talked about Star Wars, in brief. But, with the upcoming sequel trilogy, I thought it might be a good idea to do a bit more in depth talking about one of the most successful media franchises in history. And then I realized that there's just too much to say in a single post. So, to that end, I'm going to be discussing the films in a three part series. This one will focus on the "past" or the prequel trilogy, the next one will discuss the original trilogy, and the final post in the series will be about my thoughts on the upcoming films.

The Star Wars Prequel trilogy. Is there a cinematic subject more prone to anguished shouts of disappointment? Probably, but not many. The prequels were one of the most anticipated cinematic experiences in my brief lifetime, and perhaps one of the most anticipated events in general. People who had grown up with Star Wars were so eager to have their questions answered, most importantly of course being how Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader. The sheer amount of anticipation for the film was it’s own downfall however. No film could have lived up to such high expectations, and many decry the trilogy as a disaster. While it certainly does have its problems (moreso than the original trilogy), I don’t think the word disaster is appropriate. I feel that the trilogy is overall good, and I’m going to make my case by looking at the good and bad of each of the films.

Episode I the Phantom Menace is where we begin out journey, as is only logical. The overall plot of the film isn’t bad, and the acting is for the most part good. Most people only have a problem with the kid who played Anakin, which I can understand, but at the same time child actors are very rarely any good, and for good reason. However, one of the film’s biggest flaws is the accusations of racism. The Trade Federation leaders are depicted with strong influence from east Asia. Watto, the greedy, slave owning junk merchant has been noted to have many Jewish traits. And who could forget Jar Jar Binks, the newest in a long line of black minstrel stereotypes. This is a legitimate problem with the movie, and one I am quite frankly surprised was over looked. Still, I don’t feel that it’s necessarily an indication of George Lucas being a racist, merely a very, very big lapse in judgment on the part of him and the others who worked on the film. The film also suffers from some pacing problems, as it feels to drag at certain points, particularly on Tatooine with the pod race.

Before getting into the specific films, there are two problems that are pervasive throughout the trilogy that need to be addressed. First, there is the over-reliance on the use of CGI. While I’ll gladly say that there are things done in the films that wouldn’t have worked without the CGI, and while the CGI is for the most part well done, there are moments when I feel that they would have gotten better results from using the same tricks that were used in the original trilogy. In particular, I feel that Yoda worked better as a Muppet than as a CGI model, though I understand that they wouldn’t have been able to do the fight scenes with Yoda that way. The second problem (which is really only a problem with the first two films), is the amount of comedy in the films. While the original trilogy had some good, funny moments, they were few, and all the better for being so few. The original trilogy also mostly stuck to verbal humor, while the prequel trilogy had more silly sight gags and slapstick (especially involving Jar Jar).

However, beyond those problems, the film is pretty good. As I said before, the acting is solid, with good performances by Liam Neeson and Ewan McGregor, as well as the other cast members. The story is, while not spectacular, certainly not as convoluted as other films, and other than the pacing problems works well. Perhaps one of the most well received parts of the movie were the visuals. Everything looks different from how it did in the original trilogy, but not so different as to think that we’re in a whole different series. There definitely feels like the two looks are distanced from each other by time, much as a modern car would from one from the 1920’s.

Episode II: Attack of the Clones is the worst of the trilogy in my opinion, and I think most would agree with me. While many of the racist stereotypes have been toned down, the film suffers other problems. Let’s begin with the writing. There are numerous plot holes in the film, though many of them are not immediately apparent. I could spend a very long time pointing out every single one and boring you all to death in the process, but I’d rather just say that the script needed to go through another stage or two of editing to simply catch the mistakes. But the minor plot holes aren’t the only writing problem. No, there’s also the romance scenes between Anakin and Padmé. Now, this is interesting because George Lucas has actually recognized this problem with the films, and the problem is that Lucas can’t write romance. The romantic scenes feel very artificial and forced, despite the effort on Natalie Portman’s part to work with the material given. Now that writing’s out of the way, we can talk about one of the film’s biggest and most obvious problems; Hayden Christensen. You would think that finding a talented actor to play Anakin Skywalker would’ve been top priority for the film, considering the trilogy is primarily about his character’s journey. Instead, they found one of the worst actors to ever star in a blockbuster film. If he were playing a minor character, this wouldn’t even be a huge detriment to the film, but no, he’s the LEAD character.

Now, while the film certainly has it’s flaws, there are some good points to it. The dialogue between Obi-Wan and Anakin for example is actually really good, and you can get a very good feel for their relationship with each other, as well as the character depth. Once again, the visuals are well done, especially the climactic duel at the end (I absolutely love the lighting during the close-ups between Dooku and Anakin). The acting on the part of everyone other than Hayden Christensen is quite good, particularly on Ewan McGregor’s part. He’s obviously trying to bring a lot of the same qualities to the role that Sir Alec Guinness brought in the original trilogy.

At last, we come to Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. This is pretty much universally considered the best of the prequel trilogy, and even on par with the original trilogy. But, while it might be the best of the trilogy, it does have problems. The most obvious of these is once again Hayden Christensen. While his acting has improved a bit since Episode II, he’s still stiff and unbelievable. One thing I will say in his favor though, is that he does well in the fight scenes with the lightsaber. Now, the next biggest flaw with the film is the ending. I think you all know what part I’m talking about. The part where Padmé dies from sadness, in what has to be the lamest death in any of the films. Honestly, the part that annoys me the most is that they could have quite easily made her death more plausible. All Anakin would’ve needed to do would be to throw her in anger, instead of just dropping her when he was force choking her. A hard enough throw would’ve wreaked havoc with her, and the strain of childbirth could’ve pushed her body past its limits. But no, she just dies of sadness. I know, I know, it is technically possible to die of sadness, from something called Takotsubo cardiomyopathy (or broken heart syndrome), but there’s no sort of indication for that, and in the context of this story, it still feels like a cop-out. Another problem I have isn’t so much as what is present, as what is not. What I mean is that there are a series of deleted scenes that show the founding of the Rebel Alliance. They’re very important to the overarching continuity of the series, and I’m disappointed they’re not in the final cut of the film. They’re included on the DVD, but all the same. My last major problem with the movie is with one of my favorite characters; General Grievous. Grievous was a bit of an oddity in the film. He’s introduced in a similar manner as Darth Vader was in Episode IV, but unlike with Vader, there’s almost no explanation about who he is, where he came from, or what is up with that cough of his. Some of that is shown in the original animated mini-series The Clone Wars (the one done by Gendy Tartakovski, not the one that’s still running), but not everything. I know many people that went and saw the film but who hadn’t seen the mini-series, and were confused by his presence.

Now, as far as positives go, there’s more here than for the others. First, unlike the other two movies, it doesn’t really suffer from the pacing problems the first two did, and is quite even. Next, the writing is much better, especially over Episode II. There’s little of the awkward romantic dialogue (but there’s still a cringe-worthy moment or two), and few obvious plot holes (the only one I can think of is the convection issue on Mustafar). The tone is also much more serious than either of the other prequel films, which is only fitting, as this is Anakin’s final steps into darkness. Once again, the film is quite good visually, and has some of the best fight scenes in the whole series (the one between Palpatine and Mace Windu I feel is underrated by most). The humor is toned down, mostly taking the form of a couple good one-liners (mostly from Obi-Wan), but it provides the touch that was needed to keep the movie from being too dark and brooding. Finally, the thing that I applaud most about the movie is also the thing I feel most sickened by; Anakin’s actions in the Jedi Temple. It is a truly, horrific, and undeniably evil thing that he did, and I am glad that Lucas didn’t shy away from putting it into the film (if only as an off-screen thing, which I think we were all glad of). While it’s not the only horrible thing he does in the film, it is the MOST horrible, made even worse by the fact that he does so not out of anger or fear, but because of a cold rationality. It truly shows that Anakin is no more, and he is Darth Vader, even if he’s not in the suit yet.

These are my thoughts and feelings on the prequel trilogy. I'll probably get a lot of shit for saying that I actually enjoyed them, but oh well. You can't please everyone (as George Lucas found out with these movies).

The man, the myth, the legend...

While fighting a losing battle with insomnia the other night, I stumbled across this trailer, for an upcoming film. Now, I don’t normally critique films, particularly based solely on their trailer, but I’m making an exception here.

So, the first thing that came to mind after I finished watching this was “how is –this- Hercules?”

For those unfamiliar with the character of Hercules, first welcome to the outside world, glad you’re out from under that rock finally. Second, here’s a brief guide to Hercules (or Heracles, if we’re going with his original Greek name). Hercules was born to a woman named Alcmene, and was one of Zeus’ many children. Hera, Zeus’ wife, was very annoyed with her husband’s constant sleeping around, and decided to take out her anger on the young Herc, sending a pair of serpents to kill him as a baby. Unfortunately for her, Herc inherited some of his dear old dad’s power, and killed the snakes easily. He eventually grows into a fine young man and marries a woman named Megara and has two children with her. Hera, still nursing her hatred for him, decides to induce in him madness which causes him to murder his children (and in some accounts Megara too). He seeks out an oracle who tells him to serve King Eurystheus for ten years. Eurystheus assings to Herc twelve labors he must complete to end his service; slaying of the Nemean Lion, slaying the Lernean Hydra, capturing the Golden Hind, capturing the Eurymanthian Boar, clean the Augean stables in one day, slay the Stymphalian Birds, capturing the Cretan Bull, obtaining the Girdle of Hippolyta the Queen of the Amazons, stealing the Mares of Diomedes, stealing the cattle of the monster Geryon, stealing the Golden Apples of the Hesperides, and finally capturing Cerberus. He completes the tasks, sometimes with the help of others, and is freed from service.

Now, there are obviously many, many more stories of Hercules, since he was a major character in Greek mythology and had a sizable cult dedicated to him. This however is the myth that most people are familiar with (though most people can’t remember what all the labors are, myself included. I cheated and looked them up.) Now, because the labors are the most familiar stories about him, they’ve obviously been taken on in film before. The Disney film Hercules, while not expressly about the labors, does feature many of them in his “zero to hero” montage. There was an NBC TV movie about Hercules doing four of the labors in 2005, and before either of these, there was Hercules: The Legendary Journeys TV series, which was launched by a couple of TV movies that dealt with the twelve labors. Clearly, the labors stories have been done to death, so it is nice to see the creators of the film going in a new direction with the character. However…

The plot that the trailer is alluding to does not seem to bear any resemblance to any of the myths involving Hercules at all. Not only that, but it’s also taking some fairly serious liberties with the character, most notably his ability to call upon lightning. While he was the son of Zeus, he never had that power. In fact, Zeus’ lightning bolts were seldom (if ever) used by someone else. Hercules’ only real power was his incredible strength, and also his sexual prowess (with both women and men it should be noted). The film also seems to portray Hercules as a leader of an army, which does not fit the character. He was certainly brave, charismatic and had his moments of cunning, but he was not a brilliant tactician, and would have made a poor general.

So, why does this movie exist then, if they’re not actually trying to tell a story of Hercules? Well, a couple reasons that I can see. First, sword-and-sandal films seem to be a popular genre right now. Hollywood’s always had a love affair with guys in the desert wearing sandals and armored skirts, usually with chariots involved. They were huge in the early days of film, but the interest in them died off during the 60’s and 70’s. That’s not to say that there weren’t any such films made, but they were fewer. However, there’s been something of a recent resurgence in the interest. Movies like Troy, 300 (and it’s upcoming sequel), Prince of Persia, The Scorpion King have been getting some good love at the box office. Certainly, not as much as other genres of film, but enough that studios will invest in one even if it seems a bit poorly conceived. There is something in the public consciousness right now that makes people want to see these movies, even though for the most part they’ve been pretty bad (Prince of Persia, Clash of the Titans and Immortals all come to mind immediately). Some have done really well such as 300 and Troy, (though in my opinion, both are highly overrated), and even the ones that didn’t receive good reviews at least brought in good money (Clash of the Titans netted almost 500 million, Wrath brought in 400, Immortals was 225, and Prince of Persia was at 335 with the lowest profit margin). So, we can see why there’d be an interest from the studio’s perspective.

But why call the film Hercules? The character is clearly only Hercules in name and the names of people associated with him. Why not just make up a character and put him in this situation? Or why not actually draw from the myths? Well, for the first question, the answer is pretty simple; recognition. People have all heard of Hercules, so there’s a level of familiarity there. People have proven time and time again that they’re more likely to accept something they’re familiar with rather than try something new (which is why the last three presidents we’ve had all got elected to two terms). Even though this Hercules is hardly recognizable as Hercules (especially the voice. Seriously, the dude sounds semi-British, how is he allowed to play a Greek?) the name has enough cache to get people into the theater. The second question, about why not just stick to the material is a bit more complex. First off, we have to go back to the issue of the labors. They’ve been pretty extensively depicted in the media, and while familiarity can help draw in an audience, too much familiarity will drive them away. There’s also the issue of time. A movie covering Hercules’ origins, rise, and then the labors would be very long, and there’d be a lot of details lost on viewers. Okay, so the labors are definitely out. Why not do a different story about Herc? Well, that’s not as easy as it sounds. First there’s the ever present issue of familiarity again. Then there’s the issue of what a studio is willing to allow in a major motion picture. A lot of Hercules’ stories involve subjects that most studios don’t want to be associated with (murdering children, pederasty, homosexuality, etc), so most of the stories he’s involved in aren’t something anyone wants to adapt into a potential blockbuster. Finally, there’s the idea that the studios know what the audience wants. In order for the studio to make money, they have to make a film that will attract audiences, and as stated earlier, audiences accept things that are similar. So, the studio hires someone to write a script that incorporates as many plot and character clichés as they can, puts them in a somewhat interesting order, and boom, potential money-maker. If past performance is any indication, the film will probably bring in around 300 million at the box offices, meaning the studio will have made about 230 million, not bad for about ten months worth of work. If it turns out to be a blockbuster, then we’re talking even higher profit margins, though I honestly don’t have high hopes for it.

So, after all this, what’s the take away? Well, simply put, this film is not Hercules, and is in fact just another generic flavor-of-the-month cash piñata for the studio. As I stated at the beginning, I don’t normally take on films (especially unreleased ones). So why did I this time? Because the movie claims to have its roots in mythology, which is a subject I not only have a fascination with, but also love dearly. The characters and stories that ancient cultures told as ideals that they held themselves up to is delightfully complex and intriguing, and not to mention artistically inspirational. Plus, the stories are generally pretty interesting in and of themselves, ignoring any sort of anthropological connection. For anyone trying to figure out college (or high school, if you’re lucky) courses to take, I highly recommend anything about mythology, especially if the course is about something other than classical myths (Greek and Roman). Worst comes to worst, you’ll get to hear some gory and dirty stories. But if you’re like me, you’ll find endless sources of inspiration for gaming, art, writing, or pretty much any other sort of creative outlet.

(Now, because I am writing this about a future film, I’m going to say this; if it turns out I’m wrong, and the film follows the source material pretty well and the film is overall pretty good, I will –gladly- admit my mistake. Most of the time, I don’t mind being proven wrong.)

EDIT: So, I just found out that there is in fact ANOTHER Hercules movie coming out next year, a couple of months after the one mentioned above. Sadly, there's no trailer for it yet, but it stars Dwayne Johnson (AKA The Rock), and is titled Hercules: the Thracian Wars.  I'm wondering which came first of these two, and if maybe the second one was created to try and steal the thunder from the other. Either way, I don't foresee Thracian Wars being any better than The Legend Begins, even if it does have Robert DeNiro.