Change Your Image
Asimov42
Reviews
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
Lucas improves, but not without a few missteps
As I said in my review of Episode I. The reason I think people hate the new Star Wars films is that they expected Star Wars to be perfect, and it wasn't. It seems that most people think in terms of whether a film was great or it sucked. So if you don't think a film was great (as in it was okay) they immediately decide that it was bad, especially if it's predecessor was considered great.
Like Episode I, this film flawed, good but flawed. Gone are the days of boring pretentious court room scenes, but they are replaced with new cracks in the armor.
The love story could have been beautiful if not for the fact that the dialogue is so cloying. Although it doesn't affect the movie in full since it only primarily appears in scenes between Anakin and Padme, this may be a throw back to old romance movies that Lucas grew up with, such as the couple rolling around in the grass. Lucas has done many throwbacks and referenced films he grew up with, here it didn't work.
My assessment from my last review proves correct, Jar-Jar has been downsized to a representative of Naboo. He appears, then leaves, then appears again for a moment, then leaves, small doses work very well.
Then comes the casting of Hayden Christensen, while he isn't as bad of an actor as Jake Lloyd, who portrayed Anakin Skywalker in Episode I. Christensen has very expressive eyes, and I can welcome him into the part because of his resemblance of both Luke Skywalker and Jake Lloyd's Anakin. It's when he opens his mouth that I lose my admiration of his acting ability.
He seems to lack confidence in himself and his ability to say Lucas' words, even though they may be corny his lack confidence can also be seen in Shattered Glass as well. Mark Hamill originally said that while he was doing his first reading for Luke Skywalker he thought "Who talks like this?" to compensate he just read it sincerely. This is the best advice anyone could give Christensen. He would be a great actor if he could just gain confidence in himself and his ability.
Besides that and a few nitpicks, like Episode I, this is a decent addition that, again, does not deserve the hate it receives. The visuals continue to thrill, the story sets up for the next/final chapter, and Ewan Mcgregor catches eyes as he appears to be one of the best actors in the trilogy, developing his Obi-Wan closer to Alec Guinness's. While I'm giving it a 7 out of 10, the same as Episode I, but I really wish I could give it more of a 7.5 out of 10. Since it is not necessarily as great as the original films, but I prefer this film over Episode I tremendously, simply because I would rather take corny scenes and fun scenes over boring scenes and fun scenes.
Archangel (2002)
A typical independent short. All flash and no focus.
I started out thinking that Sandy Collora was a great up and coming director. And it's still possible that he could be. I first noticed him with Batman: Dead End. But after watching World's Finest and Archangel. I'm having some serious doubts.
Batman: Dead End I felt was done very well, with only a few crude moments I didn't particularly enjoy. But without getting too far into it. I very much enjoyed.
World's Finest I did not enjoy, I felt it was amateurish and unnecessary. Why make a trailer to show your directing skills? There is a difference between story and marketing.
Now I've checked out Archangel to see if it contains any redeeming qualities. And unfortunately I didn't enjoy this much more then World's Finest.
The title is exactly my point. Typical independent short films are films that make no sense whatsoever. Collora seems to be banking on that people will go "Whoa, cool! It looks so good and artsy!" the problem is that the film makes no sense. I can't even stretch this review very far because I can't find anything else to complain or praise. Because I don't know what happened, what the conflict was or how it was resolved. Sure it looks good, but who cares if there is no story. With this Collora hasn't proved that he can handle a story, only that he can take pretty pictures.
If he starts making shorts with a story AND a visual style, like the Batman short, then he could succeed. Pretty pictures don't make a good movie.
Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)
Honestly, I can't see the "disappointment" behind this.
I think the hate behind this film is fueled by the fact that people expected Star Wars to be perfect. And it wasn't. Especially considering that George Lucas was back at the helm as director. Only a few flaws keep it from being great.
The first being that it is too slow. Half way through the film the characters show up on a planet named Corusant. These twenty to thirty minutes of film are probably the most boring and pretentious of the entire saga. Consisting of long court scenes that are too slow and for the most part lack emotional drive.
The next being Lucas' newest creation Jar-Jar Binks, a Gungan from the planet Naboo. I understand that he supposed to appeal to the younger crowd, so I can't speak for them. But as creation for anyone above the age of 12, he's simply annoying after a while. While I can see him being manageable in small doses.
The unfortunate casting of Jake Lloyd as Anakin Skywalker. I doubt that this is the best Lucas could do. As he is rarely genuine and believable and is an all around bad actor. Much of his most embarrassing moments, acting wise, could easily have been edited out and saved us the cringe of watching dialogue that is either corny dialogue or a corny actor reading dialogue. I'm inclined to believe the latter.
Other than that and a few nitpicks, this film has nothing really incredibly wrong with it. It's solid, it's plot holds up, sets up the next film, while still being it's own film. Not to mention it's amazing and ground breaking visuals. It's a good film that doesn't deserve the hate that it receives.
Blade Runner (1982)
Visually impressive, but lacks story and focus.
Like I said, visually impressive, but lacks focus on the main character.
Most of the film is spent watching the antagonist(s) story, while slightly interesting it is not very compelling or attention grabbing. It's simply there in front of your face. When we cut back to Deckard's story it is more interesting but lacks material to generate a good engaging story that we desire.
Hence at the end, the film feels half-baked. If another writer, or even the same writer, did another couple of drafts on the screenplay it probably would have made a world of difference. Sadly Blade Runner wasn't given those extra drafts.
World's Finest (2004)
He can do Batman, but not Superman
I liked Batman: Dead End. A dark edgy film-noir setting for Batman was perfect. Batman: Dead End is good. This is not.
First of all let me start off with the acting. None of it is really that good. The best would probably be Clark Bartram as Batman. But that isn't saying much. He is good at first glance, and then you realize he is what he is, a body-builder who happens to be a tolerable actor. But mainly the problem is that Batman doesn't belong in the daylight, he looks like a freak running around in a Bat suit. Instead of a horribly scarred man trying to make up for past mistakes. The daylight also reveals an irritating dorky scowl on Bartram's face which never leaves and unoticeable in Batman: Dead End, probably because of the darkness of short which is so desired in this trailer. Bartram seems to think that scowling and stubbornly shaking his head is acting, it's not, it's quite the opposite. It's called posing, something real actors avoid like the plague.
Something I never understood why Collora casted body-builders as the leads. It makes much more sense to give the role to an actor who can manage it, instead of a bodybuilder who can kinda manage it but HEY HE LOOKS SO MUCH LIKE THE COMIC! Of course, they might have done better if Collora's dialouge didn't leave much to be desired.
The entire trailer (yes, trailer. There will not be a full-length film) is more centered around Superman then Batman. But everything on the Superman side is corny, cloying and amateur. Michael O'Hearn (Superman) is one of the worst actors I've ever seen. He stands around, smiles, says his lines. That's about it. Although I'm not surprised since he is just a bodybuilder they hired and possibly received a few acting lessons. Once again I say to Collora, cast ACTORS. Not bodybuilders. Actors will be so much more compelling that we will forgive the fact they don't look exactly like the comic book.
The costume is what you would expect Superman to wear. As for the Batman suit. Well, I guess it only looks good in the dark. I say this because in some shots the suit looks like something you would buy from a Halloween gift shop.
Superman flies in this movie. But that isn't a good thing. These shots look especially amateur. This and a lot of the entire "film" looks like it was shot in their backyard with a VHS camera.
The best shots are a shot of Superman catching a car in his hands. And the final shot of Two-Face and Batman at the very end. For those of you who have seen the trailer. You know what I'm talking about. Now if only he could have stretched that shot through the entire trailer.
Finally I ask. Why if you're trying to show your ability as a director, would you make a trailer as a short film? This proves nothing when it comes to being an actual director handling story. My only piece of advice for Collora here is, there is a difference between the ability to tell a story and being able to work in marketing.
Batman: Dead End didn't feel amateur. I can't figure out where this went wrong.