ROGUE ONE: A STAR WARS STORY - A Previous Hope

NOTE: A long time ago, in a SPOILER far, far away...

“I'm one with the Force, and the Force is with me.”

- Chirrut Îmwe (Donnie Yen), Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)

In 2012, when it was announced that Disney had acquired Lucasfilm Ltd. and its main export, the Star Wars franchise, fans initially did not know what to make of it. Over the past decade, Star Wars under George Lucas – and his universally despised prequels and Special Editions – had basically become a pop culture punch-line. Lucas was starting to allow outright parodies of his work by fans like Seth MacFarlane and Seth Green in trilogies of “Family Guy” and “Robot Chicken” episodes; none of that adult-themed humor would ever be allowed through Disney. How would the Mouse House of all places be able to resuscitate a galaxy far, far away? It started by the appointment of longtime Steven Spielberg collaborator Kathleen Kennedy as the head of Lucasfilm. She devised a Story Group of authors, writers and other creatives to plan out the franchise going forward as opposed to waiting on the whims of a burned-out creative mind who genuinely hated the moviemaking process.

2015 brought the first fruit of their efforts, Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens, directed and co-written by J.J. Abrams. It was a worldwide smash hit with critics and audiences, bringing back the love of Star Wars once again. The film successfully reintroduced fan favorite characters while launching new and intriguing characters to carry the franchise forward. But the previous three-year wait time between Star Wars films would not be enough for Disney. With their considerable resources, they would set out an ambitious release schedule: one Star Wars film a year for the foreseeable future. Every other year in which a Saga film would not be featured, Kennedy would set a date for what Lucasfilm would call Anthology films – films set in the Star Wars universe that did not have to obey the previously set chronology and would be based on events previously not seen or characters’ origins. The first film under this new banner would be called Rogue One.

A year beforehand, rising British director Gareth Edwards was adding the finishing touches to the biggest film he had ever directed at the time, an American reboot of Godzilla for Warner Bros. Pictures. It was then when he received a phone call from Kiri Hart, the leader of Kennedy’s Lucasfilm Story Group at Disney. It seemed his name had come up at the top of the list of potential directors for a standalone Star Wars film. After a meeting, it was decided that the perfect Star Wars film for Edwards’ sensibilities would be a war-themed film centered around the Rebel Alliance’s theft of the top-secret plans to the Death Star. This story had been developed by long-time Star Wars visual effects veteran, Academy Award winner and the man who gave the world Photoshop, John Knoll. Edwards was a die-hard Star Wars fan from a young age, even dragging his girlfriend to the then-abandoned Tunisian set of the Lars homestead on his 30th birthday so he could drink actual blue milk from the same table Luke Skywalker had. It killed him to not be able to tell anyone about his new project, even his mother. When the go-ahead was given to Edwards to tell anyone he wanted that he was doing a new Star Wars film, he gleefully had a guessing game with his mother over the phone. Clearly, this was a director after a geek's own heart.

Jyn Erso (Academy Award nominee Felicity Jones) grew up without a stable sense of family. Her father, Galen Erso (Mads Mikkelsen), was taken from her at an early age to go work for the Empire on the same day her mother was murdered. Years later, after her willfulness and bad attitude leaves her in an Imperial cell, she is broken out by resistance fighters Cassian Andor (Diego Luna) and his mouthy droid K-2SO (Alan Tudyk). They lead her to the Rebel Alliance and their leader, Mon Mothma. She is concerned about a new weapon the Empire is constructing to destroy any planet that stands in its way of galactic conquest. When asked why she should care, Jyn is stunned to learn that her father was the lead architect of what becomes known as the Death Star. Believing him to be a pawn of the Empire, she volunteers her services to help rescue him while obtaining the plans to the Death Star.

As many online have already pointed out, most of the movie does not reflect the footage the trailers advertised. The film notably went through reshoots months before its release headed by Tony Gilroy. Most feared Disney’s influence to lighten the movie to a childish degree, even allowing the characters to live at the end. In fact, the entire Internet had the story backwards. The original script was written with all the characters living at the end, because Edwards assumed Disney would not want them killed off. With Kennedy and Disney’s help, they agreed to go with Edwards’ preferred ending where Jyn and the Rogue One crew are all killed by the Death Star. As to the footage used in the trailers not seen in the film, it was deemed by Disney’s marketing that it would be useful to sell the film on without using the actual footage. Directors of films that go through immense post-production changes are often cagey in their responses to the press or simply disown the film outright. However, it seems Edwards had a great time working on the film and seems to be proud of it. He even joked that the demises of the heroes is, “…a great Disney tradition…. For every single character to die in all their movies.”

One of the major talking points of the film is the revelation of a supporting character played previously by an actor who has been dead for over two decades: Grand Moff Tarkin, performed in the image of Sir Peter Cushing. In Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, Tarkin makes a brief walk-on appearance near the end of the film portrayed by another actor in prosthetic makeup. The character has also appeared in both “Star Wars: The Clone Wars” and “Star Wars Rebels”. Here, however, it appears digital technology has improved enough to allow for Peter Cushing to make an appearance from the grave. I must admit, I was quite taken aback at how much of the movie he was in. I have long been an advocate of performance capture but this is de-aging on a dead actor – something rarely attempted before. Is it utterly perfect? No, but it does well. It is an improvement on the de-aging effect on '80s Jeff Bridges in TRON: Legacy, but not as convincing as '80s Michael Douglas at the beginning of Ant-Man. The only thing that bothered me most was the gray, translucent quality of Tarkin’s face. You could almost see his veins through the skin and it did not rub me quite the right way. Still, it is an evolving technology and I hope to see more experimentation with it in the years to come.

Rogue One, while a story we all know the ending to, is a fine film with a lot of good action and characters. They all get something to do in the third act and it is thrilling to watch good practical effects in action. However, I think I must confess that I like The Force Awakens more: it moves the story we knew forward into the future while respecting the past. This is a movie that does respect the past certainly (almost too much for me, with that Ponda Baba and Evazan cameo), but we all know where it is going. You can literally watch the end of Rogue One, replace the Blu-Ray with A New Hope, and just keep right on going. Nothing bad certainly, and I did thoroughly enjoy the film, but I am ready for The Last Jedi to keep the Star Wars train rolling.

RIP Carrie Fisher and Kenny Baker

BEAUTY AND THE BEAST (2017): Hermione Granger and the Reluctant Werewolf

NOTE: Be our guest, be our guest, put our SPOILERS to the test.

“If it's not Baroque, don't fix it.”

- Cosgworth (voice of David Ogden Stiers), Beauty and the Beast (1991)

There are not a lot of perfect movies out there, especially these days. But if there is a contender for such a title, Beauty and the Beast would be a welcome choice. I am, of course, referring to the 1991 Disney animated classic (you thought it would be Cocteau's?). The film came after Disney reinvented its animation studio following The Little Mermaid and caught the world by its collective heartstrings and refused to let go. To this day, it is the only traditionally-animated film to be nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards (it lost to the Hannibal Lector film The Silence of the Lambs). From there, Disney continued to utilize the film's beloved characters in everything from direct-to-video spinoffs to theme park restaurants.

In 2010, Disney released Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland to massive box office success (chalked up to the then-reliable star power of Johnny Depp and the 3D ticket sales brought on after Avatar) and launched a new mission for the company: they would dive back into their own animated canon, remake them in live-action CG hybrids and profit off of parents reintroducing their children to timeless stories told by today's movie stars and directors. Remakes of Sleeping Beauty (soon after crafted into an Angelina Jolie vehicle titled Maleficent), Cinderella (directed by Thor's Kenneth Branagh) and Pete's Dragon (which surprisingly became a critical darling) would be greenlit. And if other Disney fans did not like them, they always had Pixar, Marvel and Lucasfilm to turn to. What could go wrong?

Belle (Emma Watson) is a beautiful young woman with an inventive mind and a spirit of adventure. Naturally, this makes her the topic of gossip in her little French village and the unwavering target of the affections of big game hunter Gaston (Luke Evans), who is vain and ill-tempered. Her doting and encouraging father Maurice (Kevin Kline) leaves on a quick trip to the market and winds up lost at the front of a massively imposing castle. When he does not return the next day, Belle sets off after him and finds him a prisoner of the castle's belligerent master, a large and hairy Beast (Dan Stevens in performance capture). Belle hesitantly agrees to take her father's place as his prisoner. Belle soon discovers the Beast is not the sole occupant of the castle; a large assortment of enchanted talking objects show her hospitality and kindness and gradually reveal they used to be human along with the Beast. What Belle does not know is that the Enchantress who cursed him and his servants did so because she saw he had no love in his heart; however, if he could love someone and have them love him in return, the spell would be broken. "For who could ever learn to love a Beast?"

The cast of the film had a lot to live up to despite their doppelgängers being hand drawn. Emma Watson delivers a fine performance as well as demonstrating keen musical chops. The movie simply would fall flat without her. Her compassion and grace is the most beautiful aspect about her character and livens up the proceedings. Dan Stevens is not an actor I am familiar with (I did recently see the pilot episode to his new FX series "Legion"), but his is probably the most difficult part in the film. Buried under a mass of CG fur, Stevens manages to work the performance capture technology to his advantage and maintains control of his facial expressions. Kevin Kline is not the spitting image of the original Maurice but his heart comes through with his scenes with Watson. He also is in the movie a lot more than I would have guessed and it is good to see Kline in such a mainstream movie again. Luke Evans and Josh Gad have surprisingly good camaraderie and work well off each other. I certainly would have preferred Gad to be dressed in the exact costume his animated counterpart wore but this is a minor nitpick. 

Where the movie really falls is in the voice cast comprising the castle's enchanted objects. It certainly is not for a lack of casting; Ewan McGregor (as Lumiere), Ian McKellen (as Cogsworth), Emma Thompson (as Mrs. Potts) and Stanley Tucci (as Cadenza, a character completely created for the film) are all vastly-talented actors who are pretty much miscast all across the board. McGregor has even said as much, saying his performance of "Be Our Guest" was fouled up by his attempted French accent which ended up sounding Spanish. In animated form, the original characters were all pleasant to look at and were clearly designed following in the footsteps of Disney's Nine Old Men. However, their realistic depiction here is just unnerving. How hard would have been to put Ewan McGregor's face in the wax of a candle? He is part of the candelabra in the final film and it just comes off as ugly. When the voice cast appears as themselves at the end of the film, it feels like their makeup was done by the team from that ghastly Nutcracker movie years ago; they look pretty horrid. 

The songs from the original (lyrics by Howard Ashman and music by master composer Alan Menken) had the world falling in love and credit goes to director Bill Condon for dissuading Disney from making a version of the movie without them. Anybody can make a movie based on the story of "Beauty and the Beast", but only Disney can make a movie with the song "Beauty and the Beast". The only song that Belle does not sing that I feel accurately stands tall next to the original is Luke Evans taking on "The Mob Song (Kill the Beast)". There are new songs in the film, but despite them coming from Menken, they are not nearly as memorable. They got it right the first time. The original Beauty and the Beast is my second favorite musical behind Mary Poppins (and the director of Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides is about to go mess that up too).

There is a certain phrase that goes, "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." This story is nothing if not sincere, but this movie is nothing but a flattering imitation. Is it bad? No, not in the least. The animated Beauty and the Beast was and remains a perfect movie; lightning in a bottle with no live-action version necessary. However, if a movie like this has to exist, its sole benefit would be to point back to the superior version.

THE LEGO BATMAN MOVIE: Bat-ter Up!

NOTE: Where does he get those wonderful SPOILERS?

“The first lesson is... LIFE DOESN'T GIVE YOU SEATBELTS!!!”

- Batman (voice of Will Arnett), The LEGO Batman Movie

It's often said - correctly - that Sherlock Holmes is the most portrayed character in all popular media. Conan Doyle created a detective with a sharp critical mind and unparalleled wit and the world fell in everlasting love with the character. Perhaps this is why comic book co-creator Bob Kane directly drew from Holmes in creating the Caped Crusader Batman. From his initial conception in 1939 to now almost 80 years later, Batman has become just as iconic (if not more so) than the famous inhabitant of 221B Baker Street. Perhaps nowhere is this more evident than the silver screen. 

From Adam West to Ben Affleck, there have been many, many interpretations of this classic character; some iconic, some infamous - but all of them memorable in one way or another. But in 2014, a new take on the character was introduced in The LEGO Movie. This Batman, voiced by Will Arnett, was bold, confident and a bit of an egotist. As well as a sick rapper, yo ("DARKNESS!!! NO PARENTS!!!"). The kind of guy who would seemingly skip out on his best girl to go hang with Han Solo and Chewbacca if given the opportunity. LEGO Movie became a huge success for Warner Bros., and they naturally wanted to do more; just as they were getting back into the DC superhero business (and from then to now have failed miserably).

Batman (voice of Will Arnett) is the number-one protector of Gotham City because, frankly, no one else can do it better. Or at least, that is what he keeps telling himself. After telling the Joker (voice of Zach Galifianakis) that he does not matter to him, the Clown Prince of Crime sets a plan into motion to make chaos for the people of Gotham unless Batman truly reveals how much he means to him. At the same time, Batman has to deal with a new adopted son in the endlessly energetic form of young Dick Grayson (voice of Michael Cera) and is pressured to make an honest effort out of raising him by his faithful butler, Alfred (voice of Ralph Fiennes). Another vital distraction is the entrance of Barbara Gordon (voice of Rosario Dawson), Gotham's new Police Commissioner who gives Batman an ultimatum: either join up with the police force in protecting the law or give up his life of vigilantism. And worst of all, Batman may just have to admit to himself that being alone is not the best way to live one's life.

This film is thoroughly hilarious and entertaining. Rotten Tomatoes has it listed as the highest rated DC Comics movie since 2008's The Dark Knight, and yeah, that is a fair assessment. Is it smart though? As only Chris Rock can say in his inimitable style, "Not really." What The LEGO Movie had that The LEGO Batman Movie lacks is the screenwriting talents of Phil Lord and Christopher Miller. Granted, they are listed in the credits as producers and I am sure they had some creative control - but distanced (as they are naturally across the Atlantic readying the new Han Solo-themed Star Wars movie). It has been pointed out numerous times that Lord and Miller have an uncanny knack for taking bad or potentially ill-conceived ideas for films and consistently knocking each one out of the park. The movie is a fast-paced joke-after-joke-after-joke movie and while a lot of them land, a lot also fall a bit flat. Lord and Miller, with enough time and thought, could pace out each joke so the punchline lands succinctly. This movie has SIX screenwriters, including the guy who gave the world Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. How this movie is any good with that kind of pedigree is beyond me. But it is very, very good.

One of my favorite video games of recent is "LEGO Dimensions". It is a thoroughly entertaining game where pop culture universes collide in LEGO form. Marty McFly can hang out with Dr. Peter Venkman in Springfield. Superman can chill with Scooby-Doo in Middle-Earth. Any of the Doctors of "Doctor Who" can take a joyride in Doc Brown's DeLorean in Metropolis. It is continually adding to its content, adding in franchises like the Mission: Impossible films, "The A-Team" and "Knight Rider". Taking more than a cue from this game, The LEGO Batman Movie brings in villains from other popular Warner Bros.-owned media, but then really does not do anything with them other than they are a part of Joker's army. You have Seth Green playing King Kong, a role which you can imagine would be taken with great comedic possibilities and really does not deliver. It is certainly not Seth's fault, but it is lacking in imagination on part of the filmmakers. He is certainly not alone; there are quite a few notable names in today's comedic world that are in the film as Batman's rogues' gallery but are only limited to one or two lines at best. They even went to the trouble of giving Billy Dee Williams the opportunity to play Two-Face after being denied the chance after playing Harvey Dent in the original 1989 Batman. The design of his character looks really great, but he is almost not even in the movie. Conan O'Brien plays the Riddler and I would not blame you if you did not know that unless you looked at the end credits. Perhaps the biggest missed opportunity is Ralph Fiennes as Alfred facing off against Lord Voldemort... previously played by Ralph Fiennes. I do hope these LEGO movies continue to crossover characters, but I only ask for some sense of logic and imagination into bringing these characters to life.

I know this review certainly sounds negative, but I am only offering some constructive criticism (pun not intended). I really did enjoy this movie. It is a welcome break from the dark and dour DCEU movies and it is a great-looking animated movie. Animal Logic is a powerhouse animation studio, one that can really give Disney and Pixar a run for their money while DreamWorks and Blue Sky continually humiliate themselves (at least The Peanuts Movie was darn good). Another LEGO movie is due later this year centered around the popular LEGO world of Ninjago, and I certainly hope for the best. In this movie's case, all the pieces click together, but I only wish the filmmakers had read more of the instructions (pun intended).

DEATH BECOMES HER: Looks Aren't Everything

RETRO REVIEW

It's no secret I'm a fan of the works of Robert Zemeckis. The man just seems to be tuned into my senses of humor, wonder and all-around fun. From the perfectly made Back to the Future movies, the Oscar-winning Forrest Gump and the breathtaking classic that is Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Zemeckis wows audiences with advanced technology while balancing clear story and characters.

However, his first film post-Spielberg does not get much acclaim outside of its cast. It definitely strikes more adult than both the Future trilogy and Roger Rabbit. Bringing his effects to bear, Zemeckis wanted to make a statement on the vanity of some Southern California women and their obsession with beauty. Meryl Streep, Bruce Willis and Goldie Hawn give this dark fantasy a comedic makeover with Death Becomes Her.

All their lives, Madeline Ashton (Meryl Steep) and Helen Sharp (Goldie Hawn) have been in endless competition with each other over men. Madeline stole Helen's fiancé, the meek mortician Dr. Ernest Menville (Bruce Willis) and proceeded to make his life a living hell. However, Madeline is appalled to see Helen years after she stole her potential groom looking quite stunning and gorgeous. Fearing her own decaying mortality, Madeline reluctantly finds herself in the presence of a modern-day witch, Lisle (Isabella Rossellini), who sells her potion guaranteed ”[to stop] the aging process dead in its tracks”. After taking it, Madeline does gain a new lease on life with her revitalized body. However, her years of giving grief to poor Ernest has taken its toll and he pushes her down the stairs of their mansion. Without thinking about it, Madeline picks herself back up and realizes that her body has not only stopped aging, it has stopped pulsing. To all medical science, she is a walking, talking corpse. And to her and Ernest's astonishment, it seems as though Helen has taken the same treatment.

The above plot synopsis seems awfully complex and it is, because the film does span a few decades. It tracks the ups and downs of Madeline and Helen's lives and how they would naturally collide in this unnatural way. The film does not waste any time setting up these characters and has no fear of making them unlikable. However, it's clear that Streep, Hawn and Willis are at their best; especially Willis playing wildly against type as the manic Dr. Menville. Without going into much detail, I have never cared for the career of Meryl Streep and her countless Oscar nominations do not add much for me in her favor. Still her performance here is very satisfying and gives me a good chuckle. I should also mention Hawn is having a ball with her role, in particular the scenes where her character goes through an overweight crazy cat lady phase.

Apparently there is a least thirty minutes to an hour worth's of footage left on the cutting room floor including a subplot involving Tracy Ullman (best known as the host of the sketch comedy show that gave birth to "The Simpsons"). To me, this is evident in the standout sequences where Helen and Madeline are fighting, with their undead bodies taking massive damage. These seem to be the scenes the movie's promotional materials were built around but it does not appear to be all that was filmed. The fights end too quickly. Still, ILM's master animators and technicians did a brilliant job of keeping up the illusions and most assuredly earned their Academy Award for Best Special Effects.

Death Becomes Her is full of fresh ideas and on-point satire, but it feels lacking in what it was promoted as. This is, of course, not Zemeckis' fault. He delivered the movie he set out to make. It's not as thrilling as Back to the Future or as funny as Roger Rabbit, but it showcases another side of a great director. This ghoulish side would later reappear to develop "Tales from the Crypt" for TV and introduce America to future Best Director winner Peter Jackson with The Frighteners (interestingly, Alan Silvestri's score for this film was used in the trailers for Jackson's film). Maybe someday Zemeckis will indulge his spookiness again.