Movie Review -- Tenet

 

  Man, has it really been six months since my last movie review? It's been a while, hasn't it? Time sure does fly. I wish I could have all this lost time back. If only I could go back... Go back... Time... Christopher Nolan. Yeah, today's movie is Nolan's latest, Tenet, a film in which the infamously metaphysical, space-bending director goes all in and finally makes a straight-up time-travel film. So is it any good? Let's find out.

  Tenet is about an unnamed secret agent who, after a botched hostage rescue mission, is recruited into a secret organization called Tenet. The Protagonist is tasked with leading an investigation into objects and weapons whose temporal disposition has become “inverted” – i.e. they move backwards through time. By tracing these objects' origins he hopes to avert a worldwide catastrophe. This is a great idea for a film; we get loads of twisted action scenes with cars speeding backwards, bullets flying back into guns, people having awkward fights with inverted people. There's also occasionally the same scene shown from different points of view simultaneously depending on which characters are inverted or not. And this is in addition to the frequent cutaways of concurrent scenes that Christopher Nolan films are notorious for. This all makes for a mind-bending and cerebral plot that can be kind of hard to understand if you're not paying the utmost attention. But if you're into non-linear storytelling, Tenet is right up your alley. Its two-and-a-half hours goes by rather briskly.

  Bringing this plot to life is a talented cast which, in true Christopher Nolan fashion, sees the return of some familiar faces from the director's previous works. Back from Dunkirk is Kenneth Branagh as the intimidating Andrei Sator. (Michael Caine also lends a mandatory, albeit brief, appearance.) The other actor that really shines in Tenet is Elizabeth Debicki as Kat, Sator's estranged wife who's desperate to free their son from his criminal clutches. Robert Pattinson looks right at home as the unflappable and dependable agent Neil. The only disappointment in the casting lies with John David Washington as the Protagonist. There's a line early on in the film where one character tells him that their conversation has to be to-the-point and without any small talk. Apparently Washington obeyed this line like the word of God because his character is more-or-less a blank slate, largely devoid of personality.

  The production values on Tenet are on par with what you'd expect from a Nolan film. The compositions and cinematography – combined with the backwards-moving events – make this film a real treat for the eyes and will leave you wondering just how much of this stuff was done in-camera. Knowing the director the answer is probably all of it! While Tenet is one of the best-looking Nolan films out there, the film's sound design is more of a mixed bag. The pulse-pounding score from Ludwig Goransson fits well with its hair-rising horns and electronic compositions. However the sound mixing needed some more work; the sound effects and (sometimes) the music is too loud, making it hard to make out dialogue during action scenes. At first I wanted to chalk it up to the fact that I saw this movie in a really loud IMAX theatre, but I've heard other critics are making similar complaints.

  Overall, Tenet is a visually stunning, daringly fanciful sci-fi action flick with some flaws. The main character isn't all that memorable and the plot verges on confusing. But I will say that if you want to see time-travel done differently this one is well worth checking out. Time well spent.

Grade:

Movie Review -- Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker

  Another year, another Star Wars movie. Today I'm reviewing Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker, the last of the new sequel trilogy. After the double disappointments that were 2017's The Last Jedi and 2018's Solo can this latest entry redeem the current generation of this epic space fantasy series?

  Short answer: too little, too late.

  Taking place a few months after The Last Jedi, The Rise of Skywalker has both Resistance and First Order fighters searching for wayfinders that may lead to the origin of a mysterious broadcast from the not-so-dead Emperor Palpatine (this ain't no spoiler; he was in the trailer), who seeks to reestablish his Galactic Empire under Sith rule. This leads to... honestly there's an ass-load of stuff that happens throughout this movie. The riveting early scene introducing Palpatine notwithstanding, the first half of this film jumps around a lot with action scene after action scene, one right after the other. We're shown so many locations and so many MacGuffins that I couldn't help but tune out the finer technical details of things as the film ground on.

Remember what I said about TFA and TLJ, how they're remakes of the original trilogy films? TROS is no exception, a quasi-ripoff/remake of Return of the Jedi, especially in the last act. Here we get to see the return of:

• a planet-exploding weapon (What is this? The fourth time now?!),
• a jedi returning to an old master's retreat to do some more training,
• Lando and Chewbacca spearheading the attack in the Millennium Falcon during the final battle, and
• a jedi going alone to confront the bad guy leader as he eggs him (or in this case, her) on to kill somebody.
• (Trust me there are far more similarities that I can't mention without spoilers.)

  Return of the Jedi coincidences aside, The Rise of Skywalker's plot is very up and down. We learn the origin story of both Rey – which is pretty neat – and Snoke – which is totally lame. What's also lame is that the main characters are pretty much invincible; their ability to survive landspeeder crashes without a scratch, raid/board a star destroyer with only a handful of guys, and blast through a whole platoon of stormtroopers without even having to stop and take cover robs many of the action scenes of tension. There's one subplot that was established back in Episode VII that Rise of Skywalker hints at resolving but by the film's end this plot thread is still left hanging. Did the writers simply forget about it? I guess they were too busy working on the really disappointing and predictable ending and the half-dozen or so “what the hell” moments that occur in the film's last five minutes.

  The characters are about the same calibre as the previous two films: Rey is as to-the-point and lacking in personality as ever while Kylo Ren continues to be the best and most interesting character in the whole trilogy. While he's just as conflicted as he was before this time he's without a master and seeing him act with more agency – especially in relation to Rey – is a treat thanks to a focused performance from Adam Driver. John Boyega is around to shout Rey's name a whole lot. And of course it's always a delight to see Ian McDiarmid play the role of Emperor Palpatine once again. There's also Carrie Fisher back as Princess Leia one last time via unused footage from Episode VII; as you can imagine this doesn't make storytelling easy with her character so it's a good thing Maz Kanata (the goggles chick) follows her around and (apparently) reads her mind.

  As with other recent Star Wars films, Rise of Skywalker is a very well-produced film. The effects look great (better than the last two), the compositions are splendid, the music is top-notch, and the fight choreography is precise. In short, it's a nice-looking and nice-sounding film. The tone is somewhat more balanced than last time: there's slightly fewer cute critters to make the kids laugh. Some of the jokes are quite funny while some are simply bizarre and gratuitous.

  And that's Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker. I may have been a bit harsh on it, but the fact is that I don't hate this movie. Most of it is OK, that is until you get to the disappointing ending. It's a finely-crafted film and I believe that the only lazy thing to it was the writing. This movie remains trapped in familiar territory and simply doesn't bring anything new to the series – which is my main complaint about the sequel trilogy as a whole. But in case you're wondering, yes The Rise of Skywalker is better than The Last Jedi. But that's not saying much.

  Still, if you've ever wanted a Star Wars movie in which someone says the word “ass” then this is the one for you!

Grade:

Movie Review -- Ad Astra

  Every once in a while a friend will invite me to go see a movie I know absolutely nothing about. Ad Astra is one of those movies; I went in almost totally cold. The only things I knew was that it took place in space and that it has Brad Pitt. So is that all there is to this out-of-this-world odyssey or is there something more to discover? Let's take a look.

  In the somewhat-near-future accomplished astronaut Roy McBride must go on a secret mission to make contact with his previously presumed dead father Clifford whose experiments in the outer Solar System may be the cause behind dangerous power surges that threaten the Solar System's stability. Along the way Roy must come to terms with his father's absence and his emotional responses which are highly regulated by Space Command. It's an intriguing premise reminiscent of Heart of Darkness – or perhaps The Thin Red Line when you consider all the introspective narration going on – but it isn't paced all that well. There are a few action scenes jammed in that seem like they were added to keep the film from being boring because the plot does take its time in small steps.

  The plot also has some giant leaps in logic. For example, how does Roy not end up in jail for the things he's done? Why do all the planets have the same level of gravity? And speaking of Gravity, how do the astronauts survive such punishment? But the silliest moment of all is when the movie expects you to believe that duct tape can effectively seal a shattered helmet against the vacuum of space, as if this is some kind of goofy comedy.

  Brad Pitt's performance as Roy McBride is dead serious, however. His acting is very understated as he's portraying a very repressed astronaut who tries staying focused only on his job. Tommy Lee Jones portrays his reclusive, solitary father Clifford McBride which is a fine choice. When I think of crazy old man, Tommy Lee Jones is one of the first actors to come to mind. While these are fine performances, it is unfortunate that their characters aren't terribly interesting.

  At least Ad Astra is pretty to look at. It's a finely-shot film with eye-catching visuals, compositions that would look right at home in an art gallery, and excellent special effects that rival other space movies like Interstellar. While much of the sets appear cold and utilitarian they're given life by the dynamic lighting. Ad Astra's use of lighting, whether it's the coloured glow of nearby planets or the flickering fluorescent bulbs of neglected spacecraft, makes its scenes more rich and enveloping the way few other movies do.

  In short, Ad Astra is an ambitious movie. Unfortunately the grand story it tries to tell isn't all that original and will leave you wanting. In spite of some decent performances and some beautiful visuals Ad Astra winds up being merely OK. In one line in the movie Roy says, “below the surface there was nothing.” Couldn't have said it better myself.

Grade:

Movie Review Repost -- Interstellar (2014)

Hey, folks. It's been a while since I've done a repost of a previously reviewed film (sorry, 'bout dat. I've been busy lately.) and today I'm highlighting a film I can't believe I haven't shared with you yet. This is Interstellar, one of the best movies I've ever reviewed. Has it really been four and a half years already? I remember this film being fascinating when I first saw it and upon repeat viewings it has lost its lustre at all. I have briefly mentioned Interstellar in other articles such as my 2018 Year in Review (just last month) and the Top 20 Best Films I've Ever Seen (November 2016) but now I'm finally uploading my original review from 2014 for your enjoyment. Thanks for reading.

  To infinity... and even further!! It seems fitting that this film would be playing at the Galaxy theatre! Hahaha... sorry. Let's just review this thing.

  Interstellar displays all the trademarks of a typical Christopher Nolan film: familiar cast/collaborators, a long run time, a huge budget, and a plot that is heavily based in both philosophy and metaphysical puzzles. A science fiction film that takes place in the near future (presumably, no dates are ever given), Interstellar is set in a world of privatized education, a drastically reduced government, and virtually no militaries. Sounds like paradise, right? Nope, because the now-largely-agrarian world is ravaged by a huge blight causing dust storms everywhere. A former NASA pilot, Cooper (McConaughey) is recruited to lead a mission to make contact with expeditions that have already landed on far away planets in order to gauge their habitability so that humanity can leave Earth. I'll try not to spoil the rest for you; it's a real melon-scratcher of a plot. And don't even think about asking me about the validity of the sciency stuff in this; I'm sure that Stephen Hawking fella can enlighten you. But while I'm pretty sure that artistic licence overtakes accuracy in the film's last twenty minutes, it doesn't diminish the film's enjoyability and I think it makes for a very strong ending. Even though the film is nearly three hours long, it certainly doesn't feel too long; I guess you could say that viewers will experience time dilation of their own! This is helped by the fact that Interstellar jettisons the unnecessary debates that plagued some other Nolan films (Dark Knight trilogy, anyone?). The story handily manages to be both thought-provoking and tear-jerking at times.

  Interstellar's acting is out of this world. The whole cast – especially McConaughey and Jessica Chastain – does a phenomenal job with only a few exceptions: Michael Caine's occasional unintelligible mumbling and Matt Damon's sometimes stiff dialogue.

  As for the production, it's the same high standards that you'd expect from a Christopher Nolan movie. The special effects – both practical and CG – are spot-on. Interstellar also has a powerful soundtrack that will seldom leave you wanting – although there's one scene in particular that might have benefited from the silly Star Trek fight music. Seriously though, it's one of the best soundtracks I've heard in a while.

  But as with all movies, Interstellar has a few puzzling oversights. We're not given very many details about what Earth is like in the future. The same can be said of the other planets that are explored in this film; they're about as creative as Star Wars planets (spoiler alert: Kamino, Tatooine, and Hoth appear in this movie). Also NASA comes off as a rather shady organization here with all the lying and double-crossing going on. And yet for such an important top-secret institution they sure do have lousy security.

  No matter. Interstellar is still a fantastic adventure from start to finish. It's a splendid-looking and -sounding spectacle that has decent drama and yet doesn't bore you with the interminable discussions that people often criticize Nolan films for. Offering lots in the way of science, fantasy, and surrealism, Interstellar is a very worthwhile experience.

Rating: four and a half stars out of five.

Movie Review -- Solo: A Star Wars Story

  Another Star Wars movie already? But it's only been five months since the spectacle of mediocre dumbness that was Episode VIII: The Last Jedi. If Disney and Lucasfilm want moviegoers to spend their hard-earned doubloons on another Star Wars film so soon then they'd better bring their A-game. Or as Grand Moff Tarkin would say, “We're taking an awful risk, Kathleen Kennedy. This had better work.”

  Solo: A Star Wars Story follows a young Han Solo on his first heists in the galaxy's criminal underworld. Along the way he teams up with prisoner Chewbacca, smuggler Lando Calrissian, thief Tobias Beckett, and Han's former lover Qi'ra. It's a plot that's pretty dull, is somewhat predictable, and has lots of attempted jokes that don't always work. It seems that a lot of the scenes telegraphs their moves: they all begin with a character briefly mentioning some exposition about where they are and what's going on and right away you'll know “that thing he/she just off-handedly mentioned is definitely going to happen in the next ten minutes”. Lastly, there's an unacceptable amount of sequel-baiting for a movie that's supposed to be a self-contained chapter in an anthology series! Combine this with the fact that Alden Ehrenreich's contract is for three films – even though this first one is taking a beating at the box office – and you've got a pretty good example of what a cart before the horse looks like.

  But if you're a big fan of excessive fan service then you'll freakin' love Solo. Apparently everything important Han Solo-related thing in the Original Trilogy happened during this one adventure. You'll see the origin of every little thing you never really cared about from Han Solo's name to various classic (and some obscure) quotes. But this is all surface level reference stuff. Aside from Han's relationships with Lando and Chewbacca, there's no meaningful links to the original films or the Star Wars universe as a whole. If only they'd spent their creative energy on making this film worthwhile on its own.

  Speaking of which, Ehrenreich does an alright job in his performance as Han Solo, which largely sustains the whole film. Through him we see Solo change from underhanded idealist to cynical outlaw. But as good as Ehrenreich is here, he predictably doesn't hold up to the charisma of Harrison Ford. The same can be said of Donald Glover as Lando; good but not as good as Billy Dee Williams. Paul Bettany's performance as crime lord Dryden Vos is good, even if his character is somewhat generic and underutilized. Qi'ra is bland, not interesting at all. Oh yeah, and Chewbacca is now a savage brute who eats humans and rips people's arms off. Way to tarnish a classic character.

  It gets worse. There's this badass gang of speeder bike-riding pirates whose leader is later revealed to be a red-haired teenage girl with freckles. (Once you find out about this it is impossible to take her and her gang seriously.) There's an annoying droid who is an SJW (yes, even within the context of the Star Wars universe). And there's one character pointlessly brought back from the dead from a previous movie – it seems that nobody can let this person die peacefully.

  At least Woody Harrelson does a good job as Beckett.

  Solo's production value is about as good as most other Star Wars films: the sets look good, the music sounds exciting, and the CG effects are as frustratingly OK as ever. However, its scope is noticeably smaller which makes me wonder, by the Force, how the heck did this movie cost $250 million to make!? Not only is Solo the most expensive Star Wars movie, it's one of the most expensive movies period! No wonder this film is losing tons of money.

  So that's Solo: A Star Wars Story, an exceedingly average sci-fi action movie whose existence represents everything I dislike about today's Hollywood blockbusters: an obscenely-budgeted, unwanted cash-in with no heart made by uncreative studios who try shoving their politics in your face while also prematurely assuming that they'll be successful enough to crank out an unending, risk-free stream of sequels. Judged on its own merits Solo isn't terrible but it ends up being a lot like last year's The Last Jedi: by the standards of any old sci-fi action movie it's OK, it's just not a very good Star Wars movie.

Grade:

Movie Review Repost -- Apollo 18 (2011)

All Hallows Eve approaches. I'm sorry I haven't got anything new for you this weekend, so I figured I should look back at one of the few horror movie reviews I did in my early days of reviewing (and it's not the greatest review I've ever written). This is the sci-fi found footage film Apollo 18. It was mediocre and didn't leave much of an impression on me. I've not seen it since and I've barely thought about it since. So I guess my opinions are unchanged...

  The summer is at an end and last weekend I tried to fit in one more movie viewing. I chose Apollo 18, a horror/sci-fi flick set in the early seventies about the supposed last lunar mission.

  This movie is filmed in found-footage style, meaning that the cinematography is similar to grainy, staticy late-sixties video camera footage, so get used to seeing cameras malfunction and flicker around and go offline; it happens every five minutes. I can't help but wonder if that was even necessary. Anyways, don't expect to see a masterpiece of film here. The plot is very cliched and unoriginal and somewhat predictable. The film has a noticeably slow start as well as a few slow moments throughout.

  What did I like about this movie? Well the special effects look great, but with the grainy, low-res footage, making good looking special effects on this film couldn't have been that difficult. The acting is better than average, but the actors' best efforts are inhibited by the underdeveloped characters. By the end of the film you still won't really know that much about the three characters.

  During those slow boring parts, you'll find yourself thinking of plotholes and other weird stuff. Like why did Commander Walker want to be saved even though five minutes earlier he didn't want to go back to Earth fearing he'd infect the whole planet? And how come the aliens attacked on this mission but not the other moon missions? Unless the producers... And then it hits you: you're watching a hippie movie! Think about it, the pieces of the puzzle are all there: faked moon landings, the government being portrayed as evil, indigenous creatures fighting back (AKA environmentalism/anti-racism), technology being portrayed as useless, the USSR being depicted in a sympathetic manner...

  Wow. I've got to go warn people of this. Meanwhile, you should stay away from this crazy movie unless you really want to kill some brain cells. (And to think I chose this instead of My Idiot Brother!)

Rating: Two stars out of five

Movie Review -- Blade Runner 2049

  I've got to admit that I was rather worried when I heard a sequel to the 1982 classic Blade Runner was being made. I thought that Blade Runner 2049 would wind up a cheap cash-in trying to belatedly jump start a whole series of films, like last year's Independence Day: Resurgence. Sometimes it's good to be wrong.

  Blade Runner 2049 takes us back to the future Los Angeles to follow K, a Nexus-9 replicant working as a blade runner for the LAPD. After a routine “retiring” of a rogue Nexus-8 model, K discovers that there may have once been a pregnant replicant and he is tasked with investigating and covering up the potentially volatile revelation. It's a great story that takes you to some interesting locations, has a decent twist, and has a great ending that sort of harkens back to the original's. The film doesn't try too much to copy the plot of the original and tries its own thing. Will you be lost if you haven't seen the original? It's hard to tell. I guess it depends on how good you are at picking stuff up from opening text crawls. As was the case with Blade Runner, 2049's story moves along at a very slow pace. And as good as this two hour and forty-three minute film is, you'll feel every minute of it.

  While this Blade Runner flick doesn't have any unicorns, it does boast a talented cast that gives us some engrossing characters. (You can tell because pretty much every single character in this film cries at some point!) Chief among them is K, portrayed by Ryan Gosling who does an excellent job at bringing to life an artificial human undergoing personal crisis, trying figure out if he has a soul. Harrison Ford also does a fine job at playing Deckard again. It really does feel like the same character has returned, and not just another standard Indiana Jones/Han Solo/who-knows-what's-next “Hey, I'm back” performance.

  Blade Runner is a film that's well-known for its striking visual style and this tradition has been carried over to its sequel. The cinematography of Blade Runner 2049 is gorgeous, putting on a dazzling show with landscape shots, smooth camera pans, and an eye-catching use of colour palette. Future Los Angeles appears less gritty and just a bit more colourful this time around, with less fire and smoke filling up the skies. The city's bright hologram adverts are back and given more life with modern special effects. The visual effects in 2049 are seamless, just as CG effects should be. In short, 2049's visuals have a noticeably more 2010's feel to them than a 1980's feel, which is fine considering that this film takes place 30 years after the original.

  The same goes for the soundtrack. Blade Runner 2049's score is still very synth heavy, but with less keyboard/xylophone/bells/whatever those sounds were. And there's pretty much no saxophone (or synth equivalent of a saxophone). It gives the film less of a noir feel (that the original had) and more of a modern sci-fi feel to it. Again, since this film is of a slightly different flavour than the first I don't consider this to be a bad thing.

  However, the film's effect on the state of Blade Runner's lore might not be so defensible. Don't get me wrong, Blade Runner 2049 doesn't ruin BL's story, not by a long shot. But personally I liked the original's ambiguous ending. 2049 also definitively settles the debate on whether Deckard is a replicant or not. Fortunately there are other possible fan debates that might spark from this new film, such as: Where was Luv taking Deckard near the end? What was up with that dog and what happened to him?

  In conclusion, Blade Runner 2049 is an excellent science fiction movie made by people who truly care about its forerunner and its genre. Easily one of the best films of 2017 so far, it's not an altogether necessary sequel, but it is a worthwhile one. If you're remotely interested – and if you can stomach lengthy films with a relaxed pace – then I think you'll quite like it.

Grade:

Movie Review Repost -- Men in Black 3 (2012)

Sorry, guys. Still nothing new this week. I'll have something new for you next week but today we're going to take a look back at my review of Men in Black 3. I loved the first Men in Black when I was a kid and I still do today. Men in Black 2 was a lame disappointment overcome with a serious case of sequelitis. As for the third film, I haven't seen it since it was in theatres but I sure wouldn't mind watching it again. It was, and is still, pretty good.

  Better late than never, right? We've got a sequel that took ten years to get made, and you're reading a review that got written 20 days late. Sorry. But was this unexpected addition to the series worth it (the movie, I mean)?

  The answer is (probably) yes. It's good old sci-fi fun! The aliens are creative, the action scenes are astounding, and the special effects have improved in the ten years since the last film. The plot involves J going back in time to stop an alien supervillain (who also went back in time) from changing history and thus taking over the world. Unfortunately this means (for spoiler-ridden reasons) that K – Tommy Lee Jones' character – only has about 25 minutes of screentime.

  But that's OK, because instead we have Josh Brolin portraying the young agent K, and he does a spot-on job. He even looks just like Jones! Another example of great casting is Jemaine Clement as Boris the Animal. He was so good, I mistook him for Tim Curry with that really deep voice. And then there's Will Smith as agent J. He's still pretty good, but his performance isn't as funny or energetic as it used to be; it's starting to come off as a bit tired.

  When compared against the first Men in Black movie, this one isn't as funny, but it has way better special effects. Compared against the second movie, Men in Black 3 is much more memorable and it doesn't have a laughably hokey plot! If you like aliens, time travel, or just sci-fi in general, you'll quite like this one.

Final rating: three-and-a-half stars out of five.

The Real Deal -- Star Wars Ep. II: Attack of the Clones (2002)

  Welcome to another new segment I'm debuting today called “The Real Deal”, a series in which I look at movies that are even worse than people say. So to contrast with last week's defence of Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, I'm going to spotlight the terribleness of its sequel, Attack of the Clones.

  Now just as I did with TPM, I'm going to preface this by listing all the things that I must concede about AOTC. For starters, there's less of Jar Jar Binks. That alone should earn a sigh of relief from Star Wars fans. Instead we're treated to Jango Fett, Boba Fett's slightly more competent father. Jango's pretty cool. He's got a cool character design, a couple cool action scenes, and he's got the cool voice of Temuera Morrison. And speaking of cool voices, this film has Christopher Lee as the mysterious Count Dooku. Too bad his character is underutilized. It's also a treat to see Ewan McGregor really getting into the role of Obi-Wan. Seeing the clone army being assembled for the first time is a sight to behold. Likewise, I think a small part of everyone's childhood dreams came true seeing dozens and dozens of Jedi knights in action all at once at the Geonosis arena scene. In short, there's enough here to keep Attack of the Clones from being the one of the worst movies ever.

  Nevertheless, it is easily the worst Star Wars film ever (if we're not counting the 1978 Holiday Special). I could talk about all the little things in Episode II that suck – the bumbling droid humour, Boba Fett being reduced to the status of clone, or the fact that Jango Fett really sucks when it comes to killing Padme – but no, we're going to talk about all the major problems behind this stinker.

  In stark contrast to TPM, AOTC throws practical effects completely out the window! Computer-generated effects are freakin' everywhere and as a result things look too plastic and weightless. And it looks terrible. The battle of Geonosis, the first time we see the clone army in action, is an eyesore. Saturday-morning-cartoonish looking CG clones and droids – seriously, they couldn't be bothered to make up just a handful of clone trooper outfits and put some actors in them? – clash in a nutmeg-sandstorm with bright blobs of energy bolts flashing all over the place. Even Yoda hasn't been spared this curse, having done away with the neat animatronics that brought him to life in TPM.

  One of the most noticeable problems of Attack of the Clones is that its main character, Anakin Skywalker... sucks. I tried thinking of one word that could sum up his faults, but so numerous were they that the word “sucks” was all I could think of. For starters, he is extremely whiny. He complains about stuff all the time: about why he's not a not a Jedi Knight yet, about how his master Obi-Wan is too harsh and is just holding him back, about how he needs to go to Tatooine and find his mommy, about how he wants the transport to land so he can pick up his love interest (instead of waiting just five minutes and possibly ending a war in the process), about how he wants to duel Count Dooku alone. Just shut up already! And all this is given the Hayden Christensen treatment with a high-pitched whine that also has a very wooden delivery to it. Though to be fair, he wasn't given much direction.

  Anakin's suckitude is really brought to bear in what is probably the worst romance I've ever seen in a movie. This romance between Anakin and Padme Amidala – the parents of Luke and Leia – has no chemistry whatsoever. Awkward, creepy Anakin comes off as some weirdo who's been spending the way too much time lusting over a pair of panties he stole from Padme a decade ago. Every rejection Padme initially makes towards his advances feels genuine. When she finally gives in and kisses him, it comes out of nowhere, as if she's kissing a dude who just ran over her dog with his car. It doesn't feel right, man! Actually, the truth is even worse. She still hooks up with the guy even after he admits to slaughtering a whole camp full of Tuskens, females, kids, and all. Padme sure knows how to pick 'em doesn't she?

  This horrible love affair is thanks in large part to the film's horrendous dialogue. Few lines in Attack of the Clones sound natural. For example, when Anakin confesses his aforementioned foray into mini genocide, Padme responds with, “to be angry is to be human.” Oh really!? He just slaughtered a whole village and her response is basically just, “Oh well. I don't blame you.” And let's not get started on Anakin's infamous sand diatribe. Most sentences sound very stiff. The language is strictly utilitarian, only serving to announce things that are happening.

  And that brings me to the biggest problem of them all: Attack of the Clones is extremely boring! There are twice as many long talking scenes as TPM, the plot is convoluted and dull, and the whole film is far longer than it has any right to be. Unlike TPM, AOTC has very few standout moments that are worth remembering. It all blends into a great big boring monstrosity.

  One time when I was about eleven years-old I was at a friend's house. This guy was a big Star Wars fan and he wanted me to watch his VHS copy of Episode II with him. Within the first half hour I was already on the other side of the room playing Hot Wheels. I think that says all you need to know about Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones. While it's not a horrendously bad movie, there are still much better things you could be doing with your time. Worst Star Wars ever.

Movie Review Repost -- Looper (2012)

So I spent this morning washing my car in the hot spring sun. Staring at my modern-looking vehicle juxtaposed against the lush scenery of the farms right next to my house reminded me of the scenery of Looper, a 2012 sci-fi thriller film set in Kansas in 2044. So since I don't have anything new to show you this week (I will next week, don't worry) I thought it might be cool to elaborate on what I think is one of the most underrated films of 2012. Enjoy!

   During a momentary lull in the never-ending barrage of homework and tests I managed to find the time to watch a movie this week. I saw Looper, a time-travel action/thriller movie. And yes, it was a good choice (I mean did you even look at this article's title?).

   Right away, you'll be drawn into this movie's fascinating world set in 2044. The film follows Joe Simmons (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a mob assassin known as a “looper” because he kills victims who are sent back in time from the future. Things turn serious when Joe encounters his older self (Bruce Willis) who wants to change the future. The story seems rather original (though it is somewhat comparable to Terminator, I guess). I especially like the part where Joe goes into a diner and has a really uncomfortable conversation with his older self. Looper's plot is smart and engaging, as well as funny at certain moments.

   Looper also benefits from a talented cast. Joseph Gordon-Levitt does a great job portraying Joe, the cocky, selfish, drug-addicted looper living in Kansas City. Old Joe, played by Bruce Willis, is not nearly as arrogant but instead is full of regret towards the life he led. Even the child actor who plays Cid is impressive; he comes off as really smart yet troubled.

   There's so many other things I could talk about that were brilliantly done: Gordon-Levitt's makeup that makes him look like Willis, the great special effects, the dialogue, the action, the ending... The only real complaint I have is that they could have explained the whole telekinesis thing a little better, especially since it plays a rather important role towards the end. (Did I forget to mention that in the future some people have limited telekinesis?)

   In spite of this, Looper is still an awesome movie. Action fans will like it. Sci-fi fans will like it. If you're even the least bit interested, then you definitely should go see it.

Final rating: five stars out of five!

Movie Review -- Ghost in the Shell

   So I went and saw a weird action movie starring Scarlett Johansson. No, I didn't just rewatch 2014's Lucy. I saw Ghost in the Shell, a sci-fi action flick that's gotten pretty mixed reviews so far. Before I begin, it may be helpful to mention that I know nothing at all about the source material, so I'm not going to be commenting on it's faithfulness to the original manga of the same name. I'm also not going to touch on the whole whitewashing controversy (mostly because I don't care). If you want to read about people ranting and raging over that topic, there's plenty of other websites you can try. But come on, this movie has ScarJo in a skin-tight bodysuit. It can't be that bad!

   Ghost in the Shell takes place in the year 2XXX in the sprawling city of XXXX-ville, in the Republic of XXXXX... in Asia somewhere. In this world most people have cybernetic enhancements, even to the point where experimentation with brains transplanted into completely artificial bodies are taking place. One such cyborg – the first of her kind – is Mira Killian, a counter-terrorism agent working for the Department of Defence. Her investigation of a botched assassination attempt leads her into a plot of corporate corruption as well as a path of self-discovery. And it's all presented in a typical cyberpunk tone that isn't too serious, but at the same time isn't over-the-top silly. This isn't exactly the most original plot in the world; you'll be able to tell where some of the threads are leading. Additionally, some of the movie's themes – what it means to be human, etc. – could have been developed a bit more. The story isn't awful, but it is Ghost in the Shell's biggest weakness.

   Thankfully, the movie's characters are interesting enough to hold the film up. Scarlett Johansson does a great job with her magnetic portrayal of Killian, the unsure protagonist longing to know more about her past. Pilou Asbæk is fun to watch as Killian's badass partner agent Batou. There's also a widowed lady character played by Kaori Momoi who, while she doesn't have many scenes, still manages to leave an undeniably potent impression. As with the film's themes, Ghost in the Shell doesn't fully flesh out every one of its characters, instead giving us several brief tastes of persons it would have been cool to learn more about.

   Ghost in the Shell's visual effects are very impressive. While it is obvious that the film uses CG, the effects are incorporated so seamlessly that spotting the seams is no easy task. (So just do what I did: give up looking for them and just enjoy the freakin' movie. OK?) This visual proficiency lends itself well to supporting how imaginative this film's world is. Many characters have cybernetic enhancements that you'd never have imagined seeing before. I was taken aback by a few of them that I wasn't expecting. The action scenes are pretty cool too. Fight scenes involving invisible people never felt so cool.

   But the biggest thing Ghost in the Shell has going for it is its visual style. Equal parts daytime-Blade Runner and 1980's neon sci-fi-fest, this film's spectacle is a sight to behold. From the costume/hairstyle design, to the bright, colourful lights, and futuristic metropolis – even the darkwave synth soundtrack – you won't find a more 80's sci-fi film this side of the new millenium. One glance at the cars shown in this flick is all the proof you need.

   I don't say this often, but I think the critics are wrong about this movie. Ghost in the Shell is a respectable action movie that gets more things right than wrong. Could it have been better in certain aspects? Yes, but I still thoroughly enjoyed it despite (or possibly because of) not being familiar with the source material. And if you're a fan of cyber-punk, futuristic, sci-fi films with a cool vision, then chances are you'll like it too.

Grade:

Movie Review Repost -- Lucy (2014)

Sorry you're getting your weekly Anachronarchy post one day late; I was away this weekend. So since a weird sci-fi action movie starring Scarlett Johansson, Ghost in the Shell, is out I think it's an appropriate time to share my original thoughts on the last weird sci-fi action movie starring Scarlett Johansson, Lucy (2014). Will I go and see Ghost in the Shell? Maybe. We'll see. As for Lucy, I think it may have been better than I gave it credit for. Don't get me wrong, it's incredibly dumb, but at least it's fun. I wouldn't mind seeing it again sometime.

   It's time to review Lucy, the not-so-creatively-titled film based on an urban myth proven to be false over a decade ago. But I won't make a big deal out of that right now because it is possible to make an entertaining movie based on an urban legend. And is Lucy one of those films? Let's find out.

   The film revolves around Lucy, a young woman who is forced to become a drug mule when the South Korean mob implants a bag full of a new experimental drug in her abdomen. However the bag ruptures when the world's dumbest henchman kicks her in the belly (seriously dude, you had one job!), and the drugs cause her to access her brain's full capacity and track down the remaining drug quantities. Now this is a film that expects you to buy a lot of crazy stuff. Apparently, accessing just 25% of your brain makes you Superwoman, allowing you to have physically impossible abilities like telekinesis and omniscience. Accessing 100% of your brain turns you into God. Needless to say, when your main character is invincible some of the action scenes' tension is lost. It also doesn't help that she's surrounded by dumb people who don't bat an eye at suspicious people carrying guns. The ending sucks too.

   There's not much to say about the acting. It's just OK. Scarlett Johansson is actually really good in the first half hour or so, portraying a frightened hostage. But once Lucy gains her powers, she switches to emotionless robot mode for the film's remainder. Morgan Freeman plays the same role he plays in every movie: an important person who gives speeches (of course) and explains how complicated stuff works. For everyone else, the acting is pretty standard.

   The direction is really weird too. The first half hour of the film constantly and jarringly cuts back and forth between Lucy's story, Freeman giving a speech about brain stuff, and pointless stock footage of everything from tigers hunting, hurricanes, plants, and animals bumping uglies. Sometimes it's done to illustrate really obvious symbolism and it gets really irritating. But once Lucy starts using her head they just go away and never come back. However, something similar happens with the final climactic scene which is ridiculously over-the-top and runs for a bit too long. Maybe they were just trying to pad out the film's diminutive 89-minute run time. And to cap off this pseudo-intellectual crazyfest, we're given a one-line epilogue that makes absolutely no sense.

   For a movie that's based on brain power Lucy is dumb, but laughably so. Its exaggerated premise might drive some people crazy, but some people will have fun with it. If you didn't have the attention span to fully enjoy Limitless, then Lucy will suit your needs just fine. In short, it's somewhat entertaining. I mean, at least it's not Transformers 4, right?

Final rating: two stars out of five.

Movie Review - Rogue One: A Star Wars Story

   Rogue One: time for another Star Wars movie, apparently. The times between Star Wars film releases is ever-shortening and the money train is simply not allowed to stop on this nearly 40-year-old intellectual property workhorse. Well as long as the films are good then it can't be that big a deal, right?

   Director Gareth Edwards understood this sentiment all too well and decided to take Rogue One in a very different direction than the other Star Wars films. From the very get go – omitting an opening text crawl, jettisoning the familiar Star Wars theme song, and including location title cards – it's clear that Rogue One very much goes for its own style. Classic Star Wars musical themes are used very sparingly, and composer Michael Giaccino creates different sounds in his music using non-orchestral elements. Most importantly, the film's tone is more gritty and hardcore than the other films, incorporating more serious, tragic, and desperate moments. This makes sense, seeing as how Rogue One plays more like an espionage action/thriller and less like the action/adventures we're used to seeing in this series; it feels closer in tone to 2014's Captain America: Winter Soldier than it does last year's The Force Awakens. And while I'm sure that some Star Wars fans won't be open-minded enough to enjoy it, I think that these are good changes. As the first standalone film in the series, not bound by the Skywalker-Force saga, this movie has the freedom to be what it wants, the opportunity to do something different. And I commend it.

   If you didn't know, the story takes place immediately before Episode IV and follows Jyn Erso, who finds herself thrust into the Rebel Alliance to track down her father who has been pressganged into designing a new superweapon for the Empire. It's no secret that the movie details the attempts to steal the Death Star plans and though you might already know how the movie will end, but it's still a treat to see, full of interesting new locations as well as a few neat references to the original trilogy (blue milk!!!!). The first two acts might seem a bit slow to some viewers, but the third act more than makes up for this with all of its big action moments and thrills that you'd expect from a Star Wars film.

   The acting is fine. Felicity Jones (Jyn Erso), Ben Mendelsohn (Director Orson Krennic), Mads Mikkelsen (Galen Erso), and Riz Ahmed (Bodhi Rook) are the standout performers in this one. What's also cool is how Peter Cushing is seemingly brought back from the dead through exceptional digital effects to once again become Grand Moff Tarkin. Lastly, while Darth Vader isn't on screen for long he does leave a strong impression; his scenes are intense. The characters aren't terribly compelling (aside from Jyn Erso), but they're still fun to watch.

   Lastly, the special effects are really on point in Rogue One, perhaps even more so than any other Star Wars film yet. This is especially apparent with the shots of star ships and other large vehicles which is helped by Edwards' keen eye for scaling (see 2014's Godzilla); the ships look so real! Still, some of the alien species don't look all that convincing which is something I don't think CG effects have ever been very good at.

   And that's Rogue One: A Star Wars Story. A fine action movie that tells a different type of story than the rest of the films by delving into the series' mythology. If I had to compare this to last year's The Force Awakens, I think I'd slightly prefer this movie, mostly because it treads new ground and has a more original plot (whereas TFA more or less felt like a remake of A New Hope). Rogue One is the atypical Star Wars flick which I'm sure will turn off some viewers, but if you go into it with an open mind you'll find that there's plenty to enjoy here.

Grade: four out of five.

Movie Review - Independence Day: Resurgence

   I am a big fan of the original Independence Day from 1996. I saw it as a kid and I loved it. Growing up, I realized how silly and dumb it was, but I loved it just the same. It was a film that never really needed a sequel, but I guess 20 years is a fair time to wait for the nostalgia wave to wash something ashore. Case in point, Independence Day: Resurgence. Does it equal the silly funfest of its predecessor? Let's find out.

   Twenty years after the events of the first movie, humanity has risen from the ashes stronger than ever. I've got to hand it to the filmmakers here, the settings look really imaginative and creative: very different from the Earth we saw in the 1996 film. Alien technology has been used to revolutionize everyday life and world peace is now a reality – even though armed militias and warlords still exist, uh-doy! – probably because everyone in this world seems to know/be related to eachother. And if you didn't get all of this set up right away then don't worry; Resurgence clumsily explains its backstory with clunky exposition. In the first 45 minutes there are tons of lines that go like “I was the youngest valedictorian in the academy's history”, “you gave up flying to take care of me”, and “you've been in a coma for 7300 days now”. In the words of Rush, “Show me, don't tell me.”

   I'm supposed to be talking about the plot, aren't I? Anyways, aliens show up and wreck a bunch of major cities, and what's left of the US government retreats to Area 51 to lead humanity's last stand. It's a plot that's extremely similar to the first film, but with even less emotional weight. What I mean is that with the first Independence Day, the movie took its time to really build things up, to maximize the epicness and awesomeness of what was happening. Resurgence, on the other hand, seems more concerned with getting to the point and throwing some action our way. This is especially evident when characters die. For example, there's a scene in which one character sacrifices himself during a battle (in the same way that Randy Quaid did in the original), but there's hardly any emotional weight to it. What's more, his death is never mentioned again so you're pretty much guaranteed to forget about it after a few minutes. But these shortcomings are (arguably) forgivable thanks to the amazing cliffhanger ending. Don't worry, the film's story is resolved, but the cliffhanger ending outlines what'll happen in the sequel. And it does it in the most goofy, over-the-top, badass way possible. For the Independence Day series, it's perfect! Seriously, if you can find a clip of the last minute of this movie, then go watch it. That part alone is worth the price of admission.

   Now for the characters. Most of the surviving ones from the first movie are back – Jeff Goldblum, Bill Pullman, Judd Hirsch, Brent Spiner, and Jasmine Dubrow – and they're all fun to watch. Too bad Will Smith's character died offscreen between films. Lame. The movie also tries introducing some new characters, but they're mostly colourless and have no charisma which only adds to the “why should I care?” problem. Having said that, General William Fitchner and Deobia Oparei as the badass Congolese warlord are alright.

   As was the case with the first film, this one is written and directed by Roland Emmerich, who is a lousy writer, but a capable director who makes heavy use of impressive special effects (even if it is sometimes hard to tell the good guys' and bad guys' aircraft apart). Perhaps more than the first film, Resurgence has a good amount of humour, which includes nice little references to the original.

   However, there were a few things that didn't quite make sense to me. Like, did the governments of Earth rebuild the cities that were destroyed in 1996 exactly the way they were before? It looks like it, though it's a shame that they got destroyed all over again! Also, the cities' destruction seemed a little inconsistent. For example, how did the Burj Khalifa end up getting flung all the way over to London in one piece? And if there was a hole being drilled through the ocean floor hundreds of kilometres deep, then wouldn't there be water rushing into it?

   As I've said before, the first Independence Day film is a load of mindless fun. If I had to rate it today, I'd probably give it a 3 or something. Resurgence wants to be like its predecessor (maybe a little too much), but it isn't as memorable, epic, or emotionally engrossing. There are moments of fun to be had, but the real concern here is: will you care?

Grade: two stars out of five.

Movie Review Repost - Project Almanac (2015)

At this time of year, you see a lot of "best/worst movies of 2015" lists. I've always wanted to do one of those, but the problem is that I haven't seen nearly enough movies in one year to do that type of thing. In fact, I didn't see all that many bad movies last year anyways. But for those who are interested, I've decided to repost here my review for the worst movie I saw in 2015: Project Almanac. It wasn't horrible, but looking back I think I was being way too generous with this one. Even if you had heard of it, you've probably already forgotten about it! In which case, enjoy this sad little reminder, and then go watch The Revenant again. Enjoy!

   Going in, I had no clue what this movie was about. All I knew about Project Almanac was that it was in found-footage style, and since I don't much care for those kinds of films my expectations were rather low. Was I right?

   Not really, somewhat, I guess. I will say that the film was slightly better than I expected. Project Almanac follows David and his friends as they stumble upon David's late dad's unfinished prototype of a time machine. Unlike most time travel movies, it focuses less on the possibilities of temporal displacement and more on the ethics involved in it and how it affects its participants' relationships. And so for this reason it makes sense that our characters are more than a little careless, self-centred, and irresponsible. Anyways, the film presents some interesting ideas concerning time travel, such as what happens when you go back and meet your past self, as well as how a time traveller's psyche is affected by having the power to go back to see and do anything. Unfortunately this story's adverse consequences (ripple effects) could have benefited from a clearer explanation. Also the ending was quite sloppy, with a bunch of unanswered questions.

   The actor portraying David – Jonny Weston – does a pretty good job, even if he does look way too old to be in high school. The rest of the cast is just OK, nothing special.

   Now let's talk about the whole found-footage schtick for a minute. For a film dealing with experimentation in time travel told from one point of view, it seemed like a good idea but it could've been handled better. Project Almanac suffers from consistency problems that are symptomatic of a lot of FF style films (i.e. it breaks the FF rules). Which camera are we supposed to believe filmed the whole movie? Was it the GoPro, the camera phone, or the old-school camcorder? Or was it a combination of all three? Either way, that camera has an impressive microphone range! And of course the film also has those super-serious scenes that no one in the right mind would ever be filming in real life. And lastly, the whole found-footage tone is kind of ruined when the movie includes cutaway shots to other locations, ominous zoom-ins, private moments where it's obviously just one person alone, and – worst of all – musical scoring!

   Despite this, Project Almanac is watchable enough. There's not much else to say really. If you want to watch it, watch it. If you don't, then don't.

Rating: two-and-a-half stars out of five.

Movie Review – Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Here it is! A Star Wars movie from a different director, following a different set of heroes, set in a different time period of that galaxy far, far away. The whole world's been actively anticipating the release of Star Wars: The Force Awakens, setting records for ticket pre-sales (apparently the thing has already earned back its budget after just one day!) But is it the grand adventure that we've all hoped for?

YES! YES! What we have here is a post-1983 Star Wars movie that's done (mostly) right. Taking place around 30 years after Return of the Jedi, The Force Awakens sees the New Galactic Republic at (never-ending) war with itself as the Empire's remnants – the First Order – still control many star systems, many of which are fighting back under the banner of the Resistance, led by Leia Organa. Both sides are also desperately trying to find Luke Skywalker, the last Jedi. This is a story that is very similar Episode IV: A New Hope in that it takes you to various different locations and includes a variety of characters with different backgrounds and motives. It's a very fun and energetic ride which some might consider too derivative – I mean how many movies can one make about a band of rebel fighters defeating a giant planet-destroying battle station by exploiting its one glaring, self-destructive design flaw? – yet it still holds a lot of potential for new stories.

As was the case with A New Hope, our cast of main characters is made up of a bunch of lesser-known actors, but they each do extremely well: especially John Boyega as Finn and Daisy Ridley as Rey. These two characters in particular are truly interesting and complex and I look forward to seeing more of them in the sequels. Of course the old cast of our childhood heroes is back, including Harrison Ford, Mark Hamill, Peter Mayhew, and Anthony Daniels. There's also Carrie Fisher back as Leia, who I guess took up smoking since Return of the Jedi, since her voice sounds so weird. Maybe it's the stress of leading so many insurrections and the fact that Luke was lying when he said he'd show her how to use the Force.

The one character I didn't like (and the film's biggest problem) was the main villain, Kylo Ren. He's supposed to be this tortured soul who's at odds with himself, but he kind of comes off as a whiny, angsty teenager who throws temper tantrums. Also, could they have possibly picked an actor with a less intimidating face to play him? Cool voice, though.

Director JJ Abrams really knows his stuff. In addition to getting the best out of his actors, he treats us to some well-timed comedy and some exciting cinematography. However one thing that was really disappointing was that The Force Awakens doesn't make as much use of practical effects as you might have been led to believe. It's still very CG-heavy, but at least the CG is a bit better than it was in Revenge of the Sith from 2005. A lot of the classic sound effects have been changed, but I guess that's not really a big deal. What is a big deal is that John Williams is back with another great score, which draws less on the classic themes that we're all familiar with and tries more to establish its own.

In addition to having a similar plot, TFA also has a lot of references to ANH. Some of them are delightful, others are kind of dumb. The lightsaber duels this time around are great. Unlike the ones from the prequel trilogy, they go for a less choreographed/rehearsed spectacle look and more for a natural/spontaneous feel like those of the original trilogy.

One last concern I have is that since there's once again a great evil in the galaxy that needs to be confronted, does that mean that the mythos of the previous six Star Wars films is nullified? What happened to the whole “ Chosen One (Anakin) will bring balance to the force” thing?

Oh well, I only nitpick because I care. Overall, Star Wars: The Force Awakens is a spectacular adventure for moviegoers of all ages. If you're a Star Wars fan... who am I kidding? You've already seen it. If you're not a Star Wars fan but you're slightly interested, then go watch it. The Force is strong with this one!

Rating: four out of five.

Star Wars Highs and Lows

There's a new Star Wars coming out! Isn't that rad? And it looks like it's going to be so cool. I'm pumped; I've got my opening night tickets ready to go, so expect my review of it to be up very shortly. Until then I've been going back and watching and admiring a lot of the previous films (mostly the original trilogy). When I was a teenager, I was a pretty big fan of the Star Wars series, especially since the prequel trilogy really brought the franchise to life just as I was coming of age. So to celebrate, I've compiled a list of the highs and lows of the Star Wars series just as I did for the James Bond series last month. Just note that obviously since I haven't seen Episode VII yet, nothing from that film will be included on this list. So here we go:

Best Movie: A New Hope (1977)

Worst Movie: Attack of the Clones (2002)

Most Action-Packed Movie: Revenge of the Sith (2005)

Best Actor: Ian McDiarmid as Palpatine (episodes I, II, III, VI, and later V)

Worst Actor: Jake Lloyd as Anakin Skywalker (The Phantom Menace, 1999)

Most Puzzling Choice of Actor: Samuel L. Jackson as Mace Windu? (episodes I, II, III)

Best Jedi: Obi-Wan Kenobi (all episodes)

Best Villain: Darth Vader (episodes III, IV, V, VI)

Best Villain Besides Darth Vader: Palpatine (episodes I, II, III, VI, and later V)

Best Villain Besides Darth Vader or Palpatine: Darth Maul (from TPM)

Least-Cool Villain: General Grievous (from ROTS)

Best Non-human Character: Chewbacca (episodes III, IV, V, VI)

Best Droid Character: C-3PO (all episodes)

Best Soundtrack: A New Hope

Best Opening Scene: Revenge of the Sith

Lamest Opening Scene: Attack of the Clones

Dumbest Moment: The awkward, cringe-worthy romance in Attack of the Clones

Funniest Moment: Yoda trying to steal Luke's stuff (from The Empire Strikes Back, 1980)

Most Pointless Moment: As a child, Anakin built C-3PO (TPM)

Worst Special Edition Alteration: Tie: Removing the Ewok victory song or CG-ing Jabba's singers (both from Return of the Jedi, 1983)

Most Hilarious Non-English Speaker: Nien Nunb (ROTJ)

Most Brutal Death: General Grevious (from ROTS)

Most Intense Lightsaber Duel: Qui-Gon Jinn and Obi-Wan Kenobi vs. Darth Maul (from TPM)

Best Battle Scene: Hoth (TESB)

Best Special Effects: Return of the Jedi

Worst Special Effects: Attack of the Clones

Coolest Ground Vehicle: AT-AT walker

Coolest Space Vehicle: Vader's TIE fighter

Most Interesting Planet: Tattooine

Dumbest Line: “I don't like sand...” (Anakin, AOTC)
Who Shot First? Han. No argument on this point.

Movie (Sort of) Review – Halo: Nightfall

OK, I know that Halo: Nightfall isn't technically a movie, it's a webseries. But the way I watched this was in a collected format on blu-ray which came out earlier this year, so close enough. I also decided to write about this movie since there doesn't seem to be that many reviews for it floating around. A couple weeks ago at a Halo tournament with a bunch of friends I was voted MVP (for some reason; I really didn't play all that well) and was awarded with this (thanks, Dylan!). Now let me just quickly tell you where I'm coming from, here: back in the day – from around 2005 to 2009 – I was a huge Halo fan. I played all the games, read all the novels, and listened to the soundtracks. But after a while, I guess I got tired of it and I fell out of the loop. I eventually did play Halo 4 – the first few levels – but it just didn't feel right and I couldn't bring myself to finish it. And I'm not planning on playing Halo 5 any time soon (but that's a story for another time). So can this Ridley Scott-produced series/movie/whatever be the jumping-on point that I needed? Let's find out!

Halo: Nightfall starts off with some ONI (office of naval intelligence) guys casually following an alien whose species was never shown in the games or novels – dangit, three minutes in and I'm already lost! Way to go, guys! Well, I looked it up and it turns out that this guy did appear in the comics. OK, fine, whatever. So our plot, which takes place between the events of Halo 4 and 5, follows ONI agent Jameson Locke trying to shut down a network of Elite terrorists. He does this by tracking down where the materials for their chemical weapons are coming from. This leads his team to a place that should be familiar to all Halo players, except this place is now occupied by a grave threat. The location for this film is a pretty cool idea, though it doesn't have all that much payoff to it. Unfortunately, the story winds up falling into standard survival movie territory that you've already seen lots of times before. It's also supposed to serve as an origin story for Locke: give away the ending much? There's only about three interesting characters, but at least the acting is all-around decent.

Nightfall isn't like traditional Halo stuff that we're used to. There's pretty much no gunfights or battle scenes. That's rather sad since not only is Ridley Scott great at doing battle scenes (Black Hawk Down) but also because shooting stuff is kind of what Halo is all about. Likewise, there's only three alien species in this game: one we haven't seen before and another which displays abilities radically different from what we've seen in any other media. (Seriously, if this species did behave this way in the games, the player would get wrecked all the time.) And as I mentioned earlier, the movie takes place in a familiar setting, but it just looks unrecognizable. Also, why the hell are there so many of those aliens at this place anyways?

The production was alright. The sets, environments, props, and costumes all look good. The CG effects, not so much. The cinematography was OK, not much to say there.

When I was given this movie, I jokingly asked, “Is it like Predator, but on Halo?” It turns out that that joke was actually fairly accurate. The only difference is Halo: Nightfall's plot is less original and it has a Halo paint-job. Mind you, it's a rather thin paint-job with familiar guns that are scarcely fired, a few aliens that behave in ways we've not yet seen, and a location that is unrecognizable. Overall, this barely feels like a Halo movie. If you want to get into Halo 5 and other subsequent media, you can probably skip this and it wouldn't make a difference. And if you take away the Halo name and judge it on its own, then all you're left with is an ordinary, by-the-numbers survival movie that's set in space. In short, Halo: Nightfall is watchable, but also forgettable. For die-hard fans only.

Rating: two-and-a-half out of five.