Star Wars : Episode III Revenge of the Sith (2005) August 3, 2006
Posted by derek in : Reviews, Horror/Sci-Fi/Fantasy , add a comment 
I’m not sure I would go as far as saying Revenge of the Sith is the best of the recent Star Wars trilogy. It is difficult to say, in some respects it was better than Episode I and II but these strengths at times turn into weaknesses. Basically after seeing this I was quite disappointed. As I really expected it was very depressing and I left the cinema with an empty feeling. So why did I put myself through it, well I feel I’ve been on a 28 year journey to complete the saga and like most people wanted to see how Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader.
That was this film’s job really to set up the original Trilogy, we know what happens though the hero turns bad, in order to really hook you into that it has to be done well, it has to surprise the audience (assuming they know) and it has to be convincing. I think that the problem really with the Star Wars prequels, ultimately it isn’t surprising enough and the journey to the Dark Side isn’t convincing. Anakin comes across as a petulant youth really with few brains who turns against his friends based on an obscure myth from a thought culture he knows nothing about which he embraces really for no compelling reason. In the end it is fairly poorly done though the scene where they lower the Vader mask on him is worth seeing.
As for the rest when the film is just a sci-fi fantasy adventure it is quite entertaining with great special effects and exciting sequences. Unfortunately I suppose this could never be like the original Star Wars films in that we really pull for the characters but it certainly looks spectacular. Acting wise Hayden Christensen is certainly better here than in the last film but Natalie Portman does little, their scenes together lack the cringeworthy dialogue of Attack of the Clones but come across as flat. There seems to be no real passion, maybe we’re meant to notice this ? I’ve never been a big Ewan McGregor fan and he is merely OK. Ian McDiarmid really steals the movie as the eventual Emperor.
Watching the orginal films last Xmas I remarked at how incompetent the Empire seemed to be. Here it is the Jedi that are incompetent, they make so many mistakes in this movie. I suppose that is the nature of the drama but possibly Anakin’s conversion to the dark side might be more convincing if the whole thing didn’t seem so rushed. Even though there were hints in the previous two films and both have to work as stand alone stories these could have been more explicit in terms of the Emperor slowly gathering power. Basically here we have the Jedi in control then half an hour later everyone is a traitor and most of them are getting massacred.
A bit more build up to that in the previous films might have been better though Star Wars films are entertaining rollercoaster rides of exciting action sequences not really about long exposition of emotional journeys. The compromise is here, first really keep the angst to the last film and still pepper it with space battles etc, a diffficult balance to achieve. It makes for a fairly interesting completion of the saga but nothing more.
(2 1/2 stars out of 5)
King Kong (2005) July 29, 2006
Posted by derek in : Reviews, Horror/Sci-Fi/Fantasy , add a comment
The critics were pretty positive about Peter Jackson latest big blockbuster hot on the heels of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I feel I will always have something of a bias in favour of the 1933 version but I have to say next to Lord of the Rings, King Kong (2005) is very disappointing. I expected more thrills from Jackson and better special effects maybe one day he will become a victim of his previous success and find it hard to top it : has that day come already ?
It is very tempting to make comparisons with other movies and I genuinely tried to view the new King Kong on its merits as a movie. Problem is if you are familar with the original as ever with remakes there are scenes stolen and allusions made which make it practically impossible. Not that the new Kong is a terribly bad film : certainly by the standards of an average adventure film it works pretty well. Yes it beats the original with the effects and the time period as I expected is well captured. A minor niggle it seemed odd though welcome to use Al Jolson on the soundtrack singing I’m Sittin’ on Top of the World : a song written in the 1920s, a recording made in the 40s yet the movie is set in 1933. Go figure ?
The first and most fundamental problem with the film as I feared is its length. In theory filling out the characters and giving them a background so we can invest more emotion in their experiences is a good one. Unfortunately the details Jackson fills in don’t add anything to the movie and don’t make the characters’ actions any more logical. Overblown is a good description I think : it is an attempt to make the movie more worthy make it more than a typical monster film which just plays as boring.
Why for instance do we need to know Denham is running away from creditors ? In the main I don’t like the way he is characterised here at all, Jack Black doesn’ t seem right in the part. I don’t remember Robert Armstrong’s rogue being quite as blackhearted as this.I also feel the same about Adrien Brody who was great in The Pianist but appears out of place here. In the original Driscoll is just an ordinary seaman here he is transformed into a playwright. Why ? To make the film longer and more worthy and in the end less fun.
Once we’re through the first hour the fun should begin when we reach Skull Island. There are some good moments true : the only really frightening bit for me was the sequence where they are attacked by giant sucker monsters and insects : obviously a tribute to the excised giant spiders scene in the original movie. I don’t really know why but the CGI dinosaurs failed to impress me though we have a few exciting moments with close encounters with T Rex jaws Jurassic park style. It reminded me a lot of that movie actually : Jurassic Park has those moments which make you leap out of your seat every time you see it, didn’t see many of those here. It all in the main seemed old hat : a good example of a botched action scene was a stampede of huge dinosaurs chasing our heroes but most of the time they just seemed to get in each other’s way.
What about Kong you ask ? Well yes he looks pretty good but I don’t know whether it was the way he was photographed he appeared at times smaller than his 1933 counterpart. The first time he appears in the original is justly famous in long side shot approaching Fay Wray here we get weird close ups of big long furry arms. Kong’s battle with the T-Rex in the original is great too and it is well reproduced here eventually but first Jackson overdoes it with Kong battling three at once. This just came across as confusing and lacked impact. Another good shot occurs later in New York when we see Kong and Ann Darrow in a street level shot.
That brings me to probably my biggest criticism of this version. It plays up the beauty and the beast aspect of the story too much. In the original Kong falls for Ann as he does here but she tries to get away from him. Here Ann tries on a few occasion to stay with him : she jumps on his back, finds contentment lying in his arms ! In New York she even gives herself up to him. Yes the girl is meant to feel sorry for him but this is surely stretching things a bit too far. When the airplanes are guinning him down : she cries out to them not to do it ! I mean what future does she envisage in which she is forever chased by a giant ape or is she content to be his bride ? What about all the people killed on the island ? The secret of the original was the beauty and the beast theme was a subtext here it is emphasised with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. Kong’s death is nothing as well. He just drops off the Empire State no music, nothing silence ; where is Max Steiner when you need him ?
So not in the same ball park as the original I would say. It looks better and the acting is maybe a bit better but it is less fun. Yes they had to reimagine the film for an audience of 2005 but the decisions made to my mind in the main are the wrong ones. I’ll be quite generous considering some of the special effects and the action scenes and Naomi Watts is quite good as Ann : (2 stars out of 5).