Solo: A "Star Wars Story"

Every time a new Star Wars movie comes out, we all get excited to see what they do with it, where the filmmakers take us, and we naively assume it will be the "best" Star Wars movie ever.

But the fact of the matter is Star Wars ended in 1983.

You can argue all you want that the prequels "explain" Darth Vader's origin story, and that Rogue One, Solo, and the new sequels expand on the Star Wars universe.

And that's fine because on paper, you'd be right.

But if we're talking about character integrity and the lore's authenticity, they're high-budget fan films.

"But Philip, how can they be fan films when LucasFilm is releasing them?", you might ask.

To be honest, I don't know how the scripts are getting green-lit. I remember, as a kid, seeing the opening crawl of Episode I in theaters (which George Lucas wrote), instantly realizing the tone was entirely off. Then Attack of the Clones was shoddily built on top of it, then Revenge of the Sith was obligatorily stacked on top of Episode II, as if their goal was to create some sort of leaning tower of prequels.

Then they finally gave us The Force Awakens, which would have been great if the new characters alluded to the old ones without ever meeting them, or if they met them and were all part of one big team.

The worst thing they could have done is what they ended up doing, which was having Han Solo kind of come back as an old man who doesn't behave like Han Solo anymore, is devoid of all aspirations, and has been scrambling around the galaxy like Dory in Finding Nemo for the past 30 years.

!!!

Then he's gone. But then Luke shows up, but not really because now he's lazy and scared. Also Leia's there, kind of. But not really because she's replaced by Laura Dern. Oh-- just kidding-- Laura Dern's character's gone, too.

At a certain point, you can't help but tune it all out and ask... "Guys... what are you doing? Why did you write it like this? Why didn't you collaborate more to make it more well-thought-out and (most importantly) fun?"

In Solo-- I'm not exaggerating-- I almost walked out an hour through from sheer boredom. And I almost never leave movies early (Show Dogs was this years' exception). This is especially sad because I was so excited to see a youthful Han Solo adventure. The special effects were good, but the movie felt too much like a cosplay event where they let some young fans pretend to play Han and Lando in front of a green screen. Solo's Han behaves nothing like classic Han, and the new Lando is essentially a caricature of "Robot Chicken" Lando impersonations. But according to the studios, it's officially Star Wars. This, to me, is like going to Vegas and seeing a guy wearing a cardboard Elvis Presley mask genuinely trying to convince you he is Elvis. I just don't buy it.

Even the story in Solo would have been more impactful if they were playing new characters, but they were so untrue to these characters from the original trilogy, it was a constant distraction. This is the problem with prequels-- the characters and actors are hindered by having to be like the old, not giving them the freedom to create something entirely new. I just don't understand how this film even made it to theaters without being re-written and redone from scratch so as to fit the mold more appropriately.

Or maybe that's what happened when they fired Phil Lord and Chris Miller, but I can almost guarantee their version would have been better because The Lego Movie and The Last Man on Earth are modern masterpieces.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that no Star Wars movie will ever give me the same high I got when renting the original trilogy from Blockbuster in the mid-90s. I know this is a scathing review from a Disney guy (yo), but we already knew the studios were unconfident in the movie before its release, had to hire an acting coach for the main character after they had already cast him, fired the original directors for making it "too funny", and now that it's underperforming at the box office, I mean, come on. What did you expect?

I love finding and appreciating new things. And if you enjoyed this movie, I'm glad. But I'm very careful to not like something just because of what it's called. A lot of movies, books, even shows bear the "Star Wars" name, but aside from some of the masterfully made video games, I can't consider any of this content "true Star Wars" unless it was made between 1977 and 1983... don't count the Star Wars Holiday Special (which surprisingly had a stylish cartoon with Boba Fett and a hilarious sketch including Harvey Korman with an alcoholic volcano atop his cranium. Yes, really).

And don't even think of looking into the Ewok T.V. movies from the 80s.

Star Wars: The Force is Going to Bed *SPOILERS*

Too much time has passed since my last movie review.

Which is fitting, because too much time has passed for Lucasfilm to add to the original Star Wars trilogy.

Whether you're a fan or not, we all need to accept the fact that Luke, Han, and Leia's Star Wars does not carry the same momentum it started with 40 years ago.

Of course, every Star Wars movie makes $1 billion in the box office. So, from a production company's standards, it's still "good."

But I need to say something-- these new Star Wars movies feel like a nightmare version of the old ones.

Let me explain:

They're too dark.

A New Hope was a pulpy adventure, inspired by retro sci-fi. There were dark moments in it, but at the end of the day, you knew Han, Luke, and Leia liked each other, and would ultimately triumph together.

This sparked carried on until the end of the trilogy, despite all their obstacles, because seeing your heroes win in one movie only to be miserable next time is depressing. It's the reason The Dark Knight Rises was so sad. Audiences should be rewarded for staying invested in a saga, not punished.

The new trend for superhero sequels seems to have our beloved characters go "dark," which essentially means "miserable because they haven't done anything since the last movie." Bruce Wayne didn't do anything for 8 years since The Dark Knight, leaving no room for him to grow as a character, or for the audience to imagine any of his potential adventures.

That's not fun.

So, Disney and Lucasfilm decided to make Luke, Han, and Leia do nothing fun since Return of the Jedi. Luke ran away (which is out of character), Han and Leia got divorced (which is unnecessarily heartbreaking), while Chewie still roamed the galaxy with Han (wearing the same bandolier for 40+ years).

So nothing they did in the original movies mattered.

If the filmmakers wanted to please the audience without resorting to mindless, computer-generated, crowd pleasing moments, they would have allowed these characters to reap the rewards of their adventures from 40 years ago. They shouldn't be lonely, scrambling around the galaxy only to have gruesome deaths. The new generation of heroes should have come to them for knowledge and advice, but to send our old heroes into the fray is just a corporate excuse to give these actors some screen time to sell more tickets.

And I like all those actors. But how many times can Indiana Jones crack his whip at age 70 without having to call his chiropractor?

If you saw The Last Jedi, you most likely have one of two opinions:

A) It was great!... for what it was!

or

B) What? That wasn't Star Wars!

If your answer was A, it's because you recognize that it was, in fact, a visually beautiful movie. It had some satisfying moments, but it was very different from the Star Wars you grew up with (which should have been obvious from the repetitive, immature, out-of-character dialogue).

If your answer was B, it's because the entire vibe was off. There was a constant sense of dread, not even from the menacing characters in the film, but from the writer, who seemed to be going all in on false confidence. I don't know how to describe it except for how I did before-- a nightmare version, because everything the returning characters said and did felt wrong. Even if it was "cool."

Look, I was a fan of Rian Johnson. He masterfully directed episodes of Breaking Bad, and did a decent job with the movie Looper.

But Star Wars is special to millions of people, and I genuinely feel like he doesn't understand what they like about it.

At the end of the day, it's supposed to be FUN. Throughout the entire movie, I felt like they were all doomed, even if they survived, because the characters didn't seem to know how to enjoy life. They were just vessels to tell the mangled story of the official new Star Wars movie. And that's not right.

Having Chewie there without Han doesn't work. Luke as a lazy old man doesn't work. Leia flying through space like David Bowie in a music video doesn't work. Their best solution to this problem would have been to make the characters all hang out together, or not be there at all. Have them as legends that the new heroes briefly talk about.

By the way, WHERE'S LANDO?

The End (of this post and my lifelong interest in Star Wars)

Rogue Fun: A Star Wars Blog Post

If you've never seen the Star Wars movies, this probably isn't the post you're looking for.

The new Rogue One trailer is one of my new favorite things. It reignited my excitement for Star Wars that tends to wane in and out of my heart (or whatever it is that makes you feel things-- your brain, soul, or nerve endings).

Something about the cinematography, along with the music and surprisingly charming sirens in the trailer made me remember how much I miss romanticizing about the vastness of the Star Wars universe.

The pre-prequel games come to mind. Those games were GREAT! Playing games like Rogue Squadron, Rebel Assault, Shadows of the Empire... hell, even Yoda Stories were some of my best times as a kid.

Not a fan of the prequels, though. I recently played Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga and realized why so many hardcore fans are so anti-prequel. And I'll tell you: The prequels lack a true sense of creative freedom and adventure.

Imagine if Anakin started off as an adult in The Phantom Menace. He would have been like Luke, yearning for something greater, when Obi-Wan Kenobi would have found him helped free him and his mother from whatever Watto is.

Pretty sure he's a CGI Muppet, Gonzo's lost brother.

Seriously, why didn't Qui-Gon Jinn fight to free Anakin's mom? Because it wouldn't be right to liberate a person from her slave owner? He didn't even try! Is Qui-Gon Jinn pro-slavery? Why is he okay with separating children from their parents?

Things like this made the ten-year-old me scratch my head in theaters. That, and the fact that everything in Episode One had to deal with a war against the Trade Federation, which is like America waging war on the UPS.

So let's say Episode One took the time to think about those details. And let's say they didn't explain the force by saying there are microorganisms in force-attuned people called "midi-chlorians." That threw me off so much. I always saw the force as a mystical ghost energy, not a genetic syphilis of superpowers.

And why did Anakin's mom have a virgin birth? Is Darth Vader Jesus? I mean, Christ. Darth Vader's cool, but I don't remember him turning water into blue wine.

Anyway. My point is that the story should have been its own story. Anakin could have still been the protagonist, but it would have been so much better if there was a consistent villain throughout. Instead, we had to meet Anakin all over again in Episode Two when he was an adult and the plot started meandering as he started hanging out with Palpatine.

Why so much Palpatine? We didn't need to see every step that led to A New Hope. The prequels took place decades before that.

So here's what I propose. Darth Maul should have been the villain throughout the entire prequel trilogy. He was a cool villain with the potential to rival Vader in pop culture, if he had been given more story and screen time. He should have been a merciless killer that Anakin Skywalker genuinely wanted to stop. Anakin should have confronted him in every movie, just like Luke did with Vader. Anakin should have resorted to learning the ways of the dark side (along with the light) in order to defeat Maul. In the end, Padme should have left Anakin for becoming too ruthless, and he should have eventually defeated Maul. Having lost his love while gaining so much power, he should have given in to the dark side because the power was so seductive, not because he was having some weird dreams about his wife dying in labor. I mean, yeesh. I thought this was Star Wars.

But what do I know? I mean, I have no medi-chlorians, so... there's that.

Jurassic World

"CGI" is an acronym for "Computer-Generated Imagery", which is the weird, slime-like special effect used for almost every creature and far-fetched environment in modern cinema.

Bootleg Jurassic Park Jurassic World suffers from gross amounts of CGI, to the point where the entire movie is rendered meaningless.

That's not to say I didn't enjoy it. I did. Chris Pratt was hilarious as Andy Dwyer from "Parks and Rec", imagining a world of CGI dinosaurs chasing him and his wife April Ludgate, I mean Aubrey Plaza, I mean the obligatory love interest played by Jessica Chastain, I mean-- Bryce Howard!... Bryce! DALLAS! Howard!

See? Hollywood's not too confusing.

So, Star-Lord from Guardians of the Galaxy teams up with Lady in the Water and they run from slimy, weightless dinosaurs that look less realistic than the dinosaurs from 25 years ago. They do this for 2 hours and then they live happily ever after.

I'm not saying you shouldn't see it. I'm just saying Jurassic World lacked real moments of tension because the CGI made this "dinosaurs on the loose" story feel more like "Roger Rabbit" than a believable disaster scenario.

Yeah, that looks real.

Look at this rehearsal footage from the original film. They used real puppets and animatronics for a lot of the movie because those are things that can (and must) interact with the cast, crew. This translates well to the screen because they feel tangible. And they feel tangible because they are!

All I'm saying is this-- if you're going to make a movie, really make that movie. CGI is tough, and I respect that, but there is a time and place for everything. I'm well aware that the original Jurassic Park used CGI, but the level of obviously fake creatures in Jurassic World was way too over-the-top.

Anyway, what do I know? I've never made a Jurassic movie. 

And before you ask, yeah, I'm excited for Jurassic World 2.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Every fan of the original Star Wars and Indiana Jones films has their grievances with the new content. I'm not excluded from that group. But I can't say much about the prequels and "Crystal Skull" that you probably haven't heard already. Let me just say the main reason hardcore fans don't approve of them is because they were clearly rushed and needed instead to be well-thought-out.

Obviously, brand awareness sells tickets. It's the reason why the Star Wars prequels and fourth Jones movie feel nothing like the originals, but they are still seen by the entire world and considered "canon". People accept them because they're called "Star Wars" and "Indiana Jones".

Name recognition is also why Walt Disney Studios called the most recent "Alice" movie "Alice in Wonderland", even though it's nothing at all like the original book or classic Disney film. People feel comfortable buying tickets for something new because it legitimizes a purchase. At the same time, they also want to feel like they're already connected to that thing because familiarity makes people feel safe and at ease. Is it okay for filmmakers to give only 5% of their imagination to the continuation of a saga adored by millions? It's not ideal, but it works for the studios. I'd say it's a bad business decision, but we would have seen "Crystal Skull" even if it was called Indiana Jones and the Cold Shower (which it oddly ended up being).

Below is a photo of what it felt like watching "Crystal Skull" in theaters. It almost feels like the nuke is being detonated right on Jones' original trilogy. It's still good, it's just got some awkward fallout from its successor... maybe "successor" sounds too much like a compliment. "Remnants." Yeah, that's good.

The Purge

The premise: The country is flourishing because all crime is legal for one night, every year-- especially murder. This is idiotic because the people in this movie spend all year planning murders, which makes them premeditated, which means if the purge was real, the first purge night would make us all extinct, leaving no one left in the country but sociopathic savages. I reckon if you told this to the filmmakers while they were making the movie, they would have made this face:

"...F*&#."

Why would congress even approve of a night where all crime is legal? The movie tries to paint their society as "ok" with that idea because it "purges" America of the poor and the sick, allowing everyone to "release their pent-up anger for the year". I don't get it-- is this a fictional society made of Hitlers? This would do so much more harm than good, and not just annually, but socially and psychologically. They try and justify it by claiming unemployment is at 1%.  How would you like to go to work everyday knowing that, for whatever reason, you can be added to someone's shit list for purge day? It could range from reasons like being bad at your new job, or because you're awesome and everyone else at work loves you. Did the filmmakers take this into account?

I like the main actors. Ethan Hawke is naturally talented (he really shines in Richard Linklater movies), and Lena Headey is... well, she's English, so her American accent isn't really convincing. I like that about her, ironically. It's the same reason we all love watching Liam Neeson and the cast of The Walking Dead try to speak American English-- it's just funny. Sentences like "I don't know who you are" end up sounding like "Ay dun't noe whu yu arrrr."

It's a shame, though, because the actors really gave it their all. It's just that the script, and the tone set by the director wasn't strong enough to justify their performances. It became too hard to care about anything that happened to anyone because they kept naively splitting up which, in a horror movie, is just too comedic a trope. Just stay together and remain vigilant.

This is a movie still, not part of an NSA recruitment ad.

That's my time. I'm going to go stare at a wall until it moves.

Whiplash

What a fantastic movie! I was skeptical at first, assuming it was nothing more than a flick about some little drummer kid with a bald music teacher. And his head is SHINY. He must stick it in whatever they use to polish bowling balls because I could swear I saw the Big Dipper on his baldness.

There's a lot more to the movie, though. It's a modern classic, one of those movies that keeps surprising you with every choice a character makes, luring you in deeper with its twists and turns (even if you don't want the characters to make those turns). The best part is, it all pays off in the ending during the final boss battle. And who doesn't love a good boss battle?

J.K. Simmons says: "Boss battles are A-Ok."

If I had to compare it to another movie, it's a drumming-based Full Metal Jacket... mixed with the groovy swagger of Curtis Mayfield. J.K. Simmons' character torments the hell out of his music students, exactly like R. Lee Ermey with his platoon. The music is hypnotic, to the point that if you watch the movie and don't smile, you're probably a Dalek.

The film also made me wonder what J.K. Simmons is like in real life. Maybe he's nice. Or maybe he's just like the character he plays-- an idealist, endlessly cruel on his path to perfection. After all, the guy called his kids "above average" in his Golden Globe and Oscar acceptance speeches. He was probably just kidding Simmons, but how are we ever going to find out?

I'll tell you how. We won't.

Maybe he's a saint. I heard he covered lunch for three cops at a restaurant a few days ago. Is that kindness? Could be. But getting on powerful people's good sides sounds more like something Kevin Spacey would do in House of Cards.

Speaking of Kevin Spacey, is he a nice guy? Seems sketchy, but maybe he's secretly a good guy. Like an incognito postman or something, always dedicated to delivering packages earlier than Amazon says they should arrive.

Then there's Sam Rockwell, Matt Dillon, and Ty Burrell. Just look at their expressions. Villains, obviously. I'm basing these accusations on absolutely nothing, so don't quote me on this.

And go see Whiplash. It does a great job of not relying on "good" or "bad" guys, but just "guys"... albeit extreme guys. Its ethical debate goes into such a grey area, it makes 50 Shades of Grey look like "Some Grey Window Shades from Walmart".