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".

Miami Vice

You've heard about it. It's the most 80s show to have ever 80s'd. But have you seen it?

Supercops Crockett and Tubbs

Miami Vice is addicting in a lot of ways with its iconic 80s music, expensive action scenes, colorful costumes and lighting, but it has its flaws. The stories are convoluted, while the dialogue is watered down for network t.v. The pacing can be slow and as drawn out as this run-on sentence and just when you think the episode you're watching will pick up its pace, it doesn't and reading this sentence is what it feels like to watch the show. Then there's the editing, which is more of an endurance test than anything else. Here's the intro via YouTube (thanks, NBC!). I broke it down in the paragraph below.

...What the hell was that? You just filmed a bunch of palm trees before showing a nauseating bird's-eye view of the ocean. Why did you do that? What is this?-- Pelican Vice? But I'll keep watching to make sense of this psychological experiment. Maybe we can piece this intro together and relate it back to the show. Okay, flamingos, yes-- wait, what!? The bird's point of view again? I'm getting woozy, man. Don't show me that view anymore. Okay, yes, now you're showing us jai alai, that's a fine sport, underrated. Cars, yes. Thank you. Nice pool. Guy's on his phone in the water, cheating death, yes. Dogs are racing, very good-- hey... WHAT THE F*CK DID I JUST SAY ABOUT THE BIRD'S POINT OF VIEW!? It's making me nauseous! I TOLD you this twice, already! Jesus Christ, NBC, didn't you test this intro with an audience to see if it is or isn't tolerable? Okay, a building, yes. Girl windsurfing, very good. Nice hair dip, let's see if that has anything to do with any of the upcoming investigations. Okay, a federal building, thank you for that view, yes. Horse racing, very good for the Miami economy... what!?--GODDAMN THAT BIRD'S EYE VIEW! ARE YOU TRYING TO MAKE ME FEEL HUNGOVER, MIAMI VICE!? BECAUSE YOU'RE DOING A GREAT JOB OF THAT!!! Ah, yes. Valet is parking a car. Okay, a sailboat, very stylish. I guess that final shot of a rippling wave is important, thank you for showing me that.

Despite the fact that one viewing of the intro will cause incurable PTSD, what we love about Miami Vice is the sense of wonder we get when thinking about all those possible Miami nights. It's a fantasy. Who doesn't want to cruise around a neon-lit beach in a custom sports car or a fast boat, solving crimes with your buddy cop? Everyone wants that. Especially the unseen bird from the intro.

Breaking Bad

You're probably expecting a rundown of the series: The premise, the acclaim, and why you should watch it. But you know it, already-- nice guy becomes cancer guy becomes drug guy. There's also a chicken guy that he fights for a while. No need to be ashamed for not watching it, yet. Take your time.

This is the most common "You've never seen Breaking Bad?" response.

Instead of spoiling the plot or redirecting you season one on Netflix, I'm going to tell you how many similarities the show happens to have with a critically acclaimed book. It can be found in paperback or on the Apple app store and is simply called the Bible.

• In the Bible's New Testament, heavily whiskered Jesus Christ is introduced as a man who turns water into wine. In Breaking Bad, mustachioed Walter White turns methylamine into methamphetamine. Coincidence?
• Then in Breaking Bad, Walter White's brother-in-law Hank Schrader often gets vexed with his wife, Marie. Her shenanigans, sometimes even illegal, usually prompt him to respond "Jesus Christ, Marie!" Is it a coincidence that Hank referenced Jesus Christ out of all of Earth's historical figures? He could have just as easily cried "Herbert Hoover, Marie!" or "Benedict Cumberbatch, Marie!" Why didn't he?
• Walter's wife, Skyler, eventually has a baby on the show. However, her character was already pregnant when the show began, so the audience still has no idea if that baby is the biological daughter of Walter White, or if God granted them a free baby without the two of them having to "know" each other. Baby Jesus was born to Virgin Mary without her "knowing" anyone, so it begs the question-- is Breaking Bad's baby, Holly, going to grow up to be a prophetic character? Maybe we'll find out in the spin-off series: Better Call Saul!

This review was satirical. Before you riot, I'm not pro or anti anything. I also don't wear a tin foil hat.

R.I.P.D.

R.I.P.D. (an initialism for "Rest in Peace Department") is one of those movies that sort of happened. I only cared to see it once I read The Dude and the Zen Master, a really insightful book by Jeff Bridges and his friend Bernie Glassman. In it, the two discuss what it's like to try to be relaxed, with an occasional anecdote from the set of a movie.

Here's Bridges recounting his experience on R.I.P.D.

"Kevin Bacon and I recently worked on a movie together, R.I.P.D. Just before we'd begin a scene, when all of us would feel the normal anxiety that actors feel before they start to perform, Kevin would look at me and the other actors with a very serious expression on his face and say: "Remember, everything depends on this!" 

"It would make us all laugh. On the one hand, it's not true, of course, but on the other, everything does depend on this, on just this moment and our attitude toward this moment."

It's pretty clear that not even the cast was crazy about making the movie, but it was a fun hour and a half. I found myself tuning in and out often simply because there was just way too much CGI-- which looked unfinished and belonged on Syfy channel, Doctor Who, or an early 90s movie. The villains are all poorly computer generated undead creatures known in the movie's mythology as "deados". I guarantee you've seen better special effects on YouTube.

Jeff Bridges played a fun character, reprising his role as 1800s lawman Rooster Cogburn from True Grit. I've been a fan of Bridges since The Big Lebowski, so I laughed heartily every time his character said and did anything. I especially loved the chemistry between him and his hat. Ryan Reynolds is in the movie, too. He plays his convincing movie star character who's reluctantly just "doing this for another paycheck". He successfully said all of his lines while keeping his face and emotional investment in the story as static as possible.

The story is simple:

Man loses identity.
Man meets supernatural police agency who wants to employ him.
Man partners up with old cowboy who speaks in wild west jargon.

And of course, Bridges and Reynolds have to save world from a conveniently placed doomsday-based plot point. It's screenwriting 101 meant to make you laugh until you choke on your aromatic, but stale popcorn.

On the plus side, their guns looked really cool and shiny!

As for the tone, R.I.P.D. is in every way an amalgamation of Men in Black and Patrick Swayze's Ghost. See it if you like scraping the bottom of the entertainment barrel.

Starcrash

Starcrash is a Star Wars knock off far worse than any B movie you can possibly imagine. It briefly stars David Hasselhoff as the token Han Solo character, and it makes Howard the Duck look like No Country for Old Men.

Starcrash was released in the late 70s, a year or two after the original Star Wars, fitting into a genre I like to call "Disco Sci-fi" (which to me is any sci-fi/outer space movie from the late 70s to 80s, trying to mooch off the success of Star Wars' mass appeal). But as pretty as some of the backgrounds were, it's clear that the filmmakers did not put in the necessary effort to make the movie powerful enough to stand on its own hind legs.

Yeah, that's totally a lightsaber.

The intro consists of some idiots wearing what looks like aluminum foil hats, as they fly around in a spaceship, only to get overtaken and blown up by a cheap lava lamp special effect superimposed onto the screen. I'm not kidding. It literally looks like footage of a lava lamp, which is later revealed to be a "powerful weapon of space monsters". The worst part about this is that somewhere, an executive saw that and said "yeah, that's good."

Then there are the characters. Obviously, they're not real people, but it would be nice if the filmmakers gave us some sort of impression that they had lives off screen, that they don't suspend themselves on clothes hangers when no one can see them. They live in a sci-fi universe, which is great, so I can understand if their customs are different than ours. They can speak differently, dress differently, but Christ alive, they're so weird. The male lead looks like an unkempt, confused, supersized hobbit. And the main woman dresses very... very minimally. It's like she lives in an orgy. Side note: SHE'S SUPPOSED TO BE A PILOT! Any frame of her in the film can easily be used on a Maxim cover.

The dialogue must have been written by a three year old. In the beginning, the two main characters, Akton and Stella Star (yes, that's her character's actual name), are just cruisin' around the galaxy when a police ship tries to pull them over-- for speeding, I guess. The space cop shows up in their magic t.v. and some bald guy yells at them, saying "As Thor, chief of the Imperial police, I order you to surrender at once". Real original name, by the way, Thor. Naturally, I expected one of them to retort with, "Come and get us, doo-doo head!" Sadly, they didn't say that. They just happily jumped to hyperspace, which is evasion and a goddamn felony, something they should have taken into account.

I'm not saying I didn't enjoy the movie. I had a great time watching it, but for all the wrong reasons. It mimicked Star Wars in as many ways possible, but it lacked heart. In fact, Starcrash had about as much soul as a dead sociopath, but I found every subtle mistake and careless nuance hilarious. Like in the intro where they cut off the intro music abruptly at the end of the credits. Or how they solved every plot point with a deus ex machina-- the main character just reveals new "powers" (a.k.a. force powers) whenever the good guys need to move the story along in their benefit. I love the campy substitute they had for Darth Vader. You know, the bad guy with an evil beard and a cape. I loved how he had a "Doom Machine" instead of a "Death Star". In a non-ironic way, I genuinely loved the stop motion, the fantastically multicolored constellations, and the fact that all the ships were models instead of CGI. At the end of the day, it's Spaceballs, the only difference is that Starcrash, though a whole lot funnier, took itself way too seriously.

American Horror Story: Freak Show

The fourth season of American Horror Story is not horror. If you want real horror, watch the first two seasons, or a little movie called The Conjuring.

That aside, let me get to the real meat of this review. What separates American Horror Story: Freak Show from some of its previous seasons is that, although it's riddled with gore, the creeping, invasive feeling of something lurking from behind the shadows is just not there. For whatever reason, they try and humanize the villains, giving them some sort of "evolutionary arc".

But if there's one thing we've learned from Star Wars, it's that when you show the origins of a villain, that character easily loses what makes them the most menacing-- their mystery. Darth Vader was goddamn terrifying before we saw his past. All we knew about him up 'til the '90s was his old name, and that his head looked like an egg. The rest was up to our imaginations... then we saw him as a little punk with a bowl cut.

As a kid, I felt like Jar Jar right here.

Another major problem with Freak Show is the musical numbers. I mean, Jesus-- I know it's by the same makers, but if I want to watch Glee, I'll watch Glee. I once had a girl insist on us watching that show together a few years back, and let me describe it for you now-- it's one hour of filler.

You probably know I wasn't a fan of American Horror Story: Coven, so if you're wondering why I'm watching this new season, it's because I've got a heart of gold and I always give people and things chances. Hell, I give too many (people and things) too many chances. That's because deep down, I expect everyone to try their hardest to do their best.

But it's clear by now that American Horror Story is nothing more to its makers than a nine-to-five grind. They under-utilize their cast, ignoring characters for episodes on end. Malcolm-Jamal Warner guest starred in the last episodes for mere seconds!

Aside from all that, the series is becoming way too meta, assimilating into pop-culture as a "must-be-iconic" show for being "edgy", caring less and less about the content they create. The show ignores major plot points for so long, the audience forgets and loses interest by the time they even tease at resolving them. The show is pretentious, predictable, and chickens out of killing characters by bringing them back to life, which Ryan Murphy (one of the producers) specifically said they would stop doing and I quote: "This season, once you die, you're dead. There's no supernatural thing to bring you back like last year."

Of course, being them, they resolved that little issue by bringing characters back as ghosts and even-- I can't believe I'm saying this-- projections from the minds of other characters.

Still, I am curious to know what happens next. I'm weird like that-- I still enjoy watching the show, even if it is mostly filler.

Kinect Star Wars

If you're wondering what kind of blog this is, it was originally supposed to be a place to playfully judge movies. Then I changed that rule by reviewing t.v. shows.

Today we're looking at a video game based on one of my favorite childhood sagas:

Kinect Star Wars.

Why critique that game? Because I finally gave it a go and it's more accidentally hilarious than I could have ever imagined.

Kinect's technology is surprisingly good. It's not perfect, but it works. My biggest concern is the fact that you can't sit down without C-3PO thinking you've abandoned him. There's a Podracing minigame that you control with your arms, which is great, but if you try and sit down (which would be more realistic), the game goes haywire and the controls get all wonky.

The main storyline lets you choose from a list of new Jedi that never say a word. I vowed to not take the game seriously because I wanted to have as much fun as possible, so I chose an alien called "Cho Zeh'Bra" since his face looks like a... well... do I have to say it?

This is Cho Zeh'Bra.

I genuinely can't look at this character without laughing. I never laughed this hard watching the same-looking guys during the cantina scene in "A New Hope", but seeing him as a jedi is so far-fetched, I just can't help it. He apparently has a sense of purpose, and it's so much funnier to think that he has aspirations to help others than to imagine him as a struggling musician.

My favorite part of the game is probably the dance-offs. This consists of you dancing to modern pop as Han Solo, burlesque Leia, etc. I like this minigame because it's ridiculous and would never happen in that universe, but I'm sure it fulfills someone's long-awaited fantasies. Heck, I got a kick out of it.

There's another minigame called "Rancor Rampage" in which you're a giant beast, the one that tried to eat Luke in "Return of the Jedi", terrorizing towns and eating people. I had a blast playing it the first time, but eventually, it just became busy work. That's probably the best way to describe every mode in Kinect Star Wars. It's all fun at first, but when you need to reach a point quota, it's almost torturous.

My advice to you is this: If you can find a way to play Kinect Star Wars, go for it. It's even more fun with friends, if they're open to having their perception of Star Wars further skewed.

May the choice be with you,

-Philip

Arrested Development

Arrested Development is the best t.v. comedy ever made.

Period.

However, I encourage you to avoid season "four" (as it's called on Netflix) at all costs. Let me explain why.

I have a theory that every show should be done by the third season (preferably the second). I stand by this belief because, from what I've seen, shows get watered down in quality by season three, simply for the sake of making new episodes. This leads to great income for the studios making the shows, but often a decline in quality. I love Breaking Bad, but I have never seen more filler than in season four of that show (e.g. the scene where Skyler White parks Walter's car somewhat far from the house and walks toward the camera for what feels like half an hour). Community also suffered from a similar problem during its season four, only that was due to a mix of the show getting too weird in season three, but also the foolish firing of its remarkable showrunner and creator.

Back to Arrested Development.

The first three seasons aired on Fox, and the show was cancelled just as it was starting to get watered down. It was still funny, but it was going to die and everyone knew it. The fans knew it, the makers knew it, it was inevitable.

And so it was cancelled after a three year run. And it was nice. It was (relatively) short and sweet. They even wrapped the main storyline up and put a bow on it. The show was done, and it was done so well, you can watch any episode over and over again and still laugh dozens of times per episode. This is not only because the dialogue is witty, but the actors just work really well off each other. This is something you can't write. Sometimes, that just happens. And that's the mark of a good show.

Arrested Development is about a highly dysfunctional, quirky family who stays together when they shouldn't, but rather than being cringe-worthy, it has a warm, welcoming vibe that makes you want to see every character interact with every other character just to see what they'll do. Really, it's one of the best things ever to have been on t.v.

The wonderfully talented cast of Arrested Development.

Season four on Netflix does not have that same charm. Not even close. And it's a shame because so many people say that it's great, but they either don't understand what made the show so good, or they're kidding themselves because the show on Netflix is entirely different (or maybe they're just wonderful people who find the beauty in all things flawed. In which case, they're way better people than me).

The two biggest problems with Netflix's Arrested Development is that the style of the show does not match the original comedic style (making it a different show), and each episode is about a different character. Too much of the story is guided by narration and there is almost zero interaction between the main characters. What's worse is that the characters are extremely untrue to themselves. It's as though the writers of this season have no knowledge of the prior seasons.

There is supposed to be some sort of grand plot that's shown in different segments of these character's lives and it's supposed to all sync by  the end of the season, but I'm telling you now, it does not come across well. It's repetitively, unnecessarily confusing.

Season four has great guest stars, including comedians Kristen Wiig and Maria Bamford (both of whom I adore for their unique sense of humor), but the show prohibits them from shining with its goal to tie some sort of story together.

The writers tried to reignite old laughs by alluding to old jokes, but the thing they didn't understand is that these jokes were funny because of their subtlety. One example is the running joke of the main character, Michael Bluth, in the old seasons always referring to his son's girlfriend whom he didn't approve of as "...Her?"

That was one of the best running gags. You don't read it and laugh, but when you see it, your face will crack a little smile. Season four imposed a grand joke on the audience by staging some wedding between that girl and Michael's brother, with a giant sculpture next to them that reads "Her?". I know this sounds like a minor complaint, but good comedy works best when it's not forced. It's almost as though the writers are sitting next to you this entire season, poking your shoulder and pointing at the screen every time someone makes a joke.

The cherry on top is the ending, which is simply Michael Bluth's son punching him in the face. I'm not kidding. That's how the series ends.

On the plus side, there are still three hilarious seasons from the mid 2000's for you to watch over and over again. If aliens ever come and invade Earth, I hope they stumble upon those seasons and not the fourth.

'Til next time.

Before Sunrise

Before Sunrise, Before Sunset, and Before Midnight make up a trilogy of the lives of two people over the course of almost 20 real years. Let me say this: They're some of the best movies I have ever seen! The first was released in 1995, in which a young American man (played by Ethan Hawke) meets a young French woman (Julie Delpy) while traveling in Austria. The second movie was released in 2004 and the third in 2013. Each film consists of the same two characters walking and talking, which would be boring in the context of a play, but with the way it's shot, mixed with the dialogue, and their impeccable acting talent, it doesn't feel like you're watching a standard movie. The scenes go minutes without any cuts, allowing the actors to really live in their environment.

Their chemistry is hypnotically realistic.

Despite the fact that these aren't conventional blockbusters with action sequences with stereotypical film archetypes (aside from "boy meets girl"), they're extremely entertaining. When they laugh, you want to laugh. When they ask each other personal questions, you have no idea what the other might say. And if they argue, it's gut-wrenching.

Richard Linklater, the writer and director, is a master of his craft. He's up there with Wes Anderson, Tarantino, the Coen brothers, etc. I can't wait to see his newest movie, Boyhood (which took literally 12 years to make).

Out of the Furnace

I've been a huge fan of Christian Bale ever since American Psycho. Very few well known actors immerse themselves in their roles like he does. So I was happy to see him playing an all-American in what was advertised as a revenge flick.

But it wasn't a revenge flick. It was falsely advertised as a movie about a man avenging his brother's death by whatever means necessary... and it didn't deliver.

Kiss him?

The main issue I had was that the movie itself is two hours, and he doesn't try and get revenge for his brother until there's 20 minutes left. He doesn't even fight hordes of villains, like I thought he would (even though he successfully meets the gang who kidnapped and murdered his brother). Sure, it was fun to watch Woody Harrelson as the supervillain (whom I've been a huge fan of since watching True Detective), and I really liked the chemistry between Zoe Saldana and Christian Bale, but I got annoyed when I realized the conflict was just Casey Affleck's character wanting fast money. That's almost the entire plot of the movie.

Kiss him?

If I can sum it up in one word, it's "unsatisfying". I kept thinking Christian Bale was going to become some sort of hero, but he just ends up pursuing Woody Harrelson (Harlan DeGroat) with a sniper rifle near the end right after the police told him specifically not to.

On the plus side, there were a lot of funny moments. It's got an all-star cast (including Willem Dafoe, and Forest Whitaker), but ultimately, I wish the actors could have improvised the entire thing. That would have been a treat.

Kiss him?

Conan the Barbarian

"EEEEIIEIEN!!! EEEEEIIIIIIRRRRN! EEEAAAARGH!", says Arnold Schwarzenegger (and a bunch of his impersonators). This is what I thought Conan the Barbarian would be, as a movie.

Surprisingly, it's more than just a googly eyed, romanticized version of what you might think-- a young Schwarzenegger-esque brute who cuts people in half.

I just said it's more than that!

I've always known there was a story to this movie, I just didn't know what to expect. First of all, it doesn't take place in our world. It takes place in a mystical, fictional land known as "Cimmeria". The world is like a melting pot of Medieval Mongolian Vikings. Even more interesting is the fact that it's not an original concept. It's based on the works on a short lived writer named Robert E. Howard, who made the world of Cimmeria in the early 1930s. "Conan" as a character was added a few years later. (I mention this because I'm a firm believer that you should always establish a world for your characters to live in before you make the characters, themselves. That way, you can avoid having to accommodate their environment to their capabilities and in turn, you end up with a richer, more believable world).

The movie itself is just fun. The writing's not phenomenal, but it's full of ridiculous and hilarious performances by Schwarzenegger and the one and only James Earl Jones. Without spoiling anything, I will say I was surprised that Conan doubles as both a barbarian and a thief. I really thought this was a movie about Arnold swinging a sword on the beach for two hours, cutting the occasional head off as passersby try and pass him by. It's more of a bank heist/western film chronicling a buff man's quest for glory and vengeance.

While watching it, I really felt immersed in its bizarre lands. If you like video games where you mercilessly and unrealistically destroy thousands of tyrant-led goons, if you like movies about a group of friends who set out on a seemingly impossible adventure, if you want something as gritty as it is goofy, do yourself a favor and watch the 1982 version of Conan the Barbarian. I'm honestly excited to see its sequel, Conan the Destroyer!

Escape From New York

I've always respected Kurt Russell. I think what's most remarkable about him is his ability to don the eyepatch in so many movies, he turned "Kurt Russell eyepatch movies" into its own genre (Escape From New York, Escape From L.A., Captain Ron).

He's also a hilarious badass (see Big Trouble in Little China)

Escape From New York stars Kurt Russell as Solid Snake-- I'm sorry, inmate and veteran "Snake" Plissken, as he tries to escape from Manhattan island, which is now a giant state penitentiary because the U.S. government isn't smart enough to put all those prisoners ANYWHERE ELSE in America. Seriously, they just gave Manhattan to a bunch of prisoners and put a giant wall around them.

Needless to say, the movie is ridiculous, but I really liked it. It wasn't even a particularly smart movie. It could have done with better acting, more intricate sets, a more fleshed out world, but it did have a fun tone, the always terrifying Ernest Borgnine, and the awesome Lee Van Cleef (the "bad" from The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly). It's post-apocalyptic/dystopian, which I loved since I'm always looking for more movies like The Road Warrior.

This is Snake Plissken, the main character in this video game-ish movie.

I recently had a conversation with my good friend, and we were debating which was the better medium: T.V. or movies. I fought for movies, while he argued that shows are better because they allow for more character development (which, in my opinion, is usually for the worse since most shows just drag on for way too long for ratings, not caring so much about character development, but overly-convoluted and/or uninteresting plots).

Then I thought about what this movie would have been as an hour long show. The first episode would be all about the American president getting his plane hijacked (this happens in the way beginning, I'm not spoiling anything). The second episode would be all about Snake Plissken having flashbacks about in his war days as he's being transported to Manhattan penitentiary. The third episode would be about Snake deciding whether or not to work with the United States Police Force (that's what they're called in this universe) as he remembers the bank heist that got him into prison. To give you an idea of how long this would drag on, this all happens in the first fifteen minutes in the movie, but would have taken three hours if it was a show. Do you really need that in your life?

You tell me.

The point is this: Escape From New York is a fun adventure movie, and although it's not a comedy in the traditional sense, there were moments in the film where I found myself laughing and cheering for certain characters when they did certain things. That's always good.

American Horror Story

I know it's not a movie. But I'm starting to feel like some shows are so powerful, they're like really long movies.

I was originally very skeptical about "American Horror Story" for two reasons:

1) I don't normally watch horror movies. The Conjuring and The Cabin in the Woods piqued my interest.

2) The show is made by Brad Falchuk and Ryan Murphy-- the makers of "Glee". I'm open minded, but an ex-girlfriend tried to get me into "Glee" some years ago and it just wasn't happening.

Still, "Breaking Bad" just ended, and as I was thirsting for another gritty, hypnotic show, I wanted to see what all the fuss was about. So I started watching the first season of AHS and fell for it instantly. The extent to which the show would go in revealing horrifying scenarios was unparalleled. The haunting intro, the twists, even the way the camera spun were all elements that worked toward making arguably the scariest show on television.

Season one was fantastic. It was set in L.A., based on a struggling marriage, mentally shattered youth, conniving neighbors, and a haunted house. There was just enough mystery to keep you wanting more, with an "Oh shit" moment almost every episode. Most shows (in my experience) don't have that effect because they're just not compelling enough. I didn't even know they can show what they showed on t.v.

Uhhhhhhh... hi.

Season two was even better! It was set in a Catholic asylum in the 1960's. They tackled all sorts of serious social issues of the time including homophobia, war, segregation, all of which are oppressive and controversial enough already without characters being held in captivity while having to fight demons. There were so many good twists in this season that I, a guy who gets bored of most "good" media, couldn't wait to see the next episode. There were "Oh shit" moments multiple times per episode. Just to give you an idea of how immersive it was, they play a french song for the asylum inmates. They play that song over, and over, and over again. It's insane.

Then there's James Cromwell-- the freakiest guy in the world.

Unfortunately, they decided to make season three about witches. Here's why that was a bad idea: Seasons one and two were good because they were about ordinary people trying to survive their environments. They were constantly looking for a way out of nightmarish places. That's horror... reminds me of my time in Florida.

Not only is the concept not scary, the execution was lackluster. Here's the premise: Four witches are recruited into a "Coven" (which is really just a big, empty sorority house). They literally have no agenda but to slowly learn more magic (See Harry Potter). They each have a unique power (See X-Men), but often talk about getting all the powers so that one of them can become the next "Supreme" (The leader of their dumb group).

Almost every time a witch dies, she just comes back. Sometimes it's with a spell, but they usually don't even explain it. She'll just show up in the next episode with some throwaway line like "Guess who's back, bitches?" and start eating soup with the girl who just killed her. Is this a contract fulfillment thing? Did the writers have a plan for the season or did they drunkenly write each episode week by week, overlooking contradictions? Who knows?

I think the idea of witches would have worked if the show wasn't centered on the witches, but regular people in the town being terrorized by the coven. It could have been about one family, or separate stories that eventually led to an epic finale in which the townsfolk either vanquished or got vanquished by the witches. Instead, it ended with some stupid Goblet of Fire tournament where they all were "tested" to see who has all the powers... yeah.

That's how I felt by the end.

Were there still some freaky moments in season three? Sure. There was an emotional scene near the end of episode nine. There were some decent WTF moments throughout the show, but none of it compared to the fright and taboo of the first two seasons. Fingers crossed that season four will be bold and compelling like the first two. We're all rooting for you, FX.

Don Jon

He cares about a few things: his bwody, his pyad, his riiide, his fyamily, his choich, his boyees, his goiyuls, and his pwohn. This movie had a surprising amount of substance considering the way it was advertised.

I ended up seeing this movie in my human sexuality class, which has nothing to do with my review. I just wanted you to know where your community college funds are going.

It starts off with Joseph Gordon also Levitt as the Incredible Hulk. Seriously. He looks like an adult this time.

See? Look at that shit.

It doesn't take long for the movie to get to the point-- he has a porn addiction and he always goes out with his friends to have as much sex as possible. Then he meets Scarlett Jo and Hansson. He falls for her and the rest is a development of their relationship and his struggles as he accepts this girl as his one and only. I won't spoil the ending, but it's not your average chick flick.

What makes this movie stand out from a lot of others from 2013 is the boss, Tony Danza.

He's the boss.

Everything Tony Danza ever says is hilarious. Seriously, I couldn't watch his reality show "Teach" without laughing. He's just got a positive vibe.

I recommend this movie to anyone with an open mind. It's funny, fast-paced, and the characters each have a good reason to be on screen.

Never Forget.