directed by J.J. Abrams
written by J.J. Abrams, Lawrence Kasdan and Michael Arndt
A bit of personal tragedy kept me from watching (and reviewing) this film immediately upon its release, but even though just about everyone I know has most likley seen the film by now I still want to write how I feel about it.
It's been several decades after the fall of the Galactic Empire. Out of the ashes of the old Empire, a new threat has emerged, the First Order, which has been cutting a swath of destruction across the galaxy in an effort to destroy the newly-reinstated Republic and restore the Empire. Meanwhile, Luke Skywalker, the last Jedi knight and one of the architects of the demise of the Empire, has vanished. The First Order, headed by the mysterious Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) is in search of Skywalker, as is the Republic-supported Resistance, who have dispatched their best pilot, Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac) to find Skywalker as well. Their searching brings them to the planet Jakku, where Dameron finds out crucial information before the First Order does, but thanks to ensuing chaos he is forced to store it in his trusty robot, BB-8, who then wanders the planet in search of someone who can help get him back to the Resistance. He finds scavenger Rey (Daisy Ridley). Meanwhile, a First Order stormtrooper named FN-2187 (John Boyega), horrified by what he sees during his very first combat mission, becomes the very first stormtrooper to break ranks, a decision that puts him on the path towards meeting Dameron, and later, Rey, but which, more importantly, puts him on a collision course with his former bosses, who are none too pleased with his decision. Amidst all of this, the question of where Skywalker has gone lingers and the threat posed by the First Order and their mysterious boss Snoke (Andy Serkis) looms large.
Given all that's been written about this movie I think it's fair to say that I won't really have anything new to say, especially since the criticism that this movie is basically a rehash of Episodes IV and V has been pretty much done to death by now. Like most people I still enjoyed the movie despite its almost slavish attempt to recapture the magic of the original series that George Lucas squandered with his widely-ridiculed prequels. Like Jurassic World, which played more like a remake of the original Jurassic Park than the direct sequel it actually was, this film borrows so liberally from the original trilogy of films it feels more like a retelling of the old story than its continuation, but the good news is that Abrams does it a lot better than Colin Trevorrow did (which is a little worrying considering that Trevorrow will be taking the director's reins for the third film). At least Abrams and his writers didn't commit some glaring narrative and logical gaffes to drive their movie forward (How did they get DNA from a water dinosaur from amber-encased mosquitoes? How is it so easy to start up a jeep that hasn't been used for two decades? And the list goes on and on...).
For me, what highlighted the shortcomings of this film was the movie that basically got Abrams the job of making it, or his 2009 reboot of the other wildly popular science fiction franchise Star Trek. That movie basically knocked my socks off when I saw it, because I had grown up with the Shatner movies and later, the ones featuring the Next Generation cast, and if I may be honest, Abrams' treatment of the property was a much-need shot in the arm. He basically reinvented the wheel, and the franchise was much the better for it, creative missteps of the follow-up, Star Trek: Into Darkness notwithstanding.
Here, whether it's due to the dictates of Disney or his own self-professed reverence for the Star Wars Universe, Abrams seems deathly afraid of introducing anything fresh to the franchise, though I do give him full marks for making Rey a full-blown action heroine instead of a supporting character. Sure, Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher, who appears here as a general) was a tough cookie in the day, but she always played second fiddle to Luke Skywalker (Mark Hammill, who also makes an appearance) and Han Solo (Harrison Ford, who likewise shows up). Abrams turns that on its head, even though he's effectively just gender-swapping Luke Skywalker with this film.
Apart from Ridley's Rey, though, Abrams has introduced some memorable if not necessarily compelling characters in Boyega's stormtrooper-turned-good-guy Finn and Isaac's Dameron. Finn being the only stormtrooper in the history of the movies to actually turn his back on what is effectively the Empire, to my mind at least, has the potential for being the most interesting new character of the bunch, provided the writers know what to do with him. Dameron is more of a traditional hero complete with wisecracks and a great aim, but Isaac plays him with such charisma I honestly think he could merit his own spinoff film. A minor quibble I have with Isaac is how strange he looks in his X-Wing pilot's helmet. Maybe I just don't like the design in general, though I am a fan of the tweaked design of the X-Wing fighters themselves.
Finally, my biggest beef with this movie has to be Kylo Ren, who was massively hyped in the marketing materials as some kind of Darth-Vader-level menace, but who, all exaggeration aside, turns out to be nothing more than a Darth Vader wannabe. I can say this without spoiling any significant plot developments here, and I have to say that the filmmakers taking over the franchise from Abrams, namely Rian Johnson and the aforementioned Colin Trevorrow, had better give this character some serious tweaking or he will be very difficult to take seriously as the trilogy progresses to its conclusion.
The good news is that this film hits all the notes that Lucas' ill-advised prequel trilogy missed. The bad news, as many have observed, is that it's still very much the same song. Still, as a kickoff to a brand new trilogy, Abrams and his writers could have done a lot worse. What's interesting now is if their successors can take the story into new directions, and I remain cautiously optimistic that they can and will.
8/10
Tuesday, December 29, 2015
Sunday, December 20, 2015
A New Take on a Modern Classic: A Review of The Little Prince
directed by Mark Osborne
written by Irena Brignull and Bob Persichetti
based on the novel by Antoine de St. Exupery
While the entire world is captivated by Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens, I have finally found the time to review a brand-new adaptation of a somewhat different cultural icon, Antoine de St. Exupery's The Little Prince.
Directed by Kung Fu Panda director Mark Osborne, this film is the first ever animated adaptation of the classic novel, and faithfully reproduces the narrative, right down to de St. Exupery's wonderful, whimsical illustrations.
Given that the rather brief novel is inherently difficult to stretch out to a feature-length film, however, the screenwirters Irena Brignull and Bob Persichetti add another layer to the narrative.
In this film, the aviator/narrator of the book is a strange, lonely old man (voiced by Jeff Bridges) whose antics make him a difficult neighbor to live with, as a result the immediately adjacent house to his plummets in value and becomes the perfect residence for an upwardly mobile mother (Rachel McAdams) and her daughter (Mackenzie Foy), especially since it is near the exclusive prep school in which the mother wishes to enroll her daughter. The daughter lives a highly-regimented life with a very strict schedule designed to get her into the prep school, and at first, the old man and his eccentricities, such as an incident in which a propeller from his airplane smashes clear through the house wall, are an unwelcome distraction, but as the old man, in a peace gesture, begins to send the little girl paper airplanes which are folded up pages of a story with whimsical illustrations about a strange little prince, she changes her mind about him and, while her mother is off at work, befriends him. In the course of this friendship, she hears the aviator's extraordinary story about the time he was stranded in the Sahara desert, and met a strange little boy (Riley Osborne) who lived on an asteroid. It's a very interesting a story, to be sure, and before it's over the little girl discovers the importance of being a child.
For me, the tragedy of this movie (not the story) in this particular market is twofold: first, The Little Prince is not a particularly popular book in the Philippines, and second this film was destined to be overshadowed by the two tentpole films between which it was released: The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part II and Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens. The American distributor of this film, Paramount Pictures, was somewhat cannier as they have scheduled its release for a relatively uncrowded March of next year. My children and I were among ten people in the movie theater at the time we watched it.
Whatever its eventual fate at the global box office, this is a masterfully-realized film, which is almost on par with some of Disney/Pixar's best output.
While the "modern day" framing device helps keep the story moving, it's the Prince's otherworldly adventures, and his interaction with the youthful pilot and his other colorful supporting cast like the Rose (Marion Cotillard), the Fox (James Franco), the Snake (Benicio del Toro), and the inhabitants of the various asteroids he visits (Albert Brooks, Ricky Gervais among others), that matter most, and Osborne's use of stop-motion to depict these scenes is wonderfully innovative and reminiscent of craft paper and contrasts wonderfully with the more "traditional" computer-generated imagery. The all-star cast of supporting actors disappear into their roles, and it was only at the end credits that I realized who they were, and it was equally impressive that Riley Osborne was able to hold his own. The director's choice of his son to dub the title-character raised my eyebrow at first, but to be fair the younger Osborne proved a very capable voice actor who captured the spirit of this timeless character. Mackenzie Foy, the actress behind the nameless "hero girl" is more talented than Osborne and has both more "voice time" and the arguably greater challenge of making her scenes, which are rendered with very little color and which are meant to depict a bland world in which what is "non-essential" is discarded, more engaging.
Notably, the movie challenges the ending of the book, which I'm sure many readers over the years have found anticlimactic, in the form of an interesting sequence that may or may not be a dream. Osborne the elder cleverly leaves it up to the audience to decide, though the actual ending of the film leaves no room for doubt that this is an thoroughly satisfying movie.
I don't claim to know St. Exupery, but I like to think he would love this adaptation of his wonderful novel.
9/10
written by Irena Brignull and Bob Persichetti
based on the novel by Antoine de St. Exupery
While the entire world is captivated by Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens, I have finally found the time to review a brand-new adaptation of a somewhat different cultural icon, Antoine de St. Exupery's The Little Prince.
Directed by Kung Fu Panda director Mark Osborne, this film is the first ever animated adaptation of the classic novel, and faithfully reproduces the narrative, right down to de St. Exupery's wonderful, whimsical illustrations.
Given that the rather brief novel is inherently difficult to stretch out to a feature-length film, however, the screenwirters Irena Brignull and Bob Persichetti add another layer to the narrative.
In this film, the aviator/narrator of the book is a strange, lonely old man (voiced by Jeff Bridges) whose antics make him a difficult neighbor to live with, as a result the immediately adjacent house to his plummets in value and becomes the perfect residence for an upwardly mobile mother (Rachel McAdams) and her daughter (Mackenzie Foy), especially since it is near the exclusive prep school in which the mother wishes to enroll her daughter. The daughter lives a highly-regimented life with a very strict schedule designed to get her into the prep school, and at first, the old man and his eccentricities, such as an incident in which a propeller from his airplane smashes clear through the house wall, are an unwelcome distraction, but as the old man, in a peace gesture, begins to send the little girl paper airplanes which are folded up pages of a story with whimsical illustrations about a strange little prince, she changes her mind about him and, while her mother is off at work, befriends him. In the course of this friendship, she hears the aviator's extraordinary story about the time he was stranded in the Sahara desert, and met a strange little boy (Riley Osborne) who lived on an asteroid. It's a very interesting a story, to be sure, and before it's over the little girl discovers the importance of being a child.
For me, the tragedy of this movie (not the story) in this particular market is twofold: first, The Little Prince is not a particularly popular book in the Philippines, and second this film was destined to be overshadowed by the two tentpole films between which it was released: The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part II and Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens. The American distributor of this film, Paramount Pictures, was somewhat cannier as they have scheduled its release for a relatively uncrowded March of next year. My children and I were among ten people in the movie theater at the time we watched it.
Whatever its eventual fate at the global box office, this is a masterfully-realized film, which is almost on par with some of Disney/Pixar's best output.
While the "modern day" framing device helps keep the story moving, it's the Prince's otherworldly adventures, and his interaction with the youthful pilot and his other colorful supporting cast like the Rose (Marion Cotillard), the Fox (James Franco), the Snake (Benicio del Toro), and the inhabitants of the various asteroids he visits (Albert Brooks, Ricky Gervais among others), that matter most, and Osborne's use of stop-motion to depict these scenes is wonderfully innovative and reminiscent of craft paper and contrasts wonderfully with the more "traditional" computer-generated imagery. The all-star cast of supporting actors disappear into their roles, and it was only at the end credits that I realized who they were, and it was equally impressive that Riley Osborne was able to hold his own. The director's choice of his son to dub the title-character raised my eyebrow at first, but to be fair the younger Osborne proved a very capable voice actor who captured the spirit of this timeless character. Mackenzie Foy, the actress behind the nameless "hero girl" is more talented than Osborne and has both more "voice time" and the arguably greater challenge of making her scenes, which are rendered with very little color and which are meant to depict a bland world in which what is "non-essential" is discarded, more engaging.
Notably, the movie challenges the ending of the book, which I'm sure many readers over the years have found anticlimactic, in the form of an interesting sequence that may or may not be a dream. Osborne the elder cleverly leaves it up to the audience to decide, though the actual ending of the film leaves no room for doubt that this is an thoroughly satisfying movie.
I don't claim to know St. Exupery, but I like to think he would love this adaptation of his wonderful novel.
9/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)