Review: Star Wars - The Rise Of Skywalker (fifth-pass)

Star Wars: The Rise Of Skywalker (fifth-pass / 3D / SPOILERS)
Cert: 12A / 142 mins / Dir. J.J. Abrams / Trailer


Previous reviews: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4

This is your spoiler-break. Courtesy rather than necessity at this late point in the year, but as anyone who's shared a cinema with me will attest, I aim to be unfailingly polite. Unless the BBFC-card has passed but the end-credits haven't yet started, and the glow of a phone lights up someone's face when they should be watching the movie in which case I'm fairly sure it's legally permissible to snatch the offending rectangle out of their hand, quickly zip out of the auditorium and drop it in one of the toilets nearby before returning to the film, punching the owner right in the corridor if challenged*¹.

And with that delightful image settling over your consciousness, it's my duty to inform you (and not as forcefully as you're doubtlessly imagining) that the following article features plot-spoilers for Star Wars: The Rise Of Skywalker. And really big ones this time, as befitting the flow of the story itself. If you haven't seen the film yet, leave the rest of this until you have. Do watch it though, it's quite remarkable. Although you'll probably need to give it a couple of passes to get the most out. As previously noted.

But I digress...

So. When was Emperor Palpatine slotted into the puzzle of the Sequel Trilogy?

At what point did JJ Abrams, Rian Johnson or Kathleen Kennedy come up with the idea that The Emperor should make a comeback? Was this always the plan? Because watching The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi immediately before The Rise Of Skywalker, it really doesn't feel like it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm cool with Palpatine rearing his head once again, albeit surprised that it happened so early in the film and with so little build-up. But along with Starkiller Base from TFA, wheeling him back out of the cupboard as the ultimate weapon feels more like content-recycling than putting a new spin on an old feature, something you'd imagine Abrams would want to steer clear of at this point. While there was admittedly some disquiet over the direction of events in TLJ, no one was seriously clamouring for Darth Sidious to come back and restore order for the close of the trilogy.

Indeed, the whole subject of The Sith has been politely not mentioned until now. Mutterings persisted from 2015 that Supreme Leader Snoke could in fact be Sidious' old master, Darth Plagueis, having laid low for decades with his apprentice under the impression he'd been successful in his usurpation of the 'Master' role. With the game only beginning, Lucasfilm played that card close to their chests. But by the 2017, the official Visual Dictionary for The Last Jedi by Pablo Hidalgo (in conjunction with the LFL Story Group) seemed to draw some sort of line under things by stating that Snoke was categorically not a Sith.

'Star Wars: The Last Jedi, The Visual Dictionary', 2017 DK Publishing.

And of course technically, that hasn't changed with The Rise Of Skywalker. Snoke wasn't really a Sith. But for obvious reasons, the Visual Dictionary from two years ago didn't tell us that he's a genetically engineered meat-puppet on remote control to the somehow-resurrected Palpatine. And the more I think about it, the most obvious of those obvious reasons is that two years ago this wasn't the case. Just like Rey's true lineage, there are no seeds planted in the preceding episodes to suggest this reveal was coming down the track.

As much as I love the Star Wars films, old and new (in case you hadn't noticed), The Emperor's return serves to highlight one of the more pressing weaknesses with the Sequel Trilogy. That Lucasfilm have made it up as they went along. Although George Lucas variously stated that Star Wars was going to be twelve, nine or six movies (depending on which interview you read), he at least had a clear vision in his head/notepad at the time of beginning each trilogy. Even then, there are exceptions of course. Vader never 'became' Luke's father until The Empire Strikes Back script was in development, likewise the sibling relationship between Luke and Leia is unlikely to have been committed to paper at the time of Empire being made. But the core story - its ups, downs and turns - was in George's mind all along. And when those massive ret-cons do come along, shining a new light on previously-told events, they're that most precious of revelation: one which the audience wouldn't reasonably have guessed beforehand, but which in retrospect couldn't have played out any other way.

Palpatine's return at least scores half of this with ease. Over the past four years, both casual and hardcore audiences alike were not expecting to see the face of Ian McDiarmid back in the Galaxy Far, Far Away, at least not in such a central, prominent role. As for the pre-destiny of this, though? Well not quite. The Sequel Trilogy's third-act could easily have taken other paths toward the redemption of Ben Solo (because that was inevitable). Rian Johnson taught us to take our hands off the Star Wars rule book, to expect the unexpected.

So it should probably come as no surprise that the unexpected happened. Emperor Palpatine returned from the dark netherworld, seemingly as a lesson to us all that peace and balance are impermanent; a prize to be nurtured and cherished rather than attained then stuck on a shelf to show off. Or at least that's the lesson I'm going to take from it. And not a bad one as we close out this troublesome decade.

And in the end, it works. Because the resurgence feels tonally valid, because of the obvious vacuum left in Snoke's passing, and because the majority of the audience has already bought-in to whatever Mr Abrams has to offer*². Time will tell how smoothly this conclusion is received, as well as if this conclusion turns out not to be a conclusion after all - do not be surprised about this potential eventuality*³.

But hey, always in motion is the future...

The Star Wars.



Obvs.



Obvs.



Some possibly, not all.



That's possible.



There isn't.
Unless you've heard one.



Level 0: It is Star Wars.

...but if you wanted to go around the houses with it, The Rise Of Skywalker stars John Boyega, who was in 2013's Half Of A Yellow Sun with Thandie Newton, who was in Run Fatboy Run alongside Simon Pegg, who appeared in Ready Player One with Ben Mendelsohn, who rocked up in Darkest Hour as did Pip Torrens from Patrick Melrose, which also starred Harriet Walter who guested in the 'Survivor's Guilt' episode of Law & Order UK along with... John Boyega.





*¹ No wait, not legally permissible. What's that other thing which is like legally perm-... morally sound, that's right. Put your phone on flight-mode before the BBFC-card and don't look at it again until the end. Waiting for an important text or call? Wait at home. Bored during the film? Go home. 'Morally sound'. That's it. Not 'legal'. Probably. I always get those two mixed up. ^{[ BACK ]}

*² Because the people who disliked the left-field character turns of The Last Jedi were more into the retro callbacks of The Force Awakens, and the vast majority people who loved Rian Johnson's movie also appreciated the nostalgia of its more cinematically-safe forebear. Put bluntly, it's a small crossover of people in the Venn Diagram who'd still be going to see The Rise Of Skywalker, but would then complain going "No, we didn't want you to bring that much of the Original Trilogy back! We want things to feel the same without being actually the same, but still being the same please...". ^{[ BACK ]}

*³ Because as anyone who's been watching the studio's output knows, Disney really don't like putting numbers at the end of film titles. "Star Wars Episode 9" encourages franchise-fatigue and instantly excludes the casual viewer who knows they haven't yet caught up with 1-8. "Rogue One: A Star Wars Story" on the other hand is more likely to attract impulse-viewers and casual cinemagoers. With The Rise Of Skywalker however, Disney can use the "IX" to create a sense of occasion, also lulling people into believing they're going to be present for the 'final' Star Wars movie. Y'know, as if the House Of Mouse paid $4bn for the name just to shunt everything over to TV within half a decade. There will be more Star Wars movies, and soon. It's just that the publicity-machine is no longer constrained by that section of the timeline (even if Rogue One, Solo and The Mandalorian suggest they're terrified to leave it). ^{[ BACK ]}


DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: The Lion King (2019)

The Lion King (2019, 3D)
Cert: PG / 118 mins / Dir. Jon Favreau / Trailer



Here we are, just over half-way through 2019, and already Disney have given us three Marvel Cinematic Universe entries, and alongside Dumbo and Aladdin, three live-action*¹ retoolings of classic animated tales, too. Is this a sustainable rate?

GENERATIONS

To be absolutely clear, this film is a straight-up remake of 1994's The Lion King, songs and all, a piece beloved by generations and now presented in a new, shiner form. First and foremost, credit is undoubtedly due for the way the movie looks. It is flawless. And while we should be able to take that as a given with any Disney output by this point, it really can't be emphasised enough: This is an animated film and film and It. Looks. Flawless. This level of CGI was barely imaginable only a couple of decades ago, and yet here we are.

But are the visuals enough? Well it's certainly true that Jon Favreau's new rendering doesn't add anything to the original story. It even takes away some of the cartoonish, excitable charm perhaps, but audiences coming to this version as their first will still have a great time. The story and characterisation are clearly laid out*² and there's no shortage of action, spectacle and laughs. Then again, how much does this need to add to the existing mythos? Well, only as much as The Lion King ever 'needed' to be remade in the first place. Which is to say not a lot.

NEMESIS

The big draw is the return of James Earl Jones as the voice of Mufasa*³, and he does well opposite Chiwetel Ejiofor as his nemesis, Scar (although the latter often sounds distractingly like the former, particularly in later scenes where they aren't sharing the screen). Meanwhile, Big Simba is voiced by Donald Glover, with Beyoncé as lioness Nala. And it's here that the movie stumbles once again. If anything, the photorealistic nature of the visuals can't accommodate the expressive nature of the the pair's voices. While both are demonstrably great performers, their relaxed - almost street - delivery just doesn't gel with the lions they're portraying. It's not unlike like that time Favreau had Bill Murray be the voice of a bear when it clearly should have been John Goodman.

Pumba and Timon remain a highlight, voiced by Seth Rogen and Billy Eichner respectively, in a turn which echoes Jordan Peele and Keegan-Michael Key in Toy Story 4. And I confess that I did get goosebumps during their rendition of The Lion Sleeps Tonight, if only because I'm a sucker for a capella*⁵.

OCTONAUTS ROLLERCOASTER ADVENTURE

Truth be told though, I think I'd have found a non-musical version of the film more engaging (although looking back, that's exactly what I said about the original, too). Sure, the tunes are iconic and award-winning and well-known, but their inclusion in 2019 seems to hold the whole thing back, resulting in nothing more than a pristine remake, rather than bringing anything new on a narrative or emotional level*⁶.

The Lion King is entertaining and it looks utterly amazing, but active enjoyment will hinge on your feelings toward the hand-animated version. And even then this will feel like less to some degree. The bottom line is that with visuals this lifelike overlaid with human voices, we're all in Johnny Morris's fever-dream, now.

Oh and Circle Of Life is basically The Power Of Love.
There. I said it.

...The Lion King.



For the visuals, definitely.



If you're making a point of racking-up all the new Disney retoolings, sure.



It's not, though.



That's entirely possible.



There isn't.



Level 1: So wait, Darth Vader is Lando Calrissian's dad now, and Rio Durant is telling them and Kit Fisto what to do? Okay.

But all those desert dunes with not a dewback in sight? For shame, Ian Disney, for shame…





*¹ Yeah, yeah. Let me join the chorus in saying that while The Jungle Book had a live-action Mowgli, the rest was essentially CGI, and so by extension The Lion King is a flat-out animation. But I'll get to that... ^{[ BACK ]}

*² Although let's be fair, The Lion King's storyline itself has always been pretty slight. 1) Little Simba gets tricked, 2) Little Simba goes away for literally years and turns into Big Simba, 3) Big Simba comes back, 4) Big Simba has a fight, 5) That is the end thank you very much for your money. There are no extra layers or interweaving subplots in either this or the 1994 version (although Favreau has managed to make his one thirty minutes longer, all the same). It's just a very linear series of events with some basic life-lessons about not being a dick. ^{[ BACK ]}

*³ Look, I get that the lions talk, and I get that they still growl and roar in some places to give emphasis. But there are sections of sound-mixing here where the growling and the talking noticeably overlap each other. They're not blended, they're just running at the same time. Are these special lions with two sets of vocal cords, then?*^{4 [ BACK ]}

*⁴ Although the keen-eared among you will recall that there are scenes in the first Star Wars trilogy where Darth Vader's ventilator can be heard separately breathing in and out behind his speech. And bear in mind that when you or I talk, we're only breathing outward. This implies that Vader has a secondary set of artificial lungs to take care of this body functions, while his own damaged ones can just about handle the 'barking-orders' stuff. Perhaps Mufasa's twin-throats are an homage to Darth Vader?. I should coco... ^{[ BACK ]}

*⁵ No, not that a capella, I mean good a capella. The kind where I don't want to stab someone during or after it. ^{[ BACK ]}

*⁶ But keep in mind, my main bugbear with The Jungle Book was all the promo-press touting the movie as 'a re-imagining', rather than a remake. Which could have worked until Disney just left two of the songs in for the hell of it, meaning that they were remaking their own version after all. Unless those were the original songs penned by Rudyard Kipling, of course... ^{[ BACK ]}


DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: Driving Miss Daisy - The Play

Driving Miss Daisy (The Play)
Cert: 12A / 135 mins / Dir. David Esbjornson




The first thing that becomes apparent in David Esbjornson's adaptation of Alfred Uhry's play, is that Angela Lansbury is having some trouble holding on to that Georgia accent*¹. It's not a biggie, but accents are a bugbear of mine, and it goes so far as to derail the generic mid-West accent she gives the rest of the time. In the interests of transparency, I should also point out that I haven't seen the 1989 film which was based on the play (no agenda, I just haven't), and while I'm aware of its themes, this production was to be my first real exposure to the story.

And so, Dame Angela stars as Daisy Werthan, a well-to-do white Jewish widowed teacher in 1948 Atlanta. After a non-injurious car accident suggests that she can no longer handle the vehicle safely, her son Boolie sets about hiring her a driver, in the shape of Hoke Coleburn, an ageing black chauffeur struggling to find work after his previous employer has died. Fiercely independent, 'Miss Daisy' initially rebuts the thought of someone else driving her car, and is mortified at being thought of as stuck-up enough to have her own staff in attendance. The two slowly become companions and ultimately inseparable friends as the years roll on and infirmity takes its toll on them both.

And that's sort of it, really. I know the narrative is set against the backdrop of the Civil Rights Movement, and while that's referenced in the play, it never seems to become more than a mechanism to show the passage of time; it certainly doesn't carry as much weight as you feel it should and becomes a sort of Elephant In The Room. In fact, rather than a somewhat stilted conversation about Martin Luther King, there doesn't really seem to be any sort of jeopardy in this telling of the story at all. The trust and pride issues seem to be skirted over almost as quickly as those of social unrest.

But, Angela Lansbury and James Earl Jones have magnificent chemistry together, and as a character-piece it's a joy to watch. Boyd Gaines supports ably as Daisy's son, Boolie, and gets enough interaction with his co-stars to showcase his comic exasperation, although the truly laugh-out-loud moments come from Jones. The play's funniest lines are filtered through his baritone voice, often with a wide-eyed incredulity, and you get the feeling that he's certainly having the most fun in his role. The stage sets are minimalist and neatly used (especially the rotating section utilised for Miss Daisy's car), and a projected backdrop works well in tandem with sparse props.

Not quite as dramatic, touching or indeed funny as it feels it should be, Driving Miss Daisy is never less than very-watchable, but there's a feeling that the film which won four Oscars has set the bar above the play's reach.

Use as an accompaniment to the Tandy/Freeman outing, not as a replacement.

Oh, and a special thank you to the Phoenix Picturehouse, Oxford for starting the feature 15 minutes after the advertised time ("satellite problems" was mumbled from the door at the back of the room), so that we missed the beginning of the live Q&A session from the South Bank afterwards, and extra thanks to them for then muting the sound of this Q&A so that the auditorium's muzak could play over the top for five minutes until someone noticed.
It's care and attention like this which bolsters my faith in independent cinemas.


Well, it's not really a trailer per se, but yeah, that's pretty much it.



Not as much as I wanted or hoped.



Not quite.



This version is a DVD.



No.



Possibly, but only in conjunction with the Jessica Tandy film.



It doesn't.



^^ That's a strong four, but a four nonetheless. So much more could have been done with this.



*¹ Which surprises me if I'm being honest, because in any episode of Murder She Wrote taking place in the Southern states, she subconsciously begins drawling like Old Gregg at every opportunity.

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

240: Review - The Lion King (3D)

CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.



The Lion King (3D)
13th October 2011. Location: Cinema

I've been to see an Elton John musical.

I think... think... that this is the first time I've seen The Lion King all the way through. Yeah, I know. I've definitely seen bits of it before, and I know the general gist of the story, so I've never had the feeling that I've missed out.

So, yes. It's an astounding film. Mostly. I'll be honest, apart from The Circle of Life, I could have done without the songs, few as they are. I could also have done without a lot of the humour, and had a film that concentrated more on the mythology...

...but then I had to keep reminding myself that I was watching a Disney film aimed at kids.

But when it's great it's fucking magnificent, and I'm very pleased to have seen it in the cinema. The 3D's so-so. I mean, it's there, and it does its best, but it's got to be difficult to convert traditional two-dimensional animation, as they're just not 3D objects. As a result, for the most part it comes over like an animated decoupage; flat images at varying levels of depth. I wouldn't go so far as to say it detracts from the movie, but it definitely doesn't add anything.

But if you love The Lion King, make a point of catching this at the cinema; it's worth it for the digital projection alone, even if you see the 2D version. This puts most of Disney's other output to shame.



Oh, and if anyone can point me towards a version where all of James Earl Jones' Mufasa lines are processed to sound like Darth Vader, I'd be incredibly grateful. I can't be the only person who wants to see that, can I?

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.

• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.