Idle Hands - * 1/2*

Posted on April 30, 1999 by Madeleine Williams

Idle Hands

Idle Hands joins an elite pantheon of horror films dealing with possessed hands. For serious takes on the malady, take a look at The Beast With Five Fingers, or The Hand. If you’re in a more humorous frame of mind, Evil Dead 2 captured the comic potential of an evil hand. Idle Hands tries to follow along the latter route, but is ultimately neither funny nor scary enough to stand out in even this small crowd.

Anton (Devon Sawa) is certainly idle. He’s a stoner who spends his days skipping school, smoking pot, and watching music videos. He is so lazy and out of touch that he doesn’t realize that a serial killer is at large in his town of Bowen, California…or even that his parents have become victims.

Anton goes about his life normally, thinking his parents have gone away somewhere. When he’s not hanging around with his stoner buddies, Mick (Seth Green) and Pnub (Elden Henson), he’s pining for his beautiful neighbor, Molly (Jessica Alba).

But the killer is truly closer than Anton suspects. His own right hand has been possessed by an evil force, and now has a mind of its own. Luckily, a druidic priestess, Debi (Vivica A. Fox), is on her way to Bowen, having searched for this evil force all of her life. But will she make it in time before Anton’s hand kills again?

There is nary an original idea in Idle Hands. Every single idea seems cribbed from another movie. There are shades of Evil Dead 2, An American Werewolf in London, Buffy the Vampire Slayer (both movie and TV versions), and even the Child’s Play movies. Idle Hands feels more like a greatest hits collection than an actual movie.

Unfortunately, the film is never able to achieve the same level of humor as the inspirations. That doesn’t mean Idle Hands is jokefree, however. The film has occasional moments of genius (such as the brave use of a family pet, or the unexpected fate of a celebrity guest star). There just aren’t nearly enough of them to prop up the rest of this limp film.

Devon Sawa is cheerfully vacant in the lead role. However, he is easily overshadowed every time his friends Mick and Pnub appear. The performances of Seth Green and Elden Henson are so enjoyable that they surely deserve a more valuable film to steal.

Idle Hands may one day become a mildly entertaining late night video. On the other hand, why bother when you can already watch the superior video inspirations for Idle Hands’ clumsy patchwork.

Posted in 1999, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Idle Hands

Entrapment - *

Posted on April 30, 1999 by Madeleine Williams

Entrapment

Hollywood’s fascination with the older man-younger woman romance continues in the heist drama, Entrapment. Sean Connery and Catherine Zeta-Jones are the cross-generational lovers. Their lukewarm romance is the pitiful highlight of this thoroughly ridiculous film.

Robert MacDougal (Sean Connery), aka “Mac”, is a master thief, rich beyond all wildest dreams. He steals now for the challenge, seeing each potential theft as a magnificent puzzle to be solved. He is the best of the best, and has never been caught.

Gin Baker(Catherine Zeta-Jones) is an insurance investigator who has been tracing Mac’s illustrious career. She gets approval from her boss, Cruz (Will Patton), to go undercover and trap Mac in a heist. However, Gin has other plans in mind…

Entrapment is a movie with only one redeeming value: the personal charisma of its stars. The dialogue is horrible, the plotting ridiculous, and even the stunts aren’t all that alluring. But when Sean Connery and Catherine Zeta-Jones are on the screen, you start to forget how bad a movie this really is.

But it is bad…very bad. The movie starts with some promise, in a whiz-bang robbery scene right off the bat. But when the dialogue kicks in, the technical wizardry seems to go out the window, and the entire film deflates into nothingness.

The plot hinges around the upcoming millennium shift. It’s a timely topic, but the screenwriters apparently didn’t research Y2K issues much deeper than the name. Then again, nothing in this movie seems to be very well researched. From security measures to tricks of the thieving trade, the details of the film all seem to be invented off the cuff.

The leads, appealing as they are, are hopelessly trapped in their shallow characters. Sean Connery is actually given very little to do. His role here is more of a coach than a player. Catherine Zeta-Jones would be much more enchanting if her character wasn’t constantly whining and pouting.

Don’t be lured into Entrapment on the basis of the stars alone. The power of their sheer presence can only lift the movie so far. Entrapment isn’t worth the heist.

Posted in 1999, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Entrapment

eXistenZ - * * 1/2*

Posted on April 23, 1999 by Madeleine Williams

Virtual Reality is a hot film topic these days, and with his latest film eXistenZ, writer-director David Cronenberg gives his take on the subject. While not a film for the squeamish (not many of his films are), eXistenZ proves to be an intriguing examination on the nature of reality.

The film begins with a spelling lesson. The title is “eXistenZ”, not “Existenz”. This is explained to a marketing group which will be the first to test the so-titled virtual reality game. As an extra bonus, the game’s famous and reclusive designer, Allegra Geller (Jennifer Jason Leigh), will lead the test herself.

Allegra is reclusive for a good reason. A group of “realists”, who oppose the concepts of virtual reality, have marked her for death. No place is safe, and soon Allegra is on the run with her “protector”, a trainee named Ted Pikul (Jude Law).

And that is when things truly start to get strange. Allegra and Ted decide to play eXistenZ themselves, looking for damaged code. But, as they continue to play, the lines between reality and virtual reality begin to blur. What is real and what is just a game?

Not content with the wires and electronics that typically come to mind when one thinks of virtual reality, Cronenberg envisions a future of computing composed entirely of organic technology. Instead of cabling, machines use umbillical cords. Instead of keyboards, unidentifiable organs. Even the guns of the future are made of bone and gristle. It ain’t pretty, but its certainly innovative.

The film certainly has attracted an outstanding supporting cast. Ian Holm, Willem Dafoe, Christopher Eccleston and Sarah Polley are a few of those who drift in and out of Allegra and Ted’s experiences. Even though their characters never amount to much, the cast give their all and make their roles fun, if not deep.

eXistenZ is well thought out…to a point. At the end of the film, everything finally seems to click together and make a cohesive whole. Yet, at the end things are vaguely unsatisfying. Many of the characters throughout seem like flimsy constructs, but on the other hand, that’s what some of them are supposed to be. Still, a movie that gives so much effort shouldn’t feel this substanceless.

Fetishistic and disgusting at times, complicated yet lightweight at others, eXistenZ is an unusual film to be sure, but one that is mostly worth the trip.

Posted in 1999, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on eXistenZ

Election - * * *

Posted on April 23, 1999 by Madeleine Williams

Election

It is with a queasy mind that I entered the theater to see Election. This year has already had a glut of high school movies, most of which have been of dubious quality. Does the world need another one? If that movie is Election, the answer is “yes”. A smart and funny satire of high school, and life in general, Election shows how to do the high school genre right.

Tracy Flick (Reese Witherspoon) is an overachieving student at Carver High School, in Omaha. She is the type of girl who will stop at absolutely nothing to reach her goal. Her latest challenge is to become Student Body President, which shouldn’t be too hard (since she’s the only one running).

Enter Jim McAllister (Matthew Broderick), history teacher. He secretly despises Tracy, and decides to give her a challenge. He urges Paul Metzler (Chris Klein), a naive but popular jock, to enter the race.

But things don’t stop there, as Paul’s lesbian sister, Tammy (Jessica Campbell) decides to join the race as well. An outcast at school, she initially seems to have no chance of winning. Yet, her nihilistic attitudes strike a chord with the student body, and soon she becomes a serious contender as well.

Based on Tom Perrotta’s novel, Election is clever and whimsical. Not only does it aptly capture the nuances of high school and pointless student body elections, but it reveals truths about politics and life as a whole.

Matthew Broderick is an unusual choice to play Mr. McAllister. At times, he still seems a bit too boyish for the role, even though makeup has added a bit of grey at his temples. Still, Broderick is able to bring a good dose of humor to the role, which serves as a compliment to his Ferris Bueller days. McAllister is a man who obsesses about the difference between ethics and morals, meanwhile ignoring both.

The students are all a treat. Reese Witherspoon is riveting as the driven Tracy Flick, creating a memorable character that is familiar yet unique. Chris Klein seems to be channelling Keanu Reeves at points, but he achieves the desired ambiance, that of a good intentioned airhead.

The film gets a bit distracted when it diverts attention away from the election to focus on the marital problems of McAllister, his wife, Diane (Molly Hagan), and their best friends, the Novotnys (Mark Harelik and Delaney Driscoll). But, even when dwelling on this subplot, the film retains its cruel comic edge.

Director Alexander Payne has created a very enjoyable satire in Election. Not the typical high school comedy, Election proves itself to be much more.

Posted in 1999, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Election

Lost and Found - 1/2*

Posted on April 17, 1999 by Madeleine Williams

Lost and Found

In Lost and Found, David Spade has gained his first leading role in a non-buddy movie. It’s too bad he’s not up to the task.

Yet again, Spade is cast as another smarmy loser, this time an Italian restaurant owner named Dylan. The love of his life, French cellist Lila (Sophie Marceau), has just moved into his apartment complex. However, she refuses to even give him the time of day.

One day, when Dylan discovers Lila’s lost dog, he gets a brainstorm. He kidnaps the dog himself, and helps Lila with the hunt. The two bond…but what will happen when Lila discovers the truth?

Dylan’s chief rival is pianist Rene (Patrick Bruel), who has followed Lila to America. He’s annoying, rude and extremely irritating. In fact, his only good quality is that he’s not David Spade.

Spade truly suffers without his previous screen partner, Chris Farley. Lost and Found makes a fatal misstep by presenting another overweight-but-good-natured sidekick (played by Artie Lange). By trying to fill the hole Farley left, they only make his absence all the more noticable.

The core problem here is that David Spade cannot carry a movie on his own. His smarmy style of barbed wit is ideal for a colorful supporting role, but not the stuff leading men are made of.

The gags in Lost and Found are miss and miss. Whether intentionally or not, the film constantly hearkens back to There’s Something About Mary. With it’s cruel dog jokes, frequently disgusting humor, and even an end-credits lip synch track, Lost and Found continuously makes comparisons to a film that is well beyond its league. That is a mistake, as it only serves to make Lost and Found seem more bland.

It’s not that the film doesn’t try to be funny…it’s just that it tries in all the wrong ways. I mean, the film’s penultimate joke is a set piece about Neil Diamond. Even the film’s quick cameos by Jon Lovitz and Martin Sheen are wasted.

Even if you’re in tune with David Spade’s unusual wavelength of humor, there’s nothing worth finding here. Lost and Found is better off lost.

Posted in 1999, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Lost and Found

Life - * *

Posted on April 16, 1999 by Madeleine Williams

Life

The pairing seems ideal. Putting Eddie Murphy and Martin Lawrence together sounds like a perfect comedy teaming. Toss in a high-concept gimmick and plenty of old age makeup and you get Life, a bland movie that may not be a prison term, but falls well short of its potential.

When the film opens, in 1930’s New York, the pair haven’t met and would seem the unlikeliest of friends. Ray Gibson (Eddie Murphy) is a thief and con-artist with dreams of one day owning a nightclub: Ray’s Boom Boom Room. Claude Banks (Martin Lawrence) is a debt-ridden accountant who has landed a new job and a beautiful girlfriend. Things are looking up, until Claude and Ray both run afoul of local gangster, Spanky (Rick James).

The pair are given one chance to redeem themselves: they are to make a quick trip down to Mississippi to collect some bootleg moonshine. But, things don’t go as planned down South…and Ray and Claude somehow find themselves sentenced to life imprisonment for murder.

Luckily, the two find themselves assigned to one of the comfiest hard labor camps in Mississippi (or at least it seems that way onscreen). The cell-free camp includes the friendliest bunch of murderers you’re likely to see, and plenty of rest and relaxation time (most of which is spent playing baseball). Anyone who tries to leave gets shot (except Ray and Claude on their multiple escape attempts, of course), but the prison is so cozy, why would anyone dream of leaving? If you get the idea that Life offers a simplified view of incarceration, you would be correct.

The other inmates at the prison (including Obba Babatunde, Bernie Mac, Miguel A. Nunez Jr, and Bokeem Woodbine) are meant to be colorful and interesting, but not enough time is spent with any of them. We never learn their stories, and they all end up as mere generic convicts.

The entire film seems to be structured around one idea: Eddie Murphy and Martin Lawrence grow old together in prison. Pile on the latex aging makeup, and who cares about the lead-up material? The problem is, since from the film’s opening we know the two spend their entire lives imprisoned, there’s no real point to any of the intervening scenes. They’ll never escape…they’ll never die…so why not just skip to the old age scenes and get on with it?

When Martin and Lawrence are on a roll, they come up with some pretty funny stuff. Unfortunately, most of the film is spent rehashing tired old prison jokes, and the pair are rarely able to cut loose.

There’s enough material here for about half a movie, and Life simply repititiously stretches it out to the full term. As a video, this film may fit the crime, but it isn’t worth a sentence at your local theater.

Posted in 1999, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Life

Goodbye, Lover - * 1/2*

Posted on April 16, 1999 by Madeleine Williams

Goodbye, Lover

A complex plot is not nearly enough to make an interesting movie, a fact which is clearly demonstrated by the film noir Goodbye Lover. With enough plot twists to fill three other films, Goodbye Lover shows that a ludicrous number of double-crosses can’t compensate for the lack of enjoyable characters and quality dialogue.

The film is populated by a plethora of amoral no-gooders. Sandra (Patricia Arquette) is a real estate agent who gets kicks out of using other people’s houses for her torrid sexual fantasies. Ben (Don Johnson) is a PR weasel, the slimy type who, when not covering up for a senator’s tawdry misbehavior, is having an affair in the back rooms of a church. Jake (Dermot Mulroney) is a bitter alcoholic, who is self-destructing and wants to take everyone down with him. The nicest of the bunch would have to be Peggy Blaine (Mary-Louise Parker), who merely seeks intimate relationships with her co-workers.

The plot of Goodbye Lover is too convoluted to summarize here without spoiling half the movie. Suffice it to say that it involves sex, money, greed, lust, affairs, murder, fraud, backstabbing, serial killing, and The Sound of Music.

Thrown in the midst of everything is Detective Rita Pompano (Ellen DeGeneres), an extremely cynical investigator who tries to make sense of all this. With her new partner always a half-step behind, Detective Pompano slowly but surely begins to unravel the truth.

Ellen DeGeneres is the best thing Goodbye Lover has to offer, even if she comes across as more of a droll comedienne than a police investigator. Her witty banter is actually a bright spot in this otherwise dull movie. And, even though she’s primarily a tangental character, she’s the most interesting of the lot.

The plotting of Goodbye Lover feels more like a soap opera than film noir, and an unconvincing one at that. Relationships, twists and surprises seem to crop up simply because they could be worked into the script… not because they make sense.

Goodbye Lover is chock full of twist and turns. However, the film actually isn’t that hard to follow…it just gives you no reason to bother.

Posted in 1999, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Goodbye, Lover

Twin Dragons - * 1/2*

Posted on April 9, 1999 by Madeleine Williams

Twin Dragons

In his latest rerelease, Jackie Chan uses a gimmick that Jean Claude VanDamme afficionados know well. It’s a gimmick that goes something like this: if one Jackie Chan is good, two must be better! Unfortunately, Twin Dragons proves that not to be the case.

Jackie plays a pair of twins, separated at birth. One, John Ma, under the guidance of his true parents, becomes a concert pianist, known the world over. The other, Boomer, is a mechanic and part time con artist, with an instinctive knack for martial arts (wouldn’t you know).

Raised on opposite corners of the globe, the twins are blissfully unaware of each other’s existence. That is until fate places them both in Hong Kong at the same time. John Ma is there for a concert, but spends most of his time avoiding the advances of a marriage-minded woman, Tammy (Nina Li Chi).

Boomer, on the other hand, is in trouble. An attempt to help his diminutive friend Tyson (Teddy Robyn) win the love of a singer, Barbara (Maggie Cheung), earns him the wrath of a local gangster. But when the gangsters mistake John Ma for Boomer, hillarity ensues…well, sort of.

Twin Dragons relies even more on comedy than the typical Jackie Chan film. The mistaken identity gags wear out their welcome almost immediately, yet the film just keeps them coming. As is the case with most of Jackie’s rereleased films, Twin Dragons suffers from a horrible dub, and the resulting sound mix certainly doesn’t help the humor any.

Jackie Chan’s films have never been praised for their complex plots. The spectacular fight sequences are what draw the fans. There’s one good one in Twin Dragons, a climactic battle in an automotive testing factory. Yet, by the time it finally rolls around, it’s a case of too little, too late. And to top things off, the film doesn’t even include any of Jackie’s trademark outtakes over the end credits. This is a rerelease sure to disappoint his fans.

Originally released in 1992, Twin Dragons’ special effects already seem cheap and dated. Twin effects have been around for a very long time, yet when Jackie and Jackie appear together onscreen it seems like a bad episode of The Patty Duke Show. The picture gets grainy, out of focus in spots, and the dividing line between the actor and himself is so visible, it’s distracting.

If you’re looking for a good Jackie Chan film, go rent a subtitled version of Drunken Master II. Twin Dragons was a waste of Jackie’s time…twice over.

Posted in 1999, Movie Reviews | Tagged , | Comments Off on Twin Dragons

Go - * * * 1/2*

Posted on April 9, 1999 by Madeleine Williams

Go

Documenting the wild and unbelievable events that happen to a collection of twentysomethings and teens in Los Angeles, the exuberant movie, Go, is a film that doesn’t feel original, yet sure is fun to watch.

The film intertwines three stories over one fateful Christmas Eve. The first revolves around grocery store clerk Ronna (Sarah Polley). She is about to be evicted from her apartment, unless she can come up with the necessary money in the next 24 hours. Hope comes in the form of two bickering actors (Scott Wolf and Jay Mohr), who are looking to score some ecstasy for an all-night rave. Ronna decides to do this one time drug deal for some quick cash…but quickly gets in over her head.

The second storyline follows four thrillseekers (including Desmond Askew, Taye Diggs, and Breckin Meyer) on a Christmas trip to Vegas. The twenty-four hours that follow seem to spring from both their wildest fantasies and nightmares.

The final story brings back elements of the first two, as the aforementioned actors, Adam and Zack have their own set of misadventures. Primarily, they center around the duo’s run-in with a mysteriously eccentric character, Burke (William Fichtner). But the story launches from there to tie in elements of the other two plotlines as well.

It’s impossible to watch Go without thinking about Pulp Fiction, but at least in this instance, the comparison is favorable. Both films tell an anthology of stories, with titles preceding each one, and a non-linear chronological structure. But whereas Pulp Fiction was about criminals who were shockingly acting like normal people, Go is rather about normal people who are shockingly acting like criminals.

One thing that sets Go apart from the pack is the acting. From the leads, down to the supporting members, each actor has been flawlessly cast. However, Sarah Polley certainly stands above the crowd. From The Sweet Hereafter to her performance here, she is proving herself one of the most talented actresses of her generation. Another great performance comes from William Fichtner (another Pulp Fiction nod), who gives the film a fine, creepy supporting performance.

The plot of Go is well written, and is able to stand on its own, even without the borrowed structural gimmick. The dialogue is sharp and lively, and there are plenty of twists and turns to keep everyone on their toes.

The intelligence of the script, the director and the actors allows Go to rise above the level of a simple copycat picture. Funny, shocking and overall entertaining, Go delivers.

Posted in 1999, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Go

The Backlash Against Episode One, Part II

Posted on April 8, 1999 by Madeleine Williams

Part 2

WARNING…There are some minor spoilers posted in the text of this article. If you wish to keep your Star Wars viewing completely pristine, turn back now!

While in Part I of this article, I discussed the upcoming backlash against Star Wars in financial terms, in Part II, I will discuss the content of the prequels and the subsequent fan reaction.

The initial reaction of the fans to Star Wars: Episode One – The Phantom Menace is very predictable. The initial wave of fans (the line-dwellers) will emerge from the theater glowing about the film, whether or not it is good at all. The sheer fact that it is “STAR WARS” (combined with the fact that they have spent a good portion of their lives pining for this moment) will outweigh all faults.

Then, again without regard to the quality of the film, the tide will begin to turn. People who have been building the film up in their minds for the past sixteen years (and further prompted by the initial raves) will be disappointed. Even the most perfect film in the universe will not be able to live up to the heightened expectations (and there are hints that Episode One won’t quite be perfect…see below).

The fan population will disolve into two camps: the rabid (primarily younger) supporters of the film, and the haters. The Rabid will polemically claim that Episode One is not only the best Star Wars film, but perhaps the best film ever. Some may say this out of denial, but most will probably (in their limited experiences) actually believe this. The Rabid are already trumpeting the film’s success (weeks before its premiere), and are quick to attack anyone who suggests the contrary.

The Haters will nitpick and criticize the film to death. In part, some will be bitter that the film didn’t reach their astronomical expectations. Some will join the Haters as a reflex against the gigantic hype/promotional machine that is at work. And others are just born contrarians.

In any case, it will take quite a while for all of this reflexive loving/hating to die down and for a fair judgment of the film to take place. However, in the meantime, the Haters will rule the day. Why? First of all, their numbers will be strongest during the first few weeks of the film’s run. Overwhelming expectations be fresh in their mind, and, compared with the Rabid raves, everything will fall short. The Haters will also provail due to the nature of their opposition. Even those who genuinely liked the film will be lumped in with the Rabid, whose outlandish claims will be easy to dismiss.

But, in the end, the Haters will have their day because the media loves a controversy. They will latch on to any negative vibe from the fans, and use it to fuel their “What Went Wrong With Star Wars” stories. In addition to the relatively “disappointing” financial results of the film (as discussed in Part I), entertainment writers will be able to pull stories from theater owners and executives who will be struggling under the excessive hardships imposed by Lucasfilm’s unprecedented demands. And then they’ll have the disgruntled fan base…the Haters.

The strongest card in the Haters’ hand is quite possibly the quality of the film itself. From what has leaked out, the film itself certainly won’t be the disaster that some will say it is…but it’s not looking like it will be the excellent film everyone is hoping for (and perhaps expecting). You have to remember that Lucas struck gold with Star Wars, and managed to do the unthinkable: he surpassed it with Empire. With Jedi, he began to falter (but not enough to derail the Holy Trilogy). Can Episode One hope to be nearly as good as either of those three? Really? Let’s take a look at the potential problems.

The dialogue. Lucas has never been a “wizard” with dialogue. The best written entry in the original trilogy is by far The Empire Strikes Back, which owes a great deal to Lawrence Kasdan. And yet, for the first time since the original Star Wars, Lucas has gone on his own as a screenwriter. Will he be up to the job? Hopefully so. However, the little that has leaked out has been suspicious. Take the naming for example: “Padme”, “Jar-Jar Binks”, “Naboo”, “Darth Maul”, “Darth Sidious” and even the film’s title “The Phantom Menace” leave something to be desired. Add to that reports that Anakin uses “slang” in the film (as if child actors aren’t precocious enough…), and things seem troublesome.

The plot. The good news is that (unlike “blockbusters” of recent years) Episode One will have one. The bad news is that it is mostly recycled. We’ve seen this before from Lucas (does anyone remember the Second Death Star?). Some of it has to do with how he developed the original trilogy, and his concepts of mythic structure. And yet (as was the case with Willow), you can draw a one-to-one correspondence from the main characters in Episode One with those in Star Wars (even down to a character-building tragic loss in a climactic battle). I can forsee some gripes that the movie feels way too familiar…

The effects. Lucas deserves kudos for pushing the envelope. However, there are signs that he pushes things right off the edge. He has been so eager to get his imagination on screen, that he exceeds the limits of today’s technology. Take a good long look at the digital Jabba the Hutt in the Star Wars: Special Edition and shudder. Two years later, the same artists can do a much better job…but good enough to be believable? Some of the effects that have been released are superb…others still scream “computer-generated!!!”. ILM will be tweaking up until the film’s release, so we can hope for the best. The good news is that thing likely won’t be worse than the distracting matte and stop-motion work from the original trilogy (which was also groundbreaking for its time).

Jar-Jar. From viewing the trailers and the limited footage publicly available, I can already predict that Jar-Jar will become the most reviled Lucas creation since the Ewoks. Lucas has gone too far in his attempts to create a wacky, humorous sidekick. Humor and beloved characters should never seem forced…Jar-Jar is the film’s most obvious backfire, and is simply a case of trying too hard.

The humor. Episode One has been called the “funniest” of the four Star Wars films…and that is not necessarily a good thing. The original trilogy had its moments of comic relief, and Episode One shouldn’t be bleak. But, starting with Jedi, Lucas has shown a tendency to add an overabundance of broad, juvenile comedy. If Episode One is worse, as it seems to be, the whole movie will suffer as a result. Take the Jar-Jar tongue scene as an example, or the series of coincidences and accidents that resolve critical issues in the film’s finale. It would be as if the Emperor slipped on a banana peel and fell to his death in Return of the Jedi (oh, wait… I think that’s Lucas’ plan for the Very Special Editions… 🙂 Humor has its place, but it should never distract from the remainder of the film.

Again, I wish to reiterate that although these are all potential problems, nothing is set in stone until the film is actually released. However, even if the film is the best of the four, there will be a backlash. The purpose of this article was to explain that fact, and the various reasonings (valid or not) behind it.

What can be done about the backlash? Wisely, Lucas has recognized the dangers of overhyping, and has tried to stem the flood. He has failed. The marketplace (and the internet) is already abuzz with everything Star Wars. And there’s still much more to come. The best advice is to try and keep a level head. Don’t believe the Rabid when they build expectations of the film up beyond all possible proportion. And, don’t believe the Haters when they have their say during the backlash. Just sit back and enjoy the film…it might not be shaping up to be the best film ever, but it looks like one heck of a ride.

Posted in Article | Comments Off on The Backlash Against Episode One, Part II