#016, #010, #082 Star Wars Trilogy

Okay…massive spoilers guys…just warning you. Darth Vader is Luke's Father. No. Seriously.

Not only is the expression "Luke, I am your father" a very famous misquote, it's also famously misemphasised. The actual quote is "No, I am your Father" (with the emphasis on the "I").

So i decided that these three movies should be lumped together into one review because…well…I'm lazy.

I believe that I have seen these movies before but I was very young and don't really remember them at all. I would quite like to erase any prior knowledge of the movie from my memory. It would be interesting to meet someone who didn't know that Darth Vader was Luke's Father and watch the movie with them.

You know what would be awesome? If I could have on of those pensieves from Harry Potter so that I could remove all knowledge I have about a movie before watching it. Then I could re-experience movies as I did the first time, and I could watch Star Wars as a kid from the 70s would have watched it, with no prior knowledge at all.

The Star Wars series is so incredibly talked about that I forgot how silly it was. It's a good story but a lot of the dialogue is cheesy and there's actually quite a lot of humour in it. Yoda is totally weird too. He acts really silly and clumsy before Luke realises who he is. This is not the old, wise Yoda that we are all used to.

I feel like a snob for saying it, but I'm not a fan of the digital remastering. Most people would say this because they think that the original is perfect and shouldn't be messed with. I'm not too bothered by this. It isn't perfect. Some of it is downright stupid. Why do they always build their ships with large holes in them? They're not very health and safety conscious are they? No, I don't like the remastering because it simply doesn't fit. Some of the aliens are put in digitally and when they contrast with the ones that are in make up it doesn't look right. The mix of technologies is not only weird but actually distracting. It is what it is; if you want it to look better, re-shoot it with HD cameras. Heck, do it in 3D and I won't complain…Maybe I'll complain a little.

So I've still not actually mentioned my opinion on the movies. What can I say? Star Wars is cool. I was able to re-enjoy all the classic moments like "These are not the droids you are looking for", the epic Lightsaber battles, Yoda moving Luke's plane with the force. It's all pretty awesome.

I would recommend it to a friend…but…I reckon they would probably have already heard of it.

#224 Monster's Inc

Monster's Inc is a classic movie that does not disappoint. I have seen this movie before and I remember being a little too old to enjoy it from a child's perspective, but the movie was brilliant on its own anyway. Now, not much has changed.

It's rather a bizarre situation that the films begins with. The Monster's go into children's rooms to scare them, and yet they are actually much more scared of the children than the children are of them. It's interesting to think about why the monsters are convinced that children are extremely dangerous. It is certainly important to the plot, so its possible that it is merely a plot device. But thinking about it logically - the fact that it's a kids movie about fictional monsters aside - there must have been some reason for the rumour to have started.

On more careful examination, you will notice that the boss actually knew all along that children were harmless. When he finally meets the child, he doesn't flinch or react at all. This brings me to the conclusion that he knew all along that the children were harmless, but liked to spread the rumour. This way there isn't such a moral issue with scaring children, and the power plant can continue to make money. It's actually a deceptively clever concept.

A couple of things i remember slightly differently. At the moment when Mike jumps into a door that's lying on the floor and as soon as he goes through gravity shifts and he lands on his back. I always remembered him saying "well that was awkward". I even remember the exact inflection he used, but the actual quote is "that was weird." It's funny how memories work.

Another thing I remember was being incredibly impressed with the animation. I remember being able to see each individual hair in Sully's fur. In comparison to current animated technology, it is still actually still pretty good, which means it must have been incredibly ahead of its time.

Not much else to say, classic kids movie and definitely deserves it's spot in the top movies of all time.

#004 Pulp Fiction

Already we have confusion on this blog. the #004 spot used to belong to The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, but now it seems Pulp Fiction has had a surge of popularity and has moved up the rankings(previously #005).

This is one of those films I used to say doesn't have a plot. It's one of those films where "a bunch of stuff happens" without much purpose. I feel like stories should have a premise, a climax and a conclusion, maybe with some interesting plot twists along the way. However, despite not having these elements - or rather, not having them in a traditional way - I don't feel like this iss detrimental to the film at all. It was entertaining and an interesting look at life and crime. I would call this style of movie a "study".

To me, there are four separate micro-plots:

• A) The two hit-men that end up having to clean up the mess from a dead body in the back of their car
• B) The story of Marsellus Wallace's wife overdosing
• C) Butch (Brice Willis), on the run, going back to collect his gold watch and almost getting raped in the process
• D) The restaurant hold-up scene

These four incidents are entirely unrelated, except that some of them happen to the same characters. This, in my opinion actually makes the movie feel more real. In life, we don't have one big problem, we have multiple problems that we have to deal with all the time. We interact with different sets of people about different sets of things. Sometimes two separate problems will include some of the same people. It's also worth noting that they aren't shown in a linear chronological order. What appears to be the conclusion - where Jules (Samuel L. Jackson) interrupts the restaurant scene actually includes Vincent (John Travolta) who had been shot in a previous scene. This style is quite interesting from a storytelling perspective and despite it being seemingly confusing, the order of events is actually easy to figure out since there are subtle links between them. Vincent, it would seem, is the main one. He talks about having to take out Marsellus' wife (B) near the start of storyline A. He is still wearing the T-shirt he changed into during A in the restaurant in D, and he dies in storyline C. The order must then be ADBC.

There is also a certain amount of black humour in this movie. Two Hitmen discussing what to call a quarter pounder in France, on their way to murder three people, is somewhat ironic. They are discussing something that not only has absolutely nothing to do with the plot, but also the sort of thing two friends would discuss casually. They would certainly have fun discussing it, but its not usually the kind of thing that you would find in a movie. This style is actually very similar to Kevin Smith's style of writing, especially the likes of "clerks". The characters spend an unusual amount of time talking - often for no particular reason - but it's accurate. People really do talk. A lot. Often about things that aren't at all related to their current situation.

Oddly enough this isn't usually the kind of movie I would expect to enjoy. I'm not particularly into gangster movies but I have enjoyed most of the ones that I have watched on this list. Perhaps its is then best to stick to the ones that are on this list because they are obviously the very best, selected from a wide range of average films.

All in all, a good movie. It's obviously quite unique and still very entertaining.

#034 Avengers Assemble

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I'm aware nothing quite like this movie has been done before. A superhero team movie where all the characters involved have their own story. It's about a team of superhero's that aren't necessarily known for being in a team and have previously had their own movies. There hasn't been a Justice League Movie; the Fantastic Four are not heroes in their own right and while Wolverine has had his own movie, he is still very much part of the X-men franchise. So This movie is essentially making history.

But there's a reason why this sort of thing isn't attempted often. For one thing, between the vast number of famous actors and an enormous amount of special effects the budget for this movie is completely insane. The studio certainly did it the right way. They introduced the notion of the Avengers four years ago, at the end of the first Iron Man movie. They implanted it into our brains, getting us excited about it very early. They then released four more films all in preparation for the Avengers movie, building up an audience and making sure someone who has never heard of the Avengers before will know in detail who all the characters are. Each movie in turn made them a lot of money and they knew that with such a massive build up they could afford the ridiculously expensive budget.

Well it certainly worked; at the moment this film is #034 in the IMDB top 250, although I'm sure the fan-boys will calm down after a while. These new movies hardly ever stay so high.

In short, it was awesome. I've always loved these big collaborations; the idea of a group of superheroes coming together has always appealed to me. With the tone of each lead-up movie being quite different I'm impressed that it worked so well and all the characters remained pretty much how they are supposed to be.

I'm sure the storyline was purposely set up so that we got to see fights between as many of the superheroes as possible. This of course satisfies everybody's inner child in a kind of "who would win n a fight between x and y?" kind of way.

And to top it off, Joss Whedon directed it. Joss-frickin'-Whedon! There could be no one more perfect to do this project. Whoever asked him to do it is a genius. Joss Whedon is a genius. This movie rocks!

It's quite funny too. Really funny. My favourite moments include The Hulk repeatedly smashing Loki; Thor's brilliant line: "You humans are so petty...and tiny..." and Tony Stark, when talking to Bruce Banner about his work, saying "And I'm a huge fan of the way you...lose control and turn into a huge green rage monster". There was another funny moment I remember Tony Stark had but unfortunately I'm going to have to watch it again because I can't remember what it was.

Also, that poor Hulk, right? In less than a decade he's had three actors play him in three different movies. Pretty random and I'm just not sure why. I'm not one to complain about that sort of thing but it seems to me like Edward Norton would have played the role just fine. Oh well.

All in all, awesome. Go watch it. Now.

#047 The Shining

Well, I finally understand what that poster of Jack Nicholson peering through door frame is all about.

I appear to be on a bit of a Stanley Kubrick high at the minute. All of his movies make very good use of music and used a lot of groundbreaking techniques in scoring his films. Obviously he was very into music himself. Being a music student, this appeals to me. I'm told a lot of Ligeti's music and style is used in the score for this movie. Ligeti was modern composer, influenced by many different styles and recognised for his ability to always be exploring music further and further. He was also notably very critical of other people's work, with very few musician's he truly admired, but that's a story for another day.

Having been told all this in a lecture at university, I went into the film purposely and consciously listening to the music in it. I thought the score was rather ingenious. Without sounding too much like an essay, I feel the music builds the tension of the movie very well. We are reminded throughout that it is a horror movie, with the intense music continuing, even at moments when there appeared to be no reason for it whatsoever. A character would simply be walking into a room and yet this bizarrely dramatic music would be playing. This just makes it all the more frightening when something horrifying (both psychological and physical) actually happens. We are all very aware of the cliche'd anti-climax - a character goes to open a door, the music gets louder and more intense, before suddenly revealing...an empty closet. It often happens in the beginning of horror movies, to build tension and get the audience into the right sort of mood. This movie, however, seems to take this technique to a whole new level. We get loud, intense music when nothing is happening at all and often no music when one might expect it. This also makes the music more noticeable on a conscious level, since it is not necessarily what we are used to.

Can I also say that this is the first movie on the list I've watched that I can classify as "horror". I'm a big fan of scary moves. There aren't a lot of films that truly terrify me but something about scary films, perhaps the adrenaline rush or the emotional attachment you get with the characters, is extremely appealing to me.

The story is rather odd and doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. Perhaps I would get a lot more from it if I read the book, but I feel the movie was entertaining enough that the plot being a little odd didn't spoil it at all. Danny, the son, is blessed with "the shining" - a kind of psychic ability - although he is clearly to young too understand exactly what his gift is and how powerful it is. Most of the time in the movie it just seems to cause him distress. Danny has an imaginary friend, Tony. It took me a while to make up my mind as to whether or not Tony is a real character or just, as everyone assumes, imaginary. I eventually came to the conclusion that he is simply Danny's method of dealing with his gift and the emotional trauma it causes. In this sense he is as "real" as a person with a multiple personality disorder "really" having two people inside them. Jack, the husband, gets driven mad by the hotel, although we are not sure why. Wendy, Jack's wife, seems to be the only sane person, what with Jack talking to ghosts and Danny pretending to be Tony, or not talking at all. This clearly causes her extreme distress.The audience obviously will identify with this character the most.

My favourite scene was when Wendy discovers that Jack's "writing" consists of hundreds of pages where he has typed "all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" over and over again. The scene actually lasts quite a while, since Wendy is looking through the hundreds of papers hoping that at some point he will have written something else. The thought process that went through my head - which I'm assuming would be similar to Wendy's thought process - was "perhaps he started out intending to write coherent sentences, then, as he got more and more insane, he began to write the same thing over and over." But alas, all she could find were more and more pages all containing the same words, implying that he had been doing this since they first moved there. I find it very realistic that she would spend quite a while checking through all the pages. I also thought it was a nice touch that even the same sentence over and over still had punctuation and paragraphs. Repeating the same words again and again may be considered crazy, but it seems ten times crazier that he would bother to organise them into paragraphs. That's some psychotic behaviour, that is.

All in all I can see why this is a classic. If dead twin girls holding hands don't creep you out, I don't see what will.

#059 A Clockwork Orange

Watching this Movie immediately after having just given a talk about it at university is an interesting experience. We were learning about Beethoven's ninth Symphony. I, in particular, focused on its use in popular culture. It was used quite cleverly in "Die Hard" to characterise Hans Gruber, the villain (played by Alan Rickman). The most obvious usage of the "Ode to Joy" theme in Die Hard is when Hans has finally managed to open the vault containing $640,000 although the theme is hinted at throughout the scoring of the movie. In this instance, the theme is used as a kind of triumphant fanfare.

Having studied its usage in many mediums the overall theme appears to be an association with masculinity. In the case of Alex DeLarge, the main character from A Clockwork Orange, it is used to fuel his violent and sexually devious behaviour.

I hadn't, at first, realised how important this piece was to the whole film. Excerpts from the symphony, often bizarrely played by synthesised instruments, fill the scoring of the whole film and are also very important to the plot. It's worth noting also that this particular piece was selected explicitly by Stanley Kubrick, the film director. Perhaps it was chosen for its association with masculinity and often violent times in history (naziism); the original book by Anthony Burgess included many different pieces of music including works by Mozart and Bach.

The movie of course deals with rape and murder and so is very much not for the faint hearted. The movie also deals with the idea of free will. The priest at the Prison argues that Alex's Correction therapy forces him to feel ill in the face of violence, without him having free will. The scientists, however, argue that they are correcting the violent behaviour and so the issue of morality is irrelevant as long as the outcome is the same.

So enough of what appears to be a strangely educational movie review, what did I think? Well, I did enjoy watching it. Clearly it is a clever piece of filmography if not a fun film to sit down and watch after a long hard day. It certainly makes you think and very often makes you feel sad. One particular bizarre thing I kept noticing was that Alex appeared to be shouting most of the time, even when other characters were right next to him. This did get rather annoying at times, but perhaps it is signifying some kind of bravado that he is hiding behind. I daresay it was very likely a conscious decision on either the actor or director's part.

#132 Toy Story

Let's take a minute to appreciate the genius of the concept of this movie. It's in a world where toys come to life when you're not playing with them. They can walk and talk, they each have personalities, they feel pain and even love. Woody is the leader, and they have an organised political system, meetings and everything. And, moreover they actually like being played with, but never reveal to Andy that they can talk.

One of my favourite moments of this movie is right at the start when it is Andy's birthday and they are trying to figure out if there is going to be any new toys to join their group. On Woody's orders, the army toys set up a walkie talkie and hide it in a plant pot. The system is organised and intelligent. Not something people usually think of when toy story is mentioned.

This is perhaps the only movie on this list that I have watched as a child and I appreciate it now as much as I did then. Perhaps even more so, since now there is an element of reminiscence as well. It was fun to re-appreciate some of the best moments, including Woody's "You are a toy" speech, "The Claw", and of course the best moment - when the toy's are trying to scare Sid, and Woody starts exclaiming that they don't like being hurt and he finishes it by saying: "So play nice".

Speaking of which, from this we gather that it actually is possible for them to talk and move while humans are watching, so why then do they not? Perhaps its some kind of "Toy Code" or "Toy Law" where for the sake of mankind, they think its best kept a secret. But why then does Buzz, not believing that he is a toy, still feel the need to stop when Andy approaches? I assume its some kind of Toy instinct, where even if they can't seem to think of a decent reason, they naturally stop moving whenever a human comes near. I also feel that deep down Buzz knows that he's a toy, but that he's just denying it. This stuff isn't ever properly explained, but I guess it is a kids movie and you're not supposed to look into it in too much depth. And I never really did, until now.

So every movie has a "bad guy" character and in the case of this one it wasn't one of the toys. All of the toys in the movie, including the mutilated ones, were good. Sure, they all had elements of immoral behaviour and disagreement but there wasn't an evil toy. The evil character was in fact Sid, one of the humans. He is portrayed as evil, as he would be in the eye of the toys, but in truth he's just a harmless boy who assumes, like most of us, that toys are inanimate and takes pleasure cutting them up and putting them back together again. Heck, the kid probably grows up to be an engineer.

Anyway, this movie is a definite classic. I think its a great concept, cleverly applied. It's the sort of movie they show around christmas every year, and so I'm sure I'll be watching it again soon.