Star Wars Rogue One, Strike Two

(Note: This review involves SPOILERS)

It could be argued that when George Lucas first started creating Star Wars, he was the indie filmmaker (Rebel Alliance) going up against the big film studios of the day (the Empire). As "Star Wars" became a global franchise, there was a transference of power, with George Lucas eventually becoming that which he despised - the Emperor.

The creation outgrew the creator.

We first saw this with the transitions of the directors of the Original Trilogy. This was further solidified with the prequels, when Lucas himself was out of ideas. This has been firmly established and cemented since the Disney purchase in 2012 and the subsequent releases of both The Force Awakens and now Rogue One.

Some might argue that Star Wars ended in 1983, with everything since being a bastardization of the franchise, losing the heart and soul of the auteur origins which combined serialized space adventures with Japanese aesthetics and operatic themes, replaced slowly by consumerism, nerddom, nostalgia and self-indulgence. It has become its own cult and religion, yet lacks a central creative force to drive home what the brand and big picture are.

Case in point, let's look at the most recent entry in the franchise: Rogue One.

There are many great ideas and a few good moments in Rogue One, but the heart and soul are lacking. It's a dead, hollow movie, The resurrected carcass of Darth Vader is an apt metaphor for what Disney did with Rogue One - a glorious magic act playing off the "oohs" and "aahs" of nostalgia on one hand, meanwhile distracting from the other hand which is an empty frame for an emotionally moving story that's not there.

But I tend to be critical, so let's get some positives out of the way...


The Good
The cinematography may be the best thing the movie has going for it. Each planet had a great look, particularly the last one - Scarif. The action was largely clean and a number of shots were on point.

Donnie Yet as Chirrut Îmwe and Wen Jiang as Baze Malbus. Easily the two best new characters in the film, as they had a wonderful rapport, with a fully implied history and fleshed out characters (actual motivation!). That non-Force users were so trusting in the Force did wonders to re-establish the spiritual element of the Force, that it's not simply about Midi-chlorians....

Going in a different saga/story direction - It was great to see a non-Force, non-Skywalker entry into the franchise. This fleshes out the universe in a powerful way, regardless of the execution

The final act on Scarif - It wasn't perfect, but this is the movie we should have had


The OK
Michael Giacchino's score was simply OK. Listening as a standalone, it riffs reasonably well off John Williams' classic takes, but actually used in the movie is random. There's also a relative lack of memorable themes. This is his second take on Williams' style and while much better than Jurassic World, still falls short of confidence for potentially taking over the main series. There's promise, but he's not there yet; and I'm sadly not sure if he'll get to it. Part of it may be input from director Gareth Edwards, so hard to fully say.

K-2SO - The design of the converted Imperial Droid is nice, but the character is a ripoff of Star Wars: Knight's of the Old Republic's HK-47, among other tropes. Several of the jokes hit, but a good half of them were misses, with the eventual death of the droid also missing any deserved gravitas. It's a fun character, but the obsession by fans is lost on me.

The CGI of certain characters - Tarkin went back and forth between good and bad, but on the whole was surprisingly decent. We're getting closer to surpassing the Uncanny Valley. I didn't mind Leia at all, if only because she was so brief.

James Earl Jones as Vader - While it was nice to hear his voice again, something felt off. I don't believe it was so much Jones' age, so much as the audio engineering on his voice.


The Bad
Honestly, I could be quick and dismiss most of the movie in the "Bad" section, as the first two-thirds could have been significantly recut and shrunk before getting to the main thrust of the film - the final act on Scarif. The film was reminiscent of Man of Steel (easily the worst movie I've seen in theaters in the past decade, if not ever), with it's many conveniences and contrivances, but not yet nearly as bad; it's more like a bad Transformers sequel.

For the sake of time, let's try and fire off some quick ones...

The cold opening - Please don't do this again. It didn't work and wasn't good (particularly the musical cue that was almost Star Wars, but wasn't). Also, no more time jumping within a single movie - stick with moments unless you're REALLY going to follow a character and do a better job of establishing growth, motivation and an arc. Unless you want to go hard into James Bond territory, complete with big new villains and everything, then yes, I'd support that (on the condition of being a good movie).

Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones) - She's a weak character with no motivation. Her cold demeanor wasn't cool, it was boring. She had a great look, but stiff dialogue for her drab persona, which only broke when she saw the holographic message from her father (which is bad character direction because she expressed no emotion prior and the relationship wasn't built properly to merit a reaction). That she suddenly tries to become a leader of the rebellion and ambassador for hope came out of left field, or at least a poorly developed relationship (of any variety) with Cassian. She was also robbed of her story arc by not defeating Krennic.

The father-daughter story - This also didn't work. We never saw the bond between them, just that Galen was pulled away. Mads also either didn't have great material or just didn't care, because his acting was stiff. This served no purpose in the movie.

Jyn's mom - You're a terrible mom, abandoning your child. Would have been better if you had died off-screen prior to the film to further establish the father-daughter relationship. You offered absolutely nothing.

Cassian Andor (Diego Luna) - Also a poorly developed character. There were interesting ideas, but the backstory was poorly developed, along with also having no motivation. Your role as an assassin could have been better fleshed out. Even his "fake death" saving Jyn moment was bad. He robbed her of her story arc.

Orson Krennic (Ben Mendelsohn) - A fun idea for a villain - a middle-manager wanting more power - but ultimately a weak character. Take's a lesson from MoS' General Zod - yell when in lieu of an actual character. He's nothing more now than another example of Star Wars amazing ability to create great looking, well-cast villains that end up trash/wasted: Boba Fett, Darth Maul, Dooku, Grievous, Phasma, to name a few.

Tarkin - Could have been removed from the movie and not skipped a beat. Completely unnecessary.

Saw Gerrera - Dear god was this character and Forest Whitaker's acting terrible. Absolutely awful and added nothing to the story, besides another bad father figure for Jyn. The idea of him was better than the execution. More on that below...

The dialogue - So much of the dialogue was rough, to say the least (which is sadly a Star Wars tradition). Most of the Rebel Alliance scenes were flat, Jyn and Cassian's chemistry was flat, the aforementioned Vader and Krennic scene was flat, Krennic and Tarkin was flat (and, again, unnecessary). Mads was bads.


The Egregious Errors
Darth Vader - I'll be direct: Darth Vader is a broken character. Absolutely broken. His arc was perfect in the Original Trilogy - from brute enforcer, to big bad, to redeemed father. The prequels were an unnecessary exploration of a whiny child-killer. Rogue One offered nothing worthwhile other than to further highlight how broken Vader is - his scene with Krennic offered nothing but boring dialogue and awkward visuals (the cinematography with the fog and red lighting did not look good, with the devilish "meanings" being cheesy and on-the-nose). Also, Darth Vader should NEVER have said a pun; providing crass, sass and sarcasm, yes, but a pun? Especially over such an iconic action of his? Terrible creative choice only meant to service fans. As for the final end sequence of the film - Darth Vader is a villain, he is not a badass. The sequence was fascinating from a Force and choreography perspective, but when a crowd roots for a child-killing villain because it's "cool" signifies to me there's something wrong with the storytelling (and audience). Basically, Vader's inclusion throughout the film felt like bad video game fan-service and fanfilm territory.

The excess - Sure, budgets and technology and everything are better today than any time prior, but there's such a lack of proper scale with the films now. Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done. I loved the "less is more" approach of the Original Trilogy, if partly because of budget and technology restraints for the time. However, it gives the world and stories more life and a better sense of scope. With Rogue One and Disney's coffers, pretty much anything was possible, including the resurrection of the dead.

The lack of "big feel" moments, aka heart and soul - For the first two-thirds of the film, things just happened with the film just on auto-pilot. It wasn't until the arrival on Scarif when the actual story started happening. There were a couple genuinely sad moments (particularly the death of Churrit), but director Gareth Edwards proved his amateur skills by not featuring any "big" moments. For an example of a "big feel" moment, see the lightsaber duel on Bespin in Empire between Vader and Luke. That entire sequence is a master class of direction, choreography, music and writing. Another? The climax of A New Hope when Luke is doing his Death Star trench run - the tension and music were superb. One more? The drama and emotion of the final duel between Vader and Luke on the Death Star bridge. Even the Sarlacc pit has its moments.

Rogue One had zero big moments (the two Death Star attacks were nice visual effects, but lacked dramatic oomph, with the first one being corny/stupid thanks to Saw and second being excessive with no emotional impact. They also take away from the destruction of Alderaan.


The Missed Opportunities 
The trailers set up wonderfully setup Rogue One to be a dark, mysterious spy/thief film a la Ocean's Eleven in the world of Star Wars. Watching a scrappy band of Rebels take on the monolithic and all-encompassing Empire. Were Jyn and others going to go deep undercover to infiltrate the Empire? Was one already a spy? Would have been significantly more interesting than the crappy father-daughter story we had.

The option of the war/conflict highlighting the similarities between the Empire and the Rebellion were lacking, despite being entirely on the table; it was barely hinted. Same with the disparate nature of the Rebel Alliance, where Saw and his guerrillas are opposite sides of the same coin with regards to their tactics (tactics which were barely explored). Saw's design is actually a very intriguing riff on Vader's, complete with the breathing apparatus, but nothing was present in the movie.

Hell, we didn't even get the big, epic, Saving Private Ryan space war film this could have been. Had the final third been stretched out over the course of the film, that would have been something.


Conclusion
So little of the film emotionally resonated. Things just moved and fell flat. Which makes Rogue One an incredible disappointment, though not without a few merits. Sad thing is, I can tell there's a legitimately good movie hidden within the depths of Rogue One.

As someone who grew up after the Original Trilogy was released, I've had the luxury of not having to wait for future installments, with the privilege of being able to see everything at once. It's hard to predict where the Star Wars franchise is going, but if the two most recent entries are any indication, they're derivative and hollow. Or to ape a different franchise, Star Wars is going where every man has already gone before, which means I'm losing reasons to continue watching.

I grew up loving the franchise, so I hold it to high standards, not simply as a "Star Wars" entry, but as a potentially magical movie experience. The worlds, the music, the visuals, the action, the characters, the sweeping drama, the tense action, the magic and spirituality - that's what Star Wars is to me. TFA had elements of it, but nothing that wasn't already in the Original Trilogy; one could say TFA is a condensed rehash, for which I'm guessing is a "holdover"/"setup" movie until Episode 8 kicks things into actual gear. However, I'm not sure I have the patience to give Disney much more of a chance.

It's hard to give Rogue One a recommendation, even as a spectacle film (the derivative and contrived Avatar was a better example of an event movie). Sadly, Disney's Star Wars is currently sitting at two strikes. I sincerely hope Rian Johnson can deliver a hit, otherwise I'm contempt with the idea that Star Wars did truly die back in 1983.

4/10

Arrival movie review

Arrival is thought-provoking, to say the least.

Perhaps expectations were a bit high, but I found the plot to be rather ho-hum, if not above-average, with several of the dialogue choices being very basic; the world potentially going to war felt rather expedient/convenient for the sake of the narrative. However, the direction of the film, particularly combined with the score (big shout out to Jóhann Jóhannsson), created a solidly other-worldly feel. That the film was also shot to look like a drab, rainy day was an intriguing choice.

By far the best part of the narrative/experience was the ending, which took the film from alien-first encounter to a deep philosophical thought piece (with a brilliant title). It re-presents the film in a whole new light, transcending it to top-notch storytelling (albeit mildly gimmicky), even if the story wasn't as great as the storytelling itself.

Similarly, I absolutely love that Arrival presents the idea of language being the forethought of perception and reality in a dynamic way. Having studied several languages, I've long been in agreement with this sentiment - it's fascinating to see this idea played out in the way it was done in Arrival.

As for acting, Amy Adams carries the movie well. This is easily her best alien invasion film. Jeremy Renner is his typical Jeremy Renner self, which is whatever (he's a less angry, more smug Marky Mark?). Forest Whitaker is fine in his supporting role, which is maybe more of an extended cameo. The rest of the acting is forgettable. On the acting and character note, the relationship between Adams and Renner comes out of nowhere, only serving the purpose of the twist.

All in all, Arrival gets a solid RECOMMENDATION. It's a very good, arguably great movie. From this, I am very curious to see Denis Villeneuve's upcoming take on the Blade Runner sequel, particularly from the score perspective.

Westworld season 1 review

Westworld... high production values, took a few episodes to get to its story, yet ultimately... it falls flat on its face. It presents such lofty ambitions yet falls short. To break the series down to its components, here are other examples of things done better and save time:

Once Upon a Time in the West - A great western with an excellent villain, lame love interest, interesting "mystery" character, social commentary and a nice twist

Jurassic Park - When creations rise up against their masters (also by Crichton!)

Run, Lola, Run - On loops and learning

Groundhog Day - Also on loops and learning

Blade Runner - I think the second half/ending is a weak action sequence, but does a nice job of calling AI life into question

Ex Machina - AI learning

Her - AI learning

Robocop - Using memories to reclaim humanity (and be a badass revenge/Jesus movie)

ON CHARACTERS

The series has some very nice thoughts on life, emotions and consciousness (I LOVED that it called out human habits being an additional system/layer; that we don't necessarily have as much free choice as we think). However, the narrative was messy, using a gimmicked framing device with numerous flawed characters. Some issues...

Dolores - She's been doing this loop for years, hard to really get invested when she's programmed to be like this

Robert Ford - Good guy, bad guy, good guy, bad guy. His booking is messy, to say the least. Why is he doing most of the things he does? Outside of the narrative structuring, it doesn't really work

William - One brief period with Dolores and he becomes a monster? Ok.... Unbelievable romance (a recurring problem in Hollywood)

Lead writer guy - WTF is the point of you? You should have been fired long ago

Maeve - Could have been great, then twist! And more mystery box crap. Falls victim to her own programming. Pulling an Ex Machina would have been better

Felix - How were you even hired to begin with? Oh right, probably a game by Robert...

Teddy - Don't care about you. Your narrative was very messy.

Bernard - Actually, pretty well done,

Despite the character issues, the acting is generally very solid, with particular shout outs to Anthony Hopkins, Thandie Newton, Jeffrey Wright, Jimmi Simpson and Ed Harris.

ON THE WORLD
However, there are some other issues that are squint-worthy, particularly with the world building:

1. The safety protocols don't make sense - guns don't work on guests, then they do, then they only do when convenient; yet the hosts can punch and beat up the guests, though (but not enough to leave a mark?). Also, if the Man in Black was desperately seeking a deeper level of the game, as the majority shareholder, couldn't he have easily requested a version of the game with no safety protocols??

2. How the company is run - which is to say POORLY. There is so much incompetence. Unless, it's all part of Robert's game, which makes his arc and narrative so convoluted...

And another issue with the story - convenience! Particularly in the last episode (how convenient the two villain helpers of Maeve don't get ANY injuries and are up against some Stormtrooper-level security guards). There was also some in the second-to-last episode, but I don't remember. The sex scene with Maeve and Hector was blatantly pretentious/stupid.

Some remaining questions:

1. What happened to the security guy taken out by the native tribe?

2. Why was Elise killed? Or is she even dead?

3. Why exactly was Teresa killed (vs something else)?

4. How much of an asshole is Robert that he set himself up to die and kill so many people with him? His goal was to build murder bots?

5. Why would I care about a second season of this when they botched so many ideas in the first season? Seriously, they spent so much time on this world, which Robert was the god of, and we get a tease for other worlds at the end that had no devoted time. Again, how is the business run??

OVERALL
Westworld has the same problem as Looper to me - using a gimmick narrative device (blurred timelines vs time travel) half-assedly to tell an emotional story that falls flat when broken down. if you can't actually tell a coherent story with your devices, you're doing it wrong, in my book.

Also, why couldn't anyone explicitly tell the MIB the purpose of the maze? They kept dodging saying it's "not for you" - why not say it's a journey of personal discovery, or the maze is in the mind to try and achieve consciousness? Dumb storytelling/bad dialogue choices... Not to mention who allowed the maze references to be placed everywhere, including the inside of a scalp?

All this said, I did find the series enjoyable and compelling (binge watching parts of it), just really, really flawed. It does a number of things well and a number of things poorly. Is it interesting with fascinating ideas? Yes. Is it a bunch of narrative smoke and mirrors? Yes.

Odd Thomas quick review

Odd Thomas was a disappointing movie. Both the acting (by the two leads) and writing were flat, though general direction and cinematography were alright. I'm not sure if the original source material is better, but I have little to no interest in checking it out based on this movie. The comedy was underwhelming, action not good, though the minimal horror elements were alright.

It's a weaker version of Constantine, which is already unfortunately weak.

It's currently available on Netflix, but not sadly recommended. I really wanted to like this, as I enjoy the late Anton Yelchin, but it sadly didn't coalesce.

Black Mirror season 3 review

Black Mirror season 3 is its best season yet, primarily for the ideas. It does a good job of telling cohesive stories and being philosophical; it's better than Westworld season 1, in that regard. Arguably, the season gets better with each episode.

Specific episode thoughts below, in the order in which I enjoyed them...

1. Nation of Hate - I enjoyed the detective story, liked both leads and enjoyed the commentary on social media and government surveillance, as well as consequences of speech and actions. The general conceit of the bees was kinda dumb, though, and it was probably a bit on the long side.

2. Men Against Fire - Perception is reality and everyone is being lied to! Enjoyed the commentary on the military and how soldiers aren't treated well (they're commodities). The eugenics element and commentary on humans was also good. Was it lacking a bit something? Yes, but I liked the topics and ideas.

3. San Junipero - Really enjoyed the commentary on the afterlife and digitization of personalities. Didn't really buy into the love story (both are in love after one or two encounters? ok... I could understand with Yorkie, but not Kelly). The acting from both was rather good, though Yorkie was a bit annoying initially, along with some stilted dialogue earlier on. It was fun to watch how it played with the tropes from different eras. Would have been nice if there was something more to the guy who was interested in Yorkie (maybe he was a shell digital representation or dead). Was a loose thread, but not really the focus.

4. Shut Up and Dance - This was fine. That the focus was on trolling was interesting, but it lots steam for me rather quickly - it seemed rather apparent they were screwed no matter what. Also, reminded me of the movie Nerve, despite not seeing it. Little twist at the end was interesting. The kid's acting was also interesting, in that it wasn't a typical kid.

5. Playtest - Also OK. Some of the ideas were interesting (evolution of gaming, tapping into the brain, calling parents while we can), but the general gist of a horror story made it too apparent that reality was going to be messed with. The specific ways in which it occurred were certainly interesting, and the final reveal of the length of time was interesting, but... wasn't as good as it could have been.

6. Nosedive - Fun idea about heightening social rankings, but the general "tragedy" of the story was so on-the-nose and trite. BDH's big speech was cringe-worthy to watch, but entertaining. It does make me want to disconnect from social media more. Basically, felt rather by-the-numbers.

When Star Wars and Seagulls collide

Prepare to have this stuck in your head. Just remember, in space - no one can hear you squawk.

The backpack part and refrain may be the best parts.

I've loved their music remixes since "Morning Dew," if not the original "Black Friday" remix.

Available on Amazon here

Finally watched the pilot to Westworld. Thoughts with minor spoilers...

I largely enjoyed it as the first chapter in an ongoing story, so the slower pacing was tolerable. It did get particularly slow in the middle, but what can you do.

Easily the worst part of the episode was the music - the title sequence felt like a Game of Thrones rip-off (not surprising), the general score was whatever, and then the crowning achievement of crap: the cover of "Paint It Black." It was a bad cover and didn't fit the scene (felt forced). It's like they were going for Battlestar Galactica's "All Along the Watchtower" cover and failed miserably.

Also, there were some stupid (world-building) moments, which presumably will be built on but I'll call out now:
1. The engineer (is that her job?) lady kissing the whore IN THE WIDE OPEN. Unless your job is to QA the bots like that, you're going to be having a talk wtih your supervisor. Skipping the kiss and teasing her intrigue would have been a better way to go.
2. The dialogue writer is shitty with dialogue. This is a multi-million if not billion-dollar experience and they get a hack writer as the lead?
3. Similarly, why introduce a coup/climb the corporate ladder/nefarious ulterior motives for Westworld in the first episode? That scene could have been cut to shave time and placed in a later episode. Let Jeffrey Wright and Anthony Hopkins fuck up a bit more.
4. Back to the business of Westworld - this is a huge, highly resourced entertainment/electronics company and they do no real QA before releasing updates to their consumers? What in the fuck?!

What self-respecting company wouldn't have a beta environment with beta testers to test out the potentially dangerous and life-threatening robots. Maybe if they want to save expenses, but if there are fatal flaws and the company gets shut down, they have no business. I thought Jonathan Nolan had gaming experience...

A couple quick things I liked:
1. The "programmed" state of some of the narratives, with branching options. It was interesting to watch how the robots behaved when new elements would be introduced (e.g. robots being distracted or humans interfering). This helped to show how game-like the world is.
2. The fly narrative. A simple tactic, nicely executed.
3. Ed Harris as the Man in Black. Dig it.

I am definitely curious about the show and look forward to watching the next few episodes. This has me intrigued in a way that Preacher did not.

The pilot gets a solid RECOMMENDATION as a very good episode, just shy of greatness (though it may be arguably great).

Quick assessments of the Princes in Disney Princess movies

For fun and per request from a friend, and as a "sequel" to this column, here are some quick assessments of the Disney Princess movies with regards to their messaging based on the Princes (apologies to my Disney fan friends):

Note: I haven't seen some of these movies in awhile, so these may be off...

Snow White - You only need two skills in life: singing and kissing. You don't need a name, though, but you do get to embrace your necrophilia. Also, be handsome.

Cinderella - Get her some shoes and you'll win her heart. Also, money and charm don't hurt. And be handsome.

Sleeping Beauty - Sometimes your parents can pick out a hottie for you, especially when you come from money. Also, use that money to learn how to use a sword, because you're going to have to fight to protect her. And be handsome.

The Little Mermaid - When the world is at your fingertips, you can wait for the right girl to come to you. Through song (avoid the silent ones). Also, use your money to learn boating. And be handsome.

Beauty and the Beast - It doesn't matter what you look like on the outside, as long as you have plenty of money and servants to help you find a pretty girl who sees the inner you. An inner you who is handsome (with money and servants... and a library).

Aladdin - Lie and manipulate your way to success, until it backfires and you realize being true to yourself is the way. Of course, getting REALLY lucky and having the support of Robin Williams certainly helps. Also, being cute is the poor man's handsome.

Pocahontas - When in doubt, Mel Gibson your way out

Mulan - Be a Man. You must be swift as a coursing river, with all the force of a great typhoon, with all the strength of a raging fire, yet mysterious as the dark side of the moon. Also, have no respect for women (unless they act like men (and kinda look like one)). And be handsome. And manly.

Princess and the Frog - Don't entirely remember... When you have money (or don't and pretend to), it's OK to be a manipulative, obnoxious and entitled brat and use women for your pleasure/survival. Also, be handsome.

Tangled - Eh... this is taking too long, so... work your way up the ladder of life, keep some secrets, be handsome.

Brave - N/A

Frozen - Be an evil conniving bastard who can sing, dance and has money, or be a total clown dimwit. Either way, have looks.

Moana - Be The Rock

Feedback is welcome in the comments.

Quick assessments of the Disney Princess movies based on the lead

For fun, here are quick assessments of the Disney Princess movies with regards to their messaging based on the lead protagonist (apologies to my Disney fan friends)..

Note: I haven't seen some of these in awhile, so they may be off (friend corrections are noted below the list)

Snow White - Dated and no

Cinderella - Being oppressed sucks, but wishing for a man to save you vs taking your own actions? No (*friend correction below)

Sleeping Beauty - HELL NO (yay being molested while sleeping)

The Little Mermaid - Fuck you, Ariel, you entitled child. Keep changing yourself for your man more, you stupid piece of shit

Beauty and the Beast - Stockholm syndrome. No (*friend correction below)

Aladdin - Lie and manipulate your way to success, until it backfires and you realize being true to yourself is the way. Of course, getting REALLY lucky and having the support of Robin Williams certainly helps

Pocahontas - Eh... there's a degree of empowerment, but it's for the purpose of romance... Also historical inaccuracies

Mulan - Being empowered, yes and breaking flawed norms/traditioms. This is good

Princess and the Frog - Indifferent/don't remember (*friend correction below)

Tangled - Largely OK? Characters seem independent, yet also goofy/dorky

Brave - Not too shabby. Wanting independence, with a focus on family bonds

Frozen - Eh... the sisterly message is great, but both characters are pretty bad

Moana - TBD

I'm very curious about Moana, particularly since there's apparently no romance element.

Friend updates
When I first posted this list, a few friends had pointed out some corrections for the following (these are verbatim and definitely welcome feedback; the above were admittedly flawed quick thoughts for fun):

*Friend 1: Princess & The Frog - work hard to make your dreams come true - you can't wish on stars - but don't let the joys of life pass you by. Best Disney Movie.

*Friend 2: That is a misunderstanding of Cinderella on a core level. She was not waiting for anyone, let alone for a man, to save her. She was trapped in an abusive household, and she wanted a night off of being a slave to her family to be happy - and equal - for once. She did take her own actions whenever she could, and then used the support system she had when she couldn't. Excellent.

*Friend 2: Ariel wanted to be human long before she met Eric, and Part Of Your World is about how she, existentially, feels complete among humans and not merpeople. Eric gave her a focus point, but she would have made that deal sooner or later. And the thing is... she didn't change for Eric at all, really. She changed her body for her, but her personality remained exactly the same. Eric fell in love with her genuinely. (Sidenote: the entire story makes more sense once you realize it is a metaphor about class relations (HCA original) or a queer coming out story (Disney). Can elaborate on that one.)

*Friend 2: Beauty and the Beast is definitionally not Stockholm Syndrome, as Belle never considers the Beast an authority figure and does not align herself with him over the course of the movie until he changes his behavior. In fact, because Belle is actually in charge in their relationship and the Beast aligns himself with *her*, you could make an argument for Lima Syndrome, if you wanted. But that still rests upon the Beast holding her captive, and it's established very quickly that "holding her captive" is a flimsy formality in their relationship. Belle does whatever she wants from day one.

*Friend 3: Beauty and the Beast is in no way Stockholm Syndrome. Belle is actually one of the strongest feministic characters Disney ever created. She is intelligent in a world that only respects brutality, she is kind and loving, she fights WOLVES head on, and every action she does for the first two acts of the movie are to protect her family and her town. The third act was to literally break out of a prison cart and prevent a mob from murdering an innocent man.

TL;DR: Belle's a badass and a nerd, and easily one of the greatest female characters created.

Also, debunking your Stockholm Syndrome: http://thefederalist.com/2016/08/10/7-reasons-beauty-and-the-beast-is-not-a-tale-of-stockholm-syndrome/

*Bonus: Here is the version with regards to messaging based on the Princes.

Jaws (1975) movie review

For a film from 1975, Jaws still largely holds up very well. It has a pretty classic structure that can be found in films made after, such as Predator (which I'd argue perfected the idea in this movie) and Jurassic Park (which was Spielberg's SIGNIFICANTLY improved attempt).

A threat falls upon an area, with a key person trying to rectify the threat, while facing some opposition from the local community, which allows for some solid social commentary on greed, with a cartoonish-yet-human mayor (the suits!). It then comes down to a few people taking on the thread heads-on. It's a very reasonable structure that mostly does what it needs to do.

The only real flaws stem from the films tonal shifts. Though starting out as a potential horror movie, the film then turns into a bit of a buddy/adventure movie. While the comedy and human bonding during this portion is excellent, the shark-chasing parts with the more upbeat musical score took me out of the movie. By the time it got to the ending, a good degree of the drama and tension was removed. Combined with the rather abrupt editing (particularly the death of Quint and actual conclusion by Brody), it felt rushed.

Then again, when viewed as a product from the 70s, leniency can be given.

Jaws was absolutely a precursor for both Spielberg and Williams, which is probably the most special reason to watch it, at this point. With Williams score, he has hints of so many of his big movies to come: Superman, Raiders, Star Wars, Last Crusade and more.

Best parts of the movie:
1. Human dialogue throughout (it's really good)
2. Quint
3. Richard Dreyfus
4. John Williams' score
5. Roy Scheider (his understated performance may be slightly higher)

Worst parts:
1. The occasional awkward editing
2. Some tonally out-of-place Williams music

It's a classic for a reason and RECOMMENDED at the very least from a film history perspective. It's not perfect, though, so expect some elements to be a bit dated, such as a relatively even or slow pace.