J J. Abrams, the director of Star Wars: The Force Awakens, may not have the makings of a god or an empire builder like George Lucas, but he turns out to be what this stagnant franchise needs: a “Star Wars” superfan and pop culture savant. Given that the fans have been doing much of the heavy lifting for a while, holding up the franchise even as the filmmakers let them down with some titanic clunkers (“Attack of the Clones” — why, George, why?), it seems fitting that the new film was directed by one of their own. Mr. Abrams was 11 when he saw the original “Star Wars” back in 1977; by the time he was a teenager, he had a gig cleaning Steven Spielberg’s old student movies. Excellent Team The Force Awakens, the 7th Star Wars movie, arrives with anticipation restored. It’s a film that’s been marketed with Imperial Stormtrooper-like precision, with teasers strewn over an entire year. Better yet it comes with a friendly pedigree. Abrams acquired original trilogy stalwart Lawrence Kasdan to co-write the new sequel. Kasdan, who’d had three decades to recover from his bruising collaboration with Lucas on Jedi, a period that saw his storytelling instincts trammelled by the merchandising imperative, had the unfinished business of a more adult, camp eschewing episode to complete. More importantly he had a Han Solo to kill, 32 year later thanJ.planned. Could Abrams and Kasdan have made a movie that didn’t count on the audience’s familiarity with its predecessors to lend weight to the story’s relationships, or add resonance in respect of new characters? Surely. But fear of making something too different, too distanced from the films the fans worship, has boxed in its creators. Within that restricting framework Abrams and Kasdan have experimented with a little more psychological intrigue – welcome notes that lay the ground for layered sequels, but that, for older viewers, is all there is. The Dedication Disney, who acquired Lucasfilm for $4bn, hired the young Spielberg clone to make it new. They had childhoods to monetise. During production the weight of expectation fell and crushed returning star Harrison Ford’s leg. Abrams broke his L4 (that’s his vertebrae not a droid) trying to lift it. He’s literally broken his back for this thing. On production of The Phantom Menace the worst thing that happened to Lucas was a one-day strike by Starbucks workers.J. J. Abrams, the director of Star Wars: The Force Awakens, may not have the makings of a god or an empire builder like George Lucas, but he turns out to be what this stagnant franchise needs: a “Star Wars” superfan and pop culture savant. Given that the fans have been doing much of the heavy lifting for a while, holding up the franchise even as the filmmakers let them down with some titanic clunkers (“Attack of the Clones” — why, George, why?), it seems fitting that the new film was directed by one of their own. Mr. Abrams was 11 when he saw the original “Star Wars” back in 1977; by the time he was a teenager, he had a gig cleaning Steven Spielberg’s old student movies. A Combination Of Old And New Those new to the franchise will take much of what older children took from A New Hope, plus a little of the tragedy from Empire Strikes Back. The new characters, particularly Daisy Ridley’s wide-eyed Rey and Oscar Issac’s charmer, Poe Dameron, are excitable audience proxies – great ambassadors for the film’s brand of old school adventure. In John Boyega’s Finn, there’s even a new idea, a First Order defector who spends much of the story scared shitless and learning to be a hero. And what of the villain, the heir to the dark side, Kylo Ren? Adam Driver’s volatile Sith wannabe has a useful, and from the perspective of the filmmakers, convenient in-movie reason for parroting Darth Vader (he’s a cultist with a family connection) and the notion of someone trying to actively resist being seduced by the good in them is a nice inversion of Luke’s original trilogy dilemma. But that brings you right back to the problem with this movie – it depends on what’s come before to achieve its effects.
Exceptional CGI CGI-filled aesthetic of the prequel trilogy, and real locales, props, costumes and some great production design (inspired by original Star Wars artist Ralph McQuarrie) that helps to both reestablish the familiarity of the Star Wars universe, but also advances things along, so that it’s fun for the eye to rediscover certain Star Wars tropes all over again (ex: vehicles like TIE Fighters and X-wings, or various alien species in the backgrounds of shots). A Diversified Cast Much as in the real world, though, the war has dragged on, and now Luke, Leia and Han have been succeeded by a charismatic, talented trio — played by Oscar Isaac, John Boyega and Daisy Ridley — who look more like the multitudes humankind contains, a genuine diversity infrequently represented in our movies. Yet while these three are variations on the original holy trinity, part of what makes them contemporary isn’t just their skin colors but also the slippery playfulness of their roles. Mr. Isaac, as a resistance pilot, Poe Dameron, suggests a next-generation Han, but so does Mr. Boyega as Finn, stormtrooper turned refusenik. The one seemingly unambiguous note is that the new-school Luke Skywalker is a young woman, a desert scavenger named Rey (Ms. Ridley), who shares Luke’s skill set and love of natural fabrics.
A Bad Ass Villian Adam Driver’s volatile Sith wannabe has a useful, and from the perspective of the filmmakers, convenient in-movie reason for parroting Darth Vader (he’s a cultist with a family connection) and the notion of someone trying to actively resist being seduced by the good in them is a nice inversion of Luke’s original trilogy dilemma. But that brings you right back to the problem with this movie – it depends on what’s come before to achieve its effects. The Force Awakens, the 7th Star Wars movie, arrives with anticipation restored. It’s a film that’s been marketed with Imperial Stormtrooper-like precision, with teasers strewn over an entire year. Better yet it comes with a friendly pedigree.
4 Comments
The recent box office figure highlights The Good Dinosaur as one of the most disappointing films of the year, financially. With a production budget of $200 million and roughly $150 million spent on marketing, industry analysts and executives say that Pixar and its parent company Disney must make $500 million to break even theatrically. Currently, the film has made $131.3 million globally and is showing signs of fading fast. At this point, many project that “The Good Dinosaur” will be lucky to crack the $400 million mark. That would make it the lowest grossing Pixar film since “A Bug’s Life” made $363.4 million worldwide in 1998. Domestically, the film is losing steam. After opening to $39.1 million in its initial weekend, “The Good Dinosaur” fell more than 60% in its sophomore weekend to $15.5 million. That’s a steep drop for a Pixar release — the company’s films usually see their opening numbers slide by less than 50% in their second weekends. The recent box office figure highlights The Good Dinosaur as one of the most disappointing films of the year, financially. With a production budget of $200 million and roughly $150 million spent on marketing, industry analysts and executives say that Pixar and its parent company Disney must make $500 million to break even theatrically. Currently, the film has made $131.3 million globally and is showing signs of fading fast. At this point, many project that “The Good Dinosaur” will be lucky to crack the $400 million mark. That would make it the lowest grossing Pixar film since “A Bug’s Life” made $363.4 million worldwide in 1998. Domestically, the film is losing steam. After opening to $39.1 million in its initial weekend, “The Good Dinosaur” fell more than 60% in its sophomore weekend to $15.5 million. That’s a steep drop for a Pixar release — the company’s films usually see their opening numbers slide by less than 50% in their second weekends. “It’s a pretty bad fade compared to other Pixar releases,” said Matthew Harrigan, an analyst at Wunderlich Securities. “It’s certainly disappointing.” The hope is that the film will stick around through the Christmas holidays when its major competition for the family audience will be “Alvin and the Chipmunks The Road Chip,” which debuts on Dec. 18. Regardless, it’s still odd to see Pixar and Disney have to scramble to push a film into the black, but there’s been something ill-fated about “The Good Dinosaur” since its inception. For one, the picture’s release date was pushed back by two years, and the production nearly derailed at one point. In 2013, original director Bob Peterson was removed over creative differences. He was replaced by Peter Sohn and the story underwent a major overhaul. Because of the delays, this marks the first year in the company’s history that Pixar released two films, the other being last summer’s “Inside Out,” which amassed over $850 million worldwide. The studio may also be feeling the pinch from the increased competition in the animation space. In recent years that sector was dominated by Disney and DreamWorks Animation, but now every major studio has an animation division, and rivals like Universal and Fox have scored with their “Despicable Me” and “Ice Age” franchises.
Of course, “The Good Dinosaur’s” global rollout isn’t over. There are still major markets left to open, including Japan, Brazil, and Korea, but the film is now widely available. Through Sunday, it had debuted in 59% of international markets. China, the world’s second largest market for film, could be a financial boon, but “The Good Dinosaur” has yet to score a release date in the People’s Republic and it’s unclear if it will screen there. Even if the picture does perform poorly theatrically, Disney could make up some ground in merchandising and consumer products. It may also benefit from home entertainment sales. Let see how it perform in the coming weeks as the cinemas get more and more crammed for the Christmas |
Archives
February 2019
Movie reviews
|