Star Wars: The Force Awakens

       ‘Star Wars: The Force Awakens’ (heard of it?)is probably one of the most anticipated sequels in recent memory and it is finally here.  With all the hype surrounding it, was it possible to live up to the hype and expectations?  Well, it did a pretty good job.  ‘Star Wars’ is probably one of the most beloved franchises of all time and among the first movies that ushered in the era of the modern blockbuster.  Critics have always been mixed on the quality of the films that have spanned 40 years, but the fans have never wavered over generations.  What added to the anticipation is that this is the first in a series of films in which George Lucas is not involved.  Director and Star Wars geek J.J. Abrams was tapped to continue the vision and I have to say that he captured all the magic of ‘Star Wars’ and continued the journey even if he did fall back upon themes and stories we have seen before. 

The story takes place three decades after the original trilogy.  The Galactic Empire has fallen, but the Dark Side has arisen in the form of The First Order.  Once again, there is a Death Star style weapon that must be stopped by the Resistance.  A story we have seen more than once in the trilogy, but Abrams is still able to keep the excitement and wonder that made the original so memorable.  This time around we are introduced to two new protagonists with Rey (Daisy Ridley) a scavenger on the planet of Jakku and Finn (John Bodega) a Storm Trooper who has defected from the First Order over a guilty conscience.  However, The true stand out for me is the antagonist; Kylo Ren (played by an actor with whom I was never impressed with before; Adam Driver).  Kylo is our look into the Dark Side, yet not as developed or with the confidence and reserve that Darth Vader possessed, which makes him all the more interesting. Kylo is given to fits of rage when things go wrong and is full of self doubt, which gives him an air of unpredictability that keeps one guessing on which way the story will unfold.

Of course, half the fun is seeing all the original actors portray their former roles.  Harrison Ford is still the wise cracking Hans Solo if not a bit more wizened.  Carrie Fisher is now General Lea (isn’t that a demotion from ‘Princess’?) As she leads what is left of the Rebellion.  Of course, the big mystery is Mark Hamill as Luke Skywalker.  He has been absent in all the promotional material and pre release pictures of him have been as rare and fuzzy as Bigfoot sightings.  The reason is clear as the film wishes to unveil him and I will leave it at that.  Smiles are had all around as we are reintroduced to C3-PO and R2-D2 and even brief voice cameos from Yoda and Obi-wan.  Just enough to thrill the seasoned fans, yet not alienate a younger and newer audience.

The film does rehash and remix well known story lines from previous films, but the magic is still there.  At its’ heart, ‘Star Wars’ was never a deep and thought provoking piece of Science Fiction, rather is was a swashbuckling and epic piece of Space Opera, with all the disfunction and Freudian themes that go along with it.  It was an epic reproduction and grand enlargement of the serials that George Lucas fell in love with as a boy and, as I’ve said repeatedly, it captures the magic we felt in childhood over stories that seem silly and mundane in our adulthood.   I’ve never thought George Lucas was a good writer (I’m not alone), but he was an epic storyteller.  There is a difference.  A writer is about strong and engaging dialogue, where a storyteller creates a world into which we are swept.  Lucas had grand visions and an unparalleled ability to capture wonder and fun.  Where I think ‘Star Wars: The Force Awakens’ steps up is that the dialogue is tighter and the engagement much more sincere.  It will never achieve the level of the first ‘Star Wars’, but that is only because it follows it.  I think if this new trilogy can find a way to say something new, instead of rehash old themes, then it could truly stand greatly on its’ own.

So the original question was “Did ‘Star Wars: The Force Awakens’, live up to expectations”?  The answer turns out to be ‘Yes’ and ‘No’.  J.J. Abrams was the perfect choice to helm this and did a masterful job at replicating and continuing and impossible task.  A new audience will discover a franchise that has been a worldwide phenomena for most of my life.  However; while some new characters were introduced, not much new in way of ideas or innovation in story was presented.  I have to say that it’s a fantastic time at the movies and well worth the wait.  I would never take that from then new trilogy.  I anxiously await the next one, so that says pretty much everything that needs to be said about if it was good.

I give this film *** 1/2 stars

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2488496/?ref_=ttcrv_crv_tt

Chi-Raq

          This movie is a challenge for me to review.  It’s a film about my beloved Chicago, so there was no way I wasn’t going to see it.  It is also a Spike Lee joint and I have a variety of conflicting opinions of him as a Director.  First and most importantly, Spike Lee offers unique and artistic films and, while one may or may not agree with his social messages, he always provides thought provoking visions.  As a film enthusiast, what more could I ask for?  That being said, even though all the above is true, I also find his film making amateurish at times and his dialogue and character interaction to be wooden and often caricatures instead of fully developed  multi-dimensional people.  Such is the case with ‘Chi-Raq’: an examination of gun and gang violence in south Chicago.  For some reason, which I’m still not sure why, Spike Lee decided to present this essay in the form of a Greek play.  By that I mean, there are narrators and choruses.  Every character has a Greek name and most bewildering, if not annoying, the entire movie is done in rhyme (I’m not skilled enough to know if it was in Iambic pentameter, but it seemed like it).  This did not add to my artistic appreciation, rather it ended up being distracting and taking away from the gravitas of the subject matter.  

If one can get past that, it is difficult to get by the premise which he takes from the Greek play ‘Lysistrata’.  A beautiful protagonist, not coincidentally named Lysistrata (played by the seductive Teyonah Parris), is tired of the death and devastation caused by the gang violence in her neighborhood.  Given that her boyfriend Chi-Raq, (played by an unconvincing Nick Cannon) is a big part of the problem, Lysistrata decides to do something about it.  After seeing a news report about a group of women  in a village in Uganda withholding sex from their husbands until the war stopped, Lysistrata decides to implement a similar plan in Chicago.  Suspending the disbelief, logistics, and practicality that something of this scope could be accomplished in a city the size of Chicago, I found the whole idea offensive and a step back in the women’s movement as the film suggests that only men are in charge and women’s only weapon is their sexuality.  Spike Lee has been known for his misogyny in past films, but this takes it to a whole new level. Further, most of Spike Lee’s use of sexual blackmail seemed adolescent and played to racial stereotypes.  In one scene, Lysistrata seduces the Confederate general who guards the Chicago armory which he has adorned with Confederate flags…Really?  Heavy handed and playing to social and racial fears which don’t even exist in this part of the country.  

The mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, has come out against this film and I can see why.  It portrays the government establishment as the problem.  D.B. Sweeney plays Mayor McCloud, but it is a thinly veiled caricature of Rahm Emanuel and not very flattering.  I would be offended too if I were him.  Despite that, Chicago is considered one of the most corrupt cities in the country and Spike Lee is right to exploit that fact as part of the overall picture.  Given my own tastes, I find Lee’s extreme exaggerations hurt his argument rather than enhance it.  Hyperbole is usually dismissed when used as support.

Despite all of this, I took much from this film and it did have a voice worth hearing.  The gang violence and it’s consequences were sobering.  In one particularly moving scene, a single mother (played by an intentionally unglamorous Jennifer Hudson), loses her only child in a gang cross fire.  Her anguish was palpable and made all the more moving to anyone who knows that Jennifer Hudson lost many of her family members to gang violence on the same streets in Chicago.  Her search for justice was powerful and difficult to watch.  John Cussak plays Father Corridon with intensity.  Usually films portray flamboyant preachers as villains, but Father Corridon is sincere in wanting to serve the community he was born to.  His faith and love never waivers even as he despairs at the violence all around him.  Anger and faith all rolled into one. I’m still not sure how to process one of my favorite actors, Samuel L Jackson who is the narrator Dolmedes.  He infuses the classic Greek tradition of narration with a south side Chicago persona.  He does it flawlessly, but I found the whole concept and character distracting and disrupting to the gravitas Spike Lee was trying to create.

I felt the point Spike Lee was trying to make was made early and the film disintegrated into absurdness by the third act.  I’m not sure what type of mid-life crisis Spike Lee is going through, but the film obsessed on sexual situations and behaviors we giggled at in middle school.  Lee’s misogyny and homophobia took away from his very insightful examinations of the plight of south side Chicago.  The film solves nothing, but does give a glimpse into an intolerable situation that one would expect to find in the Middle East and not in our own country.  Lots of cameos by familiar stars (no offense Wesley Snipes, but you are a little old to be playing a gang member) (Dave Chapelle, you are still awesome!!) and lots of topics that will have you talking after you see it.  While I can’t say i thought it was a good film, it is an artistic vision which I always respect.

I give this film ** stars

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4594834/?ref_=ttmi_tt