Movie review: Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets

Trailer

Yesterday at this time I had never heard of Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets. But an article on the writer and director Luc Besson appeared on Wired (here) and the trailer looked exciting (here). So I convinced Marlene to go with me at the 5 o'clock showing right after work.

Briefly, this is Star Wars and Avatar story lines combined by the writer and director of The Fifth Element. Its 2 hours and 17 minutes of run-time is action-packed with more space ships and alien species than any other movie you've seen. Its a fun romp with action-packed chase scenes, explosions, battles, and "sci-fi action violence" that gives it the expected PG-13 rating.

But there's nothing new here. You'll findLuke and Obi-Wan at the cantina, Jabba the Hutt and Luke Skywalker facing off, underwater monsters trying to eat the ship with Padme and Anakin, Leia and Han in the garbage chute, Coruscant "car" chase with Anakin and Obi-wan, faceless soldiers encased in all-black shiny plastic, Obi-wan and Anakin facing off the droid attack in the hangar bay on Naboo, a changling.

How about blue-colored aliens at peace with their environment destroyed by the military but a flawed soldier comes to rescue their planet? Ya, I've seen it before.

There's no character development, no intelligent conversation. Just action. This is an exciting, colorful, "summer fun" sci-fi action movie that will appeal to Star Wars fans. But it lacks originality.

RobertEbert.com review

Never seen Star Wars? Watch in this order

I guess I had forgotten that a new Star Wars movie was set to release this winter.

But it's coming!

Star Wars: Episode VII: The Force Awakens trailer here.

When Star Wars first came out there was nothing else like it. In fact, it may be Star Wars success that spurred the creation of Star Trek movies, starting in 1979.

The original Star Wars came out in May 1977, as I was graduating High School. Oddly, it was titled Episode IV: A New Hope.

Here's what was happening in technology that year that may have piqued interest for a space fantasy movie:

• The first Apple II computers went on sale
• US Dept of defense inaugurates the NAVSTAR GPS system
• The first commercial flight of the London to New York Concord supersonic passenger aircraft
• First MRI scanner
• First NASA space shuttle test flight
• Voyager I and II launched

The time was ripe for a space adventure. (Not technically Science Fiction, as it is not set in a possible Earth future but, rather, "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far, away.")

If you haven't seen this franchise before, or are introducing someone to these films, then I like the suggestion to watch them in a different episode order than they came out (4-6, 1-3), and a different order than they are numbered (1-6). The suggested order is called the Machete order.

The Machete episode order: 4, 5, 2, 3, 6
Skip Episode 1 altogether as explained here.

Watching in this way preserves all the major plot surprises. It also removes Episode I with the irritating Jar-Jar Binks, the child Anakin, midichlorians, and the unbelievable and over-long pod racing scene. Nothing in Episode I is necessary for plot development of the rest of the film. If anything, skipping Episode I keeps the focus on Luke Skywalker and doesn't get sidetracked telling Darth Vader's "baby" story.

If you're having a Star Wars marathon before seeing the new film in December, you should try viewing the movie episodes this way!

Movie Review: "The Big Year" Revisited

It has been several years since I last saw the movie: The Big Year (2011, Jack Black, Steve Martin, Owen Wilson). Trailer here. So recently I ordered it on Netflix. I think I enjoyed it more the second time--though both viewings were enjoyable.

This movie is not really about birds and bird watching. It is a movie about obsession.

It is a movie about how relationships are challenged when one is truly engrossed, totally absorbed, consumed in an endeavor to the point of self-damaging fanaticism. It simply uses birds and extreme bird watching as a medium to examine obsession.

Okay, yeah. Who am I fooling? This movie is about birds and bird watching.

Do you have a hobby, sport, or interest that you really enjoy? Is it getting out-of-hand (not according to you, but according to your friends and family)? Can you envision yourself taking an entire year to do nothing but your favorite activity to the exclusion of all else? If so, you might find yourself in this movie.

It's called a comedy. With the three primary actors you would think so. I think it is a comedy in the same way that Around the World in 80 Days (2004, Jackie Chan version. Trailer here.) is a comedy about travel or racing. Jules Verne wrote Around the World in 80 Days as a Science Fiction adventure in 1873.

Hollywood doesn't have a pigeonhole for this kind of a movie. It is humorous in the way that you might recognize yourself or a loved one in these obsessive behaviors (like taking your new (non-birding) bride to spend a week in the dorm hut with 20 other birders in the otherwise uninhabited Aleutian Island of Attu for your honeymoon--what's wrong with that?). It is an adventure story, friendship story, budding romance story, end of marriage story, happy story, funny story, sad story. It is based on a more-or-less real life story (I've never read the book). In other words, a box office dud.

The good thing about the movie, from a birding perspective, is two-fold. The activity of bird watching per se is not being made fun of, as has usually been the case in Hollywood TV and movies (see Miss Jane Hathaway in the TV show The Beverly Hillbillies).

Second, the birds are identified correctly and the soundtrack matches the birds. Compare this with ANY other movie. For instance, take the Finding Forrester (2000, Sean Connery. Trailer here.) Connecticut Warbler ID debacle. Okay, it is only a debacle to bird watchers. It is a "Huh? What's the big deal?" to anyone else. Let me put it to you this way. What if your new Mission Impossible movie had someone buy a bus ticket and the movie clearly showed a dollar bill with an image of Australian actor Hugh Jackman instead of American president George Washington? Could you keep following the story line? Me neither.

Anyway, that's my 4-years-too-late movie review for you.