The Friday Five: Songs About Fools

Welcome to The Friday Five! It sounds like an action movie, but it's not; rather, it's a weekly series where bloggers are given a topic and assigned to come up with a five-song list fitting that topic. This Friday, the topic/question is: WHAT ARE YOUR FAVORITE SONGS ABOUT FOOLS?

(Unlike other Friday Five-ers, who know how to follow rules, only two of my songs mention the word 'fool' in the lyrics. These are more songs about people who do foolish things.)

"Fools Rush In" - She & Him

"Fools Rush In" is just one of the many impeccable songs to spring from the pen of Johnny Mercer. Basically, that means that it's a song that's almost impossible to mess up. I like every version I've listened to, from Frank Sinatra to Etta James to (probably most famously) Ricky Nelson. My favorite has to be this unplugged cover by She & Him, though; Zooey Deschanel's interpretation of the lyric feels the most emotional. This tune is great no matter what, though; it describes exactly what it feels like to develop a crush on someone.

"Ooh Baby Baby" - Smokey Robinson & The Miracles

In my mind, there's no more foolish act than cheating on one's spouse or significant other. Smokey Robinson & The Miracles's "Ooh Baby Baby" is a great song about a guy who has just realized how foolish he was and wants to rectify his mistake. (The song is also pretty brave in that it states that the girl may not be blameless, either.) The song leaves us hanging; we never do learn if the girl decides to take him back. However, the arrangement is so lush and the vocals so beautiful that we don't care that we're left to wonder.

"Glory Days" - Bruce Springsteen

Bruce Springsteen built an amazing career on songs about fools. From men who run out on wives ("Hungry Heart") to guys to turn to crime to impress their girls ("Atlantic City") to people who drag out loveless relationships ("I'm Goin' Down"), The Boss has often turned to foolish acts for inspiration. Out of all those songs, however, "Glory Days" feels the most poignant to me. The lyric does a fine job of painting two characters who foolishly live in their memories: a former high-school baseball star and a former homecoming queen. Those verses are melancholy, but the saddest verse is the final one, where the singer recognizes that he'll probably become the exact same fool someday.

"Waist Deep In The Big Muddy" -  Pete Seeger

"Waist Deep In The Big Muddy" is probably one of the most controversial songs of the past fifty years. It's a haunting anti-war song that tells the story of an ill-fated military maneuver in Louisiana. It makes its point VERY bluntly, and that irked a lot of people in 1967, when the song was first released. I think that part of the song's history is interesting, but it resonates with me on a more personal level. I'm guilty of the same kind of foolishness the the Captain displays in this song: marching on when everything around you tells you it's a bad idea. (I'm particularly guilty of this with romantic relationships.) This song is a vivid, powerful reminder to me that such a course of action is a dangerous one.

"I Won't Say I'm In Love" - Susan Egan (from Hercules)

I wouldn't say that Hercules is my favorite Disney musical, but "I Won't Say I'm In Love" is definitely one of my favorite Disney songs! David Zippel's lyrics are really clever in that they depict Megara (Susan Egan) foolishly denying her heart while trying to not foolishly run into another relationship. (Sounds like Meg might have heard "Fools Rush In" a couple of times.) However, she soon comes to learn what Master Oogway says in Kung Fu Panda: "One often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it." Meg (and we) eventually come to learn that love can't be denied. If there's one kind of foolishness that it's okay to indulge in, it's falling in love!

What about you? What are your favorite songs about fools?

On '10 Cloverfield Lane' And Movie Sequels

Earlier today, I stumbled upon this classic Calvin and Hobbes comic strip:

(Please excuse the size of the strip. I wanted you to be able to read it.)

Update the antiquated ticket prices, and this strip could have been written yesterday. (That's a testament to the greatness of Calvin and Hobbes, but that's a whole other article.) Unfortunately, most Hollywood executives share Calvin's attitude: why try something new when we can keep doing what we already know works? Let's keep doing superhero movies at the rate of dozens a year! Look at all these TV shows we can make into movies! Let's drag out franchises beyond all reason! 

In other words, an executive's reasoning goes something like this: "Let's milk the cash cow 'til it's dry, then beat it 'til it's dead!"

Of course, this is nothing new. The movie business is a business, after all, and studios care less about creating art than they do about filling their coffers. Probably the most prominent example of this is the movie sequel. What could be a surer bet than putting a blockbuster's name on another movie? It's practically a license to print money!

There are a few unwritten rules for sequels, and they go something like this: Get as many members of the original cast as possible. Stick to the original plot formula. Tell the same jokes that got laughs before. Basically, all these rules boil down to one axiom: give the audience what they expect.

Pretty much every sequel stuck to those unwritten commandments, until 1982. That was the year when a few Hollywood mavericks decided to stick it to the man. 

By '82, the Halloween franchise had become a proven moneymaker. John Carpenter's low-budget, independent slasher film had (deservedly) been a huge hit in 1978, and the 1981 sequel, Halloween II, had been equally successful, The franchise's producer, Mustapha Akkad, was anxious for another film, but John Carpenter was growing tired of Michael Myers and his knife. Carpenter and his producing partner Debra Hill eventually agreed to make another Halloween film, with one catch: that it would not be a direct sequel to the first two films. Akkad reluctantly agreed.

The next year, Halloween III: Season of the Witch reached theaters. The film told the story of an evil mask manufacturer and his plan to make Halloween masks that turned kids' faces into pools of bugs. (Don't ask me how that works.) The story is an interesting one, but audiences weren't buying. Halloween III flopped, and studio executives gloated. Why shouldn't they? After all, Halloween III had proven them right. Carpenter, Hill, and company had learned that when you mess with the formula, you get punished.

Things went back to the way things were. Until 2016, that is.

When the trailer for 10 Cloverfield Lane dropped on an unsuspecting public, the public reaction was huge. In 2008, the first film in the Cloverfield franchise, appropriately titled Cloverfield, hit theaters and was a modest success. The found-footage giant-monster flick garnered praise from critics. It got a less-than-shining review from the public at large, but the film did acquire a rabid fan base all its own.

The most interesting aspect of Cloverfield's release (in this author's opinion, anyway) was the amazing viral marketing campaign. It all started with a poster featuring a destroyed Statue of Liberty and a trailer that raised more questions than it answered. That was all the Internet needed to get the ball rolling. Speculation filled the message boards and long articles were written about what the unseen monster would look like. The campaign is arguably the reason why the film is still talked about today.

The marketing campaign for 10 Cloverfield Lane took up the same tack. One confusing element, though: the trailer seemed to have nothing to do with the first film. Rather than getting humans squashed by giant monsters, we had three people locked in a bunker together. One of them (John Goodman) appeared to have a screw loose. Fans were perplexed. How could this possibly connect to the first film? Fans took to their keyboards, and the Cloverfield message boards came to life again.

Then, on March 11, 10 Cloverfield Lane hit the multiplexes. Fans had decidedly mixed feelings. They took to the message boards and said that producer J.J. Abrams and director Dan Trachtenberg had cheated them. Why? I'll tell you after the picture.

Guess what? 10 Cloverfield Lane has almost NOTHING to do with the first film. Rather than being a monster flick reminiscent of Godzilla, 10 Cloverfield Lane is a thriller reminiscent of The Twilight Zone or Alfred Hitchcock Presents. You know what else? It's one of the best sequels we've had in decades.

The famed screenwriter William Goldman has often called sequels "whore movies." Crass, but fair. Most sequels aren't made out of any passion for any story or character. Most sequels are made for only one reason: to rake in the long green. That's why most sequels feature the same plot as the original film. It's easy, and why break a sweat when you're only doing it for the money?

10 Cloverfield Lane is definitely NOT doing it for the money. If they were, the movie would be totally different. J.J. Abrams, Dan Trachtenberg, and the rest of the crew knew that a monster movie would be a sure moneymaker. Did they go the safe route? No. They channeled their inner Rod Serling and gave us a taut, character-driven thriller. (Side note: I wonder if Abrams's work on Serling's script The Stops Along The Way inspired the feel of 10 Cloverfield Lane. Something to wonder about!) 

Abrams and company are to be commended for making such a gutsy move. By placing passion for story and character above love of money, they've finished what John Carpenter and Debra Hill tried to do with Halloween III. They've turned the sequel into a true creative enterprise. (And, incidentally, they've also been financially compensated; 10 Cloverfield Lane has already earned triple its production budget and is still going strong!)

With a successful non-direct sequel on the books, Hollywood executives may rethink their attitude toward the sequel. They may allow filmmakers more freedom to do their own thing when making such films. As a result, we may get a lot more creativity in Hollywood movies. 

Wishful thinking? Sure. But we can dream, can't we?

The Friday Five: Favorite Male Singers/Vocalists

Welcome to The Friday Five! It sounds like an action movie, but it's not; rather, it's a weekly series where bloggers are given a topic and are assigned to come up with a five-song list fitting that topic. This Friday, the topic/question is: WHAT ARE YOUR TOP FIVE FAVORITE MALE VOCALISTS? 

(As with all my lists, what follows is in no particular order.)

Sam Cooke

Sam Cooke's voice is as smooth as a chocolate milkshake. His singing is so easy to listen to that it's soothing; put on a Cooke album after a hard day and you'll be feeling better within seconds. I promise. However, it's not just the technical perfection that makes Cooke's voice great; it's the soul and emotion that he put into every song he sang. With subtle, almost imperceptible changes in his singing, he could convey a range of emotions, from loneliness to ecstasy to fiery passion to true love. Of all the voices on this list, Cooke's is the one I covet most.

 

Johnny Cash

I like to think of Johnny Cash as a troubadour or a balladeer. One of those people who used to roam the world with their guitars, telling about what they saw through evocative songs that they wrote themselves. Cash's voice has a haunting quality that reminds me of those legendary singers. Personally, I feel that said haunting quality is that he obviously feels strongly about everything he sang. The listener immediately feels what he's feeling. That's what made his story songs so particularly resonant. It's also what gets him a spot on this list.  

Tony Bennett

Ready for a controversial opinion? I think that Tony Bennett is a better vocalist than Frank Sinatra. Now, before you kill me, let me say that I love Sinatra. I admire his skill and I admire his longevity. That being said, Sinatra doesn't get me to FEEL IT the way that Tony Bennett does. When Sinatra sings "Fly Me To The Moon," I admire the technical brilliance of Sinatra's singing. When Bennett sings the same song, however, I'm right there with him, experiencing the same emotions. In other words, Tony Bennett has made me cry and Frank Sinatra hasn't. That's why Bennett is on this list and Sinatra isn't.

(By the way, consider this: SINATRA HIMSELF said that Bennett was the better singer. I'm not alone in my opinion!)

Tom Jones

I hesitated to include Tom Jones on this list, since pop culture has made such a joke of him over the past couple decades. After much deliberation, I decided to go with my heart. After all, Tom Jones is a great singer, and he's only gotten better as he's grown older. In fact, I prefer the Tom Jones of today to the one of the '60s and '70s. His voice has grown a little weathered and acquired a little grit, and it serves him really well. He can still belt it out (as he always could), but, now, there's an extra touch of authenticity that wasn't there before. It's that touch of age that has turned Jones from a good vocalist into a great one.

The Beach Boys

You don't have to say anything; I already know I'm cheating. I had to include The Beach Boys on this list, though, and you can't talk about one Beach Boy and not talk about the others. After all, it's the harmonies that turned a group of good singers into GREAT ones! Obviously, vocal harmonies are nothing new, but The Boys were the first ones to take the harmony into the recording studio and really do something new with them. Basically, Brian Wilson took the same techniques Phil Spector had developed for instruments and applied them to vocals. Double-tracking, reverb, and other recording trickery helped turn The Beach Boys's harmonies into something amazing, something that had never been heard before and will never be heard in quite the same way again.

What about you? Who are your five favorite male vocalists?

Me! Dancing With Gazelle!

(Many thanks to Disney Animation and DancingWithGazelle.com for allowing me to make this video. I kind of love it!)

Movie Poster Hall Of Fame: 1982 Edition

Welcome to the Movie Poster Hall Of Fame! In each installment, we'll take a random year and look at the best movie posters, analyzing what makes them great. This time, we'll take a look at the magical year of 1982!

(The posters are in no particular order.)

The Year Of Living Dangerously

The Year Of Living Dangerously is a steamy, strange little movie. The story of an Australian reporter (Mel Gibson) investigating the political turmoil in Indonesia during 1965, Year takes all the potential drama and romance in that tale and jacks it up to eleven. In fact, it feels a lot like the novels that always made the bestseller lists during that period. The poster takes that bestseller vibe and drives it home with the almost dreamlike collage of characters and settings in the background, while the main character looms in front. It looks precisely like the covers of the paperback novels I have from that period. It's a very clever way to draw audiences in!

Does The Movie Live Up To The Poster?: Yes and no. Year definitely has the melodramatic vibe that the poster evokes. That's perfectly fine if you like that kind of story, and I occasionally do. However, this movie never pushes my buttons in the right way, as evidenced by the fact that I've never finished it. Three stars out of five from me!

Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan

Paramount Pictures had a monumental task in front of them: marketing Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan. The prior Star Trek movie, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, had been (rightly) savaged by critics and audiences for being dull. The filmmakers learned their lessons and, with Wrath Of Khan, created a sequel full of action, funny moments, and drama. Now, they had to convince audiences to give them another chance. They did so extremely well. The movie did have a KILLER trailer, but the poster also packed a heavy punch. The poster puts the focus where it belongs: on the villain, Khan. Just seeing that guy, you knew this going to be entirely better than the first film (which featured - no kidding - a broken space satellite as the villain).

Does The Movie Live Up To The Poster?: It does indeed. With a scenery-chewing villain from the original series leading the way, Wrath of Khan boasts everything that the prior Star Trek film lacked: a tightly-constructed plot, well-rounded characters, an ending that makes every nerd cry, and bugs that wrap themselves around your brain stem and force you to tell the truth. It's a solid four-starrer!

The Secret Of NIMH

In 1979, Don Bluth and a cadre of animators left their jobs at Walt Disney Animation. Bluth and company formed a new animation company and pronounced their intentions: to bring animated movies back to the level of quality that Walt Disney had originally established. Those were fighting words, and Don Bluth Productions's first film, The Secret Of NIMH, would have to be pretty awesome in order to legitimatize Bluth's mission. The movie did turn out to be plenty awesome (as we'll discuss later), but it would need to get audiences in seats in order to prove itself. 

The poster was totally up to the job of attracting audiences! The poster does a great job encapsulating the mood of the story; one look at that poster, and you know you're in for an epic adventure story with a lot of magic mixed in. I also love the use of color; the contrast of the yellow light against the purple, blue, and red is very dynamic and exciting.

Does The Movie Live Up To The Poster?: It exceeds it. The Secret of NIMH is a very special animated film for me; it has a special Bluthian vibe to it that keeps me coming back to the movie again and again. The story is interesting and engrossing, and Mrs. Brisby (Elizabeth Hartman) is one of my favorite protagonists in any movie (animated or not). On top of that, the film is visually stunning from beginning to end. Four and a half stars from me!

Rocky III

I'll admit it: this poster is on the list primarily because I love all the Rocky movies (and I do mean ALL of them. I even like Rocky V.) However, that's not the only reason why it's here! I love Rocky III's poster for its guilelessness. The marketers behind Rocky Balboa's third adventure knew EXACTLY what drew us to the first two films: spending time with Mr. Balbo. Rocky III plays on Rocky's likability, and that's ALL it plays on! The rest of the poster is pretty standard, but when you've got The Italian Stallion on your poster, you don't need frills!

Does The Movie Live Up To The Poster?: Well, I think it does, but you've gotta understand that I'm nuts. Seriously, though: I really do think Rocky III is a ton of fun. Does the movie reek of '80s cheesiness? Yes, it does. Does Mr. T overact A LOT as the movie's villain? Indeed. Is the plot extremely brainless? Uh-huh. I'm totally aware of Rocky III's flaws. I love it anyway! The flaws actually give the movie a warmth that you can only get from kitschy '80s movies. I give the flick four stars!

Poltergeist

If it's all the same to you, I'd like to avoid that age-old debate over who REALLY directed Poltergeist. (Was it Steven Spielberg? Was it Tobe Hooper?) It's totally irrelevant to our discussion here. Instead, let's talk about what's really important: the poster. What I love about the poster is that it shows how powerful one line and one image can be when you stick them together! All of the poster's elements come together to formulate questions in moviegoers' minds:

"Why does that girl have her hands on the TV like that?"

"'They're here.' What does that mean?"

"Poltergeist? What's that? Some kind of Italian food?"

The more questions the moviegoer asks, the more curious the moviegoer becomes. The more curious the moviegoer becomes, the more likely they are to buy a ticket on opening day. In other words, Poltergeist's poster gives us a tantalizing tidbit of information, hoping that we'll be intrigued enough to learn more. It uses curiosity as a selling point, and I think that's awesome.

Does The Movie Live Up To The Poster?: Yes, indeedy. In fact, this is one of my favorite horror movies of all time. It's not too weird, and it's not too artsy-fartsy. Poltergeist takes an extremely scary situation and puts it in an environment we've all seen before (a suburban neighborhood), having it happen to realistic, life-like characters. Along with the scares, you also get touches of comedy, a weird psychic lady, a band of intrepid ghost hunters, and a big gob of '80s special effects. Poltergeist is a lot of fun! Four stars!

First Blood

Sly Stallone takes over yet ANOTHER poster! This time, however, there's a little more going on than in Rocky III. In this one-sheet, an advertisement for First Blood, Stallone defines John Rambo in one image: a buff guy with a big gun. He looms over a background of cop cars, police officers, and weekend warriors, all unaware of the terror that Rambo is about to rain down upon them. Overall, however, what stands out most (to me, anyway) is this poster's grimy feel. First Blood is a brutal, uncompromising movie. There are few likable characters, and the situations the plot puts us into are  intense and quite violent. The dirty feel of this poster captures the vibe of the movie perfectly!

Does The Movie Live Up To The Poster?: Yes! Even with all the intensity and grittiness, First Blood is a fun, exciting roller-coaster of a movie. It gave Stallone the second-most iconic role of his career. It was among the first wave of movies to deal directly with the Vietnam War and its effects on veterans. It doesn't match the greatness of David Morrell's original novel, but First Blood is still an excellent way to spend a couple hours. Four stars!

Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid

When you see Carl Reiner's name on a film, you go in expecting a certain sort of movie: something crazy and creative. Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid delivers on all those fronts (not as well as some of his other movies do, but we'll get to that). However, one name does not a movie sell, unless the name is Johnny Depp. As we've discussed several times, a good poster is one that lets you know exactly what you're getting into when you buy a ticket. Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid does a great job of covering all the bases: it showcases the leading star (Steve Martin, threatening you with his revolver), tells you the general mood of the movie (film noir/comedy), lets you know what kind of comedy to expect (the goofiest kind), and tells you that the film's gonna be gimmicky ('FILMED IN DETECTO-VISION!') The poster is the whole package!

Does The Movie Live Up To The Poster?: This is a tricky one. Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid definitely delivers on all the elements the poster hints at. The movie is perfectly decent, but it pales in comparison to Carl Reiner's other work (like The Jerk and Oh, God!). Honestly, the coolest thing about the movie is the gimmick. Most of the characters are spliced in from other noir movies, and it's fun to see the plot get more crazily convoluted as it works to fit all these clips in. However, the rest of the movie doesn't live up to the fun of that gimmick. If you like noir movies, you should see this. If you don't, you can safely skip it. Three and a half stars.

Creepshow

Sit down, little ones, and I'll tell you about the good ol' days. Back before Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime, we actually had go out if we wanted to rent movies. We went to these magical places called video stores, which had pretty much any movie you might want to watch. Everybody had their own routines when they went to Blockbuster, but mine went like this. While my mom went to the new releases, I would pick up one of my rental stand-bys (I must have rented Adventures In Babysitting ten times) and went to look at covers. I would stare at particular covers, admiring the artwork and trying to imagine what the movie might be about. (There's actually an art book devoted to the subject; I own it.)

Creepshow's poster takes me right back to those days. This is exactly the sort of image that would make me yearn to rent the movie (or go to the theater)! The idea of a skele-zombie collecting tickets is just the kind of thing that would get my imagination racing, and the simple-but-effective tagline ("The Most Fun You'll Ever Have BEING SCARED!") is just strong enough to get me wondering what surprises awaited in the actual film. During my salad days, I was too young to know who George A. Romero and Stephen King were, but, even so, I knew this poster packed a punch!

Does The Movie Live Up To The Poster?: It's impossible for me to judge Creepshow objectively. This is one of the first horror movies I remember seeing, and it played a large part into making me the horror fan I am today! As I grow older, I can see that the movie isn't perfect. It's an anthology movie, and two of the stories ("Father's Day" and "The Lonesome Death Of Jordy Verrill") are pretty weak. The remaining three stories are wonderful, though, and the whole movie carries a goofy, fun vibe that mixes well with the scares. Four stars!

E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial

Steven Spielberg is wonderful at capturing the essence of making his movies special in one image. With Jaws, it was a gigantic shark preparing to devour an innocent swimmer. With Raiders Of The Lost Ark, it was a cool-looking painting of moments and characters from the film, very much reminiscent of posters from the 1930s. With E.T. The Extra Terrestrial, Spielberg and his marketers put their heads together and came up with the PERFECT moment to capture the magic and wonder that E.T. boasts: a bike, flying past the moon as a young boy pedals and a hooded alien rides. It's a very special image, the sort that you can only see in the movies. This is the kind of moment that people are talking about when people talk about 'movie magic.' When it comes to drawing audiences in, there's nothing better than some wonder!

Does The Movie Live Up To The Poster?: Does it ever! I personally think that E.T. is Spielberg's best film, and that's saying a lot. It's a film that never fails to pull me in. It's inevitable: I sit down to watch E.T., and, by the end of the movie, I'm bawling. I don't know what it is about the movie that grabs me. Maybe it's the lifelike characters. Maybe it's the stellar special effects. Maybe it's John Williams's score. Maybe it's Spielberg's hand at the helm. Maybe it's a combination of a number of things. Whatever it is, I definitely have to say that E.T. is one of the best movies I've ever seen. Five stars from me!

Thanks for joining me on this first installment of the Movie Poster Hall Of Fame! Next time, we'll be taking a look at 1973!

Why 'Star Wars' Should Have Ended With 'Return Of The Jedi'

In 1977, a certain science-fiction movie opened in cinemas around the world, and the movies changed. That movie, as you probably guessed, was George Lucas's Star Wars. Nobody expected too much from Lucas's space opera. Studio executives (with the notable exception of Alan Ladd, Jr.) thought the film was too weird to make a profit. Lucas's fellow directors thought making Star Wars was a misstep; for instance, Brian De Palma walked out of a screening saying that the film was the stupidest thing he'd ever seen. Even Lucas himself doubted that the movie would make a profit. However, with constant support from two close friends (Alan Ladd, Jr. and Steven Spielberg), Lucas eventually finished his space adventure.

In May 1977, Star Wars hit theaters and proved all the naysayers wrong. The movie raked in 290 million dollars at the U.S. box office, becoming (at the time) the highest-grossing movie ever made. The film became a cultural phenomenon, and George Lucas became one of the most powerful filmmakers in Hollywood.

George Lucas on the set of A New Hope.

Lucas used his newfound power well. Staying true to his original vision for Star Wars, Lucas sliced his original story treatment into two more pieces, which became The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. Both of these sequels were just as critically acclaimed as the first film, and all was well and good in that galaxy far, far away. That is, things were well and good until 1999, when George Lucas returned with his trilogy of prequels. As with Voldemort, let us not speak their names.

Now, in 2015, we're getting another dose of Star Wars cinema, this time The Force Awakens. However, I feel that this latest installment begs the same question that many were asking in 1999: do we really need another Star Wars movie?

The answer is the same as it was in 1999: NO. We do not. In fact, the more SW flicks we have, the easier it is to forget how strong, how moving, how well-constructed the original trilogy was. In the following paragraphs, I shall explain my controversial view.

Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill), the Hero of our little story.

When George Lucas was hammering out the story for the original Star Wars trilogy, he turned to a very classy source for help: Joseph Campbell's seminal The Hero With A Thousand Faces. When setting up the plot structure for the trilogy, Lucas stuck closely to the "Hero's Journey" outline that Campbell detailed in his book, which had been distilled from centuries of world myths. As a result, the trilogy's plot has a timeless, mythic vibe to it, one that proved to be crowd-pleasing.

The original trilogy revolves around Luke Skywalker, the archetypal "Hero" of Star Wars. Over the course of three movies, Luke goes through a painful transformation from immature farm boy to a wise, competent Jedi Knight. The trilogy details Luke's metamorphosis in a very clean-cut way, with each film comprising one act in a classic three-act story.

In Star Wars (Act One), Luke is forced to take action when his aunt and uncle are killed by Emperial stormtroopers. He teams with Obi-Wan Kenobi, his Mentor (another Joseph Campbell archetype), Han Solo, and Chewbacca, and together, they set out to save Princess Leia and blow up the Death Star. In the process, Obi-Wan dies, leaving Luke to fend for himself. Luke also comes to the attention of the Galactic Empire. In The Empire Strikes Back, Luke finds himself a new Mentor (Yoda), but he also encounters some extremely difficult trials, including some painful revelations about his family. These trials easily could have derailed Luke, but he overcomes them well, becoming stronger in the process. In Return Of The Jedi, Luke completes his transformation from boy to Hero by finally coming to terms with his personal demons, including his familial secrets. The Journey is complete.

In fact, the original Star Wars trilogy is a particularly fine example of The Hero's Journey because there are actually several characters who transform alongside Luke. Han Solo goes from being a cocky, self-centered rebel to a cocky, selfless rebel. Luke's dad probably has the most wide-ranging transformation in the movie, from a really nasty jerk to a man who sacrifices a lot to save his son.

The beauty of the original Star Wars trilogy is that it shows us how all of us can also make the transformation from zero to hero. Like many other heroes, Luke Skywalker shows us how all of us can overcome obstacles, becoming better people in the process. The story of Star Wars is the story of Luke Skywalker's maturing process, and when that story ends, Star Wars ends.

That's the way it should be, anyway. But it isn't.

Unfortunately, George Lucas went on to dump three movies of unimportant details on top of his perfect story. Since Lucas had already told the story he had set out to tell, he didn't have enough fuel to fill his prequels. Therefore, he went on to fill the three films with a bunch of backstory we didn't need. Who cares what Anakin Skywalker was like as a kid? Who cares about what happened during the Clone Wars? Who cares how Darth Vader became evil? Those elements don't tie into what SW's story is all about. Fans sensed this, and, as a result, the sequels disappointed just about everyone.

Now here we are, coming up on The Force Awakens. There's a lot of hopefulness revolving around this movie, and that's understandable. J.J. Abrams is at the helm, fresh from reviving Star Trek, another iconic sci-fi franchise. SW has a new home at Disney, and a new home means fresh ideas. Most of the original trilogy's cast is returning, as is Lawrence Kasdan, one of the original trilogy's screenwriters. Many fans are confident that The Force Awakens will bring Star Wars back to its former glory.

I'm not as confident as those optimistic fans. Sure, a lot of fresh, exciting elements are being brought into The Force Awakens, as well as a nice dash of nostalgia. However, Episode VII is facing the same story problems as the prequels did. Will the new film be able to add something significant and interesting to the original trilogy's story, or will we just get more fluff that has no bearing on the original story?

Only seeing the movie will tell. I will say that Episode VII has a lot more freedom to do cool stuff than the prequels did, and that I'm excited to see what Luke has been doing. However, until I do see the movie, I'm sticking with my thesis: Star Wars should have ended with Return of the Jedi!

(REVIEW) 'Spectre:' Bond Re-Heated

"Not every man would like to be James Bond, but every boy would." Roger Ebert opened his excellent Great Movies essay on Goldfinger (the third James Bond film) with this phrase. I can personally attest that it's true!

I was introduced to 007's adventures when I was around seven years old, when my dad brought home a James Bond VHS box set. The set contained all of Sean Connery's Bond outings (except for Never Say Never Again, Connery's independent 1983 Bond film), along with George Lazenby's sole 007 film, On Her Majesty's Secret Service. My dad and I then set out on a journey to watch each movie in one long marathon.

My Bond love started during that marathon. I didn't fully understand all of the movies then (I'm looking at you, From Russia With Love), but I did know that I wanted to be 007. After all, this guy got to travel all over the world. He got all kinds of cool toys to play with. Pretty girls hung on his every word. In other words, James Bond had everything I wanted.

I don't idolize Bond quite as much as I once did. I still love Bond flicks, though, and I've seen them all! There are some Bond movies that I haven't liked (Quantum Of Solace, for instance), but no franchise is perfect. I'm a Bond fanboy, and I will be until the day I die!

I absolutely loved Skyfall; I thought it was the best 007 flick I'd seen in a long time. So, when I heard that Sam Mendes, the film's director, would be returning to direct Spectre, I was excited! I walked into the theater filled with anticipation. Was I satisfied? Well... let's talk about it!

Spectre begins in Mexico City, as 007 carries out an  mission for his deceased former boss, the old M (Judi Dench). After killing off assassin Marco Sciarra (Alessandro Cremona), Bond recovers a ring from Sciarra's body, a ring with an octopus symbol on it. After Sciarra's funeral, Marco's widow (Monica Bellucci) tells 007 that the symbol is the mascot for SPECTRE, a terrorist organization that all (and I do mean ALL) of Bond's former villains have been members of. Bond infiltrates one of SPECTRE's secret meetings, where he is immediately detected by the organization's boss (Christoph Waltz). The boss calls Bond out and sets the brawny assassin Mr. Minx (Dave Bautista) on his trail. Meanwhile, 007, with the help of Madeline Swann (Lea Seydoux), sets out to kill the head of SPECTRE.

The script carries the vibe of a classic 1960s Bond film, from the crazy-beautiful pre-credits sequence, to the SPECTRE meeting Bond infiltrates, to the cocky, over-the-top villain. In fact, the script is at its best when it's sticking close to that classic Bond style. When it tries to get more current, things go out of whack. The scenes that are cool are REALLY cool, but there are long, boring stretches between them.

The acting is so-so across the board, and I must say that I'm disappointed in Daniel Craig. He seems like he's sleepwalking through the movie. He's not bad, per se, but one can sense that he's bored with Bond. Unfortunately, Christoph Waltz doesn't do much better as the villain. He's only in about one-fifth of the movie, and he's only really good in one scene (the meeting). He spends the rest of the film shifting between two extremes: chewing up the scenery and phoning it in. Lea Seydoux makes like Craig and sleepwalks through her role. The only actor who is consistently good is Dave Bautista, but he's hardly in the movie at all.

The movie is great on a technical level, though. Special kudos to the cinematographer, editor, and stunt coordinators, who all brought their A-game. In fact, the movie is at its best when those elements take center stage; I'm thinking of moments like the Mexico City sequence and the train-fight sequence between Bautista and Craig. In fact, the train fight may be my favorite part of Spectre. It was nice to see a classic hand-to-hand fight in a movie again!

Unfortunately, the fight scene was somewhat ruined in the latter half by the music. Thomas Newman's score is... well, it's dull. It's so dull, in fact, that there's not much to say about it beyond that. Sam Smith's theme song wasn't boring, though. In fact, I like "Writings On The Wall" just fine as a stand-alone song. I just didn't like it as a Bond theme. It was a big letdown after Adele's amazing theme for Skyfall.

I really wish I had more good things to say about Spectre! It had a lot of the elements that I love in other Bond films, but they didn't really mesh this time. It's sort of like when you reheat leftovers; something's lost in the translation from when it was fresh the night before to the the freshly microwaved meal you have for lunch the next day. That's pretty much the way I feel about Spectre. Should you see it? Yes. But wait until it comes out on DVD.

Rating: 3.5/5 Stars