Fluke_Skywalker

Like the battle of Midway itself, historical epics are a thing of the past. For a variety of reasons, Hollywood has lost the stomach for the kind of grand, sweeping "real life" events tale that Midway aspires to be. It's a shame really. Dubious historical accuracy or not, those kinds of movies help to shed light onto the kinds of people and stories that tend to get lost and forgotten in a world that's increasingly become more about what's "now".

Even a kid who went to public school knows at least something about Pearl Harbor (the actual event, not the bloated Michael Bay movie). But how many people could tell you anything about one of WWII's most critical battles? In that sense, Midway might act as a bit of a Cliff Notes for the actual event and even spark enough curiosity to dig deeper. If that's all it did/does, it's a worthwhile endeavor, but a Hollywood movie's first task is to entertain, and there Midway kinda succeeds. Sorta.

With a first act featuring the Pearl Harbor attack and a chunk of act two even throwing in the Doolittle raid, it attempts to squeeze too much into its two hour and change runtime. More focus on the behind the scenes Intel and planning and less on tangential preceding events would've served the story much better in my opinion.

Those issues aside, the cast is up to the task, spitting out their ropy dialog with believable sincerity while has-been director Roland Emmerich manages to shake off the rust and deliver some above par action; even if the digital heavy special f/x aren't always up to the task.

Ultimately Midway never quite finds its footing. Is it a serious historical drama? No, but it seems to want to be at times. Is it a popcorn flick? Again, no. It's almost like they weren't comfortable going the full Michael Bay route, with modern pop tunes playing as beautiful people posed dramatically in front of a wind machine.

At least it manages to avoid heavy-handed messaging and finger waving, so that at least is a feather in its cap.

Put on your plaid shirt and crank up some Hootie and the Blowfish, because we're heading back to a time when SNL was still funny. I'm talking about the 90's, perhaps humanity's most absurd decade ever. And few movies epitomize that more than 1997's 'Con Air'.

I hadn't watched this since it first came out, and while I remembered the basics, there were a few surprises. For one, it's not directed by Michael Bay. It just looks and feels so much like one of his films that I wouldn't be surprised if *he* thinks that he directed it. It even has members of the Michael Bay acting troupe and is scored by 'Armageddon' and 'Bad Boys II' composer Trevor Rabin.

The premise is, of course, ridiculous, but it also promises some fun if you can switch off your brain for 2 hrs or so. Unfortunately some of that fun is ruined by a surprisingly mean-spirited undertone. I get that we're dealing with a group of characters mostly made up by convicts of various stripes, but this is supposed to just be a dumb action movie, and the amount of genuinely hateful interaction between the convicts is a little jarring. Particularly some of the racial undertones.

As usual Cage brings his hammy best; dodgy Alabama accent aside. The rest of the cast are his equal, with John Malkovich providing a classic "I'm too good for this material, but I'm also too much of a pro to mail it in." type of performance.

I like these kinds of movies as much or more than the average person, but I can't say that I walk away from 'Con Air' quite understanding its cult classic status. I mean, it's fine. But I can rattle off dozens of similar action movies from the era that I prefer way more, and it's not a flight that I ever plan on boarding again.

As someone who came of age with the Original Trilogy, I've always had a complex relationship with the Prequels. They feel different. They ARE different. The look and the tone are radically so. The former is due mostly to the heavy use of CG special effects technology. The latter is because the prequels take place in a much different story environment and on a grander stage than the Original saga. But at their core the two trilogies share enough DNA to play believably together as one story, and that feeling was only enhanced when I revisited Revenge of the Sith for the first time in well over a decade for its 20th anniversary theatrical release..

Revenge of the Sith is easily the best of the three Prequel films. The first two had the burden of doing a lot of (clumsy) world building and story setup, and despite some really cool and iconic moments, they suffer as a result. Lucas was clearly rusty when he made The Phantom Menace, and Attack of the Clones plays like a movie made by someone who never had his ideas challenged by the sycophants around him. But ROTS sees a more assured Lucas at the helm. The dialog is still ham-fisted and clunky, and there are massive plot holes, but there's more stylish flair and the basic story beats are handled well.

Of the performances, only Ewan McGregor comes out unscathed. His performance as Obi-Wan Kenobi is the highlight of the film. Hayden Christensen is a terrible actor, but he is brilliant with the physical stuff. As for the rest of the cast, Portman is godawful, Jackson is miscast and McDiarmid is embarrassingly hammy. In a different kind of movie their "performances" would've ruined the entire thing, but here the rising tide of the operatic action lifts all boats.

Revenge of the Sith is a very flawed film, but not fatally so. The important stuff works, and works well, and when we iris out to the credits it manages to have satisfyingly completed the story of how Anakin Skywalker becomes, well, you know.