Uni

I'm late, as usual, but I had to get in on this one. This'll be in two parts, the first post dealing with the article, the second the rest of the discussion. Concerning the article: Wow. Absolutely fascinating. It's about time someone saw this series the way I've been watching it for years. There are so many symbols and allegorical references in these films that people miss, and finally I know that there are others out there who understand the purpose of the Rancor, and its inate connection with the rest of the parable between Luke and his father. One of my favorite images, though, that he did miss, concerns that beast sitting outside Jabba's palace. The scene comes in the midst of the plot developments, even as one by one, the heroes are drawn into the smuggler's web and caught. In the middle of that, we see a small, scurrying creature, unaware of his danger, suddenly sense something is amiss. He tries to dart away, but too late--like lightning, the larger creature captures him, just like the characters, unaware of their true danger, are pulled inexorably into the trap. Then, in the real moment of brilliance, the creature burps, signifying Jabba's satisfaction, and cannily foreshadowing the belch of the Sarlacc as Boba Fett--wearing green, of course--ends his career unceremoniously, which in turn is a clear mirroring of the Space Slug in Empire,--full of mynocks, which obviously represent the worlds within the greater Empire as they attach themselves to witless victims--trying to grab hold of the escaping Falcon--which, like the heroes had been doing until that point, does manage to get away, only to wind up betrayed in Cloud City, which is a "floating device", another vivid image in the series, meaning.... I trust that by now my point is becoming clear. (If not, we need to talk.) Whatta buncha hooey. I read this article with an increasing sense of disbelief, until at one point (I think it was the footnote on colors) I actually began to think it was a joke, just like what I wrote above. I mean, no one would really think this stuff is valid, right? By the time I finished, though, I was convinced that the author meant every word of it. While doubtless well-meaning, he's done an astounding job of stretching for this one. Reminds me of my high school days when, in order to please the teacher and filch a good grade, we'd drum up some wildly outlandish analysis for an expository paper on some book or short story. It was usually complete BS. The teacher knew this, of course, but having spent the semester trying to coax any sort of rational thinking out of us, she wasn't about to discourage even the most meager fruits of her labor (what was she gonna do, write in red pen What the hell is THIS crap? across the top?). So she accepted it, even though she knew it was bupkiss, and we knew that she knew, and so on. Same thing here. I haven't seen someone work this hard on arguing a senseless thesis in years. I had a whole pageful of notes in direct response to many of the gratuitous, sometimes contradictory, and all too often just plain strange assertions brought to light in this analysis, but it just became too much. I'll sum up instead by nailing down the bottom line, the one point of logic that makes the whole house of cards tumble (in my opinion, at least): If George Lucas was that sharp a tack, if he was capable of weaving so many intricate and profound allegorical nuances into the same tapestry, then he would have written a better film. Period. A character who has changed heads as an ellucidation of the paradoxical juxtaposition of diplomacy and military might within the New Republic does not say things like, "What a drag" and "I'm beside myself." To say such clumsy simplicities as well as such sagacious symbolism have the same source is like trying to connect two magnets at the same pole. I'll never believe it. Ironically, coming at it from the other direction and actually agreeing with the points laid out in the article provides an even graver condemnation for Lucas's efforts....because if he really was bringing all that to the table intentionally, then shame on him for doing it so ineptly. What use is allegory, if it's presented so poorly that hardly anyone gets it (other than those deep-thinking film school students desperately seeking an A on their final paper)? I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. I think there are a few symbols worth noting (the crucifixion below Cloud City was a particularly fascinating viewpoint), but I don't for a second believe that Lucas had even a fraction of the icons this guy suggested in mind when he made these films. George Lucas is certainly a student of myth, as is well known, but he's trying to make his own myth here, full of its own symbols and meanings; to credit him with unlocking a Pandora's box of ancient hierograms is either to give him too much credit, or to show he doesn't deserve it to begin with. The argument is self-defeating. - Uni

In the theater I helped occupy, it didn't require any sort of poll. The awkwardness of the reaction was palpable. And he didn't say they all cried foul. He distinctly said, "There were shouts of....", meaning someone said, "Oh, come on," while another one came along with the "What crap!" line. I recall any specific wording at my own event, but the laughter wasn't what normally follows a satisfying punch line or apparent comic twist. It was somewhere between the polite laugh you give someone who's desperately trying to entertain you with a joke that was petrified in Shakespeare's day, and the laugh of sheer disbelief as involuntarily as an untimely belch, usually accompanied by a bewildered shake of the head and a glance askance at any companion at hand ("Did I just see that?"). Believe it. It was that bad. I dunno about the whole "worst scored" thing now (see below), but it was a corker either way. Yeah, but as I also suggested, I don't think he was aiming for a laugh--it goes totally against the grain he's trying to establish (again, see below)--and so in a way he did fail because the music fades so abruptly (that's part of the reason, anyway). Isn't that the truth....although that does, in a way, make nitpicking about this one particular example a case of splitting microscopic hairs. But then, it's the music that stands out in this one, and what else are we here for? :roll: EXACTLY!!! And there's the crux of it. With the original trilogy, Lucas was going for a simpler paradigm, hanging a sly, fast-paced space opera on the standard framework of Joseph Campbell mythology. (If you watch closely, A New Hope wasn't all that far a cry from American Graffiti.) Bringing cutting-edge SPFX to the table helped mask some of the missteps he suffered even at that stage, and the result was a very aptly-handled adventure saga. But now, he's going for the Big Kahuna, trying to leapfrog off the success of the originals to encompass an epic romance (in the classic sense of the word), fit to rival Homer or Mallory or Tolkien. His fierce effort for Edda is obvious in almost every scene in both films (except for those where he's pandering with sophmoric humor, with Jar Jar Binks serving as champion of that particular cause in TPM--which, ironically, goes most of the way in undermining his broader purpose). But he's simply not up to the task. Not only is the faltering love affair not Romeo and Juliet, it's barely up to snuff with Saturday morning cartoons. I think that's what frustrates me the most about it. There is so much potential to be had from the notion of a young and courageous Knight trying to win the hand of the beautiful, influential lady he fancies, even as he is drawn inexorably toward an evil path from which he cannot return. There's a glorious exhilaration that comes when watching a filmmaker or actor reach for something grand, nearly impossible even, and then achieve it; but it is conversely just as disappointing to see them reach, know they're reaching and what they're reaching for, and watch them fumble around and fall short. In extreme cases, it's downright embarassing, though aside from an unavoidable cringe or two, I don't know that I'd go that far in accusing Lucas. It's just a little sad to see what could have been a better product not break through, that's all. See, and that's why I think it didn't work. The tension should be there. He is trying to draw near, she's drawing away. They both know the impossibility of their situation; he's willing to risk it, though, whereas she is not (not yet, anyway--nor should she be). Wooden acting and ill dialogue aside, here's the situation where he nearly breaks through her resolve, a key point in the progression. How much better might it have been to key down the music (as in the Raiders and Empire examples previously suggested), and to see the shadow of desire in her eyes--even as she reminds him of his place? (And then, perhaps, to see him stolidly accept this, almost growing cold with it, and see her flash of regret as he leaves? You can get ten times the mileage out of subtext than simple dialogue.) Regardless of what might have been, I simply can't buy that even Lucas, inept as he is with the trappings of romance, would choose to resolve a scene of this import with the dramatic equivalent of a comedian's Ba-doom, ching! and a laugh track....which is ultimately why I call the scoring choice an error, whether his fault or Lucas's (although I'm very inclined toward charlesk's assessment, which puts the potato square in Lucas's hands--and makes it harder to call it the "worst scoring choice" by Williams, who may not even have been consulted). Now, before we're finished here, PLEASE UNDERSTAND THIS (again!): I don't hate this movie. I don't. After I first saw the sneak preview, we went outside to a refreshment tent attended by people wearing the authentic costumes from the films, and we sat and drank fake bubbly and raved together about how much fun we'd just had. I felt it went a great deal further than Menace in recapturing the spirit of the first trilogy, and I was well willing to overlook its shortcomings. (As a matter of fact, the romance isn't even its worst part....that cake goes to Threepio, who actually does shoot off jokes that were petrified back in Shakespeare's day.) For discussions like this, I go into this sort of painstaking detail for two reasons: 1) I'm responding to an alternative (not by any means invalid!) opinion, not trying to change it but attempting to help them understand why I hold to my opinion, and 2) the challenge of stating a thesis on a subject like this, then backing it up it as best I can, is one of the chief joys I find in writing here (if you really want to know). Keeps me thinking, and gives my toes a workout. So puh-lease, none of this Lucas/Star Wars-bashing business. Like those Nitpicker Guides to the Trek shows, it's all based first and foremost on respect and love for the franchise. If I really hated it, I would bomb the thing as a whole, and would hardly waste my time breaking it down in such detail. - Uni

Good reviews, guys. Well done. I tried to do this one spoiler-free, but a couple of nitpicks required specifics, so beware. I saw the movie on Saturday. After waiting the year out, having to spend the last hour of it in a noisy theater--the line formed two hours before gametime--was probably the worst of it (followed by another twenty minutes of worthless advertisements and previews; after that, even the Dursleys were a welcome sight). When the lights dimmed the rest of the way, I was good and ready. Is there any thrill quite like that of the first few seconds of a long-awaited film--the first touches of music, that initial fading into an alternate reality, the glorious passport of the title graphic inviting us toward adventure...? The four books and the first film had already solidified my predisposition toward the series, so the new movie had an easy sell. In lawyer speak, the case was won; the challenge now was not to lose it. No need to worry. While the first movie well established the setting and millieu of both magical and non-magical London, and drew a picture-perfect Hogwarts to bring the spirit of the books to life, Chris Columbus knew what to do with the sequel. He understood that the better part of the cache of wonder and novelty was spent the first time around, and that this installment would be most effective by combining established character traits and new plot twists to expand the visual canon of Rowling's world. This he accomplished--and better--without greatly altering the style or unique flavor of his initial effort. The result is as it should be: an experience superior to the first, but only by building on the success of its predecessor. Daniel Radcliffe settles nicely into the role he's made his own. The trademark of his performance in the first film was his constant eye-popping looks of surprise, his awestruck expressions of wonder, and his gleeful grins as he beheld sights he never thought possible. All this was the staple element of his character during that age of his life: it was his reaction to the new world opening up that defined him, up to and including the climax. This time around he's done with that; from the start of the film, he takes action for himself, showing a confidence--almost an authority--that stands him in good stead. Instead of shrinking from the Dursleys, he simply tolerates them, and though he loses control of his first encounter with Dobby, he's certainly more than a passive observer in their conversation. (He's also gained a good half-foot, and his voice is decent pitch closer to James Earl Jones.) Harry's friends are warming to their respective roles as well. Hermione's not quite the priss she was in Sorcerer's Stone, and Ron Weasley serves as a great comic foible to Harry's more serious composure. That's one of the best parts of COS--the wonderful sense of humor, much of it based on our knowledge of these people, but a good part of it incipient to the new characters as well. The Weasley family is giddily precocious (especially Ron's father--recognize the stuttering narrator from Shakespeare in Love?), young Colin, Harry's biggest fan, is cheeky and excitable--with eyes so big I wondered if they might have been digitally enhanced--and at the center of all is the comic star of the film: Kenneth Branaugh as Gilderoy Lockhart, sporting a schlocky grin large enough to see the bits of chewed scenery stuck in his teeth. I thought the best of the newcomers, though, to be Lucius Malfoy, played with chilling maliciousness by Jason Isaacs, the most evil-looking actor I've seen since Ray Park flashed his red eyes and yellow teeth in TPM. I look forward to seeing what he does with the character in future installments. The least of the new cast was Moaning Myrtle, if only for the fact that she didn't moan at all; she grated. (A far more fitting name for the girl would have been "Whining Wilma.") The rest of the veterans were as dependable and effective as ever--especially Richard Harris, who earned a tear at both his first and final appearances. In spite of his tragic frailty (Harry and Ron's were not the only voices that changed, and the most disheartening part of the movie to me was Dumbledore's deep and resonant voice undermined, even a little, by the ravages of Harris's illness), I cannot imagine anyone else playing this part. The sets were sumptuous, and the effects were, of course, top notch. The Quidditch match was better than its predecessor (though the influence of many a Star Wars battle was indeed evident), and the creature effects were some of the best I've seen. Even Dobby showed improvements over the bipedal beings we've seen in other films, though they still haven't mastered human movement quite yet. Ironically, while the new-fangled effects keep getting better, the old-fashioned ones seem to be rusting a bit with neglect. The animatronic Fawkes, sitting on its perch in Dumbledore's office, was absolutely atrocious, jerking and popping every time it made a move in its painfully limited range. The only other quibble I had with the movie was its all-too convenient escapes. Why, for instance, did the Weasley family truckster show up unbidden right in the nick of time--then drive off again without reason or command each time the boys were safe? Fawkes proved an opportune angel himself, showing up at just the right moment, doing just the right thing (twice!)--and then flying off again, instead of sticking around to watch the fun. His fortuitous appearance once was acceptable, but the second time spoke of a stagehand offscreen ("Harry's in trouble--cue the bird!"). It was a fairly blatant plot device, and Dumbledore's belated explanation of the bird's arrival was a little too fragile to hold up to scrutiny. I don't remember being as picky about it when I read the book, but those sorts of summary answers at the end of a story work better in a novel, I think, than on the screen, where an audience is watching a bit more closely and is far less likely to accept a throwaway answer to anything. Aside from that, it was an extremely satisfying moviegoing experience--and above that, I have to disagree with those of you who claim it had no theme. On the contrary, though it could have benefitted from a bit more emphasis, the theme was the undercurrent of the story and the entire reason the mystery of the Chamber existed to begin with. Though obviously considered less than civil behavior--more like political incorrectness--by most magic folk, it's clear that the wizard world suffers from the same problem that seems to plague almost any group that brandishes exclusivity: the blight of bigotry. For them, it's those who are first-generation wizards who are regarded as being less than equal. These "Mudbloods" are no different then any other wizard; their navels bear the same star as the rest of the Sneetches, but if their parents' didn't, then they are by those rights considered deficient. Apparently, the attitude of nobility pervades even their world, and to some, blood is more important than character. Salazar Slytherin was one of the more zealous sectarians, and so apparently was Voldemort, in the person of Tom Riddle. By vesting the antagonists with this point of view, the movie is denouncing by proxy the base attitudes of the Universal Redneck, in whatever form he or she might appear. (Isn't it ironic, though, that even those who frown on such segregations have no trouble using a derogatory epithet--"Muggle"--for those they consider different, and therefore less meritorious, than themselves?) So then, given a story with a little more weight than the first, more fun and inside humor, and a good deal more action, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets does manage to outdistance its prequel, but does so without taking anything away from it either. The first HP had its place and purpose, full of wonder and delight, standing as the first time around on this wonderful ride; but now it's time to get down to business, and COS was up to the task. Although I'll be interested to see what another director can bring to the table, I'll confess I'm sad to see Columbus moving on. He's done a fantastic job in making tangible one of the finest new worlds in recent fiction, and regardless of what comes after, the cornerstone of the filmed franchise will, in my mind, always bear his name with pride. - Uni

I wasn't watching, and almost missed the landmark.... The last post I made in this thread was my 100th. I'm in triple digits at last. I would celebrate, but after comparing my numbers with those of Stefan's, I think I'll just drink some hot chocolate and lie down instead.... - Uni....who keeps telling himself he values quality over quantity....

I dunno, Merkel....the laughter I heard in the theater was uncomfortable, almost bewildered. My friend (a composer himself) and I shared a look of disbelief ourselves. The change was so sudden, so overstated, that it called attention to itself instead of supporting the scene (its primary obligation). That's part of the problem, I think. There's no clear idea what the intention is, whether humorous or otherwise. That should never be a problem; the director should always make the dramatic intent of a scene understood. And if it was meant to be amusing, that's just another liability in a love story fraught with them. From a few fragmented moments (such as the arena entrance), it's clear enough that Lucas was making an attempt at an epic romance here. Trouble is, after enduring scenes like the Mentos-commercial meadow scene, the pubescent puppy-love angst of the evening by the fireplace, and yes, the kissus-interruptus, it's very hard to take this seriously as a passionate tale of star-crossed lovers. That's one of the things I stated once before - that Williams, in writing a theme both epic and passionate, blessed this story with music it frankly doesn't deserve, or at the very least, can't live up to. The real problem with this is, as a result, Williams is forced to play down to the material more than once, such as having to water down the theme with a few measures of playful xylophone during the aforementioned meadow antics - or worse, to completely seize the orchestra at the moment of lip failure. Compare this last example to the concupiscent building of music in the Raiders scene when Marion kisses Indy, only to have the moment interrupted by a sudden attack of narcolepsy. Williams didn't cut the music off all at once; there was a sudden decrescendo, yes, but he filtered in a lilting coda, a postscript to remind us the scene wasn't over yet and that Marion - and the audience with her - was still awake. I think we all agree that filmusic is a representation of emotional subtext. Well, emotions, especially those experienced in a situation like this, don't just turn off with the flip of a switch. It would have been infinitely better to do something similar to the Marion/Indy scene, and insert at least a few soft notes to express the emotional wake and inevitable consequences of what just took place. As it is, John's cutoff affected the empathy of this scene in much the same way the cold shower affected Anakin in the next (in a sequence removed from the final cut of the film). I have to go with you on this one, KM....I don't think I could come up with a better example of a poor decision by the Maestro. Still makes me cringe just thinking about it. - Uni Note: This post represents a subjective response to a subject previously deemed public domain, and does not in any way constitute Lucas-bashing, Star Wars-hating or any other form of derogation against franchises in galaxies far away. Thank you.

Funny....I had to stop and think about this one. The answer surprised me a little.... I think my earliest comprehension that Williams could exist outside the theater was the old Zubin Mehta LP. (No, not CD, not even audio cassette....see, they used to have these black discs made of vinyl, much larger than a CD, with tiny grooves in them. A special machine utilized a sound-sensitive needle to read the recorded material from the grooves and transfer it to the speakers to be amplified. A few of these machines can still be found in select museums.) My brother and I used to roller-skate around in our basement while listening to the major themes from Star Wars over and over again. I later discovered my dad's LP (using the same archaic technology) of Close Encounters. I was led to give a listen for reasons I've discussed here before, and had a pretty mesmerizing experience with it. Soon after a good friend gave me cassette copies (I was moving up in the world) of Superman and all three Star Wars films....and the rest, as they say, is history - much like the record player. - Uni....who thinks an emoticon with a long beard and a cane might make an appropriate addition to the collection....

Lamentable effects, a pretty sappy story, supreme overacting on the part of all but the top billing....yeah, this one deserves the reptutation it got. The score, however, also deserves its reputation as one of Goldsmith's finer moments. It's the first time his patented new four-note ST motif appeared. (And you're right about the best tracks, tharpdevenport.) - Uni

You'll be missed, Stefan....at the Friday night chats, at least. However, since the chatroom is always open....who's to say we can't schedule a couple of chats each week? There are a number of people who can't attend on Friday night. Why not solicit a few workable time frames from people, and set up at least one more designated session per week? Just an idea. - Uni

Put a little electric guitar in a score, everyone gets delusions of granduer.... - Uni....who's trying to picture John Williams having a punk haircut (he's beyond the reach of a mohawk, but I wonder if he got a nose ring for the recording sessions...?)

LOL LOL Maybe she was simply stating her understanding of an obsolete socio-political enclave.... - Uni

I had a friend who grew up in SoBo. She wasn't one for foul language either, but it didn't bother her in Hunting, because - as you've already said - that's how they talk there. I think it's somewhat analgous to the violence in Saving Private Ryan. Some people called it gratuitous, but it was accurate to the situation. Same thing here. I'd rather see the realism than some watered-down version. I disagree, but it's a matter of opinion of course. All your suggestions are great examples of superb screenwriting as well. - Uni

Why is this thing double-posting so much? - Uni

Thank you, Ricard.... Well said, Merkel.... I changed my mind....let him stay. His stock just bottomed out with most of the people here. Easy enough to cut off the problem; better to give him a chance at the tougher road, trying to earn back some measure of respect. Only a half-jest. You don't take things too seriously from others, because you don't want others to take you too seriously. Everyone knows that, and that it's just fun and games with you. That's what I meant. And most people know that as well, which is why you rarely have to apologize. (Which has encouraged you to greater flagrance, of course, but like you said - it's an artform.) - Uni

Oh, oh, oooohhhh....what would I give for such a documentary - and also to be there during the recording sessions for Superman, to see Christopher Reeves's face light up (after "losing his objectivity" following a long and arduous shooting process), and to see the first time the orchestra explosively greeted the warping "S" on the screen behind them. What a day...! - Uni

Oh, man....six to eight more months. I think it's Neville, but that's only 'cause I guessed it would be him in GoF. - Uni

I take it back. There is one among us who ventures freely into the realm of offense, thus to return and gleefully report in great detail to the rest of us all he has seen on his forays. But then, Stefan's all but trademarked stilletto humor around here, and he's just about the only one who can insert the blade in such a way that it tickles.... That's the thing about him, though; being so deft at his own practice, he's got the duck's back among us, and is the quickest to let things slide right off it. So you know that when he takes offense, things have gone too far. - Uni

Or, at the very least, lock out this particular "guest" (who has done somewhat to wear out his welcome, I think). It wasn't all that long ago that members were assuming each other's identities for similar purposes, though that was more simple amusement and inside jokes than anything truly offensive. Only a few times have people on this board - by nearly all accounts, about the most civil and amicable forum for discussion you'll find on the web - strayed too far over the line, wandering into the realm of abject offense. I'm not one for censorship, but if a place like this is to remain....well, a place like this, then inevitably a certain amount of vigilance is required. (At the very least, I would think an apology appropriate.) Roald, you and I have approached more than one subject from different directions, but I would hate to see you take your leave prematurely - especially in such a way that lays undue credit at the feet of someone less deserving to be here. You're a veteran, and even the best of arguments needs two sides. Stick around. - Uni

I agree, although I do think action movies have their place for sheer, mindless fun. But they don't measure up to those films that are so well written you want to hug yourself for the joy of their cleverness. I could probably come up with a longer list, but a few examples that leap instantly to mind are Shakespeare in Love, Being There, Good Will Hunting, any number of films either written by Neil Simon or starring Albert Brooks....I'll have to give it some more thought, see what I come up with. (I might have included The Game as well, but the last walk down that path doesn't recommend it again.... :roll: ) Every once in a while, you do get an action film that does indeed have well-constructed characters playing through its stunning action sequences (though the combination is rare enough). I know I could take some heat for this, but....the first example of that sort that comes to mind is The Matrix. *bracing for the oncoming storm....* - Uni

After the buzz from those who listened to the COS download (an apparent wonder I wasn't able to share), I'd definitely grab up the new CD. Go with what hasn't yet been experienced. More serious than what? That lighthearted, 25-minute musical number on Omaha Beach? Or the gentle, poingant battle at the end? :? I think "misfit" is misstating it. It was a workable plot, meant primarily as a means to give an accurate depiction of the conditions during the Second World War - by far the more important goal. But there was nothing "misfitting" about it. It fit fine. Oh, and....nice to see you again, Jason. - Uni

"Not I, said the chicken...." As someone who thinks just about all commercial marketing is a bloated, worthless joke with no punchline, I don't think it would make that much difference to me (I still haven't seen the stupid thing, so....). Frankly, it doesn't surprise me that it was a marketing-type person who came up with something like that - and thought it worth the go. Okay, that was totally uncalled for. I note that the speaker chose to remain anonymous....(Perhaps when you can use your real name, and keep to the topic at hand....then you might find yourself taken a bit more seriously. ) - Uni

If yours was "excruciating," mine must have been sheer torture.... If that's the case, then perhaps it's not what you're saying, but how you're saying it. You (and plenty of others as well - you're certainly not the only one) come across as saying, "If you can't say something nice, then don't say anything at all," meaning we aren't allowed to express our views. (I could cite your "spare me your blah blah blah" bit from your speech as an example - again, not the only one.) If you can forgive us for taking what you say at face value, perhaps not understanding your true intentions, we can let it drop. No big deal. Outstanding, Charles. You hit on something I hadn't even considered, and what is probably the very element I was searching for that's missing from the new films. Good stuff. Actually, he was saying the old trailers were filled with the cornball cliche, and he was right. They're pretty goofy. Of course, most trailers back then were like that, so they don't really suffer by comparison. When did this become necessary...? Who said the faults from the original trilogy were "brilliant"? No question, there are plenty of faults to nitpick in the old films. Lucas was a poor writer/director back then, too. But he did manage to infuse an ineffable spirit to the stories that transcended the flaws that might otherwise have overwhelmed them - a trick he hasn't quite pulled off with the new ones (though he did a better job with AOTC). Say....this thread is beginning to give me an idea.... - Uni

I don't remember the score to The Manhattan Project - I haven't seen the film in years - but as an avid Albert Brooks fan (one of the funniest men in Hollywood, in his prime years), I love Defending Your Life, and at odd moments you can catch me whistling its theme. It's one of those servicable, not really stand-out but plenty stand-up enough, scores usually contributed by composers waiting in line to be noticed for the real big-time stuff. I don't know that the film is worth seeing just to catch the music, but can't but recommend it for the fact that it's Mr. Brooks at (almost) his best. (Watch his face carefully. His expressions alone are worth ten classic one-liners from most other comedians.) If anyone has any ideas about where to locate the score, I wouldn't mind having it. There are a few of the quieter ones like that - including the score to Dave - I'd like to add to my collection. - Uni

Waitaminute....you're a "movie critic," and you don't think a film should be judged on the merits of its writing...? I'm flabbergasted. You're unique among your ilk, if you truly believe that. (Or are you just saying you're a "critic" in the same way we all are?) So then, if we disregard the scripts, the acting, and the self-importance, among other things....then yes, these could be considered perfect films. However, that's a lot like saying that if, after watching a football game, you disregard the anemic offense, the soft defense, the inept special teams play, and the final score, then the home team could be considered to have played a "perfect game" - even though they lost by 40 points. I think it's a perspective fairly rich with conceit to say that someone is "totally missing the point" if they should have the temerity to judge a film by the same measure they would judge any other film. A truly objective critic wouldn't hesitate to do just that. Know how I know that? 'Cause I'm so intelligent!!! (Sorry....I think I was temporarily possessed by a few of Stefan's midichlorians there, or something.... ) I agree with that last part, at least. A critic is not the same as a cynic; on the other hand, though, he's not the equal of a blind optomist, either. It's his job to report his impressions of a creative project, based on his knowledge of the craft and the opinion he formed while experiencing the product. The best ones establish their premise - whether they found the film, or book, or whatever worthy or not - and then follow that with tangible examples supporting their theses. If he blasts things just to put himself above everything and everyone else, he's no good for anything; but if his hands are tied from pointing out the valid flaws he witnessed, then he's not able to do his work competently, and therefore no better good to his readers than if he suffered from the opposite extreme. Worse, if they weren't able to include the technical aspects of the films as part of their commentary (and yes, that does include the script), then the writings of such great critics as Roger Ebert and the like would be reduced to, "It was fun," or, "I was bored." Bleh. In the end, though, I have the hardest time accepting what you say because basically what you're telling us is that if we should happen to disagree with you - regardless of how well we could back up our point of view - then we should just keep our mouths shut. Sorry, my friend, but this would be a dull forum indeed if we all uttered the same platitudes about everything we encountered. Nor is doing so going to make anyone a worse person. Ventilation is a good way to deal with frustration, and frankly, doing it in a place like this, where others can react and respond to your views, is a great way to do it, because it helps you see both sides. You don't have to agree with everyone. There's no reason to. But you also don't have to take an opposing perspective as a personal affront. We should be able to disagree with one another - vehemently, even - and go so far as to enjoy our differences, because they make for lively conversation and debate. And don't be too quick to judge what constitutes "relevant things" for the lot of us. If someone brought it up, clearly they consider it relevant enough to warrant comment. I'm getting a little tired of the boundaries being imposed by a select few, who want to decide for everyone what is and isn't worth our attention and discussion - and that what does come up should only be positive, uplifting comments, nothing negative at all. (Funny....I do seem to recall some of these same folks blasting other films - the ones they didn't like - to bits, and not caring a whit as to how other people regarded them.) Once again, that's akin to saying that any film to which Herr Ebert would award less than three stars isn't worth his writing a review for it. Were that the case, we would have been robbed of some truly superior writing - so good, in fact, that it earned a book of its own. Next time you're in the bookstore, look for I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie. It's a collection of Ebert's reviews for the worst films he's seen, and nobody rips a movie like he can. (To quote a favorite recent example: "Pearl Harbor is a two hour movie squeezed into three hours, about how on December 7, 1941, the Japanese staged a surprise attack on an American love triangle." How true!) Ultimately, to give attention only to the things we like and ignore the less appealing endeavors as if they didn't exist is to severely limit your point of view - and it prevents you from being able to learn from other's mistakes, should you choose to take up a creative vocation yourself. To voice one's dislikes is an inherent part of being an honest and expressive person. However, to note a wicked twist of irony....aren't you forsaking your own counsel by taking such great pains to express your own dislike of other people's viewpoints here, instead of just letting it go? Why would you "invest in posting messages" about opinions you don't like? Why not just "accept it and move on," as you say...? You are right, however, in stating that Lucas has the right to make the films he wants to make. They're not based on someone else's ideas or literature; they're his own, and he's obligated to no one but himself to tell the story he feels must be told. In his mind, this is how it happened, and to a certain degree he fancies himself as much of an honest historian as a storyteller, accurately reporting the events of the Old Republic before its fall. He doesn't have to make it the way we like it, any more than we have to like it the way he makes it. For my part? I had a great time at the advance preview of AOTC. I cheered along with the crowd when Yoda flew into action (and figured it was about time he did). I thought it was a lot more fun than TPM, and a little closer to the campy spirit of the original trilogy. However, it didn't quite measure up to the first three, in part because the writing was all but inept, the acting was palpably wooden (at times, almost embarrassing), and it lacked....something. I'm still not quite sure what. I watched ANH the other day for the first time since before TPM was released, and though I've seen it at least a hundred times before, I found it thoroughly enjoyable. There are elements to that series that are missing in the prequels, and I'm working on trying to identify what they might be. If anything comes to me, I'll post on it. (Those of you who may disagree, and find this contrary to your sensibilities, will be excused from reading it.) - Uni

No, wait....this looks like fun! Indiana Jones and the Chase for the Lost Ark Indiana Jones and the Other Lookers for the Lost Ark Indiana Jones: Where the Hell is that Ark? Indiana Jones, Raider Hater Indiana Jones Goes Quantity Surveying Indiana Jones and Just A Few of the Annoying Inconveniences One May Encounter When Searching for a Lost Ark Indiana Jones and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Nazis I could go on, but you get the idea.... ROTFL jump1 - Uni

In keeping with the stated categorization ("Best" as opposed to "Favorite"), here's mine: 1) Close Encounters of the Third Kind - Williams's finest dramatic score, the tightest knot untied in grandest fashion. 2) Superman - As great as the Star Wars scores were - and they were great - this is John at his heroic, nostalgic, and romantic best. 3) E.T. - Seeing it again in the theaters only solidified my opinion of a score that is perhaps more interwoven - almost totally symbiotic - with its source film than any other example I can think of. 4) Hook - Its vast range of thematic material and deeply intuitive insight into the heart of the story (told in a not-so-great movie) makes me wonder why this score is so underappreciated. 5) Raiders of the Lost Ark - The penultimate example of a mood-inducing score, as well as one that is equally as deft at establishing setting as it is ellucidating character. 6) The Empire Strikes Back - The best of the SW palette, using the best elements of its predecesor while establishing some of the best elements for the films to follow. 7) Schindler's List - I'm not usually one for solo violin, but here it's used to magnificent effect - and backed by a secondary theme ("Rememberances") strong enough to carry a film by itself. Powerfully moving. 8) Empire of the Sun - Another example of a score that transcends a film that probably didn't deserve as good as it got. 9) Far and Away - And yet another underappreciated gem. 10) Jurassic Park - I marvel at how well John was able to capture both the reverence and adventure of not only the flim but the book as well. The ultimate score for idle whistling. Honorable mention - Whatever Williams score I happen to be listening to at any given moment. - Uni