FilmSnork is on Twitter

Friday, November 30, 2012

Argo - Review (2012)

This review is based on a film based on a true story.

As stated above, the film tells the true tale of 6 American diplomats that in the middle of an Irani uprising seek refuge in the Canadian embassy.  They have been held up in the embassy for weeks.  The problem is they have no way out of the country and the Iranis are growing closer to discovering their location, an offense most likely punishable by death.  The CIA decides to run with "the best bad idea we have found so far."   The plan, led by Tony Mendez (Affleck) is to stage a phoney sci-fi film called Argo, to be shot in of all places war torn Iraq.  Affleck will enter the country alone and exit it with the 6 stranded Americans posing as filmmakers. 

Technically the film is sound.  It emulates the look and feel of the thrillers of the 1970's; the color treatment used on the film, the cast's physical appearance and the costumes perfectly matches the era.  Together they help transport you back in time to the era of a more unstable global condition.  Although you can't hold such technical achievements against the film, for my taste it was almost too perfect, too calculated.  The effort to recreate the era can be see on screen and it draws too much attention.  It reminds me of some of the early 3D animated films that received tremendous praise, sure they were good films, but you cannot let the technical aspects weigh too much on your opinion.  What really counts, what will need to stand the test of time is the story telling.

Affleck wrangles in a film of considerable scope; a large cast, multiple locations and several concurrent storylines.  Overall it is a well paced mix of drama with a sprinkles of humor.  He deserves praise for that, but there were some elements that were not as tight.  First off, I did find the antagonists to be a little too Hollywood for me (maybe not as much as the Lybians in "Back to the Future," but still quite one dimensional.)  Secondly, the shifts in tone are a bit abrupt, one scene is being played with intensity, the next for laughs.  At times the levity works, providing a break from the seriousness of the situation; other times it is detrimental to the trepidation of the scene.  This alone is not a huge problem on its own, it is when it is combined with my next criticism that it becomes a real issue.

I came into this film with little knowledge of what it was about, but being told right up front that it was based on a true story established some preconceptions that altered how I watched the film.  In the end the my newly established preconceptions turned out to be correct.  The "Based on a...." tag undermines all the work put into creating what would otherwise be some incredibly tense moments.  The scenes don't carry much weight because they are all leading to what you are probably expecting all due to that one line of text that displayed on the screen in the first five minutes of the film.  The film is about a scheme so far-fetched it seems like fiction.  Why not do something unique - deliver a tense, interesting film but wait until the end to reveal what seemed like fiction was actually based on a true story?  Doing so may cause the audience to be taken back by what they had just seen, while keeping them captivated the whole way through, unsure as to how it will all turn out.  Mr. Affleck, years down the line you will come to the same conclusion.  You can release it as the Director's/FilmSnork's cut.  If you need any more advice, I am available.

Did you ever feel some films (directors) get a free pass because the director makes for a good story?  Ben Affleck who was a punchline just 6 years ago has turned his career around, literally.  He made the move from being in front of the camera to working behind it.  "Argo," has received a good deal of hype and for good reason it is an entertaining film, just not the Oscar worthy film the media would like it to be.  Perhaps I am coming on a little strong.  Maybe Affleck is not getting a free pass to Oscar, just the option to take the escalators instead of the stairs.

Check out his first two films, both of which I prefer to this, "Gone, Baby, Gone" and "The Town."

6.0 out of 10 stars

Drag Me to Hell - review (2009) 31 Days of Horror #25

Premise:  After having a curse put upon her by an old, gypsy woman for allowing the bank to repossess her home a young bank worker (Alison Lohman) must find a way to save her soul.

Review:  I was only a few minutes into Drag Me to Hell when I remembered what a treat it can be to watch this slime filled, eyeball popping, jaw-gumming film.  I literally caught myself sporting a smile on my face, which would usually be an odd reaction to a horror movie - not this one.  In case you are wondering, I did not have too many nips off the old brandy bottle, the smiling was only in reaction Sam Raimi's returned to his roots.  With this film he has provided the world with a new horror classic, one that defies categorization in any one genre - a film, dare I say, which tops all his previous work.  This is not only a film that will settle on startling and shocking you, nor is it a film that will only provide you with laughs.  It is a film that flawlessly combines the gruesome with the comic, the obscene with real emotion.  There are many flavors here, but not one flavor that over-powers the rest.

The glue that makes the film so tight is the connection to real life emotion.     It is not just shallow storyline about another helpless victim being chased down by a slasher with a machete, this film takes on many fears and stresses found in every day life - job fears, relationship fears, fears of death.  Christine (Alison Lohman) battles with her conscience whether to take the empathetic path and help an old woman keep her house or take the selfish path, that would hopefully further her career, allowing the bank to take possession of the house.   The choice she makes sets off some crazy events leading to a string ethical decisions Christine has to make which will have you questioning just how far you would go to further your career, save your life, talk to a goat.

Splattered throughout the film are some delightfully over-the-top moments.  These could easily undermine the removing the audience from the anxiety brought about by the young lady's plight, instead they compliment it.  Many of the scenes are just so off the wall, bordering on just plain ridiculous, still the further they pushed the limits the more I found myself smiling, having a great old time.  That is not to say the film is light fare, it is not.  The tone throughout is quite dark, nasty and often scary which makes the success rate of the humor more surprising.  Oh yeah, Raimi provides plenty gross-out, stomach turning moments.  It is impossible to overlook the parade of bodily fluids and body parts or the hilarious on-going hair gag.   I wish I knew why, but it all works.

Scariness:                3.5 out of 5  Even as the humor softens the blow, it is intense.  

Violence/ Gore:     3.5 out of 5   It is not the blood that will turn your stomach, it is the fluids.    

Story:                       4.0 out of 5   A simple tale about a bad choice and its reprecussions, but it  keeps your interest from start to finish.      

Overall rating (as a film, not just a horror film):  9.0 out of 10

Check out the rest of the reviews for FilmSnork's 31 Days of Horror here.  

Monday, November 26, 2012

Scream - review (1996) 31 Days of Horror #24

Premise:  Sydney Prescott is trying to get over the brutal death of her mother when a slasher comes to town to complete some unfinished business.

Review:  One reason this film has withstood the test of time is it starts with one of the scariest opening scenes ever.  Period.  Those ten minutes with Drew Barrymore, a telephone and some Jiffy Pop rocketed Scream into the realms of pop culture history.  When I first saw it in the theater years back I was gripping my arm rests throughout the entire scene.  It was such an enjoyably terrifying sequence I wish there was a pill I could take to forget it so I could re-visit it and experience the terror all over.  Obviously others people felt the same, which is why even today many horror films still start with a quick stand alone opening sequence.  

Luckily the film doesn't stop entertaining there, it provides a uniquely (at least for back then) self aware horror tale that is not only scary, but also humorous, mysterious and innovative.  By reflecting back on older films from the genre it set itself apart from the rest.  From the opening scene there are plenty of clever references to the decades of slasher film predecessors.  The characters are knowledgeable about horror films, knowing who Freddt Krueger, Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers are.  They also know what happens when you say, "I'll be right back."  Throughout the film there are knowing winks at the audience acknowledging the often silly conventions of the horror movies before it.  Sure, many films have also ended up copying the entire self-aware play on horror, but Scream will always be the innovator.   

Neve Campbell does a great job playing Sydney, the strong, virginal heroin.  David Arquette is likable as her kind of dim brother that is also tracking down the killer.  Jamie Kennedy gives the performance of his career (not saying much, but he is good) as Randy, the horror loving friend that provides us with the rules of successfully surviving a horror film.

Overall, the film is not perfect; there is at least one killing that is unnecessary and the final quarter of the film is not as clever as it should have been.  The film does show its age in parts which at time only adds to the charm.  If you have not seen it yet, I recommend you also check out the under appreciated Scream 4.

Scariness:              3.5 out of 5     Great opening scares - not as effective afterwards. 

Violence/ Gore:     2.5 out of 5     A good deal of blood and violence, not too heavy though.

Story:                     4.0 out of 5     Good old fashioned horror whodunnit with some self-awareness. 

Overall rating (as a film, not just a horror film):  8.0 out of 10  (If this is your first time watching it, jack that rating up to a 9.)

Check out the rest of the reviews for FilmSnork's 31 Days of Horror here.  

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

The Thing - Review (1982) 31 Days of Horror #23

Premise:  Something is found frozen in the ice.  When it is thawed out you'll wish they kept it frozen.

Review:  Every once in a while you come across something you never tried before and it quickly becomes part of your list of favorite things.  That is how John Carpenter's The Thing was for me.  It is a film I had seen hundreds of times as I browsed the offerings of the corner video store as a kid, in the Netflix offerings and on many lists of must-see horror films.  Until last year I ignored it for what reason I don't know.  Then last year I saw it streaming on Netflix, had some time to kill and decided it was time to see what it was all about.  Surprise, surprise - I loved it.  A good old fashioned monster movie that used the unknown, isolation and paranoia to keep the viewer on their toes from beginning to end.

Upon a second viewing I enjoyed it just as much as the first.  So I was not just in the mood for that movie that day, it was a newly discovered treasure.  The film works for many reasons.  The performances are stellar, the unique, eerie setting and the feeling that the whole time there is a monster among us.  The scenes are shot to create incredible tension.  At times giving the audience a glimpse of the lurking evil but only enough to give us the knowledge that that threat is in the room, when and where it will attack from we only discover as the characters do.

Fortunately, the special effects hold up quite well.  For a film that is thirty years old they are actually quite impressive, there was absolutely no reason for a remake.  If you are like me and have passed over this gem, make things right and watch it now.

Scariness:              4.0 out of 5    Plenty of scenes will have you holding your breath all the way until the point when you jump out of your seat.

Violence/ Gore:    3.5 out of 5     Lots of monster makeup, things exploding, bloody flesh.

Story:                     4.0 out of 5     A monster walks among us done right. 

Overall rating (as a film, not just a horror film):  8.5 out of 10

Check out the rest of the reviews for FilmSnork's 31 Days of Horror here. 

Monday, November 19, 2012

A Film You May Want To See: Call of Duty Undead

A friend of the site has contacted me to tell me about the release of the trailer for a film called, "Call of Duty Undead."   It is a non-profit charity film with proceeds going to benefit the Wounded Warrior Project.

The film is an ambitious project directed by Aleksandar Ivicic, Call of Duty Undead is based off an original screenplay and stars Kevin Tanski (Dark Knight Rises) and two USMC Veterans, Christopher Clark (3.14...) and Robert Woodley.

Like the FilmSnork Facebook page for future updates.   

Undead follows the story of five Special Operatives who are sent in to investigate the disappearances of wealthy individuals that had been deemed missing during their negotiations to fund a pharmaceutical drug program. They are in for more than they bargained for as their simple recon mission turns into a struggle for survival against hordes of undead experiments which were the end result of the failed experiments done by mastermind Nicholas Bergman, the son of a Scientist who worked under Nazi rule during World War II.

The expected date of release for Call of Duty Undead is late 2013.

In Honor of The 149th Anniversary of the Gettysburg Address

Since it would be illegal to post a copy of Spielberg's latest film, "Lincoln," I decided to do something even better to celebrate the 149th anniversary of the Gettysburg Address. The speech truly is most triumphant.

Thursday, November 15, 2012

House of Wax - Review (2005) 31 Nights of Horror #22

Premise:  A group of kids on a road trip take a wrong turn (never heard that one before) into a town with a secret... a waxy secret.  (SPOILER ALERT: not an ear wax secret)

Review:  Here is a film that usually scares off most viewers using one word.  No, not the word remake.  I am referring to the word Paris... Hilton to be exact.  Our nation tends to be prejudice against beautiful, rich, spoiled, obnoxious whores.  I find such attitudes to be appalling.  When prejudice wins we all lose.  This explains why most of you have never seen this wonderful film.  Sure it is an exercise in implausibility that marches a group of clothing line model looking actors to their doom, but it is done is an entertainingly stupid, fun way.

The film follows the formula of many a horror film, especially of its era.  There are few staples of that are not well represented here which may be one reason why it works.  It delivers a lot of the same ole, same ole, but while doing so keeps your interest because you are not tossed into it expected to hit the ground running, the secrets of the film are slowly revealed.

The film does have its share of cringe inducing moments, even eye had to turn my head and force myself to look during a few spots of the film.  Often these moments were brought about by the a character that lacks common sense, a standard for the genre.  One seen in particular I kept waiting for it to end, but the dummy keeps making it worse.  You'll know it when you see it.

The film also sports a terrific finale.  I don't usually love over the top CGI effects - this time they work.  They are the bow on a cinematic present that you didn't know you wanted.  Come in with realistic expectations and you should enjoy.   

As for Paris Hilton, she does fine.   If you hold so much hate in your heart that the presence of a spoiled, rich white girl will prevent you from seeing a film, perhaps it time for counseling.  Prejudice sucks.

Scariness               3.0 out of 5    Often more intense than scary.

Violence/Gore      4.5 out of 5    Some dark moments that may have you cringing.

Story                     2.5 out of 5   Preposterous?  Yes.  Entertaining though.

Overall Rating (as a film, not just as a horror film):  7 out of 10

Check out the rest of the reviews for FilmSnork's 31 Days of Horror here.

Monday, November 12, 2012

The Exorcist 3 - Review (1990) 31 Nights of Horror #21

Premise:  After a series of grisly murders it is up to a grizzled cop to figure out if there is a connection to previous incidents with spinning heads and pea soup.

Review:  Not too many people are talking about The Exorcist 3 these days.  Maybe it is since sequels in general do not get any respect (and often for good reason) or maybe because people never heard of it.  Honestly, it is one of those films I had forgotten about it and am thankful that it was put on my list. 

What is nice here is this is not just another film sequel.  We do not get a direct continuation of the original film or a complete knockoff that simply substitutes the family and gives them the exact same scenario.  This is a new concept, one that fares alright.  You never feel as if you are being delivered a rehash.  Which does pose the question, why connect it to The Exorcist at all?  It perhaps would have been better off with its original title "Legion," preventing any pre-conceived viewer expectations.

Although the film is nowhere close to perfect, it does have some genuinely scary elements even if they are surrounded by a story is too talky and complex for its own good.  The correct tone is established at times, only to be undercut by George C. Scott doing his best to overact every single line.  No matter how simple it is Scott delivers it like a line of great importance.   Even with Scott hamming it up, the oddest part of the film remains the dream sequence that is so goofy you have to wonder how the hell it made the final cut, it includes Patrick Ewing.  Luckily for audiences, it does not include a scene about the old Ewing sneakers, those were monsters.

The film is uneven, long sequences of dialogue take place in a cell..  Much of is you are better off not hearing, it pretty convoluted and only takes away from what was working in the film.

Scariness:              2.5 out of 5   There are some good shocks and a scary tone to go with it.

Violence/ Gore:     1.5 out of 5   More implied violence than violence itself.

Story:                     3.0 out of 5    It is not a rehash and that is good, but it does get a little too talky.

Overall rating (as a film, not just a horror film):  6.0 out of 10

Check out the rest of the reviews for FilmSnork's 31 Days of Horror here. 

Alien (1979) - Review 31 Days of Horror #20

Premise:  The crew of a spacecraft come in contact with an alien life force that is not interested in a peaceful cruise around space.

Review:  So many things celebrated in pop culture today are just small snippets taken out of context and used to entertain for the passing moment.  There is one key scene in this film that has been parodies hundreds of times.  Because of that I expected to not be affected by it, but nope it still works.  Actually, as a whole this film still works quite well. 

The core of the film is simple and it works.  A story of isolation combined with the unknown; a single ship in the lonely confines of space - no one to help you, no one to hear you scream.  It is a setting that only grows more unsettling as the events unfold.  The film takes a slow approach to horror.  Often we sit in near darkness, unsure of what is around the corner or hidden in the shadows.  Unlike more recent sci-fi filmmakers Ridley Scott does not put the alien on display for the viewer to clearly see (as if we have not seen special effects before and are going to stand up and applaud the creation of  a CGI creature.)  Instead he does something more effective, restricting the amount of the alien we are able to see so we can create our own ideas in our heads.  You can only imagine just what it is that they crew is up against as it peaks out of the shadows and makes us feeling like prey waiting to be attacked. 

It is a well designed scare vehicle that does not rely on cheap scares to get you worked up.  When a crew member is laying unconscious on a hospital table with an alien creature grasping onto his face for and a good portion of the first half of the film, you can only guess what is going to occur, but you know one thing, it's not going to be good.

Scariness:              4.5 out of 5    It creeps up on you, literally.  Where do you go when there is nowhere to run.

Violence/ Gore:        4 out of 5    Some scenes become classics for a good reason.

Story:                       4 out of 5     More that it originally comes across - scary and satisfying.

Overall rating (as a film, not just a horror film):  8.5 out of 10

Check out the rest of the reviews for FilmSnork's 31 Days of Horror here. 

World War Z - Trailer - A Great Book Becomes a (most likely) Unnecessary Film

Somehow this book has finally becomes a two hour motion picture. It is not as if I won't run out and see it - I just think the right medium would be on television, preferably HBO. If you have not read the book, I highly recommend it since there is much more to it than just zombies. After few chapters you will think aloud to yourself, "that FilmSnork is right, this film lends itself better to a weekly TV series with each chapter being its own individual hour-long episode, preferably on HBO."

Thursday, November 8, 2012

250 of the Greatest Films in Under 3 Minutes

This is an incredible piece of work worthy of your viewing. It is a creative compilation of IMDB's top 250 films put to music. Watching it makes me want to sit down and watch a great film right now, but The Man won't let me. Be a rebel at your desk, watch these 169 seconds of awesomeness.

Thank you to Frank Barnes for directing us to this.

Monday, November 5, 2012

Disney Buys Lucasfilm and Star Wars - What Does It All Mean?

Where do I start? How about a long, long time ago in a galaxy... NAH! Too cliché. As a challenge to myself (and a blessing to my readers) I am going to do my best to resist all urges to the typical silly Star Wars puns. Let's just get right down to it. A blockbuster deal went down, one that will change the Hollywood landscape as we know it. On October 30, a day that will go down in film infamy, George Lucas' sold Lucasfilm Ltd and all its assets to behemoth Disney Studios for a whopping $4 billion. The sale includes the premiere special effects house Industrial Light & Magic and Skywalker Sound. That is huge news. The announcement only gets bigger.  On top of all that, Disney also purchased the rights to the Star Wars franchise, they now own the universe that Lucas spent his life creating.  Now THAT is a huge deal.

This deal was a shock to both fans and industry insiders. No one could have anticipated this since Lucas' name has been synonymous with the Star Wars franchise for over three decades. Not only did he create the Star Wars universe, Lucas was the Star Wars universe; serving as its god, harboring total control of every decision for the films, the spin-off books, the merchandise, etc. To call him a micro-manager would be an understatement. That is why the final part of the announcement was so jaw dropping incredible – Disney planned to release another brand new Star Wars trilogy, a storyline that would continue the story after Return of the Jedi. After a prequel trilogy which was widely considered a disappointment by both critics and fans it had looked like we had seen the last original Star Wars films on the big screen. To say fans were letdown would be a gross understatement, many reviled them and Lucas' handling of the franchise in general. So why would anybody ever want to make more Star Wars films when it looked like the universe was on the decline? Oh wait, I forgot to mention, the prequel trilogy alone raked in an incredible 2.5 billion dollars worldwide (not adjusted for inflation.)  I repeat, fans spent $2.5 billion on films that they hated.  Imagine if they actually liked them.  Making a Star Wars film is like license to print money, that may have something to do with Disney's idea to make more films.

The plans are to release a new Star Wars film every 2 years starting in 2015. Few details have be announced as to just what the story will be, but it is confirmed it will be a continuation of the original trilogy story, hence the 3 films will be Episode VII, VIII and IX. The big question is, in what way will this be a continuation? The reports and speculation are conflicting.

What we do know:
  • Lucas will not write or direct – he will serve as creative consultant but plans to retire.
  • Lucas provided treatments for the entire trilogy.
  • The next three films will close out the saga.
  • Once this trilogy is complete, Disney will most likely produce additional Star Wars films that are not directly related to the original saga.
  • Disney has already started working with writers.
  • They will be drawing storylines in part from already published materials, most likely Timothy Zahn's “Thrawn Trilogy.”
  • Mark Hamill has been reached out to for some sort of on screen role, to what degree we do not know. It is rumored that numerous members of the original trilogy cast will make appearances if not star – most likely in cameos, but this is mostly speculation.

So who are the winners and who are the losers of this deal.  Here is my assessment of it all.

The Star Wars Franchise - WINNER - Remember when the first prequel was announced? It was one of the greatest announcements ever. Years before it even came out we knew we would see it and ted to love them - they were Star Wars films after all. Lucas would never do us wrong. After years of waiting we finally were able to get our opening day tickets, put our hair up like Princess Leia and sit down to watch them. From the opening scrolling text, where we first read some bullshit about the taxation of trade routes, something felt off.  As we sat there and watched an annoying little boy with a bad haircut and a obnoxious CGI abomination, we tried to like the film.  We walked out of the theater with the same reaction, Lucas used the film to sneak back in time and kill our youth.  Maybe we missed something, maybe we were all too tired that day.  A repeat viewing would improve the situation... and we saw it again. We tried to like it, we really did. But we didn't. Many of us lived in denial and had faith the second film would reignite that true love of the series. It didn't. Then we waited for that reaction from the third. Sure, it was awesome... I guess. After years of inner conflict the truth was something we would allow ourselves to accept. The prequels kind of sucked.

That bring us to today. After the prequel trilogy how much worse could it get? Disney is working with Lucas, they are also going to work with some of the brightest names in the industry to try to not screw these up. Rumors have already started as to who will direct, from Christopher Nolan to JJ Abrams to Joss Whedon. You can rest assured Disney will bring in someone with some skills, someone that will ignite the hopes of those fans turned away by the prequels.

To tell you the truth the problem is not only the prequels, the saga needs a proper conclusion. “Return of the Jedi” had many great moments, but it also had the Ewoks and the fact that all they could come up with for the big bad was ANOTHER Death Star was uninspired at best. I want resolution, not a teddy bears, a dance sequence and rehash.

If these stories truly do continue the story and don't simply try to extend it we could see a revitalization of a franchise that reached its peak about five seconds into “The Phantom Menace” and took a nosedive from there. We want love Star Wars again. If all goes right we will once more. If not, it is unlikely our distaste will grow.

The Fans - WINNERS - As I just said, it can't really get worse. The prequels are a punchline to jokes. The reaction to them goes from detested to tolerated. I do not know anyone that can straight out say they love the prequels, you kind of just accept them. So we will all go through this again. We will get excited about a new Star Wars film, we will see it and hopefully we will love it. And, if not, at least we will get to experience that kid like level of anticipation that is so much fun. They may be great, they may be terrible, at least we will have a chance for redemption. Let' call it a new hope.

The Star Wars Purists - LOSERS (for now) - The purists I speak of are those of us that want to see the original theatrical release of Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi released on DVD/Blu-Ray. We do not want the Special Editions that came to theaters in the 90's or any of the countless renditions Lucas has delivered over the years. To them we say, “Nooooooooo.” We want the untouched theatrical versions. The bad news, 20th Century Fox owns the first six "Star Wars" films, at least until 2020 and the original movie, "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope," is theirs forever. Unless Disney and 20th Century Fox can work out a deal original, unedited trilogy box set is not coming any time soon. The good news, when it finally does become available, it will probably be a letdown anyway.

Disney - WINNERS - Disney CEO Iger’s announcement of the Lucasfilm acquisition said this, “this transaction combines a world-class portfolio of content including ‘Star Wars,’ one of the greatest family entertainment franchises of all time, with Disney’s unique and unparalleled creativity across multiple platforms, businesses, and markets to generate sustained growth and drive significant long-term value.” In other words we are going to make a boatload of money. Early estimates are Disney will make about $31 billion off the acquisition. Not bad for a measly $4 billion investment.

The haters already hate Disney, buying Star Wars will not change that. There is a chance though that they could put out a great trilogy and earn some respect from the haters, even if they won't admit to it.

George Lucas - LOSER - I know what you are thinking, the guy made $4 billion on this deal, how can he be a loser? He made a beloved trilogy* of films and nothing can ever change that. But, the prequels are like his version of the asterisk next to the name of Barry Bonds in the record books, the achievement will always be tainted.

This is a no win situation for the guy.   If the new trilogy stinks fans will question selling the franchise rights to Disney, the studio that made the classic “John Carter.” If the films are great or even good fans will say that the reason for their success was the limited involvement of Lucas.

In my mind, Lucas' biggest mistake, besides making the prequels, was not hiring someone to help him write dialogue and co-direct. That cast can definitely act, but even a great actor cannot sell some of the terrible lines they were provided.  It has been revealed that Lucas is donating the money from the deal to charity, that is awesome. He is a good man, just one that needed to know how to ask for help.

*Sorry Lucas, the trilogy is beloved, but the most beloved is 1980’s “The Empire Strikes Back,” which just happened to be directed by Irvin Kershner.

Indiana Jones Franchise - LOSER – If you want to throw some salt in George Lucas' wounds let's bring up “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,” or worse yet just mention Shia Labeouf. Certainly Lucas would like to redeem himself for that dud, but the word is that the series is dead as we know it. Disney will now own the rights the franchise and supposedly there are several factors working again a final hurrah: Spielberg is done with the action genre, there is no script or even treatment in the works and Harrison Ford is 70 years old. Disney appears to be focused on Star Wars, if a Harrison Ford sequel to the Indy series would be made it would have to be soon, but nothing appears to be in the works. If you want my opinion (and I know you do) forget “Crystal Skull” and accept the “Last Crusade” as the close of the franchise – it may just be the best in the series.

Jar Jar Binks and the Ewoks - LOSERS - Just because.

Well I did it. I finished this extremely long article with out any Star Wars puns or goofy references. If you see me you can pat me on the back. Until then, enjoy this cool video that goes through all of the first six films. Warning, if you have not seen all of them this video is full of spoilers. Then again, I doubt you would read this far if you hadn't seen them all.

If you enjoyed this article, do me a favor and LIKE the FilmSnork Facebook page.  It is full of good stuff.

Friday, November 2, 2012