Archive for November, 2011

Harry S. Plinkett

Harry S. Plinkett

Have you seen Harry S. Plinkett reviewing the Star Wars prequels trilogy?

All three movies are reviewed in excrutiating detail in three videos (70, 90 and 110 minutes long, respectively) and the reviews are devastating. Plinkett shows how Lucas himself destroyed the whole amazing mythology he gave birth to decades earlier, thus proving that he apparently never truly understood it. But what I love the most in them is how thoroughly Plinkett dissects Lucas’ movies and gives an analysis of what is awesome in the original Star Wars trilogy, and, by extension, what sucks in the prequels. He gives numerous examples of what went wrong and why, and believe me, there’s many more reasons they suck than Jar Jar Binks, Jake Lloyd and horrible dialogue – Plinkett doesn’t even spend that much time on these, probably because everyone else in the world already did. No, he notices myriads of stuff more subtle and better hidden that those evident ones, things that we never noticed – but our brains did.

Especially funny parts of the reviews include Plinkett proving the blandness of characters of Episode I using a clever experiment that included characters from the original trilogy and some of reviewer’s friends, listing things Anakin did well and wrong when courting Padme, and comparing the trilogy as an attempt to create a character story around Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader with another famous character story in film, “Citizen Kane”. But the most valuable point he makes is how ironically the rise and fall of Anakin (as well as the rise and fall of William Randolph Hearst, the real-life prototype of Charles Foster Kane character from Welles’ film) mirrors the change that occured in George Lucas himself, “going from an idealistic young filmmaker wanting to rebel against the system to becoming the system” – the same point is also made in the 2010 documentary “The People vs. George Lucas”, which I also saw recently (and recommend).

Before you go and see them, be warned though! The videos are quite disturbing in places – the first 20 seconds of first review set the tone of his type of humour, and if you have problems with them, you may not like the rest. The Plinkett persona (actually a character created by Internet reviewer Mike Stoklasa) is presented as a borderline senile psychopath who kidnaps and murders women (prostitutes mostly), butchers animals and does many other, horrific things. This is done so well that sometime during watching “The Phantom Menace” review I actually thought that maybe he really is a psycho, and I’m just indulging his sick mind by watching his videos on YouTube. I turned them off at that point and refused to continue until I saw the outtakes of the reviews, in which I saw that it was all staged – I saw the make up, the actors, and the props. Now I can watch his reviews (and he made some more, aside from the Star Wars prequels, including “Avatar”).

And in the end Harry S. Plinkett – the same psychotic sadist – makes a beautiful and very true point, that “in the end all the computers in the world can’t generate the most basic thing that a movie needs – an emotional connection with the audience.”

Highly recommended! (if only for people with hard stomachs and distance to what they see)


Read Full Post »



I saw “Avatar” and “Megamind” and the fourth “Pirates…” and each time I said: “OK, so this 3D thing is kinda neat and everything, now, can I please see a good movie using it?”

Now I finally did.

Aside from “Pina” being, well, perfect, it is the first picture I saw where the third dimension feels really necessary. Watching all those more or less CGI sets and objects in aforementioned movies (and many others) I couldn’t resist thinking that the depth only adds to the feel of their falsehood. “Pina” shows me that using 3D cameras only really makes sense if they’re pointed at a theater stage. Why? When you sit in an actual theater (not cinema) and watch a play, you actually watch in 3D, obviously, right? You yourself can choose which part of the stage you want to focus on, and everything is equally shown. If you would watch a play on a regular, 2D screen, big chunk of that would be taken from you, since you’d be shown only what the cameraman or editor picked to show or focus on at that moment. And here’s where 3D picture works – it brings back that theater feel to the silver screen. Now you can again choose what to look at! I’d love to see some famous plays, musicals or operas shot in 3D and projected on a cinema screen…

“Pina” gives you even more, as it creatively marries two media – it gives you the benefit of a theater, as you watch actors on stages (even if not all are actual theater stages, as we often see dancers in different buildings, along with streets or parks), but also brings into equations elements of film language, such as editing (obviously not possible in theater) or camera wandering around actors on the stage (whereas in real theater you, as a spectator, are always pinned to your seat).

That’s about form, and as for the content – I haven’t seen a movie I’d call a High Art in a cinema for a long time now. For some reason, while watching it, I felt an urge to watch Wim Wenders movies (“Paris, Texas” and “Buena Vista Social Club”, especially), and it wasn’t until I left the cinema and learned that it was actually Wenders who made this movie! I didn’t know that.

Also, it made me want to dance.

Read Full Post »