Reviews

Mr. Filoni hits his stride in Episode 5. Writing and directing this episode, he shows us why George Lucas chose him for Clone Wars. The scenes with Haydn Christensen are mesmerizing. Mr. Christensen is charismatic as Anakin-you can't stop watching him on screen. The lightsaber duel between Anakin and Ahsoka is choreographed like Jedi in their prime as opposed to a lost art form after Order 66. This is the kind of lightsaber action Star Wars fans have dreamed of since Obi-Wan and Anakin dueled on Mustafar in Star Wars Episode III.

If you want to see how good, Haydn Christensen's acting is, once you're done watching this episode the first time, rewatch it starting at time stamp 25:33 to 26:02 and watch Anakin's expression and body language turn from dark side to light side.

This is a highly symbolic episode where Ahsoka must face her fear that she caused Anakin to become Darth Vader and that she will fail her apprentice. This confrontation is similar to Luke's experience in the cave on Dagobah. In that scene, Luke's fear and anger caused him to cut down the shadow Darth Vader, only to find his own face in the helmet-this symbolized Luke's fall to the dark side because he was not ready to face Vader and had not progressed far enough in his training. This is what Yoda meant when he said, "remember your failure at the cave" when Luke leaves his training to rescue Han and Leia on Bespin.

In the climactic reunion with Anakin, she could cut him down, but she is a Jedi and chooses the light side--"to live."

Star Wars is at its best as a collection of cautionary tales of heroes who face a test between good and evil. In a world that seems so dark at times, it's nice to see heroes choose the light path.

"Andor" Season 1, Episode 10 is one of the best streaming episodes on any platform that you will watch all year.

Beau Willimon's script soars. The dialogue is poetry as prose. "There is one way out! The building is ours! We must run, climb, and kill!" Andy Serkis's character, Kino Loy, announces to the inmates who are unknowingly confined to endless servitude. "I share my dreams with ghosts," Stellan Skarsgard's character, Luthen, confesses to his mole in the Empire's Imperial Security Bureau as the mole pleads to be let out of his double life role for the Rebellion. There is pathos in every line and moment.

Director Toby Haynes and producer Tony Gilroy's prison sequence is an homage to George Lucas's "THX 1138" and "Star Wars" with its glossy white walls and blood orange striped uniforms. The lower depths of Coruscant are filmed in gritty black shadows and neon greens.

I could not tear my eyes away from the screen. This episode is epic.

"Andor" Season 1, episode 10 is one of the best streaming episodes on any platform that you will watch all year.

Beau Willimon's script soars. The dialogue is poetry as prose. "There is one way out! The building is ours! We must run, climb, and kill!" Andy Serkis's character, Kino Loy, announces to the inmates who are unknowingly confined to endless servitude. "I share my dreams with ghosts," Stellan Skarsgard's character, Luthen, confesses to his mole in the Empire's Imperial Security Bureau as the mole pleads to be let out of his double life role for the Rebellion. There is pathos in every line and moment.

Director Toby Haynes and producer Tony Gilroy's prison sequence is an homage to George Lucas's "THX 1138" and "Star Wars" with its glossy white walls and blood orange striped uniforms. The lower depths of Coruscant are filmed in gritty black shadows and neon greens.

I could not tear my eyes away from the screen. This episode is epic.

Episode 1.3 is better than its predecessors. It pays off what fans have been waiting for--the reunion of Obi-Wan and Anakin/Darth Vader. There is an emotional truth in Ewan McGregor and Hayden Christensen's scenes that hits the mark. McGregor plays Obi-Wan as tired, out of practice, and shocked to see his former apprentice. In fact, he plays Obi-Wan with a sense of dread and desperation that heightens the entire encounter. Christensen, if he's in the suit, with James Earl Jones' iconic voice, combine to create a character with a memorable need for vengeance that feels honest and palpable. The best line is when Obi-Wan asks: "what have you become?" And, Vader replies, "I am what you made me."

The worst part of the episode involve the unrealistic writing of Leia. She is still written too unchild-like.

Reva is much improved in this episode because the writers and director are forced to temper her vitriol since they cannot allow her to out-villain Darth Vader. This should have informed them that Reva's character needed to be re-written, re-directed, and un-acted from Episodes 1.1 and 1.2. Or they should have gotten several takes from Reva, playing different levels of ferocity, so they could recreate a cohesive performance in the editing room. Regardless, it's the writers and directors fault for screwing up Reva's character's emotional continuity and truth.

Obi-Wan Kenobi Episode 1.2 is better than Episode 1.1 probably because Ewan McGregor is in almost every scene. With McGregor, the director is not confused on where to position the camera. McGregor gives Obi-Wan gravitas and emotional truth that leaps off the screen.

The failure of the writers and director to understand the other two main characters' emotional truth is the largest problem with Episode 1.2. Here are some notes:

The largest emotionally unrealistic character is Leia. The child is written and directed to be bold, stubborn, outspoken, and seemingly to forget that she has been kidnapped and smuggled to a strange planet. As a result, the portrayal makes no emotional sense. The writing and direction should have been for the child to be inwardly scared, but to try not to show it. That is often how a child shows courage after trauma--quiet and inward. The direction should have been sensitive to this. Leia could have been directed to be mistrustful of Obi-Wan and in this traumatized state, attempt to escape at the first opportunity. This would have been a more naturalistic catalyst to propel the Obi-Wan-Leia chase sequence through the streets of Daiyu.

The second emotionally unrealistic character is Inquisitor Reva. Her character's pursuit of Kenobi makes no sense. In every scene she demonstrates a single-minded need to capture Kenobi. Reva appears to be a Javert from Les Miserables, pursuing Jean Valjean. However, this is a mistaken analogy, because in this overall story, Darth Vader is Javert, not Reva. Reva needed to be modeled after the Thenardiers, who sought Jean Valjean for their own gain. If the analogy had been understood better, Reva would have been directed to act more transactional and less emotional in her pursuit of Obi-Wan. This would have given her character's action a truer emotional core than what was filmed. The only thing we see from Reva is an over-the-top emotional vitriol that doesn't match the dynamics of the scene.

My final note is not on characters but on action. As she did in the first episode, the director again shows an inexperience with chase sequences in second. There are many marketplace and rooftop chase sequences in which she could have modeled the scenes. The pacing and camera movement is rhythmically tone deaf. (Also, the speed that Obi-Wan is able to arrive in the alley, where moments before he was on the roof, is too fast. Also, Reva appeared to be only a few rooftops away before Leia's fall and Obi-Wan's rescue. What happened to Reva on the roof after Obi-Wan's save?)

I, personally, don't understand how there can be so many direction, writing, character, and action issues with a show that is so important to the future of Star Wars. Who is watching the dailies? How did it get to this? I hope the issues become fewer, and the episodes become less flawed. I want to give 10s to every episode, not 6s and 7s.

Obi-Wan Kenobi Episode 1.1's direction and cinematography were a mess. Here are just a few notes:

• Establishing Shot: Coruscant pull back from skyline into room with Younglings was not sufficiently interesting. (This should have been an FX shot of Anakin's ship with Clone troopers flying over and casting a shadow over part of the Jedi Temple, paying homage to Episode IV establishing shot, and symbolizing Darth Vader's part in Order 66.)
• The shaking handheld camera during the attack on Jedi Temple is not Star Wars. It confuses the point of view. Star Wars is shot from a steady, omniscient point of view. Also choice of camera height is poor. First, the camera is positioned just above the heads of the Younglings inside the circular room, then in the hall it is at the height of the Younglings. This change in camera height and point of view breaks the narrative flow.

• For the first street scene on Tatooine, the camera height is at knee level. Again, why this point of view? Are we seeing the scene at the height of a Jawa? If so, why? Every camera angle should have a reason. There is no apparent reason for any of the camera angles. The low camera angle pulls the viewer out of the scene. To emphasize the randomness, the shots then switch between mid-shots, low shots, and then from above when the shadow of the Inquisitor's ship passes overhead. Again, what is the point of view? If it is omniscient, this is not the way to do it.

• In the ramp scene with the entrance of the Grand Inquisitor, the frontal shot creates no tension. There is no big reveal of the first main villain. (There should have been a pause on the ramp closed (before it lowers) and a cut to fear in the eyes of onlookers. Then, the Grand Inquisitor should have been introduced from the boots with a slow pan up to the pasty white head. His gait should have been slow, confident, and foreboding--not plodding and duck-toed.) The pull back with the Grand Inquisitor and his staff walking towards a backing up camera again shows a lack of a point of view. Why is the camera backing up?

• The bar scene with the Grand Inquisitor was again poorly directed. The Grand Inquisitor should have remained still. Stormtroopers should have brought the cafe/bar owner to him. This demonstrates power. Additionally the Grand Inquisitor should have stood still, because it would heighten each of his movements cinematically if and when he does move. However, this is wasted as the Grand Inquisitor walks around the tables, talking. Again, why is he doing a walk and talk? Again, the camera angles wander to just above table height. Why are we at the point of view is someone sitting at a table? Then, the camera shifts again to different heights. Why?

• The scenes with Ewan McGreggor have a better sense of purpose. I generally enjoyed the scenes with him in them.

• The Alderaan scenes were a mess. The chase/kidnapping scene of Leia lacked any tension and suspense. There are many good chase/kidnapping sequences in film. Any one of them could have been used to model this scene, but none were.

The direction of Episode 1.1 was very uneven, lacked a clear point of view, and detracted from the experience.

Almost all of the dialogue is terrible. For example, one character says: "No change in status. Summary: everything remains constant as per my previous 21,753 reports. Nothing has changed. Nothing ever charges, but then you already know that. Additional comments: my spirits remain high while there is little or no activity. The sheer beauty of what I can see is unimaginable. I am lucky to observe that which few others will ever see. For that at least, I thank you. With respects, I conclude with my usual sign off request-that you all go to hell."

Most, especially the redundant parts, should be cut to follow the cardinal rule: show, don't tell. Rewritten, the dialogue should be: "This is report 21,753. No change. This part of space is beautiful and keeps my spirits high. That's all. Good night, mates, and go to hell." (He says with a chuckle as he stares at a multicolored nebula.)

The best parts of the teleplay are when characters have no dialogue and simply react to the plot. For example, a Weeping Angel confronts a character on the street. The terror from not being able to blink is effective. Another example is when a gaseous anomaly, known as the Flux, pulverizes a planet. The character in a ship reacts to the danger without soliloquy.

Some of the makeup is particularly bad. A character is a "dog" alien that looks like an theme park employee wearing a bad shaggy dog costume where the snout barely moves.

After watching Chris Chimball perform as showrunner for two seasons, I have come to the conclusion that he needs to be replaced. He has some big ideas but lacks the judgment on how to depict the story on screen or write dialogue for characters. Doctor Who needs better.

With the release of "Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker", the iconic twin suns of Tatooine have set for a final time on the once amazing family saga set a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

(SPOILERS: I discuss what is NOT in the film as opposed to discussing what is in the film.)

This is a film that cleverly entertains a general audience and casual Star Wars fans, while at the same time insults George Lucas, the original living Star Wars actors, and hardcore Star Wars fans. It is this duality that makes "The Rise of Skywalker" fascinating.

To a general audience and casual Star Wars fans, including most professional film critics, this film will seem like an often benign, sometimes exciting and uneven entry in the fabled franchise with several recycled features from previous Star Wars films.

Only Mr. Lucas, the original Star Wars actors, and hardcore Star Wars fans will know they've been slapped in the face.

I will review the film as a casual Star Wars fan first, then as a hardcore fan.

From the perspective of a casual Star Wars fan, the "The Rise of Skywalker" by Executive Producer and current CEO of Lucasfilm, Ltd., Kathleen Kennedy, and writer/director J.J. Abrams is an entertaining sequel to Mr. Abrams's first Star Wars film "The Force Awakens". "The Rise of Skywalker" moves well and answers all of the lingering mysteries that Mr. Abrams introduced in his first Star Wars installment, including: (a) who are Rey's parents; (b) why is Rey so powerful with the Force; (c) what is the relationship between Kylo Ren/Ben Solo and Rey; and (d) what is the relationship between Finn and Rey.

If you are curious about what happened to "Star Wars: The Last Jedi", "The Rise of Skywalker" almost completely denies its predecessor's existence or effect, where possible. In fact, "The Rise of Skywalker" undos almost every choice "Last Jedi" writer/director Rian Johnson made and relegated to inconsequence all of the new characters Mr. Johnson introduced, including Rose. (It is no secret that Mr. Johnson wrecked "Star Wars" with lower than projected box officer returns, a Star Wars fan boycott of "Solo: A Star Wars Story", cancellation of years of Star Wars projects, and lower than projected theme-park attendance to "Galaxy's Edge". It is also no secret that Bob Iger, the CEO of Disney, almost fired Ms. Kennedy for allowing Mr. Johnson to ruin Star Wars so badly.)

From the general audience perspective, "The Rise of Skywalker" looks fine cinematically and is carried confidently by composer John Williams's iconic score and musical themes. General audiences and casual Star Wars fans will clap at the end.

From Mr. Lucas, the original Star Wars actors, and hardcore Star Wars fans' perspective, my guess is that "The Rise of Skywalker" was a waste of time and an insult.

Mr. Lucas was asked to rewrite parts of the films to fix the disaster that was Mr. Johnson's "Last Jedi" and to direct all of the scenes involving Mark Hamill's Luke Skywalker and every lightsaber duel to create an authentic Luke (not seen in "The Last Jedi") and authentic Jedi swordplay. It appears 95% of Mr. Lucas's efforts were cut by Ms. Kennedy and Mr. Abrams. Mr. Hamill was asked to get in shape, cut his hair, shave, and act in scenes that told the story of how Leia became a Jedi and how Ben Solo became Kylo Ren. It appears 95% of Mr. Hamill's scenes were cut. Hayden Christensen was lured back to reprise his role as Anakin Skywalker in several important parts of the film. It appears that 100% of Mr. Christensen's scenes were cut with the exception of one voice over sequence that was buried in the middle of other voices. Leaving almost all of Mr. Lucas's, Mr. Hamill's, and Mr. Christensen's scenes on the cutting room floor is an insult to Mr. Lucas's generosity to fix the Johnson disaster, an insult to Mr. Hamill and Mr. Christensen's importance as legacy Star Wars characters and a snub to hardcore fans who knew of these scenes existence.

From a hardcore fan's perspective, "The Rise of Skywalker" is a missed opportunity.

Personally, as a hardcore fan, I will pay to see this cut of "The Rise of Skywalker" one more time and never again. Hardcore Star Wars fans will likely not go to more than one showing and try to forget Ms. Kennedy, Mr. Abrams and Mr. Johnson's Star Wars films, chalking it up to the old phase - you really never can go home again.

If Mr. Lucas is ever allowed to release a creator's cut of the film, I will be there.

Film Review: "Boy Erased" illuminates the insidiousness of conversion therapy. The film follows the life of main character Jared Eamons, portrayed by the brilliant Lucas Hedges ("Lady Bird"; "Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri"; Oscar nominee for "Manchester By The Sea"). Based on the memoirs of author Garrard Conley, writer, actor, and first time director Joel Edgerton ("Gringo"; "Red Sparrow") brings to life a story of faith gone wrong.

Jared Eamons is a young man who loves his minister father Marshall Eamon, portrayed by Russell Crowe (Oscar nominee for "A Beautiful Mind" and "The Insider"; and Oscar winner for "Gladiator"), and devout mother Nancy Eamons, played by Nicole Kidman (Oscar nominee for "Lion", "Rabbit Hole", "Moulin Rouge"; and Oscar winner for "The Hours"), but discovers he is gay. Confessing one's sexual orientation to a non-religious family is hard but confessing it to his Arkansas pastor father is even more difficult.

Heartbreakingly, Marshall forsakes his responsibility as a father and sends Jared to a for-pay church-supported gay conversion therapy program. In other films, conversion therapy has been shown as ice baths and electro-shock therapy. However, the conversion therapy depicted in "Boy Erased" is more subtle, deceptive, manipulative, mentally damaging, and dangerous.

The performances are excellent. Ms. Kidman, Mr. Crowe and Mr. Hedges inhabit their roles flawlessly. Their mastery of their craft is too good for them to ever let the audience catch them acting. When Mr. Crowe talks as Marshall Eamons, every word is heartfelt and troubled. When Ms. Kidman ponders what's really going on during the secret conversion therapy sessions that her character drives her son to and from, every shot of her eyes reveals fear of the truth battling a growing need to know what the details of this "therapy". Mr. Hedges is Jared - true, honest, real - a young man reconciling a life raised in a church that sees homosexuality as a sin and life as a gay man.

The supporting characters in the conversion therapy with Jared, played by actor/singer Troye Sivan ("X-Men Origins: Wolverine"), Britton Sear ("Unfinished Business"), and newcomer Jesse LaTourette, are excellent as well. In particular, Mr. Sivan has a presence on screen that is undeniable.

Mr. Edgerton consciously refuses to insert any cinematic flourishes in this film. There are no special lighting effects or overly dramatic soliloquies. Mr. Edgerton and cinematographer Eduard Grau ("A Single Man") leave the entire film, until the last few frames, in shadow with the background often brighter than the foreground. The low light, washed out effect removes any manufactured passion from the screen. The audience is just left with the characters, dialogue and action to speak for itself.

I debated with myself while watching most of the film whether this low lighting choice was a good idea. I prefer vivid images and clever shots, but I understand intellectually that to adorn this film with any cinematographic ornamentation would be seen as an attempt to overly vilify the practice of conversion therapy that needs no assistance being vile. The music by Danny Bensi and Saunder Jurriaans (who both work on Netflix's "Ozark") is also muted.

The power in this film is its desire to understate wickedness. It is easy to excoriate those that use the Bible as a weapon. It is better just to place on camera these profane charlatans who sell the myth of conversion therapy to families desperate for heterosexual children. This is an important film and a good one. I would not be surprised if Mr. Hedges and Ms. Kidman receive additional Oscar nods for best actor and supporting actress, respectively.

(I would like to thank the California LGBT Legislative Caucus, its chair and staff, for an advanced screening of "Boy Erased". #garrardconley #boyerased)

"Won't You Be My Neighbor?" is a film that will haunt you, because it poses the titular question at a time where many in society reply: "no" they won't. It shows us an unexpected intellectual hero in an anti-intellectual period of American life. This "Mister Rogers" documentary indirectly reveals a little more about ourselves than it reveals about the man in the sweater and boat shoes. And, by doing it so effectively, "Won't You Be My Neighbor?" is one of the best films of the year.

Academy Award winning documentarian Morgan Neville ("Twenty Feet from Stardom"; "Best of Enemies: Buckley vs. Vidal") delves into the deeds and mission of Fred Rogers, the producer, writer, composer, creator, and host of "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood" - a show that taught every child who watched it that each was created special and perfect.

One of his son's remarked that it was a little challenging to have a father that was the "second coming of Christ," and for the religiously inclined, the comparison is obvious. Fred Rogers saw avarice in the relatively new temple of television and created counter-programing on the temple steps that demonstrated through deeds that there was a better way. For those who are non-religious, rest assured that Fred Rogers did so in such a secular way and on such an academically and intellectually rigorous foundation that his teachings were founded in science.

Ordained as a Presbyterian minister, Fred Rogers also studied with early scientists who were inventing the field of early childhood development in the 1960s. This combination of faith and education reacted poorly to early children's television with images of hosts getting pies thrown in their faces and advertising for toy guns to children during a time of war in Vietnam. Mr. Rogers asked: why isn't this medium being used for a better purpose. The better purpose he undertook was to communicate to children with serious intent in a language that they could understand.

The most amazing parts of "Won't You Be My Neighbor?" were the clips of Mr. Rogers' PBS shows - clips from episodes where a child asked: "what assassination means?" (following the murder of Robert F. Kennedy) or when Mr. Rogers invites his Black/African American neighborhood police officer, Officer Clemens, to sit together with their feet in the same kiddy-pool on a hot day (at a time when the news carried images of white supremacists enforcing segregation with violence). There were separate weeks of episodes dealing with death, divorce, and the scariest parts of childhood. Even after retirement, PBS asked Mr. Rogers to return to television to speak about the attacks on 9/11.

Mr. Neville's documentary so carefully weaves together the tapestry of kindness that was Mr. Rogers' life that it is difficult not to shed a tear for the present level of discussion in America. It is also difficult not to be angry at the commentators on Fox News who blame Fred Rogers for creating "snowflakes" or the protestors at Mr. Rogers' funeral who blamed him for tolerating gays. (Who does that?)

The legacy of Fred Rogers is still being written, and while it appears that Mr. Rogers' lessons are losing to unkind tweets, just watch the clip of Mr. Rogers' testimony to Congress that saved PBS' funding, when he quoted from the song he wrote called "What Do You Do with the Mad that You Feel?" And, it is possible to hope that maybe people can change for the better.

"Solo: A Star Wars Story" is the first true Star Wars film of the Disney-era. It is the first film of the new era that feels that it is in the same galaxy that George Lucas created in Episodes IV-VI and one of the best. Fortunately, "Solo" does not change the Han Solo character like how the "Last Jedi" changed Luke Skywalker. Writers Jonathan and Lawrence Kasdan (Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back") wisely take the beloved title character and built him up, rather than tear him down.

For those that are tired of Star Wars films always having a Death Star or Death Star-like plot, you'll be please to know that there are no planet killers or Death Stars to be found. This is a stand alone film that fits more into the gangster and "Oceans 11" caper genre.

It is is set in a seedy world inspired by the Mos Eisley Space Port scene in Episode IV - A New Hope, a place Obi Wan Kenobi famously described as a "wretched hive of scum and villainy." This is a part of the Star Wars galaxy where the ideals of the Jedi exist in few.

This film is directed by Ron Howard ("A Beautiful Mind"; "Frost/Nixon"; "Apollo 13") and he does his best work in years. Picking up the pieces from terminated directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller ("The Lego Movie"; "21 Jump Street"), Mr. Howard does a remarkable job putting together a fast-paced and gripping film from beginning to end. According to news reports, 70% of the film was shot or reshot by Mr. Howard. According to one report, one of the reasons for so many reshoots was because he wanted to restore the tone of the film to the spirit of the original trilogy (Episodes IV, V, and VI). To this I say, thank you Mr. Howard and job well done.

Mr. Howard is also able to get a convincing performance from Alden Ehrenreich ("Tetro"; "Blue Jasmine"; "Beautiful Creatures") as Han Solo. Mr. Ehrenreich reproduces the swagger and confidence we have come to expect from the character that was originally portrayed by Harrison Ford, yet avoids imitation. Donald Glover is good as Lando Calrissian, and Woody Harrelson is dependable as usual as a new character, named Beckett.

Director of Cinematography Bradford Young ("Arrival"; "Selma") does a fine job capturing a dusty and dirty outer-rim Star Wars world. And the production design by Neil Lamont ("Rogue One"; "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallow, Part 1 and 2") and his team create a lived-in world that is believable.

This film gives me a new hope that "Star Wars" can be great again. I saw it in IMAX 3D. This film would look great in any large screen format. 3D is nice but not required.

Film Review: "Call Me By Your Name" is possibly the name of the best film of 2017. I will likely remember this movie more than any other film I saw this year.

Set in the summer of 1983 in a countryside villa in Italy, filmmaker James Ivory ("Maurice;" "A Room with a View;" "The Remains of the Day;" "Howard's End") penned a screenplay, adapted from Andre Acimen's novel, that is truly breathtaking. Intermixing American English, French and Italian, Mr. Ivory carefully crafts a human story.

The main characters are Elio, played by Timothee Chalamet ("Interstellar;" "Lady Bird"), and Oliver, portrayed by Armie Hammer ("The Social Network;" "The Man from U.N.C.L.E.") Elio's father is an eminent professor of archaeology who brings in Oliver, a doctoral student, for the summer to work on his thesis. Bathed in golden sunlight and the ravishing Italian countryside, Elio slowly develops feelings for Oliver.

Director Luca Guadagnino ("I am Love;" "Bertolucci on Bertolucci") triumphs. With only one read through with the actors and shooting most of the film in sequence, Mr. Guadagnino achieves an honesty that is rare on film. Never forced and full of doubt, insecurity, hormones, and missed opportunities, everything about Elio's first love feels like what I remember when I fell in love for the first time. It's a heady experience to be transported back to what it felt like to be in love at 17 or 18 or to remember what it felt like to have a romance that begins in the long afternoons of June and ends when the sun begins to set too early in August.

Mr. Chalamet's performance is without a doubt one of the best of the year. He navigates a quiet, yet soulful and sensual summer with disarming ease. He leads the screen with a confidence equal to Armie Archer's bold American bravado. The gentle, yet fiercely emotional, relationship revealed over the course of the movie is stunning.

I must also note that this is one of those films that makes you feel like you've been on vacation. The cinematography by Sayombhu Mukdeeprom and attention to detail construct a vivid experience. The charming cobblestone streets, beautiful rocky trails through pine-filled forests, leading to lazy rivers and watering holes are experiential.

This film is pretty perfect. "Call Me By Your Name" is a film where you meet real characters and visit a very distinct place in a very specific year. Winner of the American Film Institute's Best Films of 2017, nominated for 3 Golden Globes, including Best Picture - Drama, and nominated for 6 Independent Spirit Awards. I understand that at the New York Film Festival "Call Me By Your Name" received the longest standing ovation in the festival's history. I hope the Academy of Motion Pictures and Sciences likes this film as much as I did, because it deserves an Oscar Best Picture nomination.

Film Review: "Star Wars: The Last Jedi" is a galaxy far, far away from the one George Lucas created, but the film is good, just not great. I wrote something very similar about "The Force Awakens" when it came out. I still disagree with Disney's and J.J. Abrams' choices made in the "The Force Awakens," and I disagree more with how those choices play out in writer/director Rian Johnson's "The Last Jedi." However, I will review the film that I saw, then discuss what it isn't.

Mr. Johnson has put together a decent film. It does not match the jaw-dropping visuals of "Blade Runner 2049," released earlier this year, or for that matter any of George Lucas's prior Star Wars films, but the concept art, art direction, and production design are serviceable, if not slightly better, than the ones J.J. Abrams approved for "The Force Awakens." "The Last Jedi" does suffer from some poor editing transitions between storylines.

What elevates "The Last Jedi" is Mark Hamill's penultimate performance as Luke Skywalker and John Williams's best score in years. Mr. Hamill commits to this disheveled, disillusioned, and desiccated revised character by Mr. Johnson. And, Mr. Hamill triumphs with what he has been given. Additionally, John Williams's blend of old and new themes in a spectacular score elevate this film in a way only a John Williams score can.

**Slight Spoilers Below**Don't read the next two paragraphs, if you want to know nothing about the movie.**

However, Luke Skywalker's revised character is an example of a major flaw in the Disney-Abrams-Johnson changes to George Lucas's original vision. It is Star Wars Canon established by Yoda that Jedis are not fearful, because fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate, and hate leads to the dark side of the Force. For most of the film, Luke Skywalker is portrayed with so much fear of his past and the power in Kylo Ren and Rey that everything feels false about this Star Wars story. His fear of Kylo Ren's darkness during his training and Rey's darkness when Luke is asked to train her is all wrong.

George Lucas's Jedi Knight Luke Skywalker would never fear the darkness within people - he would face it, like he faced Darth Vader. Even pre-Jedi Knight Luke Skywalker was never scared to take on the first Death Star, or to start Jedi training, or to go into the cave on Dagobah, and or fear to rescue his friends from Lando's cloud city on Bespin. "The Last Jedi" Luke Skywalker is not Luke Skywalker, regardless of how well Mark Hamill performs the material he was given.

**End of Slight Spoilers**

Yes, Star Wars is a daunting project. It should be. Star Wars changed 20th century filmmaking in hundreds of small and large ways that reverberate today. However, Mr. Johnson was so self-conscious about the subject matter that he wrote an extremely self-conscious script that made fun of itself and Star Wars. He went for cheap "answering machine" jokes and winks to the audience.

Star Wars is Star Wars. All Disney, Mr. Abrams, and Mr. Johnson had to do was inhabit the world that George Lucas created in Episodes IV-VI and play by the rules. Constraints can trigger innovation. Lack of creativity is a poor reason to break rules. Building an exciting three movie story about a confident and brave Han Solo, Luke Skywalker, and Princess Leia is not difficult. But, Disney's, Abram's, and Johnson's fear of Star Wars, led them to get angry at George Lucas's creation, ignore his ideas, and anger lead to a subconscious hate that caused them to throw away Mr. Lucas's rules, and hate lead them to the dark side of the Force.

Again, this is not a bad film. But, as I wrote about "The Force Awakens," "it's just not a sequel to George Lucas's 'Star Wars' films."

Film Review: "Kingsman: The Golden Circle" sacrifices a few pawns needlessly but captures campy fun for the eventual checkmate.

A refreshing strategy used in this sequel is to destroy almost every familiar part of its predecessor to introduce a new set of American players led by Oscar winners Jeff Bridges (Best Actor in "Crazy Heart"), Halle Berry (Best Actress in "Monster's Ball") and Julianne Moore (Best Supporting Actress in "Still Alice") with a very charming and bulging assist from Channing Tatum ("Magic Mike").

To keep the heart of the franchise U.K. based, the film adds one very British queen, Sir Elton John, in more than a cameo performance, and resurrects Colin Firth (Best Actor for "The King's Speech") as secret agent Harry Hart to assist main character Eggsy, again played by Aaron Egerton ("Kingsman: The Secret Service").

The action sequences are fun and the film never takes itself too seriously. Bright and colorful with hilarious sets that scream kitch, this movie moves fast despite its long runtime of 141 minutes.

One should not think to much about the plot, because it involves a Martha Stewart like super-villain drug dealer, named Poppy, played deliciously by Ms. Moore, blackmailing the world. If you are looking for a film where all the pieces add up and hate Andy Warhol pop-art, you should avoid this film.

Producer/Director/Writer Matthew Vaughn ("Kick Ass"; "X-Men First Class"; "Layer Cake") returns to direct the Kingsman sequel, and he brings his enormous action directing skills to this lively film. Additionally, I would like to tip my hat to production designer Darren Gilford ("Tron: Legacy"; "Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens") for his whimsy and costume designer Arianne Phillips ("A Single Man"; "Walk the Line") for tailoring perfectly cut Saville Row suits, nicely proportioned stetsons, and atmospheric rawhide embellished jackets.

As a piece of escapist fun to begin the Fall, "Kingsman: The Golden Circle" is a welcome relief from the troubles of the world. There will be time enough for more serious films as Academy Awards season begins in a few weeks.

"Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" is a film that is at first fantastically uneven, but finishes as a satisfying return to the world of magic created by J.K. Rowling.

Adapted for the screen by Ms. Rowling herself, based on her own book of the same name published as a companion to her "Harry Potter" novels in 2001, "Fantastic Beasts" follows the New York adventures of magical creature preservationist Newt Scamander, played by Eddie Redmayne (Academy Award Best Actor for his role as Dr. Stephen Hawking in "The Theory of Everything").

Set in 1927, Director David Yates ("Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix"; "Harry Party and the Half-Blood Prince"; "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Pt. 1 & 2") and Ms. Rowling mistakenly focus the first act of the film on the technology and art department's visual re-creation of prohibition-era New York, instead of carefully crafting their characters and their motivations. It is frustrating to watch characters whom we don't know acting foolishly on screen for the first 25 minutes. I prefer screenplays where the writer develops at least one character in the first act that the audience feels for, either positively and negatively, and will follow as the drama unfolds.

Ms. Rowling fails to do this for her protagonist, Newt, whom we see merely wide-eyed and maddeningly careless as his suitcase full of magical creatures gets loose. As the film progresses in the second and third acts, we finally get to know Newt and understand his motivations, but it would have been nice not to be so frustrated with him at the beginning of the film. Setting aside that major flaw, the last two thirds of the film carries through with a clearer and better paced plot.

Mr. Redmayne is assisted by an excellent supporting performance by Ezra Miller ("The Perks of Being a Wallflower"; the Flash in the upcoming "Justice League" feature film), who plays Credence Barebone, a young man forced into servitude by a religious sadistic cult leader, played by Samantha Morton. Collin Farrell is solid as mysterious Mr. Graves, who is an American auror (magical law enforcement officer). My last casting note is that there is a very special cameo by a world famous actor playing Gellert Grindelwald, the most powerful dark wizard prior to Lord Voldemort.

The art and special effects department working with director of photography Philippe Rousselot ("Charlie and the Chocolate Factory"; "Big Fish"; "Planet of the Apes") create a beautiful, idealized vision of New York in the roaring 20s. Each frame of the film looks great.

(Mr. Yates seems to have a penchant for crane shots that pull back to a long shot. This is usually used as a master shot to set the scene, and visually manipulates the audience into seeing the grandeur of the sets blended with CGI artistry as the story expands. I didn't mind being manipulated most of the time, but it felt a bit overdone after two or three.)

In the end, I enjoyed this film. While not perfect, "Fantastic Beasts" is a decent way to spend 133 minutes during Thanksgiving week or weekend.

Film Review: "The Big Short" could cause you to take the Big Sleep, but you should still see this film because it is about a Big Deal. Based on the non-fiction book of the same name, written by Michael Lewis (author of "Moneyball"), Paramount Pictures and Brad Pitt's Plan B Entertainment create a film explaining the origins of the Great Recession.

This is not easy material to understand, so the producing team smartly hires Saturday Night Live writer/director Adam McKay ("Anchorman", "Talladega Nights", "Ant-man") to write the screenplay. In addition to getting the right writer, they also cast Christian Bale, Ryan Gosling, and Steve Carrell to join Mr. Pitt to create the smartest and most charismatic cast imaginable to present the material. This is how to make a film of substance in Hollywood.

Now for the film, Mr. McKay uses almost every trick in the book to keep the audience interested. They break the fourth wall (have characters talk directly to the audience), use celebrities as cameos, like Selena Gomez, and he asks characters to play over-the-top eccentric financial players. Slowly, but surely, the fraud unfurls on screen.

Since the fraud is so complicated, I'm going to take a shot at explaining the meltdown, so you have a better chance of enjoying the film as opposed to hearing the financial mess for the first time. In the early 2000s, financial institutions and markets created special securities (CDOs) made up of mortgages from people's homes between approximately 2002 and 2008. A large part of these securities were made up of subprime mortgages (mortgages issued to borrowers with poor credit ratings or were unlikely to pay the mortgages off) and then were allegedly pooled with mortgages that were not as risky. Except, they didn't diversify the CDOs very well (i.e. they paired risky mortgages with other risky mortgage based securities). These risky CDOs were then given AAA ratings by Standard & Poor's and Moody's, because the large banks/financial institutions where creating the CDOs and paying the ratings agencies to give AAA status to these risky securities (many people think this was bribery). Then, the banks pushed these risky securities to be purchased by millions of investors, who did not know they were risky because they were well rated. When, everyday people couldn't pay their mortgages, these mortgage based securities became almost worthless.

"The Big Short" is a film about three groups of fund managers and investors that discovered that the CDOs were fraudulent, and took advantage of a credit default swap market (a non-publicly traded, unregulated market) that allowed investors to bet that the housing based securities would fail. Michael Burry, played by Christian Bale, was one of the first people to understand the problem and create a way to short (bet against the risky mortgage based securities). Investors Jared Vennett (Ryan Gosling), and Mark Baum (Steve Carrell) are investors also unraveling the truth behind the CDOs, and Ben Rickert (Brad Pitt) is a retired banker who helps two young investors who also discover the fraud. There's much more to the film, and more financial terms and concepts to learn from the film. (This film pretty much leaves out AIG's negligent role insuring the risky securities in the credit default swap market, but is included in Mr. Lewis' book.)

This is a good film. It tries to explain complicated securities that many professional investors did not understand during the housing boom, and for the most part succeeds. The best part of the film is the performances. Mr. Bale, Mr. Gosling, Mr. Carrell and Mr. Pitt are intense and excellent. There is not a chance to get to know the characters, since this is a film about characters investigating and reacting to knowledge that the U.S. and world financial markets will collapse. This film is not about the characters, but about the world they inhabit. I recommend this film to anyone who wants to know more about what happened to the financial markets, and want it to be explained by Christian Bale, Ryan Gosling, Steve Carrell and Brad Pitt. Personally, I don't mind going to class with these instructors.