Ditzy and fun

These are our favourite airheads. People who are a bit shallow and maybe a little self-centred but without any malice. You'll notice that most are women because there's little to no representation of shallow men (unless they're villains).

1. Susan from Bringing up Baby. Not only is she our favourite airhead, but she's our favourite character from any comedy. We wish she was real so that she could be our friend.

2. Hauru from Howl's Moving Castle. He has to be #2 because he's probably the only one here with a substantive character arc. He starts out as a coward who only cares for outer appearances. Not to mention he's a huge drama queen.

3. Maggie from Extras. She's most likely the kindest and most level-headed of this bunch. However, she is still occasionally quite superficial. 

4. Cher from Clueless. Obviously. She's a rich teenager from L.A. Duh!

 

5. David from Sabrina. He's as frivolous as they can get. And as the character himself said, he's not too bright.

6. Lorraine from Back to the Future. Perhaps we ought not to like this character as much as we do... We can't help it though. She's too enjoyably ditzy. 

7. Ariel from The Little Mermaid. We know that a lot of people have problems with her and this movie, but we can't hate her. Ariel's type of people make the best kind of friends.

8. Tracy from Hairspray. "I watch The Corny Collins show and do absolutely nothing else." Pretty much sums her up.

9. Harriet from Emma. She's so indecisive and easily led it's almost unbelievable. She's a kind person, though.

10. Flora from Little Dorrit. She's mainly the comic relief but she's got a lot of heart too.

11. Prince Edward from Enchanted. He's our favourite part of the entire film. The gif we've chosen really sums it all up nicely.

 

Robin Hood x5

As a benchmark for our blog's five-year anniversary, we decided to introduce a new concept, in which we will compare numerous film versions with the same story. We limited our scope to classical re-tellings of a specific story; meaning that the expectation would be for them to be somewhat faithful to the original story. Hence, we decided against including Men in Tights here, as it is a satire. However, it came as a shock to us that the satire is still a better version of Robin Hood than two of the most recent versions. So, why Robin Hood, you might ask? First of all, this is one of our favourite folktales (and Jonna's absolute favourite) and admittedly the story hits home for us ideologically, although ideology itself rarely makes a story good or interesting for us. We have to say that there is something about a class traitor stealing from his "own kind" to give to the poor that really resonates with us. (In the most famous versions he was a noble, and we know that in the earliest versions Robin Hood was a commoner, but as a child that was never the version you were told.) We'll discuss why we love the original story more in depth when we talk about the different versions. We're going from worst to best, and obviously it is our personal preferences that determine the outcome.


Robin Hood (2010)

Characters

Robin: By a mile and a half, the most god-awful Robin we've witnessed on screen. Even if one was to disregard Crowe's complete miscasting, this character would be atrocious. He's boring as hell to watch because you're never given any tangible motives for his actions. In order to subvert the known story, they have managed to create an unrecognisable Robin Hood. We think the film-makers didn't realise that if they subvert his character, all of his original motives will disappear and they would have needed to replace them with just anything else. Alas, they did not, and for the viewer it's confusing to follow when your main character is running around like a headless chicken.    
Marian: As we have stated before, this Marian belongs to "the strong independent woman" cliché club. It's the classic "I can take care of myself", but in the end it's all "ooooh, save me!" And they have the misconception that making a female character take part in fighting somehow magically gives them personality. Physical power has never made any character, be they male or female, interesting. 
Merry Men: They ain't merry and are barely in the movie.
Villains: Waste of Oscar Isaac as Prince John. During the film, he's not even a villain and the Sheriff of Nottingham is like an afterthought. The real villains of the film are the French, a foreign enemy. This is what pisses us off the most and goes against every other version of Robin Hood in existence. Robin Hood has always been a story about domestic issues. Even when the Crusades were put in, they only served as a backdrop for domestic usurpers to seize power. 

Story

Convoluted as fuck. We have now seen it twice (the last time was literally last week), and we could not tell you what was happening. We might be able to tell you 'the what' but not 'the why'. Because we're convinced that there is no 'why', or at least a consciously made 'why', we hope. Jonna watched a few interviews where the film-makers talked about their desire to subvert everything about the original folklore (and they clearly only know the Errol Flynn one). But by subverting everything and not replacing it with something else that they have purposefully designed instead, the ideology has turned into something truly disgusting. Instead of criticising the rich and greedy assholes who are prospering because they are financially oppressing the peasants, the moral of the story has morphed into "look, our oppressors will unite even with us peasants to fight against our common enemy: the foreigners." Any class consciousness has been erased. We're generally not concerned whether a movie aligns with our ideologies or morals (after all, we like plenty of Clint Eastwood's films), but when a movie's characters are this bad (and characters are always the reason we like something) and the ideology is this repulsive, there's really no saving it from our disdain. A word on the so called love story - ugh! It made us feel second-hand embarrassment to hear supposedly mature adults delivering lines that made them sound like they were in a Twilight - novel. 

Misc./Technical aspects

It's Ridley Scott, so editing and other technical aspects are competent and might function very well, if the story and characters were any good. Like in most modern blockbusters, the colours are muted and the music sucks. The runtime is absurdly long. Clearly, Scott wanted to make another Gladiator. 


Robin Hood (2018)

Characters

Robin: Way to ruin perfect casting, people. We guess Aladdin (the remake) took advice from this one, with the "no character introductions for the main two characters". We never get to know who this guy is. Granted, they at least gave him some kind of a motive. It sucks, 'cause it's basically "gotta get my girl back", but it's a motive. He's a bland character that you'll forget immediately once the movie's over, and the same goes for the rest.
Marian: Just read above. She is assigned one motive but unfortunately it does nothing to give her personality. She's simply a blank slate. 
Merry Men: At least Little John has some semblance of a backstory or something. The rest of them...utterly forgettable. What a waste of Tim Minchin.
Villains: How many times does Ben Mendelsohn have to play the villain?!?!? He's basically just recycling his role from Rogue One. Our main problem with any of the characters is excruciatingly bad writing. 

Story

What the movie wants to be is a Marvel/superhero - film. The "modernising" made it painfully obvious that the studio wanted a superhero franchise, not a stand-alone great movie. The sad thing is that the original story would work seamlessly in a modern context. Billionaires and megacorporations reaping benefits by economically oppressing the already impoverished? Sign us up for that movie! There's no story because they wanted to mesh all the existing movie versions into one. At least the enemy's domestic in this one, so it's not a hot mess like Scott's Hood. The love story stinks, it's just not as soul-crushingly embarrassing like the previous one, but it's still as lifeless as a corpse that's been floating in the Atlantic for two years.   

Misc./Technical aspects

There's one semi-decent action scene. The rest of the time you just wish it was already over. Fortunately the runtime isn't as painfully long as the 2010's one. It has the same dull colour scheme and wannabe Hans Zimmer music, though. We'd pick this one over Scott's version, and this is complete shit. And we would not recommend this to anyone. That's how bad the previous one is.


Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991)

Characters

Robin: Kevin Costner was even more miscast than Russell Crowe. Literally any actor of any nationality would have worked better. The character's better written than Crowe's, but that's about it. 
Marian: She's actually okay. At least she attempts an English accent. She has some personality, even though we still sneer at the whole "damsel in distress" - ending. Love her character design.
Merry Men: Morgan Freeman works always. The rest of them are there as well at least and have some connection to the main character and even Christian Slater is more believable than Kevin Costner.
Villains: Alan Rickman is 100% the best thing about this movie.

Story

The story's surprisingly not half-bad. It has some internal logic, they've bothered to create a backstory, give discernible character arcs and create actual relationships. Even Costner's miscasting couldn't destroy all of that. You still don't see Robin really defy the authorities because the film focuses so much on the action. The magic shit definitely doesn't belong in Robin Hood (it's not King Arthur) and sticks out like a sore thumb, but we prefer the theatrical cut anyway, where they had deleted most of the magic stuff. There's not much else to say - if it wasn't for Costner, this would be a guilty pleasure for us.

Misc./Technical aspects

Most of the action sequences are super entertaining. Music is a guilty pleasure of ours, it has a clear colour palette, even though most people are dressed in rags (can't say that about the previous ones). We'd pick this one over them any day. And when Prince of Thieves does something better than your movie, you know you're in deep shit.


Robin Hood (1973)

Characters

Robin: The only English (voice) actor in these five films. And he's fucking great. The first and only crush Jonna has ever had. He's cheeky but sincere. 
Marian: She's much more of a minor character here and she's maybe less active. But we still like her. She has her moments and the fact that she keeps Robin's wanted poster on her wardrobe's door is pretty funny.
Merry Men: It's more of a bromance between Robin and Little John, since the others are in much more minor roles. The bromance is awesomely fun, though.
Villains: Prince John's the main attraction, and dear god, does he play his part to perfection. There hasn't been a more enjoyable whiner in all of Disney's history. Hiss and the Sheriff work as great henchmen.  

Story

It's surprising how well they captured the essence of Robin Hood in such a short runtime. The film's climax is Robin freeing the villagers from debtor's prison and robbing Prince John blind. When a 70's Disney animation is more true to Robin Hood's origin than anything that has come after, it's a very sad state of affairs indeed. This is perfect family entertainment.

Misc./Technical aspects

The animation clearly does not match the studio's work from when it has been doing well. But it's not awful, you can just see that the budget was limited. We still love all the character designs and only the one and true Robin Hood film has more stunning colours. Love, love, love the music - in particular Roger Miller's songs. 


The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938)


 


     




 Characters

Robin: The embodiment of who Robin Hood is to us. Flynn's joviality, the deep care he has for the downtrodden and the iron moral backbone have always been what defined Robin Hood to us. He hasn't a single selfish bone in his body, but he's not without fault. He can be impetuous and impulsive to the point of stupidity. 
Marian: Holy shit. If there is something amiss in modern film-making, it's the fact that a female character from 1938 is still the best version of this character. De Havilland's Marian is amazing, especially by today's standards. She's the only one in the film who has a transformative character arc, and how often can you say that about modern male-led or even some female-led, movies?!? And the fact that she doesn't do any fighting simply makes her character better, because she has to survive just with her wits. To this day, de Havilland's Marian is the only one to have saved Robin. And although she doesn't fight, she ain't a goddamn "damsel in distress" either. She faces certain death with absolute composure while voicing her contempt for the tyrants who would hang her. It's no wonder that the characters of Robin and Marian have never been done better, because they are utter perfection here. 
Merry Men: They're all here and they have great rapport with Robin and each other. The scenes that summarise Robin's attitude and equal camaraderie with the group are Robin's joyful response "I love a man that can best me!" to Little John after their fight and when he consults the men what to do with the ransom gold they've stolen. 
Villains: Claude Rains, man. It's like The Holy Trinity of villains. Prince John is the driving force with the main motive, Guy of Gisborne is his right-hand man with a creepy crush on Marian and the Sheriff is a bumbling idiot with impeccable comedic timing. 

Story

It's perfection and we couldn't think of a single improvement. It's an unattainable balance of adventure, fun, romance and even drama. In comparison to other Robin Hood versions, this movie highlights quite adeptly that othering a group of people is an acceptable way of normalising oppression, and this oppression always includes economic aspects. 

Misc./Technical aspects

The colours are sublime, and this was one of the first ever Technicolor - movies. It's still miles better than anything else we've reviewed here, how is that even possible?!??! This has the musical score for Robin Hood. Other technical aspects are beyond brilliant as well. It's incredible that this movie is 81 years old and the industry has made such strides and yet we could not suggest a single change to improve anything in this masterpiece. We even love the fucking tights and bent swords. In addition, the film literally saved lives.

Aladdin vs. Rocketman

Unlike the rest of the world, we have decided not to compare Rocketman to Bohemian Rhapsody. Because literally everyone has already done it. To be perfectly honest, we found Rocketman to be a much better movie than Bohemian Rhapsody because it attempts to use the medium of film to its fullest. If you want true to life, make a documentary. Films are by definition fiction. Both Aladdin and Rocketman are musicals and we find it more enjoyable to compare within a genre. In addition, we went to see Aladdin and Rocketman in the same week.

Aladdin

Pros: The cast had potential, they seemed to have good chemistry. With a better script and direction the cast alone could have made it work. Some of the comedy bits were actually functional. The costume design was eye-catching.

Cons: Musicals are really not Guy Ritchie's forte, or epic storytelling for that matter (see the disaster that is King Arthur). He's much better at the tongue-in-cheek comedy. Talking of musicals, why did it have to be a musical? Repeating something that has already been done is not inspiring. It's exactly the same complaint we have of the Beauty & the Beast remake. The beginning immediately threw us off. There are no character introductions. If you're making a stand-alone film, it doesn't matter if it's a re-telling or based on previously known source material, you need character introductions. You cannot go in with the assumption that the audience already knows these people. It's a cardinal sin in storytelling. That is unforgivably lazy writing/directing. The film is quite cluttered. Pretty much every frame is full of something, even when it needn't be. So your eyes never get a moment of rest and that makes it difficult for you to tell what to focus in on the screen. Oh, and good job making Jafar incredibly boring. The animated Jafar is one of Disney's most enjoyable villains. 

The original narrative theme (of being trapped) wasn't there and they hadn't bothered to replace it with something else. The scene where Aladdin was even more of an asshole than in the animation (the one where he fights with Genie), and then suddenly without any internal or external prompting changes his mind is just lazy. That scene epitomizes the languidness of this film. Furthermore, we're not big on the arrangements of the songs.  A Whole New World in particular was quite dreadful. All in all, the movie's pretty lackluster and unremarkable. And that in itself is a disadvantage. This remake is a basic example of current film trends. Everything needs to be explained and the message must be hammered in, because obviously the audience would never get it otherwise. Why bother using visual means, when you can simply say it?

Rocketman

 Disclaimer: We might be a bit biased, because we fucking love Elton John.



 Pros:  Casting was even better than we imagined. We forgive Bryce Dallas Howard's accent since she at least plays the character convincingly. Storytelling happens mainly through visual means. They have given new meanings to the songs by presenting a different context, hence the songs actually function as musical pieces that further the story or tell you something about the characters. The story's not all over the place, it focuses on the few themes chosen for the movie. We do love an unreliable narrator, which Elton basically is. The costume design is downright divinely inspired. They made surprisingly good and competent arrangements of the songs. 

Visually much more balanced than Aladdin. When the frames were cluttered, that was purposeful to express something storytelling wise. Even when the frame was full, you knew where your focus should be drawn.We didn't want a documentary, so we were happy to see a film that used the medium as intended and created a fantasy that might as well be an Elton John song itself. We like personal, intimate and character driven stories. So obviously that's  a pro for us.

Cons: A few cheesy moments here and there. Between the climax and I'm Still Standing the ending felt a little drawn out. On a couple occasions it might sound like someone singing Elton John in a karaoke (when it's not the lead actor). 

General: It's pretty obvious that we think there is no contest on which was a better movie. Essentially, Aladdin feels like the Disney cash grab and is perfectly mediocre to boot. Rocketman is super accessible and commercial (despite the useless R rating, it was rated 12 in Finland). Yet it has passion for the craft, a little artistic flair and creativity that is now almost extinct in commercial mainstream films.

Disney, retrospectively

Tarzan (1999)

Tarzan is one of our guilty pleasure movies. Mainly because of Phil Collins' 90's cheesiness. This will be our last retrospectively, since this is the very last Disney film we saw as kids and also, the first Disney film we ever saw in theatres. This is one of the few Disney films where both the original dub and the Finnish dub work for us. 

   



















Characters

Tarzan: He's much more engaging when he's a kid. Once he turns into an adult he becomes kinda boring. There's not much focus on Tarzan's character arc, which can make the character less interesting. 
Jane: The best thing about this whole movie. She is one of the funniest Disney women ever (and better yet, funny on purpose). Much like Meg, her character arc is ultimately about the guy - though like in Meg's case, where one could argue that her character arc was to learn to trust people again, Jane's arc could also be interpreted differently. It could be seen that Jane has to make a decision between being part of a community where she could be authentically herself (and devote herself to science in practice) or choosing conventional life in "civilized society".  
Kala: The most important minor character in Tarzan's life. She is kind and understanding of her son and pretty much a classic good mother figure. She does have some personality since she defies her mate and leader of the pack, but is also afraid of the humans and their weapons.
Terk & Tantor: Once again, we have a great comedic duo and they are, with Jane, our favourite part of the film. 
Minor characters: Jane's dad is great. Especially his moustache. Kerchak is an okay sort-of-antagonist-who-turns-into-a-father-figure. Clayton is not the best villain (but better than Ratcliffe, because let's face it, anybody's more menacing than that doofus). His death scene is pretty impressive, though.  

 









Story

Pretty mediocre. It's simple and doesn't try to be too ambitious. Many elements are lifted from Disney's other Africa film, The Lion King. This movie also handles the environmentalism vs. industrialism issue better than Pocahontas. It is less sappy in its preachiness and you actually like the characters involved. Choosing to live as part of nature instead of destroying or exploiting it, is a more coherent message than whatever Pocahontas was trying to push.

Miscellaneous

The animation is absolutely gorgeous. Tarzan is one of the best looking Disney films we've seen. The colours are sharp and the background lush. That Phil Collins, though. The songs are incredibly vague and tell you nothing about the characters, but at least they do further the story (which is something that is largely lost in modern Disney films). We shamefully admit, one of the songs is a total guilty pleasure as well. The score is nothing special, but unlike in (most) modern Disney outings, it does use the songs as a basis for the instrumentals.  

     

Pick of the month

Notorious (1946, Alfred Hitchcock)

This is one of the best Hitchcock movies we've seen. It became our favourite Hollywood production from Hitchcock, even surpassing Rear Window. Mainly because the female character is so fucking awesome. It has everything that one would expect from a Hitchcock film - edge-of-your-seat suspense, thrilling crime and mystery, great chemistry between the lead actors and of course, some good old-fashioned sexism (you really can't have a Hitchcock film without that one). It's shot superbly, every frame knows what its doing, the lighting is great and both characters have meaningful character arcs. This is a great example of the phenomenon where an older film has a much more complex, interesting and thusly more independent female character than a lot of modern cinema's women. And it's from Hitchcock, the arch-sexist, for crying out loud!  Also, this  movie completely convinced us that Cary Grant can do so much more than just comedy. We thoroughly recommend this for anyone who loves cinema and appreciates good film-making.

The bitches are back

A while ago we did a list of men who defy some traditions of masculinity. So, obviously we wanted to write a counterpart. Why use the term "bitch"? Because a lot of these women would be called that (and whore or a slut). Plus, we are owning that word. If they used that kind of a vulgar term in our religion, that's definitely what we'd be. Same rules apply, the less traditionally feminine traits a character has coupled with how much we like the character, the higher they'll be. Again, just like we wrote in the other post, we consider gendered characteristics to be arbitrarily assigned. We are humanists, first and foremost, and that is how we look at gender as well. Though unlike in the men's list where every character was sympathetic and a good guy, you will notice that here many of these women can be quite assholish (we still love 'em though!). It is apparently harder for the entertainment industry to create sympathetic females who buck the traditional norms of gender than it is for male characters. Nothing new under the sun, we guess.


1. Mildred from 3 Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri. First of all, her look - those overalls and that scarf on her head that makes her look like a gang member. She looks more like a factory worker than some shop clerk. She's rude, straightforward and incredibly foul-mouthed. The only make-up she has is film make-up that every actor has to have on a movie. She's definitely not your everyday loving mother - she clearly loves her kids, but is not portrayed as some paragon of motherhood. Like male characters of her kind, she's afforded sympathy, though you might not condone her actions. 

      













2. Dee from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. She is the funniest woman on TV we've ever seen. She is just as gross, vile and awful as the rest of the gang. Sometimes, even more so. A lot of the credit goes to the actor, who clearly has developed Dee's character into something awesome. She was pretty much given free reign to come up with crazy shit for her character.  Dee is no beacon of virtue or the straight shooter or the nagger that the female characters in these kinds of shows are often relegated to. The best about her is that she pretends to have all this feminine charm, but knows that she possesses none of it. 

3. Major General Armstrong from Fullmetal Alchemist. She is here because we couldn't have Èowyn or Kushana on this list as they were intended. This would be a natural male character - a badass soldier, utterly loyal to her troops and completely ruthless. She will mow down anyone who gets in her way. She commands the absolute loyalty and trust of her men. She is also cold as a fucking stone and incredibly ambitious. Is it any wonder that she was our favourite character from the entire show? (Maybe we should write about our shameful anime past at some point...) 

  










4. Scarlett O'Hara from Gone with the Wind. The best thing about this mess of a story (which we still like) is Scarlett and her cold, selfish heart. We've talked about her on a previous list so we don't feel the need to expand her character here much more. The reason we consider her to be so unfeminine is because she is so calculating and uncaring. She can kill a guy in cold-blood without batting an eye. These qualities would make Scarlett in any other story a femme fatale. Instead as the female lead she's portrayed as a very sympathetic person, warts and all. 

5. Stella Gibson from The Fall. Okay, she's definitely someone one would not normally see as a lead in a series (not to mention making her a female character). She's very absorbed by her work, is in charge of the investigation, and is interestingly quite openly sexual character (many would call her a slut probably, but would you if it was a guy who acted the exact same way?) without the show either condemning her or revelling in the sexual imagery. Her appearance is quite feminine, which can be said about many of the women on this list, but her personality and characteristics depart very much from perceived "womanly behaviour".

   











6. Meryl from Trigun. Her appearance is deceiving. She has quite a lot in common with Leia - they both are naturally very reserved people when it comes to emotions or feelings, but have no problems voicing their opinion. If there is the opposite of irrational, then Meryl is that. She will think things through before acting and never does anything on a whim. She is also a complete workaholic. Men are often portrayed as driven when they're shown as workaholics whereas women who are workaholics or career-driven are often villainous (Fatal Attraction, anyone?) Meryl is incredibly sympathetic and one of the few female characters we've seen who manages to break some of these feminine stereotypes, yet remains kind and unselfish.

7. LaVona from I, Tonya. This is our only character who is in any way based on reality. But she was just so outrageously horrible a mother that we had to take her. She's the closest we have for someone who is cruel. Out of all on this list, she is the one you would probably have the least any kind of warm feelings for. She isn't really portrayed in a sympathetic light either, so that could count for the utter hideousness of her character.  We greatly enjoyed it, though. It is rare to see a woman who just revels in her horribleness and who thinks her being an awful person is totally fine and justified.

   











8. Furiosa from Mad Max: Fury Road. All that engine oil on her face (and the metal arm) placed her here. She's a great sharpshooter as well, and unlike a lot of female characters in action movies she gets just as dirty, bloody and wounded as the dudes while fighting (at points even more so). She really rocks that buzzcut too.

  

9. Lady Eboshi from Princess Mononoke. You knew it, at least one Miyazaki had to make it here. She's pretty awesome. Calm, collected and capable. Even the fucking emperor comes to beg for her aid. She keeps a cool head in any kind of confrontation and things rarely slip out of her control. Her being a leader of the town's men and actually going to war with them is impressive in its own right. Women don't go to war - that's men's turf. 

  










10. Selena from 28 Days Later. Another one we've had on a previous list (the same we had Scarlett on, so check that one out). Her only thought in the beginning of the movie is survival, which makes her uncaring and ruthless. She has a great character arc though - realizing that there is more to life than pure survivalism and that caring about other people is not a weakness. 

11. Jordan from Scrubs.  This woman is thoroughly cold and selfish. It's great. She (and her not-husband) is by far the best thing about this show. She avoids any kind of emotional vulnerability or listening to anyone else's feelings. Otherwise she uses the traditionally seen "feminine viles" to get what she wants, but her being emotionally stunted is commonly noted as a masculine trait. (Here we took a pic with text, because the text describes her pretty perfectly).

  














12. Kate from East of Eden. She was on our mothers - list, but why she's here, is because she didn't wanna be a mother in the first place. She also abandoned her kids and that's a big no no, especially for a female character. She isn't particularly sympathetic but it is possible to understand her, even if the film doesn't show her in a good light.

The Last Jedi: A year in reflection

After the original Star Wars - trilogy came out, I have not been interested in any of the sequel/prequels that have come out since. To be fair, I don't really see these movies as anything related to Star Wars, since Lucas pretty much cut the thread permanently for me between the originals and anything that came after them with his abominable prequels. The prequels that Lucas created feel more like bad fanfiction than actual, real movies (not to mention the special edition cuts which are basically fan edits of his original trilogy) and Disney's Force Awakens was basically a rehash of the first Star Wars film, only longer. And then we come to The Last Jedi, which I saw around this time last year. Critics loved it, audiences were highly polarized on it. There have been hundreds, if not thousands of film reviews of this movie, mostly either praising it or completely denouncing it. I thought I'd give my two cents on this largely bad, but so far the only Star Wars - film, outside the original three, that has in any way, shape or form interested me. Disclaimer: it's only Jenni writing this. After having watched and read a million Last Jedi reviews which pissed me off to no end, I decided to vent my frustration here.

The funny thing is, even though this is the only one that has piqued my interest since the originals, it also annoys me way more than any of the previous sequel/prequels, even the Lucas prequels. It has the longest run time of any Star Wars film and for me, definitely feels the most frustrating to get through, since there was the one aspect that engaged me, but the rest of it felt like total filler. The separate stories seem rather artificially connected and my god, the amount of pointless scenes that don't really lead anywhere. I grant you, Return of the Jedi's beginning doesn't really connect with the rest of the film in any way either, but in this one it takes up like half the movie. The whole "subversion for subversion's sake" made it hard for me to really care what happened in the story or with the characters and in the end, it didn't even go all the way with its subversion goal, thus ruining the only thing that did interest me. Also, not a single woman getting a character arc, while all the dudes got one (even if it is partly recycled from the previous outing), is something I've noticed in a lot of these films that claim to be "feminist" or "empowering to women". I can take one movie where the main character doesn't really change or learn anything, but when you have more than one in a series of films, it is unacceptable that the main player does not get a character arc and it is even more painful to me when that character is a woman.

What does make me kinda laugh, is the fact that exactly the part that some feminist critics denounced as toxic or problematic is the one thing I felt was genuine in the whole movie. That's right, the relationship between the hero and the villain was, for the 2/3rds of the film actually kind of intriguing. Knowing my fondness for fucked up things and relationships though, it shouldn't really be a surprise that I liked it. Mind you, I ain't talking about romance here. I am adamantly of the opinion that since Luke didn't need a love interest, why the hell would Rey need one? Feeling sympathy for an enemy who is not related to you is something I really haven't seen in any of the previous films, so it was at the very least a captivating thing to witness. Unfortunately for Rey, it was also the only thing that made her for the first time for me, a character. She has been dangerously thin on character since the first movie and this one only improved her a little, and only for 2/3rds of the film and really just when she was interacting with the villain. It is alarming to me that in the Last Jedi, the villain was truly the one character that elicited any sympathetic feelings from me. And not just sympathetic but relatable. I understand why he is the way he is and why he does horrible things. The point of no return for me was when Kylo tells Rey how Luke tried to kill him and Luke later confirms it. The fact that Kylo hadn't yet committed any sins apparently didn't matter. Plus you never see fucking anyone making amends to this guy. The context that the movie has given to Kylo Ren is that of an abused child, not a villain. No wonder Rey's connection to him is believable, since Rey is also an abandoned child. Preferring the villain is another trend I have noticed in many modern mainstream films or tv-series.  

Many critics, especially many who identified as feminists, hailed the Force Awakens as a good film and Rey a great character. I liked her the 1st third of the movie, when we actually saw a little of her yearning for her family, her loneliness and her fear of the power inside her. And then bam! Suddenly she's invincible. Now I ain't gonna pretend that Luke was the greatest character in the originals. He wasn't. But he at the very least had to train to learn to use the Force and he fails at points and quite spectacularly so in the movies. That adds a little more personality to him. Though, if I did care enough about these new movies (which I don't), I would have been furious about the changes they made to the original characters. Especially Leia. Leia was always supposed to be a jedi (according to the originals and even according to the expanded universe) and learn the ways of the Force like Luke did. Instead they gave her an empty title and took away her power. Her anger seems to have evaporated as well. After all, Carrie Fisher herself said that making Leia angry was the only way she knew to make her strong. There is an angry woman living inside me too, so I understand that reasoning very well. Leia barely does anything in both of these new films, whereas Han and Luke get stuff to do and character arcs to boot. Though, Han and Luke weren't well treated either in these new ones (Han bailing the minute shit got hard and Luke planning cold-blooded murder of his sleeping nephew). But since Leia was one of the most pivotal characters of my childhood, it did pain me to see her get the Éowyn treatment. So, if I cared, yeah, I would probably hate the Force Awakens as much as I do the Two Towers film version. 

But what really pisses me off is what they kept from the originals was the one thing I always held against them - not giving women character arcs. Your main character is supposedly a woman, so where the hell's her character arc? I also find it bizarre that although you can't call the originals feminist by any means from story perspective, Leia is a pretty decent feminist character. It has been hilarious though, to read some reviews that condemn The Last Jedi for "feminist propaganda" and on the other hand as "great feminist film", since my opinion is that past the surface the film is actually kind of sexist. As most people who know us, know that I was raised in quite a strict religion. The sexism that often took form there was benevolent sexism, ie. women are so much better than men, hence we can guard men's purity, inspire them to be better, be their moral guidance and just in general be perfect. And whaddya know, I find exactly these elements in the Last Jedi's female characters and its story. Women are the ones who are always right, know everything, are always justified in their behaviour and actions and learn nothing. It is actually baffling to me how this film can have so many women yet be so completely devoid of women's stories. All the stories in the movie are men's. Finn, Poe, Luke and Kylo are the ones with character arcs. They make mistakes, fail, change and learn something. Rey, Leia, Rose and Holdo have to content with being the moral centre for the men surrounding them. And they aren't really given space to develop their own character. Say what you will about Leia not having a character arc in the originals but at the very least she wasn't made to be the moral leader for the men. She did things according to her own judgement and followed her heart, just like the men around her did. And she had personality - she was serious, dutiful, witty, little sardonic and incredibly reserved. I cannot for the life of me list any defining personality traits of the women in the Last Jedi - all I can say is that they are powerful and morally quite absolute. So the women have power but no character while the men have both power and character. Where exactly is the feminism in this film?   

What annoys me in this movie is that it could have actually been good. The conflict and connection that was created between the main hero and villain was quite engaging. Rey was actually challenged in her beliefs and the villain turned out to be not so black-and-white. That is, until the last 3rd, but I'll get to that. Rey showed some actual human emotion when she interacted with Kylo - she got angry, had doubts and felt despair. She felt sympathy towards the villain and optimistically believed Kylo would turn, much like Luke in the originals. Her yearning for her family and belonging returned from the first movie. So did her fear of her power. But then by the end, the fact that she failed to turn Kylo and finding out her parents abandoned her doesn't seem to affect her all that much. She's the same hero she was by the end of the Force Awakens, nothing changed. Kylo, I'm sure, was meant to be some whiny entitled man-baby, but as it is, he is literally the only character that in any way interested me in the film. He has some anarchist ideas with the whole "let's tear all the old things down and forget the past". Pretty much all the adults in his life either abandoned him, lied to him, manipulated him or worse, thought to kill him and completely lost any hope of his redemption. So it is no wonder that he doesn't trust any of them or their ideas. He had to train to learn to use the Force, whereas his counterpart Rey could use it without any training at all. The explanation we are given for this is that Rey and Kylo are ying/yang - type of balance in the Force. But if they are equal in power, then why the fuck did one of them have to train and the other didn't? Some internal logic would be nice here. God, I really hate putting women on these pedestals; watching this movie felt like I was back in my church. Lazy writing justifying why a character is so powerful makes the character boring (same problem plagues the prequels with the whole "prophecy" thing). 

The story takes a complete nosedive in the 3rd act. The stuff between the hero and the villain has led to this ambiguity of light and dark side of the Force and realization that maybe the two sides need each other and do not necessarily have to be in conflict. Now that would have been something that I haven't seen in any Star Wars film, but for all the Last Jedi's subversiveness, in the end that is the one thing they didn't have the guts to subvert (granted, that whole 'the villain might have a point' is totally stolen from anime). By the 3rd act, the villain who they were making into a more of an anti-hero turns back into a cardboard evil guy and all the complexity they built collapses. It is amazing that the originals, which are very simplistic in the whole good and evil aspect, manage to be more subversive. All the old fogeys in the original trilogy turn out to be wrong, both the good guys and the bad. It is Vader who kills the Emperor, not Luke (who abandons violence as a way to win in the end). In the Last Jedi, it turns out that the old people are right - Luke and Leia are right in giving up on Kylo, Luke and Yoda are right in believing that Rey is the saviour of Resistance and Holdo is right in not telling Poe their plan. Rey also fails to get Kylo on her side, which proves Luke right. So basically the film implies to respect authority figures, 'cause they are in the right. That's a pretty conservative message considering that so many people on the internet lambasted the Last Jedi for being "liberal propaganda". Even the whole Finn and Rose segment that attempted to criticise the immoral third parties that only look for profit is something we've already seen. Jabba and his crew were, after all, gangsters who sold their goods to anyone who offered money. The whining about this film criticising capitalism is pretty ridiculous, though. There are other blockbuster films that have managed to criticise capitalism better. Aliens is one example - an evil corporation wants to get these creatures even if it means sacrificing all the humans on the planet, all to gain a profit. Ripley even comments to Burke that " I don't know which species is worse. You don't see them fucking each other over for a goddamn percentage". And Aliens was made during the heyday of the Reagan/Thatcher - era. In Aliens though, the corporation is directly tied into the plot - all of the characters are going to the planet because of what the corporation started. In the Last Jedi, the whole casino sequence doesn't tie into the story, except as some overarching teaching about failure, I guess. Films that come from billion dollar corporations and criticise capitalism could be considered as some form of irony, though. Plus it is weird to see a Star Wars film making overt commentary to modern social and economic systems. 

All in all, the film's visuals do look amazing and the one aspect between the hero and villain was interesting. I do not hate and despise this film like I do the prequels. But both the originals and the prequels did have something the Force Awakens and the Last Jedi do not - coherence. The originals were about Luke's journey to adulthood, becoming a Jedi master and saving his father. One could also argue they depict guerrilla warfare against a dictatorship. The first Star Wars could be retconned to fit the second's and the third's story line. The prequels are about Anakin's fall from grace and how a democracy turns into a dictatorship (viable ideas, horrible execution). Whose story do the Force Awakens and The Last Jedi tell? Rey's? But Rey is not the one with a character arc in these movies, so they don't tell her story. Han has the character arc in the Force Awakens -  he confronts his son after running away from his responsibilities. In the Last Jedi, it's Finn, who basically repeats his character arc from the first movie and Poe, who is suddenly a dick (he was a decent guy in the first movie) who have character arcs here. Other two who have some kind of arcs are Kylo, who lets go of all his past but also regresses back into a villain, while Luke gets the redemption arc in this one. All dudes, who change and learn something. It would've been fairly effortless to write some growth for the women as well - for example, Rose could've learned that moral absolutism isn't necessarily always good, Holdo that sharing information could actually lessen the burden of being a leader and Rey could have carved her own path, realizing that both Kylo and Luke might be wrong and the two sides of the Force could work together. Isn't there some kind of middle ground between women being so goddamn perfect that they are practically devoid of personality and men being assholes in order for them to grow? Lastly, I think the Last Jedi tried to be too ambitious - it really wanted to be a movie in the A - class, not realizing that the originals have always been B-movies. Great B-movies, but B-movies nonetheless. Thus the fun, adventurous and even campy spirit of the originals is very much dampened in this film that takes itself a tad too seriously, even when it tries to jarringly stuff humour in places where it shouldn't (much like a Marvel superhero movie would). Rant over.