Toy Story 4 and the Death of the Movie Villain

Okay, so like the rest of us, I really love the Toy Story franchise.  As a kid I just thought they were fun movies, but as an adult I've gained an appreciation for their creative storytelling, groundbreaking animation, and timeless messages. Still, there was something that bugged me about Toy Story 4 from the first time I saw it. I'd just done a dive into movie villain trends over the years from the monsters of the 30's to the spies of the 80's and everything in between, and I'd been more aware of the growth of the sympathetic villain in modern cinema. What I didn't expect was for Toy Story to just give up on having a villain altogether.

I can, of course, already hear the cries of "What about Gabby Gabby?  Did you even watch the movie?"  And to that I say, let's take a walk through the franchise and see how the definition of villain has changed through the years, and you may be shocked with what you discover.

See, in Toy Story, the first couple acts have no real villain.  The closest thing to a villain, in pure Pixar fashion, is the percieved irrelevance that comes with time.  Woody is replaced and neither Buzz nor Woody is the enemy, but they're directly at odds with each other.  Still, the third act introduces Sid as a direct threat that destroys toys purely out of some sadistic desire for destruction and violence.  We see him destroy several toys, but also see that he's just an all around bad kid, as he's a jerk to everyone around him, even those he is aware are sentient.  Sid is bad because he's bad, and that's the entire story.

In Toy Story 2, we get a duo of villains.  Or original villain is just a greedy business man that is willing to steal a toy from a yard sale for profit.  We have a motivation and drive for his evil deeds, but he's still basically bad.  Stinky Pete, on the other hand, is a very sympathetic villain; so much so that he wins over Woody to his ideology, albeit for only a short time.  Still, at the end of the story, it's established he is truly evil as he moves past gentle persuasion to more villainous tactics.

By the time we hit Toy Story 3, Lotso is our clear villain, and though there's a slight surprise early on, he's basically the central villain through the bulk of the film, but then we get his backstory.  We learn he was once loving and good.  We learn he's been hurt and is acting not out of greed or selfishness as in Toy Story 2, nor out of just pure badness as in the original movie.  He's bad because he's been hurt.  He's bad because he's broken.  He's bad because the world is a hard place, and he is just trying to make it make some sense again.  We don't excuse him, but we hurt for him.  He was Jessie just a movie ago.  We remember how she felt being cast aside and Lotso's villainy is exactly where she was heading at one point.

Now, let's look at the final (at the time this post was written, that is) installment of the Toy Story franchise.  Here we have a pretty well defined central antagonist, right? Gabby Gabby leads an army of henchmen to tear apart Woody for parts.  It sounds pretty evil, except, it's clearly established that she is not evil at heart (and neither are her dummies, for that matter).  She desperate for a kid, for love, for attention.  She doesn't want to hurt other toys, but she also knows it's her best bet to get things to finally start going her way.  She's Woody from the first film, so desperate for affection she loses sight of those around her.  Woody tried to get Buzz lost so he could be the favorite toy, and Gabby was willing to take a voice box from Woody to make sure she finally gets a kid.  In the end we are rooting for her and genuinely happy for her when she gets her happy ending.  She's intentionally presented like a villain when we first meet her, but then the film spends the rest of our time with her proving that first impression wasn't the real picture.

So, here's my prediction for Toy Story 5, if it ever happens.  We meet a friendly character, that then is revealed to be secretly evil, only to find out they've really been good all along after all.  Either that, or no villain at all, perceived or otherwise.  Either way, there will be situational conflict and conflict of perspective and priorities between characters with no true good against evil anywhere in the mix.

So, hopefully you agree that Toy Story's villains are progressively more sympathetic and less villainous.  Still, the question remains, does this trend exist elsewhere or is it just Toy Story?  Well, Hopper from a Bug's life is a true villain, but there's definitely no villain at all in Inside Out, so Pixar seems to be making that transition across their entire works.  Aladdin had Jafar and Beauty and the Beast had Gaston, both irredeemable monsters, but Frozen barely has a villain (there's a bad guy, but he's responsible for a tiny portion of the conflict that arises through out the story) and Frozen II has no villain at all.  Looks like the trend is prevenant in Dinsey animation in general.  Then there's the contrast between Loki in the Avengers (you may not remember, but Loki hadn't really done anything redeemable yet) and Thanos in Infinity War/End Game who practically convinced the audience that he might actually be right.  It seems this trend is quite pervasive.

What does it all mean?  I'm not sure.  Perhaps it's a reflection on society and our mistrust of those around us, that we believe the worst things in the world aren't the results of evil men, but of those that have reasonable but misguided perspectives.  Perhaps it's an attempt for filmmakers to promote the idea that those we view as enemies are perhaps a little more good than we'd think.  Perhaps it's an attempt to break out of a story structure that some filmmakers may view as old and tired.  Whatever the reason, I hope kids growing up with these films are growing up understanding that those they disagree with are less evil than they may have felt at first glance.  I hope, too, that great villains aren't a thing of the past.  There may be value in a Gabby Gabby, but she'll never be as iconic or as fascinating as Maleficent (before the live action movies ruined her, that is).

Rise of Skywalker is a Mess, but a Wonderful Mess

It's been a very long time since going to a midnight showing of a movie (though, now that basically all of Thursday night is fair game, midnight showing isn't really the correct term anymore).  Somehow the stars aligned with work and home and such that I was able to reasonably sacrifice a good night's sleep on one of the longest anticipated releases of all time.  I'd been waiting for this movie since I was six, and there I was, finally pulling my ticket for the final Star Wars movie out of the kiosk.

It was time to grab some quick items from the concessions, sit through some not altogether disappointing trailers, and then try not to completely loose it as Lucasfilm flashes across the screen followed by ten all too familiar words; a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...

And then, just over two hours later, I was done.  Not just done with the movie, but done with a franchise I'd fallen in love with when most kids my age couldn't sit through a TV episode without cartoon characters, much less a feature length film.  For literally as long as I can remember, nearly 3 decades, there has always been a part of me that's either been wondering if the rest of the Star Wars films would be made or getting excited about the next Star Wars release.  It was surprising to leave that theater and feel some unexplained emptiness, and it took me a while to realize that I've never not had the next Star Wars film to imagine about.  There, of course, will be more movies, but I absolutely believe that what I've had for the past few decades just can't be recreated.  No franchise has ever captured so much imagination so simply by just calling the first film Episode IV.

That being said, the real question that I had to ask was, "As this is the end, was is a good conclusion?"  The simplest answer is certainly yes, but, much like the film itself, it's really not that simple.  So, let's break it down a little and find what's really going on.

If you google Star Wars Plot Holes or Problems with Star Wars or What The Last Jedi Did Wrong, you'll find plenty of results.  as I was watching Episode IX, several times I got pulled out of the story experience with what essentially amounts to a big flashing sign on the screen saying "PLOT HOLE FIXED, YOU'RE WELCOME".  A spoiler free example, in a meeting where the resistance is planning an attack against all the big bad star destroyers, one random resistance member suggests "The Holdo Maneuver".  Poe quickly states that the maneuver is one in a million (does it have that probability of working, or are you just trying to preserve it's uniqueness, he never really explains what he means) and then the talk moves on.  Those two lines exist for one reason only, to try to fix a mistake from a previous film.  They add nothing to the plot or characterization, they're just there for a little heavy handed retconning.  And that exchange is far from the only instance of trying to fix issue or problems from it's predecessor.  If you don't enjoy this movie, you may consider going so far as to claim that The Last Jedi is at least somewhat responsible for this movies failures as well as it's own.  I literally had the thought while I was watching, "I wonder if they had a list of things to address and gave prizes to anyone that could find a way to squeeze a solution into the plot."  The last thing I want to be thinking about during a movie is how some producer tried to manipulated their writing team into making their previous films look better.  In retrospect they may have done something similar with cameos, because basically every Star Wars character ever is in this film.
The other issue I have with the film (and the whole conclusion trilogy as well) is that the Force keeps getting new powers.  I'm pretty sure if you can heal people with the force, Obi-wan would have been working on that while cradling his dying mentor in his arms instead of rashly promising to deny the council and train the kid that, you know, would eventually kill him.  In Episode IV, we see the force as a way to sense the world around you.  It doesn't do anything one of our normal senses or skills can't do (except, depending on your beliefs, receive communication from those that have died).  In the rest of the original trilogy, we expand that to moving things, appearing as force ghosts, and at the very end, we get a brand new force lightning demonstration.  The prequels don't add anything substantial to the Force (don't you dare say, "what about midichlorians").  So, we see at least a few generations of Jedi and Sith go their was with no new developments in the force.  The force originally was more akin to the spiritual than the magical.  It was all powerful, but that didn't mean people could just do anything.  The force was a law of nature that could be channeled and worked with, but not manipulated or changed.  The new films present it as being able to do just about everything, and do it at will much of the time.  You want to take out an entire fleet of ships in one shot, just use the force.  You want to bring the dead back to life, just use the force.  You want to hang out with someone halfway across the galaxy, just use the force.
Okay, I've got one other point that drew me out of the film, but this one deserves my highest praise rather than criticism.  General Lea's scenes were all archive footage.  This was, of course, due to the untimely passing of Carrie Fisher and was, in my opinion, one of the best handled sequels starring a deceased former cast member.  It, once again, meant some sacrifice of story and character development for the writers, but with what they had to work with, I could not have asked for better.  Abrams set the scenes perfectly and the effects team's integration was nearly flawless.  Lea's lines are generic and, necessarily, non-specific, but at the end of the day, all I can say is that they did Fisher justice, and her role in the story is not only well done, but moving and meaningful.  I would, of course, loved to have seen her do this movie herself, but the team behind Rise of Skywalker absolutely gave us one last turn with Princess Lea that they should be especially proud of.
So, with trying to tie up all the loose ends, drop all the easter eggs, fix all the plot holes, and piece together what they can of Lea's story, there's no denying that Rise of Skywalker is a mess.  It's jerky and convoluted at times, and there are SOOOOO many scenes and lines that are clearly just fan service.  But, guess what, I'm a fan, so I love it anyways.  The biggest critisism of Last Jedi was it alienated fans.  Rian Johnson took risks and broke formula and subverted expectations every chance he got.  J. J. Abrams was heavily criticized for being too formulaic in Force Awakens, so it made sense, but Last Jedi clearly took it too far.  Fortunately, Abrams finds a much better balance this time around and surprises us but maintains familiarity.  It's still playing more to the safe side, but it's such a hodgepodge of fan favorite moments from all the previous films that the familiarity doesn't lend itself to predictability or boredom.  So, yes, it's a bit of a mess, but it's satisfying and exciting and fun and beautiful and surprising and, above all, a fitting conclusion to an amazing saga.
Now, I think I've spent more time on the negatives than the positives at this point, but the reason is simple, most of the really great stuff about Rise of Skywalker is the stuff that makes all Star Wars movies great.  The cinematography, practical effects, and production design are, like all the films, top notch.  John Williams' score is everything we always get from the most iconic film composer of all time, but still deserves any praise thrown his way (particularly the musical foreshadowing, which is always cool).  I've already mentioned Carrie Fisher's ...performance? I don't know if that's the right word, but the other actors gave good performances as well.  A particular shout out goes to Anthony Daniels (C-3PO) who had some his most emotional and most humorous moments in this film, despite having significant roles in all 9 movies.  Overall, the film is emotional, visually stunning, and full of more than enough fan service to please any die hard Star Wars fanatic out there.
It almost seems pointless to recommend Rise of Skywalker, as my recommendation is that if you've enjoyed most of the films so far, even if you haven't enjoyed all of them, this is a must watch, particularly for original trilogy fans.  If you didn't like the overly formulaic plot of Force Awakens, don't worry, this one is better.  If you didn't like the subversion of your expectations in Last Jedi, don't worry, this one fills those holes.  If you liked the other two, then you're going to like this one as well.  Rise of Skywalker is feeling like my favorite of the trilogy right now, but may change after more viewings, however, it's certainly improved in some of the most important ways, so if you haven't seen it yet by the time you find this post, go see it.  It's worth the ticket price, it'll be worth the purchase price when it comes out, it's great for just about any family (there are some frightening scenes and swearing which was disappointing as I have young kids that won't be able to enjoy it at the young age I started watching Star Wars).  Rise of Skywalker is a imperfect, but completely enjoyable conclusion to an adventure nearly half a century in the making.

Best? Pictures

There's an idea that's creeped into the movie industry over the past decade or two.  An idea that I would say is the number one discrepancy between the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science (The Academy of "I'd like to thank The Academy" fame) and the general movie going public.  That idea is that film as an art form and film as a source of entertainment don't intermingle.  I'd heard the complaint before, but I was curious if there really was an issue, or whether people were complaining about something that's always been there, you know, like most complaints about modern film (no one has any original ideas, there's too much reliance on special effects, etc.).

Well, I decided to determine once and for all if there really was a growing division between the films people want to see and the films the critics faun over.  Turns out, there is.

I started by just cross referencing all the top grossing films from each year and the best picture winners.  I wasn't surprised to see most of my hits. Return of the King, Titanic, Rocky, The Sound of Music, and Gone with the Wind were ones I already knew would hit.  The next step was to see how many years we went without having a hit.  From The Broadway Melody to It Happened One Night was 5 years, as was the next gap to Gone with the Wind and another 5 year gap until Going My Way.  Though the largest gap for a while happened next with an 8 year wait until The Greatest Show on Earth, there's another 5 year gap until a nearly back to back run of The Bridge on the River Kwai in 1957 and Ben-Hur in 1959.  So far there's an average of about 5 years between top grossing film that are also best picture winners all the way through the 30's, 40's, and 50's.  Not bad.

After that, however, we see a 6 year gap until The Sound of Music, a 7 year gap to The Godfather, a redemptive 4 year gap to Rocky, but then followed up by a massive 12 year wait for Rain Man.  A 9 year and 5 year gap for Titanic and The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, respectively, bring us to the present drought of 14 Oscars without a top grossing film winning best picture.  So, there's definitely a trend to have fewer films taking both honors, but maybe it's just a fluke, after all, one movie a year is a pretty small sample set.

So, I started looking at all the best picture nominees for top grossing films.  The following years were all years where the top grossing film was nominated for best picture.

1934, 1935, 1938, 1938
1941, 1944, 1945, 1948
1951, 1952, 1956, 1957, 1959
1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1968, 1969
1970, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1976, 1977
1981, 1982, 1987, 1988
1990, 1997
2002, 2003, 2009
2010

Well, that pretty well sealed for me the conclusion that the Academy is really less in touch with the American audience at large.  The longest we'd ever gone without a best picture nominee of a top grossing film was three years, that is, until the 80's, when we didn't have anything from 82-87, a 5 year spread that has been met or exceeded three more times in the past 3 decades and that's not including the current 8 year famine we're in right now.  Here's hoping Black Panther breaks the trend and gets a nod (unless Fantastic Beasts or something somehow pulls into the lead late in the year), which would basically come down to a toss up if the Academy is more interested in honoring diversity to get away from #OscarsSoWhite or whether their more set in making sure the superhero genre doesn't get recognition outside of the technical awards.

So, what really needs to happen to get things back on track?  Well, I'm probably crazy, but maybe we could take a tip from the 1927 Academy Awards.  The very first Academy Awards had not one, but two top prizes.  One for the most amazing movie and one for the most artistic movie.  Wings and Sunrise: a Tale of Two Humans are both excellent films, and they both got top honors that night.  What if we'd been awarding a most amazing movie award every year?  Star Wars and Jaws might have something more prestigious to  brag about, but at the same time, Rocky might have won in the entertaining category, allowing Taxi Driver to get the artistic recognition it probably deserves.

Call it a crazy idea, but I think we need to recognize as a movie watching community that there is merit to a film being entertaining and just telling a great story.  We share that with studios every time we buy a ticket to our favorite franchise film, but there's no reason the film critics and experts of the world shouldn't be hearing the message as well.  Yeah, there are some blockbusters that are pure garbage, but there are some that are just pure gold as well.  Let's honor entertainment like we honor art.  Let's recognize those that tell great stories in a consistent and reliable manner that connects with us and makes us feel like we're on familiar ground.  We love movies that entertain and at the end of the day, is there really anything greater a film can do than make our lives just a little more wonderful?

The Last Jedi, a hot mess, or just what we asked for?

As there have been many reviews in recent weeks of the latest in the behemoth of the film world that is Star Wars, I figured it was high time I weighed in with my two cents.  This is mostly due to the fact that there is a lot of negativity being directed at the film, much of which is unwarranted and nitpicky.
One such complaint is the darkness that we find in our returning hero, Luke Skywalker.  Anyone that is upset that Luke is moody and impulsive and not perfectly centered with the light side of the force, apparently didn't actually watch the original trilogy, in which Luke was moody and impulsive and not perfectly centered with the light side of the force.  Luke was a kid that was shown great power, and then watched three potential mentors die before they were able to truly train him.  So he tries to become the mentor he always hoped to have, and gives up when he fails.  Is this surprising?  Not really.  I came out of Last Jedi knowing that they did justice to Luke's character.  They gave him a redemption arc that explained his absence, deepened his character, and, like in A New Hope and Return of the Jedi, showed him overcoming his weakness to beat incredible odds and save the good guys.
Despite some consistency, however, Last Jedi is not necessarily what we've come to expect from Star Wars, but then we need to ask ourselves, why are we complaining about variety?  Let's face it, we all complained that the Starkiller base was too much a repetition of the Death Star.  Last Jedi tells a wonderfully fresh story in a world that still feels very much like Star Wars at its core.  If we begged for variety then, we should not fuss too much that we have it now.
There are other such complaints, but I feel confident that most of them rest on one of two main principles, "Star Wars needs to be perfect or else it's terrible", or, "Star Wars can't do anything new or different ever".  I didn't like the lighting effects on Yoda - did you not see the lovely heavy black lines on the original Rancor before the special edition?  Snoke's death is too short - it's built up as much as Obi-Wan's, Yoda's, and arguably even Han's.  The Porgs are cheesy - umm, Ewoks?  The desire to nitpick has become quite the past time for far too many of the internet's regulars, and, though I enjoy getting into the details as much as the next guy, I am hesitant to judge anything based on too heavy an analysis, especially art and entertainment.
Star Wars: The Last Jedi is a fantasy/sci-fi/adventure film.  That means it's primary role is to entertain.  Additionally it's supposed to tell a story, amaze and awe the viewer, and get the adrenalin going from time to time.  Last Jedi succeeds on all fronts at meeting it's primary and secondary objectives.  There are few films I've ever seen that were as fun to watch as this film.  I had one loss throughout the film of my suspension of disbelief (seriously, who designed the throne room?  It looks like a sci-fi movie set, which isn't very Star Wars-y at all), but I had remind myself to breathe at least once as well (and no, it wasn't when I first saw Adam Driver with his shirt off).  Considering catching my breath is fairly rare for me, that's a big point for the film.
One of the main themes that runs through the film (and upsets the most die-hard Star Wars fans) is the subverting of expectation.  Luke doesn't come round and train Rey right away, Snoke's killed rather easily, the complex plan of the main characters doesn't work, Poe's practically a minor villain, etc.  I would probably argue it's a little too much, especially if you want to keep your fan base happy, but no one can deny that The Force Awakens expanded that fan base.  We've got fresh blood and their entertainment should be considered as well.  In the modern age of picking apart every scene and every trailer and every interview, there are too many people that think they already know exactly what's going to go down.  Why would a studio invest in making a film that someone already guessed every plot point?  What would be the fun in watching a movie where you read the plot on some blogger's prediction just a few days before?  There's danger in being too predictable, and danger in being too unexpected.  The Force Awakens erred in favor of the former, and Last Jedi in favor of the later.  Perhaps the trilogy will end with balance?
Expectations and such aside, if there's anything that Last Jedi definitely got right, it knows how to be visually stunning.  I know most of you are thinking of the light speed ramming sequence when I say that, which, I'll admit was a highlight, but I felt the sound (or lack thereof) was the essence of that moment.  The most visually interesting scene for me was the battle on the salt planet.  The red on the white was just a mix of colors that you don't see in hardly any other battle scene in film history.  It took an otherwise familiar scene and made it new again.  It breathed life into something that would otherwise suffer from being compared to the battle for Hoth as just a copycat of an old Star Wars trope.  I've not heard that, and I don't think I will, thanks to some spectacular visual work from a great team at ILM.
Anyone that knows me well knows I can write much more, should I be so inclined.  Let me know if you'd like me to address a specific issue with the film in the comments below, but for now, I'm ready to wrap up.  I recommend purchasing Last Jedi.  It's worth every penny, if you like the rest of the franchise, or if you're just getting into it.  Last Jedi works best as part of a whole, but it's a great film in so many respects that, with some background information perhaps, there's no reason it can't stand alone to some degree as well.
Finally, we love you, Carrie.  Thank you for being our princess when guys couldn't like Cinderella.

Great or Overrated - John Williams

John Williams.  When you say his name, more than any other composer ever, most people can name something he composed (usually Jaws or Star Wars or Indiana Jones, occasionally Harry Potter, Jurassic Park, or E.T.).  That, in and of itself, is quite an accomplishment.  Most people can't actually name a piece by Mozart or Bach and if it weren't for Fur Elise and Ode to Joy, Beethoven would be in equal trouble.  But people know John's work.  The real question is, to what does he owe his fame; pure talent or more of a right place/right time situation?

I've asked myself this about many people, Shakespeare, Tolkien, Van Gogh, Streep, Hanks, Nolan, Spielberg, and many more.  Should this particular run down get any sort of attention, I may share some more of my thoughts on which of the above are truly talented, and which just got lucky, but for today, we're just focusing on Williams.

The biggest argument for either case is essentially the same; "John Williams is only famous because he composed the music for some of the most successful movies ever, so more people know his music" opposed to "John Williams composed music that resulted in his movies becoming some of the most successful movies ever."  It's really a cause and effect situation here.  Did Williams' scores lead to the movies' successes or did the movies' successes lead to the popularity of his scores?  There are some movies *cough* Harry Potter *cough* that would have been huge with no help from Willliams.  Though a bad enough score might have been able to ruin the film, any decent score was sufficient to see the film succeed.  Other movies, like Star Wars or Close Encounters or Jaws, were only moderately expected to be successful, and yet they were all incredibly successful.  We can't attribute all of that to Williams, certainly, but it is telling that many of his films that were not necessarily going to be hits still did extremely well. 

That's not to say he never composed a dud.  John Wayne is not especially known for his turn in Williams orchestrated "The Cowboys" nor does everyone love to revisit that Dick Van Dyke classic "Fitzwilly" for the great score by Johnny Williams (yep, he went by Johnny for a while in his early career).   Still, it's been since that Indiana Jones sequel we don't like to talk about that Williams has written a score that hasn't gotten an Oscar nomination (as of 2017).  Okay, so he's an Academy favorite, that doesn't actually make him good, right?

Well, no.  There are plenty of Academy favorites that are overrated, and, more importantly, plenty of artists that don't receive the recognition they deserve from the Academy.  So, it's hard to say that Williams is good just based on the popularity of his music or from the number of Oscars he's racked up (just 5 so far, out of an insane 36 nominations).  So, it looks like we'll have to go and look at the actual product that he delivers, his music.

Film music, in my opinion, has one job: to tell the story.  That's it.  It's not to be beautiful or have a catchy tune or to explore the range of modern musicianship.  It's to tell the story.  Film music does this in two main ways; creating mood and establishing themes.  Mood is created by using the natural character of various harmonies, timbres, and textures to evoke certain emotions in the listener.  A slow, sparse tune on an oboe in a minor key is going to give us a sense of loneliness.  That's due to the nature of certain qualities of the music itself, as well as decades of training that we all receive daily on how to react to music.  You won't hear the oboe solo at a football game as you take the field, because it doesn't match.  Themes are a little easier to understand, a certain melody is played during a character introduction or when a relationship is forming or when a certain idea is discussed and for the rest of the movie, when we hear that music, we think of that character or relationship or idea.  It's probably the easier aspect of film music, but still not always easy.

This brings me to why I think that John Williams is truly great.  He is one of the greatest theme builders, and theme manipulators, in film history.  People will argue that he "borrows" his themes from existing music.  There's some truth to that, but that's not why Williams is great.  John Williams is great because of one thing.  He could rip off everything else he does and this one thing would be enough to make him stand out by itself.  Williams doesn't just use themes like blunt tools to reinforce the story on the screen.  Williams turns his themes into fine instruments.  They shift and evolve and twist in and out of each other to do more than just reiterate what's been said, but to tell something more every time.  Anakin's theme in Phantom Menace ends with the same four or five notes as the Imperial March.  The Jaws theme starts sparse and suspenseful, but it's also used with added orchestration later to create a sense of intensity and excitement.  Hedwig's theme in Harry Potter gets a festive remix to show the passage of time.  Time and again, Williams uses his existing themes in new ways to help tell the story.

Another factor in composer greatness is versatility.  Williams has composed for science fiction, adventure, dramas, fantasy, horror, comedy, and westerns.  He's written for kids and adults, for topics ranging from Christmas to superheroes to the holocaust to classic disney characters.  His versatility is established enough, I can't find much of a gap in it anywhere.  I'm fairly confident he could compose for any film genre without a problem.

So, the verdict is out.  I honestly thought I was going to write that John Williams was definitely a little overrated by the end of this, but here I am, still feeling he's earned his position at the top of his field.  He may be a favorite in the Academy, he may carefully pick his projects so as to not end up with a flop, but at the end of the day, Williams has talent and that can't be denied.

Power Rangers

Okay, so it's always a challenge to reboot something.  It's even more of a challenge to reboot something that's considered a classic piece of pop culture.  It's even more of a challenge to reboot a classic piece of pop culture when the source material is pretty lame.  C'mon, admit it, as a kid the Power Rangers were pretty cool, but the source material really isn't that great when you go back and look at it as an adult.  The characters, story, catch phrases, and more fall squarely in the category of completely and utterly cheesy.  It's not an entirely bad thing, but it's not exactly a masterpiece of true brilliance in any respect (except in merchandizing, you know you still have a couple plastic Power Ranger figurines hiding somewhere).
So, to get to the point, when I heard there was to be a reboot film of the franchise, I was mostly surprised, but also a little curious about what they were planning to do to make it actually still feel cool, even though all the Power Ranger fans of old are now in their 20's and 30's.  Well, not too long ago, I got my answer.  Apparently the plan is to make the hottest kids action series ever into a teen drama.  Aside from a brief car chase, and a really odd training montage, there is literally no action in the first hour and a half of the movie.  I mean, the premise of the characters being in karate class or something together is out, so no one knows how to fight; the challenge that drives the middle of the film is that they don't know how to morph, so they can't really put them in real danger through most of the film, because they can't handle it; and to top it all off, every kid apparently needs an emotional back story, so instead of action we get to know that all of these kids have some struggles that they deal with.  Their teenagers!  Like, are there any teenagers in the world that aren't dealing with some emotional turmoil more often than not?!  So why do we have to explore all of their specific issues.  Oh yeah, because that apparently the only way they can ever get to morph, so it's also the only way we'll ever get to real action.
Okay, rant over.  There actually were some great things about the movie, but I just can't feel that the relatively good production design outweighs the slow pace, the forced use of outdated catch phases, and the fact that Zordon spends most of the movie planning to betray everyone.  Hopefully they fix all those issues in Power Rangers 2, which we all know is coming thanks to the Marvel-esk ending scene/teaser.  The lack of exposition in the future may make for better sequels, but this franchise may be doomed from the moment they picked it up.  Like I said in the beginning, the cards were stacked against them.
So, if you're a big fan of the classic TV show, rent it cheap or find a friend that has a copy and watch it once, but if you don't NEED to see it, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

Split

Like all Unbreakable fans, I was excited at what Split means for the future of David Dunn, but I'm going to say right now something that might disappoint some people.  There should not be more than the one movie that Shyamalan has suggested.  Think about it.  Wouldn't this be the perfect film trilogy?  Most trilogies follow one character as they go from villain to villain, or from encounter to encounter with the same villain.  Instead, this would be an origin story for the hero, then a separate, unrelated origin story for the villain, and finally the showdown finale!  Antagonists often get the short end of the stick when it comes to development, so Split is very exciting from a big picture standpoint.
But what about as a standalone film?
Split has several things going for it, and a few things going against it.  First, there's that whole twist ending thing that is the Shyamalan staple.  There are a few twists along the way, but nothing to freak out about except perhaps the introduction of David Dunn at the end.  The main twist was that Casey is broken enough that the Beast doesn't want her, but anyone trying to understand the Beast's philosophy would know he would at least think twice about her if he knew.  The entire time, we're getting flashbacks, and so we're obviously wondering when the backstory will tie in, so it's no surprise when the Beast is ranting about only the broken being worthy, that he's going to eventually discover she's okay.  So, story-wise, there's not too many surprises, and certainly enough explanation from various characters, especial Dr. Fletcher, to make sure that even the most disengaged of viewers can follow the main idea of the DID (dissociative identity disorder) pros and cons and the various characters feelings about DID.  Its a thrilling, but not too complex, story.
The acting, on the other hand, is certainly on par with any other blockbuster.  This is, almost entirely thanks to James McAvoy.  His range is explored wonderfully, with him changing not just his voice and looks, but subtle mannerisms and posture as well with each new alter.  I enjoyed everything about his performance, and had a hard time remembering it was him at times.  The rest of the cast supported well, with the three girls avoiding some of the hamminess of your typical teen girl in a horror film.
The soundtrack was at times startling, and constantly thrilling, and the production design evoked some of the great suspense work of the past while not quite being familiar enough for me to let my guard down.  Overall, I can't say a lot of bad things about the film.
The biggest complaint I do have, is that it just didn't pull me in.  It seemed like it was trying to make more of the story than it needed.  The story really was about understanding who the Horde is.  We want to be exposed to this villain from all angles, so we see him from the psychiatrist's view, the captive's view, and from his own view.  We see his past, his present, and a glimpse of his future.  We are trying to understand his disorder and the rules it follows as well as his motivations as each alter.  Yet, for all these questions we have, most of them are answered through an explanation, not a discovery, and these explanations are interrupted by several escape attempts by the girls, most of which aren't plausible, and all of which are fruitless.  By far the most interesting thing about this film was the DID and McAvoy's portrail, so why not make your star player shine in the most exciting moments?  Nope, lets only let anything exciting happen when he's not even there.  Rather than escape attempts using coat hangers and air ducts (seriously?), lets have them try to understand the obviously messed up captor, and slowly they come to find what he wants and why, but also some of his weaknesses.  Finally they use his own disorder against him to make a bold escape attempt, but are stopped as the Beast or another personality seizes control just in time to stop them.  I'd have bought that movie.
As it is, I'm planning to wait and see if there's a 3 pack someday with Unbreakable, Split, and the third film once it comes out, and I'll buy it then.  I'll recommend watching it, especially if you liked Unbreakable, but I'm not recommending you drop $20 on the Blu-Ray just yet.  We'll have to wait and see how the sequel plays out before passing more judgement.
And speaking of Unbreakable, that's a must see, and buy if you can find it, so I have high hopes for the final film in the franchise, despite some shortcomings on the part of Split.