Greedo Really Did Shoot First?

Hey everybody, McMovieman here. I've been perusing the Internet today and I see over on Hollywood Reporter a little Q&A with George Lucas. He finally clears up that age old Han vs Greedo and the matter of who shot first. According to Lucas it was always Greedo. Here's the full quote:  The controversy over who shot first, Greedo or Han Solo, in Episode IV, what I did was try to clean up the confusion, but obviously it upset people because they wanted Solo [who seemed to be the one who shot first in the original] to be a cold-blooded killer, but he actually isn’t. It had been done in all close-ups and it was confusing about who did what to whom. I put a little wider shot in there that made it clear that Greedo is the one who shot first, but everyone wanted to think that Han shot first."

I've seen the original cut of A New Hope. Han very clearly shoots first. It's feeling more and more like Lucas is trying his damnedest to sell this lie. Lie is a harsh word. Don't get me wrong, I am a huge fan of Lucas. Star Wars is one of my all time favorites, but it would feel much more genuine if Lucas would come out and say "I changed the Greedo/Han exchange because I wanted Han to appear more heroic or less flawed or blah blah blah." Instead he's sticking with this, dare I say, delusion. From my perspective it makes Han Solo more of a character if we meet a Han Solo at the beginning of A New Hope who shoots first and asks questions later and then grows as a character as the franchise progresses. He then becomes a stronger character who is very flawed in the beginning, but grows into the hero. Hell, he's promoted to a General in Return of the Jedi. If growing from a trigger happy space pirate to a General in an army isn't growth, I don't know what is. It's what you might call a character arc. It is what it is, however. It is never going to sway my love of Star Wars, as I doubt it will any other Star Wars fan, but it is still moderately annoying for me to see Lucas sticking to this alteration so steadfastly. Anyway, that's my two-cents on this little story. File this away under random nerd ramblings.

The Woman in Black

   Ah ghost stories. Who doesn't love 'em? The Woman in Black, starring Daniel Radcliffe, is one hell of a ghost story. I'm somewhat skeptical when it comes to the slew of modern ghost stories as most have been pretty underwhelming (in my personal opinion of course), but The Woman in Black really managed to delight and terrify me. It's an obvious throwback to past horror films of this kind. I was reminded of old horror films from the 30's and 40's and of course the Hammer horror films. Imagine my delight when during the opening credits I see that this film is actually a Hammer film. I'll be the first to admit my ignorance going into the film with regards to the crew. I of course knew Daniel Radcliffe and one other actor, Ciaran Hinds, but I had only seen one trailer and I haven't seen any of the other pictures the director has done. I knew of the writer, Jane Goldman, and I love what she did for the X-Men franchise with her work on First Class. With a solid enough writer I figured what the hell and I'd give this film a whirl. I was not disappointed in the least. It managed to be terrifying. The titular Woman in Black was a very scary and very ominous presence in the film. Every time she was on screen it filled the theater with a sense of dread. You never knew if she was just going to stand there and stare, disappear or rush the screen screaming like a Banshee. I've read other reviews that said it was somewhat generic in it's scares, and while that might be the case with some of the clichéd "loud noise" scares the atmosphere of the film and the presence of the Woman in Black are what really brought it all together for me. At no point did I become desensitised to the ghosts presence. It was just enough to keep you apprehensive. It made you want to plead with the character not to go down that hallway or don't open that door. I saw a quote online (and I can't for the life of me remember where) that said "Horror is when the audience has no idea what’s going to happen next, coupled with the awful suspicion that maybe they don’t want to find out." I honestly believe The Woman in Black achieves this.

   The film takes place during the Edwardian era of England's history in a small village (and I don't recall if the village was ever named, but I don't suppose that matters) and that setting lends itself quite well to the old fashioned Gothic atmosphere it aspires to. Our main character is a lawyer who has to go to a spooky old house to settle the affairs of a recently deceased woman and the story picks up from there. I'm not one to give away the plot in a film like this and it is my opinion that the plot isn't really the driving force of this film. The atmosphere is, and it should be. The plot can't help but feel a little overdone and cliché. It has all the usual gothic horror elements: spooky houses, villagers warning the newcomer to stay away, ominous sounds, etc. As I mentioned above the film does feel like an homage to older horror, all the while maintain the dread that pictures like Paranormal Activity managed to achieve. I don't suppose it would feel too far-fetched to say this film is a bit of a blending of the old and the new. Older horror fans might appreciate it's throwback nature and delight in the fact that Hammer films are putting out movies once again and the younger generation who gobbled up Paranormal Activity and the like will enjoy the sharp scares the movie offers. I give this film a solid 8/10. If you're looking for some fun, creepy scares, look no further than The Woman in Black!