jump to navigation

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) May 27, 2008

Posted by gproject in : Cinema, Recently Viewed , add a comment

Directed by: Steven Spielberg

Nineteen years.  The figure that has been touted all over discussion about this, the return of a 1980’s hero who it seems is still adored by generations of fans.  Can it really have been that long since we last saw Indy on the big screen?  And if so, would it even be accepted in today’s vastly different blockbuster landscape?  Judging by sheer hype, the answer is undeniably ‘Yes’.  A character whose ever-growing popularity has made him so big that he dwarfs the fact that this is the new film from popular writer David Koepp, or produced by fan-boy messiah George Lucas, or directed by the world famous voice-of-your-childhood, Steven Spielberg.  So big, in fact, that I wish he’d stayed small.

Get past the slightly verbose title and you’re presented with a story that flings Indy into the late 50’s Cold War.  Exit Nazis, enter Russians, this time intent on finding an object of great power and a city made entirely of gold.  After capturing Dr Jones for help in their quest, he makes a quick escape to try and beat them to the prize, picking up a young rebel by the name of Mutt along the way.  But the crystal skull that everyone is so desperate to get their hands on holds a hidden secret, and drags our intrepid hero into a mystery that’s not of this world.

The hardest decision to understand comes from the notion that Spielberg’s reservations about bringing the character back to the screen were down to finding “the right story”.  I don’t know how many stories they looked at (lots, if you believe the press), but the fact that this is the one they settled on for a glorious return seems almost incomprehensible.  The structure follows suit for a Jones adventure - search, find, search, find - but the subject takes the fantasy content of previous instalments and widens its berth to rather tricky levels of plausibility.  As much as you might not believe the biblical magic present in the old films, it’s the sci-fi element of this story that makes for such an awkward juxtaposition next to the low-tech Indiana Jones universe.

Rather wisely, there’s no constant referencing of how old Indiana has become, nor do they even think about turning him into an over-the-hill action parody (”my back!” etc.).  A few throwaway quips early on suffice to make the point.  Not that any jabbing would even work because at sixty-five, Harrison Ford stands very impressively as an action lead.  The extra years are there, sure, but he falls back into character with a natural ease and I never found myself questioning his ability to fulfil the role.  Well, not for age reasons, at least.

The rest of the cast is a mish-mash of names designed to boost audiences without showing up Ford.  Opinions seem split on Shia LaBeouf as the mouthy tag-along (he seems easier to hate than like), yet his contribution isn’t really damaging to the film in any way.  Meanwhile it’s nice to see a return performance from Karen Allen as her character in Raiders of the Lost Ark, Marion Ravenwood - easily the least annoying of the Indy women.  Ray Winstone, on the other hand, gets an infuriatingly two-faced role that rarely breaks free of its contrivances, while Cate Blanchette composes herself convincingly as the Russian villain but too often suffers from pantomime baddie syndrome.  Finally, John Hurt gets to do babbling lunacy as a brainwashed professor and Jim Broadbent pops up to round out a decent roll call of aging performers.

There was a rather noticeable lack of computer generated trickery in the original trilogy, with a reliance on practical effects work being a key part of its down to earth charm.  Apparently, the intent was to keep things the same this time around, although if that’s the case then they’ve undoubtedly failed, throwing all manner of CGI at the screen in a bid to keep up with the modern day expectations for a big-budget action flick.  Maybe Spielberg would have been better sticking by his original classification of Jones as a B-movie endeavour because, ultimately, it’s as such that the film succeeds best.  Shoving it into the summer blockbuster spotlight leads to the feeling that it is merely dressing up for the mass audience.

Having dismissed the special effects I should say that they are at times spectacular - especially a sequence during the conclusion which takes the concept of demolition to a startling extreme.  But they also contribute to the worst moments too, and in this film that comes in the form of a scene I’ll refer to as ‘monkey swing’.  How this gob-smackingly awful bit of cheesy flippancy made it into the final cut is beyond me, and I’ll bet that it will remain as a sticking point even with those who liked the movie.  But at least a majority of the stunts and effects work serves to increase the entertainment you’ll get from the film, and when you boil it right down, that’s the most important thing here.  The simple fact is that it’s not completely awful by any means, just disappointingly average.

Maybe there’s a hard truth that we need to face here: that it’s our fault.  This movie would never have happened of its own accord; the fans forced it back with their persistent coercing.  It is notable that as the original films grew in success, the formula was adapted to keep things in touch with the time.  Now, shaped into a special effects blockbusting extravaganza, it falls limp - which maybe says more about our summer blockbusters than it does about Indiana Jones.  As for those major players so shrouded by the towering popularity of their character: Koepp’s script is a little bumbling and silly, George’s influence is way too evident and Spielberg can’t recapture the atmosphere of nineteen years ago.  Yes, it really has been nineteen years.  Times have changed.  Clearly, not entirely for the better.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is on general release.

The Indiana Jones Trilogy (1981 – 1989) May 22, 2008

Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , add a comment

Directed by: Steven Spielberg

As far as childhood heroes go, Indiana Jones certainly comes to mind as one of mine.  His action-packed explorations made for three distinctly different, but still wildly exciting movies, that everyone my age will have memories of growing up with.  But memories is all they are.

You see, unlike the Back to the Future trilogy, which I checked back in with on regular occasions, my recollections of the whip-cracking adventurer were far more vague.  I could point to plenty of scenes and moments, but they weren’t coherently focused enough to place them within each film.  So, for the first time in at least ten years, I went back to fill in the blanks.

(And just in case your memory is like mine, I’ve included some of the quintessential Indy moments for each film.  So now you can pretend like you remember too.)
 

Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)

Notable for its shortened title (it would later inherit an ‘Indiana Jones and the’ for the video release), Raiders of the Lost Ark is a rip-roaring introduction to the character and extremely entertaining to boot.  Even now it holds up as a wonderfully spellbinding piece of action adventure and it’s no mystery as to why the franchise took off the way it did.  Steven Spielberg hardly needed to prove anything – sandwiching this after Jaws and Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and right before E.T. – but he gives the proceedings a distinct polish and credibility that barely shows the flaws of what Spielberg himself described at the time as a “B-movie”.

The story introduces us to Dr Indiana Jones, an archaeology lecturer who practices the most extreme form of what he preaches.  It is 1936 and after returning from an unsuccessful expedition in South America, his friend and museum curator Marcus Brody visits him to tell the story of The Ark of the Covenant - a treasure of biblical importance that is currently being hunted by the Nazis.  But Hitler’s army are missing out on a vital piece of information: a medallion that is currently owned by one of Indy’s old flames.  With hat and whip, Dr Jones sets out to recover the medallion, and find the ark before the forces of evil do.

You could point to many things as the roots of its success: Harrison Ford’s chiselled but bedraggled portrayal of Jones, John Williams’ memorable score, Lawrence Kasdan’s well structured screenplay - but what really stands out right now is how good it looks.  Douglas Slocombe’s cinematography makes expert use of light and shadow, plus he knows when to hold the frame and simply capture a moment.  There’s little of the music-video action editing that is deemed a necessity today, and the film holds up as being one of the most visually rich adventure flicks of all time.  Plus it won four Oscars, which rarely seems to come up – although they were all technical awards, having lost out on four other ‘biggies’ (Best Picture, Director, Cinematography and Music).

A classic that has thankfully lost none of its charm – even if the ending is a bit of a let down (the Ark does all the work!).  Here are some of the well-referenced Indy moments from this film:


 

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)

Self-admittedly the ‘darkest’ of the Indy adventures, the change in tone is apparent quite early on in Temple of Doom, even if the real bulk of the moodiness saves itself for the second half.  In some ways, it’s a brave attempt at making an edgy family adventure; the question is whether the final film can still be classed as such.  The scenes within the Temple itself are both violent and unnerving, which always left me uneasy watching them as a child.  Plus there are some strange racial suggestions and the rather inappropriate inclusion of child slaves added into the mix, which lend the film to a more mature audience. 

The second of the Indy adventures sees the professor crashing down in the depths of India after a fateful escape from gangsters in the Far East.  Occurring a year before Raiders, our hero has acquired a helper in the form of a young boy named Short Round, and a mouthy club singer called Willie Scott who is accidentally along for the ride.  The gang are convinced to help a small Indian village whose sacred stone was stolen by higher powers.  Indy visits Pankot Palace and there discovers a dangerous cult operating in the hidden dungeons below ground - but before he can rescue the sacred stone he is pulled into the clan by mystic forces that threaten to turn him into a murderous slave.

Controversially still cut for its PG rating in the UK, the darkened tone is what I always remember from this film.  Watching the uncut version makes me realise just how malicious it gets – there are moments in each of the Indy films that question the PG boundary, but none that are so underwritten by a mood of near-horror-like quality as they are in Temple of Doom.  That said, just look out for the perculiar musical-inspired opening sequence that’s a little too Cabaret, or the inclusion of a mildly annoying child sidekick for Indy, for evidence that this wasn’t intended to be an outright sinister film.

Often regarded as the weakest of the trilogy, I hate to agree with the masses but overwhelming evidence would suggest that they’re right.  Its strengths in the visual and action departments are let down by misjudgements elsewhere – not that this film doesn’t have its share of classic moments:


 

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)

The final instalment tacks from one side of Raiders to the other, replacing Temple of Doom’s overcast sensibility with an air of joviality and wit.  This is mainly down to Sean Connery’s inclusion as Indy’s headstrong father, replacing the unbearable “ha ha ha, you so funny” half-baked banter of Shorty with a genuine match for our hero’s temperament.  As stories go, I also really like the structure of this film: opening with a short but sweet flashback to a young adventurous Indy, the film follows the father-son relationship through without completely shoving it in your face.  It also has the ‘final challenges’ in its conclusion, which is the most narratively adept of all three.

In this third outing, our intrepid adventurer sets out for Italy, after hearing about the disappearance of his father, another famed archaeologist and Holy Grail expert, Dr. Henry Jones.  With only his father’s diary to guide him, Indy tracks down the last clues as to the location of the Grail.  After a quick rescue effort in Austria, father and son are reunited to go globe-hopping together, hunting down the location of Christ’s cup before those pesky Nazis get to it first.

I can only speculate on George Lucas’ influence (in this film moreso than the others) - you may remember another trilogy in which he was involved that also contained a pertinent father / son relationship.  Of all the movies, I remembered this one the best, and that’s probably because its light-hearted scenes make it the most obviously defined of the three.  Inevitably, that is also what some people don’t like about it.  That, and the fact that the story goes some way back to retreading Raiders territory - although I’d argue that this one, as a whole, is more organised.

This, for me, is the fave.  Not really because it betters Raiders in terms of doing justice to the character (it doesn’t), but because if you asked me to pick one to watch on a lazy Sunday afternoon, I’d get more overall enjoyment out of this film than any of the others.  Moments from this flick haven’t populated Indy lore quite so much, but that doesn’t mean it won’t keep kids and adults hooked throughout:


 

Conclusion:
What it comes down to is this: Raiders of the Lost Ark is the definitive Jones film - an archetype that was never really matched, but rather adapted to different types of story.  Temple of Doom braves a thin line for the family adventure movie but seems to take even its most misguided steps in its stride.  The Last Crusade lets the light back in, and goes for all-out entertainment with its numerous action pieces and clear grasp of its linear story.  Most importantly, however, there’s no reason that these films won’t keep thrilling audiences for another twenty years.  ‘Dated’ is not a word that applies here.  Which is good because, like it or not, we’re about to be reacquainted with Dr. Jones.

This simple trip down memory lane has at least proven to me why there’s still a calling for Harrison Ford to don hat and whip once more.  The various wannabes that arose to try and claim the crown have mostly been unsubtle about it: Romancing the Stone, The Mummy films and the recent National Treasure movies [review] have all gone after the same fundamental attitude - none have yet come close.  Which means the pressure is on: The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull has a lot to live up to.  This week, we’ll find out if it has been worth the wait.

Charlie Bartlett (2007) May 18, 2008

Posted by gproject in : Cinema, Recently Viewed , add a comment

Directed by: Jon Poll

While Robert Downey Jr is tearing it up in multiplexes around the world during the current run of Iron Man [review], many won’t even spare a thought for his other currently on-release endeavour, this quirky high school dramedy that’s finally getting a UK outing after a year on the shelf.  The timing is impeccable, and obviously engineered, although I fear that the cross-over opportunities between the superhero action crowd and indie-spirited teen individualists may be few and far between.  Especially when that individualism comes served with an all-too heavy helping of conformity.

In our first introduction to Charlie he is being kicked out of yet another private school – a regular position for this boy whose wealthy background hasn’t quelled his rebellious side.  He is forced to go to a local public school where his advantages make him stick out.  But Charlie is nothing if not resourceful, and so sets about abusing his access to family psychiatrists by acquiring a variety of medications that he can sell as a quick-fix high to his peers.  As his popularity and social status grow, everything seems perfect, until, of course, he falls for the alluring Susan Gardner and gets more than he bargained for by way of her dad – the school’s principal.
 
If it wasn’t occupying a constantly crowded market, then Charlie Bartlett might have something to offer.  Of course, that’s not the case, and between the Superbad’s [review] and Thumbsucker’s and Rocket Science’s and millions of other high school oriented movies that have been released even as recently as the past few years, it is hard to make a film like this stand out.  First time feature director Jon Poll, whose previous credits are mostly as an editor, tries hard throughout, but can’t seem to make the film consistently funny or engaging enough when it needs it most.  Plus, it might have been advisable for him to keep his influences from showing through quite so blatantly in the final product.
 
Like, for example, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, with which there are plenty of comparisons to draw.  Unfortunately, it’s not even the first film to attempt the reference this year, but that’s beside the point.  For starters, Anton Yelchin is very Mathew Broderick-esque, a comparison made even more clear by the film’s unashamed Bueller-styled central character (Bartlett has the same well-revered respect from fellow school mates).  There are more than a few visual references to that movie too, although it never captures the same level of free-spirited rebellion; Charlie instead often seems unconvincing in the role of anti-authoritarian.  On the appearance of an overhead shot with Charlie reclining on a psychiatrists couch, hands under the back of his head, I was half expecting a piece of whimsical advice about how “life moves pretty fast…”.
 
Despite the comparisons, Anton Yelchin plays the awkwardly placed central character with confidence and wit.  His performance is matched by the rest of the cast, including Hope Davis as Charlie’s slightly overbearing mother, Kat Dennings playing the well-signposted love interest, and the aforementioned Robert Downey Jr who harkens back to his real-life days of substance abuse while portraying the school principal and potential thorn in Charlie’s side.  It’s a solid cast, but none can really overcome the half-baked story and all its problems.

As his first film script, writer Gustin Nash wants us to love his odd title character and warm to his off-beat nature.  The biggest mistake is that Charlie’s unequivocal popularity at school never seems earned and I wasn’t convinced that he could hold the sway he does amongst his fellow students.  Plus, popularity in return for prescription drugs is a plan that suggests all students just want to get high and is a flimsy narrative leap to get him into the position of top dog.  In reality, his operation would have quickly been shut down, while his ‘rich kid in public school’ persona would never allow him to rise to the top of the social strata with such little dispute.

Hindered by a questionable premise and with only well-trodden points about teenage life at its core, this movie draws nothing new out of the genre.  That said, there are some nice subversions that bring a light-hearted humour to the story - like the way the stereotypical ‘bully’ character is handled (and played with vigour by Tyler Hilton).  Once again, we see parental abandonment as a theme (or maybe an excuse) in explaining why these characters act the way they do - three of this film’s central figures seem to come from single-parent households.  In the end, what charm the film has is never equalled by its wit or story.  Iron Man popularity might help this movie stick out from the crowd a bit, but its lack of real rebellion gives it no option but to fall back in line.

Charlie Bartlett is currently on UK general release.

25th Hour (2002) May 15, 2008

Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , 2 comments

Directed by: Spike Lee

Known for his films about the heart of New York, 25th Hour may not be the biggest leap for director Spike Lee.  Yet what he brings to the project in his passion for the city both aides and hurts this redemption drama.

The story follows drug dealer Monty Brogan in his final 24 hours before the start of a seven-year jail sentence.  With one night left to assess his life, he meets with his father, and then goes out on the town alongside his girlfriend Naturelle, and his two oldest friends, Frank and Jacob.  With questions about loyalties and trust still in the air, Monty tries to get things straight and prepare those he cares about for his leaving.

With a screenplay based on his own book of the same name, writer David Benioff notes that this was an easier novel to adapt just because it was so short.  However, the 135-minute running time may tell you different, and it’s a duration that is never quite earned by such a linear, single-note tale.  Benioff’s writing is sufficiently engaging though, and he draws his characters with a mixture of emotional subtlety and dispositional overstatement (the frustrated teacher, the cocky stock broker, the distant father) that keeps them real enough to buy, yet interesting enough to watch.  He builds a story that is fairly simple and it really only contains one sub-story (the infatuation between Jacob and his student) that doesn’t do anything for the film as a whole.

Edward Norton adds gravitas in the central role, holding the nervous but calm disposition of Monty somewhere between the strength he displayed in American History X [review] and the anxious energy of Fight Club.  It contains themes from both of those movies too, but never quite lives up to either of them due to a failing sense of drama that drags a little with time.  Even over such a short 24 hour period, there is way too much of what turns out to be very little content.  A great Norton may come as no surprise, but what 25th Hour also benefits from are well-pitched performances from both Philip Seymour Hoffman and Barry Pepper, playing Monty’s best (maybe only) friends.  The cast list is rounded out by Rosario Dawson as Monty’s girlfriend, and Brian Cox as his ever-loving, but troubled father.  The cast are well chosen and never put a foot wrong, even when the film itself tries to derail them.

The other notable strength of this movie is the score by Terence Blanchard, which is fantastic, with solemn pieces that possess the intended mood of the picture perfectly.  It may be a downbeat story about a slightly miserable character, but if there’s the sense of the intended redemption to be found anywhere, it’s in the music.  Conveying an air of questioning and poise, it accompanies the film better than any soundtrack could, and adds a significant single tone to a movie that is desperately trying to be both a dramatic work of fiction, and a modern day real-life dissection.

Which brings us to the main detraction in 25th Hour.  I guess it was a matter of bad timing, but to make a film in New York in 2002 must have been very difficult for a director so well associated with the city.  This would be one of the first major films shot in the area since the 9/11 disaster and people wanted to know what filmmakers, Lee especially, were going to say about it.  In response, Lee did not forcibly make a film about 9/11 (this is not World Trade Center [review]), yet he attempts to infuse the subject into this film with lots of gusto - to little actual effect.  There are sporadic references and reminders, but they feel overly forced, like an unwanted amendment to a film that doesn’t have space to deal with it fittingly.  The blue light ‘towers’ across the New York skyline make a nice title sequence visual, but from there on in it’s all secondary mentions: a conversation in front of a Ground Zero view window, and a dubbed (I assume) reference to Osama Bin Laden that suggests he is an integral part of the New York stratosphere.  It’s a nice try, but without a story that allows for discussion, it holds little more than passing reference to real life.

If the film tells us anything, it’s that even the most well-intentioned responses to an event in recent history can be detrimental if they are badly placed.  Spike Lee undoubtedly has something he wants to say in this film that the self-contained storyline doesn’t even start to allow him to explore.  There’s one very memorable scene where Edward Norton squares up to his reflection and denounces every type of inhabitant within New York - social types, job roles, racial minorities, no one is safe from his unfounded wrath.  But when 9/11 is suddenly brought up it takes you out of the moment.  Detached from Monty’s self hatred, the disaster holds too much connotation to stand next to the “Korean grocers” or the “Chelsea boys” in terms of boiling the blood.  Luckily the film manages to stay on track: “No”, says Monty to his reflection, “You had it all, and you threw it away”.  That’s the real story in 25th Hour.  Unhampered, it might have been better.

Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery (1997) May 11, 2008

Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , add a comment

Directed by: Jay Roach

The career of Mike Myers has been strangely sporadic, with peaks of popularity exploding him back into the public consciousness before he slinks away again to consider his next move.  As one of the more successful Saturday Night Live graduates, it was a character from that very show which brought him to the big screen in the first place.  With Wayne’s World and Wayne’s World 2, Myers established his big screen persona, but then took four years away from everything before coming back with his star-making live-action role: Austin Powers.  This James Bond-spoofing displacement comedy spawned two sequels, but again, since Austin Powers in Goldmember was released back in 2002 we’ve only seen him in one major production (vocal performances aside) - as the title character in The Cat in the Hat.  So it’s as his first new personal project in six years, The Love Guru, approaches release this summer, that we return to his most popular franchise to date.

Austin Powers is the grooviest cat in swinging 60’s London, and as a secret agent he excels in sleuthing, catching the bad guy and getting the girl.  But when his arch nemesis, Dr. Evil, freezes himself to return in the future, Austin is forced to do the same.  By the time he is unthawed it is the conservative 90’s and life has changed significantly.  Paired with his old partner’s daughter, the uptight Vanessa Kensington, the two set out to thwart Dr Evil’s plan to ransom the world for (all together now) “one hundred billion dollars”!

This first Austin Powers outing was a great success, probably unexpectedly so, but the mix of Myers’ parody-filled script and committed performances (as both Powers and his nemesis, Dr. Evil) make it a well-deserved favourite.  With the initial concepts ploughed so deeply in this movie, the sequels were inevitably weaker affairs, holding out for increasingly cruder jokes and a weaker sense of the parody that kick-started the franchise in the first place.  What really makes Powers work, however, is the double gimmick inherent in the script that allows for ribbing from more than one direction.  A film dedicated to entirely Bond franchise gags, or alternatively to hindsight 60’s lifestyle jokes, may drag when stretched over a feature length.  Utilising both, this film never has to lean on either one and as a result manages to completely justify its 94-minute running time.

What becomes clear very quickly is Myers’ background in sketch comedy, as he isn’t afraid to drop sketch-like scenes into the movie.  When Scott and Dr. Evil attend a father-son counselling session, it comes out of nowhere and has little to do with the main plot; but it’s funny and like a good SNL segment, doesn’t outstay its welcome.  Many of the scenes follow this trend though luckily the film never gets lost under the weight of its diversions - repetition and call-back gags still get plenty of play, plus there are some interesting visual jokes that go beyond the realms of traditional scripted comedy.

As for the cast, it’s mostly all about Mike Myers.  He plays both hero and villain with typical comic skill and can completely be credited with making the film work so effectively on screen.  Elizabeth Hurley may well be the eye-candy sidekick, but she rarely gets an opportunity to do anything more than play the straight role, and is still only adequate doing that.  Michael York is a nice choice as the ‘M’ character (knowingly named ‘Basil Exposition’), but like Robert Wagner (henchman ‘Number 2′) and Seth Green (playing Dr Evil’s son, Scott), gets too little screen time to really have a big effect.  The remaining players would gain more attention later - especially Seth Green, whose role expands with each film - but for now they are merely background players.  Meanwhile, director Jay Roach handles the visual nicely, especially an all-singing, all-dancing introductory sequence that forms one of the very best comic openings of all time.

When it comes right down to it, Austin Powers is a really solid comedy - even if you’ve become tired of the character since it was force-fed to you through its sequels.  Thinking back to 1997, before someone wearing a crush velvet suit and spouting catchphrases left and right (”yeah, baby!”) was the most painfully unfunny thing in the world, Austin Powers legitimately captured the imagination of audiences worldwide.  I guess I shouldn’t be too hard on Myers and Roach for running their project into the ground later on, since it forms pretty much the pinnacle of each of their careers so far.  I don’t hold hope that The Love Guru will ever be able to replicate its success, but given free reign on a brand new character, it’ll be interesting to see exactly what he has come up with.  Plus, if it’s the only Myers we’re likely to get for another six years, then I’m willing to give it a chance.

Login     Film Journal Home     Support Forums           Journal Rating: 4/5 (7)