Redux: Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Redux Review #168: Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Cast: 

Harrison Ford (Indiana Jones), Karen Allen (Marion Ravenwood), Paul Freeman (René Belloq), Ronald Lacey (Major Arnold Toht), John Rhys-Davies (Sallah), Denholm Elliott (Marcus Brody), with Alfred Molina (Satipo), Wolf Kahler (Colonel Dietrich), Anthony Higgins (Major Gobler), Vic Tablian (Barranca / Monkey Man), Don Fellows (Colonel Musgrove), William Hootkins (Major Eaton), Bill Reimbold (Bureaucrat), Fred Sorenson (Jock), Patrick Durkin (Australian Climber), Pat Roach (Giant Sherpa / 1st Mechanic), and George Harris (Simon Katanga) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind).

Review: 

"Indiana Jones was never a machine. I think one of the things we brought to the genre—and we didn’t coin the genre; it’s been around a lot longer than we’ve been around—but one of the things that George [Lucas] and I and, originally, Larry Kasdan, the writer of Raiders of the Lost Ark, brought to the genre, was the willingness to allow our leading man to get hurt and to express his pain and to get his mad out and to take pratfalls and sometimes be the butt of his own jokes. I mean, Indiana Jones is not a perfect hero, and his imperfections, I think, make the audience feel that, with a little more exercise and a little more courage, they could be just like him. So he’s not the Terminator. He’s not so far away from the people who go to see the movies that he’s inaccessible to their own dreams and aspirations."

What is it about Indiana Jones that drives so much fascination after 45 years? As the story goes, George Lucas, fresh off American Graffiti, had ideas in mind about wanting to do a movie like the ones he used to see a kid. He thought of doing an adventure with a college professor who basically was like James Bond on as "a bounty hunter of antiquities" that liked the nightclub. A little collaboration with his friend Philip Kaufman (director of films such as The Great Northfield, Minnesota Raid [1972] and The White Dawn [1974]) led to the ditching of the nightclub but also led to the pursuit of the Ark of the Covenant. Lucas paused on the idea when Kaufman was off to direct The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976) to focus on, well, Star Wars (1977). Incidentally, one person who wanted to do a Bond type of adventure thriller was Steven Spielberg; the success of Star Wars in May 1977, with Lucas and Spielberg each on vacation in Hawaii, spurred things along for an eventual collaboration (after months of Lucas waiting to see if Kaufman would do it fell through). Spielberg brought in Lawrence Kasdan, who Spielberg suggested because he had just convinced Universal Pictures to purchase Kasdan's script for Continental Divide. They spent several days in 1978 doing a pitching session that argued and paced out what would happen in the story (which you can find here, because it was taped). Kasdan was once quoted as stating that everything in the film "resonates from other movies", specifically adventure films like Seven Samurai to The Great Escape, where they chased that feeling while the film did not take itself too seriously*. Filmed in 1980, Raiders was Spielberg's sixth feature film as a director, falling right between 1941 (1979) and E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982). It was released on June 12, 1981 with mild expectations because of the impending release in America of Superman II that was coming on June 19 (incidentally, audiences could also choose between Raiders or Clash of the Titans, or History of the World, Part I); the result was a massive hit that reportedly saw over 70 million tickets be sold in a time when people could see a movie in theaters for a year. It was nominated for nine Academy Awards that went down from Best Picture to Cinematography, winning for art direction, editing, sound, visual effects, and a special one for sound editing (that year, Chariots of Fire, a movie that I'm sure everyone knows beyond that one song, won Best Picture*). There were four sequels of varying quality (Temple of Doom - really good, actually; Last Crusade - a charmer; Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - better the next time around; Dial of Destiny - fine the one time I saw it) and a television show with The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles.

It's easy to go on and on about the influences that shaped Indiana Jones (matinee serials, China [1943], Secret of the Incas [1954], others) or just go point by point about the beauty of the film from its cinematography by Douglas Slocombe or the tremendously diverting score by John Williams all the way down to Harrison Ford being the one to lead it over, say, Tom Selleck. It was released in a time where you could show multiple people get shot (along with the whole Ark thing), snakes going around dead bodies, blood splatter right as a dude gets chopped by a plane blade...and get a PG rating. The easiest way to describe the movie is that it is an adventure with tremendous respect for its viewer that has something for everyone in a manner that seems effortless but is actually the result of so many worthy things going so well. It is the kind of movie that benefits from re-watches in what you view from certain scenes the second time around, because there are moments that really are just allowed to breathe without needing dialogue, when you think about it (this may come from the fact that the movie was extensively storyboarded, because he felt he needed every storyboard to stay on schedule). You enjoy the people that enter the sphere around Jones in what they bring to the table in their own pockets of time, whether that involves a trained monkey spy or the worthy menace brought by people such as Lacey. It's a wonderful movie to look at, right down to what is right there on screen and what actually is say, a matte painting. It all rests on Ford being something beyond the matinee hero: an academic and an adventurer (okay that was paraphrasing what he once said about the character, but still). He balances the tightrope of strength and wit that can be just as vulnerable as he can be funny in an adventure that basically is a ride of humility (contrary to Han Solo, the character of Jones doesn't start out as, well a conman).

It's not all about rescuing and getting the girl on the way to glory, it is a movie where you really do have to close your eyes to see beyond what you think you know about the world. Allen is just simply charming in that sort of independence that we gravitate to even in without as much backstory to really sink into (which is where imagination comes to play when thinking about looking at the interactions between her and Ford as compared to the ones between her and Freeman). Freeman is a capable shadow of Ford, a disturbing presence in how sly one can be when collaborating with the worst of humanity because he believes in himself so highly as a fallen angel of archaeology. A fly could buzz around his mouth and all he cares about is where he looms on the chessboard. You get the delightful elegance, charm or otherwise, with Rhys-Davies (cast as a mix between his role in Shōgun and John Falstaff*) and Elliott (the always beloved British actor), did I forget that? Wrapped within its 115-minute runtime is a movie that breezes along in finding the pieces of the puzzle in its adventure ride that respects its audience in allowing it to breathe and experience the action sequences or its effects spectacle (spooky ghosts always gets a vote) that I probably appreciate even more than when I first saw it as a teenager. It's hard to really say just what is the best sequence of the whole film between, say, the opening sequence or the Map Room - you just have to see it (and I mean see it) to really believe it, where a B-movie feel leads to going along with its rhythm quickly. It's the kind of movie that makes you feel young again, and it is the kind of movie that scratches the itch every now and then to crave adventure and maybe get something from the pursuit of history. The second one plays to the lizard brain interests for intensity and comedy, the third and fourth ones pursued a family tale with leaps of faith and the fifth, well, plays to having at least one more good time in old age, so there's that as well. It is sincerity without becoming devout in the best ways imaginable. 45 years later, it is the movie with the best type of qualities: the milage of craftsmen at work all coming together for a true return to the great adventure.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

theme of the day

*Because of his work in the script, Kasdan was approached by Lucas to work on The Empire Strikes Back (1980).

*Nobody really dwells on a Welsh actor playing Sallah and neither do you.

*Of all the times to give an Academy Award to the British, good lord. I do wonder if Reds holds up enough that Warren Beatty deserved a Best Director award. 

*Incidentally, Steven Soderbergh did a cut of the film in 2014 that aimed to show how the film really shined in the staging, which he did by taking out the audio and converted it to black-and-white

*And, well, vintage footage

Starman.

Review #1605: Starman.

Cast:

Jeff Bridges (Scott Hayden / Starman), Karen Allen (Jenny Hayden), Charles Martin Smith (Mark Shermin), Richard Jaeckel (George Fox), Robert Phalen (Major Bell), Tony Edwards (Sergeant Lemon), John Walter Davis (Brad Heinmuller), and Ted White (Deer Hunter) Directed by John Carpenter (#068 - Halloween (1978), #634 - Escape from New York, #712 - The Thing (1982), #732 - Escape from L.A., #1221 - Dark Star, #1298 - They Live, and #1479 - Big Trouble in Little China)

Review:

"I have two sides to my personality. I'm very pessimistic about the long term: we're all born alone and we die alone, and if anything good happens in between, it's great. But I'm a short-term optimist. I gained this by making movies in which it's all going to work out."

As the months change, some things stay the same while others change with the wind. One thing that has become quite clear in all the time spent watching films is just how underrated John Carpenter is as a director. There is something quite striking in the films that he managed to make in over three decades of filmmaking, ones that reach within their imagery and mood with distinct characters that has generally soared higher than the initial perceptions of its time, which by and large makes him a cult classic director worth checking out in my view. Starman, the eighth of his eighteen films, was a light success with audiences at the time in making its $20 million budget, which must have been helpful when compared to the reaction of his previous film in The Thing (1982), which also depicted extraterrestrial visitors (albeit with a nihilistic outlook). Obviously the tide turned on that film (for good reason!), but Starman has its own interesting path to eventual film that results in a feature that is a secret gem. If anyone ever tries to shoehorn Carpenter as merely a horror director, this is exactly the kind of film to blow a hole right in that theory. Inevitably, one would look to another film involving a curious visitor from another world falling to Earth and making a bond with a human. Of course E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982) was also noted for certain similarities to Satyajit Ray's 1967 script "The Alien", so who knows? There were quite a few differences from the original script that were modified for a film, with Carpenter noting that one of the scripts had the alien be able to fly, and he noted in an interview that the possible similarities to films such as The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) and The Man Who Fell to Earth (1976) startled the studio alongside other prospective directors that ranged from Mark Rydell to Peter Hyams. Carpenter, however, felt interested in making a film different from the films he did before that were in the horror genre, one that would be an interspecies love story that seems reminiscent of films like It Happened One Night (1934). This film spent five years in development, with a script that was bought by Columbia Pictures before Spielberg's film had been optioned (they dropped E.T. because they thought this film would be for grown-ups and E.T. seemed for kids. Ouch?). The script by Bruce A. Evans and Raynold Gideon would go through several re-writes that were left un-credited in Dean Riesner, Edward Zwick, and Diane Thomas.

So, if you spend a space probe out to space with a gold record (remember the phonograph? Good, I've yet to use one), what would happen if someone found it? Welp, perhaps something like this, although probably without the space orbs. The film presents itself as a mixture of science fiction and romance, doing so by bookending its effects sequences for its opening and end scenes, but the real treasure lies within the obvious: Jeff Bridges. He has managed to cultivate at least one memorable performance in every decade since the 1970s, one that has a great self-assured confidence to what he needs to do when it comes to keeping one's attention right where it needs to be. He manages to provide a wonderfully compelling performance, one that is essentially playing an imitation of himself, complete with movements that seem bird-like without just seeming like a bit. He and Allen contribute to a few bits of humor that work to the film's strength in tender growth with understanding. Allen (no stranger to romance leads with films like Raiders of the Lost Ark in spunky charm) keeps up with him just as well, one that has their own share of vulnerability alongside understanding to line up with Bridges for some useful sequences on the road in their road to love that doesn't seem quite forced for what is needed in a sweet but dutiful adventure. They start awkwardly with effective quality (how many romances start with seeing a being morph from kid to dead man look-alike?), and the culmination of that touch goes with a scene at a diner, where the weariness turns into resonance upon the sight of a resurrected deer. They carry the film as far as it goes with how touching they are, and it is definitely hard to see anyone else playing these roles better. Smith (an established character actor for a decade before soon adding directing later in the decade) also does pretty well with what he is given in with curiosity to counteract the heavy-handed effective character presence of Jaeckel. As a whole, I thought this was a pretty enjoyable movie, albeit one that could have been much sillier in the hands of anyone not as talented as Carpenter, Bridges, or Allen, because we are talking about a being that means no harm yet gets involved in a variety of quirky action moments. With 115 minutes at hand, it ends up being quite the ride for enjoyment, particularly if one is up to seeing Carpenter do something a bit different for effect: a star-crossed love story. One can't go wrong in that department with these folks at hand.

It was my birthday, so I figured, why not pick something favorable with its cast and crew? Another year come and gone from my twenties, too.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

Review #302: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

Cast
Harrison Ford (Indiana Jones), Cate Blanchett (Irina Spalko), Karen Allen (Marion Ravenwood), Shia LaBeouf (Mutt Williams), Ray Winstone (George "Mac" Michale), John Hurt (Professor Oxley), Jim Broadbent (Dean Charles Stanforth), and Igor Jijikine (Dovchenko) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, and #170 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade)

Review

REVISED: Rating now 7/10 (June 30, 2023)

When I first reviewed the Indiana Jones films, I actually considered watching this film, having four films all reviewed together. And yet there was some sort of opposition to the thought of watching this, so I relented and didn't review it. But guess what? I've decided to review this anyway to either bring the (so-called) level of happiness from the big milestone yesterday or to just finish the (possibly) the final chapter of the Indiana Jones franchise. So how is it? Well...Let's get to the pros and cons first. Harrison Ford does his best, once again having a good performance, 19 years removed from the character but still a good one. As such, the film decides to segue into the 1950s (Indy couldn't always fight the same kind of enemy, so I'll give this a small praise), and it works in some ways...and not in others. And then there's Shia LaBeouf. He is...Not very developed, unless you count "Indy's son", "Guy with jacket", "So called rebel" as development. Perhaps they meant to make it a parallel to Last Crusade, with the old father and young son working together, but it doesn't work as well, as LaBeouf doesn't connect well with Ford.

I do like Cate Blanchett as the villain, she is far different from the other villains in previous installments, but she gives a strange unrecognizable allure that works for the most part. What I don't care for is the character of Mac (though played decently by Ray Winstone), and his "triple-agent" outline. It's pointless and not very useful. The rest of the acting and characters are alright. Allen returns to the role of Ravenwood after 27 years, and she does a fine job, even though I wish the dialogue between Ford and Allen would've had more time to develop, as it is as good as the two were in 1981. The action is mildly decent, having some enjoyment. And then there is the rest of the film. First off, there's the Fridge scene. While it does raise questions on how you could escape an explosion with a fridge, think back to when Indy escaped death by jumping off a plane with a raft and landing on a mountain side along with falling off the side and landing into a river. That sounds a bit more unrealistic, though the other questions don't escape this film. Such as why the sudden plot explosion after Mutt is introduced? Why the reveal of the beings (that I won't spoil) to begin with? Why do they look weird and not trying to resemble the era they're from to begin with? Why is Mutt even in here? Why is there no Sallah? Why is not as recognizable as the other three? That question I can answer. Because while it tries to capture the spirit of the trilogy, it stumbles in some ways even with some slight advantages to make an uneven disappointment.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Scrooged.

Review #075: Scrooged.

Cast
Bill Murray (Francis Xavier "Frank" Cross), Karen Allen (Claire Phillips), John Forsythe (Lew Hayward), John Glover (Brice Cummings), Alfre Woodard (Grace Cooley), Bobcat Goldthwait (Eliot Loudermilk), David Johansen (the Ghost of Christmas Past), Carol Kane (the Ghost of Christmas Present), Robert Mitchum (Preston Rhinelander), Nicholas Phillips (Calvin Cooley), and Michael J. Pollard (Herman) Directed by Richard Donner.

Review
This film is a humorous take on the classic Charles Dickens tale, A Christmas Carol. It is a decent flick that makes sure that it doesn't do bad in its job. Murray does a good preformance. This film isn't exactly a good film in the sense that it doesn't really do much other then what it's supposed to do (It decides to pick this theme rather then another), but it at least tried to be entertaining, and while it may not have been as funny as it could've been, it at least tried.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.