usesoap Blog

Under discussion:

Die Hard  (1988)

The Fugitive  (1993)

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade  (1989)

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom  (1984)

Jurassic Park  (1993)

Raiders of the Lost Ark  (1981)

The Shawshank Redemption  (1994)

The Mummy  (2000)

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone  (2001)

Spider-Man  (2002)

National Treasure  (2004)

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull  (2008)

This is not going to be one of those columns that goes into a lengthy diatribe about the influence on Dr. Indiana Jones had on this reviewer’s life as a child.  I refuse to prattle on about owning a fedora and a bullwhip used to scare the bejeezus out of the family dog, or the backyard films created as homage to “Raiders of the Lost Ark” and the countless scars and bruises that serve as a testament to my inexperience and/or stupidity in attempts to replicate the adventures of the intrepid archeologist.

It seems that the prerequisite in reviewing this latest installment in the Indiana Jones canon, “Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” has almost every critic launching into some wistful rant on its impact of his/her life. And while I am certainly one to appreciate the personal power of cinematic experiences, I think this self-indulgent therapy session approach is a tad tiresome now.

Let’s take “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” for what it is, without the nostalgic mist clouding my eyes.

I will begin with stating that, as slavish as my devotion was, I do not consider the entire trilogy of Indiana Jones films as the be-all, end-all of adventure films. “Raiders” was, and remains, a masterwork of cinema – thrilling, thoughtful and thorough.  Its sequels – “Temple of Doom” and “The Last Crusade” – had their strengths, but rose to levels nowhere near their source. So the thought of another entry two decades later held only slight promise.

And there is much wish fulfillment to be found, but there are several critical elements that drag the tale into the catacombs of many Indy Come Lateleys, such as “The Mummy” and “National Treasure.”

The film picks up 20 years after “The Last Crusade” in 1957, where Dr. Jones (played by Harrison Ford, duh!) finds himself in New Mexico searching for the eponymous object located in a government storage warehouse (keep your eyes peeled for flashes of his previous conquests located within).  From here, he tangles with old-fashioned cinematic Russkies (headed by a Cate Blanchett, acting as though she stepped out of a “Rocky and Bullwinkle” cartoon), survives a point-blank impact of an atomic bomb, floats down not one, but three, waterfalls, eludes countless natives and soldiers who have apparently all been trained at the Keystone Kops Weaponry Training Academy, killer mutant ants, various auto and motorcycle chases and takes more punches than a speed bag.

Honestly, were Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner out of budget range to make a cameo?

I know Indy has survived many things – rolling boulders, a pit full of snakes, airplane crashes, Kate Capshaw – but by layering on so many narrow escapes, there was never a moment that felt as though he was honestly in any danger. 

The problem lies predominately in the script. In these last two decades, there have been countless attempts to jumpstart the series again from names like Chris Columbus (“Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone”), Jeb Stuart (“Die Hard” and “The Fugitive”), Frank Darabont (“The Shawshank Redemption”), George Lucas.  Even M. Night Shyamalan is to have reported to take a stab at the legend.  David Koepp (“Spider Man,” Jurassic Park”) was eventually hired to cobble together what feels like the “greatest hits” of all the previous drafts (and trust me, they are all available on the internet for those who snoop hard enough).

There are elements, plot devices and characters that pop up for several scenes only to disappear for gaping sections of the film or are never heard from again (what’s up with those groundhogs?). Most notable of these slights is the character of Marion Ravenwood (played by Karen Allen). Looking game for adventure, Allen makes a grand entrance, only to serve as a getaway driver for the majority of her screen time. When Indy professes a still-burning flame for her, we want it to give us chills, but director Steven Spielberg has far too many hoops for his hero to jump through to get bogged down with emotional development of any sort.

 Shia LaBeouf, here playing a Indy’s young greaser sidekick by the name of Mutt, has been the source of much debate from fans who have not cozied up to the actor’s snarky style (but they were completely content with the whiny musings of Short Round in “Temple of Doom”?).  Frankly, it was all for naught, as he is easily one of the few new elements in a film that has many other problems with which to deal.

With all that said, there is still a level of comfort that can be found in “Skull,” but it is not in the Rube Goldberg archeological sites set up for the characters. It is more in the iconic shots of Indiana once again picking up his weathered fedora and placing it on his head; or when he and his college’s dean (played by a criminally underused Jim Broadbendt) briefly ruminate over their accelerated age; or the old-school motorcycle chase scene through campus involving more stunt work than pixels.

Too often, the film succumbs to its bombastic tendencies, though, that severely diminish Indiana’s humanity and vulnerability that made him so accessible in the first place. He is now no more defenseless than any other CGI-enhanced superhero at the box office.

Ironically, it’s all these attempts to stay “new” is what ages “Crystal Skull” the most. For in its seemingly relentless pursuit to appease the current box office action appetites, what true Indiana Jones fans want is less breakneck pace, more of the same old “hat.”

Under discussion:

Braveheart  (1995)

Gladiator  (2000)

Shrek  (2001)

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone  (2001)

The Lord of the Rings [Film Series]  Production Year

Troy  (2004)

300  (2007)

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian  (2008)

Perhaps my review may be dismissed automatically by the fact that I have not revisited Narnia myself since reading them as a child, and even then, the C. S. Lewis books had none of the mental shelf life of “The Lord of the Rings” tomes or Jack London’s excursions into the wild.

I approached “The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian” from a merely cinematic perspective. And, despite its battles and bluster, it’s rather a bore. That’s not to say it does not try to get medieval on your a** -- various armor-clanging clashes punctuate the numerous slow spots of exposition in the picture, vying for credibility in the rather noisy summer blockbuster period.

In this installment, the Pevensie siblings – Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy – have busied themselves in the U.K. for a year since their last Narnian vacation, and a return trip to the kingdom reveals a few hundred years have passed in the mystical land.

The kingdom is in ruin, under the tyrannical thumb of a group called the Telmarines (they are easily discernable for they all have a certain “ethnic” look to them, shall we say).

The exiled Narnians’ one hope, the eponymous prince (played with regal blandness by Ben Barnes) has been banished by the dictatorial Mirza (played by Sergio Castellitto), who wants his newborn son to take the crown and follow in his bootsteps.

The rest of the film is essentially a protracted battle sequence (as the Pevensie kids hack, slash and spear their way through thongs of their enemies like some pre-teen version of "Gladiator") that is filmed like countless other recent cinematic battle sequences. This means there must be the prerequisite shots that sweep over the oceans of bad buys readying to attack our rag-tag heroes (a la “Braveheart”), the high-definition climactic battle where we witness every fleck of dirt kicked up by participants ( thank you, “Gladiator”), and acrobatic maneuvers performed by our leads even while wearing about one hundred pounds of armor (“Troy,” “300,” I’m looking at your for that one).

There is one diverting exception here, though. As the Narnians are an army of woodland sprites and mythical beasts, it is not uncommon to see a random goat, puma warthog or badger engaged in combat beside their human counterparts, give it a wacky, surrealistic edge.

The film is not helped by its milquetoast leads, who possess no discernable range in or out of battle. I would love to see those Hogwart wizards fly in and rap each one of them with their Quidditch sticks.

Aslan, the Jesus Lion of the books, again makes an appearance at just the right time to save the day, prompting one of my screening partners to ask upon the film’s conclusion: “So we waited all this time for something the lion could do all by himself anyway?”

I realize that the children all had to apparently learn valuable life lessons or something, but director Andrew Adamson never really makes those lessons clear. One thing I can assure you they do not grow to value is human life, as they leave behind a Rambo-sized body count on the battlefield.

The film’s attempt at levity – a sword-wielding animated mouse voiced by Eddie Izzard – seems like a reject from the “Shrek” franchise, of which Adamson also served as director.

The allegorical elements are present, but serve in a much more awkward dues-ex-machina-kind-of way (gee, I wonder who the man in the tidal wave is supposed to resemble?), which drains the film of much-needed suspense.

There are three books left in the “Narnia” series, so there is ample room left for the franchise to grow (and the young leads to enroll in further acting lessons) for future installments.

But—and this cannot be emphasized enough – for parents seeking a family-friendly alternative to the PG-13 antics of Iron Man and Indiana Jones, Caspian is not the answer. It was suggested to me by my friend that the PG rating was reached because there was no blood being spilled during battle sequences.

Unfortunately, there is also none that pumps through the heart of this film, either.

Under discussion:

Superman II  (1980)

Children of Men  (2006)

Iron Man  (2008)

While watching the season’s first stab at a blockbuster, “Iron Man,” I kept wondering to myself: “How long did it take lead Robert Downey Jr. to say ‘yes’ to the lead role?”

“Hmmm…” Downey said in my internal monologue. “Let’s see here. The character of Tony Stark is a motor-mouthed superhero in his 40s who is a reformed substance abusing, womanizing multi-millionaire… yeah, I think I can swing that.”

For the record, the total time for the above ellipses? Three seconds.

Regardless of past demons, the film is what it is solely because of what Downey brings to the table.

I have always pitied the poor directors who decide to sign on to a superhero comic-book adaptation. They face pressure and scrutiny from more than the average release audience. Their end product has to pass through the judging eyes of:

1)      The fanboys (and girls): A group that obsesses over the film’s minutiae (“Flames on Optimus Prime?! Inconceivable!”) in attempts to verify if the director is a true fan and to justify their own existence. (Dude, they are two-dimensional cartoons, even though you may comfort yourself in calling it a graphic novel).

2)      The critics: A haughty bunch who look forward to summer action films as much as kidney stones and will bestow upon even the best of the films faint, condescending praise.

3)      The newbies: Those who don’t know shinola about the characters involved and demand their hands be held through some of the more complex plot expositions.

Director Jon Favreau made sure to approach the film locked and loaded in an attempt to address all concerned parties. He creates a solid origin that is relatively easy to follow, tosses in a few nods to story arcs that have been featured in the comic throughout the years, and enlisted no fewer than four Oscar-nominated actors in the lead roles.

Downey is joined by Gwenyth Paltrow as his faithful assistant Pepper Potts, Terrance Howard as his best friend Jim Rhoads, and Jeff Bridges as mentor Obadiah Stane.

While Howard and Paltrow do not have sizeable roles this go-round, both allude to a stronger storyline in the presumable sequels (given the film’s $100-plus million opening weekend, it’s a safe bet they’ll be more).

Favreau was helped even further by securing screenwriters Mark Fergus and Hawk Ostby, the dynamic duo responsible for the brilliant-but-critically-underseen “Children of Men.” Their part is particularly relevant when the film grapples with Tony Stark’s attitude adjustment from a cocky arms dealer to humbled servant of those forced to live on the receiving end of his weaponry.

As common with most origin stories, the screenwriters treat us to many awkward test runs of Stark’s newfound powers, which are perhaps the film’s best scenes. His videotaped trial-and-error montages are a high point, punctuated by Downey’s charismatic snark and crackerjack wit.

Once Stark masters flight in his new robo-suit, Favreau provides some of the most exhilarating footage since Christopher Reeves first took to the sky 30 years ago in 1978’s “Superman.”

All these scenes, which occur about halfway through the picture, end up as the film’s leaden Achilles heel. For the final showdown can’t compare to the fanciful ride Downey has commandeered earlier in the film. It’s a rather rote Rockem-Sockem robot battle that momentarily dulls “Iron Man’s” otherwise polished sheen.

While it does not eclipse anticipation for the summer’s upcoming films featuring a certain nocturnal crimefighter or a geriatric, whip-sporting treasure hunter, “Iron Man” does kick the season off to a rousing start.

And it certainly holds the promise of greater, better-oiled adventures of its cast to follow.