Indiana Jones and the Close Encounters of the Third Kind

So I saw the new Indy movie!

This is gonna contain some BIG-ASS spoilers, so turn back now if you want to stay surprised.

First, I want to make it clear that "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is my all-time favorite Steven Spielberg movie. Even though I myself am a dino freak, I still like "Raiders" more than "Jurassic Park." And even though I think "Jaws" is Spielberg's BEST popcorn flick, I find "Raiders" more entertaining on repeated viewings. And yes, Spielberg has made some truly great films that transcend entertainment with "Schindler's List" and "Private Ryan," but man, old Indy Jones just rocks so much.

Part of it is because, as many of you may know, my father is an archaeologist himself, so anything that makes my father's profession (and my association with it) look this COOL is good in my book. And the other reason is that as much as I love Han Solo to death ("Empire Strikes Back" is my all-time favorite movie, after all), I think that Harrison Ford is even more iconic as that guy with the hat and the whip.

So I was excited for "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," but I was also a bit nervous. As your average film student will tell you, some of us generally think George Lucas has gone of the deep end with entertainment and is a lost cause (I still like the guy, but I agree he's lost much of his luster). Spielberg, on the other hand, has aged well and consistently made pretty good movies. However, his last popcorn-action flick, "War of Worlds," I found less than thrilling. So I was a bit anxious.

I had no worries that Ford would be fine, and indeed, he slips into the Indy role with ease. Much as Bruce Willis easily took up old John McClane, Ford easily returns as an older Indiana Jones. Both these actors were defined by these roles, and returning to them is no sweat. And many of the other cast members are great too. I am liking Shia LaBeouf more and more, although I think if he wants to really define his career as a high-quality actor, he should do a few more of these high-profile adventure movies, and then surprise us with something completely vulnerable and different. Karen Allen, whom I haven't seen in a movie in years, is tons of fun to see again. And I've always had a slight crush on Cate Blanchett, and I've always found icy Russians hot, so I liked Irina Spalko as the baddie, even if she was not given quite enough to do.

But there were a number of issues with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull that I took issue with. I was excited (but skeptical) when I read how Lucas and Spielberg were going to use "as little CG as possible" to pull off this movie. Yet in the first shot, we get a goofy CG prairie dog poking its head out of the hole! I wish I could take all CG technology and literally rip it out of the hands of Lucas and Spielberg and force them to really stick to their word and do things without computers, so we wouldn't have to deal with crap like Shia and a bunch of CG squirrel monkeys, for example. Because the sequences that were mostly practical, such as the jeep chase and the Area 51 opening scene, were tons of fun, even though the jeep chase itself was not as thrilling as the one in "Raiders," and it smacked a bit of "Return of the Jedi" speeder bikes.

And that, in itself, is another part of the problem, an issue that is not really Lucas or Spielberg's fault--Indiana Jones just isn't original anymore. There were a few times during KOTCS that I thought to myself "this reminds me of the Mummy movies." Of course, the "Mummy" films are complete Indy Jones rip-offs, but since movies such as it have been made in such abundance since the early Indy movies, now when Indy returns to the screen again, he does not surprise us as much as he used to.

I am also on the fence about the whole "alien" thing. Indy has faced the supernatural before; in "Raiders" he faces the Ark of the Covenant, in "Temple of Doom" it's some crazy cult that rips your heart out, and in "The Last Crusade" it's the Holy Grail. It makes sense for Indy in the 40s to be dealing with the supernatural in god-like form, since World War II was a very "Christian god-like" conflict, with the Allies vs. the pure evil Nazis (I sort of like to pretend that "Temple of Doom" doesn't exist).

Yet KOTCS takes place in the 50s, and so our bad guys have changed from the Nazis to the Commies...I'm cool with this. And as such, the supernatural element of the movie has changed to one that is more fitting--aliens from another world. The 50s were full of this sort of "alien-allegory" of invasion from another place. Just look at "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," for example. In the 50s, fear of aliens very much mirrored our fear of the communists. Having aliens be the mysterious element in an Indiana Jones movie is a departure from what we are used to, but it fits--to a degree.

The opening scenes of KOTCS handle the 50s decade pretty well. The Area 51 scene is lots of fun, and I'm fine with them giving us a tease of the alien corpse without fully revealing what it is. And of course, what fanboy didn't let out a little squeal of enjoyment when we saw The Ark hidden in there? I know I did.

Directly afterwards, we get the scene with Indy having to hide from an atomic bomb. This is a little over-the-top and unbelievable, but nuclear testing has its relevance in the 50s, so I was willing to forgive and accept.

This was sort of how I felt throughout the entire movie. There were little things that bothered me, but I was willing to more-or-less go along with the flow. For example, if I was Indy I would have pummeled Ray Winstone's character and gotten rid of him early on, instead of letting him tag along for the entire journey. The guy betrayed you multiple times, Indy, don't you get it? You're a smart dude! And I just felt sorry for John Hurt for being forced to babble like an idiot, because normally I love the guy.

And there are plenty of other bits that don't make sense. The sand pit scene, where Indy has to grab onto a snake to escape, is lots of fun, but dramatically the scene is out of place. Indy and co. escape, and are immediately captured afterwards. Why was the scene needed? Put it somewhere else in the movie, where it would fit better.

And what was the deal with those pygmies in the graveyard? The ones with the blow-darts and skeleton masks...who were they? Where did they come from? No explanation. I blame Lucas. The same holds true for the second group of natives that appear in the movie. They didn't add anything, and their presence only offered more questions (if you are going to include something like a race of indigenous people that have never been discovered before in the heart of the jungle, that's actually a pretty big mystery that deserves more of an answer!).

But I did like all the stuff where Indy and Shia actually do some "real" archaeological work, as they traced Prof. Oxley's steps (Indy gives one bit of advice about scorpions that I myself have given to friends of mine on several occasions...nice to know he has an understanding of natural history too!).

However, my one, HUGE beef with the movie is the climax, dealing with the aliens again. As I said, the alien thing surprised me, but I was willing to go along for the ride...to a point. But having Indiana Jones come face to face with a REAL LIVE ALIEN, and then a FLYING SAUCER is too much for me, especially in the way it was handled. I felt like he had tripped and fallen into the wrong movie. I was half expecting Agent Mulder to put a hand on his shoulder and whisper, "Don't worry, Dr. Jones. The truth is out there."

It's fine and good for Indy to track down ancient alien artifacts that may or may not be from extraterrestrial origins, and to even have those artifacts do something extraordinary that cannot be explained by known science--that's pretty cool if handled with the right amount of mysticism. But try as I can, I cannot swallow Indy actually existing in a world with live aliens and spaceships. It just does not work, and I think the franchise jumped the shark more than a bit at this point. I wish they had finished the movie off with something else.

A part of me is not surprised. Many people who disliked the movie will wail about how long the powers that be spent on the script, and how it should have been better. And I agree with them. Yet as much as I love Spielberg and Lucas (they are certainly a big part of the reason why I wound up going to film school), all filmmakers have their flaws. And Lucas and Spielberg both LOVE aliens. You can blame the scapegoat Lucas, but I think this could just as much have been Spielberg's doing--the guy can't get enough of aliens, and to him there is nothing wrong with Indy coexisting with one, as much as this particular fan (me) disagrees.

Even so, it's nice to know that Lucas and Spielberg do care about their audience. One fear that has been on every fan's mind is, "Will they replace Ford with Shia? They CAN'T! Could they...?", and the movie ends with a pretty good fakeout, when the fedora rolls to Shia's feet. Shia picks up the hat and gives it a look, at which point the entire audience practically gave a collective gasp. However Ford's hand immediately reached in to grab the hat away from Shia and place it on his own head. It was a nice little nod to say, "Yes, we like this new Mutt Williams character, but we know you fans, and we, too, know there can be only one Indiana Jones." From the bottom of my heart, thanks for admitting that one, guys.

"Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" is certainly not "Raiders" or "Last Crusade" material, but it is definitely better than "The Temple of Doom," and it was a fun time at the movies. It was more-or-less as good (and as slightly disappointing) as I was expecting it to be. I wouldn't mind seeing another Indy movie, but let's just try and keep it a bit more grounded in reality next time, shall we?

Gradumacated!

Holy shit! That went by fast!

I'm graduated now. No way I can stay any longer at USC as an undergrad. And I'm not doing grad school right away either, 'cuz that's for pansies (maybe I'll pansy out after a few years...we'll see).

Like all grads, I am totally freaked about what I'm going to do with my life, how I'm going to survive, whether I'll be able to follow my dreams, and all that jazz. And I'm really worried about who I'm going to stay friends with, and who I'm never going to see again friends-wise.

But frankly, I decided to write a blog entry right now as a way to FORGET about all that stuff. I'm a smart, creative, driven dude, who is generally well-liked, and passionate about what I believe in. I think I'll do OK.

I also wish I had written more blog entries this semester because it was quite an exciting one, but...cez't la vie!

Any now for my favorite writing distraction...movie reviews!

1) "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" I saw this movie at a preview screening already and did a review of it here, and I have to say, while I still really liked the film, I think I liked it a bit less the second go-around. Some of the jokes were less fresh, and I was also willing to forgive mistakes less than I was at the preview screening. Also, while I overall am glad with how the movie was trimmed (it certainly needed some trimming), one particular scene that should have stayed was outed. It was the scene where Peter says goodbye to Sarah at the airport. This was a pivotal scene, because it is one of the few times you really felt bad for Sarah, but it also allowed Peter to really get closure on his relationship with her. It made Sarah much more sympathetic, and the whole thing more real. I wished they had left it in.
That said, Jason Segel and Mila Kunis give stellar performances, although they are nearly upstaged by both Jonah Hill and Paul Rudd in their few hilarious scenes. Also, this time around I found myself liking the character of Alduous Snow a lot more than before.
It's still a very good romantic comedy, and I highly recommend it. I just wish they had left in that one more scene, instead of having their final unresolved departure be with the weird BJ (a good scene in itself, but it never gives Peter a chance to firmly "get over it").

2) "Iron Man" After going through film school, and watching a million DVD special features, it is hard for me to watch an effects picture and be distracted by "that's a practical shot, that's an effects shot..." musings. However my highest praise for Favreau's "Iron Man" is that not once did this ever pop into my head. I was so enraptured by the action and the storytelling that I rarely was distracted by curiosities about the technical handling...and that's quite a feat. "Iron Man" is full of some rather silly suspensions of disbelief (the terrorists were quite stupid to let Tony get away with building the first suit RIGHT UNDER THEIR NOSES), and the climax was a bit underwhelming, but when the whole movie was done, I was enjoying myself so much I could have gone on for another hour, and it's a long movie as it is. Robert Downey gracefully slips into the Tony Stark role with ease, and Jeff Bridges is lots of fun as the bad guy, even if he does smack a tiny bit of The Dude at times. The summer is off to a good start. Bring on the sequel! I guarantee we'll see War Machine.
I do want to say, though, that I am getting a bit tired of superhero movies. This one is good, but the formula is getting a bit old, and I hope that, save the "big" heroes, this genre is on its way out. Fanboys will know of the post-credit Ultimate Avengers tease in this movie, but as far as I'm concerned once that movie hits it is going to be the nail in the coffin for the superhero genre. And frankly, maybe we could use that nail anyway. Aside from Spider-Man, Batman, Iron Man (I'll give it to him), and maybe a few other quirky favorites like Hellboy, I'm starting to hope that the superhero film dies down a bit. Let's see if Hollywood can be a bit more creative than the tried-and-true "good lone dude with fantastic abilities vs. bad dude with fantastic abilities." Whatever happened to the old-school ordinary heroes like John McClain and Indiana Jones? Well...actually they had sequels made about them too...but...you know what I'm trying to say, right?

3) "Speed Racer" I saw this movie exactly the way it was meant to be seen. It was being shown for free in Norris theater, so I decided that instead of spending my money on the movie ticket, I'd spend it on CANDY to eat while I watched the movie. This was the PERFECT movie to see while hopped up on a sugar rush. If you see "Speed Racer," make sure you have enough candy to be consistently popping a Skittle in your mouth throughout it's 2 hr 15 minute (!) duration. I really really enjoyed this movie, but I was with the right group of people to enjoy it with, and running off the right kind of sugar high. I'm actually quite bummed this movie did not do better at the box office. The "good guy" cast of Racer and his family is all around surprisingly good, but my favorite performance had to come from Matthew Fox, who practically walks away with the movie as Racer X. As a huge "Lost" fan I feel I know who Matthew Fox is, but I feel he is actually more perfectly cast as Racer X is than he is as Jack on our favorite island show (which is finishing up a very good season now, by the way). So buy a bunch of candy, pretend you are eight years old again, and check out "Speed Racer," so we can boost those ticket sales and maybe get another one made. I'd see it.

4) "Lord of the Flies" (1963) Yes, Will, I finally finished your DVDs I've borrowed over a year ago. This was a very faithful adaptation of the novel, although that did not mean it was necessarily that interesting. There are some surprisingly good performances by the kids though, which I must give strong kudos for. I get the feeling the filmmakers just let the cameras roll a good deal of the time and let the kids be kids, allowing them to get some very natural and interesting reactions, particularly from the very youngest actors. Worth seeing if you like the book.

5) "Moby Dick" I really liked this adaptation of Melville's book (and boy, if ever there were a tough book to adapt, it's "Moby Dick"). Gregory Peck makes for an interesting Ahab, although my favorite performance actually belonged to the actor playing Queequeg. The real star of the movie is the whale though. I don't know HOW, in the 50s, they were able to pull of special effects like this, but they really made a realistic convincing White Whale. VERY nice job. It's also cool to see Orson Welles in a cameo roll. This is a much better movie than the made-for-TV Patrick Stewart version (sorry, Patrick...you know I love you).
My only worry is that I can't tell in a few cases if the special effects are good, or actually REAL. While they obviously could not get a real white whale for the movie, at times they do use footage of actual wild dark whales. At at other times, it looks like they actually might have gone out and KILLED those wild whales. I don't know if whaling was still common practice in the 50s (I thought it was outlawed by then, but I could be wrong). Either way, I hope the shots of the crew killing dark whales are just very convincing fakes, because it would be terrible if these majestic gentle giants were killed just for the sake of a movie.

6) "To Be Or Not To Be" I actually had no idea what to expect from this movie, and was pleasantly surprised. I assumed it was going to be an old black-and-white (slightly boring) romantic comedy, but it in fact is a dark World War II comedy. Interestingly, the first chunk of the movie is much more comedic, and the middle section much more serious. It is not until the final pieces fall into play that the movie becomes a successful blend of the two. But all is forgiven...this was quite a nice surprise, and certainly worth a watch. The movie was also remade by Mel Brooks, and it seems tailor-made to suit his sensibilities, so I'll have to check that version out at some point too.

7) "Diary of a Chambermaid" Call me crazy, but I cannot stand most French cinema (see my review of "Amelie" in the previous post). I really try, because I think it is healthy to have an understanding of foreign movies. But I just cannot get my head around the French. "Amelie" was too cutesy and disjointed for its own good, and while I can respect "Breathless" for what it accomplished, I found it distracting and off-putting to what I like in a film. There are other examples, but I don't want to go into them.
This movie was made by Luis Bunuel, who was Dali's partner on "Un Chien Andalou," another movie that I admire for what it managed to accomplish, even if it isn't the sort of thing I'll be watching over and over again on a Saturday night (what...you don't pop in "Un Chien Andalou" when you're hanging with friends?).
However I hated, HATED this movie. It is boring, insipid, and doesn't go anywhere. I must have completely missed the point, because yet again the French are doing everything in their power to disappoint me.

8) "The Lion in Winter" If you think you're family is dysfunctional, than just be glad you aren't the family of Henry II. Holy crap!!! This was a very neat movie that involved a lot of famous actors playing royalty, yelling a lot, and fighting with each other. At times I thought the overdramatic acting got a little out of hand. Katherine Hepburn, for example, won the Oscar for her performance here, but I have seen her much better in other films. I thought her overwrought performance was a bit laughable. Peter O'Toole as Henry II fares much better, although he too goes a little bit out of bounds at times.
However the coolest part of this movie is to see some of the younger actors stretching their wings before they became as famous as they are today. I did not even recognize Anthony Hopkins at first, and it is startling to see him so young. Often, once an actor plays the "pivotal" role of their career, it is hard to see them as any other part in a later movie. For example, since "Silence of the Lambs" Hopkins has always been some form of Hannibal Lecter in my mind. As I mentioned in my "Iron Man" review, it is tough to see Jeff Bridges as something other than The Dude. But Anthony Hopkins is so young here that I was not distracted by this in the least. And he does a very good job.
The other big surprise in the movie is Timothy Dalton as the King of France. Dalton has sort of become a joke as the "campy James Bond" actor (though he kicks Moore's ass as far as I'm concerned), but he pulls off a very good performance here, and is one of the highlights of the movie. And again, he is SO YOUNG.
All in all this is an interesting movie with a few really good scenes, and a few uneven ones, but its worth a watch to see O'Toole, Hopkins, and Dalton get at each others throats.

So there you have it. 'Til next post...which I hope will be sooner than the last.