Watchmen

2009

3.5/5 Stars

I was skeptical going into Zach Snyder’s film adaptation of Alan Moore and David Gibbon’s hugely successful graphic novel.  The novel redefined the medium through its complex storytelling and seamless integration of both paneled comic book art and passages of written prose to supplement the main storyline.  The book was dark, cerebral, and often times riveting, employing multiple flashbacks to communicate multiple storylines regarding the rise and decline of the “superhero” in an alternative version of the United States.  Could Snyder manage to maintain the depth of this complex piece of popular fiction in making the transfer to the big screen? 

The answer is, fortunately, largely “yes”.  As is the case with any film adaptation of a longer written work, certain plotlines have to be trimmed and others removed entirely, but the decisions made here work and manage to keep the audience engaged throughout the 162 minutes of the theatrical release (there are also 186 and 215 minute versions available, but I have yet to see those). 

The mood of the book is intact for most of the film.  A dark brooding mood surrounds the noir murder mystery as our anti-hero in Rorschach (played brilliantly by Jackie Earle Haley) tries to track down the killer of the “Comedian” (also a strong performance, turned in by Jeffrey Dean Morgan).  One advantage that the film has over the book is the addition of music, which is strong from start to finish.  The opening sequence (set to Dylan’s “The Times They are a-Changing”) is outstanding as it efficiently and memorably lays a considerable amount of back story in just a few minutes. 

On the downside, not all the performances are on the same level.  Swedish-Canadian starlet Malin Akerman at times seems out of her depth as the emotionally overwrought Laurie Jupiter.  I also questioned the decision to cast 38 year old Carla Gugino as Laurie’s frail 70-something mother, who lives in a retirement community.  The “old age” makeup was unconvincing to me and as a result this character missed the mark by a wide margin. 

This said, these are relatively minor gripes.  On the whole, the film is very good.  Most of the performances are excellent and the plot-trimming from the graphic novel is largely understandable (although at times it can be a little heavy handed).  While fanboys may debate the merits of the surprise ending - which deviates from the book quite a bit- it succeeds in wrapping up the story in a believable way.  Even for those not familiar with the book, “Watchmen” is a worthwhile film that provides an engaging alternative take on the superhero genre.  

Anchorman

2004

4/5 Stars

“I’m not a baby.  I’m a man.  I’m an anchorman.”

Anchorman tells the story of the rise, fall, and ultimate redemption of Ron Burgundy (Will Ferrell), a star news anchor for a local news station in San Diego in the 1970s.  After years of success, including perennial television ratings superior to the rival news team led by Wes Mantooth (Vince Vaughn), Burgundy and his team struggle to adapt to change when a female reporter (Veronica Corningstone aptly played by Christina Applegate) is introduced to the newsroom. 

After an affair between Corningstone and Burgundy turns sour, Burgundy fails to cope with his own insecurities and falls out of favor in the eyes of his friends and loved ones.  When a prank gets out of hand, the city of San Diego- which once embraced him - turns its back on Ron Burgundy and leaves him lost and alone. 

In the end, Burgundy must break free from his “glass cage of emotion” and re-build what was once his.  With the help of his multilingual terrier (Baxter), Burgundy defeats the bears and emerges a stronger person.  

Pee-Wee's Big Adventure

1985

3.5/5 Stars


“I know you are, but what am I?”

Pee-Wee’s Great Adventure takes us into the bizarre alternative world of Paul Reuben’s Pee-Wee Herman.  The feature-length directorial debut of Tim Burton, Pee-Wee’s Great Adventure stretches across the United States and features the cartoon-like protagonist on a quest to rescue his most prized possession- his tricked out bicycle. 

This film is a visual delight, and a perfect match for the highly stylized Burton.  Coupled with the playful music by Danny Elfman, the “Great Adventure” succeeds in being weird and crazy, yet entertaining and fun.  Reuben is a gifted character actor with great timing and a knack for physical comedy.  His childish banter with his arch-rival Francis (Mark Holton), which culminates in a great fight sequence, is worth the price of admission. 

The movie has some scary moments (involving sadistic clowns and the ghost of “large Marge”), which can make it feel a bit uneven at times.  This said, Pee-Wee doesn’t even have to talk to be funny in most scenes and the chase sequence at the climax of the film through the WB studios is straight from the keystone cops films of the 20’s (except this chase features an appearance from TWISTED SISTER!). 

Weird and quirky, but a lot of fun.  

Airplane!

1980

1.5/5 Stars

“Go out and win one for the zipper!” 

Oh god.  A wildly successful smash hit of 1980, Airplane! is silly and ridiculous throughout.  It follows the main protagonists Ted (Robert Hays) and Elaine (Julie Hagerty) as they have to conduct of an emergency landing of a commercial airliner after things have gone nutty! 

Sorry- this film felt terribly dated to me throughout and has not aged well.  What was a cutting edge comedy in 1980 feels flat and, at some points, just plain offensive in 2010.  Gay and racist jokes (including a pair of “jive talkin’” blacks- WHAT are they even SAYING?!! HAHAHA) are mixed in with a ton of goofy/silly slapstick gags (like the dying girl who makes funny faces when her life support system is accidentally knocked loose!). 

There were a couple of chuckles in this one (Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is funny in his random appearance as the co-pilot), but overall, it is a LONG 90 minutes.  I would only recommend it to a serious fan of the “zany screwball comedy” genre.   

Swingers

1996

4/5 Stars

“You’re SO money!  Now kill the bunny!”

Written, directed, and starring Jon Favreau, Swingers is the film that first put Mr. Favreau on the Hollywood radar.  Made on a shoestring budget ($200,000), the film grossed $4.5 million and still has a following today.  Swingers has spawned several impersonators in the bro/buddy/dude genre, but while often imitated, it has rarely been duplicated.

Strangely enough, I had never seen this movie until recently.  I went in expecting HBO’s “Entourage” in movie form, but what I got was a bit more nuanced than that.  Sure, there is a lot of “guys being guys” nonsense (much of it coming from the outspoken Trent, played brilliantly by Vince Vaughn), but I was surprised by the amount of character development in the movie. 

The plot revolves around Mike (Jon Favreau), a would-be Hollywood comedian, who is six months out from a brutal breakup with a longtime girlfriend.  As his personal and professional life stumbles, he relies on the support of his friends- mainly Trent and Rob (Ron Livingston) – to help him see things through.  While Trent is the show-stopping loudmouth that tries to jar Mike from his funk, Rob is more soft-spoken and outwardly sympathetic.  While these characters aren’t above giving one another shit and talking trash (especially over games of NHL on the SEGA Genesis), it is evident that they really care for one another and want to see things work out for Mike.  (They come off more as nice guys and less as pure assholes as the crew in Entourage.) 

I went in expecting the film to be a straight comedy, but it was more of a drama/comedy hybrid.  There are a lot of quotable lines (mostly coming from Trent), and while the movie can feel dated at times (VERY 90s) and the pacing sometimes seems slow, this is a well written and believable piece for anyone that has taken a long time to recover from a bad breakup.  Some of the “bro” dialogue can be over the top, but I thought this showed the movie wasn’t taking itself TOO seriously.  The actors seem to be playing slightly exaggerated versions of themselves, which just adds to the realism (and sense of fun) to the whole piece.  

Head On

2004

3/5 Stars

The German language title for Fatih Akin’s 2004 film is “Gegen die Wand”, which translates literally to “against the wall.” I suppose they changed the English title to “Head On” in an effort to emphasize the visceral reaction to watching a violent car crash.

The film received tremendous critical praise upon its release- so much in fact that the back cover of the DVD is overflowing with positive reviews from a wide range of reliable sources and contains little in the way of describing what the film is actually about. A sentence or two reveal that the film revolves around a love story and involves questions of Turkish heritage and tradition in Western society (or something like this).

With this limited knowledge going in, I was shocked by the unapologetic and brutal film that followed. Framed within a Turkish love song, the story revolves around the evolution of the relationship between Cahit (played by Birol Uenel) and Sibel (played by Sibel Kekilli).

In short, both are of Turkish origin and living in Germany. Sibel wants to experience life fully- unrestricted by the conservative traditions of her Turkish parents. Cahit is a lost soul, devastated by the death of his wife. The two meet in a psych ward after both have failed suicide attempts.

Sibel devises a plan for the two to marry – not out of love or any desire to be with Cahit, but in an effort to get her out from under her parents’ roof (and the chance to have sex with lots of men around town). Cahit eventually comes around to the idea- in spite of a rocky “first date” with Sibel- and the “sham marriage” begins.

I won’t give much more away in terms of plot, but I will note that both characters are deeply flawed and have serious psychological problems. The movie portrays an underworld of drug and alcohol abuse that is realistic and unsentimental. This style carries over to the more brutal elements of the film—depictions of murder, suicide, rape, and physical assault- are horrific in their stark realism. In the violent flashes throughout the film, there is no music or slow motion. There are no dramatic speeches given by dying characters. The camera never pans away in the face of the violence (nor glorifies it). Akin goes the opposite direction in fact- he will keep the shot unedited and the camera static both during and after the traumatic violence.

There is also beauty in the film, however. In spite of these shocking flashes of violence, there are also depictions of love and happiness. One sequence involving Sibel at a carnival is particularly memorable (these bits ARE set to music). There are also moments of dark humor scattered throughout the piece- the sequence in which Cahit seeks the approval of Sibel’s parents to get married (with a friend posing as his uncle) is one such moment.

The acting, especially from the two main leads, is phenomenal. In spite of the fact that I did not particularly like either character (he is a bum and she is fucking psycho), I could not deny that the performances by Uenel and Kekilli were indeed outstanding- one can easily forget that these are actors and not actually real people.

The larger commentary that the film provides on the contradictions and difficulties confronting Turkish culture and the East/West divide is also of value. The scene in which Sibel’s brother and his friends openly discuss their experiences with prostitutes and then become enraged by Cahit’s “disrespectful” question as to why they don’t “fuck their wives” - drives home these points effectively.

In the end though, this powerful film left me broken, traumatized and exhausted. It was difficult to finish watching the film, and when the end eventually came (several slashed wrists later), I didn’t really care much what the point of it all was. Spending what felt like a very long 2 and a half hours with such damaged characters left me feeling damaged myself- as the Turkish song that frames the movie wound to a close (with the dramatic line: “I am eternally sad…”) I realized that I didn’t really care why anymore and was eager to move on with my life.

Big Fish

2003

5/5 Stars

Tim Burton’s adaptation of Daniel Wallace’s novel tells the life story of Edward Bloom, a charismatic southerner with a penchant for storytelling. Set mostly in Alabama, the American South plays a major role in the film. There is some irony here as the two stars that portray Bloom- Ewan McGregor as a young man and Albert Finney as an older one- are not even American (Scottish and English, respectively).

This does not matter much, however, as both performances are excellent. Fortunately for the audience, most all of the performances in the film are done very well. The women in the movie are memorable. Jessica Lange and the ever impressive Marion Cotillard play the loving wives to Edward and his son Will. They portray their characters as strong, graceful women, but their different approaches reflect their completely different backgrounds (Lange’s Sandra is born and raised in the American South while Cotillard’s Josephine is a world travelling Frenchwoman). Other notable performances come from Helena Bonham Carter (a Burton favorite), Steve Buscemi (as a failed poet), and Loudon Wainwright (as a creepy but benevolent mayor of a small town).

The main plot deals with a son on a quest to find who is father is. This is accomplished through fantasy vignettes and stories that flesh out “Edward Bloom”. Tim Burton’s distinctive style is well suited to tell these larger-than-life tall tales. These pieces can often be funny, but what makes them memorable are the morals and life-lessons to take away from them. Like all good stories and fairytales, these are the themes that resonate and matter. While the stories themselves are often fantastical, Burton never gets overly preachy or ham-handed in his presentation of the morals behind them. In simultaneously telling the (less fantastical) story of Edward’s present “reality” through the eyes of straight-laced Will, Burton gives the audience a fuller picture of who this character is.

By the film’s finale, the audience comes to realize how much they have come to care about these people. The results are emotionally powerful - particularly for anyone who has loved or been close to a gifted storyteller. There is a great deal of wisdom in the stories told here, but most central is the idea that the love you give and the relationships you have are what matter most in the end.

Zoolander

2001

2.5/5 Stars

“Mermaaaaaaaaaan…. Mermaaaaann!”

Ben Stiller acts as writer, director, and star of this silly and irreverent lampooning of Hollywood, the fashion industry, and the celebrities therein. The plot is intentionally absurd – something involving the none-too-bright male model Zoolander (Stiller) being suckered into an international conspiracy to kill the Prime Minister of Malaysia. The story takes a back seat to the opportunity for Stiller to fill the screen with his countless celebrity friends and family members (his mother, father, and wife all have speaking roles in the film).

This is generally a fun experience, as the audience feels a part of the joke. Good performances by Owen Wilson as Zoolander’s arch-rival Hansel, Will Ferrell as the evil fashion designer Mugatu, and David Duchovny as a retired hand model all help to keep the movie afloat for what can - at times - feel like a long 89 minutes.

Cameos from David Bowie, Winona Ryder, and Billy Zane, along with the “mining sequence” featuring Jon Voight and Vince Vaughn are also fun and worth noting.

The movie is slowed down by the flat performance of Christine Taylor (Stiller’s wife), as the straight-laced reporter Matilda Jeffries. Playing the only “normal” character in a movie made up of cartoon characters might not have been easy, but I came away feeling like she should have had more fun with the role nonetheless. Her speech on bulimia and obesity three-quarters to the movie felt out of place in this setting and the performance as a whole seemed one-note and a drag.

Overall though, a light and harmless comedy with lots of quotable nonsense (“I feel like I’m taking CRAZY PILLS!”), some fun characters, and not much else.

Walk the Line

2005

4.5/5 Stars

Most of James Mangold’s 2005 biopic of Johnny Cash takes place as a flashback. The opening shots frame Folsom Prison, with its high fences and armed sentries. As the camera takes us past the perimeter and the viewer draws nearer to the main building, a swell of rhythmic foot stomps and hand clapping can be heard. This noise gets louder and louder until we are inside the prison and we get our first glimpses of “the man in black” himself, resting a moment prior to resuming his legendary concert at the prison. One can’t help but get sucked in to the air of excitement leading up to this pivotal moment- and then, as Cash examines a table saw, we pull away from the anticipated crescendo and find ourselves in rural Arkansas, where Cash’s story began.

What follows is a brutally honest story of the rise, fall, and ultimate redemption of Johnny Cash. There is a great deal to love about the film. The music is central and treated brilliantly, the acting- especially from Joaquin Phoenix as Cash and Reese Witherspoon- is outstanding, and a number of the set pieces are exciting and believable. A personal favorite of mine involved an unknown Cash stumbling into Sam Phillip’s small SUN Studio. The tone of this sequence is pitch perfect and a delight for any fan of the genre and the legendary music that came from that label.

For fans of the music, there is much to take in. Phoenix and Witherspoon perform all of the (Cash/Carter) songs themselves while there are a number of other strong musical performances from actors emulating Elvis, Jerry Lee Louis, and Roy Orbison (I also could hear Wanda Jackson’s “Fujiama Mamma” offscreen at one point). The music is appropriately accorded the central role it deserves and it makes watching the movie a joy.

Perhaps even more impressive than the quality of the musical performances is the acting performance delivered by Witherspoon. From the moment she is introduced on screen, she is electrifying. Rarely does a character “pop” from the screen with as much fire and sheer likeability as Witherspoon does here. For his part, Phoenix keeps pace and the performers seem to play off one another, resulting in a love story that keeps the viewer engaged throughout.

What struck me most on re-watching the film for the first time since I had seen it in the theater back in 2005, was how human both Cash and Carter seemed. They are never put on a pedestal that makes their experience seem alien. Even when Cash is at the height of his success, he is portrayed as a person with real problems - not as a legendary musician beyond reproach. Cash’s ultimate recovery from substance abuse is the result of personal growth and the gentle guidance of a strong companion.

The movie runs a little bit long at points, but this is a very minor quip. In total, Walk the Line is a fantastic biopic of an American icon.

The Bourne Ultimatum

2007

2/4 Stars

The third and final (for now) part of the Bourne trilogy picks up immediately where the second part left off. Jason Bourne is in Moscow and seriously wounded. Plagued by flashbacks, he must determine his origins and what happened to turn him into the super-assassin he is.

Once again, this is a globe-trotting picture, going from London, to Spain, to Italy, Morocco and to New York City. The on-location shots are great.

The action is more furious than ever and does not pause or let up at all throughout. This turns out to be problematic in this film as it begins to feel like an unending chase that lacks depth of story. The scenes of Bourne jumping from balcony to balcony and through countless windows in Morocco felt overdone by the end.

The Pam Landy CIA war room cliches are back in this film and feel stale-- "No time for introductions people! Let's get to work!" An expanded role for Save the Last Dance's Julia Stiles is also disappointing.

In the end, this felt like a movie that was moving so quickly that it lost its purpose. The sense of excitement that was created in the first film is missing here. This is not a bad film, it still has entertaining moments, but fails to measure up to its predecessors.

The Bourne Supremacy

2004

2.5/4 Stars

The Bourne Supremacy is a strong follow-up that picks up right where the first Bourne movie left off. The story begins with Jason Bourne and Marie having found a resting spot in India. When an assassin comes to kill Jason, the film is off and running, taking the viewer from Berlin to Moscow and a variety of other places.

Joan Allen enters the film as Pam Landy, a CIA agent who is responsible for tracking Bourne. The film's "war room" scenes suffer a bit from cliches. "You want to go home? FIND JASON BOURNE!" The fast pace of the film generally covers up for this.

The film also has an overly long ending-- not Return of the King overly long, but long nonetheless. This is the only point in the film where things slow down.

Overall, a solid sequel that falls just a little short of measuring up to its predecessor.

The Bourne Identity

2002

3/4 Stars

Doug Liman's "The Bourne Identity" is the first part of a compelling spy trilogy. The pacing of the film is fast and furious, the action is intense, and the acting is pretty good too.

Matt Damon is Jason Bourne, a super-spy assassin who has lost his memory. The movie opens with Bourne's body floating in the ocean- unconscious and possibly dead. After a small group of fishermen recover him and nurse him back to health, Bourne makes it his mission to figure out who he is and how he ended up lost at sea with two bullets lodged in his back.

Franka Potente (Run Lola Run) joins in the action, putting in a good performance as the love interest and heroine.

The action spans across Europe and beyond, with highlights including a Paris car chase and a duel between expert assassins in Bourne and Clive Owen's "The Professor".

This is a good to very good action movie that is fun to watch and keeps the viewer on the edge of his/her seat.

Hellboy II: The Golden Army

2008

1.5/4 Stars

The sequel to 2004’s Hellboy, Guillermo del Toro’s Hellboy II: The Golden Army is a disappointing follow-up after a promising start to the series. To be sure, the visuals are fantastic and del Toro’s distinguished fantasy sensibilities are on full display here. This said, this is far from his best work and the film suffers from a few too many deficiencies to overcome.

From the opening moments of the film, which shows an awkward Hellboy as a teenager, one is reminded that this is a comic book fantasy movie that takes place in an alternate reality from ours. As the film progresses though, the characters start to resemble the aliens from Men In Black in scenes like the “Troll Market”- they seem more like comical cartoon characters and less like dark fantasy creatures.

While it is nice to see Jeffrey Tambor, the film is missing the vocal talents of David Hyde Pierce, who did such a fine job as “Abe” in the first film. The lack of Pierce, coupled with the poor acting of actress Selma Blair, make for a mediocre cast that Ron Perlman alone cannot overcome.

Some characters are stronger than others, such as Prince and Princess Nuada. The elven Prince makes for an excellent villain (at one point he fights with two swords in an obvious nod to the dark elf Drizzt Do’urden). Perhaps if the film had centered more upon him and his motives, it would have been a better overall product.

Unfortunately, the outstanding visuals cannot compensate for a mediocre and shallow story. It was also disappointing that “The Golden Army” doesn’t appear until there are 20 minutes left in the film, and of the 49,000 soldiers of the Golden Army, only 7 or 8 see actual combat. This alone felt like an opportunity missed. Perhaps things will improve if and when they come out with Hellboy III. Until then, del Toro’s other films, such as “The Devil’s Backbone” or “Pan’s Labyrinth” are well worth watching.

The English Patient

1996

3.5/4 Stars

Anthony Minghella’s interpretation of Michael Ondaatje’s novel is a moving, if somewhat elitist, piece of art. The film has an epic, sweeping scale that takes the viewer along for a ride filled with breathtaking visuals of rolling deserts, beautiful bodies, and Italian scenery.

Themes of death, war, and loss play heavily here, as do love, lust, and infidelity.

The plot is twisting, but revolves largely around an affair between a Hungarian Count and a married English woman who meet on a map-making expedition in Egypt. Set against the backdrop of the Second World War in North Africa and in Italy, these powerful historical events enhance a dramatic love story.

Minghella goes to great lengths to capture a variety of shots in telling his story- ranging from the aerial shots of the Egyptian desert, to the horrors of a Nazi prison, to a simplistic scene in which Hana plays Hopscotch. All of these combine for a moving story that is artistically presented.
The dialogue is often poetic- I particularly liked Madox’s assessment of nationalities (another major theme in the film) when he speaks of transcending these boundaries in search of a common goal. “We didn’t care about Germans, Hungarians, British- it was something finer than that-“ Katherine’s call for an “Earth without maps” echoes this sentiment.

The film has been often criticized for taking itself too seriously and being humorless. The endless stream of good looking people, dramatic dialogue, and epic visuals do create a sense of elitism to the film. “The Toy Patient” on YouTube does a fine job of lampooning all of these elements and is worth watching after seeing the film to lighten the mood (apparently Ralph Fiennes loved this parody).

Gunga Din

1939

2/4 Stars

Gunga Din is a racist 1930's adventure serial starring Cary Grant. The basic premise is that the murderous Thuggie Cult (this group should be familiar to Indiana Jones fans) has sprouted up in colonial India and it is up to a band of three soldiers- led by Grant- to stop the Thuggie plot to conquer first India, and then THE WORLD.

Pretty cheesy stuff. The action is swashbuckling and fun, with lots of low-budget effects and explosions. Hordes of Indians are killed along the way with impunity.

Enter the title character- Gunga Din- a "water carrier" and "low bred" Indian. Gunga Din dreams of one day becoming a real soldier like the (white) British. Throughout the film, he marches about and pretends to be a real soldier. Grant, and the other "real" soldiers, tend to humor him a bit, but clearly don't take him seriously.

In the end though, Gunga Din proves himself to be worthy of respect- EVEN from the whites. The film concludes with a Kipling poem, bearing Din's name, that has a final line that goes something like: "even though you were from a no-good race and we beat on you like a dog, you had some courage, and I respect that".*

Overall, if one can get past the racist portrayal of the Indians, this is a very standard action movie from this era. The humor is lame, but the overall experience is kind of fun. Be sure to watch for the "terrifying" snake pit, where the strings attached to the snakes are almost as big as the snakes themselves.

* The actual line is slightly less offensive: "Tho' I've belted you and flayed you, By the livin' Gawd that made you, You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!"

Paris, Je T'Aime

2006

2/4 Stars

This is an uneven collection of vignettes that have little in common other than their themes of love, loss, and Paris. The directors assembled as well as the cast is star-studded. Steve Buscemi, Willem Dafoe, Juliette Binoche, Nick Nolte, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Bob Hoskins, Elijah Wood, Natalie Portman, and many others are featured in a series of five minute shorts.

The film is a touch sadder than one would anticipate. Juliette Binoche's storyline, revolving around a mother who has recently lost her young son is positively tragic. Another piece, depicting an African immigrant who is mortally stabbed is also difficult to watch. Other pieces, such as one featuring a pair of mimes are whimsical and strange.

All in all, this is an a film that has a wide variety of pieces that vary in quality. Chances are equal that the viewer will find a piece that s/he likes and one that s/he does not (or several of each). This makes for an uneven experience and for a mediocre film.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

2008

2/4 Stars

The opening sequence of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull in many ways epitomizes the two directions that this movie seems to be pulling in. With Elvis blasting through the speaker, a 1950's hot rod rips across the screen at high speed. This is playing to George Lucas' strong points- his love of high velocity vehicles is shown in everything from the drag racing in American Graffiti to the TIE Fighters whipping across the screen in the original Star Wars film. There is another element in this sequence however- a pack of computer generated prairie dogs that are intended (I think) to provide some comic relief for the audience. This is pure cheese.

This is Indiana Jones IV- a movie that has some fun adventure elements combined with a lot of camp and bad jokes. On a personal level, I desperately wanted to love this movie. I have seen it 8 times now. I have come up with creative ways to justify certain things. Nevertheless, my conclusion is that this is a cheesy "B" adventure movie that has Indy, Russians, and aliens. This seems to be the point though. According to a featurette on the main disk of the DVD, an original title for the movie was going to be "Indiana Jones and the Saucermen"- another was "Indiana Jones and the Giant Ants"- and the goal was to make a 1950's B movie with Indy in the starring role. The logic was that the first three films were based on 1930's serials, so now that Indy had aged and the film was set in the 50's, they should make it like a 1950's aliens attack film. But does it work?

The results are mixed. The film is laced with a variety of bad jokes- including one too many "I'm getting too old for this" references. Not that there weren't bad jokes in the earlier films, but they just were not this campy. Also, any sort of "edge" that Indy had in the previous films is gone. The image of Indy drinking himself into a stupor after the "death" of Marion in a Cairo cafe seems a distant memory.

The supporting cast is not as strong as Sean Connery, Denholm Elliott (Marcus Brody), and John Rhys-Davies (Sallah). Instead we have the characters like "Mutt" (who is ok), Oxley (who is bizarre), and "Mac" (who sucks). The "mcguffin" of the film is also weaker than the Ark or the Holy Grail. The Crystal Skull is pretty lame in fact and I'm not sure if anyone believes Harrison Ford when he exclaims "It's BEAUTIFUL!" upon its discovery.

The greatest moment in the picture was the portion that was filmed in New Haven. The motorcycle chase around Yale following the greaser/jock brawl is a true highlight. This chase is vastly superior to the seemingly never ending chase that is the second half of the film.

In this portion, Lucas and Spielberg went wild with CGI special effects as computer generated monkeys and ants team together to "add" to the adventure. There are a number of low points here, including Shia LeBeouf's Tarzan impersonation, the "crotch shot" as he performs a split while fencing, Marion's "tree jump" into the river, and the lamest fist fight in Indy's career against an over sized Russian. This is followed by Oxley's line: "Three times it drops" after which the audience is subjected to not one, but three increasingly impossible falls off of a waterfall by the group of protagonists.

If the audience wasn't aware of it already, this is about the point where the movie gets really stupid. Quotes like: "No more forever waiting", "Not space, but the space between spaces", and
"Knowledge- knowledge was their treasure" sum up the experience.

So why 2 stars? Well, if one can get past the sheer camp of the film, it is action driven and a pretty fun experience. It is not a great film by any stretch, but somehow quite watchable. It is a film that sought to capture a "B" movie experience, and for better or worse, it seems to have succeeded. Now who wants to watch Raiders or Last Crusade?

Auf der Anderen Seite

(USA: The Edge of Heaven)

2007

3/4 Stars

While not a household name in the US, Turkish-German director Fatih Akin has established himself as a leading director in the German film industry. In his 10th film, “Auf der Anderen Seite”, Akin continues to show a distinctive eye for cinematography and a unique style of story-telling.

Revolving largely around the theme of German/Turkish relations and identity, the film zooms from Hamburg to Istanbul and back again, weaving a complicated web of personal relationships along the way. Characters speak in German, English and Turkish to communicate with one another in spite of their varied lives.

While the story can be marginally unbelievable at times (is Charlotte really that idealistic/gullible?), what keeps the film together is the sense of shared humanity- for better and for worse. There are some shocking twists and turns along the way, but this densely layered film deserves the widespread critical acclaim it received and is a distinct piece of art.

The Terminator

1984

2.5/4 Stars

James Cameron’s “The Terminator” tells the tale of a robot sent from the “distant future” (2029) to “present day” (1984) LA with the task of killing the mother of a future commando who leads a rebellion against the robot hordes who come to dominate earth. His target, Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton), has to rise quickly to the occasion of not only preserving her own life, but ultimately defeating this “terminator”. Aided by the mysterious Kyle Reece (Michael Biehn), Sarah’s character evolves from a clumsy waitress to a cold-blooded cage fighter in the course of 107 minutes.

In perhaps his most famous role, Arnold Schwarzenegger is perfectly suited to play the emotionless robot killer as he punches through car windshields and even cuts out his own eyeball. (“I feel no pain.”)

The movie is undeniably based in the 1980s. The hair, the clothes, and the music are all on full display here, giving it a dated feel. While this is not necessarily a knock, it is clear that the special effects technology is also decidedly 80s. There is more than one occasion where this shows – the aforementioned “eye cutting” sequence looks fake and when the Terminator is stripped down to his steel skeleton the animation is reminiscent of “Jason and the Argonauts”.
The film also has some decidedly cheesy dialogue. “Come with me if you want to live!” or “I came across time to save you Sarah… I LOVE you.” It is worth noting that some of these lines have since become classics- obviously- “I’ll be back.”

Overall though, the movie holds up. Most of the action is intense and up-tempo. The overall flow of the movie keeps the viewer on edge as one action scene flows into the next. The police station shootout is classic. While the “machine” theme can be heavy-handed and tedious at times, this is still a solid action movie and gets a thumbs-up.

Explorers

1985

1.5/4 Stars

Explorers is a kid's movie from the 80's that follows the story of three boys- Wolfgang (River Phoenix), Ben (Ethan Hawke), and Darren (Jason Presson)- as they communicate with aliens in their dreams and ultimately design a spaceship to visit the aliens themselves. Each character has a role to play- Wolfgang is the scientist, Ben has a wonderful imagination, and Darren is the skeptical drunk.

The movie is divided into two distinct halves- the first involves the boys designing the flying device and taking it around their home town. This is the best part of the film and captures the imagination of any child who wanted to fly. It is during this half that a character called "Old Creepy Charlie" is introduced. He stalks Ben for a time before discovering their ship. He is never mentioned again. His inclusion in the film is questionable.

The second half of the movie is a disaster. They meet the aliens, who are green, slimy, and obsessed with American television. Wolfgang develops an attraction to one of the aliens ("She is incredibly intelligent!"), but eventually accepts that it is not meant to be. This movie drags a great deal here and limps to the finish line.

It is pretty strange and seems to want to be a commentary on declining values in an increasingly media-driven society. In truth, it is just a weird kid's movie that has potential in the beginning before falling apart.