Daniel J. Hogan's Blog

Movie Review: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

I am a big Indiana Jones fan, so I have been waiting for this movie ever since they started filming it. Raiders of the Lost Ark is one of my all time favorite movies, so I was really excited when I heard that Karen Allen was reprising her role as Marion Ravenwood for this final(?) installment of the adventures of Henry Jones, Jr.

The important thing to remember when going in to see Crystal Skull is that you really can’t compare it to the original trilogy, nor is it fair to. Many things have changed since 1989’s Last Crusade, including the way films are made—which brings me to one of my first criticisms of the film, its occasional over-use of computer generated effects.

Yes, I’m aware that Indy movies are meant to be over the top pulp-fiction-comic-booky fun, but I really think there is such a thing as too much special effects when it comes to using computers. Thankfully, this did not plague the entire film, only in a few spots was this apparent—and even then it was towards the end when you’d expect nothing less from a Spielberg/Lucas film. But there were a few times where I found myself thinking, “OK, this is a little much.” I can’t really go into too much detail without giving away spoilers, but the final climatic/big special effect money shot really reeked of overkill.

Next is the subject matter/theme of this chapter.
Lost cities? Yes, please!
Haunted graveyards? Awesome!
Stolen treasure? Woo-hoo!
Aliens? Huh?
Physic powers? Uh…what?

While I was originally intrigued by the idea of Indy visiting Area 51 and being connected to the Roswell Crash, I decided that Indiana Jones and aliens just don’t mix. Save that stuff for X-Files. It was just too left field for an Indiana Jones movie. There are plenty of other cool legendary artifacts they could of have centered the film around. What about the Spear of Destiny? The plot could have been that Hitler originally had it, lost it, and the Russians are trying to find it and Indy gets mixed up in the whole mess (and he’d have to fight the Nazis and the Russians! How crazy would that have been?)

Or what about something with Atlantis? I could go on and on. Don’t get me wrong: I enjoyed the movie, it was a lot of fun. I just didn’t like all the alien stuff.

Harrison Ford did a decent job reprising the role and once they finally got the ‘Oh man, I’m too old for this’ jokes out of the way, I found myself forgetting how old he really is. Some of his stunts and action scenes could have easily been from any of the older Indy movies—he’s still got it.

One thing that didn’t seem to stand the test of time was the chemistry between Harrison Ford and Karen Allen. I don’t know if it was just the script or what, but some of their lines between each other seemed forced or lacked any kind of spark. But they had a few exchanges that were pretty darn good, usually when they were fighting with each other.

I’m still not sold on Shia LaBeouf as the big blockbuster star that Spielberg seems to think he is. Sure he was ok, and he had a few good scenes but overall I wasn’t that impressed with him or his character, Mutt Williams.

Oh and Jim Broadbent was horribly underused. He was a great choice as a replacement for Marcus, but I would of liked to see a little more of him. And I got sick of all the Red Scare stuff they kept throwing at us. Yes, I get it. It takes place in the 1950s and that was going on, and the bad guys are Russians in the film, but c’mon.

I also wasn’t a fan of some of the cinematography and lighting. Some of the film had this ‘made for TV reunion movie’ look/feel to it; I felt that lighting could have been way more interesting at times. There were parts where it was very flat and boring.

What I DID like: the casual references to what Indy has been up to for the past 20 years. Very neat, especially what he did during World War II (“Colonel Jones…”). John Hurt was great and Cate Blanchett was convincing in her role. The chase scene in the jungle with the trucks and such was thrilling to watch on the big screen, I loved that part. It was wonderfully over the top.

Thankfully, this film did not suffer from the same fate as Episode I: The Phantom Menace, it captured some of the charm of the original and is fun to watch (which can be chalked up to the fact that Spielberg has been making movies for the past 20 years, unlike Lucas who had a very long hiatus between Howard the Duck and Phantom Menace).

Despite its faults, this is a film worth seeing in the theater and a fun way to spend two hours. My expectations weren’t set too high going in to this, so thankfully I wasn’t too disappointed.

And to be honest, I can’t wait to see it again.

 

Movie Review: Iron Man

I’ll admit that my expectations were set very low when I finally went to see Iron Man this past weekend. And perhaps this was the reason why the film was able to exceed all of my expectations.  It certainly can be added to the list of very enjoyable comic book adaptations, and most of that credit goes to the wonderful acting by Robert Downey, Jr.

I’ll openly admit that my knowledge of Iron Man canon is minimal at best (I’m more of a Spider-Man, X-Men, Batman and Hellboy fan), but I know enough that the film did a more than passable job of condensing over 40 years of Iron Man lore in a way that is pleasing to both comic book and non-comic book fans.

Now back to Mr. Jr’s acting.  Robert Downey’s portrayal of playboy/inventor Tony Stark was, aside from the lovely effects by ILM, the high point of the film.  This role could have very easily been turned into another brooding Bruce Wayne/Batman- like character—both have similar traits: orphaned, very intelligent, non-super powered, inventor billionaires turned crime fighters– but Robert Downey made this character his own, and I’m very thankful for it.  

The scenes I enjoyed the most were those in which Tony is fine tuning his suit and figuring everything out through trial and error (usually with comedic results). This adds a great human element to the story, even a super genius like Tony Stark makes mistakes—but he learns from them and keeps going.  When he finally finishes his Iron Man suit, the audience shares Tony’s feeling of accomplishment and is excited to see what the suit can do.

The first act of the film drags a bit, especially while Tony is held captive in Afghanistan, but after that things kick into high gear.  The special effects are great and look very believable, I found myself forgetting at times that the Iron Man on screen was just computer generated.  I love the shots where we see what Tony is ‘seeing’ through his suit’s heads up display, those were very detailed and great eye candy.

I really enjoyed that they didn’t turn this into some kind of love story and just focused on building the romantic tension between Tony and his assistant (played by Gwyneth Paltrow) Pepper Potts.  

Iron Man was an enjoyable kick off to what will surely be a fun summer movie season and hopefully things just keep getting better.

Oh and make sure to stick around after the credits for an extra scene. It is worth the wait.

My Name is Bruce (2007, Campbell)

I was going to start out by saying that there should be a subtitle added to the name of this movie, something like "For Die Hard Fans Only," but then I realized that only die hard Bruce Campbell fans will be seeing this hilarious satirical gem. I had the great opportunity of seeing the premiere of this film at the East Lansing Film Festival last night--and it was hosted by Bruce Campbell himself. Bruce directed this film, which is a parody of himself and his body of work. In his introduction, Bruce said that what we were about to see was the "most final version to that point." He said there were a couple things that needed to be tweaked but it was the final cut--and we were the first audience to see it. Groovy.

The story is your basic Three Amigos/A Bug's Life/Galaxy Quest-type plot: Bruce plays himself, a B-Movie actor, who is kidnapped by a small town in Oregon in order to help rid them of a Chinese demon spirit (you read that correctly). Everyone in the town thinks he is the hero he plays in all his movies, specifically from the Evil Dead series, but they come to find out he is only a whiny, cowardly, drunkard. Hilarity ensues. Bruce really makes fun of himself and his status as a beloved B-Movie star in this role and you can tell he enjoys every second of it.

There are references aplenty to Bruce's films scattered throughout the story, so any one who is an avid fan will really enjoy this. And better still, Bruce has brought on some of his Evil Dead series co-stars as bit parts. The woman who played his sister in Evil Dead now plays his bitter ex-wife (still named Cheryl) and couple other guys. The best comes come at Bruce's expense, which aren't in short supply, and some of the best scenes show Bruce being an arrogant jerk to co-stars and fans or alone in his dilapidated trailer trying to drink his problems away (or giving booze to his dog "Hooch for the pooch!").

What we have here is a great capstone to Bruce's body of work and a great tribute not only to himself, but to his fans. It will delight die-hard Bruce Campbell fans, but the casual viewer may not get most of the humor if they don't know who Bruce is, but I think they would still find it funny. Ted Raimi is also in no less than three separate roles and pretty much steals any scene he is in. Bruce said in the Q & A that followed the film that he likes to include Ted in his films because "Ted makes me look subtle."

This is very much a low budget film, but it is only appropriate given the subject is that of satirizing the career of a low-budget movie star. However, it is really well made. The special effects are well done and the lighting/look if the film is great. We found out during the Q & A that it was shot in High Definition and that the lighting crew worked extra hard to make everything look good and that the lenses they rented actually cost more to rent than the HD cameras. Seeing this film in an MSU lecture hall may not have been the best venue to experience all of the HD goodness, so I'm looking forward to catching this on DVD eventually.

The Q & A segment that followed the film was great. This was the third time I've seen Bruce Campbell in person, and the previous time was a few years ago when he introduced Bubba Ho-tep at the East Lansing Film Festival. I found out I was actually sitting behind Tom Sullivan, special effects guy from the Evil Dead series, when he got up to (jokingly) ask Bruce if there was a chance of an Evil Dead 4. Bonus.

My Name is Bruce is a fun time and I recommend it for any Bruce Campbell or b-movie fan.

Saw the first trailer for Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull on Good Morning America today.

I can't wait for May 22nd. I'm so there. It looked really good, and they made sure to include the scenes where Indy is certainly showing his age and poking fun at it.

Speaking of Mr. Harrison Ford, I (finally) got Blade Runner: The Final Cut from Netflix this week. Nothing really stuck out as anything too new in this version over the 'unofficial' Director's Cut released in the '90s, except a few longer shots here and there, but it did not disappoint. The picture and sound were both remastered wonderfully - the sound was amazing, adding a whole new layer to the film and the picture looked great. Blade Runner has some of my favorite lighting and cinematography, and it was great to see all of that touched up.

It was also funny to see Edward James "Battlestar Galactica" Olmos  when he was younger and already chasing robots pretending to be humans. I guess his career has come full circle. I'm going to buy this soon and spend hours watching all of the behind the scenes stuff.

There Will Be Blood (Anderson)

From start to finish, There Will Be Blood is an engaging cinematic masterpiece. No corners were cut with this film: From the sweeping vista shots, to the costumes, to the eerie score it was beautifully crafted. The film is also as powerful as it is pretty: Daniel Day-Lewis does not disappoint as the greedy and driven oilman, Daniel Plainview.

What is great about character of Plainview is that he is multi-layered and complicated: yes he is greedy and nasty, but he also cares for his son and has his own demons to battle. The scene where he talks about how he hates everyone is downright haunting ("There are times when I look at people and I see nothing worth liking.") . I love that there is not any dialog for the first 11 minutes of the film: it is just Plainview alone, working in a mine. You see the hard work and determination that will be with him for the rest of the film.

These early scenes remind me of the opening of 2001: A Space Odyssey where we see the monkeys scurrying around, trying to evolve and learn. The scene where Plainview and his men pull up their drill from the oil shaft, covered in black oil, struck me as a reference to the famous scene with the black monolith in 2001 where the monkeys freak out, start dancing around, evolve and learn to use tools. This connection is appropriate - in the next scene Plainview is well dressed and speaking eloquently to a crowd of people he is trying to buy land from. He has evolved and is more dangerous than ever before.

I love how the film jumps around in time, showing how Planview and those around him evolve over the years - each becoming more greedy and in Plainview's case, more unstable. The musical score by by Radiohead's Johnny Greenwood is amazing and adds another great layer to this film. It helps to build more tension where needed and also adds a spooky element at the appropriate time.

Like No Country For Old Men, this is a film that should be experienced in the theater. The wonderful cinematography and landscapes won't transfer that well over to the small screen, so catch this one while you can. Hollywood needs more directors like Paul Thomas Anderson.

Cloverfield (Matt Reeves)

My quick, spoiler-free review of this cinematic romp is thus: Cloverfield = (Blair Witch Project x 100) + Godzilla + Choice of Disaster Movie + Demographically Required Disappointing Cheesy Romantic Subplot.

I was both delighted and disappointed by this film.
From a cinematic stand-point it was top-notch. The unique way of doing a 'monster eats New York' type film was very enjoyable on the big screen. Instead of normal film-style shooting, this film is done in a Blair Witch Project-like documentary style. Characters take turns 'filming' the scenes, which gives us a first person point of view of all the nonsense going on. The director also made us of one my favorite styles, which has all but disappeared in our Computer Animation age: Less is More.

Instead of showing EVERYTHING from the get-go, we are teased throughout nearly the entire movie - the monster gets very little actual screen time, and most of that is just quick shots of a random body part or soldiers shooting at something off screen. That was great: you had next to no idea what was going on, which made this a very unique monster movie. It reminded me of the original Alien or Jaws, where you saw very little of the actual creature which in my opinion is the better way to go.

When it comes to thrillers and scaring people, leaving stuff to the audiences' imagination is the best tool a filmmaker has in their tool box. In the old days, this was mainly because of the limitations of special effects. But now because of computers, we can show a monster tap dancing on top of the Statue of Library without giving it a second thought. BUT just because we CAN show all of that, doesn't mean we SHOULD.

And the problem is the audience has been spoiled in recent years by such unabashed displays of special effect prowess - we expect to see everything and not be teased as we were in the old days. I really hope Cloverfield helps to change that trend and leads the way of filmmakers leaving stuff up the audiences' imagination more often. Most of the audience around me was obviously disappointed by the lack of a 'big payoff' which they felt they were entitled to because of the brilliant marketing campaign surrounded the film.

I disagree: the movie, save a few examples, was exactly what I expected. People fell for the marketing of this film hook, line and sinker - it worked. I hope this starts a new trend in film advertising as well: not showing every major plot point in all the different trailers and ads for the film.

SPOILERS START HERE - If you don't want to know the secrets, stop reading.

My main complaint of the film was the cheesy romantic subplot: a jilted young man trying to make his away across Manhattan to save his ex-lover while the monster tears the city to shreds and the Army blows stuff up. Once they showed the ex-lovers fighting at a party and the hero talking with his brother about how much he still loved her, I knew exactly how this movie was going to end. And I was right. BUT I enjoyed another aspect of this film that breaks the mold: Everyone dies. No one survives. I enjoyed that, because it was bad enough with the romantic subplot - had those involved survived I would have been really disappointed. An interesting sidenote is that because he chooses to go save this ex-flame, all of the main male character's companions die because of it. Had he just said the hell with her, a bunch of people would have survived.

What I also liked is how the film starts. The 'film' itself is a recovered video tape the government found after the attack. This lets you know right away that this story does not have a happy ending (borrowing a page again from Blair Witch Project). I LOVE that they don't explain much about the monster at all - this makes it more creepy. They also don't explain about what exactly happens after someone is bit by the creature's offspring, other than us being treated to a shaky camera quickly flying past a vicitm before something very bad happens. The film does not load you down with details about the creature: it just is what it is, and I loved it. But then I'm the kind of person who likes stuff being left open ended or left up to my imagination. Most people however don't feel the same way: they want to be spoon-fed every little detail. No thanks, not for me.

They do a lot of great stuff with atmosphere - including not having any kind of soundtrack, which adds to the 'reality' aspect of the movie.

SPOILERS END HERE

There are some down-right terrifying moments in this film which were amplified by viewing it on the big screen with a theater sound system. The Point of View cinematography really puts you right in the action. This is not a film you can watch on your TV, or iPhone or your iPod and get the same experience. You must see this film in the theater. I'm kind of surprised they didn't go the extra step and make this film 3D - that would have been killer.

I actually had a hard time sleeping last night, because I kept thinking about this film. That hasn't happened to me in a LONG time. But I also have an over-active imagination that is increased a hundred fold when I'm half-asleep. All of the unknowns of the film kept running through my head - it is a film that will stick to your ribs a bit. Some viewers may get motion-sickness because of the hand-held/shaky camera aspect, even I got a little quesy at times. So heads up.

To sum up, I loved the camera work and the Less is More approach of the film. But I hated the romantic subplot and that the cast is once again a bunch of young, good-looking people. If you want a thrilling one of a kind viewing, see this film in the theater - I don't recommend watching it at home at all.