Movie Review: RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK

RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK

1981

PG

"I'm going after a find of incredible historical significance, you're talking about the boogie man. Besides, you know what a cautious fellow I am."
-- Indiana Jones

Raiders of the Lost Ark is an Academy Award-winning 1981 action-adventure film directed by Steven Spielberg that serves as the first installment in the ever-popular Indiana Jones franchise. Renowned archaeologist Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) is approached by United States Army Intelligence after they intercept Nazi transmissions about an excavation in Cairo that may be digging in the lost city of Tanis in the hopes of finding the Ark of the Covenant. Because Jones has a penchant for acquiring rare artifacts and antiquities, the Army wants him to take possession of the Ark before Hitler and the Nazis can wield it as a weapon at the front of their own armies. To help in his quest, Jones makes his way to Nepal to find his old professor Abner Ravenwood, who is an expert on the city of Tanis. Instead of finding his mentor, however, Indy finds his daughter Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen), with whom he had had a past romance. With the Nazis nipping at their heels, the two take one of Abner's Tanis artifacts and make their way to Cairo in the hopes of beating the Germans to the prize. Little do they know that the Nazis have enlisted the aid of one of Indiana's chief competitors in the French archaeologist Dr. René Belloq (Paul Freeman).

Ever since I was a child, I have been a bit of a fan of the Indiana Jones series, and to have the opportunity to review the original Indiana Jones adventure is quite a treat for me. It's going to be a little difficult not to be biased about reviewing this film because it has become so ingrained into my own consciousness; however, I think that so many people out there can probably say the same thing about this particular film franchise.

Let's start by taking a look at the cinematic landscape in which Raiders of the Lost Ark was released. By this time, Spielberg had made quite a name for himself with films like 1975's Jaws and 1977's Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Although both of those films had managed to garner both critical and audience endorsement, Raiders proved to be a different kind of film altogether. It marked Spielberg's first real foray into the action-adventure genre as he tried to bring to life a type of 1930s serial, and boy did he do it successfully. But more on that in a moment. We also need to understand the star-power of Harrison Ford in making Raiders a success. By this time, he had appeared as Han Solo in both Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back, so it goes without saying that he had become quite the household name. He had even had a bit of a cameo in 1979's Apocalypse Now. But it was the high-profile inclusions of Spielberg and Ford that made this film a must-see for many a film-goer back in 1981.

Raiders of the Lost Ark manages to succeed on a number of levels. First, we're getting a clever and original story that effectively keeps the audience engaged from the opening scene. By taking the Ark of the Covenent, a familiar artifact from the Bible, I think that a lot of people were able to relate with the story. This film proves to be very Christian-based in its mythology and storytelling, and because the Christian population (at least in the United States) is relatively high, you can be sure that many a viewer had some sort of previous knowledge of the Ark going into the film. Another reason the film works so well is that we're getting a very clear sense of good versus evil. Much in the way that Star Wars was able to establish the good guys and the bad guys quickly and clearly, Raiders manages to do the same with Indy and his adversaries. You can easily see the enemy in the form of the German Nazis, who have become almost synonymous with evil in the seventy years since World War II; however, I think the better differentiation between good and evil occurs in the opening scenes when we meet both Indiana and Belloq. It's immediately made clear as to which man has the higher moral fiber, and from that moment, we know for whom we should root. I also thought the dialogue was very well-written, and the characters are incredibly well-crafted. We easily get a sense of each character after only a few moments with them, and this ability to relate to the personalities on-screen only helps to bring the viewer in further.

I also thought that the cast performed rather well throughout the film. As one can imagine, this is Ford's show all the way, but he has some rather deft supporting actors that complement him quite well. I think Allen manages to keep pace with Ford's Indy, even if she goes a little over-the-top here and there. Freeman proves to be a fine central villain, bringing a little bit of brains to the antagonists side. He's not likely to be remembered as one of the better villains in cinematic history, but his Belloq is definitely worthy of at least an honorable mention. From there, we move onto some of the minor - albeit important - characters. We're getting a fun turn from John Rhys-Davies as Indy's friend Sallah as well as a pitch-perfect turn from Denholm Elliott as Marcus Brody, Indy's friend and boss. On the villainous side, I have to take the time to mention Ronald Lacey, whose creepy performance might be the most memorable in the film. Overall, however, the entire cast brings forth their A-game, making this quite the ensemble performance.

Raiders of the Lost Ark would go on to be nominated for eight Academy Awards, and it ultimately took home four Oscars: Best Art Direction; Best Visual Effects; Best Editing; and Best Sound. One of the categories it lost in, however, was for Best Original Score. Now, those of you who have been reading me for a while know that I will skip out on an opportunity to mention the great John Williams, and seeing as he composed the score for this film, I have to bring him up yet again. It's one of his better scores, and as with most of his work, it manages to fit the film perfectly. Here's the theme, for your listening pleasure:

At the end of the day, Raiders of the Lost Ark has become one of the most well-received and most-beloved films ever to be released. The Internet Movie Database (IMDb), which allows its followers to score the films they've seen, currently ranks Raiders as the 23rd greatest film of all time. The American Film Institute (AFI) currently lists it as the 66th greatest film. And Rottentomatoes.com currently gives the film a 94% approval rating based off critical reviews, and I will leave you with the site's critical consensus, which sums up my own thoughts on this brilliant piece:

Featuring bravura set pieces, sly humor and white-knuckle action, Raiders of the Lost Ark is one of the most consummately entertaining adventure pictures of all time.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A+

Should You Watch It? Yes 

Movie Review: AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON

AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON

1981
R

An American Werewolf in London is a 1981 horror comedy film directed by John Landis. When David Kessler (David Naughton) and Jack Goodman (Griffin Dunne), two American backpackers traveling the English countryside, stumble upon a small-town pub, they receive a rather lukewarm reception from the locals when they ask about a pentagram scrawled on the wall. After being thrown out into a storm, the two begin to hear howls around them in the countryside, and after a few moments, they are viciously attacked by a massive beast. Jack is killed in the attack, but David manages to survive but finds himself awakening three weeks later in a hospital. David learns that the local townsfolk had told the authorities that a crazed lunatic killed Jack, but he knows it was something more like a gigantic wolf. As he takes time in the hospital to heal with the help of a beautiful nurse named Alex (Jenny Agutter), he begins to receive visits from Jack, who tells him that he has become a werewolf. Jack also mentions that he will be doomed to roam the earth as the living dead until the werewolf bloodline can be destroyed. Initially, David doesn't believe Jack, but as the next full moon approaches, he begins to question his sanity and his inevitable future.

Although I have known about this film for quite a long time, I had never really heard much about it aside from its iconic werewolf transformation scene. Those particular cinematic moments, which helped visual effects expert Rick Baker nab an Academy Award for Best Makeup, was always the first thing I ever heard mentioned about the film, so in a way, that's part of the reason I decided to give the movie a gander. What I didn't necessarily know that it received rather universal acclaim when it hit theaters back in the early 1980's, and after watching the film, I can see why.

We're actually given a rather effective horror-comedy, although it's not as much of an outright "comedy" as, say, 2004's Shaun of the Dead. Instead, the comedy comes in clumps, and it's definitely a little bit on the darker side. For example, there's one particular scene where a number of David's victims sit around him in a pornographic movie theater and contemplate the vast variety of ways he could commit suicide so that they may be put out of their collective, undead misery. It's bitingly sarcastic in a dark and twisted way, but that type of dark humor is right up my alley. When we're not laughing, the film actually serves as a rather effective thriller, giving a number of jump-out-of-your-seat thrills. Sure, they may be prefaced by loud spikes in music, but the close-up of the snarling werewolf is sure to get some viewers' hearts a-racing.

While I'm on the topic of music, I'd like the say that the film's soundtrack is simply stellar. We do have an original score composed by Elmer Bernstein that works rather effectively, but it's the string of pop hits from various artists that really emphasize the comedy of the film. Every single song directly references the moon - an obvious play on the fact that werewolves only come to life during a full moon. Whether it be the many renditions of "Blue Moon" or Van Morrison's "Moondance," each subsequent moon-related song caused me more and more laughter as the film progressed.

Now, the acting in the film isn't anything to truly rave about, but it definitely fits the movie's mold rather well. Naughton is serviceable as our lead protagonist, and Agutter does well as our main female lead and love interest. A couple of the minor characters deliver decent performances - I'd like to give a special shout-out to David Schofield (whom most of you will recognize from the first three Pirates of the Caribbean films) who does well with his limited role. However, if anyone's delivering the best performance, it's Dunne after his death in the beginning of the film. As he continues to come back to "haunt" David, Jack brings a lot of the film's sarcastically comic relief and breathes an inspired bit of life into the film. Ironic, considering his character is actually dead... But I digress.

Overall, I'd have to say that An American Werewolf in London outdid my expectations. I was expecting a film that relied solely on its fantastic special effects (all of which appear real enough to still be considered legitimate today), but we actually get a decent screenplay and some decent acting to aid the movie along. I'd say that it definitely deserves the title of "horror classic" that it has garnered over the past thirty years. I'd say give it a watch if you've got the time.

Movie Review Summary:
Grade: B+
1.5 Thumbs Up

Movie Review: ARTHUR

ARTHUR

1981
PG

Arthur is a 1981 comedy directed by Steve Gordon. It follows Arthur Bach (Dudley Moore), the grown son of extremely wealthy parents, as he is pressured into an arranged marriage with a similarly wealthy daughter named Susan Johnson (Jill Eikenberry). Arthur is a bit of a man-child, never taking the opportunity to "grow up." He spends his money frivolously and drinks more than anyone has ever seen. He doesn't love Susan, but his father (Thomas Barbour) tells him that he will be cut off from the family's riches if he refuses to marry her. Just after agreeing to the marriage, Arthur meets Linda Marolla (Liza Minnelli) when he catches her stealing a tie from a store. The two share an immediate connection, and Arthur asks her on a date to which Linda readily agrees. Arthur soon finds himself falling in love with Linda - and it seems as though the feeling is mutual - but the looming marriage causes him great concern. However, with the help of his trusty butler and best friend Hobson (Sir John Gielgud), Arthur works towards winning Linda's heart despite his family's wishes.

To be fair, I only really watched this film today because I wanted to see it before the upcoming remake (starring Russell Brand and Helen Mirren) is released this Friday. I generally don't like to see sequels or remakes without having seeing the original fare first, so getting this one out of the way opens up the possibility for me to see the new version this weekend. But I digress... This Arthur actually came with quite a few accolades. For example, it was nominated for four Academy Awards back in 1982, and it won two of them (Best Supporting Actor and Best Original Song). So I had some high hopes going into the flick, and although they weren't completely met, Arthur still proves to be a fun ride.

The acting isn't really the issue here, although I don't think it's quite as brilliant as its accolades might suggest. Moore scored one of the Oscar nominations for his leading role, and although he's rather funny for the film's entirety, I didn't really see too much of a character arc for him. Actually, there's really not a strong arc for any of the characters, but I suppose that's more of an issue for the screenplay than the actual acting. Moore is bitingly hilarious during his drunken binges - and trust me, there's quite a few of them - but I would have liked to see him pull it back a little bit more than he was given the chance. The over-the-top happy drunk routine got a little old after a while. Minnelli also does well with her role, bringing a bit of sarcastic sass to the screen that helps move the story along. Gielgud is probably the best one in the film - he nabbed the Oscar win for his supporting role - but I felt like he was completely underutilized. I would have liked to see much more of him, but there's nothing I can do about that. His scenes are golden, however.

And now to the screenplay. As I mentioned before, there isn't a strong character arc for anyone in the film, but there are some small arcs that don't pack much of an emotional punch. With everything that's going on in the film, the filmmakers had the opportunity to craft something powerful, but I felt like they held back just a little too much. Also, I felt like everything that happens to Arthur in the film comes just a little too easily. He never really has to fight for anything he wants, and maybe that was the purpose (the character had never had to "fight" for anything in the past, so why should he start now?). But when a somewhat forbidden love is brought into the mix, I would have liked to see a little more punch from Arthur as he fought for Linda. As it stands, it all just flows too easily, and the conflicts in the film just aren't emphasized at all. There's never really any question as to how the film will end, and I just wish there could've been some speed bumps along the way.

As I previously stated, the film also scored an Academy Award for Best Original Song, winning for the song "Arthur's Theme (Best That You Can Do)." I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the song, but maybe you'll enjoy it. I've embedded it here for your listening pleasure:

Overall, Arthur is quite funny, if only for the performances. Don't expect to be blown away by the screenplay or anything, but just enjoy Dudley Moore and Sir John Gielgud as best you can. After seeing this, I'm not sure how I'll feel about the remake, but it should play a little better to my tastes considering the time period. But we shall see.

Movie Review Summary:
Grade: C+
1 Thumb Up