Movie Review: LOOPER

LOOPER

2012

R

"The only rule is: never let your target escape."

-- Joe

Looper is a 2012 sci-fi action film written and directed by Rian Johnson that serves as his third directorial effort, and his first since 2008's The Brothers Bloom. The story tells the tale of a futuristic world in which time travel exists but is outlawed, used only by major crime syndicates for purposes of disposal. These syndicates will send victims back in time where men known as "loopers" wait for them only to execute them on sight. Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is such a man, and he maintains an extravagant lifestyle as a result of his career. One day, as Joe waits for his victim, or "loop," he finds an older version of himself (Bruce Willis) kneeling before him. After a moment's hesitation, Young Joe allows Old Joe to escape, sparking a massive manhunt by Young Joe's company to find the older man. As Young Joe and Old Joe start to interact through their meetings, light is shed on the elder Joe's current agenda for transforming his future into something much more desirable.

I apologize if the above synopsis seems a little bit shoddy, but I don't want to give away too much information about the plot and the storyline. What I wrote, along with the trailer posted below, really gives away the first half of the film. It's the second act that proves to be a little bit astonishing, and I'd rather not be the one to give it all away.

I've been anxiously awaiting this film for quite a while. Many of my readers will know that I have a bit of a man-crush on Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and that might have played a part in me seeing this film as soon as I did. The real selling point for me, however, is the return of a collaboration between Gordon-Levitt and director Johnson, who first joined forces for 2005's Brick. I'm sure that fact has probably been mentioned in every single review for Looper thus far, but I figured I'd reiterate it. Because I loved that film so much, the idea of another film from the two seemed like a gift-wrapped present at Christmas. What I'm here to tell you is that Looper does not disappoint. It's opened to some fantastic reviews - it currently holds a ninety-three percent approval rating on Rottentomatoes.com - and that only fueled the fire for me to get to a theater and see it as soon as I possibly could.

Let's start with the screenplay, shall we? In the past, a number of successful film franchises, such as Back to the Future and those little Terminator films, have dealt with the concept of time travel. For whatever reason, the plot device has remained a viable option for filmmakers in today's society as well, but I don't think I've ever seen it quite done like this. Johnson manages to create a cinematic world where the idea of time travel can understandably exist, and yet, he never takes the time to spell out the precise details for such an existence. Instead, he gives us just enough information for the audience to understand and believe the capability, and it's this tactic that sets Looper apart from the some of the other great time travel flicks. Rather than trying to bash the viewer over the head with drawn-out explanations, Johnson allows the explanation to be this simple: it exists, and it works. For the most part, that's all we need to know.

From there, the film plays out in a relatively straight-forward manner. Anytime you involve time travel, there are going to be a few moments where things can get a little confusing, but the screenplay does well to keep things from getting too convoluted. At the end of the day, I couldn't see any major issues with logic and continuity within the constructs of the story, but some nitpickers will surely find a few minor details here and there. The screenplay does go on to excel in the second half of the film, blending action sequences with a number of thrills and some fantastic plot twists towards film's end. While some of the storyline becomes a tad bit predictable, I can honestly say that I was not expecting the film's ultimately finale, one that just might blow your mind.

To bring this screenplay together, we'd need a pretty good cast, and that's just what we're getting. Gordon-Levitt is fantastic as Young Joe, and with a fantastic bit of make-up, he does his best Bruce Willis impression. In the early going, it's uncanny just how much the young actor mimics the likeness of the veteran, and I have to say I was thoroughly impressed. Willis himself also brings a strong performance to the screen. Always one of my favorite actors, I can honestly say that I don't think I've seen him bring forth this strong a character since his turn in 2005's Sin City. I might even go as far back as The Sixth Sense in 1999, if I think about it. Kudos to these two leading men for crafting engaging on-screen characters.

Now, the rest of the cast fills out incredibly well, and you're going to see quite a few familiar faces. Emily Blunt offers a great performance as our leading lady. She continues to impress me with her acting prowess. Also be on the lookout for the likes of Jeff Daniels, Paul Dano and Garret Dillahunt, each of whom brings a great bit to the screen. Where I was truly impressed, however, was with the performance of young actor Pierce Gagnon, appearing in only his third feature film. Even for such a young age, he brought quite a presence and power to the screen, which was definitely a necessity for his particular character. To stand toe-to-toe with the likes of Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Emily Blunt is quite a feat, but the young Gagnon manages to do just that.

At the end of the day, Looper is a fantastic film, as well as an incredible addition to the science-fiction canon. Sure, it has a few minor flaws here and there, but with any film involving time travel, a bit of disbelief is a bit necessary. If you can let yourself get lost in this world and this story, I don't think there's any reason you won't enjoy the film. Rian Johnson strikes yet again, and I can't wait for his net endeavor.

 

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A

Status: Should See

Movie Review: PREMIUM RUSH

PREMIUM RUSH

2012

PG-13

"I like to ride. Fixed gear. No brakes. Can't stop. Don't want to, either."

-- Wilee

Premium Rush is a 2012 action thriller directed by David Koepp that focuses on a group of bike messengers making a living on the fast-paced streets of New York City. We meet a young cyclist named Wilee (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a former law student, who uses his job as a bike messenger to supply him with an ample number of thrills in his life. His fellow messenger and girlfriend Vanessa (Dania Ramirez) thinks he has a death wish with the way he rides, but Wilee simply thinks he lives for the rush. After losing out on one delivery, Wilee asks his boss to give him another route before the end of the day, and he luckily receives one last job from his friend Nima (Jamie Chung), who needs an envelope delivered to Chinatown by seven o'clock that night. After he picks up the envelope, however, Wilee is confronted by a mysterious man (Michael Shannon), who continually attempts to steal the envelope from him. As the clock continues to race toward his deadline, Wilee begins to piece together a much larger plot into which he has unwillingly been made a pawn.

When I first heard about this film, I was immediately drawn to it based solely on the fact that Gordon-Levitt would star. Arguably my favorite actor at the moment, I'll go out of my way to see any of his films, and seeing as Premium Rush is arguably the biggest release this weekend, there really wasn't much debate as to what I would be seeing. Although I wasn't really expecting it to be a brilliant film, I did hope that it would at least be entertaining, and the early, mostly-positive reviews helped quell any real fears I had going in.

What Premium Rush ultimately offers is a fast-paced, action-packed, end-of-the-summer thrill ride. The storyline doesn't necessarily offer much, although it does allow for a number of moderately emotional scenes and concepts, but at the end of the day, it's a basic and rote screenplay that doesn't truly offer anything utterly brilliant. What sets Premium Rush apart is the stylistic power of the direction and the cast itself.

Let's start with our actors, shall we? Now, I have to be honest and say that I do have a bit of a man crush on Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and thus far in his film career, I have yet to see him do any wrong. He's managed to create so many different characters, and his Wilee in Premium Rush is no exception. This may be the most "badass" he's gone thus far in his career (although that's sure to be challenged by the soon-to-be-released Looper), and he plays the part perfectly. I also have to applaud Shannon, who is generally a hit-or-miss actor for me. While I thought Shannon was brilliant in the 2010 film The Runaways, I wasn't sold on his bit part in 2008's Revolutionary Road. With him, it always goes back and forth. At the start of Premium Rush, I wanted to hate his character. It seemed over-the-top and ridiculous, but as the film continued forth, I think it made a little more sense. By film's end, I truly thought he was a great antagonist for a picture like this. It worked well. The rest of the cast fills out quite nicely, but the best scenes come between Gordon-Levitt and Shannon. That's where the meat of this film lies.

But aside from all of that, what truly makes Premium Rush a success is its stylistic production. For starters, setting the story against the backdrop of New York City, one of the fastest-paced cities in the world, was a perfect decision. Having visited New York on a number of occasions, I know just how hustle-bustle those streets can get, and to see bicyclists moving even faster in order to make their deliveries seems incredible. The setting helps make the film seem like its moving even faster than it is, and that works in this film's favor. Because it's not offering a brilliant screenplay or Oscar-winning performances, it has to rely on its ability to grab hold of its viewer and its ability to keep that viewer engaged. And from the very start, Premium Rush does just that. Once it grabs hold, it never once takes it foot off the pedal, so to speak. And that rush of exhilaration is what makes it so darn good.

To sum things up, Premium Rush is the ideal type of end-of-the-summer cinema fare. It's not a film that's too deep to understand, but it's also not too dumb to make it unwatchable. The story is strong enough to keep you caring, but it's the direction and the action that's going to keep you entertained. So sit back, relax and grab a bucket of popcorn because this is one wild ride.

Movie Review Summary
Grade: B+

Status: Should See

Trailer Breakdown: THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY

After the smash hit of the Lord of the Rings trilogy in the early 2000s, it was only a matter of time before director Peter Jackson brought The Hobbit to life as well. As one can imagine, Jackson has split the story into three separate films, the first of which - subtitled An Unexpected Journey - will be released this December. Here's the first, and still only, full-length trailer available for the film:

And now, for a few questions that came to mind after watching the trailer:

1. At the end of the day, The Hobbit trilogy is going to be compared to the Lord of the Rings trilogy whether it likes it or not, so why not tackle that right now? How will this new "franchise" hold up in comparison to its predecessor?

When you take a look back at the accomplishments of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, it can seem a bit staggering. Combined, those three films won a total of seventeen Academy Awards and have earned over $2.9 billion at the worldwide box office. You can make the argument that The Lord of the Rings is the franchise of the 21st century, and you probably wouldn't have many naysayers. All that being said, how will The Hobbit fare in comparison? I think the hype leading up to this first film will bring plenty of people to the theaters, but the overall success of the continued franchise will rely on how well-made An Unexpected Journey proves to be.

2. Why is this new saga being released so long after The Lord of the Rings? Will that affect its popularity?

There are a number of reasons that Peter Jackson probably waited this long to bring The Hobbit to audiences, many of which probably deal with his work schedule. In the time between The Lord of the Rings and now, he directed both 2005's King Kong and 2009's The Lovely Bones, both of which were rather grand in stature. After spending so much time creating The Lord of the Rings, the guy probably needed a bit of a break. Seeing as The Hobbit has, like its predecessor, all been shot at once, Jackson ultimately just needed the time to take on such an endeavor.

Now, as to the question of whether or not the nine-year delay between The Return of the King and An Unexpected Journey will have any affect on this new film's popularity, I have a few mixed feelings. Normally, I'd want to say that it will have no bearing, and the recent buzz makes it seem as though there are quite a few people excited for this film. However, in a world where franchises like Spider-Man are being rebooted only five years after the previous installment, it's really hard to say how today's "younger" audience will take an epic feature like The Hobbit. Teens and young adults are sure to be a key demographic for The Hobbit, but these people were only pre-teens or younger when The Lord of the Rings was released. Who knows how they'll respond to a film like this. 

3. Why is Jackson crafting The Hobbit into a trilogy rather than the original plan of a two-parter?

To be honest, I'm still trying to figure this one out. When the announcement for a third Hobbit film was made, Jackson stated, "It has been an unexpected journey indeed, and in the words of Professor Tolkien himself, 'a tale that grew in the telling.'" He hopes that using three films will allow him to tell more of the story, but it's left a lot of people scratching their heads. From a pure standpoint of source material, we can see why a The Lord of the Rings trilogy made sense: it was already separated into three books with a combined page count of over 1500. The Hobbit, however, is a stand-alone story that tops out at 310 pages, making it shorter than any of the Lord of the Rings books individually. How can Jackson possibly craft two films, let alone three, out of such a small amount of material? This one has all the feel of a grab for more money, and I'm still not sure how I feel about it. 

4. At least the film seems to have the same vibe as The Lord of the Rings, right?

From this lone trailer, I think we're seeing a lot of the same pieces we got from the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and I think that bodes well for the carry-over audience. At the end of the day, most fans of a franchise want to see something similar to what they've already loved, and The Hobbit presents a very strong possibility for such. The trailer seems to show a good mix of drama, comedy, adventure and action, all of which made The Lord of the Rings such a success. If The Hobbit can dial into that vibe, there's no limit to what success it may enjoy.

5. Doesn't it seem like there are a lot of characters bouncing around?

That was one of my first real issues with the trailer. We're introduced to a number of characters right from the start, and they come flying at you at a very rapid pace. While The Lord of the Rings had a slew of key central characters, it never really felt like there were too many. Everyone played their role, and it all balanced quite well. This trailer, however, makes it seem like there are a few too many new pieces entering the canon, and that may cause a bit of confusion for movie-goers. 

6. Is anyone from the cast of The Lord of the Rings returning for The Hobbit?

While a lot of the talk should be about the newer characters - namely, Martin Freeman as a younger Bilbo Baggins - many people are going to wonder which of their favorite characters will be making appearances this time around. Heavily featured in the trailer is Sir Ian McKellen's Gandalf, so we can be sure to see plenty of him. Also noticeable are the returns of Cate Blanchett as Galadriel and Andy Serkis as Gollum. And according to the cast list, we should be seeing appearances by Hugo Weaving, Christopher Lee, Orlando Bloom, Elijah Wood and Ian Holm. So we'll see how that goes, I suppose.

At the end of the day, none of us can truly be sure as to what's going to happen in The Hobbit, and we can't know for sure just what kind of an impact it will have. Although I wasn't a huge fan of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, I do find the films entertaining, and I understand their impact and presence on the cinematic landscape. For that reason, I am excited for, and am eagerly awaiting, the release of The Hobbit this holiday season.

The Hobbit is currently slated for a December 14, 2012 release here in the United States.

Movie Review: JOHN CARTER

JOHN CARTER

2012

PG-13

"When I saw you, I believed it was a sign that something new can come into this world."

-- Tars Tarkas

John Carter is a 2012 science-fiction action film directed by Andrew Stanton that serves as his first major directorial foray into the realm of live-action cinema. Based off the first novel from Edgar Rice Borrough's Barsoom series, the film tells the story of Civil War veteran John Carter (Taylor Kitsch), who finds himself mysteriously transported to an unknown world called Barsoom. Upon his arrival, he is captured by a race of strange creatures known as the Tharks, led by a creature called Tars Tarkas (voiced by Willem Dafoe). After proving his warrior merit, Tars Tarkas admits John into his tribe and claims that he will help the Tharks defeat their enemies. Never one to fight for a cause, Carter tries to back out of the duty but is swayed after saving a young woman named Dejah Thoris (voiced by Lynn Collins). She explains to John that Barsoom is what he knows to be Mars, and that her world is slowly dying. The constant struggle between her home city of Helium and the enemy city of Zodanga has brought the world to its breaking point, and she believes that John is the man who can make a change. Although he initially avoids the fight, John finally decides to battle for the good of Barsoom.

When Disney prepared to release John Carter, they had expected it to be their next big franchise. With a $250 million budget and an accomplished director at the helm, who was to say that it wouldn't be a smash hit? Still, in the months prior to its release, I don't recall seeing many trailers for the film, and I don't think it really got as much publicity as it needed. Added to the mixed reviews it received from the critical community, and John Carter simply did not perform at the box office. Ultimately, the film barely made back all the money it cost to make, and it finally settled for a tiny $30 million profit. Still, I had every desire to see the film but never had the chance to do so while it played in theaters. And so, to RedBox I went.

The first thing you're going to notice about John Carter is that it's mildly confusing. Now, I've seen plenty of movies with screenplays that make little to no sense, and this one definitely doesn't rank amongst those dregs. However, from the very get-go, you're going to be scratching your head wondering exactly what's going on. We get the basic idea: a man is transported to Mars, where he is captured and all that jazz, but there's little things going on in between that make for a little bit of confusion. It's almost as though we're feeling the same confusion that the John Carter character must be feeling upon his transport, and if that was Stanton's aim, then kudos to him. As the film continues along, however, it ultimately falls into a rote action flick that becomes very predictable very, very quickly. The breath of imagination quickly leaves the film, and I was left wondering how the man who wrote and directed both Finding Nemo and WALL-E could bring forth something so pedestrian.

One thing I did like about the film's storyline, however, was the parallels between the Barsoomian people's war and the American Civil War in which Carter himself fought. We're seeing two opposing cities (a la the North and the South) do battle against one another while a more rudimentary culture (a la the Native Americans) stands by and watches from the side. In that sense, the film does bring something rather interesting, but it serves more as a basis for Stanton's entire concept than as a plot point itself.

The cast in the film does a serviceable job throughout, but I wasn't really overly impressed by anyone in particualr. Kitsch, whose biggest claim to fame is his role on TV's "Friday Night Lights," does well with the role, but it doesn't seem like there was a lot to go with. He has the necessary physique for the action sequences, but with only a small bit of intelligent dialogue, there really wasn't much for him to do. Collins falls into the same category, bringing out the character but not bringing anything overly fantastic. We do get some nice vocal performances from the likes of Dafoe and Thomas Haden Church (in a small bit), as well as some slightly stronger live-action roles from the likes of Mark Strong and Dominic West. And there's even some very small roles from people like Ciarán Hinds, Bryan Cranston and Daryl Sabara, but they're here and gone relatively quickly.

The one thing that John Carter does have going for it is its special effects which are sure to dazzle. Although I'm not quite sure it's anything truly spectacular, I'm sure seeing this Barsoomian world on the big screen was quite a sight to behold. After the visual brilliance of a film like WALL-E, I'm glad to see that Stanton didn't lose sight of his visual performance, even if the rest of the film doesn't quite measure up.

At the end of the day, John Carter is a relatively uneven action film that falls into standard cliché very quickly. Still, there's enough to keep you engaged throughout the film, even if you're going to be a tad bit confused from time to time. Viewers beware: this one runs a bit longer than two hours, and the film starts to overstay its welcome around the ninety-minute mark.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: C-

Status: Don't Need to See

Trailer Breakdown: RED DAWN

One of the latest trailers to hit the Internet is the first for the upcoming remake, Red Dawn, which is directed by Dan Bradley and stars Chris Hemsworth. As I usually do with these trailer breakdowns, I'll be bringing up some questions concerning the film just after the trailer. To start, take a glance at this first look of the new film:

And now, for a few questions that came to mind while watching the trailer:

1. To start, what is Red Dawn?

As I previously stated, Red Dawn is an upcoming action flick that serves as a remake of the 1984 film of the same name. This film will center on an apparent invasion from the North Korean army that lands in a small, nondescript American town. An on-leave Marine (Hemsworth) visiting home gets caught in the middle of the attack, and he leads a rag-tag group of survivors in a strike against the enemy. This follows the basic plot and concept of the original film, with the key difference being that the foe in the 1984 venture was the Soviet Union, not the North Koreans. 

2. How will this film hold up against the original film?

The original Red Dawn film holds the illustrious status of being the first film released in the United States to achieve the newly-created PG-13 rating. It earned this rating after being considered, at the time, to be the most violent film ever made according to the Guinness Book of World Records, which states it holds a rate of 2.23 violent acts per minute. Made on a very modest budget of $4.2 million, the film managed to return nearly $40 million at the box office, making it a financial, if not critical, success. Considering the nature of the storyline, critics were divided on the film, which currently holds a fifty-three percent approval rating on Rottentomatoes.com. Still, there are some pretty lofty goals in there for this new Red Dawn to achieve, but will it be able to stand up next to its predecessor?

3. Considering the state of today's political society, how will this film be met by critics and audiences?

In recent years, the threat of a North Korean attack on the United States has always been on the back-burner with the news, and in light of the North Korean's recent misfire with their missile testing, I wonder whether this film's release is timely or not. In a way, the film is taking the idea of a possible attack and bringing it to life, following it through by showing that a small group of young Americans can take down an entire section of enemy army. I have a feeling that the film will be met by heavy resistance from the critical community, but there should be factions of audiences that will probably fall in love with the concept.

4. Plot Issue: This trailer makes it seem as though the North Korean army has a personal vendetta against the main family. Why would they?

The trailer clearly shows Hemsworth's character's father (seemingly) being murdered by a Korean military leader in execution style. The scene then jumps immediately to Hemsworth uttering, "They messed with the wrong family." I have a bit of an issue with this: Why would an army bent on taking over an entire country waste their time with one individual family? I'm sure the film will concoct some way to make it all make sense, but based off the trailer, it already seems a little bit silly. Still, it could easily make for a more emotional piece, but I can't see any way that this subplot won't be a cheap attempt at drawing that emotion from the viewer. 

5. Where does this film place Chris Hemsworth on the Hollywood scene? 

To answer this question, I'd like to take a look at Hemsworth's brief filmography. He made a memorable appearance in 2009's Star Trek, but it wasn't until his starring role in 2011's Thor that he became a household name. That name only grew with the release of The Avengers and Snow White and the Huntsman, both action films that showcased his ability to be an action star. If Red Dawn manages to be a success, it should solidify Hemsworth's status as the next big thing in action, and with sequels to Thor and Snow White and the Huntsman already in the works, he shouldn't have a problem continuing that particular vein of success.

6. How will the rest of the cast play out?

We're actually getting some relatively big names in this particular venture, and it should be a cast that performs well. Most prominent are the inclusions of Josh Hutcherson - fresh of the success of The Hunger Games - and Jeffrey Dean Morgan, but we're also going to see the likes of Josh Peck and Adrianne Palicki. In an action movie, acting sometimes gets shoved off to the wayside, but here's to hoping that this cast can bring something of value to the screen.

7. How will first-time director Dan Bradley handle the film?
After making a bit of a name for himself as a stunt coordinator, Bradley had the opportunity to go behind the camera with Red Dawn, making this his first directorial effort. I've seen many a first-time director make a quality film, but there's plenty more who have failed miserably. Given the type of film, I'd be a little worried that this first venture might be a bit underwhelming, but with his background in stunts, I'd say that the visual effects and stunt work should be top-notch.

8. At the end of the day, will Red Dawn just be another dumb, big-budget action remake?

This is always going to be the biggest question for a film like this. Remakes are always going to be taken with a grain of salt, and while it can be done, it's tough to make a quality remake. People are going to remember the source material in a nostalgic way, so to top an original film, a remake has to be something truly spectacular. Will Red Dawn be able to do just that? My money's on no, but I've been wrong before. 

Red Dawn will hit theaters in the United States on November 21, 2012.

Movie Review: JAWS

JAWS

1975

PG

"Come on into the water!"
-- Chrissie Watkins

Jaws is a 1975 action thriller directed by Steven Spielberg that has become one of the most beloved films in American cinema history. When the half-eaten remains of a young girl are washed onto a beach in Amity Island, Police Chief Martin Brody (Roy Scheider) attempts to close the beaches just before the Fourth of July holiday. He is immediately met with resistance from some of the town's political leaders, including Mayor Larry Vaughn (Murray Hamilton), who tries to explain to Brody that Amity's very livelihood is reliant on the income it will receive over the holiday weekend. Reluctantly, Brody allows the beaches to remain open, only to see a young boy killed by the same shark in broad daylight. The town goes into a panic, and through another series of attacks, the police chief is able to convince Vaughn that outside help is necessary to defeat the beast. He enlists the help of a young scientist named Matt Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss) from the Oceanographic Institute as well as a local grizzled shark hunter named Quint (Robert Shaw) to captain their vessel. The rag-tag trio sets out onto the horizon in search of the massive shark that has terrorized the entire community.

I chose to write about Jaws as my first "Must-See Monday" post for a few reasons. First, I thought the timing with the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Discovery Channel's Shark Week was too good an opportunity to pass. Secondly, I have never held back my personal love for this particular film. I have always commended it both for its cinematic integrity as well as its social relevance and its importance to film history as a whole. It is easily my favorite film, and it's one that I can watch over and over and still find entertaining from start to finish.

There's a number of facets working together in this film that elevate it to such a lofty standing in my book. For starters, we have a fantastic screenplay that delves into more than the casual viewer will realize. The film is based off Peter Benchley's 1973 novel of the same name, but as with many book-to-film adaptations, the two have very stark differences. What's unique in this particular example, however, is that the film version of Jaws is the only movie I have ever seen that I believe surpasses its source novel. Now don't get me wrong: I have read and own the novel on a number of occasions, and I think it is a fantastic literary endeavor. However, there are a number of storylines in the book that cause it to get weighed down just a tad, and I think the film's writers were able to get to the meat of the story and stick to that throughout.

What the audience gets is a tense thriller that works in two "acts," so to speak. In the first act, Brody has two key antagonists: the shark, and the politicians trying to keep him from protecting the community. While the main continuous strain comes from the mayor and his cronies, and we only see the film's true terror surface now and then, we as the audience know who the true villain is. Once the politicians reach a breaking point, the film shifts into the second act, where things become a bit more clear-cut. Now, we have man versus shark, and it's this struggle that proves to be the most memorable as well as the most effective.

Through the first act, we get to good sense as to the characteristics of each individual on-screen. While the story moves along at a relatively steady pace, we have the opportunity to learn the good and the bad of each character. Character development isn't necessarily something that most people are going to talk about when it comes to this movie, but I think a lot has to be said both for the screenplay as well as the stellar cast who manages to bring forth spot-on performances. The trio of Scheider, Shaw and Dreyfuss proves to be one of the most enigmatic groupings of characters I've ever seen on-screen at one time, and they all manage to play off each other well. I do have to say that this might be Robert Shaw's greatest film role, and his monologue about the U.S.S. Indianapolis is easily one of the most haunting scenes ever devoted to celluloid. Add a slew of great smaller performances (i.e., Hamilton and Lorraine Gary), and you've got quite a cast.

At the end of the day, however, the film's best character has to be the shark itself, and yet, we as the audience don't actually see it until about halfway through the film. Spielberg had a hell of a time getting this movie made, and a huge part of the problem was the mechanical shark they wanted to use to bring the menace to life. As most film fans will know, the shark barely ever worked properly, so a number of other methods were crafted in order to keep the filming process in the works. There's a very clever use of sleight of hand throughout the film. Spielberg used tricky camera shots that allowed for the idea of the presence of the shark without there ever being a shark anywhere on-screen. In the first few attacks, we never actually see the shark, but the violence of the attacks may make the viewer think back and remember the shark anyway. The fact that we don't actually see the shark only makes the film all the more terrifying, and it always keeps the audience questioning when it will strike next.

Once the film reaches its second act, we see the mechanical shark do its work. By today's standards, it doesn't look like much, but back in 1975, the fact that they got this massive machine to work at all is utterly impressive. It benefits from the sleight-of-hand build-up it receives, and it makes it a little more believable as time goes by. In addition to the aforementioned techniques, some live stock footage of a real great white is used towards the end of the film, if only to give perspective as to just how large it was supposed to be.

The final piece that brought the shark to life was, in fact, the film's legendary cinematic score, brought forth by the brilliant John Williams. In the time where we do not see the shark, the ever-present sound of a tuba lets us know that something is coming, and in a way, the score makes for a character all its own. It's menacing and terrifying all at the same time, and there's a reason that it has remained such a classic score all these years later. Give it a listen here, if you'd like:

At the end of the day, however, there isn't much I can say about Jaws than has already been said by countless others. It is one of the defining films not only of the 1970s but also of cinematic history as a whole. I would challenge anyone to find a film that has had as much social impact as this venture, and even then, less than a handful could be named. The fact that even thirty-seven years later, Jaws is still entirely entertaining only helps prove that this is one of the greatest films of all time. It will always hold a special place in my heart.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A+

Status: Must-See

Movie Review: VOLCANO

VOLCANO

1997

PG-13

"Lava? Right here in L.A.?"
-- Mike Roark

Volcano is a 1997 action film directed by Mick Jackson. On a regular day in Los Angeles, a moderate-sized earthquake entices Mike Roark (Tommy Lee Jones), the head of the city's Office of Emergency Management, to put his vacation time with his daughter Kelly (Gaby Hoffman) on hold so that he can investigate the ramifications. After a number of city workers are injured and killed in some of the sewer system, Mike elects to search the area himself, finding an incredibly high temperature level in some of the city's subterranean areas. He calls on a geologist named Amy Barnes (Anne Heche) for help, and she offers the theory that there could possibly be some sort of volcanic event occurring beneath the city streets. Miffed by the idea, Roark shrugs off the theory and goes about his business in finding a way to ensure everything is fixed properly. After a massive aftershock the following morning, however, Mike comes face to face with the start of a volcanic eruption as lava starts to burst out of the La Brea Tar Pits. Head to head against the deadliest crisis he has ever seen, Mike steps up to the challenge and leads the charge to stop the super-hot substance from destroying everything in its path.

I can distinctly recall seeing the trailer for Volcano in theaters as I waited to watch one of the Star Wars "Special Edition" re-releases in early 1997. As an eight-year-old living in Los Angeles County, the sight of a volcanic eruption in Downtown L.A. frightened me to no end, and I can remember closing my eyes and covering my ears at the preview playing before me. I soon forgot about the trailer as my film of choice began, but I'll always remember that initial feeling I had when I first heard about Volcano. Over the years, I have seen bits and pieces of the film, ranging from a few seconds on television to a clip here or there on the Internet. I've always had a desire to give it a view, despite the fact that it's been relatively panned by critics and audiences alike. Something about it entering my consciousness at such a young age has continued to draw me to it, and now that I've finally had the opportunity to give it a view, I figured I would share my thoughts on the flick.

To be fair, there probably isn't a ton that I can say now, fifteen years after the fact, that's going to cause any sort of revelation about this film and its place in cinematic history. It's your typical disaster flick, with a so-so story about survival and heroism, and the character development is forced yet still underdeveloped. Essentially, we're just getting the reactions of characters to the events surrounding them, but there isn't anything terribly in-depth about the film at all. It's a shallow movie that doesn't force you to think, and some of the scenarios are downright outlandish. It forces emotion on its viewers through a string of "heroic" acts - always shot in slow motion, by the way - that serve as the only true feeling within the film itself. I can't say that this film ever truly deserved to be considered a "quality" flick, but who knows, right?

The cast proves to be decent, but it's not as though anyone is truly stepping up to the plate to stand above the rest. Jones and Heche as serviceable in the leading roles, and the aforementioned Hoffman is okay in her limited amount of screen-time. Don Cheadle, one of my personal favorite actors, manages to shine just a little bit brighter whenever he's on-screen, and his presence alone makes this one worth watching for me personally. We get a decent bit from Jacqueline Kim as a selfless surgeon trying to help the injured, and we even get a bit performance from Keith David, so that's nice, I guess.

Also, I do have to say that I'm not quite sure how to critique the film's special effects. At times, the computer-generated lava flow seems to look very realistic, but at other times, it's so blatantly apparent that it's been crafted by through CGI. The sign of strong computer-generated effects is the inability for the viewer to distinguish between the effect and the real world, and at times, Volcano succeeds in doing just that. It just isn't consistent throughout the entire film. There are a few moments where you simply have to laugh at the shoddy effects and take it for what it is. At a time when films were creating realistic-looking dinosaurs for Jurassic Park or brilliant effects for Titanic, it's hard to explain how Volcano managed to drop the ball.

And still, despite everything I've just said, there's something endearingly entertaining about the film that stems from its simplicity. From the start of the film, we can hear the engine revving in the background, and as soon as it steps on the pedal, the film never lets off and never allows the viewer a moment to look away. Sure, there are going to be moments where you'll laugh at something over-the-top and ridiculous, but you're going to be honed in on the movie as it progresses forward, laughable as it may be. It's a selfless film that holds no delusions of grandeur; rather, it simply offers what it has and does its very best to keep us engaged until the final credits role. In that simple task, I think Volcano is a triumphant success, and although it's nowhere near the most intriguing of the disaster films, I have to say that it's definitely one of the most entertaining.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: D+

Should You Watch It? Maybe

Trailer Breakdown: DJANGO UNCHAINED

It's been three years since his last film, but Quentin Tarantino looks to come back with a vengeance with the Christmas 2012 release of Django Unchained. The first trailer for the film has finally been released, and I've taken the liberty of watching it a few times through to try to get a decent sense of what we may be getting once the film hits theaters. For starters, let's take a look at the trailer itself, shall we?

And now, let's talk about it a bit. I've come up with a few questions that came to mind while watching the trailer, and I'll do my best to answer them as accurately as I can. 

1. What is Django Unchained?

Although I'm sure many of you already know the basic plot outline, I'll recap what we're given from the trailer: 

A bounty hunter (Christoph Waltz) enlists the help of a former slave (Jamie Foxx) to find a number of slave owners with bounties on their heads. In return, the bounty hunter will help the former slave free his wife (Kerry Washington) from the clutches of an evil plantation owner (Leonardo DiCaprio) who now holds her captive. 

Knowing Tarantino, there's definitely going to be a bit more to the plot than that, but there's a good starting point for those of you curious about the film's storyline. The film is inspired by the 1966 spaghetti western Django.

2. What's up with the music in the trailer?

The first thing I noticed is that the trailer holds quite a bit of more contemporary music than one would imagine for a film of this genre. Normally, I'd think nothing of it considering Tarantino's normally brilliant music selections, but after his 2009 film Inglourious Basterds, which utilized a number of more rustic scores for the soundtrack, I had a feeling he might be going down that road again this time around. Still, this is only the trailer, and we'll have to wait and see just what Tarantino has in store for the film's soundtrack, but we can be sure it'll fit seamlessly into his storyline. 

3. Christoph Waltz is back. Is this the start of an ongoing Tarantino/Waltz collaboration?

Christoph Waltz has been acting for years and years, but most of his work prior to 2009 took place in either Germany or his native Austria. His supporting role in Inglourious Basterds, which landed him an Academy Award, revitalized his career and brought him into the international mainstream. Since then, he's appeared in sub-par films like The Green Hornet, The Three Musketeers and Water for Elephants as well as the stellar Carnage, but his role in Django Unchained looks like it might rival the one he crafted for his Oscar-winning turn. And we all know that Tarantino has a penchant for keeping some actors around his films. We can see Tim Roth and Steve Buscemi in both Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. And I think everyone knows about the continued collaboration between Tarantino and Samuel L. Jackson, who will also appear in Django Unchained. So, if Waltz wants to continue working with the director, I honestly have no problem with it.

4. Will this film revitalize Jamie Foxx's career?

I've generally liked what Jamie Foxx has managed to do as an actor, but since his Oscar-winning turn as Ray Charles in 2004's Ray, he's had much less success in garnering critical praise despite appearing in larger films like 2005's Jarhead and 2006's Dreamgirls. His last role was in 2011's Horrible Bosses where he portrayed a man named - and I kid you not - Dean 'Motherf---er' Jones. If anybody is in desperate need of a push, it's Foxx, and hopefully the role of Django can help push him back over the hill.

5. Is Leonardo DiCaprio playing a villain? 

All signs point to yes, although this isn't exactly a revelation. Tarantino hasn't been shy about letting the world know he's bringing the three-time Oscar nominee into the fray as the film's antagonist, and everything I've seen thus far makes it seem as though this could prove to be one of DiCaprio's best roles yet. It will also mark the first time in his acting career that he'll have portrayed a film's villain. Sure, he's played shady characters before, but to be the outright bad guy is something a little out of his area of expertise. But with his talents and with Tarantino's direction, this could be the surprise performance of the film.

6. What genre will Django Unchained fall under?

That's actually a pretty good question. It's currently being listed as a dramatic western, but if the trailer is any basis, then there should be an ample amount of comedy. Tarantino's screenplays often hold a legitimate level of humor, and that's part of what makes his films so entertaining and engaging. For example, the trailer shows two clips that offer the following two lines uttered by Foxx's Django: 

(when asked whether he enjoys bounty hunting)

"Kill white folks, and they pay you for it? What's not to like?

(when asked his name)

"Django. The 'D' is silent."

So I would say be prepared to laugh. At the same time, however, there should also be quite a bit of action. Django, the film that inspired this particular venture, was once billed as the most violent film of all time, and we all know just how much bloodshed Tarantino is willing to spill. Is it going to be the most violent film of all time? Certainly not; however, I would be prepared for a rootin', shootin' romp through the Southern countryside. 

*****

Ultimately, none of us will know just how good or bad the film might be until it hits theaters this Christmas. That being said, I personally have to say that I'm ecstatic to see this film. Having only in recent years come to the see the brilliance of Quentin Tarantino's filmmaking, I'm sure that Django Unchained will fit right into the canon of his filmography. I simply cannot wait.

Movie Review: DEATH RACE 2000

DEATH RACE 2000

1975

R

"Even the fearsome Frankenstein has a one-hundred percent red-blooded American sense of humor."

-- Harold

Death Race 2000 is a 1975 B movie action film directed by Paul Bartel that presents a strange dystopian future. After a massive financial meltdown and a military takeover, the United States has transformed into the United Provinces of America, a land where church and state have become one entity, and the government has become all-powerful. To satiate the mass public's hunger, a series of horrifically exciting sporting events takes place throughout the year, and the centerpiece of these events is the Annual Transcontinental Road Race, more commonly known as the "Death Race." Each year, five racers make their way across the country in the hopes of reaching New Los Angeles first. Along the way, they are awarded points for mercilessly killing any innocent bystanders they might pass by. In the film's race, two-time winner Frankenstein (David Carradine) is back to defend his title, but he'll have stiff competition from the likes of Machine Gun Joe Viterbo (Sylvester Stallone) who's ready to take home the crown once again. Little do the racers know that a group of anti-government rebels has set out to stop the race once and for all.

When I was a child growing up in the early 1990s, I can distinctly remember my aunt making a number of crude jokes about scoring points for hitting pedestrians along the side of the street. The number of points would vary from person to person, but I can recall my fear as I pleaded with her not to take such action. Now, I may just be reading into it, but I would say there's a distinct possibility she may have gotten such an idea from Death Race 2000, which employs a similar strategy for the racers. At the time, I obviously didn't know that such a film existed, but after the release of the 2008 remake Death Race, this source film came into my consciousness. And now, I've finally had the opportunity to take in this cult classic.

To start, I would like to remind everyone that this is, in fact, a B movie. For those of you who aren't quite sure what that means, I'll offer you this definition from Wikipedia:

A B movie is a low-budget commercial motion picture that is not definitively an arthouse or pornographic film. 

In a sense, the "B movie" genre just refers to any film that might not be entirely mainstream or big-budget. They're usually aesthetically pleasing but offer little in terms of screenplay or acting, but at the same time, many B movies manage to garner quite a cult following. Death Race 2000 falls into that category, and it has been praised by many as one of the more entertaining B movies ever made.

The storyline actually offers an interesting look at a fictional future where the government has become so powerful that it completely keeps the public at bay. In a way, they use their graphic sporting events like the Annual Transcontinental Road Race to instill fear into the hearts of the people, reassuring them that the government is still in charge. Throughout the films, it almost seems like we have two separate stories moving forward. On one side, we have the race itself, which proves to be the more entertaining half of the film. One the other hand, we have the story of the resistance trying to stop the race and bring down the government. Where the screenplay truly succeeds, however, is in the blend of these two stories. When they finally come together, it proves to be a clever twist that was only slightly expected. For that, I think the film should be applauded. The script also succeeds in crafting interesting and relatable characters that the audience can cheer for or against readily. There's a clear sense of right and wrong, even when the characters bounce from side to side.

I also think we're getting a rather splendid cast. Although the actors seem to be a bit over-the-top, I think that's more a telling sign of the genre rather than their ability. Carradine turns in a fine performance as our lead, bringing a steady presence to the screen. Simone Griffeth plays opposite Carradine as his navigator Annie Smith. She brings a decent performance as a woman whose allegiances are constantly suspect. We're getting an entertainingly fascinating turn by a pre-Rocky Sly Stallone, who works as one of the film's main antagonists. Sure, it's just a lot of anger and screaming, but within the constructs of this film, it works wonderfully. The rest of the racers are portrayed by Mary Woronov, Roberta Collins and Martin Kove (whom you might recognize from 1984's The Karate Kid), and they all bring decent performances. I also wanted to give credit to Don Steele, who portrays the race's announcer, for being perfectly annoying in his part.

(Fun fact: Carradine reprised his role as Frankenstein - in a vocal cameo - in the 2008 remake.)

At the end of the day, Death Race 2000 is a fun-filled, silly adventure into a fictional dystopian landscape. It offers plenty of action, explosions and gore, and it's sure to have you rolling with laughter. It's miles ahead of the 2008 remake, so do yourself a favor and give this one a view first. Don't think too much about this one, though. Just sit back and enjoy the ride (pun intended).

Movie Review Summary

Grade: B

Should You Watch It? Yes

Movie Review: THE BOONDOCK SAINTS

THE BOONDOCK SAINTS

2000

R

"Whosoever shed man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed."

-- Il Duce

The Boondock Saints is a 1999 dramatic action film directed by Troy Duffy that tells a vigilante tale set in the streets of Boston. After brothers Connor (Sean Patrick Flanery) and Murphy MacManus (Norman Reedus) kill two Russian mobsters in self-defense, they have a joint spiritual vision that tells them to rid the world of its evil and corrupt men. The two begin to murder a string of Russian and Italian mobsters, which brings federal detective Paul Smecker (Willem Dafoe) onto the case to solve the mystery of the seemingly connected incidents. As the feds and police work through the crimes, the MacManus brothers enlist the help of their friend Rocco (David Della Rocco), a package boy in the Italian mafia, to point out their next hit. As the body count continues to climb, the brothers gain more and more enemies, but they might even start to gain friendship from the ethically-torn authorities.

I had heard about this film time and time again over the past ten years, but it wasn't only until the last few years that I had a chance to watch it. The Boondock Saints proved to be right up my alley, and although I've continually found a few flaws here and there, I still find it to be one of the more entertaining and thought-provoking films I've seen. This is a little strange to me because it's rare that my personal film tastes are so stark in comparison to the general consensus of other film critics. This is the case with The Boondock Saints, however. The film currently holds only a seventeen percent approval rating on Rottentomatoes.com, which offers the following critical consensus:

A juvenile, ugly movie that represents the worst tendencies of directors channeling Quentin Tarantino.

Those are some pretty harsh words, to say the least. However, there is a massive disparity between critical thoughts on the film and the feelings that audiences have had. The film's page on the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) claims that the film has achieved a user score of 7.8 out of a possible ten points, meaning that it is on the higher end of scored films. I don't know whether I've ever seen this large of a difference between critical and lay audience feelings on a film.

But enough with all of these facts. Let's get into the reasons as to why I personally love The Boondock Saints. For starters, I'm relatively in love with the cast. Although the majority of our actors aren't necessarily bringing forth the greatest of performances, everything seems to fit accordingly with the film and its overall tone. I think that Flanery and Reedus were the perfect choices to portray our vigilante brothers, and the chemistry they have within the film is pretty spot-on for what you might imagine. For all we know, they could've been brothers in a past life, and this film only serves as an outlet for them to express their brotherly feelings. In addition, I think we're getting a career-best performance from Willem Dafoe. Sure, he's had some great parts in films like Platoon, The Last Temptation of Christ or, more recently, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, but there's a powerful force behind his performance in The Boondock Saints that can't be denied. It's also easily the most quotable of his characters, and that alone makes his Paul Smecker a more memorable character. We're also getting a good bit of comedic relief from David Della Rocco, and be sure to be on the watch for smaller roles from the likes of Billy Connolly and Ron Jeremy.

And now, for the screenplay. After watching the film today, I realized that the screenplay actually answers most of the questions I had ever had about the storyline. If you pay close attention, it actually answers all the questions it poses and leaves the audience satisfied. You're not left wondering why certain things happened, and although there's a few scratch-your-head moments, they're merely at points where you wonder why a film might even go in that direction. The movie is over-the-top, but it still manages to work because it never once lets off the gas. When an outrageous film attempts to bring it down a little bit, we usually have disastrous results. However, if a film can aim for over-the-top and keep the pedal to the metal throughout, then you should be in for quite a treat. That's what The Boondock Saints does, and it does it well.

The real meat of the film's screenplay comes with the question of ethics that it proposes. As with any story of vigilantism, there are going to be those who are for and those who are against the idea. In terms of the cinematic landscape, I'm not sure if there has ever been a film that takes the idea to the extremes that The Boondock Saints does, but the basic question that it poses is still one that we can all think about and ponder. One of the best scenes in the film actually comes as the credits roll. In the scene, we see a faux news segment where a reporter asks a number of average Joe citizens how they feel about the vigilante justice that the aptly-named "Saints" have brought to the city of Boston. As one can imagine, we see both sides of the argument, and although the scene is obviously staged, it still proves to be a fascinating - and probably accurate - look at how the public might react to such a situation. I've found the scene for your viewing pleasure, so I hope you can enjoy it:

I also liked a lot of the stylistic choices that director Troy Duffy made in shooting the film. Most of the action sequences are shown in flashback as Agent Smecker tries to work through what might have happened, and at times, he inserts himself into these playbacks, adding a bit of dramatization to them. I think that the Rottentomatoes.com consensus is right in calling the film Tarantino-esque, and you can see that Duffy was attempting to bring forth something similar. The film definitely has a pseudo-Tarantino feel to it, but to compare it to a Tarantino film wouldn't be giving The Boondock Saints enough credit. It's nowhere near that level of film-making, but it definitely manages to take the mold and run with it efficiently and effectively.

At the end of the day, I personally think that The Boondock Saints is a fine film, and it's easily an entertaining one even if it's not necessarily the most profound. Despite its initial trouble gaining an audience, the film has managed to become a cult favorite over the past twelve years. It even garnered enough of a following to give Duffy a reason to create a sequel, which was released in 2009. It wasn't quite as good as the first film, but it managed to continue the story rather well. However, it owes a lot of credit to this first film, which is so much better than most critics will ever give it credit.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A-

Should You Watch It? Yes

Movie Review: INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL

INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL

2008

PG-13

"How much of human life is lost in waiting?"

-- Professor 'Ox' Oxley

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is a 2008 action-adventure film directed by Steven Spielberg that serves as the fourth installment in the Indiana Jones franchise. Released nineteen years after The Last Crusade, this new adventure with Indiana Jones took a very different turn than its predecessors. The film opens on the 1950s, where an aged Indiana (Harrison Ford) has been taken captive by a group of Russian KGB operatives led by a Dr. Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett). At gunpoint, Indiana helps the Russians steal a classified box from a secret warehouse, but he does not know exactly what the box's contents contain. After being returned home, he thinks himself done with the situation until a young man named Mutt (Shia LaBeouf) seeks him out to tell him that a mutual friend named Professor 'Ox' Oxley (John Hurt) has been captured by the same Russians in connection with the box they stole. The two make their way to South America to find Ox, and it is there that they learn that their friend had found himself caught in a plot to find a legendary city called Akator by using an equally legendary artifact known as the crystal skull. Indiana and Mutt start to piece together the puzzle that Ox has left for them, but the Russians are soon on their tail once again, eager to find Akator first.

I would like to start this post by telling you a story. I was a sophomore in college in Santa Cruz when Kingdom of the Crystal Skull hit theaters, and like most other Indy fans, I was rather excited to see it. So excited, in fact, that I made the trek down to the local theater for the midnight screening on opening night. The theater was sold out, and fans were lined up around the block to see Ford don the fedora for the fourth time, so you can imagine our audience's anticipation as we sat impatiently waiting for the opening credits to roll.

Fast forward to a little over two hours later, and you would have found me walking out of the theater talking nothing but trash about this film. After that first go-around, I hated it. I despised it. I though that Spielberg had found a way to destroy one of my childhood cinematic heroes. And for that, I was rightfully angry. It took me a few days, but after I thought about the film for a while, I started to come around and think that maybe it wasn't as horrendous as I had originally thought. I soon came home for the summer, and I had the chance to view the film again per my father's request, and seeing Kingdom of the Crystal Skull actually helped to open my eyes to its concepts and themes a little bit more.

I always hear quite a bit of opposition towards this film when I talk about it amongst my friends and my readers, and I can somewhat see their point. I am in now way going to spend hours here trying to convince you of why this film fits into the Indiana Jones canon - although I may save that project for a later date - but I think that I should at least tell you why I happen to enjoy the film. Because so many people did not like Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, many actually forget that it managed to secure relatively positive reviews amongst the critical community. On Rottentomatoes.com, the film holds a seventy-seven percent approval rating and holds the following critical consensus:

Though the plot elements are certainly familiar, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull still delivers the thrills, and Harrison Ford's return to the title role is more than welcome.

Even more indicating of the critical response is the film's score of sixty-five on Metacritic.com, which correlates to "generally favorable reviews." Still, so many of the fans have yet to come around, and I'm sure I know why.

Ultimately, it all boils down to the fact that Kingdom of the Crystal Skull does not measure up to its predecessors. Because those films set such a lofty bar, it would have been nearly impossible to reach that particular goal. Still, fans were deservedly spoiled by the first three installments, so why shouldn't they expect something the same, right? But enough of this vagueness. Let's talk about why I like this film.

For starters, I like the story. I think it's an original tale of something that an over-the-top archaeologist like Indiana Jones might actually find himself looking for. Sure, there are some snags here and there, but to be fair, none of the Indiana Jones flicks are perfect. They all have flaws here and there, and Kingdom just has a few more that it couldn't quite work out. But the storyline works well and flows incredibly well, and it manages to keep you wondering where it might actually be going. Let's be honest - did any of us really expect those climactic scenes in Akator? I think not, and I think that's why so many people have spoken out against it. But the story itself works and proves to be entertaining.

I also thought the cast proved to be effective as well. Ford does a fine job reprising his role from nearly twenty years earlier, and he plays the part to a tee considering how much he's aged. I also think that Blanchett was a good addition to the cast list, and her star power alone makes this one worth a gander. Some of my readers will know that I'm not much of a Shia LaBeouf fan, but after re-watching this today, I have to say that I'm not entirely turned off by his performance. It works well with the context of the story, and he's really not as central as I had remembered. John Hurt gives a fine performance in a supporting role, but it's so out there that I think most people overlooked it. Also be on the watch for decent supporting roles from the likes of Ray Winstone, Jim Broadbent and Karen Allen, who returns as Marion Ravenwood.

At the end of the day, there's no way that Kingdom of the Crystal Skull can ever be compared to the rest of the Indiana Jones franchise. However, that does not make it a terrible film. I think it's a movie that polarized a lot of viewers at the time of its release, but by giving it another chance now, I think many of them might be able to see past their original insecurities. Ultimately, it's an entertaining romp through the Indy universe, and for that, I think we should all be glad.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: B

Should You Watch It? Yes

Movie Review: INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE

INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE

1989

PG-13

"You call this archaeology?"

-- Professor Henry Jones

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is a 1989 action-adventure film directed by Steven Spielberg that serves as the third installment in the Indiana Jones franchise. This film once again sees our hero, Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) doing battle against the Nazis, who are once again on a quest to find a a famous Christian artifact: the Holy Grail. Indy is brought into the chase after wealthy artifact collector Walter Donovan (Julian Glover), who is funding an expedition for the Grail, tells him that his father, Henry Jones Sr. (Sean Connery), has gone missing whilst researching the Grail's whereabouts. Indiana immediately flies to Venice, Italy to pick up the trail where his father left off. He's joined by his close friend Marcus Brody (Denholm Elliott), and the two join forces with the young Elsa Schneider (Alison Doody), who had been assisting the elder Jones in his search. As the three dig deeper into the Grail legend, it becomes increasingly clear that there are many sides to the tale, both of the Grail and of the people on the journey.

Fans of the Indiana Jones franchise had to wait five years after Temple of Doom for The Last Crusade to hit theaters, but many of them found it to be quite the return to form. It definitely feels a lot more like Raiders of the Lost Ark, and many a fan greatly appreciated the switch back to that particular feel. I've always found to be The Last Crusade my personal favorite in the series, even if it's not necessarily the best of the bunch. There's something incredibly endearing about it as a movie, and it's entertainment factor is only matched by the franchise's first installment.

Part of the reason this film proves to be so good is the fact that we're getting what might arguably be the best screenplay in the franchise. On the one hand, we're getting a clever tale that rivals the quest for the Ark of the Covenant from Raiders, and the twists and turns with that part of the story make this one engaging and entertaining by themselves. It's some of the other facets, however, that push The Last Crusade over the top. The characterization provided by this particular screenplay is the best of the series by far, and for the first time since Raiders, we're given a true sense of being from the Indiana character. We're seeing multiple dimensions added to the character throughout the film, and by film's end, the audience can clearly see that he has changed. And he's not the only character who offers quite a spectacle. By introducing Indy's father into the series, we finally get to see the relationship between Henry Jones Sr. and Henry Jones Jr. We could've made a movie solely centered around that particular relationship, and it probably would've proved to be incredibly insightful and clever, but there's something even deeper going on here.

Although there's always been a facet of either religion or magic or mysticism or what have you in each of the Indiana Jones films, we never really get the sense that Indiana himself is starting to buy into all the hoopla. In Raiders, he merely understands the power of the Ark, but it's not as though he truly comes to respect it. In Temple of Doom, we get a look at an older, more pagan religion, so there wasn't really any sense of conversion on Indy's part. In The Last Crusade, however, there's a definite change in beliefs and ideas on the part of our hero. In order to complete his journey, he's almost required to go through a spiritual conversion, and that bit of personal growth is what makes this film all the more powerful. I know that I only hours ago stated that Temple of Doom was easily the most emotionally powerful of the Indiana Jones films, but after re-watching The Last Crusade, I think I have to change my opinion. With the spiritual change and the relationship between Indy and his father, there's no doubt in my mind that the screenplay allows for this one to take the emotional cake.

The strong characterization in the screenplay also allows for the actors to bring forth some fantastic performances. Of all the Indiana Jones films, I'd have to rank this as the best-acted by Harrison Ford, and a lot of it has to do with the aforementioned points of the script. It gave him the opportunity to flesh out Indy a little bit more than he had been able to do in the previous films, and for that, I think he owes the screenplay a debt of gratitude. It's also a pleasure to see the great Sean Connery on-screen, especially in what might be his most iconic role aside from his numerous portrayals of James Bond. The chemistry between Ford and Connery is so authentic that you'd even start to believe that they could be real-life father and son. They just work that well together. It's astounding, really. We're also getting some good performances from the likes of Doody and Donovan, who's more René Belloq than Mola Ram, and I think that works for the better. Also be on the watch for a short cameo from River Phoenix as a young Indiana Jones that proves to be rather entertaining. The only issue that I had with the acting was the performances by Denholm Elliott and John Rhys-Davies, who both reprise their roles from Raiders of the Lost Ark. Whereas they were both relatively serious characters in the first film, they seem to be more caricatures of themselves this time around. Now, this might be what the screenplay calls for, but it was just a little bit off-putting for me.

And, once again, we're getting a fantastic score from John Williams, who brings a lot of new pieces for this particular film to accentuate the march he established in the first film. One of my favorite pieces from this film is the score he gave to the Grail, which proves to be rather powerful and beautiful, in my opinion. Here's a snippet for your listening pleasure:

At the end of the day, I'd have to say that Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is probably my favorite film in the franchise. Although it's not quite as good as the original Raiders of the Lost Ark, the characterization and spirituality of this film pushes it over the top in terms of personal preference. Ultimately, it's one of my go-to films whenever I need a pick-me-up because it just manages to blend all of its themes and tones together so perfectly. It's just a beautifully-made film, and I have to tip my hat to Spielberg for having the guts to give the Christianity bit another go-around. Kudos, good sir.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A

Should You Watch It? Yes