Scott William Foley

The fourth installment of the Indiana Jones mythos was adequate and entertaining, but failed to capture the charisma of earlier films.

I thought something that worked particularly really well was the pairing of Harrison Ford and Shia LaBeouf.  LaBeouf takes a lot of flak from the internet community, and I’m not sure why.  He’s got a charm about him that complimented and even augmented Ford’s.  I was also glad to see Ford pretty loose in this film.  He’s played a few of my all-time favorite characters, but he can at times come off fairly stiff on the big screen, especially in The Last Crusade.  As with Sean Connery, LaBeouf helps to add another dimension to Indiana Jones that gives Ford a little something more to work with and enriches his performance.

Furthermore, I appreciated that while Indiana Jones is much older in this movie, he’s also much wiser and has a sense of confidence and aptitude about him that really resonated.  Though always a professor, it wasn’t until this film that he really came across as a mentor as well, especially to Mutt Williams, LaBeouf’s character.  (Very funny that both characters named themselves after some aspect of a dog.  Remember, Indiana was the name of Jones’ dog when he was a boy.  Mutt … well, that speaks for itself.)

The dialogue in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull also wasn’t quite as rigid as in previous films.  While I loved The Last Crusade because of Connery, some of Ford’s dialogue really grated on my nerves.  This film had a sense of wit and fun about it that really helped the actors with their delivery.

The addition of communists as Ford’s antagonists seemed totally appropriate.  They acknowledged so much of the time period, from atomic bomb testing to the King, it really felt like a logical progression from where Indiana Jones was last film.  I loved that they peppered some of what he’s been up to over the last few decades into the story as well.  That was a very nice touch.

So while the acting and chemistry between LaBeouf and Ford was a positive, and the dialogue was a bit more organic, and the story had some enjoyable nuggets of times past, there were a few negatives.

First and foremost, it really bothered me how they took Karen Allen’s Marion Ravenwood, a tough, spunky character from Raiders of the Lost Ark, and basically made her into an ogling space cadet.  Nearly every time they had her on screen she had a goofy grin on her face like she’d been hit on the head too many times.  Marion was a character that was almost tougher than Jones, and they didn’t stick to that blueprint in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.  It takes more than a flighty grin to win the heart of Indiana Jones.   

Also, I can appreciate that this is a family film trying to lighten things up for a broader audience, but there were moments in this movie that had me rolling my eyes.  I can handle mainstream appeal, but it had some really blatant lunacy that I couldn’t get past.

(SPOILERS AHEAD)

For example, Jones escaping a nuclear explosion by climbing into a lead-lined refrigerator and luckily getting blasted clear was a bit hard to swallow, but I managed.  Later, though, they had LaBeouf swinging from tree vines with a troop of simians in the jungle like he was Tarzan.  That … was impossible to overlook.  Finally, the mystery of the crystal skulls is revealed to be a race of inter-dimensional beings that we had previously believed aliens.  Now, I can handle aliens, no big whoop.  But, when it comes to Indiana Jones, I like him chasing down religious artifacts or some other mystic collectibles.  Seeing him face-to-face with an alien, it just didn’t completely work for me.

(END SPOILERS)

But even with all those issues, the overall movie was fun to watch and greatly entertained.  I felt like I wouldn’t be “wowed” by it and I wasn’t, but I enjoyed the evolution of the Jones character, his world, and the dynamic of his supporting characters. 

On a side note, I really hope they’ll continue on with the Indiana Jones movies, especially considering Jones’ new role.  I think they’ve left the future wide open for some potentially fun movies.

So while I wouldn’t say you MUST go see this movie in the theatre, it is definitely one to rent and if you’re willing to put up with a little silliness, I think you’ll find yourself entertained.

How can you go wrong with Tim Burton and Johnny Depp?  Answer: You can’t. 

First and foremost, you must understand that Sweeney Todd is a musical.  Many people don’t make this realization before they sit down to watch the film.  If you’re among them, don’t feel bad-you’re not alone.  However, bear in mind this is a film adaptation of Steven Sondhiem’s musical and the vast majority of the movie is pure song.

That being said, while I’m not particularly a fan of musicals, I am a fan of Burton and Deep, Burton, and Depp (in that order).  We get the classic gloom and melancholy playfulness we love from Tim Burton, and Depp makes Sweeney Todd his own with emotional glares, terse dialogue, and a stylistically eerie appearance.

And while it was obvious none of the actors were professional singers, I didn’t find Depp’s singing nearly as distracting as I thought I would.  Be aware, though, at times the music itself grates on the nerves.

Perhaps the most pleasant surprise Sweeney Todd offered was the scene-stealing acting and singing of Sacha Baron Cohen.  Of Borat fame, the nearly-unrecognizable Cohen dazzles with multiple accents, mesmerizing body movement, and probably the best singing existent within the film.

Burton, as usual, gives us wonderfully morose scenery and costumes.  Never a slave to convention, a musical would have been the last endeavor I would have expected him to undertake, but I’m glad he did.  It goes a long way to solidifying his versatility, and the fact he did it his own way with tremendous risk in casting only reestablishes my faith in his artistry.

Be aware, however, that had anyone else directed Sweeney Todd, I probably wouldn’t have bothered to watch it.  If you’re a fan of Burton/Depp collaboration or musicals, I think you’ll be pleased.  If you don’t particularly enjoy either, I’d make a point to avoid Sweeney Todd.

(Notice:  Spoilers Ahead)

By far, the best thing about Cloverfield was the previews hyping its release.

Granted, by the time I finally got around to watching it on DVD, I’d seen the creature, but that’s really about all I knew.  I hadn’t heard much about the storyline or any major revelations.  Of course, I now realize why that was-there aren’t any.

Here’s what happens: Some twenty-somethings are throwing a going away party for their friend.  They document testimonials from friends and the pre-party preparations on a video camera so he can watch it when he gets to Japan.  He shows up, is surprised, and loves it.  His friend who he happened to sleep with a few weeks before shows up with another guy, they fight, she leaves.  He reveals to his friends that he never called her after their “special day.”  Then a giant monster attacks Manhattan, and they all flee in terror as the military shows up and shoots ineffective rockets.  They capture their exodus on the same video camera, and when the scorned girl calls the “hero,” she pleads for him to come save her, she’s trapped under some rubble.  He and his friends then risk life and limb to find her and rescue her, which they do, only to be killed by the monster’s parasites, the monster itself, as well as the eventual bombing of Manhattan by the military.  But the good thing is, it was all caught on a camcorder which was eventually found, and that’s how we get to see the unfolding of what the military dubbed “Cloverfield.”

The narrative technique really astounded me.  The movie starts off with a recording of the “hero” and his love’s special day after they sleep together, then moves into the going away party because the “hero’s” brother and friend don’t realize they shouldn’t be taping over it.  When they turn off the camera in the “real-time” of the movie, it reverts back to the special day from weeks previous, which was a pretty cool touch.  That, along with the hand-held feel of the movie, truly gave me a sense that I witnessed the events of the film as they actually unfolded.  That practice heightened the tension and made for an exciting visual experience.

Speaking of which, the special effects were beautiful as was the method of revealing the monster only in glimpses and snippets.  Remember, we were virtually getting a “first-person” view of events, so if the shaky hand-held didn’t go for a close-up on the creature, we didn’t see it. 

Sadly, that’s where the good ends.  The acting was atrocious, the dialogue lowered my I.Q. by at least twenty-points (and I can’t spare them!).  They somehow took my favorite word, “dude,” and made me hate it.  What little story existed was clichéd and insulting.  Those looking for answers as to what the monster was, where it came from, and why it attacked Manhattan got absolutely no closure at all.

With J.J. Abrams producing (he of LOST fame), I really expected better.  He says he was inspired by seeing Godzilla everywhere in Japan toy shops while there promoting a different movie.  He’s gone on record professing the wish to create an “American” monster that clawed its way into the social conscience as had Godzilla in Japan.  What he failed to realize, though, is that we actually have to care about the monster and the people its killing.  I, for one, was so annoyed by the whining and obnoxious external ponderings of the primary video taper, I couldn’t wait for him to cash it in so I wouldn’t have to listen to him anymore.

Finally, I really thought it was in bad taste to mimic so precisely the fall of the Twin Towers and the terrible events of that day.  A building can fall in a movie-I get that-but to copy people running down the streets and taking shelter in storefronts so exactly, I found it offensive and creatively apathetic.

Cloverfield would appear to be a movie totally dependent upon its marketing and hype.  I’m sure for those who saw it in the theatre and were firmly entrenched in the “now” of its mysterious campaigns, it was quite satisfying.  Months later, though, now that it’s out on DVD, it doesn’t hold up on its own merit.

Believe it or not, this is the first and only version of Blade Runner that I’ve seen.  I understand that there have been many different versions over the years, but this one, The Final Cut, is supposed to be the end-all-be-all.

Supposedly, the director, Ridley Scott, never intended the studio-mandated Harrison Ford narration in the original version.  In this new, definitive release, Scott cuts the narration, adds a few scenes, and cleans up a lot of the special effects.  Reportedly, other than the narration, there isn’t a whole lot different (though I’ve been told the omission of the narration makes the movie far more ambiguous).

I’m sure you already know this, but Blade Runner is about a man named Rick Deckard who is brought out of retirement to hunt a pack of rogue replicants, androids who appear human in every way and are forced to do the labor in space that humans won’t or can’t.  It’s obviously set in the future, 2019 to be exact, and Scott provides a terrifying but realistic take on a world overrun by people, pollution, and commercialism.  Every scene is dark and wet, and the film really suffocates the viewer with its dystopian outlook.

(Spoilers Ahead)

In his hunt, Deckard runs across a replicant played by Sean Young who doesn’t even know she’s a replicant, and he takes a love interest in her.  After a brutal and violent showdown with the last of the rogue replicants eerily played by Rutger Hauer, Deckard must deal with the fact that no replicants are to be left in public, and so what is he to do with Young’s character?

(Major Spoilers Ahead)

I suppose a major argument against The Final Cut is that the omission of the voice over no longer makes it obvious that Deckard is a replicant himself.  Allegedly, at the end of the movie, Edward James Olmos’ character leaves a paper doll unicorn outside of Deckard’s apartment when Deckard returns to run away with Young’s character.  This unicorn, some say, is an obvious clue that Olmos knew Deckard’s memories because Deckard dreamt of a unicorn, thus making him a replicant.

I don’t see it that way.  Olmos left paper dolls everywhere of various animals throughout the entire movie.  I believe Olmos left the paper unicorn outside Deckard’s apartment as a sign his character could have killed Young’s character, but chose to let Deckard try to live a life with her instead.  The unicorn is coincidental in the literal sense, but I believe it figuratively is a metaphor representing Deckard’s dreams now have a chance at reality with the sparing of Young’s character and a chance at love.

(End Major Spoilers)

I was surprised at all the big names in this movie, though I guess, other than Ford, they weren’t very big names at the time.  I found Ford’s acting stiff and difficult to watch, but everyone else did an adequate job.  The real pleasure of this movie came from the sets.  The special effects were impressive in their day, but I’ve never seen such a realistic depiction of a city gone to hell. 

I don’t know if I’d recommend Blade Runner: The Final Cut to the general movie audience, but I think any science fiction fan would really enjoy it on a variety of levels.

There’s so much I want to say about this film that I simply can’t for fear of spoiling some pretty captivating moments and revelations.I will say this: Watching Anthony Hopkins as the manipulative, arrogant, charming aeronautical engineer and Ryan Gosling as the manipulative, arrogant, charming lawyer was riveting.  Both men ooze charisma in this film, and the scenes in which they interact are magnetic.

I don’t remember hearing much about this movie when it was out in the theaters, and that’s a real shame.  Even I must admit I’m normally not one for “court room” flicks, but I finally got around to it anyway because I’m an Anthony Hopkins fan.  And by the way, Gosling, who more than holds his own with the veteran, impresses me more and more with each role I see him play. 

Let me assure you, this thriller was a winner all because of the superb acting.  I really recommend you give it a view and see two of Hollywood’s best at work. 

I’m a big Tim Burton fan, and when Burton and Johnny Depp get together, it’s always magic.  That’s why I always felt bad about not seeing the movie Ed Wood.  Released in 1994, I simply never got around to watching it, but after hearing about how good it was, I finally decided to sit down and give it a watch.