There are few living actors as universally lauded as Harrison Ford. With fairly humble beginnings in uncredited extra parts and minor roles in film and television for many years, Ford landed a small yet pivotal role in George Lucas’ 1973 coming-of-age comedy flick American Graffiti. While not his best-known performance by a long shot, Ford’s work with Lucas paved the way for his breakout, life-changing turn as the intergalactic smuggler Han Solo in the 1977 space opera film Star Wars. The rest, well, is history.
Now, as Ford approaches his 81st birthday, is returning to the silver screen by reprising the only other role of his that can compete with Han Solo as the most notable and iconic of his entire career: the treasure-hunting, daredevil archaeologist Indiana Jones. Having first played the role in Steven Spielberg’s Raiders of the Lost Ark, Ford has played Jones three times since in two different decades. This weekend, his collaboration with director James Mangold (Walk the Line, Logan, Ford v Ferrari) marks his fifth (and, supposedly, final) time in the role. Thus, to celebrate Ford’s career overall—but his portrayal of Indy specifically—I wanted to dedicate a blog to looking back at all four Indiana Jones films before seeing the newest entry in theaters. So, without further ado…LET’S GET STARTED! Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) For a summary of the production and release of Raiders of the Lost Ark, click here. I think that the best way to tackle all of the Indiana Jones flicks is to start by dissecting their opening sequences. Not only are these a defining feature of the franchise as a whole, but they serve as important introductions to where the eponymous protagonist is at going into each story. With that, let’s discuss Indy’s iconic raid (😊) on the South American temple in Raiders of the Lost Ark. Being that it’s the first film of the series, this opening scene has a lot that it needs to accomplish. First and foremost, it must let the audience to know the kind of person that Indiana Jones is. Beyond that, it needs to establish the tone & vibe of the world in which he exists and the types of obstacles (human and boulder alike) that he faces on such globetrotting adventures. While this might be overwhelming for some directors, the incredibly talented Steven Spielberg (Jaws, Saving Private Ryan, Lincoln) handles such a task with grace and style that set the bar for what this franchise could be. In addition to the uniquely inspired design of the temple itself, the way that the story unfolds inside it with Indy and his jungle guide Satipo (Alfred Molina) tells us a lot about who this reluctant hero is. His cautious navigation of the temple to narrowly avoid the many booby traps that killed others who dared enter it before shows how experienced he is in traversing these kinds of environments and, possibly, his level of knowledge of such historical sites (thus foreshadowing his academic background that’s revealed a little later in the film). Furthermore, the chances he gives Satipo to be an honest actor exemplifies the humanity within him despite his lust for treasure and the glory that such discoveries bring. Fortunately for Indy, karma works in his favor by killing Satipo and letting him barely escape with his life…only to be cornered by rival archaeologist and the film’s villain, René Belloq (Paul Freeman). What I love about the way this scene climaxes is how it also brings karma back around to Indy: his cockiness that drove him to believe he could flee the temple with the Golden Idol unscathed only carries him so far. Thus, he must give up the treasure to save his own skin with the help of his trusty pilot Jock (Fred Sorenson) whose pet snake Reggie reveals to the audience Indy’s notorious fear of serpents in a sharp injection of comedic relief coming off the tense chase of Indy through the Peruvian jungle. While Raiders may not have the most grandiose or bombastic opening sequence, it certainly set the standard for the franchise while also excellently defining Indy’s main character traits for the remainder of the franchise. But can the movie get better? Without a doubt, Raiders is a great Spielberg movie. But, in my humble opinion, it’s not the best Indiana Jones flick due to a couple of glaring issues that hold it back from such a reputation in my eyes. Let’s dive into those as well as the good stuff, shall we? 😊 One of my personal favorite elements of the whole Indiana Jones franchise is the narrative decision by George Lucas (with the help of screenwriter Lawrence Kasdan) to have their protagonist live a double life. By day, Harrison Ford plays Dr. Jones the archaeology professor with a pretty boring life. By night, however, he transforms into the swashbuckling adventurer who whips his way through Nazis in Nepal and Egypt. Without wasting time on exposition, this choice helps the viewer fill in so much about why Indy is and what he wants. Furthermore, it helps inform his relationships with character from either part of his dual existence—his loyal friend and museum curator Marcus Brody (Denholm Elliott), and his Egyptian acquaintance/excavator Sallah (John Rhys-Davies) included. Aside from just Indy himself, though, Raiders is packed with a solid supporting cast. In addition to Molina, Elliott and Rhys-Davies, the young and tough heroine Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen) is very reminiscent of George Lucas’ aim with the writing of the character Princess Leia Organa (Carrie Fisher) in the original Star Wars. A fierce woman who presents a tough exterior to the world and rarely (if ever) lets herself be dominated by the men in her life (including Indy himself). While I’m not the biggest fan of the more overtly romantic elements of her relationship with Indy, I find Allen’s chemistry with Ford to work very well as arguably the best pairing of the entire Indiana Jones franchise. But arguably the best chemistry shared between two actors in Raiders is that of Ford and Freeman. In many ways, Belloq serves as the dark foil to Indy. Both of them claim to long for the discovery of knowledge via their hunting down of artifacts. However, the former’s transparency about his desire for glory and fame serves to highlight the latter’s internal conflict with his own reasons for hunting treasure. Simply put, this makes for some of the only genuine character development for our eponymous hero in any of the films. For now, at least, I’ll take it. Of course, I can’t celebrate the best of what Indiana Jones offers without devoting at least some of this blog to the action sequences. While some of the writing doesn’t hold up, virtually all of the action does which is quite impressive. Especially considering two vital facts: the movies being made three decades ago, and their lack of reliance on computer-generated visuals in deference to practical filmmaking. Even if you don’t think you’ll be a fan of these movies, give them a shot. If nothing else, you’ll be thoroughly entertained thanks to Spielberg’s tact with directing compelling, clever, and fun action sequences. All that being said, I don’t count myself amongst the crowd of cinephiles who feel in their heart of hearts that Raiders is a perfect movie. There are a couple of notable flaws. First and foremost, the absolutely unoriginal idea that Indy has no major impact on the plot of the movie itself. Simply put, Belloq and the Nazis would have eventually found the Ark of the Covenant at their dig site, opened it, and the outcome would’ve been the same. To be honest, though, I don’t care as much about this as some people. I find the ride enjoyable enough to excuse this anticlimax. What I cannot excuse, however, is how overrated Indy’s romance with Marion is. While I understand the stylistic reasoning behind having them hook up and get together in the third act, I personally find it sappy and unnecessary. Both actors have great chemistry together via teasing the sexual tension between them before they ever consecrate their feelings for each other. Furthermore, both characters are better than pigeonholing them into a corny love story that just is not needed for Raiders to be memorable. But the character that is arguably the most underutilized is Sallah. Now, was it appropriate even in the 1980s (let alone nowadays) for a white man from Wales to don “brownface” by playing an ethnically Middle Eastern man? Certainly not. That being said, Rhys-Davies is one of my favorite supporting characters in the entire Indiana Jones franchise but always felt secondary to Harrison Ford’s roguish presence and Karen Allen’s charm. I wish I could say that this was corrected in the third film, but if you ask me Rhys-Davies’ portrayal of this character should get much more screen time than he’s ever actually been given (fingers crossed James Mangold does Sallah justice in Dial of Destiny). When it comes to Raiders of the Lost Ark, I mostly feel affection for it. It’s not my favorite Spielberg movie but it’s a damn good one. It’s not my favorite Indiana Jones movie but it’s certainly one of the best. And, despite its flaws, it has earned its place in cinematic history as one of the greatest action-adventure flicks of the 1980s (if not of all time). So, where did the franchise go from here? Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) Three years after Raiders of the Lost Ark, Lucas and Spielberg put out a sequel that went darker and scarier than its predecessor. Is it The Empire Strikes Back of the Indiana Jones franchise? ☹ Not exactly. But it’s still a pretty decent movie. In some ways, Temple of Doom has a more fun opening than Raiders. For one thing, I greatly appreciate the decision to make the second film a prequel; it works to put Indy in a very different environment than the Peruvian jungle or the Egyptian desert. Instead, we see Ford’s whip-wielding hero immersed in the criminal underworld of mid-1930s Shanghai. Amidst the glitz and glamor of “Club Obi Wan,” (a fun Easter Egg that I never noticed until the umpteenth time I watched this movie) Indy is put into a tense & death-defying situation when his client, Lao Che (Roy Chiao), has Indy poisoned during their transaction. Despite Indy’s efforts to persuade Lao Che to save his life, he instead must embrace the chaos that quickly takes over the club in order to snag the antidote and flee Shanghai with his life. During this opening scene, Spielberg effectively utilizes Indy trying to grab the antidote as an editing device to ramp up the tension. Since it serves as a ticking time bomb for Indy’s longevity, it helps to justify the insane antics he resorts to—such as kidnapping American nightclub singer Willie Scott (Kate Capshaw)—in order to escape Lao Che’s clutches. Furthermore, Spielberg introduces the two principal supporting characters of the film: the aforementioned Willie Scott (who I’ll talk more about later), and the utterly lovable Short Round (Ke Huy Quan), a young orphan who Indy takes under his wing. While one of these characters is easily one of the best in the entire franchise, the other is undeniably one of the worst (I’ll let you deduce who I’m referring to as which one 😊). But the escape from Shanghai comes with consequences for Indy and company as their getaway pilots work for Lao Che and end up abandoning them in the Himalayas. After a ridiculous but fun skydiving sequence involving the most indestructible raft ever made, the trio winds up in the company of rural villagers led by a shaman (D.R. Nanayakkara). In the village is where Indy is given the quest of the film: he reluctantly agrees to infiltrate Pankot Palace to retrieve sacred stones & rescue dozens of the village’s children from Thuggee cultists and slavers. All of this is to say that the first act of Temple of Doom, from the time they flee Shanghai to Indy’s discovery of the Thuggee’s underground lair, can be rather boring at their best and not-so-subtly racist at their worst. There are some shining moments like Indy and Short Round’s chemistry which remains the heart of the film right up to the end. But there are some glaring pacing problems that are made obvious by the conception & portrayal of the Willie Scott character. Not unlike Hayden Christensen in the Star Wars prequels, I chalk it up not to Capshaw’s performance but the writing & direction of the character. Lucas and Spielberg wanted the female lead of Temple of Doom to be the polar opposite to Marion Ravenwood in Raiders. Well, for better and worse, they succeeded at that. Because Willie Scott’s incessant screaming and personality fully embraces the stereotypes of the “damsel in distress” that remained all-too common in Western cinema for decades (and, unfortunately, still appears too much even today). That being said, what is arguably the least forgivable part of Temple of Doom aside from Capshaw’s character is the overtly insensitive depiction of Indian culture. This is most apparent in the banquet scene at Pankot Palace where Spielberg’s attempt at subtle humor backfires in how the native Indians are portrayed as cartoonish eaters with hyper-exotic diets that feel straight out of something of a neo-Asian minstrel show. Ultimately, the first half of the movie lacks the goodhearted fun of Raiders and replaces it with ignorant buffoonery & obnoxious characters. If not for the third act, Temple of Doom may have turned out as bad as a later entry in the franchise. Or worse…The Lost World. 😊 While the second act of the film is somewhat bogged down by needlessly dark scenes of human sacrifice, Indy and Short Round saving Willie & the village kids before escaping from Pankot remains some of the best action sequences in all of Spielberg’s filmography. Of course, you have the iconic minecart chase scene involving some great interplay between Indy and Short Round. But then that leads to an absolutely insane (but fittingly so) climax where Indy bests the Thuggee leader Mola Ram (Amrish Puri) by cutting a bridge in half. Admittedly, the plot contrivances make both Indy and the British military captain Philip Blumburtt (Philip Stone) out to be “white saviors” of the Indian villagers. This was more excusable in the 1980s, but lacks much justification nowadays. Still, the incredibly fun action of the third act keeps Temple of Doom from being a total miss. In my estimation, it’s not as good of a film as Raiders of the Lost Ark but it does not completely tarnish the reputation of the Indiana Jones franchise (unlike a future sequel 😊). But, with the exception of Short Round’s charm & lovable relationship with Indy, this film lacks any significant character development. Two films in, this franchise certainly needs it. So, will we get it with the next movie? Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) For a summary of the production and release of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, click here. Somewhat disappointed with how dark Temple of Doom turned out, Steven Spielberg wanted to recapture some of the fun-loving magic of Raiders if he returned to direct a third entry in the Indiana Jones franchise. In doing so, he and George Lucas decided to keep many of the best elements of the second film while reverting back to much of the heart of the first film. And, in my humble opinion, they deliver the best movie of the series to date. What do I mean about keeping the best parts of Temple of Doom? Well, instead of making the entire movie a prequel, Spielberg and Lucas smartly put the opening action sequence back in time to flesh out the origin story of our titular hero. This works wonders for me because it fully embraces the pulpy fun that the Indiana Jones franchise revived in its creation. As such, we get to see a teenage Indy (River Phoenix) break off from a Boy Scout trip in the Utah desert to sabotage a robbery. This initiates a really enjoyable action sequence that works for several reasons. First of all, the set piece of the traveling circus train makes for some great interactions between young Indy and a variety of exotic animals (which also helps justify his deep-seated fear of snakes). On top of this, we get another really fun moment fending off a lion that organically explains Indy’s fascination with & attachment to the whip as his signature weapon. But, overall, this introduction works really well in my mind because it finds a very creative means of giving the hero a meaningful obstacle to success: his youth. Sure, he’s physically up to the chase with the robbers. However, his inexperience and naïveté help him losing by the end of the sequence feel justified as character development that demonstrates how much Indy has (or, maybe, has not) come into his own in the last twenty-plus years. Without question, this opening scene doesn’t work as well as it does without Phoenix’s understated but incredibly performance. H seamlessly nails Harrison Ford’s mannerisms as Indy but, more importantly, his excessive cockiness and passion for archaeology. Combined with the solid writing of a young Indy, this is easily my favorite opening of any of the Indiana Jones movies up to this point (if only George Lucas could nail prequel stories as much as Spielberg can ☹). And Last Crusade only gets (mostly) better after the opening scene. Remember that need for character development that I mentioned? Well, in my humble opinion, we get it in this film thanks to the inclusion of Henry Jones, Sr. (Sean Connery). No disrespect to Ke Huy Quan as Short Round, but I absolutely love Ford’s chemistry with Connery and think that Indy’s dynamic with his bookish and emotionally distant father makes for the best chemistry between two actors in the entire franchise. Beyond that, though, Indy being forced to bring Henry along with him on this adventure from Central Europe to Turkey allows for their strained relationship to be put front and center. And this makes the film, and the series as a whole, better. Last Crusade demythologizes Indy and makes him feel like an actual character by giving him unresolved issues with his dad in the midst of fending off Nazis and their allies like femme fatale Elsa Schneider (Alison Doody) and conniving businessman Walter Donovan (Julian Glover). Whereas the previous films contained a primary conflict involving Indy fending off an antagonist like Belloq or Mola Ram, I appreciate that Spielberg and Lucas decided to inject character-driven conflict to help humanize Indy via him confronting his childhood & his mixed feelings about how Henry raised him. If it was just that alone, I still think Last Crusade would be my favorite film of the franchise. Luckily, there’s a lot more to enjoy as well. Regarding another new character, I think that the approach in this movie to differentiate the female lead from Marion Ravenwood in Raiders works better here than it did in Temple of Doom. Unlike Willie Scott who remains a largely empty-headed damsel for much of that movie, I appreciated that Elsa has complex & interesting motivations as well as agency in the narrative as someone who screws Indy over but also feels remorse for her actions yet deems them necessary to achieve her goal of finding the Holy Grail. Ultimately, she comes off as a more subdued “femme fatale” character (somewhat reminding me of Zoë Kravitz’s portrayal of Selina Kyle/Catwoman in Matt Reeves’ The Batman). And I think that just makes for more entertaining interplay with Indy compared to what Capshaw was given for Willie Scott in Temple of Doom. Of course, any good Indiana Jones movie needs to brings its A-game when it comes to the action. And Last Crusade doesn’t disappoint one iota. While some of the set pieces feel reminiscent of Raiders (mostly due to the involvement of Nazis and military vehicles), I think Spielberg excels at making each action sequence exhilarating and feel fresh in the moment (if not retrospectively). From the boat chase through the canals of Venice and the dogfight over Berlin to Indy rescuing Marcus Brody and his father from the desert tank while getting away within an inch of his life, the action in this film is at least on par with its two predecessors but, quite possibly, is the best in the entire franchise. All that being said, however, Last Crusade still has some glaring issues that hold it back from near-perfection. I think that, of the original Indiana Jones trilogy, this movie struggles the most with how it handles humor. Whereas Raiders deftly relies on situational jokes (famously the scene of Indy shooting the swordsman in Egypt) and Temple of Doom largely does away with humor for the sake of a darker story, Last Crusade has a hit-or-miss track record when it comes to referencing its own plot and tone for the sake of comedy. Much of this humor comes from Connery’s “fish-out-of-water” presence amidst the deadly adventures that his son is used to. While this works a fair amount of the time, like when Indy throws SS Colonel Ernst Vogel (Michael Byrne) off the zeppelin, it feels rather forced in moments where Henry incompetently blows off the tail of the biplane that he and Indy are escaping in or when he coincidentally activates a secret staircase in the Austrian castle which Indy subsequently tumbles down. No disrespect to Connery’s acting chops; in fact, his charisma is the main reason that such jokes don’t completely fall flat at the end of the day. While many of the new & returning characters are great, a couple of them leave something to be desired. I appreciated Denholm Elliott’s return as Marcus Brody after not appearing in Temple of Doom. However, I wish he wasn’t used as much in the main adventure because his hyper-bookishness in lieu of virtually any “street smarts” often comes off as way too unrealistic…even for this franchise. But I could excuse Brody’s cartoonish presence due to his supporting nature. The bigger problematic character of Last Crusade is Donovan as the main villain opposing Indy and company. Again, I don’t blame the actor in this specific instance. The fault of Donovan’s lack of sufficient development beyond wanting eternal life lies very much with the writing. Needless to say, all of these flaws are relatively minor in my estimation. Last Crusade is not only my favorite Indiana Jones flick of the four ones directed by Spielberg thanks to its action and character work, but it cements that reputation in my mind for its pitch-perfect ending. I mean, the final moments of Indy, Henry, Sallah and Brody riding off into the sunset to the tune of John Williams’ iconic titular theme is easily ONE OF THE BEST ENDINGS TO ANY MOVIE EVER!! 😊 I mean…how can you possibly top that?!? Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) It turns out you can’t, and George Lucas (who significantly pressured Steven Spielberg to make another Indiana Jones movie) shouldn’t have tried. Nearly twenty tears after Last Crusade, Indy returned to the big screen with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. A movie that doesn’t deserve one-fifth of this blog because it commits a sin worse than many bad movies: it’s boring. From the outset, Crystal Skull lets the audience know that it’s not going to be good. The opening scene, traditionally a thrilling action sequence that helps reintroduce the viewer to the titular hero, is dull and uninspired by comparison to the first three Indiana Jones flicks. Which is saying something considering that the scene involves Indy at Area 51 escaping from the clutches of Soviet troops under the command of Russian agent Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett) with a nod of nostalgia to Raiders when the camera pans over the enclosed Ark of the Covenant. That set up should be an effective approach of reintroducing Indy to a new generation of filmgoers. Alas, the idea goes sour from the start and doesn’t ever really get better. This is true for the entirety of Crystal Skull. No disrespect to Harrison Ford, but the conception of an Indiana Jones following the protagonist in his mid-60s while still doing crazy stunts is maybe just a bad idea to begin with. As such, I mostly blame George Lucas for this movie. Nevertheless, it doesn’t make watching an aged Harrison Ford well past his prime running around and killing people any less sad. That being said, I did appreciate that Indy largely retained the charisma from the previous films (much to Ford’s credit as an actor). Despite some piss-poor writing, he shines through for the most part as the same roguish adventurer from before. But that doesn’t mean the characters around him do much to elevate his performance. There are two glaring weak spots in this cast, which I hate to say because they’re both great actors in other movies. First, we have the greaser that is revealed to be Indy’s son Mutt Williams (Shia LaBeouf). Despite being evidently talented in films like Honey Boy and The Peanut Butter Falcon, LaBeouf does little to endear the audience to Mutt in this movie. I wish I could blame his performance on the writing, but I think it’s mostly just due to the fact that LaBeouf was not in a good place in his career at this point in his life and failed to live up to the spirit & legacy of this franchise in his melodramatic & buffoonish take on a child of Indiana Jones. The other, even more unfortunate element of the cast of Crystal Skull is Cate Blanchett’s performance as the villain. Simply put, it’s one of her worst roles that I’ve ever seen. By putting on a fake-sounding Russian accent and playing this over-the-top spy obsessed with mind control, Blanchett just feels like she doesn’t fit in the broader gallery of the villains in this franchise. Clearly, (like LaBeouf) her acting chops undermine the fact that such a performance is possible. But, unlike other talented actors hamming up their villainous performances (lookin’ at you, Joaquin Phoenix in Gladiator!), Blanchett simply doesn’t work in this movie. There are some characters other than Indy that work here. Namely, the return of Marion Ravenwood from Raiders. While the speed at which her romance with Indy rekindles in the second and third acts is a bit much to be believed, Karen Allen’s chemistry with Harrison Ford holds up in Crystal Skull. I specifically enjoyed their dynamic once Marion reveals to Indy that Mutt is their child because it helps bring out a different side of our hero & changes his relationship with Mutt going forward. In a third act bogged down by awful CG-infused action set pieces & meandering plot contrivances, the small moments of family drama between these three characters acted as brief sighs of relief. Which brings me to my other big criticisms of this movie: the action & the plot. Regarding the former, Spielberg seemingly gave in to Lucas’ filmmaking tendencies by turning away from practical stunts and location shooting in favor of sound stages & green screens. And this greatly detracts from the overall quality of the film, not only by dating it to a time when filmmakers were struggling to balance practical effects with CGI effects. However, it also utterly rejects the lineage of the Indiana Jones franchise that prided itself on making the action sequences as believable as possible thanks to practical filmmaking. The only CG-heavy set piece that, in my humble opinion, works is seeing Spalko’s right-hand man Antonin Dovchenko (Igor Jijikine) get eaten alive by carnivorous ants. Is it as frightening or nervewracking as the “creeper crawler” scenes in the prior three movies? No, but I personally enjoyed the concept played out to a point. Otherwise, the action in this film is bad (I don’t even want to talk about the “swinging monkeys” scene). Perhaps if the story were better I could forgive Spielberg dropping the ball with the action, but the screenplay of Crystal Skull is beyond mediocre. It’s BORING. The manhunt for Indy’s friend and Mutt’s surrogate father Harold “Ox” Oxley (John Hurt) before a jungle chase leading to “Akator,” the ancient city in the Amazon, differentiates itself by taking the franchise away from Judeo-Christian history. In doing so, however, the film loses any genuine spirit of fun & adventure by making the treasure…knowledge?!? Or aliens, but from another dimension rather than from outer space?!? … This movie’s just bad. It’s a cash-grab attempt to exploit the nostalgia that moviegoers have for Indy which, to their “credit,” worked (as of today, it remains the highest-grossing movie of the entire franchise). But Crystal Skull is undeniably the worst Indiana Jones flick. So, when James Mangold was announced as the director of a fifth and (supposedly) final entry in the series I became cautiously optimistic: “At least it can’t be worse than Crystal Skull? Right?” RIGHT?!? Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023) [NOTE: This blog contains spoilers for “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny.” You have been warned.] In 2016, three years after acquiring Lucasfilm, Walt Disney Studios announced a fifth and final Indiana Jones movie to be released in July of 2019. Initially, Steven Spielberg was attached to direct this swan song for Harrison Ford’s titular hero. However, after four years of various writers’ takes on the material & disagreements between Spielberg, Ford, and the studio about the screenplay, Spielberg stepped down as the director in February of 2020 (but stayed on as a producer). Three months later, Lucasfilm announced that James Mangold would direct Ford’s final outing as the character. And more than three years later, Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny is now in theaters. So, was it worth the wait? In my humble opinion…no. But, that doesn’t mean that it isn’t a decent movie. With that, let’s dive into comparing its opening with that of the rest of the franchise. Whereas all the other Indiana Jones films’ openings start in the concurrent timeline that the rest of the narrative takes place, Mangold decides to kick off Dial of Destiny with a flashback to the end of World War II. By showing Indy in his prime as an adventurer, the film gives the audience a snippet of classic action that this series has become synonymous with. At least in spirit. Aside from just the obvious reminder by having Indy punch & kill Nazis, this opening flashback on a plunder train does what it can visually, auditorily, & aesthetically to pay homage to Spielberg’s original trilogy from the 1980s. And I think that it mostly works. To state the obvious, seeing a de-aged Harrison Ford can be a little off-putting at moments in isolation. That being said, what Mangold has Indy doing in this sequence was to enough to help suspend my disbelief regarding the character’s age in relation to the actor playing him (besides, I think more should’ve been done to de-age Ford’s voice like what was done to Mark Hamill as Luke Skywalker on various Star Wars series on Disney+). But the other glaring issue with this action set piece is how heavy it relies on computer-generated filmmaking to pull off the various stunts being performed on screen. Unlike Spielberg’s deference to more practical stunt work in the original films, I think Mangold should’ve taken more of a firm stance (at least in this scene) to do the same. Especially considering the thematic & meta purpose that the train heist serves for the film, I think it would’ve benefitted from a cleverer approach to the action. All that being said, this opening scene is solid. It’s certainly better than the Area 51 stuff in Crystal Skull, but I do think that it pales in comparison to the intro action sequences in the first three Indiana Jones flicks. Which, in many ways, sums up both the good and bad about Dial of Destiny. Without a question, it supersedes its immediate predecessor in virtually every way. However, it gives off the impression that it only exists because Harrison Ford was displeased with how his journey as Indy ended in Crystal Skull and wanted to correct that (and, of course, Disney wanted to milk the franchise further). So, what works about Dial of Destiny in spite of this self-evident fact? The most obvious strength of the film is Ford’s performance. But unlike previous movies in the franchise (including the “good ones”), the portrayal of Indy as a character feels the most grounded & believable here. While I understand that some people will have a problem with how Mangold and the screenwriters tackle Indy’s age (given their nostalgic attachment to the mythic hero portrayed in the first three Spielberg flicks), I greatly appreciated that Ford was given the chance to play out a meaningful & substantive character arc. Sure, Indy learned not to be all about “fortune and glory” in Temple of Doom. And he came to terms with his upbringing & his relationship with his father in Last Crusade. But here, Ford fully seizes upon the opportunity to humanize Indy & treat him like a person rather than a folk legend. He starts the movie as a lonely, alcoholic curmudgeon that lacks purpose in life as he confronts his mortality and then resurges as the idealistic hero that people know Indy to be. In my humble opinion, this added an emotional heft to the entire franchise that, by the final scene that sends Indy off to reconcile his relationship with Marion, really felt earned & important for such an iconic character that’s been so deftly played by such a one-of-a-kind actor. That being said, do the supporting characters in Dial of Destiny elevate Ford’s swan song as Indy? I’d say the one that matter works. And that is the co-lead of the film, Indy’s goddaughter Helena Shaw (Phoebe Waller-Bridge). The daughter of Indy’s old British friend and Oxford professor Basil Shaw (Toby Jones), she grows up to be a selfish, fortune-seeking treasure hunter and auctioneer of stolen artifacts. Much like Indy was in Temple of Doom, Helena makes it clear early in the film that she only cares about getting these historical trinkets to pay off debts and have some cash left over. To do so, she’s initially frustrating in how she lies to & uses Indy for her own personal gain. While I understand that the character didn’t work for some viewers, I think that the writing of Waller-Bridge’s character is certainly better than Kate Capshaw’s Willie Scott. Largely because her chemistry with Ford is enough to make the character interesting in the first act, but then she cements her status as more memorable than Alison Doody’s Elsa Schneider by coming to empathize with Indy’s personal tragedies enough to care for his well-being by the third act (and save him from choosing a terrible fate for himself). The writing alone would make Helena a better female lead for this franchise than at least two of them, but Waller-Bridge’s screen presence & dynamic with Ford easily places her right alongside Karen Allen as Marion Ravenwood in Raiders. Despite the differences in romantic versus familial/plutonic chemistry, I appreciated Mangold and the writers’ highlighting a different kind of dynamic for Indy in this movie (not unlike the father-son relationship in Last Crusade). That being said, not all of the new characters work here. While I think that the two lead villains, former Nazi scientist Jürgen Voller (Mads Mikkelsen) and his lackey Klaber (Boyd Holbrook), have two very capable actors behind them I don’t think the writing did them any favors. Not only are neither one of them given much of an interesting personality or compelling dynamic with Indy beyond him being the obstacle in their way, but Voller’s motivation to use Archimedes’ Dial is rather underdeveloped. Specifically, I don’t exactly know what his plan is after he goes back in time to kill Hitler. How is he going to avoid being imprisoned by the Nazi leadership for assassinating the Führer (let alone take over Germany)? Furthermore, what will he do to compensate for his country’s inherent disadvantages against the Allied Powers in order to change history & claim victory in World War II? Questions that the film has no interest in answering which, in my humble opinion, does nothing to make me invested in Indy’s fight to stop their evil plot because I don’t really understand what it is beyond the first step. On the heroes’ side, I have nothing against the actor who played Helena’s kid sidekick Teddy Kumar (Ethann Isidore). But the character comes off as just a vain attempt by the writers to do their own version of Short Round. The problem with that route, though, is that you’re not only shooting yourself in the foot by attempting to one-up a fan-favorite character. But, you’re also giving Isidore no real chance to succeed by not devoting enough screentime in Dial of Destiny to properly developing his relationship with Helena or Indy to make the audience emotionally invested enough in it. Simply put, Spielberg struck lightning in a bottle with Ke Huy Quan in Temple of Doom & I personally would’ve advised this team against adding a third wheel to Indy and Helena in this movie because it just could never live up to that. Two other characters whose presence is small, yet impactful, in the film are Sallah and Marion. While their actual screentime is limited, I thought that Mangold and the writers handled both of them very well. While part of me deep down would’ve loved Sallah to play a more active role in Indy’s globetrotting adventure this time around, I appreciated when he showed up in the film & the purpose he served. It perfectly teed up Marion’s return in the very last scene of the movie to bring the main theme about family full circle. Much in the same way that Sallah has his grandchildren to ground him & remind him what’s important about getting older, Marion coming back to tend to Indy brings his arc to its logical & satisfying conclusion. In other words, both of these “legacy characters” of this franchise were given the respect they deserve by a new filmmaker & writers stepping in to take over from Spielberg and company. They were used sparingly but effectively, and I commend that restraint. Of course, the unsung hero of this entire franchise is composer John Williams. Not only is his theme for the titular hero one of the most iconic pieces of film music in cinematic history, but Williams always knows the assignment for how to use his particular talents to recapture the magic of Indiana Jones. And that trend continues in Dial of Destiny, as the classic theme is used when it’s needed to and no more. Beyond that, Williams elevates the action of this film with his score which very much plays into Mangold’s creative vision to capitalize on the audience’s nostalgic love for the character and the vibe of Spielberg’s original trilogy. In that sense, Williams unsurprisingly remains the secret ingredient that makes the Indiana Jones franchise what it is (much in the same way he does for Star Wars). Then again, there are some important flaws of Dial of Destiny that hold it back from being on par with the original Indiana Jones trilogy. I briefly addressed one of them earlier, but the action in this film lacks the same overall impact & kinetic energy. Part of this can be chalked up to how shooting action set pieces has changed due to the advent of big-budget franchise filmmaking & CG technology. However, there are clearly series & filmmakers out there that buck this trend to effectively in order to differentiate themselves (lookin’ at you, Chad Stahelski and John Wick!). While there were some creative choices made in crafting the set pieces, like the chase through the New York City streets/subway & the diving expedition with Renaldo (Antonio Banderas), I do wish that Mangold had done everything he possibly could to utilize practical effects & stunt workers to uphold the legacy of Spielberg’s magic touch inherent to Indy and his world. But the biggest problem with Dial of Destiny, in my humble opinion, is its runtime. While the opening train sequence is fun & the last twenty minutes are crazy yet emotional, there’s a fair amount of scenes in the middle of this film that could’ve been trimmed down so that the final length of the overall movie went down by 20 minutes. This would’ve greatly helped the pacing by adding some more urgency & suspense to some of the more critical sequences in the second and third act. Personally, I don’t know what it is about the last five years but I don’t understand so many filmmakers’ seeming obsession with making movies longer than they need to be. Granted, at under two-and-a-half hours, it could’ve been worse. Still, it also could’ve been much better. Overall, I think that Dial of Destiny has enough competent filmmaking on display to be considered a fitting sendoff for Indy that makes up for the mediocrity of Crystal Skull. That being said, it ranks on the lower end of Mangold’s filmography (which just speaks to how great of a director that he is) & will almost certainly not have the lasting cultural/artistic impact that the original Indiana Jones trilogy have had. Nor will this movie be as fondly remembered among diehard fans of the franchise. That, combined with its lukewarm opening weekend box-office numbers, should send one very important message to Disney and Lucasfilm: let this franchise DIE. 😊 At the end of the day, how will I remember Indiana Jones? While I grew up watching the first three films of the series, I lack any strongly nostalgia for them like I have for Star Wars. Because of that, I’ll revisit them every 5-10 years when I’m in the mood for a fun time. In that time, I might rewatch Dial of Destiny to see if it holds up or will check it out again in the wake of the inevitable day that Harrison Ford is no longer with us. And I’ll probably never watch Crystal Skull again; sorry George Lucas (not sorry! 😊). In many ways, I think that the character of Indiana Jones will stand the test of time longer than any of the individual films in this franchise. By the same token, I feel that other action heroes of cinema (like John Wick) have supplanted the pulpy tone of those movies due to filmgoers’ changing sensibilities when it comes to action flicks. Ultimately, though, Indy (and Ford’s portrayal of him) deserves his status as one of the most iconic characters in all of cinema. With all that said, here is my official ranking of all five films in the Indiana Jones series: 1. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade 2. Raiders of the Lost Ark 3. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom 4. Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny 5. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull What is your favorite Indiana Jones movie? How do you think the franchise will be remembered after its most recent addition? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst
0 Comments
Image by Sascha Kircher from Pixabay Franchise moviemaking seems to be the norm these days. Whether it be superhero cinematic universes by Marvel Studios, Sony and DC or film series with entries spanning decades like Rocky/Creed, Jurassic Park/World, Fast and Furious and Harry Potter/Fantastic Beasts, there is some safety for movie studios to rely on franchises to help keep them afloat.
For one thing, they’re typically big money makers since moviegoers these days generally prefer to have some idea of what they’re going to watch and, therefore, sequels and spin-offs tend to guarantee an audience in the theater. Also, studios can play a numbers game. What I mean is even if half of the films in a franchise are critically panned, the other half will likely be well received. And audiences are often much more forgiving of franchise flicks and thus the ones who studios actually need to spend money on tickets will flock and help the movie make some money. Of all the franchises out there, of which I’ve written about plenty (as evidenced above), there is one that I told myself I would NEVER discuss. Why? Because, of the five mainline films in this specific franchise, NONE OF THEM ARE GOOD. Since the title of this blog already revealed the mystery, let me just get my not-at-all controversial opinion out of the way… I do not like Michael Bay’s Transformers movies. Let me explain why. Transformers (2007) With action films like Bad Boys, The Rock, and Armageddon under his belt, I can see why Paramount Pictures chose Michael Bay to direct a live-action film centered on the incredibly popular & profitable toy line of transforming robots from Hasbro. And, from their perspective, I’m sure that they still believe they made the right choice (especially since the five Transformers films that Bay directed grossed more than four BILLION DOLLARS at the global box office). But, in my humble opinion, Bay was not the right person to make one blockbuster about alien robots fighting out their war on Earth. Let alone FIVE OF THEM! ☹ All that being said, the first Transformers movie has somewhat of a better reputation than its four sequels. Despite many people who call themselves fans of this franchise writing off much of the franchise, they still hold the 2007 flick in higher regard because…actually, I don’t know why. It’s a bad movie. Even when it tries to be good, it’s bad. If you ask me, there are several reasons for this. The most obvious problem to me is that the basic things this movie should accomplish—delivering competent action set pieces that are straightforward and entertaining, first and foremost—it just doesn’t. There’s a sliver of promise in the tease of a fight involving Bumblebee (Mark Ryan), but Bay decides to instead show teenagers Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) and Mikaela Banes (Megan Fox) fend off a computer-generated monstrosity. And the idea of the third act fight in urban Nevada may have been cool, but in practice it just ends up as several minutes too long of metal clashing against one another in CGI blurs that almost compel the audience to look away. The movie fails at being a competent action movie, but surely it has other redeeming qualities like the characters and direction? Right? … I give Shia LaBeouf credit for sticking out these first three Transformers movies (he must’ve really needed those paychecks!). Simply put, I think he is a great actor when given the right roles (watch Alma Har’el’s Honey Boy or Tyler Nilson & Michael Schwartz’s The Peanut Butter Falcon if you don’t believe me). Unfortunately, the writing in these movies does little to make Sam Witwicky a complex or interesting character with a meaningful arc in the trilogy (let alone each movie individually). But, I appreciate LaBeouf recognizing the mediocrity of these films and running with that by playing up his emotional reactions to the CGI insanity happening around him. Fortunately, this approach seemed to leave a mark on at least some of the actors that shared scenes with him: notably Sam’s parents Ron (Kevin Dunn) and Judy (Julie White). This trio injects enough unintentional comedic relief in their scenes to make the slog of a plot around them somewhat bearable. But they can only do much to help the audience get through the other parts of this movie. Because even setting aside the not-so-subtle racist and misogynistic undertones rampant in Bay’s portrayal of women and people of color AND the overtly jingoistic atmosphere in how he glorifies & romanticizes the U.S. military, Transformers ultimately cannot rely on its human characters to justify its existence any more than on the alien robots. If anything, watching this movie should help anyone who wasn’t a big fan of Gareth Edwards’ Godzilla appreciate that movie more. While the human leads in that film aren’t super memorable, either, at least the depiction of the titular monster is cool (especially in the third act). And we get thirty minutes of an relatable father-son dynamic between Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Bryan Cranston to get us into the story, at least. Transformers has none of that, and thus should be proof enough that it’s not just that this franchise never gets better after the first one. Rather, it’s proof that this franchise wasn’t good to begin with. Michael Bay set out to make a competent mid-2000s action flick and failed. And, shockingly, the movies don’t really get any better. THEY JUST. GET. WORSE!! Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009) Given the mixed critical reception of the first Transformers movie, I would’ve hoped that Michael Bay re-evaluated his stylistic and storytelling approach for the sequel to ensure the audience would be more invested in the characters, narrative, and action this time around. But, given his cinematic resume prior to this franchise…why ON EARTH would I ever expect that out of this man? ☹ Revenge of the Fallen not only doesn’t understand the assignment of making a decent follow-up to a mediocre action movie, but somehow falls so far from anything close to meeting that expectation. On top of that, though, Bay decided to double down on the lofty world building and pseudo-thematic approach of the first Transformers movie. Surprise, surprise! It sucks even more, and not even Shia LaBeouf and his parents’ quirky dynamic can save this one. By the nature of this film’s narrative, Sam Witwicky’s more eccentric side is less fun this time. Instead, Bay has LaBeouf lose his mind in the first act due to an alien artifact stripping away his sanity by causing him to see symbols in the air & compulsively draw them. While this makes for some swing-and-a-miss physical comedy in college classes, it doesn’t play into LaBeouf’s strengths as an actor (to be clear, I’m just referring to what he did in the first Transformers movie and nothing more). On top of that, though, Bay decides to triple down on the use of racial and misogynistic humor. The former is evident in how he directs the voice performances of Skids (Tom Kenny) and Mudflap (Reno Wilson), two Transformers with uncomfortably stereotypical speech patterns. The latter “shines through” in how he shoots Megan Fox’s character to strip what little humanity she had in the first film to make her out as a pure sex object in this movie. Sure, the comedy doesn’t work. But the plot probably carries the film, right? WRONG AGAIN!! What little I could understand of the narrative of Revenge of the Fallen falls flat, but everything else simply plays into the worst sequel trappings with Bay trying to inject more complexities into this story but utterly failing to do so with grace or sophistication. What doesn’t help the nonsensical narrative & uninspired dialogue is how Bay’s visual sensibilities make this film legitimately difficult to look at for extended periods of time. For whatever reason, I didn’t notice his more overt cinematographic tendencies as much in the first Transformers movie. Needless to say, the excessive slow-motion and nausea-inducing camerawork in lieu of deliberate and meaningful use of the lens is simply too overbearing to be ignored in this movie. On top of that, Revenge of the Fallen is the first film in the franchise that includes far too many inexcusable rejections of the laws of physics. To be very clear, this isn’t like watching a comic book movie and asking yourself: “I wonder if Natasha Romanoff could come away from that car wreck unscathed?” This is more like normal humans without any kind of spy training crashing through several floors of skyscrapers or smashing through cement walls (all while being protected by the METAL HANDS of Transformers) & coming out on the other side without so much as a pool of sweat on their brows. All in all, there is very little (if anything) redeemable in Revenge of the Fallen. It tries to me a more dramatically compelling, high-concept sci-fi action movie and fails SPECTACULARLY. In most film franchises, it would easily be the worst in the bunch. BUT NO! Michael Bay AMAZINGLY directed three more of these flicks that compete with this one as the worst of them. READY…SET…GO!! Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011) My understanding is that most people who watch this franchise generally agree that Dark of the Moon is a SLIGHT improvement over Revenge of the Fallen. And while I will argue in favor of that perspective, I want to make it clear that it’s a very bad movie and that you shouldn’t watch it. The third time around, Michael Bay apparently finally came around to reading “Screenwriting for Dummies” because he seems to have begun to grasp how a character arc works. By that I mean he gives both our human and Autobot protagonists—Sam Witwicky and Optimus Prime (Peter Cullen), respectively—somewhat interesting motives for their actions & adequately compelling dynamics with other characters. Regarding the former, LaBeouf’s character finds himself a young adult in a world that doesn’t give two shits that he helped save the world…TWICE. This causes him to have to confront whether or not being Optimus Prime’s lackey is good for his life & his future. Again, this isn’t handled with any sort of grace or nuance. But it’s there, so…there’s that. Honestly, the more compelling arc is that of Optimus Prime who must wrestle with his mentor (and former Autobot leader) Sentinel Prime (Leonard Nimoy) as a turncoat for the Decepticons. In this regard, Dark of the Moon is somewhat worse than its two predecessors because it offers a glimmer of how these movies could be good by giving the Transformers meaningful characters arcs & thus treating them more like characters with agency as opposed to the impetus for CGI-fueled action sequences. If handled by a better director and better writers, the journey of Optimus’ relationship with Sentinel could have been engaging and emotional. Instead, it just comes off as too little too late. Which gets to one of my biggest problems with this entire trilogy starring Shia LaBeouf: Sam’s relationship with Bumblebee. I know this should be obvious, but I don’t get why these movies made people fall in love with Bumblebee. Not only is he not a particularly interesting character (and not just because he can’t talk), but any idea of a “relationship” that he has with Sam is a figment of people’s imagination. If you want to see an E.T.-inspired relationship form between a likeable human protagonist and this Transformer, watch the Bumblebee movie starring Hailee Steinfeld because you won’t it in Dark of the Moon or any of Michael Bay’s Transformers flicks. One last note about Shia LaBeouf before we say goodbye to him forever in the next two movies. While his more on-the-nose comedic moments in the preceding two Transformers films helped make those slightly bearable, Dark of the Moon lacks virtually any “Witwicky eccentricities” that helped LaBeouf make this character remotely endearing. No matter how good his character arc is (which it isn’t), the writing of Sam’s personality itself is bland to the point that not even LaBeouf’s hammy performance can save it. To make matters worse, Sam’s parents are barely in this movie which just shows that Michael Bay did not understand what character stuff worked before. Instead, he began a new awful trend of this franchise: retconning human history to demonstrate the Transformers meddling with it. By orienting the story around Sentinel Prime’s crash on the moon as the catalyst for the Space Race between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., Dark of the Moon is arguably the most grounded narrative in all five of Michael Bay’s Transformers movies. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s good, but it does make it SLIGHTLY better in comparison to the trash that came before it (not to mention the two pieces of flaming shit that succeed it). Again, I want to make it clear that this is a bad movie. Its plot is more coherent than Revenge of the Fallen, but the characterization, action, and special effects are basically on par with it and the first Transformers film. Overall, it’s still a terrible flick compared to most movies ever made. Which means, so far, we have zero wins for Michael Bay as the primary creative voice behind this pathetic excuse for a blockbuster franchise. After watching these first three movies in one week, I took a months-long break just to let some brain cells heal. And when I stepped my toe back into the Transformers movies, I deeply regretted my decision to write this blog more than I ever thought I could. Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014) With the end of the first Transformers trilogy, Michael Bay switched out actors for the lead role. No longer are we following the journey of Sam Witwicky. Instead, we get the incredible acting chops of Mark Wahlberg playing the all-time worst inventor & douchiest father Cade Yeager. Surely, Wahlberg has the potential to give a good performance (like in P.T. Anderson’s film Boogie Nights). However, the material he’s given in Age of Extinction does him no favors & Yeager ends up a bland protagonist with virtually no interesting quirks or personality whatsoever. Combined with the supporting characters—his daughter Tessa (Nicola Peltz) and his business partner Lucas (T.J. Miller)—Wahlberg and the ensemble he leads are bland characters who lack any kind of interesting chemistry with one another. Thus, we have no reason to care about them & the insanity they are swept up in. The result is a first hour that forces us to watch characters we don’t like in situations that don’t make sense & that aren’t entertaining one iota. The plot surrounding them involves Joshua Joyce (Stanley Tucci), the CEO of K.S.I. Industries, trying to harness & weaponize Cybertronian technology with the help of Galvatron (Frank Welker), who’s really just Megatron in disguise. None of this works, and offers no promise of the movie getting better in the second hour. And it doesn’t. Instead of using the second act to flesh out its characters and build its world in a compelling manner, Age of Extinction is overstuffed with overly CG-infused action that doubles down on all the cartoonish physics & lack of investment in characters that the first three Transformers movies “excelled” at. Yet, somehow, Bay outdid himself in how mindbogglingly asinine & utterly trashy these set pieces are. The constantly-moving camera forces the audience to hold their breath to the point of asphyxiating them with this terrible approach to cinematic action. By the end of the second hour, I hoped that the film was almost over. BUT NO! IT GOES ON FOR NEARLY ANOTHER WHOLE HOUR!! HOW THE F**K WAS MICHAEL BAY ALLOWED TO RELEASE A THREE-HOUR MOVIE?!? WHO THE F**K AT PARAMOUNT LET THIS HAPPEN?!?! … I need to breathe. If you haven’t figured it out, Age of Extinction isn’t just the worst Transformers movie thus far. It’s not only one of the worst action movies of all time. It’s not only one of the worst movies of the 21st century. It’s one of the worst movies EVER MADE (and I’m not being hyperbolic about that). Don’t watch it; it sucks. But, surely, it can’t get any worse than th-- Transformers: The Last Knight (2017) I…I…I can’t…WHAT?!?! My naïveté convinced me that it truly couldn’t get any worse after Age of Extinction. As bad as that movie was, I laughed a couple of times at unintentional moments of humor. But, by the time the credits rolled on The Last Knight, I could not think of a single redeeming quality about it. Somehow, this franchise GOT WORSE. Once again, Mark Wahlberg does little to endear the audience to his character. Nor does he try to develop chemistry with any of the supporting characters like teenage orphan Izabella (Isabela Moner) or British professor Viviane Wembly (Laura Haddock), which is impressive considering how drab his dynamics were with his own daughter and best friend in the previous film. By the end, Cade Yeager has not gone on any kind of arc or journey wherein he learned something or changed in some significant way. Admittedly, the more prominent character “arc” in The Last Knight is that of Optimus Prime who is brainwashed by the Cybertronian goddess Quintessa (Gemma Chan) & turns on the Autobots and their human allies for the majority of the movie. Not only does this idea feel worn out in the past years given how often it’s happened in movies, but it just comes off like the “creatives” working on this franchise ran out of ideas and thus landed on the question, “What if Optimus turned bad?” It’s not done well by any means, and his reversion to the good-guys’ side feels even more abrupt & forced. While the actors in previous entries in the franchise could inject a little bit of hammy, over-the-top acting to offer mild entertainment for the audience, The Last Knight bogs its performers down so much in crap lit on fire that they can’t even do that. It’s no surprise that, of the newcomers to the franchise, Anthony Hopkins does what he can in his scenes by overdoing it in a good way. But, even that’s not enough to make the two-and-a-half hours of vomit-inducing garbage that is this movie remotely tolerable. Especially when everyone else of note isn’t really trying, there’s no point bothering an attempt to invest yourself in their characters. Shockingly, even the narrative of The Last Knight “outshines” Michael Bay’s previous Transformers flicks. By that I mean that there is no narrative; instead, the “plot” of the movie is just a bunch of pathetically written excuses to have fight scenes between more CGI robots that is a complete eye sore five films in. And it gets even worse when the humans are involved because, like Bay’s previous movies in the franchise, any semblance of grounded physics goes completely by the wayside in favor of poorly-choreographed action sequences. Which gets to the (unsurprisingly) other negative of The Last Knight: Michael Bay’s directing. All of his worst tendencies are on full display here. The way he uses the camera feels “anti-purposeful,” as in he never once uses the camera movement to let the audience know what we should be looking at in any given frame. A BASIC prerequisite for being a competent direction, and he CAN’T EVEN DO THAT!! I still don’t understand why on earth the studio kept paying him millions of dollars to make these movies because HE’S NOT GOOD AT IT!!! WHY DID THEY KEEP PAYING HIM TO MAKE THESE MOVIES?!?! AAAHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!! … But, maybe I’m being too harsh on the Transformers franchise… NOPE!!! These “films” are utter trash that NOBODY should ever watch again! Michael Bay should NEVER be allowed to sit behind a camera and direct a movie EVER AGAIN!! Just watch Bumblebee. Need I say more? 😊 If you care, below is my ranking of Michael Bay’s Transformers movies (which, if you haven’t figured out yet, I think are ALL BAD):
Which Transformers movie do you hate the most? Do you hope that the franchise completely retcons the five Michael Bay flicks in favor of the universe established by 2018’s Bumblebee? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst Without question, Stephen King is one of the most prolific and talented writers of the past century. With many classic novels and short stories to his name, King’s literary oeuvre has been ripe for filmmakers to pluck from since Brian de Palma made the 1976 supernatural horror flick Carrie. Since then, King’s works have served as the basis for some great films: Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, Frank Darabont’s The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile, and Mike Flanagan’s Doctor Sleep. Just to name a few. 😊
With the release of Rob Savage’s The Boogeyman this weekend, more than fifty cinematic adaptations of King’s fictional works have been made. As such, I wanted to celebrate the best of them by giving my thoughts on (some of) my favorite films based on the works of Stephen King. So, without further ado…LET’S GET STARTED! The Dead Zone (1983) Admittedly, I’m not the biggest fan of David Cronenberg as a filmmaker. However, there are a handful of gems in his filmography that I really enjoy. One of them is the sci-fi thriller The Dead Zone. Based on Stephen King’s 1979 novel of the same name, the film is a grounded & gripping character study of a man who develops precognitive abilities upon waking up from a five-year coma that he entered following a car accident. The man in question, Johnny Smith, is played by the eccentric and enjoyable Christopher Walken. And, in my humble opinion, Walken gives his best cinematic performance to date (yes, even better than his Oscar-winning turn in Michael Cimino’s The Deer Hunter). Why? Well, if you ask me, Walken sometimes relies too heavily on his outwardly quirky personality to carry his performances. But, The Dead Zone came out before Walken was a major name in Hollywood which I think partly explains why he works so well in it. In contrast to his more eccentric side, Walken makes his character relatable and empathetic by relying more on the way he carries himself to convey the psychological toll that Johnny’s “condition” takes on him. In a way, Johnny is a realistic and dark take on the character of Spider-Man if the web-slinger was a fully-grown man (instead of a teenager). Otherwise, there are some interesting parallels. The most notable of them that having such abilities makes for a lonely existence. In the case of Johnny, however, he chooses to isolate himself because of the impact that using his psychic abilities has on his mental and emotional health. However, doing so means essentially severing his relationship with his ex-girlfriend Sarah (Brooke Adams). This is the crux of Johnny’s tragedy. He realizes that he can use his abilities for good to stop the political ascent of megalomaniac Greg Stillson (Martin Sheen) but must sacrifice everything—including his life—to do so. This makes him a compelling reluctant hero, and Walken excels at pulling off this arc. While much of The Dead Zone rests on the backs of Cronenberg’s direction and Walken’s acting, I think the screenplay by Jeffrey Boam (Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Lethal Weapon 2) deserves some praise. For one thing, it’s no easy feat to adapt an (approximately) 150,000-word book into a screenplay that lasts under two hours. And, in my humble opinion, Boam very much succeeds at this task (with some uncredited help from Cronenberg). To his credit, he manages to strip down King’s original novel to its essence and works in tandem with the editing of Ronald Sanders (a frequent Cronenberg collaborator) to maintain the narrative’s deliberate pace without it ever feeling slow. Furthermore, he builds tensions well in both the second and third acts revolving around the subplot of preventing the death of a young boy he tutors and stopping Stillson from becoming president, respectively. Needless to say, by the film’s end I feel satisfied in how Johnny’s story came together. Simply put, that doesn’t work without the writing serving as a solid foundation for the filmmaking. One other creative of The Dead Zone that I want to shout out is composer Michael Kamen (Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, Mr. Holland’s Opus). While never oppressing the visual aspects of the film with his music, Kamen subtly injects some unsettling vibes for a tinge of horror while also enhancing the more suspenseful scenes with music that complements what’s happening on screen. Again, Kamen’s work is not the most obviously positive aspect of the movie, but it’s one worth noting nonetheless. Go watch The Dead Zone if you haven’t yet. It’s not an overly long film, and has some great storytelling on display that will please fans of science-fiction, psychological thrillers, and Christopher Walken alike. Stand by Me (1986) When he agreed to direct a cinematic adaptation of Stephen King’s 1982 novella “The Body,” Rob Reiner (The Princess Bride, When Harry Met Sally…) had only begun his directing career. By the mid-1980s, he was known more as a comedic filmmaker with the mockumentary This Is Spinal Tap and the rom-com The Sure Thing under his belt. So, him signing on to make a coming-of-age drama was a bit odd. Fortunately for us, it paid off incredibly well. I’ll just say it: I love Stand by Me. It’s one of my favorite coming-of-age flicks, but it’s more than that. What the four main actors (under Reiner’s direction) pulled off in the movie remains some of the best onscreen chemistry that I’ve ever seen. Many movies like it try to match the dynamic between “Gordie” LaChance (Wil Wheaton), Chris Chambers (River Phoenix), Teddy DuChamp (Corey Feldman), and Vern Tessio (Jerry O’Connell), but often struggle to do even that. Needless to say, most films don’t top what was achieved between these actors (and may never will). The four lead actors here all do a great job in the roles they were given. Unquestionably, Wheaton is a lovable protagonist due to the underdog nature of Gordie’s story. While the narration from his adult self (Richard Dreyfuss) enhances the main story, Wheaton is the person we most relate to in this story as a kid who aspires to do more with his life than his father expects of him but needs the encouragement of his best friend Chris Chambers to feel confident enough to defy those expectations. Gordie also deservedly gets to be the hero in the film’s climactic moments, but Wheaton’s performance by no means outshines his fellow castmates. Both Phoenix and Feldman excel in their respective roles, with the former getting some genuinely emotional scenes talking to Gordie about their relationships with their fathers and about the future. The latter, meanwhile, perfectly encapsulates the superficial machismo of DuChamp while also pulling off the more relatable subtleties of a character with an obvious chip on his shoulder. Arguably, O’Connell does the least heavy lifting as Vern. While not adding to much of the emotional heart of Stand by Me, his presence helps the ensemble feel complete while also being appropriate comedic relief at important times in the move. Not to mention, he’s the center of one of the tensest scenes in cinematic history involving running away from a train on a bridge. 😊 Of course, the actors’ performances are only as good as the writing on the page. Without question, co-screenwriters Bruce A. Evans and Raynold Gideon did a fantastic job bringing these characters and this world to life through the written word. They strip down the narrative to its essence—a tale of four young boys who are friends that go on an adventure one summer—which helps the characters’ actions drive the action and emotion. By doing so, Stand by Me maximizes the audience’s investment in the journey of Gordie, Chambers, DuChamp & Vern within a lean, mean 90-minute runtime. Another notable creative voice I want to shout out is cinematographer Thomas Del Ruth (The Breakfast Club, The Running Man). For such a simply story, I appreciate how straightforward the shots in Stand by Me are. The atmosphere of small-town Oregon in the 1950s is captured vividly in its environments and realistically in its infrastructure. The desolate, post-industrial aesthetic serves the narrative well by showing that these kids have nothing better to do during their summer than head into the woods to find a dead body. While not the most obvious strength of the film (especially compared to the acting and writing), Del Ruth’s eye is unmistakably an important aspect of the magic that is Stand by Me. Which is just what this film is: magic. In terms of the genre it plays within and the story it tells, Stand by Me is one of the best of its kind. In many ways, it remains the standard-bearer for the coming-of-age dramedy (alongside another 1980s classic: John Hughes’ The Breakfast Club). It is funny. It is emotional. It is an endearing and enjoyable tale of growing up, learning, and moving on with life. In other words, it embodies the best of what cinema can be. Misery (1990) Four years after the release of Stand by Me, Rob Reiner took to adapting another Stephen King story for the silver screen. This time, the 1987 novel “Misery” about a successful novelist Paul Sheldon (James Caan) and his experience being the patient/prisoner of deranged nurse Annie Wilkes (Kathy Bates) who proclaims to be his biggest fan. Over the course of the film, Paul must play into the whims of his caretake/captor in order to not only survive but also find a way flee Wilkes’ home. In sharp contrast to the more lighthearted and charming Stand by Me, Reiner rises to the challenge of shifting genres with Misery. Rather than rely on the lovable chemistry of four child actors, he fully embraces the novel’s claustrophobic atmosphere and suspenseful narrative to adapt it into a textbook thriller flick. In many ways, it remains one of the go-to best examples of a psychological thriller that—unlike other famous King stories—is incredibly grounded and avoids any temptation to include supernatural elements in creating scares and chills. From start to finish, Misery finds its terror in how (sadly) possible this scenario is. As such, it’s still one of the more effective adaptations of King’s writing in cinematic fashion; Reiner understood the assignment and pulled it off. That being said, Misery is not my favorite movie based on a Stephen King story. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t good. And the main reason for that is the film’s antagonist: Annie Wilkes. Much in the same way that The Dead Zone leans heavily on Christopher Walken’s central performance, this movie simply wouldn’t work without Bates in the role of Annie Wilkes. No disrespect to James Caan as her co-star, but Bates grips your attention from the second she appears on screen. Simply put, she more than earned her Oscar for this performance by singlehandedly delivering what makes the movie as good as it is: it is so stressful to watch. Which is ultimately why I don’t love Misery or care to ever rewatch it. It’s not necessarily a fun time to watch. However, that in no way takes away from the quality of filmmaking on display. Even if you don’t love King’s more typical strain of horror but like thrillers, Misery is more than worth your time. And even if you don’t love the genre, check it out just once for Kathy Bates’ performance alone. Trust me; you won’t be disappointed. Dolores Claiborne (1995) Five years after delivering an Oscar-winning performance in Misery, Kathy Bates starred in another Stephen King adaptation: the psychological drama Dolores Claiborne. Based on the 1992 novel of the same name and directed by Taylor Hackford (An Officer and a Gentleman, Ray), the film sees Bates playing the titular character who tries to reconcile a strained past with her daughter Selena (Jennifer Jason Leigh). All the while, Dolores deals with being the prime suspect in a murder investigation which Selena leaves New York City and returns to their home of Little Tall Island, Maine for. Together, they try to clear Dolores’ name and simultaneously heal the scars shared between them. Honestly, I don’t want to say much more about the plot of this film. If you haven’t seen it, I wouldn’t be surprised. Unfortunately, in my experience it seems to be one of the lesser-known Stephen King film adaptations which (in my humble opinion) is a shame. It’s one of the most thematically rich films based on King’s stories that I’ve seen. While its main plot is a compelling mystery, it’s the relationships that Hackford and his actors rely on to ground the audience in the narrative. Through exploring the dynamics of these characters (primarily, but not exclusively, that between Bates’ and Leigh’s characters), Dolores Claiborne has something to say about the challenges of returning home to confront the truths of your childhood as well as the nuances of mother-daughter relationships. If you’re looking for the same gripping performance from Bates in this movie that she gave in Misery, you won’t find it. And you shouldn’t be looking for it. This movie is better served by her subtler portrayal of a middle-aged, working-class woman who finds herself in the wrong place at the wrong time. Simply put, how different she is in this movie compared to Misery speaks to Bates’ sheer talent and command of her craft. However, when on screen with Leigh (who brings her own strong presence to Selena & her rapport with her mother), the two make a fantastic pair of leading women. That being said, I do think that the acting is elevated by the screenplay for Dolores Claiborne. Penned by Tony Gilroy (The Bourne Identity, Rogue One: A Star Wars Story), the writing deftly balances drama, suspense, and mystery to create a genre-bending narrative. It is well paced in terms of the reveals while ensuring that the timing of said reveals offer impactful emotional punches (especially during the third act with regards to Dolores’ fate). At the same time, though, Gilroy’s writing never comes off as rushed or exploitative. Instead, it relies on deliberate storytelling to make these human stakes very high by investing us in the titular heroine and the immediate support system around her. I don’t want to say anymore out of fear of revealing too much. Go check out Dolores Claiborne if you haven’t yet. If you don’t, you’ll surely regret it. Needless to say, all four of these films are great movies in their own right while also being exceptional adaptations of Stephen King’s storytelling. They are all worth watching (even though I prefer some more than others), and luckily are just some of the great cinematic takes on King’s literary oeuvre. Don’t believe it? Then go check them out for yourself! 😊 What is your favorite cinematic tribute to Stephen King? Which of King’s novels or short stories would you like to see made into a film? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst |
Austin McManusI have no academic or professional background in film production or criticism; I simply love watching and talking about movies. Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|