Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Growing up, the other kids always seemed to hold the Star Wars trilogy up as the greatest series film had produced. For whatever reason, I never really jumped on that bandwagon - I was always more of an Indy and Back to the Future kid. And while the idea of another BttF film makes my blood run cold, the prospect of a new Indiana Jones adventure always seemed like a reasonable idea, in theory. It's a series that almost certainly should be left in the 80's, but it could probably survive in the modern climate under the correct supervision. The series had already hit a major speed bump with Temple of Doom, so it seemed unlikely that a new film could tarnish the series in the way Phantom Menace did to Star Wars. While Kingdom of the Crystal Skull has a fair share of flaws, it is by no means a franchise killer, and quite often it is a lot of fun. And really, that's what you want from an Indiana Jones movie.

I think the biggest problem this film has is that it lacks that iconic feeling that the previous three had (yes, even ToD). The other films are ripe with moments, music, and characters that are all cornerstones of film history at this point. None of that exists here. The action scenes are all a little "been there, done that," the characters are a mix of familiar faces and uninspired new ones, and the music is completely forgettable. But when your biggest fault is a failure to feel iconic, you have little to worry about. Like I said, this is FUN. Perhaps it's because I was never able to see the original trilogy on the big screen, but seeing an Indy film in the theater for the first time gave me a big, giddy smile for most of the film. Even if Indy was dealing with fairly generic action set pieces, it was still exciting to see how he was going to deal with them.

Harrison Ford hasn't lost any of his old charm here, nor does he seem too afraid to be physical. Sure, he runs a little slower and he has to rely on other people to help him out occasionally, but overall this is still the same Indy we remember, just a little older and a little wiser. As you may have heard, Karen Allen returns here as Marion Ravenwood, and it is the scenes between the two of them that really rise above the rest of the film. When the two meet for the first time in years, the reaction Harrison portrays is wonderful. These two characters were made for each other, and it's nice to know that Spielberg and company agree. Allen may no longer look like a typical Hollywood beauty, but she has more feist and personality in her than someone like Jessica Alba or Megan Fox ever will. If anything, it would have been nice to see more of her here.

The new players are where the film starts to fall flat. Ray Winstone plays a dodgy partner to Indy, and if you've seen The Mummy, it becomes clear that he is a complete carbon copy of the character Beni in that film, even down to his final scene being identical. Cate Blanchett is surprisingly bland as the villainess, perhaps because she keeps disappearing for large chunks of the film. Her motives are never completely clear, nor is she ever really defined. The biggest question mark has always been Shia LaBeouf. It's been stated that George Lucas wants to hand this franchise over to Shia, but truthfully he doesn't seem like he'd be up for it. It's not that he does a bad job, just that the character isn't very interesting. The 50's teen rebel seems a little cliched and dull, and it just doesn't fit well within the Indiana Jones universe.

Spilling the story details is kind of unnecessary. Indy goes looking for some sort of artifact, with the villains in pursuit. You either know what to expect from these films, or you haven't been paying attention. The devil, however, is in the details. I liked the way they referenced the fact that Indy hasn't just been dormant for twenty years. In the 40's he went to fight in WWII (now there's an interesting - if atypical - film to imagine, Indy at War), some of his friends and family have passed away, and he's been involved in government projects from time to time. To say this is a contemplative film wouldn't be entirely accurate, but it is certainly aware that Indiana has aged and seen the world, and that his adventures over the years have affected him. It could have been just another entry in the franchise with no thought towards growth for the character, but it wasn't. The first film worked so well because it was a fresh idea. Temple of Doom fell flat because it didn't try to do much of anything beyond recapturing the spirit of the first one. Last Crusade was a high point because it added the father-son element into it, making it more than just a copy of Raiders. This one again tries to infuse something into the action: a sense of nostalgia within Indy, as well as a son figure for him in Shia's character.

While at times pretty silly (the refrigerator scene, for example), it is still well above any other adventure film out there right now. Will it be something I return to again and again over the years as I have with the others? I'm not sure, but I suspect I won't. I enjoyed it right now, and that's really all you can expect from any movie. It's a shame it feels necessary to hold it up to the three previous films, but that's just the way it goes when you follow something so iconic. However time looks back upon this fourth Indiana Jones film, it was great to have such a wonderful character back on the screens for two hours.

Speed Racer

We may only be two weeks into summer, but it's hard to imagine a more insipid or repelling movie than Speed Racer being released. Even The Love Guru can't be as terrible as this. It's not just that it's bad. I can handle bad. What makes this an unnaturally painful movie going experience is that it's quite clear that those involved gave this thing their all, but with the completely wrong direction in mind. Everything from the visuals to the editing to the acting is done well, but in a "I can't stand to watch this" kind of way. Only the most skilled artist can make something so completely unwatchable.

Take, for example, the visuals. This film is almost wall to wall special effects. Aside from the actors, I'm not sure there is anything on screen that isn't CGI. The Wachowskis could have advanced the use of green screen with this film, they clearly have that ability, but instead they made everything as cartoony and superficial as possible. Everything looks retro, but intentionally so. Instead of trying to adapt the Speed Racer property for the film medium, they adapted the film medium to fit Speed Racer. And it doesn't work at all. Instead it is headache inducing, and it becomes impossible to tell what exactly is going on.

I suppose part of why I can't enjoy the film is that it is so clearly aimed at young children. It wasn't made for me, so maybe I shouldn't be attacking it. That's an argument that I don't subscribe to. There are plenty of good family films that I enjoy completely. Any Pixar film, for example, work as a children's film and as a simply good film in general. And to be honest, I can't see a lot of kids really enjoying this. At over two hours in length, it grow tiresome even for an adult, and the plot spends far too much time dealing with evil corporate sponsors and the business of stock trade. I'm an adult and I wasn't entirely sure I could follow the villain's evil plans. I understood that he needed to take down Speed Racer, but the why of it went largely over my head. It's a hard film to follow, and aside for the trippy visuals and a monkey, I can't see what a kid would take away from this film that he wouldn't get from Iron Man.

I have no prior knowledge of the Speed Racer franchise. Perhaps that compounded my frustration, but it seems like they could have explained some things more for non-fans. Such as: who is that Australian man-child living with the Racer family? Why did Racer X abandon his family and fake his death, essentially destroying his family for years? Why does Speed's girlfriend live with Speed's family? Why on Earth do they have a monkey and why does no one ever comment on that fact the entire movie? Is it just normal in the future for families to have monkeys? Was the youngest Racer, Spritle, so affected by ADD that the family had to buy a monkey to befriend him because the school children wouldn't? These are the sorts of things that can take a non-fan out of the film. And they are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to non-sequitors within the film.

What we have here, honestly, is not a film, but the makings of a future midnight movie cult classic. It's hard to imagine what was going through peoples' heads when they made this, because clearly nothing on screen was a good idea at all. Warner Bros could not have been happy when they saw that the film the Wachowskis turned in was not a technology pushing adrenaline rush, but instead one big LSD trip for two hours and fifteen minutes. Heads fly across the screen to signal cuts. People drive around in literally hand drawn vehicles at one point. There's an entire subplot about Spritle and the monkey stealing candy from a jet that goes nowhere at all. I could go on and on about how insane this film is, how its mere existence defies all logic, but instead I'll simply say that you've never seen a movie like this - and you probably never should.

Iron Man

After a brief spring hiatus it's time for me to get back into the swing of things with the summer movie season, and what better way to kick things off than with Iron Man?

1997's Batman & Robin was a movie so singularly bad it ended a franchise, a number of careers, and nearly destroyed the comic book movie as a genre. It also took a toll on me, at the time just a young boy who loved movies and superheroes. It was a movie going experience that has stayed with me forever, a scar that won't quite go away. I bear that scar every time I go to see a superhero movie, making it very hard to unabashedly love them. At the first sign of whimsy or cuteness I run for the hills. I hate every Spider-Man movie, can't stand the Fantastic 4 series, and barely tolerate the first and third X-Men. Indeed, the only superhero movie I have loved with all my heart since 1997 is Batman Begins, perhaps because it was made specifically to be the antithesis of Schumacher's abomination. It is with that baggage that I approached Iron Man, a movie I couldn't quite get behind, but saw signs of great things to come within.

Iron Man is not exactly one of the top tier superheroes. That holy trinity seems to be Batman, Spider-Man, and Superman - three icons that everyone know. I went into this film knowing very little about the Iron Man character, his mythos, or rogues gallery. In a way that seems to work to the film's benefit. Usually you know exactly what you're getting from a film about the Holy Trinity because they've carved out such specific places in our culture that they can't really deviate. Iron Man has no such place in our society, so the film is free to do things we've not yet seen in a superhero movie, playing with the ideas of keeping your identity a secret, who a superhero should protect, and how it should be done.

Robert Downey Jr is a great choice to play a wisecracking, womanizing, alcoholic billionaire weapons manufacturer. While he seems a bit reigned in compared to some of his greatest performances, his charm and charisma is the single best aspect of the film. I'd be surprised if he doesn't get a similar popularity boost to the one Johnny Depp did after Pirates. To take a character who is so self-centered and egotistical and make you truly believe that he would want to save the world by film's end is no easy feat, but Downey sold me. The rest of the cast is well chosen, if given little to do. Terrence Howard is largely wasted as the best friend who clearly is there to set up his role in the sequel. Gwyneth Paltrow is wonderfully understated for most of the film, but she becomes a bit whiny towards the end of the film. And the great Jeff Bridges is an inspired choice for the villain - pity he is almost nonexistent for most of the run time. If Downey sold me on his character arc, Bridges was the exact opposite. He becomes the villain almost out of the film's necessity, not out of a clear path for his character. It felt like something that should have been developed throughout the film and then payed off in a sequel. The cast all work well together, though, and any problems they run into is a result of the script and not their acting.

Indeed, the script is the film's only true weakness, lacking any real direction. The first third of the film is great, as it sets up how Tony Stark is captured by terrorists using the very weapons he has been manufacturing. He sees what he has been doing to the world and decides to escape and set right what he'd done wrong. After that, though, it goes nowhere. He spends a great deal of time just working in his lab creating the suit we've all become familiar with. The final twenty minutes finally pick back up as a villain rises to challenge him. Those who were bored by the lack of Batman in the first hour of Batman Begins will be truly asleep here, as Iron Man is probably on screen for less than a fourth of the 2 hour run time.

Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of this film is that Iron Man is not a hero out to save a city, like Batman or Spider-Man (or even Superman oftentimes). Instead, he has made it his mission to save the world. If given this incredible suit, would you go around town stopping thieves and muggers, or would you fly around the globe stopping terrorism? It makes for a more dynamic character, and raises interesting moral questions (should some American in a suit of armor be allowed to police the world?). It's not developed too deeply in this film, but it's clear that this is the direction the sequels will be going in.

Iron Man feels like a movie that was made simply to build up to the inevitably better sequel. It puts all the pieces in place and then says (figuratively) "To be continued." It's a film of individual great elements, but elements which are not allowed to all gel together. Perhaps I will never really be able to love a movie like this again, but I can see a lot to appreciate, and I think that Iron Man as a franchise has a great future, even if the inaugural installment wasn't perfect.