So long, Doctor Jones…
You’re all expecting a rave, aren’t you? Shades of ‘your reviewer arrived flushed and breathless, gentle reader, after thrilling once more to the exploits of Indiana Jones in the latest action-packed installment, and couldn’t wait to share his joy with world’. Sorry, but think again, and prepare yourself for a rude awakening. The magic is over, and all we’re left with, in chapter four, is an historical artefact of bygone glories.
Now please, I beg of you, don’t get me wrong – I have thrilled to Spielberg’s films and the Indy series, from Raiders…(1981) onwards for nearly as long as I’ve been watching movies, so be assured that it was with no satisfaction whatsoever that I watched Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull first begin to slowly unravel after a very promising opening then, by slow and painful degrees, sink into a contrived, overplayed, poorly written mess that was lifted very little by a ‘spectacular’ climax that gives new meaning to ‘superfluous’, followed by a distinctly dubious denouement that I’m itching to spoil, but won’t, because any viewer with half an eye open will see where it’s all heading.
This may seem to be a paradoxical stance to take, but what seems finally to have run away from the creators, from director Steven Spielberg down to writer and story concocters David Koepp and George Lucas, is the concept of credibility.
Sure, we can all still buy the idea of an ageing Indy (Harrison Ford is now in his mid-sixties, which is older than Sean Connery was when he played Henry Jones Senior in …Last Crusade (1989)), pulled out of retirement during the Cold War (the story opens in 1957) encountering renegade Russians, led by a disturbingly sexy Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett), who are seeking ‘paranormal weapons’ technology and are on to a secret that’s buried in the depths of time involving the Roswell Incident, El Dorado and ancient Mayan technology. We can even accept another ‘sidekick’ – thank God at least that this time around, it’s not Short Round, as in …Temple of Doom (1984), but rather James Dean-lookalike Mutt Williams (Shia LaBeouf), who is set to find that the ‘part-time teacher’ he’s been thrown in with has a few tricks up his sleeve.
What is completely unacceptable, however, is the expectation on the part of Spielberg and Co. that audiences will accept a group of talented actors (including Ford, it must be said, and John Hurt, and Ray Winstone) simply going through the motions, with one contrived set-piece following another. Even the return of Karen Allen as Marion Ravenwood from the first film disappoints – quite frankly, she’s not aged very well, and seems not to have been practising her acting too much in the interim, either.
Good stuff? Well, the early action and snide back-and-forth between Ford-Blanchett-Winstone is enjoyable, and there’s a sense that the film may be building to something truly spectacular. Sadly though, it never does – as Jones says, to Marion’s comment that he was not the man she knew ten years ago, way back in Raiders of the Lost Ark and in what now seems like another lifetime, let alone another film: ‘It’s not the years, it’s the mileage.’ How true, Harrison, how very true – and how sad that, despite Ford’s enduring charm as everyone’s favourite action hero, these words have proven to be a self-fulfilling prophecy both for the character and franchise.
124 mins.
I hate Shia LaBeef. To be honest, I’d rather have Short Round back. ‘Watch out, Daktar Joones!’
Not sure if I’d go that far, Dean
– however, the set-up between the ‘LaBeef’ character and Jones is about as contrived as it gets. Have you seen the film yet?
I haven’t seen the film yet (it has just been released, what, yesterday?) but I’ve read just a couple of reviews (sans spoilers) and I can see where it’s going A MILE OFF. But it’ll be fun, though, seeing the Marion character again.
Hmmm. Well, I’ll leave you to decide after you’ve seen it…
It seems like the recipe for a good Indiana Jones film should be one-part Nazis and one-part Biblical artefact… the Soviet renegades do a pretty good job of replacing the Nazis, but, as for the other ingredients…
Hear, hear Patrick – and, as I assume you have now seen the film, would you also agree that so much of it now seems ‘tacked on’, ie, it’s time for a chase, time for a grisly bad-guy’s death (but we are barely given enough time to sink our teeth into the villains, unlike the earlier, much stronger characterisations in Raiders etc), time for a sardonic glance to camera, time for a ‘spectacular’ ending? Or am I simply too old, too young? Thanks for the comment.
Hi James – congrats on the Picturenose site, which, I’m ashamed to admit, I was completely unaware of until an old friend from my York days (sounding uncannily like you in fact), rang me up and mentioned, en passant, that I might like to check it out. So I did. I’m no stranger to reading your reviews, but they’re always entertaining, informed, and pleasantly subjective – I like reviewers who put a bit of personality into their reviews, even when it’s a rather unpalatable personality, such as yours.
I write this time, not to comment on any particular review that you’ve written, but to ask about a film that came out earlier this year, which seems to have passed under the Picturenose radar, as it were (judging by the results of the search I did).
I realise that you and your fellow reviewers watch many films between you, and you can’t give coverage to everything that comes out, but among the dross that fills the cinemas, I wonder if you had chance to see Julian Schnabel’s wonderful film The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (2007), based on the best-selling book by Elle editor, Jean-Dominique Bauby, whose life was changed irrevocably when he suffered a massive stroke in his early 40′s. Yes, the film was in French with subtitles, and wasn’t an obvious crowd-pleaser, but the humour and pathos that ran through the film, without ever descending into maudlin sentimentality, made it compelling viewing for me. So much so in fact, that I went back to the cinema a few days after I’d first seen it, and watched it again – with the admission price being about US$18 per time, as it is here in Tokyo, it’s a rare film that impresses me so much that I go and see it twice, but The Diving Bell and the Butterfly was such a film.
Mathieu Almaric gives a great performance as Bauby, ‘locked in’ his paralyzed body, but surveying the world around him with the same dry wit and sardonic humour that were his hallmarks before the stroke. Max von Sydow gives a very touching cameo performance as his father, and there are some very moving scenes between him and his son. I was just wondering if there were any plans to review this film on Picturenose, and what, if any, was your policy on non-English language films – do they fall outside the scope of Picturenose?
Also, I’ve heard great things about the film In Bruges (2008), which apparently shows a return to form for Colin Farrell, who’s made some rather dodgy career choices of late, so I’m looking forward to seeing that reviewed on PN some day soon, especially as it was shot on location in Belgium – how many films can you say that about, I wonder?
Anyway, best of luck for the site, and I look forward to reading your response to this, once you’ve subbed it down to a manageable size (sorry about that – brevity was never my forte, as you know).
Hi Mark,
Thanks very much for the nice comment, and also for your similarly lengthy email of late.
We’ll stick to your questions concerning Picturenose here, if that’s OK, dealing with the most important one first, to wit: ‘I was just wondering if there were any plans to review The Diving Bell and the Butterfly on Picturenose, and what, if any, was your policy on non-English language films – do they fall outside the scope of Picturenose?’
In brief, yes and no. Yes, I would very much like to see Julian Schnabel’s film (I’m a huge fan of his earlier work, with Basquiat (1996) in particular a stand-out), and once I have (or my Picturenose cohort Colin has), a review will appear.
And, frankly, NOTHING cinematic falls outside PN’s remit – to the best of our ability, we have tried to keep abreast of the big mainstream US releases (hence this Indy 4 review, for example), but this is by no means the be-all and the end-all of our aims. As you will see from the archive, I/we have already reviewed non-English language films and, given that we hope our growing demographic includes many European cineastes, that’s exactly how we intend to proceed. We’re about loving film, and that’s all there is to it.
Assuming that you simply can’t get enough of my limpid prose
be informed that Picturenose also supplies weekly reviews to leading expat website Expatica.com:
http://www.expatica.com/be/survival/surv_leisure/Cinema-Reviews-_-28-May-_-4-June-2008.html
And it was on here, for your information, that I offered a review of In Bruges – enjoyed it very much.
As far as Mathieu Almaric is concerned, can’t say that it surprises me he’s given another great performance – he was excellent in Munich (2005) and I can’t wait to see him as the villain Dominic Green in the upcoming Bond sequel, Quantum of Solace (2008).
Great to talk – welcome to our site. I’m sure we’ll be hearing from you again soon…
Hi James,
Thanks for responding to my post from the other day, and for clearing up the points I raised in it. Looking forward to hearing your views on The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, when you (or Colin) have chance to see it. I didn’t realise you were such a fan of Julian Schnabel’s work – I’m afraid I’ve yet to see Basquiat or any other of his films, but on the strength of your recommendation, I may try downloading one or two. Er, I mean, shelling out 20 quid for the legitimate, commercially released DVD version.
I clicked on the link you provided to check out your In Bruges review, but it didn’t appear to be included in the films that were featured on that page, and alas, a search of the Expatica site also proved to be in vain…..Something wrong with my computer, perhaps? Or the link itself? Who knows….
Just before I sign off, one other quick recommendation of a French-language film I saw recently which I enjoyed very much – Denis Dercourt’s La Tourneuse de Pages (2006), which stars Deborah François, who hails from your neck of the global woods , I believe (by which I mean Belgium, not Millfield Lane, Upper Poppleton). If ever there was a film which exemplified the saying ‘Revenge is a dish best served cold’ this is it. A very stylish and taut psychological thriller, with excellent performances from the two leads (the very versatile Catherine Frot plays opposite François), this is the kind of film at which the French excel. I’m sure you’d enjoy it, assuming you haven’t seen it already. Can’t recall if there were any elegant reverse dollies in it though…
Thanks again, Mark – checked the Expatica link and, as you indicated, In Bruges is no longer to be found – will follow that up with the website’s editor.
Concerning your recommendation, no, neither of us have seen it – another gap, ably spotted by young Mark that we shall try to rectify in the near future. Or not.
Who knows? Maybe you might tell me what you thought of Indy 4 any day now?
Hi Mark,
‘Can’t recall if there were any elegant reverse dollies in it though…’
To be contrasted with reverse zooms in which the movement of the camera lenses distorts the image, flattening perspective on the way in, emphasising it on the way out. Dollies are therefore a more subtle – dare I say elegant? – feature of cinematic grammar. Though not to all DOPs tastes (see Seigel’s use of telephoto zooms in Dirty Harry (1971))
Ponsy technical details aside, you might like Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead (2007), Sidney Lumet’s recent and darkly comic crime caper as well as The Savages (2007), which is a darkly comic rumination on senility. Both feature great performances from Philip Seymour-Hoffman who is fast becoming my favourate actor of the moment.
Haven’t seen Indy 4 yet but was dragged along to Sex and the City (2008) which is very pink and has some blue shoes in it.
I hope you are well – beware of bad sushi.
Mark and Chris,
You two, eh? At odds in life…in love online. It’s just like Nora Ephron’s marvellous romantic comedy from 1998, You’ve Got Mail.
Excellent explanation of reverse dollies, Chris – put Mark in his place, and probably made him feel even more inferior concerning cinema than previously. Nice one.
On another note, however, what is your present obsession with finding films funny that simply aren’t? I cite your recent comment on Calvaire, a real barrel of laughs that one, and now Lumet’s most recent, which for me is one of the most gruelling, can-it-get-any-worse-oh-yes-it-can character studies ever made, and not a film that drew anything approaching a grin from yours truly. However, I am in complete agreement with you concerning PSH – he is pretty much the best thesp about at the moment.
Now play nicely boys, and keep it here…
‘You two, eh?’
He started it!
‘On another note, however, what is your present obsession with finding films funny that simply aren’t? I cite your recent comment on Calvaire, a real barrel of laughs that one.’
See, this is why I think it was wrong that canned laughter went out of fashion.
A man bringing a calf into the lounge happily convinced it is his long lost dog Bella gets a chuckle from me, even if it is choked by a growing sense of dread.
Hi Chris,
Thanks for your post of 10 days or so ago, and sorry for not getting back to you sooner – been rather busy recently so haven’t been logging on to PN. Good to hear from you again – this space is turning into a bit of a Poppletonians reunited thing, isn’t it? How long will it be before we hear from Jez A? I wonder….
Anyway, nostalgia aside, thanks for your explanation of reverse dollies, elegant or otherwise. I had a feeling I might see a post from you in reponse to my tongue-in-cheek comment about them. I have to be honest, I’m not really into the technical side of cinema so much, but I’m sure that if I made the effort to learn more about the ‘grammar’ of cinema, as you obviously have, it would enhance my appreciation of good films. Bit of a lazy sod in that respect, I’m afraid.
I’ve made a note of your two recommendations and will keep a look out for them, although many films come late to Japan so they may not be on release here for a while. Cinema admission is very pricey here (about nine quid), so I don’t go as often as I’d like, unfortunately.
As for sushi, I’ve never been a fan, to be honest, so don’t have to worry about eating the bad stuff. Cold, raw fish with cold rice anyone? No thanks.
Hope you’re doing well too, and look forward to hearing from you again.
PS Sex &The City must have been a rather painful experience for you, no?
Hi James,
‘Excellent explanation of reverse dollies, Chris – put Mark in his place, and probably made him feel even more inferior concerning cinema than previously. Nice one.’
Rather revealing comment, that, I thought. I read Chris’s comment on reverse dollies with interest, but it certainly didn’t put me in my place, or make me feel ‘even more inferior concerning cinema’, for the simple reason that I’ve always regarded watching films and discussing them as activities to be enjoyed, rather than a chance for petty point-scoring and one-upmanship. I’ve never denied the fact that both you and Chris have a greater knowldedge of cinema and all the trivia associated with it, and in that sense you’re ‘superior’, if that gives you a warm glow of satisfaction, but the great thing about any creative work, be it a book, film, or whatever, is that each person’s reaction to it is as valid as the next person’s, even if they’re not able (or inclined) to expound on their feelings at great length, in the manner of a professional critic.
By the way, much as I hate to be pedantic about these things (yeah, right..), as the word ‘forte’ comes from Italian, rather than French, there’s no acute accent on the final ‘é’, as you rather mischievously added when subbing my post of 31st May. I wouldn’t want anyone reading it to think I’d committed such a basic error!
And I think you’ll find it’s ‘cachet’ rather than ‘caché’ (from one of the early editions of Together, that one). Just FYI, you understand.
Good luck with the French though – you’ll crack it in the end, I’m sure.
Petty point-scoring and one-upmanship – you’d never find me indulging in such childishness. Ahem…
Dearest Mark,
Thanks, as ever, for your comments and commentary. I assure you that the quote you cited was meant affectionately and only in the very best of humour…I know what a sensitive soul you can be, and I do hope your feelings were not too hurt.
And thanks for your corrections -’caché’ in the magazine had already been pointed out to me, but apologies for incorrectly ‘correcting’ your original ‘forte’. Des que j’ai finis ecrire ce réponse, je vais encore le corriger, d’accord?
And maybe we can get back to talking about films soon, what do you say?