Return of the Jedi :: Harrison Ford :: Raiders of the Lost Ark

Remember when Harrison Ford was the coolest guy in the world? American Graffiti, Star Wars, Apocalypse Now, The Empire Strikes Back, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Blade Runner, Return of the Jedi, Temple of Doom, Witness, Frantic, Last Crusade, Presumed Innocent, Regarding Henry, Patriot Games, The Fugitive, and Clear and Present Danger. That's a hell of a resume from 1973-1994.

Harrison also gets me connected from Return of the Jedi to Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Damn, this is a great movie. Action, humor, romance, melting Nazis... what more could you want? Plus, it's at the height of careers for Ford, producer George Lucas, and director Steven Spielberg.

Re-watching this film is like going back to an old friend and a lesson in great movie making. A lesson that Ford, Lucas, and Spielberg should have gone back to learn before making their recent 4th entry in the Indiana Jones catalog, "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull."

First: the title. It's just "Raiders of the Lost Ark." No "Indiana Jones" in the title at all. Admittedly, Raiders wasn't planned to be a franchise, so there was no need for some name that would grant continuity through the series. But at the time, Lucas was also working through the Star Wars franchise - which, at least at the time, also didn't have "STAR WARS" and silly episode numbers in front if each title. All that came later, along with the ridiculously long Indy 4 title.

Second: the action. Raiders works so well because it's ultimately so believable. When Indy leaps over a pit using his whip, you feel the tension because it's reasonable to see that he would actually be in danger of falling... and also that he could actually make it across the pit with a little skill and luck. Indy can actually outrun the giant boulder. Indy can actually fight the giant bald Nazi guy. Indy is in danger from the actual snakes that surround him and act the way that snakes really act. Sure, we're suspending disbelief that Indy could really be that tough and survive that many incidents. But that's a fairly easy leap of faith to make when watching a movie.

In the Crystal Skull debacle the action just becomes ridiculous. Indy would not survive a nuclear blast - even inside a lead-lined refrigerator. Especially if that refrigerator got blasted across the desert with him in it (can you say Broken Spine?. The leaps and falls in the big warehouse chase scene are too big, too violent to walk away from (and look too computer-generated). And speaking of computer-generated, what the hell were those bugs? Giant fire ants? Do those even exist in real life? Even if they do exist, there's no way they would behave like that - devouring entire human beings in seconds. I definitely would have seen that shit on Discovery Channel by now if it could be true. And don't even get me started on the aliens.

Third: the mythology. Raiders (plus, Temple of Doom and Last Crusade) all rely on accepted mythology based on archaeological fact. The Ark of the Covenant actually existed and was the box that the ancient Jews used to carry around the broken pieces of the original Ten Commandments. Beyond that, the film uses the other myths that surround the Ark about its supernatural powers and use to make any army that carries it unstoppable. These are actual myths taken from real ancient texts.

The "real" Crystal Skulls? A hoax. Proven to be a hoax. Just some crap that guys claimed to have found in South America in the mid 1800s. They've been scientifically tested and proven to have been manufactured around the time they were "discovered." There is no record of ANY legend or mythology about Crystal Skulls in ANY Mesoamerican or other Native American culture. Period. So the movie is all based on hoaxes and sci-fi fanboy crap.

And Indy doesn't even try to quote ancient myths when he's getting the crew from place to place. At least in the original three movies, the screenplay gets through different tasks, challenges, and discoveries by being able to quote some (usually fictional) piece of folklore or highly researched legend. In Crystal Skull, he just makes shit up and it ends up being right. No legends. No myths. No research. Just crap.

OK, I'm spending too much time bitching about Crystal Skull. Just go watch Raiders. It's still awesome.

Field of Dreams :: James Earl Jones :: Return of the Jedi

Using James Earl Jones again to go from Terrence Mann in Field of Dreams, back into the Star Wars trilogy as the voice of Darth Vader in Return of the Jedi.

Jedi gets a bad rap sometimes and I can understand why: the Ewoks. Sure, they're too cutesy sometimes. Yes, George Lucas had originally intended to have them be Wookies, but scrapped that when he put Chewbacca into the first movie (when he wasn't sure if he'd be able to do all three). Of course their little song at the end of the movie is annoying.

But seriously... you loved Ewoks as a kid. Don't even fucking lie about it.

But don't let your nit picking about Ewoks undermine what might otherwise be the best movie of the trilogy. Here are some reasons why:

• We meet Jabba the Hut, and he's awesomely evil. His entire setup made for one of the best sequences of the films - and a kick ass Kenner playset.
  
• The whole crew shows up to help rescue Han, and we get to see Boba Fett bite it.
  
• Luke is now a badass Jedi, dressed all in black.
• Yoda dies. Sad, but that's what makes it great.
• Admiral Ackbar, the talking squid.
  
• We find out that Leia is Luke's sister.
• Death Star, part deux. "Now witness the firepower of this fully ARMED and OPERATIONAL battle station!"
• Meeting Emperor Palpatine. Evil, decrepit, and he can shoot lightning beams from his fingertips.
  
• Best light saber battle of the trilogy between Luke and Vader.
• Luke saves Vader from the Dark Side.
• And the #1 best reason to love Return of the Jedi: PRINCESS LEIA IN HER GOLD BIKINI.

C'mon, if that's not a reason to stop your whining about the Ewoks, I don't know what is.

The Empire Strikes Back :: James Earl Jones :: Field of Dreams

OK, so James Earl Jones doesn't actually appear in The Empire Strikes Back, but there's no mistaking him as the voice of Darth Vader. Or of course as Terrence Mann in Field of Dreams.

Field of Dreams is one of the best baseball movies ever (download episode #11 of the At Home Film Festival Podcast to hear my discussion with John Jordan about our favorite baseball movies). It's a great, nostalgic look at what baseball has meant to generations of fans through the past century in America. As we go further down the road of overpaid players, corporate greed, advertising plastered across every surface of every stadium, and more news about steroid use coming out every couple weeks, it's nice to have a reminder of what the game of baseball should really be about.

Plus, as a guy, this is one of the few movies where it's acceptable to shed a tear or two. The film culminates with a simple line when Kevin Costner says, "Hey Dad? Wanna have a catch?" That moment somehow encapsulates the entire father-son dynamic. The things left unsaid between father and child can lead to resentment later in life... but those innocent moments of our childhood - sharing time at a baseball game, or simply playing catch - somehow encapsulate all the love and caring and mutual respect that we forgot was always there.

See, I'm getting choked up just thinking of the scene. Time to move on to the next DVD.

Bridge on the River Kwai :: Alec Guinness :: The Empire Strikes Back

For the first time (but definitely not the last), using a repeat connector... Sir Alec Guinness connects us from The Bridge on the River Kwai back into the Star Wars Trilogy with The Empire Strikes Back.

This is definitely the best of the Star Wars series. The opening battle on Hoth is great. We meet Yoda. We meet Lando Calrissian. We find out that Darth Vader is Luke's father. Han & Leia fall in love ("I love you." "I know." One of the best movie exchanges.) Luke's hand gets cut off. Han gets frozen in carbonite. Boba Fett gets introduced. C3PO gets dismantled (which led to the cool toy where you could take him apart) . And it ends with a cliffhanger... you're completely satisfied, but dying for more.

I already ranted about George Lucas's special editions of the original Star Wars trilogy in my previous entry for Star Wars. And I'll rant some more when I get to Return of the Jedi and The Phantom Menace in my collection. But for now, I'm just going to bask in the enjoyment of a really great movie: The Empire Strikes Back.

Star Wars :: Alec Guinness :: Bridge on the River Kwai

Sir Alec Guinness gets to be the connection here from Obi-Wan "Ben" Kenobi in Star Wars to Colonel Nicholson in The Bridge on the River Kwai. This might have creeped into my top ten all-time movies... keeps getting better every time I see it. Here are three reasons it's so damn good...
It's an epic that doesn't feel long.
Clocking in at 161 minutes, this isn't a short film by any means. But the film is really structured into three characters' stories, each compelling, that intertwine and come together explosively at the end of the film. The first is that of Alec Guinness as Colonel Nicholson and his refusal to break and allow Japanese Colonel Saito (Sessue Hayakawa) to force the captured British officers and sick or wounded soldiers to work on the Kwai Bridge in violation of the Geneva Convention.
The second story is the breaking of Colonel Saito. He is forced to acquiesce to Nicholson's stubbornness in order to complete construction on his bridge project and avoid his own disgrace and forced suicide. Of course this leads to a shift of power from Saito to Nicholson. Eventually Nicholson has his own officers and sick soldiers working on the bridge by his own orders. It is a victory of sorts for Saito, but an empty one in that he needed to rely on the British officer in order to succeed.
The third story is of US Navy Commander Shears (William Holden). His escape and rescue from the labor camp play out in the background of the first half of the film, but then his new mission to return to the jungle and destroy the bridge comes into play. We see in his story not only the opposing force of the construction vs. the destruction of the bridge, but also the opposing ideals of Shears (searching for pleasure and freedom in society) vs. Nicholson (adhering strictly to the rules of a civilized world).
It uses moral ambiguity and the shift of audience loyalty.
I love the moral questions in Kwai. Should Nicholson give in to Saito's demands if it means saving the lives of his soldiers? Is it nobler to attempt escape or follow the rules as prisoners? At what point does benefiting yourself cross the line into benefiting your enemies?
The film also shifts your loyalties throughout. Initially you despise Saito and want Nicholson to win their battle of wills. Later you fear how far over the line Nicholson will go for his ideals, and pity Saito in his shame. You want to see Nicholson complete the bridge. Then you desperately want Shears to destroy it. It's brilliant in getting the audience to root for both teams at various points throughout the game.
They actually built the bridge, and they actually blew it up.
No miniatures. No CGI. It's an actual bridge over an actual river with an actual train going across it as they actually blow the whole thing up and the bridge and train actually crash together into the actual river. It's not only an amazing feat that they pulled it off, but it's amazing because movie studios will never do that stuff anymore. Instead they build a couple of sets and use some green screens and fancy camera work to make it look "real." Instead it looks like CGI effects with no real tension or real danger involved. And unfortunately as a result, too many of today's film goers would watch an amazing sequence like the detonation of the Bridge on the River Kwai and simply assume that it was only a model.

That's it for now. Great movie - and if you can get the 2-DVD set, definitely check out the extra features and documentary on disc 2!

Blade Runner :: Harrison Ford :: Star Wars

From one sci-fi classic to another, by way of Harrison Ford. I go from watching Blade Runner to watching Star Wars.

That's STAR WARS. Not "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope". Not the re-issue with Jabba the Hutt walking around and Greedo shooting first. It's Star Wars. Period. Fuck George Lucas, his crappy prequels, and his incessant need to "fix" things he did before.

Lucas created an amazing vision with Star Wars. People loved it. I loved it. I understand the desire to make the prequels. They weren't very good. I've mostly gotten over that.

But it's the re-issues I have the most problems with when it comes to the Star Wars franchise. It was (and still is) a beloved product. I never once heard a fan complain about the number of people, buildings, and creatures roaming around the Mos Eisley space port. But Lucas had always felt it should be busier, so he added more computer generated crap 20 years later.

I never heard anyone complain about the fact that Han Solo shot Greedo. Han was a scoundrel, a space pirate. The notion that he was a bad mofo, willing to shoot and even kill to get out of a tight situation is fine. In fact, it makes his eventual decision to join the Rebel Alliance and become a decent human being that much more significant. But no, Lucas felt that a "good guy" shouldn't fire without being fired upon, so he CGI'ed an extra laser blast.

I never heard anyone complain about Jabba the Hutt not being in the first movie. But of course Lucas had some cutting-room footage of a scene between Han Solo and a Jabba that he just had to use. So we suddenly get a Jabba that's too small, too agile, too computer-generated, and too pointless.

With the original releases, we didn't see Jabba until the third movie, by which point he's become this mythic, shadowy, gangster that we can only imagine... and when we finally do meet him, he's the complete embodiment of greed, sloth, lust, and gluttony. He doesn't move. He doesn't need to. He's like Paulie in Goodfellas: "Paulie may have moved slow, but it was only because Paulie didn't have to move for anybody."

But if you watch the re-issues, now you've already seen Jabba, and he suddenly looks, acts, and moves differently - because now he's a huge puppet instead of a bunch of pixels. And now I'm disappointed.

I'm wandering way too far into the Dork Forest. So I'll just leave with this... Watch the original 1977 version of Star Wars. It was the Citizen Kane of sci-fi for 20 years, and that's good enough for me.

Unless you want to add some CGI sleds to Orson Welles' classic.

Airplane! :: James Hong :: Blade Runner

James Hong also gets me from Airplane! to my next movie, Blade Runner.

Blade Runner is great science fiction. Dystopian future. Androids. Action. Philosophical introspection on what truly makes us human. What was really interesting for me is that I literally watched Blade Runner and the series finale of Battlestar Galactica in the same weekend - both shows dealing with many of the same issues... and both starring Edward J. Olmos.

I'm not going to get into the debate over whether Harrison Ford's character Deckard is a replicant or not. I personally think he's human. But I can see both sides, especially depending on which version of the film you watch. The original U.S. theatrical release makes it fairly clear that he's human. The 1990's "Director's Cut" and the more recent "Final Cut" make it more ambiguous. Buy the 4-disc Collector's Edition and you can watch four different versions of the film and decide for yourself.

The other thing to really pay attention to with Blade Runner is the effects. Today, we see massive futuristic cities on the screen, and it's all done with computers (see the Star Wars prequels). But Blade Runner was made in 1982 with real models, sets, matte paintings, and all the other conventional tricks... and it still stands up really well against modern CGI effects. Ridley Scott really knew his shit back in the day (couple Blade Runner with the film he released three years earlier, Alien, and you've got a sci-fi one-two punch that may be unrivaled). But I still can't forgive him for crap like Gladiator and Hannibal.