My Friday Night Freak Fest and a review of The Strangers

When I wrote about the trailer for The Strangers earlier in the week, I never really indicated that I intended to go see it. I must admit that I am not a huge horror fan because I am a much bigger fan of not being scared. But then my older brother laid down a challenge of sorts on the comments page. Ben has always shown up for a good scary movie (he has a Haddonfield Illinois T-shirt, if you catch that reference you deserve a free subscription to Fangora). I clearly recall him giving me a shot-by-shot recollection of A Nightmare on Elm St. so chilling that I have never seen the movie myself. Upon reading his comment I resolve to be the scardey cat brother no longer. I decide to go the movie after dark, alone, at a time when there would be no one at the house upon my return. Pretty brave, if I do say so myself.
When I reach the front of the box office line I am informed, “The theater is almost full. There are a lot of kids in there.” I feign annoyance and buy my ticket. The truth was I am relieved that I will be surrounded by people half my age who will no doubt talk throughout to remind me that this is, in fact, just a movie. The crowd does not disappoint; their gossiping and texting doing wonders for my high anxiety. What follows is a proper review of the movie itself:

Simplicity is The Strangers best asset. With only four speaking roles, minimal use of inorganic sound, and a nearly claustrophobic use of space, this film is pretty bare bones. Add to this the simplicity of the premise (couple in house wants to live, three masked crazies outside of house have other intentions) and you have a pretty frightening movie with a classic, pre-slasher, feel. There are plenty of jump out of your seat moments (including a few compulsory false alarms) and plenty of chances to scream “Don’t go into the house/car/garage/dilapidated barn etc." The use of music is so pitch perfect scary that you will never hear Merle Haggard the same way again. The gore level is kept surprisingly, and wisely, low to keep the movie firmly in the “scary” category far away from the “just plain gross” section.

Writer/director Bryan Bertino remembers that the more plausible the scenario the more terrifying it is. He has wisely excised anything that would require an explanation (a hostel where guests are sold to a group of businessmen who allow others to torture and kill them for money, for example). Focusing the action in a home, the symbol of safety and security in so many lives, amplifies the fear factor. The performances of Liv Tyler and Scott Speedman play into this perfectly. They are both so completely unremarkable, on purpose, that the viewer can easily superimpose themselves into the situation.

All horror movies eventually face the same problem: the issue of diminishing returns. What is scary twenty-minutes in will not be scary at the hour mark. This is where The Strangers stumbles. The villains are nightmare inducing, but an over-reliance on the “masks are scary” mantra leads to a stall in the frights about three quarter of the way through the film. The audience becomes accustomed to the concept and familiarity just isn’t scary. Something new needed to happen and it never did. The end of the film is even more disappointing. Without revealing the final act, let’s just say the filmmakers traded in cleverness for cleavers. The conclusion felt more like the fair that Rob Zombie and the other Horror-porn mongers have been serving up to horror fans for the past several years. This particular choice keeps The Strangers from being an entirely viable alternative to that truly dreadful genre.

The trailer for The Strangers is REALLY scary

As a rule, I try to avoid previews, particularly for movies that I want to see. I feel there is such a push to sell the film that anything interesting gets thrown into the trailer. The current clip promoting The Incredible Hulk is a grand example of this. The ad builds suspense and interest for a minute or so then proceeds to give away what looks like most of the major plot points (I won’t relay them here in case you have managed to avoid it).

Every once in a while, however, I am reminded of the true art of the movie preview. This occurred last Thursday while I was innocently watching my television. Suddenly, I was subjected to a two minute clip promoting The Strangers. The preview was so startling and scary that, later that evening, I had a series of bad dreams. I can’t remember the last full length movie that had this effect, much less a preview.

So here I am all aflutter about some horror movie that I previously knew nothing about. I am talking about The Strangers (and my accompanying nightmares) to anyone who will listen. I can’t decide if I should see it Friday or to spend the weekend hiding under my bed. It is wonderous to have such a visceral reaction to a movie, especially since I haven't even seen it yet.

Now here is the question: Is the The Strangers any good? From the looks of the preview the concept seems simple enough to be horrifying: a couple realizes their house is surrounded by some masked strangers who are icky and malevolent. The radio commercial indicates that the couple is actually on a getaway in the woods. If true, this would hamper the film because home invasion is a fear far more palpable than creepy cabin invasion (I can avoid cabins but I am in my house right now!). Perhaps the trailer is just getting potential viewers worked up over something that isn't that scary (it’s a pretty smart ploy considering it will have to compete with Sex and the City at the box office). Even worse it could just be another horror-porn sleaze fest a la Saw or Captivity. All I know is that it needed to be broad daylight before I could bring myself to re-watch that preview and I still got chills. I have included it below incase you are curious/brave enough to check it out.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

What the viewer gets out of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull depends largely on her expectations. Now this can technically be said of any movie, but it is particularly true of one that comes with such a large amount of baggage. For those whose feelings about the original Indiana Jones trilogy have less to do with the actual films and more to do with nostalgia for a time when things were simpler and we were younger, the movie may disappoint. Spielberg and Lucas try to diffuse this unfair level of expectation in the opening shot by having the Paramount mountain not fade into the form of an imposing edifice (as has occurred in each of the prior films) but rather into an average sized prairie dog whole. The message is clear: don’t make a mountain out of a prairie dog hole. Relax and try to enjoy this movie on its own.

If the viewer takes this advice he will find a very nice movie buried beneath the anticipation and hype. Harrison Ford can still summon the spirit of Indy, though it takes about twenty minutes of screen time before he really starts living the role (at the beginning he just looks like the guy from Firewall dressed up like Indiana Jones). Shia LaBeouf (as tough-ish greaser Mutt) is an effective sidekick because he is allowed to be a three dimensional character. Unlike Short Round, he is not the film’s sole source of comic relief. It must be mentioned that LaBeouf has maybe thirteen minutes until his idiosyncratic acting style become officially played out. Here, he is very easy to watch.

New territory is gained for female characters in IJATKOTCS. For the first time we have a female villain who does not use sex to manipulate Dr. Jones. Cate Blanchett’s Dr. Irina Spalko (who is essentially an amped up version of the Baroness from G.I. Joe) gets to revel in her own badittude to the delight of the viewer. This is a stark contrast to Last Crusade’s Dr. Elsa Schnieder (Alison Doody) who seduces Indy to help the Nazis only to feel guilty about it the rest of the movie. The other female first is the inclusion of a woman who we have seen before. Karen Allen makes a well deserved return as Marion Ravenwood. When Indy admits to Marion that all his subsequent relationships have ended because the women “weren’t you” it is a clear apology from the filmmakers to Allen, not to mention the audience. The return of Marion gives us a female character we can actually root for and care about.

Without spoiling your plans for the Memorial Day Weekend, let’s look at the plot. Things get off to a bumpy start with an awkward explanation of what Indy has been doing for the past twenty years. Again, Indiana Jones is far more entertaining as a slightly vague character; the more details we have on him the less exciting he is. All of this is largely forgotten and forgiven by the time his quest begins. Shockingly, the extra-terrestrial elements of the story are bearable at least until the very climax of the film. At that point there is a hokiness akin to when Indy meets the 2,000 year old knight at the end of Last Crusade. All of the elements of an Indiana Jones movie are there in, more or less, fine form (including some of the best creepy insects of the entire series). Aside from a segment where LeBeouf swings on vines with a pack of monkeys who seem to have aped his pompadour (killer simians would have been a far better choice), there isn’t a bathroom break in the entire picture.

Is Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull necessary? No. Is it the shameful ruination of the Indiana Jones legacy? No. Look, no one in my generation is going to watch this installment of the series as many times as we have seen the others, nor should we. We also need to realize that our fondness for Indiana Jones is largely a fondness for our childhoods in general. We cannot recreate our youths and we shouldn’t expect George Lucas and/or Steven Spielberg to be able to either. This movie is a solid Summer picture that stays true to the core values of the originals. If you find yourself hating IJATLOTCS, I hope you have the maturity to proclaim, “It’s not you, it’s me.”

Raiders Part Two: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

It is clear that Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is an attempt to resuscitate the magic of Raiders of the Lost Ark. The storyline is shockingly similar (The Nazis are, once again, hunting for a powerful Judeo-Christian artifact and Indiana Jones must beat them to it). There are references both subtle (similar shot sequences during the college scenes) and more obvious (Indy comes across a drawing of the Ark in the Venice catacombs) to the initial film. The question is this: Is IJATLC a delightful return to form for the series that lost its way with Temple of Doom? Or is it simply a lesser version of IJATROTLA? The answer, actually, is that it is both.
If you were to watch the first and third installment of the Indiana Jones trilogy in rapid succession (as your dedicated critic has done) you would find the two films similarities irksome. It must be remembered that these movies were released nearly a decade apart so Spielberg and Lucas can be forgiven for liberally stealing from themselves. The best elements of IJATROTLA are back though not as potent as they were the first time. The most notable is the usage of the Nazis. As Indy says when he realizes who he is up against, “Nazis! I hate those guys.” The truth is that the audience loves to hate them as well. It is a fact: nothing is more satisfying than seeing a Nazi thrown out the side Zeppelin (except maybe to see his face melt). The use of the Holy Grail as the objective of Dr. Jones’ journey is an attempt to reduce the archeo-babble that permeated the IJATTOD script. This is only slightly effective. There is still too much boring talk about the myth of the grail which slows the pace of the movie, though it is far more understandable than the talk of Thuggies and Sankara stones.
Of course the filmmakers have added some novel elements to justify a third film. While it has traces of John Ford’s The Searchers and John Sturges The Great Escape, Last Crusade owes its greatest debt to the James Bond films, which we will all remember were Spielberg’s original inspiration. By upping the number of chase scenes (by horse, train, boat, plane, motorcycle, and tank) Indy looks more like 007 than ever. The biggest nod is, of course, the inclusion of Mr. Bond himself, Sean Connery as Henry Jones Sr. The chemistry between the Joneses is instant and truly entertaining; it is by far the most electric relationship of the trilogy. Connery is able to provide an excellent balance of comic relief and pathos to the film which makes him much more than a sidekick.
Beyond expanding the action of the film, Spielberg and Lucas have also expanded the characters. Indiana Jones is modeled after the heroes of early movie serials. These were essentially stock characters whose personas remained relatively static (in fact many were played by more than one actor over the course of the series). This is why the audience has gotten through two movies without needing to know too much about Indiana’s back story. By the end of IJATLC Indy is completely psychoanalyzed. Within the first ten minutes we discover the origin of his obsession with whips and leather, his fear of snakes and even the origin of the scar on his chin (which all coincidentally have their beginnings on the same afternoon). Plenty of the remainder of the movie is spent delving into his Daddy Issues, which at one point seem to border on an Oedipal complex. At times this seems like unneeded weight in a movie which is a good twenty minutes longer than either of its predecessors. But, in a way, it fills out the character and solidifies our understanding and devotion for him.
And deep devotion we must have for it has been 19 summers since Indiana Jones drank from the Cup of Life (remember that it did not give him immortality, because he left the shrine and its powers wore off). Here we are again lining up to take in another adventure. For those of you who are kining up for tonight's midnight show of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, have fun. Please add your insights to the comments section. I am holding out until tomorrow at 7:10 pm at the Whittier Village Cinemas so expect my thoughts on Friday.

Fortune and Boring: The sad truth about Temple of Doom

From the moment the Paramount logo fades into a mountainous design on a giant gong, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom starts to disappoint. As is the case with many sequels, IJATTOD attempts to be bigger than its predecessor in almost everyway. After all, the characters have already been established and now the true fun can begin. This can lead to greatness (The Empire Strikes Back, a movie that George Lucas is intimately familiar with, being an excellent example) or it can create a bit of a mess. IJATTOD is the latter. It is such a mess, in fact, that it can almost be seen as the antithesis of Raiders of the Lost Ark; what made that movie great makes this movie dreck.

Let’s begin with the plot. IJATROTLA had a simple story that was full of possibilities. The concept of Nazis trying to find the Ark of the Covenant (which Dr. Jones reminds us holds the Ten Commandments, in case you skipped Hebrew School) is set up in the first act and the through line of the picture is established. The plot of IJATTOD takes far longer to reveal itelf and once revealed it is not that impressive. Here is the story in a nutshell:

Indiana Jones, along with his tween chauffer Short Round and lounge singer Willie Scott (played by Ke Huy Quan and Kate Capshaw), find himself in an impoverished village in remote India. Indy agrees to find a sacred stone and the village's missing children. The stones and children are in the hands of a high priest who can rip your heart out through your body cavity.

There is not much urgency in this plotline because the complexity of the story’s mysticism (which seems to be a bastardization of actual Hindu beliefs) needs constant explanation by the characters along the way. The most frustrating part is that there existed real villains in 1930s India in the form of the British colonials. Why invent a group of priests who force Indian children to labor their lives away when the British were actually doing it? Imagine it: Indy could go into the titular temple expecting crazy Indian witch doctors only to find Brits who had stolen the stones and were using them to control the colony. This would have proved to be a far more simple (and compelling) storyline to convey. It could have also kept the film from being labeled at least stereotypical, if not downright racist.

As with IJATROLA, the filmmakers celebrate the cinema of the 1930s. Instead of saluting film noir and slapstick, Lucas and Spielberg have infused IJATTOD with elements of films from the early age of color movies. The opening (with Kate Capshaw singing “Anything Goes” in Chinese) is straight out of a Busby Berkeley musical, but it goes too far. The dancers break out of reality and strut their stuff on some magic dance floor that is clearly not in the restaurant where the film began. Then they are back. It is as if the film has jumped the shark before we even see Indiana Jones. The other major influence appears to be the “Sword and Sandals” epics of the time. This leads to a little more fun (and a lot more bare chested Harrison Ford). However, the whole thing is bathed in garish lighting possibly meant to evoke the brilliance of those early color films (filmmakers doing their first work in color went, understandably, overboard in the use of hues). Raiders of the Lost Ark was shot almost like a black and white film, to beautiful effect, the look here cheapens the entire picture.

A classic move for a sequel is to provide the protagonist with a sidekick. This is dangerous territory (there is a reason all the good Batman movies are the ones without Robin). In IJATTOD, Indiana Jones has been saddled with not one, but two, sidekicks in the form of Willie Scot and Short Round. Both performers seem to have gone to the “hit one note repeatedly” school of acting and their skills are on full display here. Capshaw is by far the more annoying of the two. Her prissy lady in the jungle shtick is supposed to give her relationship with Indy a African Queen vibe, instead it lands somewhere south of Green Acres. Her motivations are completely implausible (no human, no matter how greedy, still gets excited about diamonds right after seeing a man get his heart ripped out of his chest) and her tone of voice is excruciating. Short Round is grating (you can see the genesis of Jar Jar Binks in the role) but it is possible to see where an interesting relationship between the orphan and his archeologist father figure could have developed. The time that could have been spent developing that relationship, however, is filled with endless one liners screamed in adorable broken English.

It is not as if IJATTOD is utterly without merit. Harrison Ford is still grizzled swagger incarnate and the climactic scene on the world’s most unsafe rope bridge is gripping. However, the film falls so far short of the intent and execution of its predecessor that it is hard to keep these positives in perspective. Of course Temple of Doom was a smash success at the box office regardless and you know what that means: a third installment was released five years later. But that is a story for another day. How about tomorrow?

All you need is a leather jacket, a whip, a fedora, and some stubble...

It is Indiana Jones Week here at the Middlebrow Film Society! As the world knows, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull opens on Thursday (you can’t pick up a can of Dr. Pepper without being reminded). In the past few weeks I have really cracked the whip and spent some quality time with everyone’s favorite archeologist (sorry Louis Leakey). Be sure to check the site each day: there will be reviews of Indy’s three prior adventures as well as essays on the cultural impact of Dr. Jones. Everything culminates with my authoratative review of the latest installment at the end of the week. Be sure to share your thoughts, memories, and predictions on the comments pages. I am overly excited, in fact, I am attempting to keep a five o’clock shadow for the entire week.

Let’s start back at the very beginning. The year was 1935 (or 1981 if you have a crummy imagination) and the movie was…

INDIANA JONES AND THE RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK
From the moment that the Paramount logo fades to reveal a South American mountain it is clear that IJATROTLA is a classic. There is no moment in the entire film that does not feel carefully planed and wonderfully executed. Viewers who return to this film will find that most it is emblazoned in your memory exactly as it appears. This is a sign of truly iconic filmmaking. Those of us who viewed IJATROTLA as children will find that the movie is even more impressive from a more mature perspective.

George Lucas and Steven Spielberg are film geeks and their love of the Golden Age of Hollywood is clear in much of their early work (The Star Wars movies pay clear homage to Akira Kurosawa and John Huston). With IJATROTLA, the filmmakers have used a period piece to celebrate the movies of that same era. The result is some of the best film noir imagery to be captured on color film. Harrison Ford’s Indiana Jones first enters the picture as a shadow that slowly reveals itself. The contrast between light and dark on screen, which was a hallmark of the noir genre, is used, with great skill, to heighten suspense just it did seventy years ago. Indy and Karen Allen’s hard boiled (and hard drinking) Marion fit perfectly along side of the noir characters of the 1930s.

The status of IJATROTLA as a summer blockbuster (it was the highest grossing movie of 1981) may cause some to forget that it is also a great comedy. Borrowing liberally from Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, and the Marx Brother’s Lucas and Spielberg have worked some serious laughs into their action adventure movie. Almost every comedic bit requires no dialogue at all (Indy shooting the crafty swordsman, the Hitler hailing monkey, the nun chucks that turn into a coat hanger etc.) and is shot with such care and precision that the effect is gut busting.

Perhaps the most commendable aspect of IJATROTLA is its extreme cinematic economy. After a quick, and unforgettable, opening sequence (the whole “You throw me the idol, I’ll throw you the whip” part) to establish the character, the movie’s trajectory is set up in a matter of minutes (in case you forgot, Dr. Jones must beat the Nazi’s to the rediscovery of the Ark of the Covenant, which holds the Ten Commandments and can melt your face). Each segment of the film holds tightly to this plot line which creates a film that can literally be described as “non-stop fun.” IJATROTLA is a genre film, so very little has to be explained to the audience. There is no question that Indiana Jones is a hero and Karen Allen’s Marion is utterly ravishing. Utilizing Nazi villians is genius because no audience member needs a lengthy rationale for hating them. The result is a lean action/comedy/romance machine that clocks in at an hour and forty five minutes.

The legend goes like this: Steven Spielberg and George Lucas are on the beach in Hawaii in the late 70’s (a nice image for all the ladies out there I’m sure). Spielberg confesses that he would like to helm a James Bond picture. Lucas suggests that they create something of their own. Fast forward a couple of years and you have Indiana Jones out running a giant boulder straight into our hearts. A movie like this, one not based on comic book, old movie, TV show or video game, is a rarity in 21st century Hollywood (The Matrix is the last of this ilk to come to mind). Our understanding of Indiana Jones is not tied to a previous experience; his appeal is not based on nostalgia. It would be nice if more studios allowed creative filmmakers to actually invent worlds and characters for us to enjoy. This would save us from the endless cycle of remakes, spin-offs, and sequels.

Speaking of sequels, is Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom a worthy follow up to this masterwork? Is that mine cart chase still thrilling? Is Short Round as annoying as you remember? The answers to these questions and more will be answered tomorrow as Indiana Jones Week continues.

Stop! Speed Racer Stop!

The opening moments of Speed Racer take the viewer back a decade to when the Wachowski brothers reinvented the action genre with The Matrix. The boldness of the film’s aesthetic (which places real actors into a CG universe instead of the other way around) has instant appeal akin to Neo’s slo-mo kung-fu. About twenty minutes into the movie, the viewer is reminded that the Wachowski’s directed The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions. Their inability to tell a story ruined those films and that same lack of skill is on display in Speed Racer as well.

Here’s the trouble, and some aficionados may be crushed by this, Speed Racer is not very good source material. The cartoon holds up only as a piece of camp that is probably much more enjoyable if viewed high on weed. A high energy/ high irony movie version could have worked, though the weed might still need to be employed. This film is played so straight that there is no tongue in cheek fun to be had. Instead you have characters that are 2-D thin begging to be taken seriously. The script is unimaginative (if you miss any of the half dozen inspirational speeches that Speed Racer receives do not fear, they are all replayed again at the climax) and it doesn’t look like anyone is having any fun.

Because the film clearly hinges on its visual effects, let’s examine them in more detail. The car chase is a Hollywood staple because it comes with built in suspense. The scenes where the Mach Five barrels around the track, however, have all of the excitement of watching someone else play video games. Once Speed finds himself in an off road rally the excitement does pick up a bit but the movie will probably only succeed in making viewers want to play Mario Kart. It has been well publicized that this film cost $200 million to make, however, some of the computer rendering doesn’t look much better than what Robert Rodriguez does for his Spy Kids movies for a fraction of the cost.

As far as the performances go, Christina Ricci (as Speed’s girlfriend) and John Goodman (as Pops Racer) are the most watchable. They also come closest to taking the film over the top, which is where it desperately needed to go. Emile Hirsch’s earnestness looks ridiculous against his Technicolor racing suit and CG car. Paulie Litt does a good job of recreating the character of Spritle Racer; Spritle, it should be noted, is obnoxious in the cartoon and thus is equally obnoxious in the movie.

Speed Racer does hold some thrills (there is some solid martial arts fun about an hour in) and a couple of laughs, all of which receive an amplified response from a joy deprived audience. But it is clear that the Wachowski’s have gone the way of George Lucas; obsessed with new technology at the expense of actual storytelling. Sure The Matrix (or Star Wars) was chock full of spectacular effects but it also had an intriguing story and characters to become invested in. What their subsequent films (just like the three Star Wars prequels) have shown is that all of the spectacle in the world cannot make up for the lack of solid narrative.