Elektra

Spin-offs are something of a rarity in Hollywood. Well, let me clarify that statement for a moment, spin-offs occur frequently in television, but with feature films they are far less common. When they have occurred in the movies they tend to not be as successful as the film or film series that inspired them. A few examples of spin-off feature films that had varying degrees of success or lack there of, are as follows: “The Scorpion King” (moderately successful), “Supergirl” (massive flop), and “Catwoman” (even worse than “Supergirl”). So, with only a couple of decent successes with spin-offs (“U.S. Marshals” would be another one), it strikes me as odd that 20th Century Fox would choose to make one based on their 2002 smash hit “Daredevil”, instead of going with a direct sequel. Whatever the motivation, the decision was made to move forward with “Elektra”, and the final product we were given was an average action movie, mixed with elements of other assassin-themed films, and almost no connection to the original film that introduced the titular character.

“Elektra” picks up essentially where Elektra’s story ended in “Daredevil”, with her death at the hands of Bullseye. When all hope seemed lost, along comes a mysterious man named Stick (Terrence Stamp), a blind martial arts instructor that hopes to train and recruit Elektra to join him in an ongoing war against the evil organization known as The Hand. The Hand is also aware of Elektra and her abilities, and is just as interested in her joining their side as Stick is for his. However, Elektra’s death and resurrection has left her cold, and she now uses the training she received from Stick as a means to become a world-renowned assassin. It’s only a matter of time before Elektra’s destiny catches up with her, and she will be forced to choose which side she will stand with.

As I said before, I doubt I’ll ever understand the reasoning behind going with a spin-off such as “Elektra” over making another “Daredevil” film. I know that Jennifer Garner’s character of Elektra was popular, especially amongst male audience members; however, I have a hard time believing that the response to her character was so overwhelming to inspire the suits at Fox to believe in moving forward with a movie focused solely on her. I know that critics were unkind to “Daredevil”, although movie audiences were much more in favor of the film; but based on box office returns and an almost universal panning by critics, I don’t believe “Elektra” faired nearly as well as a “Daredevil 2” would have among moviegoers. So, I wonder now, can anyone at 20th Century Fox say the words “Colossal faux pas”?

The problem with “Elektra” isn’t only the fact that it didn’t make all that much money, but that it just wasn’t on the same level as “Daredevil” or anything else that Marvel was placing in theaters at the time, or since then for that matter. The storyline was very simplistic for the most part, and truthfully, when the story stayed simple, that’s when it entertained the best. When the story broke away from the simple plot and tried to get too complicated, that’s when things first began to suffer. This was caused by the writers attempt at including a paper-thin psychological sub-plot for Elektra to deal with. Another set of problems for “Elektra” were caused by the lack of originality, brought on by borrowing heavily from other assassin-themed movies such as “The Replacement Killers”; and lastly, all but severing all possible ties to the original film “Daredevil” that allowed this movie to happen in the first place. Now, the first two problems were troublesome enough to cause “Elektra” to lose points in my opinion; however, the almost complete omission of all things “Daredevil” bothers me the most. I know that many times spin-offs will not really do much to reference the original film(s) that created them, but most of those do not pick up part of their storyline wherever the original film left off. For that reason, I believe “Elektra” should have contained more than just a fleeting reference to the events of “Daredevil”, and had they done so, I probably would have enjoyed this movie a lot more than I did.

I’m sure after reading that previous paragraph that you are probably thinking that I barely enjoyed “Elektra”. Well, for some unexplained reason (and that’s the God’s honest truth, I have no logical explanation for why), I actually did moderately enjoy “Elektra”. It doesn’t make sense to me at all, but there’s just something about it that still appeals to me, regardless of all the problems I have with it, several of which I listed above. I’m sure the appeal of this movie has something to do with the fact that Jennifer Garner (“13 Going on 30”) stars in it, but I know that can’t be the only reason, because if that were the case, I’d enjoy “Catwoman” due to Halle Berry (“X-Men: The Last Stand”), and believe me there is no enjoying that movie at all. The only thing I can come up with is that “Elektra” is simply one of my “Guilty Pleasure” movies and nothing more.

Speaking of Jennifer Garner, she is one of the few bright spots for this movie, and I appreciated that she chose to reprise her role. Not to mention donning the bright red, skin tight leather costume this time around. I’m sure that the writers of the film, and probably even director Rob Bowman (“Reign of Fire”), had good intentions of giving Jennifer more to do than just appear somber and angry throughout the movie, in her defense she did always look great while acting as if she could kill you at any second, and no doubt the inclusion of the muddled psychological story for her character was an attempt to challenge Jennifer. However, even the best intentions can’t always make things right, because aside from receiving a paycheck and having fun kicking butt onscreen again, based on what little else she had to do in the movie, I can’t see any reason Jennifer would have for returning to this role.

Alongside Jennifer Garner, the rest of the performances in the film were a mixture in quality, with very few worthy of note; and almost all across the board everyone appeared somewhat disconnected from the material. I don’t know if a majority of the cast was given instructions to be flat when giving their line readings or what, but something definitely did not feel right much of the time. The only other cast member, besides Jennifer Garner, that I enjoyed having in the movie was Terrence Stamp (“Superman 2”) as Elektra’s mysterious mentor, Stick. For some reason, I enjoyed watching him, and it wasn’t that he did a whole heck of a lot; it’s just the way in which he carries himself, just seems to command attention.

One thing is for certain though; “Elektra” is by no means a great movie, in fact there were moments when I watched it that I found myself wondering if it’s just barely above average. But, in the end I do feel that the movie does a decent job of entertaining me, and for that reason, as I said earlier, it warrant’s itself a place in my favor as a guilty pleasure and not much more.

On a side note, 20th Century Fox did give “Elektra” the same treatment they gave to “Daredevil” by releasing a Director’s Cut of the film on DVD. Truthfully, I don’t know how much was added or was different from the theatrical release, but it does seem like there is slightly more story included, and the movie seemed to work just a little bit better.

“Elektra” is rated PG-13 for violence and language.
“Elektra: The Director’s Cut” is unrated and contains violence and language.

Daredevil

After the massively successful big screen releases of “X-Men” and “Spider-Man”, the comic book movie craze began its resurgence in popularity at the hands of Marvel Comics, after suffering from several years of dormancy at the hands of DC Comics. It’s no doubt that most eyes were on Marvel for which of their famous superheroes would the next summer blockbuster take its inspiration from? The answer would come in the form of Marvel’s crimson-clad hero of New York’s Hell’s Kitchen, none other than Daredevil.

Known as “The Man without Fear”, Daredevil (Ben Affleck) patrols the area known as “The Kitchen” with superhuman abilities granted to him during a tragic accident in his youth that left him blinded. As Daredevil works diligently to clean up the streets, his alter-ego Matt Murdock is finding love for the first time in a mysterious woman named Elektra (Jennifer Garner), while still trying to put as many criminals behind bars in his daily life as a lawyer alongside his long-time friend, Franklin “Foggy” Nelson (Jon Favreau). However, as hard as Matt/Daredevil tries to protect his city, it seems he is fighting a never-ending battle as more and more criminals are being loosed onto the streets. The more villains’ Daredevil encounters, the more he begins to come to the realization that someone else may be orchestrating his city’s descent into darkness… a man known as The Kingpin (Michael Clarke Duncan).

When “Daredevil” was released to theaters I was instantly excited to see it after waiting for so long for comic books to once again have their time to shine on the silver screen. With the excellence found in the “Spider-Man” and “X-Men” series of films, I had very high expectations that Marvel would not let me down with their next heroic film. In my opinion, after seeing both the theatrical release and the Director’s Cut, released later on DVD and Blu-ray, I have to say that Marvel has once again successfully made another of their famous heroes come to life for comic book fans the world over to enjoy.

Writer and director Mark Steven Johnson (“Ghost Rider”) found himself in a rather unenviable position in my estimation, having to write the screenplay for Daredevil, and also helm the film as well. I’m surprised that Mark chose to tackle both jobs, after all here’s a man who by all accounts was an experienced screenwriter with such hits as “Grumpy Old Men” and “Grumpier Old Men”, but as a director he was mostly untested. Not to mention when it came to the realm of superheroes, the films he had previously written and/or directed don’t exactly scream “Experience!” Even though he was lacking experience (in my opinion), I would have to say Mark Steven Johnson did a surprisingly good job of crafting a semi-realistic version of a blind superhero, not the easiest task as I said a moment ago. I enjoyed that Mark chose to make this a darker superhero film, not going for the light and family-friendly feel of “Spider-Man”. Daredevil is a hero that is much more violent, and at times willing to come awfully close to crossing the line between hero and villain, more so than many of the other heroes in Marvel’s comic books. So, I appreciated that when all was said and done, Mark chose to have “Daredevil” remain reasonably loyal to the source material, something that many others before him had failed to do, which is why so many other comic book movies of the eighties and nineties never worked out as well as they could have.

As much as I enjoyed “Daredevil”, I must admit that it is far from being a perfect movie. Although the problems that I have with the movie are not the biggest, or come close to ruining the experience, I feel they do merit at least a mention. For starters in the early portion of the movie, it seems as if Mark wasn’t sure exactly how he wanted to handle the movie, whether he wanted it to be a serious, dark exploration of a more tortured hero (similar to “Batman Begins”) or if he wanted to play up the humor and more comic book-like feel of superhero movies of the early nineties (in the vein of “Batman Forever” or “Batman & Robin”). Also a few times it seemed as if Mark couldn’t resist the use of cheesy feeling close-ups during pivotal line readings, for instance when Matt tells Foggy that he can’t go out and drink because, in his own words, “I have work to do.” With those words you just imagine the director saying, and “Cue close-up on Ben… perfect!” As I said earlier, these moments are nothing but pure cheese and prove to be ultimately unnecessary to drive home the point that Matt’s a hero with a mission. Thankfully, these annoying close-ups disappeared after the first thirty minutes; however, there were a few other gripes I had sprinkled throughout the movie’s duration.

The other set of gripes I had with “Daredevil” centers around the overuse of wirework for many of the action sequences. I know that wirework is commonplace on movie sets for action set pieces; however, when the work is either too obvious or too exaggerated it tends to take away from the scenes. This occurs numerous times in the film, first when Matt and Elektra have their confrontation/conversation in the park. While the scene is a lot of fun, the wirework was obvious during several moments within the scene. Later on in the film when Daredevil confronts Bullseye in the church both men make impossibly large leaps throughout the entire fight. Now, I understand that this is a film based upon a comic book series, and yes, Daredevil does have superhuman abilities which may allow for him to be able to jump higher (which is kind of discussed early on in the film). However, Bullseye, as far as I can tell, is nothing more than an experienced marksman, and doesn’t have any kind of superhuman agility or anything of that nature, so for him to make the same size of leaps as Daredevil causes a problem for me, and draws attention to the far too exaggerated wirework being employed.

With my gripes out of the way, I will now move onto the actors performances within the film. Ben Affleck has never been one to be considered one of the finer actors of his generation; however, in this film he does surprisingly well with every facet of the character. Not to mention the fact that he’s playing a blind person, which cannot be easy for an actor, because no longer are they allowed to use their eyes to assist them in communicating what they may be feeling internally or just to connect with the other actor(s) within the scene. Personally, I still find it surprising that so many people chide Ben for his performance here; I think it’s a good performance, and for him it’s one of the better ones in his career. Alongside Ben, actress Jennifer Garner (“13 Going on 30”) was an excellent choice for Daredevil’s significant other, Elektra. Elektra’s arc was similar to that of her comic book counterpart’s, and without going into any detail (for those that haven’t seen the movie), the sort of “transformation”, as it were, that her character goes through over the course of the film was very well done, and Jennifer handled the two different aspects of her character perfectly.

In the supporting cast we have Jon Favreau (“The Replacements” and director of “Iron Man”) as Franklin “Foggy” Nelson, Matt Murdock’s partner at his law firm. Jon was hilarious as Foggy (as he’s commonly known in the comics), providing the lion’s share of the humor within this otherwise gritty, dark superhero film. Thankfully, the Director’s Cut of “Daredevil” featured even more of Jon as Foggy, which made him a more rounded out character, rather than someone that just pops up every once in a while to provide a little comic relief. Academy Award nominated actor Michael Clarke Duncan portrays the film’s primary villain, The Kingpin. Although in the comics Kingpin is generally a Caucasian male, for the film the decision was made to go with Michael due to a couple of factors. One, the sheer size of Michael was a good match for Kingpin’s, and secondly, because Michael had the acting chops to be able to convincingly make such a large, somewhat heavy set man appear even more menacing than some other actors may be capable. Kingpin’s role was another one that benefited greatly from the Director’s Cut, as several portions of his storyline were cut for time and rating constraints. After watching his additional scenes that were added back in, Kingpin’s story works so much better in the grand scheme of the film, and doesn’t feel nearly as tacked on as it once did. Lastly, Colin Farrell as Bullseye was absolutely perfect. Colin played Bullseye the only way he could be, as nothing more than a cold-blooded killer with a semi-obsessive compulsive approach to murder. You could tell when watching the movie that Colin was relishing every moment he had onscreen, and while Bullseye isn’t exactly heavily featured in the film, his scenes definitely stand out as favorites for me within the movie. I would have liked for Bullseye to have been the primary villain for either this movie or a sequel, as he has carried many issues within the comic books easily as the lead villain. Basically, a little more detail on both Bullseye and Kingpin in this movie or a sequel, would have been nice.

All complaints aside, and for the record my complaints didn’t really take away too much from my enjoyment of this film, “Daredevil” is still among my favorites for superhero movies. While it’s not a perfect film, “Daredevil” makes a very strong effort at bringing one of the more difficult comic book characters to life on the big screen.

“Daredevil” is rated PG-13 for violence, brief language, and sensuality.
“Daredevil: The Director’s Cut” is rated R for violence and language.

007: Quantum of Solace

After witnessing the complete rebirth of the James Bond franchise at the hands of Martin Campbell’s superbly crafted thrill-ride, “Casino Royale”; I looked forward with great anticipation for this year’s follow-up “Quantum of Solace”. Just like its predecessor, Daniel Craig once again portrays the famed Agent 007, alongside the always reliable Judi Dench as M; and continuing the basis of a more realistic James Bond there are still no gadgets to speak of, and James survives purely on his quick wit and fast-flying fists. So, does “Quantum of Solace” have what it takes to rival the film that came before it, or has this reinvigorated franchise already lost its momentum?

Beginning shortly after the events of “Casino Royale”, James Bond (Daniel Craig) finds himself trying to quell the thirst for vengeance that is raging deep inside. With his one-time love, Vesper, now dead, James is using his resources within MI-6 to track down those responsible for her betrayal and ultimate death. As James searches desperately for answers, he stumbles upon a powerful threat that has been spreading right underneath MI-6’s very nose; that of a mysterious group known as Quantum, led by a power hungry man named Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric). With M’s trust in him waning, James must work alongside a mysterious young woman (Olga Kurylenko) to uncover what Quantum is all about and how significant of a threat they truly are before it is too late.

As the 22nd official James Bond movie in the franchises long lasting history, some could pose the question, “Is there any possible new ground to cover with this enduring character?” My answer would be… apparently so, because after watching “Quantum of Solace”, there is more to this newest incarnation of James Bond than what we’ve been accustomed to over the last 40 some years.

The story for “Quantum of Solace”, as written by Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis, and Robert Wade (the same team of writers that collaborated on the previous film “Casino Royale”), delivers to audiences a side of James Bond we have never truly seen unleashed before. What I am referring to is James’ unbridled thirst for revenge. This facet of James’ character pushed an already tougher, more brutal James Bond into even more violent territory, and even introduced the notion that perhaps 007 was going too far in performing his sworn duties. A truly interesting, and fresh approach to the character that perfectly coincides with the new direction this series is taking.

Along with a more violent James Bond, the introduction of a criminal organization such as Quantum was a very welcome surprise for me, as this may allow for the Bond franchise to begin linking its films together again to some degree, rather than having them be merely episodic in nature. Now, this is not to say that I want them to begin leaving massive cliffhangers at the ends of their movies (such as, “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” or “The Matrix Reloaded”), so that another film can come along and tie up all the loose ends. Not by any means. I just like the fact that we have this organization that could perhaps be used as a means of linking the villains Bond must face together; similar to the way the classic Bond movies used Blofeld (leader of the group known as SPECTRE) as the villain or at least backing the villain in many of the films. This wouldn’t necessarily require audiences to see every James Bond movie that gets made in order to understand what’s going on, in fact that would be detrimental to this franchises continued success (in my opinion); but this addition could be seen as a reward of sorts for those that have stuck with the franchise by providing a sense of continuity and a richer universe in which the character they love resides.

Some critics have panned this film for being too focused on Bond’s need for revenge and that this incarnation of Bond is nowhere near as fun as his predecessors. They wonder where are all the gadgets, the quick quips, the double entendres, and so on and so forth. Personally, I think all of their complaints are ridiculous, and contradict the very reasons they cited for loving “Casino Royale” because it was more realistic in nature. I think the idea of having a more realistic James Bond than those that came before is exactly what this franchise needs to stay relevant in today’s popular culture. When franchises such as the “Jason Bourne” series focuses on a seemingly real-life spy, the more outlandish that James Bond films become, the less audiences would relate to him; therefore the less appealing he would be as a character to the point that eventually he would just fade away in the shadow of a man with his same initials (Jason Bourne, for those not paying attention). If you are one of the people that enjoyed all the quick quips, gadgets, and sexual innuendos of the past, then you have 20 movies with which to fill your quota; and I admit I enjoy those kinds of James Bond films as well, but you have to face facts, that kind of 007 movie appears to be a thing of the past, and the realism of “Casino Royale” and “Quantum of Solace” is the future for this franchise.

The actors in “Quantum of Solace” all deliver terrific performances, a standard that has existed in every James Bond film that I have ever seen, and I’m sure was present even in the ones I haven’t. Daniel Craig continues to prove himself to be the best Agent 007 in my opinion, no disrespect to Sean Connery, but Craig’s version of Bond is how the character was meant to be. I thought Daniel did an excellent job of handling this even more aggressive Bond, as he accurately portrayed a man broken by his deep loss and guilt, and driven to payback those responsible. Judi Dench gives another perfect performance as the always proper, yet in your face M. Her loyalty to James, although it appears somewhat shaky at times in this film, and in all her other appearances even before this reboot, ultimately remains unwavering in the end. She tends to provide the calm sanity amidst the storm of Bond’s typically chaotic methods of achieving his goals.

Also returning to the series are Giancarlo Giannini and Jeffrey Wright (both appeared in “Casino Royale”). I appreciated that both of these actors returned to reprise their roles from the previous film, even if they weren’t featured all that heavily in this one; it is this sort of continuity that I enjoy in a film series. Joining the cast are foreign actors, Mathieu Amalric (“The Diving Bell and the Butterfly”) as the apparent leader of Quantum, Dominic Greene, and Olga Kurylenko (“Hitman”), as the newest Bond girl, Camille. I for one have not seen anything Mathieu has done, but from what I can tell he appears to be a very good actor and his performance here was nothing short of menacing much of the time. His villain fit in perfectly with the new direction this franchise has taken, as he was a very believable villain given the means he has at his disposal to accomplish his goals, and the methods he employs in doing so are realistic, and at times shocking. Olga Kurylenko surprised me with her performance, because based on her previous film, the video game adaptation “Hitman”, I wasn’t all that impressed by her acting prowess. However, any doubts I had about her talents, have been laid to rest, and like Vesper before her; Olga’s character of Camille is from a very different mold than those other Bond girls in the previous 20 films.

After “Casino Royale” I didn’t know if another James Bond movie could do any better. While I don’t believe director Marc Forster’s (“Monster’s Ball”) “Quantum of Solace” achieved the goal of toppling “Casino Royale” as the best Bond movie ever; regardless of what some of the critics may say, Marc did manage to provide a thoroughly engrossing follow-up film that does live up to its predecessor, and left me once again, anxiously awaiting the next installment.

In case you are curious, I mentioned earlier that there are 22 official James Bond movies; although to be truthful, this is not entirely accurate. There are technically 23 James Bond movies; however, Sean Connery’s last portrayal of the character in 1983’s “Never Say Never Again” is not recognized in the official Bond canon, as it is essentially a remake of “Thunderball”.

“Quantum of Solace” is rated PG-13 for violence, brief language, and sensuality.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Over the last several years we as moviegoers have seen a resurgence of sorts amongst our former big screen heroes and legends. Beginning in 2005, with the excellent resurrection of the Batman franchise with Christopher Nolan’s gritty and much more realistic “Batman Begins”, followed in 2006 by Rocky and James Bond returning in “Rocky Balboa” and “007: Casino Royale” respectively, also that year marked the triumphant big screen return for one of the greatest heroes of all time, the man of steel in “Superman Returns”. So, with all of these film franchises being dusted off to continue on or just rebooting to start things off fresh, it seems to make perfect sense that after a nearly 20 year absence from theaters, that acclaimed director Steven Spielberg and producer George Lucas would bring back their iconic collaboration, the treasure hunting archaeologist Dr. Henry “Indiana” Jones, Jr. for another adventure with “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull”.

“Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” is set in 1957, as Dr. Henry Jones, Jr. is yet again finding himself on the run from foreign agents. This time he’s not trying to outwit the Nazis; instead, it’s the Russian KGB on his tail, led by a dangerous, power-hungry agent (Kate Blanchett) in search of the mythical crystal skull of Akator. With the aid of his former love, Marion (Karen Allen) and a biker named Mutt (Shia LaBeouf), Indy must face odds the likes of which only he could call fair, all in an effort to ensure that these powerful and priceless artifacts never fall into the wrong hands.

After being away from the big screen for 19 years, the announced return of Indiana Jones was sure to inspire droves of fans to begin wishing about what they would like to see their hero do in his next adventure. No doubt just like with the Star Wars prequel trilogy, expectations went so high that no movie was ever going to be able to meet them. So, here we are after several years had passed since the first announcement was made in the early nineties about a fourth Indy film, and promise after promise being made over the years by George Lucas, or someone else associated with the movie, that another adventure was coming, the time has finally arrived, and the results were… Well, quite mixed from fans, to say the least.

Many fans felt that this installment lacked that special something that made the original trilogy so great. There were some fans that enjoyed this newest adventure, feeling that it was just as good as a majority of the original trilogy, or at least on par with them. I for one fall into the category of a fan that enjoyed the original series, and found this one to be on par with the majority of the other installments; perhaps a bit lower than the standard set by “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.

Is this a perfect movie? No, not by any means, and I admit that there are some aspects of the film I wish could have been removed or reduced here and there; yet for the most part I found this sequel to be completely entertaining and plenty of fun for the family. As for the story of “Kingdom of the Crystal Skull”, writer David Koepp (“Spider-Man”) did a very good job of evolving the character naturally from where we’d seen him last, into this much more weathered archaeologist/tomb raider; and by realistically representing Harrison Ford’s age as being that of Indy’s so as not to stretch believability too far with what the character can do. I personally appreciated this effort on the writer’s part by allowing for the 19 years that had passed in reality, to be the exact same as what has passed in the franchise’s history so that everything done within the story holds more merit. Some have complained that the movie went too much into the science-fiction realm, and should have stayed more in the supernatural realm as the original three movies had done. I can’t really agree on that point, because if you think about it science-fiction and supernatural elements kind of go hand-and-hand. So, to say that for instance “Raiders of the Lost Ark” was obviously supernatural by dealing with God, and the power of the Ark of the Covenant, but that it wasn’t sci-fi doesn’t make any sense to me. I’m not saying that God or anything related to him is science-fiction, but most of the movies that deal with that area tend to fall into the sci-fi category; thus, the alien element in this film isn’t that much of a stretch. I also, liked that they clearly linked this film to the original film with many nods throughout the story; this to me was most likely done in an attempt to show you where the seeds for this story were planted way back then. This was further evidence that this film’s storyline came as a natural progression for the series, not something completely out of left field as others have protested.

For those audience members that chastised this film for not including enough action from Indy, and relying far too much on Shia to get a lot of the action done; personally, I think you all should get a life. But, I’ll address the issue all the same, because it’s annoying to me and I want to say my piece about it. If you were one of the many that wanted another Indiana Jones adventure with Harrison Ford then you got one, but you have to realize something, the man is in his sixties now; therefore, he can’t do everything he used to do 19 years ago or more. If you would have rather they recast the role (which I doubt you would) then you would have all griped about how it’s not the same as when Harrison played the role. Basically, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either you wanted another Indy adventure with Harrison or you recast it? Those were the options, take them or leave them? I for one, am pleased that they didn’t recast the role, and thought that Harrison, although much older now than he was in the last adventure, still did an admirable job of playing the character believably and was still able to handle himself easily enough in the various fight sequences he found himself in. Were there times when it seemed apparent that the torch was being semi-passed to Shia for the action/adventure stuff? Of course, he was the obvious choice in the cast. But, at least he’s an up-and-coming young star, who is amassing quite an impressive fan base, and is a skilled actor that can handle the action and the drama equally. So, if the series had to be handed off eventually, at least they picked an actor that could actually handle the mantle rather than crumble beneath the weight of it.

The casting for the film was exceptional. Harrison once again does an excellent job with the character. Getting to play Indy as a much more mature character than he had been in previous movies must have been fun for him, plus it was nice to see the little nods to what he knows he could have done in years past, but age just won’t allow any more. The return of Karen Allen to the role of Marion was a nice touch, she was much better in the role this time around than she was in “Raiders of the Lost Ark”. Out of all the different women in the series, I’m glad they chose to bring her back, because frankly, Willie would have been just too annoying to see again. Shia LaBeouf (“Transformers”) was a welcome addition as Indy’s reluctant new sidekick, as it were. He played a typical tough guy from the fifties, seemingly obsessed with his hair and his leather jacket; yet fiercely loyal to his friends and family. Rounding out the supporting cast we have Cate Blanchett (“Elizabeth 2: The Golden Age”) as the despicable KGB agent trying to use Indy to gain access to the powerful crystal skulls. I thought that Kate was very good in the role, and having the Russians be the primary enemy in this installment made sense given that the Nazis were hardly a concern any longer in the grand scheme of things. Lastly, we have Ray Winstone (“The Departed”) as Indy’s partner of questionable loyalty. Ray played the part in such a duplicitous way that I never knew for sure which side his character was actually on until the end. His was truly one of the better red herrings/betrayers throughout the series’ history.

“Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” is a truly entertaining return to the big screen for the so-called “Man in the Hat”. While some moments within the movie cause the story to stumble about here and there; overall, the final result is a fun-filled adventure that perfectly continues this long-lasting film series that families can enjoy time and again.

“Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” is rated PG-13 for violence and brief language.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

After preventing the Nazis from gaining control of the all-powerful Ark of the Covenant, and freeing slave children from an oppressive cult, Indiana Jones is back once again for yet another thrilling adventure. Series star Harrison Ford returns as the title character, along with John Rhys-Davies reprising his role of Sallah from “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, and new to the series we have the original James Bond himself, Sean Connery (“007: Goldfinger”) as Indy’s long lost archaeologist father. With two highly successful films already established in the series, the third one would no doubt enthrall fans to some degree, but would the quality of the first two films remain intact all the way through the third; or has Indiana Jones finally met his match?

Upon receiving disturbing news that his father, Professor Henry Jones, Sr. (Sean Connery) has gone missing while on his lifelong quest to discover the Holy Grail; Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) embarks upon a search to save his estranged father from the clutches of some familiar enemies… the Nazis. Assisted by his loyal friends Sallah (John Rhys-Davies) and Marcus Brody (Denholm Elliott), Indy will do everything within his power to save his father, stop the Nazis once again, and maybe even discover the resting place of the mystical Holy Grail in “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.

After the success of “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom”, I’m somewhat surprised, when looking back, by the five year gap between the second and third movies. Especially when in numerous interviews, director Steven Spielberg has stated that he felt that “Temple of Doom” was kind of a letdown to audiences and was far too dark of a picture, and that he wanted to make another adventure to sort of redeem the character and himself. I guess one could make the argument that by not rushing into a third film, Spielberg and co-creator/producer George Lucas could avoid making another movie that would be viewed as a disappointment in at least their eyes, and perhaps even in the eyes of fans and critics. I just thought Spielberg would have pushed for a little faster turnaround in regards to the supposed redemption of the series; instead of waiting five years to do so, but that’s me and I’m not in charge.

Apparently throughout the five year lull between sequels, both Spielberg and Lucas, along with writer Jeffrey Boam (“Lethal Weapon 2”), took advantage of the time and were able to create what I believe to be the absolute best Indiana Jones adventure yet. The concept of linking the quest for the Holy Grail to Indy’s quest to prove himself to his father was a very strong backbone with which to base this newest adventure. This approach allowed for some really interesting, and at times incredibly fun, moments within the film for the actors, and the team behind the camera, to mine for cinematic gold.

One of the major strong points this film has working in its favor is the smartly written banter between Indy and his father, with both of them constantly trying to get the last word in on any topic. Plus, it’s intriguing to see that everything Indiana has done, his father has most likely done, and in his own opinion, has done it better; so for Indy, we get a sense that he feels as if he’s constantly living in his father’s shadow, which becomes a major source of contention for the father/son duo. I also enjoyed the return of the Nazis as a villain for the series, the Thuggee cult in the second film was good, but the Nazis were a much more lethal threat, and given the time in which the films are set, they seemed an appropriate choice for Indy to tackle. Lastly, the tease at the beginning of the film that introduced us to a young, inexperienced Indiana Jones was very refreshing, and provided some neat bits of exposition regarding Indy’s fear of snakes, his code of honor in regards to tomb raiding, and even went so far as to explain the scar on his chin. All of these little moments early on in the film, coupled with several more that were sprinkled throughout, just added to the overall enjoyment I had with this movie experience.

Harrison Ford really surprised me by his ability to bring even more depth to a character that he’s already played twice. With this being the third time Harrison played this role, I would have thought that he had done all he could with this character, and if his father hadn’t been introduced into the series, then perhaps there would have been no new ground to cover. Thanks to that addition, Harrison was given some new areas of Indy’s life and personality to explore, allowing for the character to not only remain fresh for him, but also for the audience that has followed him throughout all his adventures. Just to clarify, even if Harrison was unable to really cover any new ground with the character; that would have been fine too, so long as this movie was to be intended as the final chapter in the character’s franchise. Because once a character quits growing/evolving, the audience will quickly lose interest, due to it being more of the same old thing, and the actor playing the part will most likely feel the exact same way; therefore resulting in a sub-par performance and inferior sequel.

Joining Harrison Ford on his quest we find a few familiar faces, such as John Rhys-Davies as Sallah, Indiana’s trusted ally in Cairo. I was pleased to see Sallah’s return to the series, after feeling like there was much more that could have been done with the character in “Raiders of the Lost Ark”. Also returning was actor Denholm Elliott as Marcus Brody, Indy’s close friend and associate; actually he seems more like a manager when it comes to his various archaeological adventures, but let’s not split hairs. Joining the cast is screen legend Sean Connery, who brings Indy’s father to life in all his cantankerous, scene chewing glory. As terrific as the dynamic between father and son proved to be in this film, Sean never ceased to steal every scene he was in, even when Harrison was at the top of his game matching Sean quip for quip. As great as Sean was in the role, one thing did bug me about his casting. Although he did attempt to hide it, his accent was still apparent in several scenes. Yet for some reason, no one ever made note of it. I guess we were just supposed to ignore it, but I for one would have liked some form of explanation for why he has an accent that his son clearly has no hint of. This doesn’t seem like too far-fetched of a request, especially when the writer was going so far as to explain why Indy has a scar on his chin and even where he got the nickname Indiana from in the first place. Maybe I’m the only one that’s had this thought; and if so, I guess that’s fine, but it just struck me as odd was all.

If director Steven Spielberg was hoping to redeem himself with “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”, for what he felt was a failure with his previous effort in the series; then, I would have to say he has succeeded brilliantly. I agree that the darker tone of “Temple of Doom” did feel different from “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, but I also felt that it was a natural progression for the character and the series (generally the middle chapter is the darkest); that being said, I was happy that this movie was more in line with the tone of the original film. Even though the tone for this movie was similar to that of the first, there is one major difference between this film and its predecessors; this one seemed like it was done much better, and felt more polished than either of the previous two ever came close to being.

Overall, “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade” is a great sequel, and for me, it is the best the series has ever been. Loaded with great storytelling, terrific acting, some truly touching moments, and even some hilarious ones, this is one movie that is definitely worth watching.

“Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade” is rated PG-13 for violence and brief language.