1989

Archived Posts from this Category

May 27, 2008

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

Posted by Jordan Richardson under 1989, action, adventure, entertainment, fantasy, movies, thrillers, trailers | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |
1 Comment 

I had originally planned to watch the Indy films in order, but for some ungodly reason my wife and I put off watching my favourite film of the series until last. After checking out Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, we decided to cleanse our palettes and improve our overall impressions of the adventure series by watching Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. This 1989 adventure film better exemplifies what Indiana Jones films are supposed to be about and stretches plausibility in a much more reasonable direction, if that makes any sense.

Harrison Ford of course stars as our favourite hero. In this instalment, Indy’s facing a multitude of problems. This movie is the most complex of the series, layering various issues on top of the standard adventure plot to immensely successful results. While Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was bland and simplistic, Last Crusade is always entertaining and always exciting from the opening prologue on through to the chilling closing sequence.

We start the film with a prologue that illuminates, for the first time, what young Indiana Jones was like. In a thrilling chase sequence across a circus train, we learn why Indy hates snakes so much and where his famed fedora came from. It’s a bit of generous insight into the character and into what makes him take. Young Indy is played by River Phoenix, of course. Indy grows up before our eyes and is still on the trail of the Cross of Coronado, an artifact that he wants put in a museum. He recovers the artifact and heads back to his busier and more dangerous life as a professor.

It isn’t long before he’s approached by Dr. Marcus Brody (Denholm Elliot) and gives him the Cross for his museum. Jones eventually meets up with the wealthy and suspicious Walter Donovan (Julian Glover), who informs Indy about the quest for the Holy Grail and how Indy’s father (Sean Connery) has gone missing searching for it. Donovan wants the Grail for himself, of course, and dispatches Indy to find his father and help recover the Grail. The quest for the Grail takes Indy to Venice, where he meets the beautiful Dr. Elsa Schneider (Alison Doody) and sets off a chain of events that takes Indy and his father to Berlin, Austria, and the Canyon of the Crescent Moon.

The adventure in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is fast and furious, setting the tone early on and rarely letting up. Sequences are moved along by either humour or action, both of which have abundant supply in this kick-ass movie. The chemistry between Connery and Ford is incredible, as the two actors play off of one another and form the ideal father-son duo. The hilarity of Connery as the elder Jones is highlighted numerous times, as he abandons his calm and cool shtick from 007 to play a bumbling dolt.

The relationship between Indy and his father is explored with detail. The genius of it lies in the fact that things don’t ever get too heavy or too profound. This is an Indiana Jones film, after all. The depth is a nice touch, though, and it gives the characters a certain weightiness that helps draw the action and bring up more humorous sequences.

The film was shot in Venice, Almeria, Jordan, Germany, Austria, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Texas. The epic feel of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade persists throughout the film’s 127 minutes, giving audiences a truly special experience. Part of the charm of the movie is in its exotic locales and compelling backdrops. Action sequences unfolding against the rocky cliffs in Almeria (in Spain) are dangerously exciting, as the tank sequence blossomed from a quick storyboard suggestion into a full-blown 10-minute extravaganza.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is the quintessential adventure film. Packed with humour, boat chases, snakes, bullwhips, fight sequences on top of tanks, wicked cool special effects, and deadly scenarios, this film is, in my view, the best of the series and still marks a cinematic milestone in my movie watching life. I remember seeing this in theatres as a ten-year-old and marvelling at the entire thing for months afterwards. I still feel that way today.

10/10

Trailer:

 

April 5, 2008

When Harry Met Sally…

Posted by Jordan Richardson under 1989, comedy, drama, entertainment, movies, romance, trailers | Tags: , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

For some reason this 1989 romantic comedy didn’t capture me. In fact, after watching it last night, I couldn’t remember seeing it when I woke up in the morning. No, I wasn’t drinking. When Harry Met Sally… likely was more influential in its time. Many modern romantic comedies borrow immensely from Nora Ephron’s script, yet this Rob Reiner-directed film doesn’t seem to have aged well and, in light of better romantic comedies using the same prototype set up by When Harry Met Sally…, the genre piece just seemed bare and bland.

For the most part, When Harry Met Sally… seems an awful lot like a Woody Allen imitation. The dialogue is heavy and wordy, with lots of characters attempting to be witty and neurotic. Billy Crystal is funny enough, but he never quite represents what a male lead should be and tends to fall short when attempting the dramatic aspects. American’s sweetheart Meg Ryan is a worthy catch for Crystal’s character, but she also seems to be less charming than she should be. The characters sound bright and funny at times, but the authenticity is somehow off-kilter and the initial cuteness doesn’t last for the long haul.

Crystal stars as Harry Burns and Ryan is Sally Albright. The pair meets in 1977 as they drive together to New York City after finishing college in Chicago. On the trip, they converse about sex, gender issues, and dating. Harry claims that men and women cannot be friends because sex will always get in the way. Once they reach New York, the pair splits and five years pass. When Harry and Sally meet again, this time they’re on an airplane and Harry is sitting behind her. Both are in relationships and the dialogue flows as usual between the two, once again departing after deciding that they can’t be friends because of the sex issue.

Five years later, they meet again. This time, both relationships have ended and they’re available. Harry and Sally decide to try the friend thing once and for all, discovering that they can have a close friendship without having sex. This all changes when they have sex, however, and this proves Harry’s theory about relationships. The rest of the movie deals with the fallout after the sexual encounter and the subsequent standard romantic comedy moments.

The best parts of When Harry Met Sally… can be found in between the scenes of the movie, as elderly couples tenderly describe how they met and how they got married. It is refreshing and poignant to see lasting relationships in the medium of film. The bits don’t disrupt the flow of the movie, either, and deliver a nice change of pace from the often depressing and obnoxious behaviour of the two leads. Sadly, Harry and Sally were the main characters in the picture.

Billy Crystal is relatively bland as the depressing and neurotic Harry, seemingly playing “opposite day” with Ryan’s sunny and ridiculous Sally. This is designed to display how opposites attract, in some ways, but also to show the unconditional effects of friendship. Harry and Sally are together for reasons unknown to us, which is part of the magic I suppose. There are many relationships that mirror theirs and we all likely know a couple that seem to be so unsuitable for one another as to be perfectly matched. Unfortunately for the sake of the movie, the lack of chemistry and passion leaves a lot to be desired.

Basically, When Harry Met Sally… is like a sitcom version of a better movie. Think Annie Hall or Manhattan. The city’s the same, the crowd is the same, and the dialogue is essentially the same. The characters discuss the minutiae of everyday life while interloping some attempts at deep meaning, but it seems overly bland with the passage of time. After smarter, better romantic comedies, When Harry Met Sally… doesn’t seem so terrific after all.

4/10

Trailer:

 

December 13, 2007

Crimes and Misdemeanors

Posted by Jordan Richardson under 1989, comedy, crime, drama, entertainment, trailers | Tags: , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

Crimes and Misdemeanors

Crimes and Misdemeanors may well be my favourite Woody Allen film, thus far. I realize I gushed incessantly over Bullets Over Broadway, even placing it in my tentative top ten for a few days before I changed my mind again. Crimes and Misdemeanors, however, exceeds Bullets Over Broadway just in pure quality of film, script, and performances. I admit that I never thought I would say that, but I have and I stand by it until I see my next Woody Allen film. Bear in mind that as I write this review, I still have not seen Annie Hall (shameful, I know), Zelig, The Purple Rose of Cairo (which is Allen’s favourite of the films he’s made), Manhattan, and a slew of others. So it stands to reason that Crimes and Misdemeanors may even be surpassed at one point, but who knows? All I can tell you know is that Allen’s 1989 film is a masterpiece.

Crimes and Misdemeanors was met with enormous critical acclaim upon its release and was nominated for four Academy Awards, including Woody Allen for Best Director and Martin Landau for Best Supporting Actor. After the film came out, many people considered this work to be one of Allen’s most mature films. It does contain a pile of subject matter, indeed, and is essentially light on the comedy overall. The treatment of its characters and its plot is rather serious, but above all Allen’s script here is eloquent, touching, and thought-provoking. Crimes and Misdemeanors excels because of its attention to the details of the human condition, ethics, and moral choices based on theological or other frameworks.

The film is set in New York, of course. It follows two main characters through parallel stories. One character is Judah, a successful ophthalmologist who is confronted with a moral crisis. Judah, played with engrossing intensity and patience by Martin Landau, has been having an affair with an airline stewardess for quite some time. The stewardess, Dolores (Anjelica Huston), threatens to tell Judah’s wife about the affair. As there appears to be no reasoning with this woman, Judah enters into a moral dilemma and must decide on a course of action to deal with Dolores. He consults with his brother and some friends about his situation and it ultimately drawn into a situation in which it is dealt with, but much to Judah’s moral dismay. As he grapples with his morality, much of which was imposed by his Jewish father’s teachings, Judah finds a way to press through his dilemma, for better or for worse. The ethical quandaries of Judah and his lack of “comeuppance” drives the narrative.

The other character is Cliff (Allen), a documentary filmmaker. He is struggling with his career and eventually and begrudgingly takes on a job with his brother-in-law, Lester (Alan Alda). Lester is, to put it lightly, a pompous ass. He has Cliff follow him around and make a self-serving documentary about his life, which Cliff despises. Along the way, Cliff – who is married – falls in love with Halley Reed (Mia Farrow), an assistant. Cliff and Halley have a friendship, but Cliff pushes for more. Cliff finds himself in a moral dilemma that he, like Judah, must solve for himself. His choice parallels with Judah’s choice in the essence of the choice and in the motivation of the character within the framework of the ethical dilemma. Cliff contrasts with Judah in many ways, but they both are men with choices the make. The film comes to a close as Judah and Cliff actually meet for the first time and discuss, albeit briefly, their senses of morality and “getting away with murder.”

Crimes and Misdemeanors, like many of Allen’s films, takes a good deal of its core from philosophy. In this case, Allen explores the philosophies of Friedrich Nietzsche. Especially of note for Allen within Crimes and Misdemeanors appears to be Nietzsche’s notions of reality, more specifically that the world is an “empty void” and that we create values within it. These values, as created by the differing behaviour of those within this empty void, depend, for the most part, on one’s outlook of the world and on one’s ideas of weakness or strength. For Nietzsche and for the purposes of Allen’s exploration of this, the characters within Crimes and Misdemeanors represent characters that have created their own ethics and their own morality, choosing to reject external points of view. The end results are either tragic or victorious, depending on your outlook of the world. This, then, becomes the marvelous thing about Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Martin Landau’s Judah is by far the more compelling character here, but it is within the juxtaposition of the actions and ethos of Judah and Cliff that we find beauty in this film. Cliff’s choices are apposite to Judah’s in many ways. The “good” moral choices within Crimes and Misdemeanors are anything but rewarded and the “bad” moral choices appear to carry with them none of the consequence we may expect. Instead, the “hero” is fallen through his own morality and the “villain” gets away with it all. This interesting and compelling dichotomy is played to bear by the wondrous performances in the film, as each actor plays his or her role with such a sense of weakness and intelligence for the material. Allen aims for realism here, yet still places comic moments inside of some of the darkest passages.

This film reminded me of the central notions within Double Indemnity, as a character thinks of himself as good but comes to discover that he is, in fact, anything but. Allen’s film questions those notions of ourselves, leaving us with a lot of explaining to do when we take the moral high ground and a lot of thinking to do when we don’t. Where does our morality come from? Who do we listen to: ourselves or external voices? Perhaps a combination of the two? These questions are at the fabric of Crimes and Misdemeanors. With Allen’s trademark direction and compelling performances from everyone involved, this dark comedy remains a classic and is one of Allen’s best.

10/10

Trailer:

 

December 5, 2007

We’re No Angels

Posted by Jordan Richardson under 1989, comedy, crime, entertainment | Tags: , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

We’re No Angels

We’re No Angels is one of those films that seems like it should do reasonably well and provide for at least moderate amounts of entertainment. With Neil Jordan – who would go on to direct The Crying Game – as the director and David Mamet (The Postman Always Rings Twice, The Verdict) supplying the writing, one would be sure to think that the pedigree for the film’s creation would be promising. Add to that equation the acting talents of Robert De Niro, Sean Penn, and Demi Moore and one may be fooled into thinking that a comic goldmine is on the horizon. One would certainly be wrong for thinking that, sadly.

We’re No Angels was a dud upon its release and not much has changed since. Some De Niro and Mamet purists certainly hold on to this film, without a doubt, but for the rest of us average and more sane folk, this film is certainly a disappointment. We’re No Angels bases itself strictly around the “fish out of water” ideology and frames it with religious imagery and a few bland ethical questions of its characters as it goes along. The idea here is to provide big comic laughs from Penn and De Niro, while giving the film a heart with the performance of Demi Moore and a few other supporting performers. As is typically the case in cookie-cutter comedies of this nature, a lesson is learned towards the happy ending.

This film follows two convicts (De Niro and Penn) as they escape from prison and attempt to make a break for the Canadian border. The two men find refuge in the church and monastery when they are mistaken for two priests. The monastery and all of the monks in it have been waiting for these two priests and the case of mistaken identity is barely given a second look, despite the fact that John C. Reilly’s character notes offhandedly that the two men look “nothing like the picture.” Fair enough, I guess. If blind, deaf, and dumb priests are all it takes to provide comedy gold, sign me up for the laugh train. Along the way, Ned (De Niro) develops a relationship with a townswoman, Molly (Moore) who appears to do anything for money. Molly is the typical hard-luck doubter of religion and through Ned’s actions and words, she finds herself reestablishing her hardline view of religious issues and questions her perceptions. Okay.

We’re No Angels was loosely, loosely, loosely based on the 1955 film of the same name that starred Humphrey Bogart as one of the escaped cons. Mamet’s script takes off from this notion, attempting to plunge the depths for fish out of water gags and jokes, but instead forming such a contrived and annoying script that it becomes unrecognizable as Mamet’s work. Yet, somehow, it is Mamet’s work. Some have given Mamet credit for understanding the dialogue between priests and getting a lot of the religious-oriented dialogue correct, but I would take issue with the over-simplification and the garbled attempts at deep religious discussion by the monks, including one particular segment when John C. Reilly’s character enters and spews a mouth full of nothing towards Sean Penn’s character. Of course, critiquing nonsensical dialogue in a comedy almost seems redundant, but this is David Mamet and most people expect better.

Another problem here is the direction, although I found it to be more capable than many other reviewers. Neil Jordan, let’s be honest here, is a pretty hit-or-miss director. While films like The Crying Game and Mona Lisa garner a lot of praise for the Irishman, there’s no denying that he’s done his fair share of stinkers, like In Dreams or High Spirits, which was his other attempt at comedy before We’re No Angels. While Jordan appears to want to try his hand at comedy, he’s usually not very good at it. He has the gumption, no doubt, but he lacks the style of comedic shooting that creates classic moments and funny sequences. Instead, it’s just blandly directed.

The real problem here, however, and the real reason this ship sinks so ruthlessly to the bottom is the performances of its lead actors. Robert De Niro, one of the most overrated performers alive, simply contorts his face a lot to attempt to dig at the laughs. He rushes lines feverishly as though he’s bored and really misses the beat on any semblance of comic timing. De Niro’s been more hit-or-miss than many people would like to admit and the sad truth about this often great performer is that when he misses, he really misses. We’re No Angels is another example of a De Niro miss and is certainly a gamble for the gifted actor that did not pay off.

Sean Penn, on the other hand, has a more consistent pedigree despite the fact that I just find him unlikeable in a comic sense. Despite demonstrating good comedic skill in Fast Times at Ridgemont High and ballsy resolve in the awful Shanghai Surprise, Penn appears to be the stronger performer here. That’s not saying much, unfortunately, as I found Penn’s character to be annoying and elusive in just about every identifiable way. Yes, he’s an understated character, but to be understated to the point of being imperceptible seemed to be a waste of time. Demi Moore is probably the best performer in the film, which sounds strange to say, but it’s very likely true. She’s feisty and angry as Molly and brings a nice energy to the film, hassling De Niro’s Ned with all she’s got.

We’re No Angels is a real bore of a comedy that misses on all levels. The writing, direction, and performances miss the beat considerably. As a comedy, it’s bland. As a drama, it’s incredibly tepid and ineffectual. And as a film in general, it’s just rather poor. Avoid this one. See the funnier and more entertaining 1990 film Nuns on the Run, starring Eric Idle and Robbie Coltrane, instead of We’re No Angels.

1/10