I have to admit I haven’t seen CRYSTAL SKULL, so my pondering is entirely hypothetical. It may well reflect that change of paradigm, from occult to heuristic/analytic. But is an alien artefact truly a supernatural element - or merely extraterrestrial?
The difference for me is that the other supernatural devices are always pointing to some higher mythical being. Whereas aliens, as strange as they may be and as highly developed as their science might seem, for me always remain within the natural realm.
I mostly agree with this. The first 3 Indy films were designed to replicate the pulp-action/adventure genre of the mid-late 1930s. That’s why the villains were Nazis and the macguffins were religious artifacts that dealt with the occult (at least for Raiders and Last Crusade). Then sci-fi and aliens took over 1950s pop culture and the enemy was the USSR and so Crystal Skull completely apes that with over the top Russian villains and a macguffin in Meso-America that plays on the Ancient aliens trope that was very much alive in 2008, when the film was released. I never really had a problem with the aliens. It makes sense and Crystal Skull, for the most part (minus some annoying fan service) is every bit as enjoyable as the earlier films. Also, Cate Blanchett is excellent as the Irina Spalko (as she is in most everything).
Coming to this party rather late, I too have this DVD set, and the series is superb. One or two minor missteps with later stories, The Gun comes to mind as being a bit flat, it was otherwise really hard hitting, pulling no punches.
Yes, I agree, Collins’ acting was the easier and more natural to watch. Shaw’s peevishness that at first was caused by him not AcTing against a real actor, and later the headlines was true. I think Antony Edwards was the first person to be considered for Bodie’s part.
I can recommend the book by Bob Rocca called simply, The Professionals. It lists locations where the episodes were filmed which, for someone living in and around the South East of England is a treat.
Indeed, I live in one such location. The Ojuka Situation commences with a shoot out at a boys school. That school has since closed, the main building having become large apartments, and the rest of the estate developed in likeness to the main building.
When I watched the series at the end of last year I searched for good books about it, but when I saw the prices third parties asked for their (second hand) copies, my enthusiasm was vanished very fast.
The book you mentioned had a price of more than 600 pounds!! That 's a lot of money for just a second hand paperback!! So I skipped that one.
Edit: I have looked it up and there are now two copies on Amazon.co.uk: one for 653 and one for 694 pounds!! Crazy!
I gave Spider-Man: Homecoming another watch, and followed it up with Far From Home, which I had not seen. Are they classical Spider-Man? No, but they’re contemporary and refreshing. After seven of these films it was time for something new.
Getting outside of New York and heading to Washington DC and Europe was a plus for me. The other things, such as a younger May knowing Peter’s secret identity, a brand new mentor dynamic with Tony Stark, and a technological suit, further give this universe a point of difference and a reason for existing.
I find Peter’s friendship with Ned to be a real strength. I’m also glad the franchise continues to explore new villains rather than repeating old ones - Vulture and Mysterio are both well portrayed. After Alfred Molina’s Doc Ock, I think these two are the most interesting foes.
Identity is a key theme of the Holland films. Peter’s mentor Tony didn’t have a secret identity. Upon learning Peter’s secret identity, Ned wanted Peter to share it and very nearly let the cat out of the bag. Therefore the world discovering Spider-Man’s identity at the end of Far From Home feels like an inevitable escalation, especially given how Homecoming concluded.
Of the two I prefer Homecoming, and appreciate how low key it feels in comparison to typical comic blockbusters. Vulture wants a quiet heist life that doesn’t bring the attention of the Avengers, and Peter decides he wants to focus on his neighbourhood and look out for the little guy. But Far From Home is breezy fun with enough mental stimulation.
Spider-Man 2 remains my favourite, but all in all, I like what they’re doing here, and I enjoy seeing how the character operates in unfamiliar territory. Looking forward to see where the plot goes.
I loved both films too, though I don’t think Mysterio’s motivation should’ve been the same as Vulture’s. I do like, though, how Mysterio’s plan is so self-aware and accepts that superheroes are a reality in the world.
With Marvel, Homecoming had to show the casual movie-goer that this wasn’t the same series as the unnecessary Andrew Garfield, so they really marinated the film in the MCU, which is why, of course, Iron Man is in it. This did mean, though, that we were all holding our breaths when the Sony/Marvel deal floundered, as it seemed there was no way of making a third one without setting it in the MCU. It wouldn’t have been impossible (for example, they could’ve said Aunt May had broken up with her boyfriend without any mention that it was Happy), but it wasn’t exactly desirable. Perhaps Peter should be self-reliant, however, in the third film.
A couple of films I’ve loved this week are the two F/X movies in which Australian actor Bryan Brown played a Hollywood special effects designer who is asked to use his skills to help the police, and ends up running for his life from lawmen and mobsters alike.
Interesting review. I must say, despite liking certain episodes of the Charlie’s Angels series, I was rather put of this film by the militant feminist message. I know such a thing is fashionable just now, but the modern generation seems to think feminism is something new. I’m interested in plot and character, in that order, and don’t care which gender the protagonists happen to be. I wish these filmmakers would get out of their own way and just tell a story.
It definitely was a big problem with the film. The same plot could have easily been done in a film with a completely different tone and been very successful. It’s one of those films where the on screen talent does its best to save it from what is happening behind the camera, and I thought that the three leads as well as Patrick Stewart went a long way towards making the film more watchable than it otherwise would have been.
Tonight, I saw Under Siege 2: Dark Territory. The bad guy (Eric Bogosian) really makes it, but Segal is a terribly weak actor. Fortunately, they don’t ask too much of him, and his lines are limited. Interestingly, it was written by Matt Reeves, who is helming The Batman.
To borrow Mike Nichols phrase, SORCERER is WIlliam Friedkin’s green awning movie. Following THE FRENCH CONNECTION and THE EXORCIST, he was able to make any film he wanted. SORCERER also signals the closing of the movie brat revolution (Coppola still has to give us his jungle extravaganza APOCALYPSE NOW), but along with Scorsese’s NEW YORK, NEW YORK (and the release of STAR WARS), 1977 is the turning point.
Friedkin has said that SORCERER is not a film about a man meeting his fate, but about his fate coming around the corner to meet him. The set-up is prolonged: four introductory vignettes which show the reasons why each of four men end up in a South American hellhole.
Regarding that hellhole: Friedkin waves in the direction of making a comment on the exploitation of South American countries and their resources/economies, but it a broken-wrist wave at best. Friedkin achieves little more that a lushly photographed exotics-on-parade travelogue (an approach he will repeat in CRUISING).
Once on the road, the movie picks up as it enters Friedkin’s wheelhouse–genre setpieces. We get not one, but two dramatic bridge crossings, an ingenious tree removal, and a psychedelic trek to the finish. As I write I am tempted to re-watch the second half of the film to experience again Friedkin’s command.
The film ends with the last arrival of fate and a cut to black. My problem is that for all of Friedkin’s remarks about fate, I am not sure the film conveys his intentions. We are a long way from the romantic fatalism of LE JOUR SE LEVE, but SORCERER is too lush and too pleased with its own ravishing technique to make fate (of any sort) more than a directorial whim. Fate may come around a corner, but it is being led there by the director’s hand, and not by anything of a universal/omnipresent nature.
Finished watching the Goldeneye audio commentary with the man himself, the sincere and humble Pierce Brosnan. Heartwarming to hear him speak positively about the character and how appreciative he is for what the franchise brought to his life. He said Goldeneye is the favourite of his films, which I’m not surprised to hear. If you haven’t given his talkalong a watch, I’d recommend it.
