Went to see the new Indiana Jones movie tonight. Can you guess from the headline what I thought of it? What a shame and a disappointment, because I loved the first two, liked the third and am a big fan of Harrison Ford. But really, what a mess. Apparently, the reason this film was delayed for so long was that Spielberg was waiting for a script that was good enough. I hate to think what the ones he rejected were like.

Anyone expecting a well written continuation of the Indiana Jones adventures was bound to be disappointed, since this long in the making sequel had countless script drafts, a number of false starts, and finally a rushed shooting schedule to put the cherry on top. All these problematic production factors reveal why Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is such a mess from a screenwriting aspect (the ending is truly ludicrous). But one can't deny the inherent visceral joy it is to see such a revered and entertaining character grace the screen after such a long layover, Harrison Ford's Indy bringing clarity to Spielberg's crazed and jumbled compositions with his whip, fedora, and sly grin. The film basically strings a number of well constructed action set pieces together, connecting them with lame exposition about Mayan temples and dead languages hoping the audience won't pay too much attention while they eagerly await the next nostalgic moment (for the adults) or explosion (for the kids). Throughout the opening act, Spielberg unearths some interesting commentaries about the clash between patriotism and government fear-mongering (the film takes place during 1950's McCarthyism), but the story quickly descends into popcorn madness, settling for broad comedic grimaces and overlong chase scenes to fill the obvious narrative void. It's tough to watch one of your favorite movie icons taken out to pasture with such irreverent fluff, but we only have our filmmaking heroes to blame. 

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Por Lucía Santiago Dantés

La cuarta aventura de Indiana Jones regresa este verano. Una de las películas más esperadas por los fanáticos de Indy, Harrison Ford y Steven Spielberg. La historia está relacionada con los cráneos de cristal de cuarzo. Indiana Jones en esta ocasión se lanza a la aventura de encontrar un cristal de cuarzo que la unión soviética tambien busca, bajo las ordenes de la coronel Irina Spalko (Kate Blanchet) en el camino se topa con su Mutt Williams (Shia LaBeouf) quien le pide ayuda para encontrar a un viejo colega Harold Oxley (John Hurt). Así llegan a Perú donde se reencuentra con Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen, Raiders of the lost ark) la madre de Mutt. Irina se mantiene muy cerca de Indy, ya que piensa que los cráneos son de origen extraterrestre y el poder que tienen sobre la gente puede ser usado como arma para dominar el mundo.
Nota: En la vida real este tipo de cráneos existe, inclusive algunos son de igual forma al mostrado en la película. El argumento está basado en rumores sobre posibles bases extraterrestres en el desierto de Nazca, Perú donde se encuentran las famosas Líneas y geoglifos de Nazca y de Pampas de Jumana.

¿qué son estas líneas y por qué son tan famosas?

En el area de Naza y Palpa de Perú, fueron trazadas cientos de líneas y figuras que van desde simples diseños como líneas rectas, hasta complejas figuras zoomorfas, fitomorfas y geométricas en la superficie terrestre. Lo más asombroso o misterioso es que éstas sólo pueden ser apreciadas en su totalidad desde el aire, al sobrevolar el desierto. Lo cual sin duda, ha despertado dudas y preguntas sobre las intenciones y el origen de las mismas.

La cultura Nazca fue la que habitó esta región y a quienes se le atribuye la autoría de dichas líneas. Sus pobladores vivieron entre el año 200 A.C. y el 700 D.C. Se cree que probablemente primero hicieron las figuras y después las líneas. Sin embargo, las pruebas de carbono 14 para tratar de confirmar estas dudas no ha dado resultados exactos para poder hacer un orden cronológico de las figuras y líneas, debido en parte a las características del suelo.
¿por qué no se borran? El clima sin duda juega un factor muy importante: su temperatura promedio es de 25 grados centígrados y el aire caliente actúa como colchón, impidiendo que las líneas se borren haciendo que el viento cambie de dirección.
En 1994 fueron declaradas Patrimonio de la Humanidad por la Unesco.
Nota para los viajeros: Existen tours aéreos para poder ver las asombrosas figuras desde el aire, ya que son apreciables en todo su esplendor sólo a gran distancia del suelo. Existe un mirador en el km 419.
En Indiana Jones y el reino de la calavera de cristal se pueden apreciar cuando Indy y compañía hacen el viaje a Perú.

So is it me that has he deranged imagination or is it you? Maybe neither, we could both be figments - who's to know. The whole was or wasn't Harrison Ford a replicant thing? Does it matter if you're happy? If you're not, is it better to suffer in silence and exist, painful though that may be, or should you fess up and be switched off, decommisioned, recycled? Which brings up the point that, in the end, something along those lines happens anyway.

Maybe, anyway. This is a totally pointless post - like a short paragraph from a William Gibson novel. But I often how would we ever know if reality is or isn't real, and does it matter? At least we know the answer's 42!

Harrison Ford plays President James Marshall as a superhero, kicking ass and taking names, when a bunch of disgruntled Russians take over Air Force One.  There's a lot of factual and plot errors throughout this flick, but do yourself a favor, get some popcorn and enjoy the ride.  It's one of those good old fashioned action flicks with nothing more in mind than to entertain.  I mean, good God, it's Harrison Ford!  And he plays a President that not only speaks Russian, but is a Congressional Medal of Honor winner!!  And he's flying a plane!!!  Of course Dubya wanted to be like him.

At the beginning of the flick, Marshall (and how's that for a solid, robust Presidential name?) says that the US will never negotiate with terrorists.  EVER!  Well, there you go.  The thing is that the President's staff were completely unaware of this new policy and they didn't like it.  As Marshall says, though, it's his decision and they need to get behind it.    The movie then unfolds where the President has to put his money where his mouth is.

I'm not going to pick at the movie, 'cause once you start with unraveling that first thread the entire movie ends up falling apart.  Instead we'll just go over the basics:  Harrison Ford kicks Gary Oldman's ass, and kills all the other terrorists onboard; sometimes in unarmed combat, and other times 'cause he's a crackjack shot with a weapon that never runs out of rounds.  Good stuff.

But it wasn't until I saw the movie again recently that I also saw the similarities between Bush and Marshall.  They've both got that same smirk, though Ford manages to still look intelligent and slightly sheepish when he does it.  Bush just looks like he saw your sister in her underwear, and he's thinking about charging others for the same show.  Marshall instituted a policy that was not popular, but he stuck to his guns (literally).  Bush instituted a war that was not popular and he stuck to his guns, only he's not such a good shot.  Marshall was a helicopter pilot in Vietnam and won the highest medal that can be awarded.  Bush pretended he was a pilot, and was pretty good at drinking games where he won the coveted Most Likely to Shave Off the Eyebrows of the First Person to Pass Out Award.  Marshall went on a one-man wrecking crew, killing terrorists, saving his staff members, flying the plane, and everything else except serving drinks and snacks during the inflight entertainment.  Bush WANTS to be that guy.

I don't blame Bush, I guess.  Hell, when the movie's over you know Marshall is going to be President for life, and I can see how Bush thought things were going his way when Afghanistan rolled over about two months after Bush told the Taliban to kiss his ass and get the fuck out.  People got behind him after his "the whole world is going to hear us" speech amidst the rubble of 9/11, the nations of the world got behind him, the Taliban fled into caves, the guy was on a fucking roll.  He WAS President James Marshall.

But he forgot he wasn't in a movie, and that he WASN'T President James Marshall, Medal of Honor winner, crackerjack shot, fantastic pugilist, and all 'round great guy.  Bush is just a slightly retarded good ol' boy who would probably be fun to be around when fishing, but you don't want the guy to steer the boat, let alone be in charge.  

Reality bites Bush in the ass.  The movie doesn't need reality.  Reality would've interfered with the flick not ten minutes into it, and President Marshall probably would've died.  But Bush believed that what he saw in the movie could be duplicated in real life.  Unfortunately, it cannot.

So I blame the following for our failed policies in Iraq, and the crumpling up of the Constitution:  Wolfgang Peterson (director), Andrew Marlowe (writer), and, most of all, I blame Harrison Ford, for making Marshall such a nice, average, everyday guy who just happened to be President, making it believable enough for some retard with delusions to think he could do the same thing. 

(Why couldn't Bush emulate Charles Bronson in DEATH WISH?  He would've lasted about ten seconds on the streets of NY, and we wouldn't be in the shit we're in today.)

Who are your five favorite actors, and what's your favorite performance by each, and then who are your five favorite actresses, and what's your favorite performance by each?

(Sorry to double up, but we've got some big Whatevers coming up and I didn't want to spread this out over two weeks. Besides, you guys are you guys, and I know you can do it.)

ACTORS

1. Harrison Ford. It's got to be Indiana Jones in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. I like Ford because he's fearless in the sense that he's not afraid to show vulnerability, be it physical fear in a fist-fight or emotional fear like in the scene in Patriot Games when Jack Ryan comes apart while trying to tell his wife that their daughter's spleen has to be removed after they were almost killed by terrorists. For my money, he's the greatest actor of all time.

2. Bill Murray. From the man who made me laugh in What About Bob? to the man who made me cry in Lost in Translation, Murray delivers in everything he does. As brilliant as his work was in the Wes Anderson outings he's been in, including Rushmore, which is my favorite film of all time, I'm going to have to go back to the work he did in What About Bob? as a dazzling piece of sociopathic comic insanity.

3. Steve Martin. Like Murray, he can turn on a dime from hilarious to heartfelt. I loved him in Bowfinger but I'm going to have to go with Father of the Bride as his finest hour. My parents always let me watch his movies when I was little, and I thank them for that.

4. Denzel Washington. He's awesome in everything, but he's a man on fire in Man on Fire. Or that speech he lays down in The Siege: "Come on General! You've lost men! I've lost men! But you -- You! -- you can't do this! What if they don't even want the sheik? Have you considered that? What if what they really want is for us to herd our children into stadiums, like we're doing? And put soldiers on the street, and have Americans looking over their shoulders? Bend the law, shred the Constitution just a little bit? Because if we torture him, General ... we do that, and everything we have fought, and bled, and died for is over. And they've won. They've already won!" Whoa.

5. Christian Bale. This guy can do anything. And even though he showed us the heart of Bruce Wayne while still creating our most ferocious and powerful Batman, my favorite performance is his inspiring turn in Rescue Dawn, in which he plays a prisoner of war whose indomitable spirit brings so much hope to his fellow captives that they plan one of the craziest and most dangerous escapes in history. Bale brings total physical and emotional dedication to every role he takes on. Bravo, sir.

ACTRESSES

1. Cate Blanchett. She's ethereal, and versatile, and utterly amazing in everything she's in. But as much as I love all the characters she's created, her channeling of Katharine Hepburn in The Aviator is otherworldly.

2. Maggie Gyllenhaal. Like Christian Bale, Maggie's another entertainer who's gotten to the level she's at by being totally emotionally and physically fearless. That's why I've said before and I'll say again that it's hard to find a hotter case of the hots than the hots I've got for Maggie Gyllenhaal. She really grabbed me as Giselle in Mona Lisa Smile because I've known that kind of girl before and Maggie captured it perfectly. And one time, when I was in Chicago, I passed her on the street, and she is 11 times more beautiful in person than she is on screen. If that's even possible. And it is. I should have said something. Oh, well.

3. Laura Linney. Beautiful, earnest, capable Laura Linney. Put her in something and I immediately believe her. I particularly loved her as the small-town sheriff in The Mothman Prophecies, which scares me to death just thinking about it.

4. Lauren Graham. Like Laura Linney, I immediately believe everything that comes out of her mouth. Her body of work as Lorelai Gilmore -- in more ways than one, WHAMMY! -- is the most powerful proof on the planet that the Emmy Awards are a friggin' joke. And she makes me laugh. I love her.

5. Tina Fey. This girl came out of nowhere and has become one of the great comic actresses of all time, in a very short time. Though Baby Mama was beneath her, she was excellent in it. But as Liz Lemon on NBC's 30 Rock, she's as funny and as brilliant as they come. And sexy beyond all comprehension. "Chocolate! Chocolate! ACK!"

Your turn!

Grade: B+

Cast: Harrison Ford, Karen Allen, Cate Blanchett, Shia LaBeouf, John Hurt

Director: Steven Spielberg

Genere: azione & avventura             Produzione: USA 2008

InVoto: 6 1/2

Henry Jones Jr. a.k.a. Indiana (Harrison Ford) è oramai un cinquantenne professore universitario, ma gli anni sono passati ed il potere di calamitare azione e disastri è rimasto intatto. A causa del tradimento di un suo vecchio amico, passato al KGB, che lo aveva attirato in una trappola ordita dal perfido ufficiale ucraino Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett) viene coinvolto nel mistero dei teschi di cristallo, mistero che se sciolto potrebbe portare all'individuazione della mitica El Dorado. Sfuggito alla trappola, si mette subito alla ricerca della soluzione del mistero partendo alla volta del Sud America, seguendo gli appunti di un suo ex collega (ormai uscito di senno) che ha disseminato indizi per raggiungere la chiave per El Dorado. Il tutto cercando di battere sul tempo i russi. Che però hanno un asso nella manica...

Come al solito, dopo un congelamento ventennale di una saga che ha segnato l'infanzia di molti, il timore di trovarsi di fronte un altro disastro tipo "Star Wars" c'era. Non è stato così. Indubbiamente, qualche deja-vu c'è stato, ma in fin dei conti è stato un bel film, Indy è sempre lui. Ford non fa il ragazzino (divertente nella scena di apertura, quando sbaglia il suo classico uso della frusta come liana: "porca miseria, ho calcolato male!"), ed è perfetto nella parte del cinquantenne esperto, Cate Blanchett come al solito è impeccabile (e bellissima anche con i capelli corti neri) nel ruolo dell'ufficiale del KGB, il ritmo tiene, non si sbadiglia e la storia fila. Chi ha definito il film schifoso? Evidentemente chi non ha una fresca visione dei primi tre episodi. Il pre-finale è in classico stile Indiana, ed anche il finale: di Indiana Jones ce n'è uno solo.

"E tu saresti un professore?"

55. Blade Runner (Ridley Scott, 1982)

I took a class one summer called "Film and the Bible". It was a pretty interesting course even if we watched a lot of garbage. I mean "S1mone", really? Come on. It was mainly cool because the prof took the approach that the Bible was more a construct of men's desires and values rather than being divinely inspired. This notion that the Bible was authored, constructed, and compiled by men and not God opens up a lot of room for discussion.

One of the concepts that particularly struck was the idea of primacy, as in the way we perceive the books and chapters of the Bible strongly influenced by where they were placed. As an example take the book of Genesis which is the first book of the Bible, and depicts the creation story among many other things. If that book were placed elsewhere in the Bible rather than the beginning, its renown would be considerably less. Fewer people would know what was in it, or bother reading it. In essence primacy in this context is the idea that we place heightened value on that which comes first.

Now to tie the idea of primacy to "Blade Runner". My older brother is very fond of this film. He's a big Rutger Hauer fan, and he's a devotee of Philip K. Dick, upon whose story this film is based. So naturally he tried to get me to watch this film. But there was a catch: he wanted me to see the theatrical version with the voiceover. This was problematic because that version wasn't easily available after Ridley Scott came out with his so called Director's Cut, which removed the voiceover. This version supplanted the original release, and made it difficult to find for rent. I don't remember how my brother came across the theatrical version on VHS, I think he found it the previously viewed bin at Roger's Video.

I don't really remember why my brother liked the voiceover version so much, I just know he insisted it was better, so I went along with him. I would later learn that my brother is the only person in the world who prefers the voiceovers.

Anyway I watched it with him, and while it wasn't revelatory, I did enjoy it. It's a good looking film, with an interesting story, and fine performances. Plus Daryl Hannah was pretty ballin' back in the day. That eye makeup is tight.

I have since seen the director's cut, I am pretty sure it was in the fabled intro to film class of 2002. It was perfectly ok, but somehow it wasn't as good as the voiceover version. I don't know if I could really explain why it wasn't as good, and even now having seen the film again, I am still certain I like the voiceover version better.

My theory is that the reason I like that version is because it was the one I saw first. It's that simple. I suppose it could be a bit of a nostalgia thing in that I used to watch a lot of movies with my brother, and because he now lives in a different city, I can't do that with him. But I think the ultimate reason I like the voiceover version best is a matter of primacy. It was the version I saw first, and thus it is the version I value most.

On filmaffinity.com I gave the film 8/10. I would like the revisit this film, with my discovery of how awesome film-noir is in the past year.

This movie was a real let down for me - weak plot - tired acting and action that wasn't terribly exciting.

Now if Indy or Mutt got abducted by the Aliens and hunted for archeological treasures on a different planet ....

 "Steven Spielberg makes a clean, funny, close-to-structuralist analysis of narrative practice.  Insight about myth, not speed, is now the series' point...Steven Spielberg's formal expertise makes Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade--a beautiful title, unlike Indiana Jones and The Temple Of Doom, which suggests an amusement part ride--into one of the most sophisticated adventure films ever made: its parts snap together with precise, dry cunning..."

To read more of Armond White's take on Steven Spielberg's film, Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade, purchase a new or used copy of The Resistance: Ten Years of Pop Culture That Shook The World.

Anyway, I was *supposed* to watch Wall-E with Jenny today, but after getting dinner from Tu Lan and then going up, we saw a huge line. Eh, seemed like we would all fit. Turns out pretty much everyone who was still in line was screwed. Doh. So we weren't able to watch it. Pretty big disappointment. So all we got out of that was a game demo disc and a poster. That's the SECOND set of advance screening passes that I have not been able to utilize (the first one simply mysteriously disappeared in the mail). Live and learn I guess.

After looking up stuff we could do, we decided to just watch Indiana Jones 4, which wasn't bad. I remembered enough from the third movie to catch some references, and there were some similar plots/moral lessons. But Harrison Ford looks too old for some of the physical antics he was pulling off though. It's time for Indiana Jones to retire, I mean the movie's still set during the mid-Cold War era, before James Bond's time I think (maybe). Even an Indiana Jones successor would be pretty old if set in modern times.

Also, Futurama: The Beast with a Billion Backs is out. MUST GET! :D

Note: When I wrote this there was no Internet, backdated to the proper time. Called AT&T this morning and they provisioned a new line for us and now it's ok.

From Sylvester Stallone’s Rocky Balboa and Rambo, to Bruce Willis’ John McClane, to Harrison Ford’s Indiana Jones, and even the Lakers and Celtics rivalry in the last NBA Finals, there’s been an unusual, yet somehow unsurprising reemergence of nostalgia these days -- a visit from the past, of sorts. Almost analogical of a bad sequel (the 90’s) that forces the next third film (2000’s) to try to go back to the basics of the great first original film (80’s), if that’s able to make some sense.

In era where the modern industry is in a constant hunt of consistent franchises that are able to be reliable with a build fan-base to fall upon, films that can be un-risky and safe box-office choices have been one of Hollywood’s best methods for profit. And to no one’s surprise, of course; although, it makes one question whether the homecomings are from actual creative anxiety or just blunt box-office attempts to gain an income from an established fan-base considering that they don’t need an introduction or heavy exposition to create hype about who the characters are or their stories via persistent and relentless marketing -- their mere returns are the event.

But whether the desires to return these characters were actually shallow commercial reasoning or not, however, the returns were nevertheless able to be successful in their own right, with the revival of each of the franchises being profitable successes with nostalgic marketing campaigns and receptive of modest critical acclaims. And, of course, each of them tried to depict their respective heroes with themes of elderliness for the audience as they see their old hero in a different setting, with 2006’s ROCK BALBOA being the most successful at it as the most emotional resonant and honorable to its character.

Nevertheless, as important as the subject of their age development is, it is just as important, if not more, how their own representation (and yes, we’re getting a little Jungian) as national heroes and their respective history is and what purpose their respective resurrection are defined by. After all, is hard to avoid the allusion of what these characters are usually associated with: they are the exemplification of the traditionalist masculine action heroes and symbolic representations of American culture.

Rocky Balboa, notable for the good underdog story of defeating the heavyweight champion against all odds in the first film, or the fight against the Soviet Union’s champion, Ivan Drago, in ROCKY IV; John Rambo, the Vietnam veteran who is famous for violent soldier tactics, but distinguished first and foremost for his heroism; Indiana Jones, the definitive masculine American James Bond character, with a new damsel in each film (or at least till the fourth one), and the national fighter against the Nazis and such; and of course, John McClane, regarded as an “American Cowboy” by villain Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman), and as a John Wayne character.

In era in which patriotism is a periodic subject and the national problems are recurrently about economics and war, as crisis keep appearing more than ever, it is to no surprise that these franchises have returned to promote their national heroes as combating such problems and succeeding at them in the old-fashioned way, or just reminding audiences what made them special characters in difficult times. As Alex Williams is able to note in his article in The New York Times:

“This is a moment in American history bedeviled by a sinking economy, the possibility of environmental catastrophe and violent conflicts in the Middle East and beyond. So it’s not surprising to see men who were raised on cartoonish images of the fictional John Rambo taking out more Soviet soldiers in two hours than the Afghan mujahedeen did in a decade show an appetite for characters who tend to fix even big problems with room-clearing brawls, monosyllabic wisecracks and large-caliber firearms.

 

Anxious Americans, after all, are suddenly very unsure of their position in the world, which leaves some open to any “fantasy having to do with a sense of traditional masculinity,” said Judith Halberstam, a professor of English and gender studies at the University of Southern California. She said that these living G.I. Joes communicate a “not-so-deep code of American exceptionalism,” as well as the American instinct to cut through obfuscation with plain talk and “to not bother with politics, just go in with force and fix things.”

It is in that method in which LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD works, for the most part. We have the good ‘ol detective John McClane in the midst of a nation under paranoia and viral terrorists (from the same nation) attacks, where the heroic cop is able to shoot and fire his way into victory as an one-man army (and yes, that is in a literal sense). And it can’t be without mention how the film was promoted as an American patriotic film with a setting in Independence Day and movie-trailers that also ran with patriotic music.

Director Len Wiseman is able to make apparent with persistent visuals the various symbols of American culture in the first half of the film as similar to that of the current times, from the 9/11 images, as people are glued to their TVs of an ongoing terrorist threat, to the economical crisis that the terrorist themselves are able to force, to the recurrent technological world that the veteran old hero finds himself, and with it the film's insertion of teenage hackers that play with the national system. All of it after moments of American flaqs running around and national celebration. It is then when these heroes come into the scene with their traditionalism and innocence in order to beat the reflection-of-the-times villain and have a satisfied audience, as the film is divided between an American reflective world and a typical Die-Hard second hour for the resolution.  

In times of much needed stability, they protect the American culture and their noble heroism, from Indiana's good-hearted historical adventures against the Nazis (or Russians, now) to Rocky's incorruptible will, in an age where sports athletes and others of the kind, who are considered heroes as well, are exposed as frauds by controversies or other forms of cynicism. While Rocky Balboa -- one of the most influential figures in the world of sports -- is depicted in a noble manner still, in an age where great athlethes are uncovered as dishonest.

As ever, the sociological importance from cinema for audiences can't be measured enough. What was relevant then, can be and still is relevant today for the people that experienced these films in the past -- the resurrection of Rocky, Rambo, McClane and Indiana is a nostalgic flashback of childhood innocence and a departure from difficult times and a reminder of happy endings. As evidence, SPIDERMAN's effect on the post-9/11 events is proof when the superhero served as an inspiring character in times of tragedy and political crisis as he jumped his way around New York buildings and in front of an American flag for the audience's joy and proud patriotism. And for all we know, the heroes of today's audiences, such as Batman and Spiderman, might as well re-appear in the future and remind us of our own childhood dreamy inspirations and heroes for this generation.

For now, though, as the baby-boomers and the such keep reminiscing and returning to the old days and away from the current cynical era, the more self-aware we become at how even the most childish of concepts can have an impact one way or another, and at one age or the other. 

Como siempre te dejo una muestra de su trabajo y su portafolio online por si quieres escudriñarlo a fondo.

Página oficial, Brandon Bird.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (EUA, 2008)

Direção: Steven Spielberg

Roteiro: David Koepp, George Lucas, Jeff Nathanson, Philip Kaufman

Elenco Famoso: Harrison Ford, Cate Blanchett, Karen Allen, Shia LaBeouf, Ray Winstone, John Hurt

Este é o 4º filme da série Indiana Jones, mas parece que Indie realmente está demonstrando sinais de cansaço e precisando se aposentar. Indiana Jones é um arqueólogo e renomado professor que tendo sido demitido e agora sendo perseguido pelos soviéticos decide seguir um jovem rebelde numa missão mirabolante.

Indie vai atrás da caveira de cristal que tem poderes para normais e assim devolvê-la ao seu devido lugar no coração da Amazônia do Peru, numa caverna escondida atrás da Foz do Iguaçu onde existe uma pirâmide que foi construída pelos aborígines locais. Se isso pareceu confuso... bom, é porque realmente é.

O filme é realmente uma salada mista sem sentido, parece que o pessoal podia ter estudado um pouco mais história e geografia antes de escrever o filme de um arqueólogo. Detalhes a parte o filme também não tem um dos melhores roteiros, contando com uma história bem fraca e que não empolga.

As atuações também não são das melhores, comprovando mais uma vez que Shia LaBeouf é péssimo ator (não sei o que Spielberg viu nele para chamá-lo para todos seus filmes recentes) e Harrison Ford demonstra claramente como a personagem de Indie está velha e sem o mesmo vigor de antigamente. Isso sem contar cenas bizarras como uma que parece q trouxeram as formigas assassinas de um daqueles filmes trash q passavam na Record.

Se você odiou os outros filmes do Indie com certeza esse filme não vai mudar sua opinião, esse filme é recomendado somente para aqueles que realmente são fãs incondicionais de Indie, porque senão é bem provável você ter uma enorme decepção.

Nota: 2

By Kaf

Produzione: Usa, 1982

Regia: Ridley Scott

Interpreti: Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer, Sean Young

Pubblicato per la prima volta sul numero VIII della rivista di critica cinematografica “KinoKino”, il seguente articolo è stato realizzato nel febbraio 2007 in occasione del 25° dalla scomparsa di P. Dick.

Chi scrive fra pochi giorni compirà 25 anni, gli stessi che ci separano dalla prematura morte di quel creatore di universi che fu Philip Kindred Dick (16 dicembre 1928 – 2 marzo 1982). Gli appassionati che viaggiano per i cupi mondi della fantascienza avranno intuito che vado a parlare di Blade Runner, pellicola cyberpunk per antonomasia diretta da Ridley Scott nel 1982. Il film è tratto, come è noto, dal fortunato romanzo dello scrittore americano intitolato Ma gli androidi sognano pecore elettriche? (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?) e pubblicato nel 1968. Della pellicola, datata invece 1982, esiste anche una versione, di gran lunga più interessante, privata della voce fuori campo e arricchita da un finale emblematico.

Il protagonista è il cinico quanto schivo cacciatore di “lavori in pelle” Deckard (Harrison Ford) discendente da una lunga serie di detective che i romanzi di Raymond Chandler ben descrivono. Rachel (Sean Young) è la donna del mistero, una romantica silhouette con sottili sigarette tra le dita. La minaccia per l’umanità è rappresentata da un gruppo di replicanti che, fuggiti dalle colonie extramondo, torna in città nella speranza di sopravvivere più a lungo della “data di termine” loro imposta dalla Tyrell Corporation. Si apre così la spietata caccia di Deckard, assoldato controvoglia dalla polizia per eliminare tutti gli androidi sopravvissuti. Per loro infatti non c’è spazio nella vita reale, essi non possono convivere accanto all’uomo, loro creatore.

Lo scenario tetro e fumoso della Los Angeles del futuro, immaginata da Dick e filtrata poi da Scott nelle immagini del film, crea suggestioni noir-futuriste riprese in larga misura nella fantascienza cinematografica successiva nonché nell’animazione giapponese di fine anni Ottanta. La città è infinita, senza limiti ne confini stabiliti e l’uomo vi si smarrisce. La luce del sole raggiunge gli appartamenti, i laboratori, le case ma sempre al fine di creare intensi giochi d’ombre. Quello di Blade Runner è un sole perennemente oscurato dalla tetraggine che pervade i sudici palazzi estesi nella lunghezza di innumerevoli piani. È un tempo sempre uguale, un tempo che non muta perché il cielo non si rannuvola come nemmeno non si rasserena. Esso è specchio della condizione uomo-androide che rivela un’esistenza instabile, tesa alla fuga anche quando non vi è una stretta necessità. Il protagonista è l’uomo che inscena la paura dell’opposto, il replicante che ne è immagine perfettamente uguale nella forma e forse – ci suggerisce Dick – anche nel cuore. I ricordi innestati nella memoria di Rachel sono veramente parte di una vita vissuta pur essendo tuttavia invenzioni atte a fornire un passato al replicante. Ma siamo certi che i nostri occhi vedano ciò che osserviamo e che i nostri sensi captino ciò che accade all’esterno? Sotto la stratificata corazza di egoismo di Deckard sfioriamo i quesiti più profondi che portano a chiederci quanto e cosa di noi differenzi l’androide di Scott dagli uomini che ne auspicano la distruzione. Un essere annichilito dalle medesime paure: il Tempo che fugge, un’entità contro la quale lottare, provare a cambiare la destinazione finale. È il Tempo che manca a questo surrogato di umano che scalpita all’interno di un contenitore denominato appunto tragicamente “Tempo”. Eppure in tale scatola anche Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer) esiste, vive, ricorda, pensa. Non sapremo mai se quelle fiamme al largo dei bastioni di Orione abbiano realmente bruciato le navi da combattimento, però tutto ciò esiste nella testa del coraggioso androide.  Quando la fine è imminente egli sa che i ricordi andranno perduti e, come lacrime nella pioggia, si perderanno nel tempo in avvenire. Il desiderio di vita appare più forte quando la “scadenza” sopraggiunge.

I giochi si complicano al nascere dell’amore per la dark lady e ancor di più nel momento in cui fa il suo ingresso l’Empaty di Dick, quel sentimento che si protende verso il simile non-uomo ma esclusivamente intrinseco alla natura umana. Deckard paradossalmente deve privarsene per uccidere spietatamente i fuggiaschi delle colonie, mentre Roy, Pris e gli altri se ne appropriano. Chi allora assomiglia a chi? Quale essere sviluppa la suddetta Empatia? Vi è forse una contaminazione tra specie che convivono nello stesso pianeta? Rimane difficile anche all’uomo del futuro districarsi tra le illusioni del simulacro. Eppure non possiamo continuare ad incarnare i cavernicoli che scorgono ombre nella grotta pensando che queste rappresentino la realtà là fuori. E coerentemente l’uomo di Blade Runner non si accontenta di rimanere intrappolato nel surrogato di se stesso. Il film di Ridley Scott, nel suo non tradire l’insegnamento dickiano, è più di una storia fantascientifica, è un ragionamento sull’essere umano e su quale essenza veramente lo connoti. Con le musiche di Vangelis, attraverso scenari noir decadenti e il contributo di attori sopraffini quali Ford e Hauer, Blade Runner fu a suo tempo, e lo è ancor oggi, ispiratore di innumerevoli ulteriori pellicole, aggiudicandosi il primato indiscusso di film cult. I cultori del genere ne sono praticamente certi: Dick avrebbe apprezzato.

chiarOscura

L’articolo è stato riproposto in merito all’evento “I'VE SEEN FILMS”, la prima edizione dell’International Short Film Festival promosso dall’attore Rutger Hauer. Il Festival si terrà a Milano dal 22 al 26 settembre 2008 e ospiterà tra i giurati Robert Rodriguez, Richard Gere, Ridley Scott e Paul Verhoeven. Oltre ai cortometraggi selezionati verranno riproposte diverse pellicole tra cui naturalmente anche “Blade Runner”.

http://www.icfilms.org/

http://www.rutgerhauer.org/

Below are the trailers for each movie:

*yawn* I just got back from watching Indiana Jones 4 today and as a quick summary, the movie is really up to my expectation. I was expecting the movie to be predictable, totally no 'holy shit' moments as well as unbelievable. Not the amazing type of unbelievable but the unrealistic type of unbelievable. Come on, at the ripe old age of 66yrs old, you think Harrison Ford can still run around kicking bad guys asses? And if they are trying to replicate that amazing scene where Indy was running away from a giant rolling ball, they failed miserably this time. Oh, they refers to Lucas and Spielberg. They are a legend when it comes to movie making but this time, i think they have made a wrong decision to revive back this character. I'll try not to reveal any spoilers here but just imagine this, Indiana Jones is all about high adrenalin pumping action scenes full of adventure but the lead actor is now 66yrs old. And Indiana Jones is not a superhero so i don't know why he can dodge lots and lots of bullets even at near point blank shots. Hmm, maybe i should watch back the previous three movies and check if there's really a lot of these 'mou liu' scenes? Actually, i did. A few weeks ago i watched a bit of Temple of Doom and it still rocks! Somehow, Kingdom of Crystal Skull just didn't have the feel of an Indiana Jones movie, the magic is simply not there this time around...