Paramount Summer Classic Film Series-Blade Runner (1982)

I looked, and it is hard to believe, in the fourteen years I have been writing on this blog, there is not a post solely devoted to the movie "Blade Runner". This film came out 42 years ago, and I saw it on opening night. I have seen it several more times on the big screen since then, but apparently not once in the last decade and a half. I do remember going to a screening at the Archlight in Hollywood with my daughter while she was still in college, so that must have been 2009 or 2010 early on. This is one of the most influential films of the last fifty years, in spite of it's commercial failure. The version we saw last Saturday was the "Final Cut" which looks like it will really be the last version of the movie, at least from Director Ridley Scott.

This version of the film is the most coherent, and the plotline is clear. One of the things that has changed about the film in the last forty years is the narration. When the film came out, there was a narrative track by Harrison Ford as the character Deckard, and it contained exposition that tried to clarify characters and plot. In reality, it only cluttered things, although it did add a noir style trope to this dark future noir story. Ultimately, no one will miss it. The ending has also been altered, in the original release, there is a more upbeat is not entirely happy ending. The ambiguity of the "Final Cut" ending is a lot more in line with the questions raised by the film's premise.

Over the years, there has been controversy about whether or not Deckard, Ford's character, is actually a replicant himself. Ridley Scott has asserted that he is, and some of the additions to the film have tried to hint at that. The insertion of the unicorn flashback/dream, is meant to suggest that Gaff, the nominal partner working with Deckard, has knowledge of his thoughts, as exemplified by the unicorn origami found on Deckard's doorstep near the end of the film. I have a couple of problems with this approach. First of all, it undermines the romance between Deckard and Rachel, who is in fact a replicant. The value of the emotional theme is that a human can fall in love with a product and it can be meaningful. If it is simply two manufactured beings, it doesn't mean anything. Also, as Deckard fights with Roy at the climax of the film, it is clear that he is a superior physical specimen. Why would the inferior model be the one set upon the rogue replicants? It makes no sense. One last thought on this point, Rick Deckard returns in the sequel set 31 years later, and if he is a replicant, there would have to have been some planned obsolescence because Deckard has aged substantially. 

Scott and the screenwriters were a little optimistic about some technological elements of the future. We are not operating colonies off world, we still don't have flying cars, and although AI is getting dangerously close to sentience, we don't have slave labor replicants. However, most of the dystopia about Los Angeles is spot on. Homelessness is rampant, languages are not shared, and advertising dominates the vista. I left California in the middle of a multi year drought, but in the last two years, the precipitation seen in the movie appears to have overwhelmed the people still living there. The models of the buildings seen in th film are shot in a spectacular manner. I remember going to a museum exhibit in the early 90s, where the police headquarters building from the film was on display, it was incredible. The visual elements are the thins that make this movie such a touchstone for modern film makers.

Regarding the plot, there is a dilemma that I was reminded of as I watched the film. We are clearly supposed to have sympathy for the replicants who simply want to live, but we are conflicted by the brutality they show to all humans, even the ones who assist in their cause or at least sympathize with them. The four replicants seem to be irredeemably vicious. Chew, the clueless Eye engineer is murdered for no reason except spite. Tyrell is murdered out of frustration, and Sebastian, the kind but naive human who has assisted the remaining two replicants, is killed for no reason at all.  The replicants seem to have been designed with no empathy neural patterns, only rage. Only at the very end, do we get a sense of progress when Batty spares Deckard with his final gesture. I don't know if it is enough to redeem the more than two dozen people they killed in the course of the story. I want it to mean something, and Rutger Hauer's performance and final monologue is almost enough. 

The theater was packed for the show. We had been to the "Dick Tracy" screening earlier, but I was able to go back to the car and pick up my Blade Runner shirt for the evening film. I wore it over my long sleeve shirt because it was very chilly in that first show, and the lightweight material would not have kept me warm during this film. Every actor in the movie was excellent, but Rutger Hauer and Darryl Hannah are the standouts. It is for good reason that this is probably the late Mr. Hauer's signature role. 

The Fugitive (1993) Re-visit

 

Color me amazed that I have not written on this film before. I was sure there was a Fathom Event where I had commented on the movie, but I can find no trace of it on my site. I feel a little like Deputy Gerard, I don't have any clues as to where to look, and my memory is escaping. The film on the other hand has not escaped my memory, this is a movie that I have seen dozens of times over the years and it has had an indelible impact on me for some personal reasons that I will mention at the end of this post. I have used the phrase "Black Hole Film" in the past, to describe a movie which has a gravitational pull on me that I cannot resist. "The Fugitive" is one of those films. If I happen across it, my eyes and ears lock on and I am captured for the time remaining in the movie.

There are so many things about this film that deserve attention, I can't really get to all of them and keep this post at a reasonable length. That said, let me pick out four or five elements that are worth drawing your attention to and highlighting. First of all are the two lead performances by Harrison Ford and Tommy Lee Jones. Both men add credibility to the story, but they also engage us with small moments and line delivery. Ford has the most screen time but maybe the lesser amount of dialogue, at least until the exposition dump at the end. In the scene where he is being interviewed by the cops after the death of his wife, he conveys the frustration that a distraught man is likely to have. I may have written about it somewhere else, but Harrison Ford has his crutches as an actor and the two biggest are his hands. He gestures in small, self contained moments that draw our attention to him. The way he shakes his fingers or twists them around to underline a point are common. He also does a lot of pointing. In this film it is all fitting. Look at the way he holds his notes in the telephone booth as he is making calls to the one armed men on his list of subjects. It is distinctive, and a way to get us to focus on him rather than the background. When he gives up the gun on the reservoir waterfall, his hands don't simply shoot up in response to Gerard's command, they show hesitation and thought and desperation. Ford has always been a physical actor more than a vocal artist, and this film is a perfect display of those talents.

Meanwhile, his counterpart, Tommy Lee Jones as Marshall Gerard, is full of flummoxed emotional moments, controlled and calculating facial expressions, and a vocal range that reflects someone, unlike Dr. Kimble, who is trying to stay below the radar, is in fact trying to dominate every interaction he has. Jones won his Academy Award for this role and those who like to engage in revisionism have suggested that it was not maybe a correct choice, they are wrong. This character is a success because of the actor who embodied him. With a commanding voice and sardonic sense of humor, Jones steals every scene he is in. It helps that he has all the best lines in the film and he is surrounded by a cast of characters that feed his character's personality. He can get snarky with his underlings, and get away with it because they all respect him. When he and Joe Pantoliano are verbally jousting with Jeroen Krabbé as Dr. Nichols, they both smile and say they are smart guys too, and we can see how in tune the team is with the Big Dog. Jones has the punctuating speech where he instructs the searchers as to their task and finishes with..."Go get him".  Later, Gerard has the famous comeback when Dr. Kimble confronts him and declares his innocence, Gerard spits back, "I don't care". The script and the supporting players all made Jones performance one for the ages. 

Director Andrew Davis was a veteran action director who had worked with Tommy Lee Jones on his two previous pictures. His control over the pace of the film and the little bits that he was able to add to the script are of critical importance to the movie working the way it does. The improvised escape through the St. Patrick's day parade was his idea, and he meticulously worked with tech experts, engineers and production designers to get the train/bus crash sequence done in the one chance they had to get it right. Those are not miniatures or photographic effects, that's a real train.  By the way, on the big screen, which is where this viewing took place, Alamo Drafthouse as a St. Patrick's Day event, it looked fantastic.

I will leave all of the other characters and the script to another time, I sure hope to see this again on a big screen, so there should be another opportunity. The personal note that I mentioned earlier is one of the reasons this film means so much to me. It was the last movie my best friend and I saw together. My friend from High School, Art Franz was dying of cancer in 1993. He lasted a while longer than doctors thought because he had a positive attitude, in spite of the ordained fate. In that last year, I took every opportunity I could to go with him to the movies. He and I were both huge James Bond Fans and he worked at a movie theater when we were back in High School. We saw this movie a little over a month before he finally succumbed, and we had both loved it. Exiting this world with this as the last theatrical experience of your life is pretty good. Miss you buddy. 

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

 

Fifteen years after the last Indiana Jones movie set some fans on fire and lead to a mass hypnosis that it never happened, we once again pack our hats and whips and head off on an adventure with our favorite archeologist. Some fans expect to hate this as much as the "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull", some are hoping it will wash out the bad taste they have in their mouths after experiencing "Crystal Skull" but no one seems to think this movie will in any way live up to the first "Raiders".  You can't capture magic in the bottle over and over without running dry at some point. Pixar proves that and most other franchises confirm that premise. If however you hold your animosity about the last film aside, recognize that time marches on, and accept that human frailty will be a part of even the most staunch heroes life, you can enjoy "The Dial of Destiny" for what it is, a final Indiana Jones Adventure featuring star Harrison Ford.

Although CGI de-aging threatens to keep certain characters on the screen after the passing of the stars that created those roles, it has not yet come to pass. It is true that for a few segments in this film, computer trickery is relied on to restore Indy to the robust figure we remember from our childhood. The real story however takes place late in Dr. Jones life, and he is a figure that is a little time worn and dispirited. Someone I know said the most unbelievable part of the movie is that an aging Professor is retiring. So many undergraduates have experienced a faculty member who is not as sharp as they must once have been, because tenure and comfort make it easy to hang on past the most productive teaching years. Indiana is not exactly enthusiastic in the classroom, and neither are his students. That does not make him a failure, it just reminds us that time marches on. I saw one on-line discussion where one of the participants was ticked because Indiana was turned into a broken old man, and the critic in that point of view thought it was a betrayal of a character and a reliance on an overused plot point for similar films. Let me simply say that as one gets older, it is easier to fall asleep in the armchair, that does not mean we have expired. The fact that someone is bored with a part of their job that has become unrewarding is also not just a trope, it is a reality for some people in certain occupations. Artists can change their technique and try something new, that is harder if you are a contractor, physician, lawyer or college professor. Fortunately for Indy, he has other options, he just needs to be pushed towards them. Near the end of the film, there is an exposition reveal which also explains his demeanor. Too many parents will know what a burden some things in life can be. The fact that Indiana is still fighting through it is not an indication that his character is a loser. If you try to put this movie in the same corral as "The Last Jedi", I think you are making a mistake.

On the plus side, the opening sequence with the younger Indiana in a WWII adventure is solid. The train effects at time may be a little wonky, but the characters are great, I thought Toby Jones was just right, and we get a set up of the later villain played by Mads Mikkelsen that works for the later part of the story. In essence, Indy gets to keep fighting Nazis thirty years after the war is over. The McGuffin in this adventure is an interesting concept, that gets a little confusing along the way, but it does lend itself to the phantasmagorical climax of the picture. I don't know if the people who hated interdimensional aliens will care for this any better, but the sequence is not overwhelmed by visual CGI that is all about creating an impossibility, but rather special effects that are designed to show us somethings that are possibilities. Along the way there were a mixture of practical and CGI moments that kept me involved. Maybe there were a few too many car chases, and maybe the transitions seemed a little too repetitive, but that is typically the fault of the quest structure, not necessarily the screenwriters. 

If there is something to be concerned about, it is that sometimes the movie turns into Indiana Joan. Phoebe Waller-Bridge as Helena, Indiana's goddaughter, is frustrating as a main character because we barely understand her motivations. Indy is as befuddled as we are as to why she has simply become a not very pleasant adventuress, rather than someone who has a better appreciation of the antiquities that she trades in. I suppose her story arc  can't take up too much time, but by the end her position on things has changed and it is not particularly clear why. She has her own less appealing version of Short Round as a side kick, and she does a lot of the heavy lifting in the adventure department in the last third of the film. I can see some people legitimately complaining that Indy has been turned into the damsel in distress by this turn of events. 

John Rhys-Davies comes back into Indiana's life as Sallah, but he is really there for fan service rather than the plot. Still it was nice to have him in the story. Antonio Banderas is in this movie, but if you blink, you will miss him. There is no character for him to play, he is simply a plot device to get to the next action moment. At one point, Indiana wants to have a chance to breathe after the loss of this character, but we have little idea about why this is supposed to be a meaningful moment. I suspect some footage has been excised to move the story along. The same can be said for Shaunette Renée Wilson, who seems to be developing a character story, but then it goes nowhere. 

It is an example of the nostalgic pull the character has for me, and the failure to always take advantage of that, when we do not get a visual joke at the start of the credits, based on the Paramount Mountain. It's a small thing, but it is one of those moments that is noticeable for shifting the humor tone down a bit. The best example of continuing the right sort of humor is the use of the whip to freeze deadly opponents into place, and their response to it. Just like that moment in "Temple of Doom" when Indy reaches for his empty holster, we get the joke. Phoebe Waller-Bridge should be contributing more humor in the story, but her character is too off putting at first to get much warmth from humor centered around her activities or lines. 

I like Indy riding the horse to escape the motorcycles in NYC. The Tuk-tuk chase has some good moments but it goes on a little long. The airplane action feels the least realistic of the action spots in the film, but whenever Indy is lighting a torch and crossing a bridge, I was glad to be back in his company. So "Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny" is only the fourth best Indiana Jones film, that still puts it miles ahead of most action/adventure films. Director James Mangold has made some films before that I really admire, "Walk the Line", "Ford vs. Ferrari" and "Logan" all worked for me. His stepping into Steven Spielberg's shoes is perfectly fine, I did not feel neglected when it came to the action bits. What complaints I have are mostly about secondary characters and how they were used. Those things won't matter if you will just surrender to the idea, which is what I did. 

Blade Runner 2049

I have a huge sense of Deja Vu with this picture. The advance screening we went to last night is foreshadowing some potentially unpleasant news for the studio that invested in this sequel. This is a movie that has been promoted all to hell, and at a 9:00 screening there were maybe two dozen people in the theater to see it. When I asked at the concession stand about the crowd that evening, the two girls said that there was a big crowd earlier, but they were all coming to see "Mully" , a specialty release. The employees didn't even know what Blade Runner was. Thirty-five years ago, we went to an opening night screening of this new Harrison Ford film, and in a giant one thousand seat theater, there were maybe three hundred people. The 1982 Blade Runner tanked, and although it has a strong cult following and an impressive revisionist legacy, I'm a little concerned for how this new edition will do.

Director Denis Villeneuve was responsible for last year's "Arrival" a film that placed highly on my end of the year list and the promise of Ryan Gosling and Harrison Ford cemented this as one of the most anticipated films of the year. At least for cinema fans, as we are learning, there are fewer and fewer of us out there as every new movie platform launches. I hope I am wrong, because this is a solid film and deserves a wide audience, but I will understand if it follows it's predecessor down the path of box office failure but cinematic glory. In many way it has the same strengths and weaknesses of the first film. 

Blade Runner 2049 starts off with a cinematic technique that is not very encouraging. We get a title card with four paragraphs of exposition, moving on to the screen accompanied by the ominous score. If the film has to tell us what is happening instead of showing us, that is a danger sign. This movie doen' even have a narration or character tell us the information, we have to read a preface. Once the story gets started however, things look a lot more promising. Actor Dave Bautista, who is rapidly becoming a favorite of mine,shows up in the opening section and there is a piece of action that seems about right for the start of the movie. The updated technology of the spinner car is displayed in bright light rather than in rain and the dark, and a mystery is introduced. So far so good. The follow up on the mystery is not so good. We do not ever understand exactly the relationship of Bautista's character to the rest of the story, In fact, it is a red herring but a very confusing one. This is just the start of a great deal of muddled story that detracts from the characters and helps make the visual splendor of the film it's main selling point. [This should start to sound familiar to all you fans of whatever cut of Blade Runner.]

"K" the Gosling character, is a different kind of Blade Runner. We find out when he first encounters his targets and that ask him how it feels to hunt down his own kind. I don't think this is a spoiler since it comes up in the first few minutes of the film. His supervisor, the frighteningly stern Robin Wright, treats him only slightly better than a vacuum cleaner, although she clearly sees his utility and respects his work. Their relationship is set up like the traditional over bearing police supervisor and rebellious underling, except that "K" doesn't really rebel and Wright's "Madam"  doesn't below as much as she scowls. They both participate in a reworking of the digital picture enhancement scene from the original film, and later Gosling repeats the procedure again in an outside context. Some more echos of the first film.

Very much as "The Force Awakens" mirrors the first "Star Wars", 2049 is hitting some of the same beats as the original film more than three decades later. "Luv", the assistant to the owner of the company that makes the replicants which are now more compliant than their older versions, is a combination of three of the characters from the first film, Pris, Zhora and Roy Batty himself. Ultimately you will hate her but there is a strange attractiveness about her methodical manner and diffident smile. Niander Wallace is the blind genius behind the new version of the Tyrell Company, and since he uses floating electronic eyes to see, he feels like a combination of J.F. Sebastian, Chew, and Tyrell himself. He speaks in obscure terms and platitudes. Jared Leto comes across as creepy villain but one who will rely on his creations to carry out his dirty work.

There are three or four plots going on all at once, but they don't always gel into a coherent story. "K" loves "Joi" a virtual reality companion. Luv is protecting "K" at times and attacking him at other moments. Lt. Joshi, referred to usually as Madam, seems to be aware of a plot, but unwilling to pull the curtain back to reveal it. There is also the thread of a replicant revolution in the offing. The procedural of following leads is sidetracked by new sub-cultures or  background world building that gets more and more obtuse. It may all ultimately make sense but it will probably take the average person two or three viewings to figure it out. The question is whether anyone will be motivated to do so. This movie is almost three hours and it is not a fast three hours. This again mirrors the original film, which was deliberately paced and not action heavy. There are lengthy discussions between characters which are often meant to be so high context that the audience might well believe they are supposed to be excluded from the conversation.

So far it probably doesn't sound much like I enjoyed the movie. In fact I did and it is marvelous in a lot of ways. I just want to be out front in pointing out that the story is problematic and the script not very engaging. What is engaging however are some of the performances, the great visual design of the film, and some of the world building that was only hinted at in the first movie. The combination of effects and characters are fascinating in several places. There is a great scene when a pleasure model replicant and  the virtual reality companion, share space so that "K" can have a tactile relationship with the object of his desire. It was a great creative moment and the effect looks a little like a misaligned 3D shot. The set designs in the future abandoned Las Vegas are also pretty spectacular. Hinting at the future of our current obsession with drinking, gambling and old time entertainment.

The women in this film make the strongest impressions. Villeneuve manages to make an initially lovely villainess more and more reptilian as the story develops. actress Sylvia Hoeks provides a face that is made for molding into beauty and fear at the same time. Ana de Armas is the virtual Joi and she feels like the most real character in the plot. She is a voice of reason, a love object and the lady in distress all at the same time. Gosling is a fine actor and holds his own against the ladies, up until the arrival of Harrison Ford in the last hour of the movie. Ford's Deckard is familiar from the first film. He wants to remain detached, he is very smart but also has some of the limitations of humans, and he has had three decades to drink all the whisky he wants. Ford manages to upstage everyone else in the film even though his screen time is very limited. His scenes with Leto have a James Bond quality as he is interrogated, but he does not have any bravado or fear to throw up as a defense, he simply has his own weariness to assure him that he will win out in the end. Ford seems physically formidable for his age and there are none of the acting crutches that he uses in his other performances here. He did not phone it in for this one.

If you treasure the first film than you will probably love this one as well. Once you get used to the bombastic electronic score from Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch, you will be able to delight in the dense city backgrounds, stark farming landscapes and idiosyncratic technology of the future. It is a smart science fiction film with some good notions of what makes us human, but it is layered in a story that is murky and slow.

Harrison Ford Draft on the Lambcast Podcast

I was a last minute substitute on this podcast and lucked into the first pick.
I wonder what I should choose.

Take some time and go vote for my slate of Harrison Ford Films HERE.

Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens

A long time ago, in a theater not too far from here...

I've been a fan of Star Wars since May 25th 1977, when on opening day, for the second showing, my group of friends walked right up to the box office and bought tickets and we went inside.  There was no hype, there were no lines yet and the phenomena was just about to hit. By the time the weekend arrived, the lines were around the block and the film was making headlines. If you watch the first primitive trailer for the film, you might think it looked corny and old fashioned. In a way, that's what sold it to me and millions of others trapped in the 1970s. Cynicism had run amok, in politics and popular culture and Star Wars was an antidote that went down smoothly. Almost 40 years later, with the world in sad shape and our culture dominated by pornography masquerading as television and political fecklessness as a national mantra, we need another dose. "The Force Awakens" attempts to be that cure and for the most part it works. This movie is fun and real in a way that has not been the case since the 1980s.

As usual, you will find no spoilers here, and J.J. Abrams may have achieved the near impossible in this era of social media by keeping the pleasures of his new film under wraps for us to discover on our own. There are plot twists and secrets everywhere in the film and fan service sufficient to satisfy even the neediest of old school geeks, but there is also a freshness to the film that makes the plot devices less important than the spirit of action and adventure we are witnessing on the screen. This movie is highly accessible to fans and non fans alike. The Force Awakens looks more like a sequel to the original trio of films than the prequels do, and that in large part accounts for it's ultimate success.

There are deep roots to the story we are given, and not all of those rhizome sprout plants in this episode. In fact, the very first section of the opening crawl, gives us a macguffin that drives the plot and very little else. In the course of the story we learn a few things about our past heroes and the lives they have lead since the restoration of the Republic, but it sometimes feels like the facts and stories are being parceled out by a selfish Santa.  There is just enough information to explain a plot point, but not enough to satisfy our interest in just what happened. Some of those seeds are certainly going to come to bear fruit in future episodes, but it is a bit frustrating. There is an exceptionally obtuse sequence in the basement of character Maz Kanata. It raises our expectations, makes some soon to occur events more plausible but ultimately raises questions that are designed to be answered in episode IX.

The structure of the story will be familiar to everyone who saw the original Star Wars in 1977. There is an as yet unaware hero, ready to step forward, there is a set of secrets hidden in a droid, there is a wild card rogue second lead, and there is a wizened master to teach the ways of the force (or at least the rules of the game). The action beats will also be familiar. Agents of the First Order, the remnants of the empire and a new developing Sith relationship, are pursuing our heroes and adventure ensues. J.J. Abrams and the writers manage to substitute a few scenes and use different characters, but you will recognize the Cantina scene and the escape from the empire dogfight. The call backs to earlier films are found throughout the movie, including the story line. I did not see it as a lack of creativity but a desire to make sure that the audience understands the universe that these characters inhabit.

Maybe it is bad form to pile on, but I think it is necessary to explain how this film manages to do so much that the prequels did not. To begin with, the casting is correct. Daisy Ridley and John Boyega are not cardboard pretty faces being moved around on the gameboard. The character of Rey is dynamic rather than passive like Padme from the prequels. Finn acts as if what he does matters and unlike Hayden Christenson, Boyega has more expressions than a scowling face. Lawrence Kasdan, Michael Arndt and Abrams himself, have an ear for how dialogue should sound when being spoken in a scene. The veteran actors also add some zing to the film, especially Harrison Ford, who in returning to the character of Han Solo, has managed to age gracefully and still be charmingly funny. The biggest asset to the films success in entwining us in the Star Wars universe was the decision to limit CGI to those elements of the story where they are needed rather than where they might save money of merely produce awe. The actors interact with their environment more effectively when there are real sets and locations being used. The desert looks like it is made of sand dunes rather than pixels. That sequence near the end was a real ocean scene and not a painting created in a computer. The forest may have some CGI trees, but in the running sections, those are real trees. The way the film looks helps us project ourselves into the story rather than holding it at arms length admiring the cleverness of the computer guys. There are still some stunning effects scenes that use computer generated images effectively, but they work better in the battle scenes and action moments than they would in the quite transition or narrative spots in the film. In preparation for this experience, I watched all of the previous six films and it was so clear how much better those choices were in the original trilogy. The technology is important but it can't substitute for what makes the scene believable.

A few plot points are rushed, and that feels like a cheat but it may be that we will be getting more detail in the next stories. There is plenty to enjoy here and there are light saber battles, comedic characters that don't irritate, and a strong sense of fun rather than a permanent sense of dread hanging over the characters. The transition of the story from our older characters to the newer ones is done much more smoothly than say the same technique which is used in a film like "The Expendables 3". We care about the new characters because we get a chance to know them. Early on, a great new relationship develops in a good action scene and then that relationship is ignored for two thirds of the movie. That was one of the few mistakes in character development in the story. There are two new digital characters that are introduced and both are intriguing but they seem peripheral to the main thrust of the character arcs we are looking at, so either use them more effectively or lets move on.

The final shot in the movie manages to raise the hair on the back of your hand a little bit and whet your appetite for the next film in the series. As I understand it, there will be a stand alone film next year and it will be two years until we get the next chapter in this story. That should give everyone enough opportunity to reset the hype machine back to a level that is tolerable. I doubt that any film could live up to the expectations that this movie carries with it. Still it manages to be successful and entertaining, if slightly less than perfect. If you want a ranking, I'd put it exactly in the middle. Not quite original trilogy perfection, but so far above the prequels that it might be embarrassing to the creator himself.

Expendables 3

Two reactions are typical when talking about an "Expendables" movie; "Damn is that awesome" or "Damn is that Pathetic". I happen to fall into the former category, so if you fit into the later, you can pretty much skip this, it is not going to fit your world view. Aging action stars plus plenty of shootouts plus bad jokes equals two hours of fun in August as far as I've gone with these flicks. There is not any real artistry, the plots are boiler plate and the outcome is inevitable. These are comfort food for people who miss Bob's Big Boy and Hair Metal. Sometimes there is a nice new element to make the movie interesting and to keep us coming back. This movie has three or four of those elements.

I rarely spend more than a sentence or two describing plot in any of my reviews, I don't like spoilers. With a movie like this, it is even simpler because the plot is so direct. The team must take down a rogue former member who has turned evil arms dealer. That's it. Sure more happens and there are some justifications for jumping into a new set of recruits and bringing the old crew back, but it is straight get the bad guy stuff. What does help is that the bad guy this time is Mel Gibson. With all the baggage he has accumulated in the last few years, he has not been a regular screen presence. That's too bad because he is quite good and charismatic on screen, whether playing a hero or the baddie. The three Expendable movies have been slowly creeping up in the quality of the antagonist. Eric Roberts in the first film was fine but did not get much development. Jean- Claude Van Damme was more successful because his showdown with Stallone is the epic climax of the movie. Gibson gives the movie a sense of credibility it would not otherwise deserve and his dialogues with the team contain the right kind of ominous threat to keep our expectations high.

Also joining the cast and classing up the franchise is Harrison Ford.  In the 80s, Stallone and Schwarzenegger were the brawn of action movies. They were the guys who kicked butt. Gibson and Ford were the brains of action movies. Their films had plot twists and sophistication and did not rely on brute strength to get the mission accomplished. Ford shows up as the replacement for Bruce Willis's character in the movie. He treats the script with more seriousness than anyone would think is possible and raises the bar on the believability scale. In the long run it may be a futile effort, but it doesn't end up like it is just stunt casting, even though there is an amusing line about what became of Agent Church.

The unique part of this film is the recruitment of a younger generation of Expendables whose loss  Barney will not feel as much. The selection process involves another old friend, Kelsey Grammer. Channeling a rougher version of Frasier Crane, Grammer gets in some funny lines and a little bit of pop psychology to go with all the nonsense. Stealing the show by playing the dangerous buffoon is Antonio Banderas. Having watched "Desperado" just a day ago, I can say his action bonafides are in order. His comedy chops from "Puss in Boots" appear to be in good working shape as well. Four other young actors are tossed in, it would seem with the intention of carrying on the series when it will look too odd to have grandad diving through a window with a Howitzer under his arm. Wesley Snipes is introduced as another former colleague who has been away from the action scene for a while. The main justification for his presence is the joke about what he was doing prison time for in the third world country the team breaks him out of.

I understand that someone might say they were tired of the same old, same old. If you seek creativity and innovation in your action film, move along, there is nothing for you here. Those of us who do not mind a lot of the familiar and enjoy a big chunk of cheese with our weekend fix of adrenaline, will appreciate the continuing adventures of the old timers. Yeah they look a little long in the tooth, but they also look like they could take most of us out in twenty seconds or less. Until they reach my level of physical prowess, I'm still willing to go along for the ride.

AMC Classic Series: Raiders of the Lost Ark

OK, I don't have a lot to say about this today. Someday I will do an Indiana Jones Festival and invite anyone interested in participating. For now I will say I saw three movies in theaters this weekend, and if I had to choose only one to have gone to,this would have been it. Raiders is a fantastic adventure movie that continues to show how much better off we were creatively and as an audience, before Computers replaced everything we see with pixels.

There is a lot of humor in Raiders and Harrison Ford never gets as much credit for these physical performances as he deserves. A slack jawed expression here, a scowl there and a smirk laughing at his own situation fill this character with more personality than most action stars get through a whole series of movies. I haven't seen all of his recent performances, but I will be there on opening day to see Harrison Ford as part of the cast in "The Expendables III". I think he will fit in fine if they give him some funny business to go along with the action stuff.

If you haven't seen my post on "Indian Jones and the Temple of Doom", you don't need to see Raiders first but it could not hurt. Anytime I encounter it, Raiders of the Lost Ark on the big screen it going to pull me back to 1936 for 115 minutes. That's right my friends, this movie is less than two hours long and still packs more into it's contents than films that add another hour to their running time. There is always something new in the background, foreground or dialogue that I haven't focused on before but makes each experience unique. Today I was absorbed by all the little pieces of business that Ford does with his hands and face.

AMC has done one thing with this current series that it failed to do with the last, lower the prices. These are movies that people will come out to see but $12 for a thirty-five year old movie on a Sunday afternoon was a little steep. They've dropped the price to $6, less than the cost of an early morning screening. Today, there were a dozen people in our showing. I may go again on Wednesday if the schedule works out for me. Two years ago with the release of the Indiana Jones films on blu ray, there were some Raiders IMAX screenings. Today's presentation was a standard viewing but still worth the time and energy.