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. 

Ford v Ferrari

Let me start by saying, I am not a fan of racing. I have nothing against it but the idea of watching cars travel at high speeds is attractive to me for about five minutes. After the first thrill, it seems like a lot of waiting around. I know I am an exception because NASCAR is incredibly popular and the Indy car circuit has been around for more than a century. The same can be said for formula one racing which enjoys international enthusiasm that I can't muster. With that out of the way, I can say I am a fan of  racing films. Several years ago, I listed "Rush"  as my second favorite movie of that year. Earlier this year I enjoyed "the Art of Racing in the Rain". I even liked the Stallone racing film and "Days of Thunder". So how is it that I ended up liking this film so much?

My appreciation for a film about a subject that I am not well versed in or passionate about comes down to the simple fact that film making is all about controlling the audience perspective. As an illustration, I posted a list a few years ago of my favorite sports films, three of the ten films were hockey movies. I've never been to a hockey game, I've never watched a whole hockey game on television and the idea of a sport played on ice is appalling to me, I hate the cold. Film makers however, are not worried about the contest, they know the outcome already. They don't worry about the rules, they can ignore them or alter them to suit their purpose. What screenwriters and directors do care about is the audience, what is it we want out of the experience? That is the thing that makes a movie like this work for us.

In "Ford v Ferrari" we see the races from the best angles. We focus on the key moments and not all the drudge work that gets to those points. Best of all, in a racing film we are in the cockpit and we see the race from the perspective of the driver as well. That creates the drama that keeps us focused on the story of watching someone drive a car. In this film Christian Bale plays driver Ken Miles and his character is one worth following. He is a hothead who also happens to be an excellent driver. His volatile relationship with the car designer and the corporation that is backing the team is emphasized not just in scenes played out in garages and offices, but while he is driving the vehicle they are all counting on. I think he nails the English accent spot on [those of you who don't get the joke are excused from making a comment on my ignorance]. He has to act opposite a big movie star, a child and a piece of machinery. He makes each of those relationships work in a realistic way.

My friend Doug is a big race fan and he will tell you how there is a better story somewhere else, or how the film is not accurate is some way that matters to race fans. The rest of us don't have to worry about that because we know what we are seeing is a fictionalized version of the events. Like all story tellers, the three screenwriters and the director, exaggerate to make a joke work or emphasize a dramatic beat with a piece of information that we need just at the right moment. The film does center on racing, but most of Matt Damon's work is in the garage or board room rather than behind the wheel. The background on the Ford Company attempt to purchase Ferrari may not have happened in the sequential order that the film presents but that presentation makes the rivalry more meaningful and interesting. You could easily be fooled into thinking that Christian Bale also played Henry Ford II, since the portrayal is a mirror image of the Dick Cheny performance he was responsible for last year. 

Since the events depicted are based on real historical incidents, you will be aware of the outcome of some of the suspenseful moments, but James Mangold manages to make them suspenseful anyway. Having worked with Christian Bale in "3:10 to Yuma", Mangold probably felt comfortable in the casting of Bale and Damon in parts that were originally scheduled to go to Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt. While I would have enjoyed seeing those two reunited on screen, I think this pairing works really well. The loyalty but pragmatism of Damon as Carrol Shelby is a good counterpoint to the flashier Ken Miles and it is to Damon's credit that he lets Bale drive not only the vehicle but the film as well.

Logan

The X-Men franchise has been going pretty strong for the better part of two decades now. Both Hugh Jackman and Patrick Stewart have grown older in their roles as Wolverine and Professor Xavier. I don't know how they will replace Jackman, but Stewart has been gracefully edged aside for James McAvoy in the last few outings, including a dual casting in "X-Men: Days of Future Past". The two of them have been cast in this capstone film, which basically cements their exit from the franchise. This episode is tonally very different from any of the other films, including the last outing for Jackman which was "The Wolverine" back in 2013.

Most of these films have been cartoony super hero stories with a new "big Bad" to fight against in each edition. There is some subtext about ethnicity/sexuality and culture but usually it comes down to some big action sequences that everyone is looking forward to. "Logan" has plenty of action scenes but they are mostly a series of mutants versus mercenaries, and usually involve a car chase or two. No stadiums are lifted into the air, the Statue of Liberty is not at risk, and the wold does not seem to teeter on a single moment. The darker subtext here has to do with genetic manipulation for intentional purposes. Since the film is set ten years in the future, it is safe to make some jokes about GMO crops and GMO humans. The Frankenfood that most alarmists are worried about is mocked, but the human process is the thing that provides some depth to the movie.

Let me share a quote with you from my review of the 2013 film: " I know the film is PG-13 because we get only one f-bomb, and the blood from all the fighting and evisceration that is taking place, stays mainly on the characters. Body parts don't come flying off the screen, there are no fountains of blood spraying the walls, and the violence remains mostly in the imagination." Apparently, director/writer James Mangold felt the same way, or else he read my comments and decided to fix this deficiency. "Logan" is R-rated for blood and language. It's not a surprise that when freed from some contractual restrictions, Wolverine would find colorful uses for the f-adjective. What is a little more of a shock is the degree to which the claws get set free. The number of times the three prongs end up in the head, throat, or chest of a bad guy rivals John Wick's kill count. It gets a little wearisome at times. Let's throw in another character with claws, and the dismemberment, decapitations and general viscera is way up. If you have trouble with violence that looks really violent, then this film may not be for you.

I mentioned that the tone of the movie is different. Both Charles and Logan have medical issues in this movie. In a different X-Men Universe, there would be brilliant blue furry mutants and mystic scientists working to discover solutions for their problems. Instead, we have a pair of overworked caregivers who are struggling to get by while hiding from the world. Some vaguely hinted at disaster has made the X-Men disappear. Getting the pill count and schedule is hard enough, but some characters also need assistance in going to the toilet. That's not something you will see in the comic books I bet. Another thing that will show how different and dark this world is, no one is spared in the story. Sympathetic characters die and often in gruesome ways. I thought we were being set up at one point for a secondary character to use some skills that are human based, but no. As soon as we hear about those accomplishments and start thinking of how they might be used, the character is dead. The warmth of friendship or humanity is held out only long enough to make us feel something when it is snatched away.

Overall I liked the movie quite a bit, but I have my reservations. The violence is continuous without the self awareness of a movie like John Wick. There is background missing that would make the story a little more interesting, and just as we get some monologing to  explain it, a bit of violence jumps in and cuts it off as if to say "That's not the story we are telling here." This is really an elegy for the X-Men characters we have known and a passing of the torch to new mutants. It feels like the studio has set up the whole franchise for a second reboot since they got started. The Deadpool 2 teaser at the start of this film has nothing to do with this movie except for a brief reference to Logan as a joke. The mood of the opening teaser is incredibly different from the movie that follows it. The final tip off for where this is all going to end up is contained in the use of a Johnny Cash song in the trailer and a different Cash song in the end credits. The dire and desperate voice of Johnny Cash is a natural for Mangold to use. He was after all the director of "Walk the Line". It is also a Cliff Note sized clue that this movie is a tragedy and not an adventure.