About Me

My photo
This blog is the work of an educated civilian, not of an expert in the fields discussed.

Sunday, May 25, 2008

Indy and War, Inc.

And Also: I was browsing through some writings of Thomas Paine via a Barnes and Nobles compilation. Like those introduction essays in such works. Paine himself is a mix of fun barbs, some good argument, joyful spirit and some makeweight arguments. Neat trick how he uses biblical allusions in Common Sense etc. and later on dismisses most of it as delusional cruelty.


Three is often a good number for movies -- sequels tend to be lame reflections of originals, but the trequel often is more fun and generally of superior quality. The characters and everyone has settled in, there is a sense of comfort and probably lower expectations so they don't have to try so hard, and all of this tends to lead to better films. Consider such diverse series as Die Hard, Back to the Future, Nightmare on Elm Street, and Indiana Jones. Other examples probably can be listed as well. Like Jurassic Park, though I didn't see the second one.

Fourth movies? Often less successful, though the Chucky films got back on track there by taking a new route, focusing more on the dolls. Die Hard was okay the fourth time around, but a bit thin, and overall just simply not to be believed. Indy IV [Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull] also took the back after a long while path. This one takes place in the 1950s and is a bit too derivative -- Russians for Nazis and other "been there, seen that" moments. The whole alien thing, a bit tedious. His early escape ... ended on an unbelievable note. A few too many of those moments.* [mild spoiler]

I had some fun, but less enthused than some reviewers. It basically rests on nostalgia (after all, Marion is back), but after all, it is the fourth film. That brings even lesser expectations. Still, I think some might be a bit disappointed. Less so perhaps with War, Inc., for the simple fact perhaps that many will expect it to be somewhat scattershot -- satire often brings that to the table. Though, to use a turn of phrase, the whole might not be the sum of its parts, there are enough parts there to make it worth watching.

Amy Goodman had John Cusack on Democracy Now!, who is behind this something of a twist on his earlier hit man piece, Grosse Pointe Blank, and was annoyed at the criticism of the movie. As if it was because they didn't buy the politics. No, many thought it was a bit of a mess. In fact, the NYT suggested it got a little soft at the end. I do think many of the reviews are too critical. I appreciate him even trying to make a spectacle/satire of how war is being fought these days. The result is not totally successful, sure, but it's worth seeing.

The dancing prosthetics bit reminds me of a (not that good) revival of a 1930s satire that had a bit about a trade show for weapons, displayed like the latest fashions. Other fun stuff for those in the know -- it is amusing that Naomi Klein, the Nation journalist who wrote The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism complimented the movie. [Cusack interviewed her once.] Marisa Tomei plays a liberal Nation journalist ... you know, the Naomi Klein role. As another muckraking fan suggested, Hilary Duff also does a nice turn as a slutty (at least branded that way) singer, Central Asia's answer to Britney. And, it's always nice to see Marisa Tomei getting good roles.

"In times such as these, the role of filmmakers, musicians, poets, playwrights is vital." True enough, especially when done with some skill.

---

* Another annoying bit, though we only see a glimpse of it, is the massacre of some local tribesmen (maybe some women) by the Russians ... Indy and company kept them away with the mystical skull. The Russians just mowed them down. Such toss away slaughter is an unpleasant and unnecessary edition to this sort of film.

BTW, the top chase scene sorta felt like the tank chase in an earlier film with the added problem that Indy on horseback was more fun.