Captain America: Brave New World (3 Stars)

"Captain America: Brave New World" arrives with the weight of a legacy. The earlier entries in the series built a reputation for tight storytelling, grounded stakes, and a sharp blend of political tension and character-driven drama. This new chapter tries to continue that tradition; however, it never reaches the clarity or emotional power of its predecessors.

The story sets up promising themes about leadership and responsibility, yet it rarely develops them with the sharp focus seen in "The Winter Soldier" or the ideological heft of "Civil War". Those films thrived on conflict that felt urgent and personal. Here, the central conflict feels scattered; the narrative moves between subplots that compete for attention instead of supporting each other. The result is a film that feels busy rather than purposeful.

Anthony Mackie carries the shield with conviction. His performance is sincere and committed; his scenes that deal with the burden of legacy are among the film’s strongest. Yet the script never gives him the same depth or arc that Chris Evans enjoyed. Sam Wilson’s internal struggle feels stated rather than explored. The earlier films balanced action with intimate moments that defined Steve Rogers as a character; this entry misses that balance and leans heavily on exposition.

Action has always been a hallmark of the series; however, the set pieces here lack the precision that made sequences like the elevator fight in "The Winter Soldier" or the highway battle unforgettable. The choreography feels looser. The editing cuts too quickly to create impact. Instead of tension building through physical stakes, the film often relies on CGI that softens the grit that once set the franchise apart.

The supporting cast is solid, yet many characters feel underused. Motivations are introduced then set aside. Relationships that could deepen the emotional core remain at the surface. Earlier films used their ensembles to shape the story’s moral and political dimensions; this time the ensemble drifts around the edges.

Tonally, the film struggles to find its identity. It gestures toward political commentary yet rarely commits to a viewpoint. It hints at espionage yet never creates the paranoia that defined the franchise’s strongest moments. The film moves quickly, yet without the thematic weight that once made Captain America stories stand out in the broader MCU.

In the end, "Captain America: Brave New World" is serviceable entertainment with a committed lead performance and flashes of inspiration. It simply lacks the tight structure, grounded action and emotional clarity that made the earlier films some of Marvel’s best. The shield still shines; the story beneath it does not.

Success Rate:  + 0.3

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Captain America: Brave New World (3 Stars)

I don't know what to say about this film. It's not a bad film, definitely not as bad as "The Eternals". But it isn't a good film either. It's just boring.

This is the first film in which Captain America is no longer Steve Rogers, he's Sam Wilson. The torch has been passed. In the course of the film Sam repeatedly says that he's only a second rate Captain America because he hasn't taken the super soldier serum, and yet just look at him. He fights better than Steve Rogers ever did, even when he isn't flying. That doesn't make sense.

I can't say much more without giving away spoilers. If you're a Marvel fan like me, nothing will stop you going to see the film in the next few days. Today was the film's first day in the cinema. I usually wait a few days because the cinema is too full on the first day. Not today. The cinema was almost empty. That made me sad. It's as if the word had already spread that the film isn't worth seeing. Let's wait a week to see how the box office figures develop.

And to round off my day, when I went home I slipped on the ice in front of my house. Right on the steps. Luckily I fell on my soft rear parts and didn't suffer much damage, but I tried to stop the fall and slightly injured my right hand. I have two small cuts on my fingers. What a way to end a day that was already disappointing.

Blade Runner (4 Stars)

It's seven years to the day since I last watched "Blade Runner". My blog never forgets. Last time I watched it I was disappointed by the slow, plodding pacing. Watching it today, I appreciated it more. It borrows from film noir, and it has the atmosphere of the classics from the genre. There's action in the film, but the final battle with the replicant Roy fizzles out. Roy describes his life as a tragedy, because he's seen things that nobody else has seen. This reminds me of the things that I experienced in my childhood. I saw places of beauty that no longer exist. I don't have photos, so when I die these places will die with me. It's tragic. 

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (4½ Stars)

A funny thing happened to me on the way to the cinema.....

I arrived early, so I was sitting on the steps opposite the cinema eating an ice cream. A beggar came up to me, holding his hand out to ask for money. In an attempt to be sarcastic I held my hand out to ask him for money. He gave me three cents, and then he threw the rest of his money on the floor and stormed off in a rage, saying something I didn't understand. What was he doing? If it was an attempt to give me a bad conscience, it didn't work. As soon as I finished my ice cream I gathered up his money from the floor, another 12 cents. It's possible that it was more money, because the coins might have rolled away. The net result of this encounter is that I became 15 cents richer.

I said it was an attempt to be sarcastic, because I don't understand sarcasm. It's happened several times in my life that someone said something to me, I replied, and then the person said "I was being sarcastic".  So I gave the wrong reply. I should have interpreted the statement as meaning the opposite of what was said. But how was I to know that it was a false statement?

I've looked up definitions of sarcasm online, but I still don't get it. In order to understand sarcasm, I've tried to be sarcastic myself. If I understand correctly, I have to tell a lie, but it has to be a lie that the other person knows is a lie. Should that make people laugh? For instance, I told a friend that I like Donald Trump. She knows that I don't like him, so she should have laughed. Instead of that she just said "I thought you didn't like him". I replied, "I was being sarcastic", and she just looked at me as if I was being crazy. That's the same way that I react when people are sarcastic with me. Is that the intention? Is sarcasm supposed to be a joke that nobody understands? So what's the point of it?

Today I pretended to be a beggar. That was my way of being sarcastic. Was it successful? It made the man angry, so yes, maybe that is what sarcasm is supposed to achieve.

So I proceeded to Gloria, where I was greeted by Indiana Jones himself. That was my first impression. A closer look told me it was my fellow film fan Thomas Daake dressed up as Indiana Jones. It's an amazingly accurate costume. The only inaccuracy is that there's no gun in his holster. Thomas told me that he has a fake gun as part of the costume, but he chose not to wear it because it looks too genuine. I understand. He's standing in front of a poster of Barbie. I wonder if he'll dress up as Ken next week.

The film starts in 1944, when Indiana Jones is attempting to steal the Antikythera, the Dial of Archimedes, from the Nazis. It's rumoured to be able to predict fissures in time and allow limited time travel. In 1969, a former Nazi who's become an American wants the Dial so that he can go back in time and change the result of World War Two.

The film is an enjoyable adventure romp, despite not being directed by Steven Spielberg. It's supposed to be the last film in the Indiana Jones series. Never say never.

Bruno (4 Stars)

Sacha Baron Cohen's previous film, "Borat", is the funniest film that I've ever seen. "Bruno" – or should it be called Brüno? – also has a lot of laugh-out-loud moments, but the overall impression is disjointed. It attempts and succeeds in being scandalous, but the emphasis on scandal rather than humour leads to many scenes being dull.

One thing that annoys me as a fluent German speaker is that the film's German dialogue is so bad. Bruno and Lutz are supposed to be Austrians, but their accent is very bad, and at times even the grammar is messed up. That's because the two actors are British and Swedish respectively, but it's still not forgivable. A voice coach should have been employed to assist them.

The film begins in Austria and continues in America, with excursions to Israel and the Middle East. It follows Borat's style of making fun of people by not letting them know they're going to appear in a film, although there are more people in this film who're in on it, especially in the final scenes.

Bruno is the host of an Austrian fashion TV show, "Funkyzeit mit Bruno". After he's fired he goes to America with the intention of becoming a famous international celebrity. He wants to become the most famous Austrian since Adolf Hitler. He tries to trick politicians into having sex with him to become famous, before deciding that he needs to go into anti-gay therapy. He also travels to Israel to solve the Israeli conflict with Palestine.

Bruno met with leading Israelis and Palestinians. He managed to get them to agree that Hummus is healthy and tastes good. That's a start. Peace begins with common interests.

He tried to get them to shake hands. He almost succeeded. That's more than Donald Trump has ever achieved.

If you watch this film it's essential to watch the extra features on the disc. There are almost 90 minutes of deleted scenes. Really! Many of the scenes are so good, i.e. so funny, that it's impossible to understand why they weren't included. LaToya Jackson is so shallow that it's impossible not to laugh at her, and white supremacist Glenn Miller is so bigoted that he's also hilarious. Also, the string of scenes about Bruno's heartache after breaking up with his lover Diesel should have been included. The film only lasts a meagre 78 minutes, but by adding the best of the deleted scenes it could have been extended to 120 minutes, becoming a much better film in the process.

Special mention should be made of the manager Lloyd Robinson that Bruno hired in Los Angeles to make him a star. He's the person who was duped more than anyone else in the film, in many scenes over a period of months. He didn't suspect for a moment that Sacha Baron Cohen was the person masquerading as Bruno. Nevertheless, he's a good sport and has since highly praised the film. He even gave an interview which is included on the Blu-ray as an extra feature. He's a great guy!

Success Rate:  + 1.3

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (3½ Stars)

This is the fourth film in the Indiana Jones series, made with a long gap after the third film. 19 years! Was it necessary to revive the film franchise? That depends on who you ask. It was money in the bank for the film studios. I suspect that there were letters and emails being sent for years begging Steven Spielberg to do it again.

Does it still have the magic of the old films? Sort of. Steven Spielberg has never made a bad film. In my eyes he's the most reliable film director who has ever lived. He knows how to make films, he follows the required steps and he makes a quality film every time. However, he never takes risks. By avoiding risks he doesn't make the truly great films like Quentin Tarantino, but if he took risks he might make the occasional bad film. We need a Steven Spielberg who's consistently good. We also need the risk-takers who occasionally create works of brilliance.

As for "Crystal Skull" itself (I prefer to abbreviate the film title), it's a fun adventure. Harrison Ford travels round the world -- this time to South America -- to prevent mystical archaeological artefacts from falling into the hands of evil empires. In the previous three films the enemies were the Nazis. In "Crystal Skull" the enemies are the Russians. When the film was made there were criticisms from Russia that Russia was demonised, as if all Russians were evil. So what? The film is set in 1957, at the height of the Cold War, and Russia was generally regarded as the world's Evil Empire.

The main representative of the Evil Empire is Irina Spalko, played admirably by Cate Blanchett. She's dressed in an unflattering grey suit, more typical of Chinese Communism than Russian Communism, but the very unsexiness of her outfit makes it bizarrely appealing. She's a caricature, much like the villains of the early James Bond films. All that's missing is a ridiculous name, but Steven Spielberg doesn't do that. That's a shame. She could have been called Irina Spankyu.

An unusual aspect in this film is that instead of dealing with only mystical artefacts there are aliens involved, making this the first Indiana Jones science fiction film. The crystal skull in the title is the real skull of a visitor from another planet.

I've decided to give the film a relatively low rating because of my personal reaction to the film. It ticked all the boxes, I couldn't find any fault with it, but while watching it I found myself getting bored. I'm used to the Spielberg style, so it seemed too smooth and too predictable to me. I doubt I'll watch it again. Maybe, maybe not.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Blade Runner 2049 (4 Stars)

This is a visually stunning film, clearly superior to the original. The atmosphere is so intense that it's terrifying. This film makes it clear that the world of Blade Runner is a post-apocalyptic scenario, which was only hinted at in the first film.

I went to see "Blade Runner" with the Birmingham Film Group, and we were more than 20 people. I wish the Stuttgart Cinema Meetup were as successful. When we discussed the film afterwards there were mixed opinions. Some considered it to be brilliant, whereas others considered it to be boring because it was too slow and unintelligible. Yes, the film is slow, but that's its strength. Yes, the film is difficult to understand, but when I sat at home in the evening and thought about it everything slotted into place. This is a film that needs to be watched more than once to be appreciated, and I'm sure I'll enjoy it even more next time.

Blade Runner (3 Stars)

After 35 years a sequel to "Blade Runner" has finally been made. It's planned to be released in the cinemas next month. That's a good enough excuse for me to rewatch the original film for the first time in 20 years.

I only vaguely remembered the film, more the images than the plot. I saw it on television and had no wish to buy it on DVD, which is a sign that I didn't enjoy it much, but I could no longer remember why. I know that many people consider it to be the greatest science fiction film ever made, so I thought it would be worth investing a few Euros in the Blu-ray edition of the Final Cut. This was first released in 2007, so it's not the version that I previously saw, but I assume that this is the best version, since the director Ridley Scott was personally involved in the re-editing.

In the far distant future – 2019 !!! – the colonisation of other planets has begun. Artificial humans, called replicants, have been sent to these planets to make them habitable before humans arrive, and to act as slave labour when humans arrive. The replicants are identical to humans in all ways, except for greater intelligence and physical strength, and a complete lack of emotion. They're created as fully developed adults. The artificial intelligence of the replicants sometimes results in a development of emotions, so they've been built with a four year life span. It's illegal for replicants to visit the Earth.

Harrison Ford plays Rick Deckard, an ex-policeman whose job was to hunt down replicants on Earth who are either fleeing slavery or trying to find ways to extend their lives. The arrival of four extremely dangerous replicants causes his former boss to beg him to take up his job again.

After watching it again, I can see why it didn't appeal to me. The special effects, especially the futuristic views of Los Angeles, look cheap. The project was too adventurous for the technical possibilities of 1982. I can see that "Blade Runner" influenced "The Fifth Element", which succeeded visually due to the superior computer graphics available in 1997.

I don't like the fact that the whole film takes place at night. There's no justification for this in the plot itself.

The story is far too slow and plods from scene to scene. This would be acceptable if the film were building up to something, but even the final showdown is slow. The final conversation between Rick and the replicant Roy reminds me of the confrontation between Captain Willard and Colonel Kurtz in "Apocalypse Now", but it's not as deep. That's probably what I dislike most about "Blade Runner". There's a constant feeling of depth in meaning, but when you look closer it's just an illusion.

I honestly don't see what's so special about the film, but I'm prepared to discuss it with my readers. Please leave comments.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (4 Stars)

This is the third film in the Indiana Jones series, made in 1989, five years after "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom". Today is the first time I've watched it, thanks to a cheap box set that I picked up in the Black Friday sales. Online, of course. Do you think I'm stupid enough to go to a store and get into a fight? If a little old lady bashed me over the head with her umbrella I wouldn't stand a chance anyway. I don't hit women, not even in self defence, so she could easily rip the box set out of my hand.

Indiana Jones doesn't have the same reservations as me. He's a serious adventurer, so he hits women when he has to. Admittedly, some women are evil, like Dr. Elsa Schneider. But that makes no difference to me. If an evil woman wants to hit me, let her get on with it. If all men thought the same as me women would take over the world, but is that such a bad thing?

This film is about the biggest quest of all: the search for the Holy Grail. There have been legends about quests to find the Grail, quests which may or may not have taken place, for over 1000 years. Various films have been written on the subject, including this one. The Grail is connected with Jesus Christ, but it's not completely certain what it is. Most commonly it's a cup, as in this film, but other legends describe it as a cloth, a plate or a stone. What's common to all the legends is that it somehow imbues eternal life.

Indiana Jones is an archaeologist in a general sense, searching for ancient artefacts all over the world. In this film we meet his father, Dr. Henry Jones, who has an obsession with the Holy Grail and has spent all his life trying to find it.

The search for the Grail leads through Venice, considered by many to be the most beautiful city in the world. It's one place I'd like to visit at least once. If I ever write a bucket list I'll put a holiday in Venice in first place. But I doubt I'll write a bucket list. Most of what I'd write on it would be unrealistic things, like walking on the Moon, so when I get to the end of my life I'll look at the list and feel depressed that I've hardly done anything I wanted to.

The search for the Grail also leads through Berlin. There are a few cities which claim to be Europe's capital city, for instance London, Paris and Rome, but it's my personal opinion that only Berlin has a right to the title. Since the film takes place in 1938 it's the height of the Third Reich. One thing that has always attracted me to Nazi Germany is the military regalia, the imitation of the symbols of the Roman Empire. I can well understand that simple people who didn't know the evil beneath the surface were filled with pride when they saw this display of German might. I too might have been ripped along for a while. Remember, there's no shame in believing something that's wrong. There's only shame in being blind to facts that prove you're wrong.

I enjoy "The Last Crusade", even though it's not up to the level of "Temple of Doom". Buy the box set, like me. You won't be disappointed.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (5 Stars)

After my poor review of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" last week I was waiting for people to leave comments complaining. None came. That makes me feel justified in my criticism. It was a silly film which received completely unjustified praise. Based on the lack of contradiction everyone agrees with me. However, if there is one Indiana Jones fan out there who was too shy to respond to my article, I hope that my five star rating of "Temple of Doom" will make him happy. This film has everything that the first film doesn't. Right from the parody of the Rank gong in the first few seconds I knew the film would be something special. Then the Chinese version of "Anything Goes" left me wide-mouthed and amazed. And Harrison Ford's appearance in the bar like a 1930's James Bond. If the film had stopped there I would have been happy.

But the film didn't stop there. It was action all the way. When it comes to making action movies, Steven Spielberg is probably the world's best director. I wouldn't say that he's my favourite director. I mean that he's technically perfect. If there are rules that students learn in film school on how to structure a film, he follows every rule. He takes no risks. I prefer Quentin Tarantino because he takes risks and breaks the rules, but Steven Spielberg is so perfect that he couldn't possibly make a bad film.

Let's just forget that "Raiders of the Lost Ark" was ever made. I'm not contradicting myself by saying it was a mediocre film. The problem was that it was influenced by George Lucas too much. That dragged the quality down. "Temple of Doom" is Steven Spielberg's film all the way.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark (3 Stars)

I watched this film three years ago. In my review I was very critical of it, but I thought I would give it another chance. My opinion hasn't changed since then. It's not up to the level of Steven Spielberg's other films, neither in character development nor in emotional depth. It's mildly entertaining as an action adventure, but the poor plot lets it down. Worst of all are the third-rate special effects in the final sequence where the Ark goes ballistic. It looks like the budget was exhausted before they finished filming. I honestly don't understand why the film was so successful. If you want to watch a good film about an archaeological dig in Egypt try "The Mummy".

If any Jewish rabbis can explain why a female ghost emerged from the Ark to kill the German soldiers please leave a comment.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Apocalypse Now (5 Stars)

30 films to watch before you die, #8

First of all my apologies for posting this review a day late. My original intention was to watch one film each day from my list of 30 films, but things happen. Sometimes I'm busy. Believe it or not, I have a life outside of films. I'll catch up in the next few days.

"Apocalypse Now", originally released in 1979, is usually called an anti-war film. After watching it today I don't think that's the film's purpose. It's true, the film does show the absurdity of war, but this is just part of a bigger picture. The film is about the absurdity of civilisation, and in an extended way about the absurdity of humanity. Are the savages in the jungle any more or less civilised than the savages from America who have come to kill them?

The film is based loosely on the novel "Heart of Darkness" by Joseph Conrad. In that book a boat is travelling along a river in Africa, in the film the boat is travelling along a river through Vietnam into Cambodia. There are many other differences, such as Kurtz's background (in the book he's an ivory trader, in the film he's an army colonel), but the underlying messages are the same. The war itself is super-imposed on the film, there is no war in "Heart of Darkness", so it's easier to understand "Apocalypse Now" if we strip away the war.

Today I watched the 2001 Redux version with an extra 49 minutes of footage. I'll probably go back and watch the original version next year. A lot of people don't like the Redux version because the extra footage consists of long talking scenes that slow the film down. In a way I agree. The shorter film is tighter and better paced, but the scenes added to the extended version underline the film's message. We see the French settlers clinging onto their land, saying that Vietnam is their home. The French are just one tribe among many. We also see the absurdity of Chef finally meeting the Playboy bunny that he's idolised for years. Rather than accept her as she is he wants to make her look like a page in the magazine. He encounters reality and wants to turn it into an image. That's an important scene as a metaphor for the American military actions in Vietnam. America sees Vietnam, an exotic new world, and wants to turn it into America.

Captain Jack Willard is sent to kill Colonel Kurtz because he's gone mad. The question the viewer has to ask is whether he really is mad. He sees more clearly than anyone else around him. He's not opposed to the war, even though he criticises the way it's being run. He says that America could win the war with a quarter of the soldiers they were using if they were properly trained elite soldiers. Even though he doesn't say it, this is a jab at America's policy of drafting soldiers to fight in the Vietnam war. If the war had been fought by highly dedicated volunteers the war effort would have been more efficient.

Colonel Kurtz has set himself up as a God. His followers are a mixture of Vietnamese, Cambodians and American deserters. Even the Americans sent to kill him on previous missions have now joined him. Does calling yourself a God make you mad? It depends on what sort of a God you consider yourself to be. Colonel Kurtz didn't create the world, and I doubt he claimed he had, but he had the power over life and death. When he spoke, people listened. Those are the true characteristics of a God. In Kurtz's kingdom dead bodies lay rotting everywhere, but is that a sign of madness? It's a different way, disgusting to the civilised people in the West, but is it wrong? It's the will of God, the God called Kurtz. It's not mad, it's arbitrary. What God says is right is right, what God says is wrong is wrong.

It's not only Gods who are arbitrary. The civilised nation of America is also arbitrary, as Kurtz himself points out. "We train young men to drop fire on people, but their commanders won't allow them to write 'fuck' on their airplanes because it's obscene". Do we have the right to judge others when we can't even see the absurdity in our own actions?

Captain Willard is hesitant to kill Colonel Kurtz. He doesn't know what will happen. We see the result at the end of the film. He who kills God becomes God. When he emerges from the temple with the murder weapon in one hand and Kurtz's words in the other the people kneel before him. Is Willard capable of becoming a God? He certainly begins his life of deity by making the right choice. He sits reading Kurtz's book in front of a candle. The viewer asks if he will set the pages on fire. This made my heart stop. No, he doesn't. He preserves the document. You can kill a God, but you should never destroy God's word. The blood-stained machete is thrown to the masses, who will doubtlessly preserve it as an object of worship. Captain Willard retains the words, taking them back to America.

If you like this film, there are many other intensely thought-provoking films directed by Francis Ford Coppola over the course of his log career. I can recommend

• The Godfather (1972)
• Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)
• Youth Without Youth (2009)

The Age of Adaline (4 Stars)

Years, lovers and glasses of wine,

These are things that should never be counted.

Adaline Bowman is a woman who was born on January 1st, 1908. At the age of 29 she has a car accident in which her car skids into the water and she drowns. Her heart stops beating, but a lightning bolt strikes her, making it beat again, and she swims to the surface. A side effect of this occurrence is that she no longer ages. When she is in her late 40's she's noticed, and government agents try to abduct her to experiment on her. She escapes and goes undercover. For the next 60 years she lives her life 10 years at a time. Every 10 years she changes her name and moves to a different part of America to live with a false identity, just long enough for nobody to notice she's not ageing.

In 2014 she is about to move again, but just after buying a new fake passport she meets and falls in love with Ellis Jones, a rich young philanthropist. She delays her new life to spend a weekend with him. She is surprised to find out that his father is a man she dated 50 years previously. When he recognises her she claims that it was her mother that he knew, but he's suspicious and keeps asking questions.

This is a beautiful film about the tragedy of living forever. It's slightly spoilt by the attempts of a narrator to explain the scientific causes of Adaline's longevity. He even speaks about a scientific fact that "wasn't discovered until 2035". Ridiculous. Couldn't they just have said that Adaline was struck by lightning and lived forever and left it at that?

In a way the film reminds me of the Highlander TV series. It was a recurring theme that Duncan MacLeod and other immortals met old lovers after many years and had to make excuses about it being their father or grandfather. In the TV series immortality is also presented as a curse. Anyone who lives forever has to suffer the pain of watching everyone he loves grow old and die.

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (4 Stars)

This was the seventh film at the 2014 Brindley Place Film Festival. Yes, I know that I missed the sixth film. I shall also miss the last two of the nine films.

Here are links to my posts about this year's film festival.

• Day 1: E.T.
• Day 2: Mrs. Doubtfire
• Day 3: Top Gun
• Day 4: Dirty Dancing
• Day 5: Ghost
• Day 6: Toy Story 2 / Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
• Day 7: Aladdin / Three Men & a Baby

It was glorious weather today, probably the sunniest day all week. This had the negative side effect that the sun's glare in Brindley Place made it difficult to make out the details in the film's darker scenes.

This is the second film in the Indiana Jones series, made three years after the first part, but it takes part before the first film. Technically it isn't a prequel, because the film's events play no part in introducing what happens in the first film. It's a totally unrelated story which could just as well have taken part after the first film.

The story opens in 1935 in Japanese-occupied Shanghai. Indiana Jones has to flee from a gang boss after a trade goes wrong, and his plane crashes in the Himalayas. When he arrives he's told by the villagers that his coming was foretold, and they send him on a mission to retrieve the village's stolen holy stone. This leads to a confrontation with a cult of Kali worshippers who are in the process of collecting five stones with which they can conquer the world.

I enjoyed this film, which I saw today for the first time, a lot more than "Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark", which was shown at last year's film festival. Maybe the reason is that it's more of a typical Steven Spielberg film. George Lucas has kept his fingers out, apart from writing the story for the film. After watching it today I feel the need to see it again, so that I can enjoy it without the distraction of bright sunlight.

Here's a little quiz for my fans. How many of you can spot your favourite film fan, Dansator, in the crowd? I'll give you a clue. I'm the only person wearing orange. (Click on the picture to enlarge it).

Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark (3 Stars)

This was the second film shown at the 2013 Outdoor Film Festival at Brindley Place in Birmingham. I'm old enough to remember all the hype when this film was made in 1981. At the time Steven Spielberg and George Lucas were the two directors whose films made more money than anyone else's. Putting them together in one film was a surefire way to make money. Sentimental stories talk about the two men meeting, making friends over dinner and saying they admired each other's work so much that they wanted to work together. I doubt the stories are true, at least not in this form. The way I see it is that the bosses of the film studios looked at the year's income in 1977 (the year of "Star Wars" and "Close Encounters of the Third Kind"), then rang Spielberg and Lucas and told them "You two must work together".

Spielberg and Lucas were both directors, but at the time Lucas was the only one with experience as a producer, so it was an obvious decision for George Lucas to be the producer and Steven Spielberg the director of their joint effort. My feelings at the time were mixed. I greatly admired Spielberg's films, but judging by "Star Wars" I didn't like Lucas's style. To be honest, I was rather baffled by the success of "Star Wars" (which was later renamed "Star Wars Episode IV"). To me it seemed to be a blam blam shoot 'em up film, driven by action scenes with a flimsy story stringing them together. Cowboys and Indians in space. Spielberg, on the other hand, made films based on strong stories, with action added only where appropriate. Spielberg made films for the brain, Lucas made films for the gut.

In theory, combining the two financial and artistic powerhouses of 1970's cinema could work. With some trepidation I bought my film ticket. And I was disappointed. To me it seemed like a George Lucas film, I could see very little Spielberg influence in it. I've never read any "behind the scenes" info on the film, but it seems like George Lucas did more than just produce the film, he seems to be the real director. I can't imagine their teamwork being amicable. I have images of the two disagreeing on something, then Spielberg throwing up his arms in frustration and saying, "I really don't care, let's do it your way, I just want to get the film over and done". I stress, this is just my feeling from watching the film, it's not based on anything I've seen or read about it.

Of course, I was in the minority. The film was one of the biggest successes of all time, up to 1981. Not just financially, the film was nominated for nine Oscars, of which it won four. Watching the film again today, I just don't understand it. The plot is like something from a comedy film, and yet it's all played very seriously. In the film Adolf Hitler is sending expeditions to find the Biblical "ark of the covenant", which he thinks will make his armies invincible. This is absolutely ridiculous. Hitler would never have used a Jewish artifact as a means to victory.

Getting to the festival itself, the organisers seem to have learnt something from the mistakes they made yesterday. Maybe they even read my blog. They didn't have more beanbags, but there were helpers handing out deck chairs. They were still using the same loudspeakers, but the volume was louder today. They still have a way to go to put things right. Let's see how tomorrow's film works out.

The photo above shows Mike McAuley of the Birmingham Film Club proudly sitting on a beanbag that he won for himself at the risk of life and limb. Since I respect him as one of the club's organisers I didn't fight him for it.

Cowboys & Aliens [Guest Writer] (5 Stars)

This is the movie that I have been waiting for all of my life! I've always wondered how those from the past would react to things of the future and this movie brings it all including some great ass-kicking with a hint of macho male bonding.

So the story: The Old West.. where a lone cowboy leads an uprising against a terror from beyond our world. 1873. Arizona Territory. A stranger with no memory of his past stumbles into the hard desert town of Absolution. The only hint to his history is a mysterious shackle that encircles one wrist. What he discovers is that the people of Absolution don't welcome strangers, and nobody makes a move on its streets unless ordered to do so by the iron-fisted Colonel Dolarhyde (Ford). It's a town that lives in fear. But Absolution is about to experience fear it can scarcely comprehend as the desolate city is attacked by marauders from the sky. Screaming down with breathtaking velocity and blinding lights to abduct the helpless one by one, these monsters challenge everything the residents have ever known. Now, the stranger they rejected is their only hope for salvation. As this gunslinger slowly starts to remember who he is and where he's been, he realizes he holds a secret that could give the town a fighting chance against the alien force. With the help of the elusive traveler Ella (Olivia Wilde), he pulls together a posse comprised of former opponents-townsfolk, Dolarhyde and his boys, outlaws and Apache warriors-all in danger of annihilation. United against a common enemy, they will prepare for an epic showdown for survival.

So why did I love this movie besides the initial premise of the story? The acting was well done and it had some of my favorite actors in it including Ford, Wilde, and Craig. I liked Craig ever since he was cast as the new "Bond", Wilde since I saw her act in the hit series "House" and of course Ford for his iconic character Indiana Jones. With this wonderful cast I was hard pressed not to take a peek at this movie and I wasn't disappointed. I love movies that go back to the past but I also love movies that give a different perspective of what could've happened if something unexpected was introduced. I'm kind of surprised that the characters took the idea of such an advanced civilization and strange culture so well - well after the shooting, screaming and praying. Haha. All in all, this is a movie that I would recommend to everyone. The pace in the beginning was a little slow for my taste but if things were left up to me they would've started right in the middle of a battle so I guess every story needs it's introduction. Great movie!