Change Your Image
shoeone
Reviews
Stargate: Atlantis: Inquisition (2008)
Inquisition: A Highlight Reel Masquerading as Original Material
I am generally a fan of Stargate Atlantis, and am very sorry to hear that it has been canceled. But after watching this episode, the "unlucky thirteenth" in the fifth and final year of SGA, I can understand why the Sci-Fi channel might feel like it is doing the public a service by putting this series out of its misery.
"Inquisition" continues a lamentable tradition that seems to plague the Stargate franchise. You know -- those year-end episodes that string together highlights from previous shows, and masquerade as an all-new production ("Politics" from SG-1's first season comes to mind). I'm assuming that the object is to save money. My advice: don't bother, just make fewer episodes. You only irritate people with abysmal productions like "Inquisition." Only about a third of "Inquisition" is original footage -- the rest is strictly a highlight reel. Fortunately, I recorded this episode on my DVR and fast forwarded through the ads and the stock footage. That left about fifteen minutes of the Atlantis team talking to each other or conversing with their inquisitors -- not particularly inspiring fare.
To the cast and crew: I'm sorry to see you go, but next time, original material only, please.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
They Should Have Quit While They Were Ahead
I just went to see the new Indiana Jones film yesterday evening, and I've got to say that I found the movie disappointing. I have been a big fan of the Indiana Jones series (including the Young Indiana Jones movies), and was wowed by Raiders of the Lost Ark when it came out three decades ago (eight stars). I was much less impressed by its unworthy sequel, Temple of Doom (four stars), and relieved by the excellent recovery of the series in Last Crusade (seven stars). My rating of five stars for the current, and hopefully last, iteration of the Indiana Jones saga is based on comparisons with its three illustrious predecessors. My bottom line: Lucas and Spielberg should have quite while they were ahead.
One of the great selling points for "Raiders" and "Crusade" was that while there was plenty in each of these movies that was inexplicable, such as the powers of the Ark or the Grail, if you accepted the premise that the Ark or the Grail did exist and had magical powers, the rest of the story held together quite well. You could suspend disbelief a little bit and actually convince yourself that Harrison Ford/Indiana Jones really could get out of all those tight situations with nothing more than slightly mussed hair and a thoroughly dented fedora.
Try that approach with "Crystal Skull" and you get nowhere. The Roswell/ El Dorado mythology is obscure and unbelievable, with enough plot holes to drive a pyramid-sized flying saucer through. Most comic books have a better thought-out plot. Worse still, the situations Indiana Jones gets into are clearly not survivable, unless he has morphed into a combination of Superman and the Hulk, and this detracts significantly from the entertainment value of the film. For example, surviving a nuclear blast by jumping into a nearby lead-lined refrigerator is a non-starter in every sense, as is the survival of all of our heroes through serial descents over three waterfalls. In addition, the marksmanship of AK-47 bearing Soviet troopers has to be truly execrable not to hit Indiana Jones or his compadres even once. This is not the 1930's, when one could reasonably evade a pistol shot here and there. An AK will cut through the jungle, and metal, like it wasn't there and kill everything in range. Indiana should have been killed a hundred times over by this alone,and, in any case, his old man running style didn't help me believe that he could somehow dodge all those bullets.
I also have a few quibbles with the general storyline and casting choices. Nazis in the Middle East in the 1930s is one thing, but an entire Soviet army unit trundling around the Nevada desert and taking over the equivalent of Area 51 is not. It makes you think that those 1950s FBI guys who saw a commie under every bed might have been on to something. In addition, although Cate Blanchett is definitely nice to look at, she is miscast as the KGB villain of the piece. Her attempts at Russian were admirable, but still had my native-Russian speaking girlfriend in stitches. Somebody should have checked a Russian grammar text once in awhile.
I also felt that the transition between the Area 51 warehouse and the nuclear test site was a bit inexplicable. What were those rogue Soviet soldiers driving around the test site, and what happened to the rest of them, including Cate Blanchett? The car chase scene through the University was sort of fun, but let's face it: there really would be no such thing as a race between a Harley and a Buick with portholes: it would be over in the first three seconds, with the Harley disappearing rapidly over the horizon. I also found myself scratching my head a little bit over the role played by Ray Winstone as the double/triple agent. His character was totally predictable and entirely superfluous. Shia LaBoeuf's performance as Indiana's long-lost son had some entertainment value, but, once again, I found that he seemed to be something of a fifth wheel at times, whether it was swinging through the jungle with a troupe of CGI monkeys, or engaging in thoroughly ridiculous swordplay with Cate Blanchett. It was great to see Karen Allen reprise her role as Marion Ravenwood, and the sparks that flew between her and Indiana were real and believable, although she did overact at times. I always like to see John Hurt, but his great talents as an actor were wasted in a role where he spent most of his time either spaced out or semi-comatose.
One of my favorite scenes was at the beginning of the film, when Indy was in his office looking fondly at the pictures of his recently departed father (Sean Connery) and his professorial colleague (Denholm Elliott). Unfortunately, it reminded me of how good "Last Crusade" was in comparison to the current film. Connery must be thanking his lucky stars that he was written out of this "Alien City of Gold" fiasco. Lucas and Spielberg will probably make a ton of money on this movie, but it will do nothing for their reputations. They should have quit while they were ahead.
Captain Blood (1935)
One of my favorite movies, the archetypal pirate film
OK, OK. The acting in Captain Blood is terrible. The special effects are amateurish by today's $100 million-movie standards. The plot is, of course, extremely predictable. But for all that, it's one of my favorite movies of all time. It showcases Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland early in their careers. It features so many fine British character actors that it would take an encyclopedia to list them all. And the movie is done with such obvious verve and spirit that it's a thoroughly enjoyable experience time and time again. Curtiz' direction is superb, and I still say that the best years for film were the 1930's, when everything was still fresh and new, and everything was an experiment that pushed the envelope of cinematography. Olivia de Havilland is beautiful beyond compare, and Errol Flynn is, well, Errol Flynn. Basil Rathbone as the "bad pirate" is great fun, though he would have been wise to dump the french accent. This movie is good, clean fun, and everyone will find something to like in it. You will see many of its themes echoed in "Robin Hood," which appeared a few years later and reunited many members of the "Captain Blood" cast. It has adventure, romance, and of course, a lot of pirates fighting over Caribbean treasure. What could be better? Don't expect to learn any history lessons from this movie, however. The plot is strictly Hollywood.