Cowboys & Aliens

If absolutely nothing else, Cowboys & Aliens has two things going for it: a title that accurately describes the plot, and a title that sounds stupid enough to make many people not want to watch this movie.  Take heed with this movie title; if you don't want to watch a movie about cowboys fighting aliens, then this is not the film for you.  I, however, happen to generally enjoy Jon Favreau and Daniel Craig, and I keep hoping for Harrison Ford to make up for the last Indiana Jones movie, so I opted to watch this sci-fi/western mash-up.

A man (Daniel Craig) wakes up in the desert, wounded and alone, with no memory of himself or how he got there.  All he knows is that he has a weird thing clamped to his left wrist.  Oh, and he remembers that he's a bad-ass, because he kills the hell out of a trio of bounty hunters.  Our man with no name finds a name (Jake, as it turns out) when he moseys on over to the nearest town, Absolution.  The town is a washed-up mining spot that never had much luck with mining.  The town is still kicking only because old man Dolarhyde (Harrison Ford) uses it as a base for his cattle operation.  This tends to put him and his men --- especially his spoiled rotten and frequently drunken son, Percy (Paul Dano) --- above the law.  Well, Jake publicly humiliates Percy while Percy attempts to publicly humiliate the local saloon owner (Sam Rockwell), which leads to Percy accidentally shooting a deputy.  Percy gets locked up, ready to be sent to the big city to be arraigned.  Jake is also locked up for apparently being a bad, bad man, even if he doesn't remember any of it.  When Dolarhyde hears about Percy's arrest and Jake being in town, he rushes home to confront the sheriff.  A surprisingly interesting battle of wills commences, until aliens happen.

Two plausible reactions to aliens happening

Yep, the titular aliens appear in flying machines, blow some stuff up, kidnap random people, and kill anybody who gets in their way.  This would make modern men scramble, much less someone from the 1870s.  I mean, it would make most men scramble, unless they happen to be Harrison Ford and Daniel Craig.

To broaden the appeal of this film, assless chaps were seriously considered.

Jake's arm clamp/bracelet comes to life around the aliens, and it is a weapon.  Not some wimpy weapon, either; he manages to shoot down one of their ships.  What happens next?  Not surprisingly, everybody teams up to take on the "demons" that have ravaged the town and taken their people.

The acting in this movie is a lot better than it deserves to be.  After all, this is a genre mash-up that, logically, shouldn't work.  It's surprisingly fun, though.  Daniel Craig does his scowling bad-ass thing again; I would have liked to see him show off a little more of his charm, but this is a movie about cowboys fighting aliens, so I guess deep characters are probably not on the menu.  I didn't love Harrison Ford in this movie, but I didn't hate him, either.  In the beginning, he does a pretty good job of playing a bastard, but his performance was missing a crucial extra bit to make it awesome; later, his character softens and falls back into Ford's more comfortable likeable-but-kind-of-gruff territory.  I would have liked to see him enjoy his mean moments more, though.  At least his hat wasn't too reminiscent of Indiana Jones, right?

Are they rebooting the City Slickers franchise?

Sam Rockwell has a bit part in the film, which I was happy to see.  It's not very impressive, though; he plays a weenie.  Adam Beach plays Dolarhyde's semi-adopted son/trusted cowhand and he plays it with as much intensity as you might expect from him; I really wish Beach wasn't the preeminent Native American actor in Hollywood, because his range shows its limits whenever he is asked to do anything more than read lines.  Here, he succeeds in keeping any charisma from accidentally getting on-screen by having his character's most emotional moment (him convincing an Apache chief to follow Dolarhyde) translated by another character.  Walton Goggins was fairly entertaining as a none-too-bright thief, which is just another notch in his belt of unsavory characters.  Keith Carradine was okay as the sheriff, but nothing special.  Similarly, Noah Ringer did a decent job of making googly eyes and looking scared, but his performance was not revelatory.  I did like Clancy Brown's character; for some reason, he seems less evil as he gets older.  I also thought that Paul Dano did a good job as Dolarhyde's insufferable son, who gets hurt just often enough to keep him from getting annoying.  You might also recognize Scottish character actor David O'Hara as Jake's gang-leading nemesis; he's a solid actor that looks mean for a few minutes and then usually dies like he does here.  My biggest problem with the cast was actually with Olivia Wilde as a beautiful stranger.  That's weird, since the kid from The Last Airbender is in this movie, right?  Well, she was okay, I guess, but her flawless complexion, clean hair, and super-white teeth didn't make her the most believable single lady in the Wild West.  I also find it interesting that no men hit on her in this entire film.  I don't ask for a whole lot of realism in my cowboys vs. aliens movies, but she stuck out like a sore thumb.

Where do you get your eyebrows done in a one-horse town?

This is Jon Favreau's  first directorial effort after making blockbusters Iron Man 1 & 2.  How did it turn out?  Well, I have to admit that Favreau could definitely make a good, old fashioned Western if he wanted to.  I was shocked at how engaging I found the alien-free Western scenes.  As for the movie as a whole, well...it's kind of silly.  Luckily, the title clued me in on that possibility, so I wasn't surprised.  I thought the action scenes were pretty good (seeing horses flying in the air is oddly amusing) and I liked how he handled the main actors and characters.  It did seem a little piecemeal, though.  Sure, that makes sense, since you are shoe-horning aliens into a Western, but a lot of the characters felt like they were simply tacked on (the Apaches, the thieves, Adam Beach, etc.) and didn't feel like organic parts of this story.  Favreau made the very best alien/cowboy movie possible, but there was a lot going on in a film that would have benefited from simplicity.  Hell, this might have been a better movie without the aliens.

Overall, Cowboys & Aliens manages to succeed more than a movie of this type (or name) should.  It is an entertaining blend of sci-fi and Westerns, where tough actors get to act tough and we see lots and lots of people get killed by aliens.  Seriously, it seems like a hundred people die, and yet there always appears to be about a dozen or so survivors.  I wouldn't call this a great movie or an unequivocal success, but it is fun and I always like seeing a quality Western, even if it is just in the first fifteen minutes of the movie.  I was hoping for greatness, though, and this film falls a little short --- primarily because the alien plot trampled over the cooler tough guy Western story.  Whatever.  I saw cowboys, I saw aliens, and I saw lots die on both sides.  The movie lived up to its title, at the very least.

Morning Glory (2010)

I don't know if "interesting" is how I would describe this.

I'm not a big fan of romantic comedies and, by "not a big fan," I mean that I would destroy them all, if only they hadn't hidden parts of their soul in a bunch of horcruxes.  Sorry, I've been re-watching wizard movies to amp up for the new Harry Potter this weekend.  Anyway, I dislike most comedies and hate most romantic comedies.  Morning Glory dips its toe in both waters, which sounds like a recipe for Brian-hatred.

Before I go on, I would like to point out that this movie appears to be the second film in recent years to reference the band Oasis.  Ryan Reynolds made Definitely, Maybe in 2008 (the band's 1994 debut had that title) and the early promotional posters for Morning Glory looked like this:

Oasis's second album is also called (What's the Story?) Morning Glory.  None of this is important, of course.  I just wanted to point out a small pattern before some moron decides to derail their career with a pompous, coked-out movie called Be Here Now.

Just because we can hear you doesn't mean we're listening.

Anyhoo, Morning Glory is about plucky morning news producer Becky Fuller (Rachel McAdams).  Becky lives and breathes for her job, but she is fired from her gig at a local station for unclear, corporate-related reasons.  She bounces back, though, by being hired by a network morning news show, DayBreak, that airs nationally.  That would be the best rebound in history, if DayBreak wasn't the consistent and definite last-place show in its time slot.  What's a plucky young businesswoman to do?  First, she weathers a harsh whirlwind of pre-preemptive criticism from one DayBreak co-host, Colleen (Diane Keaton).  Then she fires the other co-host (Ty Burrell) for work ethic and creepy sexual fetish-related reasons.  That leaves Becky with a last-place show that is short a co-host.  As luck would have it, the station has legendary news correspondent Mike Pomeroy (Harrison Ford) under contract, but no projects for him to do.  What luck!  As perfect as it would be to have Mike Pomeroy --- THE Mike Pomeroy, Mr. Serious Newscaster --- trade vacuous small talk with Joey Lawrence or whoever the hell else usually pops up on these programs, it turns out that Mike doesn't want to do anything except "real" news.  The animosity between Becky and Mike only gets worse when she starts having the cast do stunts, like broadcast the weather while on board a roller coaster.  Do you smell a conflict?  I smell a recipe for guffaws!

If not guffaws, then maybe a few senior moments?

The cast in Morning Glory is surprisingly (to me, anyway) solid.  Rachel McAdams is good as the hard-working and earnest lead.  I wouldn't say that she has great comic chops, but she is certainly likable --- and that's before she prances around in her panties.

Apparently, this is from a Morning Glory photo shoot.

Her romantic lead in the film is thankfully not Harrison Ford.  Instead, the part is played by Patrick Wilson, who always strikes me as a charisma-free version of Josh Lucas; he's fine here, but his character is almost comically understanding of Becky's work obsession for a character that is supposedly looking for a serious girlfriend.  Harrison Ford is the co-lead in the film, and he gets to frown and speak in a gravelly tone of voice.  I didn't particularly like his performance here --- I dislike when Ford tries to be gruff --- but it fit the character.  I didn't find him particularly funny, though.  Diane Keaton was underused for someone with her comedic film experience.

...but she did get to live out her lifelong dream on the set.

The rest of the supporting cast was all fine, but nobody really stood out, aside from Ty Burrell's ridiculous (and short) performance.  Jeff Goldblum did a good Jeff Goldblum impression as Becky's boss, John Pankow revealed what happened to his character from The Secret of My Success, and perennial TV and movie weenie Matt Malloy played a fairly weenie-ish weatherman. 

I didn't particularly like this movie, but it certainly wasn't the fault of the actors.  I just didn't like the story.  It felt obvious in parts and emotionally manipulative in others.  When Harrison Ford's character does something that seems odd and not at all mean, you can bet that the act will be revealed to have a deeper meaning at a crucial moment in the plot.  I normally wouldn't mind that too much, but this film is not terribly comedic, romantic, or insightful into the morning TV business.  It has moments where the movie could have focused on any one of those subjects, but it never really commits to any.  It also bothered me that Ford's character is spot-on when he accuses Becky of being a workaholic with no friends and daddy issues.  I don't think any of those problems are completely solved by the film's resolution, and that bugged me.  I blame director Roger Michell for making a movie that has some interesting plot ideas, but doesn't really take a stand.

Then again, it is entirely possible that this is just not my kind of movie.  My wife liked it and I didn't grit my teeth through it, so there should be something to say for that.  I don't think I would watch it again, but I didn't need to drown my memory in whiskey after seeing this, either.  Overall, I think this is a pleasantly inoffensive movie that disappointed me with a lackluster plot and a solid, if misused, cast.

Presumed Innocent

Based on the Scott Turow novel of the same name, Presumed Innocent was a bit of a novelty when it was released in 1990.  It is a legal drama that was released mid-summer, amongst all the explosions and blockbusters in movies like Total Recall, Robocop 2, Die Hard 2, and Another 48 Hours.  To say that summer was a little light on intelligent movies is an understatement.  Nevertheless, this quiet drama held its own and became a hit in its own right.  This is also one of the biggest movies at the time to take an interest in forensic science; while I think we have all been CSI-ed to death by now, it was a pretty risky move at the time.  Out of the context of an unusually testosterone-fueled summer and after forensic knowledge has become somewhat commonplace, though, can Presumed Innocent stand the test of time?

Carolyn Polhemus (Greta Scacchi), a county prosecutor, has been raped and murdered.  Her boss, Raymond Horgan (Brian Dennehy), is in the midst of the fight of his professional career as he tries to hold his position through the upcoming election; Horgan can't allow the murder of one of his people go unsolved and still win the election.  Knowing this, Horgan puts his best man, Rusty Sabich (Harrison Ford) on the case.  Rusty reluctantly takes it.  He had a secret affair with Carolyn that ended only a few months earlier; he's made it up to his wife, Barbara (Bonnie Bedelia), since then, but she's not too happy with Carolyn being on her husband's mind, dead or not.  As the evidence trickles in, it becomes apparent that the state should have a pretty good case against whoever they accuse --- they have semen in the victim and a glass with fingerprints found at the scene of the crime --- but the crime scene has an unnatural, staged feel to it.  The police become convinced that the perpetrator must have some knowledge of crime scene investigations and did their best to cover their tracks.  Who would have such knowledge?  A police officer, a private detective, or a prosecutor that had a romantic relationship with the victim, perhaps?

What makes Presumed Innocent work is its approach.  Many times, legal dramas take disinterested main characters and have them defend someone against a case that is overwhelmingly against them; surprise, surprise, they tend to beat the rap and every third of fourth one of these movies reveals that the defendant was actually a bad person.  This movie skips the intermediate character, and that makes it a lot more interesting.  You don't know whether or not Rusty Sabich has committed the murder in question, so seeing him assemble a defense makes the situation much more immediate.  This isn't a moral tale, either, so Rusty's guilt is almost beside the point.  This is a movie where circumstantial evidence damned a man and how he fought back against that very frightening situation.  After all, is there anything more frightening (in the legal system) than being found guilty of something you didn't do?

Harrison Ford turns in a typically understated and accomplished performance in the lead role.  Since his character must be believable as either an innocent or guilty man, he had the difficult task of playing a character that must be likable, but not too likable.  When in doubt, Ford tries to sound tired, and it's effective.  The rest of the cast was suitable for this drama, but I wouldn't say that any of their performances were particularly noteworthy.  Brian Dennehy comes across as a total bastard in the courtroom, but aside from that, the main supporting cast members (Raul Julia and Bonnie Bedelia) are solid, if unimpressive.  The movie also has a number of recognizable actors in small supporting roles.  Veteran actors Paul Winfield, John Spencer, and Joe Grifasi all take on simple roles of law and order.  There are also two child actors of note in the film.  You might recognize the abused child in the film, Joseph Mazzello, as the annoying kid from Jurassic Park.  Here, you get to hear Harrison Ford slowly repeat the phrase "Mommy hurt my head" several times in reference to him.  Jesse Bradford plays Rusty's son and, for some unfathomable reason, has pennant for both the Packers and Vikings up on his bedroom walls; as a Bears fan, I began hoping Rusty was guilty after I noticed that. 

That was, like, months ago.  Live in the now, jerks.

I liked Alan J. Pakula's work as the director and co-writer of the screenplay.  He kept the technical jargon to a bare minimum, making this a story that was less about the facts as it was the perception of them.  That was a good choice, especially at the time, because scientific terminology can cause a serious case of audience eye-glazing.  I thought he handled the actors well; there is no furniture-biting courtroom scene, the legal addresses were not overly dramatic --- this is a drama that feels surprisingly realistic.  The story requires a few sex scenes, which Pakula provides, but they're not terribly explicit, which also keeps the focus on the drama.

If Presumed Innocent was a ship, it would have nothing but smooth sailing.  That can be good, or that can be boring.  While this is a pretty effective drama, it is one that very quiet and realistic (read: a little dull).  There are no standout characters, the dialogue isn't very memorable, and the camerawork is conventional.  This is a well-made movie, but it depends on you being fascinated by the story.  If, like me, you are able to quickly deduce the basics of the crime, the film loses some of its luster.  I'm not blaming the film for that; as time has passed, the average American has gained familiarity with this sort of evidence and the ways it can be manipulated.  I can appreciate the movie as being pretty good in a number of different ways, but when all is said and done, police procedurals have dulled the effect of this story, making it feel older than a drama this well-made should.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

I absolutely love Raiders of the Lost Ark.  It will forever be one of my all-time favorite movies, and I will giggle at the same points or point out the same technical errors every time I see it until the day I die.  The other Indy movies though...I'm not nearly as big a fan of.  I know that's a bit of an understatement when it comes to Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, but I've never been a fan of Temple of Doom, either.  Last Crusade has always been my number two Indy film, partly because it was the one I saw first (I think) and partly because it is the closest to Raiders in its tone.  I loved this movie when I was growing up, but the last time I saw it (it's been years), I was struck by how silly and almost campy it gets.  Let's see how time has changed my feelings, shall we?

The film opens with a young Indiana Jones (River Phoenix) on a Boy Scout trip, where we learn the origin of many Indy-related things.  We learn how he came to wield a bullwhip, how he got the scar on his chin, what instigated his fear of snakes, and what inspired his awesome leather jacket/fedora combination.  It's a fun action sequence, but it doesn't really factor much into the plot.

The movie begins in proper with Professor Indiana Jones (Harrision Ford) being approached a wealthy antiquity collector, Walter Donovan (Julian Glover), to assume leadership over the project he has funded to seek the Holy Grail; the last leader has recently gone missing.  Indiana refuses at first, suggesting that Donovan should hire his estranged father, Henry Jones (Sean Connery), because he is one of the most prominent Grail scholars in the world; Donovan replies that he already had --- Henry was the man who went missing.  This convinces Indy to follow his father's footsteps, because the only reason anyone would want to capture or hurt Henry was to learn about the Grail; the logic is if you find one, you'll find the other along the way.  So, off goes Indiana Jones, on history's greatest scavenger hunt to find Christianity's holiest sacred object.  Along the way, he falls for a girl, fights some Nazis, and reunites with his father.

Charlie Chaplin's dramatic turn

Sure, I could go more into the plot, but what does that accomplish?  It's an adventure, and it should be experienced like one.  Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade does a lot of things right, and it begins with the cast.  Harrison Ford's best character is Indiana Jones, and he's not reduced to pimp slapping women or children in this movie (like he was in Temple of Doom).  Instead, he's back to the clever, puzzle-solving pugilist we all know and love.  Sean Connery is pretty endearing as Indiana's book-smart (but not street-smart) father.  While his character is responsible for most of the film's humor, I thought Connery and Ford worked very well as an exasperated father/son combination.  Former Bond girl Alison Doody played the part of Dr. Elsa Schneider, both friend and foe to the Joneses.  She wasn't great, but she played her part as villain and ally just fine.  Denholm Elliott and John Rhys-Davies were both welcome additions to the cast as they resumed their roles from the original film, but neither really had the same impact this time around.  Still, it was nice to see them.  Julian Glover did a pretty solid job as the bad guy, but he wasn't quite villainous enough for my taste; lucky for him, he had Nazis on his side to help him seem worse.  I also thought River Phoenix did a very good job as a young Indiana.  Phoenix was often a very good actor, but I thought he did a good job carrying himself like the established character and not just becoming an infantile version.  His hair was absolutely ridiculous, though.

That sure looks like a 1912 haircut, Indy.

Steven Spielberg directed this, and it plays to his strengths.  When it comes to epic adventure and fun, there are few directors that can compete with Spielberg when he feels like making a popcorn flick.  The tone of the first half of this film is definitely reminiscent of Raiders of the Lost Ark, but that's not a bad thing.  Things change when Sean Connery shows up and adds some comedic elements to the film, but this is certainly a sequel with the spirit of the original in mind.  In my mind, Spielberg has two areas of expertise.  One is his talent for finding unexpected laughs in otherwise serious scenes, like the whole "Jehovah starts with an 'I'" bit.  The other is the majestic way he reveals things in movies, like the perspective bridge.

Wrong Holy Grail bridge scene, sorry.

The pace of the film is brisk, there is action every few minutes, but it manages to not feel like a dumb action movie.  You never realize just how hard it is to make an intelligent action movie until you watch a few dozen Jean-Claude Van Damme movies in a row.  The camerawork is also good, although the special effects are sometimes a little dated.  In particular, the blimp doesn't look too impressive any more, but that's definitely a minor flaw.  I think what impressed me most in this movie is the opening action sequence with River Phoenix.  Spielberg managed to create a very fluid and extended series of shots --- any one of which could have been suitable opening action scenes for a typical movie --- and still show off character traits in the process.

Speaking of the action scenes, there's a lot of them.  The good news is that they're all good.  In fact, this film might have the only decent boat chase ever; that's kind of like having the least smelly poop, I know, but it's still an accomplishment.  I think these scenes were fit into the film because Spielberg had a checklist of things he wanted Indy to fight ("We've got a tank...a blimp...a boat...how about a Nazi castle?"), but everything flows together pretty well.  The great thing about Indiana Jones is that he takes a beating when he's fighting on screen, so nothing ever looks too easy.  That's just part of his charm.

Last Crusade is certainly charming, but it is not without its problems.  I think it's kind of silly that a famously generous philanthropist (Donovan donates a lot to the museum) is the film's antagonist.  Darn those generous evil men who don't value human life!  I wish the protectors of the Grail were a little more effective than my beloved Chicago Cubs --- neither has had a big win in 2000-ish years.  I'm pretty sure that they didn't shoot a single Nazi in this whole movie.  And remember when they lit the catacombs on fire?  Indy manages to escape and climb out of a manhole in the street, only to find the Grail guys sprinting out of the library to catch him; shouldn't they have been assuming that Indy was a crispy critter right about then?  What made them check out in the street?  More to the point, why were they sprinting?  You would think two thousand years would have been enough time to practice how to kill people, but I guess you never know until the time comes.  I'm also a little confused by the catacomb fire scene on Indy's side of things; if the liquid he is swimming in it petroleum, shouldn't it hurt really, really bad when he opens his eyes underwaterpetroleum?  And those are just the silly things in the story.

There's a lot more strangeness going on with the characters.  For starters, I am going to have to submit Harrison Ford's (I presume intentionally) awful Scottish accent as one of the cartooniest foreign accents ever to grace a blockbuster picture.  What kind of a plan centers on something that stupid?  A bad plan, I agree.  Too bad it worked.  That's nothing compared to the evolution of Marcus Brody.  In the original film and the first part of this one, Marcus is a respectable, intelligent academic.  From the moment the Grail protectors knock him on the head, though, he becomes a bumbling idiot.  "But they're just making him a fish out of water in those later scenes.  He's book smart, not street smart."  Quiet, you.  I stand by "bumbling idiot."

Side note: Indiana Jones is the worst college professor ever.  He skips office hours, refuses to grade papers, goes missing for weeks at a time, and your girlfriend has a crush on him.

One of my biggest complaints about Last Crusade is also one of the aspects that makes it so unique --- the humor.  I'm pretty certain that Spielberg made a conscious effort to make a more light-hearted movie than Temple of Doom (which helped lead to the creation of the PG-13 rating), and to do so, he added comic relief.  Most of that came from the interactions between Henry and Indiana Jones.  Comic relief is fine by me, but I wish that Indy wasn't the butt of the jokes; if someone was exasperated or comically injured thanks to Henry, it was usually Indy.  It doesn't help that Marcus becomes an idiot halfway through the film, but the majority of the jokes come from Henry.  And yet, I like the dynamic between father and son, and I thought both actors did a good job.  It's kind of annoying when the one aspect of a film that makes you roll your eyes is also the (pretty effective) heart of the story, too.

That's the kind of movie Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is; even its worst parts contribute to the film's strengths.  Plus, it's got a ton of wicked awesome scenes in it.My personal favorites are the "No tickets" bit on the blimp, and "He chose...poorly."

...and featuring Christopher Lloyd!

Last Crusade is not my favorite Indy movie, but it stands up pretty well on its own.  It doesn't necessarily improve on the formula from the original movie, but it plays along and adds more heart.  Aside from some corny humor --- which isn't nearly as campy as I remembered --- this is a great big fun adventure.  And that's exactly what it should be.

You might have noticed the famous Wilhelm Scream when the Grail protectors fight the Nazis.  I notice it in a lot of movies, but this time I was inspired to look it up online.  Here's a fun little compilation.

Blade Runner: The Final Cut

It has been pointed out by my friends at No Bulljive that I have not reviewed a whole lot of science fiction movies yet, so I figured that I should begin to amend that with one of the greats.  Sure, I could ridicule Battlefield Earth (which is in my bottom 3 movies of all time) or Alien: Resurrection (which might join that elite company if I can ever sit through it again), but I want to start the New Year off right, or at least happily.

Blade Runner is based on a Philip K. Dick novel, the first of many of Dick works to be adapted for the big screen.  In 2019 Los Angeles, the world (or LA, at least) is a very different place.  For starters, American culture in Los Angeles appears on the verge of being consumed by Japanese culture.  There are other little things, too, like flying cars and space colonies, but the big difference between here and now and 2019 is the existence of replicants.  Replicants are genetically engineered beings that look like fully grown humans, but can have superior intelligence, strength, or appearances; since they are potentially so powerful and nearly indistinguishable from humans, replicants are outlawed on Earth, and can only live in the space colonies.  When some replicants steal a spaceship (killing every human aboard) and head to Los Angeles, what are the local police to do?

Yeeeah!

That's where Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) steps in.  Deckard is a retired police officer that is cajoled/politely blackmailed into service by his former boss, Bryant (M. Emmett Walsh).  Deckard is the best around and the only man to rival his skill as a Blade Runner (replicant identifier/hunter) was murdered by one of the replicants.  Deckard decides to go to the source of the replicants, the Tyrell Corporation, and speak to Tyrell himself (Joe Turkel).  To give Deckard an idea of what he is dealing with, Tyrell has him perform the standard "are you a replicant?" test on his assistant, Rachael (Sean Young); the test is supposed to determine how empathetic, and therefore human, the subject is.  It usually takes only a couple dozen questions to identify a replicant, but it took almost a hundred before Deckard was sure that Rachael was a replicant...and that she thought she was human.  Tricky!  The rest of the film follows Deckard on the trail of the replicants as they track down whatever it is they are in town for. 

Blade Runner is, in a very literal way, a detective story, but there's a lot more depth to it than you might expect from a typical crime and capture tale.  First off, Blade Runner is an excellent example of modern noir; the story is plot-driven, the characters are unemotional, and the film is full of shadows.  There is also a healthy dose of paranoia in the movie, as the other characters all seem to know something Deckard does not.  I think that the film's strength lies in its storytelling; the plot is pretty clear and the story has a satisfactory ending, but there are subtleties to the script that add ambiguity to certain issues and raise questions about others.  The obvious question (that I don't want to spoil for you), "Is Deckard a replicant?" can be argued convincingly from both sides, and I think that's pretty cool.  It's nice to see a science fiction movie that is not about a dystopian future, but is instead a story merely set in the future.  After all, the future can't always suck.

The performances in this film are generally pretty good.  Harrison Ford is a likable tough guy and I enjoy watching him play intelligent characters.  Rutger Hauer definitely had the meatiest supporting role; he was genuinely unsettling, playing such a calm and collected character with such rage inside him.  Most of the other actors served their purpose, but some of them had just a little touch of something special.  Sean Young had a bizarre hairstyle and made the most of her character's subtle, but complicated emotions; Edward James Olmos could have been a stereotypical cop, but they gave him a bizarre 2019 language to speak, a blend of English, Japanese, and (I think) a Slavic language; William Sanderson was surrounded by a creepy assortment of "living" toys; even Daryl "I'm a better actress when I don't speak" Hannah had some very interesting makeup.  The rest of the cast is noteworthy, but James Hong, Brion James, and Joe Turkel didn't add anything special to their roles.

Ridley Scott did a fantastic job coming up with this futuristic world.  Sure, he handled the actors well enough (particularly Hauer and Young), but the details that went into this movie are most impressive.  It's hard to put a finger on exactly what details stand out, though.  The weird Olmos language is certainly one, as is the Japanification of LA (if they really have street-side Asian noodle stands in 2019, I'm moving West!), but even the building designs are noticeably out-of-time, but still plausible.  I also liked the use of space to convey tone; busy streets sometimes helped develop a feeling of confusion or panic, but empty streets or rooms could imply danger, loneliness, or power.  Scott has an excellent eye for cinematography, so it shouldn't be surprising that the film looks great.

I should point out that this version of Blade Runner is the most recent version to be released; all in all, there are four cuts of the film available on DVD (all in the same package, too), with three or four other cuttings floating around somewhere.  The Final Cut makes some pretty significant changes to the original theatrical film, and many of the changes are noticeable from the Director's Cut, too.  I will tell you right now, though, not to waste your first viewing of Blade Runner on anything but The Final Cut.  The picture is far clearer than the previous versions, many technical problems are cleaned up, and several previously ambiguous moments are given clearer direction.  Each version of the movie is interesting, but The Final Cut is clearly the best of the bunch. 

It's difficult for me to explain exactly why Blade Runner impresses me so much.  It's well-shot, well-acted, and well-produced, it has depth and subtlety and a few "what the hell?" moments that make sense only if you choose to put some thought into the movie.  Plus, it inspired some of the lyrics to White Zombie's "More Human Than Human."  Yeah, that must be why this is a classic.  Yeeeeah!

The Fugitive (1993)

Here is how I imagine The Fugitive came to the big screen.  Tired with the high expectations that come with making high profile sequels and adaptations of best selling novels, and bored with award-winning directors, Harrison Ford wanted to see if he could make a flop in the 90s.  "Get me that guy who actually liked working with Steven Seagal," he probably demanded, "and make sure the story is absolutely ridiculous --- maybe a film adaptation of The Mod Squad?  I was on that show once, you know."  And that's how it definitely (maybe) came to be: Harrison Ford starred in a movie by Andrew Davis (director of Above the Law and Under Siege, and was probably working on a title like Middle of Mayhem), the big screen adaptation of the long-running 1960s show, The Fugitive, where he will spend over two hours chasing a one-armed murderer.  The result was a box office smash and seven Academy Award nominations.  I would not have guessed it, but Harrison Ford didn't make bad movies...well, for another year or two, anyway.

After an evening spent attending a black tie event for the medical community, Dr. Richard Kimble (Harrison Ford) arrives home to find his wife (Sela Ward) injured and dying on the floor.  She is not alone, though; Kimble struggles with her assailant, but is ultimately unable to detain him.  He learns one thing about the killer, though: he has one prosthetic hand.  Apparently, "It was not me, it was the one-armed man" is not terribly convincing to the Chicago police, although I'm sure the obvious signs of a struggle in the house, the lack of an obvious break-in, and Mrs. Kimble's generous life insurance policy were also factors in Richard's arrest.  Apparently, Kimble has the world's worst expensive lawyer, because he is found guilty of first degree murder and is given a death sentence, all on circumstantial evidence.  At this point, you might think that this will be a film dedicated to the appeals process of convicted felons.  But look at the title; it's not The Convicted, it's The Fugitive, as in "at large."  While taking the bus to death row, some of the other lucky convictees try to escape, which leads to the bus turning over on its side.  Good news, bad news, guys...most of you survived the accident, but the bus is now on a train track with a train heading this way.  Kimble barely escapes, rescuing one of the prison guards in the process, and finds himself a relatively free man.  What does a wrongfully accused man do in this situation?  Well, it's not like he can have anything tacked on to his sentence --- they don't have an extra crispy sentence --- so he goes on the lam, hunting down the one-armed man.  At this point, the US Marshalls show up to hunt down the fleeing fugitive.  Lead by Deputy Samuel Gerard (Tommy Lee Jones), they perform some of the most competent police work you will ever see in a movie where the hero is not a cop.

Here are some reasons why this is a ridiculous movie:

• The score.  Rarely do you have such bombastic music dramatizing such subtle things.
• Obviously, the one-armed man thing.  Who hires a hitman with a unique visual characteristic?  What, were all the assassin albinos busy?
• A successful doctor killing his wife to benefit from her life insurance policy.  Really?  How much research would it take for the police (or Kimble's lawyer) to discredit that as a motive?  "Hmm...he must have wanted to get even richer!"  Possible, yes.  Likely, no.
• The circumstantial evidence.  Granted, this was made in 1993, but this sort of "proof" gets discredited within the first ten minutes of an ordinary CSI episode.  How about the lack of Mrs. Kimble blood in any area of the house where the struggle took place?  That took me all of ten seconds to think of.  I would hope his lawyer could come up with more.
• The hair and beard.  Are you really going to tell me that a respected doctor who looks like Han Solo is going to let himself look like this?  Especially a married man?  Unlikely, at best.
  

  

  Laugh it up, fuzzball.  And get off my lawn!

Now, just because a movie is ridiculous doesn't mean that it is bad.  The direction is pretty straight forward and, aside from the scenes at the train tracks and the dam (both of which still stand up today), this isn't a special effects movie.  It's more of a thriller than anything else, and Andrew Davis does a good job allowing the audience and Kimble to unravel the plot together.  The performances are, for the most part, solid.  Harrison Ford is as good as ever, even if his "I'm going to jump" grimace is suspiciously similar to the look an old man makes before shouting at kids to get off his lawn.  Tommy Lee Jones steals the show as the prickly Deputy Gerard, a feat all the more impressive when you consider just how sympathetic Richard Kimble is; you have to be a pretty awesome character to get away with not caring about the main character and still be likable.  The rest of the supporting cast serves its function with several decent to mediocre performances, but nothing embarrassing.  Jeroen Krabbe plays a doctor friend of Kimble well enough, but he reminds me of a European Chris Noth in this film (just an observation, not a critique).  Joe Pantoliano, Julianne Moore, Sela Ward, and Jane Lynch all have noteworthy bit parts and Andreas Katsulas plays the evil one-armed man.  Nobody does a bad job, but nobody really does a good job, either.  I guess that's okay, since it lets you focus on Ford and Jones.

This is a pretty good good movie with a few very memorable action sequences.  Did it deserve a Best Picture nomination?  Personally, I doubt it.  Tommy Lee Jones did deserve his Best Supporting Actor Oscar, even if he did beat out a very deserving pair in Ralph Fiennes (Schindler's List) and Leonardo DiCaprio (What's Eating Gilbert Grape?).  I was surprised to find that the aspect of the film that kept me from loving it was not the plethora of mediocre performances --- they served their parts well enough, but were still kind of blah --- but a few lapses in the plot.  This is a convoluted story, but I expected Kimble to make smarter choices to evade the law.  Yes, he dyes his hair to change his appearance, but that dye washed out after one scene; I would have thought that the man would have wanted to keep changing his look, especially after Deputy Gerard catches a glimpse of his beardless face.  And the scene where Kimble cross references a list of one-armed men with people in prison --- how does a wanted fugitive walk into a prison without a back-up plan, in case the random one-armed man he wants to see isn't his wife's murderer?  Still, those are relatively small complaints in an otherwise entertaining movie.  It's too ridiculous (and too serious about being ridiculous) to be great, but it's still a good time.