Clear and Present Danger (1994)

Director: Phillip Noyce

Cast: Harrison Ford, Willem Dafoe, Anne Archer, James Earl Jones

Have I Seen it Before: Sure.

Did I Like It: I’ve sometimes compared a film that doesn’t quite work as well as it should to a casserole dish filled with uncooked ingredients. Everything good is there, but the total is less than the sum of its parts. Clear and Present Danger is something different. It is entertaining enough. It certainly clings to the ethos that permeates throughout the Jack Ryan series of films that eschews Clancy’s later instinct to believe his own press*. Ford has yet to start his prolonged period of of sleepwalking through entire films. It’s all good.

And yet…

Something still doesn’t add up. Ford and Noyce are doing better work in Patriot Games (1992). Greer (Jones)—just about the only constant throughout this series—is dispatched in what feels like the kind of thing meant to propel Ryan (Ford) through the third act of the story. Willem Dafoe is always nice to see, especially in a film released before we really knew what we had with him, but he also feels just a tad miscast*. I even prefer Henry Czerny playing essentially the same role in Mission: Impossible (1996), and again in Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning (2023) and Mission: Impossible - The Final Reckoning (2025). Ultimately, the story is more than a little too self-conscious for its own good. I almost wish the film would have hued closer to what I was imagine was in John Milius’ original screenplay. I mean, he was the only who has been able to do anything with Conan, so his bite might just have been the right ingredient for this.

All of it is almost right, and the sum total of the movie is pretty good. As such, it is less of an uncooked casserole, and more of a fully cooked casserole made up of a cacophony of leftovers.

I did not think this review of a Tom Clancy movie would have quite so many uses of the word “casserole.”

*A big reason why the film series has struggled to get its act together after this film, despite two or three attempts.

**If I remember correctly, Clancy would have preferred Tom Selleck in the row, and not to be caught on the record agreeing with late Mr. Clancy, but I can see it.

Patriot Games (1992)

Director: Phillip Noyce

Cast: Harrison Ford, Anne Archer, Patrick Bergin, Sean Bean

Have I Seen It Before: Oh, sure. I can’t help but be a sucker for anything Jack Ryan related, as long as it comes from that era before Clancy started believing his own press, or worse yet, died.

Although, I do probably have deeper, more lasting memories of the score. As a young kid, I practically wore out the cassette I had of Horner’s music from this film, but then again all kids went through their phase where they listened to James Horner scores non-stop, right?

41-year-olds have the same thing, right?

Did I Like It: That last section covers a lot of ground for a proper review. The Horner score—one of his best—can propel through quite a bit. The story, too, has a simplicity to it that makes it easier to swallow than even The Hunt for Red October (1990) and Clear and Present Danger (1994). The less said about the later films in the series, the better, and definitely the less said about the doorstops books that never saw the light of the projection booth, the much, much better.

Ostensibly a sequel to Red October I can’t help but compare the apples and oranges of Baldwins and Fords*. Ford feels like the kind of guy that Clancy imagined when he was writing, but there’s something so anxious about Baldwin that gave Ryan an almost nebbish quality. That quality is all gone now.

Ultimately, this is a nice little thriller from that peak era of Harrison Ford’s peak thriller era in the 1990s. Although I’d probably watch The Fugitive (1993) or maybe Air Force One (1997)** before this. It’s the kind of movie that as a kid I imagined watching, because it was the kind of movie that grown ups watched.

*You won’t need to guess much where I stand on the eternal Anne Archer vs. the blink-and-you’ll-miss-her Gates McFadden debate.

**Could you imagine if Ford continued with the role? Things could have gotten real weird, real convoluted, and more than a little prophetic. Seriously, go read Executive Orders. No, wait. Don’t do that. Read the back of the book. You’ll get the idea.

Empire of Dreams: The Story of the Star Wars Trilogy (2004)

Director: Kevin Burns, Edith Becker

Cast: George Lucas, Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher

Have I Seen it Before: I’m almost positive that I have watched it before. By all indications, it as the main feature included in the initial DVD release of the original trilogy in 2004, and I was there the day it came out, my copy long-since reserved*.

Did I Like It: The documentary is fine. it’s professionally made, and it has access to its subjects, and a thoroughness in its exploration of the topic.

But let me take a moment from another piece of recent documentary filmmaking to illustrate this film’s weakness.

After Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977) was released, George Lucas never gave an interview that wasn’t at least on some level about selling one of his movies or businesses. He has controlled the narrative of the story of how his films, just as closely as he controlled the story of the saga itself.

Now that he has retired from big-budget moviemaking and the Lucasfilm family of companies, he doesn’t need to have that same control anymore. In Disney+’s docuseries on Industrial Light and Magic, Light and Magic I finally saw Lucas be interviewed and have the filmmaker push back. In the talking head, he looked like someone had farted, but the truth of the moment was at least at least illuminated, if not fully explored.

There are no moments like that in this film. It’s a fully-approved exploration of the party line. Vader was always going to be Luke’s father**, Leia was always going to be Luke’s sister***, and Jabba was always in A New Hope****. It’s not hard to figure out that the truth is more complicated. The truly great documentary about Star Wars hasn’t been made yet, but the possibility exists now, and I’m waiting to see it. Not, a polemic like The People vs. George Lucas (2010) but a more concerted effort to illuminate the man who made those films and the process he took to get it done. A film version of Michael Kaminski’s The Secret History of Star Wars: The Art of Storytelling and the Making of a Modern Epic would be really something.

*I remember it so well because some girl had turned me down that night, and I remember watching the trilogy and by about the midway point of Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980), I had gotten over the unpleasantness earlier in the evening.

**Was never written down before the second draft of Empire.

***Wasn’t decided until well into the production of Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983) when Lucas was drowning in what he wrought and decided he never wanted to make the sequel trilogy that would have introduced “the other.”

****Still doesn’t fit into the movie. It introduces the Millennium Falcon right before the scene that actually introduces the ship. Fight me about it.

Captain America: Brave New World (2025)

Director: Julius Onah

Cast: Anthony Mackie, Danny Ramirez, Carl Lumbly, Harrison Ford

Have I Seen it Before: Nope. Somehow I’ve made it halfway into the month of February and this is my first film both released this year and seen in theaters.

Did I Like It: Giving it a moment’s thought, I’ll say this was a nice little action movie that will soon be forgotten and have a relatively benign place on any number of lists on Disney+. There is some action, a couple of dodgy special effects moments, and a tag scene that hardly seems worth it anymore. The film may truly be suffering from the moment it is unleashed and/or a pronounced deficit in the wow factor, as the money shot in this film of the President of the United States (Ford, still feeling like he’s awake for all of this, which is something) transformed into the Red Hulk and standing on top of a slightly demolished White House elicited a bigger laugh than anything I saw in Deadpool & Wolverine (2024).

It is weighed down by some of the same problems that would weigh down any series approaching its 40th—yes, you read that right—film. As a public service announcement, I’ll list here a couple of the touchstones this film hits and some feelings about how lost you, the viewer, might be if you missed them in the glut of material from the franchise:

1. I’m real glad I somehow bothered to watch The Falcon and the Winter Soldier or nearly every second of the first hour—and let’s not kid ourselves, pretty much the entire movie—would be desperately searching for some semblance of context. I might have just given up and accepted that Isaiah Bradley (Lumbly) is important to Wilson (Mackie), but just accepting that Wilson is now Captain America coming off the events of Avengers: Endgame (2019) is too much. The film would have had to have a cameo from Chris Evans to set us all right, and even with that context present, I think we still could have used him thematically. It’s not like he’s above still showing up for these films, right?

2. I’m also infinitely glad that I have both seen, mostly remember, and kind of liked that mostly forgotten entry in the series, The Incredible Hulk (2008). The film ultimately is a direct sequel to that entry, but a cameo (spoiler) by Liv Tyler at the end really doesn’t have the same hit it might because a) she isn’t reuniting with Harrison Ford, she just met him, and b) I’m now wondering more about how she might relate to Mark Ruffalo. Honestly, both of the actors she worked with in that film were recast for various reasons, did we have to have her back?

3. I’m apparently not at all bothered that I still haven’t seen Eternals (2021). It seems like it might be a charming film, but as long as I accept there’s a whole mess of adamantium in the Indian Ocean (and I do) the film remains on my watchlist.

But, ultimately, this is held together not by an idiot plot, where people aren’t communicating with each other in an effort to keep the story moving along, but instead populated by idiot elements, where things that simply don’t add up are injected into a film with confidence that the audience would not notice.

I noticed. Yes, they are mostly related to the Presidency and the politics of the whole situation.

Why is the Secret Service agent (Xosha Roquemore) also a close adviser of the President? That seems like an unwise conflict of interest.

Never mind that every single person on planet Earth and beyond—including and especially Secret Service agents—should probably know that shooting any particular Hulk isn’t going to do much. They probably shouldn’t be shooting the President anyway, even if the cabinet somehow has had time to invoke the 25th Amendment.

Finally, and most importantly: It’s established we are hovering around the end of Ross’ first 100 days in the White House, but when Bucky (Sebastian Stan) shows up for a cameo, he has to immediately leave for a campaign stop, because he apparently is running for Congress now. Really? You’ve both announced and are running a full-time campaign for a House seat less than six months since the last election? I don’t believe that, and neither should you. Had he tried to shake down Wilson for campaign funds, then maybe.

Air Force One (1997)

Director: Wolfgang Petersen

Cast: Harrison Ford, Gary Oldman, Glenn Close, Wendy Crewson

Have I Seen It Before: Oh, sure.

Did I Like It: Even at the tender age of 13, I knew I was being sold a carefully crafted bill of goods. That’s probably not a great sign. At 13 you should just take a movie on its face and think that everything—especially the R-rated stuff you managed to sneak by your parents, as they were fine with violence, but squeamish in the face of sex--in a movie is just great! More, please!

The film is a rather brazen Die Hard (1988) clone, in an era where Die Hard clones proliferated at the point to define them as an epidemic. This at least has a hook beyond the same summer’s Speed 2: Cruise Control (1997). Die Hard on a… the President’s plane. Sure, let’s watch that. And the President is the one who has to re-take the plane? Bonus points, especially in a time where we had a President who—even if you supported Clinton—you couldn’t imagine taking any kind of actual active role in a situation…

Is it possible that a Jerry Goldsmith score is all I really need out of a movie? Well, that and Harrison Ford being demonstrably awake for the runtime will paper over quite a bit.

Come to think of it, have we ever had a President for which such a heroic role doesn’t seem like the height of silliness? Eisenhower? Washington? Even both of those guys feel like they’re going to be more at home in the scenes taking place in the Situation Room (which here looks more like the Roosevelt Room). Now that I think about it maybe Teddy Roosevelt could take something back from terrorists. Now there’s a movie Die Hard, but its Teddy Roosevelt.

The Fugitive (1993)

Director: Andrew Davis

Cast: Harrison Ford, Tommy Lee Jones, Sela Ward, Andreas Katsulas*

Have I Seen it Before: Oh, sure.

Did I Like It: What’s not to like? The plot is a tightly-wound tension deliver device that were a hallmark of Davis’ action films in the 90s. In an era where plenty of TV shows from the 60s were being re-created for the big screen, this could have been a real chore to sit through, but it isn’t. If you have a problem with some of the light implausibilities, then action thrillers might not be your thing. It’s also a weird twist of Hollywood fate that Davis hasn’t made a dozen more films in the last thirty years that were unassailably big hits. The film is really that good.

But ;et’s look at that cast again. Throw in Joe Pantoliano, and Julianne Moore, and this thing fills out way beyond its perfectly cast two leads. Never mind that I just happened to watch The Living Daylights (1987) early today, so I’ve accidentally done a “surprise, Jeroen Krabbé ism’t your friend, he’s the bad guy” double-feature.

But let’s look at the two leads. Jones brings his magnetic minimalism to full bore here, and the film would suffer greatly if there was any point in time when Gerard would be an antagonist and not an adversary for Ford’s Dr. Richard Kimble. Ford himself is at the height of his movie star powers, equal parts charming and disarming, and never not inspiring every inch of sympathy he can from the audience, and all by fully using the occasionally smirking, occasionally frowning countenance that made him a household name. But more importantly than that, this is a visceral performance from Ford. Forgoing just the chase amidst Chicago’s St. Patrick’s Day Parade (which makes the parade sequence in Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023) look all the more like a typical latter-day Lucasfilm CGI-fest) but As Ford is tossed around, and forced through raging waters in his escape attempts, it’s hard to think that this will be the guy who will quickly spend about twenty years sleep-walking through every film to which he forgot to say no.

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023)

Director: James Mangold

Cast: Harrison Ford, Phoebe Waller-Bridge, Mads Mikkelsen, John Rhys-Davies

Have I Seen it Before: No.

Did I Like It: As much as I might have been anticipating <The Flash (2023)>, I was equally dreading this film. There are a lot of complicated feelings going into it before the film even begins. The early reviews out of Cannes were harsh in their apathy, but it isn’t like that crowd has gotten every call right. We all had our feelings about <Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)>, so much so that the nineteen years we spent clamoring for a fourth film guaranteed that collectively no one spent the last fifteen asking for a fifth. Pretty much everyone had a certain amount of doubt about Steven Spielberg not helming the fifth entry, but after <Logan (2017)>, I at least was comforted that the right man for “one last ride with a beloved character” had been hired. As much as we may have judged George Lucas harshly for his various excesses in the 2000s, I felt like everyone—including Lucas—was a lot happier with him having moved on.

So, what’s the verdict. There is a convoluted time travel plot (yes, you read that right) at the core, and if we remember from my review of <Terminator Genysis (2015)>, I’m willing to forgive quite a bit in the service of convoluted time travel.

The most refreshing element of the film, though, is its restraint. One of Crystal Skull’s less talked about flaws is that it is largely built on a foundation of leftover parts from <Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)>, but aside from some obligatory beats calling back to the original film in this picture’s final minutes, there is a surprisingly low amount of fan service on display. A few photographs in Indy’s (Ford) apartment. Some legitimately earned mediations on grief, which also will shut up the dunderheads in 2008 who said the franchise was going to be handed down to Shia LaBeouf. One throwaway line referring to his father’s watch and another to the blood of Kali. That’s all. I really expected to needing my re-watch of the series this week.

Are there flaws? Sure. There are special effects that—while not ruining the whole affair—do distract. Several shots during a massive parade set piece don’t pass the smell test now, and will only get worse as the film ages. A WWII-set prologue uses a de-aged Ford almost works, although young(er) Indy can’t quite escape the uncanny valley when any sort of light (simulated or otherwise) passes over his face.

All in all, this is a perfectly serviceable Indy adventure? Is it the perfection of Raiders? Is it the breathless insanity of <Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)>? Not quite, but it may be unreasonable to expect any movie to reach to those levels. Is it the fine-tuned crowd pleaser that is <Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)>? Probably pretty close, and that is far more than I expected as I went in to the theater.

Cowboys & Aliens (2011)

Director: Jon Favreau

Cast: Harrison Ford, Daniel Craig, Olivia Wilde, Sam Rockwell

Have I Seen it Before: Yep.

Did I Like It: On spec, this a movie I’d be there for opening weekend, which I was. Harnessing the best parts of John Ford and Sergio Leone to tell a hybrid tale incorporating the quintessence of Spilebergian awe and wonder? The film practically makes itself.

Except, it didn’t. For the years since the film’s release and lukewarm reception, that failure seemed like a mystery to me. Were people so bothered by the mere existence of a post-modern western that they couldn’t wrap their heads around the idea of having fun with the prospect? Is the same thing that causes people to bafflingly look down on Back to the Future Part III (1990) still unfairly affecting the moviegoing public twenty years later?

On this viewing, I don’t think so. At the very least, I don’t think that reflexive boredom with cowboys doomed this film to be instantly forgotten. That sense in the movie watching public may yet exist, but the movie’s problems exist beyond. For two out of three acts, the film is a good homage to those classic westerns and is well on its way to be one of those brilliant genre mashups that—like the Cornetto films of Edgar Wright—stand the test of time. And then the conclusion is a mishmash of cliches not of every movie it is trying to emulate, but every frozen TV dinner action movie released around the same time. Many of those films were written by the same writers who wrote this film, and that is a pretty good reason why most of them don’t write feature films anymore*.

The film has good performances. Daniel Craig cuts a convincing mysterious cowboy figure, especially when one considers that Robert Downey Jr. was originally cast in the role. While charming, he would have been completely wrong for the role as it was eventually presented, and even for the genre, now that I think about it. Even Harrison Ford looks like he’s mostly awake through the film, in an era of his performances where that was pretty rare. Had the film tried just a little bit harder and reached for a little bit more in its conclusion, it could have been something really great. Then again, Favreau certainly has proven his adeptness with similar material with The Mandalorian. Maybe if the focus had been on the aliens, and the cowboys were secondary, we’d be having a different discussion now.

*Granted, Lindelof was always better at TV and returned where he could unfurl his true skills. Kurtzman is a better producer than he ever was a writer, although many current viewers of Star Trek might take great pains to disagree that he’s worth anything. Roberto Orci can’t seem to get projects off the ground anymore, which feels like something approaching justice.

Star Wars - Episode VII: The Force Awakens (2015)

Director: J.J. Abrams

Cast*: Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Daisy Ridley, John Boyega

Have I Seen it Before: I mean, the tired joke to hint at here is that with the amount of times I’ve seen Star Wars – Episode IV: A New Hope (1977), even if this had been the first time I had seen this film, then I would have already have seen it before. I’ll skip that, and say that I was right there on opening weekend, along with everyone else.

Did I Like It: After the highest highs of the original trilogy, and the objective lows of the prequel trilogy (even if you’ve managed to forgive some of the larger flaws in those films, you can’t deny there is some weak sauce transpiring) we may have all come to the new sequel trilogy with bad intentions as an audience.

I’ll only go as far as maybe on that idea.

The first question I want to wrestle with is whether or not we needed a Star Wars sequel trilogy. After mentioning in a few interviews years ago that he had “a plan” for films that would take place after Star Wars – Episode VI: Return of the Jedi (1983), he spent most of the last few decades insisting that he had no notion of such movies, and he pointedly didn’t think they would be very interesting in any event. 

I tend to think he was lying, or at the very least remembering the truth from a certain point of view, but I can understand why. For one thing, I can’t imagine the reactions to the prequel trilogy were fun for him, regardless of whether they were deserved. Getting older, he probably came to some degree of peace with the idea that he didn’t have anything to prove anymore. He made some great films, some not-so-great ones, and made enough money that his great-great-grandchildren won’t have to worry about money, so long as action figures still exist in the 22ndcentury.

But as Lucas’ attitude toward the idea of the further adventures of Luke Skywalker and company, the story began to take a shape where such stories weren’t needed anymore. I walked out of my first viewing of Star Wars – Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (2005) thinking that the story of the rise, fall, and redemption of Jedi Knight Anakin Skywalker was—for better or worse—a complete story in six parts.

So, right out of the gate the sequel trilogy has the challenge of justifying its existence, far more so than the prequels had to reckon with. We didn’t need a sequel trilogy, but Disney was relatively sure there would be an audience for such films, and as I write this at the close of the opening weekend for Star Wars – Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker(2019), they were largely right in that regard.

As mentioned above, some might complain that this movie borrows too heavily from A New Hope to be thoroughly enjoyed. They are correct that it owes much to that film, but when one realizes that the original Star Wars is beholden to the structure of Akira Kurosawa’s The Hidden Fortress (1958), I can’t help but think that is a criticism divorced from any real sense of film history.

Here’s what the film has going for it that reaches beyond the reductive:

The new characters are an absolute treat. On spec, the film would be an opportunity to spend some time with your favorite characters from the original films, but the fact that Rey, Finn, and Poe keep our attention so thoroughly is a testament to the strength of these films going forward. Say what you will about his skills as a storyteller or a visual stylist, Abrams is an absolute master at casting very watchable actors in interesting characters. He managed to pull off the same trick in his first Star Trek (2009). This doesn’t even begin to deal with my favorite character of the new films—and possibly any of the Star Wars films—Maz Kanata as played by the transcendant-even-when-mo-capped Lupita Nyong’o. 

Then there are those original characters. Mark Hamill merely has a cameo, and his film will be Star Wars – Episode VIII: The Last Jedi (2017). Carrie Fisher toes the line between the optimism at the center of Leia, and the world-weariness that Fisher uses to inject her with new life. And then there’s Harrison Ford. This film is Han Solo’s Unforgiven (1992)—as much as a laser sword movie can reach for that degree of an elegiac quality—and if nothing else, it is a relief and a revelation to not have Ford sleep-walk his way through an entire film. Before this film, the last possibly I would say he did so was Air Force One (1997), and probably as far back as The Fugitive (1993). I’m glad we got you back, Han, even if for only a minute.

Now, the larger question we must answer is: was it worth going through a sequel trilogy? At this point, I would say yes, but to definitively answer that question, I’ll probably wait for my review of The Rise of Skywalker.

*The film gives second billing to Mark Hamill, but I think we can all agree that such placement is overestimating the great Hamill’s contribution to the family.

Star Wars - Episode VI: Return of the Jedi (1983)*

Director: Richard Marquand

Cast: Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher**, Ian McDiarmid

Have I Seen It Before?: Any number of times, with any number of different celebration scenes at the end.

Did I like it?: It’s generally regarded as the weakest film in the original trilogy. I would tend to agree, but I am left wondering why.

The climactic (or semi-climactic, thanks to the films in the sequel trilogy) battle between Luke Skywalker (Hamill) and his father, Darth Vader (David Prowse in the suit, Sebastian Shaw once his helmet is removed, and James Earl Jones via voice in the suit) is among the greatest in the series. For years, the Ewoks felt like the most annoying thing that happened to the series, before the prequels made them look absolutely charming by comparison. Also, the series once again ret-conned large swaths of its mythos to shoehorn in the twist that Princess Leia (Fisher) and Luke Skywalker are actually twin siblings.

All of these can be forgiven, especially when considered in the larger context of the series, but I think the real flaw is that the emotional stakes, at least for me, were never fully established, or I never fully bought into them. 

Sure, the Rebellion is on the brink of collapse, and the thin possibility of the redemption of Vader hangs over everything, but for years I never believed that Luke was ever in any real danger of turning to the dark side. He had always been portrayed as so morally pure, and not until the last frantic moments of the duel with his father do I get a sense that he could be corrupted in the service of his friends.

That was, of course, until my viewings of it more recently. Of the three main protagonists through the course of the Skywalker saga (Anakin, Luke, and Rey), Luke seems as if he is the furthest on his journey to the dark side. 

Consider, he is dressed in a black outfit for the entirety of the film. Not exactly the light robes of a nascent Jedi Knight. Also, the sequence rescuing Han Solo (Ford) from Jabba the Hutt seems like an overlong effort to walk back the cliffhanger from The Empire Strikes Back (1980), but his band of rebels hesitates not one whit to destroy not only the admittedly vile gangster, but everyone else on board his pleasure skiff. Thieves, gangsters, and other odious ones for the most part, but are there not slaves on board worthy of resuce? Any smugglers? In another world where Han had made good on his deliveries to Jabba, would he have met his end there along with everyone else? It’s a minor act of mass murder for someone who killed several million Imperials on the first Death Star***, but Darth Farmboy is way farther along on his journey toward the Dark Side than I was initially led to believe.

That he is still able to pull out of this descent into evil only raises the film in my estimation. Maybe it is still the weakest of the trilogy it has the bad luck of closing, but if it continues to improve with age, it may one day exceed its predecessors.

*I watched the unaltered versions available on the 2006 “limited edition” DVDs. See my review for Star Wars – Episode IV: A New Hope (1977) for further thoughts on this.

**I keep wanting to give her higher billing, but I feel like I have to wait for the sequel trilogy for that, and I don’t thinkthat is my fault.

***Of which—despite any debate in Clerks (1994)—I have to believe at least some were trying to work their way out of the Empire’s clutches.

Star Wars - Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (1980)*

Director: Irvin Kershner

Cast: Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Frank Oz

Have I Seen It Before?: Yes, but probably in the wrong way. I missed all of the original trilogy in theaters by one year, and so had to watch them on VHS in the late 80s and early 90s. So, the first time I saw Star Wars – Episode IV: A New Hope (1977) it was preceded by an ad for the rest of the series, including Luke (Hamill) asking Yoda (Oz) that trilogy-spoiling question: “Is Darth Vader my father?”

So it’s kind of like I had the experience of seeing the film before I ever actually got to see it.

Did I like it?: It would be pretty disingenuous of me to say anything other than “yes” here. It is universally accepted as the greatest of all Star Wars films. It is truly great, not possessing one moment or element that annoys or distracts, and in fact adds so much to the tapestry of the saga, that it probably has had a hard time recovering in the 39 years since its release. It is thrilling and funny in equal measures, and even its supposed “down” ending hints at the—for lack of a better term—new hope just beyond the horizon.

But is it better than A New Hope? I’ve probably spent most of my life thinking so, but I’m not sure why I have changed tracks in the last few years, but I think… (I think) I prefer A New Hope at this moment. It’s an incredibly close comparison, at any rate.

That may make the debate about which film is “better” a fundamentally meaningless one.

It is a far better sequel than we had any right to expect from the original Star Wars. As such, it may be partly to blame for the litany of movies we’ve received since, each one demanding of us as viewers to not so much react and take in the subsequent films, but create positions on which one we like and which ones we don’t. It has reduced fandom of the series to a tedious xerox copy of partisan politics in America. 

Stop ranking movies. Enjoy them, don’t enjoy them. That is up to you. Just watch them.

With that in mind, both this film and the one that preceded it are great and you should watch them, if you haven’t.

Which you almost certainly have.

*I watched the unaltered versions available on the 2006 “limited edition” DVDs. See my review for A New Hope for further thoughts on this.

Star Wars - Episode IV: A New Hope (1977)

Director: George Lucas

Cast: Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Alec Guinness

Have I Seen it Before: I mean, what would I have been doing with my life up until this point if I hadn’t? 

Did I Like It: It’s… Well, hell, at the risk of reading as needlessly melodramatic, it may, in fact be a perfect film.

And a perfect film the way that it was originally presented (see the footnote). Here’s some food for thought: Legend has it that the reason Lucas didn’t include the scene where Han (Ford) encounters Jabba the Hutt in the Mos Eisley Spaceport. 

It’s also the movie I point to when I needed an example of why widescreen was always better than full screen. Kids, ask your parents, as it’s not a debate that needs 

But all of that doesn’t matter when you see the twin suns of Tatooine and dream of a life beyond the one you’ve always known, and when Han return to the Death Star when he is needed the most, and when our heroes (sans Chewbacca [Peter Mayhew], #dontevergetoverthisone) get their reward at the throne room of the Great Massassi Temple on Yavin IV. This movie is simplicity itself, and even The Empire Strikes Back (1980) can’t hold a candle to that.

*I watched the original, completely unaltered version of the film (and will be doing so for the rest of the original trilogy). This was so unaltered that not only is Jabba the Hutt nowhere in sight, but the film isn’t even labeled as Episode IV or A New Hope at this point. That title was added on a later VHS release after The Empire Strikes Back hit theaters. The un-fiddled versions of the film are available in a limited edition from 2006 that is long-since out-of-print but are available on Amazon for about $60.00 per film. The original versions are technically a bonus feature on a second disc on each set and are what appear to be copies from even more antiquated laserdisc copies. Widescreen editions are available, but Lucasfilm/20th Century Fox went slight on the presentation features. It’s not anamorphic and your modern TV is going to find it a little befuddling, but if you’re in the market for looking at Sebastian Shaw as opposed to Hayden Christensen, this is the only way to go (more on that during my review of Return of the Jedi(1983).

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

Director: Steven Spielberg

Cast: Harrison Ford, Shia LaBeouf, Cate Blanchett, Karen Allen

Have I Seen It Before?: I was there on that delightful spring day in 2008, wearing a leather jacket and fedora. I’m not sure how I feel about that admission, but I am reasonably certain that it is my fondest wish that I never do anything like that ever again.

Did I like it?: It seems like a superfluous question, but let’s get into it, shall we?

As with any film George Lucas became involved with after Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989), there is a profound antipathy that courses through the populace.

And yet, when it comes to this movie, I really want to like it. I do. I’m pretty sure I do. I’m not one of the people who were completely turned off by the notion of Dr. Jones (Ford) running from Soviets before running afoul of a flying saucer. I’m more certain than I have of anything else in the history of film that if the fourth film tried to bend over backwards to give us even more Nazis, then the complaints about this film would have been even more caustic. I do wish that Spielberg and company (well, let’s face it, mainly Lucas) had gone for broke and had that familiar fedora’d silhouette look out into space. If they truly wanted to take a deep dive into 50s Sci-Fi movies, there was plenty of territory left unexplored.

That all being said, the story is actually kind of engaging. The cat and mouse game between Indy and the communists is more than enough to keep things lively, and fans of the series should be mostly on board with the movie.

Then why doesn’t the movie work?

I think there is some mix of two motivations behind the film’s listless quality: boredom and spite.

Each of the essential triumvirate (Lucas, Spielberg, and Ford) of the Indiana Jones series must have endured endless questions over the preceding twenty years about when Indiana might go on the hunt again. I can imagine that the questions got irritating. This movie certainly stopped most of us from asking about a fifth film. If that was the goal, then mission accomplished.

Lucas has long since seemed bored with the idea of popular filmmaking by the time this film came out, and that apathy was confirmed when—at the earliest opportunity—he sold the entire shop at the first opportunity to allegedly make small experimental films he doesn’t plan on showing to anyone.

Ford engaged in acting by way of sleepwalking for every film after Air Force One (1997) and before Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015). Some might argue in good faith about that range, but few would argue that this fourth entry that previously so catered to ever strength he had as a movie star, is now the nadir of Ford wandering aimless in and out of various films.

Spielberg, too, seems as if he had expended any and all excitement for the big entertainments that made him his bones were exhausted by Jurassic Park (1993). To make an action movie now must feel like a chore on par with The Lost World: Jurassica Park (1997). There are plenty of more serious films that he seems far more interested in making.

And right there, while Lucas bears the brunt of the blame for the resulting movie, there really should be plenty of blame to spread around. Sure, the film has the anti-septic, CGI-heavy feeling of the Star Wars prequels, which feels even more off when Indiana Jones was always the far more analog cousin of that galaxy far, far away. But Spielberg and Ford could have still zeroed in on something special, if that was what interested them.

Maybe they still will.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)

Director: Steven Spielberg

Cast: Harrison Ford, Sean Connery, Alison Doody, Julian Glover

Have I Seen it Before: I’m reasonably sure that I did not see it in the theater when it was released. I have a weird encyclopedic memory of movies I saw from 1989-1990. I would imagine most movie buffs have such a memory of the movies they saw when they were about that age.

But I surely ran a VHS copy of this movie down to the nub in the years since. I even skipped a lecture of Chemistry 1 to go grab the trilogy (and back then, it was a trilogy) when it was first released on DVD.

Did I Like It: Back in those days, I think I might have been convinced that it was the greatest of all the Indiana Jones films. 

I don’t think that any more. I certainly don’t think it is the worst of the series, but we’ll get to that later. After both the creators and the public decided (and I believe wrongly) that Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) was a failed experiment, Lucas, Spielberg and company opted for what I’m sure was a course correction to make the third film in the series more like the original Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981).

And the film so desperately wants to be Raiders. The story is once again about Indiana (Ford) reconciling with someone from his past by making them his partner. In Raiders, he reconnects with old lover Karen Allen, here he makes amends with his father in the form of Sean Connery. The Nazis are back in full force, which is a sentence I write with unfortunate frequency in this last half of the first decade of the 21st century. Even the font chosen for the opening titles is directed to the sole goal of making the audience feel like this is going to be like the Indy adventure that they liked at first blush.

Now, it helps that what the film lacks in originality, it more than makes up for in charm. It’s likely the missing ingredient in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008). That film wants to be Raiders, too, but it doesn’t have Sean Connery giving one of the most blissfully nerdy performances of any movie star. For a screen presence that was so thoroughly contingent on machismo, making Indy’s father an aloof bookworm who fells Nazis with an umbrella, some seagulls and some well-remembered Charlemagne. It also helps that this was in the time pre-Air Force One (1997) when Ford spent a number of years sleeping through every film in which he starred. He eventually corrected this notion by the time Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015), and maybe we’ll get one more charming outing with Henry Jones Jr. in our future.

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)

Director: Steven Spielberg

Cast: Harrison Ford, Kate Capshaw, Amrish Puri, Ke Huy Quan

Have I Seen it Before: Is it possible I’ve seen this movie more than Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)? It seems unlikely, but I can’t rule it out.

Did I Like It: Yes. Fight me if you must, but I think this is the best of the Jones sequels/prequels.

First of all, it would be myopic at best to not admit that there are some things about the film that had not aged well, and were a probably a bit much at the time of release. Willie Scott (Capshaw) is not exactly the stuff that strong female heroes are made of, but at the same time one has to give credit to Capshaw for playing the role without once reaching for the easy milieu of ironic detachment. There had to be a sense among her and the filmmakers that the character would grate on people’s nerves, but that didn’t stop her from swinging for the fences.

Similarly, the depiction of Indian people varies pretty wildly from the “sorta okay” to the “eek, is everybody else seeing what I’m seeing?” Again, one wants to write off the rougher parts of the film to intentional choice on the part of Spielberg and Lucas, but in this case, that might be reductive. The portrayal of both Hinduism and Indian people in general is sometimes insensitive, but it does appear that most Indian characters are actually played by people of Indian decent. If we’re grading the 80s on a curve, this move may still get a passing grade. I’m looking in your direction, Short Circuit (1986).

All of this being accepted, the film still follows that cardinal rule of sequeldom*: don’t let up on the pace. From the first musical number in the Club Obi-Wan, the film never lets up until the Sankara stones are finally put back in their rightful place. Now that I think about, that musical number is a mission statement for the entire film. While “Anything Goes” is in and of itself as a good a thesis for the film, the mere idea that “Raiders 2” would ope up with Busby Berkley style musical number let the audience know—even if they weren’t 100 percent on board with the plan—that Spielberg was firmly control of what was happening, and if we trusted him, we would be in for the ride of our life.

It’s a shame that the film wasn’t as widely accepted in its time as it should have been. Had it been, each Indiana Jones adventure might have been a new, weird venture into the unknown, instead of warmed-over leftovers from Raiders. 

*I guess, actually prequeldom, but unless you’re paying real attention to the year stamped in the titles, there is not a whiff of what usually reeks in a prequel.

Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)

Director: Steven Spielberg

Cast: Harrison Ford, Karen Allen, Paul Freeman, John Rhys-Davies

Have I Seen it Before: Come on…

Did I Like It: What’s not to love?

Is this the greatest action movie of all time? Probably. Now, inevitably when something is unassailably great, somebody somewhere will try to take a shot at it out of nowhere.

Cut to these early years of the twenty-first century, and every goon with a blog will want to inform you of the Blessed Good News about how Indiana Jones (Ford) has absolutely no impact on the plot of the film that made him famous.

They would say that regardless of Jones’ presence, the Nazis would have found the Ark and would have  

Except that they wouldn’t be right. Never mind that the criticism seems to stem from an episode of The Big Bang Theory. Ironic that negating one of the most proactive characters in cinematic history comes from a show stubbornly committed to keeping it’s casual sketches of characters in permanent stasis, but I digress.

I maintain that—as de Führer is an impatient man—the Nazi expedition at Tanis would have been scrapped after Belloq (Freeman) and company were puttering around with no results. Now, you might say that the Toht (Ronald Lacey) would have been able to recover the headpiece to the Staff of Ra from Marion (Allen) without burning his hand in the process, allowing the Nazis to correctly construct the staff and get the accurate location to the Well of Souls. But I tend to think that Marion wasn’t about to let the only item of value/connection to her dead father out of her hands, or to some damn dirty nazi, and the film supports that she had the wherewithal to resist effectively.

So, Indiana ensures that he delays the Nazis don’t find the Ark timely, and no one may have found it at all. Had the Ark not been found, Toht, Belloq, and Dietrich (Wolf Kahler) would have continued to be a scourge on the Earth. Indiana Jones ensured that the Ark is locked away in anonymity for all time, and ensured that the world had a few fewer Nazis in the process. Show some goddam respect.

I might take a deeper dive into the collective mentality that leads a society to shit all over the few great things in existence, but that would be giving more credit to the people who would pass being persnickety for criticism. They don’t need me validating them, apparently they need Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008).

Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

Director: Denis Villeneuve

Cast: Ryan Gosling, Harrison Ford, Robin Wright, and (sigh, and not a good one) Jared Leto

Have I Seen it Before: Well, it's desperate to make me feel like this is a movie I’ve seen before, but…

Did I Like It: I’m absolutely the wrong crowd for this movie, but strangely, i liked it better than some other movies that shall go nameless. I’m not sure if that’s any kind of endorsement or not…

We are beset (or should I say we are receiving a bounty?) of “legacy-quels” lately, new entries in movie series that come roughly ten years or more since the last entry of the series. Older stars come back, more than likely for a quick paycheck. The movie usually has a mind to hand the baton to a new generation fo heroes that could carry on with additional sequels, should the exercise in nostalgia prove to be profitable. Many times there is some canonical jiggery pokery to remove more embarrassing entries from the collective consciousness. Creed (2015), Star Wars: Episode VII: The Force Awakens (2015), Halloween (2018), Star Trek (2009), X-Men: Days Of Future Past (2014), Tron: Legacy (2010), and… ahem… Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of The Crystal Skull (2008). 

Some times the films are quite enjoyable, and inject new life into movie series long thought dead. Often Harrison Ford is in them. I’m still waiting for Die Hard In A Presidential Library, Son of Fugitive, and Still Witnessin’.

And so we are brought to Blade Runner 2049. I’m late to the party, mainly because it is with some shame that I admit that the original Ridley Scott-directed film has never done much for me. I’ve never really cared about picking apart the various different versions of the film. I’ve never really been concerned whether or not Deckard (Ford) is actually a replicant or not. If I’m reaching for a loose Phillip K. Dick adaption, I’m much more likely to reach for Total Recall (1990) or Minority Report (2002). 

So, when met with a legacy-quel to a film for which I don’t have a lot of affection, what is there for me to enjoy. Inevitably, this type of film trades in wholesale nostalgia for the previous films in the series, so if Villeneuve and company are doing the job Warner Bros. hired them to do, I’m not going to like what they are cooking. It’s nearly guaranteed.

And yet, the film does reach for more plot than fashion, and for enough of a new aesthetic (in parts) that I dare say I enjoyed myself. Does that mean the film is successful in its goals? I’m not entirely sure. You may have to ask someone with affection for Blade Runner. I’m not that guy.

Blade Runner (1982)

Director: Ridley Scott

Cast: Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer, Sean Young, Edward James Olmos

Have I Seen it Before: Yeah…

Did I Like It: …I was really hoping you weren’t going to ask me that.

Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner is just one of those movies… People love it, and they’re not wrong. To have the special effects for any movie still work past six months the initial release of the film in question is something of a small miracle*. The cast is pretty great, and this is prime pre-sleepwalking Harrison Ford. I can see the fusion between postmodern sci-fi and film noir is very particularly designed.

And yet, it’s never all come together in my eyes. It might be that it’s too slow for me—or for that matter, modern audiences—but I’ve enjoyed slower films before. It could also be that the film may still come from that heralded era where films were truly meant to be enjoyed on the big screen, and the home video market was a faded afterthought. Ultimately, though, I think that—even though the special effects are obviously well-crafted—the film’s aesthetic can’t quite reach for any degree of timelessness, and every frame and every sound within the movie screams “THIS MOVIE WAS MADE IN THE 1980s.” Even Ridley Scott’s other great science fiction film of the era—Alien (1979)— can more often than not avoid any sort of fashionable quality and maybe look for a few seconds as if it might have been made any year.

Maybe things will change on this new screening of the film…

And—upon further review—I’m just not that into it, and beyond the reasons I noted above, I’m having a hard time quantifying my apathy. Maybe it’s the music? Maybe it’s the pacing. Maybe all of those elements fuse together and introduce in me some pervasive feeling of unease. I don’t necessarily dislike a movie that wants me to feel ill-at-ease, but I would like to be able to point to something particular that’s making me feel that way. This film just doesn’t do it.

*What’s more, I just can’t buy George Lucas’ argument that he couldn’t have made the prequels until CGI technology reached the “Jurassic Park” phase. All of his Coruscant scenes have been pretty much worked out on Scott’s canvas.