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.

Casino Royale (2006)

Director: Martin Campbell

Cast: Daniel Craig, Eva Green, Mads Mikkelsen, Jeffrey Wright

Have I Seen It Before?: I had been aching for a proper adaptation of Fleming’s first novel ever since reading it. The multi-director comedy-adjacent Casino Royale (1967) need not be mentioned here.

Did I like it?: And so one might normally be unable to get over what the film could have been. An EON-produced version in the 60s starring Sean Connery, with Audrey Hepburn as Vesper Lynd and Orson Welles as Le Chiffre (the 1967 did get one thing right) would have been glorious. The rumored efforts of Quentin Tarantino trying to launch an all black-and-white version with Pierce Brosnan (and presumably Uma Thurman as Lynd, with maybe Samuel L. Jackson as Le Chiffre?) would have been bananas and also one of my favorite films of all time. 

So, it is a testament to the glories of this film that I like it so much despite what it could have been. The book is surprisingly faithful to the source material. One might scratch their head at the notion of turning The Big Game from Baccarat to Texas Hold’em Poker, but if anyone watching any of the previous Bond pictures claims they understood how the game of Baccarat works, they’re lying. After years of steeping myself in Bondanalia, all I’ve been able to absorb is the fact that it merges the most frustrating elements of both Craps and Blackjack. How hard is it to hit the number nine?

And yet it keeps enough of the Bond movie trappings to be that particular cinematic flavor one can only find in the Bond series. David Arnold’s score is resurrecting the best of John Barry, the extension to the plot make the adventure not nearly as claustrophobic as Fleming’s story kept matters. One might miss the initial gun-barrel sequence, before one realizes that the entire pre-credit sequence is the origin of the gun barrel itself. The film series has been notorious for playing things safe, but here, every risk pays off. I just don’t understand anyone who thinks things have changed too much or that Bond has become too much like the Bourne series.

As with the initial outing for all of the Bonds, one must take a moment to ascertain the qualities of the man himself. Every Bond with the possible exception of Connery make their strongest outing their first. There was a lot of skepticism from the public about Craig, mostly having to do with his flaxen hair. Here, he is more than equal to the task of taking on the 007 mantle, and with a quality far closer to the Fleming original in ways that were accepted by the public, when only twenty years earlier were scoffed at when brought to life by Timothy Dalton. As I write this review we are—depending on the behavior of a pandemic or two—approaching the end of Craig’s tenure, it’s sort of amazing that the weak links in the chain of his time at the wheel of the Aston Martin would have been considered the best films of many of the other Bonds. He is the second coming of Connery for which many Bond fans were always hoping, and I sit here anxiously awaiting No Time To Die (2020) and wondering how the series will recover from his loss.

Doctor Strange (2016)

Director: Scott Derrickson

Cast: Benedict Cumberbatch*, Chiwetel Ejiofor**, Rachel McAdams, Mads Mikkelsen

Have I Seen it Before: Yes, but oddly enough I did not make it in the first weeks of its theatrical release. Between this and Ant-Man (2015), I’m not entirely sure why I wasn’t in much of a hurry on some of these latter phase 2/early phase 3 MCU movies.

Did I Like It: Yes, but I wonder if the movie is holding back.

I suppose I have something of a conception of why this film didn’t initially rise to the top of my agenda, and that’s because I had next to no knowledge of the character up until the MCU tried to bring it into the mainstream***.

And from what I’ve seen of the movie, it is that jamming into the mainstream that weakens the whole endeavor. People love Strange because his exploits are like an acid trip in 64 colors. Here, the film is loopy at times, but not “last ten minutes of 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), and more just loopy enough to make sure the film can have a strong opening weekend. Amid the cascading dimensions, there’s an unrequited love story and a pretty basic superhero origin tale at the core. It’s fine, but it’s not terribly revelatory.

So the movie succeeds, as it’s objectively an enjoyable time spent at the movies, and doubly succeeds because it makes me want to steep myself in the greater mythology of the Sorcerer Supreme. I want to be a fan of Strange, I just wish Marvel hadn’t held back.

And maybe they won’t from here on in. 

*Joking about his name has become pretty passé by the time I write this, but I’m as certain as I can be without actually checking the footage that his one of the alternate names for Gerry Dorsey, and I’m reasonably sure that we hadn’t heard of the actor before that time. What is he hiding?

**Why my spellcheck was bent out of shape about “Chiwetel” and not “Ejiofor” is beyond me. Why it’s only bent out of shape the second time I typed the last name, I’ll never know.

***Which would be a big part of the reason that the casting of Tilda Swinton as The Ancient One. It is whitewashing, sure, and that’s not great, but it also frees a character from the constrains of gender, which is better than not good. Interesting at least that the film could both fail and succeed to embrace diversity. And it certainly isn’t the most whitewashed film to star Cumberbatch.