I just wanna take a moment to point out how genius it was to
take away Indy’s gun at the start of Temple. I don’t know whose idea it was but that was
one of the best things that person ever thought up.
Let’s backup a little though. The revolver is a staple of Indy’s repertoire. He goes into a lot of dangerous fucking
situations and he sure ain’t afraid to whip that motherfucker out and start
blasting away. The man has no qualms
about shooting folks dead and Raiders
sets this up thoroughly. Jones reaches
for the pistol first almost every time so it’s his primary way of getting out
of serious trouble. But in my opinion he
uses it too much in the first installment.
He’s a little too trigger happy and that makes him slightly less
cool. Plus, as we know, shootouts are
difficult to make interesting in an action movie. As a general rule hand to hand and melee
weapon fights are more impressive and satisfying.
So now if we jump to Temple
of Doom we have the curious proposition of Indy without a gun for 95% of
the film. This notion probably went down
one of two ways: either this was mandated at some point during the
screenwriting process, or Spielberg/Lucas realized after reading the script
that the writers forgot to have Indy use his pistol and liked the idea so they
had him lose it permanently in the beginning to match all the scenes. It’s a great way to change up how Indy fights
back and escapes impossible circumstances.
Furthermore it’s completely in keeping with the character and in fact
makes him more badass overall. He can’t lean
on that crutch and quickly shoot his way out anymore, he’s gotta come up with
another plan.
If you asked the average Indiana Jones fan what
paraphernalia you associate with the character I bet the gun wouldn’t be the
first or even second thing named (It’s probably the whip and the hat). And it’s remarkable how the revolver became
more of an afterthought with the three sequels.
I mean look at Last Crusade, he
barely uses it in that one. And in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull I think he
only draws his piece once but never fires.
Spielberg and Lucas must’ve liked Indy gun-less because they essentially
disarmed him after the first outing.
Even though it makes sense for Jones to carry a pistol
considering the places he travels to and the people he deals with, it feels
like they kinda made a mistake having him rely on it so much in Raiders.
That’s why the gun drop at the very start of Temple is so illuminating. The
filmmakers continued to refine the character and are acknowledging that Indy
doesn’t need the fuckin’ thing by literally throwing that aspect out the window. He can handle shit just fine without it.
Incidentally, I wanna revise my ranking of the four Raiders pictures. I had stated in my Temple talkin’ that Last
Crusade was my favorite, then Temple
of Doom and lastly Raiders. Well, in the more than five years since I
wrote that I’ve changed. Hey, that shit
just happens in life. What are you gonna
do? These days Temple of Doom is my favorite, Raiders
is second and Last Crusade it third (Crystal Skull will likely remain at the
bottom of the list if and when more Raiders
get made). How could my original
favorite drop so much? Maybe I’ll go
into it one day, but for now that’s where I am.
And I know I know, I should’ve asked if you gave a shit, right?
There’s a category of movies that were well liked at the
time of release but in later years became an easy target of ridicule. Batman Forever, The Rock and Top Gun are
some that did really well at the box office but you wouldn’t dare be seen with
them in public these days. Air Force One belongs in there too. You’d be hard pressed to find anyone that
will openly admit to genuinely liking that film (as opposed to the ironic
hipster type way). It’s an odd path for
a film to take so I decided to check out the Force again to see if it really deserves all the scorn.
And unfortunately I have to report back that this One mostly does deserve all the shit
slung at it in the past ten years. I don’t
know what the rest of the world’s reasons are but here’s my takeaway. I’m totally down with the idea of terrorists
hijacking the President’s plane thereby kidnapping the President (Harrison Ford
(American Graffiti, Indiana Jones and theTemple of Doom)), his wife, daughter and most of his cabinet who are all on
board. I’m down with the casting
choices. I’m down with the
cinematography. I especially like how it’s
totally chaotic when the Russian bad guys first grab the guns and try to gain
control of the aircraft. It’s cool that
they have to fight for it and prove their worth to the audience instead of
everything going off without a hitch. There
are a number of good aspects to this picture.
I even think having a woman Vice President (Glenn Close (The Big Chill, Mary Reilly) is a nice
choice, although the way they reveal her in a semi-dramatic fashion meant to
make you clutch your pearls is a stupid indication of the time in which this
was made.
All of that aside, what gets to me is the excessive dick
sucking of the U.S. and the presidency. It’s
truly kinda disturbing how much the filmmakers marvel American resolve,
willingness to overcome and, above all, how strong our leaders are. I mean the President is an all out action
hero here. He’s John fuckin’ McClane
with the sneaking around, tricky maneuvers and brawling. The leader of the free world murders four
people in this movie (and one unconfirmed kill) which is kinda nuts if you
think about it. The filmmakers had a
fantasy that the Prez could go mano a mano with Russian terrorists and fight ‘em
all off almost single handedly, and they made it a reality.
Also, pretty much all of the dialogue is terrible. But the infamous “get off my plane!” line is
so fucking lame I can’t be mad at it. A
final one liner that weak is kinda precious.
But here’s the thing for me.
This was just one in a slew of Die
Hard rip offs that came out post ‘88.
It isn’t one of the better ones like SuddenDeath or Under Siege, but the
concept is a great one and I appreciate the absurd level they take it to here.
Moreover I’m into the flood of 90’s pictures that used the
American political system as a backdrop for a thriller/action film: Murder at 1600, Patriot Games, Clear and
Present Danger, Enemy of the State, In the Line of Fire, Absolute Power,
etc. Plus there were the dramedies: Dave, The American President, Bulworth, Wag
the Dog, etc. Not that all of these
are good but I like the ideas they present.
And almost every one of them had something in common which was that
America could survive any goddamn premise Hollywood could throw at it. The country and the political system
prevailed to stand above all others.
It’s a fascinating era for this specific type of film
because of how naïve and mindlessly steadfast they all are. After 9/11, the never ending wars in the Middle
East and the rise of the internet where people could dive as deep as they
wanted into any political subject, you don’t see such rosy images of the U.S.
being presented on screen anymore. Hollywood
does what they’ve always done by trying to keep up with the times and giving a
more complicated perspective on political matters. But in the 90’s the good ol’ USA was number
one, always. You could find a murdered
gal in the white house bathroom, the President could suffer a stroke and a
lookalike could do a better job than the real deal, Russia could be trying to
get one up on us for the millionth time but we saw through all of these
scenarios. Hell, the President’s plane
could be stolen in mid-air by some assholes but by the time the dust settles it’s
guaranteed that America will come out on top.
Anyone who grew up after the 90’s and watches these movies must
think we all had our heads up our asses.
The thing is they wouldn’t be wrong.
On film we kinda really were living in a fantasy world when it came to American
politics. That’s why it’s hard for me to
hate Air Force One. It’s an artifact of its time that gives you an
interesting glimpse into the mindset of the 1997 American movie going public.
With all of that said I do not recommend this picture. It’s actually pretty entertaining with the
tension kept sky high most of the time (man, I have been on a roll lately with
these very shitty puns) and it hits all the notes you expect from a big summer
popcorn blockbuster. But it’s also
nothing you haven’t seen before nor does it improve upon anything in the
past. It’s a fairly dumb film.
I’d say check out Passenger57 if you’re looking for a Die Hard
knock off that takes place on a plane and/or Executive Decision, which in addition to being Die Hard-esque on a plane also has a strong political angle. It isn’t great but it’s better than Air Force One.
For Jean-Claude Van Damme’s directorial debut he decided to
go back to where he started, the tournament fighting subgenre (or Kumite
subgenre). You know, where dudes from
all over go toe to toe in (usually) some sort of grand competition. Van Damme had done three previous to this so
he must’ve figured he would be starting with a leg up (get it? (‘cause he kicks
people a lot)). And I have to say that I
quite enjoyed his rookie dive.
For starters it’s ambitious as fuck. Instead of setting the movie in modern times
like everyone else Van Damme went for a period piece by rolling the clock back
to 1925. Think about all the extra
effort you have to go through to make that work. You need period clothing, set design,
haircuts, weapons, vehicles, signage and a million other things. It would’ve been so much easier to set it in
1996 and save all that time and money. I
can only guess Van Damme is either a big old fashioned adventure stories fan
with scruffy fellas globetrotting and running into fanciful characters and
situations, or he really thought the 20’s backdrop would elevate the material. Both are plausible and actually the earlier
time period is a little cool. I guess
I’m just a sucker.
Another ambitious undertaking are all the locations required
for the story. You start out with a
montage of different fighters from around the world receiving invitations to
the tournament, which by itself is more than you would expect from this type of
film. Then there’s Van Damme’s
character, Chris Dubois, who starts out in NYC, stows away on a ship for a
while, winds up in Thailand and travels across Asia to the secret location of
the contest. Again, that’s a ton of
extra effort to go through for a picture with a simple and often seen concept. But maybe that’s just it. Since the public is very familiar with this
plot by now why not try to spice it up?
The fighting is pretty good but nothing spectacular. There isn’t a standout moment among any of
the action sequences and that does hurt the film. Van Damme and his crew didn’t come up with
any gimmicks as clever as the shit in his preceding works, like the partially
filled pool fight in Lionheart or fists
covered in smashed glass in Kickboxer. What they tried to do here is give each of the
fighters a unique style based on their country of origin. The Brazilian guy does a lot of flips and doesn’t
stop moving, the French guy only uses his fists, the Japanese guy is a sumo
wrestler and etc. While it might seem
like a fun idea on paper it doesn’t come together in the final product. Except for the last fight all of the matchups
in the tournament are over quickly. The
last half hour of the movie is almost entirely brawling which is kinda cool,
but with so many short battles I had a hard time getting into any particular
one and didn’t find myself caring about the non-Van Damme guys. It ended up being a blur of alright fight
sequences. Even the final showdown isn’t
anything to write home about.
With that being said the entire film is fairly well done. You get the sense that Van Damme really cares
about the movie and is trying hard to craft something fun and exciting. There are a lot of nice touches like showcasing
so many different fighting styles, going for some cinematic angles and wider
shots, the production design is very nice, and Van Damme constantly changes his
look throughout with medium hair, buzzed cut, beard, clean shaven, clown
makeup, scars, etc. I think it’s hard to
miss that a bunch of pretty thoughtful work went into this.
Doesn't it look like these stills are from four different movies?
There are some questionable choices like Roger Moore (Fire, Ice & Dynamite, A View to a Kill) who’s fun ‘n all but
man, he’s a total cheeseball. There’s an
intro with Van Damme as an old man who beats up some assholes that attempt to
rob the bar he’s in. After he takes care
of them the old man proceeds to tell the bartender the story of the movie. It wasn’t necessary at all and it’s amazing
that trouble finds this guy no matter where he goes or how old he gets. All of the characters have little to no depth
and are stereotyped to hell like the brassy dame reporter from NYC, the wise
guy mobsters, the Irish cops, all of the participants in the tournament and so
on. The worst offense might be having a
fighter from the country of Africa. I
mean they couldn’t come up with the name of an African country, any fucking
African country? That’s kinda bad.
(You could also say that James Remar (48 Hrs., The Phantom) is a bad choice because he’s such a goddamn goofy
actor, especially in this, but I love the sonuvabitch. I don’t know what it is about him but I love
to watch him work. Keep on chugging
Jimmy, you’re the man.)
This is definitely the worst of Van Damme’s Kumite pictures
(1. Lionheart 2. Bloodsport 3. Kickboxer
4. The Quest). There’s certainly a B movie quality to the
whole thing (high B movie though, maybe light A) which brings it down a notch
or two. Sets feel very much like sets,
the personalities are caricatures, the acting is hammy and a weak score helps
to drive that point home.
But overall I had a good time watching this again. Van Damme put forth a strong effort and that
shines through. He seemed to take the
idea of going on a quest for supreme victory in the fighting world to heart by whisking
away the audience to exotic locales and exposing them to many different
characters. Interestingly the film works
better as an adventure movie than a Kumite movie in my opinion.
I wouldn’t necessarily recommend The Quest (bland title by the way), only if you want to check out
what a Van Damme directed movie is like (better than you’d think, very competent
but nothing special).