The Return of the Great Adventure: Raiders of the Lost Ark

"Indiana Jones- the new hero from the creators of JAWS and STAR WARS"
"The Return of the Great Adventure" 
So the posters read in 1981, emblazoned with the image of Harrison Ford as rustic, old-fashioned adventurer, whip slung over his shoulder and a tattered brown fedora perched atop his head.  As played by Harrison Ford, already iconic as Han Solo in STAR WARS, always appears a little worse-for-wear; after all, "It's not the years, honey. It's the mileage."  Brown felt fedoras have become inseparable from the character of Indiana Jones, and his image from them.  It is probably the most recognizable film prop/costume item of all time, with the exception of the Ruby Slippers from THE WIZARD OF OZ.  A ratty old, brown leather jacket, a tan safari shirt, khaki slacks and the shoulder-slung satchel complete the look, but not without that other iconic prop in the Indy ensemble: the whip.  The bullwhip, ranging from eight to ten feet long, is almost as inseparable from the character as the hat.  It's an unusual tool/weapon for an action hero, probably inspired by the lasso ropes used by the cowboy heroes of old western serials.
After all, such films/programs were the direct inspiration for the Indiana Jones adventures.  They were the cheaply-made films that played in 1930s and 40s, when cinemas would show a whole run of products for the price of one admission, often including a newsreel, an animated short, previews, a B-feature and a main feature, among other things.  Serials, which studios like Republic Pictures made as their main product, were made on miniscule budgets and relied heavily on pulpy adventure thrills, and would end with a cliff-hanger ending so the audience would have to return the next week to find out what happened.  STAR WARS had actually been heavily-inspired by those kinds of films, and George Lucas was a long-time fan of old serials, as was his good friend, Steven Spielberg, with whom he shared the top of the list of most successful filmmakers of all time.  The idea was to make an old-fashioned thrill ride adventure for modern audiences.

Oh balls.

Lucas wrote an early draft called The Adventures of Indiana Smith, and after Spielberg dismissed the name 'Smith', it was traded in for the other most common name Lucas could come up with; Jones.
Because Lucas had to split his schedule with the Star Wars franchise, Lawrence Kasdan, who had impressed Lucas in writing THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK and previously sold a spec script to Spielberg, was brought in to write a screenplay for RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK.
Even with the two most lucrative names in Hollywood behind it, RAIDERS was considered a bit of a risk.  It was an unproven kind of film and came with a hefty price tag; furthermore, Spielberg, even with two films already that became the biggest of all time, was notorious for productions that went way over schedule and budgets that soared uncontrollably.  Worse, Spielberg had just come off of 1941, both his most expensive and lowest-grossing film yet, as well as his first critical failure.  Even while it wasn't a flop, it wasn't a blockbuster as expected, and people were beginning to wonder if Hollywood's "Boy Wonder" had lost his touch.  After multiple rejections from other studios, Paramount agreed to take on the picture, and Lucas and Spielberg made a special effort to maintain within their already well-sized budget and bring the film in on schedule, to prove Spielberg could do it.  Rather than the 20-30 takes that Spielberg had often done before, RAIDERS was heavily planned out in pre-production storyboarding and then filmed scenes with little more than a few takes.  When shooting was completed, the film was turned in early, before the end of the permitted schedule.
The film was a cultural phenomenon, currently standing at number twenty on the list of highest-grossing domestic releases of all time, adjusted for inflation.  At the 51st Academy Awards held in 1982, the film received eight nominations, including Best Picture and Best Director, and tied with CHARIOTS OF FIRE for the most wins that year with four, as well as an additional Special Achievement Award.  On a side note, it's interesting to note that RAIDERS, often considered one of the most purely entertaining films ever made, lost Best Picture to CHARIOTS OF FIRE, definitely one of the slowest, most boring Best Picture-winning films, but I guess REDS was the favorite that year anyway.  RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK was included in the set of films inducted to the National Film Registry for being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" on the tenth anniversary of the yearly selection in 1999.  It was also included on the American Film Institute's list of 100 greatest films of the 20th century, and listed Indiana Jones as #2 on their list of Greatest Film Heroes, behind TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD's Atticus Finch at number one.  It spawned three sequels and many imitators, and the hat and whip used in the second sequel, 1989's INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE, are displayed in the Smithsonian Museum in Washington, D.C.  The series even inspired an extremely popular and elaborate Disneyland attraction, Indiana Jones Adventure: Temple of the Forbidden Eye, which resulted in a full-blown revamping of Adventureland to match the Indiana Jones aesthetic.  One of the Mercedes-Benz trucks from the desert truck chase sequence is displayed outside the exit queue of the ride.

The film is truly one of the most entertaining ever made and filled with one spectacularly thrilling action-adventure set piece after the other, among the highlights: the prologue sequence in an booby-trap riddled Peruvian jungle temple where Indy seeks a solid gold fertility goddess idol, a wild west-style shootout in a tavern in Nepal, a frantic chase through a crowded Cairo marketplace, and a high speed chase through the desert between a series of trucks and a horse.  It's pure pulp of the best kind, filled with snappy dialogue, larger-than-life characters and a dash of supernatural thrills.  The climactic "Opening the Ark" scene is one of the most spectacular sequences ever filmed, where the dastardly Nazi villains (how great is that?) open the fabled Ark of the Covenant in a perverse mockery of a Hebrew ceremony and find it filled with sand...then, all their lights, mics and camera equipment recording the event explode inexplicably in a shower of sparks.  Thunderous clouds form within the Ark, wispy lights flow out amongst the soldiers and a ghostly apparition glides in the air to the eerie notes of a John Williams score.  The apparition's angelic face suddenly transforms to a skull-like "angel of death", and electric-like rays fire out from the Ark, skewering through every soldier, sparing Indiana and his partner Marion Ravenwood, who close their eyes through the intense experience.  The three main villains; Belloq, Indy's unscrupulous rival archeologist, Major Toht, a sadistic Gestapo officer and Col. Dietrich, the Nazi officer in charge of operations; are each killed in memorable fashion as Toht's flesh melts off in a bloody goop, Dietrich's head implodes and Belloq's head explodes gorily before all evidence of the event, save for the heroes, are enveloped in a pillar of fire between the Ark and the Heavens which then retracts into the Ark and the lid falls securely in place.

The bar has been set high for villain deaths.

As evident from that description, the violent nature of the film is significant.  Of course, being an action-adventure, there have to be fight scenes scary thrills, but RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK would be a tight squeeze into a PG-13 rating today.  In fact, when first submitted to the MPAA for rating, the film was rated R due to its violence and gore.  Desiring to market the film to families, Spielberg wanted a PG and was granted one after the shot of Belloq's head exploding was double exposed with filtering veil of fire to make the detail less vivid, although the gory chunks of flesh flying every which are still discernible.  Even outside of the climactic gore, there are gunshots that splatter blood (especially in a head-shot in the tavern scene) and concluding Alfred Molina's feature film debut, he is shown skewered up and down his body in the prologue sequence.  However, the film was still a huge hit with families and is sometimes credited (or condemned) with swaying family entertainment in a more violent direction, but when its sequel, INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM, was released in 1984, it was the straw that broke the camel's back, and the PG-13 was introduced as a midpoint between PG and R.  At first, families were averse to the rating, not unlike the R, but when BATMAN and Indy's third outing, INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE, were released in 1989 as PG-13, the family audience turned out along with the
older viewers, and thanks to the era of superhero blockbusters, PG-13 has become a family film norm.

RAIDERS wasn't the first time in which Jewish director Steven Spielberg had used the Third Reich as a primary villain, having had Nazi villains teamed up with Japanese Imperialists in 1941, to lesser success.  Legendary film critic Roger Ebert wrote in his Great Movies essay for the film that he believed the film was an example of young Spielberg "blowing up Nazis real good," in a boyish way of expressing the feelings that matured into SCHINDLER'S LIST, and although his theory makes some interesting point, I think that train of thought involves a great deal of overreaching.  It's the kind of overreaching meant to legitimize something loved in a way that can't be accepted, and it's a real shame.  Sure, there's a good many potshots at the Nazis and elements that can be interpreted in such a way, such as the Ark burning out the swastika stamped on the crate containing it, but I'd argue that such things are elements of pulp appeal.  The Nazis make damn good villains for that kind of thing because of the mythic status of their war criminality, the rhetoric, the showmanship, the staging; they make a prepackaged villain already associated with the potential of human evil.  The Ark of the Covenant was suggested as the "MacGuffin" by Philip Kaufman (who went on to direct THE RIGHT STUFF in 1983), who helped George Lucas in developing the story and characters and was intended to direct before being pulled away by other commitments.  A Judeo-Christian artifact like the Ark fits the pulp adventure style perfectly and naturally there are elements of irony and conflict to Nazis trying to obtain it, but I doubt that has any personal connection for Spielberg.  That kind of argument though, feels like an attempt to assign purpose to something that is obviously great, but not in a satisfactorily explainable way.  RAIDERS is just pure fun, and why can't that alone make a great movie?  After all, films are first and foremost entertainment.  A movie can do all kinds of soul-searching and intellectualizing, or ask the biggest questions, or be the most original film of all time, but who'll notice if the film is boring.  The first commandment of filmmaking is: Thou shalt not bore.  And RAIDERS is one of the most entertaining films ever made, which alone should make it great, but it's also a masterpiece of craft, both in and out of its genre.

When Lucas approached Spielberg with the project, Spielberg had been hoping to a James Bond movie, and he envisioned Indiana Jones as being in a similar vein.  Looking at the first three films, all of which Spielberg committed to when he signed on, it isn't any stretch; they're all 'stand-alone' adventures, each with a new girl (a femme fatale in LAST CRUSADE, a Bond motif) and a new MacGuffin, and they're all basic exercises in escapism.  For better or worse though, the director and Harrison Ford as the lead became so integral to the very idea of the character, that leading man replacement method of the 007 films never happened, so instead, Harrison Ford returned at 64 for a continuation of the series in 2008's INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL, which, while still a pretty good film (shut up fanboys), was less in the serial method that the character is based in and more of a homage to the character.

RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK (June 12, 1981)
Directed by Steven Spielberg
Starring: Harrison Ford, Karen Allen, Paul Freeman, John Rhys-Davies
Rated PG for unspecified reasons (but more suitable today at a hard PG-13, due to adventure violence and action throughout, frightening images and smoking/drinking)

The Summer Blockbuster, Reinvented: THE DARK KNIGHT

In 1979, SUPERMAN invented the modern superhero film; ten years later, in 1989, BATMAN reinvigorated the genre and invented the "event film".  In 2002, SPIDER-MAN blasted the genre back to the top of the summer blockbuster game, where it remains to this day, and revamped it with the unprecedented possibilities of computer-age special effects.  The next major landmark in the genre and in the blockbuster industry altogether, came six years later, almost two decades after the legendary battle between Batman and the Joker first shattered records in BATMAN, the two iconic figures returned to reinvent the summer blockbuster once again.
THE DARK KNIGHT broke records and more than a few rules.  It turned the classic comic book story into a hard-edged, balls-to-the-wall crime saga filled with bleak moral ambiguity, philosophical puzzling, grisly sadism and political commentary.  It was truly a superhero film for adults.  It's predecessor, BATMAN BEGINS (2005), may have reinvented the Batman franchise, but THE DARK KNIGHT reinvented the genre.
Although it concluded with a teasing calling card for "the Joker", BATMAN BEGINS was not produced with a sequel in mind.  Certainly the possibility was open, and certainly the filmmakers would be interested, but BATMAN BEGINS was designed to work as a stand-alone film if it weren't immediately successful and every applicable idea was used.  David S. Goyer, who co-wrote the screenplay (and has a surprisingly disappointing repertoire outside of The Dark Knight Trilogy) for the film with director Christopher Nolan, had written up some story treatments for two potential sequels; reportedly, the second would feature the Joker, who would scar Harvey Dent, leaving him as Two-Face for the third part.  A year after BATMAN BEGINS was released in July 2005, production on a sequel was initiated, and again it was decided to use all applicable ideas, just in case it would be their last film in the franchise, so the story elements from the treatments were combined.
At the time of its release, THE DARK KNIGHT skyrocketed through the charts to become the second highest-grossing domestic release of all time, and third internationally; a brief awards season promotional re-release pushed it past the highly-exclusive $1 billion mark, the third ever.  Today it remains the best-reviewed comic book film adaptation ever made and was a frequent presence on "best films of the decade" lists a couple of years later.  It is one of the most prominent examples of a film that has been united in the overall opinions of mass audiences, critics and film scholars.  Although a time frame as minute as five years (as of this July) is rarely a suitable span of time to determine the lasting influence of a film, but THE DARK KNIGHT has clearly become a cultural phenomenon with a strong claim to iconic status and has been a highly notable influence on multiple major films in those short five years.
Chris Nolan, a British-born director best-known for cerebral psycho-thrillers before BATMAN BEGINS, approached the Batman character and its story universe with a real-world aesthetic, more of a crime world thriller than a superhero science fiction, but his first Batman outing maintained an non-intrusive level of restraint, so as to not alienate the proven comic fans demographic.  After that worked, THE DARK KNIGHT took the crime saga aesthetic and pumped it to the maximum, using Michael Mann's 1995 thriller HEAT as a tonal inspiration.  When taking this approach to Batman's most iconic antagonist, the Joker, Nolan cast Heath Ledger after seeing him in BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN and admiring his boldness.  Under the combined talents of, primarily, Nolan, his brother Jonathan and Ledger, who tragically died a few months after shooting completion, the Joker, the "Clown Prince of Crime", who utilized sadistic pranks in the comics, was twisted into an astonishing and highly-relevant new form of cinematic villain.

"Here's my card."

"THE JOKER"
The Joker from THE DARK KNIGHT is one of the greatest cinematic character creations of all time.  The performance by Jack Nicholson in 1989's BATMAN as the Joker was highly-acclaimed, but the Ledger's take left everyone scrambling to justify Nicholson's with the time and context, but that was futile.  I'm a fan of Jack myself, but for that particular character, Ledger is the unmerciful better.  Prior portrayals of the Joker, including Nicholson and cartoons and comics, were darkly humorous; an insane crook who murdered with deadly versions of old pranks, like acid-squirting flowers.  To create a real-world Joker, in the years of the so-called War on Terror and the controversial Bush Administration, he was transformed into a disconcerting, cobbled-together urban terrorist.  In THE DARK KNIGHT, the Joker is an amped-up version of what can be seen on television; he is a flamboyant crime lord on an idealistic mission to instill fear in society.
Ledger's Joker is impeccably crafted in every detail.  The make-up design, which Ledger settled on after the Joker, a mysterious anarchist wearing clown makeup as "warpaint", grubby and unkempt, speaking with odd tics and an inexplicable penchant for sadism.

"It's not about the money.  It's about sending a message."

experimenting with drugstore products, is deliberately handcrafted in its look, in a way that the character might apply it himself, and has a skull-like resemblance.  The full socket area of the eyes is painted in black and the base of the face paint is a chalky white, and like lipstick messily applied by a child playing dress up, red is smeared across the lips, coming into crescents on the cheeks.  The Joker's permanent "grin" is hardly a grin, nor does it resemble one except by an unreasonable stretch of the imagination; it is comprised of ghastly "Glasgow smile" scars, also known as a "Chelsea Grin", where the corners of the the mouth have been carved open into the cheeks.  Wisely, the film never allows itself the distraction of a backstory for the villain, but the Joker does reiterate an assortment of depraved accounts for the origins of his scars, but it's unclear which, if any, is accurate.  He explodes on the scene as is.

"You look nervous.  Is it the scars?"

His title is a stage name, related to his warped appearance, but not so relevant to his manner; the closest he gets to the playful murderer of previous portrayals is the macabre "wanna see a magic trick" scene that ends with a pencil up in a man's brain, or a trailer with an "S" spray painted at the beginning of "Laughter is the Best Medicine" on the side.  No, this guy's favorite method is a knife, as he elaborates in a grisly monologue, and leaves victims with carved faces to match his own.  He also blows up hospitals, wires barrels of gasoline to explode and implants a bomb under the skin of a criminally insane lackey.
Heath Ledger's Joker has since inspired a streak of calculating, psychopathic terrorist villains in major movies, and the famous "interrogation scene" has been emulated as well in films like MARVEL'S THE AVENGERS, SKYFALL and this year's upcoming STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS.

                                                                                   "THE INTERROGATION SCENE"

"You have all these rules, and you think they'll save you."

In a then-highly unusual move, THE DARK KNIGHT's villain is arrested only halfway into the movie, which, needless to say, threw many viewers off guard.  Everyone knows that either the villain is killed or captured at the end of the film, or escapes incarceration at the beginning of the film; it didn't make a lot of sense to lock up your big tension only halfway into the film.  But what the Nolans had in mind was something out of Hannibal Lecter's book; after Harvey Dent, the "White Knight" as opposed to the title's Dark Knight, has gone missing, abducted by the Joker's men, Batman and the Joker get their greatest showdown of all in the interrogation room.  It's a crackling battle of wit and philosophies, fully exposing the two godly freaks as they collide like an "unstoppable force" and an "immovable object".  The Joker is shown to be everything that the Batman cannot effect.  There is no intimidation factor; the Joker has no rules, while Batman is governed by a single rule: thou shalt not kill; albeit not necessarily so biblical, admittedly.  Of course, it's that one rule which the Joker would so much more than anything desire to see violated, even at his own expense if necessary.  The Joker is an idealist, willing to put even his own life up for the cause of invalidating all causes, and the Batman is made powerless.  Then the Joker reveals that Harvey Dent is merely a pawn in a game of his to force Batman into a gray area of allowing a death.  "Killing is making a choice, a choice between one life or the other," as he gushes to Batman between taking the hits.  Having previously recognized Batman's interest in Rachel Dawes, Dent's fiancee, she has been dragged in, and both have been tied up in separate warehouses filled with petroleum barrels rigged to blow, and a phone line between them.  Batman has been stripped raw and lets loose all hell on the Joker, unleashing repetitive, loud-landing blows, but with each one, the Joker only receives deliriously masochistic glee.  He gives Batman the two separate addresses, but switches them, so that Batman arrives on the scene to discover that his choice has been denied.
The Joker escapes with a shard of glass threatening a cop's throat before making a phone call that sets off an explosive sewn into the body of an inmate; he takes the man the mob wants but has been protected in a cell and makes off.  Meanwhile, it's easy enough to minimize a threat by reassuring yourself of what they can or can't get away with a blockbuster, and one of which is that the hero will get the girl.  But screw that; Rachel is incinerated in a fiery explosion, and just to top things off, Dent gets half of his face burned off, the results shown in marvelously graphic detail.
The dark sequel is a regular motif in movies, because the typical film series is usually arranged for a trilogy, like a three act saga, and the second act is always the hero's low point.  THE DARK KNIGHT however, took the concept to an unprecedented level; the girl dies, the idealistic hero is disfigured and made into a murdering vigilante of vengeance who presses a pistol to a young boy's head for an extended period of time, the hero's ultimately lose and they barely manage to salvage hope by way of a bluff.

POLITICS
In Summer 2008, nearing the a November election which would be won by Barack Obama, the nation had been at war for seven years, and in two wars for five years, since the controversial Operation Iraqi Freedom.  George W. Bush and his administration had been in power nearing the completion of two terms, and while every president and accompanying administration is controversial in its own time, America was under particular strain, facing an unprecedented environment of economic downturn, with the Great Recession newly formed, and terrorist threats of a post-9/11 world.  The Bush Administration had initiated the extremely controversial and Constitutionally questionable "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001", better known as the Patriot Act, which utilized potentially intrusive and dangerous methods of surveillance to apprehend terrorist threats.

"How did you catch him?"  "We burned the forest down."

THE DARK KNIGHT does not take a direct opinion on the matter, although I wouldn't want to take away the pleasure of conservative-minded persons who have claimed the film for their side (on a side note: in spite of the accusations of conservative/Christian persecution by the media); but it does address the ethical dilemma straight on.  That's the primary methodology of the Joker's campaign of terror, to create impossible ethical decisions in order to exposed his perceived notions of the futility of "civilized society".  Batman is faced with an opponent with no rules, who directly reveals the restricting shortfalls of even Batman's singular rule, and in order to stop the Joker, he makes a hard turn to desperation, using a sonar-based surveillance system to spy on the entire city of Gotham.  In order to stop evil, he has allowed himself to smear his morality, and while not breaking his rule, he has gone too far into what he should be fighting against, and eventually, those methods become the only option he's been left with.  The film does not condone Batman's extreme anti-terrorism methods, in fact, it condemns them outright via Lucius Fox, one of the film's raisonneurs, that is, one of the author's voices for the story's truth.  However, liberals ought not to become all high and mighty, after all, Batman is a one percenter and has oft been portrayed with a slight conservative slant.

THE DARK KNIGHT rattled the film industry to its core and rocketed expectations for summer blockbusters and comic book adaptations (which are often one and the same).  As the awards season approached, the possibility of an Academy Award nomination for Best Picture was highly anticipated, and when the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences failed to render one (THE READER, really?), the outcry resulted in a drastic modification in the number of films that can be nominated in the category.  As hollow a gesture as that actually was, the fact that any gesture was made is an indication of the film's status.  Even without a Best Picture nod, the film was nominated for eight Academy Awards; an impressive count for any movie, but even more so for a summer blockbuster and a record for comic adaptation.  It also received an award in a major category, Best Supporting Actor, in a landslide for the late Heath Ledger.
THE DARK KNIGHT TRILOGY, made up of BATMAN BEGINS, THE DARK KNIGHT and THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, is considered by some to be one of the best major film trilogies ever made, and definitely of the post-New Wave era, ranked alongside TOY STORY and THE LORD OF THE RINGS.  However, THE DARK KNIGHT is without significant dispute, the crown jewel of the trilogy, and definitely the only superhero film to date to be compared to THE GODFATHER PT II by a major critic.


THE DARK KNIGHT (2008)
Directed by Christopher Nolan
Starring: Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Aaron Eckhart, Gary Oldman, Maggie Gyllenhall
4 out of 4 stars
PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and some menace.

Summer Blockbusters- The Post-New Wave Sweet Spot: BATMAN

In 1978, Warner Bros.' SUPERMAN became the first modern superhero movie, but the formerly lucrative film property collapsed under financial and creative disputes.  Batman, the second most popular character for DC Comics, had been a successful media franchise in 1960s, thanks to the campy television series starring Adam West, but his popularity had begun to wane.  Following the success of SUPERMAN, there had been talks about making a Batman movie, unrelated to the television series (which got a film of its own in 1966), but in a similar, campy vein, and none of those plans received much attention after the Superman series fell out of popularity.  In the mid-eighties though, new writers like Frank Miller and Alan Moore reinvigorated Batman sales with darker, grittier interpretations, reminiscent of the first Batman stories by Bob Kane and Bill Finger in Detective Comics before the Comics Code Authority cracked down on "lurid" material in comic books.  These new Batman stories came in the form of special series and graphic novels like The Dark Knight Returns and The Killing Joke, which rekindled an interest in the film project at Warner.  Tim Burton, a young director, formerly an animator at Disney before being fired for his use of resources on short films deemed too dark to be marketable, had recently made two features distributed by Warner, PEE-WEE HERMAN'S BIG ADVENTURE (1985) and BEETLE JUICE (1988), both of which had been wildly successful and made on low budgets, and Warner was ready to offer to him a big budget.
In June 1989, BATMAN breathed new life into the business of summer blockbusting after several years of disappointing returns.  It became the first film to gross a full $100 million in ten days, and eventually grossed over $400 million worldwide, as well as over $750 million in merchandising.  It was more than a movie, it was a behemoth of business and a cultural icon that saturated society.  For the following decade, it was followed by three sequels and many imitators as every studio in Hollywood aspired to a similar success, and Tim Burton was the hottest brand in Hollywood for a good while.
Actually though, the film really isn't all that good.  It received positive reviews upon release and still has many fans, and maybe it's presumptuous of me to say so, but I suspect that most of its legacy relies on nostalgia.  However, the industrial and artistic influence of the film is entirely undeniable, though it's important to recognize that influence as more of a stepping stone to greater things, than as a great thing in itself.
SUPERMAN introduced the concept of the modern superhero film, but later films, such as SPIDER-MAN, have looked more to BATMAN for inspiration.  Probably its greatest contribution to the current industry was its more hard-edged, adult-friendly approach to the superhero film.  Although PG-rated films that would earn a PG-13 rating today were widely accepted as family films in the 70s and early 80s, outrage over violence/gore in films like INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM and GREMLINS resulted in the creation of the PG-13 rating, and the new PG-13 films, that would have been a "kid-friendly" PG before, were unsuitable for children.  Comic books were largely derided as 'kids' stuff,' but BATMAN proved older audiences would still turn out for PG-13 superhero movie, and kids and families remained largely undeterred.  While some critics and family organizations criticized the film as too dark and violent for a "children's character", the approach has become the mainstream, and it's the PG-rated superhero films and blockbusters that turn heads.  BATMAN identified the relatively new PG-13 rating as the box office "sweet spot".

BATMAN also provided the prototype for today's supervillains, although not without some controversy.  SUPERMAN was a pure showcase for Superman; after only ten years since his breakout role in BONNIE AND CLYDE, as well as having received multiple Academy Award nominations and one win for Best Actor in THE FRENCH CONNECTION, Gene Hackman had introduced the concept of the veteran actor as the supervillain from the get-go, but as Lex Luthor, he was largely overshadowed by Christopher Reeve's Superman, acting as little more than catalyst to give Superman an excuse to showcase his superpowers.  For the title role, Michael Keaton, best known for his comic roles and having starred as the title character in Burton's BEETLE JUICE a year before, was chosen in one of the most famous cases of "dark horse casting" ever, creating outrage amongst fanboys, although the decision was later mostly vindicated in the finished film.  For the role of Batman's most famous nemesis, many actors lobbied and many were considered, but it was legendary actor Jack Nicholson who nabbed the part, and with one of the sweetest deals ever negotiated.  Not only did Nicholson receive a $6 million salary, but he also received a portion of the profits (an amount rumored around $60 million), an incredible level of control over his shooting schedule (including all Lakers home games off), makeup artist approval and top billing.  The portrayal of the Joker was startling in contrast to the Joker families were more familiar with from the television series, as played by Caesar Romero as a whimsical prankster, more of a mischief-making sprite than a true criminal.  Nicholson's Joker famously electrocuted a crime boss into a charred skeletal corpse by way of a deadly hand-buzzer, killed a man with a quill pen throwing knife to the throat and poisoned dozens of citizens with a chemical that leaves their corpses bearing ghastly grins.  Furthermore, the Joker was given far greater attention throughout the film, making the film almost more of a showcase for a whimsical sadist, although understandably, considering Burton's notorious taste for dark whimsy.  It was after the Nicholson Joker though, that supervillains became as, or more important than their hero.  Of course, I'm not going to B.S.; I'm sorry, but much as I love old Jack, anyone who tries to explain why the Nicholson Joker is as good as Heath Ledger's in THE DARK KNIGHT is kidding themselves out of nostalgic affection.

Although by today, superhero films have become noticeably real world-grounded, to the extent where some of them go well out of their way to be real world possible, but for a short while, it was the highly-stylized, Academy Award-winning production design of BATMAN that the competition strove for.  Among the stylistic influences most noted in that art direction is German Expressionism like the films of Fritz Lang, especially METROPOLIS, which, interestingly enough, would later be a major plot influence on THE DARK KNIGHT RISES.  The city of Gotham is designed like a city of night, with only a scarce few daylight scenes, clashing architecture that emulates fascist designs, as if the city is as villainous as its criminality, or as darkly conflicted as its defender.  The time period in which the film takes place is totally indiscernible, with all the Batman tech, modern conveniences and contemporary fashions here and there, but many characters dress like figures straight out of a 1930s-1940s noir, as well as similar archetypes.  The longest-lasting influence of the BATMAN aesthetic though, has been its approach to costumed crime fighters and criminals.  Early serials, television adaptations and the Superman film series had all translated their characters' colorful costumes directly, spandex and prominent outer briefs intact.  Frankly, they all looked fairly silly, and smartly, Burton dismissed the blue and grey spandex as lacking in an intimidation, and the new Batsuit more closely resembled armor.  Thanks to that decision, Spider-Man's eyes are visors, the X-Men wear leather, Iron Man's suit looks more like a human tank and Captain America looks more like a soldier than a ballerina.
While BATMAN has been very influential, and the formula has stood the test of time, the film itself has not.  It was a case of a marvelous masterpiece of marketing to a stylish but messy movie, not unlike what many of today's blockbusters, sometimes called "event films" are accused of being.  I'm not a Tim Burton-hater by any means; I consider such movies as SWEENEY TODD: THE DEMON BARBER OF FLEET STREET and BIG FISH to be absolute masterworks, but in blunt honesty, Burton does not have many strengths of his own in terms of character development, originality or structure.  Anyway, BATMAN clearly has more than a few strong voices going on in its production; it's a prime example of a major studio-made film.  Probably worst of all are Prince songs added blatantly for the purpose of enhancing marketability, i.e. "featuring all-new songs by pop superstar, Prince"; that kind of thing.  Burton seems to have been aware of the out-of-place nature to the generic, upbeat pop numbers, and so used them in context as "incidental music", as opposed to placement in the score.  Even still, it's really just to stupid for the Joker to have one of his henchman cranking out the tunes on a ghetto blaster while they destroy museum paintings, and the product placements were only later topped in their idiocy by BATMAN & ROBIN, especially MasterCard.  Somewhat typical of Burton movies, there's a good deal of scattershot editing, but a lot of that is clearly due to production constraints and studio hampering, such as the infamous scene where Alfred brings Vicki Vale into the Batcave, but that scene was later ridiculed briefly in BATMAN RETURNS.  Being an action movie, there's also quite a bit of importance to the action scenes, but action is clearly not one of Burton's strengths and yet, he applies his aesthetic style to those scenes, to their detriment.  As such, in addition to everything else, the action is more quirky and kitschy than anything else; I'm sorry, but beatnik ninjas whose swords are pointless because they're too busy doing flips lack any implication of threat.

A film doesn't actually have to be great in order to have great influence, and BATMAN was a very lucrative butterfly fart that created a hurricane on the other side of the world by spawning the "event film".

BATMAN (1989)
2 1/2 out of 4 stars
Directed by Tim Burton
Starring: Michael Keaton, Jack Nicholson, Kim Basinger, Michael Gough
PG-13 for unspecified reasons (action violence)

SUMMER MOVIE PREVIEW PART 1: MAY

 There are two boom seasons for the mainstream film industry; the summer season, from May through to the end of August, and the holiday season, from mid-November through until Christmas Day.  The former is the biggest of the two, in length and in financial expenditure and reception.  It is a trend that is most often traced to June of 1975, when then-up and coming director Steven Spielberg's adaptation of the best-selling novel Jaws was given a revolutionary "wide release opening" of 400+ theater screens and 900+ by August, as opposed to the traditional method of regional releases that built on word of mouth as they spread across the country.  As what became the prototype of a major summer release, JAWS was a big budget, high concept adventure-thriller which Universal poured $1.8 million into an extensive marketing, including an unparalleled level of televised promotions.  The result was the biggest movie event in then-contemporary history and the first film to ever exceed a $100 million box office gross and the first certified "blockbuster".  A short two years later, in May of 1977, George Lucas' STAR WARS exceeded the JAWS box office numbers significantly and cemented in place what is still the current cornerstone of the Hollywood film industry, for better or worse.  Although these films, and the summer blockbusters of the following twenty-something years, were generally released within a time frame as early as late May and as late as late July, the past decade or so has seen the starting line for the summer blockbuster season creep into the first weekend of May

May 3rd

Robert Downey, Jr. as Tony Stark/Iron Man

IRON MAN 3  (SCI-FI/ACTION)
PG-13 for sequences of intense sci-fi action and violence throughout, and brief suggestive content.
Starring: Robert Downey, Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, Ben Kingsley
This is the fifth year in a row for which a Marvel character has held a monopoly on kick-starting the summer season, and this one also kicks off the second chapter of Marvel Studios' revolutionary business practice.  Last year's season opener, THE AVENGERS, marked the conclusion of the "Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase 1", including IRON MAN, IRON MAN 2, THE INCREDIBLE HULK, THOR and CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER.  IRON MAN 3 begins "Phase 2", which will culminate with THE AVENGERS 2 in 2015.  KISS KISS, BANG BANG director Shane Black has taken the director's reigns from Jon Favreau and co-wrote the screenplay, and appears to be taking a somewhat darker turn.
Worth Seeing?:  Definitely, and for everybody, but especially young males.

Mulligan as Daisy and DiCaprio as Gatsby

May 10
THE GREAT GATSBY  (DRAMA/ROMANCE)

PG-13 for some violent images, sexual content, smoking, partying and brief language.
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Carey Mulligan, Tobey Maguire, Joel Edgerton
MOULIN ROUGE director Baz Luhrmann's adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald's definitive novel of the Roaring 20s was originally slated for a release last Christmas but was pushed back for a summer release, presumably to avoid a head-on competition with LES MISERABLES, which was aiming for a similar demographic.  The advertising has emphasized a pulse-pounding, fast-living, flashy style that coincides with both the novel and Luhrmann's trademarks, but Luhrmann's a polarizing talent, so it could go either way.
Worth Seeing?:  Maybe; female audiences should be especially interested, but it may be difficult to enjoy if you haven't like Luhrmann's other films, like MOULIN ROUGE or ROMEO+JULIET.

PEEPLES  (COMEDY)
PG-13 for sexual content, drug material and language.
Starring: Craig Robinson, Kerry Washington, David Alan Grier
Tyler Perry didn't direct this one, instead he's producing Tina Gordon Chism's film, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of difference.  It's been marketed as just another Perry-styled black family comedy interwoven with melodrama and a family message, but if you fit the niche, why not?
Worth Seeing?:  Only if you're a Tyler Perry devotee.

May 17
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS (SCI-FI/ACTION-ADVENTURE)
PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence.
Starring: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Benedict Cumberbatch, Zoe Saldana, Bruce Greenwood

Cumberbatch and Pine in the obligatory "Dark Knight" interrogation.

The 2009 reboot of the original franchise was polarizing amongst the main fanbase of "Trekkies", but breathed new energy into the series and made it accessible and appealing for an even wider audience.  As such, this sequel, which director J.J. Abrams has specified is a "stand-alone" adventure, so those who didn't see the last one will be able to follow along, has a lot to live up to, and so far, the previews suggest it will deliver.  As plainly indicated in the title, STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS is a much darker take on the adventures of the crew of the starship Enterprise, and although the rumors of a WRATH OF KHAN remake have been refuted, there certainly is a level of influence that has been noted in the marketing.  Cumberbatch, playing the modern archetype of a charismatic-but-cold terrorist villain, promises to be a real highlight.
Worth Seeing?:  Definitely, but probably with an interest skewed towards young males.


May 24
EPIC  (ANIMATED/FAMILY/ADVENTURE)
PG for mild action, some scary images and brief rude language.
Voices of: Amanda Seyfried, Josh Hutcherson, Christoph Waltz, Colin Farrell
This animated family film from Blue Sky Studios, the makers of the ICE AGE series, has invited many comparisons to other movies, but it appears that it isn't actually a direct ripoff of anything; instead, it seems to be a mishmash of directly ripped-off elements from various other movies, including AVATAR (not exactly the most original movie in the first place), FERNGULLY: THE LAST RAINFOREST and HONEY, I SHRUNK THE KIDS.  Blue Sky's movies are rarely much more than tolerable for the adult who will take the actual audience of interest, young children, to them, and this doesn't appear to breaking that trend.  Still, there's value in that, and girls will enjoy seeing a female lead and boys will like the action.
Worth Seeing?:  Not likely, except in the case of finding a way to occupy children for an hour and a half.
 FAST & FURIOUS 6  (ACTION/CRIME)
Not yet rated, but specifically tailored for a PG-13

This one picture alone stands for everything the franchise is.

Starring: Vin Diesel, Dwayne Johnson, Michelle Rodriguez, Paul Walker
To surprise of just about everyone, when FAST FIVE was released in 2011, it reinvigorated the then-ten years old series by getting a positive critical reception and the biggest box office of any of its predecessors.  The series is basically a heavily watered down and glossed over series of old-fashioned exploitation films, with its focus on romanticized criminal activities, motor-head machismo tones and scantily-clad, smack talking women, so the expectations aren't very high.  I'm skeptical that this one can recreate the success of FAST FIVE, but there definitely is something to be said for souped-up cars and armored tanks battling at freeway speeds, as shown in the trailers.
Worth Seeing?:  Certainly not as a piece of even "semi-sophisticated" moivegoing, but probably as a Saturday matinee type of show if you're in a funky mood.

A Pieta among movie posters.

THE HANGOVER PART III (COMEDY)
R for pervasive language including sexual references, some violence and drug content, and brief graphic nudity.
Starring: Bradley Cooper, Zach Galifianakis, Ed Helms, Ken Jeong
The Wolfpack returns for the final chapter of the HANGOVER trilogy, with another all-too-ridiculous mishap, this time when their friend Doug (Justin Bartha), who they lost in the original 2009 film, is kidnapped by gangsters who want Phil, Alan and Stu to deliver the flamboyant Mr. Chow (Jeong) to them.  Expect plenty of more hard-R high-jinks and not a ton of originality beyond jokes where no one else would venture, but optimistically speaking, this part also focuses more on Alan (Galifianakis), the funniest character of the series, and the ridiculously dramatic "climactic finale"-based marketing has been amusing.
Worth Seeing?:  No, probably not, but if you saw the first two, you might as well.  Just don't expect a whole lot.



May 31
AFTER EARTH  (SCI-FI/ADVENTURE)
PG-13 for sci-fi action violence and some disturbing images.
Starring: Jaden Smith, Will Smith

A Triceratops shitpile among movie posters.

After a disastrous streak of intensely-loathed films, the last of which was THE LAST AIRBENDER (2010), which failed to make a profit at the domestic box office and holds a 6% rating on RottenTomatoes, formerly-promising director M. Night Shyamalan has decided to film someone else's screenplay, albeit after making some tweaks of his own.  Regardless, it still sounds ridiculous enough to be Shyamalan's pen, detailing the story of Cypher Raige and his son, Kitai, played by the father and son duo, Will and Jaden Smith, who crash land on Earth 1000 years after cataclysmic event forced humanity to leave.  Now the Earth is inhabited by monstrous creatures and Kitai must find help after Cypher is injured.  Frankly, it just looks awful, but it should be really interesting to see how a film like this, directed by Shyamalan, does with Will "King of the Summer Box Office" Smith as top billing.  By now though, the marketing department has learned to keep the Shyamalan name off of the posters and previews.
Worth Seeing?:  Um, no, of course not; are you crazy?  Maybe if you were viewing under the influence of...something.
NOW YOU SEE ME  (THRILLER)
PG-13 for language, some action and sexual content.
Starring: Morgan Freeman, Jesse Eisenberg, Mark Ruffalo, Woody Harrelson, Isla Fisher
This glitzy, hip thriller looks an awful lot like OCEAN'S 11 with magicians, but that's not necessarily to its detriment, and it's the sort of thing that could play to 2010's CLASH OF THE TITANS director Louis Leterrier's flare for shallow and flashy action.  Ruffalo plays an FBI agent in pursuit of a team of Robin Hood-esque illusionists headlined by Freeman, who pull off elaborate heists during their performances.  In addition, the crackerjack cast includes the always-excellent Eisenberg, INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS' Melanie Laurent, Harrelson and Michael Caine.


Worth Seeing?:  It's nothing to get all hyped up over, but if you're going out anyway, it could be a pleasant diversion.

Check back in a month for Part 2:  June!

The Patriarchal Modern Blockbuster: STAR WARS

STAR WARS, later re-titled as STAR WARS EPISODE IV: A NEW HOPE, is easily one of the most widely seen films ever made, and also one of the most important, for better or worse.  Its history is complex, and unfortunately, 36 years later, it cannot truly be seen as what it was, and for many more reasons than you might think.  And yet, it is regardless, a marvel of cinema.
We all know too well the crippling modified aspects of the much-maligned "Special Edition", the worst of which has been Lucas' refusal to release quality remastered versions of the original theatrical versions, because, while there's nothing that bad about making alternate cuts, whether they help or hinder, making only the version with modifications available is an unethical, if relatively harmless, business practice, and especially distasteful for such a fanboy-driven franchise like Star Wars.  However, with Disney's recent acquisition of the property and Kathleen Kennedy's appointment as head of Lucasfilm, the chances of a remastered version released on a state-of-the-art format have become much more likely, even if it might not come along for as much as a decade.
But STAR WARS was also such an ingenious and novel film in 1977, and with its tremendous influence and massive expansion as a franchise, the flavor has changed somewhat.  Think, for example, of what it was like to sit in the dark theater in 1977, when the speakers suddenly boom with a grandiose orchestral fanfare and the title STAR WARS fills the screen and pulls back, and although this is a brand new, original film, the title is followed by a subtitle: Episode IV.  "IV"?  That means there have been three episode previously!  This movie is starting in the middle, but a crawl of words follow, filling us in on the previous events.  At the end of the opening titles, which fly into the distance of vast, open space, the shot pulls down to reveal a desert planet.  Suddenly though, ships pull through the shot; not the pristine and futuristic kind of ships you're familiar with, but grungy and "earthy", so to speak, and after the first flies over, it's followed by a vast ship that fills the entire screen and then some for a few seconds.  It's an action scene; it's already begun in an early chapter that doesn't exist.  There were no prequels, this universe felt all the more real because it didn't even have time to wait for us.

Harrison Ford in his most embarrassing role.

Just prior that summer in 1977, the biggest film of all time was JAWS, only two years old and directed by Lucas' friend Steven Spielberg, and the two created the modern blockbuster.  JAWS invented the blockbuster by grossing over $100 million, but STAR WARS defined it, smashing records all around and completing its initial theatrical run with over $220 million and making many millions more through merchandising partners.  For this reason, it is sometimes bemoaned by film scholars.  Today's current blockbuster/event/franchise-driven industry is all a direct result of STAR WARS; it set the precedent for high concept, special effects-heavy, fantasy-adventure films with heavy, youth-targeted marketing and wide merchandising that is reflected today in the industry that invests heavily in catering to the teen demographic.  In one sense, it revamped the film industry and re-established traditional mythic themes and escapist thrills in the mainstream film industry, but on the other hand, it's led Hollywood to sometimes ignore smaller markets, especially sophisticated adult audiences.  Personally, I think the modern blockbuster industry is great and has the same rate of quality as smaller films, but like anything, if taken to extremes like it has been, it becomes a handicap.
Although the title STAR WARS is solidly synonymous with the science fiction genre, it isn't quite sci-fi.  In fact, it is far more appropriately classified as "fantasy".  Science fiction takes place in a futuristic or otherwise technologically-advanced depiction of our real-life world/universe, where our supernatural is properly taken as science, like the Star Trek series, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY or most major superhero movies.  Fantasy, on the other hand, takes place in an "alternate" universe, one separate from the worldly dimension we occupy, like THE LORD OF THE RINGS TRILOGY, or sometimes in an alternate depiction of the past with distinctly fictional elements.  STAR WARS takes place in "a galaxy far, far away", with no connection to our Earth as we know it, and mystic warriors who can manipulate a fictional element.  Although the ray guns and interplanetary crafts are all but exclusive to science fiction, STAR WARS is not technically science fiction.

Still ranks among the best space battles in movies.

The STAR WARS story is a direct translation of age-old structures and motifs of mythology, most specifically, the hero's journey.  In the hero's journey tradition, the hero starts out simple; good but certainly not heroic, but when the pupil is ready, the teacher will appear.  The hero is Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill), the young farmboy, unaware of his glorious inheritance, and the teacher is Obi-Wan Kenobi (Alec Guinness), the sage with the necessary connection to the hero's inheritance, who will guide him and mold him into what he is to become.  The farm on Tatooine represents the hero's inexperience, a place of unaffected innocence, separated from the darkness of the world.  The famous Mos Eisley Cantina scene, with the vast assortment of threatening alien creatures in the city indicated as "a wretched hive of scum and villainy", is the hero's first step outside of innocence, where he was unharmed, but static.  Experience is the first step on his journey; the innocent youth must die to be resurrected as the man.  It's all really fascinating stuff; you should check out Joseph Campbell's lectures on The Power of Myth.
STAR WARS is one of the undisputed major landmarks in cinematic history, technically, commercially and artistically, ranking alongside THE BIRTH OF A NATION (1915), the original cinematic epic and introduction of modern techniques; THE WIZARD OF OZ (1939), the original "world-creating" film, using advanced makeup and special effects; CITIZEN KANE (1941), which took film past its stage roots, introduced modern cinematography and defined so-called "auteur filmmaking"; and THE GODFATHER (1972), which redefined the "American epic" broke barriers in atmosphere and violence.  Alongside JAWS, STAR WARS is also one of the, if not the, most influential film for today's generation of filmmakers, and eventually made "nerd culture" mainstream.

David Prowse as Vader and Alec Guinness as Obi-Wan

Because STAR WARS is most often associated with big summer blockbusters and popcorn movies, many people forget that STAR WARS received rave reviews from the critics when it was released and today is one of the most critically-acclaimed films of all time, was nominated for ten Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Director, and won six Academy Awards, more than any other film that year, plus one "special award" (for sound design) and was among the original set of 25 films selected as "culturally, historically or aesthetically significant" for preservation by the National Film Registry in 1989.
Perhaps most importantly though, is how the film stands alongside THE WIZARD OF OZ and SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS (1937) as one of the few films that so effortlessly transcends generation gaps, providing superior entertainment for viewers of all ages, and even those feathery 1970's haircuts can't outdate something like that.

STAR WARS (May 25, 1977)
Directed by George Lucas
Starring: Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Alec Guinness
PG for sci-fi violence and brief mild language.

The First Summer Blockbuster: JAWS

Prior to 1975, only a select few films had been granted a "wide release", the method by which nearly all blockbuster.  It also earned tremendous critical acclaim, won three Academy Awards and a nomination for Best Picture and has been cited as a major influence on the current generation of filmmakers, even inspiring the name of X-MEN (2000) director Bryan Singer's production company, Bad Hat Harry, an obscure reference to a line of dialogue.

The definitive movie poster

major motion pictures are released today, by releasing a film in hundreds, and today, thousands of cinemas simultaneously.  Previously, films were released in limited select markets, similar to how some of today's independent films are, and would gradually move their way into more markets, relying on word of mouth from the earlier markets.  In 1975, JAWS, an adaptation of a popular novel directed by an up-and-coming prodigy, was released in several hundred theaters on the same day, and the number of screens quickly increased exponentially as the film rapidly shot to become the highest-grossing film ever at that point in history and the first film to ever to gross $100 million, making it the first official
Although the film is widely considered a "horror" or "thriller", I tend to think of it foremost as an "adventure", with its central themes of variations on masculinity, extreme peril in exotic locations and man vs. nature conflict.  That said though, "suspense" is another label sometimes applied to JAWS, and that one fits pretty well, too.  The film has always been marketed primarily as a "scary thriller", and it does deliver on those promises, with intense close-calls and a healthy helping of gory deaths, but most of that is restrained to the first half, before the three major characters; Amity Island Police Chief Brody (Roy Scheider), salty hunter-for-hire and boat captain, Quint (Robert Shaw), and upper-class marine biologist Hooper, set sail aboard Quint's boat, the Orca, to kill the great white shark that's been feasting off a smorgasbord of Amity Island residents and tourists.
On this rusty old fishing boat, these three distinct personalities are put into direct conflict with one another.  Hooper and Quint are like mirror opposites of each other, both are of the same world but from opposite ends.  Hooper's childhood trauma involving a shark inspired a deep obsession and admiration of sharks, and he devoted his life to studying them as a  marine biologist.  Quint's experience as a survivor of the U.S.S. Indianapolis, where he witnessed dozens of fellow sailors ruthlessly devoured by sharks in WWII, has also inspired an obsession over sharks, but one of a much more Ahab-esque type.  In a mix of respect, fear and cold vengeance, Quint hunts sharks, dozens of their jaws dangling around his seaside shop.  Quint is old school, brash, and dangerously erratic; a working class-hero in overdrive.  Hooper was born with a silver spoon in his mouth; he's incredibly sure of himself, more knowledgeable than Quint, but less experienced, and both have egos enough to clash.  Even as they hate each other, Quint and Hooper seem to recognize some sort of equal, if different, footing in their world, and Chief Brody is the novice they push around.  Brody is kind of the audience portal into the story, the everyman character in the middle that we can relate to on some level.  He is responsible for hiring both Hooper and Quint, but he winds up as a subordinate to them as they clash over ideals like an angel and devil upon his shoulders, albeit with a certain ambiguity.  In the end though, Brody becomes the only one left he can rely on, and the film gives the audience their day when he blows that shark to hell in one of the most marvelously over-the-top movie deaths.

This scene never fails to make me hungry

As Marty McFly notes in BACK TO THE FUTURE PT. II (1989), "the shark still looks fake," it really does, but it's also still awesome, and it less than authentic look supports as a testament to the effectiveness of the film's other factors, because it's still an intense thrill ride.  The shark is one of the great movie monsters, and almost anyone who knows anything about JAWS knows that the stylish presentation of the shark was largely out of necessity.  When your production's mechanical shark is giving you hell, you're forced further into creativity, and you get brilliant images of floating debris that is knowingly attached to the approaching beast, and the the threat is mysterious but not so much that you don't have some idea of what makes it so threatening.  The first few kills in the film don't show the shark at all, but John Williams' iconic score makes its presence entirely clear; the first is in the iconic prologue where the skinny-dipping young lady (you gotta have a dash of sex in these things, ya know), played by Susan Backlinie, is simply thrashed around while she screams, no blood and no onscreen shark.  The next is the Kintner boy, suddenly sucked into the water with blood gushing up, and the third, Ben Gardner, doesn't even happen onscreen at all, but his gruesome remains are found in his wrecked boat.  Just after the "chum some of this shit" line, and just before the "You're going to need a bigger boat," line is what most people cite as the startling first sight of the shark as its head bursts out from the water, and as excellent as that scene is, I'm particularly fond of the fourth kill where you can see the shark through the water surface as its gaping jaws near the swimmer; the imagery is harrowing in the best way.
There's been some scholarly debate over symbolic meanings of the shark, Brody, Quint and Hooper, a lot of the theories relating to the then-recent Watergate scandal that had left many Americans disillusioned, but in my opinion, such theories are an unfortunate example of attempting to assign supposedly "suitable" meaning to a film in order to justify its worth.  I don't think art has to be intentionally symbolic in order to be symbolic, but I think this is a case of refusing to simply acknowledge the great value of escapist art.  It's very character-driven, insightful and intelligent, but it is all in the name of pleasurable and thrilling entertainment.

This kind photo is a requirement when making a killer shark film

Those kinds of films were director Steven Spielberg's bread and butter for many years before he turned to more serious "Oscar fare," beginning with SCHINDLER'S LIST in 1993, although he has since turned out the occasional decent adventure.  JAWS was Spielberg's second theatrical feature, his first one being SUGARLAND EXPRESS just a year earlier, but it bears a strong resemblance to DUEL, a made-for-television movie that Spielberg directed and aired in 1971.  DUEL was also about the everyman, a man en route to a conference, against a deadly, larger-than-life force, a rusty old semi truck driven by an unseen, psychopathic driver, and finally, the everyman explodes his attacker.  JAWS made Spielberg's career, even after the production shot astronomically over budget and the shooting well beyond schedule, but it remains one of the finest testaments to his talent.

Fair warning though, JAWS is one of those funny little movies that parents recall from their youth as happy memories and then unsuspectingly show to their then-traumatized children, and as hilarious as that kind of thing is, JAWS is a surprisingly brutal movie with moments of graphic gore and nudity.  If it were released brand-new today, the content might very likely earn an R rating, but its cultural familiarity and genre aspects work as mitigating factors.  Even adult viewers may get a bit queasy, but that's just part of the experience for them.

JAWS (June 20, 1975)
4 out of 4 stars
Directed by Steven Spielberg
Starring: Roy Scheider, Robert Shaw, Richard Dreyfuss
Rated PG for unspecified reasons (but more suited for a very hard PG-13 today, due to some intense bloody shark attacks, gore, nudity, brief drug content and language.)

Marvel Studios at the Box Office

Ever since the summer of 2002, the characters of Marvel Comics have been a staple in the business of summer blockbusting.  That summer saw the long-awaited and enormously successful release of SPIDER-MAN, adapted from Marvel's most popular character.  It wasn't the first Marvel adaptation to grace the big screen; the first major film release based on a Marvel character was the George Lucas-produced mega-flop HOWARD THE DUCK in 1986 (infamous for kinky duck sexuality), but in 1998, the hard-R action/horror flick BLADE was successful enough to garner a 2002 sequel, and in 2000, stylish director Bryan Singer's adaptation, X-MEN, became a major hit.  It was SPIDER-MAN though when Hollywood first staked real money on a Marvel character and then shattered records across the board, encouraging the industry to seriously invest in Marvel properties.  Of the ten highest-grossing films in each of the past ten years, eight have included Marvel adaptations.  In honor of Marvel Studios' seventh independently produced feature film, IRON MAN 3, coming out in just two weeks, on May 3, here's an overview of the top ten highest-grossing Marvel Comics film adaptations to date:

1.  MARVEL'S THE AVENGERS (2012)  Total Gross: $1,511,757,910  Production Budget: $220
million
How Good Is It?:  10/10

THE AVENGERS (2012)  It is too damn awesome.

Last year's mega-blockbuster, released as MARVEL'S THE AVENGERS in the U.S. and as AVENGERS ASSEMBLE in the U.K. in order to differentiate itself from infamous 1998 film, THE AVENGERS, became the third highest-grossing film of all time.  It was the sixth film produced independently by Marvel Studios, in what they're calling the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the five previous films deliberately crafted to lead into this revolutionary crossover of franchises.  The result, as directed and co-written by wide appeal fanboy-favorite Joss Whedon, is massively and consistently entertaining, and although the jury is still divided over whether it is actually the best superhero movie of all time, it's quite probably the most entertaining.  The only real competition is THE DARK KNIGHT (2008), the official best-reviewed comic book adaptation ever, and that's much meatier, but I'd argue that THE AVENGERS is tastier.
2.  SPIDER-MAN 3 (2007)  Total Gross: $890,871,626  Production Budget: $258 million
How Good Is It?: 5/10
As is a fairly common occurrence for third parts of major film franchises, SPIDER-MAN 3 is where the series broke down, in quality at least, as it still grossed more than any other film in the franchise so far.  In what seems to be a case of detrimental studio influence, the resulting film is cluttered and scattershot, with three villains, including fan-favorite Venom being criminally underused and obviously manufactured in.  It's still suitably entertaining, but ultimately unsatisfactory and heartbreakingly disappointing when alongside its predecessors.
3.  SPIDER-MAN (2002)  Total Gross: $821,708,551  Production Budget: $139 million
How Good Is It?:  7/10
As identified in the introductory passage, SPIDER-MAN is the one that started it all, and all after almost a quarter of a century in production hell, falling apart in the hands of one filmmaker after another, it finally came to fruition at the hands of camp horror director Sam Raimi.  Today, SPIDER-MAN has become oddly dated, and not so much by its special effects as most action/fantasy films are prone to, but instead for being a midpoint between the campy comic films that BATMAN (1989) kicked into gear and the more recent, self-respecting comic book films that would come after.  It makes for pretty good entertainment, and it obviously had a ton of influence, but it occasionally veers into awkward camp.

4.  SPIDER-MAN 2 (2004)  Total Gross: $783,766,341  Production Budget: $200 million
How Good Is It?: 10/10
While most post-SPIDER-MAN comic adaptations are somewhat uncomfortable about their source material, and usually for the best, SPIDER-MAN 2 is the rare great film that earnestly embraces its comic book background, and its young male audience, and succeeds tremendously.  Even while remaining palatable to a child audience, it's still great entertainment for adults as well, men and women.  It isn't the best comic book film, but it is the definitive comic book film.

5.  IRON MAN 2 (2010)  Total Gross: $623,933,33  Production Budget: $200 million
How Good Is It?: 6/10
Iron Man's second outing lacks the serendipitous brilliance of the first and descends into disappointing bombast towards the end, but Robert Downey, Jr.'s performance is still a highlight and Samuel L. Jackson's usual badass schtick, here applied as S.H.I.E.L.D. director Nick Fury, is too much fun.
6.  THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN (2012)  Total Gross: $752,216,557  Production Budget: $230 million
How Good Is It?: 7/10
THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN is the kind of movie that really infuriates me, because it has so much brilliance, but it's crippled by a smattering of stupid decisions.  First off, the good stuff; Emma Stone (as Gwen Stacy) is excellent as always, because she's freaking Emma Stone; Andrew Garfield as the lead is a little questionable as a social outcast, but he has a more magnetic screen presence than Tobey Maguire did; the action is entertaining and the romantic scenes between Stone and Garfield, especially the first kissing scene, are excellent.  Unfortunately, what eventually strangles the film's potential greatness is a case of severe over-editing to postpone certain revelations for a sequel, but leaves gaping plot holes and inconsistencies in pacing; on top of that, retelling the origin story handicaps the plot somewhat and the Lizard is too silly a villain for so serious a movie.  Worth a watch though.

IRON MAN (2008)  This is just the picture everyone else uses.

7.  IRON MAN (2008)  Total Gross: $585,174,222  Production Budget: $140 million
How Good Is It?: 10/10
This was Marvel Studios' first independent production, and even as it dangerously began production without a finished script, it was made at a surprisingly conservative budget (by today's standards anyway) and the final product is one of the most entertaining Marvel adaptations to date.  The trump card is Robert Downey, Jr., in his big career reestablishing role as an egotistical, weapons-manufacturing playboy who becomes a superhero, and the film also benefits greatly from its improvisational nature resulting from filming without a finished script.
8.  X-MEN: THE LAST STAND (2007)  Total Gross: $459,359,555  Production Budget: $210 million
How Good Is It?: 3/10
Although X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE gave it a run for its money in 2009, this third chapter of Twentieth Century Fox's X-Men franchise is arguably the worst X-Men movie to date, after Bryan Singer, who directed the first two, gave up the reigns to Brett Ratner, so that he could depart to direct SUPERMAN RETURNS (2006).  Ratner has not yet been able to progress beyond generic action directing, and sometimes he misses hard, and this film, perhaps even more thanks to Simon Kinberg and Zak Penn's script, gets almost everything wrong.  It kills off major characters stupidly and indiscriminately, diverts attention away from the most interesting characters and has a generally ugly visual aesthetic, as well as downright awful dialogue.
9.  THOR (2011)  Total Gross: $449,326,618  Production Budget: $150 million
How Good Is It?: 7/10
THOR is the fourth film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and seemingly the most difficult to adapt for a wide audience, although, clearly the Hulk has been giving Hollywood trouble for a while before THE AVENGERS got it right, albeit not as a lead role.  But Thor is an alien/god who travels between worlds on a "rainbow bridge", talks like a viking, wears a cape (not as acceptable in a post-modern environment) and his trademark power is a big ol' hammer which he hits people with, but can also use it to fly or summon lightning.  Frankly, it's a tough sell, so for better or worse, THOR is more mechanical than the other Marvel Studios endeavors to date, mostly going through the motions, but benefits from a charming lead performance by Chris Hemsworth and an excellent and sympathetic antagonist from Tom Hiddleston.  The musical score by Patrick Doyle is effectively rousing and there's some nice King Arthur influences in there, too.
10.  X2: X-MEN UNITED (2003)  Total Gross: $407,711,549  Production Budget: $110 million

X2 (2003)  Women, am I right?

How Good Is It?: 8/10
The second X-Men movie, I think, is just barely behind 2011's X-MEN: FIRST CLASS, for the rank of best X-Men movie to date.  X2 picks up where X-MEN left off in 2000, but you don't even need to see the first film, and this one is far better anyway.  The film interestingly looks at mutants as an unofficial allegory for homosexuals, including a boy's mother who,after learning he's a mutant, asks him if he's tried "not being a mutant," Wolverine gets the best action scenes he's had in any movie so far and the opening "Nightcrawler" scene in the White House is awesome.