Eagle Eye marks the fourth time Shia LeBeouf has worked on a Steven Spielberg production, and the second time that he’s worked with both Spielberg and director D.J. Caruso – and the triple team may well be turning into one of modern cinema’s most potent.

Eagle Eye is a techno-thriller that comes across as a twisted tale that might make Tom Clancy duck for cover. It opens with a missile launch intended to take out a major terrorist – a launch that is undertaken with only a 51% chance of the target being correctly identified. From there we move into the life of Jerry Shaw [LaBeouf], who seems to be a typical, ambition-free slacker, watching him at work as a “copy associate” for Kinko’s-like copy shop; fleecing a few friends in a poker game, and attending the funeral of his identical twin brother.

The next part of the film is pretty much what we got in the trailer: Jerry finding a lot of money in his account and a lot of weapons components in his living room: the warning call and his being taken in by the FBI – introducing us to Special Agent Thomas Morgan [Billy Bob Thornton] – and his escape by incredible means and ultimately, his teaming up with Rachel Holliman [Monaghan], whose participation in what follows is coerced by threats to her son. From there, we do, eventually, learn the identity of the mysterious female voice that can call them even from pay phones, or a cell phone belonging to the napping guy across from Shaw on a train.

Part of the reason that Eagle Eye works is that a lot of it [but not all, as you’ll see when you learn the identity of the mystery woman] is technically feasible right now. The film hooks us with what’s possible then draws into the realms of the definitely not yet real. The transition is smooth and the shocking reveal of the source of the voice, and the over-the-top plot that follows, zip by quickly enough that we buy them in the context of the film. The way all the various parts of the film connect may be a bit of a stretch, but the sheer fun of the film supersedes that.

LaBeouf does a good job as slacker Jerry; Thornton keeps Agent Morgan from being just another federal grunt, and Rosario Dawson simmers as an Air force investigator looking into the death of Jerry’s brother – though Monaghan is barely adequate as Rachel.

Michael Chiklis gets the role of the Secretary of Defence Callister - a role that leads everyone to the key plot point of the film: the identity of the mysterious female voice that hounds Jerry and Rachel - and the voice’s grandiose plans.

The special effects are very good and the CGI have enough weight that we buy them even if they are used to create something that is way over the edge of the possible. There may be a nod to societal commentary in the way that various devices [security cameras, traffic cameras and cell phones among them] are used to shred the duo’s privacy, but it’s a surface thing that comes as the by-product of a thriller that aims more toward entertaining than saying stuff.

Final Grade: B

When RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK was released in 1981, it did the unthinkable – the movie superseded the previous works that creator-producer George Lucas and director Steven Spielberg had each done individually in genre filmmaking. And that said a lot, with Lucas on the heels of the first two STAR WARS films, and Spielberg just a few years away from JAWS and CLOSE ENCOUNTERS. Add Harrison (Han Solo) Ford to the mix, and you had a producer-director-star team that couldn’t miss.

Of course, the whole was greater than the sum of the parts, and RAIDERS was perhaps the finest work that any of the three men had delivered to date. Every shot in RAIDERS was a mini-masterpiece, every line memorably delivered, every image indelible. It would be impossible to surpass, and though Spielberg released the ultimate genre pic E.T. the next year and Lucas and Ford provided the third STAR WARS film the following year (failing to top the instant classics of STAR WARS and EMPIRE STRIKES BACK), the group re-teamed with INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM for a monster summer 1984 release.
DOOM had more thrills and chills than RAIDERS, and like EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, was a significantly darker film than the original which spawned it. Rumors of an X rating abounded, and critics lashed out at the violence, though most audiences ate up a return trip with the character and the frantic pace of the film’s second half. DOOM was not as good a film as RAIDERS, but as sequels go, it provided much of the content that audiences beckoned in a genre sequel.

Five years would pass before the third installment, INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE, which dumbed down the character by making him the infantile son to Sean Connery’s father. Much of the magic of the first two films was long gone, as the time differential between films seemed to have sapped the intangibles away from the screen. Lucas was way past the original STAR WARS trilogy by that period, and Ford and Spielberg had both established themselves in more serious non-genre material in the mid-to-late 1980s. Were their hearts not in it anymore? One would think so, and the aging franchise seemed destined for trilogy status and endless DVD repackagings where it would rightfully claim its position as the best homage ever created to classic movie serials which simultaneously gave audiences one of the great movie heroes of all time.

But then a funny thing happened. After a near decade without much in the way of original filmmaking content, Lucas decided to resurrect the STAR WARS franchise, albeit with mostly new characters. Thus, the late 1990s and early 2000s were rife with re-releases of older films infused with new material and highly trumpeted newer films, all of which reminded us why the original STAR WARS trilogy was great in the first place and probably should have been left as is in the collective minds of fans as one of genre’s most awesome triumphs.

Was a return to the RAIDERS cinema machine inevitable? Lucas’ lone dual franchises were ripe for continuation despite evidence in STAR WARS of the unlikelihood of re-popularizing a long deceased property. Surely, the new STAR WARS films made loads of money, but with Lucas’ many holdings and businesses, money would hardly seem a goal of his at this juncture. Or would it?

With few artistic reasons to continue a dormant cinema legend, one could only intuit that Lucas banked on STAR WARS and now INDY to rebuild his empire or at least re-found the monuments that he has built to himself in the Bay Area. More rumors of possible scripts have come and gone over the years, with the newest version lastly credited to David Koepp. With this final screenplay and guaranteed participation from Spielberg and Ford, why not attempt another Indy? If STAR WARS showed Lucas anything, he has a whole new generation of fans who are willing to shell out unlimited cash for what were cinematic icons.
Surely, age must have been weighing on the minds of the participants. Lucas and Ford are both well into their 60s with Spielberg just entering his, and the trio must have assumed a now-or-never philosophy if they were going to do INDY again. If they had a winning script and the same team that created legend once, why not once more, even though the first film was realized almost 30 years ago.

Alas, what Lucas has ultimately presented this time out in the form of a MacGuffin—as he and Alfred Hitchcock have designated the somewhat meaningless object of a quest whose journey is the real treat—is a faint echo of lost arks, magic stones, and holy grails. In fact, the crystal skull of the title turns out to be less an inventive sacred object and more one of minor curiosity, of primary interest to UFO conspiracy theorists, more likely for completists alone.
Much more troubling is the fact that the magic, already waning in 1989, has clearly suffered in many other ways. Spielberg is still the filmmaker he has always been, but without the formerly fresh qualities of the character and his predicaments abounding, has far too little to work with to conjure a compelling film. It is at first thrilling to see Ford back in the familiar Indiana Jones hat, but shortly into the film, we also realize that with little of interest to pursue in the story, the actor is having a difficult time wearing his Indy role decades after he stopped doing this type of work onscreen. However, his advancing age – 65 when he shot the movie – ends up being less of a factor than one would think.

All of which leaves most of the blame at Lucas’ feet. His co-writers on the story and screenplay are really at Lucas’ behest, and other screenplays for CRYSTAL SKULL which Ford and Spielberg loved were reportedly rejected by Lucas for unknown reasons. What remains is thoroughly underwhelming even if it exists in the province of the INDIANA JONES realm. Car chases only serve to remind one of the brilliance of RAIDERS. Caricatured villains from the earlier films are replaced by even more implausible and forgettable Russians. Setting the film in 1957 was an inevitability with Ford in the cast, but does little to provide a sense of time and place after an extended prologue. Surely, there are some fun touches, like seeing Karen Allen again, although she is in the story for no particular reason. Plus we catch a glimpse of that lost ark, last viewed in the shocking warehouse epilogue from the first film. But reminiscing about the earlier films just make us wish for their glory again.

As a footnote, the filmmakers, fronting their piece with a sexagenarian, must have felt it necessary to cast a young character with whom demographical audiences could identify. But they missed the mark with Shia LaBeouf, who enters the film like Brando and leaves with the indication that the torch may be passed to him for a new slew of INDY films with his character at the forefront. But, at the last second, with LaBeouf about to claim his rightful heir to the INDY throne, Ford grabs the proverbial hat as if to say, “Not as long as I’m alive, kid,” without using any dialogue. What exactly that indicates about the future of INDY is anyone’s guess, though one should not be surprised to learn of a fifth installment in the very near future. If Lucas has his way, his franchises might continue forever, but wouldn’t we all be more pleased if he concocted a new one?

Movie Essay
Written by Scott Essman
Originally Posted 5.26.2008

Ok, I’ll admit I’ve always been pretty ambivalent towards the Indiana Jones trilogy. I liked Raiders well enough, but loathed Temple of Doom - it’s completely un-watchable, while Last Crusade was meh. So when they announced that they were finally going to do Indy 4 I could not have cared less. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull returns the series to it’s Raiders glory. This is the film that should have followed the Raiders, it’s pretty much a direct sequel with many nods to the first film and in the final moments brings everything full circle. When this film works, it works really well, but there’s still that strange sense of deja-vu. It feels like you are watching the original again, only 20 years later with slightly different characters and plot.  Maybe it’s because I watched Raiders the night before the screening so it was still fresh in my mind. But everything felt familiar instead of Nazi’s you had Russians, instead of Belloq we had Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett), instead of the Ark we had this goofy looking Crystal Skull which looked exactly like the head from one of the Alien films. I can see the crossover fan fiction already.  This familiarity isn’t a bad thing - especially considering how completely out of sync Temple of Doom feels like when I watch it. It put a smile on my face the first time Indy (Harrison Ford)  is re-introduced to the world in shadow with his hat and the first time you hear the classic John Williams theme again. It’s like I’m a kid again. I don’t care what anyone says John Williams is the greatest film composer of our times. You don’t have a soul if the Raiders theme doesn’t get your blood pumping. No many how many times it’s replayed it during the movie.  The opening 30 minutes of Raiders is simply, brilliant is too strong a word, exhilarating is better.  But then something happens that starts to derail things and it pains me to say it, because we love him here at EM and I’ve met him a couple of times, Shia LaBeouf  brings everything to a screeching halt.  Everything about his character is just horrible: from the stupid name - (Mutt Williams) to the greaser, bad boy attitude, to the playing with his pocket knife and his habit of combing his hair when he’s nervous.  None of it works, it just doesn’t ring true. Shia isn’t the bad boy, James Dean type. He’s the normal kid who gets into trouble because he’s a smart ass. 

Awhile ago, when I was yelling at people that Atonement wasn’t a “complex” plot (just stupid) and that there’s no such thing as “complex” plots just poorly scripted films, I may have to eat my words. I find myself on the fence as to whether this movie is overly complex or stupid.  There’s a fine line between the two and I think David Koepp (screenplay), George Lucas (story) and Jeff Nathanson’s script walks that fine line. This movie takes place right in the middle of the Cold War scare and in the opening there are several references to the witch hunt and how this isn’t “our America,” anymore. But then the next few scenes you have Russian agents speaking in heavy Russian accents in the middle of an Ice-Cream parlor and chasing Indy all over town. Not to mention they break into a top secret military base. The FBI would be completely incompetent if they didn’t investigate all the obvious Russian activity. The writers want to make a political statement, but this obviously isn’t the film for it. Even if it is set during that paranoid period in our history. They would have been better off just ignoring the subtext then trying to shoehorn one in. Just because you are paranoid doesn’t mean people aren’t out to get you. And politicians and government agencies are always out to capitalize on it, just look at our current situation.

All of the major action set pieces also feel like stuff that we’ve seen in the other three films only longer. There’s one chase sequence that’s fun for the first 5 minutes but 10 or 15 minutes in, I was like - I get the point, let’s move on already. This is a b to the w action film with little character development or progression. No one in this film has grown since Raiders.  Which actually is a good thing, it’s what we’re comfortable with as an audience and really, why mess with a formula that works.  But back to the plot, without giving anything away instead of chasing an ancient artifact, this time Indy gets caught up in a Russian Spy’s (Irina) quest for an object that promises untold knowledge and treasure. I won’t say more than that, but the film’s 3rd act feels like poorly constructed fan fiction. A great what if Indy discovered….It’s really nice special effects, but what happens in the end is almost exactly what happens at the end of Raiders. After the ride Steven Spielberg takes us on, I somehow expected something more, I don’t know, original. I can’t see Shia being able to carry an entire Indy film by himself, but it’s clear that’s where Spielberg and Lucas want to go.  Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull isn’t a perfect film, but it’s far more satisfying as a whole than the sum of it’s parts.

Final Grade B

EM Review by
Michelle Alexandria
Originally Posted 5.22.08

Indiana Jones is back – and it’s a Very Good Thing!

Indy has faced many obstacles in his life, but never before has he been considered a potential threat to national security! And let me tell you, it really bugs his @$$!

The problem arises because of a [former] friend who helps a covert Soviet team steal something highly magnetic from Area 51. The consequences of that incident even lead to Indy being put on “on indefinite leave of absence” from his teaching job – the timing of which is conveniently perfect for him to meet a Brando/Dean/Fonzie wannabe named Mutt Williams [Shia LeBeouf], who says his mother told him that Indy could help them. Indy is further persuaded by the KGB goons who try to grab him and Mutt [which leads to the revelation of one of the most poorly kept secrets in the history of cinema...].

It seems that an old colleague of Indy, “Ox” Oxley [John Hurt] may have found the location of the legendary lost city of gold – and the Commies want something that should also be there – something that ties in with the object they nabbed in the film’s opening. “Mother” turns out to the former Marion Ravenwood [Karen Allen] is as feisty as ever [if she could have duped her guards into a drinking contest, she might well have escaped].

Now we come to the key to the whole film – the Crystal Skull of Akator. Spalko believes it’s one of thirteen and when united with its fellows will give the Soviets the ultimate weapon. She’s sure of this, because it speaks to her. Apparently she’s a bit on psychic side…

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is the kind of adventure that many of us would kill to have, if only they didn’t happen in some wonderful parallel universe that looks like our own but has as much magic as science. There are chases [and we never even think to question how there could be two parallel roads next to each other in the Mayan jungle]; sword fights on jeep hoods [see parallel roads], and strange and wondrous artifacts, like the exquisitely beautiful, if oddly shaped crystal skull. There’s even a lost city [and a pretty cool explanation for why our modern satellites have never encountered it].

Every Indy film is very much of the time in which it takes place: Raiders and Last Crusade, set in the forties, dealt with Nazis, as well as supernatural artifacts; Temple of Doom [set in the late thirties] was a pulpy adventure that revolved around a Kali death cult. So it’s no surprise that Crystal Skull uses the trappings of the cold war as the basis for its story [and riffs on the best known film cold war allegories for its trippy conclusion].

Even when it’s dealing with exposition [as in most of the middle act], Indy 4 entertains by making the “Basil Exposition” character [John Hurt’s Oxley] interesting – and tossing in some action or surprise every time things look to be slowing too much. Many of the best allusions to the previous films happen here – watch for a great gag with a snake, in particular.

Though there are some significant CG effects used in the film, a lot of the best stunts are practical, and Ford can be seen, clearly, doing more than enough of Indy’s stunts to make us believe it’s still him when a stuntman takes over. Even little things [like the over-the-top meaty sounds of the fist fights] perfectly recapture the feel of the previous films.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is much better than I was expecting [and I was expecting a lot!]. Steven Spielberg does what he does best – marrying action and adventure to interesting characters. He keeps the film moving and provides some wonderful sights along the way.

If you want to put it in terms of the entire series, Crystal Skull fits in, quality-wise, at about the same place as Last Crusade. The two films even deal with daddy issues, so that’s a pretty natural conclusion.

Final Grade: A-

I haven’t done much coverage of the upcoming Indiana Jones film but here’s some interesting news, the teaser trailer debuts in theaters this weekend. Paramount Pictures and Lucasfilm Ltd. announced today that the first teaser trailer for the highly anticipated Indiana Jones adventure “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,” directed by Steven Spielberg and starring Harrison Ford in the title role, will debut in theaters across the globe on February 14, 2008.  The trailer will air exclusively on ABC’s “Good Morning America” that morning between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m.  Immediately thereafter, the footage will be available at the film’s official site IndianaJones.com, Yahoo! Movies and in motion picture theaters.

On May 22, Indiana Jones is back in a new globe-trotting adventure, "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull."  Directed by Steven Spielberg and starring Harrison Ford as Indy, "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" is a Lucasfilm Ltd. Production.  The movie features an outstanding cast, including Oscar® winner Cate Blanchett, Karen Allen, Ray Winstone, John Hurt, Oscar® winner Jim Broadbent and Shia LaBeouf.  Frank Marshall is the film’s producer.  George Lucas and Kathleen Kennedy are the executive producers. The screenplay is by David Koepp from a story by George Lucas and Jeff Nathanson.  It’s pretty interesting and ironic that Shia, David and Jeff Nathanson have all talked exclusively with Eclipse in the past and will be featured in the upcoming EM Interview book.  

If you didn’t see Transformers in a theatre, you missed one of the biggest treats of this last summer’s crop of blockbusters. Simply put, Transformers is the best live action film to have been based on a line of toys, or an animated TV series.

When I was a kid, there were summers when I connected with one film to the extent that I didn’t see many other movies for a stretch of eight-to-twelve weeks. I spent one summer, for example seeing the John Way classic, El Dorado. That film so connected with me that I can’t change channels if I come across it on TV – and I still dig out the DVD every so often. If I was twelve again, Transformers would have been one of those movies – even at a middling multiple of twelve, it’s made an impact that is similar to my first screenings of Raiders of the Lost Ark and Star Wars.

Why should what is in essence a 143-minute commercial for a line of toys have such an effect on a veteran film buff such as myself? Because the script [by Alias scribes Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman] is a tale about a boy and his car and a boy and his first girlfriend – as well as being about the war between the Autobots and Decepticons. Well, that and the fact that director Michael Bay not only outdid himself in terms of action set pieces and effects work, but also in terms of pure storytelling and making his characters [human and living robot] real.

I went into the screening with some trepidation and came out one of several hundred viewers that applauded at the end. Even though the trailers for Transformers had suggested that there would be some reasonably well developed human characters, I hadn’t expected that much from Bay – who is much more of an ideas & effects guy – but he not only pulled it off, he made it sing. The result was that Transformers was one of the two best blockbusters of the summer [alongside Live Free or Die Hard].

I’ve watched the DVD twice now – once to relive the movie and once to listen to Bay’s commentary – and I have to say that Transformers really does hold up well on the small screen. The action set pieces are a bit diminished, but still thrilling, and the human moments are possibly even more affecting. The film still blazes along – and still sucks you into its world.

Features include: Disc One: a highly entertaining commentary by Bay [the man can blow his own horn, but he’s also a terrific source of information]; Disc Two: two groups of Featurettes and a solo Featurette: Our World: The Story Sparks [how the film was developed]; Human Allies [the importance of the human characters]; I Fight Giant Robots; Battleground; Their War: Rise of the Robots; Autobots Rollout [the selection and development of the Autobot characters]; Decepticons Strike [the selection and development of the Decepticon characters]; Inside The AllSpark; More Than Meets the Eye.

Grade: Transformers – A

Grade: Features: A+

Final Grade: A