THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS (1992, Michael Mann)

 

* * * 

In 1757, a white man brought up by the Mohican Native American tribe tracks down a British colonel’s kidnapped daughters.

Starring  Daniel Day-Lewis, Madeleine Stowe, Wes Studi, Pete Postlethwaite, Jared Harris

Written by  Michael Mann, Christopher Crowe

Produced by  Michael Mann, Hunt Lowry

Duration  112 minutes

Authenticity. That’s the most important thing in art, right?

Some people seem to think so. "Hey, did you know, it’s based on a true story?" "It is? Oh wow, drop everything and fire that baby up!"

The idea that something you are about to watch or read really happened is definitely fetishised in some quarters. The audience's desire for 'truth' was memorably played upon by the Coen brothers in FARGO, where they claimed that the events in the movie had really happened, when in fact they had not. Although the subsequent TV version did flog the joke to death somewhat by reiterating it at the start of every episode.

It’s like those people who won’t read novels. You know the type: they smugly inform you that they only read ‘for information’. Their time is much too precious to be wasted on childish made-up stories that interrupt their noble quest for knowledge.

I’m reminded of this exchange early on in SIDEWAYS between Paul Giamatti's wannabe novelist and his friend's future father-in-law.

 

Father-in-law: "What is the subject of your book? Non-fiction?"

Giamatti: "Uh, no. It's a novel, fiction. Although there is quite a bit from my own life ... so I suppose that technically some of it is non-fiction."

Father-in-law: "Good, I like non-fiction. There is so much to know about this world. I think you read something somebody just invented: waste of time."

Giamatti: "That's an … interesting perspective."

 

What has all this got to do what THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS? Its director Michael Mann, that’s what. Now, there’s a man(n) who loves him some authenticity and is not afraid to put in the necessary preparation.

"Gosh, Mike, how d'ya make sure people get that sweet, sweet authenticity from your flicks?"

"I’ll tell ya how, buddy. I’m gonna stay overnight at Folsom Prison for THE JERICHO MILE. I’m gonna bring in the SAS fella who wrote Bravo Two Zero to give combat training so Bob De Niro and Val Kilmer look shit-hot in HEAT. For my MIAMI VICE movie, I’m gonna send Colin Farrell along on FBI drug busts in Dominican gang slums.

"And for MOHICANS, the granddaddy of them all? Well sir, this time I’ve got your man Double-D Lewis on board and let me tell ya, that cat’s as bonkers about prep as yours truly. So I’m gonna have him live out in the actual woods: tracking and skinning animals, building canoes, fighting people with tomahawks, and running about while reloading one of those old flintlock guns. And he’s gonna stay in character day and night, with that gun never leaving his Goddamn side."

Yes, finally the ultimate meticulous director met the quintessential method actor. So here’s the crucial question: did all that preparation and authenticity help towards making a great movie?

Well … I guess. It’s all kind of wasted on me, because MOHICANS just isn’t really my cup of tea.

Historical battle-type stuff doesn't do it for me. BRAVEHEART, GLADIATOR, 300, GLORY... I'm OK from about World War One onwards, but if you turn the clock back too far, all the elaborate costumes and wigs and "Yes my Lord, privy permit me to allow thy liege" stuff grates on me. Blokes swinging swords about on horseback doesn't raise my pulse; I sat through the LORD OF THE RINGS films one time only and have never seen an episode of Game of Thrones.

MOHICANS is clearly a four-star film. It's tense, dramatic and competently acted by a talented cast. Mann's trusty cinematographer Dante Spinotti makes you feel the glow of the candles and smell the leaves on the trees. Trevor Jones's score is one for the ages, although he clearly recycled it a year later for CLIFFHANGER (now that's my kind of movie). The battles are well-staged and make you feel like you're really there.

But because I can't shake my two-star attitude, I'm going to have to meet this film in the middle. Sorry, Michael and Daniel – all the preparation in the world can't move someone who would rather be watching Stallone inauthentically climb up a mountain in a T-shirt.

Three stars out of five.

 

Valid use of the word ‘last’?  Since there was no sequel, nor one on the horizon, let’s just go for ‘yes’. 

What would a movie called THE FIRST OF THE MOHICANS be about?  According to Britannica, "When first contacted by the Dutch, the Mohican were at war with the Mohawk, and in 1664 they were forced to move from Schodack, near Albany, to what is now Stockbridge, Mass." There ya go – there’s your plot. You’re welcome.

Previously:  THE LAST STAND

Next time:  THE LAST HURRAH

Check out my books:  Jonathanlastauthor.com

STAR WARS: THE LAST JEDI (2017, Rian Johnson)

 

* * * 

The First Order is being well out of order and the Resistance is trying to resist them, with reclusive former Jedi Luke Skywalker training youngster Rey in the Force.

Starring  Daisy Ridley, John Boyega, Adam Driver, Oscar Isaac, Mark Hamill, Domhnall Gleeson

Written by  Rian Johnson

Produced by  Kathleen Kennedy, Ram Bergman

Duration  152 minutes

Released in October 2012, the official Disney announcement about the Mouse House’s acquisition of Lucasfilm includes the following line from George himself: "It’s now time for me to pass STAR WARS on to a new generation of filmmakers." Elsewhere in the statement, Bob Iger, Disney’s chairman/CEO, says of Lucas, "He’s entertained, inspired, and defined filmmaking for almost four decades and we’re incredibly honoured that he has entrusted the future of that legacy to Disney."

Lucas wanted to give up his baby; he’d watched it grow up and had decided that it no longer needed him. He was still hurting from all the (deserved) criticism his prequel trilogy had received from fans who thought they knew better, and so this man who was clearly uncomfortable in the role of director – six films across 30 years with none between 1983 and 1999 or since 2005 – finally cashed out and took his winnings home.

But he didn’t leave without (a new) hope. Clearly, George had not stopped caring about wars among the stars: the press release vaguely promises that he will carry on "as creative consultant" to Kathleen Kennedy, which may or may not have actually happened. And there is no doubt that he wanted the franchise to be carried forward by the right people, filmmakers who could "entertain, inspire and define", as Iger – or, more likely, Iger’s PA – had put it.

And it really seemed like Kennedy was on the same page, judging by the talent she was lining up to fill George’s boots. But then the following happened:

– TOY STORY 3 writer Michael Arndt is fired from EPISODE VII.

– Gareth Edwards directs ROGUE ONE but is fired during post-production.

– Phil Lord and Chris Miller are hired to direct SOLO but are fired during production and replaced by Ron Howard, who reshoots most of the film.

– JURASSIC WORLD’s Colin Trevorrow is brought in to helm EPISODE IX but is fired and replaced by JJ Abrams.

– CHRONICLE’s Josh Trank is hired to direct a Boba Fett movie with a release target of 2018 but is fired before production begins. He’s replaced by LOGAN’s James Mangold, but the film still hasn’t been made.

And that’s not even a comprehensive list.

And what of THE LAST JEDI director Rian Johnson? The BRICK, LOOPER and, latterly, KNIVES OUT man was the biggest auteur of the lot and had been entrusted to helm a whole new trilogy. But audience backlash to the risks he took with LAST JEDI (you know, the kind of risks that filmmakers who can entertain, inspire and define the artform tend to take) spooked Disney and word on parts two and three went quiet. And Johnson's fanbase-dividing decisions were then all reversed in the next episode.

My own reaction to the post-Lucas Skywalker trilogy, as someone who doesn’t really care about STAR WARS but who will go see a new instalment since they're such cultural events, was that I understood why Disney had gone so safe with THE FORCE AWAKENS. Sixteen years on from REVENGE OF THE SITH (the only watchable entry in the prequel trilogy), they needed to get the fans back onside with an onslaught of nostalgia and I thought Abrams pulled if off commendably.

Then THE LAST JEDI tried to do something different while still managing to be entertaining and yes, I did resent how Disney then abandoned Johnson’s refreshing anti-family-legacy direction for THE RISE OF SKYWALKER – especially because that time the ‘safety first’ approach really backfired. Oh my sweet Lord. SKYWALKER was just awful: boring, derivative and lacking any kind of energy or inspiration, with an incredibly lazy plot-point-to-plot-point ‘OK, we’ve got that thing, we may as well head off now to get the next thing’ narrative. There hasn't been a STAR WARS movie since and God only knows how they are going to recover from that travesty. 

Meanwhile, my second viewing of middle-entry LAST JEDI for this review did little to alter my earlier impressions:

– It still has Domhnall Gleeson channelling Peter Cushing, alongside Eddie Hitler from Bottom.

– Ford is still gone, but Hammill is back (making brave character decisions while living off green milk straight from a sea mammal’s teat) and Fisher remains with us, for now.

– Laura Dern still turns up to work with a purple rinse, clearly modelled after Phyllis Pearce from Coronation Street.

– It still doesn't make sense that Kylo Ren would have his hair that long if he's going to sweat inside a helmet all day. Go for the number one all over, mate!

– It still has the courage to be STAR WARS while also being about STAR WARS, and its fans, with a candidness that made some of those fans uncomfortable.

– It's still the most political entry in this space opera by a large margin, as is typical of Johnson, which was another thing that antagonised some.

– It still manages to mostly make you forget that the reason it exists is to sell toys.

– And it's still probably the best one of these things since THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK.

And so how does the future look for STAR WARS movies? Will Kennedy et al stop being so trigger-happy and let writers and directors follow through with progressive ideas that won’t please everyone but which may be the only way to keep this saga of all sagas alive?

Only time will tell. All I’ll say is, I hope that right at this moment George is enjoying his billions and that they are providing great comfort. 

Three stars out of five.

Valid use of the word ‘last’?  These things never end; there will always be more. There will always be more and you will always come to see them.

What would a movie called THE FIRST JEDI be about?  "According to the Legends universe, the first Jedi ever was Prime Jedi, who founded the Jedi Order around 25,000 BBY (before the Battle of Yavin) on the planet of Anch-To." So now you know.

Previously:  LAST KNIGHTS

Next time:  THE LAST FIVE YEARS

Check out my books:  Jonathanlastauthor.com

INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE (1989, Steven Spielberg)

 * * * * * 

Whip-cracking, daredevil archaeologist Indiana Jones teams up with his father (also an archaeologist, but a stuffy old-fashioned one) to track down the actual holy grail.

Starring  Harrison Ford, Sean Connery, Denholm Elliott, Alison Doody, John Rhys-Davies, Julian Glover

Written by  Jeffrey Boam

Produced by  Robert Watts

Duration  128 minutes

Despite the five stars, I am going to come down on LAST CRUSADE, just a tiny bit.

The film plays it a little too safe. Spielberg reproduces all the beats from RAIDERS, but this time with the comedy cranked all the way up. He wants to exorcise our memories of TEMPLE OF DOOM, copying best pal and Indy collaborator George Lucas’s tactic with STAR WARS: deliver popular first instalment, go dark for the sequel, reign it in and return to the tried and tested for part three. 

(See also Robert Zemeckis’s Spielberg-produced BACK TO THE FUTURE saga, although Zemeckis did at least introduce a Western setting to freshen up his trilogy-capper).

Now, OK, I get it. TWILIGHT ZONE: THE MOVIE fucked everybody up; John Landis the most, of course, but the other directors involved in that ill-fated project were not in the mood for any more darkness after such a shocking onset tragedy, the fallout from which was still rumbling through the courts. Steve got all his angst out of his system with TEMPLE and then insisted on nothing but lightness in his next franchise picture. 

Added to this, by the late ’80s his marriage to Amy Irving was on the rocks, so the biggest director in the world just wanted to have some fun and forget about troublesome things. Hence finally doing his Bond film with the main man himself, and making the endeavour much more of a comedy with some adventuring than an adventure sprinkled with jokes.

But TEMPLE is still my personal favourite – yeah yeah, it’s not ‘better’ than RAIDERS, but it's the one I come back to the most. What if Steve (and George, can’t forget him) had decided to travel further down this challenging path for Indy? I'm not sure how much darker they could have gone than kidnapped children working as slave miners, hearts getting ripped out and a possessed Indy intimidating his pre-teen sidekick, but it’s just a shame that we got RAIDERS: HERE WE GO AGAIN instead of another stab at something more daring.

I can't find it anymore, but I once watched a YouTube video where someone played TERMINATOR 2 and TERMINATOR 3 side by side to demonstrate how the later film completely replicates the structure of its predecessor. I’ve never seen this done with RAIDERS and CRUSADE, but I’m betting that it would work. If you’re flicking through the channels and come in during the truck chase towards the end of CRUSADE’s second act, then it might take you a few minutes to realise that you’re not watching the truck chase towards the end of RAIDERS’ second act.

And then there’s that overabundance of humour. Take how the film treats the character of Marcus Brody. In RAIDERS, he’s Indy’s friend and colleague at the university, a sturdy influence who provides our hero with the knowledge and confidence he needs to embark on his quest. In CRUSADE, he’s reimagined as a goofy counterpoint to Henry Sr, someone notorious for getting lost in his own museum and who stumbles around foreign countries mumbling, "Uhhh ... excuse me ... does anyone here speak English?"

But come on, before this becomes the most negative five-star review of all time – of course CRUSADE is a brilliant film. 

One thing I especially appreciate is that the obligatory relationship subplot is actually between Indy and his Dad, rather than a forced love-interest. Screenwriter Jeffrey Boam (THE DEAD ZONE, THE LOST BOYS, LETHAL WEAPON 2) has the good sense to realise that no one gives a shit about Alison Doody’s Dr Elsa Schneider, and so rather than dragging her tryst with Indy out all through the movie before having her betray the Joneses towards the end in a stunning 'twist', Boam tosses the reversal in as soon as possible so we can get her out the way and spend more time with the father/son dynamic.

This decision to sideline her character does make one feel pretty sorry for the soon-to-be-forgotten Doody. When she signed up to be the top-billed woman in the latest Steven Spielberg blockbuster co-starring Harrison Ford and Sean Connery, I doubt she considered the possibility that it wouldn't boost her career.

Which leads me to mention in closing that although CRUSADE was clearly made as a family-friendly tonic to the nastiness of TEMPLE, which Spielberg had already disowned, one nicely adult touch still crept in: the revelation that both generations of Jones men have slept with the same double-crossing villainous woman. Good on ya, Sean!

Five stars out of five.

Valid use of the word ‘last’?  Well, that cave place they were all fleeing at the end was pretty much collapsing all around the old knight dude, so no one's getting back in there again.

What would a movie called INDIANA JONES AND THE FIRST CRUSADE be about?  Either some kind of prequel with a Jones ancestor set in the 11th Century, or flashing back to an even-younger-than-River Indy, when he's a four-year-old on a quest to exert his authority over Henry Sr and his hitherto unseen mother – possibly by refusing to eat his broccoli. 

Previously:  THE LAST EMPEROR

Next time:  THE LAST SUMMER

Check out my books:  Jonathanlastauthor.com