Jewel of the Nile (Lewis Teague, 1985)

Six months into their round the world cruise, the bloom is off Joan (Kathleen Turner) and Jack’s (Michael Douglas) romance.

When Joan is offered the chance to pen the biography of an Arab ruler, Omar Khalifa (Spiros Focás), she abandons Jack.

Jack soon finds himself following Joan, to both rescue his love, and find the titular Jewel of the Nile.

I feel like I watched this movie multiple times when I was a kid. I remember so many images from it - the pirate opening, the plane chase, the titular character Al-Julhara (Avner Eisenberg) walking through the flames at the end.

I probably filed it with the Indiana Jones movies as a comparable action adventure.

I do not think I knew it was a sequel for a long time. I certainly did not make the connection with Romancing the Stone.

After this last re-watch of Romancing I was jazzed to check out the sequel. I knew its reputation, but I thought I had its measure.

This movie was rushed into production following the surprise success of the original, and it feels it.

It is bigger in scope but without the strong characterisation of the original, it feels smaller.

Right from the beginning the movie is off.

Gone is Alan Silvestri’s score; in is Jack Nitzche with synthesisers.

The opening fantasy is set on a stylised set. There is no attempt to ape the genre as in the opening of the previous film.

In an early line, Joan’s publisher (Holland Taylor) admonishes her for being stuck on a happy ending, when real life does not tie up so neatly.

It is meant to set the table for the conflict between the couple - instead it punctures the movie.

The focus and the perspective is completely different - instead of following Joan, the film seems to be pitched toward Jack.

Joan is listless, dropping Jack to take up a stranger’s offer. It is meant to be motivated by her feeling stuck both personally and creatively but it does not come off that way.

More importantly what is attractive about Omar’s offer that would draw Joan - especially the Joan of the previous film - in?

Jack has lost all sense of vulnerability.

He is now a man’s man who is jealous of his partner.

He seems to have lost all the sensitivity and empathy he had developed toward Joan.

Whether it is the script or the strain of the chaotic production, Douglas seems irritated.

He also carries a level of sleaze that was not present in the original.

Douglas has always been a little seedy - it worked for Romancing the Stone - but he seems to be evolving toward the persona he would consolidate with Gordon Gecko and Fatal Attraction.

Danny DeVito is the real star of the movie.

The film is basically a buddy picture between Douglas and DeVito as they try to find Turner.

And when the central couple reunite, Ralph gets his own subplot: He ends the movie as a Sufi Muslim and member of a band of freedom fighters.

Taking over from Robert Zemeckis, Lewis Teague lacks the former’s comic touch. The film is vaguely competent, but the film never manages to find its feet as either an action adventure flick or a romantic comedy. Watching this movie, you realise how complicated the blend of genres and tones is in Romancing the Stone.

Another missing key player is composer Alan Silvestri; instead we get Jack Nitzsche with synthesisers. And when it is not Nitzsche, the film is packed with contemporary pop songs, as though the film is more concerned with selling the soundtrack album. 

The biggest missing piece is Diane Thomas. There is no uniting spark to Jewel of the Nile - not in terms of the characters, the tone or the perspective on the genre. 

A tired, expensive cash grab.

Related

Jewel of the Nile

If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour. 

You can subscribe on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Romancing the Stone (Robert Zemeckis, 1984)

When her sister is kidnapped in Colombia, novelist Joan Wilder (Kathleen Turner) heads south to trade her life for a mysterious stone.

Joined by shady smuggler Jack Colton (Michael Douglas), Joan finds herself only one of multiple parties who are on the trial of the stone.

What an amazing movie.

I almost did not want to write anything about it. Nothing I write will be new. I just want to sing its praises.

For some reason, no matter how many times I see it, I always forget how great it is. Ironically I have memories of watching Jewel of the Nile more often - it was probably cheaper to air on TV - but I have not seen it in years.

I first watched this movie as a kid, and I have caught a couple of times since.

I need to make it part of my regular rotation.

When I was studying screenwriting, all the literature I read always cited Romancing the Stone for its narrative structure and character development.

What an amazing sense of economy. It just feels so breezy and easy.

It is not until you watch Jewel of the Nile that you realise how hard it is to make a movie like this. The closest thing I can think of to its vibe is The African Queen except this couple get to have sex.

The overheated opening scene is amazing, not just because of what it sets up but (and this was my takeaway after watching the comparable sequence in the sequel) the way that manages to evoke the cinematic language of the genre that Wilder is writing.

The hard cut to a close up of Kathleen Turner, crying and congested, is the movie in a nutshell - it immediately deflates the mythic, cinematic promise of the title.

Kathleen Turner is a movie star with a charisma and a presence that would not usually suggest a character like Joan is a poor fit. Yet she commits totally to selling the character’s lack of self-worth.

The script has such a strong sense of the character. And while Douglas’s name is top-billed, this is Joan/Turner’s story.

While she works as part of a team with Jack, she is often the primary active party. She even saves herself at the end.

The film is her learning she can have an adventure.

She does not have to rely on her imagination, and she has the capacity to steer the action herself, rather than waiting on a mythical gunslinger to save her.

The role of Jack is unique in Michael Douglas’ filmography.

Casting himself (after other potential stars baulked at playing second banana) is inspired - Douglas would never be mistaken for a Boy Scout.

There is an inherent cynicism and weakness to the star that fits the character. Jack Colton is constantly forced to make a choice between greed and helping Joan.

Playing someone who has to grow and become a hero carries more weight and tension because it is Douglas.

What is wild to consider is that this is the role that helped make Douglas a star - and he would develop a persona that would stray far afield from the relatively straight-laced Jack.

As with Joan, his entrance is cinematic. In a manner that recalls the western opening, he is a silhouette on a hill, quick-drawing a shotgun to chase off Joan’s attacker.

He is established as a mythic figure, an echo of Jessie, the lover of Joan’s novels. That image is deflated as soon as Douglas actually introduces himself.

Jack is not only morally grey, he is not as competent as he appears: her bus crashes because he parked his jeep on the road

Danny DeVito is great as Ralph, a minor hoodlum who is on the trial of the stone. He is in less of the movie than I remember, but he gets the biggest laughs (the moment where he is running away from a car and shooting his gun over his head is sublime physical comedy).

The movie zips along. The simple plot giving space for the characters.

And while there are setpieces, they are never on the same scale of Indiana Jones. They feel just heightened enough for this story.

The movie is great at undermining expectations: the drug lord who turns out to be a fan of Joan’s books; Jack trying to hotwire a car, not realising there is a key in the ignition (because it’s owner, Ralph, is sleeping in the backseat).

The kidnapping scene is amazing - as Joan’s sister tries to make her escape, a young boy playing on the street uses bolas to knock her out and then kidnaps her and takes her away in her own car.

What makes Romancing the Stone such a great adventure movie is the focus on the relationship between the central pairing - and it is a testament to the script and the actors’ chemistry that this is enough to make the movie engaging.

Related

Raiders of the Lost Ark 

Temple of Doom

Dial of Destiny

If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour. 

You can subscribe on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (Steven Spielberg, 1984)

In 1935, Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) and his companion Short Round (Ke Huy Quan) find themselves on a quest to retrieve a sacred stone from a cult intent on world domination.

I cannot remember which Indy movie I saw first but Temple of Doom is the one I remember the most.

That being said, I do not think I have watched it in 20 years.

If Raiders was all narrative muscle and sinew, Temple of Doom is all confidence.

The opening scenes - ironically using left overs from early drafts of Raiders - feel like filmmakers flexing.

We start with a fun fake-out with the Paramount logo which leads into a musical number.

We then get the finale to a previous adventure as Indy gets poisoned, meets his new love interest, and gets into a massive fight-to-car chase.

It is all fun, topped with tips of the hat to Bond (Jones’ white tux).

Set a year before Raiders, Jones is presented as slightly more mercenary than his initial appearance.

While one could call it a prequel, it does not matter. This is the franchise wiping the slate clean and re-setting the table for a new adventure.

Poor Kate Capshaw is stuck with the horrifically written Willie Scott. 

She is not as annoying as I remember, but the attempt at a romance is turgid.

It is hard not to read this role as a reflection of the filmmakers’ own personal struggles (both Spielberg and Lucas got divorced during pre-production).

Thank the maker for Ke Huy Quan as Short Round - his spontaneous, earnest performance is the freshest element of the movie.

Having a child as Indiana Jones’s key ally adds such a unique dynamic and stakes. It also gives the movie a much needed sense of levity: the scene where he plays cards with Indy; the moment where he mimics Ford while they are eating at the village.

The one moment of pathos in the movie belongs to him - after a possessed Indy slaps him, Short Round tearfully tells his friend he loves him and then burns him with a torch.

If Raiders felt like it was taking the elements from its influences and elevating them, Temple of Doom feels like a homage without a twist.

 While this should take place at the same time as Raiders, it feels like a step back in time.

The Thuggee cult and the British soldiers who come to the rescue at the end are played totally straight. Indiana Jones is the perfect example of a white saviour. And Willie Scott comes across as the kind of helpless damsel in distress that Marion Ravenwood was a response to.

Some criticise the film’s darkness and the violence - I find it weirdly enjoyable. One of the films that led to the creation of the PG-13 rating, Temple of Doom has an atmosphere unto itself.

There is also a glee to its obsession with being as violent and gross as possible. It almost feels like Spielberg is exorcising the last of the darkly comedic energy that had underpinned his earlier films before shifting fully into the next phase of his career as a would-be ‘prestige’ filmmaker with The Colour Purple and Empire of the Sun.

Related

Raiders of the Lost Ark

Dial of Destiny

If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour. 

You can subscribe on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

The Substance (Coralie Fargeat, 2024)

Seen as too old by her boss (Dennis Quaid), Elisabeth (Demi Moore), an exercise show host, is let go from her job. Constantly reminded of her imposed o

bsolescence

, Elisabeth is willing to do anything to turn back the clock.

Enter the titular substance...

This movie feels like what it is like to be doom-scrolling Instagram.

The film is so claustrophobic - we spend most of our time stuck in the protagonist’s apartment - and our lead is so inundated with images of youth and sex.

There are only a few interactions with other humans - and they are the most heightened versions of human interaction.

It felt so terrifyingly familiar and it was not until a few days later, as I was limiting my own access to my social media accounts, that I made the connection.

There is almost no subtext to The Substance - our heroine is surrounded by men who are fixated on their own appetites (or maybe I am just extrapolating from Dennis Quaid shovelling food into his face while ogling ass).

The world she lives in is a superficial hell-scape - almost as though Elisabeth is living in the daydream from one of the rapists from the director’s previous film, Revenge.

The film is blunt and aggressive, but in a way that feels like a reflection of the central character's point of view. Everywhere, she is surrounded by images worshipping youth, the obsession with women’s bodies, and the way ageing is treated as a prison. The characters outside of Elisabeth are cartoonish avatars of her own insecurities.

The body as prison is an idea the movie takes to a grotesque extreme by the final set piece.

Demi Moore’s casting gives the movie a extradiegetic weight - the obsession with the star’s body, especially in how media have broken down and examine sit as she aged.

The bleakest scene in the movie is Moore getting ready for a date. Constantly reminded of her younger self, she keeps returning to the mirror, trying to hide her age.

Eventually she gives up, staring into space while her would-be date texts her.

Her youthful doppelgänger Sue is youth and sex. Her show is relentless closeups of her body. She is not given a personality.

She is an image - and she feels the need to keep feeding her ego.

Margaret Qualley has a sinister tilt to her smile, a whiff of a tease, a sense of ironic fatalism that was well-used in last year’s Sanctuary, and even more diabolic here. Sue’s slightly mocking grin haunts Demi Moore’s Elisabeth Sparkle.

The characters are presented as separate, but as the unseen promoter of the Substance emphasises, they are one.

Elisabeth has opportunities to stop - and she cannot. The obsession with youth robs her of life - both literal and social.

Without meaning to, I watched this film right after Grafted. Viewing this movie became part two of a 'beauty-standards-gone-mad' double feature - with The Substance complementing the former picture by being a parable about society’s obsession with youth. 

If anything, this unintended double bill draws attention to the film’s complete side-stepping around how whiteness plays into Elisabeth/Sue’s success and downfall. One can read it into the latter’s rapid rise to celebrity, but it is a curious blank spot.

It is worth a look. I have not had such a visceral response to a picture in a long while.

Related

Revenge

If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour. 

You can subscribe on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.