Director: Steven Spielberg (Jaws, Jurassic Park, Schindler’s List, War of the Worlds, Munich)
Story: George Lucas, Jeff Nathanson
Screenplay: David Koepp
Producers: Frank Marshall
Starring: Harrison Ford, Shia Lebeouf, Cate Blanchett, Karen Allen, Ray Winstone, John Hurt
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Running time: 124 min
reprinted from MoviePatron
Since last we caught up with Dr. Jones, he’s apparently had countless adventures with lots of friends and unsavory characters alike. All of which are vaguely alluded to in the opening thirty minutes or so of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. From serving with honor in the military, fighting wars, traversing the jungle and somehow still managing to find time as a part time archeology professor. It’s unfortunate that we didn’t get to go along for the ride over the past twenty years, but we’ve finally caught up with Indy on quite possibly his most exciting, and most preposterous, adventure he’s ever been a part of.
The story begins in 1957 and Indy is once again up to his neck in bad guys. This time it’s Cate Blanchett and the Russians who are looking for some mysterious box in a military warehouse in the middle of the desert; somewhere in New Mexico. What it is they are looking for and why is a mystery that will unravel as the story progresses. Working with an old friend, Indy obviously escapes and sets out in search of a missing colleague with the help of a young punk (played by Shia Lebeouf) named Mutt, who has a letter written in an ancient language that appears to be a sort of map leading to a lost city of gold. All of this of course ties in with the Russians and their plans with the mysterious box. The new adventure takes Indy though small, secluded villages, the deepest jungles of South America, raging rivers and even an ancient Mayan temple.
The big question of course is how does a sixty-something year-old Harrison Ford handle the reprisal of the role of his lifetime? The answer is actually pretty well. At first something seems a bit… off. Maybe it’s the fact that Ford has aged, maybe it’s the script or maybe it’s just the preconceived notions that one brings to the film. Whatever it is, it only lasted a short while and the “off” feeling was soon shaken. A bit slower in stride but looking no worse for the wear, Indiana Jones is certainly back in all the glory I remember him having; bullwhip, fedora, leather jacket and even his snake phobia; and still giving the bad guys a brutal history lesson they won’t easily forget.
As the new Indy sidekick is Shia Lebeouf, who, while picking less than favorable films with this critic, is usually quite good in delivering what’s expected of him and more with his roles. Here is no different. As an obvious target as the new guy in the Jones world, he works quite well at being the green adventurer but with a stable, resourceful mind and just the right amount of comedy when asked for.
Cate Blanchett is the villain. It’s Cate Blanchett. What else can be said? Amazing as always.
With other big names in side roles (Ray Winstone, Jim Broadbent, John Hurt, etc) The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is full of familiar faces. But none more familiar than Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen) making her first return as the damsel in not so much distress since Raiders of the Lost Ark almost 30 years ago. One more piece to the nostalgia puzzle fitting neatly in to place.
Quite the roller coaster ride of thoughts throughout Indiana Jones IV. As mentioned, something feels a bit “off” in the beginning, then the feeling subsides and we’re right back into an Indiana Jones movie. But then, something goes wrong again and a strange feeling of worry washed over me and I wondered, “is this how it’s going to be?” Then after time, the story takes another turn for the better and I was swept up again. This happens several times throughout the picture; leaning towards greatness one moment, then leaning towards disaster the next. While disaster is probably too harsh of a term, unfortunately it so happens that the wrong elements in this film outweigh the good just slightly.
Walking into the theater, I had two main concerns for Indiana’s return movie. One was that this was going to be a movie with one liner jokes throughout the entire picture about Indy being an old man. While there is some of that, rightfully and expectedly so, the movie thankfully never over indulges with the old age puns.
The second was the CGI factor. After Minority Report and War of the Worlds, it was feared that director Spielberg would shoot for the moon and try to dazzle us with amazing feats of technologic wizardry. Fear not. Quite a few of the effects, with a few exceptions, look vaguely similar to those of the late 80′s and early 90′s, funny enough. These slightly cheesy and noticeable effects have never bothered me and don’t seem to be a problem or hinder the production in any way. With Indiana Jones, effects have always been slightly sub-par comparable to their counterparts of the time period. To me, this just adds a slight touch of camp that I believe Lucas and Spielberg are going for. Whether they purposely go for this camp in their effects department I can’t say, but it sure appears that way.
The problem comes with the story line and two or three completely ridiculous moments. Because these moments deal directly with plot, I don’t want to give them away as potential spoilers. Let’s just say that Indiana Jones, nor anyone else, has ever seen anything like this. Yes in Raiders, there is the Ark of the Covenant that has some mystical properties. Yes, in Temple of Doom there is a mysterious liquid which brain 
washes its victims. And yes, in The Last Crusade we’re seeking a chalice that gives eternal life from any who drink from it. So Indy is no stranger to the world of supernatural legend and the occult. But none of these plot threads, which are fairly reserved thematically, hold a candle to the preposterousness of the final thirty minutes of The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. It’s just too much suspension of disbelief for me to handle and just doesn’t feel “right” when comparing it to Jones adventures of the past.
And while this may be a bit nit-picky, the film really lost me during one key action sequence in the jungle in which Lebeouf’s character does his best Tarzan impersonation. Did I say preposterous before? I meant completely and utterly retarded. It actually angered me a bit that Spielberg thought that was a good idea… especially after seeing how it works (or doesn’t work) in the final product.
Still, despite the fact that the storyline completely lost me and there are several wtf moments that actually kind of upset me, the nostalgia factor works here. It’s like Indy’s character never left us and it’s reassuring that he’s out there. Like a nice warm security blanket… made of khaki pants and leather. And with what I gathered to be a very important message from Lucas/Spielberg, the final ten seconds of the film won me over and I admit I softly applauded with the rest of the audience as the credits began to roll – something I NEVER do. However many problems there are with this movie, it’s nice to have Indy back. Even if it’s just for this one last time.
Click “play” to see the trailer:
Links:
IMDb profile
Official Site
Flixster Profile for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
My review forthcoming… until then, I’ll say no more…
I look forward to it. Very much. We’ll see if you’re an apologist, objective or truly liked the movie.
I’m still not excited to see this which isn’t a good sign for me but I do want to see it. Good to hear it’s at least entertaining!
I agree with most of what you said there Andrew. Too many WTF moments for my taste.
Haven’t Seen Skull Yet, but there are some hilariously great WTF moments in The Temple of Doom. While a lot of folks slam the middle film in the original trilogy, it is my absolute favourite of the three to watch. Sure Raiders is the best of the bunch on every level, but I’ve seen the second one twice as many times. I don’t really think the third one is all that well made as a film. The Opening River Pheonix prologue is too long and too cute (although props for bookending both the Last Crusade and the original trilogy as a WESTERN!); and most of the Last Crusade set pieces are pretty flat or reminiscent of the first film. Sean Connery is the ace in the hole for the third film and the main reason why people like it (I believe anyway) – but note that he doesnt even come into the film until the 48 minute mark.
WTF in an Indy film is a good thing, isn’t it?
Well, I’m off to see it tonite, I’m surprisingly excited, as I’ve worn my cynicism for years at this project – most assuredly because it fucks up the Ride off into the Sunset which was a perfect ending to the character. –Seriously, this film feels like Alien 4 – A film I loathe despite all the talented people (almost all of whom I like) involved.)
We shall see. I take it our Cinecast #87 will be All Indy, all the time. Hope folks aren’t too sick of the Indy by the time it goes live.
Cheers.
On the Temple of Doom Note, It was nice to find a fellow Doom enthusiast in ex-NYT critic Matthew Zoller Seitz which I believe he has written the definitive ToD essay. I mean, this thing is a fuckin’ classic piece of writing where I’m coming from. Wish I could write so well!!! Hits all the defenses I’ve been going on for years, and has another dozen insights and discovers which I never thought of.
Yea, I’m printing this essay and framing it: http://mattzollerseitz.blogspot.com/2008/05/smitten-with-whip-three-appreciations.html
Scroll down for some sweet Molaram-Dularam! –although All Three of these essays (Raiders, Doom, Crusade) are top notch.
I like Temple a lot. It was the one I watched as kid over and over. I love the NON-STOP action for about the last 50 minutes or so. It’s great.
#4 has just got too much for me. The final 30 minutes or so just don’t work. The Tarzan thing pisses me off too.
The Serials. Remember the Serials. Ahh, never mind, just watch this….
(make sure you stay for last 20 seconds!)
If you love film and want to write about them, there are actual good movies out there, so why would you waste your supposed talents on stuff like the Indiana Jones-movies?
Form is eternal. Like math. And just about as interesting to discuss.
**POTENTIAL MILD SPOILERS**
Just got back from INDY IV – Love parts near the beginning. Once we enter south America the movie simply stinks up the joint. Not fun, not terribly exciting, nothing new or even interesting beyond merging replicating a lot of the problems with Spielberg’s post 1995 sci-fi pictures.
It is simply unforgivable to waste John Hurt in such a way. If I’m constantly think of Spaceballs while watching and Indiana Jones, there is a pretty serious problem here.
Should be an interesting cinecast to get into these things, but for now, 75% of Indy IV is in serious danger of entering National Treasure or The Mummy territory (or God fobid, Fucking Stargate) – that is to say, embarrassing for all.
if nobody has said it at this point, Spielberg has completely jumped Bruce on this one.
@ Henrik, how much time have you spent with M. Night and Teenage Mutant Ninja turtles.
If you cannot see the pure movie making pleasure in at least the first 2 Indiana Jones pictures, well, then that is simply your loss.
And who says Math isn’t interesting? Sometimes you baffle with your little provocateurisms Henrik.
**MAJOR SPOILERS ALL AROUND
BEWARE!**
The ‘momentum’ in the jungle portion of the picture just felt completely strained and limp and lifeless. In trying to bring Tarzan and the Valley of Gold (see above) into the picture with Shia The Beef on Vines, Spielberg jumped Bruce even by Indiana’s pulp standards. The temple/trap sequence seemed far too in love with itself – contrast it to the three traps in The Last Crusade where there were some sort of stakes, i.e. Dad’s life).
The myth-making and fetishization of the object in the first three films was completely fumbled with Crystal Skull – the item itself looks like a Museum gift-shop souvenir. This may at first seem like a small thing, but a large part of the wonder of the Jones films is the myth making of the artifacts – the time spent on the Ark/Stones/Grail – here we have Magnetism of non-magnetic materials. Whoop-de-do. The gunpowder thing left me cold.
Indy vs. The Mushroom cloud was awesomeness (The Fridge flying thru the air at mach 2, not so much…harder to swallow than the fall thru awnings in Doom (short round magically knows where to go) or the strange behavior of 2000tonnes of water thru the mine shafts in Doom or the Submarine diving in Raiders even). I’d also like to say that Indy in leather and cotton earth-tones contrasted with Edward Scissor-hands plastic-fake suburbia of the Atomic Cafe town was a very compelling contrast for me visually. I liked that a lot.
Two good lines of dialogue – “We’ve hit the age where life stops giving and starts taking away” – too bad the film never went anywhere with that. Also liked “When Hysteria hits Academia, we might just as well pack it in” Thus leading to the simple conclusion that Ed Broadbent is a welcome addition to the film whereas John Hurt was simply embarrassingly wasted. I hate when I pity an actor for choosing a role. Thus was the first time for Hurt since he appeared in Spaceballs for a bland re-enactment gag.
Have to say that a lot of technical gaffes (namely CGI overload and the too-clean look of the picture) were deal-breakers for me with Indy IV combined with pretty poor dialogue and malformed characters (again, even by Indy Standards). Blanchette was fun, but not particularly memorable.
And for sheer pulp momentum, yea, Temple of Doom gets a pass for me. The Last Crusade, not so much, but Connery is a hoot which almost saves that picture.
“the item itself looks like a Museum gift-shop souvenir”
Right? I almost laughed when I saw it. It’s a plastic skull with a bunch of saran wrap crumpled up inside. Lame to the max.
Kurt is so right here. The artifact is the key to the film. In the other three (as I sort of alluded to in the review), the artifact is mystical and has powers, but it’s never as ridiculous as it’s shown here. Totally agree with Kurt on this one. The final 30 minutes is stupid as hell (although I liked the car chase in the jungle. It’s well done and fun). The Tarzan thing pisses me off more than I care to say.
As for John Hurt – yes. Completely wasted. That pissed me off too. I should’ve mentioned it in the review.
PS – I love him in Contact with Jodi Foster.
PPS – Kurt, I know you hate this, but what would you give the movie out of five stars?
as a lifelong fan of the Indy series, KOTCS was a travesty. i was starting to enjoy myself until the reunion scene with Karen Allen and John Hurt’s characters in the camp. despite my tentative willingness to invest myself into the story at that point, the increasingly retarded exposition on the titular Crystal Skull, as well as the ridiculously long (and gimmicky) car chase through the jungle, reduced my interest in the unfolding events to nil. by the end, it didn’t even feel like an Indiana Jones film any longer. it was a saturday morning cartoon version at best, easily taking the soiled crown as worst of the series by the end of it.
George Lucas hates the fans of his series. if any doubt was left at Revenge Of The Sith, here’s the proof. what a talentless, greedy nutjob. i hope this flick tanks, if only to remind Spielberg that he still needs to put a little effort into his direction. i’m disowning this as any part of the Indy franchise.
afterthought: i don’t get why Last Crusade gets dumped on as much as it does. i prefer it to Temple Of Doom myself. someone explain it to me
What pisses me off about Indy IV is the constant need of the filmmakers to throw in everything that was in previous pictures, the hidden mechanics in old tunnels, swarms of insects, collapsing caves or structures (why does that always happen), the friend who betrays him and then tries to save him, utterly pointless quicksand and even more pointless snake. It was like Lucas and Spielberg suddenly on that day remembered that Indy was afraid of snakes but didn’t have a scene to put them in. So they say, “Fuck it, let them escape for 5 minutes and then we can get a snake in there somewhere. Hey we need a quicksand as well, put it in there also.”
I so agree with you on the Tarzan sequence. The problem isn’t so much that there is a Tarzan sequence, but that they chose to do it with CGI. You want to do a throwback to Tarzan serials, fine, but then use something similar to the techniques they used to simulate Tarzan swinging from vine to vine then. It might look fake, but at least it’ll look like fakery with a basis in reality, not just pixels.
I don’t even want to talk about it…
Here comes that word again – Pandering. Pandering. Pandering.
*Again with the MAJOR Spoilers*
I have no problem with a nod to the Ark of the Covenant in an action sequence in Area 51 or what-have you, Yea, they already did a nod to Raiders in The Last Crusade, but fine. But I did take issue with the recycling of other action sequences from the other films. The Waterfall drop, the Ants (Raiders – Snakes, Doom – bugs, Crusade – Rats, couldn’t they come up with something new instead of back to bugs? And the bug was overwhelming, then simply went away…there lacked any resolution to the scene. Then they did a mash-up of the Peruvian temple sequence from raiders and the chamber trap in Doom. The natives just felt like an afterthought, were airy and weightless. And they even introduced Marion in a similar manner to Belloq’s Cairo tent from Raiders. Ouch. I didn’t realize this was a nostalgia trip in the literal sense, I would have thought that advancing the timeline by 20 years would offer scads of new things for Indy to chew on, not just change the insignias from the swastica to the sickle and call it a day. The Ruskies were treated like cannon fodder more than the Nazis ever where.
In the end Indiana Jones is supposed to be weightless fun, light on its feet and invigorating. Here, things are heavy, belaboured and just have a simple going thru the motions feel to them.
The onslaught of 1950s details from A-Bomb testing to soda-shops to Better Dead than Red and Roswell iconography all offer a major promise in the first 45 minutes of refreshingly new with the series that is simply never delivered as Spielberg, Lucas and Koepp don’t give a rats ass about carrying through on the promise of new and original.
I hate the ‘ratings thing’ but if I had to give it one, it’d be 2/5. One for the Atomic Cafe, and one for the Peruvian cemetery/grave-robber sequence that carried the vibe of the old Indy without pandering too much. (And kudos the the cemetery looking like a movie-set — that warmed my heart more than the CGI stew Raiders-meets-CloseEncounters-meets-fucking-Stargate ending.
Kurt, thats two stars too many.
and now that the first important franchise of the summer has come out allow me to restate my original outcry: ‘the sky is definitely fucking falling’
Regarding pandering…
I really don’t like that word. Especially in the context of reviewing a film. Aren’t all films pandering?? Even a filmmaker like Lars Von Trier, who goes out of his way to not give people what they want, is in a sense, pandering to those who don’t want to be pandered to. Funny Games, for me, pandered.
If I want to be challenged, I certainly don’t care for it to happen in an Indiana Jones film.
I don’t like the pandering argument at all. I know that was a criticism of “Lars and the Real Girl”. But in that case I wanted to be pandered to.
With Indy, I don’t think we were pandered to enough. I think there should have been much more of a nostalgic feel (ala the first half of the film) and less of the bullshit that Lucas and Spielberg dished out. Pandering would have brought back Sallah and much more whip action.
I’ll continue to use it as an arguement. Here is why.
Filmmaking is kind of like Cooking. I know what I like and I know what I want, but I don’t necessarily want a filmmaker to give me what I want. Anton Ego in Ratatouille (a great film which doesn’t pander) says “Surprise Me” – I want fascism in my filmmaking (the euphemism for this would be “auteur”) and I want to get what I don’t necessarily think I want (if that makes any sense).
The A-Bomb mushroom cloud and the plastic test-site were awesome because it was Indy out of the earthy domains and into technology and the extreme powers granted therein- this dovetails nicely with the alien plot. Good for them for taking me to new places. But the rest of the movie is same-old, same-old and never pays off the promise of “Surprise Me”.
Funny Games (US) was pandering, Haneke was already pretty much preaching to the choir and everyone knew that the mainstream would stay away in droves. Funny Games (1997) was the furthest thing from pandering. I guess the tour de force performances in Funny Games (US) makes it worthwhile, insofar as you can ‘pick’ your version. Like Van Sant’s Psycho, there was a sense of experimenting with the project and for that (worthless as my ramblings/judgements often are), I’ll give it a pass.
Challenge in The Indy Franchise:
Raiders – Challenged that the bar on both the early film/TV serials could be raised to BIG A-Level set-pieces and action. That Nostalgia could be re-invented and repuposed into something fresh (See also: French New Wave, Joe Dante, Quentin Tarantino, Coen Brothers).
Temple – Challenged that a kids adventure film could get away with gore, heart-ripping and ooga-booga natives without coming across as mean or racist (obviously there are many that feel that Temple is silly or mean or racist), but I think in the family-adventure film Temple Raised the bar as to what you can take the kiddies to.
Crusade – Well, I don’t really like Crusade. Its chief flaw is its pandering and simply wanting to be like the first one. There is nothing challenging about the aims of the story or the characters or even the technical side of things.
A couple more notes on Crusade- I guess it attempted to take it out of the Jungle and into Europe. And the Sean Connorey casting was inspired in the way that it bridged Indy to the Bond franchise, two big adventure franchise that have more in common they they have differences. Just separated by 30 years (1930s, 1960s). In fact, I was kind of excited that in the new Indy film they were going to make it a spy film now that we almost caught up to the time period of Dr. No.
Skull – Promises to be fresh and interesting with the Area51, A-Bomb, Mycarthyism angle, but then forgets about it. In the end this was just held up as window dressing unfortunately. Sad.
FYI, From a film Junk Conversation:
#Posted by Jay C. on May 26th, 2008—
I guess I’m starting to realize that maybe I just don’t hold as much stock in the Indiana Jones series as you guys do.
I hated the Mummy, but I thought National Treasure was fun to a degree. The only reason I can see the comparison of this Indy film to those is they all draw from the same tradition. Pulp adventure. Sure it wasn’t as good as the other three, but I didn’t really go in with those expectations. I don’t care if a sequel soils the bed. It really doesn’t ruin anything for me. Having said that, I didn’t feel that this Indy film didn’t soiled the bed at all. It was as likeable, for me, as Jurassic Park: Lost World. Just fun to watch in the theatre. And anything that bothered me was so minute that it really didn’t matter.
As for these films not being for kids…come on guys. I really think our generation has totally lost our sense of discerning childhood from adulthood. It’s like we expect every fantasy/comic book/adventure franchise to be 100% geared towards us. Throw in some groundhogs for a total of 10 seconds? BLASPHEMY. It’s all about the man-child. Everything must be darker, everything must be bloodier, etc. etc. The days of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles the movie are gone. (Except in Tim Story’s Fantastic Four films, which again, were torn apart because of their simple existence as kid friendly adventure films.)
Don’t get me wrong, I love my violence and gore, but I’ll watch a horror movie if I want that. I really don’t expect to see Indiana Jones slowly driving a sword into the gut of a Russian as his eyes dim, blood pouring down the bladed onto the hands of our beloved hero. It’s just not this movie. At least for me it isn’t. It’s the same reason I didn’t think there needed to be blood in the Chronicles of Narnia films.
All of these comparisons to the old films (not enough score, not enough hearts being ripped out of chests, not enough whips) just make me think everyone’s caught up in the nostalgia of old Indy.
Kurt’s Response
——————————
Posted by KuRt. on May 26th, 2008
I only go by what was done in the original 3 movies, which for me have aged remarkably well. I see the ‘kid’ elements in all three films, but let me give you a few examples of why the original 3 indy films were dark and why Skull pulls all the punches.
The original films actually expected a lot of maturity from young kids when watching the films, The Mummy, National Treasure and Skull all dope things down to the lowest common denominator. Yes Pulp is supposed to be lowest common demoniator, but in 1981 Spielberg & Lucas actually brought pulp up to art. yes Art.
Raiders – Indy drinking ‘hard’ when Marion dies. There are two quite graphic head-shots in the Nepal bar, and while the melting sequence is obviously fake, it is bloody and creepy. Furthermore, when Alfred Molina bites it, it’s pretty visious, as is the dead tracker brought in by the natives, as is the offscreen death of the big German mechanic. The film is quite bloody actually.
Doom- Heart Ripping, in a kids film. Oi! also the blood of death drinking, the beating up of kids, etc. Pat Roach (here big Indian Goon) getting killed by the grinding wheel is bloody without being over-the-top graphic. Also think of how creepy the guy being hung on the fan with the whip is in the middle part of Doom. Also the alligators, etc.
Crusade – Even as you can see Spielberg backing off with this one, making it more or less bloodless, you certainly see the pretty graphic results of a guy with his head chopped off.
When I complain about how cuddly Skull is, it is because I’m going by the rules set the by original three films. I don’t think Spielberg or Lucas are backing off from the gore as a challenge or original thought (and if they did, they failed the challenge insofar as the stakes in Skull seem fuzzy), in this genre territory, both of them just have nowhere else to go as artists.
I don’t think Skull ’soils the bed’ in the same way that Lucas did with Star Wars (and my main gripe there is the actually constant revisionism of the Original Trilogy to make it ‘look newer and CGI Filled’ and changing key story points and character tone, etc. etc.
Skull for me will simply be ignored as a Jones adventure.
The LAST CRUSADE had the characters RIDE OFF INTO THE SUNSET, that’s pretty final for me.
Same with Alien series. I love the first 3. All of them are equally good in my opinion. But they definitively killed Ripley in 3. And I pretend the 4th one doesn’t exist, same for the vs. movies.
Films that target a specific audience and goes out of their way to please this imaginative blob are pandering. Just because somebody does something that people like doesn’t mean that he’s pandering. It could be (IMAGINE THIS) that he simply puts his own preferences above anything else. It makes no sense to say that as long as somebody satisfy any sort of audience, he is pandering to it. I definitely didn’t feel like Shyamalan was pandering to any sort of audience when he made Lady in the Water, but I still like it. I guess if your argument is that a piece of art is pandering to people who enjoy art, I get what you mean, but I think your choice of words is questionable.
I agree with Kurt, there is this kneejerk reaction to either love or hate films like Indy, and each camp takes up their own apologetics, and you Jay take up the argument that it is a kids movie and should not be burdened with more then the same old. The other camp says things have to challenge us, and I think the point is a bit more nuanced, it needs to use the familiar in interesting ways.
For me the familiar was not used in interesting ways, it was painfully uninspired. Of course you can recycle all the same serials touchstones, and nod back to Indy catchphrases, but like I have said before, its not a matter of merely checking boxes and therein you have a good movie. As Jonathan and Andrew have touched on the problem is there are no stakes in this film, more so than any of the rest it feels like a film made by committee without a real story to tell. maybe kids do not care about story, I still do not think we should pander to what kids want entirely, but like Kurt said, broaden the horizons.
I fear we are soon going to dumb everything down to teletubby simplicity because kids like it, and so long as we ‘pander’ to their brilliant insights into what is good then we are going to be a society of infants. Kids loved Transformers too. I do not see the distinction here.
How about inspiring more out the kids, talking up to them a bit, rather than keeping them in diapers and narrowing the artistic horizon of blockbuster films to their supposed understanding of ‘fun’. Did kids actually find Crystal Skull fun, it was pretty uneven and boring in parts.
“Filmmaking is kind of like Cooking. I know what I like and I know what I want, but I don’t necessarily want a filmmaker to give me what I want. Anton Ego in Ratatouille (a great film which doesn’t pander) says “Surprise Me” – I want fascism in my filmmaking (the euphemism for this would be “auteur”) and I want to get what I don’t necessarily think I want (if that makes any sense).”
Once again I will refer to Alan Moore who said that it is not the job of the artist to give the people what they want. If the people knew what they needed they would be artists themselves. The job of the artist is to give people what they need.
I guess with Indiana Jones 4 even the internet is beginning to realize that Steven Spielberg is not an artist
.
“I agree with Kurt, there is this kneejerk reaction to either love or hate films like Indy, and each camp takes up their own apologetics, and you Jay take up the argument that it is a kids movie and should not be burdened with more then the same old.”
In no way am I arguing that this is a kids movie. All I’m saying is the 1 minute of kid-targeted content was not enough to turn me off of the 2+ hour running time. The fact that people take such offense to such tiny details tells me that people are looking to nitpick.
“Filmmaking is kind of like Cooking. I know what I like and I know what I want, but I don’t necessarily want a filmmaker to give me what I want. Anton Ego in Ratatouille (a great film which doesn’t pander) says “Surprise Me” – I want fascism in my filmmaking (the euphemism for this would be “auteur”) and I want to get what I don’t necessarily think I want (if that makes any sense).”
Is Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull really a film to go to to be surprised?
Keeping with the cooking analogy, it seems to be like going through McDonald’s drive thru and saying ‘Surprise Me!’.
@Jay. When a movie is working in the subconscious, all nitpicks and minor details are generally forgotten (For me, that was 28 Weeks later, which is a genius film in my book, even with its jarring plot holes and spacial inconsistencies, which I could completely forgive because I liked everything else so damn much!…i’m sure you feel the same way about THE MIST)
When a movie doesn’t work at a certain level, all of the minor things come out in STARK RELIEF, and like a spiral, makes the film enjoyable even less.
I can enjoy Short-Round kicking arse for the lord against gigantic Thugees or the overly silly dinner sequence or the raft-drop from the plane, or the ridiculous Mine-Shaft Roller Coaster because everything else worked. If the film didn’t work for me, I might start complaining about those things.
I completely agree with the nitpicking. I’m guilty of it myself. In fact, I can empathize with many of people’s criticisms. I just think that, not unlike the ‘dancing’ sequence in Spider-Man 3, certain elements of certain films become go-to bashing points. In this case, groundhogs and monkeys, both of which take up about 1% of screen time.
@Jay: Keeping with the cooking analogy, it seems to be like going through McDonald’s drive thru and saying ‘Surprise Me!’.
Yea, but wouldn’t it be great if it did? some examples of this include Oceans 12, Empire Strikes Back, Alien3, Predator2, The Road Warrior. Hell, even Escape From L.A.
All of them should have been cinematic junk-food, but did something that was completely unexpected, fresh and outside of apparent template (often the template in hindsight, but you get the idea).
Yes, I want to be fed fructose and monkey brains and Vitamin E and Maple Syrup all at the same time.
Fer Fucksakes, “Surprise Me” even at MacDonalds.
“Is Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull really a film to go to to be surprised?”
Is Transformers?
“Keeping with the cooking analogy, it seems to be like going through McDonald’s drive thru and saying ‘Surprise Me!’.”
These are the same arguments you pissed on in regards to Transformers. It’s McDonald’s, don’t expect anything! No matter how horrible anything is, as long as it is Indiana Jones in the hat vs. enemies, the film has done its job.
Transformers was the first of the franchise. That film was expected to set the bar, and it failed. (in my opinion)
The latest Indiana Jones film is the 4th. The bar has already been set. This film would never have exceeded those expectations. That doesn’t mean I couldn’t enjoy it for what it was, just another adventure involving the same characters and the same over-the-top set pieces.
Kurt get off your Oceans 12 trip. I still have yet to meet somebody who can explain how Julia Roberts looks like Julia Roberts, but George Clooney doesn’t look like George Clooney, Brad Pitt doesn’t look like Brad Pitt etc. It was the worst attempt at breaking the 4th wall within the context of the story that I can remember.
Well I guess it just comes down to the hypocritical nature of what people like and don’t like. We’re all guilty of it.
Henrik, you blast fans of Indy and Ratatouille for being childish, yet you like Mortal Kombat and TMNT.
Kurt, you want to be challenged and surprised, yet you’re fine with Wong Kar Wai repeating himself in My Blueberry Nights. (Note, I haven’t seen the film, I’m just going by your review.)
And I guess I was fine with not being challenged by Indy, yet I criticize the Harry Potter films for the exact same thing.
The magic of film!
@Henrik – Your Comment #37 is the best illustration of the ‘nit-pick’ because the movie isn’t working for you. Ever. Thanks!
@Jay “Kurt, you want to be challenged and surprised, yet you’re fine with Wong Kar Wai repeating himself in My Blueberry Nights. (Note, I haven’t seen the film, I’m just going by your review.)
And I have struggled with this mightily. I think with My Blueberry Nights, it comes down to performances. Just like you want to see different folks takes on Hamlet and Valmont (or, err Bond & Batman), the performance is a big deal. While visually and thematically My Blueberry Nights is ho-hum-been-there-done-that (i.e. Pandering), it is the performances and the setting that elevate it. It still remains the most pleasurable experience for me in the cinema in 2008.
Ocean’s 12 is horrible. As is Alien 3. Two of my favorite directors funny enough.
But those are arguments for a different day. Indy has its moments of nostalgia AND its moments of “surprise me.” The funny thing is, FOR ME, Kurt’s “surprise me” bits are the parts of the movie that don’t work (a bunch of crystal skeletons that spin together to create a full bodied alien that can look around and overload Blanchett’s brain with knowledge). It just came off as stupid – not an Indiana Jones movie. It felt like a second rate “The Mummy” movie or “Phantoms” or something.
@Jay. I think there is a difference in the way I talk about my appreciation of things like Mortal Kombat or TMNT, and the way people talk about their appreciation of Pixar movies. I am not saying that TMNT is the best storytelling in hollywood, that it is way better than most live-action being made etc. I’m just saying I enjoy animals and ninjas. People act like Raiders and Finding Nemo are masterpieces of cinema. I appreciate your kiss and make up attitude, but I think it’s misguided to compare the way I have talked about Mortal Kombat to the way people have talked about The Incredibles. I am very open to the fact that if the two mentioned movies hadn’t contained kung fu action, I would have no interest in them. I don’t consider them art.
@Kurt. I thought the META-stuff was what you praised Oceans 12 for in the past, claiming that it was challenging and going beyond usual fun caper fare. I hardly think it’s nitpicking, when the main storyline is depending on the concept.
I agree that that scene was in A.I. ending territory. It just didn’t bother me enough to write off the entire film. And I actually like the alien element of the story, just not how that particular scene unfolded.
I’m not even opposed to aliens in the Indiana Jones universe. I loved the Area 51 reference.
Oceans 12 is one gigantic meta-joke. While this would annoy me in some circumstances, the fact that their starting point was riffing on the Rat-Pack’s ‘lest make a film to just hang out in vegas’ mentality, then I thought Oceans 12 captured the spirit of things, and added some new oddities to the equation. I also like heist films that don’t show the heist (Reservoir Dogs, Oceans 12) as much as the ones that fetishize the heist (Riffiffi, Bottle Rocket)
*****SPOILERS******
@Jay “I’m not even opposed to aliens in the Indiana Jones universe. I loved the Area 51 reference.”
Just as the original three set in the 1930s idolize the B- and Z-grade pulp adventure, it actually seems fitting that one set in the mid 1950s idolize the B-Sci-Fi stuff. The exterior of the space-ship captured the feel better than Burton’s Mars attacks, actually. Aliens, plastic and the Atomic Age were totally the right way to go with Indy IV…
But.
The dialogue, characters and set-pieces were not even up to the limited bar set by the previous films. (I’m speaking to the 2nd half of the film, the first half I liked a lot).
Sadly, these folks need at least 2 more passes thru the script to hammer out John Hurt, Cate Blanchette and Ray Winstone characters, mythologize them more (and this also goes for the Skull itself, the signature indy ‘wonder’ on the actual artefact simply wasn’t there this time around, yet I still get that vibe for the original three films, despite seeing them each several times), and even out things.
There is a great movie hiding inside the concepts of Indy IV, too bad they never found it this time around.
I would’ve been happy if the place started rumbling, they ran outside and the ship took off. End of story. I loved the visual of that old-school ufo emerging from the ground, and I don’t think it really needed the A.I. alien interaction inside.
ditto on that.
I do not nitpick the gophers and monkeys, nor am I someone nostalgic about the franchise and having high hopes for the film, I came to it as a sometime fan of Spielberg and interested in being entertained. I come without an agenda.
I am truly stunned that people enjoyed this film, something like Iron Man I can at least understand. I found virtually every moment of Crystal Skull awkward, clunky, grating, silly, embarrassing, or boring. To me it is the ultimate trainwreck of a film.
so I will stay out of the discussion more so than normal because I have no bearing on the subtleties being discussed. I think you are all insane.
I can completely see where you are coming from Rot. Completely. But I have a bit of nostalgia and beyond that, respect for the first two pictures, and the third is enjoyable enough. This one was easily the most inconsistent of the bunch, and definitely skewed the youngest. I guess it would make a great pairing with the recent Fantastic Four films…
You know what would make me happy? A temple, a tomb or a cave that wouldn’t collapse at the end of an adventure movie.