there really aren't many films coming out this year to which i was really looking forward. perhaps oddly, given how much i loved the first three films in this series (well, first and third), this wasn't really one of 'em, esp considering that the last film in the series was released in 1989 so it's been almost 2 decades of waiting. i observed to my wife that this might well be the second most highly anticipated sequel in film history (first place going of course to the phantom menace).
[obviously, i'm not counting film adaptations of a series of novels (e.g., the chronicles of narnia, LOTR or harry potter) in which we already know how many more films there will be.]
but now that i've seen it: i wish i hadn't seen this film. i'd easily rate this as low as temple of doom.
i will continue in my spoiler-free film review mode.
story:
spielberg, lucas and ford are all very, very busy men. for a long time, they all said that they would do another indy film if they could get the right script. it's been almost 2 decades, and this is what they came up with? the crystal skull?
there are some good things in the story: it's set in the 50s, so we get the height of the cold war paranoia, which is used pretty effectively, i thought. indeed, the plot seems to steadfastly feel it necessary to remind us that while we might be talking about indy, there are no nazis or WW2 as the backdrop. those things all made sense.
once the story gets going, it's actually rather enjoyable. they seed a lot of ideas for how the plot will resolve.
but to me, the success of a plot is in how well it manages to reap what it sows and in this case, they reap poorly, and sowed indiscriminately.
i found myself wishing that i stopped watching at around the halfway point--which i continue to maintain is the only part of an anne rice novel worth reading.
in the second half however, i felt, well...cheated...that at various points, i remember thinking, "holy crap, when did this become the mummy?!" there's a lot in the latter half that i felt was terribly derivative specifically of the recent mummy films.
the climax of the film completely underwhelmed me. there was to me no great moment such as when the ark is opened in the first film, or when indy sips from the grail in the third film. it was a pretty big scene, but it felt as if someone snuck in the climax of a very different film during the editing process.
acting:
harrison ford recently said in an interview that his acting style is minimalist, and that if he did even less on the set, he'd be asleep. sadly, his performance here proves that some observations about oneself can be a double-edged sword. shia laboeuf was good though, some good moments in his performance. but i think the best performance is turned in by john hurt, known to many film fans as olivander, seller of magic wands from the harry potter series.
cate blanchett, normally quite talented, is in this film completely wasted. that irritates me.
visual design & cinematography:
while retaining the cinematic tropes we've all come to know & love in an indy film (travel depicted by a moving line on a map, serial-inspired transitions), a lot of the film is shot like a more contemporary action film, with the quick-cutting and hyperkinetics best exemplified by the final fight scene in the transformers.
summary:
don't get me wrong, it isn't a terrible film--and indeed, in the first half there are some great moments in it.
but egads, after almost 2 decades, this is what they came up with? seriously?!
granted, there's some pretty hefty expectations that come with this franchise and especially considering the quality of last crusade, which for my part is neck and neck with raiders for overall enjoyment.
but if you're going to make another film in this series, you have to meet those expectations. it's the price you pay for choosing the easy way and doing a sequel in the first place.
since seeing the film i've been trying to come up with a better "maguffin", b/c franky, i think the crystal skull is pretty weak stuff after the freaking holy grail.
but here's the funny thing: if they ever do a fifth film, i'll see it. because i'm starting to wonder if, like the star trek films, only every other one is any good.
for a different perspective, check out pontius pilate's review of the film.
ed
silverwhisper posted on May 26, 2008
| views: 271
Comments
-
dailyachesandpains said on May 26, 2008....
Ed: Fantastic review! Mr. Daily made up his mind standing behind me reading your post. He said he'll wait for video! He was really wanting to go to this, but wanted to hear from a "real person" about it first. You, my friend, are the real person! He said "Thanks for saving me the gas to get there, long line, packed theatre, popcorn and soda tab!"I went to see "Iron Man" the night it opened. I'm not one for super hero movies or comic books. I LOVED IT! It was really nice seeing Robert Downey Jr. back to work and IMO, he did a fantastic job!Daily -
pickersplock said on May 26, 2008....
Aww, you've forgotten what it's like to be young.I thoroughly enjoyed myself!It was crazy and over the top, but so much fun.Like riding the roller coaster! -
hugecock! said on May 26, 2008....
I want to see it. -
the_infernal_optimist said on May 26, 2008....
Ack! Don't tell me it sucks! :-p
Oh well...I'd have to wait for it to come out on DVD anyway, so maybe it's just as well that I'm not missing the next great movie of all time.
~Infernal
-
diabolicdame said on May 26, 2008....
Thanks for the review.. I was thinking of watching this.. not a good idea I think now. And on hiatus, eh? Even though we might miss you here.. I do hope you have a happy hiatus Ed!
:-)
-
ALIENated said on May 26, 2008....
Pretty much the same review I have heard from other sources. I will wait for the DVD. I do not like supporting anything that Hollywood does anymore, considering how they are selling us all out with their propaganda on so many subjects. I do wonder why Lucas does not come up with something else besides Star Wars and Indiana Jones. What is next, American Grafitti II? If he would do something new and original, then there would be nothing to compare it to, which may be the reason he does not do anything new. Doing sequals guarantees a certain audience no matter what.
-
soaringraven said on May 26, 2008....
To be quite honest (you do accept honesty?) I find most large studio adventure/drama films a tad over produced, overly structured and highly over rated/ Houses like Lucas and their ilk, having long ago opted for the formula or template concept of creating a cinenatic art (much like the popular fiction writers of the day) and have lost sight of true ceativity.
One can literally time certain aspects of most films these days. The amount of time that elapses between the opening credits and that point where the protagonist is embroiled in that high tension, emotion saturated encounter with ______ (You choose, long lost: parent, sibling, lover or whatever. the only real requirement is that the two must, I say must have been estranged for several years at least and harbour some yet to be resolved resentments) that peaks just this side of the 'tear jerk' flash point, is most consistant. Then comes the sudden, surprise realization that the pair are being observed by the antogonist or the minions thereof. This is inevitably followed in short order by the______ (You choose: the high energy, action packed, emotion drenched flight to escape the clutches of the arch villian, OR: the high energy, brave, desperate, action packed and emotion drenched fight to the finish against said arch villian.) Or both!
Once these elements of the story have been accomplished, the movie is essentially over regardless how much time remains on the clock.
So really all you need to know is the geneal setting, the name and nature of the protagonist, the nature of the relationship between same and the eventual companion/sidekick, the name an nature of the antogonist and whether it will be a chase, fight or both and one can play out the entire story in the mind without ever having seen the film.
Rubbish!
soaring
-
CreativeWoman said on May 27, 2008....
Thanks for the review. The movie trailer didn't really grab me, but I may go see it for old time's sake. It's kind of a nostalgia thing. I've seen all the others.
CW
-
Lysander said on May 27, 2008....
I had a lot of fun in the movie, actually. While I was on vacation, I re-watched all three movies to refresh my memories and I had forgotten how stupid Temple of Doom was. This was better than Temple of Doom, easily. And I felt worth the matinée price I paid for the ticket. It was what I expected from an Indiana Jones film. I think too many times the expectation and hope kills movies.
I honestly thought the acting overall was good. Cate turned in a performance that fit her character - strange, unworldly and power hungry. Of course, I felt that the final grail scene in 3 where he drinks from a cup was pretty weak.
-
silverwhisper said on May 28, 2008....
daily: honestly, i don't know what everyone else is raving about with this film! and yeah, i thought iron man rocked!
pickers: trust me, i haven't forgotten what it's like to be young. :p there were some really great moments in the film, don't get me wrong, but the whole? meh.
hugecock: OK, you definitely win for the funniest username i've seen in a long, long time. :>
infernal: i'm starting to think that they ran into a deadline and went w/ the least crappy script they had lying around, to be honest.
diabolic: thank you, i do plan to enjoy it. i have a simple rating system for films: see in theater, rent/otherwise make effort to see DVD, watch if on cable, and avoid. this one hovers b/n rent & watch if on cable, sadly.
alienated: considering your poor opinion of my critical skills, i'm surprised you bothered reading! i neither know nor care what your random kneejerk reactionary mini-rant is about, though.
SR: i find most films to be overproduced and overrated. yes, many films are formulaic--although the best ones manage to push the formula to the background successfully, i've always felt. "do i accept honesty?" what a strange question.
CW: see, i thought the trailer looked good, myself, but once i heard what the maguffin was, i sorta lost interest.
lys: funny, i thought that final grail scene was too much, myself. obviously, i don't share most of your views re: the film, but that's OK as i figured we were bound to disagree. and episode 1 was horrible, btw, save for the duel of the fates! :p
ed -
soaringraven said on May 28, 2008....
By the time I started having serious second thoughts about leaving that in there my edit time had run out. You can't unsay some ignorant comment once its out there.
soaring
-
Lysander said on May 28, 2008....
Yes, ed, you reserve your right to be completely wrong as always. ;) -
silverwhisper said on May 30, 2008....
SR: no big deal. :>
lys: i reserve it, yet you keep taking it from me... :D
ed -
mysterious said on Jun 01, 2008....
I actually liked Indy 4 :-) For me, it was awesome!! I know, I'm pretty shallow LOL Maybe because there was a lot of great expectations for this one, since everybody's been waiting on it for such a long time. Also, I got to admit, I kinda had forgotten what the first Indy movies were, how it was, all I remember was: Indiana Jones!! LOL -
silverwhisper said on Jun 02, 2008....
well, i'm glad you enjoyed the film. :>
ed -
-ocean- said on Jun 06, 2008....
I havnt seen the film yet, but I do plan to, although my friends that have just feel that the ending ruined it, but that naturally with all indiana jones movies, they are all really over done and so you can't take them too seriously, what a great guy tho, at 65 Harrison Ford still manages it. -
-ocean- said on Jun 06, 2008....
(good review by the way) -
silverwhisper said on Jun 06, 2008....
thank you, ocean. i'd be curious to know what you think of it when you've seen it. :>
ed