Put a Stake in it

Joe Brody

Joe Brody

Well-known member
J

jazzycmk

New member
Here was a line from a review of "Raiders" in 1981:

"You can almost feel Lucas and Spielberg whipping the editor to clip things sharper....It's all smart zap -- a moviemaker's self-reflexive feat." (film critic Pauline Kael)


Even the classics have their share of critics.

Don't worry about the NYT -- there's a reason their circulation has plummeted.
 
Kingsley

Kingsley

Member
I understand your fears Joe.
I liked those scenes where Indy had time to peel an apple and laugh a little with Sallah and family.

But there are several reviews "complaining" about slow moments that contradict Reuters newswire review.

It's not the movie we dreamed. But it seems it isn't that bad at all.
 
Last edited:
T

tnswman

New member
Kingsley said:
I understand your fears Joe.
I liked those scenes where Indy had time to peel an apple and laugh a little with Sallah and family.

But there are several reviews "complaining" about slow moments that contradict NYT review.

It's not the movie we dreamed. But it seems it isn't that bad at all.
Click to expand...


It's the New york times people.. You folks do know that EVERYONE laughs at that paper.

It's a wonder they were let in.
 
G

gallandro

New member
This is not the NY Times review of the film, this is the Hollywood Reporter review (which was posted elsewhere). NY Times simply picked it up. Again, who cares, there have be many very positive reviews, and frankly one of the few film critics I actually take seriously, Richard Corliss, gushed over Crystal Skull, so I know it will be fine!


Yancy
 
A

akator

New member
gallandro said:
This is not the NY Times review of the film, this is the Hollywood Reporter review (which was posted elsewhere). NY Times simply picked it up. Again, who cares, there have be many very positive reviews, and frankly one of the few film critics I actually take seriously, Richard Corliss, gushed over Crystal Skull, so I know it will be fine!


Yancy
Click to expand...
(y) It will be awesome
 
Joe Brody

Joe Brody

Well-known member
tnswman said:
It's the New york times people.. You folks do know that EVERYONE laughs at that paper.

It's a wonder they were let in.
Click to expand...

MuttJones21 said:
Grrah! DAMN YOU NEW YORK TIMES! seriously, those guys HATE EVERYTHING! just ignore em!
Click to expand...

tnswman said:
It's the New york times people.. You folks do know that EVERYONE laughs at that paper.

It's a wonder they were let in.
Click to expand...

I love the knee-jerk reaction against the Times. . . especially since its not even their review. The content of the reaction speaks for itself.

One article that the Times did run on the KotCS recently was a positive (but dis-jointed) article by Terrance Rafferty in its May 4, 2008 Summer Movie section. There's not much to that article other some fragmented Spielberg quotes that continue to demonstrate his approach to "Indy Film" as shameless over-the-top comedy.

It's tough digesting this re-constructive history. For years, my perception has been that comedy was used to salvage the sequels -- and that comedy is an essential-but-ancilliary element in the fllms. However, in the build-up advance press to the KotCS release, there has been a disconcerting and re-occuring emphasis on the importance of the comedy and silly gags. It's interesting seeing the man who brought us Munich, re-define the franchise.

But heh, Spielberg makes these films for recreation -- and it is his narrative -- so who are we to get between a guy and his fun?
 
C

commontone

New member
Joe Brody said:
From the early Reuters newswire review picked up by the New York Times:



Just what we feared: a hurried characterless adventure set in well-lit caves without wit and romance. Well, is it to early to start hoping for Indy V?

Link to the Times article (with minor spoilers):

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/arts/entertainment-film-indiana.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Click to expand...

If you read some of the many other reviews, you'll see that (someone else has mentioned this) they contradict each other all over the place. Even amongst the positive ones. Some think there's too much action, others think it's too talky. Some think Shia is brilliant, others think he's merely passable. And on and on.

Because of this, I think sites like RottenTomatoes or Metacritic are worth taking a look at, at least. With such varying opinions on the finer points, if you want a good overall picture of what the critics have decided, it will be contained in those sites (though I prefer Metacritic easily over RT).

Anyway, with the plethora of reviews already available, why on earth are you plucking a single one out of the air and treating it as gospel? Makes no sense to me.
 
Joe Brody

Joe Brody

Well-known member
commontone said:
Anyway, with the plethora of reviews already available, why on earth are you plucking a single one out of the air and treating it as gospel? Makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...

Reasonable point. . . .so I waited until I had a review from a critic who I trusted. Here's an excerpt from The Wall Street Journal's Joe Morgenstern (who IMO is the best action-adventure critic out there -- and second to Anthony Lane).

One unwelcome surprise is the level of craftsmanship [in KotCS] -- widely variable cinematography, continuity glitches, characterizations ranging from perfunctory to nil. (The script was written by David Koepp, while the story is credited to George Lucas and Jeff Nathanson.) Another is the level of performances. Ms. Blanchett, a movie star of rare intelligence and grace, gets to carry a sword, read minds, fight fights and strike one sultry pose after another, but she's only a decorative presence, and a charm-free one (though her character's mind eventually catches fire). It's good to see Karen Allen back as Marion Ravenwood, the love of Indy's earlier life; it would have been better if she'd had something livelier to do than drive an amphibious truck on a chase through trackless jungles. Mr. LaBoeuf, a manifestly talented young actor, isn't funny, and there's no sign of him having been helped by his director.
Click to expand...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121131447661908023.html?mod=at_leisure_main_reviews_days_only

Well, I'm off to see the film now. I'm still hoping for the best. . . .
 
Niteshade007

Niteshade007

New member
I agree entirely with that review by Morgenstern. I don't see how people can say that Blanchett was one of the best villains. Yes, she gets to fight, but her psychic abilities are barely used. It's as if they couldn't decide which direction to go with her. Either make her the sultry vixen (as her theme suggests) or make her a total badass. Or, an even better idea, put the two ideas together and make an interesting character. But instead they decided to start off sultry, show some badass, and make the rest bland.

I was so excited that Marion was returning. But she was not the same character I fell in love with. She was dull, and there simply because she was Marion. Better than the alternative, having some young actress follow Indy around and falling head over heels in love with him, but lets see some development between Marion and Indy. Let's see them fall in love all over again. Actually, lets see Marion do anything other than drive a car around a jungle.

Mutt's character is one that I'm on the fence about. I think that Shia played off Ford well, but the character was lacking something. I do enjoy him, and I can't say that I found him to be the slightest bit annoying (although, the rope swinging thing is absolutely ridiculous. The monkeys only made it worse).

The skull was just not interesting. I know Lucas loved the idea, but it just did not work for me at all. Even if it had been a Mayan skull with magical powers I might have bought it, but the aliens just did not work.

The film does have some good moments. The end was decent, and a nice little joke. I liked the location being in the jungle, as opposed to once again being in the desert. I didn't mind the Area 51 opening, although I feel that the nuclear testing/Doom Town was completely unnecessary. It added nothing. The ants were good, and I love the snake/quicksand thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top