Interesting post Montana...
Montana Smith said:
But for going overboard, KOTCS knocks the others out of the park. Whether that's to do with the natural progression of sequels, that there's an expectation for something more each time, or whether it signals a drought of creativity, is debatable.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on cause (even though we may agree about the effect). I personally find TOD to be the most overblown… it always has, and still does (IMHO), feel like a series of Indy sketches cobbled together rather than having any real narrative structure holding the action in place. The mine cart sequence still remains the most ludicrous substantial set piece of all the Indy movies to me. I think it works better than the jungle chase due to better technical implementation, but it’s still an utterly preposterous set piece nonetheless.
Montana Smith said:
The film is frustrating for me because it had the opportunity to be as engaging as it's predecessors, but after Doom Town it fails to captivate. In place of characterization and engaging dialogue, there is instead yet more overblown spectacle. For much of the time it appears that actors are delivering their lines without much feeling or self-belief, punctuating the period until the next cliffhanger.
Ironically, I feel that the dialogue driven elements of KOTCS are one of its strengths… be that the scenes between Indy and Dean Stanforth, the diner, the market place, Oxley’s cell, Orellana’s tomb and even the Russian camp scenes. I think those scenes are spot on and, for the most part, at least as successful (if not better) to similar scenes within the other Indy sequels. The problem for me is that there are no real significant/standout action sequences to underpin the quieter/expositional scenes e.g. the jungle chase felt somewhat inferior to the tank/truck chase, there was nothing comparable in terms of imagination/execution to the rope bridge scene from TOD etc. etc.
Montana Smith said:
It's not often that John Hurt or Ray Winstone will deliver a perfromance that doesn't demand your attention, but here neither seem to know what they were supposed to be doing. As though they were as confused about the material as Alec Guiness was with the genre of science fiction - though he managed to pull of an entirely professional and riveting performance as Obi-Wan Kenobi.
Not taking anything away from Hurt or Winstone, but they are jobbing actors. I don’t think they took their respective parts because they believed it would stretch them as actors… rather it was to do with the ££££’s and kudos from being in an Indiana Jones movie. Prior to KOTCS, there were similar discussions around Denholm Elliot and John Rhys-Davies in TLC... so this criticism isn't something new. Whilst I completely agree that there were too many characters in KOTCS, and that the characters of Ox and Mac were annoyingly under written, I think it is completely in keeping with the other sequels (unfortunately).
Montana Smith said:
The movie looks tired, and I don't think it's because it's homage to the earlier parts of the series, as all Indy movies are homage to the past. By their nature they are backwards looking.
I think the key difference is that KOTCS was paying homage to itself (stylistically) and not necessarily to the serials that inspired the original concept. I can’t think of a comparable movie, at the time, to
Raiders and TOD (other than old black and white Hollywood movies/Republic serials). In 2008 KOTCS looks like a plethora of other contemporary movies (including the earlier Indy movies as well as those that had copied Indiana Jones e.g. The Mummy etc.).
Montana Smith said:
Could the division between Lucas and Spielberg over the subject of aliens have spilled over into the production? Could this uneasiness have filtered down through the team?
Quite possibly... probably likely. Unfortunately, moving events to the 1950’s and incorporating UFO’s/aliens was the most progressive/adventurous element of the movie for me. I like movies that take a risk, and I think Lucas was probably the only one willing to mix the formula up a bit (rightly or wrongly).
Montana Smith said:
Maybe this was totally the wrong storyline to use when re-introducing Indy to the public imagination? The themes of aging, fatherhood and responsibility might have been better served by a more down-to-earth, or more familiar artifact. And a journey in which Indy was in control, despite his maturing years. Indy 4 wasn't the time to play dangerously - as that could have been reserved for an Indy 5, which would realistically have been Harrison's last blast as the character.
I agree. I think it comes back to KOTCS being neither one thing nor other. I think they took the most sensible/logical decision in making a hybrid (to ensure a safe return)… However, that doesn’t necessarily equate to the best movie. Personally, I thought that after such a long absence, they could have been more radical with KOTCS in terms of style and approach. But clearly they wanted a safe bet (or as safe as it could be).
Montana Smith said:
As it is, KOTCS has already written the series into a corner. Where can they go now after surviving an atomic bomb in a flying fridge, plunging over three waterfalls in succession and meeting with aliens?
I would be happy with a calmer Indy 5, but it's going to look odd to a lot of viewers after KOTCS. This is likely a big part of the delay and uncertainty hanging over the project.
What movies such as James Bond, Batman and Star Trek show us is there is no such thing as a point of no return… I’m pretty sure the world would be receptive to another Indy movie with Ford as the eponymous hero. Spielberg and Lucas have the advantage of having something as close to “a sure thing” as one can get with a movie… which means that they could go serious, darker, smaller and more personal if they wanted to. We’ll hold our breath with anticipation…
