kongisking
Active member
What follows below is an excerpt from a DVD Verdict review of the Blu-ray 2-Disc edition of Crystal Skull. I really thought that this critic had his heart in the right place, and everything he says in his evaluation of the movie 100% echoes my thoughts. These words perfectly express my opinion of both the movie itself and fan?s appalling reactions. Please read this.*
* I?ve also highlighted what I think are the most important points, to save any Anti-KOTCSers the trouble of having to read yet another of those meddlesome ?positive reviews? of their least favorite movie. Isn?t that just so considerate of me?
This review is an intelligent, reasonable, understandable defense of KOTCS, and, by thunder, I have half a mind to call this fella up and invite him to dinner. I am not kidding.
After 19 years of waiting, Indiana Jones fans such as myself were finally treated to a fourth installment during the summer of 2008. Despite attaining great success at the box office, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was regarded by a large portion of critics and audiences as a disappointment. I guess I'm in the minority. I have now seen the film four times, and each time I have only grown to love this movie more. As far as I'm concerned, it is very much a worthy entry into the Indy canon. Call me crazy, but first permit me to give you an idea of where I am coming from.
The Indiana Jones films have always been about goofy, over-the-top fun. Somehow, as time has gone by, viewers have granted too much significance to the films. I am not meaning to imply that they should not be considered to be great films. I mean that we are starting to take them too seriously. The Indiana Jones films do not represent the pinnacle of cinematic drama or storytelling. They represent the ultimate height of giddy joy. Think of that moment in the map room during Raiders of the Lost Ark when Indy discovers the location of the Ark of the Covenant. That's what these movies are all about.
Joy is a quality that is severely lacking in far too much of modern cinema. Audiences today tend to like their action movies grim and ominous. Now, I've got nothing against the Jason Bourne films or the current version of the James Bond franchise?but by golly, it's nice to have an action flick here and there that is better described as "fun" or "delightful" rather than "hardcore" or "gritty." This movie is jam-packed with the kind of B-movie excitement that infused the other films in the franchise. Just look at the way it opens, with a group of 1950s teens roaring down the road while blasting Elvis Presley's "You Ain't Nothing But a Hound Dog." The teens come across a pack of American military vehicles and challenge one of them to a race. That giddy moment sets the tone for the film, and it never lets up over the course of the entire two hours.
Some have complained that this Indy film is much too silly. The scene most frequently referenced is the funny moment in which Indy survives a nuclear blast by placing himself inside a lead-lined refrigerator. That's absolutely preposterous, certainly. But Indy's inexplicable ability to survive impossible situations is part of what has always endeared him to me.
Consider that sequence in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, in which Indy and his friends manage to survive a long plummet from an airplane using an inflatable raft, and then manage to survive yet another enormous drop into a raging river. If a cheap inflatable raft can help someone survive a fall of thousands of feet then a lead-lined fridge can get someone through a nuclear blast.
Of course, if you think that both scenes are equally obnoxious, then I simply have no case to make with you. Your view of what an action movie should be is obviously different than mine. But it's frankly hypocritical to attack this film for silliness while defending the other three. Has this era of hyper-realism ruined us?
When I saw the movie for the first time, I had a nice long laugh at the action scenes in the film, which were obviously intended to be funny and over-the-top in a goofy manner. I was frankly startled when I came home and discovered that internet message boards were whining about all the ridiculous scenes in this movie. You may say that Shia LeBeouf swinging through the trees with a bunch of monkeys is a terrible travesty of an idea. I say that it's so blatantly outlandish that it's somehow inspired.
In some ways, it seems like this is a film that Steven Spielberg was always destined to make. It takes all of his favorite themes and concepts and blends them together into an immensely entertaining stew. Yes, like Spielberg's other three Indy films, it is a throwback to B-movie of the 1930s and 1940s. Actually, this one is also a throwback to the sci-fi B-movies of the 1950s (the era in which the film is set), which is responsible for the slight change in tone from the previous three outings. That also allows Spielberg to continue to explore his alien fetish (Close Encounters of the Third Kind, E.T., War of the Worlds), though to be fair, that portion of the film was proposed by George Lucas.
As if that weren't enough, Spielberg also tosses in some good old childhood abandonment issues. It should feel like a vanity project, but it doesn't. That's largely because Spielberg, Lucas, Ford, Koepp, and everyone else have no greater goal in mind than to make the viewer grin from ear to ear. If that's not a worthy goal, I simply don't know what is.
As with the previous Indy outings, this one features loads of exciting action sequences in a wide variety of locations. There's a frantic scuffle with some Russians, a wild motorcycle chase across a college campus, a spooky encounter with some South American natives, and a comically-organized car chase through the jungle (yes, you heard that correctly).
Like the Bond movies, the Indy films have their beguiling conventions. In previous film, we have slimy encounters with rats, snakes, and bugs. Here, we get some giant killer ants. There's also the usual set of obstacles that must be braved in order to reach an important goal. As always, the reward at the end of the journey is peculiar and bittersweet at best.
Many doubted that Harrison Ford would be able to successfully play the role at this point in time. The actor may be in his sixties, but he's as terrific as ever here. Ford's low-key, grinning, growling charm is in full force in this movie. The actor has seemed bored with many of his recent roles, but here you can see that glimmer of delight back in his eyes.
At long last, he is joined again by Karen Allen (The Perfect Storm) as Marion Ravenwood. There have been other women, but we all knew that none of them counted. For Indy, there has only ever been one woman, and at long last the filmmakers have realized that. Allen hasn't been onscreen too often in recent times, and it's a thrill to discover that she's as wonderful as ever. Twenty-seven years later, the chemistry is still there.
Shia LaBeouf actually manages to be pretty likable in the role of Mutt, Indy's young sidekick. John Hurt manages to seem as if he is always hiding some sort of delightful secret, and Ray Winstone reprises his sleazy double-crossing role from Ripley's Game.
I loved Cate Blanchett as a relentlessly determined villain. Blanchett pushes the role so far that she ceases to be frightening and starts to become appallingly funny, which is precisely what she should be. I would go so far as to say that she is the finest villain to grace an Indy film to date. The previous films have all had a "champagne" villain and a creepy heavy. This movie only has Blanchett. That's okay. She has enough vigor to fill both roles, and maybe a couple more.
I hope there are some of you out there who love this film as much as I do. The film is a love letter to Indiana Jones fans, and it contains everything I've ever loved about the movies. As for the rest of you?well, take heart. I hear they're making a prequel to 300.
* I?ve also highlighted what I think are the most important points, to save any Anti-KOTCSers the trouble of having to read yet another of those meddlesome ?positive reviews? of their least favorite movie. Isn?t that just so considerate of me?
This review is an intelligent, reasonable, understandable defense of KOTCS, and, by thunder, I have half a mind to call this fella up and invite him to dinner. I am not kidding.
After 19 years of waiting, Indiana Jones fans such as myself were finally treated to a fourth installment during the summer of 2008. Despite attaining great success at the box office, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was regarded by a large portion of critics and audiences as a disappointment. I guess I'm in the minority. I have now seen the film four times, and each time I have only grown to love this movie more. As far as I'm concerned, it is very much a worthy entry into the Indy canon. Call me crazy, but first permit me to give you an idea of where I am coming from.
The Indiana Jones films have always been about goofy, over-the-top fun. Somehow, as time has gone by, viewers have granted too much significance to the films. I am not meaning to imply that they should not be considered to be great films. I mean that we are starting to take them too seriously. The Indiana Jones films do not represent the pinnacle of cinematic drama or storytelling. They represent the ultimate height of giddy joy. Think of that moment in the map room during Raiders of the Lost Ark when Indy discovers the location of the Ark of the Covenant. That's what these movies are all about.
Joy is a quality that is severely lacking in far too much of modern cinema. Audiences today tend to like their action movies grim and ominous. Now, I've got nothing against the Jason Bourne films or the current version of the James Bond franchise?but by golly, it's nice to have an action flick here and there that is better described as "fun" or "delightful" rather than "hardcore" or "gritty." This movie is jam-packed with the kind of B-movie excitement that infused the other films in the franchise. Just look at the way it opens, with a group of 1950s teens roaring down the road while blasting Elvis Presley's "You Ain't Nothing But a Hound Dog." The teens come across a pack of American military vehicles and challenge one of them to a race. That giddy moment sets the tone for the film, and it never lets up over the course of the entire two hours.
Some have complained that this Indy film is much too silly. The scene most frequently referenced is the funny moment in which Indy survives a nuclear blast by placing himself inside a lead-lined refrigerator. That's absolutely preposterous, certainly. But Indy's inexplicable ability to survive impossible situations is part of what has always endeared him to me.
Consider that sequence in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, in which Indy and his friends manage to survive a long plummet from an airplane using an inflatable raft, and then manage to survive yet another enormous drop into a raging river. If a cheap inflatable raft can help someone survive a fall of thousands of feet then a lead-lined fridge can get someone through a nuclear blast.
Of course, if you think that both scenes are equally obnoxious, then I simply have no case to make with you. Your view of what an action movie should be is obviously different than mine. But it's frankly hypocritical to attack this film for silliness while defending the other three. Has this era of hyper-realism ruined us?
When I saw the movie for the first time, I had a nice long laugh at the action scenes in the film, which were obviously intended to be funny and over-the-top in a goofy manner. I was frankly startled when I came home and discovered that internet message boards were whining about all the ridiculous scenes in this movie. You may say that Shia LeBeouf swinging through the trees with a bunch of monkeys is a terrible travesty of an idea. I say that it's so blatantly outlandish that it's somehow inspired.
In some ways, it seems like this is a film that Steven Spielberg was always destined to make. It takes all of his favorite themes and concepts and blends them together into an immensely entertaining stew. Yes, like Spielberg's other three Indy films, it is a throwback to B-movie of the 1930s and 1940s. Actually, this one is also a throwback to the sci-fi B-movies of the 1950s (the era in which the film is set), which is responsible for the slight change in tone from the previous three outings. That also allows Spielberg to continue to explore his alien fetish (Close Encounters of the Third Kind, E.T., War of the Worlds), though to be fair, that portion of the film was proposed by George Lucas.
As if that weren't enough, Spielberg also tosses in some good old childhood abandonment issues. It should feel like a vanity project, but it doesn't. That's largely because Spielberg, Lucas, Ford, Koepp, and everyone else have no greater goal in mind than to make the viewer grin from ear to ear. If that's not a worthy goal, I simply don't know what is.
As with the previous Indy outings, this one features loads of exciting action sequences in a wide variety of locations. There's a frantic scuffle with some Russians, a wild motorcycle chase across a college campus, a spooky encounter with some South American natives, and a comically-organized car chase through the jungle (yes, you heard that correctly).
Like the Bond movies, the Indy films have their beguiling conventions. In previous film, we have slimy encounters with rats, snakes, and bugs. Here, we get some giant killer ants. There's also the usual set of obstacles that must be braved in order to reach an important goal. As always, the reward at the end of the journey is peculiar and bittersweet at best.
Many doubted that Harrison Ford would be able to successfully play the role at this point in time. The actor may be in his sixties, but he's as terrific as ever here. Ford's low-key, grinning, growling charm is in full force in this movie. The actor has seemed bored with many of his recent roles, but here you can see that glimmer of delight back in his eyes.
At long last, he is joined again by Karen Allen (The Perfect Storm) as Marion Ravenwood. There have been other women, but we all knew that none of them counted. For Indy, there has only ever been one woman, and at long last the filmmakers have realized that. Allen hasn't been onscreen too often in recent times, and it's a thrill to discover that she's as wonderful as ever. Twenty-seven years later, the chemistry is still there.
Shia LaBeouf actually manages to be pretty likable in the role of Mutt, Indy's young sidekick. John Hurt manages to seem as if he is always hiding some sort of delightful secret, and Ray Winstone reprises his sleazy double-crossing role from Ripley's Game.
I loved Cate Blanchett as a relentlessly determined villain. Blanchett pushes the role so far that she ceases to be frightening and starts to become appallingly funny, which is precisely what she should be. I would go so far as to say that she is the finest villain to grace an Indy film to date. The previous films have all had a "champagne" villain and a creepy heavy. This movie only has Blanchett. That's okay. She has enough vigor to fill both roles, and maybe a couple more.
I hope there are some of you out there who love this film as much as I do. The film is a love letter to Indiana Jones fans, and it contains everything I've ever loved about the movies. As for the rest of you?well, take heart. I hear they're making a prequel to 300.
