Thursday, June 5, 2008

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

Tolerable.
Fun.
Weak

13 comments:

  1. fig. a: ...Under a table!

    fig. b: ...Into a refridgerator!

    fig. c: ...Into a fireplace!

    fig. d: ...Under a horse!

    fig. e: ...Into a Cracker Jack box!

    fig. f: ...Into the barrel of a gun!

    fig. g: ...Into a leprechaun's pot of gold!

    fig. h: ...Under a fucking bear!

    fig. i: ...Into your mother's arms!

    fig. j: ...Under a magical unicorn!

    fig. k: ...Under the horrible death-aura of a grizzlicorn!

    fig. l: ...Into your own ass!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I hope that the picture works on some level even without the descriptive text, though I'm not sure why - I WANT you to read the descriptions. In any case, if you haven't heard about the meeting of the unstoppable nuclear warhead with the impervious kitchen refridgerator then you haven't been paying attention, and that little slice of insanity is what this was all about.

    This was a poorly-conceived and badly-executed movie. I'm not sure why they felt the urge to revisit the Indiana Jones franchise after twenty years just so they could make the worst one yet.

    I could entertain you with a horrifyingly long, detailed explanation of my thoughts upon the first and last twenty minutes of the film, because I've written that already. But I'll keep this review a little more focused than I usually am. Suffice it to say that the movie jarred me into incredulous reality way too many times - either by use of insane plot devices, obvious green-screen backdrops, a worthless sense of timing in individual scenes, or simply by ditching everything that you would expect in an Indiana Jones movie for the slam-bang CG spectacular climax. The sins are too many, the movie is no good.

    Harrison Ford does a good job of bringing Indy back, but he's the only one.

    There are, incidently, a lot of people who have really enjoyed this movie (Apparently). So it seems that the movie clearly hasn't missed its marks entirely. Somehow. As for me, I say that Indiana Jones should have been left alone, where it belonged.

    In a museum.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I knew I should've gotten off my piles of money and reviewed this first.

    We've bickered about this plenty on our own so I'm not going to start bickering with you here, but merely offer my counter point that Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is a totally awesome movie on par with Temple of Doom and below Raiders and Last Crusade. I agree that aspects of the movie are totally absurd but I do not think there is a fine line between ridiculous and believable in a franchise where professor routinely bests fully trained Nazi soldiers in one on one fist fights.

    The Indiana Jones films have always been based on the old movie serials from the '50s. You know, the horribly cheesy things you'd be ashamed to admit you loved as a kid. These films follow the style of Miyamoto's Legend of Zelda. It's all about boyhood nostalgia and a hero that can survive anything and get the bad guys in the end. I put Indiana Jones movie on par with my boyhood pretend time playing 'cowboys and indians' with my next door neighbors. If you're going to look at it more analytically than that you've kind of missed the point.

    Crystal Skull does decline in quality compared to the other films in terms of acting (aside from Ford and Shia) as well as in some mild CGI overuse. The ending, as well, feels more abrupt than anything. Everything else is completely on par with the rest of the series with modern day technology (green screens) replacing old fashioned and obvious matte paintings we had in the old movies. This is Indiana Jones adjusted for inflation and some people can't handle that.

    Will you notice when CG and green screens are used? Most likely, but I could always tell in the originals when miniatures and matte paintings were used and it never bothered me one bit. So are you going to roll your eyes because you feel that George Lucas ruined another part of your childhood or get over yourself and watch an archealogist beat the living snot out of some communists?

    ReplyDelete
  4. "The Indiana Jones films have always been based on the old movie serials from the '50s."

    This is true and should always be taken into account. The first three movies were set in the sort of adventure serial stories you'd get in the time period they're placed in - the 30s and 40s. This one is in the 50s, which is why its sci-fi as opposed to supernatural. At least, that's how I saw it. I enjoyed it a lot - it has its flaws, but so do the others!

    The greasers vs. jocks and the motorcycle chase in particular were made of awesome. And although I agree that surviving a nuclear explosion in a lead lined 'fridge is unlikely at the least (so is jumping out of a plane on an inflatable raft, btw), the shot of Indy overlooking the mushroom cloud was amazing.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's not unlikely, it's impossible! Did you learn nothing from the diagram! *Taps the diagram furiously with a pointer stick* What do they teach in schools these days! :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yay for Sci-fi adventurer Indiana Jones! If only his side-kick had an army of monkeys to do his bidding...

    Moving the franchise from supernatural to interdimensional sci-fi was a horrible move. IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Harsh! I should have stuck with "fridge". What the hell, English Language.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You see, while I recognize the crappy CGI and relative suckiness(I still find it better than Temple), this could've been titled "Harrison Ford Beats People Up" and I would have seen it.

    Of course, this is simply my nostalgia talking. Were I to actually judge the movie critically, I would need to see it again, this time with teh mindset of "What's wrong with this?" other than "Holy shit, Ford just killed a Commie!"

    ReplyDelete
  9. Oh goddamnit, I used "teh" again.
    I need to stop doing that.
    And writing things at 2 AM.
    And starting sentences with and.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Okay, okay, already. Points to both sides of the net.

    My biggest gripe and something I found totally distracting, and I know this is going to sound terribly "mean girl-ish", but ya think Karen Allen's agent forgot to give her a heads up on her being in the movie and therefore, that is why she didn't do anything to lose some weight/look better? I mean, here is her first big screen role in 4 years and the first, in my opinion, of a decent role in a good movie in 8 years (she was in Perfect Storm in 2000) and she looks like Mrs. Pillsbury Doughboy. Sorry, Karen, I think you should have made better use of your screen time. At 57 she's no spring chicken, we know that, and we know she has aged, but didn't she have time to lift some weights? I mean Harrison Ford at 66 years old looked better.

    Call me catty if you will, but it was a distraction to me. Seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Meow! Yeah, that's catty. Although now that you've mentioned it if I ever watch this movie again this is all I'm going to be able to think about when I see Karen Allen.

    Oh man, "if" I see it again. I guess that's an indication of how good it really was.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It could happen..... like as a Science Mystery Theater 3000 viewing. It would probably be a good movie for that venue! LOL!

    Oh, poor Karen Allen.

    ReplyDelete

This is where you can leave a comment. Don't forget to include a link back to your malware site!