*CONTAINS SPOILERS*
Okay, so this was originally going to be a 'Five on Friday' thing about sequels that should never have happened. I spent three days writing the thing, but when I click 'publish' the whole thing deletes itself.
Well, not everything. The first entry (and a little bit of the second) remained and so I keep it here so I can actually post something finally.
My review of the new Indiana Jones film:
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls
5 comments:
"I describe all of this because out of this first fifteen minutes, about one minute comes back to be relevant later in the film." -- same as all the other jones films
"He wins the day at the end by running away!" -- not dissimilar to the old films. Indiana always walked away with nothing at the end - except his life - the bad guys generally would lose their lives because they didn't know when to quit.
Actually watch the old films again and maybe work out what you liked about them - because basically it sounds like you are completely unfamiliar with what you are watching.
Okay, let us look at each of the old films then.
Raiders of the Lost Ark:
Opens with Indiana Jone being chased by a boulder, etc. All very important because this is the first time anybody has seen this character. It sets up that he is heroic and like treasure, etc.
Ends with the ark being opened and people's faces melting. Indiana Jones realises that you shouldn't look and closes his eyes, as well as getting the love interest to close hers. That is an action, however small.
Temple of Doom:
OK, the opening here has little relation to the plot later, so I'll give you that.
The ending however, Indiana Jones does a whole bunch. He fights people and has a cart chase and hangs on a bridge. Lots of action.
Last Crusade:
Begins with Young Indy, essentially setting up the overall conflicts in the film. These are his relationship with his father and his feeling that things belong in a museum.
Ends with him solving puzzles and eventually picking the correct Holy Grail. He cures his father and saves the day.
My issue was never with what he recieved in material goods at the end, but the fact that he didn't do anything to change the outcome during the forth film. He just ran away.
Please though, if you come back, leave a name. I like to know who's opinion I'm disputing.
:D
sorry, mate, but I gotta agree with Anon :P . I get what you're saying, but Indy Jones movies have always been and always will be cheesy B-movies dressed up as summer blockbusters.
I do agree with you that the beginnings and endings of the previous three Indy's (Temple of Doom being the exception) were better. And I also really disliked the fridge and waterfall stuff (as I mention in my own review). But stuff like that happened in the previous movies, as well. Remember the inflatable raft in Temple of Doom? Or the 800-year-old knight in Crusade?
The 'don't look' thing in Raiders was a tiny action, so I'll give you that... but Short Round was really the one who saved the day in Temple, for the most part. Though he did do a lot more in Crusade (which is another reason why Crusade is my favorite).
But yeah, the point is that it might not be the best Indy film, but it still goes right along the same path as the others.
I totally get that the Indiana Jones series is a bunch of B-Movies with blockbuster pretensions, and would never hold this against them.
In the example from TOD, Indiana Jones lands a raft onto a mountain and survives. I can believe this because in the world that the film is set in, this is a believable outcome.
Also, in the Indiana Jones world it is believable that someone could live for 800 years.
However, in Crystal Skulls, the world sets up that waterfalls are dangerous, then shows them not doing anything special to survive, yet surviving none-the-less. So really, there was no danger.
After giving the film air to breathe in my mind, this was its biggest issue for me. It set up a lot of things that never came to fruition. Indy's age, Mutt's knife, Mutt's bike, Cate Blanchett's psychic powers, the danger of staring into the skull, the danger of waterfalls, etc.
I can take the unbelievable things (although the fridge is seriously pushing it) but what I can't take is Indy doing very little to affect the events.
This next bit may sound prissy, but please take it in the nicest way. Feel free to disagree with me, but please don't question my knowledge of the older Indy films. If I didnt know what I was talking about, I wouldn't say it.
Another sidenote: My reaction to this film may be overly harsh. It is not the worst film ever, but that is why I have to pick it apart so badly. Because I wanted to be on this film's side. It had everything going for it and all it managed was a sub-par film.
It also concerns me that people will see the film anyway, because of Indy's name, and that the suits will take this as a mark of quality and make another sequel.
And I REALLY REALLY don't want that.
Unless Lucas isn't involved and it had Nathan Fillion.
Then I'm all on board!
:D
lol, I didn't mean to insult your Indy movie knowledge or anything. I'd probably feel the same way if somebody questioned my knowledge of Harry Potter (in fact, that has happened before, and I did feel that way :P ).
And hell yeah... I'd go see a sequel with Nathan Fillion. I did see 'Slither' because of him, after all.
Post a Comment