Dammit George
What did I ever do to you, huh??
That's right, just like Lenny in Mice and Men, George has once again taken a piece of my childhood and crushed in his meaty CGI inflated hands.
I should have expected this from Lucas. But I never thought that Spielberg would be complicit in such mutilation.
So, if you haven't figured it out by now, I just got back from seeing Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull. It pains me to say it; it's like daggers for me to admit it, because even though we all know that the Temple of Doom has, up until now, been the low point of the Indy trilogy, this movie brings a new nadir. At least in my humble opinion.
I will admit upfront that this movie did have it's moments, many of them delivered by Shia Lebouf [sic] (man, that kid's gotta get a better screen name). I won't give them away here, because I'm sure many of you haven't seen the movie yet, and I'd like to let you unearth the rare artifacts of goodness in this sad parody of a classic movie trilogy.
I thought Harrison Ford's performance was okay. But come on, he's getting up there. The early Gen Xers can claim that 40 is the new 20, and the Boomers can claim that 60 is the new 40, but ol' Harrison just isn't the Indy/Solo that we used to know. We still love him, but he's not pulling down any 19-year-old Carrie Fisher ass anymore and you know it!
But that wasn't the real problem with the movie. The problem with the movie is that once again, George Lucas's abilities far outstrip his movie-making wisdom. He never learned the lesson that just because on CAN do a thing, it doesn't mean that one SHOULD. What I always liked about the Indiana Jones movies was that, even though they were full of insane and, yes, unlikely stunts, and even though they always hinged on an element of the occult and paranormal, the movies had about them a kind of gritty reality that made you think maybe, just maybe, there really was something to all those old myths and legends buried in the desert sands.
In the past, we sat down with our popcorn and feasted on far away destinations: Cairo, Calcutta, Hong Kong, Venice, Alexandria. Even the parts of them that were recreated on sound stages looked realistic and had a depth that sucked you in. Not so with this film. None of the locations looked real to me. The jungle scenes were too perfect to be anything but blue-screened backgrounds. The action sequences seemed to be the same old rehashed memes that we seen in too many adventure films. Nothing seemed that innovative or provocative. And the ultimate ending, which I am doing my best not to spoil, was a tired old piece of tripe lugged out from one too many tin-foil hat, pseudo-scientific, Ripley's Believe it or Not craptacular late-night History Channel filler programs.
And not even replacing the Nazis with KGB agents fulfilled all the full promise that it could have. I love Cate Blanchett (again [sic]), but she really did give a sub-standard Boris and Natasha kind of Russian agent performance.
There are just so many places they could have gone. Yes, Indy did a lot of work in Egypt, but there are still alot of archaeological veins to tap in the middle east. What about an ancient Mesopotamian myth, or even, if you wanted to deal with Soviets in 1957, something to do with vampires in the Carpathians. Or even bring Indy a little closer to home and follow the Arthurian vein. Instead of the Holy Grail, he could have gone in search of Excalibur. So many possibilities wasted for something that would have been better suited to the upcoming X-files movie. But there, I think I've said to much.
All-in-all, my recommendation would be not so see this movie in the theater. Save your 10 bucks and Netflix it (or Blockbuster it, or whatever). You won't really be missing out on anything.
I'm going to go cry myself to sleep now.
DAMN YOU, GEORGE LUCAAAAAAASSSSSSS!!!!!!!!
That's right, just like Lenny in Mice and Men, George has once again taken a piece of my childhood and crushed in his meaty CGI inflated hands.
I should have expected this from Lucas. But I never thought that Spielberg would be complicit in such mutilation.
So, if you haven't figured it out by now, I just got back from seeing Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull. It pains me to say it; it's like daggers for me to admit it, because even though we all know that the Temple of Doom has, up until now, been the low point of the Indy trilogy, this movie brings a new nadir. At least in my humble opinion.
I will admit upfront that this movie did have it's moments, many of them delivered by Shia Lebouf [sic] (man, that kid's gotta get a better screen name). I won't give them away here, because I'm sure many of you haven't seen the movie yet, and I'd like to let you unearth the rare artifacts of goodness in this sad parody of a classic movie trilogy.
I thought Harrison Ford's performance was okay. But come on, he's getting up there. The early Gen Xers can claim that 40 is the new 20, and the Boomers can claim that 60 is the new 40, but ol' Harrison just isn't the Indy/Solo that we used to know. We still love him, but he's not pulling down any 19-year-old Carrie Fisher ass anymore and you know it!
But that wasn't the real problem with the movie. The problem with the movie is that once again, George Lucas's abilities far outstrip his movie-making wisdom. He never learned the lesson that just because on CAN do a thing, it doesn't mean that one SHOULD. What I always liked about the Indiana Jones movies was that, even though they were full of insane and, yes, unlikely stunts, and even though they always hinged on an element of the occult and paranormal, the movies had about them a kind of gritty reality that made you think maybe, just maybe, there really was something to all those old myths and legends buried in the desert sands.
In the past, we sat down with our popcorn and feasted on far away destinations: Cairo, Calcutta, Hong Kong, Venice, Alexandria. Even the parts of them that were recreated on sound stages looked realistic and had a depth that sucked you in. Not so with this film. None of the locations looked real to me. The jungle scenes were too perfect to be anything but blue-screened backgrounds. The action sequences seemed to be the same old rehashed memes that we seen in too many adventure films. Nothing seemed that innovative or provocative. And the ultimate ending, which I am doing my best not to spoil, was a tired old piece of tripe lugged out from one too many tin-foil hat, pseudo-scientific, Ripley's Believe it or Not craptacular late-night History Channel filler programs.
And not even replacing the Nazis with KGB agents fulfilled all the full promise that it could have. I love Cate Blanchett (again [sic]), but she really did give a sub-standard Boris and Natasha kind of Russian agent performance.
There are just so many places they could have gone. Yes, Indy did a lot of work in Egypt, but there are still alot of archaeological veins to tap in the middle east. What about an ancient Mesopotamian myth, or even, if you wanted to deal with Soviets in 1957, something to do with vampires in the Carpathians. Or even bring Indy a little closer to home and follow the Arthurian vein. Instead of the Holy Grail, he could have gone in search of Excalibur. So many possibilities wasted for something that would have been better suited to the upcoming X-files movie. But there, I think I've said to much.
All-in-all, my recommendation would be not so see this movie in the theater. Save your 10 bucks and Netflix it (or Blockbuster it, or whatever). You won't really be missing out on anything.
I'm going to go cry myself to sleep now.
DAMN YOU, GEORGE LUCAAAAAAASSSSSSS!!!!!!!!
posted by matthewstoryteller | 7:37 PM
2 Comments:
huh huh huh, you said "ASS".
and clearly, your review was only slightly less perky than mine:
http://fireweaver.wordpress.com/2008/05/25/btw-indiana-jones-and-the-mild-to-moderate-wtf/
I saw the new Indy last night too. And I, too, was disappointed. And now I'm all wistful, because we could've had a great lunchtime discussion all about it.
I agree that Cate was sub-par and the effects and stunts were... well, stunted. I see your point about the storyline, but I think it worked as it was. Not to give too much away, but the ending almost reminded me of a certain TV show starring a certain actor who also stars in McGuyver. That aside, I think they handled the supernatural/genre aspect reasonably well. There were probably hundreds of storylines they could have gone with, and I agree this one probably wasn't the most exciting.
Most of all, though, I agree with your comment that Lucas just doesn't get the difference between can and should. I heard Spielberg and Ford really had to rein him in; I'd love to see Lucas's "unreined" version!
Anyway, sorry we're having this discussion over the ether instead of at the table in the cafeteria. It's good to know you're keeping the dream alive, though ;)
Post a Comment
<< Home