Indy-A-Thon and a Crystal Skull Review
Posted by: Stuart in Blogroll, Christianity, Jesus, Uncategorized, general, indiana jones, life, people, religion, youth, youth ministry
Friday and Saturday we partnered with a church youth group to have an Indiana Jones marathon overnighter. Three Indiana Jones movies from Friday night to Saturday morning, then we went to see the newest one at noon. We had a great time haning out with kids, laughing, playing and watching movies. I forgot how good the movies were and it’s always fun to share them with kids experience them for the first time. Raiders and Crusade are by far the best ones in my opinion.
But the Crystal Skull… oh boy. I’ll tell ya, I wanted so bad to like that movie. I really did. But watching it, I got the same feeling I had when I watched Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace. I came in with great love for these movies and high expectations. And none of my expectations were met. It was crap. My friend summed up the movie the best way possible when he said, “You know if it had been The Mummy 4, it would have been awesome. But I expect more from Indiana Jones.” I won’t list any spoilers, but I will give you a few grievances: aliens, swinging from trees like Tarzan (I’m not kidding), Indy surviving an atomic bomb blast and fighting monkeys to say a few. Shame on you George Lucas and Steven Spielberg for wasting our nostalgia to simply make a buck. Indy will survive in our memories, but the fedora is a bit tarnished.
Any one else feel that way?
Sphere: Related ContentTags: crystal skull, event, indiana jones, movie review, review, youth, youth group
Entries (RSS)
Couldn’t disagree with you more. This one is vastly superior to the Temple of Doom which remains at the bottom of my Indy list. You want an Indiana Jones movie that was crap? Temple of Doom.
How are aliens any less reasonable than what has gone before? Knights who live forever, invisible bridges, “secret” chambers hidden in the middle of a hill that stands out higher than anything else in the neighborhood but somehow no one has ever discovered before. Remember this is just a modern version of the old “serials” that Lucas and Spielberg loved as kids. They are adventures and intended to be outlandish. The movies are filled with Indiana Jones doing things that are ridiculous and unbelievable. But who cares? This is fantasy, boyhood adventures stories.
Having moved the story forward into the ’50’s they immediately hit the major touchstones of the day - McCartheyism, The Bomb (that’s all you had to say back then), and…wait for it…UFOs!!!!!! Maybe you don’t believe in alien life forms. That’s fine. But it was part of that time and place and it fits into the Indiana Jones universe perfectly. Surviving the A-bomb in a lead lined fridge? Yeah, that’s silly. And they acknowledge it by chiding Indy for doing it. “Don’t you know that’s dangerous? You could get trapped in there and die!” Yeah, no mention of the bomb blast or anything.
And let’s be clear about something else - the difference between “The Mummy” and “Indiana Jones” is budget only (and that probably not such a huge difference in movie terms). They are straight out of the same genre.
I enjoyed “Crystal Skull” immensely. It’s clear that it’s a brigdging movie to a possible successor (you think that hat just “happened” to blow over to Mutt? Not in the movies baby!) series of movies.
One of the greatest challenges to any movie series is that you never live up to the first movie (except in the case of Star Trek where you spend the rest of the series trying to live down that odious vile first film. The problem there was they had to live up to the rose colored memory of TOS). There are plenty of people who think every Star Wars movie after the first one was terrible. Or they liked the first three and hate the next three. Quite simply they’ve invested in things being just they way they remember and NOTHING is allowed to change (Hmmm, that sounds familiar somehow…)
Movies are a passion of mine. I LOVE movies. But I never forget that they exist for only two purposes - entertainment and commerce. Sometimes along the way they rise into art. More often they descend into pulp. Never take them too seriously. “I expect more from Indiana Jones”? Really?
This is exactly what I expect from Indy.
Jay,
It sounds like we just differ in expectations. I’ve worked around film in the way past and have an intense love for it when it’s done well. I also have high expectations for good story and story told well. The Crystal skull wasn’t story told well, it’s was a hyper hodge podge of action. A good Jones movie takes you on a good ride of story, an adventure, a journey. Raiders and Crusade did that well. Skull and Temple were just pulpy stupid action spread together in a nonsensical way.
All movies require “suspension of disbelief,” which means we check reality at the door and are willing to engage in a alternative universe or story as long as the movie establishes it’s own realm of reality. For good story to happen, the universe for which it takes place has to have it’s own certain laws of reality and those laws must stay consistent. If you don’t, the story feels like it was made up as it goes on, not plotted or planed out. In say superhero movies we expect for our reality to be stretched. Men can fly like Superman, but there has to be something to balance it out (like kryptonite).
For Indy, he’s a hero that is good, but bleeds. He’s no superhero, he’s human, but smart, determined and on the side of good. And because he’s on the side of good, fate will eventually fall into place for him. In this movie, we went way beyond the parameters of what is expected by his character (ie surviving an atomic blast). We expect Indy to scrap and scrape through peril, because he’s the good guy, but not do things way beyond the realm of reality. I guess to say we expect Indy to survive with the odds against him, but not in an impossible situation. He’s a hero, not a superhero.
The Crystal skull simply forgot who their hero was.
OK, but other than the bomb blast (which I still believe is clearly a joke by the film maker) what else goes beyond the realm of believabilty already created in the series?
For me there’s never really much “story” in an Indiana Jones movie. It’s all about the action. And that’s fine given the film genre to which Indy belongs. The love interest is kept short and sassy. If there’s a real weakness to this script it’s not providing enough of the quality secondary characters (like Sallah or Marcus) in the previous movies. The reason why is probably because they have to get so much time on Indy, Marian and Mutt. There’s only so much screen time out there.
For me the biggest weakness was the absolutely horrible villian created by Cate Blanchett. She offended me every time she was on the screen. But at least I was supposed to hate her (just not that way).
What else?
Mutt swinging from the trees like Tarzan? The monkeys beating the bad guys. The end wedding was completely dumb and hokey.
Ha ha, you’re right about Cate Blanchett. She was awful. Evil for no good reason besides her accent and haircut.
Jay,
Not to beat a dead horse, but I just stumbled upon a review while looking for video games for my son. It articulates it better than I did:
Indiana Jones was never himself superhuman. Here, he’s virtually indestructible, and nothing is going to slow this guy down – not even a nuclear explosion, much less Russian soldiers, Peruvian ninjas, Mayan tribesmen, or killer ants. As difficult as it is to examine the story without revealing anything, the fact that the film’s plot centers around something completely and totally imaginary – rather than at least vaguely historical, much less biblical as worked in Raiders and Last Crusade – not only turns Indy into one of the same treasure hunters as the guys at the helm of the films referenced in paragraph two (National Treasure and The Mummy), but creates absolutely no motivation for him to continue his quest and then finally, zero emotional stakes for its eventual fulfillment.
Credit goes to Spielberg for being, in this critic’s opinion, the all-time greatest purveyor of event-movie thrills, due in large part to his virtually unparalleled ability to build action scenes smoothly and effectively out of story and character developments, and then make you care about them. In all three of the earlier Indiana Jones films, Spielberg exploited his material’s serialized source material to truly spectacular effect, and even in Temple of Doom he turned rote set pieces like the bug room/ceiling spikes into surprisingly natural and exhilarating sequences. In Kingdom, however, Spielberg is trapped by a script from Lucas, David Koepp and Jeff Nathanson, all of whom seem to have forgotten that the episodic structure of the previous films was not only intentional, but extremely effective, creating a perfect sort of stairstep to each film’s eventual, gratifying climax.
oh and the full review was at:
http://movies.ign.com/articles/874/874919p1.html
I saw the movie last night with Ben and was very disappointed. I felt like Spielberg went back to ET with the aliens at the end of the movie. So much for Indy, even though Harrison Ford did well as the character after nearly 20 years. I won’t be getting the movie on DVD. Sorry!
Yep, I have the same feeling. My DVD collection is complete as is.
Intelligent discussion is never a dead horse.
I would only note a couple things:
The statement that the movie centers around “something completely imaginary” shows the reviewers unwillingness to engage his willing suspension of disbelief. He’s already decided that what has gone before (the previous three movies) was “realistic” (an argument that is shaky at best) and this is so far beyond realistic that it was a severe obstacle to enjoyment. I assume he also didn’t like Star Wars, Star Trek, Independence Day, MIB and a nearly endless list of others. If he doesn’t accept the concept of alien lifeforms in any of his entertainment I’ll accept the argument. Otherwise I find this one unconvincing.
Invulnerable? I would note that a great many folk survived atomic weapons explosions from similiar distances and lived long lives. The “town” he’s shown in is a fair distance from the explosion (based on my memory of the historical explosions this was modelled on). He flew through the air protected by an great heavy piece of metal. Hardly outside the pale for the genre I would submit.
I found the wedding scene charming and heart warming. Again a way of “closing the circle” of the story as they prepare to pass it along to Mutt.
Now let me add I think the reservations about the script have some merit. I’ve said this is not the best Indy movie (and by a fair margin I’ll even admit). I’m just not sure I see what is bringing on all the hand wringing and breast beating among some Indy fans. This story line is far more “believable” than National Treasure in either iteration.
I’m looking forward to seeing Hancock and Wall-E next
Wal-E is like crack for my 2 year old. Well be seeing that one!