Directed by: Steven Spielberg
Starring: Harrison Ford, Cate Blanchett, Karen Allen, Shia LaBeouf
Other Actors of Note: John Hurt, Ray Winstone, Neil Flynn
Plot: During the Cold War, Soviet agents watch Professor Henry Jones when a young man brings him a coded message from an aged, demented colleague, Henry Oxley. Led by the brilliant Irina Spalko, the Soviets tail Jones and the young man, Mutt, to Peru. With Oxley's code, they find a legendary skull made of a single piece of quartz. If Jones can deliver the skull to its rightful place, all may be well; but if Irina takes it to its origin, she'll gain powers that could endanger the West. Aging professor and young buck join forces with a woman from Jones's past to face the dangers of the jungle, Russia, and the supernatural. Taken from www.imdb.com.
Never in recent history can I recall somebody pissing and moaning about a movie this much when it was exactly what they asked for in the first place.
"Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" is the fourth in Steven Spielberg and George Lucas' "Indiana Jones" series following "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" in 1989.
Much like the "Call of Duty" people, Spielberg and Lucas realized that they couldn't dwell on the events of and leading up to World War 2. This is considered sacrilege to most fans, but I prefer to call it "a good idea."
So anyhow, in this new adventure Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) is kidnapped by a group of Russians along with one of those new pals with a history pulled from nowhere he seems to pick up in every single movie, Mac ("Beowulf's" Ray Winstone showing that he is, in fact, a fat dumpy Englishman in real life) and taken to Area 51. Here they are met by evil Russian psychic/swordswoman Col. Dr. Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett) who, after having failed to capture Rocky and Bullwinkle, has set her sites on finding El Dorado and the key to ultimate wisdom.
Naturally Indie escapes in an overly elaborate scene involving a whip that magically wraps around anything it's cracked at and escapes via a manner that kills at least 3 nameless soldiers.
After escaping he's questioned by a couple of government agents and gets put on suspension from his teaching job because he's a suspected communist sympathizer. This is where we meet Mutt (Shia LaBeouf), a greaser who's looking for his adoptive father (John Hurt) who was last seen looking for the crystal skull.
Well shit goes all crazy and eventually Indy, the Russians, Mac, and former Indiana Jones love interest Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen) arrive in South America to find El Dorado, and sword fight on duck boats, and other such things.
It's good to see Harrison Ford back in the saddle as Indy. Ford seems to have fallen right back in where he left off with "The Lost Crusade" nearly 20 years ago. Ford certainly shows his age at 66 but manages to pull it off as the same character he's always played.
One of the details of Indy's character are the subtle changes and similarities to his father (Played by Sean Connery in "The Last Crusade") Indy is still who he always was but has that certain tendency to go into lecture mode and the grizzled and a bit clueless old man demeanor that Connery had in the previous film. It's not so much what he does the same as what he does different that truly shows how brilliant of an actor Ford truly is.
Karen Allen is strangely cuter at 57 than she was at 30 when "Raiders of the Lost Ark" was filmed. Sadly she doesn't particularly get much to do in this movie, then again she also doesn't get to be as annoying as she was in "Raiders" so I guess it's as much a good thing as it is bad.
Shia LaBeouf despite everyone's insolent whining is actually quite good as Indy's rebellious illegitimate greaser son. I don't know what peoples' problem is with the character of Mutt. It's certainly not that he's annoying, you fucks put up with Short Round. It's definitely not that he's a bad character, Indy has certainly had a slew of worse sidekicks in the past. What it pretty much comes down to is, people don't like Shia LaBeouf. I have no clue why, sure his face is certainly out there and he's certainly a tad over-exposed but this doesn't discount the fact that he's a damn good actor. LaBeouf is only getting better in his acting and let's face it, he wasn't bad to begin with. It's really just due ot personal bias that Mutt is so hated.
Ray Winstone is as always sub-par and his character is pretty much wholly unnecessary in the film. His role is essentially the exact same as Beni from "The Mummy." You spend pretty much the entire movie going "when is this guy going to hurry up and die?"
Cate Blanchett is decent but sounds like a bad imitation of Natasha from "The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show" and remains the typical emotionless tight-ass and martial woman with a thick European accent.
John Hurt does a whole lot of nothing, he's crazy for roughly 5/6 of the movie. It truly makes you wonder why in the hell they got such a good actor to play such a small insignificant part.
Alright fuckheads, let's chat. If I hear one more person bitch and moan about "OMG they use bad CGI in this movie." You know what? Fuck you!
Aside from some peoples' faces melting in "Raiders of the Lost Ark", Indiana Jones has NEVER been known for good special effects. And the "bad" CGI is still better than the bad conventional effects of the last 3 movies combined. So quit your fanboy whining!
There have been a lot of complaints flying around about how this movie went tonally. These complaints are usually targeted at 7 major areas.
1) The film took away the realism of Indiana Jones and made it too Sci-Fi.
Are we really arguing that the concept of aliens is unrealistic in a movie series that has featured: Ghosts coming out of a holy relic and melting nazi faces off, a priest that can tear the heart from someone just by pressing his palm on their breastbone, and an actual knight from the crusades alive and well in the 1940s looking not a day over 60? What this really comes down to is that the film is set in the 50s as opposed to the 40s and the change of scenery means a change in plot because in the 50s, nobody gave a flying fuck about the Holy Grail, or the Ark of the Covenant, or that one shiny rock thing those Indian people worshiped or whatever. The 50s were all about aliens and government conspiracies. Harrison Ford just looks far too old to be convincing as the same Indy from the 40s so it was necessary to proceed to the future (in this case, roughly the same amount of time has passed since the last film in the story as well as in real life.) It pretty much comes down to accepting change, learn to live with it, we're done with the motherfucking Nazis!
2) Indy doesn't do anything in this movie.
Since when is jumping across rafters while dodging gunfire, beating up a big ass Russian guy roughly 20-30 years your junior twice, climbing out of a moving vehicle onto the back of a motorcycle, killing some crazy ninja tribesman with his own blow dart,
3) The nuke scene
In "Temple of Doom" Indy jumped out of a plane using a life-raft as a parachute.
4) Mutt and the monkeys
In "Temple of Doom" Indy jumped out of a plane using a life-raft as a parachute.
5) Russians? But Indiana Jones always fights Nazis!
Seriously, am I the only person in this fucking world that has seen "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom?!"
6) The tone and style of this film is different from the other Indy movies.
Go back and watch the old ones. The tone and style is different for each individual movie, they feel less like a series and more like 3 entirely seperate films that happen to have the same main character, in fact props to this movie for actually having a sense of continuity.
7) Where the snakes at?
This is actually pretty much just my gripe, but seriously. One fucking snake? I don't care if it's a big snake, we need more! The snakes are more integral than Nazis or fedoras!
Ultimately "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" doesn't try to be what the series has been. The last 3 movies have thrived on being new and different each time and this is what happened here, the difference is it's been 20 years and the original trilogy is a nostalgic childhood memory so this naturally pales in comparison.
If this had been release in 1991 only 2 years after "Lost Crusade" came out people would be fine with it, but because it was everyone's iconic trilogy growing up suddenly it's sacrilgious. The characters are no weaker or shoddily put together than the last 3, the plot is no less hokey then the last 3, and the special effects and dialogue are certainly no worse than in the last 3. But it's different.
Point out to me 1 thing that this movie did wrong that at least one of the others didn't in some way shape or form.
Ultimately the hate over "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" is EXTREMELY biased. The characters are relatively unspectacular, the story is decent, the stunts are great, the special effects are mediocre, and the ending leaves a bit to be desired.
But you know what? It was fun. I had fun sitting in the theater and watching one of my childhood idols return to the big screen. That same feeling of joy and excitement I got watching the last 3 movies as a child returned here. Indiana Jones movies were never high quality to begin with, they were fun escapism directed primarily to children ages 8-13 but now all those kids have grown up and expect something more out of it.
No, it's not as good as "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and it's certainly not as good as "The Last Crusade", but you know what? It's still better than "Temple of Doom" and there is a lot to love about this movie if you just watch it with an open mind. Call me crazy, but you rabid fanboys can continue foaming at the mouth while I relive my childhood for an hour and a half. Ask yourself who's truly "won" here?
I give "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" a 4 out of 5. Just shy of being great unless you're a rabid fanboy fuck, then it will just rape your childhood.
But lets be honest, little fucker doesn't put up much of a fight...
No comments:
Post a Comment