Disturbia, fiction, family, friends, and everything else between the lions.
Published on May 24, 2008 By Tova7 In Movies & TV & Books

I went to see this movie today.

I saw all the other Indiana Jones movies in excess, each several times.

I found this movie to be technically on par with the previous  movies.  You may think that is a good thing, but it's not.  It looks as if it were shot fifteen years ago.  Except computer generation, none of the new cutting edge cinematography for action movies is present.

Remember when it was IJ vs nature vs traps and all the excitement?

That element is sadly underplayed in this movie.

The acting was SO BAD in the first 30 minutes I thought it was a spoof.  I kept thinking, they should roll the credits anytime now and start the real movie.

Nope.

I don't know what happened, but Harrison didn't seem comfortable in this role at all.  It was like watching a bad audition where the entire time you secretly cringe and are embarrassed for the actor.

I took an online poll before the movie.  It asked me, "Is Harrison Ford too old for this part?"

I answered, "no."

However, there are a few scenes, especially at the beginning when his age just seemed to take center stage.  And it wasn't intentional on the part of the director.  He just moved old, too old for this part.

The first forty five minutes DRAG by with way way too much dialog by other characters aimed at propping up IJ.  Why does he need words to do it?  He is IJ....watching him be himself always spoke for itself.

Not so this movie.

The crystal skull is the worst movie prop I have EVER seen.  It is a clear plastic alien skull with aluminum foil or clear plastic wrap where the brain cavity rests.

It looks no more like crystal than K-Mart plastic ware, and instead of being an artifact, I kept thinking, "Man that's a crappy prop."

Every time it was in a scene, I was forced out of suspended reality and reminded it was a medicore movie with really crappy props.  (Well, that and the TIRED cliches.  I spoke a few lines before the actor, they were so predictable and SO SO bad.)

The last fifteen minutes are the best part of the movie, but full of said prop.  So you never really get consumed by the movie.  I still heard crunching pop corn, heavy breathing, and wondered how much longer it could possibly last.

I didn't leave the theater feeling like I was coming back from a couple hours in another place...I left feeling like I just spent a couple hours in a cramped theater with a bunch of people watching crap tv.

Over all, this is the worst I.J. in the entire series.

The best parts are all covered in the trailer, in fact if the movie lived up to the trailer, it'd be a GREAT movie.

If you want to see it on big screen, wait for a matinee.  I wouldn't recommend paying full price.

Out of four stars, I give it a one.

Barely.


Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on May 26, 2008
I purposely waited until I had seen the movie before reading this article. I guess my take on the whole thing stems from a more sympathetic attitude about Dr. Jones' age. hehe. Besides, in the story he is 57 years old...how spry to you want him? I liked the movie. Yeah, all the negative comments have merit, but so what? The origial movie was a parody of thirties and forties adventure series. This one was no different. If you can't suspend your disbelief for things like the refrigerator or some of the other stuff, how did you get through bailing out of an airplane over the Himalayas in a life raft, or riding a submarine across the med (must have stayed on the surface...wait, do subs run on the surface without lookouts posted? How DID they work that out?) It is a fantasy and as such, it was ok. Were you looking to Harrison Ford for an Oscar worthy performance? Go see "Witness" instead.
on May 27, 2008
I purposely waited until I had seen the movie before reading this article. I guess my take on the whole thing stems from a more sympathetic attitude about Dr. Jones' age. he he. Besides, in the story he is 57 years old...how spry to you want him? I liked the movie. Yeah, all the negative comments have merit, but so what? The original movie was a parody of thirties and forties adventure series. This one was no different. If you can't suspend your disbelief for things like the refrigerator or some of the other stuff, how did you get through bailing out of an airplane over the Himalayas in a life raft, or riding a submarine across the med (must have stayed on the surface...wait, do subs run on the surface without lookouts posted? How DID they work that out?) It is a fantasy and as such, it was ok. Were you looking to Harrison Ford for an Oscar worthy performance? Go see "Witness" instead.


I still felt totally ripped off BFD. I PAY to drawn into suspended reality in a movie. And I get a little snippy when the acting/cinematography is so bad I am constantly forced to consider the people WHO MAKE the movie instead of the characters.

hahahaha

Oh well.

I saw the shorts for Speed Racer and it looked absolutely dreadful. I too loved Speed Racer when I was young. But the reality is the conversion to real life action has made it seem incredibly ridiculous (as far as I'm concerned but remember, this is just my opinion and is worth as much as the paper its not written on )


Yeah, I'm not going to see that one. I can't even stand the ads for it.

What's the last good Spielberg movie? Saving Private Ryan? Schindler's List? They came out in 1998 and 1993. Maybe he should have let someone else direct it.


What happened to him? He's lost his lust for film or something. Or maybe he's gotten lazy. Who knows.
on May 27, 2008

I still felt totally ripped off BFD. I PAY to drawn into suspended reality in a movie. And I get a little snippy when the acting/cinematography is so bad I am constantly forced to consider the people WHO MAKE the movie instead of the characters.

Tova, I largely agree with you. However I think this movie is a tragic casualty of a symptom that seems to be repeating itself industry-wide, and I blame dim-witted uncreative studios. This has happened to most of the greats and it's an utter shame...

Talented producer/writer/director... or all of the above... come together and make an original movie that's quite special. This movie makes it big, usually gets a couple of good sequels in the next few years shortly after the first one. Sure, the movie can be hokey. It can be cheesy. It can have all kinds of ridiculous scenes in which one has to suspend belief. But at the core it's a hit because it's got some original concept, idea, mechanism or even a gimmick that folks enjoy. Something they haven't seen before... and this applies in a holistic sense.... for truly great movies, when you take a step back you see that the film as a whole is much greater than the sum of it's parts. That's why you can have a dumb scene here or there and get away with it.

So the original team produce a couple of really great films, then they usually feel they've done enough and move on. Years go by, the franchise grows into a kind of cult status with fans who keep the dream alive and buy up all the "redux" DVD box sets (aka money grab by studio) Years down the road, the studio wants to make big bucks and says "hey, remember those films made tons of money and everybody loved em? Let's capitalize on that and make lots more money!!!"

Problem is, now they have a movie that WAS a big hit 10 or 15 years ago which they are going to revive. Issues with this are:

A) Cult status of the franchise means there will be big expectations. Even if the movie is good on it's own, it will be compared constantly to it's predecessors. Talk about performance anxiety!

Actors have gotten older and moved on (star trek anyone???) Many of the production team that had the magic to make the originals have retired, moved on or simply refuse to work on a new one because in their minds the series/story has been told to completion. This then means you'll typically only get some of the original crew at best, trying to resurrect something that died long ago.

C) Studios are in it for a money grab. This means they shun originality or anything that would take the movie in a different direction from it's predecessor, as they see this as too risky and therefore a threat to profits. This means you will essentially see a newer rehash of the first movie... therefore, no originality.

Since there's no retooling or re-imagining allowed, the studio is lucky to get a screenwriter with half a brain that hasn't already been chased away by all their demands. So you end up with a film that takes the best parts of the originals, and tries to amplify them, make them bigger and flashier with no real change.

Let's think of some series where this has happened.....

Aliens, Terminator, Star Trek, Die-hard (comeon now.... in the last die hard Willis destroys a helicopter with a flying car) the list goes on to great extent. All you get is the exact same thing you saw before, only with more of the outrageous factor....BIGGER explosions! Louder BOOM sounds!!! All show and no substance. This attempt at over-amplifying those 'crazy' scenes of the original drive the entire movie into one big non-reality based la la land. Give people enough of this garbage and it leads to the bored heavy breathing you were talking about at the end. "thank Gods it's over!!" the crowd sighs at the end.

What DOES work is re-imaging the series. Look at the new battlestar Galactica series on TV. It's currently finishing it's 4th and final season (sadly) but if they would have tried to do a repeat of the original they'd have been lucky to get a TV feature movie.

Sadly, re-imagining is as I said the last thing the studios ever want because that actually requires intelligence and talent!

on May 27, 2008

Sadly, re-imagining is as I said the last thing the studios ever want because that actually requires intelligence and talent!

You are right the new Battle Star Galactica is the same flavor as the old, but better.

That's what I was hoping for here.

So you end up with a film that takes the best parts of the originals, and tries to amplify them, make them bigger and flashier with no real change.

I agree with this...however I read an article today on E! (I think it was E, looked at a couple sites) that said Spielberg and Lucas went out of their way not to do that with this movie.  And it was more a movie tribute to themselves and other films they produced as much as to Indy.

It's too bad.  With all the advances in cinematography, they wasted an opportunity to take Indy places he's never been before....and rock the house at the same time.

But like most hollyland movies, the series ends on a cough and whimper, not a blaze of glory.

2 Pages1 2