Tuesday, May 27, 2008

The Man with the Hat is Back...

...and this time he's bored. Well, ok, maybe not THAT bad. But still.

You know, I remember coming out of Temple of Doom with a nagging feeling of disappointment. (I'm not nearly the Temple of Doom hater that most of the world is. I understand the problems. If I haven't already posted the ups and downs of the Indy films - and I think I have - then I'll get to it directly.) But I don't remember feeling the weight of it while I was still in the theater. No, wait. I take that back. When they jumped out of the airplane on an inflatable raft and fell and fell and fell and FELL and then LIVED I knew there was something wrong.

Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull is a lot like that. A LOT.

My biggest gripe with the movie? Sets! It's all sets! And apologies to Mr. Spielberg because I think there was more location footage than it felt like. Which meant that he shot real places to look like SETS! (I don't care how cool it was in War of the Worlds or even Drive. Don't film car chases in an Indy movie on SETS!)

There were sets in Raiders of the Lost Ark. The Well of the Souls. Marion's bar. But 1) none of these were extended with pretty obvious green screen and 2) there were GLORIOUS locations. Peru. Cairo. Heck, even the Nazi island had location shooting. (Look! It's Obi-Wan Kenobi!) Remember when all of the workers are digging for the Well and Indy puts on his hat back lit by the setting sun? Nothing of that kind of scope here. Skull feels very stage-bound and very very VERY small. It reminds me of Hook in that respect. When you're in an Indy movie and the BIGGEST location is Yale, you're in trouble.

Someone once tried to encourage me that at least we'd get a new Williams score. But even Williams does something he never did for the previous Indy scores: He does a direct reprise. One of the first times we hear the Raiders march it's a repeat of Flight from Peru. *sigh* There are a couple more. I haven't bought the score and I'm not sure I will. If you know me and that doesn't make you a little dizzy then you must be made of stronger stuff.

I liked it better than the Mummy movies. I liked it better than Star Wars 2 and 3. There are some very charming moments. There's a couple of good action sequences. (They've never held a candle to the truck chase in Raiders even in the other Indy movies.) They depend on your good will from the last three movies (Last Crusade more than anything else) and they largely get it. I thrilled when I heard the Ark theme. (But it's one of Williams' four or five best themes ever, so that was easy.) There are several very nice nods to Marcus Brody. (He's treated with more respect here than in the entirety of Last Crusade.) It's good to see Marion again. The bad guys are largely forgettable. Take From Russia With Love and add henchmen from North by Northwest. (Oh, and if you're going to take a stance that the anti-communist
paranoia of the 50's was crazy, don't put commies around every corner!
Seems the paranoia was justified, eh comrade?)

"I like Ike." Heh.

But it never made me tingle the way that Raiders did when the old man tells them about the Staff of Ra. That movie still holds the award for Best Exposition Ever. I did like the quieter bits of this film more than many reviewers. Maybe because when it was quiet there was no lame CG or bad bad BAD sword fights. Let's face it, this movie goes a long way on Harrison Ford.

If I never see another damn CG prairie dog again it will be too soon.

The actors were still top notch. Harrison Ford is still Harrison Ford. (Has anyone pointed out that Indy is 8 years younger than Ford in this movie?) If he ever manages to be in a great movie again he'll be terrific. John Hurt is still awesome. Jim Broadbent is still a treasure. I even liked Shia LaBeouf. A lot. (Remember when actors used to change their names if they had names like Archie Leach? Or Shia LaBeouf?) He was almost as cool as he thought he was. And I'll admit that's not nothing.

So there we have it. It's over and done. Better than The Mummy. Not as good as The Rocketeer.

Dr. Jones, adieu.

**** SPOILERS *****

I'm really expected to believe that Indy doesn't think of Marion right away when he hears her name? Seriously?

The A-Bomb looked COOL.

The snake scene had three actors (and an audience) doing a terrific job with a STUPID idea.

I LIKE that it was flying saucers.

THE ANTS ROCKED.

The library scene is a perfect example of a neat idea push just that much too far.

Did Indy move into Dad's house?

Looks like Indy has his mother's ears and his father's theme.

The Ark was a waste. Totally a waste. In Raiders that warehouse was one of the spookiest things in a movie not wanting for spooky stuff. Here: A waste.

Glad they kept the old-school Paramount opening like in the other three. Too bad it led to a blasted CG prairie dog.

And finally, CG melting heads do NOT compete with practical effect melting heads.

1 comment:

Unknown said...

**Spoiler Heavy**

Did Indy move into Dad's house?

Now that's a good question I hadn't thought of. Interesting.

Personally, I loved every second of it except the nuke scene. That was way way way too over the top and unnecessary for me. But, in retrospection, you're right - it DID look cool. But it felt more like showing that off than anything necessary to the plot.

I didn't even mind the CG prairie dogs. Although, as soon as they showed up (especially for the second or third time), my mind did recognize "Ooooohh dear, I know people who will hate THAT."

I didn't hate the thirteen skeletons combining into one living alien either... but I did think it was unneeded.

I'm rather indifferent about the practical versus CG exploding heads. But I would say this one looked infinitely more impressive than Raiders. Raiders looks more real - but it also feels like an effect. Skull looks more over the top - but it also looks more like what I would expect an alien frying a psychic Soviet as a flying saucer takes off from an ancient temple while an interdenominational portal opens all around them would look like in real life.

Er... hm...

Anyway. When the worst I can say for a film is that it would be stronger if they removed a single moment (the nuke) and slightly tweaked the ending (left the skeletons separate)... kudos to that film. Still weaker than Last Crusade, but a very strong effort from something I wasn't expecting much out of.

An A-? B+? Either way it'll sit proudly right next to my Not-Old Indy DVDs and not be given the 1-2 inches of space I give Episodes I and II (3 years later I maintain that Episode III is on par with Return of the Jedi) from the rest of the Star Wars movies to designate them as those other movies. And I call that a win.

I also was surprised at how much I did like Shia "Mutt" (The nickname's relation to Indy's is so simple it's genius. I've been surprised how many people I've needed to point out the meaning of it). However I'm still fairly certain that I wouldn't like to see what Lucas is already talking about - a film with Mutt taking Indy's place as the main adventurer and Indy taking Sean Connery's role.

In the end, all I wonder is how many times this conversation will play out over the years when fans are rewatching the film together and the Area 51 scene ends...
"What's [that]?"
"Ark of the Covenant."
"Are you sure?"
"Pretty sure."