David O'Connell
Und So Weite: Further impressions of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
May 23rd 2008 00:18
Warning: Posts on Und So Weite discuss the movie in detail and contain spoilers! Read only if you've seen the movie!
This week, I was lucky enough to attend the premiere of "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull". I took my flatmate along for the ride, as he's a massive Indy fan, as well as another friend from Uni.
After the movie finished, we stood outside the theatre, silent and contemplative. Well, perhaps my two friends were contemplative. I was repressing the undeniable urge to shriek and tear down the posters for the movie.
I found "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" to be one of the least enjoyable cinema experiences that I've seen in a long time. It must be said, though, that I'm also the person that stopped watching "300" part way through.
I'm not easily appeased by raw action, especially if the narrative around the action is poorly formed.
"Indy IV" abandons all pretense at narrative structure, preferring to leap from one scene to another, feeling less like a mysterious journey and more like a collection of action music videos.
For example, Indy and Mutt find themselves in an insane asylum, where they're looking for the lost archaeologist, Ox. They enter his cell, sweep the floor, and find a vague etching which Indy immediately proclaims "It's a map!".
How did they find the asylum? Luckily, they got off the plane and spoke to a guy in the middle of the street who told them where to go. Then, luckily, at the asylum, Indy speaks perfect Mayan to get the nun to let him into the cell. Then, luckily, there's a map etched into the floor which Indy is able to read immediately.
What happens next? Nothing, other than a cut to the exact location where the 'crystal skull' is. No matter that this appears to be in the middle of the jungle, or that they've taken a motorcycle here. No trouble finding the place. Just a cut, jarring and clumsy, that reminds us that Lucas and Spielberg have lost their sense of patience.
The entire movie is constructed like this, a sequence of set pieces, hastily assembled with hard editing.
Later, the group of heroes is having a car chase in the Amazon jungle with the pesky Russians. Ignoring the fact that there are mysteriously flat roads in the jungle for them to drive on. Ignoring the fact that Karen Allen, playing the return of Marion Ravenwood, in order to pander to nostalgia, appears to be able to drive this army vehicle as well as the Russian soldiers. Ignoring the fact that not one stray bullet from machine gun fire ever hits one of the heroes.
Yes, ignoring all this, there's a scene where the Russians are about kill Indy and Mutt, and Marion is out of the scene for over a minute - then magically appears to save them. What is this? An example of some of the worst scripting possible: having a character forgotten by the camera, only to appear when needed. It's a deus ex machina, and we should be outraged... but there are plenty more of these contrivances to feed our fury.
Fans of the series advise me to ignore the lunacy of the story. "That's what Indiana Jones movies are about... it's a suspension of reality. After all, the first one had melting faces in it!"
Er, yes, that's true. My argument would be that the original film was extraordinarily paced, combining fierce action sequences with moments of contemplation and character-building, scenes that build the story around the movie.
In "Indy IV", though, we're left with cartoonish violence; cartoons have been replaced with CGI, and, though the technology has improved, it's used so blindly that the audience recoils in bemused disgust.
The scene of Mutt swinging along the vines, for example, to catch up with the vehicles and land exactly in the Russian car, kicking a soldier in the face. We're then given a metaphorical donkey punch as a troupe of CGI monkeys attack Cate Blanchett with their simian rage.
Why? Think nothing of it, my good man.
An army of CGI ants, attacking the Russians, but not Ox and Indy because they've got the crystal skull.
Why? A mere suspension of belief, little brother.
In the last quarter of the movie, the true face of George Lucas appears, using his wizardly might to finally fuse the action-adventure of Indiana Jones and the science fiction of Star Wars. We're treated to a showdown between Indy and his friends, and 13 aliens, who proceed to open a portal to another dimension.
We know this because Indy tells us. Apparently, this is common knowledge if you're an archeology professor.
The heroes run outside, and the entire 'lost city' crumbles, leaving a UFO to start spinning, slowly ascending into the sky. It disappears, having killed the Russians and the traitorous Englishman. An enormous amount of rock falls from the sky, none of it touching Indy, who stands bravely on a clifftop to watch the alien ship disappear in the sky.
How is any of this good filmmaking? Are we supposed to enjoy this? I'm left speechless at the sloppiness of this movie, which used millions of dollars to create, in essence, a collection of forgettable action video clips.
I could go on - at great length - about the flaws of the film, and how much I detested it, but I'll stop here. Apparently, 80% of Rotten Tomatoes critics thought it was acceptable, which further proves how out of touch I am with the moviegoing public.
Further Reading: Roger Ebert loves every second of the silliness. And the fans on Ebert's blog can't wait to see it.
The Australian Empire review notices something rather apt:
An excellent introspection about the movie on Slate.
Heavy criticism in Minnesota.
Thankfully, a negative review in the NY Times.
This week, I was lucky enough to attend the premiere of "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull". I took my flatmate along for the ride, as he's a massive Indy fan, as well as another friend from Uni.
After the movie finished, we stood outside the theatre, silent and contemplative. Well, perhaps my two friends were contemplative. I was repressing the undeniable urge to shriek and tear down the posters for the movie.
I found "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" to be one of the least enjoyable cinema experiences that I've seen in a long time. It must be said, though, that I'm also the person that stopped watching "300" part way through.
I'm not easily appeased by raw action, especially if the narrative around the action is poorly formed.
"Indy IV" abandons all pretense at narrative structure, preferring to leap from one scene to another, feeling less like a mysterious journey and more like a collection of action music videos.
For example, Indy and Mutt find themselves in an insane asylum, where they're looking for the lost archaeologist, Ox. They enter his cell, sweep the floor, and find a vague etching which Indy immediately proclaims "It's a map!".
How did they find the asylum? Luckily, they got off the plane and spoke to a guy in the middle of the street who told them where to go. Then, luckily, at the asylum, Indy speaks perfect Mayan to get the nun to let him into the cell. Then, luckily, there's a map etched into the floor which Indy is able to read immediately.
What happens next? Nothing, other than a cut to the exact location where the 'crystal skull' is. No matter that this appears to be in the middle of the jungle, or that they've taken a motorcycle here. No trouble finding the place. Just a cut, jarring and clumsy, that reminds us that Lucas and Spielberg have lost their sense of patience.
The entire movie is constructed like this, a sequence of set pieces, hastily assembled with hard editing.
Later, the group of heroes is having a car chase in the Amazon jungle with the pesky Russians. Ignoring the fact that there are mysteriously flat roads in the jungle for them to drive on. Ignoring the fact that Karen Allen, playing the return of Marion Ravenwood, in order to pander to nostalgia, appears to be able to drive this army vehicle as well as the Russian soldiers. Ignoring the fact that not one stray bullet from machine gun fire ever hits one of the heroes.
Yes, ignoring all this, there's a scene where the Russians are about kill Indy and Mutt, and Marion is out of the scene for over a minute - then magically appears to save them. What is this? An example of some of the worst scripting possible: having a character forgotten by the camera, only to appear when needed. It's a deus ex machina, and we should be outraged... but there are plenty more of these contrivances to feed our fury.
Fans of the series advise me to ignore the lunacy of the story. "That's what Indiana Jones movies are about... it's a suspension of reality. After all, the first one had melting faces in it!"
Er, yes, that's true. My argument would be that the original film was extraordinarily paced, combining fierce action sequences with moments of contemplation and character-building, scenes that build the story around the movie.
The scene of Mutt swinging along the vines, for example, to catch up with the vehicles and land exactly in the Russian car, kicking a soldier in the face. We're then given a metaphorical donkey punch as a troupe of CGI monkeys attack Cate Blanchett with their simian rage.
Why? Think nothing of it, my good man.
An army of CGI ants, attacking the Russians, but not Ox and Indy because they've got the crystal skull.
Why? A mere suspension of belief, little brother.
In the last quarter of the movie, the true face of George Lucas appears, using his wizardly might to finally fuse the action-adventure of Indiana Jones and the science fiction of Star Wars. We're treated to a showdown between Indy and his friends, and 13 aliens, who proceed to open a portal to another dimension.
We know this because Indy tells us. Apparently, this is common knowledge if you're an archeology professor.
The heroes run outside, and the entire 'lost city' crumbles, leaving a UFO to start spinning, slowly ascending into the sky. It disappears, having killed the Russians and the traitorous Englishman. An enormous amount of rock falls from the sky, none of it touching Indy, who stands bravely on a clifftop to watch the alien ship disappear in the sky.
How is any of this good filmmaking? Are we supposed to enjoy this? I'm left speechless at the sloppiness of this movie, which used millions of dollars to create, in essence, a collection of forgettable action video clips.
I could go on - at great length - about the flaws of the film, and how much I detested it, but I'll stop here. Apparently, 80% of Rotten Tomatoes critics thought it was acceptable, which further proves how out of touch I am with the moviegoing public.
Further Reading: Roger Ebert loves every second of the silliness. And the fans on Ebert's blog can't wait to see it.
The Australian Empire review notices something rather apt:
"...the Paramount logo becomes, rather than some far-off exotic peak, a prairie dog hill in the American mid-west. Beyond the faintly amusing gag of seeing a cutesy varmint pop his head up, that they make a molehill out of a mountain is their way of telling us to downsize expectation, sit back, relax, go with it."
An excellent introspection about the movie on Slate.
Heavy criticism in Minnesota.
Thankfully, a negative review in the NY Times.
| 87 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
I agree for the most part with your assessment and my review reflects it, albeit with some positives. Its so hard criticising something that brings back childhood idols but as is so often the case it seems the name alone will satisfy some.
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Comment by Anonymous
* Belice didn't exist until 1973. Before that it was called British Honduras. However it appears on the map when they fly.
* LEDs were not created until the 1960s, but the control room that appears in the beginning uses them.
I guess with $125 million spent on producing this movie, they could have used a few to check simple facts like these.
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Comment by Anonymous
The Nazca Lines are nore in Cuzco but in Nazca! (well, around 100 km from Nazca but certainly not in Cuzco).
They don't play Mexican music in Peru as try us to think according to the background music in the movie.
Pancho Villa was a Mexican soldier, with nothing to do with Peru. Quechua is a Peruvian language. So I don't get how that guy "learnt Quechua while fighting along Pancho Villa".
Orellana, the Spanish conquistador that named the Amazonas river, has a very well researched and documented live. And he didn't end his days in Peru. They could have chosen any other figure real or not, but they preferred to try and change history...
I suppose we could continue with many more mistakes. There must be hundreds of them. I understand a few ones, but so many? They must do it on purpose.
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak