DISQUS

AdrianHerritt · 1 year ago

I totally agree. It just didn't feel like Indiana Jones for me.

papa · 1 year ago

I really disliked this film. Out of 5 stars I might give it 1.5 or 2 stars max. I definitely felt the Lucas "excesses" in play here. The guy just can't seem to control himself (fridge escape? donkey kong jr. vine swinging?).

Even the ant sequence near the end -- while cool -- felt a bit stale (reminded me of a similar scene from the, dare I say it, *superior* film from 1999 'The Mummy').

Now I love the first three Jones films. I even like Doom a lot. I honestly felt a greater let down with Crystal Skull than I felt with Phantom Menace. At least Phantom Menace despite its many flaws was something I'd still want to watch again (albeit while cringing frequently). I have zero desire to ever watch Crystal Skull again. Really.

And re: Transformers. It was pap. But at least it had Megan Fox!!! :-)

webomatica · 1 year ago

I felt while reviewing this flick I was a bit hemmed in by my rating system. I liked Crystal Skull better than transformers which I gave 2 stars and it was definitely better than the crap that was Heartbreak Kid. 3 star tends to be films I think are fine as a rental but not worth paying the 10 bucks to see in the theater. That's how I see this Indy installment. I wish I had waited to rent it, but I still enjoyed it and thought seeing it was worthwhile.

So in my mind I have put Raiders and Crusade as the best at 5 stars, Doom with 4, and this Skull flick as 3 which is pretty average.

It does kind of raise an interesting issue - we might place more importance on these films we enjoyed as kids since we were kids when we saw them - certainly far easier to impress a kid. So I wonder if this film seemed crappier because we have totally built up our image of Indy and imagined this installment already in our minds.

Like - I can't be objective about the original Star Wars - I would give that 5 stars even though it has problems, and the prequels were just so disappointing. I might have to force myself to revisit those for this blog...

papa · 1 year ago

You raise a good point. Pam was wondering the same thing -- if the kid factor was elevating the earlier films for us and that as adults we are seeing through the schlock which is the same as it ever was.

But she did have another good point which was that we've seen the stone gears and doors and antechambers and cobwebs before. So there's also the sense that we've been there, done that and that it's all become just a bit too repetitive by the 4th installment.

I guess this is why superhero movies, of late, have latched onto the concept of a "reboot" wherein a series is reinvented/reinvigorated by new blood and a new cast.

Actually, the 007 movie Casino Royale is a great example of this.

Makes you wonder how interesting an Indiana Jones movie in the hands of a solid director and good cast (unlike others I'd be ok with someone else giving the role a shot) could be.

webomatica · 1 year ago

It's rather silly that hollywood is so into "sequel-itis" where every
ancient series is fair game for just one more installment. I hear yet
another Rambo movie is coming, three more terminator movies, more
transformers, etc. There's even another Meet the Parents movie called
"Little Fockers" in the works which will make that series a trilogy.

Yes, as you mention, it's totally possible to "reboot" some series - Casino
Royale I loved, the new Batman looks excellent, and I think The Hobbit has a
lot of promise. Then there's a rare situation where a movie with a lot of
old, recycled ideas can somehow come off fresh and exciting with the right
cast and director (Iron Man). Now that's one flick where I was ready for the
sequel right after it was over.

So I had some hope for this Crystal Skull since the early info was
promising, especially with Cate Blanchette and Spielberg directing. But
based on the results, Lucas has failed hard.