Film reviews (Non-Bond)

[skywalker]

Please feel free to post any reviews of films you either recommend or advise to stay clear of.

[harrypalmer]

Indiana Jones and The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull.


I enjoyed this - mainly because I could not belive they made another one! I probably would not acknowledge that it was awful if it was; but I don't think it was.

The fact that Harrison Ford is about 80 was used well in the film. I'm also a fan of many of the themes in the film - for example I seem to be obsessed with nuclear war - so that made it fun too!

Of course, it's difficult to top the first one.

[mh4213]

I finally watched Shoot Em Up with Cive Owen. A very fun OTT movie.

[FormerBondFan]

Indy IV is pretty different compared to the first 3, considering it's taking place in the 1950s. Gone are the Nazis. The Soviets are in.

[Jake]

Here is my Indiana Jones review;

It's strange to walk out of a cinema having just seen a brand new Indiana Jones film. The last one seemed to wrap up the iconic and influential action series in 1989 but from the early nineties onwards there was constant speculation about one more adventure with stories of several scripts being rejected or further tweaked by new writers. Odds were probably always agaisnt the film happening but 2008 finally saw a new Indy adventure released in the form of Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull. Is it any good?

I have to say from the outset that this film has a slightly clumsy plot device. The year is 1957 and Indy eventually finds himself chasing a mystical 'crystal skull' with the dreaded Russkies having replaced the Nazis as villains in hot pursuit. The crystal skull has far out origins and consequences but to be honest I was never that sure exactly what it was or even that interested. It's just a plot device to get Indy and co into the jungle for an adventure. This 'Mcguffin' just about does its job but requires some slighlty strained plot exposition in the film that slows down the pace in a couple of places.

One other problem that the film has is that it starts so well. We hear Elvis on the sountrack to signify that we are in a new era for Indy and Spielberg has fun with a race in the desert between some Hot Rods and military vehicles. There is then a great atmospheric series of action sequences that leads to an explosive situation for Indy. This sequence was from an unused situation from the original Back To The Future script and it's great.

Indy has an iconic introduction in the film that is very nicely done and sure to bring a warm glow to any big Indy fan. It's just wonderful to see him swinging around and kicking baddies through glass windows again. There is also a wonderful bike chase through Indy's college campus in which Spielberg shows the flashes of the magic that he can bring to a film or sequence like this. Jim Broadbent for all intents and purposes is playing the Marcus Brody character here and has a couple of nice poignant lines in his scenes with Indy about the passing of time. I really, really liked these opening scenes. There is a diner that could be straight out of Back To The Future and the film has a distinct sense of atmosphere and time like the original Superman film did during the Smallville sections.

The film becomes slightly less suprising and fresh when Indy and co head to the jungle. These sections were obviously less novel for understandable reasons. Especially the rooting around in caves and underground temples stuff because it's just been done so often now. Indy clones were all the rage in the eighties (Richard Chamberlain in King Soloman's Mines anyone?) and since the last Indy film in 1989 we've had National Treasure, Tomb Raider, Sahara, The Mummy films etc.

There is perhaps a tad too much CGI in a film that is part of a series that was spawned from the old fashioned stuntwork in Republic Serials. The jungle has the palpable feeling of a studio at times. I've heard a theory that it was deliberate to evoke fifties sci fi and adventure films but the overall effect was a little synthetic compared to the real location work and matte paintings of the originals in the eighties. That said there is some great stuff too in this part of the film. A long chase sequence with vehicles and a bloody punch-up between Indy and a Soviet soldier surrounded by deadly ants. Ford still takes a beating better than any actor.

The middle section of the film is a bit draggy but it doesn't take too long for something to be thrown at the screen to entertain you. There are some silly moments but it's all part of the Indy experience. The films were always far out with improbable situations like the b-films they were inspired by. The ending is out there but then so was the ending to Raiders and The Last Crusade. Indy is not to be taken too seriously.

Jim Broadbent, as I mentioned, was a nice addition. I thought Shia was fine as Mutt Williams. His character wasn't the syrupy comedy sidekick or annoying brat that some feared. He played it fairly straight and had some nice moments with Harrison Ford. It was a delight to see Karen Allen back as Marion Ravenwood but she didn't quite have enough to do in the end. She did add a bit of spark and humour to the exchanges when she joined the film though. Cate Blanchett as the villain was sort of interesting because she was so weird and not your obvious adventure film baddie.

As for Harrison Ford, he slipped back into the iconic role rather nicely with his dry charisma and humour. Once the mayhem began you forgot that he was 65 years old and just rejoiced that Indy was back. Ford has one or two really good jokes or visual moments in the film and throws himself back into the action.

The question is not; is this a neccessary film? but rather; is this a fun and entertaining film? The answer to that question is yes. After such a long gap it is never going to be quite the same but this film does feel like a 'blood relative' of the other Indy films. It isn't a repeat of the Star Wars prequels fiasco.

Like the other two sequels to Raiders, this film is uneven and flawed but great fun all the same and I'll be interested to watch it again in the future to see if it has that watchability factor like the rest of the series.

[Greg Haugen]

Nice review.

[poirot]

Nice review, Jake.

I also thought the movie's first half was fantastic. Much of its action sequences were taken from an old Indy 4 script from 1995 called, "Indiana Jones and the Saucermen From Mars" (which can readily be found online). The opening prologue ends with an iconic visual that clearly establishes Indy as a man out of time. The scenes leading up to his jungle trek follow up on this theme, and raise the personal stakes for Indy higher than they've ever been before.

The middle section does move a bit slowly, and I initially felt that it was missing an action sequence. Then I realized that, unlike the original three, this film wasn't trying to be another cliffhanger serial. Instead, Spielberg has said that he wanted to evoke a 1950's B movie. When viewed in that light, it does compare favorably to those old genre films. The third act moves very fast, and many seem to be put off by its slapdash quality.

It appears that many fanboys have been polarized by this entry, and I suspect that they went in expecting a very serious, modern take on the franchise. What they got was a throwback to a more innocent style of filmmaking, when pulpy fun was valued above realism.

The film is not entirely what I expected, but it is a very entertaining movie that fits well with the earlier trilogy. The previous two films were also met with highly negative (Temple of Doom) and mixed (Last Crusade) reactions upon their release. I suspect if either had opened today, they would be torn apart online. Indiana Jones just isn't the type of franchise that is meant to be taken too seriously. They're movies where something happens not because it's actually plausible, but because the filmmakers thought it would be cool.

Jun 1, 2008 10:53:00 GMT -5 Jake said:

The jungle has the palpable feeling of a studio at times. I've heard a theory that it was deliberate to evoke fifties sci fi and adventure films but the overall effect was a little synthetic compared to the real location work and matte paintings of the originals in the eighties.

I read that the jungle scene was shot on location in Hawaii, with additional foilage later added using cgi. This compromise was the result of the crew being unable to destroy a real jungle, and deciding against shooting the scene using soundstages. I think the end result worked rather well, adding a dreamlike quality that many of those old Technicolor B movies had.

[Jake]

Thanks for that tip poirot. I found the 'SaucerMen From Mars' script and it's now on my desktop for when I have time to read it. I noticed at the start it lists the date as 1949 which is interesting. Some people thought that Indy was essentially a WW2 era or earlier character but having the new film set in the fifties didn't really bother me. Regarding the jungle scenes, it's interesting that they didn't want to venture too far from the US for location work. I suppose they are all getting on a bit and not inclined to go into the field quite as far as they did when they were younger. But anyway, I thought the film had a lot more going on than some people gave it credit for, with the influences and visuals. Also, I've noticed that people who saw it a second time said it held up and grows on you a bit more.

[poirot]

Jun 3, 2008 8:14:13 GMT -5 Jake said:

Also, I've noticed that people who saw it a second time said it held up and grows on you a bit more.

Yeah, this was easily one of the most anticipated movies of the internet era- having spawned dozens of rumored plots over the past decade. So it was pretty much impossible not to go into it with preconceived ideas of how it should be, as well as extremely high expectations.

Btw, you may also want to check out the other unused script, "Indiana Jones and the Monkey King" by Chris Columbus. It too is readily available online, and was a rejected storyline for the third Indiana Jones film. It's also really far out there, and you can't help but wonder how the original trilogy would've been regarded if it had been produced.

Spielberg has said when he first read it, he suddenly felt much too old to spend four months in Africa, while Harrison Ford rode a rhinoceros in a multi-vehicle chase scene. ;D

[Alec 006]

Hello,

Jake...I cannot tell you how accurate, well structured, and articulate I think your review is for Indy IV!

You and I definately are on the same page...especially since you noticed Spielberg / Lucas going for a cheesy 50's "sci-fi" look to the picture...and at times too much CGI.

Your thoughts echo mine so very closely...thank you so much!!!

Take Care!

[007]

I thought Indy IV did its job. It was a bit daft in places but I didn't expect it to anything other than it was - a couple of hours of undemanding fun.

[skywalker]

Went to see Indy IV yesterday with Mrs Skywalker and another couple. All 4 of us are fans of the franchise and we were all looking forward to the film. I'd read a few reviews including the excellent one by Jake before going and had some reservations prior to watching the fourth installment, but in the end I was glad the film was made and a good time was had.

Harrison Ford delivers a top class performance and just slips back into the role with effortless ease. The pace of the film is good and has a nice balance of action sequences and plot build up. The supporting cast is probably the one major flaw the film suffers from. Jim Broadbent aside, I thought the rest of the cast were weak and pretty much carried by Ford who is nothing short of excellent.

As for the rest, Shia Labeouf was ok, but nothing more, John Hurt had an irritating similarity to Jar Jar Binks and Karen Allen was simply a pale shade of the actress seen in Raiders of the lost Arc. That said, she did share a few moments with Ford that brought a smile to my face. Cate Blanchett put in a good if slightly strange performance, but for all the acting deficiencies the film had not lost that special Indy feeling and although out of the 4 films released it would rank the lowest, that is not something to be ashamed of.

The story was inventive as always and the scenes were well shot. The film definitely had a 50's feel to it and the locations were well chosen.

Apart from the casting issues, I feel Lucas may have lost a bit of his natural touch. As with the Star Wars prequels, this film suffers from a tendency to try and re-create the original magic yet it does seem slightly forced and doesn't flow naturally like the original Indy and Star Wars films. Although even with this flaw it has has stayed true to it's origin.

I would recommend this film, especially to fans of the franchise and my final score would be a solid 7 out of 10.

[poirot]

Jun 5, 2008 16:24:05 GMT -5 skywalker said:

Harrison Ford delivers a top class performance and just slips back into the role with effortless ease.

Ford really made the entire film, imo. There's some pretty goofy stuff in there, and yet he somehow makes it work. It's also a little scary how much younger and energized he appeared throughout. After seeing his recent films, I was really starting to wonder if they had waited too long for another Indy.

The character has always been a little world-weary, but here Ford really drives that point home. There's a weight to his performance that wasn't really there in the previous films. This makes something like a simple walk through a Peruvian marketplace far more interesting than it probably was on the page.

I agree about the supporting cast, although that's mainly because the story doesn't give them much to do. Ray Winstone and John Hurt had a pretty thankless task before them, while Karen Allen really should've been given a few more scenes with Ford.

However, I have to admit to enjoying Shia's performance- particularly in the beginning of the film. I wouldn't want to see him return in an Indy 5 (as Lucas has hinted), but I thought he pulled off what was essentially a very tough gig. He was a character you just wanted to hate going in, so kudos to him for not screwing things up.

[skywalker]

Jun 5, 2008 16:53:36 GMT -5 poirot said:

Ford really made the entire film, imo. There's some pretty goofy stuff in there, and yet he somehow makes it work. It's also a little scary how much younger and energized he appeared throughout. After seeing his recent films, I was really starting to wonder if they had waited too long for another Indy.

Ford's energy levels and enthusiasm was first class, similar IMO to Stallone's in Rambo IV. Both actors ensured that what could have been a bannana skin turned out to be some of their finest protrayal's of their respective characters.

Jun 5, 2008 16:53:36 GMT -5 poirot said:

I agree about the supporting cast, although that's mainly because the story doesn't give them much to do. Ray Winstone and John Hurt had a pretty thankless task before them, while Karen Allen really should've been given a few more scenes with Ford..

The characters are pivotal to the story, yet from watching the film I never felt anything from their performances. In all the previous Indy films I've taken to the supporting characters immediately, but for wahtever reason I couldn't in Indy IV.

[FormerBondFan]

I hope Sallah returns in Indy V.