At noon Sunday, I attended a press screening of "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." I returned to my laptop, wrote my review and sent it off, convinced I would be in a minority. I loved it, but then I'm also the guy who loved "Beowulf," and look at the grief that got me. Now Indy's early reviews are in, and I'm amazed to find myself in an enthusiastic majority. The Tomatometer stands at 78, and the more populist IMDb user rating is 9.2 out of 10. All this before the movie's official opening on Thursday.
Why did I think I would be in a minority? Because of what David Poland at Movie City News poetically described as "one idiot." As everybody knows, an exhibitor attended a closed-door screening last week, and filed a review with the Ain't It Cool News website. This single wrong-headed, anonymous review was the peg on which The New York Times based a breathless story on a negative early reaction to the film. That story inspired widespread coverage: Were Spielberg and Lucas making a mistake by showing their film at Cannes? Would it turn out to be a fiasco like showing "The Da Vinci Code" there? The Code got terrible reviews, and only managed to gross something like $480 million dollars at the box office--suggesting, if not to the Times, that even a negative reception at Cannes might not cut Indy off at the knees.
Maybe even Harrison Ford was influenced by Mr. Wrong-Headed. "It's not unusual for something that is popular to be disdained by some people," he said at the press conference following the Cannes screening, "and I fully expect it." What he got was a standing ovation in the Palais des Festivals that night. The S.O. was heralded in all the coverage, even though any Cannes veteran would tell you it meant--nothing. Every film gets a standing ovation at the black-tie evening premiere at Cannes, unless it is so bad it transcends awfulness.
There are really two premieres at Cannes: The press screening at 8:30 a.m., and the black-tie, or "official," screening in the evening. Both fill the vast, 3,500-seat Lumiere auditorium. The morning offers a tough audience: Critics, festival programmers, people who have may have seen hundreds of other movies in this room. They are free with their boos, and if a movie doesn't work for them have been known to shout at the screen on their way out.
The black-tie screening, on the other hand, includes many people who have a financial motive for wanting a film to succeed: The worldwide distributors and exhibitors, their guests, and lots of Riviera locals. Or they may have been given tickets and are thrilled to be there. ("I recognized the woman sitting next to me from my hotel," Rex Red told me one year. "It was my maid.") In some cases, they may simply think it's good manners to cheer movie stars who flew all the way to Cannes. Then too, the stars are seated in the front row of the balcony. Everybody below stands up after the movie, turns around, and sees them bathed in spotlights. The Standing O creates itself.
Nevertheless, I believe the S.O. was genuine the other night. It takes a cold heart and a weary imagination to dislike an "Indiana" film with all of its rambunctious gusto. With every ounce of its massive budget, it strains to make us laugh, surprise us, go over the top with preposterous action. "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" does those things under the leadership of Spielberg, who knows as much as any man ever has about what reaches the popular imagination. The early reviewer on the web site, on the other hand, knew as little.
Spielberg at heart will always be that kid who sneaked onto the back lot at Universal and talked himself into a job. He's the kind of man who remains in many ways a boy. He likes neat stuff. He thinks it would be fun to have Indiana and friends plunge over three waterfalls, not one. He knows that we know what back projection is, and he uses it blatantly (Indy arriving in frame as if he had jumped there, while the background rolls past a little out of focus). He knows back projection feels differently that perfect digital backgrounds -- it feels more like a movie. He likes boldly-faked editing sequences: We see the heroes in medium shot at the edge of a waterfall, we see a long shot of their boat falling to what would obviously be instant oblivion below, and then he shows the heroes surfacing together and near the shore (no rapids!) and spitting out a little water. The movie isn't a throwback to the Saturday serials of the 1930s and 1940s. It's what they would have been if they could have been.
Consider another action series, the Matrix films. They're so doggedly intense and serious. They seem to think the future of the universe really is a stake. There's a role for serious action, but not when it's hurled at us in a cascade of quick-cutting and QueasyCam shots that make dramatic development impossible. Even if the they are constructed out of wall-to-wall implausibility, the Indy films have characters who aren't frantic. Harrison Ford and Spielberg are wise: They know a pumped-up Indy would seem absurd. Indiana Jones himself is so laid back he sometimes seems to be watching the movie with us. He's happy to be aboard, just as long, of course, as he can stay in the boat/truck/airplane.
I'm glad you liked it. It gives me faith it will be good! Apparently, many so-called "fans" want to hate this movie before they've even seen it. One reason being George Lucas. Those who hated the "Star Wars" prequels are afraid he messed this up too (despite the fact he isn't the director), and some will probably hate it even if they'd otherwise find it excellent, for no other reason than out of spite for Lucas. Too bad.
Sometimes, when I read a thumbs-up review of yours, I detect a vibe that you liked the movie more than it objectively deserved (this was seen perhaps most strongly in your infamous "Speed 2" review). I got a little of that in your latest Indy review. Now, reading your blog entry, I have to wonder if the tone of your review wasn't influenced just a bit, by the expectation that most reviewers wouldn't like the movie.
In any event, I expect I'll love Indy 4 as much as you did. And I greatly enjoyed rereading both your original and "Great Movies" reviews of "Raiders". The perspective you added after the intervening 19 years was outstanding.
This is a good thing to read, and yet another example of why I like Roger Ebert's writing! I've already got my ticket to "Indiana Jones..." and can't wait to see it on Thursday morning.
Given the box office success of "Rocky Balboa," "Live Free or Die Hard's" John McClane and now Indiana Jones, it is obvious that consumers will purchase tickets for movie heroes that inspire them. These characters solve problems, they are not overwhelmed by them.
I'm happy to hear that it's worth the price of admission. I am a movie fan today because of Raiders of the Lost Ark (which I saw completely by chance in 1981 when my father drove me and a bunch of friends to the wrong theater. We had set out to see Dragonslayer, and I can't help but wonder how different my life would have been had we done so). I always say that if it wasn't for Indiana Jones, I'd have never known who Ingmar Bergman, Federico Fellini or Francois Truffaut were.
This is why since 1993, I have always looked up to Roger Ebert. Unlike many of the snobby, picky or overly analytical film critics out there, Ebert is both objective and subject. However, Ebert has always been fair-minded with his reviews and actually loves watching movies. To win the Pulitzer Prize for film criticism yet have the boldness to name Dark City best film of 1998, that's admirable.
Hey, why did you publish the review on Sunday instead of the day of release?
Ebert responds: After the Cannes screening, the deadline was generally ignored. I was being competitive.
Thanks for this.
After the early reviews and, yes, the "one idiot," I had almost written this movie off. Sure, I'd have gone, paid my condolences at the Indy of yore, but after your review, I know I'll enjoy it.
I think a lot of movies (Speed Racer comes to mind) suffer from the fact that movie reviewers often see the movie as an adult when, really, it's their inner child that should be watching. Sometimes it's OK to let go of logic and just play along.
I'm glad your inner child was in attendance.
Because I read some negative reviews, I have some doubt about Indy 4. However, considering Mr. Ebert's enthusiasm, I think I will have good time on Thursday night.
By the way, I watched Chinese movie 'Happy Times' on Sunday. I liked the movie, but I felt disturbed about lying to that blind girl. Thank you Mr. Ebert. Your two-star review points the problem exactly.
Thanks for the good review, Roger.
I'll take a chance and go see it. Always keeping in mind though, that you had very similar positive comments for "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow", which, while visually stunning, was a giant stinking **** a movie.
In defense of the Matrix, those films weren't queasy cam and quick cut, but choreographed with a grace and beauty befitting the old masters.
Admittedly I'm a Wackowski apologist. But lets not lump them in with the spawn of Bourne (note not the Bourne franchise itself) that somehow believes that geography doesn't matter in an action scene.
Geography matters so much in The Matrix that they stopped the frame and moved around to make sure you understood it. The Matrix to me is the logical endpoint of the classic style of action movie making, rather then a usurper of it.
Which is of course not to say that it's better then Spielberg (that as Nixon said, "Would be wrong.) Just that the Wackowski's are the Depalma to Spielberg's Hitchcock. Not the Michael Haneke.
I'm so glad you liked the film. I've been reading your online reviews for several years now, and you're by far my favorite critic. what I like best (more than your wonderful writing and wonderful analysis, which is a model for me, an aspiring critic), is your non-stufifness, and the fact that you're not ashamed to admit that you like silly action pictures like Indy.
In israel, where I live, most of the reviews for the movie have been very negative. But then, I only pay attention to what you say about movies (I don't always agree with you, but I always listen, and mostly agree). I'll definitley go see the movie this weekend, and I'm sure that I'll really love it.
As a staunch supporter of The Phantom Menace (it's simply the best prequel), I did not suffer from the "will-we-get-burned-again" apprehension that ailed many fans in the run-up to the new Indy film. But I wanted it to be good. I shy away from nostalgia as much as I can, but it's impossible to do so when it comes to Indiana Jones, especially when its very raison d'etre is a wistful longing to those Saturday mornings at the movies that its creators so enjoyed when they were kids. I am happy with the generally positive critical reaction to the film - even the negative reviews seem to submit the film's mastery over the serial form (or, as you put it, a revisionist, and far more accomplished, version thereof).
Now all I have to do is to make it till the end of the week and see the thing for myself...
It seems to me that the people complaining about the movie are forgetting what the movies are supposed to be about! Of COURSE it's the same kind of thing as before. What, is Indy supposed to suddenly be deep, profound and reciting Shakespeare???!?!!? He's supposed to do impossible stunts and all kinds of cool things are supposed to happen. One of the critics even criticized it for bringing in the "supernatural." Oh...and the Ark didn't? What about the stones of Kali in the second one? How about a grail that heals wounds and bring eternal life???? OF COURSE it has supernatural elements...they ALL have!!!
I was once pretty down on Lucas over the Star Wars prequels, but Revenge of the Sith cured me--not because it was such a great movie, but because of my six-year-old son. I made him think we were going to something boring I wanted to see, and he was beyond difficult, until the moment the "Lucasfilms" logo hit the screen. He gripped his armrest and said, "Is this..." That was the last I heard from him until the end credits. Say what you will, Lucas knows kids.
Now, he's eight. I think I'll tell him we're going to Speed Racer.
And so this is what the internet has wrought: a pop culture so savvy that the life cycle of popular opinion essentially runs through its various stages (reverence, backlash, backlash against backlash, etc) before the movie/cd/book/game is released. No one has SEEN it, mind you. But why quibble?
It's really fun to see a movie at the theater with an appreciative audience and it looks like that's what we'll get with this Indiana film.
I read your review of Beowolf and went ahead and rented it. It was great fun! My husband and I laughed out loud several times and enjoyed it immensely. Thanks for the recommendation!
I love reading your wife's messages from Cannes. I hope we get to hear more from her.
I just read your published review of Crystal Skull, as well as this entry. And I can't tell you how much I enjoyed reading them. I love the obvious enthusiasm you have for this movie, as for good movies in general. I am so very tired of reading reviews written by people who clearly don't like movies to begin with, especially those who happen to be professional movie critics. (I am sure you know who they are.) Get another job!
I have been reading and watching your reviews for about 30 years now, and the one thing that is plain is that you love movies. You are one of us. Even when you trash a movie, it isn't because you wanted it to be bad. Rather you are a little annoyed because you wanted the movie to be good, or at least better than you expected. And when a movie is good, you are not ashamed to say you enjoyed it. Maybe a great artist has to suffer for his art, that doesn't mean he has to make us suffer as well.
So thank you, for this as well as for your body of work. I have been exploring and studying movies since I was a child. I estimate that I have seen about 3500 movies over the years, bad and good and sometimes great. I am happy to say that you are one of the guides I trust to continue my explorations. And going back to your debates with Gene Siskel, while I don't always agree with you I know that you won't willingly steer me wrong.
Roger,
Your work is truly an inspiration (though not so much this particular review). Whenever a serious movie event occurs, your review is often as much of a work of art as the movie itself. I've back-read quite a few of your reviews and you are a great service to the industry. A true legend.
I suspect i'll like Indy very much.
Mike - The life-cycle in popular opinion for genre films that you refer to existed even before the proliferation of internet usage. I was living in Germany the year before Jurassic Park was released, and the cycle you referred to was apparent regarding that film even then. It's just the way reactions among fans develop when it comes to properties they are so passionate about.
If what you said were unique to the internet, and thus recent, same sort of cycle would have to apply to other upcoming films with buizz, too. The Wackness is one, for example. Since Sundance all anyone has said about it has been nothing short of hyperbolic. Surely some sort of negative word would have emerged had the internet really made cynics of us all, as you seem to imply.
I can't tell you how relieved and thrilled I was to log on to your Site, Roger, and see the 3.5 stars! My wife and my movie friends and I always ask each other the same question-"What did Ebert say about it?" With the trust you have earned over the decades, I know we will love this movie! Can't wait to see it!
I have never seen any of the Indy movies--not sure why. I was either in HS or college when they first came out. I know about that time, I had a morbid fear of snakes and was told that one scene (in the second film?) had Indy landing on a floor covered with snakes, so no go for me!
Having loved most action films from the actors such as Errol Flynn (Family Classics with Frasier Thomas was a must see for me), I'm fairly certain I'd like this one. I've always liked Ford--IMO, he's the best thing about the "first" Star Wars film. Sounds like he hasn't changed much.
I am thrilled that you liked this one! Your enthusiasm for Spielberg's work is virtually unequaled (except for Armond White, who makes me look like a detractor), even if sometimes your reaction is polarized (War of the Worlds, Empire of the Sun). But he's still one of the most vocal appreciators of who I think is the most important film artist we have.
In his review it struck me that he wanted to give it four stars but for whatever reason refrained himself. But his enthusiasm and enjoyment of the picture was absolutely dripping from that review.
And bravo for speaking your mind even when you feared you'd be in the minority.
Your Hollywood populism reminds me of the late work of F. Scott Fitzgerald who was, in my opinion, an early species of film critic. There you are knowing how you are supposed to feel about it but remaining "obstinately unhorrified". And of course there is something gorgeous about Indiana Jones, some heightened sensitivity to the possibilities of romanc..nevermind.
By the way, I watched Chinese movie 'Happy Times' on Sunday. I liked the movie, but I felt disturbed about lying to that blind girl. Thank you Mr. Ebert. Your two-star review points the problem exactly.
Yeah, but no qualms about that when it comes to Dumb and Dumber, is there? "Pretty bird...Can you say pretty bird?"
But I digress...
If there were a real Holy Grail for life it would be found in the word enthusiasm. Enthusiasm for living life as it happens. Each of us star in our own movie; yet we never really know whether we'll go over three waterfalls or one.
Spielberg, Lucas, and Ebert get it and get it right. This movie provides us with not only great entertainment; but also with what I call a Hula Hoop Moment; it leads to a thought that is at once both obvious and yet profound: Enthusiasm for life changes everything at any age.
Thank you Roger for your enthusiasm and insights. The adventure continues...
I saw the film at an advanced screening last night at the historic Senator Theater in Baltimore. I agree with Roger -- it was great fun. Sure, there was some monkey business I'd change. And I think the first half was more rewarding than the second half. But I was thrilled to see Indy ride again.
Perhaps it was a little "out there," but so were the originals. A 700-year-old knight guarding the Holy Grail? Beating hearts bursting into flame? These movies are what they are -- fun, exciting popcorn movies.
And Indy 4 delivers.
Ari (see above) - I didn't meant to imply that the internet created the life cycle of hyperbole/backlash, only that it has created a culture where one need not leave one's couch to talk 'meta'-movie, i.e. less about the movie itself as the reaction to it, the anticipated reaction to it, budgets, etc. For better or for worse it diminishes the effect of the 'event' movie. The event is over before it arrives. Is it a coincidence that the 'Titanic' Phenomenon occurred just prior to the tipping point re the ubiquity of the Internet (1998) ? I remember Gene Siskel commenting that he was glad his daughters were able to experience a cultural phenomenon like the Titanic. It seems like a prescient comment now, because it's practically impossible to imagine a pop cultural rallying point emerging from the zeitgeist of 2008.
I think the most telling line in your recent "Indy" review was that if you don't like the Indiana Jones series, there's no talking to you. Those that don't must lead bleak, surly lives, and frankly, should be humorously pitied. I have been a fan of yours for as long as I have been in the service, 25 years now. I have taken you with me to more countries than I can count, and no matter how difficult the circumstances, if I could find a computer, reading your reviews of movies I was almost certain not to see, made my day better and certainly more bearable. I am from the Chicago area while my parents hail from downstate and currently reside in Champaign, so I have always felt a Midwest connection somehow. You are not only the best reviewer of film I have ever read, Pauline Kael a distant second, but you are also a truly creative and gifted author period. I'll sign off with the offer of a Military escort to the Artcraft Theater in Franklin, Indiana, the pre-movie festivities are sublime.
Roger-
One of the things I have always admired about you and your style is that you know when a flick's a flick.
Not every film has to be revolutionary or change the world. Sometimes it's OK just to sit back and enjoy the story.
for the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, it seems like the recipe of a good Indiana Jones film would be 1 part Nazis and 1 part Biblical Artefact... the Soviet army does a pretty good job of replacing the Nazis, but the other ingredient...
Just saw it; good not great. The ending was a little over the top even for an Indiana Jones film. An entertaining ride, and thankfully a better effort than the most recent Star Wars films. I give it a 7/10
I've come to a conclusion that movie reviews are pointless, but Mr. Ebert is a top writer and My English improves every time i read his latest movie critique. For Crystal Skull though i must disagree. I've noticed that in most of your reviews for highly absurd,silly,illogical action genre type movies, you tend to nitpick on details if generally you hate the movie. But if the movie is in your opinion overall a high quality picture with some bad scenes, you're willing to excuse them. Jumper was an absurd movie, but to me generally entertaining. Details that was absurd about it you pointed out etc etc. But Indy Crystall SKull? Didn't you think SHia swinging like tarzan was corny? The special effects were very sad on most action scenes, and surviving 3 waterfalls was to me unacceptable. Maybe it's a sum of it's parts thing, or maybe a preference thing, maybe even an age thing..but movie fans should check out your reviews after they watch the movie. That's what i do. AND...after watching Indy 4, I hope Steven Spielberg will make Interstellar ASAP!!
Roger Ebert remains the best film critic in the known universe. I remember years ago during an episode of "Siskel & Ebert" when you explained how you gave a lousy review to "Apocalypse Now" when it was initially released in 1979, but discovered later you had made a mistake and found it was a good movie after all. Changing one's view on a film is something many critics would never consider, but Roger is the type who has the guts to make such an admission.
Keep up the great work, Roger. You'll always be the critic I trust the most. (But that doesn't mean I'll always agree with you).
Ebert responds: Nope, that was Siskel who changed his mind on Apocalypse. I cheered it from day one
I managed to avoid everything about the new Indiana Jones movie so that I would be able to go in to it with a clear mind. That, for me, was the only way that I would be able to enjoy it without a moment's hesitation. This is because I was fairly apprehensive about the idea of a new Indy movie, let alone the fact that they actually went through with it.
The opening credits scrolled on, the desert animals scampered in, and I felt a brief moment of scared apprehension that I would hate the movie. Then the Russians appeared and everything that I love about pulp action movies sprung onto the screen like a multicolored rainbow of WW2 delight.
It's been a long time since I felt 12 watching a movie. I gripped the seat in front of me, bounced up and down in my chair with each movement, and could not contain the grin that my face worked so hard to fight against as I saw Harrison Ford quip his way through another impossible mess of a beautiful ruined temple.
You captured the breathlessness I felt so many times in the movie perfectly. Now, I feel terrible that I had so little faith that the legend could live on.
Good God am I happy that it did.
I'm happy you like the new Indiana Jones movie and will try not to cry because you liked Beowulf. I watched as much of it as I could stand, but eventually gave up. I have a hard time with a genre I call video games as movies.
Not my first disagreement with your likes and dislikes and won't be the last. I live in Kentucky and bookmark your page to check on
Fridays for new releases. The blog is a treat.
Roger, may I ask this: why did you give the movie 3 1/2 stars instead of 4? From your enthusiasm, it sounds like the movie should have gotten no less from you! (I know you hate quibbling about star ratings, and I don't blame you, but I feel this query must be made.)
If "Raiders of th ot Arc" would be a 4, where does that leave me to go? I hate star ratings, anyway.
I saw it at a midnight screening last night. Indiana Jones has been a pivotal character in my life. So I was extremely excited to see The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I wish I had liked it. Perhaps I have an inflated notion of the first three films because I saw them when I was younger, but I found this movie to be so bad as to want to divorce it from the trilogy. Don't get me wrong, I love cheesy action. But this was above and beyond ridiculous and totally out of step with the other films. It looked like Spielberg was lazy and didn't want to have to deal with the sometimes harsh location shooting, so he just used green screen constantly. And he frequently used CGI instead of live action stunts. All of the action sequences have a very fake feeling about them (except for the early motorcycle chase scene, which I enjoyed). I was horribly disappointed in this movie.
I didn't like the movie as much as I thought I would. It just wasn't funny enough in between the action and the last act seemed slow.
It's hard with movies like these, because you want so much to like it that you're almost fighting with yourself during the show.
Basically I liked this one, but I think it went a little too heavy on the humor. I think the first three movies were a sort of campy that was at least miming a serious tone. This one just did not have enough of that element of mock-seriousness, at least to me. Maybe it's because I saw the first three when I was younger, and maybe they seemed "scarier" to me at the time.
I'm one of the people mentioned earlier who's avoiding "Crystal Skull" because of George Lucas' involvement, and for good reason. "Revenge of the Sith," despite its being considered by the majority of reviewers as the best of the SW prequels, did the same thing to me that "The Life of David Gale" famously did to Roger Ebert. No, it wasn't the implied anti-Bush/Cheney message. I happen to agree with the film on that point. Instead, it was Lucas using her love affair with Anakin and her pregnancy as misogynistic excuses to turn Natalie Portman's character, Padme Amidala, into an incompetent and helpless shrinking violet whose death is among the most stereotypical ever devised for a woman character. This development has adversely impacted the way I interpret some of the content of the previous two prequels, in terms of their cultural messages. It has also made me no longer able to forgive a certain "Indiana Jones" film ("Temple of Doom") for its leading lady being portrayed as a complete bimbo and for its over-the-top liberties with Indian culture that triggered an official protest from the Indian government.
Just saw it, had a blast (three waterfalls, couldn't stop laughing!). Now, what are these people talking about, "too much CGI, instead of real stunts"? Didn't they notice the miniatures, puppets, green screens and back projection in "Raiders...", "Temple..." and "Last Crusade"? Heck, I noticed it when I first saw them in the theaters, REALLY noticed it now that I just saw them again on DVD, and I don't see what the deal is. Isn't the cheesy look of certain effects part of the fun?
Tonight, in the theater, behind me there were these two kids no older than 8 or 9. When the giant ants lift the russian soldier, one kid told the other: "That is impossible!" The sad part, they were not laughing.
My only complain with "Crystal Skull": just wish it had had more whip action...
Are you open to the idea of Shia taking over Indy's footsteps? George Lucas openly said that he likes Shia to star in Indy 5, 6, or even 7. Now that would be a Spielbergian challenge. By the way, try watching 300. You haven't given it a review yet.
It is always a highlight of my Friday to look for your latest offering and your books have inspired me to seek out many great movies.
I discovered from one of your books that you studied for a while at the University of Cape Town. Is there any chance you could be poached back to present a film class / shot-by-shot analysis or something?
Ebert responds: I have returned to South Africa twice since 1965, both times wandering with nostalgia around the beautiful UCT campus, which even in 1965 had African students and was a hotbed of the anti-apartheid movement. Last time, my wife and I took the Blue Train from CT to Pretoria, a once-in-a-lifetime experience. But I don't see myself teaching a film class there, much as I would love it, because jaw cancer has stolen my ability to speak.
Haven't been able to get to it yet, Roger, but I read your review.
You had me at "monkeys!"
I just thank George Lucas for not fudging with another one of my childhood memories. Having grown up with Indiana Jones (and Han Solo), Crystal Skull is first and foremost a Indiana Jones picture. Yes, it is in some ways...sweeter? But the hard nosed Indiana Jones in Raiders would have some kind of arc, he should change, learn, open up...after all, his father issues were solved in Last Crusade right? But what is great about Crystal Skull is it hearkens back to not only the previous Indy films, but also a little Han Solo ("I've got a bad feeling about this" and an little CE3K too) - not too much, just enough to make me smile.
As much as I did not want to like Shia LaBoeuf...he totally won me over and more's the credit for him. Would have been nice for Marion to get in a few punches, but then again, people mature, people change (although she still looks pretty much the same - what deal with the devil did SHE make?).
All the elements were there and I thank both beards for bringing it home.
I actually liked the movie. Yes, I know it's far from perfect - the "Tarzan" bit is ridiculous and the special effects are sometimes too evident - but overall I really enjoyed it. it's cheesy and entertaining, and Ford looks as good as ever in his role of Indiana Jones. Cate Blanchett is a great villainess, and although Hurt and Winstone don't exactly shine in their roles, their performances are really good too. So yeah, there's CGI... so yeah, the plot is a little more over-the-top than in the others films... but we also have Spielberg, Ford and tons of masterfully-shot action sequences. It feels like an Indy movie, and it managed to entertain and engross me. I wasn't disappointed.
Though you would likely disagree, I feel exactly this way about Tarantino and Rodriguez's Grindhouse pair. There's so much joy in the film making, if a little raunchy, that I can't help but smile through most of it. You mention using effects that look more like a movie and less like reality, that's key to these types of films. I learned that from another review of yours though I can't recall the film. Thanks for teaching some more.
I appreciated your review of Crystal Skull. Having watched it, I must say that the script was by far the weakest of the four Indy films, and re-watching the original films in the days leading up to the release of "Skull" was a mistake, because my expectations were set too high. Ray Winstone was wasted because the audience never got to decide whether to like him or not, John Hurt was wasted in general (and his character felt like an unfortunate hold-over from perhaps an earlier draft featuring Henry Jones, Sr. (Sean Connery, who decided not to return to the screen). Karen Allen was poorly photographed (too many close-ups in harsh lighting for the beautiful, but aging, actress).
And yet... it's funny how a film can be so disappointing on many levels, yet still so much better than copycat films such as National Treasure or Tomb Raider. I wouldn't mind one final Indy movie after this one, if we don't have to wait another 19 years (for Indiana Jones and the Nursing Home Scrabble Game). Although you know what, if Spielberg directs and Harrison Ford returns, I guess I'd see it. The men seem more comfortable and happy in their respective roles than they have for the last few years.
Roger, while I understand your enthusiasm for the Indiana Jones series, and for fun action movies in general, I have to strongly disagree with your assessment of the movie. If Crystal Skull had been the first movie in the series, then no, I don’t think people would consider it the best one. Raiders of the Lost Ark is a wonderful symphony of action, character, and most importantly, pacing, and I think it is insulting to imply that people like it so much simply because of nostalgia, or because it happened to be released first.
My main problem with the new movie is that many of the action scenes are simply unbelievable. And before you say it, no, I don’t think the action sequences in the previous movies were nearly as over-the-top as the ones in Crystal Skull. Being dragged along behind a car is exciting and believable (it would have to be, because someone actually did it!), but many of the action sequences in Crystal Skull go beyond suspension of disbelief.
And since you mentioned it: Yes, I saw and enjoyed the previous Indiana Jones movies. In fact, I watched them all in the days prior to seeing the new one. But I have to say that this movie is easily the worst of the series. Besides the action, main plot points are simply not explained, and the special effects were painfully overdone. I wanted to like this movie, I really did. But as it went on, I found fewer and fewer reasons to enjoy it, and just ended up leaving the theater disappointed and sad.
I liked it a lot too, although I did feel that Harrison Ford was a little too "laid back." The film had me at the elaborate and lengthy (in a good way) intro sequence, which started with some teenagers racing with the army guys all the way to the refrigerator scene. At this point, I knew I would like this movie. I don't think anyone does action scenes as exhilarating, graceful, and fun as Spielberg. I'm glad he's back making a "fun" movie again.
i am 20 years old and have never been given the chance to see an Indiana Jones movie in theatres before, but after watching its midnight screening on wednesday i have to say it was really fun to watch with my college friends, (even though i had a coms final at 8 am the day prior, still aced it even with my drowsy eyes). We all loved it but then we had to hear a few mourns from ppl exiting the theatre with us saying: "That was so farfetched!" and other such comments debunking its storyline. My friends and I almost wanted to turn around and respond by saying; "When has any Indy movie ever been plausible?" With all his swinging, whipping, jumping from car to tank to airship, i too sometimes forget how far-fetched it really it is myself, but that doesn't make me hate it. Wednesday night was definitely a hoot, and this 4th film from Spielberg and Lucas was filled with so much action and funny lines that i felt the 10 bucks was worth it. We then went to eat some late night Dennys and we couldnt help but laugh and talk all night about the movie and arguing about whether or not Harrison Ford had a unibrow. Stupid stuff to argue over but if a movie can make me talk in such ways about it hours after its showing, then it's done its job. It's also true that by now the series has become generic, but like Mr. Ebert said:
"True, 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' stands alone as an action masterpiece, but after that the series is compelled to be, in the words of Indiana himself, "same old same old." Yes, but that's what I want it to be.".....and so do i.
Part of my Friday ritual is sitting down and typing "r" in my browser window and clicking on the first auto-fill that comes into play. I think you can guess where it leads. So, I didn't actually read the review for "Indy 4" until after I had seen it, in the best way I could: I left work immediately, waited in line, and saved a row smack in the middle of the theatre for my friends. What a blast! I've been quoting it all day, reliving funny and action-packed parts with a big, goofy smile on my face. I don't know who the "one idiot" was, but I loved the movie, my friends loved it, and the guy I had to drag to the theatre told me he'd see it again. It was nice to see Spielberg and Lucas getting back to their roots with this one. Pure entertainment, a few laughs, a few arm-clenchers, and, of course, a few bouffanted monkeys. Should I really say that I want a fifth installment before I hit 40? OK, twist my arm...
Hi there,
I know that a critic should never influence my way of thinking...but your 'thumbs down' review of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade STILL HURTS. I would just like to know if today, looking back at was is essentially a great adventure movie, you think you were being too harsh...
I believe your words were something like 'we have seen all this before'. A agree with that statement but is that really a reason to punish a film? If anything, 'Last Crusade' took the series in a new direction and the Connery scenes are now, well, classics. even the climax had an emotional 'high' missing in this new one...
I would very much appreciate your thoughts on the third Indy film.
kind regards,
Claude (Malta)
Ebert responds: Hey, I gave it 3.5 stars! That's pretty far from "thumbs down."
Huh. Roger Ebert liked it? I thought you hate all movies: "Your movie is crap".
19 years I have been waiting for this sequel. The story is ridiculous and completely incredible (as in no cridibility). Nobody walks away from a nuclear explosion (Mr. Jones, the professor of archeology, called it “NUKELAR” - apparently, he’s not a professor of English, although he can read and speak Mayan language freely).
No wonder Harrison Ford stayed away from this movie for almost 20 years. That egomanic Lucas bollocksed up the last 3 Star Wars and now yet another favorite childhood character.
Roger,
Thank you for expressing exactly how I feel. I loved it. Is it the greatest film ever? No. Is it Raiders of the Lost Ark? No. I feel so sad for so many people that search for things not to love in movies. What an awful existence! I feel so sorry for all the fans that are so angry with George Lucas for "ruining" Star Wars, as if the new films or any other film could hit them on such a gut level again. I love movies. I love Indiana Jones. I love that Spielberg and Lucas were clearly able to make a film that was fun. And isn't that, folks, what these movies have been about?
PS - Although I would love it, I do hope JK Rowling never revisits Harry Potter for too many fans will want simply too much.
Thank you Roger. I hope your health is improving. We need you.
I was pleasantly surprised by Beowulf....the people that gave you grief? That's their problem....never lose the spirit for what moves you, Roger....That's what has kept me a devoted reader of yours for the last 25-plus years....Re-reading your review of Crystal Skull has me looking forward to a Sunday afternoon matinée.
Jeffrey
Well I have seen it and it's crap. Lame plot. Harrison Ford as wooden as I have ever seen him. Karen Allen (finally) recast 20 years too late. Special effects that are not only not special, but are downright poorly done. (If I want to see special effects that look like a 1930's movie, I'll watch a 1930's movie, thanks.) Cripes, the continuity is missing in major ways: in one sequence they float to the top from a tumble through a giant waterfall, and 10 seconds later they're not even wet! Lame plot, poor editing, bad effects, shallow acting. And I sat through the whole thing. The only person I felt more sorry for than me was John Williams, who had to rewrite his wonderful thematic "Raiders" music for the umpteenth time and try to make it sound fresh. If only Spielberg and Kennedy had worked as hard.
I saw Crystal Skull yesterday. I liked it. As a kid, I grew up watching the Indiana Jones series. I still watch them every once and a while. I watched all three recently to get ready for Crystal Skull. Raiders of the Lost Ark was always by far my favorite, followed by Last Crusade. Temple...(read more) of Doom brought up the rear. Crystal is better than Temple of Doom, but it still doesn't touch the other two. With all of that said, Crystal Skull is a good movie, and it's a pretty good chapter to the Indy saga. Harrison Ford is still awesome as Indiana Jones. I love the action scenes; Spielberg really knows how to craft them. The peformances are all great. It's a lot of fun to watch Ford and LaBeouf play off each other. Bringing Karen Allen back was a nice touch. The special effects are incredible. As for the story, it's good, but like Temple, it just doesn't quite fit with the others. With the original trilogy, the movies were set in the thirties, and they were inspired by the thirties episodic serials that were so popular. The original Indy flicks worked very well with that format. Since Kingdom is set in the fifties, they wanted it to be like the sci-fi B movies that were popular then. I think the movie would have been much better had they not gone the alien route. Why is George Lucas so obsessed with alien stories? Had Spielberg not been trapped by Lucas' inspired script, the movie could have been incredible. I would have preffered a macguffin that was actually historical. I like good alien flicks, but in my opinion, it doesn't fit with Indy's world. Kingdom loses the sense of realism that the originals carried, what little there was, and it's not quite as exciting or emotionally gripping. Still, after all is said and done, it is a good movie, and it's a lot of fun. Like Ebert said, if you are a fan of the Indiana Jones movies, then you are gonna like Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I honestly hope they make another one. I loved the ending, and they sort of left it open. I heard an idea they have for a fifth, and it sounds like a good one. I just hope they drop the alien stuff and get it back on track. I think Ford could handle another.
[i]Cripes, the continuity is missing in major ways: in one sequence they float to the top from a tumble through a giant waterfall, and 10 seconds later they're not even wet![/i]
That reminds me of an incident Mr. Ebert recounted in his review of "Jaws 4: The Revenge", which he saw in a theater full of people, and at one point, upon seeing the condition of Michael Caine who had just been in the water, he shouted to everybody "His shirt is dry!"
Ebert responds: Was that me, or overheard?
We saw it yesterday. Yes, we really wanted to like it. If we could root for a film to be good, well, that's what we did. And yes, we DID indeed enjoy it. Great Saturday afternoon serial kinda stuff. Sure it's probably impossible to live through those kinds of things, but remember what kind of movie we're watching people!
I really have to apologise for my comment yesterday...
I looked up the 'Siskel and Ebert at the movies' clip i remember watching as a kid....and i was shocked to realise that it was Gene Siskel who gave it a thumbs down and not you!!!
I just couldn't believe that i had it wrong all these years...
Actually, the sentiment is the same - that thumbs down still surprises me but I'm afraid i will never get the answer i was looking for now. Deep down, i feel that looking back, mr. siskel would probably admit that he was being too harsh...
No wonder i was so shocked when i read your written review...it seemed as though it was written by someone else! hehe. At least now, i can re-watch some of those video reviews and enjoy them even more...knowing we agree on so many levels. Art is one thing but entertainment should not be sniffed at simply because it aims to entertain - and nothing else.
once again, sorry for the mix-up.
Sheesh, that's two posts that I noticed where you were being confused with Gene Siskel, the Last Crusade review (you gave it thumb's up) and the Apocalypse Now review change. Does this annoy you, or are you used to it by now?
I'm glad you took the time to discuss your feelings about Indy 4 in depth. I found myself dissatisfied with every film past Raiders as a whole, but now looking back on each of the films, each has its really exhilarating set pieces and hilarious moments that could only belong to the film in which it's featured. The only baggage I took with me to the theater was the joy of finally seeing Indy-style pulp action on the big screen after all these years. My wife and I discussed all the inconsistencies and goofiness on our way home, but we knew better than to pretend that Indiana Jones has been about plausibility or series continuity.
There are things that bother me about all the films, but I still love them, and I hope that Spielberg's willingness to do another Indy film holds.
This leaves me with a question: I hear the term pulp fiction get thrown around a lot, and it seems to have lost some of its meaning. What exactly IS pulp fiction? How many uses of the term can there be? I think it might depend upon what genre the pulp fiction happens to be in, but I really don't know enough to speak with authority on it. Any comment from you would be greatly appreciated, but even if not, thanks for your time. Always good to read your reviews and essays.
Ebert responds: Send this question to the Movie Answer Man, with the head "Pulp Fiction," and be sure to include your home town, and I will reply there.
Just adding my voice to those who really didn't enjoy Indy 4.
To qualify that, and in reference to some of the things posted by yourself and by some of your readers:
- I love the previous films, still remember the day I saw Raiders in the theater with my Dad, but I haven't watched them in a few years, so as to let Indy 4 stand on its own merits.
- I love pulp fiction, a good jungle adventure, action films, cheesy sci fi, exciting chases, man-eating ants, flying saucers and so on. Corny and silly things are good too.
- I'm all for over-the-top action and preposterous plot points - nothing wrong with them in and of themselves.
- I like Spielberg, and I think that he's been on top of his game the past several years (particularly with War of the Worlds and Munich).
- I really don't like what Lucas did with Star Wars in the prequel trilogy, but I didn't think of him once while watching Indy 4, so I don't think that's influenced my opinion.
- I wasn't looking for a film that would change the world, or a film that was revolutionary, just an adventure flick with some old (cinematic) friends.
- I wasn't rooting for the film to be bad. Instead, after reading your review, was hoping it would be, if not great, then at least a fun romp.
On the positive side, Blanchett was cool. Ford was his old self. And it was genuinely nice to see Karen Allen on the big screen again. (Kind of like how it was nice to see Katherine Ross again in Donnie Darko.)
Nevertheless, apart from a couple of isolated instances (like when Indy stumbles into the bomb test site, and the sirens go off), the film never really got off the ground for me. I was all set to give myself over to the film, and it simply never happened.
Anyhoo, still happy to read your reviews, and kudos for spotlighting some great films at your film festival, particularly "Shotgun Stories" and the Branagh "Hamlet." And this is a little late, but I completely agree with you about "Joe Versus the Volcano."
Best wishes.
Although I had been dreading the release of Indy 4 (as I, like so many others, hold the Indiana Jones trilogy close to my heart) your review managed my expectations in a new way. It was that analogy about the sausage - how you can't eat four pounds of sausage and claim that one was any better than the others. At the time, I thought that analogy was very apt. After all, Indy is just good, high-spirited, pulpy adventure at the end of the day, I reminded myself. So this weekend I settled in to the soft seats of my local movieplex, liberated with the happy anticipation of a great heaping pound of cinematic sausage.
But upon leaving the theatre, I realized that the sausage analogy doesn't hold up. My friends and I left the theatre and smiled at each other, laughed at some of the more outrageous scenes, shrugged our shoulders and parted company, only to forget the last two hours instantly. Sure, the movie tasted good while we watched it, but was instantly forgotten afterward. Not at all like Raiders, which lives in my memory.
Rather than sausage, the Indy pictures are like cheeseburgers. They're empty calories, to be sure. But Raiders was a cheeseburger so good, so delicious, that you can remember when and where you ate it. It stands out in your mind as one of the best you'd ever had, and as a comparison to all other burgers. Indy 4 was a tasty little indulgence, sure. But I'll never think about it again.
And that, really, is the difference between great tasting cinema, and the kind that just fills you up.
I love Ebert's reviews. But I've noticed something lately. Ever since his surgery he's loving movies more. I don't believe the quality of movies has increased, but he certainly seems to be giving movies, on average, a higher rating. To prove this I would need to form a database of his ratings, but I've no time. So for now I'll just go on a hypothesis.
Thanks Ebert for enjoying this film. In on of the online communities I hang out in I seem to be the lone fan of the film. Must hate the ending, hate the filming (heavy blue screen) style, and dislike the overall story. For me, it all worked. I don't think we should turn off our brains while at the movies, but I do think at times we can allow movies to stretch our imaginations. Kid swinging on vines with monkeys at rapid speed? Unlikely. But damn that looks like fun.
Ebert responds: Since my surgery? Does that mean for the past three years? Comments like yours are not very useful, because statistics do not apply. Movies can only be discussed on a title-by-title basis.
Mr. Ebert, I mentioned my comment to somebody else and this person informed me that what I said was rude. So I apologize. I didn't mean it as such. I grew up in Arlington Heights, IL, and was a long time follower of your reviews. I got to the point where I could read in the Sun Times your review and know if it was worth seeing the movie or not.
To make a long story short, over time I stopped reading your reviews less since I was going to the movies less (that's how college, and early works years are). But now that I'm going more I read your reviews every week to help me make a decision of which movie to see. What I've noticed, over the last year or so, is more 3 & 4 star movies. In fact, not that long ago there were I think 2 or 3 movie reviews in a row that were 4 stars (from what I recall). This surprised me. I had a hard time believing that this many quality movies were coming out, compared to what I was noticing in your reviews previously. Especially, when my own viewing experience (though not necessarily those movies) was reflective of that. I started to wonder if perhaps after the health trials you've been through if your outlook and appreciation of movies has changed. If you see more of the good in the movies than before. But I don't honestly think that's the case anymore. After looking back at some of the reviews, I think its just a case that I'm noticing some of your reviews of the non-widely distributed movies more, and these are ones that perhaps just tend to be of a greater quality.
Thanks for continuing the great work.
p.s. Do you know any sites that I can go to where critical movie discussions take place that don't worry about spoilers (since its assumed that all reading those comments have seen the movie)? I'm often interested in in-depth discussion of a movie, such as the script, cinematography, storyline, ending (e.g. what did it mean?), certain scenes, etc. But I cannot find a good place to do so! Thanks again.
It was a few years ago when we heard they were ramping up the talk of an 'Indy 4'. I told my mom and dad at the time that, all Harrison Ford had to do was put his fedora back on straight after the first time he goes through some rough stuff, and then mumble "I'm getting to old for this." And he would have us. Indy has always been a combo of smarts/action/luck, and with a dash of self-deprecating wit, he would have even the most cynical of us sign on for one more ride, implausible or not.
Now aftter seeing it: I had fun, but at the same time, was a little disappointed. I don't think the over-the-top action sequences were properly capped off by one-liners, and I think that is why some people are sub-consciously moved to say "that was just too unbelievable", as did my buddy. An example is when Indy exits the refrigerator -- if he would have capped off that whole absurd experience with a minimalist "I'm getting to old for this", it would have brought the house down. Some critics talk in terms of "payoff." If we are going along for a ride that is realistically implausible, then we need a 'payoff' to waive that implausibility. Instead, I can't remember what Indy actually said, and I just saw the movie. Similarly, there was the waterfall. An understated "That last one was a doozy" would have been a sweet payoff line. Again, my buddy with a predilection for believability had issues with that scene. (Tough critic -- this is the same guy who pooh-poohed the mooing cow in the tornado in "Twister", which I thought was corny-hilarious).
Perhaps its easy to quibble about one-liners, but the real main area where I think this movie fell short is pacing. After a good start, it hit a real slow patch in the jungle. It got so talky for a while, it recalled for me The Phantom Menace and the Simpsons episode that satirized the wonky senate scene.
All in all, it felt like the screenwriters were preoccupied with ticking off a checklist: get in the cultural touchstones of the '50s including Atomic Cafe, Roswell, rock n' roll, and communism; and write in parts for (most of) the old gang. In doing so, I think the pacing must have lost out. I would have preferred they reviewed Raiders (a masterpiece of pacing), realized that talkiness had gotten in the way, and reworked it out. There just isn't any substitute for a forward-moving narrative.
PS: Thanks for all the great write-ups Roger. Your anecdote about beating John Wayne in a game of chess was one of the best.
I'm wondering which of the original three "The New One" has most in common with, thematically and even in shot sequences. I'm leading towards "Raiders", although I'm very glad that Cate Blanchette (playing Natasha from Rocky and Bullwinkle?!) didn't have her face melt off in claymation slow-mo like the chief Nazi looking at the Ark. How about these similarities?
1. A goon that must be fought hand-to-hand in an interminable fight scene. In Raiders, he gets a propeller to the face. The implied gore of the blood spattering across the plane fascinated me as an 11-year old. In The New One, the goon is eaten alive by ants and you see it all; yuck.
2. Romance between Indy and Mary. She was so cool in Raiders, drinking the bad guys under the table. And that scene on the German submarine when she kisses him the only places it doesn't hurt--that is sexy. Nothing like that sort of energy in the new one. They bicker, sink into quicksand for a moment of honestly, she falls in love with him again while driving and operating a machine gun.
3. Natives with dart-guns.
4. Archeological objects that could lead to world domination. In Raiders, it's the Judeo-Christian Ark of the Covenant. In The eNw One, the religious object has been replaced by "Chariots of the Gods" stuff-- A little bit X-Files, a little bit Third Encounters. I'm more scared of having my heart pulled out for sacrifice, actually.
Well put, Roger. A lot of internet nerd rage is being expended over this movie, and admittedly, I got a little worked up over the MacGuffin in this one, which I think deviates from the spirit of the series. They make the story exciting enough that you go along with it, and that's Spielberg's greatest talent. He can drive a story along on square wheels.
The ending sequence was a bit overlong and overwrought, and I would have preferred a little more mystery instead of something from Close Encounters. But all is forgiven, because they hit a lot of the right notes. I normally find Shia LaBoeuf somewhat annoying, but he created a likeable character here. His popularity is already on an upswing, but this is a new benchmark for his talent.
I agree with your review, that Raiders of the Lost Ark is so iconic, that it is impossible to follow it. This one's on par with The Last Crusade; it may not mimic the tone of the original perfectly, but it's great fun and true to the characters we know so well.
If they get together again in Africa or Asia, hopefully it will be more about creepy arcane artifacts than little green men. But Crystal Skull isn't a bad movie, or even a bad Indiana Jones movie. It's just not what everyone wanted or expected. There's a lot to enjoy in the movie, and while there's a silly bit here and there, they're easy to overlook.
No sir, I didn't like it.
The script was terrible. Everything felt contrived, convenient and cliched. The characters were two-dimensional stereotypes, defined by their clothing, their accents and their weapons rather than by their actions, words or attitudes. This was a terrible waste of talent.
And another thing...
Why have Speilberg's movies become so damned claustrophobic. His best (re: oldest) movies are in love with their settings. Jaws' Amity feels like a real town, alive and vibrant and genuine. The people of Amity speak the language of New England islanders. Raiders' revels in the foreign lands that Indy visits. Close Encounters is an epic that spans the whole globe, but ultimately focuses on a guy trapped in suburban Indiana. The China depicted in Empire of the Sun is almost hyper-real. Sugarland Express and The Color Purple are honest depictions of the American south. Even Jurassic Park feels like it could exist somewhere in the South Pacific. But the Speilberg of today seems to have closed his films off into imaginary little sound-stages filled with cloistered actors. His locations are just backdrops. His characters just stereotypes.
I love old Speilberg. I think his best films are so great that he's earned the honor of best director of all time despite his lackluster performance in middle-age. I just want the old Speilberg back, the one who cared about real people, than the new Speilberg, who thinks in cartoons. Sometimes he shows hints of his former genius. Catch Me If You Can is almost great. Munich has it moments.
It's not like he needs the money.
I hated Indy 4 and couldn't believe Roger's lapse of judgment. When the crystal aliens all merged together, melted Cate's eyes, and then took off in the space ship, I just wanted to throw up. It was THAT bad! I think the critics were reviewing their love for Indy, not the movie itself.
To the reviewers complaining about fake backgrounds and such, a lot of the scenery in this film is actually real, particularly the jungle sequences in the second half. The cast and crew were here on Hawaii Island for several weeks filming on private property near where I live, and believe me much of the background scenery you see on film really exists. OK, maybe there is no triple waterfall around here, but a lot of the jungle stuff looks very familiar to me.
Also, I want to apologize to Roger regarding the "Apocalypse Now" comment. My memory is obviously getting fuzzy. I believe you mentioned at least one film during that episode from long ago that you disliked at first but changed your mind about it later on. I can't remember the film(s), however?
I also remember an episode back in 1984 when you and Gene were talking about Steven Spielberg. You hadn't yet seen "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom," but the episode did have a clip from the movie. I believe you and Gene were talking about how you can tell just from the preview the movie was going to be good. You and Gene commented on how Spielberg takes full advantage of sound effects, special effects, music, etc., to make great memorable movies.
I should add that, in retrospect, it seems that Connery's presence as Henry Sr. was sorely missed. Had they not rewritten it for his absence, we undoubtedly would have seen him in the quicksand helping Indy castigate Henry III for dropping out of school. I think there would have been MUCH more comic relief if we had been allowed the version with Henry Sr./Connery in it.
Maybe a plea is in order: Mssrs. Spielberg, Ford, et al,.. I think you need to come back for an Indy 5 to get it right. No sidebars for Tarzan or All My Children in the middle of the movie. Just Indiana Jones adventurously getting himself into and out of trouble following some mysterious artifact. Marxists in Cuba, French involvement in Indochina, Communists vs. Tibet, NASA, hippie commune :| -- there are plenty of situations left where Indy can find himself in the middle of trouble.
I generally agreed with your review. I enjoyed the movie quite a bit, but felt that there were screenplay problems which seem inexplicable given the amount of time they had to work them out. This presents an interesting theory that I and others have about screenplays that have been overworked. Too many cooks spoil the pot, so to speak. I wish more had been done with the relationship between Indy and his son. In Last Crusade, the conflict between Indy and his dad became the emotional and comedic fuel that lifted the film into something other than pure action. In this film, it seems a plot contrivance. Harrison tries hard, but there just isn't much to work with, son wise. Same for his relationship with Karen Allen, which I wish had been fleshed out more. I had no problem with the alien plot, and felt that the opening was second only to the delirious madness of Temple of Doom (still the best sequence in any Indy movie).
I have been watching the recently released DVD's of the Indiana Jones Chronicles, many of which are quite brilliant, and which educate without the kids even realizing it. So far (I watched them when they were aired) I have seen young Indy meet Teddy Roosevelt, Picasso, Norman Rockwell, Ernest Hemmingway, and Pancho Villa, just to name a few. As such, I smiled brightly when Indy mentioned riding with Pancho Villa in Crystal Skull, a nice reference for those of us who watched the series.
Still, the new film was a welcome respite from lesser, more by the numbers films. It certainly compares favorably with the Rocketmen From the Moon, and Undersea Kingdom, which I have been watching recently, and which to the uninitiated may seem like a backhanded attack, but which is quite high praise indeed.
has anyone made theConnection bet the kingdom of the crystalSkull and jimHenson's darkCrystal?
The movie was okay, sometimes exhilirating, but the way movies are shown now detracts from the pleasure.
I saw Temple of Doom in a huge, 800+ seat behemoth, and it was filled to capacity.
For Crystal Skull, the local plex is showing it on, let's see, FIVE screens (out of 17). We went opening weekend, expecting a large, jubilant crowd. Instead, there was maybe 30 people in the house; I guess if the movie is playing every half hour, the crowd gets dispersed.
When was the last time a movie you wanted to see was sold out? These megaplexes are killing the moviegoing experience.
I thought the new Indy was good overall. The opening was great especially the refrigator scene. But after that Harrison Ford played out the movie with no sence of urgency which would have brought more suspense to what was happening on screen. Why couldn't Short-Stop from Temple of Doom make a appearance in the closing scene? Whatever happened to that kid, did Indy just dump him on the side of the road?
A big loss in the latest Indy from the previous 3 films was I didn't feel like I went somewhere. The other films I got to travel the world with Indy, a feeling a computer backdrop cannot replicate.
Rather than talk about all the things that went right with this latest Indy film, I thought I would comment about the one thing that bothered me in this installment. All of the action and adventure is there, but what struck me about this latest Indy his how utterly bloodless it is. In the other three films, scenes existed that had the MPAA in conniption fits, and would have earned the films an automatic R had they been directed by anyone other than Spielberg. Even the relatively family-friendly third outing had one great scene in which a character outsmarts themselves and meets a profoundly grisly end as a result. I always remembered these gruesome death scenes long after I had forgotten the rest of the films (which admittedly took a while).
I do not believe any death scene in a film has disappointed me to the extent Irina Spalko's death has. Had this film been made in the early to mid 1980s, Irina's declaration that she wants to know everything the crystal skulls have to offer would be followed by her convuslive scratches of the head, her requests to make it stop, and her head promptly exploding (think Scanners done with a Spielberg budget, the mind boggles). I had been psyching myself up for just such a demise after the film had carefully set this character up as the sort of person who would erase another person's will and substitute her own. What I saw instead left me quite disappointed. I suspect that in another thousand years when the remnants of our civilisation are unearthed, the then-modern Indiana Jones will remark to himself about how living in this time must have felt like a pervasive straight-jacket. He would cite the difference between this and other Indiana Jones films as evidence.
That aside, it was a fun time at the theatre, and I cannot wait for the Blu-ray Disc.
Can I tell a little story first? Thank you.
My son (who's 8) and I were at a junior hockey game about a couple of months ago where our team, the home team was playing badly. The fans started to boo and shout catcalls. I said, "This isn't right." My son wanted to know why. I said, "See all these people here sitting in the stands? You know why they're sitting in the stands? Because they're not good enough to play."
Now, that said, I am going to add (from the stands) that I enjoyed reading Mr. Ebert's review a whole lot more than the movie.
I loved Indy movies but last one was dissapointment.. I love cool, witty sharp Harrison Ford as Hans Solo and the same charisma of him in Indiana Jones but this was missing here.. tough he tried his level best...
Also in previous movies.. I never recall Indy as superhero.. means remember in Raider fight scene in Airpor etc He did get beaten up.. In this movie.. he was just throwing people out of trucks etc
My biggest complain there was no sense of finding.. (My poor english is not helping) but they were getting things very easily in the movie... it should not be kept that much simple...
But but but... keeping in mind Harrison Ford age and performance its all praises but keeping in mind Steven Speilberg and George Lucas names and expectations its dissapointment..
also why they rejected too many scripts and approve this one?????
[plot spoiler ahead]
Did anyone else notice that a big chunk of the climax of this movie is lifted from the climax of National Treasure? In both films, the heroes make it to the fabled "treasure" only to discover that instead of gold and jewels, it's a big pile of artifacts from ancient civilizations - that their "treasure" was actually knowledge about the past.
I'll admit (to Roger's horror and my own surprise) that I mildly enjoyed National Treasure (haven't seen the sequel), but it was very strange to see a new Indy movie that, from the climax to the reams of exposition and riddles to the agitated young sidekick, often seemed to be emulating that film rather than its own predecessors. I don't know what I expected to be thinking as I exited the theater, but it sure wasn't "Nicolas Cage got there first."
Of course, Cage didn't find creatures from another planet, but in his approach to acting he's often tended to resemble one himself, so they probably would have been superfluous.
I admit, I read your review of KOTCS before I saw it, and it did put me in the right mindset for watching the film. I came away smiling, though admittedly I wasn't calling my friends up to catch another screening immediately. Bottom line is this *is* an Indy movie in the tradition of the first three, simply pushed to a limit we never expected.
I hope others come around to your point-of-view on the movie, because it would be a shame for people to skip INDY IV on account of the opinions of a bunch of jaded grouches.
What an odd monster a movie franchise can be. Too few are continued by their original production teams, and even fewer maintain a high level of quality across multiple sequels. Have we been so spoiled by the high quality of the first three Indy movies that even the minor missteps in this latest one have resulted in calls for George Lucas's head?
Here's the way I see it: the Indiana Jones series did indeed end in 1989, with THE LAST CRUSADE. By all accounts, there were going to be no more movies, and fans like me resigned ourselves to imagining what Indy's further adventures would be. When this last film was announced, I approached it with a level head, understanding that it was merely the cherry on the top, an encore performance for fans who'd never expected to see Dr. Jones crack his whip again. In that sense, INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL is a bonus movie, not quite strong enough to stand on its own, but displaying just enough of what we come to expect from an Indy adventure to keep us satisfied.
Personally, I'm amazed that the rougher-around-the-edges trio of Spielberg, Lucas, and Ford did as good a job as they did, creating a throwback not only to B-movies, but also to the style of the original movies. Like all reunions, the getting-back-together is a little awkward, and things are definitely not what they used to be, but once everyone gets into their groove again, it certainly can be nostalgic fun.
Everyone has left the Indy room to go and talk about other things - currently movies that make them cry.
But I wanted to come back here because I'm finally able to put my finger on why I didn't like Indiana Jones IV, thanks to a quote I found from Mr. Ebert's review of "Tank Girl":
Director Sidney Lumet has a new book out about how to make movies. In it he observes that slowly-paced scenes can actually make a movie seem to go faster than a relentless pacing that never stops.
Maybe it's me, but I really think most people need to get a grip while watching this film. For starters this is not Oscar season it's the summer blockbuster season. If there are two individuals whom can make a great popcorn summer movie it has to be Lucas and Spielberg. Now, I disliked the Star Wars prequels, however, I did like the newest sequel to Indy. Mainly because this seemed like the actual sequel to the original "Raiders." You also have to remember that the storyline represents a time period where sci-fi was popular. Plus if you were real film buffs you would remember that sci-fi films (and WW2 films) were Spielberg's first films as a kid. This is just good fun, minus the paperthin mega effects of last year's summer success "Transformers."
I was so excited to see this fourth installment and to see Indiana Jones again that I was actually the nerd in the audience who applauded his entrance.
But what a disaster this film was! Ford was sleep-walking, Cate Blanchett didn't know how far to take her character and went from high camp to realism and back again, all while using a dialect that sounded like some bizarre Yiddish-Puerto Rican hybrid. Karen Allen was embarrassingly bad in her old Marion Ravenwood fright wig, reminding me what a horrible director Spielberg is of women and yes, that includes "The Color Purple."
I would have thought that the franchise could have grown out of its racism by now, but it was worse in this film than ever before. It's always okay in an Indiana Jones film to dispatch with thousands of brown-skinned people who might be in the way of the great White Man achieving his Quest. No one with brown skin had a major roll at all, and Indy and his friends were all as crassly smash-and-grab in their approach to obtaining the skull as the ostensible villain played by Ray Winstone. A perfect film for the Bush Administration years.
P.S. The crystal skull prop was laughably bad. It looked as though it was constructed of plastic and tin foil. The actors tossed it around like a Whiffle Ball, for heaven's sake -- would a crystal skull not be HEAVY? You could just see John Hurt suppressing his mocking laughter throughout.
RE: PeaceBang
I could try to debate you on your opinion, but that would be wrong. However, I do not think the Indiana Jones film series should be taken so seriously. The characters and style represent 1940's movie serials. They are meant to be paper thin with some cheesy attributes. If you want realism don't see movies. As for the racism in the Indy films, I can not argue that as well. It's true in some aspects, but so are alot of other films made by Hollywood. Although I cannot understand why people are not offended by Hancock.
Well, I finally got around to watching this dog. Woof, how could anyone have enjoyed this clichéd piece of ... especially at Cannes of all places. Ugh.
Black Jack Shellac?
A character from the 1959 Bugs Bunny short "Bonanza Bunny", written by Ted Pierce and directed by Bob McKimson.
Good name choice.