Roger Ebert's Journal

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.