I realize the above title alone may turn most people away from this blog forever. You know what? I don't care. I like Indy 4. I don't love it necessarily, but I do like it. Is it the worst Indiana Jones movie? Not at all. This one is:
Yeah, that's the one. The worst of the series by far. In fact, I think it's Speilberg's worst film, and matches only The Phantom Menace in anything Lucas has touched. Disagree? Well read on dear reader, and see if you agree (You probably won't, but whatever)
Let me be clear: Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (hereafter known as Indy 4) is very, very flawed. I really dislike the CGI effects in the movie, and I can't say I'm a fan of Shia LaBeouf's character, or at least in terms of LaBeouf's portrayal, but I'll get to that. There are just a lot of dumb moments, scenes with refrigerators included. But is that enough for it to be the disgrace many people make it out to be? No. Not at all. I think much of the criticism aimed at the movie comes are signs of the times. In every negative review I read of Indy 4, one word kept on coming up: unrealistic. That the fridge scene is unrealistic, that the waterfall is unrealistic, that the alien plot is unrealistic, and that everything in general is unrealistic. Well, if I sat down to an Indiana Jones movie that completely realistic, I would walk out. This series is the ultimate in unrealistic action adventure. Making it realistic ruins the whole point. Sure, getting thrown through the air by an atom bomb while sitting in a lead lined fridge is absurdly unrealistic, but let's be honest: the first movie has Nazis opening the Ark of the Covenant, which literally melts their faces. That's okay? That's realistic? Using a life raft as a parachute is all right? I consider lack of realism as a weak criticism of this film. It was never supposed to be a realistic story, and I'm glad it's not. Everything has to be grounded in realism these days, and that's a shame. Cinema is an escape from the grind of real life, so it's too bad that realism has to be essential in Hollywood these days. These movies are meant to be carefree, wholesome fun and this movie has that sense. Is it as successful as Raiders or Last Crusade? No. But this movie does have a sense of adventure that is interesting. What's wrong with aliens in this movie? The other movies all dealt with religious artifacts, but this one did it in a different way. To the ancient civilizations portrayed, this was religion. Legends do tell of beings that came from the sky that acted as gods to them. Is it real? Well, it's a matter of belief. But to them, it was real. Why can't Indiana Jones deal with alien beings? It's not like the other movies were crazy realistic with their religious symbols. Call me a bad fan, but I legitimately do not see a problem. Now, there are obviously problems with the movie. I'm not sure how I feel about Shia LaBeouf's character, but I don't care for LaBeouf's acting as the character. He did nothing new: he was basically just recycling his Transformers character. I hated the fact that there was so much CGI in this movie. It could have been a chance to honour the classic stunts from the original movies, but they screwed it up. We did not need the scene with the monkeys: that is the only scene in the movie that makes me cringe. But for all the flaws, this movie is still fun. That's all: good mindless fun that is well paced.
Now for Temple of Doom. Good Lord, it's a trainwreck. Let me get out the most commonly cited problems with this movie: Willie and Short Round. I hate these two. God, I hate. They are without a doubt the most agonizing characters in this series. Willie is a female stereotype at its most offensive. She whines, cries, screams about breaking her nails and overall acts as a waste of time, film and oxygen. She is also given NOTHING to do. She's a throwaway character who is there for no reason other than to give Indy a love interest. Then there is Short Round. Another stereotype, this one being an Asian one. He spouts his accent because Speilberg thinks its funny and acts terribly. Hey, did you know the guy who would one day create Jar Jar Binks wrote this movie? And that the guy who directed it would one day go on to produce Transformers: Revenge of The Fallen? But the real problem I have with this movie is the tone. Now look, it's not unusual for sequels (well, technically Temple of Doom is a prequel) to be darker than the original, and that's not always a bad thing. On the contrary, movies like The Godfather Part II and The Dark Knight have used a darker tone to improve themselves as films, and even surpass the original in the case of The Dark Knight. In fact, Lucas had already made a great second act to a trilogy in The Empire Strikes Back. But this one just went way, way, WAAAAAY too far to the point where it's unpleasant to watch. Lucas and Speilberg were both going through divorces when this movie went into production and that really reflects in Lucas' script. Gone are the senses of heroism and adventure. Replacing them are child slaves, kidnapping human sacrifices, voodoo ceremonies, mind control through curses, human hearts being ripped out of chests and tons of blood flowing everywhere. Again, I have nothing against going darker for Part II in a series, but this was just hard to watch. The villain is terrifying, but overly so. He is disturbing in many ways because of how powerful and psychotic he is. Heath Ledger's Joker did not scare me this much. Keep in mind that much of the marketing for this movie was centred on children. There was a toyline and few video games. I would not take a kid to see this. I saw it when I was 11 and it scared the crap out of me. I know this is a weird criticism of a movie, to say the villain is too scary, but it really does go too far. Being scary is fine, but you have to know your audience. This guy was like something out of a voodoo Saw movie. The relationship between Indy and Willie is unbearable because I do not buy for a second that someone as tough and badass as Indy would ever develop feelings for someone this annoying and needy. He fell for Marion in the first movie, but Marion was tough and resourceful. When we first meet her she is taking shots with a bunch of guys. Elsa in the third movie was also believable because of her love for archeology and history. She and Indy had tons in common, even though she turned out to be a traitor. Willie has nothing in her personality that would make Indy think of her as anything more than an annoyance. In fact he does view her as an annoyance for the beginning of the movie until they suddenly fall for each other for no real reason. If this movie did do one thing right was that it really established Indy as a hero. He has nothing to gain out what he is doing other than save the children who are captive. Outside of that, I do not like a thing about Temple of Doom, and I am not alone on this. Speilberg has openly admitted that he is not happy with this movie. I'm not 100% sure what Lucas thought of it, but considering it's the guy who did the Star Wars prequels he probably loves it. So why do people seem to like Temple of Doom more than Crystal Skull? I think it's the nostalgia googles. People have been watching this movie for years and is considered one of the "classic" Indiana Jones movies. The new one never had a shot. People will always remember the original trilogy and that's what they did. So that's it. Proof I have no intention of bowing to popular opinion. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull: not perfect, but still not bad. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom: awful movie.
No comments:
Post a Comment