I can say that if you liked the other Indiana Jones movies, you will like this one, and that if you did not, there is no talking to you.
I can say that if you liked the other Indiana Jones movies, you will like this one, and that if you did not, there is no talking to you.
36 comments
May 22, 2008 at 7:01 am
charlieford
The ineffable categorical imperatives (ICIs) that inexorably guide me when confronted with dilemmas of the “shall I see that?” kind require that I shun anything inhabited by an actor with the name “Shia LaBeouf.” I mean, somewhere we must draw a line, or all that is good and worthy slips off the edge of the precipice and falls screaming to the jagged rocks below. On the other hand, these same ICIs require me to see (just about) anything with Cate Blanchett. So those two cancel each other. More considerations need attending to. Harrison Ford’s alright; on the other hand, he has that ridiculous earing. There’s some unambiguous bad guys who get what’s coming; on the other hand, they’re not Nazis. I’d rather see Nazis get what’s for than just about anyone else. Finally, I suppose, it comes down to location. The Amazon. Land of large reptiles, poisonous amphibia, and really wild butterflies. I’m there.
May 22, 2008 at 7:46 am
The Modesto Kid
I reckon I will see it, because my daughter is hot to do so and my wife would not get near it if she could, by doing so, assure peace in the Middle East. Having trouble getting excited about it though…
I’ve been wearing a tan fedora for the last year or so, since I bought it at a neighbor’s garage sale. Now all my daughter’s coevals are saying to me, “That’s an Indiana Jones hat!” And indeed when I was chaperoning her orchestra on their spring trip (to the mummy exhibit at the U. Penn. Museum of Arcæology and Anthropology), the docent who was leading our group (and was my age) addressed me as “guy in the Indiana Jones hat”. Reckon I should wear it to the theater when we see the movie.
May 22, 2008 at 1:46 pm
RobinMarie
I completely agree. I saw it last night, and I thought it was fabulous. You had plenty of Indie being kick ass, plenty of him being clever, plenty of him being corny, lots of dead skeletons, supernatural archaeological objects and a really entertaining, ridiculous villain. A lot of the things in the movie were ridiculous actually, which is of course how it should be.
I was most worried going in about the physicality of the original movies being lost with too much computer animation. (Although you could always tell the boulders were made out of foam, that made it more fun and lighthearted somehow.) It wasn’t too bad. Yes, there were some places where you know they couldn’t have done that without extensive computer editing. Sometimes this worked to enhance to old-fashioned corniness of the film, though. But I think for all the fight scenes and lower grade stuff, they made an effort to use as much old-style movie magic as possible. So I was ok with it.
Anyway, I was as happy as a little girl coming out, and I think that was always the point of the films so, great success in my mind.
May 22, 2008 at 1:48 pm
RobinMarie
And charlieford — don’t worry, they take Harrison’s ridiculous ring out, it’s his after all, not Indiana’s —
And hey, it may not be Nazis but it’s Commies. Really the next best thing.
May 22, 2008 at 1:48 pm
andrew
Does Ebert say anything about people who liked some of the first three movies, but not everything, and not all?
May 22, 2008 at 2:18 pm
ari
Yes, Andrew, he says they’re picky.
May 22, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Hemlock
I agree with Robin Marie’s assessment, with a couple caveats (I’m one of those picky people):
1. I ended up liking Shia LeBeouf and Harrison Ford as an onscreen duo. May seem strange, but I liked LeBeouf more than Ford. Marion Ravenwood lost some of her edge, although some of it’s still there. Cate Blanchett’s character was over the top and bleh. I found Nazis easier to condemn as villains than “Commies.” The Russians facilitated a bit too much Indian Jones is Patriotic Superman feel to the film.
2. I rank the plotline in third place, just behind Last Crusade and just before Temple. The…how should I put it…interesting addition to archaeology fits with the period but was a bit much. I like possibilities (such as the Holy Grail).
3. CGI: Lose the CGI, guys. LOSE THE CGI. See RobinMarie’s comments, except I’m more hardcore.
4. Semi-digitization: I heard Lucaberg didn’t go all the way digital with this one. SMART MOVE. Actually, digital fit with the 1950s feel of the film in the beginning (1950s New Haven). 1950s is all about props and facades, right? That’s why it worked for me. The DC also worked in the natural environment, i.e., the jungle looked like the jungle. Everywhere else digitial=looks like a soundstage. Yech.
5. Humor: They did NOT take themselves seriously AT ALL. Actually, a bit too much humor ala Temple. Raiders better at balancing between comedy, action, and drama.
All in all, I rank it third in the series…although it’s a close tie with Last Crusade. The beginning and ending of LC really was masterfully done. I’m seeing Crystal Skull again to make sure. =)
May 22, 2008 at 7:38 pm
bitchphd
I’m pretty sure Mr. B.’s going to make us all go see the new one this weekend.
May 22, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Cala
I love Indiana Jones, so, so much. I can’t wait to see this.
May 23, 2008 at 12:59 am
John Emerson
PZ disagrees.
May 23, 2008 at 8:04 am
eric
Yeah, so PZ disagrees.
You know, I didn’t like the second Indy movie so much, but not for the reasons he gives, or implies—all that stuff in Temple of Doom about the Thuggee cult was lifted pretty much intact from Gunga Din. The problem wasn’t that the cult was obscure, the problem was that it redeployed racist pulp from the 1930s without creating any ironic distance or self-awareness or clever table-turning or anything. And Short Round was only a smidge better than Mickey Rooney’s turn in Breakfast at Tiffany’s and Kate Capshaw’s character did a lot of pointless screaming. So overall it was kind of a C+ picture, with extra points off for racist caricature.
I’m prepared for the new movie being kind of B/B+.
May 23, 2008 at 8:06 am
eric
Possibly that makes me kind of picky. Or maybe Andrew is even more picky, I don’t know.
May 23, 2008 at 10:03 am
Levi Stahl
I realize that the racist caricatures in the second movie is probably the best reason to dislike it, but when I think of it all I can remember is how much shrieking Kate Capshaw did.
This movie is bound to be better if for no other reason than that it’s likely to feature far less shrieking.
May 23, 2008 at 10:59 am
andrew
Or maybe Andrew is even more picky, I don’t know.
I guess I can’t be sure, but past discussions suggest this is accurate. Although I pretty much agree with your take on the second movie, so we’re even on that point.
May 23, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Bloix
Shia (pronounced SHY-a) is a short form of the name Isaiah, the biblical prophet (Y’shyahu in Hebrew). My great-grandfather was named Shia.
May 23, 2008 at 12:11 pm
The Modesto Kid
Shia shares his last name with a great, great rockabilly artist.
My nephew is named Isaiah, I didn’t know that nickname existed though.
May 24, 2008 at 7:45 pm
bitchphd
Screw PZ, we went and saw it this afternoon and it was great fun.
May 24, 2008 at 8:47 pm
bitchphd
And btw, Ari and Eric, do you agree with me that the initial outside shot of Indy’s university was of the tower at UOP?
May 24, 2008 at 9:01 pm
ari
I haven’t seen the movie and won’t until it’s out on dvd. Because I’m that lame. Sigh.
May 24, 2008 at 9:10 pm
bitchphd
What? Whyever not? Take the kiddo (is he old enough to handle a couple fistfights with bloody noses/mouths? I personally thought the blood was perhaps more graphic than it needed to be, but it was fairly brief).
May 24, 2008 at 10:13 pm
ari
Really? Would he like it if he hasn’t seen the others? Which really are too scary, I think. Come to think of it, maybe not. He loves the Harry Potter movies. Except for the fourth one, which was kind of dark and not very well done, I didn’t think. So? So? Should I take him to see it? Remember, he’s not yet six.
May 24, 2008 at 11:14 pm
ben wolfson
Hire a fucking sitter.
May 24, 2008 at 11:14 pm
ben wolfson
After all, he’s nearly six.
May 24, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Fats Durston
it redeployed racist pulp from the 1930s without creating any ironic distance or self-awareness or clever table-turning or anything. And Short Round was only a smidge better than Mickey Rooney’s turn in Breakfast at Tiffany’s and Kate Capshaw’s character did a lot of pointless screaming.
All that and that embarrassing raft gag.
May 24, 2008 at 11:35 pm
bitchphd
He’d like it, I think. It’s basically a big rollicking cartoon. But obviously I don’t know your kid. I think PK saw the first PotC movie at that age, and I’d say that PotC is a little scarier than the new Indiana Jones.
Then again, of course, he won’t actually be *damaged* by staying home with a sitter (or mom) while you and Eric go to the movies.
May 24, 2008 at 11:54 pm
ari
Are you offering, Ben? Because, need I remind you, you’re not allowed anywhere near my family. The restraining order is pretty clear on this point.
May 25, 2008 at 7:45 am
eric
No real spoilers here, but the truly particular should not read this comment:
It was probably the least gory of the Indy movies, but it was still unsuitable for children in my household, anyway. Nobody’s head melted or exploded, but there was a vaporization and the second-in-command baddie met a particularly gruesome fate.
Y’all know about this site, right? It provides a detailed analysis of all violence in the movie, so you can decide whether your kid can stand that or not. It’s therefore somewhat spoilery.
May 25, 2008 at 7:50 am
eric
I will have something to say about the quality and content of the film by’n’by.
May 25, 2008 at 7:54 am
eric
And yes, B, that one tower is at UoP—I think it’s the same one they used in Raiders—but the rest of it is Yale.
May 25, 2008 at 3:49 pm
urbino
Hire a fucking sitter.
They really are the best kind.
May 26, 2008 at 5:07 pm
bitchphd
I knew it was UOP! And yes, it was clearly not the rest of thte campus, but still. You know, home-town pride, etc.
May 26, 2008 at 5:08 pm
bitchphd
(Heh, I’m checking out that Kids in Mind site you linked, Eric, and PK points out that it has a rating for “sex” but not one for “sexISM.”
I love my kid.)
May 26, 2008 at 5:19 pm
A White Bear
I haven’t seen it yet, but I can’t believe what mollycoddlers y’all are. My parents took me to see RotLA when I was four. I was scared by the face-melting, but it was a good scare. Plus, that was the day I fell in love with Older Men. I couldn’t concentrate in kindergarten the next day because I was fantasizing about Harrison Ford. Mmmm.
OK, fine, don’t take your children.
May 26, 2008 at 6:00 pm
eric
I couldn’t concentrate in kindergarten the next day because I was fantasizing about Harrison Ford
Did you write “LOVE YOU” on your eyelids?
May 26, 2008 at 6:28 pm
A White Bear
I would have, if he had been my kindergarten teacher. I think Ms. Jackson was annoyed enough with me that day. Plus, she might have taken it the wrong way.
May 26, 2008 at 8:58 pm
urbino
It’s difficult to imagine how.