Indiana Jones Didn’t Change, We Did
by Jaden
After reading many negative reviews from Rolling Stone magazine to online blogs, out of fidelity to a film series I love, I dragged myself to the theater to watch Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.
Despite having a head full of bad reviews, I felt the script was well-written. It made me laugh, grabbed my attention, and even surprised me with its bizarre ET ending.
New York Times reviewer Manohla Dargis said, it is a “drearily familiar party.”
Peter Travers of Rolling Stone wrote, “Everything looks raided from the lost ark of the three previous Indy hits.”
Sometimes I can’t help myself from jumping on the hater bandwagon, I’ll admit, but in this case, people are not giving credit where credit is due.
If a modernized Indiana Jones did not hark back to its original spirit, everyone would complain that it is estranged and nothing like the preceding series.
Is it better to stay true to the original or to do something in suite of the current market?
Crystal Skull is exactly in line with the previous three movies, which, from a writing perspective, should be applauded, not criticized.
The expectations of film buffs for this movie were far too high for any person to fulfill, even persons with the last names Spielberg and Lucas.
Most of us were children when we saw the first Indiana Jones, Raiders of the Lost Ark. The expectations and excitability of children differ markedly from adults. After making the transition to adulthood and seeing hundreds of films, our values, opinions, wants, and needs change.
Is it possible that reviewers are strongly biased with regards to this movie? Unimpressed with Crystal Skull because it did not give them the thrill they had as a child seeing Raiders of the Lost Ark?
In what way are the previous Indiana Jones movies better? I just watched them all last summer. The only difference I see is that Harrison Ford was younger.
Did I like Crystal Skull as much as I liked Raiders of the Lost Ark? No. But I am not a little kid anymore. I like different things now. Even though 20 years have changed me, I can still recognize without prejudice and personal expectations that Crystal Skull is a pretty good movie. Is it a new favorite of mine? Nope. Was there a poorly cast main character? Yep. Were some of the scenes stupid? Yeah. Did it feel true to what I know to be Indiana Jones? Yes!
The initial three Indiana Jones movies take place in the 1930s and then the Crystal Skull picks up in the 1950s. The film maintained its 1980s style throughout them all. The first, Raiders of the Lost Ark, which portrays the 1930s from a 1980s perspective, came out in 1981. The last, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, came out in 2008, yet still uses the 1980s looking glass.
What I see as the underlying disappointment is that critics did not like the choice to go with the 1980s clichéd style and mono-dimensional stereotypes. People wanted something mature that grew up with them. Normally, I would agree that this type of movie is no good.
For the sake of remaining true to a story and its original characters, Indiana Jones must receive a pardon.
Crystal Skull succeeds in capturing the true identity of the Indiana Jones series. In addition to staying true to itself, Crystal Skull is an entertaining blockbuster movie with a solid script, amazing stunts, excellent cinematography, and good acting. The negative press is the only overrated thing about this movie.
Considering the billions of dollars that the Indiana Jones series pulls in, I don’t think Lucas or Spielberg give a rats’ ass what we film nerds think.
As they say: Any press is good press!
Read more Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull reviews until your cubic zirconium cranium explodes!
P.S. Did anyone else happen to get Indiana Jones playing cards?
Comments
15 Responses to “Indiana Jones Didn’t Change, We Did”
Got something to say?
-
Subscribe
-
-
content rss
Speaking as a NYer, I can tell you that Ms. Dargis rarely gives the thumbs up to any film, so I’ve come to the conclusion that she is but one voice in the crowd!
We haven’t seen this IJ yet, but will most likely do so during the next heat wave — nothing like a cool movie theater on a hot day. Thanks for the tips.
Muzz — IJ4 Is a good movie to escape the heat. By the way, I forgot to add to my article, I guess because it was off-point: having been to Peru, the film did a great job talking about its mysterious things and representing what it actually looks like there.
As a film reviewer, having dissected films in film school and all that, I try to be fair and not let my personal tastes turn me into a wrecking ball.
The main thing I look for is: Is this lazy writing or filmmaking? Are they just trying to make a buck off us without offering something good or new?
In the case of IJ4, they put in mountains of effort to entertain. They are not just riding on the IJ coattails, they really gave it their best to make a blowout Indiana Jones film.
I am an Indiana Jones fan and I am probably one of the few who liked this movie. Indy 4, as many other sequels, is just a victim of bad reviews from people who think it’s fashionable to say the “sequel sucked” and sadly, they get the attention they are looking for.
I agree with Jaden when she points out that we should judge a movie on its own merits.
Agreed: whether dissecting fiction, poetry, non-fiction or film scripts, personal taste shouldn’t be the measure, but all too often it is. (Oh, that “workshop feeling” also known its professional title, ala Reel Ninja’s comment, reviewers “getting the attention they are looking for”!)
I read lots of reviews but never base seeing/not seeing a film upon them.
You are right on about lazy writing, pure ripoff, a lack of planning or process, and that odd feeling that someone thinks they are pulling the wool over our eyes — all good tip offs.
Muzz & Reel Ninja — Nit-picky elitist reviews on good movies are like those English teachers who give a C-grade for an A-paper because they disagree with viewpoint expressed; it’s not fair, it’s not right.
A film reviewer should answer, is the movie good? Dialog, story, cinematography, acting, sound… Are they good? And with IJ4, you just can’t honestly say those elements are downright bad.
Travers likens IJ4 to National Treasure (as an insult), yet National Treasure is a blatant ripoff of Indiana Jones! Durrrrr. How can a person say IJ4 sucks for being like NT, when IJ is the original?! And, NT is not even in the ballpark with IJ, script-wise or other.
That’s like when someone in your group bites your style, and now you two look like big dorks hittin the bars together. It’s not fair to the original cool dresser whose game is shot because of the poser.
Indiana Jones itself is purposefully campy, openly referencing with its imagery and lines much older big Hollywood movies. It is supposed to be fun and silly. It is not trying to be some serious intellectual breakthrough, though it actually does have some very interesting daring things to say in the opening that surprised me.
Gosh, I really sound like a film geek now, defending Lucas and Spielberg. Someone reel me up and put me back in the case.
When I saw the first Raiders movie with my family, I thought it was totally original. It was about the coolest movie I’d ever seen.
My folks were mildly amused, but somewhat less overwhelmed. They said it was a good movie, but no different from the serials they used to watch when THEY were kids.
I think Stephen Spielberg basically borrowed from a tried-and-true formula. He took a bunch of 5-10 minute serial clips, strung them together in one sequence to make one big movie.
That being said, there’s nothing wrong with doing this. Sometimes, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
I liked all four Indiana Jones Movies. You just gotta take them for what they’re worth: good old-fashionned family entertainment.
Friar — Exactly!
Movie apologetics? Is this what you’ve come to now, unable to accept that people don’t like the film on its own merits?
I could give you a really long breakdown as to why KOTCS fails. The movie is terrible.
Also, here, I just wrote this, inspired by your reference to “expectations”:
——-
I’ve had enough of the old adage that “your expectations were so high they could have never been met.” It’s sort of a cheap way to invalidate others’ opinions with smug satisfaction.
Tell you what, after Being John Malkovich, my expectations for Eternal Sunshine were astronomical. I expected to be blown away… and guess what? It surpassed all those expectations, and then some. As far as I’m concerned it’s one of the few best films ever made.
How about The Incredibles? I was expecting a lot from that one, too, and it surpassed them. Then Cars came along, I saw a few trailers, and had very low expectations for that. Guess what? It still disappointed me.
Thing is, if you look at the argument closely, you can turn it around and show how useless it is as an argument in the first place.
Scenario 1.A:
High expectations, the movie was great yet still couldn’t reach those expectations, creating disappointment.
Scenario 1.B:
Low expectations, the movie is great and easily overcomes them.
Scenario 2.A:
High expectations, the movie was crap but the viewer still clung to what he/she liked best and convinced himself/herself that it was good (I know I’ve done this, I can’t watch The Fifth Element anymore because I finally got out of this “convince myself” mindset and realized I don’t like the movie, it’s just pretty — I expected a lot because it was a Luc Besson film, as The Professional is one of my favorites, and convinced myself The Fifth Element was great, for literally YEARS).
Scenario 2.B:
Low expectations, the movie was crap, the viewer’s pre-opinion was validated.
Scenario 3:
Despite expectations, the viewer forms an independent opinion of the film based on its merits.
Why can’t we assume that #3 is just as likely?
Why do I always hear this “expectations” argument from people defending what I basically always find to be positively BAD movies?
-J
John D. — Thanks for your input.
All bullshit of course.
We saw ALL 4 movies as adults.
The first 3 are on TV all the time.
There is no passage of time, in terms of experience. No time in which to change.
People saw this, and got the heartfelt impression that it was weak, by the standards of the originals. The scenes were either jarringly bad, malfunctioning, or missing oppertunities. Watching this movie felt painful, like watching a limping athlete take an hour to finish.
If Speilburg had been in greatness-mode, there might have been — off the top of my head — a gunfight near the end amongst the temple ruins, instead of this wierd, painful exposition that just made the audience uncomfortable and almost shed a tear for a movie
~
Lain — Classy opener; thanks for sharing your opinion with us.
The degree to which people are expressing distaste for this particular movie — I just don’t get it. IJ4 seems just as campy and ridiculous to me as the first 3 IJ. Other than actors’ ages and new special effects, I am not seeing the big difference.
We didn’t change that much. They didn’t try. This movie had loads of heart, lots of spirit, but absolutely no soul. I didn’t sense any struggle or conflict. Except for what I felt based on earlier films I didn’t feel for the characters or even care about them by the end of the movie. This was a cardboard kids film made strictly for a child’s level of enjoyment.
@Jaden
Geez…I don’t understand all the angst and crticism against this movie.
We’ve all seen the first three Indiana movies. So by now, anyone paying money to see the fourth movie in theaters should pretty much know what they’re going to get.
So if someone complains that Spielberg let them down, the movie is formulaic, and doesn’t have a Deep Meaningful Message or big Dramatic Ending……well DUH. What did they expect?
Of COURSE the movie is going to be campy and ridiculous. That’s what we all LOVE about the whole Indiana Jones series. And that’s why we keep coming back.
Sometimes, it’s nice to just sit back, turn your brain off, and let yourself get entertained. People need to chill out more,
Does anybody have children who saw the movie and can weigh in on this? Did kids like it or not?
I just finished watching it and cannot believe it received a single bad review. After the debacle that was the second trilogy of Star Wars films, this was a refreshing and satisfying surprise. Not only did the film stay true to the original trilogy, it also stayed true to its original creative concept: reflecting the old serials from the 20s and 30s. I think many people forget that is the underlying force that drove these films.
My favorite moment was the Star Wars nod, when Indie says “I’ve got a bad feeling about this.” That totally made my day! I half expected Luke or Leia to come walking out.
I thought all the actors were perfect for their parts and was happy to see they brought back Karen Allen. Not that I love her character but it would have been wrong any other way. I’m even looking forward to the next one!
What can I say? I get younger with age.