if someone is willing to put off sleep to watch a movie as soon as possible, there isn't a good chance that they are there to hate it- at least i hope not. how sad it would be for people to seek out disappointment like that.
it is hard not to get caught up in the moment, the excitement of it all in this setting. there was even applause for the previews, little flashes of movies that are completely unproven (ahh previews, i could watch them for hours). there was so much build-up, so much to live up to.
lucas didn't think it could. he seemed to fear this type of hype, this type of excitement. perhaps jar jar has him afraid of any kind of expectation. i wouldn't blame him for that. at times, the guy sounds like the joy of film making was sucked out of him. he said in an interview people think it is going to be like the second coming but that:
"it's just a movie. just like the other movies. you probably have fond memories of the other movies. but if you went back and looked at them, they might not hold up the same way your memory holds up."
this is not the voice of a man who still gets a charge out of making films or that appreciates how cinema can touch people, not like spielberg at least. lucas did say it was a blast to make, that it was fun and that he thinks it turned out fantastic. i just don't know if i believe him. simply stated: i don't trust george lucas.
i had the chance to watch a documentary called "spielberg on spielberg" last night. it is amazing how personal his films are. i also found it interesting to hear him talk about ET (a film my grandma refers to as 'ET: The Extra-Cholesterol'). he refered to it as his most spiritual film. i surely do agree. i love the themes of solitude and community within it. simply stated: i do trust steven spielberg.
thus, i went into this with a natural bias. i was concerned because of lucas, but willing to put hope in spielberg to take care of our beloved action/adventure/archaeologist.
so how was the film? oh, so many ways to answer this question. i generally liked it. the movie was so close to being really good.
but the word that haunted me immediately was plausibility. unlike the first three, there was just too much in this movie that i wasn't willing to believe. primarily, it was shia lebeouf's tarzan act and some waterfall jumping. these things took away from my enjoyment of this film, a film which is still really enjoyable.
the first act is fantastic, perhaps to the detriment of the rest of the film. it is hard to climb over the very high bar the movie set for itself from the very beginning. the last half of the film suffered from the highly entertaining beginning. just one question about the beginning: what's up with all the gofers? perhaps it was an homage to caddyshack- if only they would have danced to kenny loggins' terrible music.
lebeouf and ford were fantastic together. lebeouf has the capacity to be a bona fide star, and i'm alright with that. he had me at "old man." there was genuine chemistry between the main cast and lebeouf's screen presence easily matched ford's.
the diner/fight scene might be my favorite in the film. but i feel like they rode that motorcycle right up a ramp to peru and jumped swiftly over a shark tank- possibly containing one of the relatives of the shark from jaws. (jaws 3 not only jumped the shark figuratively; they did it literally and in 3-d).*
here is my depiction:
i digress.the ladies of indiana jones iv were great(still crossing my fingers for the calendar). but when is cate blanchett not great? for that matter, when is karen allen not enjoyable? in truth, it was just nice to see her again. add the look on jones' face when he sees marion again to things i loved about the movie. ford really showed up for what feels like the first time in a really long time, no more so then his reaction to seeing her again.
really, there wasn't a bad performance in the movie, if you don't include some of the cgi. john hurt, jim broadbent and ray winstone were very solid though their characters weren't really given much, especially broadbent's. as a bonus, it was nice to see scrubs let neil flynn out of his jumpsuit for a small part. you could hardly ask for better cast and performances. but the story took, what i feel, are unnecessary and distracting turns. as much as it couldn't live up to its hype, it just couldn't match the spectacular first half of the film.
ultimately/unfortunately, i think lucas was right in his fear. the movie is fun to watch, in many ways fantastic. it doesn't measure up to the first or third of the series. temple of doom still dwells at the bottom for me. even with its faults this one was good, a solid third for me.
exiting the theater, the words "i blame lucas" came falling out of my mouth. i suppose i blamed him for all the shortcomings- mostly because he has become an easy target. but i also blame him for making me go into it guarded, not expecting to love it, prepared for it to be 'just a movie.' i was left confused a bit about just how i felt. of course, it was three in the morning.
it definitely belongs with the other films. it is an indiana jones movie, not just an attempt at one.
i guess i'd give it a b.
thank you for indulging my nerdity. i'd also like to hear opinions of the film from the bold among us.
--------------------------------------------------------
* "jumping the shark" is a phrase used to denote when a movie or tv series plot veers off into an absurd direction, some ridiculous storyline is introduced, or it becomes out-of-the-ordinary or unbelievable. it refers to an episode of the
fading 'happy days' when the fonze jumps over a shark on water skis. i fear 'lost' might do this someday (they are teetering on the edge perpetually and i love them for it).
2 comments:
ebert called, you can have roeper's job
I finally read this. It's my favorite thing I've ever read.
Post a Comment