Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Movie Mix

Indiana Jones: Is Spielberg Too Rich and Famous to Be Good Anymore?

By Eileen Jones, AlterNet. Posted May 26, 2008.


Spielberg's inventiveness fails a half-hour into the latest Indiana Jones, but the rest of the movie coasts on its zillion-dollar budget.
Advertisement

The first couple of scenes in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull are good. I mean, really good. I was never more shocked than when I was sitting there in the theater having to revise all my expectations at a moment's notice: "Oh my gosh, Spielberg might've actually made a good film again! It's happening, right here, right now, after all these years!"

It was too wonderful to be true, of course, and the movie soon turned into just what you'd expect: a big-budget, corny, by-the-numbers sequel designed to please legions of nostalgic fans. But those first scenes, I'm telling you, presuming I wasn't having some sort of fantastic dream, were reminiscent of those long-ago Steven Spielberg genre films that made him famous in the first place.

This fourth Indiana Jones film, let's call it Indy IV, opens with a flat-out exhilarating drag-race scene in the harsh American desert between a carload of 1950s teenagers and the lead vehicle in a long, formidable U.S. Army caravan. So beautifully and unerringly shot, lit, cast and edited that it looks like a collective American fever dream of our insane post-World War II past, this bizarre race makes your heart thump with uncertainty. Is it going to end in comedy or tragedy, or split the difference? Will the soldiers and teenagers have one of those populist joyrides together and then amicably go their separate ways, or will the speeding teens wind up dead in a ditch, or will the soldiers open fire for sinister reasons yet to be revealed, or what? Spielberg plays so many complicated chords you can't be sure. David Lynch himself wouldn't be ashamed to claim a few of those chords.

But wait, there's more. Soon after that, there's a sequence I won't ruin for you that involves Area 51 and Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) surviving a nuclear blast, mushroom cloud and all. Hot damn, here we go, I thought. I've had the basic training in American film noir, and when the postwar hero survives a version of his own death, look out -- you're in for something. For one brief, shining moment I really believed that Spielberg had finally decided to damn all commercial certainties to hell and realize his vast talents in one risky late-career enterprise.

Wrong.

What happens instead is that Indiana Jones gets embroiled in the whipsawing global forces of the Cold War 1950s and winds up having a typical Indiana Jones adventure as a result. He leaves his teaching job (booted out by anti-Communist witch-hunters) and goes questing for a treasure (the ancient crystal skull, one of 13 that supposedly have supernatural powers), while chased by bad guys (humorless Boris-and-Natasha-type Russian Reds led by Cate Blanchett, who's very fetching in her blue uniform and evil-woman black bob). Along the way he interacts with cronies who may or not be on his side, all played by the best actors money can buy (Jim Broadbent, John Hurt, Ray Winstone). The young sidekick, considered a necessity now that Ford is an old actor, is motorcycle-riding '50s greaser Mutt Williams, played by Shia LaBeouf. LaBeouf is in loads of movies lately (Disturbia, Transformers) and is some sort of star, I'm told. You'd never know it to look at him. Every mall in America could disgorge a hundred guys just as unexciting as he is. But then, the boring star -- an oxymoron, but a flourishing species nevertheless -- is something of a Hollywood specialty these days.

The nostalgic capper of Indy IV is the return of Karen Allen as Marion Ravenwood. Not seen in the franchise since the first and best Indiana Jones movie, Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), Allen still has the knack of looking like a real human being. It's a testimony to her refreshing qualities that Indy's replacement love interest in the sequel, Indy II: The Temple of Doom (1984), was bound to be regarded as a hated interloper, even if she'd been a lot better than the highly untalented Kate Capshaw (now Mrs. Spielberg). Dumping Allen amounted to an early warning sign that Spielberg was losing it. Because Allen, idiosyncratically lovely and oddly tough for such a slender, big-eyed girl, was proof of Spielberg's sure hand in those early years when it came to casting. Back then, he could really pick 'em. Unknown or obscure actors were given their first important film roles (Allen, Roy Scheider, Drew Barrymore); well-known actors were given some of their greatest roles (Richard Dreyfuss, Robert Shaw, Dennis Weaver); and small or bit-part actors, or even extras, did the most consistently memorable work since Frank Capra used to direct crowd scenes like a maestro.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: indiana jones and the kin


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Shut your hole, this movie was great
Posted by: samus777 on May 26, 2008 1:34 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This film was FUN through and through, what Indiana Jones movies are supposed to be. Great action sequences full of fun, suspense and humor... All the classic/corny Indy one liners you expect... Fantastic fx for the most part... This review seems like more of an attack on Speilberg than anything else, I'd like to see you make a film 1/16th as good as anything he has done, movie critic. For anyone reading this "review", if you like the previous Indiana Jones movies, pay no attention to crap reviews like this and go see the movie, you're sure to love this!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I disagree Posted by: daniel1982
» I disagree Posted by: Cathyc
» I'm still boycotting E.T. Posted by: Prairie Waif
» Fun, silly... Posted by: Bbear41
abovetopsecret.com/ forum/thread350343/ pg1#pid4255363
Posted by: Michael_D on May 26, 2008 3:58 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“Since the 1970's, Spielberg has directed or produced seven of the top twenty grossing films of all time. Throughout his career we see an obsession with the alien/UFO/space theme. From the 1977 Close Encounters of the Third Kind to ET in 1982, to Deep Impact in 1998. All depict an invasion from outer space. Even the movie Jaws is littered with shooting stars and strange lights in the sky. Spielberg was also executive producer for the July 2002 release Men in Black 2, a movie where a shadow government ‘protects’ the people of the world from an alien threat. In February 1997 a leading light in the British film industry leaked the story that Spielberg and executives of his company DreamWorks had secretly met with senior Pentagon officials in Los Angeles. The officials told Spielberg to ‘stop everything’ and produce a movie whose subject matter involved meteors and/or comets. One year later Deep Impact was in the can. The film describes a comet hurtling towards earth and the fight for who has the privilege of access to an underground bunker. Who were these Pentagon officials and why were they so eager for Bilderberg asset Spielberg to produce a movie about a threat from outer space? Commencing in December 2002, the SciFi Channel will screen Taken, Spielberg's 20-hour mini-series focusing on alien abduction. The cost of this production was a staggering $120 million - making it the most expensive miniseries in television history. You'd think Spielberg would by now have tired of the genre, but his elite controllers are really zealous to implant this alien paradigm in the minds of the public.” -Paul Joseph Watson, “Order Out of Chaos” (171)



"Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. Ephesians 5:11"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Close Encounters Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: Close Encounters Posted by: donl51
Slightly off topic but ...
Posted by: marxalot on May 26, 2008 4:22 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just read Peter Benchley's Jaws and found it a very well written thriller. What's interesting is what Spielberg chose to cut from the book, which was a rivalry between Brody and Hooper over Brody's wife, who in the book is the bored housewife looking for a little fling with Hooper. They have a shaky marriage which the book devotes a fair amount of attention to. More so than the conflict between safety and commerce that is played so well in the film.

So Brody and Hooper have that going on while pursuing the shark out in the boat. It's clear that Spielberg wanted to simplify and focus the action down to man vs beast.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Slightly off topic but ... Posted by: packofwolves
» Jaws Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: Jaws Posted by: eiu101
» RE: Jaws Posted by: improperly_sedated
» Slightly off your topic... Posted by: YogiBear
» Jaws book vs. movie Posted by: BlueTigress
Spielberg lost his mojo a long time ago
Posted by: Moonray on May 26, 2008 4:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm generally a Spielberg fan, but I didn't even make plans to see the latest Indy. I knew it would suck because the Spielberg machine hasn't produced a really good film since . . . I don't know, many moons. (Maybe Schindler's List was excellent, but it was so depressing that I can't judge.) The downturn started when the second Indy was tarted up to appeal to every 10-year-old on the planet, and the trend has continued relentlessly. Even so-called masterpieces such as The Minority Report and AI were actually yawners. Saving Private Ryan was notable mainly for its violent opening sequence; the rest of it was a generic war film with all the cliches of the 1940s.

Perhaps the worst was that weird flick with Tom Hanks living in an airport terminal. I left the theater scratching my head and muttering, "What the f--- was that all about?"

I really miss the Spielberg who brought us ET, Close Encounters and the first Indy. What has Hollywood done with him?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Nothing. He fits right in. Posted by: improperly_sedated
Too much disneyland
Posted by: packofwolves on May 26, 2008 4:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I couldn't figure out what this story was really about, jumping from one under-developed scene to the next with only bits and pieces of a story thrown in by way of a somewhat ridiculous dialogue. All the while I kept thinking this was going to make a great adventure ride at Disneyland/Disneyworld one of these days. We don't get good movies any more, we get a series of scenes that show us how creative one can be on the computer - the special effects are the primary purpose for most new movies while the story is somewhat vague and coasting along somewhere in the background. It's not just Spielberg, it's everyone involved in the media and I think it's because everyone just wants to make a fast buck with no real concern about the quality of the product. And mind you, they get away with that because we buy it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oil and Water don't mix Posted by: Cathyc
It was a fun movie. I highly recommend it!
Posted by: jaseff on May 26, 2008 5:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Indy 4 was everything it was supposed to be. It was fun, humorous, exciting and suspenseful. Seeing Indy again was like seeing an old friend after many years. The one you talk with for hours and don't realize so much time has passed. The reviewer takes it way too seriously. It supposed to be a fun summertime movie. Not a super serious noir classic. Altjough I believe it ranks right up there as a "classic" right behind Indys 1, 2 and 3.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh I don't Know!
Posted by: Gravitas on May 26, 2008 6:14 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I haven't gone to a movie on my own in years with the exception of Inconvenient Truth. But I was dating someone this weekend who really wanted to see it. Here is what I liked:

- The theme. Lets face it, SOMETHING is going on! The Soviets did experiment with psychic warfare and so did our CIA. And just what WAS going on in Ca, Az and other Western states a few years ago? People have the right to know! Who is the silence protecting??? So maybe Spielberg was trying to get some truth out
-That they brought back Karen Allen instead of giving him some 25 year old bimpo as his love interest. Although I never thought Kate Capshaw was untalented. I think she is getting an unfair rap just because she is his wife.
Here is what I didn't like:
The subtle stereotyping the plump actor as the greedy capitalist/spy/traitor. I am so sick of fat people always showing up as the bad guys. I don't know his name or whether or not he is really Australian. But he was VERY handsome, I would take him over muscle man/head joke of a politician Swartshisface any day of the week!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Karen Allen Posted by: undercover
Spleenburst's Indiana Bones still chasing Nazis in the past, Zio-Crap.
Posted by: Ottomatic on May 26, 2008 7:28 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Arabs eating bugs and Nazi's goose stepping
Very subtle?
The Lieberwhore Media
Spews more Garbage.
What about the Zio-Zi turds right here.
Same old story
Point the finger anywhere else
Except right here.
Genocide NOW
Fast forward
Back to the future
2010
They did it again.
Indaina Bones Lieberwhore in the Black House.
Regurgitated nostalgia
Wipe he slate clean
Then become a self programming

Machine.

PBS and Indiana Nones
Worthy News
Or
The same old blues?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» OH! STUFF IT Posted by: donl51
Not too rich and famous...
Posted by: wildbill on May 26, 2008 8:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...he became those things early on in his career. Now he's just old, and as I've aged at about the same rate as he, I can attest that the fire of youth becomes dampened with the aches and pains of age, even for those who have had considerable success along the way! In addition, your focus changes, you don't look at the world in the same way, you don't have as much to prove. That's why I saw all 3 of George Lucas' original Star Wars films several times, but haven't bothered to see any of the second trilogy. I figure he told his story of youth seeking its place in the universe, of the younger generation struggling against, then becoming reconciled with, the older generation ("Luke, I am your father!"), and anything beyond that was just milking the franchise. I haven't seen Spielberg's latest Indy film, but I suspect it's much the same thing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't waste your time!
Posted by: wireup on May 26, 2008 8:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a big fan of Steven Spielberg, having seen just about everything he has done and loved most of it.

So, I waited impatiently to see Indy 4.

But I have to say the wait just wasn't worth it. What a disappointment! But what else COULD it have been? How is it possible to surpass the original? No way could it have been done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WTF was the point?
Posted by: Tombo on May 26, 2008 8:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After all this time what was the reason to make a new installment? I was expecting greatness since what other reason would there be to make another Indie movie than Spielberg got his hands on a great script. At least this is what I thought.

I made the mistake of sitting through the entire length of 10,000 B.C. yesterday morning (in my defense Camilla Belle is hot and the climate was getting progressively warmer as the movie dragged on so I had reasonable hope). So when a friend stopped by and wanted to go see Indie I thought it would a good way to cleanse my mental palate. Boy was I wrong, 10,000 B.C. had a better developed story line. Aliens form another dimension?!?!?!?! This one jumped the shark!

I just don't understand why Spielberg would have done this. Is he short on cash?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: WTF was the point? Posted by: donl51
» RE: WTF was the point? Posted by: ibolyap
» Is Spielberg short of cash? Posted by: Cathyc
Not a big Indie J fan but let's be realistic...
Posted by: jgrossnas on May 26, 2008 8:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is it realistic to have high expectations for the 4th installment in a top-grossing franchise like this? Also, think about how many movies have had worthwhile sequels? The Godfather, the Up series, maybe Spiderman or the 2nd Rocky if you want to be generous. For an action series, usually at best, we'd all settle for some decent entertainment and not get too bothered if it isn't a cinematic masterpiece.

Also, I think most people are a little harsh on the director. Saving Private Ryan was actually a good, non-rah-rah war film, Schindler's List deserved the accolades, despite the corniness, AI was an inventive sci-fi film and despite Tom Cruise, Minority Report was a very good sci-fi film.

Also, how many directors can still make great films decades after they first peaked? Fellini, Kurosawa, Hitchcock, Woody, Wilder, Ford, Lumet, Scorsese, Herzog... I'm positive that I'm missing others but it's not a huge group of people.

Again, being realistic, I'm not in a hurry to see Indie IV but if my friends and I decide we need some good Hollywood fun that isn't too deep, I won't feel bad about going.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SEEN IT LOVED IT !
Posted by: donl51 on May 26, 2008 9:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can't remember when I've seen a bad Spielberg movie,Eileen...you must have really high standards of what a movie should be,I'm not talking ''real'' standards here I'm talking Godlike....and since in my world god does not exist....where would that leave you,sorry dear should have maybe chosen to critique the on-going saga in the White House!! leave our entertainment alone,it's our only sanity!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I agree except
Posted by: operdoc on May 26, 2008 10:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nice reply below me. Either agree with me or get off the planet. Gives one hope for the future.

I agree that Spielberg's movies have become stale and formulaic except when he takes on something close to his heart like Schindler's List or the excellent 2005 movie Munich.

The first Indy movie was great and then downhill from there. Not sure why Spielberg dug up the corpse unless he likes money more than making art. I'm guessing he doesn't care what we think.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

- SPOILERS!!! - the big complaint I hear...
Posted by: Ghoulman on May 26, 2008 11:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... from those who have seen it (here in Canada) was the nuclear bomb thing, with the fridge. People just rolled their eyes at that one. With each new danger in the film it was all just too easy. So the 'suspension of disbelief' was lost. The old guy can't die. Metaphor for McCain? Kidding, I'm kidding.

- SPOILER end -

Other than that, the article does make a point. How did Speilberg go from film master to fanboy summer flick shallowness? Gotta say, it's inevitable with success. Heck, don't get me started on George Lucas.

Han shot first! ;p

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Spielberg's movies are all schlok
Posted by: The Cosmic Fluke on May 26, 2008 11:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
he has always produced crap.
Purina American Chow.
C-R-A-P

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yep Posted by: socialpsych
What the...
Posted by: xenocyd on May 26, 2008 12:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The reviewer gives an "okay" to the opening escape and yet criticizes Shia? That escape was horrendously laughable, and Shia is just fine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Some people are just never satisfied.
Posted by: Libsrule on May 26, 2008 12:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just EXACTLY what did you want?

I saw the movie and it was great fun. No heavy thinking required, just sit back and enjoy the movie.

I'll never understand some people's desire to tear down successful people. Steven has made some of the best films ever with Schindler's list, Saving private Ryan, The Color Purple, etc and has made tons of fun fare.

Seems to me Steven is doing just fine.

AND still making films worth seeing.

Don't know what your problem is though.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What? No single issue complainers?
Posted by: improperly_sedated on May 26, 2008 3:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I scrolled all the way down and not one person has whined about a movie review sullying the otherwise pristine ideological purity of Alternet.

Spielberg (or, "Bullshit Mountain." Has anyone ever been more aptly named?) is the very embodiment of Hollywood style film making. His strengths and his weaknesses are the strengths and weaknesses of Hollywood in general. As such, he is an irresistible whipping boy as well as a useful diagnostic tool.

The only real problem that I can see is story telling. All the elements of showmanship are expertly marshaled around simple, predictable stories. Too much exposition is piled on top of the predictable stories, making them even more tedious. All loose ends must be neatly tied up by the end, and the end must be upbeat.

I don't know the inner workings of the movie business, so I can only speculate as to the cause of this institutional aversion to good plotting. What seems plain enough is that Spielberg has been perfectly comfortable with it from the beginning.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» yeah, sorry Posted by: improperly_sedated
I'll rather see SEX AND THE CITY!
Posted by: cgandpg on May 26, 2008 3:43 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I adore Steven Spielberg -- he's a genius director, and I've loved almost all his films, esp. Jaws/E.T./1st Raiders of the Lost Arc w/ Karen Allen/Munich/Schindler's List/Saving Private Ryan.... less the Tom Cruise A.I. one.

I'm just not drawn to see an "old" INDY JONES. I remember Harrison Ford from WITNESS, and he was simply yummy! I'll simply wait until this latest INDY JONES is shown on Turner Broadcasting, and then I'll Tivo it to watch at my convenience.

Now, SEX WITH THE CITY is another story! The JONES I wish to watch is SAMANTHA JONES (the vixon)! I was never a television viewer until my recent movers busted my old Sony Trinatron from college, only used to catch 60 Minutes. Got a H-D high tech replacement Sony w/FM radio/DCD/even subwoofers, along w/cable and tivo to boot. Watched my first episode of SEX reruns last year for the first time and hated it! (The one w/Carrie and Aiden in his rural tacky shack somewhere in the boondocks -- lots of boozin' w/Mr. Big, and a fight scene in the mud, until Aiden's dog bit Mr. Big on the ass.) I couldn't believe how ridiculous that show was after all the hype from friends! Then a few accidental viewings of the show turned me into a complete convert! The Archetypes of the characters are fabulous, the fashions are to die for, and the stories were genuinely funny or deeply, touchingly sad, w/funny bones scripts or life-altering raw nerves at times, similar to the experiences we have all been exposed to in our own lives.

SEX AND THE CITY opens this coming FRIDAY, and I hope to be first in Line! (I plan to smuggle in a Cosmo). Hope to see you there! Ciao

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

rip-off "artist"
Posted by: tirebiter on May 26, 2008 6:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i remember going to the saturday morming movies and cartoons when i was a kid in the 50's and spielberg hasn't made a movie with any more creativity than those bad old b&ws. actually, he wouldn't have had a career if he didn't rip off the cliches and formula of those serials. he doesn't deserve any award he's ever received.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm not sure what movie you saw . . .
Posted by: Scientz on May 26, 2008 7:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . . but I loved it.

It was an homage to the 50s sci-fi/drive-in movies, much in the same vein that the first three were homages to the 30s action/adventure sagas.

Nothing has ever been "believable" in Indiana Jones (and moviegoers who expect some level of believability should remember that they're in a movie theater, in my opinion).

(sigh) Critics. Must be a fun job to find something negative to say for a living.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It was fine
Posted by: blogbooks on May 26, 2008 10:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your expectations are too high.

I took a 5 year break from TV/Hollywood and came back with 0 expectations. Thus, I am almost never disappointed.

The only movie that was bad enough to actually raise my ire is Cloverfield. That movie is garbage.

Indie 4 was a fine adventure film that kept the audience entertained for a couple of hours.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This review was really snobby. :(
Posted by: steelfaerie on May 27, 2008 8:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Despite how much I loved the movie, I am an archaeologist in real life and I was a little bit disappointed to see such a clichéd, racist and insulting pseudoarchaeological plot device pulled out - that of the "chariots of the gods" alien nonsense, which suggests that early man was not intelligent enough to devise modern technology of their own accord. But that was Lucas's fault, not Spielberg's, and it says something about the quality of the movie itself that I was able to put aside my beef with the archaeological fallacy in favor of giggling and sitting on the edge of my seat. It's a damn fun movie to watch, and I'm so thrilled that it came out so well after all this time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good Times
Posted by: penobscotdziekuje@yahoo.com on May 27, 2008 3:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You can tell when times are good; people will spend their money on anything, even crappy movies. I haven't seen Spielberg's Indiana Jones flick, so I may save my ten dollars (that's how much it costs for a movie ticket in Los Angeles) and use that to buy gas.
To each his own.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Spielberg's still making good movies today!
Posted by: patagonianomore on May 27, 2008 4:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think money affects Speilberg's ability to make great movies. Let's face it. He's going to make some good ones and he's going to make some bad ones.... and spend A LOT of money making them.... and he loses a lot of money when they're a dud at the box office.

Two-three years ago, Spielberg produced and directed "Munich." I think that was one of his best pieces to date. That's pretty recent if you ask me. I don't think money's gotten the best of him. Consider this, the fact that he has a lot of money means he can go out and make movies better and different than before. He's contributed a lot to cinematic culture, both good and bad.

I think this essay seems to be off on its main point. He's still making excellent movies.... and I look forward to his next big project.... Abraham Lincoln.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's not speilberg - it's lucas!!
Posted by: evilhobz on May 27, 2008 7:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree that the movie was crap, but I don't blame speilberg for it. No - it was George Lucas' fault. How crap were the new star wars films, and lucas wrote the script for both. South Park were right - we need to take him to court so he doesn't destroy our favourite memories of childhood anymore.

I think we need a petition or something... :-)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Trouble With Steven
Posted by: k5c0tt on Jun 1, 2008 9:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a skeptical fan or Spielberg, and -- let's get this out of the way -- I haven't seen IJ4 and am in no rush to. To me, his films have nearly always been marked by a merger of David Lean epic style with Walt Disney (the man) sentiment. I've always felt that Spielberg's sentimentality is his Achilles heel; he just can't help himself, and it often spoils his best, most personal work. In a nutshell, I find Spielberg, unfortunately, to be "only as good as his script." It is rare when his technique overcomes bad writing, as in the storied Omaha Beach landing sequence from "Pvt. Ryan," an otherwise disaster of a film because of it's poor script. However, I happen to be a fan of "Catch Me If You Can," perhaps his most personal film to date, about a child of divorce faking his way into an adult world (sound familiar?). For many years I waited for Spielberg to have the maturity and the courage (yes, courage) to jettison his sentimentality in order to make a truly great film. Most of our great filmmakers didn't begin producing their best work until they were well into their 50's and after 20+ years of work, Pantheon directors like Ford and Hitchcock. Well, Spielberg is now hitting that time in his life. If you haven't seen "Munich" (and face it, most people didn't), I find it to be his most mature and least sentimental film, in many ways the film I had been waiting decades for him to make. It is in no small way due to the excellent screenplay. For once, there isn't a trace of sentimentality in the entire, brutal film. The hallmark sequence is the revenge murder of the female assassin, the outright ballsiest thing Spielberg's ever directed. Unfortunately, Spielberg then chooses to make another Saturday-serial homage and return to the guaranteed box office winner, IJ4. You see, he just can't help himself (sentimentality, again), and Heaven knows, he sure doesn't need the money. And what about Lucas? After succumbing to the Dark Side of the Force a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, he regurgitates the second of his two franchises. As they say, he hasn't made anything new in ten (twenty? thirty?) years, now he's doing another sequel. Well, Steven, those of us that know that you've got more in you than yet another popcorn-theme-park-ride-of-a-movie ("Munich" being proof of that), await your realizing your true artistry. But, you always seem to go back to the cartoon well. I'll wait for his next attempt at a "serious" film.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

this review sucks
Posted by: sharonsylvie on Jun 3, 2008 12:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because of this review, I was expecting to see a bad movie. But I just saw it over the weekend and it is highly entertaining and pretty damn good. Spielberg and Lucas at least did their homework, even if you don't agree with the alien angle. And the characters come full circle. I had a blast.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another "this review sucks"
Posted by: rickiey on Jun 3, 2008 9:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I saw the movie before reading the review, and I'm sure glad I did.

It was a great movie, and more importantly, one that the entire family can enjoy.

Was is as good as Raiders? No, but really, would you expect it to be? Is it as good as any of the other Indy movies? I would say yes, better than temple of doom, not as good as Indy's grail search. Others would disagree, but the fact that it is a debatable topic, means this movie is worth seeing.

Suspend the disbelief a little and enjoy yourself. And bring your kids, especially if they were too young to see the last one in theaters. You'll find that enjoying a movie that they enjoy, doubles the fun.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]