Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
I went to see this last Friday with wormwood_pearl and our flatmate Alan. WP had never seen any Indiana Jones films before, Alan had seen Temple of Doom and Last Crusade but (shamefully) not Raiders of the Lost Ark, and as for me... well, I wouldn't describe myself as an expert, but I've seen them all multiple times and knew enough to predict the match cut after the Paramount logo.
I'm making a note here: huge success. It's hard to overstate my satisfaction.
I disagree with xkcd that the perfect action movie should be 30 seconds of exposition followed by a 90-minute fight scene (but if anyone wants to make such a movie, I'm totally there). You need periods of tension, even of silence: as with so many other things, you need light and shade. The true test of an action movie should be the following: if you're watching it at home, and someone comes in to talk to you, there should be no point in the movie where you don't want to say "Shhh, this is a good bit!"1. Raiders of the Lost Ark is the canonical such film, and Last Crusade is close behind it: hell, even Temple of Doom has its share of good bits, it's just the bloody screaming female sidekick who lets it down. Crystal Skull passes the "good bit" test handily2.
Which leaves me a bit mystified, because the film's attracted so many negative reviews, and I honestly can't see what they're complaining about. I'm not a fan of Shia LeBoeuf, but he was OK, and even managed to be funny on a couple of occasions. Far less irritating than most comedy sidekicks. Karen Allen was fine. Cate Blanchett wasn't up to the level of the Gestapo officer from Raiders of the Lost Ark, but she was a pretty decent villain. John Hurt was John Hurt. The von Daniken stuff didn't bother me, really - no sillier than the religious themes from the earlier movies, and (as Zompist points out - contains spoilers) aliens were to the fifties what religious mysticism was to the thirties. The bit with the fridge was impressively stupid, but I almost immediately forgot about it (until reminded about it a couple of days ago) in the sheer rush of stuff that happened subsequently.
All in all, if you want a realistic portrayal of the life of an archaeologist, with a totally consistent and realistic plotline, look elsewhere. If you want a high-octane action movie, with a plot that sort of makes sense at the time provided you don't stop to think about it, fabulous lost cities and mystical hocus-pocus (which is to say, an Indiana Jones film), then go and watch Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Not quite as good as Raiders, on a par with Last Crusade, scads better than Temple of Doom. A worthy addition to the canon.
1 This was a running joke in an Alan Ayckbourn play, anyone know which one?
2 By the way, the film that scores highest on the "good bit" test is the Tony Jaa masterpiece Ong-bak: worth it for the tuk-tuk chase alone.
I'm making a note here: huge success. It's hard to overstate my satisfaction.
I disagree with xkcd that the perfect action movie should be 30 seconds of exposition followed by a 90-minute fight scene (but if anyone wants to make such a movie, I'm totally there). You need periods of tension, even of silence: as with so many other things, you need light and shade. The true test of an action movie should be the following: if you're watching it at home, and someone comes in to talk to you, there should be no point in the movie where you don't want to say "Shhh, this is a good bit!"1. Raiders of the Lost Ark is the canonical such film, and Last Crusade is close behind it: hell, even Temple of Doom has its share of good bits, it's just the bloody screaming female sidekick who lets it down. Crystal Skull passes the "good bit" test handily2.
Which leaves me a bit mystified, because the film's attracted so many negative reviews, and I honestly can't see what they're complaining about. I'm not a fan of Shia LeBoeuf, but he was OK, and even managed to be funny on a couple of occasions. Far less irritating than most comedy sidekicks. Karen Allen was fine. Cate Blanchett wasn't up to the level of the Gestapo officer from Raiders of the Lost Ark, but she was a pretty decent villain. John Hurt was John Hurt. The von Daniken stuff didn't bother me, really - no sillier than the religious themes from the earlier movies, and (as Zompist points out - contains spoilers) aliens were to the fifties what religious mysticism was to the thirties. The bit with the fridge was impressively stupid, but I almost immediately forgot about it (until reminded about it a couple of days ago) in the sheer rush of stuff that happened subsequently.
All in all, if you want a realistic portrayal of the life of an archaeologist, with a totally consistent and realistic plotline, look elsewhere. If you want a high-octane action movie, with a plot that sort of makes sense at the time provided you don't stop to think about it, fabulous lost cities and mystical hocus-pocus (which is to say, an Indiana Jones film), then go and watch Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Not quite as good as Raiders, on a par with Last Crusade, scads better than Temple of Doom. A worthy addition to the canon.
1 This was a running joke in an Alan Ayckbourn play, anyone know which one?
2 By the way, the film that scores highest on the "good bit" test is the Tony Jaa masterpiece Ong-bak: worth it for the tuk-tuk chase alone.