2008-2009 Miami hockey
Pre- Thanksgiving dinner
Hometown Holidays Thanksgiving
Home > Blogs > Sir Critic on Cinema > Archives > 2008 > October > 15 > Entry
Reconsidering Indy IV
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull has just come out on DVD, but the reconsideration I refer to in the title is not for me - it’s for far too many people who have cried and moaned about this underrated film.
Was the fourth Indy movie a great one? No. But it was great fun, considerable flaws and all. I explain my views fully in my original review.
To hear some people talk, though, you’d swear that George Lucas somehow got a hold of the dog they had when they were a kid, kicked it, then ripped out its heart, Temple of Doom style. One of my co-workers actually flunked the movie. The movie doesn’t deserve that based on Harrison Ford’s performance alone. If you flunk Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, clearly, you don’t see many movies. And just as Lucas predicted, the ridiculous “raped my childhood” accusations came whining to the surface.
(I find it interesting that Lucas took most if not all the blame, even though he didn’t direct the movie or write the actual screenplay. Some guys can’t catch a break.)
One thing I think people fail to understand is that Steven Spielberg and George Lucas are not the same people they were when they made the original films. Perhaps more importantly, we aren’t the same audience anymore, as much as some of us like to think we are.
I agree with a friend of mine who observed that people tend to view movies of their youth through rose-colored glasses and forget that those movies had their silly little moments too. People can complain all they want about Indy IV, but I’ll bet a sizable chunk of crystal that if either Temple of Doom or Last Crusade came out today, the complainers would still be out in force.
Sure, the new movie had its share of ridiculous moments, but so does every Indiana Jones film - including Raiders of the Lost Ark. And those ridiculous moments are often glorious. I heard a lot of complaining about the scene in the new movie where Indy survives a nuclear blast by tucking into a lead-lined refrigerator. Because as we all know, the highlight of the Indiana Jones movies is their gritty realism.
Is the refrigerator scene ludicrous? Yes. But then so is the idea that Indy escaped from the jungle in the opening of the first movie without so much as getting nicked by one of the darts. Is the notorious scene of Shia LeBouf and the monkeys really THAT much sillier than the Nazis’ monkey buddy in Raiders? Give it a rest, gang. Perspective.
When I pick up Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I’ll take it exactly for what it is: a flawed but very enjoyable piece of pop culture that reminds me of what it was like when to be young and not to fuss over every detail.
And you say in response?
Permalink | Comments (6) | Post your comment | Categories: On Video/DVD
Comments
By Kim
October 16, 2008 5:03 PM | Link to this
I agree that this movie is enjoyable and worth watching. The “believeable” factor just doesn’t even compute - these are basically live action comic book adventures and reality has nothing to do with it. Is it believeable that a guy gets super powers from being bit by a spider? No. Can it still be a fun film? Yep. So that point is completely moot to me. I think what frustrates me the most about this movie is that it wouldn’t have taken too much effort to make it much better than it was - but it was mainly a screenplay issue for me - particularly regarding Marion’s character. But I had no trouble enjoying an older Indy - I will definitely buy the DVD to round out my Indy collection.By matt
October 15, 2008 4:59 PM | Link to this
This always happens when there are large delays between movies in a series. People remember the originals as better than they were making them impossible to follow. (See Star Wars: Phantom Menace)By Tony
October 15, 2008 2:54 PM | Link to this
Sir Critic, you should watch last week’s new episode of South Park. The episode is all about how the boys’ best friend was raped in front of their eyes. Turns out they were referring to watching the new Indiana Jones movie. The boys even go on to have nightmares about Indy being raped in various ways by Spielberg and Lucas. They even get Spielberg and Lucas arrested for it. I think they were making fun of how upset people were getting over the movie and not necessarily the movie itself. While I don’t think it was a very good movie, I don’t think it ‘raped my childhood’By Skeptic
October 15, 2008 2:12 PM | Link to this
Sorry, you’re wrong on this one. You’re correct that the other movies had silly moments, but the difference is that they were still within the realm of possibility, or at least suspended disbelief. This film went too far and strayed from a certain asthetic that fans expected. It may be called Indiana Jones, but it seemed like an imposter and was not true to the character.By JT
October 15, 2008 1:46 PM | Link to this
My beef with the movie is not necessarily the story itself, but the movie as a whole. The first three movies felt more organinc and pure from a filmaker’s viewpoint. The stunts were more realistic although farfetched and the acting more real. Harrison seemed to mug for camera an awful lot and Karen Allen was a non factor. I wonder why Kate Capshaw didn’t put in an appearence? The whole movie seemed forced, basically a mile wide and an inch deep type of movie. It did not add anything to the Indiana Jones story, except for some coin for the big 3.By Deems
October 15, 2008 12:32 PM | Link to this
I have to agree with you Sir Critic. I went into Indy IV with expectations of watching a good ole Indy flick not some Oscar for Best Picture Nominee and loved every minute of it! I agree with you, re-watching the older Indy Jones movies it’s like “Ha, yeah right, like that could happen” but that’s what makes it so much fun. It’s a way to escape this mundane world of over-the-top serious movies. Thanks for your article!