Movie Review: "Indiana Jones and the Frenetic Something-or-Other"
Category: Movies...
Posted Friday, May 23, 2008 at 09:38 PM [GMT-6]

This review contains no spoilers.

My wife and I caught a matinée of the new Indiana Jones flick this afternoon and we were simultaneously entertained and disappointed. The latest installment in the franchise carries on the tradition of alternating great offerings with mediocre ones. It's just too bad we had to wait forty years or whatever it was to get a mediocre one.

The movie has a lot of the things we grew to love about the series: exotic locations, death-defying escapes, treachery and villains and creepy animals, and a hero who doesn't take himself too seriously.

What this one is missing, unfortunately, is a credible plot, and a limit on the degree to which the director wants to strain the credulity of the audience. If you think Bruce Willis survived some unbelievable things in Live Free or Die Harder, you ain't seen nothing yet. A few of the scenes were almost embarrassingly silly; Indy's ophidiophobia has, frankly, jumped the shark (or the rat snake, to be precise).

Another thing that was missing was the nostalgic feel of the earlier movies. This one takes place in the Cold War, Commie-Behind-Every-Corner Fifties, and it just feels too modern, somehow, especially with the heavy dose of science fiction stirred into the plot. Without giving away any spoilers, I kept expecting Fox Mulder to enter a scene, and some of the props were apparently inspired by H.R. Giger.

Still, it sported some seriously cool special effects, and it served as good-if-not-classic entertainment. Nowadays, that last thing is nothing to sniff at.

Ant Rating: Rating: 3 Ants

Asides:

  • The best thing about the movie? The trailers for Hellboy II and Hancock. Both look to be great entertainment for what is surely going to be a long, hot summer.

  • Don't bother sitting through the credits of this movie, unless you just like watching them. There are no outtakes or Easter Eggs.
Permalink
Comments

Bummer, no Easter eggs?!? I must admit, it won't have the same ring to it without the nazi's being the bad guys...

Posted by: Rachel at May 24, 2008 06:40 AM

Yeah, you just can't work up the same degree of loathing for the Russians, and it doesn't help that Cate Blanchett continually conjures up visions of Natasha from Rocky & Bullwinkle.

Posted by: Eric at May 24, 2008 06:57 AM

I haven't been inside a movie theaater in 14 years. I shall not pay $10 to see a warmed-over plot (sequel, remake) with sticky, spilled soda or chewing gum on the floor, noisy kids, people on cell phones, and 20 minutes of commercials. I challenge both the movie industry and the theater owners to change this, because I admit that there is nothing quite like the big screen, but not under present conditions.

Movie makers, try making more films that deal with true, loyal love, with courage, and with principle. Give us some decent role models, like John Dunbar (Dances With Wolves) or William Wallace (Braveheart).

Posted by: paul at May 24, 2008 12:12 PM

Paul, I certainly respect your decision and wouldn't try to convince you otherwise, but I can say that yesterday we experienced none of what you described other than the issue of the movie itself. The audience consisted mostly of families (with well-behaved kids) and adults, and I saw or heard nary a single cell phone.

As far as what comprises a good movie plot, I'm sure you'll agree that's pretty subjective.

Posted by: Eric at May 24, 2008 01:18 PM

Oh, and there were no commercials (other than the movie trailers, which we often enjoy as much as the feature). I can't remember the last movie we saw that wasn't preceded by one of those lame body spray ads.

Posted by: Eric at May 24, 2008 01:20 PM

Looks like I need to see Iron Man instead.

Posted by: Kudzu Fire at May 25, 2008 05:22 AM

Haven't seen it, but have heard good things about it.

You have an interesting blog. You display a familiarity with the desert. Are you in West Texas?

Posted by: Eric at May 25, 2008 09:07 AM

We've been looking forward to Hellboy II also, but I think it's going to have a very different feel. Where the first one felt a lot like a comic book the way it was lighted, this one is going to be creepier – at least, if it turns out as visually similar to Pan's Labyrinth as the trailer suggests.

I think Hancock has the potential to be awesome. I've always liked superhero stories that take a more realistic approach, where the heroes are held accountable for their actions, a la Watchmen (which, if I recall correctly, also has a movie adaptation in the works).

Posted by: Foo at May 25, 2008 01:50 PM

Yeah, the Hellboy trailer certainly makes it look darker and more intense than the original. I'd rather have it go that direction than to devolve into silliness, which was part of the problem with the new Indiana Jones flick.

Re: Hancock, I can't think of any science fiction, fantasy, or comics-based movie that I wouldn't see if Will Smith was involved.

Posted by: Eric at May 25, 2008 08:49 PM

Well, I forgot about Wild, Wild West. Perhaps that's the exception that proves the rule.

Posted by: Eric at May 25, 2008 08:50 PM

Re. Will Smith: Amen. He and Tom Hanks are two of a kind, in my opinion. Both are fine actors with a talent for consistently picking good projects.

Posted by: Foo at May 26, 2008 03:36 PM

P.S. - Putting aside the occasional misstep, of course. Wild, Wild West and Turner and Hooch are easily offset by the likes of The Pursuit of Happyness and The Green Mile.

Posted by: Foo at May 26, 2008 03:38 PM

Fox Mulder??!... I was expecting Richard Dreyfus in shades and an orange jumpsuit.

Posted by: Jon at May 27, 2008 01:57 PM
Post a comment [Take your time...we're in no hurry.]
Note: You must provide either a website URL or an email address...but there's no rule that says you have to tell the truth. If you don't want your email address published on this site, just input a website URL, or make up an email address.









Remember personal info?