Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

[Pulpmariachi]

Nineteen years ago, when we last left Indiana Jones, he was riding off into the sunset, just having discovered and lost the Holy Grail, his father and his friends at his side. Over two years ago, when we last left Steven Spielberg, he had delivered quite possibly his bleakest, most depressing, and bitter movie to date. Prior to that, there were numerous rumors that the two would cross paths again and when Harrison Ford issued an ultimatum, George Lucas and company got their act together, went through numerous screenwriters, and turned out Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Spielberg promised this one for the fans.

Needless to say, expectations rose high; this is, after all, Indiana Jones, one of the greatest adventure heroes of cinema from one of the lost lauded trilogies of all time. Spielberg promised us a sweet dessert after the bitter herbs of Munich. Excitement ran through the wires of the Internet and through word of mouth, but there was so much that could wrong at the same time: Harrison Ford is well into his 60s; George Lucas continues on shelling out Star Wars movies, barely making them beyond mediocre; Spielberg isn’t the same filmmaker he once was, if his recent crop of movies from Schindler’s List onward proves, he’s taken a much darker turn and that whimsy and fascination and sense of fun that permeated Close Encounters of the Third Kind, ET: The Extra-Terrestrial, and Raiders of the Lost Ark has pretty much vanished. Added with the state of movie audiences in this day and age, who are far more cynical and pessimistic (a result of current policies and administrations?), there was a lot of potential for the fourth outing of Indiana Jones to fail.

But it didn’t.

No: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is a solid adventure picture, through and through, a border between the pulp-dime-novel-cliffhangers of the original trilogy and the weird sci-fi horrors from the 50s and 60s. Within five minutes after the start (ignore those prairie dogs), Spielberg has effectively and almost seamlessly taken us back into the world of the greatest daredevil archeologist. His silhouette appears on the side of cars, his icon hat hardly ever leaves his head, and his wit is a strong as ever. Within twenty minutes, you’re cheering for him all over again as he shows the Russians that he’s not someone who can be easily stepped over.

The plot isn’t any more complicated than any of the other films: there’s these bad guys becoming a world power who wish to obtain a supernatural artifact to further their cause and Indiana Jones must stop them. Story revolving around the crystal skull itself can get a little complicated, as we discover the Meso-American importance and such, but the plot leaves enough room for car chases through a University, investigation of an ancient cemetery, another chase through the jungle (complete with sword-fighting on the back of amphibious cars), and all the booby traps that adorn mythical landscapes that’s come to be expected out of this. As always, the chases are heart-pounding and it’s always fun to watch Jones figure out what he’s going to do next. Take out a forest cutter with a rocket launcher? Why not. Escape a warehouse using whips to swing himself from the overhead lights? That might work. Hide in a refrigerator to escape a nuclear blast? Better than any other idea. It’s how Indiana Jones roles and if you have a problem with that, you’re in the wrong movie, buddy.

There’s no denying that Harrison Ford seems to be able to turn the Indiana Jones role on and off and it’s a quite welcome decision that no one decided to pull a Bond and replace him. Shia LeBeouf proves himself to be making the right decisions and he’s one of the least annoying sidekicks in the franchise (I’m looking at you, Short Round). Karen Allen returns, one of the best choices anyone could have made, and she again takes one of the most well-developed and realized love interests in any movie series through her same able-to-hold-her-own/Help-me-Indy/I-can-handle-this-myself role that makes up the dear Marion Ravenwood. Ray Winstone, always creepy, is an excellent foil and Cate Blanchett provides one of the creepiest – maybe the most intelligent – villains in the series so far. They’re having fun in their roles, they’re here for the ride, the thrill, the sense of being back together (Ford and Allen at least), of just doing something because they wanted to, and that chemistry and excitement moves off the screen.

Spielberg again proves just how much of the greatest director he is, able to come off the human psyche examination that was Munich to this without any hitch. He can stage an action sequence, avoiding the quick-cutting, kinetic, in-your-face, CGI-camera, epic sweeping cinematography choices that so many others have chosen, instead letting the shots last longer, resuming his point-and-shoot, non-meticulous-looking style prominent in the earlier films. Jansuz Kaminski delivers his most non-Kaminski photography yet; though there’s still more desaturated lighting and beams through smoke than the other films.

The film’s weakest point comes in the CGI, though there’s minimal use of it. The prairie dogs at the beginning are too cute and out-of-place; swinging Tarzan monkeys don’t seem to come across as well as they were when they were written; and the ending does kind of have a tacky element about it, but that might be the genre that the film’s flirting with. And a tree of smoke with Indiana Jones standing beneath almost stretches the film’s own reality too far, though it does make for a good screen-shot.

A very solid, very fun film. Roger Ebert said it the best: “If you like the Indiana Jones movies, you’ll like this one.” And it’s true. So how does it compare? The safest way to view it, I think, is not to compare it to Raiders of the Lost Ark, which is so perfect that nothing can stand up to it. I’d say, compare it to the weakest entry, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (which did have some spectacular action, but the constant screaming from the woman and the kid did take its toll quite early) and see how it goes there. It’s still early to weigh in its place within the franchise, but it’s still one great, one spectacularly fun ride.

A-

[ZapRowsdower]

Great review, Pulp...

I'm seriously considering going to work early tomorrow to catch it again. I really hope this film achieves the box office analysts are predicting, because it more than deserves it.

Still waiting for a movie to dethrone Titanic as the highest grossing picture of all time. Come on, America. There have been better movies within the last ten years.

[Bartwald]

May 22, 2008 15:46:51 GMT -5 Pulpmariachi said:

The film’s weakest point comes in the CGI, though there’s minimal use of it. The prairie dogs at the beginning are too cute and out-of-place; swinging Tarzan monkeys don’t seem to come across as well as they were when they were written; and the ending does kind of have a tacky element about it, but that might be the genre that the film’s flirting with. And a tree of smoke with Indiana Jones standing beneath almost stretches the film’s own reality too far, though it does make for a good screen-shot.

That's it - same thing that bothered me throughout the whole finale. The goddamn CGI effects no director can live without these days. Minimal use? Well, I wouldn't say so - all too many set pieces near the ending where computer-generated (the fencing on two cars; the monkeys; the ants; entering the kingdom of the title; the whole skull hocus pocus in the end), and for me it doesn't seem quite right in an Indiana Jones movie.

Other than that, I liked the movie a lot. The beginning is a bit weird, but delicious nevertheless. Ford is just as powerful and convincing as Indy as he was 20 years ago, and the rest of the actors hold their own, too (though I wouldn't say Cate Blanchett is the best series villain, no). Hope it's not Ford's last entry in the series. 8/10

[Pulpmariachi]

Concerning the CGI towards the end: the cars and sword fight was real but the plants were apparently computer-generated. There's a lot more there than I may have given credit for, but only the most outstanding I really talked about.

Though the ants were very cool.


And in Spielberg's defense, he's made loads of movies without CGI lately: Catch Me If You Can, The Terminal, Munich....

[Heineken Skywalker]

May 22, 2008 15:46:51 GMT -5 Pulpmariachi said:

George Lucas continues on shelling out Star Wars movies, barely making them beyond mediocre;

Dude, he made 3 prequels since 1983 when RETURN OF THE JEDI was in theaters. And it was 16 years before the first one premiered. 6 movies over the span of 28 years or so, isn't exactly "shelling them out". Granted, PHANTOM MENACE was a barely above average movie, or downright sucked, depending on who you ask, CLONES was a little better imho, and SITH was a pretty damn good STAR WARS film, equal to, or better than JEDI, again imho. He does however keep shelling out the merchandise. No denying that.
Admittedly, my love of SW probably helps me to give "a pass" to things I might not in other films, just like I think your love of the original RAIDERS is clearly skewing your opinion of Indy's latest adventure. An A-?
And a 10/10 from Zap?? You honestly think it's equal to RAIDERS?
Remember how you raved about SPIDER-MAN 3 when you first saw it and are now not quite such a huge fan of it? Just saying is all.
To each his own, but those are some really high scores.

I saw it last night and to be honest, I'm still not completely sure what I thought of it, which is why I waited until now to post my thoughts. I definitely didn't hate it, but I also didn't love it, not to the extent of the first three anyway.
On first viewing, I don't think it's even as good as TEMPLE OF DOOM. TEMPLE was my least favorite of the trilogy, but even that one I liked. A lot. And I was never annoyed by Short Round and enjoyed the banter between him and Indy. Willie's screaming is grating, but I always looked at it as, they wanted a leading lady who was the polar opposite of Marion in RAIDERS. While Marion was tough and pretty self-sufficient, Willie was a spoiled damsel-in-distress who needs rescuing every 10 minutes.

Back to this movie.

WARNING!!!!
There are SPOILERS sprinkled throughout, so if you haven't seen it yet, read at your own risk!!!


The plots of the original movies were pretty simple, where this one seems to have/need a lot of exposition. In the first three films, the maguffin, or object that was being searched for, was explained early in the film and then Indy would go after it. Here it seems, it's explained, and then explained again, and then explained even further later on. And let's face it, every time they stop to explain what's going on, the movie pretty much comes to a complete stop. Not good for a fast-paced action-adventure series. They should've adhered to the concept used for the original 3 movies, K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple, Stupid.)

I'm not sure how many writers ultimately worked on this. I know that many different scripts were written and rejected, and that the final writer, David Koepp, took the best ideas from all the different scripts and pasted together this Frankenstein of a screenplay. And that's kind of what it feels like, something that's been pasted together. A lot of the movie, doesn't really flow and kind of stops and starts in fits.
It feels more like a series of set pieces that have been strung together as opposed to one continuous story.

The movie throws in everything and the kitchen sink along the way: Area 51 and the Roswell aliens, Mayan culture, the lost city of Atlantis, El Dorado/City of Gold and, of course, the Crystal Skulls. Not to mention several references to 50's culture, like we needed to be reminded several times that it was now 1957. The AMERICAN GRAFFITI style hot rod race at the beginning, with Elvis on the radio, the threat of the communist "Reds", "I like Ike", Shia LaBeouf's 1st appearance as Brando in THE WILD ONE, and of course, the bomb testing site.

CONS:
I could appreciate that bomb/fridge scene as a gag, but it was kind of long for something that really has nothing to do with the plot and doesn't really move the story forward.
Don't even get me started on Shia LaTarzan, Lord of the Apes. Probably the single dumbest scene in the whole movie. Just really, really bad.
The 3 waterfalls scene was bad too, but just for the "How many times in a row can we make the audience suspend disbelief?" aspect of it.

Too many sidekicks:
John Hurt is in "glazed over" mode for the majority of his screen time, and I didn't really care that it was him playing that role.
Ray Winestone's character, Mac, was pointless. He's good, now he's bad, now he's good, oh wait, now he's bad again. By the time he meets his fate, I didn't care whose side he was on anymore. I honestly cared more about Elsa and her fate in LAST CRUSADE who pretty much pulled the same type of backstabbing on Indy.
Jim Broadbent as the new college Dean was okay, but like Brody in the first movie, he disappears from the film pretty early on.
Cate Blanchett was fine as the Russian villainess. Kind of over the top and campy, in that pulp magazine kind of way, which is appropriate for the series. Her accent and black hair kind of reminded me of the villain Natasha in the old Bullwinkle cartoons, which made me smile.
Karen Allen. Hmm... nice that Marion was back, but on the other hand, isn't given much to do, looked kind of frumpy, and in the nicest way I can put it, I think her acting chops have gotten a little stale between adventures.

The big finale wasn't nearly as dramatic as it should've been. RAIDERS had that cool, creepy feel to it when Belloq and the Nazis open the Ark. The music, the mood, the atmosphere. Just cool. "Close your eyes, Marion! Don't look at it!". Even though, this ending was grander and more epic, it felt smaller and not as important. Kind of hard to explain.

The music is usually so predominant in these films, almost a character itself, but other than the "Raiders March" aka Indy's Main Theme, I barely noticed John Williams' score.

PROS:

Steven Spielberg. The man has made very few missteps in his career and I'll go see pretty much anything he directs. I even paid to see HOOK in a theater. I don't love it, but this movie is way better than HOOK. ;D

Shia does a good job as Mutt. Wasn't annoying and was actually helpful to Indy. Wouldn't mind seeing him come back as his sidekick if they do another one. Not sure I'm interested in seeing THE ADVENTURES OF INDY JR. though, as is being rumoured. Too bad the big revelation about his character's true parentage was given away pretty much as soon as he was cast. The media and the internet can suck sometimes.

The "ant scene". Fantastic and a nice continuation of the tradition of having at least one "creepy crawler" scene in each movie. Probably my favorite one after the snakes in The Well of Souls.

Speaking of snakes. Indy's "rescue by snake" and the look of sheer terror on his face. Priceless.

The motorcycle chase on college campus. Action-packed and gives Shia a chance to play Indy while Harrison plays Henry Sr.

The scene that takes place inside the warehouse from the ending of RAIDERS, even including a glimpse of the Ark of the Covenant, was very cool.

Indy looking at the photo of the now deceased Henry Jones Sr. (Sean Connery) on his desk was very sentimental and probably the most touching moment in the whole film.

The tributes to Marcus Brody (the late Denholm Elliot) were also nice and welcome, though I would've stopped at the painting and the photo. The statue was probably overkill.
A nod to, a cameo by, or even a mention of Sallah (John Rhys-Davies) would've been nice, but alas, the movie's already overstuffed with characters and plot as it is.

The chase scene through the jungle was very good and reminiscent of the truck chase from RAIDERS, though the sword fight probably went on a little too long and got more and more improbable.

Harrison even gets to speak one line of dialogue that for a moment, reminds us that this guy was also Han Solo, and gives a shout out to that other series of movies that made him famous.

The biggest Pro though is of course, that Harrison Ford is back on the big screen as Indiana Jones. The hat, leather jacket and whip are all intact, as is Ford. Yes, he's a little older and a little slower, but when he first put that hat back on, I was grinning like Super Fanboy.

In time, with a few more viewings, and with lowered expectations, I might grow to enjoy this latest entry in the series even more. For now, it's a pretty good summer popcorn film that is better than a lot of other recent summer popcorn films, but not quite as good as others. Entertaining but kind of just there. Which is fine for other summer movies like TRANSFORMERS for instance, but this is Indiana Jones, I guess I just expect a little more.
Will I buy it on DVD? Almost a sure bet. It's mostly a fun film and the continuation of a series I love. It just suffers in comparison to the others.

Ironically, when LAST CRUSADE first came out, it had to contend with Tim Burton's BATMAN as the summer film to beat, and this time Indy has to battle IRON MAN which seems to have set the bar pretty high this summer, in terms of fan appeal and box office.
Here's hoping that if there is to be another Indy movie, competition from a superhero movie is nowhere in sight at the time of its release.

RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK = 10/10
INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM = 8/10
INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE = 9/10
INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL = 7/10

[ZapRowsdower]

...Nah, this is different.

With Spider-Man 3, it was a mixture of lowered expectations and a little bit of denial. Here, my expectations were... in my opinion, at least, almost unreasonably high. And they were met, so... there you go.

I should also mention that Raiders isn't the only Indy film to receive a 10/10 rating... In fact, the only one that didn't was Temple of Doom, and while I've considered it, I think I'm standing by that decision. To me, it felt more like an extended episode of a TV series than a movie. Don't get me wrong, I loved it - but it didn't have the epic feel of Raiders or the Last Crusade.

I'd rank Kingdom of the Crystal Skull third amongst the Indiana Jones series, below Last Crusade, but above Temple of Doom.

And I'll admit, the LeBeouf swinging on vines was a bit much... but I seriously couldn't stop laughing. Kinda makes me wonder if that's what Spielberg was going for. And you know what? I loved the waterfall scene. Yeah, I said it. And I don't regret it. The Indiana Jones series always has required suspension of disbelief, and even though this required more... meh. Didn't care.

I've seen this twice already, and will probably catch it one more time this week alone. I'll definitely be buying the DVD, as well... yes, I'll even spend the $25 to buy that 2-or-3-disc collector's set they'll no doubt be releasing.

Some would argue, too, that if you don't notice the music, that's a good thing.

[Pulpmariachi]

I think I said at the end of my review, it works better if you compare it to Temple of Doom rather than Raiders. I'm not going to set up a huge defense of my A-, but it's there and I'm maintaining it. I think it's better than Temple.

Regarding Star Wars: I'll change it to merchandise if you'd like, the books, the games (all right, the newer ones are kinda fun), the endless stream of toys, but do we need to recall the Ewok adventures? Or: coming this summer: Star Wars: Clone Wars: The Movie?

Iron Man isn't the film Indy has to beat. He's up against the Bat all over again.

[ZapRowsdower]

Agreed. I think Indy has Tony Stark taken care of (I could be mistaken, but it looks like Indy's gonna beat it at the box office), but the Joker probably has this summer in the bag.

Yeah, I actually really liked the Star Wars prequels, and would be lying if I said I weren't interested in the Clone Wars just a little bit (although I was hoping for more of a connection between episodes 3 and 4).

But after watching the Star Wars Holiday Special, I gotta say Jar Jar is a welcome addition to the franchise by comparison.

[Heineken Skywalker]

May 24, 2008 14:45:13 GMT -5 ZapRowsdower said:

Some would argue, too, that if you don't notice the music, that's a good thing.

Sure, if the music is being manipulative or getting in the way. I only mentioned it in the sense that I always noticed it before, as in how good it was. Here it barely registered.

May 24, 2008 17:15:25 GMT -5 Pulpmariachi said:

Regarding Star Wars: I'll change it to merchandise if you'd like, the books, the games (all right, the newer ones are kinda fun), the endless stream of toys, but do we need to recall the Ewok adventures? Or: coming this summer: Star Wars: Clone Wars: The Movie?

Iron Man isn't the film Indy has to beat. He's up against the Bat all over again.

Well, I was only talking about theatrical movies, not tv specials and things of that nature. Remember, there was an entire Young Indiana Jones tv series, so Indy isn't without his spinoffs either.
The animated Clone Wars movie is just 3 episodes of the upcoming tv series strung together as one 90 minute movie. It's not a true Star Wars film, as in it's not called Episode Whatever. The clips from it I've seen look amazing. Very stylized.

As for whether Indy has to beat Iron Man or Batman at the box office, I'm talking about what's actually playing now. IRON MAN is still raking in the bucks, SPEEDRACER (a big flop) and NARNIA are proving to be no real competition for it, and by the time THE DARK KNIGHT is released on July 18, Indy will surely be dropping out of the Box Office anyway, so they won't be in direct competition. I think besides IRON MAN, Indy will have to deal with Hellboy and The Hulk before Batman even arrives on the scene. Tough summer to be a 60-something adventurer.

I'd be an idiot to think Indy's not going to do well box office-wise, but the film's word of mouth might be it's undoing more than any superhero movie. The theater I was in was only half full at 7pm on a Friday night. As was the theater that my brother and sister saw it in the night before, also a 7pm showing. That's pretty unheard of for a major franchise summer blockbuster type of movie. And based on what I'm reading at several other forums I visit, the majority of fans don't sound like they're digging the movie that much. A lot of the ones who have liked it have been kind of like me in their opinions, liked it with reservations, but definitely didn't love it. And some have just downright hated it. And a lot of these people are huge Indy fans who liked or loved the previous movies. It'll be huge this weekend, but will it have the legs to stick around? I'm not so sure.

Anyway, I'm not here to rip the movie a new a-hole. I gave it a 7/10 and I mentioned many things about it I did enjoy, so I clearly don't hate it. I'm a huge Indy fan, I just think that in comparison to the other three, there's something lacking. The quest isn't as good, there seems to be a lot of "down time", too much exposition, several superfluous characters, and at least a couple of ridiculous moments. Obviously all the Indy movies require suspension of disbelief, but there are a few moments here that could've easily been left on the cutting room floor and it would've helped the pacing, wouldn't have affected the story and would've reduced the groans from the audience. One more rewrite was probably needed, but I think Spielberg, Lucas and Ford had reached the point where it was time to piss or get off the pot because they'd been dangling this carrot in front of fans for about six years now and Ford isn't getting any younger.
I'm glad you guys loved the movie, nothing sucks more than to have huge expectations for a film and not have it meet them, Episode I comes to the mind of many STAR WARS fans. Wish I could join you guys in your enthusiasm, but this'll be the first Indy movie I probably won't bother to go see a second time while it's still playing in theaters. My schedule nowadays barely allows time to go see a movie once, let alone twice, especially one I'm kind of ambivalent about, so I'll pick it up on DVD and give it a second chance then.

[Quorthon]

Saw this over the weekend and I loved it. I'm a huge fan of the original trilogy having practically worshipped those films since I saw Crusade in the theater way back in the day. That's the film that turned my brother and I on to Indiana Jones.


I liked the movie a lot, but I a couple issues:


The overuse of CG to create over-the-top action sequences. While not as ridiculously bad as those in Peter Jackson's King Kong, they were a little much. They turned Indiana Jones from adventure hero to fucking superhero--and that irked me a bit. The groundhogs were retarded and the swinging monkeys were pretty stupid. There's a phrase that's popped up in video games with the rise of the Nintendo DS and Wii that should be applied to movies: "Just because you can do it, doesn't mean you should." In this case, just because you can make stupifyingly over-the-top action sequences that punch our suspension of disbelief in the face doesn't mean you should. Past Indiana Jones films had a lot of over-the-top stuff, but it was edge-of-your-seat kind of stuff where he was sometimes only barely making it. Remember, he did get shot in Raiders of the Lost Ark. He shouldn't be invincible! Here, everything just went a little too far. You kill suspense if you make the action too crazy. If suspension of disbelief isn't well maintained, it hurts the film.


I'm a huge fan of the 50's in general. It's always been my favorite period in the world. So, I did enjoy seeing Indy make his way to the era complete with several atomic age-style icons. Indy under the mushroom cloud was arguably my favorite shot in the film.


I'm happy with the Crystal Skulls story even though it lifts Indiana Jones from the world of mythology and ancient magical stuff to 50's era Sci-Fi. The real-life crystal skulls are one of those many mysteries of life that I enjoy learning about.

All in all, I'd place Raiders of the Lost Ark and Last Crusade as my favorites, then Crystal Skull essentially tied with Temple of Doom.


Finally, my wife discovered yesterday that Harrison Ford has apparently agreed to two more films. I hope at least one doesn't include Shia LeBouf (and maybe brings back Sean Connery) and takes place a bit before Crystal Skulls.


Seriously, though, what will it take for Lucas and Spielberg to become goddamn filmmakers again? I know they've always been big on special effects, but that shouldn't be the main focus of a film. They're too reliant on them these days.

[Quorthon]

May 24, 2008 14:45:13 GMT -5 ZapRowsdower said:

...Nah, this is different.

With Spider-Man 3, it was a mixture of lowered expectations and a little bit of denial. Here, my expectations were... in my opinion, at least, almost unreasonably high. And they were met, so... there you go.

I should also mention that Raiders isn't the only Indy film to receive a 10/10 rating... In fact, the only one that didn't was Temple of Doom, and while I've considered it, I think I'm standing by that decision. To me, it felt more like an extended episode of a TV series than a movie. Don't get me wrong, I loved it - but it didn't have the epic feel of Raiders or the Last Crusade.

Zaps, not to criticize or anything... well, screw it, that's what this is I guess: But, you give almost every movie high praise. All the Pirates of the Caribbean films for instance--you gave them all super-high scores. None of those was a higher than an 8/10 or a "B." If it wasn't for Johnny Depp, those films would be utterly useless. I can't remember the last film you gave a low review score. I'm not saying my opinion is better than yours, but you forgive way too much. You gave very high praise for the 2005 King Kong and that film has worse CG action sequence flaws than Indy 4 and the new Star Wars films almost combined.

I also had high expectations of this film, and they weren't met. My fears about Lucas and Spielberg "over doing it" when it comes to CG were once again well founded--and once again, they went too far. Not as bad as the dinosaur stampede or Kong-and-Watts-and-dinosaurs-swinging-on-vines sequences in Kong, but pretty close to being as bad as the "mysteries of the rotating spaceship that mysteriously switches it's internal gravitational pull when it rotates in zero-g space" in Star Wars Episode III.

[ZapRowsdower]

There are a few reasons for this.

1. Until my recent re-advisement of my criteria (I now only give 3-5 "10" ratings per yer, not counting the one documentary that's supposed to be world-changing), I used to hand out much higher scores. Sorry, my scores for Pirates remain because I downright love those movies. And I thought King Kong '05 was fantastic. It's true. These are not good examples, as my ratings have not changed for them. But for last year, I only gave out four non-documentary "10" ratings: There Will Be Blood, Sweeney Todd, Into the Wild and Pirates 3 (which again... call me stubborn, but that's staying).

2. I tend to avoid movies I know I won't like. Even being able to see certain films for free, I opted not to watch Meet the Spartans or Prom Night. Although I'm sure I'd hate those films. The only time I'll go see a "bad" movie is if I know it will have some Ed Wood quality to them. Films like One Missed Call and Uwe Boll's In the Name of the King come to mind.

3. Movies DO disappoint me from time to time. When this happens, I bash it to oblivion. It was a missed opportunity with Spider-Man 3 (I blame X-Men 3 for my lowered expectations), but I got my jabs at it with the Golden Asshat awards. But disappointments do happen, and I make sure to let people know about it. See: The Golden Compass, Van Helsing, Open Water, The Ring 2.

And as an avid movie-goer, I tend to forgive a lot. This is true especially for this film. I'm caught up in the adventure of the movie. I'll spend a second thinking "oh, man... Spielberg... those backgrounds look so fake" and then "OH MY GOD SHIA IS FIGHTING CATE BLANCHETT WITH A SWORD THIS IS SO COOL!"

See, unlike the Golden Compass where there was nothing whatsoever to redeem it for its over-reliance on CGI, Indiana Jones was dealing with a much stronger screenplay with solid characters (we can debate the importance of Mac all day long, but Mutt and Indy had fantastic chemistry). The action sequences were fun. I even forgave that ridiculous Tarzan scene and the illogical three waterfalls because I couldn't stop laughing.

I loved Kingdom of the Crystal Skull because I never felt that sense of fun and adventure leave the series. Yes, George Lucas is a digital whore. But CG and visual effects mean very little with comparison to the script. If David Koepp wrote a shitty screenplay, I'd probably be bashing the effects a lot more.

And considering Spielberg has been my hero since I was a child, if this film failed to impress me, I would be much harsher because I'd feel betrayed. But I'm happy to announce that Spielberg has yet to disappoint me (although I still haven't seen his infamous 1941).

I know it may seem that I like every movie, but that's simply not the case. You and I are on two different ends of the spectrum with the King Kong thing... I thought the effects were amazing in that film, as well as the screenplay which added more depth to the original 1933 classic. Which is why it is one of the few '05 films that kept the "10" rating (along with Munich, Sin City and Batman Begins - seriously considering Brokeback Mountain for it).

I've seen Kingdom of the Crystal Skull twice, and may be watching it a third time this week.

And for the record, don't expect negative reviews on Sex and the City, because its 2 1/2 hour running time is probably going to keep me from seeing it at all. I just can't look at Sarah Jessica Parker for that long.

[Quorthon]

Oh Sweeny Todd--that was one I had intended to mention. Yeah, we have fairly different tastes--so I won't argue that. In my view, Sweeny Todd was a good movie, but overly slow and plodding at points and the music, aside from a few tracks, was largely inferior to Danny Elfman's high point (on the musical side) with Nightmare Before Christmas... which for some reason, I've had in my head the past few days.

I don't forgive too easily. I was actually really enjoying the American Godzilla film right up until the point when Godzilla mysteriously couldn't crush a taxi cab in his mouth. Then I flat out hated the film and since then, have continually lost respect for Roland Emmerich. That dumbass.


I also loved Spielberg when I was a kid. And I even initially enjoyed his darker tone post-Schindler's List for a while. But then, it seemed like he started focusing too much on CG effects and dreary storylines. It was nice to see that in Crystal Skulls that he managed to keep the fun going, even if he overdid it with those stupid monkeys.

For me, handing out a 10/10 rating is a hard thing to do. A film must be highly polished. It must be flawless. There can't be tedious parts, gratuitious anything, or stupid characters. I know you love the Pirates movies, but each one, to me, came with a high degree of tedium when Johnny Depp wasn't the star of the show. Man, even the huge Transformers fan that I am, I just couldn't bring myself to give the movie higher than an 8. I just couldn't forgive the total lack of character development on the Transformers (especially the Decepticons) themselves.

[ZapRowsdower]

Many factors come into play when I give out a 10, but there's no set of rules. On average, I like to give only "3" per year, and I usually pick them when the year is over. Obviously, there are exceptions to both of those "rules".

It's not based on whether or not the movie has flaws. All movies have flaws. The question is, how well does a movie play even with its flaws? Indy 4 had CGI that's subpar to what you know Spielberg and ILM are capable of. But I barely took notice.

It's when I take notice that there's a problem. Once again (sorry for picking on this one so much, Pulp) there's The Golden Compass. So ill-conceived and poorly paced, it was only then I began to look at other things, like its visual effects. Sadly, with a stronger screenplay, I probably wouldn't have anything to complain about.

Regarding my "10" rating for Indy 4, I've thought about bringing it down to a "9", where I leave most of the "10" candidates until the end of the year. But then I wonder... is that MY opinion, or everyone else's? I'm too young to have seen any of the Indiana Jones movies in theaters (except for the Last Crusade, but my parents didn't take me to the movies much), so this was my first time seeing Indy crack the whip on the big screen. If I had the luxury of being alive in 1981, maybe my opinion would be different. But I had to rely on VHS for my share of Indiana Jones. As high of an opinion I have on Raiders of the Lost Ark (Top 25 of all time for me), it's not enough for me to look down on Crystal Skull and think... this is crap by comparison. I love the Indiana Jones movies - I grew up with the Indiana Jones movies. And I don't see much of a problem ranking Crystal Skull up there with them. It's not the best of the lot by far, but I believe it belongs on the same playing field.

Unlike Lucas' Star Wars prequels, which kinda felt like Star Wars except different, they managed to return to Indiana Jones and manage to make it feel like Indiana Jones. It's warm, it's familiar, and it's the most fun I've had this year (thus far). In fact, the only movie I can realistically see beating it this summer is The Dark Knight.

What "10" means to me, is I'm putting it on a list of films I would consider among my all-time favorites. As of now, I believe there are 132 films on this list, and no year seems to dominate. '94 might have a couple more than the rest, but overall it's pretty well spread out.

[Heineken Skywalker]

May 27, 2008 14:52:28 GMT -5 ZapRowsdower said:

Many factors come into play when I give out a 10, but there's no set of rules. On average, I like to give only "3" per year, and I usually pick them when the year is over. Obviously, there are exceptions to both of those "rules".

Not to continue to derail this thread, but I have to ask. Why have a "Three 10's per year" rule, or quota, at all? What I mean by that is, I almost never score movies a 10/10. I find it tough to give movies a 9/10. Most movies seem to get a 7/10 from me because that's where most movies honestly seem to fall. Above average, but not quite good enough for me to consider really good (8/10), great (9/10), or excellent 10/10.

May 27, 2008 14:52:28 GMT -5 ZapRowsdower said:

I love the Indiana Jones movies - I grew up with the Indiana Jones movies. And I don't see much of a problem ranking Crystal Skull up there with them. It's not the best of the lot by far, but I believe it belongs on the same playing field.

"It's not the best of the lot by far...", but it deserves a 10/10? Even though I would still consider them too high a score, a 9/10 or even a 9.5/10 sounds more realistic. If RAIDERS, for instance, is the best of the lot, a 10/10, then none of the sequels should be a 10 unless you consider them completely equal to RAIDERS, no ifs, ands or buts. I just watched EMPIRE STRIKES BACK again. Great movie, great sequel, but I don't consider it quite as good as the original. It gets a 9/10 from me. Close, but no cigar.

May 27, 2008 14:52:28 GMT -5 ZapRowsdower said:

What "10" means to me, is I'm putting it on a list of films I would consider among my all-time favorites. As of now, I believe there are 132 films on this list, and no year seems to dominate. '94 might have a couple more than the rest, but overall it's pretty well spread out.

The last 10/10 I gave was in 2004. Both RAY and MILLION DOLLAR BABY scored the coveted 10. And in the same year? Almost unheard of from me. Before that, you have to go all the way back to 1999 when I gave TOY STORY 2 a 10/10. As you see, I don't have any kind of "I have to score this many movies, this score, every year." rule. Looking at my IMDB "Vote History" I just relisted them by highest score and even I'm shocked to see this, but out of the 1,328 movies I've seen and voted for, I've only scored 20 of those movies a 10/10. I do however have 58 9/10 movies.

In Zap's defense though, I will say that he has been tougher and more realistic in his voting in the last couple of years then when he first started posting here. I remember when he really did love pretty much everything he saw and scores of 10/10 were handed out like Halloween candy.