BethanyUPDATE: Summer Movies I'd Kill to See (LINK)
July 25th 2008 01:40
I finally managed to see the fourth installment of Indiana Jones, and since I was so excited about seeing it I thought I'd share my thoughts.
Most people already know the plot, but just to share: Indy's back, he's much older, it's the fifties, commies instead of nazis. Blah Blah Blah Blah...
I don't hate this film (not like a lot of people did). There are many many many inconsistencies in the plot. However, if you consider it's origins, those are the kind of inconstitencies you might expect. It was deliberately poor on some of these things, including Cate Blanchett's very poorly done Russian accent. The source material is poorly made, hastily slapped together action-adventure. And for some reason, instead of taking the best of that and shining it up, they took the worst of that and parodied it.
I don't know how this one wound up so much worse than the first three (still better than the Star Wars prequels, though), but I have an idea: too much CGI. See, some of the believability of the really crazy stuff goes away when you can tell it's computer animated. In the original trilogy, all of the stunts were practical. Even if they weren't possible in the real world, having them done practically (on a low budget, no less) made the thing seem grittier.
Yeah, the CGI at the end was necessary, but the rest of it wasn't. And Shia LaBeuof cannot pull off a greaser with any sense of reality, that didn't help. Couldn't they have found ANYONE else to play that character? Even digitally inserting River Phoenix would have been an improvement.
Anyway, if you're a real Indy fan you'll probably hate it, but it's also worth catching in the dollar theater just to say you saw it. I thought it could have been better, but it wasn't the giant poo-sandwich I was expecting, either. Overall, meh.
Most people already know the plot, but just to share: Indy's back, he's much older, it's the fifties, commies instead of nazis. Blah Blah Blah Blah...
I don't hate this film (not like a lot of people did). There are many many many inconsistencies in the plot. However, if you consider it's origins, those are the kind of inconstitencies you might expect. It was deliberately poor on some of these things, including Cate Blanchett's very poorly done Russian accent. The source material is poorly made, hastily slapped together action-adventure. And for some reason, instead of taking the best of that and shining it up, they took the worst of that and parodied it.
I don't know how this one wound up so much worse than the first three (still better than the Star Wars prequels, though), but I have an idea: too much CGI. See, some of the believability of the really crazy stuff goes away when you can tell it's computer animated. In the original trilogy, all of the stunts were practical. Even if they weren't possible in the real world, having them done practically (on a low budget, no less) made the thing seem grittier.
Yeah, the CGI at the end was necessary, but the rest of it wasn't. And Shia LaBeuof cannot pull off a greaser with any sense of reality, that didn't help. Couldn't they have found ANYONE else to play that character? Even digitally inserting River Phoenix would have been an improvement.
Anyway, if you're a real Indy fan you'll probably hate it, but it's also worth catching in the dollar theater just to say you saw it. I thought it could have been better, but it wasn't the giant poo-sandwich I was expecting, either. Overall, meh.
| 42 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
