Tweet
FacebookI’m watching girls fast pitch softball on TV and finding myself getting really into it. Why not? The girls are kinda cute. They can play ball. And I’m seeing it all while watching baseball (or a game like baseball). What’s not to like?
I finally saw “Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” this weekend and I’m pretty upset. Not so much by the movie. There are bad movies made all the time and there’s really no need to complain about them (if people stopped complaining about movies on the internet, the web would lose half of its content). What I wanna bitch about was how the movie was made. “Indy” was an okay movie and had some exciting scenes–but there were a lot of aspects and subplots of the film I didn’t like. This only happens when there’s a long time in between sequels. The fan base grows; the legend of the movie becomes exaggerated. And then the filmmaker ends up making numerous references to the previous films. I find all so insulting.
The first three Indy movies were made within nine years of each other and they all seem to ‘fit’ together. Each movie stands on its own without any references to the previous films (well not entirely: there’s a throw-away line in “Last Crusade” when Indy talks about the Ark of the Covenant–but if you never saw “Raiders” you wouldn’t even notice the subtle reference).
The new movie bases a great deal of its subplots on previous Indiana Jones movies. Indy rekindles a lost love. He talks about his father’s death and the loss of his mentor. There was no character building because the audience already knows the characters. I find that so annoying. There was even a humorous scene involving a snake…that would have made no sense if you hadn’t seen the previous films. Stuff like that bothers me because it feels like the film is catering to the audience. It makes the movie seem cheap: why take the time to develop a stand-alone film when we can toss together a couple of references to previous films instead? I hate it.
I know artsy folks frown upon Spielberg and think he’s a hack but I think he generally makes good movies–movies people actually want to see. He’s smarter than the average bear–I’d like to think George Lucas is too. So how come two talented men like that hafta throw together a bunch of overused, easy, copout, subplots that you’d expect to read on a fan-fiction website? The movie rekindles a past romance between Indy and Marion. They both “love” each other despite not seeing each other for 20 years? The two bickered like scorned lovers are supposed to bicker in movies. Indy got mad that she married someone else; she got jealous of the numerous women he ‘rescued’ over the years. Indy downplays the other women in his life by saying “But none of them were you.”
Come on! That’s ridiculous. Time heals all wounds. For these two to be in love with each other despite being apart for 20 years seemed just a little too easy. That’s the kinda garbage you see in lazy screenwriting and cockamamie scripts. If Indy really pined for Marion all these years you’d think he’d recognize her name when Mutt told it to him.
And the twist is that Indy’s younger male counterpart is his son. Of course he is! Were you expecting anything else? Toss in that simple tidbit because it’s an obvious and easy plot device. I don’t know why they did it. If Indy and Mutt weren’t related, it wouldn’t feel like the movie was lacking. Their blood relationship isn’t what drove the movie so why bother even going there? Only a talentless writer searching for ‘conflict’ or ‘dynamic’ would add that otherwise pointless subplot.
At the end of the movie, Indy and Marion wed (of course!). We don’t know why “love” each other unless you saw “Raiders” because “Crystal Skull” did nothing to make us believe they had genuine feelings for each other. Shakespeare always ended comedies with a wedding: it’s been 400 years–can’t writers think of a more original idea to end a story with? Why trap the Indy character into a marriage? This limits what can be done in books or–god forbid–another movie sequel. “International Man of Mystery” ended with Austin’s wedding. Since a married Austin wasn’t good for the sequel, Mike Myers came up with that ridiculous opening in “The Spy Who Shagged Me.” Why must filmmakers trap legendary characters like that? It’s just a bad idea.
As Indy exited the chapel, his celebrated fedora hat got caught in a gust of wind and rolled in front of Indy’s son. We watched the character pick it up and was about to try it on. Immediately I was appalled. Of course! Harrison Ford is too old to play Indy. Pass the hat over to his son and spawn a new franchise. How convenient! But before Mutt put on the hat, Indy swiped it from him–almost as if to say he’s not done yet. I’ll give Spielberg credit for this: that bait and switch was good. I would imagine a huge audience approval with the hope of a new Indy franchise. I felt like this scene was Spielberg’s way of saying there will only be one Indiana Jones.
It’s been too long since the last movie and I think all that time was bad for the movie. The filmmakers strayed away from what makes a good Indy flick. When Lucas and Spielberg made “Raiders,” they weren’t worried about pleasing the audience or making sure the movie does justice to anything: they simply concentrated on making a good movie. And when you wait that long in between sequels, I think you lose focus. They heard the voices and wanted to please the masses. But by trying to keep with the spirit of the original films, they managed make a movie that becomes too much a sequel and not enough of an adventure.
It’s like I said with “Die Hard 4”: the public didn’t really need an Indy sequel.