That was Solstice's rationale for wanting to see Nim's Island rather than The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull yesterday. At which point I suggested a couple web-sites I knew of... that didn't go over too well. Solstice's feat that a PG-13 Indy film might scare her led Stephanie to take her to the other film while my parents & I took Aiden to Indiana Jones. Before hand, I talked to Jeanny who saw it the other day and suggested it was a lot better than The Phantom Menace, but no where nears as good as the original 3. This is about what I figured, but I didn't figure in the joy of watching Aiden watch it. He was @ the edge of his seat the whole time. My love for this film is definitely filtered through this Aiden experience. He wore his Indy hat & hung on every single moment. Then again, I hung on every moment too.Overall, Lucas & Spielberg did a great job w/ the homage to '50s B Sci/Fi films. The Cold War stuff was great w/ a nice little comment on current political issues & the importance of academia in terms of our ability to speak up about the problems w/ the government... something the '50s films had to keep rather veiled under the watchful eye of Joe McCarthy. As bad as things might be under GWB, @ least Spielberg & Lucas won't be getting blacklisted.
Of course, there are a few holes in the plot, but having seen more than my fair share of the '50s B movies, I'm willing to accept the problems as part of the genre. My only real complaint is about the use of CGI ants. The snakes, the bugs, & the rats were all real in the 1st 3 films... I suppose it would have been tough to find the millions of real ants they would have needed though. Overall, there were many stand-out scenes like the sword fight, car chase through campus, the nuclear test site, the waterfalls, etc, & as Jean claimed, Marcus Brody was used to great effect. Stand out performances by Harrison Ford, Karen Allen, Jim Broadbent, & Kate Blanchett are all noteworthy. I was a little underwhelmed by Shia LeBeauf though. He's a lot better than Sean Patrick Flannery, but he's no River Phoenix. Overall, I'll definitely be seeing this one again soon. (As for the animal kissing the girl, apparently Nim is kissed by her friend, a seal.)
12 comments:
I can't wait for my turn to see Indy too- maybe I'll have to bring Aiden with me instead of you!! (j/k... breathe... we'll go this week...)
If anyone is interested, Nim's Island was really great. Very smart and funny. I give it two thumbs up.
And plus the bonus of Solstice knowing I'd give up Indy anytime for her. That's priceless.
Its got to be better than Temple of Doom. That was one of the worst movies ever made. Of course thats the one Lucas had the most creative control over.
Shia Lebouf is a total ass bag. I can't believe that little terd wormed his way into this film. Lucas probably convinced Spielberg to make Shia Indy's son. Too bad Lawrence Kasdan wasn't involved.
You are nuts! Temple is fantastic. What don't you like about it?
Well, as I said on jasonduerr.com, it is my belif that anytime the hero has a child sidekick (Short Round) it weakens the story significantly. i can understand a teenage or early 20's sidekick but a little kid seems ridiculous. Then there were all those other kids. These types of things only works when the kid has special powers like the force or something.
Plus, without interesting characters like Salah, and Marcus the movie really suffers. Short Round and Willie just aren't strong enough to be Indy's supporting cast. The villains were also a little ridiculous to me. Obviously, I'm in the minority here because I know many people love this movie. when I first saw this film I loved it too. It was geared toward kids though.
Raiders is much more geared toward adults and I think thats why I like it best now. Last Crusade was just a lot of fun to watch and with the great supporting cast back AND the addition of Sean Connery this film is STRONG!
To me, TOD is just kind of a worthless addition.
Well, at least you've thought it through. It's an interesting to suggest that it was geared towards kids because there are a lot of kids in it. Other than SR, they aren't really developed characters (more just in the back ground), and it was the one that forced the MPAA to create the PG 13 rating because they all felt it was too dark for the kids.
Other than that, I've always felt it gets the 30s serials exactly right.
See I never thought it was a dark movie. On the special edition dvd they (Spielberg and Lucas) go on about how dark it is. I just didn't see it that way.
So is the new one great or what?
where would you rank it? I haven't seen it yet.
Loving all 3 originals, I would put it a distant 4th, but it's definitely no Phantom Menace. It's by far the best adventure movie I've seen in quite a long time. Maybe the best since Last Crusade came out. It makes National Treasure, The Mummy, and Tomb Raider look like the junk they are.
I have a feeling I'll like it better than Temple of Shame. Karen Allen will put it over the top.
You have to view her character through the veil of 50s B movies though. She does a lot of screaming and "damsel in distress" stuff. It's right for the movie/genre, but I know a lot of people have been bothered by it.
Is Shia LeBouf supposed to be Karen Allen and Indy's kid?
If he is the son of Indy then this movie will be worse than Temple.
The name's "Etchasketchist". Some other guy is "The Etch-a-Sketch Artist".
Post a Comment