Share DrMoviewatcher's profile
DrMoviewatcher
DrMoviewatcher's stats
- Review count1
- Helpfulness votes0
- First reviewJuly 14, 2008
- Last reviewJuly 14, 2008
- Featured reviews0
- Average rating3
DrMoviewatcher's Reviews
Overall rating
3
/
5
Indy's back, but not at his best.
PostedJuly 14, 2008
DrMoviewatcher
from Detroit, MI
Indy's back, he brought some old friends, and a few new ones.
What do people love about sequels? Bringing back characters from previous movies, adding in new interesting characters, and watching the main characters grow, while involved in some new kind of adventure. This has 3 of 4 of those elements. Shia LeBeouf and Karen Allen are the best parts of this film next to just seeing Harrison Ford in his hat & whip, again. The bad guys are predictable. The artifacts- hoaky. But what can we say? We love Indy. Even his over-the-hill self.
I thought Allen lacked some of the fire her character had in 'Raiders', but she was decent as the "former almost wife" turned current love interest. LeBeouf adds some '50's swagger, and has good chemistry with Ford. The real problem with the movie is the basic plot. The Ark of the Covenant, and the Holy Grail are difficult to compete with. Crystal skulls are just not up to par. Cate Blanchett is the sword-weilding, over-the-top bad guy. She was OK at her best moments, but limited by the character which was very 'done'. Much of the film was just piecing together; a fight scene, a digging something up scene, a chase scene, and a "how's he going to get out of this?" scene. It all felt too set up. I liked that they didn't try to fool us in to thinking he was the same age as the last movie, but that wasn't enough to save the plot. I felt that George Lucas just threw this plot together, and couldn't find a better reason to reunite the characters. "Making a sequel just to make a sequel" comes to mind. In the end it was the very least we could've expected and been somewhat happy with. After waiting for nearly twenty years, I thought we should've gotten more, though.
It will probably rank third of the four movies for most any Indy fan behind 'Last Crusade' & 'Raiders', but possibly ahead of "Temple of Doom".
What do people love about sequels? Bringing back characters from previous movies, adding in new interesting characters, and watching the main characters grow, while involved in some new kind of adventure. This has 3 of 4 of those elements. Shia LeBeouf and Karen Allen are the best parts of this film next to just seeing Harrison Ford in his hat & whip, again. The bad guys are predictable. The artifacts- hoaky. But what can we say? We love Indy. Even his over-the-hill self.
I thought Allen lacked some of the fire her character had in 'Raiders', but she was decent as the "former almost wife" turned current love interest. LeBeouf adds some '50's swagger, and has good chemistry with Ford. The real problem with the movie is the basic plot. The Ark of the Covenant, and the Holy Grail are difficult to compete with. Crystal skulls are just not up to par. Cate Blanchett is the sword-weilding, over-the-top bad guy. She was OK at her best moments, but limited by the character which was very 'done'. Much of the film was just piecing together; a fight scene, a digging something up scene, a chase scene, and a "how's he going to get out of this?" scene. It all felt too set up. I liked that they didn't try to fool us in to thinking he was the same age as the last movie, but that wasn't enough to save the plot. I felt that George Lucas just threw this plot together, and couldn't find a better reason to reunite the characters. "Making a sequel just to make a sequel" comes to mind. In the end it was the very least we could've expected and been somewhat happy with. After waiting for nearly twenty years, I thought we should've gotten more, though.
It will probably rank third of the four movies for most any Indy fan behind 'Last Crusade' & 'Raiders', but possibly ahead of "Temple of Doom".
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.