As the lights in the cinema dimmed I waited with baited breath; how will it begin? How will they incorporate the Paramount logo, what will be our first glimpse of Indy and what will he say? There it was, the Paramount logo and it turned into... a prairie dog mound of earth. Okkkaaaayyy. Then a CG prairie dog appeared and I knew we were in trouble.
It's interesting how the Judaeo-Christian artifacts, the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail, seemed to get the more 'serious' (for want of a better term) treatment out of the four Indy films. The Shankara Stones and the crystal skulls come across as more jokey and comic book-like, as if because they aren't 'real' (from a Western point of view) they get a less 'serious' narrative.
There were too many side kicks, too many dusty, dark temples and too many by-the-numbers action sequences. The narrative was all over the place and, like the later Star Wars films, the story was muddled and sometimes confusing.
The first three Indy films worked so well because they didn't use CG, the filmmakers had to actually go out and find real locations to do their stunts. I'm referring to the car/truck chase through the jungle and near the cliff edge in 'Skull' here. You could see it was all blue screen, CG and manipulation, and it suffered as a result.
However, the car/truck chase in the desert in 'Raiders' when Indy has the Ark onboard and is fending off the Nazis is spectacular because we know it was, for the most part, real. No studios or computer wizardry, just good old fashioned film-making.
Cate Blanchet was fun to watch in Russian Domme garb but it was pretty much a one note-character and soon grew tired.
On the plus side, Harrison looked great and really seemed to be enjoying being back in the hat. His performance was well worth the price of admission.
All up the film came across as a parody of Indy, a send up even. It felt like the whole concept had been dumbed down somewhat, the edges smoothed off and made cute and, unfortunately, corny.
I still love you all though. I was 10 when Raiders was released, I'm 37 now and will always adore Indy's adventures, past, present and hopefully future.
It's interesting how the Judaeo-Christian artifacts, the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail, seemed to get the more 'serious' (for want of a better term) treatment out of the four Indy films. The Shankara Stones and the crystal skulls come across as more jokey and comic book-like, as if because they aren't 'real' (from a Western point of view) they get a less 'serious' narrative.
There were too many side kicks, too many dusty, dark temples and too many by-the-numbers action sequences. The narrative was all over the place and, like the later Star Wars films, the story was muddled and sometimes confusing.
The first three Indy films worked so well because they didn't use CG, the filmmakers had to actually go out and find real locations to do their stunts. I'm referring to the car/truck chase through the jungle and near the cliff edge in 'Skull' here. You could see it was all blue screen, CG and manipulation, and it suffered as a result.
However, the car/truck chase in the desert in 'Raiders' when Indy has the Ark onboard and is fending off the Nazis is spectacular because we know it was, for the most part, real. No studios or computer wizardry, just good old fashioned film-making.
Cate Blanchet was fun to watch in Russian Domme garb but it was pretty much a one note-character and soon grew tired.
On the plus side, Harrison looked great and really seemed to be enjoying being back in the hat. His performance was well worth the price of admission.
All up the film came across as a parody of Indy, a send up even. It felt like the whole concept had been dumbed down somewhat, the edges smoothed off and made cute and, unfortunately, corny.
I still love you all though. I was 10 when Raiders was released, I'm 37 now and will always adore Indy's adventures, past, present and hopefully future.
Tell Your Friends