I liked it. Perhaps not as much as I wanted to, but that much enjoyment would have proably required at least one change in pants during hte film, so perhaps it's fo rhte best. It certainly fits in with the other three and Roger Ebert put it the best as to their order of quality:"All you can do is compare one to the other three. And even then, what will it get you? If you eat four pounds of sausage, how do you choose which pound tasted the best? Well, the first one, of course, and then there's a steady drop-off of interest. That's why no Indy adventure can match "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (1981). But if "Crystal Skull" (or "Temple of Doom" from 1984 or "Last Crusade" from, 1989) had come first in the series, who knows how much fresher it might have seemed? True, "Raiders of the Lost Ark" stands alone as an action masterpiece, but after that the series is compelled to be, in the words of Indiana himself, "same old same old." Yes, but that's what I want it to be."
So let's just say it was still some tasty sausage.
Quick breakdown of the problems I had with the flick (THAR BE SPOILERS BELOW MATEY):
And to leave on a high note, what I liked:
In-di-ana fuck-ing Jones
In-di-ana moth-er-fuck-ing Jones
In-di-ana fuck-ing Jones
Bite my ball-sack you Na-zis I’m In-di-ana fuck-ing Jones
1 comment:
I'm with you here. The first hour or so did a nice job putting Indy into the atomic age, and it was a little disappointing to see the story veer away from that direction.
But, hey, the action was kick-ass and Harrison Ford & Karen Allen were cool. What else do you really need in an Indiana Jones movie?
Old people rock!
Post a Comment