When this movie came out, I had been waiting anxiously for months in advance to see it, and I went to see it on release night. And I watched it, and liked it well enough, but I have not seen it since then.
But then I saw the Internet reviews and response, and I learned that I should not like it, so now I don’t. The same with J.J. Abrams Star Trek and Revenge of the Sith
Some people tell me that when you are so excited and anxiously waiting for a movie like that, you will like it no matter what it is. Does anyone else find this true?
How do i recognize bad movies?
Regardless of whether the new Trek is ok as a movie or not, it is different from classic Trek, and therefore I must dislike it. Same with Casino Royale
Casino Royale is much closer to the books than any of the previous Bond films had been. It’s my favorite one.
Try to look beyond the cool lightsaber fights and amazing effects. The prequel films lacked a soul, as did Kingdom. As someone upthread posted, remember that scene where Indy is in the map room? Film makers aren’t satisfied with quiet, subdued scenes like that anymore. They have to have armies of CGI ants and tumbles over waterfall after waterfall.
I’ve never heard anyone bash on Casino Royale and I’ve never heard anyone simplify the problem with Kingdom as being “it’s different than the original!”
It’s “the originals were awesome and this film isn’t awesome at all!” So if the difference you’re referring to is that the old ones didn’t suck ass, you’d be right.
You like what you like. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
That being said, there is a certain perspective to be gained from having studied film as a medium for storytelling that allows you to distinguish the derivative from the innovative. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was highly derivative, and frankly dull. It attempted to leverage the nostalgia for the franchise (and in particular Raiders of the Lost Ark) without bringing anything new to the table.
The recent Casino Royale is precisely the opposite. Not only did it distance itself from the “Bond formula” (to the point of actually lampooning some of the conventions of Bond films–notice how the first time he takes the Aston Martin out for a spin he ends up wrecking it, special gadgets notwithstanding, or the amount of real damage he suffers) but it was actually a very good story on its own merits, going in unpredictable directions despite being a thematically faithful rendition of the original subject matter. And the filmmakers knew and cared enough to harken back to cinematographic history; the cold open alternated between cinéma vérité (in the fight sequences) and German expressionism (the office sequence), demonstrating that the didn’t just know about Bond movies but about film history and the importance of style in telling the story. It was, frankly, a phenomenal film that was intricately constructed.
Star Trek was a little too self-consciously trying to distance itself from the existing franchise while being derivative of it (seriously, what was with the Spoke-Uhura romance?) but aside from some of its more absurd aspects (which appeared to be drawn straight from Galaxy Quest–did they really need the Salad Shooter scene?) it wasn’t a bad film, just a somewhat disappointing one that remained too close to convention to be genuinely interesting.
I’ll just echo Stranger, here, and say you aren’t “supposed” to like or dislike anything. Form your own opinions. If you like a movie that every single other person on the planet dislikes, that doesn’t make you wrong, it just means you’ve got a different perspective on it than anyone else. Which can be kind of cool, especially if you can learn how to articulate why you liked (or disliked) the movie.
I have to call bullshit on this, I’m afraid. Leaving aside the confusing issue of Thunderball, the early Connery films were actually pretty close to their inspiring novels. Dr. No, From Russia With Love and Goldfinger followed the plots and characters reasonably well. The new Casino Royale draws some elements from its novel, but throws in an awful lot of extra crap solely for eye-candy.
I don’t know. I thought Casino Royale was pretty close to the novel, except for having to change things for setting in it 2000s, and setting things up for the sequel at the end.
edit: I changed my mind. The first half of the movie was unnecessary, the part with the airplane and everything explaining why Le Chiffre needed the money. The main focus of the movie should have been the card game. So that part of the movie was closer to the book. Also, Poker just isn’t the type of game James Bond plays.
My friend said that he didn’t like the Poker part because it was boring but I was like dude you’re missing the point of the story.
Comparably, in stories where humans have access to intergalactic space travel (like in Star Wars), humanoids and aliens are typically more equal in regards to intellect and achievements.
Anyhow, Indy 4. It had its moments, though so did Indy 2 (if you excuse my crude short-hand). They both fail though. Indy 2 had the worst female characterization of all time, whereas Indy 4 felt uninspired and unsatisfying. Both dabble with made-up mythologies that feel out of place. My conclusion is that Indiana Jones is good when he’s after judeo-christian artifacts and fights nazis. You can’t redo the same story over and over though, so the original trilogy made a lot of sense in the way it was planned.
For me, the three things that stood out in Indy 4 were a. the campus scenes, which felt enjoyable and old school, b. the concept of Indy in South America, which I thought was cool even if it wasn’t handled well and c. John Hurt, who pretty much dominated every scene he was in even though he played a demented old flea bag of a man. He was awesome.
The original Indy films were, as you said, rooted in adventure serials from the 30’s and 40’s, a time the original films were set in. This film, set in the 1950’s, could have easily worked in the alien angle as a homage to the campy sci-fi films of that era. That would have been really cool, I think, if done right. Unfortunately, though, they blew it. The CGI was WAY WAY WAY overdone (the ending with the UFO stunk to high heaven) and irritated the hell out of me. But the killer of the whole film? The film killer, to me, was that this movie seemed like a parody of an Indiana Jones movie because it seemed like no one was taking it seriously. You know those parodies they used to do during the MTV Movie Awards? Where they have a film reimagined in a ridiculous way (The Brady Bunch cast doing scenes from Malcolm X, Shatner as the head in the box at the end of Seven)? That’s what this movie felt like. It felt as though no one in the cast or crew was taking it seriously, thus it came off feeling like someone trying to make an Indy movie and failing.
(First off, kudos for the capitalization and punctuation. Wasn’t so hard, was it?)
I don’t give a flying fuck what any 45-year-old-mama’s-basement-dweller says, Star Trek was pretty much the best, most fun, most enjoyable film I saw last year. And I say that as a fairly casual Trek fan, not as some shiftless Trekkie (that’s right, I said Trekkie; suck it, fanboys!).
I remember watching Raiders in the theater as a kid and being enthralled and not really caring what the object was that he was after, nor whether he got it or not. Instead I felt a real fascination watching this character go about his adventure. I think the reasons for this include a great story and fleshed out characters.
The Last Crusade also had this effect on me. The story was just plain fun to follow along with. I think this is kinda how I felt about Pulp Fiction when I first saw it, as well as greats like The African Queen.
Crystal Skull just felt forced, incoherent and dull. It’s also interesting to look back and see the movie in my mind’s eye as being muddy, gray and such. Was that due to the CGI? Yet the previous 3 had a glow and a realness that I guess you just can’t obtain via CGI (the Star Wars prequels also seem this way: dull and flat, picture wise).
Part of the reason it sucked is that it was so hackneyed, especially compared to the first film which was quite original. The first Indy was original you say? After all it was just a throwback to all the old adventure serials; it intended not to be original, it was an homage. Yes, this is true, but where the film departed from the typical adventure story is where it shone so brightly. There were a lot of biblical epics put to film, and there were a lot WWII films made, but there weren’t a lot of films in which the Almighty Himself puts the hurt on some Nazi shitheads. Watching Yahweh melt Nazi faces with holy burnination has a certain cultural significance. It is meaningful to our collective psyche, for reasons that are beyond obvious.
Meanwhile the alien thing had already been done to death by the time Crystal Skull was made. Those exact aliens with the exact same powers and the exact same motives had already appeared in hundreds of films and television shows. There was nothing exciting or new about it, no creative twist on an old and dry idea. And unlike the Ark vs. Nazi idea, the aliens angle holds no real cultural significance. There is no sense of irony or transcendent justice present in the conclusion of the final film. It is just banal and meaningless crap.
I’m a little concerned about the reliance on 5,000 year-old clockwork devices. There was a time when you could just shoot arrows at a guy or hit him with spears triggered by an ancient light sensor, or roll a boulder after him, but kids nowadays need some multi-gear gadgets that put on a whole show for you, spinning around and spitting out spiral staircases and whatnot.
i.e. the transition from practical special effects to CGI special effects isn’t helping.
And not to go on and on, but there is also a “moral” angle in the first film that makes sense where the final film collapses. In Raiders, the Nazis seek the Ark because they are on a quest for absolute power, a power they will use to dominate humanity. They find the (or a) source of absolute power, and instead of mastering it they are destroyed by it. This theme makes sense to us on both historical and moral levels. Historically we condemn the Nazi movement in part because it really was driven by lust for absolute power. Morally we recognize that to seek absolute power is folly, and to abuse power (as did the Nazis) is evil. So the end of the film both satisfies our moral beliefs and justifies our historical outlook. In other words it fits perfectly into our cultural belief system.
Crystal Skull tries, but it doesn’t make sense. What is the great sin in the film? The Soviets want the skull for psychological warfare I guess, but so would any government. At the end it seems the main antagonist’s great sin is a thirst for knowledge. But do we think of the Soviets as having an unholy thirst for knowledge in the same we think of Nazis and their thirst for power? Is it even a bad thing to want to know everything? The social and moral connections just aren’t there.
