Boldly Audacious...or Absolutely Preposterous?

Posted by Prince Gomolvilas
ON Sunday, May 25, 2008
How about both?

The first three Indiana Jones movies had their fair share of supernatural craziness—ghosts in an ark, melting faces, magical glowing stones, hearts beating after being ripped out of chest cavities, a healing holy grail, and a 700-year-old knight. Nineteen years later, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull could've peddled your average, expected number of unearthly delights and dangers, but Spielberg, Lucas, and crew decided to push everything to mind-blowing (and head-scratching?) extremes. Yes, much of the new movie is absolutely preposterous—from the preposterous secrets behind the crystal skull to the preposterous action sequences to Cate Blanchett's preposterous accent—but after all this time would it really be prudent to deliver just another Indiana Jones movie? The moviemaking team have merged genres here, namely action/adventure with...



...launching the franchise into the stratosphere and sparking the most heated love-it-or-hate-it debate since, oh, I don't know, choose an analogy here, how about..."since Hillary Clinton."

If you look at my list of my favorite movies in my profile, you'll notice that I haven't changed "The Indiana Jones Trilogy" into "The Indiana Jones Tetralogy." That is to say, the new film didn't change my life and it's probably not going to change yours. But it's loads of fun if you're willing to check your sense of sanity in at the door.
Thanks for visiting Bamboo Nation! Want to stay connected? Subscribe to this blog via RSS or e-mail. Or join my private e-mail list for event alerts. Or do both of those things. Because if you do, you win the Internet!



  1. jeff Said,

    You're being too kind. The thing lacking here was a narrative thread linking all of the events, contextualizing them, and involving you in the story. I just felt like I was watching it all, and not engaged in any of it.

    They keep saying it took 19 years because they couldn't find a script they were all happy with... which makes me wonder, how bad were the scripts they didn't use?


  2. Quin Browne Said,

    my take:

    "say, george, we've got all these left over things from, oh, star wars and et and close encounters...why don't we use up the left over plot lines from them, and toss it in with natasha badnoff from rocky and bullwinkle, and call it "indiana jones"

    "wow, steve, good idea"

    "we can toss in tarzan and then, well, frank oz is busy...but, a few yoda lines will do. i like this one..."they live in the spaces between spaces"

    "fuck, steve... that rocks. jesus, we can even have him fly though...get this.. the air in a fucking lead lined ice box!! toss in a flash of the 'ark'... call the kid, wait..mutt!! tie in the dog name thing!! pass the bong"


    i mean, really, fmd.

    i rank them 1,3,4 and far in the back, 2.


  3. FeO Said,

    they shoulda called it "indiana jones and the big let down". aliens? seriously? that was shitty.


  4. Alan Goy Said,

    So wait, Temple of Doom was on your favorite movie list? (He shakes his head in disappointment) I mean, I think that movie's underrated, but it's still a steaming pile compared to 1 and 3. Skull was waaaay better than Doom. It's still flawed and not on the same level as 1 or 3, but it's ludicrously fun. I love that it went where it went. After all, are inter-dimensional beings any more far fetched than fragments of stone tablets written on by God?


  5. Cheryl Said,

    I'm not even an Indiana Jones fan, but I thought Crystal Skull was really fun--at times genuinely innovative and sometimes unintentionally hilarious. I thought the skull itself looked like a vending machine prize and I think George Lucas is a big geeky fanboy, but those things are all part of the good-natured fun of the movie.


Blog Archive by Topic

Blog Archive by Date