Alright, I'd been putting off making a review of this movie, but I guess I can't run from it forever. I think the biggest thing for me was the disappointment. Like I said before, any movie that is part of a trilogy, particularly a classic trilogy like Indiana Jones, you're going to have certain expectations. Going in, my expectations were that in order for everyone to sign off on this project, you'd need a pretty solid idea for a movie, something to really close out the series. Harrison Ford, Steven Spielberg, I mean, these guys wouldn't agree to make a movie that would tarnish the image of the first three, right? Haha... wrong.Julie (the aforementioned Scott's girlfriend) said it best when she said that George Lucas lost his mind. I won't go into too much detail for those readers who haven't seen it, but man, he really went off the deep end. In a conversation I had with her, we decided that George Lucas can make pretty solid trilogies. The problem lies in the years after the trilogies comes out, when he's sitting counting his money, and all of a sudden it comes to him: with such a huge fan base, it doesn't matter what he does to the franchises, it'll still attract viewers! For shame.
I've heard a lot of complaints about the computer graphics in this one. I'd say the biggest thing with this is that a large portion of the movie is clearly shot in front of a green screen, giving it an almost Sin City/300 type atmosphere. There is also a large number of computer generated animals, including gophers and monkeys. My favorite story to come out of this movie is that when the movie opens to a shot of a CG gopher, someone in one theater shouted "Goddamn you George Lucas!!" While I'll admit this movie has a ridiculous amount of CG in it, this is the 21st century, and it's becoming the norm. King Kong, The Return of the King, Transformers, and The Incredible Hulk all rely on CG to bring the story to life. And please.... there are bigger problems with this movie.
I.E. Shia Labeouf's character. The Fonz? Really? I get that it's the 50's, but that was ridiculous. To ruin the suspense, it turns out that he is Indy's son. This shouldn't come as a huge surprise, as he talks about Indy knowing his mother like the second scene that they're in together. They even showed Marion (as reprised by Karen Allen) in the movie trailer! There are other subtler hints as well, including that both Indy and "Mutt" are named after dogs. Both Shia Labeouf's character and Marion are useless, added for nostalgic purposes. Personally, I think the film would've been better without them, although Lucas would've had to find a new way to convey the importance of staying in school.
On the subject of characters, what was with the Russians? First of all, Cate Blanchett, what are you doing in this movie? I didn't buy your performance for a second. Second, I completely understand Scott's argument. When Indy was fighting the Nazis, it made sense, because the Nazis actually had party members looking into the supernatural. Nothing happened like that with the KGB. George Lucas just made it up.
That's the great thing about movies though, you can take certain creative licenses. Like when you want your main character to survive a nuclear blast by flying through the air in a refrigerator, you just need an establishing shot of the label showing that the refrigerator is made out of lead. There! Totally reasonable now!
Believability is the one thing that killed this movie for me. I mean, the nuclear blast was one thing, but when you actually watch this movie, (which I wouldn't recommend doing if you have to pay for it) lots of important plot events are really far fetched. Indiana Jones is meant to be kind of campy, especially in The Last Crusade, but this just took it a little too far. Had it not been an Indiana Jones movie, I might've enjoyed it a little more. But, like I said, I think the biggest thing for me was the disappointment.
