Indiana Jones and The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull

**FAN BOYS BE WARNED- HEREIN BE SPOILERS**

I left the screening of Indiana Jones and The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull and I tried to think of how I could best sum this film up in one word, and after a lot of deep thought the nominal word to describe this movie is 'Eeeehhhh'. It runs for over two hours and about half way through it really starts to feel like it.

The action sequences are great and the car chases are, well, fucking sweet frankly, but some of the dialogue is ropey at best and the story seems a complete departure for the franchise. Indiana Jones has always been about the adventurer namesake overcoming adversity in a quest to recover important artifacts, with just a tinge of the mythological or paranormal. Now its about aliens. Anyone remember how good the X-Files used to be until it came to be about UFOs every single week?

Its always amusing to revisit the fun times of McCarthy Era politics so I can't help but wonder how a top secret facility such as Hanger 51 (presumedly Area 51, since it's a secret base in the Nevada desert) could be so woefully undermanned that a Soviet strike force could waltz right in after dispatching a few intellectually challenged guards. Correct me if I am wrong but surely the defense of their most secret homeland facilities from Soviet insurgents was exactly why the US Government had their people shrouded in an atmosphere of paranoia and fear, could it really have been that easy to thwart the mighty US Military?

Some of the story mechanics were just dumb... ants forming an 'ant pyramid' in order to try and attack Kate Blanchett, half the cast going off 3 large waterfalls with nary a scratch nor broken limb to show for it, the Soviets apparently able to flawlessly track Dr Jones regardless of where in the world he happens to be and managing to maintain the secrecy of their sizable force no matter how remote an area the good doctor might be in. AND SCORPIONS DO NOT FUCKING ACT LIKE THAT ANY MORE THAN A SHREW DOES! Yes they look freaky as hell but I keep them as pets and I can say definitively that there is as much chance of scorpions randomly going for a creature TWENTY TIMES THEIR OWN SIZE as there is of me changing my name to Kareen and stalking the streets of Kettering in the hope of trading cheap tricks for heroin in order to satisfy my need for that daily dose of God's love pump.

I'm not even going to start on Indiana surviving a nuclear bomb by hiding in a lead lined fridge (I shit you not).

The cinematography is top notch, but then you would expect as much from Steven Spielberg, and as I say the action sequences/car chases are superb. But the general story is just weak bordering on the occasionally ludicrous, and I blame George Lucas entirely.

What annoys me the most is that I have read an interview with George Lucas and Steven Spielberg regarding this movie and they both openly admitted that the fans were going to hate it. Let me repeat that- George Lucas and Steven Spielberg KNEW that the fans would hate this movie. I find myself wondering why they decided to go ahead and make it rather than try to show their appreciation to the people who through devotion and lets not forget MONEY have kept this franchise alive all these years. Would it really have been so hard to write a story more in keeping with the fans' expectations? I'll give you one right now- Indiana Jones uncovers a gold plate engraved with Hebrew markings that lead to a lost temple along the borders of the Red Sea, the plate is a key that unlocks a hidden map room detailing the exact route to King Solomon's mines. Indiana is pursued by the Nazis (or the Soviets) for the valuable mineral wealth or some random mythical weapon of Solomon's.
There, I gave a potential storyline with less than five minutes of thought. Could it really have been that hard to give the fans what they wanted instead of ruining the franchise in the same way that he ruined Star Wars? There are times when I feel bad about insulting George Lucas, like when I hear about how he openly allows fan fiction and even provides materials for fan movies about the Star Wars universe. But then somehow it always comes back to the point where he says "Fuck the fans, this is my story and this is how it is. In the end they will still pay to see it."

Rating: F

Southland Tales

I browse the shelves of the local rental store looking for a film to waste a few hours on and come away with Southland Tales, a film I've never heard of before. Why?

Sarah Michelle Gellar - I've been wondering what she'd done since Cruel Intentions.
Dwayne Johnson - The Rock, he's amusing to watch even when its terrible. Maybe he'll punch a guy?
Sean William Scott - A third actor I've heard of, adding to the films credibility.
Directed by the Guy who did Donnie Darko - FUCKING SOLD

A few hours later I feel like I bought several magic beans that were not magic beans at all. Rather, they were regular beans bereft of any fantastical properties whatsoever. But thats not the whole story.

Speaking of story, this film has one... I think. Honestly its difficult to say given that between the impromptu musical performance by Justin Timberlake, religious overtones of suggesting The Rock is Jesus Christ 2.0 and the bizarre casting of John Lovitz as the most overtly evil character in the film its hard to focus on what the plot was. Actually thats a lie, I understood the plot perfectly once the last 15 minutes or so actually explained the preceding 2 hours of barely related gibberish, I just prefer to say I have no idea what was going on because I really don't like trying to comprehend pretentious over the top so-stupid-its clever satire bollocks because that would justify its use in other potentially annoying films.

To sum up everything I've said thus far, Southland Tales is a sorry mess of incoherence. It is an AWFUL film.

So why do I like it?

I'm not a huge fanboy for any of the actors, the plot is ludicrous at best, the CGI is shaky in places, the premise is dumb and so on and so forth. Honestly I could rant for hours about this film and its countless flaws.

Its simple, the film despite all the problems assosciated with it was still directed by the man who made Donnie Darko. The final scenes include a long stretching one-shot camera movement that contains no dialogue but great camerawork, perfectly chosen backing music and shows near every character in the film, telling you (without actually telling you) that shit is about to go down. Shortly after that there is a dance scene which reminded me of Darkos semi famous Sparkle Motion segment.

I confess to flicking through the DVD chapters again and again searching for my favourite parts from the film, despite the fact that as a whole its just a sorry mess. It has occasional flashes of brilliance that are ultimately wasted on a film that tries to say so much and instead blathers on to great extent about absolutely nothing at all.

If Southland Tales were simply terrible I could stop thinking about it, as it is... I worry that one day its going to be a cult classic.

Rating: D

American Gangster

I want to praise this movie, I really, really do want to give it a good rating. But realistically I wasn't blown away, perhaps it was built up too much for me or more likely I'm being harsh because I thought that the movie glossed over the actual gangster stuff a bit too often. Yes the limited scenes of violence on Denzel's part did help to intensify those scenes in which he was ultimately badass, but considering this is based on a real story I think that they could have portrayed his character a bit more realistically.

Please do not get me wrong, this is still a very enjoyable film and both Denzel and Crowe deliver powerful, believable performances and you will not be unsatisfied, I just thought that it wasn't enough.

(I also noticed that the World Trade Centre towers did not appear in a skyline shot which could potentially draw criticism but the movie is set over the period of the construction of the Twin Towers [author's own research] so this should be let slide).

Rating: C

Hitman

Actually not bad. Not great, but then great would be asking a lot from a video game translation. The main fault that I have with this film is that on several occasions some of the plot relevant factors of the characters undergo sudden and inexplicable changes, this doesn't really interfere with the flow of the film but does leave a certain 'where the hell did that come from' feeling. There are a few nice leans towards the game origins (such as 47 crashing through a window behind two kids actually playing Hitman), and as an action movie it does satisfy. It's certainly better than that POS 'The Transporter'.

Thankfully at no point does it mention 'genetic engineering' even though the dvd sleeve does, that term is a movie cliche that I would rather see die a quick and still agonizing death.

Rating: C

Rain Man

It isn't all that. Dustin Hoffman puts in a very believable performance which drives forward the plot of Tom Cruise being a complete arse for three quarters of the film before undergoing an instantaneous change of character to completely care for his brother. You can watch and enjoy Rain Man but don't expect any life changing moments.

Rating: C

In Bruges

Very quotable with a good mixture of comedy and some genuinely emotional moments, Colin Farrell impresses. The story itself is excellently told, with a few interesting plot twists and quality score, being well paced and actually establishing the setting of Bruges are also good points. I enjoyed it, as did Vastian who insisted that I write this now rather than take my time to think out a proper review (he can be so whiney), I'll probably improve upon this at a later date.


Rating: B

Stardust

I really enjoyed Stardust and it made me, an eternal cynic, feel good about myself and even a bit of the outside world for a while. The story is great and the cinematography is faultless, so I'm giving it 5 out of 5. If anyone disagrees with me you may feel free to do so, but then you are reading this for my opinion and not your own so 'ha'.

Rating: A