Weekend Forecast: 5/23/08
By Craig Kennedy - May 22nd, 2008; 12:01 am
That silhouette looks awfully familiar
First up, a wide release so big, there’s only room for one:
- Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Word on the street is that there’s a new Indiana Jones movie. This is the first I’ve heard of it so I’ll do a little surfing around on the Internets and see if I can find any information on it for you…
Here’s your hard core limited release action - now with new lemon fresh scent:
- Postal. Uwe Boll’s latest video game cum cinematic masterpiece was supposed to open wide this weekend, but the studio trimmed it back a little bit…to 4 screens. Uwe would like you to believe the studios were motivated by political correctness, but most likely the studio decided the movie wasn’t worth the extra print costs. It’s possible they got cold feet over the controversy the film is intended to stir up, but then why would they have made it in the first place? Surely they knew what they were getting. What’s the movie about? I don’t know. Dave Foley is in it though.
- War, Inc. John Cusack’s satire got fairly well clobbered by critics when it showed itself at the 2008 Tribeca Film Festival (it was already playing in a few Toronto theaters for some reason). Cusack plays a hitman hired by former vice president Dan Aykroyd to kill the oil minister of the fictional Middle Eastern country of Turaqistan. Hillary Duff plays a spoiled Turaqistani pop star. We need a smart, dark, bitter, in-the-moment satire ala Dr. Strangelove right now, but if the critics are to be believed, this isn’t it. That’s too bad.
- The Children of the Huang Shi. This is Roger Spottiswoode’s tale of an English writer (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) who arrives at an orphanage in Shanghai just before the Japanese invade. Also with Radha Mitchell, Michelle Yeoh and Chow Yun Fat.
- The Edge of Heaven. From Fatih Akin (German born of Turkish parentage) comes this story of a father and son who move in with a woman who prostitutes herself in order to put her daughter through college. It’s a comedy. Just kidding.
- Refusenik. Documentary about Soviet Jews who were kept from emigrating to Israel before the fall of the Iron Curtain.
- Heavy Metal in Baghdad. Documentary about Iraqi heavy metal band Acrassicauda.
At long last LA:
- The Cool School. If anyone would care to offer an explanation as to why a documentary about an important ’50s LA art movement would open in NY and SF in March, but not in LA until now, I’d love to hear it.
- Surfwise. This documentary about the surfing family opened in NY on 5/9.
- Tuya’s Marriage. Opened in NY on 4/4. The story of a Mongolian woman whose husband is an invalid. When she herself is disabled, she must divorce her husband so she can find a new one to take care of them both.
Filed under: Miscellaneous
Related Posts: - Weekend Forecast: 4/27/07
- Where Are the Wild Things?
- The Watercooler: 6/16/08
- Weekend Forecast: 3/7/08
- Apparently, There Can Be More Than One
I’ve already booked my tickets. Quarter to ten tonight, me and 7 of my bestest friends, some beer: even if the movie is meh, I’m pretty confident I’ll have a good time!
Seems like most of the fanboys who reside in their cellars analyzing and picking apart trailers for weeks and weeks on end either hate it or are lukewarm. Now, I understand that they were probably the first ones to loathe The Phantom Menace because… Well, they being the “fanboys,” were among the very first to see it, just like this one. But judging by some of the criticisms–too over-the-top, nobody ever gets seriously hurt, the villain never scares you to death, the humor is corny and juvenile–I wonder what movies they’ve been watching over and over.
Oh well, I’ve managed to avoid much in the way of spoilers. Only eight hours to go. Better go to sleep.
(I’m actually amused by the “fanboys” I’ve just derided, if admittedly just a little perplexed by them. Keep on showing the world how much you still love the movies of your youth while being continuously sufficiently snarky to illustrate just how much you’ve “grown up,” please, be my guest. It’s certainly an aspect of maturing.)
Oh, and Craig, that “It’s a comedy. Just kidding.” made my eyes squint in disbelief, and then made my head turn and do something of a jarring instant faux double take and then I grinned and chuckled for two seconds. This is one of your best Weekend Forecasts, to be sure. (I also need to see Fatih Akin’s films, as I haven’t seen any yet.)
I am seeing “Indy” in about an hours time.
This weekend I am seeing “Be Kind Rewind,” and then there is the Africa on Screen film festival, and I have just received my press pack for a documentary film festival to be held in June, so I have DVDs of the films to be screened then to watch, including “Joy Division.”
I still want to see “Forbidden Kingdom” sometime this weekend as well.
I always complain that I have so little to watch, and now I fear I have too much.
Oooh, I’m very curious what you’ll think about Be Kind. I don’t think anyone was as enthusiastic as me…
Always interesting to see what the studios choose to release when a massive blockbuster is opening. Man, you’d think it was February by that slate of releases below Indy, not to say that those smaller films are horrible, just that the bigger studio films look awful.
I’m shunning Indy this weekend. We’ll probably rewatch Temple of Doom at some point, then get to Last Crusade. I might go see Indy 4 next weekend or even the week after, but I have a long history of bad audience karma when it comes to these blockbuster movie openings so I’d prefer to take my chances when I don’t have to stand in line for an hour and fight for a ticket.
Alexander, it’s probably a moot point but Harry Knowles gave Indy 4 a glowing review. I only read the first few lines but like 97% of his reviews, he absolutely loved it. Course, that’s about as revealing and news-worthy as saying non-lactose intolerant children generally love ice cream.
I wish all of you Indy 4 viewers good luck.
Hey Craig, are you still running the Watercooler on Monday, considering it’s Memorial Day weekend for your ‘Merican readership?
I will be seeing INDIANA at 4:00 P.M. this afternoon (E.S.T.) with my excited brood. I have tickets to see REPRISE on Saturday in a local theatre, and I must say I am REALLY enthusiastic about this one…the reviews (including Craig’s of course) have been largely spectacular. I also will see MY FATHER MY LORD (Israeli) over the holiday weekend, and perhaps something else.
Joel: I would probably shun it too (like you) but I have been overules! I have no choice……………LOL!!!!!
Yes, Sam, luckily I don’t have children to consider. They would clearly come first if I did. Good luck to you.
Hedwig, I’m guessing you’re in for a good time no matter what. As for Be Kind, I liked it, but yeah I think not quite as enthusiastically as you.
Alexander. My theory is that most fanboys were probably in their teens when the last Indy came out and they’re expecting the new one to recapture that same magic…but they’re into their 30s now in many cases. Some of them, against all odds, have even managed to find real jobs and mate. They’re adults and it’s harder to be amazed in the same was as when you’re 15. I think a similar fate befell the Star Wars prequels. They weren’t as bad as advertised, but they failed at making us feel the way we did when we saw the originals as kids.
And this ties into Joel’s comment about Harry’s review: for all intents and purposes, the guy is still 15 years old. I don’t even mean that as a criticism. We could all use a little of that attitude, but yeah, it doesn’t make his opinions exactly trustworthy.
As for memorial day, I hadn’t thought about it. I’ll probably run it on Monday but I won’t put it up at 12:01am like normal. Later on in the day perhaps, but we’ll see.
Sam if I can find good available seats at the reserved seat theater in the next couple of days, I’ll catch Indy for sure. I hope you enjoy Reprise. I’m way behind on my full reviews, but that one should be high on my list.
I guess just see the Watercooler as my kickoff to the work week, but really, why penalize anyone just because us ‘Mericans are suppposed to be out consuming and vacationing on Monday?
As for Harry, I give that guy a lot of guff but I do respect his unbridled enthusiasm for all things filmic. I sometimes wish I could check my cynicism at the door and enjoy movies the way I did when I was 13 again too. But then I remember how shallow I was at 13 and I’m glad I grew up.
Aha, Joel, ah, yes, as you say… If only someone could ever take any comfort in Knowles giving out a favorable review.
70 minutes from showtime…
Craig, I like your analysis a great deal regarding fanboys. That said, as much as I enjoy the original Star Wars trilogy, it isn’t completely integral to my personal universe like it is with some, and I still picked hte prequels apart. As one fanboy over at CHUD said in their endless post-release thread about Indy, Lucas had a pretty great story to tell and he blew it.
I think having the perspective I do, which is Raiders being naturally sort of sacrosanct, and the sequels being fun but much lesser movies, will help. Some have the whole trilogy on such a pedestal that they’re setting themselves up for a colossal disappointment.
I’m hoping the crowd is really into this thing. Also, I’m looking forward to The Curious Case of Benjamin Button trailer, which is supposedly attached.
Thanks so much, Joel.
And Craig, I really look forward to your review on REPRISE!!!!
I’m going to the 6:00 PM show. Please don’t be an insane crowd…
It’s not looking like it’s going to happen for me, but I really wanted to get to Raiders: The Adaptation this weekend. I didn’t realize it was in such high demand. There are only 3 copies or something.
After the holiday weekend I’ll do Reprise next week, thanks to the positive buzz here, which I trust. If BrotherOnlyChild is still around I might try to double feature it.
I saw The Edge of Heaven at the MSPIFF here last month. It’s imperfect but intriguing. Required viewing for Fatih Akin fans, or anyone interested in German-Turkish relations.
Well, I’m planning to see Indy 4 this weekend. As I was with Iron Man, I’m very excited for it but I’m going in with low expectations. I expect pure adventure fun with no earth-shattering plotline or anything. Like Alexander points out, no sequel or prequel will ever top or even come close to the original Raiders. That was the perfect adventure movie and every element about it was right. Also, the age I was and the timing in my life, what was going on, etc. contributed to how much I enjoyed that film, too, an experience which won’t be replicated.
I’m also going to try to catch up with The Visitor if I can, since I still never saw it.
I got to see Indy Wednesday morning and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I thought it was true enough to the original three and it was a ton of fun. There’s a car chase scene in the jungle that’s flat out awesome.
And now that my parents are gone and I’ve seen Indy, I can catch up on my blog that has been pretty neglected. It seems like when there are things to talk about, you’re too busy doing them but when you have all the time in the world to write posts, there’s nothing to write about.
Nick, I’ll be interested to see what you think of Be Kind Rewind. I really liked it but it was much different that I thought it would be. I expected it to be gut busting but it was much less of a comedy than I expected.
“I’m very excited for it but I’m going in with low expectations.”
I’m trying to do just that and I’m finding it extremely difficult. I haven’t even seen a trailer for this bad boy and I’ve tried to stay blacked out of it, but I can’t avoid the RT numbers and little words here and there that have been creeping up in the headlines over the last 2 weeks.
So if I expect it to suck, and it does, then my avoidance measures have been in vain and we’re all left with the biggest disappointment of the year.
If I expect it to be great, and it is, then why such a lukewarm reception?
If I expect it to be great, and it sucks, then we’re back to the first one - Alexander’s “colossal disappointment.”
What’s left - I expect it suck, and it’s great. What are the chances of that happening?
Although I have no interest in Indy 4 it’s really great to see so much excited anticipation here. Expectations seem suitably qualified, and my guess is that the film will accordingly deliver.
sartre, you’re too mature. Come on, where’s the kid in you?
The kid in me responds to Raiders, but not Doom or Crusade :-)
Fair enough. But you know I like to kid with you.
I like to kid with you too :-)
Sartre, just admit it. You’re dead inside. A joyless drone. A veritable pod person. It’s ok, you’re among friends.
Nick, I hope you liked Forbidden Kingdom as I did. I think I’m the only one, though.
You’re in a tough spot Daniel. Expectations are a bitch no matter how much you try to manage them.
Justin “It seems like when there are things to talk about, you’re too busy doing them but when you have all the time in the world to write posts, there’s nothing to write about.” Amen brother. Glad you liked Indy too.
Alison I hope you like The Visitor. Another one of a handful of good movies I’ve seen in the last couple of months but never wrote a proper review. I wasn’t as high on it as some people, but it was still good.
I literally have no idea what I’m going to catch this weekend. Perhaps some previous releases. Perhaps I’ll catch up on reviews now that the weather has cooled off again.
As for the Memorial Day question Joel, I expect traffic will be pretty light as it usually is on Saturday and Sunday, so even if I toss it up on Monday, it probably won’t be interesting until people come back to their computers on Tuesday. Plus, I like to believe the Watercooler never really dies, all it takes is a new comment to keep it going.
That explains why I always applaud the happy ending of Kaufman’s Invasion of the Body Snatchers :-).
Now if you can come up with an explanation why I cheer at the end of Dr. Strangelove….
Strangelove made the embrace of oblivion fun. And at least it didn’t end with a whimper.
Indiana Jones people, is very, very enjoyable.
Are you cheering the end of the world, or a fantastically well-made movie? (Or both?)
Maybe it’s because even at the end of the world, we’ll meet again, don’t know where, don’t know when, but I know we’ll meet again, some sunny day.
And sartre, I know what you mean. Not to SPOIL it for anyone, but that scene where Sutherland and Veronica Cartwright are finally reunited really puts a smile on your face, doesn’t it?
“Indy 4″ isn’t perfect, but it’s still a lot of fun. I don’t think it is on the level of the originals (including “Temple of Doom”), but it’s a highly entertaining trip down memory lane. A little over calculated perhaps, but definitely worth the ride.
Ditto Matt. Dit-the fuck-to.
Excuse my Russian.
Do what to the fucko? :-P
Sartre, you need to get that little heart of yours to grow. I just know you were the guy in the East Bay back at Christmas who stole presents from that homeless shelter! :-)
Dr. Strangelove should be applauded. Just because the world blows up doesn’t mean you should feel guilty about it.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button trailer–too short to get much of a sense of anything, while also being paradoxically too liberal in what it shows. I hate to say it but I felt like it was, in a matter of seconds, showing the whole film. Then again, it’s not a big deal for me as (a) I’ve read F. Scott Fitzgerald’s story and I love it and (b) I’ll still see it anyway. It received a very confused, angered response from the audience that could essentially be summed up as “Ehh? Whaa? Get outta here!” Oh well.
My no-nonsense, informal and pre-CCC blog review take on Indy 4: Fascinating, somewhat free-wheeling (as in, doing things to keep his own interest and amusement buoyed despite the rigors of commercial “pacing”) and sometimes puissant Spielbergian extension of his past looks at the qualities and deficiencies of familial memory.
I’m going to write a review for my blog sometime in the next 48 hours or so.
Moderate spoilers regarding the mechanics of the film:
Ray Winstone’s character is a real mess and his motivations are quite underdeveloped, including his bizarre final decision. As it is, I wish he had been given just one more scene so as to make his character important enough to actually wonder about. John Hurt is more or less wasted. If he just wanted to be in a Spielberg film, which was evidently his main objective, then okay, but he doesn’t get to do much besides act weird and crazy.
David Koepp needs superb source material like H.G. Wells’ The War of the Worlds to craft a solid screenplay. Otherwise, his scripts are very clunky. The one-liners mostly fall flat here. Koepp’s not nearly as clever a writer as he thinks he is. He’s better at melodrama (War of the Worlds).
Still, a lot of fun despite the flaws. The extended chase through the jungle is actually my least favorite action sequence. Too much CGI, too much Shia doing all the heavy lifting and too many little (what I suspect are) Lucas touches (he really does seem to have a Tarzan fetish as others online have noted). It gets good when the chase ends and Indy and that big Russian jerk duke it out. I know many don’t like them but I dug the ants… digging the ground… and such…
Harrison Ford does a lot of really strong and subtle work here. It’s his best performance in I don’t know how long. Spielberg seems to have a direct connection into Ford’s soul. The small pleasures are especially rich, and I suspect they’re primarily cases of Spielberg and Ford defying or modifying what’s on the page.
Kaminski’s cinematography isn’t spot-on exactly like Slocombe’s, but it’s close enough for the most part and the things he adds are almost all fine by me.
A lot of fun, but I ultimately think it’s Spielberg’s most minor work in over a decade. Which, to me, means it’s still worth seeing twice in the cinema and will probably land in the lower rungs of my Top Ten of the Year. It isn’t the solid, well-oiled formula of Iron Man; it’s Spielberg using the serial milieu (in this case, more of a ’50s sci-fi adventure) in order to continue probing certain thematic interests, which, again, I think is most emphatically his (at least) over-two-decade long dissection of the meaning of family contextualized by memory, which previously reached its apotheosis with Munich.
“Sartre, you need to get that little heart of yours to grow. I just know you were the guy in the East Bay back at Christmas who stole presents from that homeless shelter! :-)”
All I can say is sometimes it’s a hard world for little things.
Joel, I didn’t smile. Despite applauding I maintained an expressionless gaze.
Does everyone remember Belloq’s little speech to Dr. Jones when he persuades him not to destroy the ark? “This is history,” and all that. Watch the new film and tell me, which of these characters could possibly deliver a speech like that, or where it would be delivered, or what it would be about. That’s the edge that’s missing in this thing. It’s product, nothing more.
K.Bowen, you are right. Had they given a moment to Blanchett, you’d have a reason to put her in the film. She was as interesting as Jeremy Irons as Hans Gruber’s brother/cousin.
Alexander, I’m with you on Ford — his best performance in years and Spielberg knows how to get it out of him. He’s the best thing in the film.
But. But. But.
Major disappointment. I’ll get round to why later, but for me, Kaminski is my least favorite cinematographer around and he destroyed the look of this film. There’s not a shot that doesn’t look fake or blinding milky white. It’s truly ugly. The CG is the worst Spielberg’s ever used and I can’t believe how much of it was overused. One word: Tarzan.
The film really lacks the gritty violence of the first two and suffers. There’s no weight, no concern, no reason. I felt like I was watching a remake of THE MUMMY.
INDY!
What is it about Lucas that everything he touches in terms of CGI looks like crap, whereas when Spielberg’s on his own, the results of practical effects and CGI are absolutely breathtaking? A.I., Minority Report and War of the Worlds are all simply nothing less than spectacular in this regard alone.
I dig Kaminski… C’mon, Christian, the “blinding milky white” sounds like Jeff Wells is posting here. :) Seriously, I thought he did a decent job of aping Slocombe when it was a simple lighting scene, not the overexposed, blue-screen stuff. The scene at the graveyard and below, for instance.
Also, I finally got the Ray Winstone arc: Lucas wanted to have a mini version of Anakin Skywalker. He starts out good! But he becomes bad! But then he’s good again! But, wait, he’s kind of bad. No, he’s really a nice guy… Uh…
I won’t budge on Kaminski. He was my biggest fear about the film and he fulfilled it. The final scene at the end made the audience laugh because of the blinding white. Seriously. There was nothing of Slocombe that I could see even being mimiced. The graveyard looked fine, but the CGI was just too much. I can hear Lucas whispering “CG vines, Stevie. CG monkeys. Think of the budget.”
I have to say I’m at one with Wells on Kaminski. I wish Spielberg would have used Dean Cundey.
And you’re right about Winstone.
I”m with Christan on Kaminski. I don’t think everything he has done is bad, but this film looks out of step with the rest of the series. And his last couple of films, this and Diving Bell, haven’t looked good.
But that’s nothing compared to the script. Not one memorable new character. No wit to the dialogue. No depth to the story. The film isn’t a disaster, but the script is.
Understandable about Kaminski, Christian. He’s probably the biggest love-it-or-hate-it element of the Spielberg package.
Lucas is a bad influence on anyone, including himself.
Speaking of which, The Clone Wars animated movie trailer made one guy yell, “YEAH!” Reminded me of Yoda waltzing out to fight Christopher Lee at the climax of Attack of the Clones. Dead silence except for, possibly the same guy yelling “YEAH!”
Moderate applause at the end of Indy. Some people seemed to love it, others seemed a little indifferent. The diehards were numerous, though, as a sizable slice of the audience stayed for entire credits.
If you’re going to be one with Wells on Kaminski, I’ve got to say I’m one with Poland on the Mac/Winstone role. He’s really the biggest basic screenwriting 101 failure of the film.
Cate Blanchett was all right, and even though I agree that a Belloqian speech of that type would have been appreciated, her Irina Spalko did emit a certain hubristic vibe similar to Belloq’s main fatal flaw. There were a couple of scenes between Irina and Indy that almost seemed to give off the vague idea that they were a suitable match, in an alternate world. Again, though, the screenplay admittedly doesn’t travel on that potential avenue particularly far.
And now I’m off to go see The Naked Jungle with Charlton Heston in honor of the giant red ants.
At least Brett Ratner has found his true calling: ad-whore:
“Brett Ratner is getting into the branded entertainment biz, launching Brett Ratner Brands as a consultancy to infuse a dose of pop culture into clients’ marketing campaigns.
Venture’s first work bowed during Fox’s “American Idol” finale Wednesday: two spots for Activision’s hit game franchise “Guitar Hero” featuring the season’s two remaining singers playing out an iconic scene from “Risky Business.”"
“I’ve got to say I’m one with Poland on the Mac/Winstone role. He’s really the biggest basic screenwriting 101 failure of the film.”
Oh, preach it.
“Jonesy!”
There’s a drinking game in that somewhere.
Yup, take a sip everytime Mac (seems to) switch allegiances.
Anyway, I pretty much agree with everything above. I had a blast with the first half, somewhat less with the second. I loved parts of the chase scene… but I’m afraid I’ll have to agree about the Tarzan bit. I wanted to like it, but the CGI’s just waaay too bad…or slightly too good. And the ending…the supernatural conclusion is one of the Indy tropes, but it was never my favorite and this one just didn’t sit right with me.
I’m spoiling the post I’m about to write on my blog here ;-)
As for the climax, I’ve never watched such spectacle with such utter disinterest.
I liked it just fine. There’s really no reason for the movie to exist (nobody but losers were actually ‘waiting 19 years’ for it) but it works just fine for what it is: an extended epilogue. The first section was definitely stronger than the second section. No complaints from me about one of the five or so best cinematographers working today doing what he does; remember, this is a movie populated primarily by actors over the age of 50.
Agreed Jeff, totally agree.
Very interesting to read you guys hashing this one out. I didn’t read any of the Cannes reviews, so this is my first exposure to people’s responses.
I’m sensing widespread disappointment, to moderate enjoyment.
I think I share Jeff’s attitude about it going in, there’s really no great reason for the film to exist at all, I certainly wasn’t pining for another Indy, but now it’s here and hopefully it brings a little fun.
I have to admit it kills me a little bit to know that this thing which doesn’t sound at all original is going to make more money in 5 minutes than Speed Racer will ever make. Say what you want about Speed, I felt at least the Wachowskis were taking chances and trying to show us something we hadn’t seen before. How often do we get that spirit in a summer movie anymore and how were they rewarded for their troubles?
Like you, Craig, I wasn’t asking for Indy 4 (in fact, for the longest time I wished Spielberg would just punch Lucas as hard as he can in the arm and run away from him) but I got it and I enjoyed it. It has numerous definable flaws like the two previous sequels. I hate to say it but you do feel as though you tasted a spoonful of what made the prequels so frustrating, casting excellent actors (in this case Ray Winstone and John Hurt) without much reason for doing so.
However, it made me smile and laugh more than any recent film I can think of. Spielberg seemed to have a blast with the first 75, maybe 80 minutes, and then he seemed to ease off the creative accelerator and just let the film wind down to its conclusion.
It’s actually apt that Dr. Strangelove came up in this thread. A few lines from my still-gestating blog review:
Amidst all the silliness, Spielberg unfurls a substantial amount of subversiveness. The imagery of the picture perfect American suburbia of the 1950s being a phony, plastic place that is burned and melted down, and quickly blown to pieces, to be replaced with a foreboding mushroom cloud features a good deal of icy satire married to deeply unsettling simulacrum.
I look forward to your full review Alexander, but it’ll have to wait until I see the thing. I almost went to a 10 o’clock show last night, but chose not to.
Also, I should count myself among the Kaminski fans. The milky white doesn’t bother me and I thought Diving Bell was especially fantastic. On the other hand, I can see where his style doesn’t jibe with the Indy I know and love and it won’t surprise me if he misses the mark.
We’ll see.
No problem, Craig, especially since I’m just barely getting anywhere with the review… Probably won’t post it until sometime in the weekend proper.
Looking forward to your take on Kaminski. Intriguing how Christian and Jeff/I can have such different takes on his cinematography for Crystal Skull.
The script is indeed the real disaster here. And Lucas will probably take the blame for his dumb ideas are all over this. It’s just a waste considering it would not have been too hard to come up with better everything to go around. Even the ADR is awful and obtrusive. And John Williams score is almost disposable.
Why is Kamisnki considered so great? His lighting? I guess you have to like his style. I’ve disliked Spielberg’s past few movies because of the way they were shot. CATCH ME IF YOU CAN being a prime example of Kaminski not belonging. That film cried for crisp clear 60’s Panavision, instead we get…that white light. Around everything. In INDY, I didn’t know where the fake CG backgrounds ended and the milky halos over everything started.
There’s so much bad stuff in the film. And it’s typical of what’s wrong with Hollywood today, or in general.
But Ford is great. I miss Short Round.
I enjoyed Kaminski’s cinematography a bit - especially in the films first half hour or so, it was almost breathtaking, but then it settled into conventionality - which isn’t a bad thing, I think.
I’m not photographically minded, I just know when I like certain looks and I like Kaminski’s look. Even in Catch Me.
I do, too.
I admired his work on Butterfly and elsewhere. But sometimes I don’t find it aesthetically pleasing or sufficiently in service of the story. This can be a problem with a cinematographic style that draws attention to itself. That said I admire his daring and ambition even when it feels intrusive at times.
That’s the thing about Butterfly. I thought it served the story very well, regardless of how I felt about it aesthetically. Private Ryan, Minority Report, War of the Worlds Munich, AI and others I liked from an aesthetic standpoint, though I admit I grow weary of the coldness.
I think it’s incorrect to call this movie ‘typical of what’s wrong with Hollywood today’ since there’s so much in it that no standard Hollywood hack would ever put into their movie, not to mention how well-crafted it all is.
I can see how Kaminski’s look might be annoying to some, since it’s a very strong, noticeable way to do things, but I personally have no problem with it. Blaming him for not ‘doing Slocombe’, which is really no look at all, is negligible for me.
The overuse of CGI in this film to replace stageable reality is what’s wrong with Hollywood today.
And cutting to reaction shots of gophers.
Have to admit, I liked the first gopher but from then on it kind of screamed Lucas.
Kaminski is both an extension of the standard Spielberg light show, with shafts of “God light” and strong backlighting, and a modification and/or “grounding” of it, with dark, cool colors utilized arguably at the expense of the full color palette.
That said, I thought his contributions with Indy 4 were fine. I like Dean Cundey and I think he could have possibly made the jungle look more vibrant, but then Lucas wanted to blue-screen the chase sequence so…
Yeah, for everything that didn’t work I blame Lucas. Predictable. But probably true. The fact that he micro-managed the Adventurous Search for the Perfect Indy Screenplay and this was it… Well, in that respect it is disappointing. It’s a case where reading all this stuff from the Internet sours the experience a bit whereas if you just assumed they put the screenplay together in a matter of weeks you’d feel better. Hope that makes some sense.
In the age where American Airlines charges $15 for a bag, Indy is more than worth the money, though.
There are certainly much worse things with Hollywood today. Dredging up decades-old franchises for no particular reason is one.
Can you honestly say the CGI in this movie is somehow more objectionable than the various matte paintings and process shots of the original trilogy? I think that’s the Luddite talking.
That’s true. The matte paintings and process shots in the original trilogy are very glaring. Perhaps particularly Last Crusade, probably because the “B” team who did Howard the Duck did that one.
When I think of RAIDERS, I don’t think of the matte paintings. Because they work. And they’re barely there. If CG is simply going to mimic the flaws of process shots, what’s the point?
Imagine the RAIDERS truck chase done in front of a blue-screen and you get an entirely different — and worse — action scene. 19 years later and all that modern technology has given us is an even phonier green-screen that will look like a 50-’s process shots in less than five years. I am a Luddite when it comes to the CG miasma drowning film. Spielberg knows how to use it perfect as in AI and WOTW. Here, he let the worst impulses of Lucas take over.
I think that Spielberg can be forgiven for not topping the greatest car chase in the history of film.
I always suspected Lucas was Darth Vader in disguise :-)
Let’s just pause and reflect how awesome that chase was, without letting it color the here and now.
Christian is absolutely right by the way on the blue screen and whatnot. I remember seeing the ‘making of’ for Raiders back when they only did that kind of thing for certain select movies and being fascinated by the stuntwork, especially of that scene.
I’m old fashioned when it comes to certain kinds of action and that’s a great example.
On the other hand, my feelings about Speed Racer are well known and that movie was nearly all CGI.
But I digress. The Raiders truck scene was awesome. And it segued directly from the fight with the Nazi strongman in front of the airplane, no? Great stuff.
Maybe I should just go rent Raiders and call it a weekend.
Duh, I’m confused. Did you look into the eyes of the Crystal Skull, Craig?
If so, the fact that your post is all about Raiders is a little telling.
I still haven’t seen it. I just read Christian’s comment about the Raiders chase and it caused me to wax nostalgic.
Yeah, Raiders is a better movie than this one. Did anyone really think it would be otherwise?
I’m generally a fan of practical-over-CGI as well. But when it comes to Spielberg, I tend to let him do what he wants to do because he does it better than just about anyone else.
I see, Craig. I kind of figured you were speaking in principle when you said you agreed with Christian.
I always suspected Spielberg was a Jedi Knight.
And Christian is right.
Shoot the groundhog.
K. Bowen, can you imagine if you gave the groundhog a little CGI sword and let it twirl it around for a few seconds? And then… shot it?
Lucas did want to do that, but Spielberg put his foot down.
He’s the Jar Jar Binks of Indiana Jones. I’ll take him dead anyway I can.
Spielberg could have put his foot down on the groundhog, but for the sake of my better half I’m glad he didn’t.
When the first groundhog appeared, my girlfriend actually said, “aww…” which sounds kind of cool with a Magyar accent (but then again everything she says does). She wants Jar Jar Binks skinned alive. She also disliked the nasty Soviets a great deal but then again she’s a Hungarian immigrant, daughter of proud Hungarians.
Speaking of the Soviets, this is truly funny:
http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/comments/0,26700,23749748-10388,00.html
(in Carl Spackler voice) “I smell varmint poontang. And the only good varmint poontang is dead varmint poontang, I think.”
I don’t know about the groundhog…I liked the first shot with it, I’ll admit it’s later re-appearance was something straight out of a crappy kiddy movie. But the worst use of CGI in this movie? One word: Tarzan.
I agree with Hedwig. No problem with the prairie dog at all, but Shia the Ape-Man…(sigh)