Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

The anticipation grew. The trailers were released. The posters were everywhere, and word of mouth was passing rapidly. Everyone knew about Indiana Jones 4.

They've been talking about it for years and years, and it finally happened. Of course, I was at Rivertown Crossings here in Grand Rapids, sitting outside of theater 10 with my roommate at 7pm. We were the first in line for the 12:01 show, and I was absolutely delighted - I love the experience of waiting for a midnight show.

People started showing up around 9pm, and the line was full and around the corner by 10:30. Finally, they let us in - the very first in the theater. We got choice seats and sat, watching the entire theater fill to the brim.

The Film

Did I think it was good?

Yes. I thought that this reinstallment of the Indiana Jones franchise was great. I had very high expectations for this film, and they were met - mostly.

Usually, I don't go into films with a huge expectation, but, come on - It's George Lucas and Steven Speilberg! Possibly the most famed and renowned film partnership in the history of film. OF COURSE my expectations are going to be high.

Overall, I really liked it. It was fresh, fun, and entertaining. It felt like Indiana Jones. It sounded like Indiana Jones, and it looked like Indiana Jones.

The Directing

I felt the direction in this film was very strong. It was firm, and Spielberg managed to stay true to the original films. Everything looked great and the direction of the actors was phenomenal - but I'll get to that in a minute.

There are certain aspects of the film that I question, mostly coming down to structural details, story flaws, and editorial concerns, but I'll cover those later. The director does have a part to play in these criticisms, as do many others. So, I'll hold off for now.

The Acting

The acting in this film was stellar. One of my biggest concerns in hearing about a new Indiana Jones film was that Harrison Ford was simply too old. I feared he was past his day, and that another film was simply out of the question.

The teaser trailer rolled around, and I still felt the same way. It didn't really give me anything to feed off of, nothing to say 'Ford's still got it'.

The theatrical trailer was released, and I saw Ford running over crates, punching Russians in the face, fighting off an enraged Cate Blanchett, and, of course, putting on the famed hat.

The energy from that trailer hit me just the right way. I started feeling hopeful, and, upon more viewings, became truly excited about Ford's performance.

For me, he delivered. Nailed it right on the head. Age is clearly no deterrent for this actor! He played Indy just as well as he did 20 years ago, and it simply worked.

Shia Lebouf was a risky move for me. I didn't necessarily know why they chose him for the role. I knew he could do a good job, but I think, personally, that it was more of an attempt at bringing in a younger audience. He's a big name right now, mostly because of the big hit Transformers that came out last year.

He did a great job acting - I loved his work. However, I do think that there might have been a better choice. Who, I don't know, but I do think that it was simply an attempt at widening the demographic of the film.

One of my favorite aspects of the whole film is the blatant generational difference between Indy and Mutt. We see Indy and his old school ways and styles, clashing with the modern. This is heightened, I think, in the scene at the diner. We see Mutt in his element, and Indy completely out of his. Brilliance.

Now, I only have two words for you. CATE BLANCHETT.


She stole this movie. Absolutely phenomenal. The accent, the look, the evil - it all worked so well. She was, in my eyes, the shining star of the film.

Sure, there was Harrison Ford and Shia, but Cate Blanchett as an obsessed Russian? I loved it. She truly did a great job, better, I think, than both Ford and LeBouf.


The Criticisms

Right now, I'm going to tackle the biggest one.

I didn't mind the 'far out' aspect.

I really didn't. Even though it was far-fetched and semi-rediculous, I thought Spielberg and Lucas managed to maintain believability. I never felt that the film had reached the point of no return, or that it had become too rediculous or stupid. It all felt very realistic and down to earth to me (no pun intended).

My major criticisms lie in the structure of the story.

After the initial viewing, I sat and thought about it. The story doesn't truly start until about halfway through the film.
">
Think about it - the entire first scene in the warehouse. What purpose did it serve?

I'm a film major, and I study film. It's what I do. There's a rule in film that states that everything has a purpose. If you put something in your film that doesn't contribute to the story or the plot, don't include it.

So, what was the point of the warehouse scene? She finds a magnetic case that holds the creepy arm of, what we assume is, an alien. It is clearly not what they wanted to find.

Then they fight.

What was the point of the scene? I find myself asking the same question about the bomb scene. Why?

It didn't contribute anything to the story - so why include it? To 'wow' us? Who knows.

Overall

I loved this movie. I thought it was fantastic, but you simply need to go with the flow of the film. Too many people were judgmental about it, and didn't enjoy it because they were too busy not believing the story being given to them.

It was great, I had some criticisms, but overall, I loved it.

"Indy? Ha! We named the Dog Indiana."
~ Sean Connery as Dr. Jones

8.5/10

There Will Be Blood

The oscars came and went, and one of the key players was Paul Thomas Anderson's There Will Be Blood.

What separates this film from the others, and what makes it oscar worthy?

This film was directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, personally, one of my favorite directors in the business. Why? Because he manages to encompass humanity in his films.

He has directed many films, including: Boogie Nights, Magnolia, and Punch Drunk Love.


..So what made this one so different?

I think PTA has always managed a certain cinematic look, a directing style that is uniquely his. As far as cinematography goes, this film has outdone itself.

The shots were long and breathtaking, beautifull composed, each as if it were an individual picture taken on its own.

As far as the story goes, this is where some audience members started to get lost. I went into this film basically expecting the "small town discovers oil, tons of money pours in, they all get greedy and beat the crap out of eachother".

Instead, i was met with a fundamental, character driven story that doesn't base itself on your ability to interpret a story, but your ability to enjoy the depth of character.

The sound was fundamental and effective - no glitz, no glamour - just fundamental sound. This aspect gave the film a truly unique feel. The sound reflected the true emptiness of the desert and the locations the story took place in. The sound was mixed well, and was truly effective in this film.

I had some issues with the soundtrack, however. I felt, and this may have been PTA's intention, that, at certain points, the music played with the audience's head. The music would slowly pitch up, climbing to that climax where something is bound to happen - and nothing.

So, the sountrack tended to be somewhat distracting. But, if it was intended - touche', PTA.

The acting was supreme, as well as the direction of the film. Daniel Day Lewis did an absolutely superb job as Mr. Plainview; and what a stunningly fantastic performance from Paul Dano as Eli, the unbelievably creepy preacher from the small town?

Well.
Here's the bottom line.

Should you see this film?

I think it's definitely worth a watch. But keep in mind - it's long, and it's character driven - not necessarily the general movie-watching style.

This film will blow your mind if you give it the opportunity.

Definately give it a watch - See what all the oscar buzz is about.

Intro.

I think critics suck.

There's alot to take into account when analyzing a film. What makes a film a good one? Action? Romance? Violence? Laughs?

When I analyze a film, I look at it from two views: filmmaking and entertainment.

I'm a Fictional Filmmaking Major at Grand Valley State, the leading film school in the state of Michigan. I know filmmaking, it's what I study everyday.

However, i also know what its like to be an audience member. There are horribly made films that, for some odd reason, are extremely enjoyable and generally considered 'good films'.

These two aspects are important when taking a film into consideration - because, why do people read movie reviews?

To see if it's worth seeing. That's what matters.

..and that is simply the question that I answer with every review, because that's what really matters. Is it worth seeing? Critics overlook this and focus on tearing films to pieces rather than worrying about you, the viewer, and whether or not the film is worth seeing.

I'll be up and reviewing soon,
until then, keep on watchin'.