I watched the whole series back-to-back a few times and while the premise may be faulty, it's not that much faultier than Temple of Doom (of which I gave a similar 3-star review).
Both films have the same amount of hamminess that the series has and I'd say they're one and the same in terms of tone and appeal to me.
This film of course has the disadvantage of being a film we've watched as adults and therefore with a far more critical eye than we did Temple of Doom. Whereas The Last Crusade was less interesting to me when I was younger, that film, to me, is the best in the series. Both Raiders and Crusade have heavier tones and subjects in a sense — religion being the key here — that they ground them.
You could say that about Temple of course too, but there's a "Return of the Jedi" feel to it now, watching it. The Indian slave children and ShortRound feel Ewok/Endor-ish to me.
You make a good point Naz, regarding the film having the disadvantage of being watched as adults. Maybe if Temple had come out recently I'd have similar concerns... But in saying that, where I feel Crystal Skull really goes off the rails is with the inclusion of aliens. I suppose I shouldn't be so hard on it, given previous misdemeanors of unreality (ripping out a still-beating heart? melting faces from opening the Ark?), but somehow for me the alien aspect was the moment it all jumped the shark.
Better than Temple of Doom?! What lets down Crystal Skull for me is the lame Lucased comedy asides, such as the moles (or whatever) in the opening scenes, and the linear plot. Temple feels more like an early Bond where there's some sitting around and misdirection as to where the film is heading.
Crew
Just wanted to point out that this is the most recent Indiana Jones film, I think you must have confused it with an earlier one ;-)
I would just like to point out that It's crazy, crazy bad.
I watched the whole series back-to-back a few times and while the premise may be faulty, it's not that much faultier than Temple of Doom (of which I gave a similar 3-star review).
Both films have the same amount of hamminess that the series has and I'd say they're one and the same in terms of tone and appeal to me.
This film of course has the disadvantage of being a film we've watched as adults and therefore with a far more critical eye than we did Temple of Doom. Whereas The Last Crusade was less interesting to me when I was younger, that film, to me, is the best in the series. Both Raiders and Crusade have heavier tones and subjects in a sense — religion being the key here — that they ground them.
You could say that about Temple of course too, but there's a "Return of the Jedi" feel to it now, watching it. The Indian slave children and ShortRound feel Ewok/Endor-ish to me.
However, upon writing the above, I've demoted it half a star. I would definitely watch Temple of Doom over Crystal Skull.
Crazy bad doesn't begin to describe it. Soviets and aliens and the worst acting around. It was crushingly, unbelievably, jaw-droppingly bad.
Naz, I am relieved to hear another voice of reason. Crystal Skull is not good, but it’s better than Temple of Doom. End of story.
Crew
You make a good point Naz, regarding the film having the disadvantage of being watched as adults. Maybe if Temple had come out recently I'd have similar concerns... But in saying that, where I feel Crystal Skull really goes off the rails is with the inclusion of aliens. I suppose I shouldn't be so hard on it, given previous misdemeanors of unreality (ripping out a still-beating heart? melting faces from opening the Ark?), but somehow for me the alien aspect was the moment it all jumped the shark.
Crew
Better than Temple of Doom?! What lets down Crystal Skull for me is the lame Lucased comedy asides, such as the moles (or whatever) in the opening scenes, and the linear plot. Temple feels more like an early Bond where there's some sitting around and misdirection as to where the film is heading.