Friday, May 23, 2008

George, George, George...

Exactly twice, I have sat in a cinema and felt a tingly sense of anticipation at the start of the film. The first time was the long awaited "The Phantom Menace", and the second was "Superman Returns". It was a glorious sensation, but one that can lead to the bitterest of disappointments. "The Phantom Menace" was just dire (although I take the near-heretical view that it was the best (okay, least worst) of the three prequels), and although I initially enjoyed "Superman Returns" a great deal, on subsequent viewings it has become clear to me that it just isn't a very good film.

I exercised a certain amount of self-discipline last year, steadfastly refusing to raise my expectations for "Transformers", despite being a massive Transformers fan. The name "Michael Bay" is something to conjure with - I have really enjoyed some of his films, and really hated others, and so refused to walk blindly into disaster with this one (and a good thing, too). And, after "The Phantom Menace", the same was true of the other Lucasfilm triumph, "Howard the Duck II".

No, wait, that's not right. I meant, "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull".

(Incidentally, there are no spoilers in this blog post, so feel free to read on.)

This proved to be a really wise move, because it's really bad. Seriously, worse than "Temple of Doom" by a long way. (It is, however, significantly better than any of the Star Wars prequels, not that that's saying much.)

The problem with this film, fundamentally, is a problem with too many modern films. Basically, we have reached a point where special effects can do absolutely anything that the producers and directors want, provided they have enough money, and it will fit seamlessly. Indeed, TV series such as "Battlestar Galactica" now boast special effects that put then ground-breaking films like "Return of the Jedi" to shame.

But the problem is that too many directors are building action scenes for the spectacle, and then filling in the film around those. So, we have "Attack of the Clones" coming to the climactic battle between Yoda and Dooku, not because that makes for a good story, but because we can make pretty cartoons. It's a very pervasive problem, it's really not good for film, and it's getting very annoying.

And, incidentally, it's worth calling out those films that buck the trend. See, some films use the technology differently, producing a good story first, and then making it pretty. The "Lord of the Rings" films are a great example of this (whereas "King Kong" from the same director is not), and anything by Pixar is almost guaranteed to be good ("Toy Story" still holds up today, despite the then-cutting-edge CGI being badly dated).

Unfortunately, "Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull" is hurt really badly by the overuse of special effects to the detriment of the story. It doesn't look or feel like any of the previous films, but rather feels like a cartoon-esque larger than life version of the same.

Honestly, I think the absolute best thing they could have done with this film would have been to leave the CGI at home. Build the SFX using traditional methods, and if something couldn't be done with a stuntman and some cleverness, it shouldn't be done at all. Instead, we see another opportunity wasted.

Very, very disappointed.

(Oh, and 30 minutes of adverts beforehand, by the way. Not too impressed with that, either.)

6 comments:

Captain Ric said...

Don't you insult our glorious lea- oh wait. Wrong George.

Yeah, should have been a great year for film last year. (Was it last year?) Transformers, Shrek 3 and the Simpsons. Bad, bad, bad. Well ... not nearly as good as it should have been, bad, bad.

Phantom menace was rubbish. Don't even give it an inch.

Lord of the Rings though. I agree; I'm glad they got the storyline fully fleshed out before thinking of the CGI. (!)

Don't know whether to go and see Indiana Jones now.

Chris M said...

Sorry, but I so disagree with this.

I think that have the trouble is the expectation of people who love a particular story.

Films are made for mass audiences and I think that in general, people enjoy such adventures as Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. (IJATKOTCS)

If people love a story from their childhood (and we all love at least one filsm / story) then the romantic thought of developments to this story is always going to be one of excitment. But I think these films are doomed to failure from the start. Or at least for 'fan base' audience. Yet I am sure most others enjoy it.

I for one loved IJATKOTCS. I just hope they don't make Top Gun 2 or Back to the Future 4.

But that is just IMHO.

Captain Ric said...

Hmm ... it's all still up in the air.

Steph/ven said...

Chris! How have you been, old bean? Also, are you ever again going to update your blog?

Richard, you should definately go to see it, so that I don't have to be careful not to spoil it for you. But don't pay full price - go on a Tuesday, or during the day, or for Orange Wednesday if you're eligible.

Kezzie said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Steph/ven said...

Kezzie, I've deleted your comment. Not because I disagree with it - I don't - but Captain Ric hasn't seen the film yet. There are also a few people who read the blog who never comment (hi guys!) who may well not have seen it before. So, I'm avoiding spoilers, for now.

Indeed Chris (of "Chris & Juliet" fame) once asked me not to post spoilers for "The Empire Strikes Back" on the grounds that Juliet (of "Chris & Juliet" fame) hadn't seen it yet!

I'll re-instate the comment in a month or so.