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.)