Variety "Review" And The Pathetic Fear Of Irrelevance
What’s almost as sad as live-blogging during the first screening of a movie is disrespectful?
Variety being so insecure about being relevant that it has to run the following before actually reviewing the film…
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Posted: Sun., May 18, 2008, 6:55am PT
By TODD MCCARTHY
One of the most eagerly and long-awaited series follow-ups in screen history delivers the goods — not those of the still first-rate original, 1981’s “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” but those of its uneven two successors.
“Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” begins with an actual big bang, then gradually slides toward a ho-hum midsection before literally taking off for an uplifting finish.
Nineteen years after their last adventure, director Steven Spielberg and star Harrison Ford have no trouble getting back into the groove with a story and style very much in keeping with what has made the series so perennially popular. Few films have ever had such a high mass audience must-see factor, spelling giant May 22 openings worldwide and a rambunctious B.O. life all the way into the eventual “Indiana Jones” DVD four-pack.
Full review to be posted shortly.
Thankfully, there is almost no insight or substance there… since I am seeing the film in a few hours and don’t want to know.
But Todd McCarthy is a serious, serious guy… and to allow criticism to be so reduced, as any critic will tell you that they learn more about how they feel about a film as they write, is sad.
The NY Times is quickly becoming the one place where the critics take themselves and their work seriously enough not to stunt endlessly… if only that extended to their industry coverage.
Frankly if the film is on the same level as Temple of Doom and Last Crusade that will be plenty good enough for me. Nowadays it seems that if people like one then they usually hate the other, but i like ’em both. There will never be anything like Raiders again. Enjoy the movie DP.
there have been kneejerk reactions in the press over the last few years with massively popular franchises, where the publications feel the need to maintain credibility in a world where the internet websites were perceived as being more ‘hip’
i always go back to 1999. That’s when you could smell the fear of being out of touch. Read the reviews for the Phantom Menace, a movie that without the words “Star Wars” above the title would have been crucified. You saw all these safe reviews. I remember seeing a lot of “B” and “B-” reviews from the major outlets. Then, after they realized that popular perception was that it was shit, they took their critical bias out on Attack of the Clones which was bad, but still not as bad as Phantom Menace.
So i expect a shitload of safe reviews. No one is going to say what they really think in fear of seeming irrelevant, and once a week or two goes by and the general vibe about the film is well known, theyll spin their reviews to make it seem that their fingers were squarely on the pulse.
I’m with Dr Wally. If this new one is on the level of Last Crusade, then I’ll be satisfied. The Indy movies are being played on TV right now and, while the sequels are uneven, they still out-class and out-entertain the imitators (e.g. The Mummy movies).
I watched most of Last Crusade last night, and there’s much to savor: the father/son dynamic is great, the actions scenes are taut, and there’s a lot of sharp dialogue. Maybe others don’t feel the same way, but I think there’s some movie magic about.
I don’t think ANYONE expects Crystal Skull to reach the level of Raiders. In my opinion, no adventure film released since has.
Liveblogging a movie screening does seem to be a dick movie, unless you’re in the back row and no-one else is sitting anywhere near you.
People seem to think that texting is invisible and typing inaudible. Nope and nope.
So far…
Yays:
Variety (McCarthy, Thompson)
Reporter
BBC
LA Times
Screen Daily
Elsewhere
G. Kenny
P. Hammond
E. Levy
Cinematical (Voynar)
Nay:
Cinematical (Rocchi)
Radiers is a classic. Legitimately one of the greatest adventure films of all time (if not the best). It’s nearly impossible to catch lightning in a bottle like that again, as the exisiting sequels prove.
The pre-release hatcheting of this film by the press has been disgusting.
Add Corliss at Time to the yays…
As an unabashed Lucas supporter, I am more than a little concerned with this idea he’s touting of continuing the franchise starring Shia with Ford coming back in a Connery like role…
Forget whatever qualms you have about the Star Wars prequels…if this happens it is by far his worst idea since Howard the Duck…
My favorite movie of the year so far, third best in the series. Not as tight as first two, but more effective than Last Crusade.
Shia fucking rocks btw, and they do set up him taking center stage in an eventual sequel/spin-off.
Add me to the growing list of supporters. Most satisfying film of the year so far.
Holy Spoiler Alert Batman! Those of us who have watched the trailers and heard of a certain shooting location now can guess the entire plot. Thanks a lot …(places fingers in ears and closes eyes til May 22).
Don’t care what you say, that live-blogging thing is best thing ever of its kind. Eric Kohn dude’s a genius. Don’t know how he didn’t get tossed out though. Yes it has spoilers, babies beware.
T. Holly,
Got to disagree with you on Eric Kohn doing the live-blogging during a movie. It marks an incredible low point for reviewing. It is about on the same level as kids texting each other midday Friday telling them that a movie “sux” or “rox”. In the last few months, we have witnessed a decimation of considered opinion on film and now I really do fear that Eric Kohn has inadvertantly legitimised a whole new pattern… don’t bother considering the film, just blog/text your knee-jerk/spray your shorts reaction.
The guy should have been dragged out of the theatre and treated like a gambler caught cheating in old house Vegas.
I like Shia, I really do. I think he’s a really good actor and a potential real movie star.
But, this I don’t like the idea of. I don’t care how good he is in the movie.
If you want to give him his own spinoff series as his character, I’m even open to that. But “Indiana Jones” starring Shia LeBeuf just doesn’t sound right. Period.
And with that, based on this thread alone, I’m disappearing. As somebody around here is bound to be a douche and spoil something just to prove that he’s seen it.
So, I’ll see everybody after the 22nd.
Peace Out.
Nope Pope, because it was plenty contextualized, especially for what it was, which is why it’s so remarkable, but you can’t read it, cuz it’s against your religion. I never stop the guy/gal at the watercooler who’s smarter than me either when I haven’t seen the film, but I’m known to walk away mid-sentence when some no-nothing blah blabs away, same idea as texting, just can’t imagine how he got away with it, maybe someday he’ll flesh out how he did it.
I didn’t think Variety or Todd McCarthy’s reviews were ever designed to serve a purpose other than predicting box-office totals.
Shia LaBeouf is flat-out terrific. Spielberg’s confidence in LaBeouf turns out to have been (extremely) well-founded after all; and I got a real nostalgic kick out of seeing Karen Allen.
Allen’s palpable excitement at being in a movie again is downright infectious. Tthe second half (after she makes her first appearance) is definitely better–and way more fun–than the first half which kind of drags.
Beyond draggy, though, is the interminable cave scene between Ford and Shia: the thing just stops dead in its tracks for what seems like 15 minutes (or longer) of painful exposition. It took a while for the film to recover after that painfully protracted detour.
I was also a little disappointed in Blanchett: she’s terrific doing Natasha from “Rocky and Bullwinkle,” but nobody gave her an actual character to play. I kept waiting for a scene where she gets all “Ilsa She Girl”/dominatrix-ish on Indy while he’s tied to a chair or something; but it never happens. Too bad she wasn’t given more to do.
I’m giving it a three star/”B” rating overall: slightly better than the somnambulant “Last Crusade,” but not nearly as enjoyable as the underrated “Temple of Doom.”
I don’t know, but if you’re gonna reduce it down to name calling, then those who can’t handle not knowing every little fucking detail about a movie before it opens seem more like spoiled brats to me.
There’s this desperation to their need to not have a movie surprise them, like the hipster police will show up at their doors to revoke their “in the know” status by being the last to know that Little Timmy didn’t actually die but had a sex change is now evil headmistress.
I can’t respect anyone who is unwilling to preserve the sanctity of filmgoing for 125 minutes in the name of being First.
“Shia fucking rocks btw”
Would anyone over 18 share that opinion?
I’m not a good judge because I have a high tolerance and there’s so much to absorb from a movie besides what I can remember knowing prior to seeing it that it’s moot for me. I’m not sure Eugene should have run Eric’s live-blog, that will be for his journo/critic peers to judge whether anyone should be going there, but it is so lacking in detail and unique in form and function, that you should have a look AFTER you’ve seen the movie, if that is better for you.
T. Holly,
The reason why I take issue with Eric Kohn is because as you say, “there’s so much to absorb from a movie”. How can anyone watch a movie and type an evaluation at the same time? How much of the film could he possibly have seen when he must have been trying to navigate the keyboard?
William Goss has my agreement when he says, “I can’t respect anyone who is unwilling to preserve the sanctity of filmgoing for 125 minutes in the name of being First.”
Well, this is interesting.
I’m not exactly sure where I come down here. In response to the esteemed Pope’s comment above, I can only say that I don’t gamble.
What’s lacking from the conversation is an understanding of the very specific context that lead to the live blog reaction. It had nothing to do with a desire to attain the highly-vetted “First” slot.
In the Palais yesterday, minutes before the screening started, there was a strangely unbridled energy in the room. Sensing my own feelings of excitement building off other more raucous audience reactions, I couldn’t fully explain it. Somehow, the whole thing seemed too trivial, given the environment and the unadulterated mind candy about to unravel. I needed somewhere to funnel those emotions, so when Eug gave me the chance I took it. The result looks more or less like the notes I would have taken for a review.
I certainly don’t see it as a form of criticism, but I would like to suggest a possible direction for a new kind of film analysis that allows direct contact between the spectator and an outside observer. To some extent, at least on a conceptual level, that’s a dialog I would hope many critics endorse.
It’s not a fresh impulse, either: As I understand it, none other than John Simon used to mumble to himself in German throughout many a screening. And I can only imagine what it was like to witness one of Pauline Kael’s famous in-media-res freak-outs.
Honestly, I’ll put it right out there and say that I think texting and other means of bothering your fellow viewers is usually a violation of film-going etiquette. It’s usually a distraction for both the viewer and fellow audience members, but I think it depends on the precise content up on the screen, in addition to the surrounding conditions. I wouldn’t suggest sharing spur-of-the-moment thoughts on the war in Lebanon during “Waltz with Bashir,” and I didn’t.
Eric K.,
I point you in the direction of Truman Capote:
“That’s not writing, that’s typing.”
Coming Soon: Eric Kohn funnels his “energy” during The Dark Knight by whipping it out and showing the guy in front of him just how excited he is.
Go sell that CRAP somewhere else. Have you ever published your “notes” before as a review? And if this is the next direction of “reviewing” or “criticism” or whatever you think to call it, then I hope all critics and publicists are made aware of it so they can stop you in your pre-supposed groundbreaking tracks.
If you were seated next to me doing that while I was trying to enjoy and absorb everything about a film, especially one I had been waiting 19 years to see for the first time, you would be looking to buy a new electronic device or at least be making an appointment with a protocologist to retrieve it.
*That’s “proctologist”
Why it’s Erik C., none other than the critic watchdog himself — this oughta feel like fresh stuff to him. Just relax guys, it’s modern history befitting an historic screening in France, no less. That thing you used Eric K. — what model? have you contacted the manufacturer for an endorsement? ebay crossed your mind? are the messages erased? have you locked it away? where were you sitting? who was around you? did anyone say anything? your viewing didn’t seem to suffer, how many words per minute do you type? how long have you been training yourself to write in the dark?
Yet another argument in favor of putting cell phone jammers in movie theaters.
Sooo, Eric K….you were pretty much against the movie from the start and couldn’t see what other people were excited for and then it’s like you took it personally that their excitement was wearing off onto you (it’s so…trivial). So rather than just shut up and enjoy the ride, you decided to text your boss through the whole movie with inane, pointless scribbles that basically showed how *above* the film you were? And then that was put out there as “news?”
How could you possibly be engrossed (or even trying to be) in the film when all your mind is doing is thinking of the next witticism you can muster? How can you say you saw the film when technically 1/4 of the film you spent text messaging?
Gee, wonder why the internet gets no respect for film reviews, etc. For a site I respect (or, did) I expect more than AICN antics from Indiewire.
Somehow, the whole thing seemed too trivial, given the environment and the unadulterated mind candy about to unravel. I needed somewhere to funnel those emotions, so when Eug gave me the chance I took it. The result looks more or less like the notes I would have taken for a review.
This is bullshit. You’re essentially saying that you decided before going in that the film was beneath you, and it was therefore not worthwhile to not be an asshole while watching it. Fuck off.
“Honestly, I’ll put it right out there and say that I think texting and other means of bothering your fellow viewers is usually a violation of film-going etiquette. It’s usually a distraction for both the viewer and fellow audience members, but I think it depends on the precise content up on the screen, in addition to the surrounding conditions.”
Unless one of the surrounding conditions was that nobody could see your device or be annoyed by its usage, which is hard to believe considering where you did this, your explanation still reeks of “I felt like doing it, and I didn’t care about anybody else’s experience, so I did it”. Basing film-going etiquette on the personal whims of any one person is precisely why film-going is the fucked up mess it is on any given Friday and Saturday night. Being able to articulate your self-centered urges better than any 12 year old who whips out his cell phone and starts texting his friends in the middle of a movie still doesn’t make you better than him.
The manner in which you choose to review a movie is your own creative choice to make. But if you aren’t able to successfully pull that off without distracting other film-goers who have the right to enjoy a movie in peace, even a movie you’ve deemed ridiculous or whatever category it is you put the Indiana Jones film in, you’re just another egocentric dick contributing to the impossibility of getting a positive theater experience in this day and age.
“Don’t care what you say, that live-blogging thing is best thing ever of its kind. Eric Kohn dude’s a genius.”
Okay, I got my venting done on the issue already, so I’m curious about your specific reasons for why this was the “best thing ever of its kind”. From what I’ve read of the first third(?) of it, it’s just another pretty bland variation on recapping Hamlet in 90 seconds or something. I’m not even sure if I can take your support for Kohn all that seriously thanks to the nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-NYAH-NYAH tone in your posts. But if you really think this is an innovation worth recognizing, lay it out there. I’m interested.
Well for one thing, it’s difficult to immitate. That right there tells you something.
http://efilmcritic.com/feature.php?feature=2485
He’s aologized.
http://efilmcritic.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13335
And it’s terribly misunderstood.
http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2008/05/stenography.php
Eric, T. Holly, or anyone else…
If you ever attempt to text through an entire movie trying to be clever to review it and it’s in my peripheral vision…
You can gaurantee I am coming over there and snatching it out of your hands, and will hold on to it until the movie is over. Then you can have it back.
On there will probably be a text about manners and how to be an empathic compassionate human being.
And I don’t give a fuck who you are or how bad ass you are, I will totally risk an ass kicking to make a point over Indy.
T. Holly, please, please can I smoke whatever it is you’re vaping in your editing room that is giving you this logic.
I want some of that shit for Indy tomorrow night.
This isn’t new or groundbreaking.
This is another example of ruining the communal experience of film in a move at narcissism.
Face it Eric – You got AICN fever and wanted to be
“First”
A good real critic would be as confident in their composition of their words about the work as much as their opinion.
Good critics are read because of how they write just as much as how they view a film.
If you understood this, you wouldn’t have pulled a stunt to get noticed.
It’s a known stat that a viewer only takes in about %40 of everything really going on in a movie on the first viewing. %60 on the second.
Think about it.
How much of the film did you really take in?
And if you went in already biased as it being beneath you, then your emotions have clouded your judgment and that negates your work.
Try again.
Square.
You’re seeing it Wednesday? I’m seeing it Saturday, where I’ll probably “get it” with my eyes closed while touch texting with my thumbs on an unlit, noiseless pad, in the back row of the balcony, if you really must know and can’t bother to take in what anyone else said about it, except the usual haters, which is everyone, but that’s their job. What’s your excuse? Don’t tell me, I already know, it’s not for everybody at any screening, exceptions are always the rule.
Whuh?
The whole “first” thing is why Ebert has a 3 star review of The Longest Yard on his site, despite not actually liking it that much.
If it’s on a noiseless, unlit pad, than have at it.
I’m sorry if I failed you Hallick, I nyah-nyah because I know there are no absolutes. My evil angel actually wishes the rubes made popular junk so unpleasant that people flocked to quality fare where sophisticated, respectful people go, except Indian movies, which are notorius audience free-for-alls. If it’s possible to like anyone here, I like THX because he’s so supportive.