Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Spielberg digs up a mouldy Indy

RICK GROEN

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 12:19 PM EDT 30/05/08

Spielberg digs up a mouldy Indy ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Popeye Dillon from North Vancouver, Canada writes: Spielberg has always claimed that Indiana Jones was simply an action packed adventure film based upon the Saturday afternoon matinees he watched as a kid. If he delivers that then that's all we need to hear about but Groen has to be the "Thickest" movie reviewer ever. It doesn't have to be art to be entertainment!
  2. D B from Canada writes: Rick Groen trashes an action flick. And in breaking other news, the sun rises in the East.
  3. Dominik B from Canada writes: Why am I not surprised by this kind of review from Mr Groen? We know this is not your type of movie so why review them. Seems your taste is not mainstream so why bother? Stick to movies with deep meaning and moral and the like. I am sure your reviews would be more accurate. At the end of the day, many many people will enjoy this movie and will like it for what it is. Popeye said it best, doesn't have to be art to be entertainment, and you (Mr Groen), my friend, need to lighten up a little bit.
  4. Sue Hickey from Grand Falls-Windsor, Canada writes: Harrison Ford started going bad (as in what grows in your fridge) for me when he left his wife for stick-lady Calista Flockhart. Ally McB was never a great actress and it didn't help that Harrison figured he had to rediscover his youth. When it comes to the Star Wars veterans, give me Mark Hamill any day! A class act, a triple threat, an artist and writer and a great voiceover actor. (I still think he should have been cast as the Joker instead of Heath Ledger. Mark always did a great job in the animated series!) AND he's been married to the same woman for decades.
    Anyway, I'll probably go see or rent the latest Indiana for the adventure, but not to drool over Mr. Ford. My mother also loved Ford but when he took up with stick lady, she's been boycotting him ever since!
  5. Paul F. from Toronto, Canada writes: You know what? I appreciate a review like this. Why do we have to get excited about the new indiana jones movie, especially if it is crap?

    There was a time when a sequel used to be looked upon as an attempt to milk an idea well beyond its best before date. It certainly looks as though this is the case, especially if you read other reviews.

    There are action movies that do get good ratings, like Ironman. Why? Because the director actually is trying something original and fun. Not another kick at a can for a whim.

    In any case check out the following website:

    http://www.metacritic.com/movie/publications/globeandmail/groenrick

    You can see how rick compares to other critics. While his ratings tend to be lower than others, you'd be suprised where he comes out on certain action films. He's much higher on Kill Bill, Braveheart for example. So, D B's comments are a little out of place.

    But there is is no accounting for taste. Some people like to eat a lot of junk food too.
  6. Slander Us from Toronto, Canada writes: This review is asinine. The first 3 Indiana Jones movies followed the same formula, with campy qualities and exaggerated villains. So why is it NOW no longer any good? If they had gone in an entirely different direction, the movie would be panned as not being true to the originals. The fact that this one is like the first 3 is the way it should be - fans of Indiana Jones don't want to see something new or original, because that was never the style or intent of the originals.

    Indiana Jones is what it is, and the fans know this and appreciate it. Apparently Groen has never seen the first three or wasn't a fan to begin with, that is the only explanation for his review.
  7. Walker fromtheevilempireofAB from Calgary, Canada writes: Groen: It's not supposed to be soul changing mind blowing with deep cultural messages. Cripes it's just supposed to be fun to watch.

    Don't go to watch it expecting anything other than some hoaky action with a few funny lines, I mean c'mon the first three were the same thing!

    Clearly the Ark of the covenant killing Nazi's with lightning is no more far fetched that a mind controlling artifact, yeash.
  8. Gawd Knows from Canada writes: The whole lot of these movies were crap for adults to watch, but aimed at the 10-12 year old market.

    All you young posters, good on ya.
  9. h k from Canada writes: I've never read a review of the Indiana Jones movies that points out the obvious... the Raiders and Last Crusade are better because they are based on Judeo-Christian themes and have a greater impact because they hinge on whether or not Indiana believes in God.... both films end with Indiana receiving some sort of enlightenment, where he goes from being simply an artifact-hunter to some deeper level of understanding.

    I know there are those on this board who will say I'm looking too deeply into these supposedly simple-minded action movies... but beyond all the brilliantly choreographed fight scenes and chases, there is something that resonates deeply about the first and third movies that is missing from Temple of Doom... and likely this fourth movie as well.
  10. Ed Op from Canada writes: Wow. Tough crowd. I think what some of the critics of the critic are missing (and what Rick Groen understands) is that even light mindless entertainment has a standard to live up to. I'm guessing this movie doesn't live up to Raiders of the Lost Ark (which was tons of fun) and comes in more at the level of the second and third flicks (which were pretty lame). Let's face it, Harrison Ford hasn't done a good movie since, what, Mosquito Coast maybe? The Mennonite one? Been a while. What was that Hollywood cops crap a couple years back? Anyway, certainly been nothing on the level of Bladerunner. Though I thought from the trailers they did a creditable job of making Ford look less grandfatherly than he has looked of late. Thanks for the heads up Mr. Groen. I'll wait for video.
  11. John Medrzycki from Vancouver, Canada writes: Hmm ... Ed Op. While I do agree that Bladerunner was a great flick (one of the best), Ford's been in some truly great stuff since then.

    Not counting the Indiana Jones, Stars Wars & Jack Ryan series, he's been in flicks like Witness (which you alluded to), Working Girl (a fun movie - that's all), Frantic, Presumed Innocent, Regarding Henry (a personal favorite - under the radar), and The Fugitive (which I watch over & over). Then he was in Sabrina in 1995 - and was never the same after that. That movie stunk. Even Air Force One - which could have been a great action flick - sunk like a lead balloon.
  12. h k from Canada writes: John M - Regarding Henry?? The lamest thing Harrison Ford's ever done! And Air Force One was terrific... Gary Oldman was one of the best on-screen villains ever, and totally believable - even if the premise of Ford as President wasn't!
  13. Ed Op from Canada writes: John M.

    I guess I look at Star Wars (what we now call Episode IV) as being the only really good one in the series and it predated Bladerunner. I thought Raiders was before Bladerunner too - no? Jack Ryan series was fairly workaday if you ask me - anytime you can substitute lead heroes you're looking at a fairly generic movie. Don't remember Working Girl, Frantic was pretty poor I thought, Presumed Innocent was okay, Regarding Henry so-so and yes, I had forgotten The Fugitive - good point. Sabrina really is the definitive turning point though there were some indications earlier on. Ford just looks like he's going through the motions these days. No energy. No passion.
  14. Ed Op from Canada writes: h k

    If you like Gary Oldman as villain, check out The Professional. Also Luc Besson's one great movie. Introduced Natalie Portman too. Jean Reno is fantastic in it. That one fires on all chambers.
  15. h k from Canada writes: Ed Op - re: The Professional - yup... it's great alright - got it on DVD. If you like Jean Reno in it, you should rent The Big Blue, also directed by Luc Besson (it's about free-diving and is beautifully filmed)
  16. Rain Couver from Canada writes: Those who can't, teach. Those who can't do either, critique.

    For those who want to get a proper review, a few of my colleagues were lucky enough to catch the sneak preview. They said it will not disappoint. They did not spoil it for me though.

    As for Indiana Jones, it is based on Saturday morning serials, James Bond (which Spielberg still wants to direct) and Tintin (please don't let Spielberg or Jackson make a Tintin movie, they are woefully unqualified to direct one). I remember many of the elements of Tintin in the original three. However, Tintin did have stories about aliens, so I bet that will figure in the current Indiana Jones to which I say, good.
  17. John Medrzycki from Vancouver, Canada writes: h k - re Regarding Henry - before I became a Dad - I liked it (in a kinda wishy-washy way). After - sorry, I cry through it now. It touches a nerve. Everything's relative.

    Air Force One? I'll grant you Oldman - but I can't give you 'terrific'. Something was missing - I fely the whole thing was 'cookie-cutter'.

    Of course, this goes to prove that everyone sees things differently - and have different tastes.

    Op Ed - yes, Sabrina was definitely the turning point. I remember starting to watch it with great anticipation and ... geez, what the hell was he thinking?

    Of course, I'm sure there are people
  18. Dan Radu from Calgary, Canada writes: _________________________________________________

    The trouble with many reviewers is that it's their profession. The've forgotten how to be fans. Why does Spielberg have to invent somethng new? I want to see the same formula.

    James Bond has made the same movie for 45 years and people still go see them.
  19. C C from Canada writes: "James Bond has made the same movie for 45 years and people still go see them."

    Tell that to the Brosnan fanboys who created petty websites bashing Daniel Craig and his appearance.

    With the direction of the reboot the series is mercifully more "license to kill" than "chitty chitty bang bang".
  20. C Punter from toronto, Canada writes: Just saw it and I was disappointed, mabe my expectations were too high. Or could it be that it does actually suck? I'd wait for it on dvd, but rent it, don't buy it!
  21. M V from Toronto, writes: This movie is tired, tepid and ultimately dull.

    An action movie should at least get your heart rate above that of a patient in a medically-induced coma but this recent Indy adventure flatlines.
  22. indy jones from St. Albert, Canada writes: Yeah, pretty easy to guess the plot in this one - it really spells things out very easily so that it brings the Indiana Jones formula to a slightly newer era. It also introduces the heir to the series - his son.
  23. Earl Anthony from Sudbury, Canada writes: I remember lunching with a beautiful lady in University. Harrison Ford walked into the cafeteria and I knew I and every guy in the room just lost out.

    Harrison Ford, whatever the quakity of his films, added charisma the way it has not been added since Cary Grant. He may be aging but what a career!

    I'm still jealous!
  24. Ryan Ginger from Ottawa, Canada writes: I saw the movie last night - I agree completely with Groen. This franchise is tired. And it's true: the crystal skull looked like bric-a-brac!

    If Spielberg needs to rely on a mushroom cloud for audiences to sit on the edges of their seats (--and I wasn't), clearly he has forgotten how to create suspense through basic formal elements of film. Groen, I'm sure, appreciates a popcorn flick as much as the next person, but he is right on the money with this Indy romp. We should be insulted when Spielberg underestimates his audience (which he often does), not angry at our critics.
  25. James Dalziel from Toronto, Canada writes: An illuminating, eloquent review. Did Ric also spot the Ark in the warehouse?
  26. The Wight from Canada writes: Temple of Doom the worst? Coulda fooled me.

    Last Crusade was largely a rehash of the first movie, right down to the same villains (Nazis), same ethos (Judeo-Christian), same sidekick (Sulla) and same face melting/aging ending for the main baddie. Just like the first movie, Indy is saved not by any inherent faith, but by his intelligence - he's smart enough to avert his eyes from the Ark and he's smart enough to pick out the appropriate grail from the pile. The undead Templar was simply the height of cheese. If a director can't get the audience to understand the notion of the grail room without having the undead knight to explain it, he's pretty ham fisted. How hard is it to drop a plot device like a previous explorer seeking the grail, only to find said explorer dead with a fancy grail cup in his hand?

    Temple, at the very least, expanded the series to another religious background and showed the larger world Indy inhabits. It's not a world with magical Christian artifacts, it's a world with magical artifacts and powers of every sort, which explains why he's still largely a non-believer after seeing the Ark wipe out 30 odd Nazis with lightning bolts.
  27. brett glanfield from Canada writes: Groen is right. my wife and I both big Indy fans saw the movie last night and it was disappointing. no more than a 2 out of 4 is a correct review. wait to rent it.
  28. Polar Bear from Floating Iceberg, Canada writes: Disappointing or not - I will still go and see it on the weekend; just like a James Bond movie. Sometimes I need movies which don't make me think!

    Groen .... keep writing crap for G&M!
  29. Rob C from Canada writes: I heard another reviewer raving about this movie on the radio - So there is no accouting for taste and preference. Indy fans will love it, others not so much...go figure----Why review this movie if you like art films? Harrison Ford is a terrible actor, not because he dumped his wife for Ally McBeal, he just is - but his movies are usually worth watching anyways, despite his limitations....and Mark Hamill is a better actor because he has a solid long term marriage??... come ON lady!! - What planet are YOU from? (I gather Venus, not Mars)
  30. Wasabi Jones from Canada writes: Read Roger Ebert's review. He gets the point more than a snooty nitwit like Groen ever will.
  31. The Economic Hitman jr. from Vancouver, Canada writes: Slander Us from Toronto, Canada writes: This review is asinine. The first 3 Indiana Jones movies followed the same formula, with campy qualities and exaggerated villains. So why is it NOW no longer any good?

    -------------------

    Answer: None of them were any good.

    Answer #2: This is precisely the same problem we have with geriatric rockers; don't know when to say when. Just because you can do something, doesn't necessarily mean you should.
  32. Elmo Harris from Niagara, Canada writes: I was a little surprised that this reviewer rated this movie as two stars. I immediately went to my old standby, Roger Ebert, of the Chicago Sun Times to check out his rating. Ebert gave it 3 1/2 stars which is a pretty good rating from him. When buying DVD movies, I have found the "Two Thumbs Up" rating to be a reliable indicator of a movie I will like.

    Two Thumbs Up for Ebert, Two Thumbs Down for Groen.
  33. M V from Toronto, writes: Ebert's clearly lost his critical facilities. The man gave both The Phantom Menace and Revenge of the Sith 3.5 stars out of 4 and gives the same rating to this movie.

    Reading his Indy Crystal Skull review, he comes off with a tone more appropriate to a 14 year old boy who only watches shoot -em-up, blow-'em-up movies after prying himself away from his Nintendo than a film critic who's watched tens of thousands of movies.

    Yes, yes, people will say "But 14 year old boys are who the Indy movies are made for so Ebert's right to watch it that way." Come on now! It takes so little to satisfy that age group that such an argument would make any film produced for that demographic bulletproof and censure free. Sorry, but no film should get a free pass based on audience.

    Ebert doesn't even know what's going on in the movie, and admits it in his review. Since when does endless CGI and explosions without merit or reason equal a good movie? For the action to be engaging, shouldn't it be attached to the characters by an actual plot?

    Yet for some reason Ebert is blinded by the CGI detonations and refuses to hold Spilberg/Lucas accountable for an incomprehensible story and a script as weak as wet toilet paper.
  34. Doug Dewan from Calgary, Canada writes: I saw the movie last night, it was entertaining...just don't try to take seriously and have fun with it.
  35. indy jones from St. Albert, Canada writes: meets his son, returns the skull, aliens leave earth, gets married...blah blah blah
  36. Big D from Canada writes: The movie SUCKED @$$....
  37. Gord Lewis from dumber, Canada writes: Well, the verdict is in and it is clear: our G&M reviewer is an elitist snob, and people who would rather not think are in the majority.

    This is the same problem with democracy (or at least what passes for it: mass voting). Also the problem with procreating - of all the things people should need a license to do, that is the one thing we permit anyone to do. Especially tragic is that movie stars cannot be prevented from doing it . . .
  38. Sean L. from Toronto Center, Canada writes: Ah, the Globe trashing a summer action blockbuster.

    Who could have seen that coming.

    What can we expect next - perhaps a preachy sermon on how David Miller is the salvation of Toronto.. Oh wait, we already get that hippy drum circle Miller love in from the globe.
  39. M K from Vancouver, Canada writes: David Koepp - his review is dull and predictable, this is what they wrote about the Temple Of Doom 20 years ago... this reviewer insists on digging up old cliches and recycling them with ever thinner results... what a poseur.
  40. K Ordos from Canada writes: ALIENS? Effing ALIENS? What the hell? Normally the Globe unjustly trashes action films, but if Spielberg ended the new Indy with Aliens then yes, sir. That shark has been jumped. Twice. The Globe shouldn't just trash it. It should nuke the film from orbit.
  41. John Paul from Toronto, Canada writes: Was Mr. Groen reviewing an adventure movie or giving a dissertation on the mechanical science of film? His review honestly bored me more than any movie could.
  42. Sam Patel from Canada writes: The review is sort of harsh. The movie sucked becasue the story was lame and made no sense. indy's acting and that of newcomer (and homefully successor Shia Lebouef) is very entertaining and captures the tounge and cheek spirit of the last crusade. The aliens-inca story was lame as all heck though.
  43. Tom h from Edmonton, Canada writes: Wow... just got home from the movie. Total crap. the 65 year-old Ford was just fine as an action hero; in my mind, it seems like Lucas and Spielberg are the ones getting too old for this, and going a touch senile. What other explanation can there be for a plot THIS bad???
  44. No Left or Right Just Neutral from Canada writes: Mr. Groen is right. I am a big action flick fan and I wasted my money on this movie and on the super over priced popcorn and watered down drink.

    Save your money and rent this movie!
  45. A S from Winnipeg, mb, Canada writes: Oh man, This review killed me! I saw Harrison Ford on the tonite show with Jay Leno. He looked like he was either drunk or going senile. Every question Jay asked him seemed to befuddle him, and I don't think its going to far to say he probably only barely knew where he was. Poor Indy. I wonder if the next installment will be from the retirement home.
  46. J Digga from Montreal, Canada writes: Groen is harsh and I can't believe the (hate to use the word) 'ageism' in this review and some comments. Harrison Ford is older, duh! I thought the film dealt with that in a pretty appropriate and actually sorta subtle way. (Just a side note, I'm 27). Groen's review fails to acknowledge or understand that these films were never meant to satisfy the critic. There are some flaws in this movie for sure, primarily the lack of a credible villain and the rather too light tone. If Speilberg had added a bit more darkness (and he does, see the A-bomb testing town) overall it would have lived up to the similar Temple of Doom. However, before anyone is too quick to praise the originality of say 'Iron Man', let me say that I saw it right after I watched Indy and it struck me as totally derivative and particularly soul-less. It might have been more sophisticated (ie cynical) and Robert Downey Jr is always a great, witty actor to watch, but as compared to Indy (even with Speilberg not at the top of his game) Iron Man comes across as a hollow, totally modern, un-romantic and incredibly slick commercial production. Its flashy where Indy has soul. And thats the beauty of the Indy franchise and yes, this movie as well. Even without the resonance of the Lost Ark or the Holy Grail, my imagination was engaged and the possibilities of adventure and mystery were still present. Flawed it may be, but look for the scene in the truck when Marion smiles. That frame alone had more character than anything I've seen in a recent action movie. If they're just excavating their careers, Spielberg and Ford are nonetheless excavating some pretty potent stuff.
  47. Miguel Tejada from Vancouver, Canada writes: 3 things: 1. To the people who pick apart the movies plot, actors, and directors; in no way were you mislead about what this movie was going to be. Anyone who thinks a 4th attempt to re-hash an idea (let alone a 20 year old one) would be new and exciting is a blind optimist (I refer you to Rambo, Alien Resurrection, Phantom Menace, and Police Academy 4... ok the inclusion of Sweetchuck and Z as full blown police officers was really a turning point in the series). Sequels past 2 are made with the expectation that no one cares about their content, but rather are looking for a reason to get off the couch. A progressively harder task with increase in quality of home entertainment systems. 2. To the people attacking the reviewer, he's right it is garbage. It's a movie about an old guy looking for an alien skull in the 1950's... to repeat it's a movie about an old guy looking for an alien skull in the 1950's. There's no comeback to that. And while most of us like garbage, a few of us don't. This reviewer was obvious not a fan of garbage, but critiquing him for that we be the equivalent to beating up a nerd for reading Hobbes in public. Sure it feels good, but you know he's just going to be there tomorrow with Rousseau or "DOS for Dummies." Attacking Nerds doesn’t change them, and neither will it change movie critics. He’s being paid to write an opinion that ideally will generate comments and be read, just like it has. He did his job well. 3. In respect to the movie, I enjoyed it. Glad I saw it in theatres. I’m buying a new fridge. When does Batman come out? -The End
  48. Alpha Sigma from Canada writes: If Spielberg had opened the movie at the Cannes film festival, subtitled the entire film in a foreign language, and had Indiana Jones weeping every 3 seconds in some personal soul searching battle it would have received thumbs up from every elitist movie critic around.

    It is what it is..an adventure film for pure entertainment. Suspend belief before watching, just like you had to before seeing the other 3.

    As a previous poster stated, a film critic bashing a sci-fi/adventure film is like pointing out water is wet.
  49. May Loo from Calgary, Canada writes: I'm not sure if I'm going to see this movie. When I heard about the artifact being sought over as being a crystal skull, I was reminded of an episode of Stargate SG-1 in which the team found something similar. I wonder what effect the crystal skull in this movie has on Indiana Jones. Incidentally, when it comes to this ID franchise (and a lot of movies out there), put aside the reviews, go see it, then consider whether the movie was worth the price of the admision ticket.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top