
There were good eats, good friends, and some might even say a good movie-- Sunday night during Memorial Day weekend the
Southern California Drive-in Movie Society kicked off the summer movie season by gathering together under some ominous-looking clouds and even a few patches of starlight for a
tailgater screening of
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull at our flagship drive-in, the
Mission Tiki in Montclair, California.

The gatherings of the SoCal DIMS faithful have evolved since the inaugural meeting back in the summer of 2005 from informal get-togethers at favorite ozoner locations to share stories, pictures and ideas for further events, to taking new memberships and interacting with customers in Southern California drive-in snack bars, to helping coordinate
special events. And now the latest wrinkle in the celebration, the SoCal DIMS tailgate party, is kicking off its second summer of family-oriented fun for drive-in movie fanatics and casual moviegoers looking for a fresh take of the summer movie season.

Though it was a mite cool by Memorial Day weekend standards, there were still plenty of cars congregated near the front of the screen at 6:00 p.m., early admission time for SoCal DIMS members and friends who get the pick of the lot with plenty of time to spare for socializing, unpacking and packing in plenty of homemade chow before the movie starts. Of course we always leave room to visit the snack bar as well, and the Mission Tiki’s, done up in beautiful retro tiki style, is not to be missed. (In July, the group will be visiting the newly renovated
Van Buren Drive-in which boasts the best snack bar of any Southern California drive-in, built as it is around the nucleus of a giant grill on which fresh carne asada is always sizzling.)
11 comments:
You make an excellent point about the logo-to-gopher hill fade-in, Dennis, and the fact that that single shot - the opening shot! - really sets the movie up for disappointment. The big problem with this movie is that I actually convinced myself, seemingly through force of will and stubbornness, that I was having a good time. It wasn't until the second half-ish point that I realized how the creeping dread and frustration were taking over.
You're right that there's truly no single shot or setpiece in this movie that will stand the test of time as there are in its precedents. Everything that approaches greatness - such as the great silhouette of Indy and the mushroom cloud - is simply thrown up onto the screen and allowed to die there.
I suppose it's silly to let a movie franchise sadden and disappoint me so, but it's just a damn shame.
I haven't read a review yet that makes me want to rush out and see this. But then, I didn't actually think there would be so I guess I'm not surprised. Still, after each new review I still feel disappointed, and I'm not even a Spielberg/Lucas fan (referring to them together) after Raiders, so I don't know why it seems disappointing. Oh well.
Nice to see you though in the little movie clip there with your plate of goodies. Geez, I wish I could make it out there for one of these events.
And I hope you'll stop by and check out my movie today as well. Hope to see you there.
I've always appreciated Spielberg's gifts as a director but have never been able to stomach his hubris.
In promoting 'Crystal Skull', he's exhibited his typical self referential mode of expression as evidenced by following:
"I didn’t want Janusz to modernize and bring us into the 21st century...I still wanted the film to have a lighting style not dissimilar to the work Doug Slocombe had achieved, which meant that both Janusz and I had to swallow our pride. Janusz had to approximate another cinematographer’s look and I had to approximate this younger director’s look that I thought I had moved away from after almost two decades."
Oh Please.
Guess what Steven--while you were preening over your younger self--you forgot to see how he worked.
Something else Spielberg missed was the value of shooting stunts in the manner of that "younger director".
The heavy dependence on CGI to sell the stunts (something he promised not to do) turned 'Crystal Skull' into a live-action Road Runner cartoon. When the amphibious vehicle went off a cliff-- landing in the tree-- my final hope for a good Indy experience went with it.
Three waterfalls later and I wanted my money back. As evidenced by the opening shot of 'Crystal Skull',
Spielberg had managed to make a mountain into a mole hill.
The photo of Nonie eating the hot dog is priceless!
I love Road Runner cartoons...
Also: I've found out the *actual* reason why the the gopher mound dissolve rubbed you the wrong way, Dennis. Whereas I could appreciate Spielberg being a little tongue-in-cheek (these films are entertainments, after all), you were reminded of multiple forced viewings of Alvin and the Chipmunks. I managed to steer my two boys away from that movie and consider myself all the happier for it ;-)
Peeeeeeeet! You said the "A" word!
Alvin! Alvin! Alvin! :-P
One thing that's nice is, Patty bought them the CD of the old Alvin and the Chipmunks Meet the Beatles LP (1964), and they've become familiar with 78-rpm versions of several early Beatles hits. The Chipmunks still drive me insane, but it's a lot easier for me to haul the CDs of the old albums out for them to enjoy! Daddy, tell us more about this John, Paul, George and Ringo you speak so highly of!
Dennis,
That's funny you say that. My son always remarks that his "friends" (classmates) always tease him that he knows all the words to those "old songs."
Seth's response is always the same, "They are dorks huh Dad"?!?!
Dare I be the contrary voice in defense of this movie. I must say that I went into it feeling more than a bit wary. Would I be disappointed in Indy 4 the way I was with other sequels in recent years that did boffo box office (Pirates 3, etc.)? The answer was a resounding hell, no! I thoroughly enjoyed every minute of it, much to my delighted surprise. While I do my best to be as unspoiled as possible, knowing that Karen Allen was in the movie did kind of give that away, but so what? It didn't detract from my enjoyment one bit. I loved finally seeing Harrison Ford in a role that he's suited for. Karen Allen needs to stop knitting and make some movies. It was like visiting with old friends that you're afraid that you no longer enjoy and discovering that the old magic is still there for you. I'm hoping to make it back to the theater to see it again this weekend (it'll either be this one or Sex and the City). Thanks to Steven, George(!), Harrison, et. al. for helping to restore my faith in summer movies. Over the last few years I had begun to think that I had lost my movie mojo, that the reason that I wasn't having a good time at the movies like I used to was because I had changed. The last couple of months have shown me that it wasn't me -- it was the movies that sucked!
OK, I’m a little late to the discussion, but we teachers do lead busy lives in May and June, and I finally got a chance to see the new Indiana Jones movie two days ago. My reaction was a little puzzling. I enjoyed the film – how can you not enjoy seeing Indiana Jones again? – but it seemed, by far, the weakest of the four films. I’m surprised that this was the “marvelous film idea” that got all these people on board for one more go around. Everything just seemed down a notch. Here is what stuck out the most to me:
Acting: I’ve seen enough interviews of Harrison Ford to get the impression that he’s a bit of a dull guy in real life. Lately, though, it seems like that’s bleeding over more and more into his acting. His demeanor in the film is so laid back, it’s hard to tell whether he (the actor) doesn’t care, or if this is all so “old hat” for Indy that it’s no big deal. I assume Indy is supposed to be around 60, but he feels closer to 80. Karen Allen was wonderful in the first film, and here, she just didn’t make much of an impression – perhaps more because the writers didn’t find much for her to do. With that said, you’d think it would be Shia LaBoeuf’s film to steal – and yet, he never seemed to embody the 50s greaser, or come across as a worthy successor and heir to Indy. I guess it’s “Mutt” that he calls himself, but in the theater it sure sounded like his name was “Mud” – seemed more fitting too. : ) Cate Blanchett and John Hurt were the only exceptions. It seems bad when the villain is more alive and interesting than any number of heroes.
Writing: Maybe this isn’t entirely fair, since most sequels suffer from this sort of problem. But the main thing that makes Raiders the best of the films, for me at least, is the ambiguous nature of Indy. Is he a hero? There’s something very dark in him, though, something that keeps the audience from completely siding with him until near the end. Bellocq says that they’re not so different, and for most of the film, it certainly looks that way. The introduction of Indy is masterful, following this man in a hat who seems obsessed and all-knowing and perhaps a little cruel in forcing his assistants into danger. We learn something of his cavalier attitude with Marion long ago, and he comes back to manipulate her further (trying to get the “worthless medallion”). Later, when some mending of the relationship has happened, he leaves her in captivity to get the ark. He has an excuse, but does it really make sense? He wants the ark, and that’s what possesses him most. All these aspects make him a much more interesting character. In the sequels, much of that darkness is gone. In Temple of Doom, they at least came up with a plausible way to bring it back, through the transformation after drinking the blood of Kali – but we can’t help but think it’s temporary, and the “real Indy”, the good Indy will show up after a while. I didn’t feel that way in Raiders. In Last Crusade and Crystal Skull, we don’t even have that brief moment of darkness. In fact, with Indy’s being forced to peer into the skull, it seems like there was a perfect opportunity to have something along the lines of what happened in Temple, and the writers chose not to. Has Indy become so much of an icon that we can harbor no ambiguity as to his character?
One other thing that bothered me about the film was the one subject that did seem to evoke a little passion in Indy – the nasty Russians. I have a hard time buying that this is the man Indy would become in the mid 50s, even with Cold War paranoia. Admittedly, it’s easy to demonize Nazis and make them the force of evil. But Indy is a scientist, and knows the worth of an individual. Even in Last Crusade, once it’s revealed that Elsa’s a Nazi, he doesn’t treat her as simply a Nazi, but as a person. Why does he react with such vehemence (for a change!) with regard to the Russians? It just rang false to me.
Music: As with many of the people involved with the film, it seems that they’ve been out of their heyday for a while now. John Williams used to be a lock for a great score, but there haven’t been many in the last decade that have made much of an impression on me. In each of the first three films, there was not only the heroic theme from the first film, but new music that captured the imagination and the spirit of the film. I didn’t find it here. Not that it was inappropriate or annoying – just not memorable.
Directing: I’ve been a little disappointed with every Spielberg film since Saving Private Ryan. What happened? Since then, they’ve never felt quite complete somehow. Munich is very good, except it feels like it’s missing part of the film. War of the Worlds isn’t bad until a shockingly strange abrupt ending. It makes me feel like he’s still a great craftsman, and could make another great film, but that his heart just isn’t quite into it anymore. If so, I hope he gets more of that spark back – I would have hoped this would be the film that would do it, but instead, it seems like a bunch of moments that hearken back to the old Indy films, deprived of their joy or meaning. The “mountain into a molehill” has already been mentioned. The recurrence of familiar lines is something that always feels a little cheap to me, and they’ve turned to that here as well. One that kind of surprised me were some of the shadow/silhouette shots. They were used beautifully in the original film – surprising, larger than life, with an ominous overtone (such as the shadow falling on the ark’s container in the Well of the Souls). Here, they didn’t resonate at all, except as familiar shadows of a much better film.
Those wouldn’t matter if the film were more interesting. I’m not expecting the Tolstoy of action films, but I would have liked to have seen a little more care put into it. In Raiders, there are so many small touches that reflect someone working to make even slight improvements to the overall effect of the scene. For instance, when Bellocq and Indy are in the bar, and Bellocq is telling him how similar they are, we can see Indy seething and ready to explode. But part of that comes from setting up the scene so that, just past Indy’s eye, we see a tiny bit of the ceiling fan going by, creating a flickering effect that adds to the perception of Indy reaching his boiling point. Maybe Spielberg doesn’t feel like it was that important, and isn’t interested in going to that much trouble to set up a shot any more. But it’s one of the things I really miss. The use of CGI throughout rather than live action critters bothered me, too – yes, they’re pretty realistic, but viewers today can generally tell the difference. Having real snakes in the Well of the Souls made all the difference in the scene, even if they weren’t all real. And once we see inside Area 51 and recognize it, couldn’t we have a little more fulfillment of our expectations than a glimpse of gold?
Jim Emerson’s Scanners post on Spielberg and the geography of action scenes was very interesting. Essentially I agree with what Spielberg said – the action scenes in Raiders and Temple are so much more involving than similar scenes in, for example Batman Begins (even though I liked the movie), because you can feel the flow of the action rather than the blunt force of impact. But what happened in Crystal Skull? The scene that seems like it should have been a classic is the chase in the jungle. Spielberg did have a variety of shots that seem like they are trying to anchor the action scenes in the space around them. And yet it all came across as fairly meaningless. Vehicles were hard to tell apart, and with people switching around from one to another, it seemed more like a shell game than an exciting chase. In the ones from earlier films that are most memorable to me, there were fairly simple goals in mind (use this horse to get the ark away from a convoy of trucks), or a simple setup that gives opportunities for a lot of different kinds of action (the mine car chase). In the jungle chase, it was more like the mine car chase, except without the variety of action. About the only thing memorable to me was Mutt straddling the two vehicles – not exactly groundbreaking excitement.
So, why then did I like the film? I’m not sure. As I mentioned, it’s nice to see Indy again, even if it’s a lesser attempt. Plus, it’s been ages since I went to a movie! I think that it might be because I can still imagine a great Indiana Jones movie, and if this wasn’t it, at least it gave flashes of some of the things we might see in it, a reminder of what made the early films great (if more by absence and shadowy reflection). I left the theater with my dream of another great Indy movie intact. I hope it comes along in fact some day, when everyone involved has the drive to make it happen.
Post a Comment