Plinkett's next review is revealed here....

Stop making sense, man!

 

I thought it was a clever way to poke fun at the people who insinuated that they'd like to nail the Olson twins when they were preteens. How many times did you hear "thank God" when they turned 18?

I haven't finished the review yet, but I have to say I agree already that Lucas sounded like a retard talking about an Indiana Jones film being a homage to the 50's scifi films. That's an entirely different genre, and not one that fits the type of story Indiana Jones is known for. Thus the 50's scifi part of the story was thrown into the film in a halfassed way.

 

Well it doesn't. I'm sayin' it!

 

I enjoyed that. It wasn't quite as interesting as The Phantom Menace review, but I think he summed up the problems in the KOTC very well. It wasn't a terrible movie, just a bland and forgettable sequel that still manages to be entertaining.

 

He makes a few salient points, and he's a lot of fun to watch. I think that's the hook.

 

It disturbed you more than the serial killer schtick? C'mon.

 

Lucas actually said that?

 

I finally watched it.

I'm almost (but not quite) as much of a fan of Plinkett, his analysis and tasteless humor as much as JacksonArcher is a fan of the Nolan Batverse. I loved the review. I loved how he reiterated the point that by softening the violence and grit, not making the bad guys evil enough, and by implying that the U'S. is as much of the bad guys as the actual bad guys, KOTCS felt just a bit odd. too many cooks in the kitchen.

As for anyone turning off the review at the early Olsen twins joke, I would suggest.. something.. to get your edge back. It's funny precisely because it is so damn tasteless. In the TPM review when the camera panned to reveal the hooker tied up, my jaw hit the floor. Really. But in putting it in RLM reminded me of the fact that it can be good to tap into that somewhat nasty teenage kid in all of us. It's not like we actually do those things, but to not laugh at it, we might as all wear sweaters and golf shirts and become Jehovah's witnesses or something. how dull is that?

 

It's important to remember that "nasty teenage kid" man-child types are the only real source for valid film criticism, because everyone else is a loser.

 

He hit all of the salient points (the kill counts, especially) and it was entertaining enough, I guess, but I just don't care about KOTCS. It was so forgettable, I actually couldn't remember half of the stupid shit he was referencing or analyzing in the review. I mean, I agreed it was stupid once he reminded me of it, but I just couldn't muster the interest to be fully invested in the review and I love Indiana Jones. I hope he livens things up a bit with the Matrix reviews, maybe with a review within a review or something.

As for Indy, I really hope they don't make another sequel. I could barely sit through the fourth for one showing, after practically memorizing the first three on repeated viewings and actually wearing out my VHS tapes. It's dead. The horse is dead. You're beating a corpse now. Please stop, Mr. Lucas. Let the mourning begin.

Coming in December, 2015 ... Indiana Jones 3D! Watch the classic quadrilogy from the beginning the way it was always intended to be seen ... in THREE-DEE!

 

With a certain classic scene digitally changed to show Indy throwing a walkie-talkie at the sword-wielding Arab, rather than shooting him.

 

Matrix sequel reviews would be good.

He makes good points in his Indiana Jones review although I didn't find them as entertaining as some of his other reviews have been. In the run up to this I actually watched the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull again (only second time since I saw it at the cinema). My second impression is that it isn't as terrible as the shock of the first movie. ALIENS?!
I think Steven Speilberg would learn from what didn't work with the last movie. I think Lucas less so. So if there was an Indy 5 we might get something a bit better than before. I know, I'm a masochist for wanting one more. But heck, I like the character.

 

They need to make the point that Average Moviegoer didn't want to see the story progress and just wanted a rehash of the "OMG the world is not real" plot of the first film.

 

I made it past the Olson-twins schtick, but not much further. Of course, Plinkett makes some good points, but I found his Lucas-fixation tiresome. I mean, if I want to hear a rant against Lucas, I can just spool up the hours of commentary already available from Plinkett on the PT. For the sake of avoiding repetition, he should have focused more on the film itself, and less on his anti-Lucas agenda (even if his agenda is entirely valid, it's becoming very, very stale).

 

uh... he did focus on the film itself... but potshots to Lucas comes with the territory

 

Yes! Defend the Plinkett from any and all criticims! It is your ... destiny ...

... part time ...

 

yeah maybe at first he mentioned Lucas more than I would have liked but the review is pretty thorough across the board

 

Yeah, like I said, Plinkett does make good points, and it's not like his anti-Lucas agenda is without merit (and I'll admit, I found his PT reviews mostly entertaining) ... but at this point he's beating a dead, decomposing horse (an unrestrained Lucas is bad for movies, we get it already) -- to an extent that I just didn't need/want to continue investing my time watching the rest of the review.

 

Two points I really like:

1... People want to see Indy's awesomene4ss more than they want to see him as a character. In other words, they don't really (honestly) want to see him grow old more than they want him to do awesome stuff and be awesome.

2. Since Spielberg and Lucas are older grandfather types who are responsible filmmakers now, there is a distinct lack of sharp violence and real grit in the fourth film. When they were in their thirties they had an edge that they cannot get back

 

^ Those points, for the most part, are arbitrary and therein lies the fundamental problem with some elements of this review. Those points compare KOTCS against the earlier films as opposed to looking at the film on its own merits (which he does, mind you, but it is much more limited in scope than his critiques of the prequels).