Comments on: Plinkett Strikes Back

Plinkett Strikes Back

codacorolla — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 08:58:48 -0800

Mr. Plinkett returns to review Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Cyrstal Skull. Direct BlipTV link to part 1, and part 2.

By: OnTheLastCastle

OnTheLastCastle — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:01:16 -0800

Yessssss! His reviews are funny and some really spot on analysis on why these movies don't work. He taught me that Qui Gon Jin was a terrible character. Already loving it 20 seconds in.

By: empath

empath — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:05:10 -0800

I hated that movie enough to walk out of it halfway through. I watched the rest of it later on TV, and regretted it.

By: The Whelk

The Whelk — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:07:22 -0800

Cate Blanchett was criminally underused in that movie, also the fakey fake fake fake CGI ants was just the icing on the disappointing cake.

By: Senor Cardgage

Senor Cardgage — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:08:01 -0800

Like all of Plinkett's reviews, the real meat starts about halfway in but as usual he makes some really terrific points and clearly knows a thing or two about story construction. I've been watching it all morning so far and am almost finished. Part 2 is in line with the best of his commentary from the Sith review.

By: Trochanter

Trochanter — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:13:00 -0800

Don't run Indy!! You'll throw your hip out!!

By: octothorpe

octothorpe — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:14:26 -0800

Spielberg Blames Lucas For The Crystal Skulls, But Is Proud Of Nuking The Fridge

By: empath

empath — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:14:41 -0800

OMG the Olsen Twins thing..

By: The Winsome Parker Lewis

The Winsome Parker Lewis — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:14:53 -0800

By: OnTheLastCastle

OnTheLastCastle — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:16:30 -0800

He explains the things he's talking about so far. Indy 4 is dumb, has stupid CGI and is about space aliens. There, I caught you up.

By: Jehan

Jehan — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:17:38 -0800

I love his other reviews but they're all for movies I've seen. I had the good sense to stay far away from Indy 4, so will I be completely lost if I watch this? Knowing the depth of his analysis of plot and writing, I guess I'd be missing a big piece of the puzzle. Plinkett reviews require a serious time commitment, so let me know if it's worth my while! I've never seen the Star Wars prequels, yet found his reviews of them hilarious. As long as you know the story universe and have an idea of what a film should be doing, listening to him tear a shoddy film apart is a real joy.

By: The Whelk

The Whelk — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:19:13 -0800

People harp on the Fridge thing but I thought it was just in line with the paperbook golly-gee adventure tone of the movies in general.

By: Wolfdog

Wolfdog — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:26:42 -0800

I should stop watching this and get on with my epic crossover fic, Indiana Jones and the Surly Beard of Mrifk.

By: pts

pts — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:30:13 -0800

I think the fridge would've been forgivable, Whelk, if the rest of the movie hadn't been so forgettable. It's not even that I hated it. It's that for the life of me I can't remember a thing about it.

By: OnTheLastCastle

OnTheLastCastle — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:37:17 -0800

Boo, my boss came into work right as I wanted to spend the next few hours watching this. Christmas ruined.

By: octothorpe

octothorpe — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:38:15 -0800

I was so excited about this movie before it came about and then almost fell asleep half way through watching it. Before I watched this review, I didn't really remember anything about it. What a waste of everyone's time.

By: narcoleptic

narcoleptic — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:44:37 -0800

This is so much better than Half In The Bag. I tried watching one of those, and couldn't get through 10 minutes. There is a throwaway joke at the start about HITB, but it shouldn't be.

By: Tell Me No Lies

Tell Me No Lies — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:52:55 -0800

People harp on the Fridge thing but I thought it was just in line with the paperbook golly-gee adventure tone of the movies in general. The problem isn't that it's silly, the problem is that it breaks the laws of the universe as established in the Indy movies. If Indy could survive that then suddenly a lot of scenes that were perilous and exciting throughout the franchise are rather boring. So best we choose to ignore it rather than reach the conclusion that a two ton rolling boulder would simply leave an Indy shaped impression in the dirt, which he would get up out of and continue with his day.

By: Barry B. Palindromer

Barry B. Palindromer — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:55:21 -0800

Good thing he reviewed it now so I would know whether or not I should watch it. The best (most ridiculous) thing about the movie was the fridge. Also the best part of Fallout: New Vegas was finding the skeleton in the fridge out in the wasteland. I wore that hat for most of the game.

By: Artw

Artw — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:55:26 -0800

I, too, will defend the fridge as consistent with Indy as we know him. I would also defend Von Daniken style aliens and crystal skulls - if Indy can go to Atlantis he can totally do that shit. And the Sovs are perfectly adequate Nazi replacements. Boring CGI action and the Poochy character ruined that movie.

By: bpm140

bpm140 — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:55:38 -0800

Man, I love his analysis. Man, I hate his humor. OMG, the Olsen twins thing.

By: Artw

Artw — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:57:28 -0800

In the first draft of Raiders Indy fights a Nazi with a machinegin arm. Just saying.

By: Tell Me No Lies

Tell Me No Lies — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:57:33 -0800

BTW, are there transcripts of these reviews anywhere?

By: fearfulsymmetry

fearfulsymmetry — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:57:47 -0800

Christmas is early then

By: neuromodulator

neuromodulator — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:04:53 -0800

this machinegin arm thing, is this something we can all get?

By: Aznable

Aznable — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:09:47 -0800

Why did that movie have to be so awful? Why why why? I fall on the side of the fence that says the fridge in and of itself wasn't too out of line. He did survive falling out of an airplane with just an inflatable raft and all. If only the rest of the movie wasn't insanely terrible that one bit could be forgiven. That said, I can't wait to get home and watch Plinkett tear this one apart.

By: mattbucher

mattbucher — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:10:51 -0800

Comment on this webzone if you want a pizza roll.

By: bpm140

bpm140 — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:11:38 -0800

In the first draft of Raiders Indy fights a Nazi with a machinegin arm. Just saying. Yes, but they took that part out before it was filmed. Great movies are just shit movies with all the bad parts pulled out.

By: octothorpe

octothorpe — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:15:11 -0800

I thought the fridge thing was funny or at worst, the least bad thing in the movie.

By: mediated self

mediated self — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:15:55 -0800

After the great Cop Dog review I was hoping he would review Quigley next. Biggest disappointment since my son.

By: Cool Papa Bell

Cool Papa Bell — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:17:21 -0800

Yes, Cate Blanchett was criminally underused. Full on Chekhov's gun failure there -- you tell me she's a Soviet psychic, I better see some full on Professor Xavier shit happening, dig?

By: Artw

Artw — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:22:12 -0800

Well, she THINKS shes psychic.

By: Drastic

Drastic — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:25:53 -0800

Just like Lucas THINKS he has wonderful ideas. It's parallels, it rhymes, like poetry!

By: OnTheLastCastle

OnTheLastCastle — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:31:35 -0800

Was she really a Soviet psychic? cause I totally want to be one! You can call me Psycho Mantis.

By: Artw

Artw — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:37:33 -0800

A sword weilding nutjob sob with delusions of being psychic that everyone goes along with because Stalin ass into that sort of thing and they don't want to get purged is actually a pretty wonderful character concept, IMHO, pity it wasn't better used.

By: happyroach

happyroach — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:40:01 -0800

I actually thought that the crystal skull aliens were an interesting attempt to link the pulp themes of the thirties with the Sci-Fi themes of the 50s. Sort of a passing of the torch. That said, I'm really tired of that ancient astronauts crap, because it's incredibly racist. I'd like to see a claim that the Washington Monument was built bgy aliens, because the local primitives with their pathetic tools couldn't possibly build something like that.

By: Bunny Ultramod

Bunny Ultramod — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:41:09 -0800

The "whoops this house and whole village is a nuclear testing site" was the climax to the first season of Michael Mann's "Crime Story." I bet you thought I forgot that, Senor Speilbergo. No lo hice.

By: The Card Cheat

The Card Cheat — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:53:29 -0800

I've said this before, but...the worst thing I can say about Crystal Skull is that Shia LaBeouf wasn't the worst thing about it.

By: CarlRossi

CarlRossi — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:54:46 -0800

I bought the falling out of a plane in a raft to a snowy slope because I have seen skiers so something similar. Skier WANTS to do it from a stationary helicopter + Indy HAS to do it from a slow moving plane = plausible. The fridge scene would have been better if Indy and faceless Soviet had to comically work together in true Indy fashion to get the hell out of there. Then deal with the blast wave... Then the vacuum suck (whatever that's called)... Perhaps a trademark Indy smile when something in the nuke suck takes the Soviet with it. A scene that has shades of the Nazi who ate the propeller in Raiders. As it is, a 'lead lined' label doesn't cut it. And he also get out of the fridge and stands there after a trip that would have, and had, crippled Evel Knievel. I'm not saying movie physics have to be perfect, but as long as they resemble something, anything we've seen in the real world, I'll buy it for 90 mins.

By: mattbucher

mattbucher — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:55:11 -0800

I'm laughing too hard at work. Looks like I'm gonna have to go home early (and watch some Olsen twin movies).

By: coolguymichael

coolguymichael — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:56:20 -0800

Raiders is my absolute favorite movie. Temple of Doom is just about my least favorite movie (I keep giving it 2nd chances, and it just gets worse. Kate Capshaw is the worst person on earth, and Spielberg doesn't seem to understand what made Raiders great.) Crystal Skull was meh. I consider it the best of the sequels, which is like saying it's the most enjoyable maggot-filled feces I've ever eaten. I'm trying to get my gf to watch Episodes 1-3 just so we can watch Plinkett's reviews together -- they're much more enjoyable than the movies themselves.

By: peeedro

peeedro — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:57:47 -0800

His bit in the beginning of part two about how the Indy character works because he's the manly man that viewers want to be rings true with me. After I saw Raiders, in the summer before the start of first grade, my neighbor and I got together and dug a big hole in his backyard. Inspired by Indiana Jones, we imagined that if we dug deep enough we'd find an ancient temple full of snakes and treasure. It didn't quite turn out like that, the neighbor kid, while tossing a shovelful of dirt of his shoulder, managed to hit me square in the face. The shovel split my face open from the bridge of my nose up to over my right eye. Twenty six stitches later I had a hard time making friends on the first day of school. So the Indiana Jones movies have been mostly ruined for me because of that emotional association. I'm glad to hear that George Lucas is working so hard to ruin them for the rest of you.

By: Askiba

Askiba — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:58:13 -0800

For those who need or want a TL;DR, Plinkett lays it all out at the end: 1. Indiana Jones can't be old 2. Indiana Jones needs to murder moar people 3. The action needs to be realistic and practical

By: empath

empath — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:01:44 -0800

The action needs to be realistic and practical Yeah, this can't be said enough. The scene where he shoots the swordsman in the first movie is prototypical indy -- just a perfect no-bullshit response.

By: octothorpe

octothorpe — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:09:47 -0800

I can't find a link but I swear that I read an article a few years before the movie came out that Spielberg wanted to avoid CGI with this movie and do everything with the same practical effects work that the original three used. But somehow between that interview and the actual post production, he changed his mind to use really fake and rubbery looking animation.

By: Senor Cardgage

Senor Cardgage — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:15:36 -0800

His bit in the beginning of part two about how the Indy character works because he's the manly man that viewers want to be rings true with me. After I saw Raiders, in the summer before the start of first grade, my neighbor and I got together and dug a big hole in his backyard. Inspired by Indiana Jones, we imagined that if we dug deep enough we'd find an ancient temple full of snakes and treasure. This illustrates perfectly a point Plinkett makes in the prequel reviews about one of the key reasons those films were so misguided: just because kids see a movie, that doesnt mean kids want to see other kids in the movie. Kids want to be Han, or Lando, or Leia. They dont care that those characters are 20 years older than they are, because that is irrelevant since they are imagining anyway. No kid wants to be Mutt or young Annakin or one of those youngling Muppet Babies Jedis we saw getting trained because none of those guys are particularly cool or interesting or in control of anything in the first place. And as I say every time Lucas and his "herp Republic serials!" fixation comes up: Star Wars and Indy succeeded in spite of their matinee cliffhanger roots and not because of them. If they had just been straight homage to that corny crap then no one would have cared in the first place. When I was a kid growing up with the SW and IJ films, none of us made any connection to those saturday morning serials and that's a good thing because most of those serials are really, really bad. Sure, they have a cheeky, schticky spirit to them but none of them work outside of the context of them being nostalgic artifacts.

By: Kevin Street

Kevin Street — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:15:39 -0800

Only seen Part 1 so far. The Olsen twins joke is really off-putting, but he has a good point about the crystal skull. In the previous three movies there was always a clear goal - keeping the Nazis away from some famous artifact that would give them tremendous power. In this movie it isn't all that clear why it would be so bad if the Soviets got the skull. Maybe one woman would get enhanced mental powers? And all the CGI was way over the top, especially at the end. As an archeologist, Indy should be haunted for the rest of his life by all that knowledge he almost had, but lost. It would make archeology kind of unfulfilling afterwards, knowing that so many ancient people were connected, but he could never prove it.

By: Hoopo

Hoopo — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:20:44 -0800

That said, I'm really tired of that ancient astronauts crap, because it's incredibly racist. I'd like to see a claim that the Washington Monument was built by aliens, because the local primitives with their pathetic tools couldn't possibly build something like that. I don't disagree that the ancient astronaut stuff is racist, and the idea is obviously ludicrous. But I think the mitigating factor here is that unlike the Washington Monument, the nutjobs usually say that the crystal skulls are made in a way that the Mayans would have to have had access to technology that they shouldn't have and something secret knowledge something yaddayaddayadda. Which is of course bullshit, but it's probably true that the ancient Mayans didn't have access to the modern equipment that was found to have actually been used to manufacture the fraudulent crystal skulls in Europe in the 19th Century. And if one were to mistakenly attribute the skulls to the Mayans, the way they were able to manufacture them would certainly be mysterious.

By: Artw

Artw — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:30:41 -0800

I'm really tired of that ancient astronauts crap, because it's incredibly racist. Well, it was invented by Lovecraft.

By: Artw

Artw — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:32:00 -0800

1. Indiana Jones can't be old 2. Indiana Jones needs to murder moar people 3. The action needs to be realistic and practical Hff. So basically he's using the least liked (and possibly weakest - though both 2 and 3 have issues) of the movie to lay out his nerd thesis on how things being grim and gritty is always awesome? Hmmf.

By: OnTheLastCastle

OnTheLastCastle — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:32:34 -0800

The scene where he shoots the swordsman in the first movie is prototypical indy -- just a perfect no-bullshit response. And totally wasn't in the screenplay. Harrison Ford is responsible for two of nerddom's greatest scenes off the top of his head.

By: OnTheLastCastle

OnTheLastCastle — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:33:38 -0800

There's a difference between wanting everything to be grim and gritty and hating that god awful vine swinging scene.

By: Artw

Artw — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:33:44 -0800

Original 'Indiana Jones' Concept Art by Jim Steranko

By: Artw

Artw — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:36:22 -0800

There's a difference between wanting everything to be grim and gritty and hating that god awful vine swinging scene. Practical effects totally made the Indy movies, but I don't think realism really came into it at all with the action scenes - they're all at least a little bit Loony Tunes.

By: Kevin Street

Kevin Street — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:37:18 -0800

I didn't care for Mutt originally, but Plinkett makes a good point about his presence being a sort of counterpoint to Indie's dad in the last film. They should have cut out most of the stuff with Marian and Oxley and had a more believable arc for Mutt. Like at the beginning he's this punk kid that doesn't give a crap about Mayans or science, but after adventuring with Indie he gets infected with that old Jones family obsession and starts to wonder about the wider world. Maybe he enrolls in college, but refuses to tell his dad which one. And there could have been a WWII flashback with Indie and Mac. That would have been a better opening teaser. Show us their relationship.

By: Edogy

Edogy — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:38:40 -0800

My favorite moment so far at 24:28 of part one, the seemingly-honest bemusement in his voice as he discusses a large, moving piece of the set.

"I like that this big thing was actually a practical set. Boy, I was fucking shocked to learn that."

By: IAmBroom

IAmBroom — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:42:38 -0800

The first 55 seconds are wonderful. Then the rest ... is great too. Which parallels the movie itself. Except substitute "complete and total shit" for "great".

By: m_steven_a

m_steven_a — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:44:17 -0800

I couldn't be happier that they decided to return to the Plinkett format. I think the point could be arguably made that criticism focusing squarely on the negative, the ill-conceived or the bloated is the easiest to write and the least valuable for both the reader and the critic herself. That being said, the Plinkett character constructs thorough-enough counter arguments involving film history, basic thematic explorations and screenwriting to transform some of the base aspirations of a simple teardown. Any filmgoer, filmmaker or writer can learn a tremendous amount from Plinkett's dissections. It's honestly my favorite part of these reviews and why I end up recommending them so highly to others.

By: CarlRossi

CarlRossi — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:44:59 -0800

My favorite moment so far at 24:28 of part one... My jaw dropped watching that part too. I thought that was all CGI. Also to add to my other note, I had secretly hoped that Crystal Skull would be the movie where we learn how Indy loses his eye. One day. One day...

By: Artw

Artw — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:50:12 -0800

You know, watching this I'm actually remembering a lot more parts of the movie I actually like. Hell, I can even see an argument for the kid. I think he's nailed it about the bits that suck though: they all look like a videogame. Also it does, indeed, feeling the characters are being given something to do for the lot of the movie.

By: Artw

Artw — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 12:02:05 -0800

Toht's robotic arm - he also has some kind of cyber-eye.

By: stinkycheese

stinkycheese — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 12:06:18 -0800

I've only seen the first part thus far, but that's the best thing I've seen in ages, thanks so much. These are so funny and so spot on. Makes my day.

By: mediated self

mediated self — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 12:14:54 -0800

That was pretty great. For all his crude gags Plinkett is usually insightful about the films and filmmakers he analyzes. I'd love to see him tackle the Matrix sequels next. And that Dan Akroyd footage...I had no idea.

By: Jehan

Jehan — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 12:27:30 -0800

I'm really tired of that ancient astronauts crap, because it's incredibly racist. In fairness, it's a sub–type of hyperdiffusionism, the belief that all civilization comes from a single advanced culture. The use of aliens as a source and with restricted recipients is fairly new, and racism is not a necessary part of the belief. Almost all ancient cultures have been identified as the source at some time, and equally all other cultures as the recipient. Before the discoveries of oceanography made such a belief impossible, "ancient astronauts" were Atlanteans who simultaneously spread mound–building culture to both Europe and America from their land in the Atlantic sea. The restricted scope of current beliefs is probably partly due to the impossibility of adequately exoticizing or mystifying neolithic Europe in the same way still possible for Mesoamerica. The "Zimbabwe problem" view might be consciously absent. I would like to see ancient astronauts crap thrown away for good because it's a much worse story than reality. Part of the hyperdiffusionist appeal is its simplicity, when humans are wonderfully more complex and interesting.

By: Hoopo

Hoopo — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 12:30:51 -0800

And that Dan Akroyd footage...I had no idea I have it on pretty good authority that Dan Akroyd used to do a LOT of acid, so the "big pink spiral in the sky" thing....

By: cupcake1337

cupcake1337 — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 12:39:56 -0800

is anyone else really annoyed with bliptv? ads, no full screen, so annoying

By: rubber duck

rubber duck — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 12:39:56 -0800

By: Senor Cardgage

Senor Cardgage — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 12:43:03 -0800

And it wasn't terribly funny. It might have worked as a tossed-out quip but It instead built up into a thing whose offensiveness was actually overshadowed by its boring lameness.

By: slimepuppy

slimepuppy — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 12:47:27 -0800

Tintin is the film Crystal Skill should have been.

By: pyrex

pyrex — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 12:48:54 -0800

I can understand how some people may not find the "Plinkett-style" comedy funny (hell even I found it forced in this review at various points - lol meta jokes, etc.), but he is extremely good at pointing out the flaws and questionable elements of the film. Not to mention the Olsen twins bit, I think and hope that was just down to poor judgement. I would also heartily recommend the Half in the Bag episode regarding "Jack and Jill". Actually most of the Half in the Bag episodes provide a lot of excellent criticism, whether you enjoy the comedy or not.

By: Bookhouse

Bookhouse — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 12:53:59 -0800

Excellent as usual. They should have recast Indy and stayed in the Nazi era.

By: Chuckles

Chuckles — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 13:01:49 -0800

I love the Star Wars prequel tear downs, but this mostly sucked. He had 20 minutes worth of things to say, but it lasted well over an hour. Also, it was kind of bizarre hearing him complain about the missing structure of the movie when his criticism was so haphazard and meandering.

By: Artw

Artw — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 13:02:05 -0800

I bloody hope Tintin is good, Speilberg needs to redeem himself after all the crappy TV shows he's pushed on us lately.

By: fearfulsymmetry

fearfulsymmetry — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 13:02:26 -0800

The emasculation of action films is one of the banes of contemporary cinema... everything blanded-out to get low rating and maximised audience.

By: Senor Cardgage

Senor Cardgage — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 13:04:29 -0800

Fearfulsymmetry, go see the new Mission Impossible. I'm not kidding. It is FANTASTIC.

By: maxwelton

maxwelton — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 13:04:47 -0800

By: Artw

Artw — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 13:06:29 -0800

Fearfulsymmetry, go see the new Mission Impossible. I'm not kidding. It is FANTASTIC. Tom Cruise dies in the first five minutes?

By: fearfulsymmetry

fearfulsymmetry — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 13:07:57 -0800

I reckon it's about evens that Prometheus will be a total let down given the track record of these things.

By: Spatch

Spatch — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 13:15:52 -0800

I really don't care about the refrigerator thing. Being a matinee action star, Indy is indestructible and the only way to show that someone is indestructible is to keep piling on the abuse. In the course of the first three films he gets knocked around, punched out (by his ex, no less, on an occasion or two), slammed by henchmen, sucker-punched, tortured and brainwashed for Kali, bullwhipped in the face, learns how they say goodnight in Chermany, chased by giant rolling boulders, and cuts a giant rope bridge's support to ride it slam into the gorge's rock wall. He fights back very well, of course, because he's Indiana Freakin' Jones, though more often than not he comes out of a victorious scrap very weary and with a few new scars. But still, he's victorious, because he's Indiana Jones. He's an action-movie star with an abnormally high threshold of tolerance for having his ass kicked. So when he was able to duck into a fridge to escape a nuclear explosion, I saw that as Indy's indestructibility taken to a competely illogical extreme, and it was hilarious. Of course, the temptation here is to try and top that the next chance you get, but that would be pointless. Let something keep its title as High Point. You can't keep making more. This physical stuff, though, did unsettle me in Crystal Skull but for a different reason. The same reason watching the older Three Stooges shorts can be difficult to see. The actors are much, much older now. It's no fun watching Moe bop Larry on the head and knock him over when Larry looks like he could break his hip if he lands wrong. Ford is old, Raiders is thirty, and those facts challenged the "Indy is indestructible!" feeling for me more than a preposterous refrigerator situation.

By: neuromodulator

neuromodulator — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 13:18:46 -0800

They should have recast Indy and stayed in the Nazi era. Spielberg decided he wouldn't use Nazis as cartoon villains any longer.

By: Xoebe

Xoebe — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 13:36:27 -0800

There were a number of things that didn't sit so well with me - but there was one thing that directly annoyed me during the movie. It was so distracting that it took me out of the movie every single time. I found myself dwelling on it every single time. It still annoys me every time I see it in a video clip replay - that damn alien skull. It's a cheap plastic skull with cellophane stuffed in it. It looks cheap. It is cheap. I can forgive the monkeys and swinging vines. I can forgive the bomb proof fridge. I can forgive the character inconsistencies. I can forgive pretty much everything about the movie. Except one thing. That skull. It is unforgivable.

By: caution live frogs

caution live frogs — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 13:42:53 -0800

coolguymichael: "Temple of Doom is just about my least favorite movie" But that's the only movie in the series that would have had a different ending if Indy had just stayed home! He actually changed the outcome there. The other three movies, the bad guys would have ended up dead by their own actions every time.

By: Artw

Artw — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 13:44:41 -0800

Well, they might not have even found the Ark...

By: cool breeze

cool breeze — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 13:48:19 -0800

The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was so godawful bad that I've tried very, very, very hard to erase it from my memory banks, and consider Indiana Jones done after the Last Crusade.

By: Lord Chancellor

Lord Chancellor — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 13:48:34 -0800

I actually liked the film. It was what I expected and I had a good time. I like the transition between the mystical from the 30's and the sci-fi in the 50's (see Green Lantern). I know it's not popular, but I enjoyed Crystal Skull.

By: WhackyparseThis

WhackyparseThis — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 13:50:47 -0800

Yessssss! His reviews are funny and some really spot on analysis on why these movies don't work. He taught me that Qui Gon Jin was a terrible character. No he wasn't. As stated in the Episode I Review Rebuttal: "No, Qui-Gon Jinn is most certainly not "stern." In fact he's the complete opposite, and can basically be summed up as an idealized father figure. Strong, brave, in control, but also kind and soft spoken. The type of man many people probably wished their dad would be like when they were kids. Qui-Gon is calm and patient when dealing with others, and he believes in the people he takes under his wing." Episode I was not a good movie, but a lot of the Plinkett attacks are unfounded.

By: coolguymichael

coolguymichael — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:02:15 -0800

That Olsen twins joke was horrible, really awful, I really didn't expect something quite so crude and stupid. Having watched the rest of Plinkett's stuff, it's pretty much exactly what I expected. But [Temple of Doom]'s the only movie in the series that would have had a different ending if Indy had just stayed home! I know this is conventional wisdom on the internets, but it's false. Indy found the ark. You can argue that it would have been found anyway, but a million things might have happened differently had it not happened then. Also, the real ending (in the warehouse) would have likely never happened at all had there not been Americans at the Ark's opening.

By: Artw

Artw — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:08:00 -0800

I recently watched Episode 1 again for the first time in ages, basically checking to see if would be appropriate for my Star Wars obsessed daughter. I thought maybe it would seem better to me , watching with fresh eyes and without expectations. Oh my god was I wrong... 1) It is boring. So horribly, horribly boring. The first twenty minutes is all dull conversations about dull stuff, and any oportunity for drama anywhere i s mercilessly crushed underneath longwinded dialogue and flat acting. How dull did you remember it being? It is way more dull than that. Anankin leaves his mother to go off into space forever and as a viewer I couldn't care less - it;s made as dull as any midichlorians or trade agreements. 2) It is shockingly, shockingly racist. Every single alien is some awful racial stereotype - Jar Jar, of course, his fellow lizard things, the Chinese space gits, the Arab slave traders... again, I sort of remembered it, but on rewatching it's far far worse. 3) Jar Jar Binks. As bad as you remember him. And really, the small chance that my daughter might like the horrid clowning creep is the real reason she will never watch it. NEVER. NOT ON MY WATCH. So, anyway, yuck. A terrible movie with a terribe reputation well deserved.

By: stratastar

stratastar — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:08:01 -0800

A russian friend of mine can't vouch highly enough for Cate Blanchett's russian accent in this film. It may be the only thing redeemable about it. Mickey Rourke's accent in Iron Man 2, however?

By: Artw

Artw — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:08:40 -0800

(Someday I'll come home to find her watching Clone Wars or something, I know, but if I can help her bypass just that one movie I will have done her a great service)

By: Artw

Artw — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:09:10 -0800

Mickey Rourke's accent in Iron Man 2, however? Bwud is in the wuater!

By: Tom-B

Tom-B — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:16:56 -0800

At 14:31 of the first part, there's a plot structure infographic that appears for a moment, anybody know where it's from? And re: the fridge scene — it's usual for action heroes to do impossible stuff, but depending on how the scene is set up you either get the impression that it's easy because A. the hero is special, extraordinarily strong, or lucky, or badass; or B. the danger is fake. That nuclear blast is a B, what? no temperature, radiation or fallout? Indy just hides in a fridge and walks away, just as you or I would. Same thing with the final battle in SW Episode 1, when annoying kid Anakin accidentaly kills all the enemies, you get the impression that it's easy because the enemies are fake, not because Anakin is special.

By: Tom-B

Tom-B — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:25:16 -0800

sorry 14:01 not 14:31

By: mediated self

mediated self — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:28:45 -0800

there's a plot structure infographic that appears for a moment, anybody know where it's from? I found what I believe is the same chart on this site.

By: VikingSword

VikingSword — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:30:24 -0800

This film is about the inherent corruption of hollywood. Nothing new here, it's been true from the beginning. People who are successful, accumulate a lot of power - producers, actors, directors. And then they become untouchable. They start making shit. Sometimes it's because they lost their artistic judgment. Sometimes, because they stopped listening to dissenting voices, their ego got the better of them, and they surround themselves with yes-men. Sometimes they just don't give a shit, and want to extract as much cash out of this as possible. But the fundamental problem remains. They have a lot of power, and that's how they can make bad movies. Then various outsiders, dreamers eager to break in, foolishly say "that was so bad, I could make a lot better, clearly I deserve a career and I'll be a huge success", not realizing that no, you are not going to have a chance, because it's not that hollywood can't find better talent (there's plenty - get in line... end of the line!) and this is the best they can do, it's about the power of old men (and it is mostly men). The viewers are of course partly to blame. I should say 'consumers'. And really, I shouldn't say "blame". Humans respond to brand products. The old guys ride the brand they made - perhaps it was great once upon a time, but now they have all the advantages of the incumbent brand recognition. And the money guys back the brands. Would you rather put your money on an old Spielberg or some eager young kid? It's safer to put it on Spielberg. And it's got a built-in ass-covering for the execs should it fail: "hey, don't blame me, I picked Spielberg! But I guess you can't win every time!". Had he picked the young kid and the film failed, he'd get reamed: "why the fuck did you pick that complete unknown loser? You're fired!". So there is no escaping bad films from old men in hollywood. Or... is there? We've seen this movie once before (ahem!). Hollywood back in the 70's. The old studio heads were completely confused by the radically different viewing public that developed as a result of the social revolution of the 60's. The old film formulas were not working. Weird stuff was working. They didn't understand what the kids wanted. So they threw up their hands and allowed new blood in, almost anyone could talk their way in - and some of the most interesting cinema happened in the 70's. Then we got to the 80's, and the blockbusters (thanks, Spielberg & gang), and as the country elected Reagan, so did the society change. Campus political activity petered out. Stagnation. Reign of old men. Is there hope? Well, the economics of it all is changing. Technology is making filmmaking tools more affordable and therefore more democratically available. The studios don't have the production control anymore. But they still have distribution control. All those new voices can't be heard, because they don't have access to viewers. That's still controlled. But for how long? The internet is changing things, but a clear model has not evolved yet. Splintering of the viewing public is a two-edged sword; you get more room for niche product, but you have less mindshare and it's harder to make any money at it. So for now, we're saddled with the old men. Geriatric action actors whose actions are all strictly CGI and SFX. Sclerotic scripts and senile direction. In other words, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. So it's with mixed feelings that I watch something like a plinkett review of this. I mean, it feels like picking on old men in wheelchairs. It's not a fair fight. But maybe all those cutting blows and witty rapier thrusts Plinkett delivers are irony laced and therefore not really meant to draw blood - it's a CGI review.

By: Artw

Artw — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:37:20 -0800

Talking of hip young punks picking up the baton - anyone else think that Super 8 was, once you scape off the Spielbergian nostalgia, kind of empty and crap?

By: mediated self

mediated self — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:42:47 -0800

I thought it was empty crap even with the Spielbergian gloss.

By: The Card Cheat

The Card Cheat — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:45:02 -0800

I wouldn't say it was crap, but the only thing I really remember about it is the scene on the train station platform just before the crash where the boys watch Elle Fanning knock her lines out of the park, mouths agape.

By: fearfulsymmetry

fearfulsymmetry — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:45:27 -0800

The best thing about Super 8, by far, was the actual movie the kids shot that was in the end titles - they should have done the whole film like that.

By: The Card Cheat

The Card Cheat — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:46:53 -0800

Which, in case anyone thinks I was being sarcastic, was great.

By: Tom-B

Tom-B — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:52:05 -0800

>I found what I believe is the same chart on this site. >posted by mediated self Great, thanks!

By: The Whelk

The Whelk — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:54:15 -0800

I have a love hate relationship with The Temple Of Doom, love in that the first eleven minutes or so are basically a perfect serial short adventure, jazz! Diamonds! Exotic locals! Escape! Running! Hate cause there is this other like movie loaf attached to the end of that great sequence that goes on for another hour and a half.

By: Artw

Artw — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:55:15 -0800

I like the heart ripping.

By: hippybear

hippybear — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:56:56 -0800

I love how at the very end of Part 2, we get a preview of films Plinkett wants to tackle. It's quite a list, and I hope he does all of them. I look forward to hearing him talk about the Matrix sequels (which don't exist in my universe) and the Twilight films. That would make for many delicious and insightful hours of movie criticism.

By: Artw

Artw — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:57:31 -0800

All low hanging fruit. He's a bit of a lazy fuck, TBH.

By: Hoopo

Hoopo — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:58:10 -0800

I disagree with him on the point that the fact the goal of the Soviets in obtaining the skull is ill-defined is a major flaw. It seems very Cold War to me that the Americans would compete with the Russians just because.

By: gregoryg

gregoryg — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:04:33 -0800

I wish I could listen to this, but I can't stand his voice and character. I find no humor in it whatsoever, but I am interested in his individual points.

By: The Whelk

The Whelk — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:05:01 -0800

Yeah but it's murky and confusing in a series that really needs not to be murky and confusing. Had they used the Cate Blanchett character more then you could have given the crystal skull more of a direct reason, I mean alien skulls, soviets, all of these things are good things for an Indy story, it was just sloppy and indirect and full of bad CGI, gah. I mean, hw about this, Crazy Psyhic Soviet lady isn't in it for the glory of Stalin, she's got some of the command wrapped around her mind, the Skull will allow her to extend her power out to the millions, where she will become the single puppet master for the entire Soviet state and then ...THE WORLD. bam, world threatened, people become mind controlled slaves using alien technology, totally in the Indy wheelhouse.

By: The Whelk

The Whelk — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:06:37 -0800

I mean there is like a completely unnecessary middle sequese cause they remembered he needs to do some archeology, Indy spends quite a lot of time out of the leather jacket and fedora in the first movie, which I always thought helped his character stick out, half in the class room and half in the field doing daring do.

By: hippybear

hippybear — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:09:03 -0800

All low hanging fruit. He's a bit of a lazy fuck, TBH. I think you misunderstand his purpose with these reviews. He's doing them, and using the Plinkett character to do them, in order to examine some of the biggest, most successful movies from the past while and try to explain why, while they may bring in good box office, they end up being dissatisfying to anyone watching with anything more than a popcorn mindset. There's a lot of real insight about movies and how they are made and what makes a quality movie versus a simple crowd pleaser which has no real lasting value aside from the money it brings in. I've gained quite a bit of an education about why some movies are really dissatisfying to me that I can't really put my finger on. He really lays it out better than anyone else I've read or watched trying to do the same thing. I think the truly telling Plinkett Review, the one which helps establish him as something more than just a crank, is the one he did for the JJ Abrams Star Trek movie. He really likes that movie, and he explains exactly why it's NOT a bad movie, not just in the context of the Star Trek canon, but also in a greater movie-making setting. Ultimately, he's trying to let people who love movies know that it's okay not to like what everyone else likes, and to help them understand why their instincts are correct. It's crass and bitter and insulting on some level, but on another level it's a quality film studies education which focusses less on Film As Literature and more on Film As Craft. He explains exactly what has gone wrong with certain films and lets his viewers approach the movies again with a more informed eye, where they can appreciate the film's good points while noticing the faults and learning from them. I think he's one of the most valuable film resources I've found online. I may find the whole masturbating to the Olsen Twins segment over the top, but leaving aside all that kind of thing, he's performing a service which has enriched my film viewing greatly since I learned of him.

By: The Whelk

The Whelk — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:12:01 -0800

It's telling about the strength of his pure structuralist criticism that I out up with the jokes and persona. The analysis is really good, and like with the znuTrek review mentions, how you can take a not stellar script and make it work through direction and action and sheer pace of narrative. So much of the big Sf/ action movies have been really leaden, terribly placed snore fests.

By: Kevin Street

Kevin Street — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:14:53 -0800

"I mean, hw about this, Crazy Psyhic Soviet lady isn't in it for the glory of Stalin, she's got some of the command wrapped around her mind, the Skull will allow her to extend her power out to the millions, where she will become the single puppet master for the entire Soviet state and then ...THE WORLD." Not bad! Maybe it's a visual power, and if she combines the skull with this newfangled thing called "television" the masses of the Free World will be ~~Stalin's~~ hers to control. Also, Metafilter: I like the heart ripping.

By: Artw

Artw — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:15:43 -0800

TV is OLD. Hitler had TV.

By: Kevin Street

Kevin Street — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:18:22 -0800

Sure, but the 50s where when Americans started buying TV sets by the millions. Lots and lots of conduits for the power of the skull.

By: Artw

Artw — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:19:17 -0800

Oh, I wasn't saying it was a bad idea, just suggesting an alternate approach...

By: The Whelk

The Whelk — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:19:17 -0800

Whatever, it makes her double bad, she's not just a loyal soviet, she's in it for personal glory and is specifically using her powers to manipulate the higher ups to indulge the research that would make her even stronger, he'll maybe she even wants to trigger a real war cause she knows, cause she Read a minds, that no one in the high command has the guts to do it.

By: The Whelk

The Whelk — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:20:00 -0800

Although TV would give us a nice " we're calling it, a freeway" moment.

By: fearfulsymmetry

fearfulsymmetry — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:20:58 -0800

If you're an aspiring screenwriter I think you'd learn more from Plinkett* that you ever would from Story and the like *And William Goldman's Adventures in the Screen Trade. And a great interview with the writers of Night Of The Museum that's unfortunately no longer on the internets I think.

By: Artw

Artw — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:21:02 -0800

Could work. I still like her psychic powers being bullshit better, mind.

By: The Whelk

The Whelk — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:22:35 -0800

Yeah but psychic powers being bullshit feels like it belongs in another kind of movie. I totally buy mind powers in the Indy world.

By: The Whelk

The Whelk — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:25:00 -0800

Also making her wanting to use the skull for personal gain and not the glory of the state makes it a bit easier to swallow.

By: Artw

Artw — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:27:17 -0800

Well, a notjob who has no mind powers doesn't really preclude mind powers...

By: The Whelk

The Whelk — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:27:54 -0800

Or if the powers are bullshit that feels like a comic relief role and then it's not the Big Baddy and then maybe you don't hire Cate Blachett for the role. I mean the bullshit power situation could work, but you'd have to make it much more clearly bullshit and comic and then you're at a henchman, not a Villian.

By: The Whelk

The Whelk — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:29:05 -0800

And my basis for Indy like stuff is everything you ever read in Frontean times is true so magic mind powers just fits with the period better.

By: Artw

Artw — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:29:32 -0800

So villains have to be boring?

By: hippybear

hippybear — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:31:05 -0800

The Whelk: you really need to turn autocorrect off on you iPad.

By: The Whelk

The Whelk — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:33:37 -0800

I think for this kind of Adventure story villains need to be clearly defined and Bad, Very Bad And Wrong. They can have Tragic flaws or be doing things for the wrong reasons, but there really can't be a question that they have to be stopped, adding in a " they think they can read minds but totally can't just play along" seems like adding a comic note where it doesn't belong, like I could see a henchman play that totally straight, and still be scary, but your big villain needs to have a very clear goal and objective and be totally scary.

By: the man of twists and turns

the man of twists and turns — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:34:30 -0800

Metafilter: a matter of opinion, but mine is right

By: The Whelk

The Whelk — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:36:39 -0800

Like I agree, having someone who thinks they are psychic being tricked by someone who knows they're totally not is a really good device, but the movie didn't hit either direction hard enough so it's just halfway and stupid. What autocorrect I am transcribing from my brain using this monkey paw.

By: The Whelk

The Whelk — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:45:05 -0800

Also why they had to go to the place with the alien bodies was not well explained, at all, you need a race for both teams with a clear outcome and I just remember watching going, " they have to go to to the Mayan pyramid cause aliens and also, perfect knowledge! Wait it makes you explode? What?" You can pull that trick once, and you did, with the Ark, cause it kind of made sense. Dead alien crashed ship mind meld does not.

By: coolguymichael

coolguymichael — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:45:26 -0800

is anyone else really annoyed with bliptv? ads, no full screen, so annoying Too many ads, no doubt. But there is full screen (click the TV icon). But the reason I'm here: The kid seemed to be loosely based on Brando in The Wild One (at least, they went out of their way to dress him up like that). So he should have ridden a Triumph Thunderbird, Johnny's signature bike. Instead he rides a Harley, no doubt because Harley pays a lot more for product placement. This bugged me more than it should have.

By: Ghidorah

Ghidorah — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:46:40 -0800

From the moment Crystal Skull started, it did nothing but shit on the entire franchise. Maybe I'm crazy, but I'd always thought the warehouse the Ark was store in was buried deep underground (and in Washington, for some reason). Putting the Ark in Area 51? Gah. Area 51 itself is just so, so tired, it's movie shorthand, it's the sign of a lazy filmmaker. The skulls? What possible significance are they? Every. Single. Object. Indy ever went after was held in some form of religious devotion, from the golden idol head, to the remaisn of Nurhachi (first Manchu emporer, for crying out loud), to the golden cross at the beginning of Last Crusade. Every damn thing 'belonged in a museum.' Instead, we have these freaking skulls, which may or may not have been outright hoaxes. And aliens? South Park had the best review of the film, easily, where Stan, staggering down the street after having witnessed the atrocity, imagines Spielberg and Lucas pinning Indy down and sodomizing him. Gah. Gah. There wasn't a single good moment in the film. There wasn't any moment where I felt any kind of joy about sitting in the theater. (On the other hand, Temple of Doom is the underrated masterpiece of the series, showing Indy making the journey from graverobber and mercenary to geniuine hero.)

By: hippybear

hippybear — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:50:26 -0800

Too many ads, no doubt. One ad at the beginning of each part is too many? Or did others have more ads? Because I had one at the start of each part, and no more.

By: The Whelk

The Whelk — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:52:18 -0800

Accurately if you did the Only Religious Objects you could have come up with some interesting things for a 50s era story.

By: The Whelk

The Whelk — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:53:34 -0800

Actually, even though I'm tired of Lovecraft patisches, Indiana Jones At The Mountains Of Madness has a lot of potential.

By: hippybear

hippybear — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:58:11 -0800

only if Del Toro directs.

By: mediated self

mediated self — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:59:01 -0800

I watched the videos on the red letter media main site and saw no ads.

By: Kevin Street

Kevin Street — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:59:47 -0800

By: The Whelk

The Whelk — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 16:04:33 -0800

I would almost be okay with that if they mentioned it, like ever....wow what a wacky adventure, too bad there's no way we can talk about it ever! It sucks no one will ever know! Cause again, one of the things that makes Indy not Generic Adventure Hero is that he's an academic.

By: hippybear

hippybear — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 16:05:28 -0800

They really should have just used the crystal skulls as religious objects without having all the alien stuff involved. There's enough legend and woo-woo belief attached to the skulls which we actually do have that you wouldn't have to do much else beside having them have actual power. (Disclaimer: when I was living in Sedona, AZ (woo-woo capital of the US), I actually had an audience with one of the skulls. I don't remember which one -- it was pink, and exquisitely formed, and certainly the reverence it was afforded by everyone else involved with its being in Sedona caused it to have a certain power and presence that I wasn't prepared for. While I have a pretty scientific-extentialist worldview overall, I'm not afraid to give time to spiritual exploration or whatnot. I don't give it a lot of credence beyond my acknowledgement that there's a part of me which seems to need it even if it isn't true. So, there it is. I've met a skull. It was an interesting experience, and one which I reflect on from time to time. I could easily see where a completely satisfying Indy movie could have been made leaving the aliens out entirely.)

By: Artw

Artw — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 16:08:26 -0800

Indy's real life inspiration didn't exact have a stellar academic reputation.

By: The Whelk

The Whelk — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 16:08:54 -0800

Yeah you didn't really need aliens, it just fit the times, Or hey, I wish it was more directly about mesoamerican stuff, everything felt really generic in the movie, if you're going to do a Chariots Of The Gods, Mighty Morphin Mayan Aliens thing, then fucking use Pre Colombian shit. Thier adventures where surprisingly generic and vauge. Which is super lame cause precolumbian shit is fucking cool, plaything of the jaguar god y'all

By: The Whelk

The Whelk — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 16:10:33 -0800

I totally want Sedona to really be the site of crashed alien ship, but the radiation given off by the buried engines doesn't do anything but make people belive complete nonsense.

By: fearfulsymmetry

fearfulsymmetry — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 16:15:13 -0800

I totally want Sedona to really be the site of crashed alien ship, but the radiation given off by the buried engines doesn't do anything but make people belive complete nonsense. Tommyknockers

By: hippybear

hippybear — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 16:18:07 -0800

It's the most beautiful place I've ever lived. Walking from my house there to the grocery store nearby was an adventure in the wonder of Nature. I completely get why people want to live there (although not in the numbers they seem to have flocked there since I left -- the place wasn't designed for that many people, and traffic was already horrible in 1997 -- it can only have gotten worse in the years since). I can see why some people get all woo-woo over the place. There is something going on there which causes a lot of people to sleep poorly, some people get something similar to the Taos Hum, things like Bell Rock really do seem to feel odd when you walk around on them. I don't really believe in Lay Lines and Vortex Energy, but having lived there long enough (20 months) I can understand how people are led to believe in such things. I did spend an afternoon sitting on top of a sandstone arch and having the cliff-face opposite me turn into faces and talk to me about the nature of the universe, but I suspect the mushrooms had more to do with that experience than anything intrinsic to Sedona specifically.

By: WhackyparseThis

WhackyparseThis — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 16:24:13 -0800

I'm okay with the MacGuffin being a non-religious object, but this one left them with nothing to bring back to the museum. Or at least, nothing they could write about without destroying their reputations as serious scientists. You think Professor Jones got tenure for his work proving the Jewish Yahweh, Indian god Kali and the Christian Jesus Christ were all real? I don't think his adventuring had much application to his academic career.

By: Artw

Artw — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 16:31:40 -0800

Back to Lovecraft again, I imagine it's like Miskatonic U. - sure, they've all read that copyof the Necronomicon that got passed around, and one or two of them have gotten into scrapes with invisble monsters or space crabs or giant antarctic cities, but that's all talked about in hushed tones outside of regular business.

By: Senor Cardgage

Senor Cardgage — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 16:34:35 -0800

Night Of The Museum Ah yes, the classic tale of the night the Smithsonian went on a psychotic rampage.

By: scelerat

scelerat — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 16:38:08 -0800

I'm visiting my parents and my niece and nephew are buzzing around. I would love to share Plinkett's insightful analysis with my family because I think they would appreciate it, but his "humor" cuts would get me expelled in a very un-funny and irreconcilable way. :-(

By: mgrichmond

mgrichmond — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 16:39:18 -0800

Great, more crap from the Glenn Beck of Lucas-Bashers. So which bit of misinformation are internet morons going to be mindlessly parroting for the next year?

By: hippybear

hippybear — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 16:47:18 -0800

So which bit of misinformation are internet morons going to be mindlessly parroting for the next year? I don't know. Why don't you watch both parts and tell us exactly what is misinformation and which parts you feel we'll be parroting, since you seem to be so confident in your assessment of this reviewer and his viewpoints?

By: panboi

panboi — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 16:51:41 -0800

This illustrates perfectly a point Plinkett makes in the prequel reviews about one of the key reasons those films were so misguided: just because kids see a movie, that doesnt mean kids want to see other kids in the movie. Kids want to be Han, or Lando, or Leia. They dont care that those characters are 20 years older than they are, because that is irrelevant since they are imagining anyway. No kid wants to be Mutt or young Annakin or one of those youngling Muppet Babies Jedis we saw getting trained because none of those guys are particularly cool or interesting or in control of anything in the first place. This. 20 times over. It's where Lucas is clearly seen to lose the plot and it's the key point where the prequels fall apart. There was ample room for a plot in which we meet a late teens/early twenties Skywalker and Kenobi, but instead Lucas went off in a bizarro kiddie adventure. It's unnecessary and redundant. Also I have to echo ArtW's comments on the blatant racist stereotypes. What. The. Fuck. George?

By: Artw

Artw — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 17:10:58 -0800

My kid identifies with Princess Leia, and FWIW Leia is a suprisingly kickass character and actually pretty much pulls her weight storywise... Now, she also has the Queen Amidala Polly Pocket and is very interested in that character, who is sort of in a similar role except for this: She really doesn't do much of anything. And what she does do feels like what Plinkett identifies as giving the character something to do. Sure she's there because she's gotto have a love affair with the 10 year old (um, do they ever really go into how that works?) but that's all later on, in Phantom Menace she basically wears some clothes and delivers some wooden lines. Oh, and then there's the whole decoy thing, which is just going to be confusing as fuck fora 5 year old and doesn't really come to much of anything. Queen Amidala is actually a bit crap all round.

By: panboi

panboi — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 17:21:40 -0800

The decoy thing confused me - and I'm a grown-up. What's actually most notable by their absence in the prequels is any Han Solo-type character. It just says a lot about where George Lucas' head is (and has been for a while) at the moment.

By: stratastar

stratastar — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 17:47:48 -0800

Decoy thing: see a queen can't in good self-respect spend time hanging out with a 6 year old. But a queen hidden as a decoy servant is perfectly suited to take care of, and set the seed to fall in eventual love with said 6 year old's personality. As was said: What. The. Fuck.

By: Cool Papa Bell

Cool Papa Bell — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 17:49:30 -0800

I've always said that the reason Lucas (and Spielberg) lost the plot was that they grew up and had children of their own, and these children were spoiled brats that grew up in the lap of luxury. And then Lucas looked at them and thought, "I want to make a movie kids will love. But, holy shit, my children are just dim little morons compared to me when I was their age. And since my children are the best children evar, all other children must be hollow, blithering idiots, barely able to dress themselves, much less follow a nuanced plot." So, Lucas lowered his target. And his children loved the result. So, if you wonder how Jar-Jar Binks was born, it's because George Lucas is a terrible father.

By: hippybear

hippybear — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 17:51:08 -0800

I've always said that the reason Lucas (and Spielberg) lost the plot was that they grew up and had children of their own, and these children were spoiled brats that grew up in the lap of luxury. A point which is underscored by Plinkett (in different words) in Part 2 of his review of Indy 4.

By: kirkaracha

kirkaracha — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 18:02:59 -0800

I saw Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Cyrstal Skull in a sneak preview at Lucasfilm in San Francisco. It was pretty awkward to sit in a theater with people who were likely involved in making the movie and try to conceal how much I thought it sucked.

By: kirkaracha

kirkaracha — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 18:13:25 -0800

The problem isn't that it's silly, the problem is that it breaks the laws of the universe as established in the Indy movies. If Indy could survive that then suddenly a lot of scenes that were perilous and exciting throughout the franchise are rather boring. One of the scenes in Raiders of the Lost Ark that established Indiana Jones as a great character was when he and Karen Allen were on the boat and he was pointing out all of the places he was hurt. He did a lot of implausible things, but he got the crap beat out of him and was vulnerable and human. There was ample room for a plot in which we meet a late teens/early twenties Skywalker and Kenobi Before the prequels I always imagined the younger Anakin Skywalker and Obi Wan Kenobi being peers and about the same age, and they would've been in their 20s or 30s during the time that Kenobi was remembering. Ewan McGregor's 18 years older than Jake Lloyd, and I was surprised by the age difference in the prequels.

By: Kevin Street

Kevin Street — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 20:09:18 -0800

WhackyparseThis: "You think Professor Jones got tenure for his work proving the Jewish Yahweh, Indian god Kali and the Christian Jesus Christ were all real? I don't think his adventuring had much application to his academic career." It's beyond the scope of what we see in the movies - but sure, sort of. He couldn't tell anyone about the search for the Lost Ark, because that was a secret mission for the US government, but I can totally see Indy writing a super-dry monograph after the second movie: On The Rediscovery of An Ancient Thuggee Temple, with a short introduction explaining how he happened to survive a plane crash and encountered modern Thuggees, then 40 pages detailing the structure of the temple and artifacts found inside. And after the third movie, no one could stop Jones Sr. from writing about their discovery of the Holy Grail! The man spent his life looking for it. Maybe the two of them cowrote a paper, leaving out only the Knight and the miraculous healing stuff.

By: Slap*Happy

Slap*Happy — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 20:48:53 -0800

St. Petersburg accents are sharp and crisp, Moscow accents are languid and fulsome. Roarke was trying a Moscow accent, Blanchette something more Baltic. Sort of like a Bostonian evaluating a bad New York accent (It sounds so real!) vs. a bad New England accent ("Pahhhk the caaaahh?" For real, kid?), Russian expats are really only good at evaluating hometown accents.

By: The Whelk

The Whelk — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 21:08:50 -0800

also, is we're doing 80s SF fantasia, Paul > Super 8

By: Artw

Artw — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 22:42:48 -0800

I'm kind of a big fan of Gentleman Broncos (18% on rotten tomatoes) as a celebration of cheesy non-decade-specific-but-kinda-80s SFness.

By: fearfulsymmetry

fearfulsymmetry — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 02:28:13 -0800

Night Of The Museum Ah yes, the classic tale of the night the Smithsonian went on a psychotic rampage. I probably should have added that the interview was not great because it showed some insight into genius scriptwriting, in fact the opposite in that it's about what Hollywood is really like at the cruddy end of the business (in particular generic comedies) where the real aim of everyone is not to produce high art, and in fact most of the time is not even to produce a serviceable, entertaining and hopefully profitable film, but to just Not Get Fired for the longest time possible. So an awful lot of bad decisions and idiotic 'notes' coming down from on high get crow-barred into scripts by screenwriters and minor producers who know they are terrible but suck it up because they just want to keep working.

By: mediated self

mediated self — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 03:04:13 -0800

Not sure what interview you're referring to, fearfulsymmetry, but those guys wrote a whole book on the subject: Writing Movies for ~~Fun and~~ Profit: How we Made a Billion Dollars at the Box Office and You Can, Too!

By: lucien_reeve

lucien_reeve — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 03:36:42 -0800

For me, the most interesting thing in this review was the idea that Crystal Skull could have been a B-movie rather than a Republic Adventure Serial. This had real potential. Here's what I think they should have done: ditched Indiana Jones (that character's story was done) and made another franchise starring Harrison Ford. Harrison Ford is an excellent movie star because he's one of the few that can do dorky and manly simultaneously. He can play a character who is frantic and out-of-his-depth without seeming too neurotic to respect. But, alas, he's a bit too old to play the exact same character he was playing in his thirties and forties. So, make a new character: a fifties B-movie scientist who solves two-fisted science mysteries. Suddenly, you have a whole new genre to plunder. You have hundreds of movies and comics and pulp novels to play with. You can update the whole thing with modern special effects and push the horror angle a bit further, be a bit more graphic, than they could be in the 1950s. But basically, you can get something that has the freshness of the original Indiana Jones, which is the one thing that no sequel can capture. You can do stuff because it's cool, not because you did it in another movie twenty years ago. And the fact that you have a 60-year-old man having to get involved in scenes of physical danger could be more tense and more exciting precisely because he's 60 years old, rather than that being something you have to hide. As an equation, it would be: [Harrison Ford] + [B Movie Tropes] + [Modern sensibilities] = something that may or may not be good, but at least would be NEW.

By: Grangousier

Grangousier — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 04:15:49 -0800

Or at least it would be Quatermass. Which would be cool, actually - Harrison Ford as Quatermass.

By: heatvision

heatvision — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 06:09:20 -0800

The Olson twins joke (maybe?) reflects the gossip media build-up to the "are they legal yet?" thing. For awhile a few years back, you couldn't escape the wink and nudge about it. Obviously they were actually post-adolescent women, as opposed to little girls, at the time, but there was still a pretty creepy vibe to it. I have no doubt that he was being creepy on purpose--he even showed the video covers where they were children. It's just like in the other reviews when he kept taking breaks to talk about murdering women. Or in this one. I wish he would knock it the hell off, because I love his film analysis and this other garbage is just offensive and off-putting. I honestly think that he's very astute and an excellent editor and has a lot of worthwhile things to say--that he could even be influential in a larger sense if he toned it down--and I didn't hear a word he said for about five minutes after that Olsen thing.

By: lucien_reeve

lucien_reeve — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 07:09:23 -0800

Or at least it would be Quatermass. Which would be cool, actually - Harrison Ford as Quatermass. Yes. Exactly. Except that because it didn't have the Quatermass brand it would be: a) full of the joy of discovery that only the unknown can deliver and b) impossible to make in a Hollywood obsessed with presold products and remakes.

By: Pendragon

Pendragon — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 07:09:47 -0800

Am I a terrible person for finding the Olson twins joke hilarious ?

By: hippybear

hippybear — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 07:14:19 -0800

No, I thought it was funny, and then it was awful, and then it kept going until it was hilarious.

By: empath

empath — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 07:45:30 -0800

We should all get together and write an Indy reboot starring Mutt in the 1960s fighting the Bavarian Illuminati and recovering Atlantean artifacts while doing piles of LSD and banging hippies.

By: hippybear

hippybear — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 07:49:27 -0800

So, it would be the Austin Powers version of Indiana Jones, then?

By: empath

empath — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 07:56:15 -0800

Yeah, he's actually an ethno-botanist, not an archeologist and the opening sequence is him going down to south america to try ayahuasca with a recently discovered tribe and accidentally stumbling upon a bunch of pillars with heiroglyphs describing an exodus of people from Atlantis landing on the shores of brazil, and a statue of a tentacled-faced monster they called Katalu crashing through the waves after them..

By: Trochanter

Trochanter — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 07:56:20 -0800

I love how he finds those telling moments from the movies own promotional material. (I assume it's the DVD extras and such.) One from this go-round was Spielberg tossing around the term MacGuffin. It's one thing for us, and for film studies people to toss it around, but, when you're making your movie, MacGuffin should be a bad word. It's your story! It's the story of the movie you're making right now. It's important. It's why "unobtainium" bugged me. It's disrespectful to your own movie.

By: empath

empath — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 08:08:18 -0800

MacGuffin at this point is just a technical term in screen writing. If you're making a thriller, there always is one.

By: Trochanter

Trochanter — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 08:16:46 -0800

There are mechanical elements to story telling, I agree. But when you're making a movie, I repeat: for those three months, while you're shooting, cutting etc. that's the only story in the world. It has to have an integrity. When Spielberg used it in that mini documentary, it was like he just wrote off the whole script. "Oh, the MacGuffin."

By: The Whelk

The Whelk — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 08:19:30 -0800

We should all get together and write an Indy reboot starring Mutt in the 1960s fighting the Bavarian Illuminati and recovering Atlantean artifacts while doing piles of LSD and banging hippies. That would be The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen : 1969

By: ed

ed — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 08:30:12 -0800

That Olsen twins joke was horrible, really awful, I really didn't expect something quite so crude and stupid. Laughing about paedophilia, using huge streams of fake cum? Gross and very poorly judged. Makes me quite angry. It's just going too far. My estimation of this person has gone way down. You know what makes me angry? The fact that vanilla burbclave types like you get so uncomfortable about any form of humor (and if you think that mild Olsen Twins bit was hot stuff, acquaint your entitled, prissy, and utterly ignorant asshole with grindhouse cinema) even modestly transcending your safe, unadventurous, and ultimately reactionary sensibilities, thus perpetuating a concatenation of stale creative cookie-cutter entertainment whereby legitimately terrible films like Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, which fear offending touchy douchey facks like you, sully their previous legacies. My estimation of your ability to comprehend how Mr. Plinkett's ironic use of uncomfortable humor to reveal what the American public ultimately settles for in the multiplexes has shot way down. Your cultural cognizance is gross and very poorly founded. If you can't laugh over the more unpleasant aspects of human existence (and, again, Mr. Plinkett is hardly going all that far), then I sentence you to a lifetime of Applebee's dinners and repeat viewings of Love, Actually. You, sir, are the fucking problem.

By: empath

empath — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 08:34:12 -0800

My estimation of this person has gone way down. He also kills hookers after forcing them to watch Baby's Day Out.

By: empath

empath — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 08:35:36 -0800

I want to repeat that for emphasis: He makes them watch Baby's Day Out *shudder*

By: Artw

Artw — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 08:45:58 -0800

That would be The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen : 1969 I prefer Kim Newman's Diogenes Club stories for that - LoEG 69 is kinda gloomy and depressing.

By: The Whelk

The Whelk — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 08:51:48 -0800

The whole LOEG series is getting gloomy and apocalyptic, which is probably the point, but dammnit why can't there be Adventures with capital A anymore?

By: hippybear

hippybear — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 08:52:36 -0800

repeat viewings of Love, Actually Hey, now. Don't go trashing Love, Actually. It's a fine movie, one of the better "large ensemble cast doing intersecting stories" films of the past while. It may be a bit sentimental, but it's also a holiday movie, which aside from a few outliers, is expected from the genre. I actually look for it regularly on my satellite service (it's not shown all that often).

By: stinkycheese

stinkycheese — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 09:04:30 -0800

I didn't quite get the Brian Jones death hole business. I thought Haddo went from dying body to living body. Anyone?

By: coolguymichael

coolguymichael — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 09:16:50 -0800

I didn't hear a word he said for about five minutes after that Olsen thing. Hearing things I don't like sometimes give me temporary hearing loss, too! And when I eat liver I can't taste anything for days.

By: coolguymichael

coolguymichael — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 09:20:18 -0800

MacGuffin at this point is just a technical term in screen writing. If you're making a thriller, there always is one. There's always an antagonist, too. But wouldn't it be kinda lazy to name your villian (in a semi-serious movie) Aunt Agonist? She could fight your hero Prote at the Klimax Klub.

By: coolguymichael

coolguymichael — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 09:21:49 -0800

Oops - that was in reference to unobtainium, btw. WTF am I doing up this early on my day off?

By: OnTheLastCastle

OnTheLastCastle — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 09:36:42 -0800

There's always an antagonist, too. But wouldn't it be kinda lazy to name your villian (in a semi-serious movie) Aunt Agonist? She could fight your hero Prote at the Klimax Klub. Hiro Protagonist demands your respect!

By: empath

empath — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 09:39:05 -0800

Yeah, but using unobtanium in the film itself is different than Spielberg talking about it as a MacGuffin in a making-of video. Hitchcock popularized the term talking about his own films, and hardly anyone would call him a hack.

By: Trochanter

Trochanter — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 09:43:18 -0800

Using MacGuffin the way Spielberg did was brilliantly illustrative of the rote way this movie was made. Everybody on autopilot. Hugs all around. Cheques at the cashier. Fuck the public.

By: OnTheLastCastle

OnTheLastCastle — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 09:48:03 -0800

By: OnTheLastCastle

OnTheLastCastle — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 09:49:25 -0800

I was really impressed with the new Captain America movie for having plot/character/action moments all at the same time. Not "HELLO, CAP'N, MY NAME IS DUM DUM DUGAN. I AM A SOLDIER WE MUST STOP HYDRA FROM BLAH BLAH BLAH. CUE ACTION SCENE NOW."

By: Artw

Artw — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 09:54:35 -0800

Captain America is actually a pretty good example of an unpretentious, fun modern adventure movie that just gets on with the business of storytelling. And it has an Indy reference.

By: empath

empath — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 10:03:00 -0800

An Indy reference? The whole movie was an extended homage to George Lucas. It was 90% shots from Indiana Jones or Star Wars.

By: The Whelk

The Whelk — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 10:08:58 -0800

Captain America was a better Indy movie than Crystal Skull.

By: OnTheLastCastle

OnTheLastCastle — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 10:48:03 -0800

Captain America was a better Indy movie than Crystal Skull. Yeah, totally agree.

By: Senor Cardgage

Senor Cardgage — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 11:55:04 -0800

Wait. The Captain America movie is worth watching? For reals? Huh. I'll be damned. Maybe I'll check it out. The marketing suggested something like Rocketeer (which would be awesome) but I didn't want to get my hopes up.

By: Artw

Artw — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 11:56:23 -0800

It's very Rocketeer.

By: Cool Papa Bell

Cool Papa Bell — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 11:57:26 -0800

Apparently the new Mission Impossible is awesome, so yeah, sequels don't have to be worse than their predecessors. You need a good director who will demand a script that makes sense, excellent practical effects (or CGI, they can be cool too) and believable performances from the actors. And here's where I stand up and point out that, despite his status as an A-level talent, Tom Cruise is likely still the most underrated person who has ever worked in Hollywood. Comedy, drama, action, romance. Dude's done it all, excellently. While we're talking about Mission Impossible, let me point out that he's produced all four (he co-runs United Artists) with four different directors, each of whom is a top-level figure in their own right and each of whom was allowed to stamp the film with their personal style -- and they all made a damn good film that made money. You know, if it weren't for Xenu and the e-meters and the very obvious batshit insanity of the thing, it kinda makes me want to look into this whole Scientology thing...

By: Artw

Artw — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 12:05:42 -0800

Really? I find him very samey. Still, he clearly enjoyed hamming it up with the make up and such in Tropic Thunder.

By: mgrichmond

mgrichmond — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 12:52:53 -0800

>Why don't you watch both parts and tell us exactly what is misinformation and which parts you feel we'll be parroting, since you seem to be so confident in your assessment of this reviewer and his viewpoints? I'm not gonna subject myself to any more of his...Plinketness. I could go the easy route and say it's his voice and his self-congratulatory attempts at "look how socially unacceptable I can be with my raep jokes!" humor, but that's just scratching the surface. Honestly, I tried to watch his Episode I rant. I don't remember exactly when I turned it off; it might have been when he went on the assumption that The Trade Federation was some kind of regulatory body within the Republic (rather than one of the states governed *by* the Republic, which is why they were called the Trade *Federation* rather than, say, The Republic Office Of Trade Management). Or it might have been when he went on the assumption that the blockade of Naboo was bad because they had some "space plague" and were waited for "space medicine," rather than because it was, y'know, AN ACT OF OPEN WARFARE. Either way, I sure as hell didn't make it to the part where he said that Midichlorians were a disease, and that Yoda was strong in the Force because of "space-AIDS." I didn't get that until I read the excellent rebuttal. Here's the problem with Mike Stoklasa, DBA Plinkett: there are unquestionably problems with the pacing and story of the prequels. That fact is thrown into sharp relief when you watch some of the fan edits, particularly The Balance Of The Force by Magnoliafan, where, with just a bit of judicious editing and sound mixing, it plays like a whole new movie. Clearly, Lucas needs a Gary Kurtz; someone who isn't afraid to question him, and to help translate his ideas from Lucas-to-English. (Side question: could George Lucas be autistic? Discuss.) But Stoklasa isn't interested in what's right and wrong. He's made a blanket declaration that EVERYTHING about the prequels (and apparently, everything LFL does now) is not only unredeemably bad, but outright evil and malicious. He hates it all uniformly, and when you start from that place of hate, you're not going to be able to speak rationally or objectively. That extends to the people who are so excited by his rants; they're not interested in a rational discussion either. They just want their hate validated, which Stoklasa gives them in spades. And anyone who points out that "no, what he said there is incorrect," even if, as I said before, that person agrees that there were plot and structure problems, gets accused of having Lucas' dick in their mouth. The whole exercise becomes like arguing with an Obama-hating Fox News viewer; you can hate Obama all you want, but when the reasons you state for hating him (death panels, Kenyan-born Muslim, etc) are repeatedly proven to be factually incorrect, then I just can't take you seriously, and it becomes clear that you just want to hate, and you reject any logic that gets in the way of that. So, no, I won't be watching any parts of this. I'll just wait until Stoklasa's followers tell me that Marion was stuck in a time loop, or that Mutt Williams can't be Indy's son because Shia The Beef is the wrong age, or whatever weird leaps in logic he's spewed out this time. In the meantime, "PIZZA ROLLS! HAHAHA!" Am I doing it right?

By: Cool Papa Bell

Cool Papa Bell — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 12:57:54 -0800

Didn't say Cruise was a Streep-level talent. Just very, very underrated. Samey? You could say the same thing about many top-level actors that reach the point where their extreme fame and sheer ubiquity makes it difficult to disentangle their fame from their character. Even Tom Hanks can strike me as "samey" if you really start to break it down. Al Pacino's been playing variations of the same character since Scarface. Cruise ... well, I believed he was both a hyper-competent cop with a drug problem in Minority Report and a blue-collar schmuck in War of the Worlds, and that was the same director, same crew, etc.

By: WhackyparseThis

WhackyparseThis — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 12:58:19 -0800

I honestly think that he's very astute and an excellent editor and has a lot of worthwhile things to say (emphasis mine) You've got to be kidding, right? Plinkett deliberately has crappy editing, cutting off his own words and chopping together images to give a level of unprofessionalism that makes the video seem more authentic and heartfelt. He plucks things out of context, and presents his own, deliberately misleading, situation to reinforce what he's saying. And he makes that stupid "Shut up movie, I'M talking!" joke too many times. It's so disingenuous.

By: hippybear

hippybear — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 12:59:22 -0800

Am I doing it right? I'd say, overall, making assumptions about someone's online content based on your unwillingness to actually consume even a single part of it in its entirety and then embarking on gross assumptions about anything and everything not only that person has ever said but also what anyone who would appreciate what they have to say, that's... well.... Yeah, based on what I know about the internet, you're probably doing it right.

By: Trochanter

Trochanter — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 13:03:14 -0800

the assumption that The Trade Federation was some kind of regulatory body within the Republic (rather than one of the states governed *by* the Republic, which is why they were called the Trade *Federation* rather than, say, The Republic Office Of Trade Management). Plinkett's point is: Who freaking cares!! But, again, I don't blame anyone who can't get past the humour. I'd like to see his stuff bowdlerized, because it's good criticism, but it's hard to recommend to people because of the terrible nauseating parts. Which is a shame because there is a lot of actual funny stuff in there.

By: OnTheLastCastle

OnTheLastCastle — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 13:41:16 -0800

Sheesh, someone in this thread managed to compare this to death panels and conspiracy theories about Obama? You win the internet.

By: Mr. Bad Example

Mr. Bad Example — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 14:10:49 -0800

someone in this thread managed to compare this to death panels and conspiracy theories about Obama? I'm more astounded that he thinks that 108-page pile of egregious point-missing fanboy spittle-flecked ranting is an "excellent rebuttal".

By: empath

empath — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 14:20:38 -0800

Am I doing it right? I thought the part where you pretended to care about the trade federation was pretty funny, if that's what you were going for.

By: WhackyparseThis

WhackyparseThis — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 14:25:32 -0800

Really, it's ridiculous to call the rebuttal "spittle-flecked ranting" when it's compared to the Plinkett review it's criticising. If anything, it's level-headed and well written in the face of one of the most provocative fanboy attacks on the internet. And it's only "egregious point-missing" if the point of the Plinkett reviews is to make dick and murder jokes.

By: Bookhouse

Bookhouse — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 14:28:06 -0800

I find him very samey. Cary Grant was very samey in most of his roles, and thank the gods he was. Wanting all actors to be Streep or Day-Lewis is the film equivalent of rockism.

By: Mr. Bad Example

Mr. Bad Example — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 14:47:05 -0800

Something that starts off calling itself "a study in fanboy stupidity" and calls fans of the Redlettermedia reviews "sheep-like followers" is level-headed and not a rant? Yeah, okay. As for missing the point, I'm not going to descend into hypocrisy by sitting here and dissecting the entire "rebuttal", but one thing that keeps happening over and over is that the author seems not to recognize hyperbole when he encounters it:

But the audience doesn't meet Anakin until 45 minutes into the movie. Wrong. Anakin shows up at almost exactly 32 minutes into the movie.

In addition, he often reads his own motivations and exposition into things that should have been explained in the movie, but aren't--he spends an entire page (over 500 words) speculating on the role of the Trade Federation and what the taxation of trade routes might mean to them, completely oblivious to the fact that something like this that sets the entire plot in motion should have been made clear by the movie itself.

By: empath

empath — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 14:48:04 -0800

And it's only "egregious point-missing" if the point of the Plinkett reviews is to make dick and murder jokes. It's "egregiously point-missing" because the movie spent 100 pages defending is a pile of shit.

By: empath

empath — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 14:48:48 -0800

(movie that he spent)

By: neuromodulator

neuromodulator — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 15:44:59 -0800

Speaking as someone who finds the Plinkett character super off-putting and the "I like to kill and rape women" routine beyond awful, his reviews are well thought-out, supported, and presented. And that rebuttal is absolutely ridiculous, with it trying to insert digs at any conceivable opening ("it abruptly cuts to the first section"), pointing out his specific, deliberate mispronunciations (with phonetic spelling, no less), an opening explaining the methodology of his rebuttal, etc.

By: Artw

Artw — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 15:55:29 -0800

trying to insert digs at any conceivable opening That, um, sounds like someone else...

By: angrycat

angrycat — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 16:23:27 -0800

Sorry if I missed someone else saying it upthread, but I admire Plinkett's ongoing pushing the envelope with horrible jokes. I don't know if he's reacting to internet opinion or not, but after the serial killer bits he put in the prequel reviews, he did his penultimate review with a bit about killing a kitty to make some horrible dish, complete with cute kitty and buzz saw and fake blood and fake raw cat meat. The Olsen Jiizz Fountain seems like a logical next step.

By: Cool Papa Bell

Cool Papa Bell — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 17:10:20 -0800

Am I doing it right? Nope.

By: codacorolla

codacorolla — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 17:11:37 -0800

I think that there's an interesting, and maybe intentional, parallel to the movie that Plinkett is reviewing and the metafictional parts of the review itself. As he mentions, Indy is a character that's more about his utility in the film (being a stand-in for a healthy sort of viewer power fantasy) than his actual character. The hat and the whip are more important than Harrison Ford, is a summarization of the idea from the review. But, really, even if this was a straight-up reboot with LeBeouf as the title character, would this film need to be made? Indy had 3 (for some people, 2) great adventures. He did pretty much everything the character could do, rode off into the sunset, and entertained millions. KOTC shouldn't have been made. I think Plinkett is the same sort of character. I don't know that 6ish hours of critique centered on the prequels would've surfaced in the same way if not for the murder and mayhem that it was wrapped in. Plinkett allowed the Red Letter Media guys to do the more traditional Siskel and Ebert styled Half in the Bag. Plinkett had his time in the spotlight, did a handful of very competent take-downs of poorly mad films, and maybe it's time to put him to rest. But, as Sxwwhateverfan66 at the start of the review says, "get off your fat homo asses and do more plinkett reviews." It's what the fans want, and it's what gets eyeballs on screens, but maybe it's best to let Plinkett roll off into the sunset like he did at the end of the review. The Olsen twins jizz fountain strikes me as purposefully over the top and unfunny, and it's surrounded by much less shock-value humor than in previous reviews (there's no Nadine arc, for example). It seems like Mike is finished with the character and wants to move on to other stuff, like Lucas should've done. I feel like the Plinkett frame story always reflects some point that they're trying to make in the larger review, and that they couch it in a vulgar and juvenile way to make it slightly more subtle.

By: neuromodulator

neuromodulator — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 17:12:58 -0800

That, um, sounds like someone else... Only superficially. He does talk about scenes and elements in movies that he thinks were well done.

By: WhackyparseThis

WhackyparseThis — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 17:49:17 -0800

It's "egregiously point-missing" because the movie he spent spent 100 pages defending is a pile of shit. Pile of shit or not, Plinkett made a feature-length criticism of everything wrong he could see. Why can't others do the same for him?

By: Trochanter

Trochanter — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 17:52:21 -0800

6ish hours of critique centered on the prequels would've surfaced in the same way if not for the murder and mayhem that it was wrapped in For me it was the anger at Lucas. I liked that he was shaking his fist at the insulting laziness. Still do. Where I most disagree with Plinkett is that he seems to like LeBeouf, which I can only put down to the Stonecutters. I can't believe that guy's getting work. I can't believe there aren't a grip of young, handsome, reasonable actors out there waiting for the roles he keeps scarfing up.

By: empath

empath — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 19:51:22 -0800

Pile of shit or not, Plinkett made a feature-length criticism of everything wrong he could see. Why can't others do the same for him? People are perfectly free to waste their time doing whatever they want, and the rest of us are free to point and laugh at the nerds.

By: kirkaracha

kirkaracha — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 21:38:42 -0800

it might have been when he went on the assumption that The Trade Federation was some kind of regulatory body within the Republic (rather than one of the states governed *by* the Republic, which is why they were called the Trade *Federation* rather than, say, The Republic Office Of Trade Management) The prequels are made for kids and anyone who criticizes them is just bitter about not being kids anymore like they were when the first movies came out.

By: Mr. Bad Example

Mr. Bad Example — Sun, 25 Dec 2011 02:20:13 -0800

Yes, the prequels are made for kids, what with their talk of trade route taxation, and multiple severed hands, and bisected Darth Maul, and beheaded Jango Fett, and...mutilated and on-fire Anakin...wait a minute. Here, let me do this: ...anyone who criticizes them is just bitter about ~~not being kids anymore like they were when the first movies came out~~ these shit movies and their convoluted nonsensical scripts being created by someone who no longer has anyone to say no to his ideas, and is more concerned with sitting in his director's chair drinking coffee and being comfortable than actually, y'know, directing actors.

By: lucien_reeve

lucien_reeve — Sun, 25 Dec 2011 04:08:02 -0800

Captain America: It's very Rocketeer. Same director. Also did Jumanji, Honey I Shrunk the Kids. In my humble opinion, Joe Johnston is very under-rated.

By: empath

empath — Sun, 25 Dec 2011 07:19:12 -0800

The prequels are made for kids He picked that argument to pieces in his reviews.

By: kirkaracha

kirkaracha — Sun, 25 Dec 2011 07:55:07 -0800

Maybe I should've used the sarcasm font.

By: Mr. Bad Example

Mr. Bad Example — Sun, 25 Dec 2011 08:24:22 -0800

Maybe I should've used the sarcasm font. Is it too late to declare HERP DERP on myself? No? Okay, then. HERP DERP

By: Trochanter

Trochanter — Sun, 25 Dec 2011 10:03:34 -0800

I got some questions: Why does the author of the brilliant rebuttal call Plinkett a fanboy? Why does the author of the brilliant rebuttal use such an anal retentive way to share his essay? Why does the author of the brilliant rebuttal do the silly Trade Federation argument? Could he do a more fanboy thing? Why does the author of the brilliant rebuttal point out as errors what are obviously joke mispronunciations? Why does the author of the brilliant rebuttal use such an ambiguous title? "A Study in Fanboy Stupidity." In short: Is there a whole lot of hamburger going on?

By: Mr. Bad Example

Mr. Bad Example — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 05:27:31 -0800

I wish it were hamburgerish, but if you go over to the forum where the original 108-page PDF got posted, you'll see that the author (who calls himself "Jim Raynor"--possibly his actual name, but more likely taken from the Starcraft games) is very, very SERIOUS about Star Wars and Plinkett.

By: Chekhovian

Chekhovian — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 15:27:35 -0800

I'm just brimming with giggles that some fucking fanboy out there decided to defend the Trade Federation.