Armond White Says ‘Crystal Skull’ Is Better Than ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark,’ Paul W.S.

Haven't seen The Master or RE5, but his thought process finds me in full agreement: He juxtaposes a movie that tries to pass off as deep and is provoking to a movie that's honest and never lies to you about what you just came to see by paying $10. Which is better, the dumb one that achieves its goal or the ambitious that fails?

Not saying he's right about those 2 in particular, but I like the way he thinks.

 

It is not better then Raiders, but it is certainly better then Last Crusade and given far too much crap without any proper explanation. The only mark against it really is Shia.

 

the best part of the internet is when fanboys complain about Armond White's articles. thanks matrix_ghost. this will be fun.

 

The only negative things about KotCS I can think of are the laziness of act 3 and the monkey/vine scene. I love Shia in this one and I never minded the multiple waterfall drops scene.

 

Prometheus ? i think Lindelof and Scott did this.

 

I don't find the third act too lazy, I think it just has one really terrible moment (the monkey scene) that taints the view of it. I wish Indy would of actually shown some sign of the fight, but the rest of the action is really good, including the sword fight.

I am also not to big of a fan of how Indy and Marion act when they first meet up again. It kind of takes me out of the film.

 

White is fascinating because of his insight but his arguments can be dismissed by the fact that he's a guy who gave positive reviews for Alvin and the Chipmunks over There Will Be blood or The Social Network. Or hates Pixar movies because of a weird misplaced reason.

Also he thinks Paul WS Anderson (Resident Evil) is more talented than Martin Scorese. White is fascinating and CAN make good points but is also disillusioned and cynical.

 

I think far too much is put on ideas and effort then what actually shows up on screen. Look at Prometheus, it is perfect example.

Just because the subject matter is considered of a higher level, it doesn't mean the execution gets a pass.

 

He clearly starts from a point of pure insanity to get people's ire and attention. But some of his ideas are sound, if not honest in the way he uses them.

 

Exactly, although replace Meet the Spartans with Resident Evil 4 and all hell breaks loose, 'cause White could also say he loved Meet the Spartans.

 

Well, considering the Skull gave the solution to every single riddle/obstacle and Indy did almost nothing (in terms of action and choices) after the waterfall drops... yeah, lazy as hell.

I liked Indy being all giddy and his eyes getting the same spark he had when he was in his late 30s and I expected Marion to act the way she did.

 

The funny thing is that White is only relevant due to his insane contrarian views. Otherwise he's only one man. Ana whose reviews are banned from Rotten Tomatoes. Insane or punk rock? You decide!

 

That's the point, though. If Alvin achieves its purpose to a viewer as opposed to There Will Be Blood, then I can't dismiss his arguments. I can certainly not go to him for movie advise, but the opinion is very much valid.

A friend of mine prefers Rush Hour to the Godfather for the exact same reasons. I don't talk to him much about movies, obviously, but I totally get where he comes from.

 

I have to admit that scene when Indy meets Marion again were not..done well enough to be enduring. And according to Indy's timelines, Indy was in his mid-30's; Ford was playing a slightly younger character though his age doesn't really matter to the plot anyway.

 

The problem I had with that scene is that it is just too over the top and too much of an obvious fanboy moment. Suddenly Indy is a giddy school boy? He wasn't like that in Raiders. They turned the cheese up to 11.

And the Skull having the answers was kind of the point. It was the key. I fully expected it. The work came in the race to the destination and getting the skull in the first place.

It is not unlike Raiders or Temple.

 

Mid-30s, late 30s... I'll care about it when I get to that agre range.

 

Temple and Raiders had no riddles/obstacles. Their climaxes required other aspects of Indy's personality. Kingdom tried to imitate Crusade and failed. It's lazy writing, to me.

And Indy not being like that in Raiders was kinda the point, imo. Perfectly acceptable character growth to me.

 

And that is why White is a paradox. He makes good points only to poop on them with his taste in movies. If there was no ambition even when they failed, we wouldn't have movies like Blade Runner or Night of the Hunter, both deemed as failures when they were released but now are known as progressive masterpieces. Then we would limiting art.

 

Reading the Indy article, one faulty argument I find is that he judges elements of a movie based on how overdone they seem now.

For example, he says the gun gag in Raiders was good then, but tired now, after so many movies have referenced it. Which is hetero-definition (someone whose english is their mother tongue surely must know the proper word for it) of the worst kind.

 

I don't think he ever said movies like these should never be made. He just stated why he likes the other kinds of movies.

 

What do you mean? Of course they did. They simply came earlier in the film.

How so? What about Indy in that or any of the other films even indicates he'd act like that? Marion acts just as you would expect Marion to act.

 

I was talking about climaxes. Not comparing 1st and 2nd acts, whose riddles/obstacles Kingdom handled fine, imo.

Not in the other films. Within Kingdom Indy's character had progressed in a way that never made me go "huh?" when he giddied up.

 

Armond White reminds me Hannibal Lecter. He's charismatic, oddly classy and intellectual, He makes great points on the ugliness of man, while makes the audience question society. But....does that justify his actions by killing and eating people? Nah.