Gone Girl

I debated whether to see this movie or not, just as I debated whether or not to give it an official review. It's not that I didn't expect it to be good, or that I didn't enjoy the film after seeing it (as you can clearly see by my star rating), but it's a very dark movie that most people I know probably wouldn't necessarily enjoy seeing. If you want a good comparative for Gone Girl, just look at director David Fincher's previous works: Fight Club, Se7en, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, among others. I recently started to appreciate Fincher's works after the incredible film he almost won the Oscar for, The Social Network. He has a very distinct visual style that I actually really enjoy, even if he doesn't direct films I tend to consume. We probably wouldn't have seen this movie if my wife hadn't read the novel by Gillian Flynn, which is full of twists and surprises. Just so you know up front, there won't be any spoilers discussed in this review, so feel free to continue reading past this point.

On a seemingly normal morning, Nick Dunne goes to the bar he and his twin sister co-own where the two discuss his troubled relationship with his wife Amy over a game of LIFE. He recounts their picture-esque courtship and how devoted they were to each other at the beginning. Since then, he feels their relationship has deteriorated mainly as a bi-product of Amy's selfishness and her unrealistic expectations for him, punctuated by the fact that it's their fifth wedding anniversary. Every year she sends him on a complex scavenger hunt as if to highlight his failings as a husband. After their conversation, Nick returns home to find that the house appears to be broken into, with all the signs of a struggle within. What's worse is that Amy is nowhere to be found, and all signs point to him as the primary suspect.

I don't dare go any further into the plot, as the unfolding narrative to this mystery is one of the most satisfying parts of Gone Girl. Fincher sets the stage perfectly by giving us a struggling couple and a perfectly ambiguous leading man. Ben Affleck's characterization of Nick is a flawless portrayal of a broken man who's made poor decisions and who finds himself in an unimaginable situation. In any other movie a performance like his would certainly be the main focus of the story, but Rosamund Pike's portrayal of Amy is absolutely mind-blowing. To talk about the specifics of her performance would certainly break my promise to remain spoiler-free, so suffice it to say that she is the highlight of a very, very good film.

All of the performances are top-notch here, but one of the unlikely standouts was actually Tyler Perry as the hot-shot defense attorney brought in to represent Nick after public perception reaches a horrifying low. Perry is the perfect blend of confidence and intensity, and I wouldn't have thought it possible before seeing it for myself. This is, after all, the man who brought us innumerable "Madea" films. Neil Patrick Harris also acts contrary to type, as a slightly obsessive former boyfriend of Amy. Also, Carrie Coon put in an emotional performance as Nick's supportive twin sister, Margo. Her range is really impressive, and as the film progresses we see more and more of her acting chops as Margo realizes the truth about her brother.

Gone Girl has all the hallmarks of a David Fincher film: it's incredibly intense at some parts, it has a haunting score delivered by Trent Reznor & Atticus Ross, the cinematography beautifully utilizes a lot of steady cam, wide and slow zoom-in shots, and the actors are uniformly excellent. Despite the undeniably polished production, however, the content itself is very raw. There's a lot of harsh language, some very violent scenes, and a few moments of nudity. Unlike most R-rated films I've reviewed, this one definitely earned its rating for a reason. This isn't an uplifting experience in any way, shape or form. Gone Girl is a gripping, tragic, cynical take on domestic life and pop culture's perceptions of crime based on media outlets. The social commentary throughout this film is spot-on, showing both extremes for what they are.

Once credits roll, I don't think most people will know quite what to think. The ending doesn't necessarily offer a lot of closure, but that was never this story's M.O. It's about the ideas and the psychology of the characters, and what they will or won't do to find something they can live with. It's full of thought-provoking and dark themes, and though it isn't one that you'll probably want to watch over and over, I think it would definitely reward repeat viewings. The screenplay is expertly written, and the twists and turns of the novel translate seamlessly to the screen by author and screenwriter Gillian Flynn. Most novelists struggle transitioning to writing screenplays, but Flynn did a remarkable job and may earn an Academy Award nomination for her efforts here.

Again, I don't want to encourage people to go see this if they're wanting something wholesome or inspirational. That isn't what Fincher's films are about. If you want to see an excellently crafted and disturbing crime drama, then you have found it with Gone Girl. I think it's easily one of Fincher's best (#2 to The Social Network, in my opinion), and it's also one of the best films of the year. That isn't to say that it's the most entertaining or enjoyable film of the year, but it's the most engaging and challenging film I've seen in quite some time. It isn't a film that everyone will or should seek out, but I have to give Gone Girl four stars.

GONE GIRL is rated R for a scene of bloody violence, some strong sexual content/nudity, and language

**What did you think of Gone Girl? Did it keep you guessing or were you bored with the mystery? Let me know in the comments section!**

The Book of Life

This year hasn't had a lot of animated features, but the ones I've seen so far (The LEGO Movie & How to Train Your Dragon 2) have both been excellent. I didn't necessarily have the same expectations for the somewhat under-the-radar release that was The Book of Life. With it's unique, almost stop-motion animation style, I anticipated something along the lines of Corpse Bride when I went into the press screening last weekend. The one thing that gave me hope in this picture being worthwhile was the involvement of Guillermo del Toro, who directed the recent Pacific Rim and many other visually resplendent films.

A small group of semi-delinquent school children are taken to a museum, where they are led to the Mexican section and shown a glowing text called "The Book of Life". They are told about a young man named Manolo who is competing for the affections of the beautiful Maria against his friend, Joaquin. Overseeing this struggle for Maria's affections are two gods, La Muerte, ruler of the Land of the Remembered, and Xibalba, ruler of the Land of the Forgotten. On the annual Day of the Dead celebration, the two deities make a wager to see which of the two boys will go on to marry Maria. However, Xibalba has an ace in the hole after bequeathing a magical medal to Joaquin that will make him invincible.

My first impression of this film wasn't necessarily a positive one, as the goofy humor at the beginning reminded me of a direct-to-DVD Tinkerbell film or something (don't ask why that's my go-to reference). As the story progressed, however, I found myself enjoying the characters more and more. The fact that this is all more or less based on actual Mexican folk-lore was really intriguing to me, as that particular culture's mythology isn't often explored in cinema. The animation of the characters almost made them appear doll-like, as if carved and assembled entirely from wood. Some of the visuals go a little overboard at times, harkening back to action movie tropes that seem somewhat out of place, but otherwise I really enjoyed the animation in this film.

What I didn't enjoy quite as much were the musical choices. Taking recognizable (if not exactly fitting) songs and giving them a Mexican flare worked well in some instances, but was mostly a little pandering and unnecessary. Strangely, one of the few songs that was clearly an original composition stood out to me as easily the best in the entire film (titled, "The Apology Song"). It's not often you hear bands like Radiohead and Biz Markie in children's entertainment, and they definitely took me out of the movie every time they were used.

Other than that, I actually enjoyed this movie quite a bit. A lot of the story elements aren't that original, but the creative visuals and some of the surprisingly comedic dialogue carried my enjoyment through the weaker parts of the film. While I wouldn't say it's great, I do think this is a solid film that most kids are going to enjoy. It introduces some interesting ideas and folk-lore that we aren't often exposed to, and I appreciate the unique perspective director Jorge Gutierrez brings to the table. It isn't going to be in my top 10 for the year, but I'm happy to give The Book of Life three stars.

THE BOOK OF LIFE is rated PG for mild action, rude humor, some thematic elements and brief scary images

**Have you seen The Book of Life? If so, what did you think? Let me know in the comments section below!**

The Giver

It seems like this happens every year, and I apologize for the long gap between reviews. Man, it's been a slow at the movie theatres since Guardians of the Galaxy came out at the beginning of August. Luckily a friend and I were able to attend Salt Lake Comic-Con last week, or else the time really would have dragged. While we were pre-registering for our tickets, however, we decided to watch a movie neither of us had seen. Since we'd already watched TMNT and Guardians, we eventually settled on The Giver. Having never read the book on which this film is based, I had to rely on my friend's expertise regarding the differences between the movie and its source material. I wasn't totally hyped for the movie, despite the praise for Lois Lowry's novel, mostly because of the lukewarm critical response. However the saving grace of this film for me was the fact that the YA dystopian trend all kind of started with this story. With that and the star power involved, I was hoping this movie would defy the negative word-of-mouth and actually be an entertaining adaptation.

In the year 2048, society has been crippled by wars and forced to adopt a strict uncaring attitude towards all things. Citizens are given curfews, uniforms, and even pills to eliminate color from their vision.  There's no allowance for lying, cheating, stealing, or violence of any kind. Everything is incredibly orderly and structured for each individual and the society at large. Jonas, a seemingly ordinary teenage boy, is about to receive his appointment from the society that will determine in what way he is meant to contribute. However, all of his friends and peers are chosen before him and he is singled out by The Chief Elder in front of the entire population. Jonas is thereby given the position as Receiver of Memory, which entitles him to daily instruction from the current Receiver and the ability to bend the rules that normal citizens must abide. However, once Jonas is taught about life before the wars that tore their society apart, he sees flaws in the system and begins to silently rebel against protocol... which triggers the unwanted attention of the brutal Chief Elder.

So, right off the bat it's pretty plain to see that The Giver might not be the freshest idea for a film adaptation in 2014. These kinds of ideas are everywhere in popular young adult fiction, not to mention those that premiere on the big screen every couple of months. It's sad that the source material was so fresh at the time and clearly inspired the works of many copy-cats to come (Divergent probably being the biggest offender).

Despite how revolutionary this story once came across, the overabundance of dystopian screen adaptations has really overexposed most audiences to the intriguing concepts presented in this story. The Giver deserved better than that, given its ground-breaking source material. It also deserved better than to be given a mere $25 million dollars (even Divergent cost $85 million to produce) as well as a director who clearly lacks the vision and the passion to make this anything more than a run-of-the-mill YA adaptation. Some of the directorial choices are nice to see such as the black and white film slowly transitioning to color as Jonas's meds wear off, but are also kind of obvious and not exactly revolutionary techniques in storytelling (see The Wizard of Oz).

Most of the problems I have with this film, however, is the way in which it was adapted from book to screen. When you look at the best on-screen adaptations of these kinds of novels (The Hunger Games, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, etc.) the screenwriters take elements that wouldn't necessarily translate well to a movie and make them much more cinematic. There were so many missed opportunities to do this in The Giver, and instead they set out to make as literal an adaptation as possible rather than make an entertaining movie.

So many examples of this come to mind that I could write a whole separate post about it, but the easiest one is the character development. I get that the characters are boring by design and that the society making everyone become this way is one of the major conflicts. The problem is that with such bland characterizations it makes it almost impossible to invest in anyone's plight. I can see what Jonas looks like and try to relate to him on that level, but he behaves in such a childlike and uninteresting manner that I really have a difficult time caring what happens to him. In a book you're privy to the thoughts and feelings of the protagonist in a natural way, but voice-over narration while Jonas rides his bike is not a recommended tool for character development. It might be interesting to read about someone experiencing colors and bees for the first time, but it isn't very interesting to watch.

Another annoying thing about this movie is the casting. First off, this film was produced by the Weinstein Co. In other words, one of the most powerful names in Hollywood when it comes to Oscar campaigning. So it doesn't surprise me to see two Oscar-winning actors taking on key roles (though the film oddly doesn't feature them much) in a pandering attempt to get some kind of legitimacy from the general public. In all honesty, I thought Jeff Bridges was actually a really great choice for the role of The Giver, and I would have liked a story that focused more on his character. His immediate dismissal of the ridiculous social niceties Jonas tries to enact was a breath of fresh air, bringing much-needed levity to this otherwise joyless affair. Other than Bridges, however, no one else in the movie makes much of an impression. Their line-readings are so robotic that if they didn't look like different people I wouldn't be able to distinguish one character from the other. Even Meryl Streep is completely wasted as the authoritative Chief Elder, bossing people around and showing little to no emotion.

I also think the story can be a little manipulative at times, particularly when it's revealed what it means to be "released". The debates are so one-sided that I hardly even get a chance to contemplate the different sides before one is shown to be so heinous as to remove any sense of ambiguity. Good versus evil seems like an interesting conflict on paper, but only a handful of stories are actually able to do that conflict justice. Most of the time it's the philosophical debates and the morally gray areas that are more interesting to see play out. Even in The Hunger Games with such an undeniably corrupt government there are interesting moral conflicts that demonstrate the paradoxical nature of the human condition.

I've gone on a bit of a rant here, but I do think that despite its many, many flaws this still isn't a terrible movie. At the end of the day it's simply a bland, uninteresting experience that doesn't really have much to say that hasn't been said repeatedly - and frankly in much better ways. Perhaps this story doesn't naturally lend itself to a big-screen adaptation, to which I say they shouldn't have adapted it to the big screen. Lovers of the book will probably find something to enjoy here (if simply by watching their imaginations visualized), but there aren't many other reasons to seek out this film. While I don't recommend this movie, I actually do recommend checking out the novel, which I am going to do myself. I'm interested to see how much better this comes across on the page than it ended up on the screen. I give The Giver a generous two and a half stars.

THE GIVER is rated PG-13 for a mature thematic image and some sci-fi action/violence

**What did you think of The Giver? Let me know in the comments below!**

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014)

It might be somewhat redundant to say that I've always been a huge fan of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. I'm pretty sure that every self-respecting male who was born in the '80s at least knew the four turtles and probably loved them. As for me, I practically memorized the movies, owned toys of each character in many variations, played several versions of the video games depending on which system I was using, and regularly pretended to be my favorite turtle (either Donny or Mikey) while playing with my older brother (either Leo or Raph) and sister (a somewhat disgruntled April O'Neal). With all that being said, I wasn't immediately won over by the idea of a slick Hollywood reboot of one of my favorite childhood franchises. To me, the definitive version of the turtles is probably the beloved cartoon series that ran during the late '80s and early '90s, though I have very formative memories of the live action movies as well. However, despite a lack-luster teaser trailer, I tried to keep an open mind when viewing this film. I had a feeling it wasn't going to be great, but I did at least hope for some nostalgic joy out of the experience if nothing else.

April O'Neal is a put-upon journalist, relegated to reporting fluff pieces despite her dreams of finally breaking a big, important story. With a recent upswing in crime (led by the mysterious Foot clan), April snoops around the docks as the clandestine group attempts to steal materials from a shipping container. Rather than reporting on the robbery, however, April witnesses a vigilante completely overpower the dangerous gang single-handedly, leaving an ancient Japanese symbol scrawled on the side of one of the containers. Without much hard evidence to back up her fantastical story, she decides to sneak up on the Foot clan as they take hostages in the subway, hoping to see the vigilantes in action long enough to snap a photo. However, they arrive and disappear in a flash, and it's only after she follows them to the roof that she finally lays eyes on the heroes - who turn out to be four mutated turtles with highly developed martial arts skills. With her career hanging in the balance, April tries to decide whether to report her findings and endanger the anthropomorphized reptiles, or to fight along side them against a dark and mysterious figure known as the Shredder.

The intro to this movie was more or less what I expected, with April's first appearance coming well before the titular heroes in a half-shell. One of the big concerns I had about this film going in was Megan Fox's portrayal of the turtle-friendly reporter. Having seen her (which is about as close to a compliment I can give her) in the Transformers films, I had a feeling she wasn't exactly the best decision for the role. Indeed, there are several times throughout the movie that I literally cringed at her line-readings and facial expressions. However, she mostly satisfies her quotient here as the most she's really asked to do is stand around and look pretty. I don't know why we spend so much time on her character - particularly since it doesn't pay off in any way - but I suppose it could have been worse. At least the script didn't require her to do any real acting.

I know there have been a lot of complaints surrounded the new designs of the turtles. I can't tell you how many angry comments or articles I've read about the decision the animators made when it came to their updated look. For me, I honestly didn't have that big of a problem with it. It takes a few minutes to acclimate to their new appearance, but I kind of liked the updated gear they wore and the more "realistic" features of the turtles. The worst part was definitely their nostrils, but I was able to get over that fairly quickly. If the design doesn't mimic the previous incarnations too much, don't let that persuade you that the animators aren't turtle fans. There are a few direct call backs to the previous films, and one shot in particular was taken straight out of the cartoon's opening sequence. These little nods to the previous incarnations of the ninja turtles definitely took me back, and I appreciated the effort taken to honor what came before in some way.

What I didn't necessarily like about the turtles this time around was their personalities. Maybe it's just my familiarity with the previous versions of each of the characters, but I found their connection to pop culture to be a little forced and even pandering at times (especially with Mikey). I would have liked it better if the turtles were a little behind the times. To me it would make more sense for them to be scrounging old VHS tapes from the '80s in their sewer, thus creating a built-in comedic element as well as giving us characters that were a little more consistent with what we've seen before. Having just seen Guardians of the Galaxy do this exact thing so effectively, I feel it was a missed opportunity for this movie not to bring in more of that '80s nostalgia.

With a reboot like this you're obviously going to get new origins for the characters, otherwise it would just be a remake of the 1990 film (which it pretty much is, if you think about it). The good news is that the new backstory for the turtles was actually kind of clever, and I think it might even make a little more sense than the original version. Before I compliment this screenplay too much, however, let me also add that it's pretty much a direct rip-off of The Amazing Spider-Man with plot points from the original TMNT film sprinkled in as filler. Shredder's plot is almost exactly the same as the Lizard's, the turtles' origin is almost exactly the same as Spider-Man's, and there's even a moment that the top of a building crashes down (which is in the trailer) that's exactly the same as what we saw in Spider-Man. It's incredibly lazy screenwriting, and I found myself wishing they could go back in time and write another draft of the script before principal photography began.

This movie is about 65% action and 35% thread-bare plot. The action can be pretty entertaining at times, if not a little overwhelming on the senses, but the story is so pedestrian it's seriously infuriating to sit through. A lot of that can probably be pinned on the fairly inexperienced director, but I have to think this is more of a script-based problem. There are so many characters that shouldn't have even been in this movie (Will Arnett and William Fichtner, I'm looking at you), and many others that don't get enough development for us to even care about them. I even wish we could have spent more time with the Shredder, as the shadowy style in which he was filmed made him seem kind of mysterious. The mere fact that we spend so much time with April at the beginning and don't even see any resolution to her story arc is perhaps the most incriminating evidence against this script.

Overall, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is a pretty mediocre movie. There are parts I enjoyed (primarily the fight scenes with the turtles) and a whole lot that I was disappointed by that I won't discuss in order to avoid spoilers. Luckily this is a very short movie, clocking in at less than 2 hours and making it far easier to stomach as a result. Mostly, I'm irritated by the potential this film could have had. It wouldn't have taken much more effort to make this film work, but as it is there's nothing I can really endorse about it. Kids might find some enjoyment here, and I honestly don't think it's entirely bad. Still, all this film deserves is a generous two and a half stars.

TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES (2014) is rated PG-13 for sci-fi action violence

**What did you think of the new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles? Do you think it's a worthy update or did they miss the mark? Let me know in the comments below!**

FlashBack Friday: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Welcome back to FlashBack Friday! Yes, it's been a few weeks since I reviewed The Last Crusade. There have been a few new releases that have taken up a lot of my writing time. Plus, if I'm to be perfectly honest, I wasn't exactly looking forward to setting aside two hours to watch Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull again. Not that I've hated this movie. In fact, my history with this film is a little weird, as I've seen it only twice before now and had fairly different experiences each time I've watched it. The first time was at a dollar theater in 2008, and I remember being more or less okay with the film as a whole, though I thought the ending was a little confusing. It probably didn't help that the trailer for The Dark Knight that played before the movie, making me wish I'd seen that instead. Still, I remember feeling pretty positive about the experience, though I knew it wasn't as good as the previous films in the series. Over the years it seemed like people became more and more bitter about this movie, some equating it to The Phantom Menace in it's mistreatment of the beloved character. This passionate backlash actually made me curious to see it again, so I rented it one weekend when my wife was visiting family in 2011. I was a little surprised to find it passably entertaining, though my negative feelings about the ending had intensified dramatically. Well, oddly enough I'm maintaining my trend of seeing this film every three years, and yet again my viewing experience this time couldn't have been more different.

Perhaps my tastes have changed over the years, or maybe I've just become a lot more analytical. Either way, I knew I was in for a long, gruelling experience the moment this film began. Unlike the classic, foreboding intros we got in the previous films (well, the good ones anyway), we begin with an Elvis Presley song announcing to the world that this adventure is taking place in the 1950's. This alone wouldn't necessarily bother me too much, however just like with Temple of Doom this musical scene of teenagers racing their convertible against a humvee (or the '50s equivalent) full of Soviet soldiers goes on way too long and adds absolutely nothing to the story. With Raiders and Last Crusade, the introductory scenes are pivotal, getting right to the point and establishing characters and relationships that actually draw us into the story that follows. In Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, they use the first half-hour of the film to set up things that never come up again.

Before I get too far into my complaints, I do want to point out that I actually kind of like how Indiana Jones is taken back to the warehouse where the Ark of the Covenant was stored. That vast city of mysterious wooden crates that we saw at the end of Raiders was definitely something I wanted to explore in a future movie. The problem is that we see hardly anything that would make the long-awaited visit even worth our time. If all we're coming to this intriguing location for is to find some alien skull that ultimately has nothing to do with the actual alien skull that everyone's really seeking, then I would've rather had this be some random warehouse or underground facility that has no ties to the previous films. A better alternative might have been to take us to a nuclear waste disposal area of some kind, which would more organically tie in to those Russia vs. USA themes Spielberg's half-heartedly trying to force-feed the audience.

Despite the nonsensical nature of the setting, this scene is chalk-full of inconsistencies and technical errors. Never mind the fact that the crystal skull is only magnetic when the screenwriters want it to be, or that an army of Russian soldiers (and a back-stabbing colleague) can't seem to hit an aged Indiana Jones with a single bullet to save their lives. I was actually happy to see some moments of amazing stunt-work, with Indy jumping off the rafters, swinging on a chain and kicking a Russian through a sheet of glass in one continuous shot. But there are other times when the laws of physics are simply thrown out the window. The scenes that tend to work best in these movies are the actual in-camera special effects and stunts. What's truly unfortunate is that Spielberg and Lucas decided to smear digital effects over almost every action set piece in the film.

Everyone knows about Indy's miraculous (and ludicrous) escape from the nuclear blast. It's infamous with fans of the series, who casually refer to ridiculous coincidences in other films that result in the hero's salvation from insurmountable odds as "nuking the fridge". It is an unbelievably stupid moment, and one that Spielberg takes full blame for including. I won't harp on too much more about it, as it's the story that makes me more frustrated than the implausible cop outs that are taken to get Indiana Jones out of tough spots. For example, after Indy is brought back to some U.S. base and scrubbed down, he's interrogated by FBI agents who claim that he's some kind of suspect for treason thanks to his involvement with the double-crossing Mac. Indy is then fired from his teaching position as a result of their investigation, and then is lectured by the dean of the college about the heightened paranoia of the U.S. government. Thank goodness we got all that set up about the political climate of the period, because it's really going to come in handy when the story takes us to South American jungles in search of an alien temple... oh, wait...

Then, the story feels the need to force in a long-lost son (played by the controversial Shia LeBeouf) so that Indy doesn't have to do anything cool for the rest of the movie. By that I'm not saying that Mutt's swinging through the jungle like Tarzan is cool, but Indy just seems to sit back and let other people do the interesting stuff. While I still like Harrison Ford in this film, the screenwriters really give him nothing worth doing the entire movie. They get out of every difficult situation by simply pointing the crystal skull at whatever is stopping them, and even the clues to finding the hidden temple are being spoon-fed to him by the brain-addled Oxley. I really wish they had cut out at least half of the supporting cast and had this be more of an Indiana Jones film than an imbalanced ensemble of people we don't care about.

Ultimately, the themes this movie sets up in the first act go absolutely nowhere. The FBI agents are never seen again, there's no resolution to the Russian/American tension, and most of the back-story Indy tells us sounds infinitely more interesting than the actual adventure we were given. Instead, they give us almost an hour of the characters driving through a CGI jungle, fighting off giant killer ants, swinging with monkeys, and surviving three impossibly high waterfalls without so much as a scratch. Even the concluding epiphany after the UFO finally disappears into another dimension doesn't have anything to do with the previous two hours of footage. "Knowledge was their treasure." So, is that some kind of vague tie-in to Mutt dropping out of college...? When was treasuring up knowledge ever set up or even mentioned in this entire movie? I mean, sure the Russians wanted knowledge, but look where that got them.

To wrap this rant up, I just was to say that there actually are a few things to like here (Harrison Ford's performance, the occasional Indiana Jones theme, some nice call-backs to the other movies, and a few decent action scenes), but unfortunately this ends up being a completely garbled mess of a movie. I don't know if Ford has another film in him, but I do hope they pull something together to make up for whatever happened here. Maybe if they keep it focused more on Indy, try not to point out how old he's getting at every opportunity, and rely more on old-school practical effects, they can have a better chance at restoring some of the magic to this series - or at least send Indy off with some dignity. I didn't think it was going to get worse than Temple of Doom, but Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (which is a terrible title, incidentally) is the absolute pits of the Indiana Jones series. My lingering affection for the character is going to result in a higher score than it probably deserves, but I've decided to give this movie two stars.

INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL is rated PG-13 for adventure violence and scary images

**What do you think of Indy's fourth movie? Do you think it's total trash or do you find yourself defending it to your friends? Let me know in the comments below!**