Mr. Plinkett Reviews Indiana Jones 4

Can't post a direct link, because of naughty language, but its up at Red Letter Media.

I liked it for the most part, but there were a couple of things I didn't agree with...

1. Bringing Marion back was a good idea (RLM says it's not), because Karen Allen and Harrison Ford have great chemistry. In the words of Spielberg "Let's put these two devils together".

2. Making Shia LaBeouf Indy's son was a bad idea (RLM says it's not). It makes the whole family-building process overly contrived. Had Mutt Williams not been related it would have a. showed that even though they loved each other, Marion is a strong character, independent of Indy and could lead her own life and b. have focused more on Mutt's development as a character. Before the big paternity reveal, Mutt was more interesting as a character, and the interaction between him and Jones was much more realistic.
After the reveal, he's swordfighting, swinging through trees, and doing all other sorts of crazy daring stuff because it's what the audience would expect Indy's kid to do.

 

Plinkett's completely serious except when he's doing the extremely crazy old man shtick. Anybody who says otherwise can't handle someone critiquing their precious waif- I mean, franchise. Precious franchise.

 

Plinkett (aka Mike Stoklasa) delivers serious criticisms in an exaggerated way. He's so serious, he's actually been praised by Roger Ebert.

 

Apparently all the traffic crashed the site.

 

My only problem was the cgi. Compare the main truck chase of Raiders with the cgi jungle chase in IJ4. Raiders wins all the way.

 

Eh, I think he's overrated. He's nitpicky even for me, he goes on for waaayy too long (most critics don't have reviews with comparable runtimes to films for good reason), and I remember a lot of his prequel criticisms easily applying to the OT.


And the voice. I know it's part of his schtick, but ugh, I can't stand it.

 

i think his prequel reviews served as catharsis for a lot of folks mourning their childhoods. the prequels were such a bewildering mess that it was nice to have someone take the time (even if it was too long) to break it down and do a point by point analysis that basically got to the root of why we were left feeling so empty.

but i've watched his other reviews too, and in general i agree with evan.

 

I think I listened to perhaps 15 seconds of it before turning it off. His voice is beyond annoying and I could not take more than that.

 

I agree with tom.

Even if I didn't, I wouldn't much see the point here. It was sort of interesting to review the prequels, because of the place of Star Wars as a cultural phenomenon, and the dynamic of massive expectations and ensuing disappointment. It can take some actual work to look at whether people's expectations were too much colored by an idealized view of the first films, whether the new ones were legitimately bad, or some mix of the two.

But why review a film we all know is bad in that fashion? He may as well have reviewed Ballistic: Ecks vs Sever, or whatever the last Sci-Fi original movie premiere was. Things that are obviously awful don't need a dissertation length explanation of their failures.

 

I find his voice incredibly soothing, I've only ever disagreed with him on one point (in the Avatar review), and I watch the Prequel Reviews at least once a month. I've already watched this new review three times.

 

Pretty entertaining. Not as funny as the other reviews, and it's probably wasn't as necessary, but it was still fun and interesting. Plinkett makes a lot of interesting points. One being his bit about not liking Indiana as a character but more as an idea. Which, IMO, is actually pretty true. Something I never really thought about.

Definitly will look forward to his Matrix reviews, if he does them. I also suspect that if he does a Twilight review, it will be a review of the entire saga.

 

Will these reviews even be legal under the SOPA bill?

 

Honestly I adore Plinkett. Most of the time I do agree with his opinions, but more than that I love the style. I don't mind the length at all. Really, my favorite part of the reviews are when he's in psycho mode and not when he's analyzing. I love that kind of really black comedy. But the analysis is also really interesting and (I think) insightful.

I kind of hope that if he reviews Twilight it starts out really positive and then he realizes that it sucks as he talks about it, or something like that.

But first we get Lenny the Wonder Dog. Of course.

 

I just think his reviews are hilarious.

I love Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith, and think he's out to lunch with at least half of his criticisms, but I still liked his reviews of the movies from a pure entertainment standpoint.

Haven't watched the Indy 4 review yet, but I liked the movie. It will be entertaining, at least.

 

I think they're funny.

 

His endless ejaculation scene with the olsen twins was a bit much. Glad there weren't too many other distractions. This was probably his most focused review.

 

Yeah, I can agree with that. I've always liked his serial killer tendencies more than his regular gross-out jokes. Being eaten by flesh eating cockroaches? Hilarious. Endless ejaculation? Not so much. It was the same thing with the urinating on the DVD or whatever from the other review.

 

I just remembered the kitty litter scene.

 

I don't think his critic of the PT mess was too long. But it was more than adequate to point out just how those flicks utterly failed.

 

That was the point where I looked at the timer, saw there was still half an hour left and decided to shut it off. If it got good after that, I guess I missed out.

 

So, since they went ahead and made this review, I went ahead and watched it when I had some free time. My opinion hasn't really changed for my earlier post. I will tip my hat to Plinkett, though. His riff on the (lack of) purpose behind the alien's actions was great.

 

59 MINUTES!