Will Indy overstay his welcome?
April 16th, 2008 at 11:02am Will Pfeifer
INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL is set to debut at the upcoming Cannes film festival, and the reported length of the movie is a whopping 2 hours and 20 minutes. Now I’m a big believer in Roger Ebert’s axiom that “no good movie is too long, and no bad movie is too short,” but even so, this seems a tad on the lengthy side. Let’s compare to the other three Indy films:
RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK: 1 hour, 55 minutes
INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM: 1 hour, 58 minutes
INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE: 2 hours, 7 minutes.
Sure, there’s not much difference between CRUSADE’s running time and CRYSTAL SKULL’s, but these movies should be as tightly-paced as possible, and CRUSADE definitely had its slow spots. RAIDERS, on the other hand, remains one of the most perfectly paced action films ever made, jumping from thrill to thrill with barely a moment to breathe — and yet, somehow avoiding the exhaustion and overkill of many modern action movies.
What do you think? Is CRYSTAL SKULL going to suffer from the same sort of bloat that the recent STAR WARS movies succumbed to?
I guess we’ll find out soon enough.
Entry Filed under: Movie news, New movies
5 Comments Add your own
1. Brian M | April 16th, 2008 at 11:56 am
I think to cringe at any running time before seeing the film is jumping the gun. Ebert’s axiom is spot on. And I don’t think what genre a film is should make a difference - A slapstick comedy could be 3 1/2 hours long and I wouldn’t care, as long as it’s good enough to sustain it, and if a big sweeping epic was not good, I would hope it was the shortest film of the year.
I think the new Indy will be just fine. Spielberg was in control on this one, and he seemed determined to keep it more in tune with the last three - using practical effects rather than going CGI, using film vs digital, etc. I suspect the additional time is due to the need for more setup, to explain where the character is after all these years, and how he gets dragged back into his old ways.
…and 2:20 is nothing. If you want bloat, try the Lord of the Rings films. I love ‘em, but damn they needed an editor.
2. The Roeser | April 16th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
This sounds like something that Skull E should weigh in on.
3. Skull E | April 18th, 2008 at 7:43 am
Roeser: What you want me to say? I loves the Harrison Ford.
4. The Roeser | April 18th, 2008 at 8:03 am
I just thought since the moive had skull in the name, a frequent poster named Skull might have something to say. Harrison Ford is good, but I just have never been a fan of the Indy movies. I know that is sacrilegious to say on this site.
5. John N | April 26th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Roeser, I’m 67% behind you. I like RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK quite a bit but never cared for any of the sequels. So to answer the question in the title, I think Indy overstayed his welcome starting with THE TEMPLE OF DOOM.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed