The Watchtower of Destruction: The Ferrett's Journal - Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull: A Spoiler-Free Review
May 23rd, 2008
09:56 am

[Link]

Previous Entry Add to Memories Tell a Friend Next Entry
Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull: A Spoiler-Free Review

To understand “Crystal Skull,” you must first fathom why “Raiders of the Lost Ark” vies with “Die Hard” for the title of “Best Action Movie of All Time.” And to get that, you have to understand how I once failed a willpower save and watched all of “Raiders” even though I had work to do.

How? Because the glory of Raiders is that it’s such a network of amazing action sequences that I couldn’t leave because I knew what was coming next. My wife turned it on just as I was going to another room to finish up some programming – but as soon as the credits hit I said, “Well, the boulder sequence is coming up, I’ll just stay through that.”

Then once the boulder sequence hit, I said, “Well, he’s going to have to escape from Belloq. I’ll just stay through that.”

And then I said, “Wait. The bar fight at Ravenwood’s is next? I can’t miss that.”

Before I knew it, I’d been strung along into watching the whole of Raiders, because there was always something so incredibly cool coming up next that I didn’t want to miss it? After Ravenwood? The bazaar sequence. Then the snake pit. Then the fight around the plane. And the truck chase scene. And then, hell, might as well stay for the ending.

Raiders is packed with so many great stunts that even though I’d said I wasn’t going to watch it, I was like a fat guy reaching for just one more potato chip. That’s why Raiders works so well. The script is fast, the characterization punchy, and every fifteen minutes there’s one of the most magnificent action sequences of all time.

Yet if you want proof that an artist does not always understand his own creations, you need look no farther than George Lucas….. Because Lucas evidently thinks that the reason we enjoyed Raiders of the Lost Ark was the amazing story.

Crystal Skull spends a lot of time talking about, well, Crystal Skulls. We spend half an hour watching Indiana standing on magnificent sets, unraveling the mystery of how this Mayan note leads to the mazes in Peru and then to the temples in the jungle. And poor, deluded George Lucas thinks that we have arrived at an Indiana Jones film because we really, really liked the clever way that Indiana solved the puzzle of the Lost Ark.

I was checking my watch. And when I returned home, I looked up the original Raiders. By 65 minutes into the original Raiders, we had had:

1) The temple sequence, complete with psychotic traps, whacky boulder, and “throw me the idol and I’ll throw you the whip”;
2) The escape from Belloq, leaping onto a plane;
3) The fight at Marion Ravenwood’s bar;
4) The bazaar chase sequence, complete with gibbering monkey and Indy just shooting the swordsman.

And that doesn’t count the not-quite-an-action-sequence-but-still-pretty-tense moments of the kids saving Indy from Belloq and the “bad dates, Indy” line. And at T-plus 65 minutes, Indiana Jones is just about to be thrown into a pit of snakes.

By 65 minutes into Crystal Skull – which was when I checked my watch to see how long this damn movie had been going on – we have had:

1) One awesome chase sequence through an abandoned warehouse (it’s in the trailer, you gits, I’m not spoiling);
2) An unlikely brush with death, where Indy is saved via cleverness, an astonishing unfamiliarity with physics, and gratuitous usage of CGI;
3) One all-too-short chase scene with Shia LeBoeuf that’s fun, but we’ve seen most of it in other movies;
4) One brief fight scene that lasts literally ninety seconds;
5) Lots of talking about Crystal Skulls.

And we don’t have another chase sequence arriving for another ten minutes. Houston, we have a problem.

Indiana Jones is the precursor to flashier movies like The Bourne Identity where you put a talented everyman in the middle of zillions of people who want to kill him, and somehow he escapes. With Indiana Jones in particular, you want ten-minute long nailbiters where you’re sitting there going, “God, how’s he going to get out of that?”

Crystal Skull works during the two action sequences when they do that. The rest? Well…. Again, let’s look at Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Indiana is introduced by whipping the gun out of the hand of a man who is about to kill him. Belloq, the clever villain, is introduced with a tribe of mislead Indians at his back, having anticipated Indy’s next move. Marion Ravenwood, tough as nails and independent, is introduced during a drinking contest where she wins decisively.

The main antagonist of Crystal Skull, however, introduces herself by telling Indiana Jones where she’s from. And what she does. And who she is. And then doesn’t do any of it, because her awesome Russian accent should tell us how bad she is. Likewise, Indy’s faithful companion tells us of all the great adventures he used to have with Indiana Jones, cranking the exposit-o-meter up to 11 in an attempt to create character.

Raiders showed by showing. Skull shows by telling. And in a movie that should be about blazing craziness, not taking the excuse to show off the characters with whacky quasi-action scenes is a mistake.

I am reminded of a great sex essay called “Just Fucking Fuck Me, Already,” the sad tale of a woman who wants a guy to be aggressive in bed and not wait for her to take the lead. I kept sitting there during all of Crystal Skull going, “Just fucking fuck me!” because I wanted the great action sequences to come – and when they did, it was awesome. I was getting rightly rogered, my cinema-clit spasming in delight.

Then they talked.

I didn’t come to a goddamned Indiana Jones movie for a relationship, George.

When it’s on, it’s great stuff, although the CGI is still a bit overmuch. There’s a difference in your nailbiting level when you know it’s an actual, flesh-and-blood stuntman going underneath a real fucking truck and not some CGI guy being dropped under a green screen. There’s a lot of CGI work where I said, “This is exciting, but Shia LeBoeuf is as safe as houses.”

Also, Skull has these strange CGI boundaries where all the characters instinctively know that the special effects are going on over here and they are over here in greenscreen land, and so they stand as though they don’t have a care in the world while everything on the right-hand side of the screen is exploding. This makes it a little hard to suspend disbelief at times.

That said, Crystal Skull is not a terrible movie. It’s not as bad as, say, Temple of Doom, where all of the characters were actively annoying. It’s just not really what you’re looking for.

Just fucking fuck me already. Plow me with stunts. Jason Bourne did it. And sadly, I think he’s gonna have to be my booty call here from now on, guys.

That's right - I'm fucking Matt Damon.

(Tell me I'm full of it)

Comments
 
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
[User Picture]
From:[info]wyrrlen
Date:May 23rd, 2008 02:04 pm (UTC)
(Link)
May already be caught, but I'm pretty sure Belloq was the antagonist.
[User Picture]
From:[info]theferrett
Date:May 23rd, 2008 02:05 pm (UTC)
(Link)
It was, but thanks for the heads-up.
[User Picture]
From:[info]mightydoll
Date:May 23rd, 2008 02:04 pm (UTC)
(Link)
This is like, completely the opposite of another review I read today of the same movie.

Unless I misread it.

That said, he said the action scenes were drawn out and not punchy enough, so maybe it's not the COMPLETE opposite. He wished there'd been better story...


----

also: Dude, you've got balls enough to link to Just Fucking Fuck Me Already this close to the OSBP shitstorm? You're a braver man than I. ;) (for the record, I LOVE JFFMA to pieces)
[User Picture]
From:[info]theferrett
Date:May 23rd, 2008 02:08 pm (UTC)
(Link)
"Just Fucking Fuck Me" is what one woman wanted, not all women, and I presented it as such.

That said, if your friend wanted more story, I can understand that, because I could have used more emphasis on Indiana Jones - the third movie was about his relationship with his father, but this movie isn't really about anything but "Cool, Crystal Skulls."
[User Picture]
From:[info]jrthro
Date:May 23rd, 2008 02:21 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Yet if you want proof that an artist does not always understand his own creations, you need look no farther than George Lucas.

Ya think? I'll state the incredibly obvious and refer to Episodes I, II, and III.
[User Picture]
From:[info]xiphias
Date:May 23rd, 2008 02:32 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Or even more obviously, "Special Edition." George Lucas: determined to do it over and over again until he gets it wrong.
[User Picture]
From:[info]plinko
Date:May 23rd, 2008 02:22 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I had that exact same experience with Indiana Jones - Raiders of the Lost Ark these past two weekends. YES. I HAD TO WATCH IT TWICE. BECAUSE OMG THE NEXT PART IS AWESOME.

You know what part really DOES it for me, though? When Belloq and Marion are in the tent, and the Evilest German Guy With The Headpeace Burned Into His Hand comes in and takes out a folding piece of metal. And BOTH OF THEM watch in horror as he flips this scary thing around and then produces....

A hanger. To hang up his coat.

I don't know why, but I utterly ADORE that part. It's the little things in that movie, between the huge action sequences, that you forget, and then see again and remember you love... Like the children rushing in to save Indy when he's in the bar with Belloq. Or Indy's friend catching the poisoned date before it falls into Indy's mouth. Those little transient moments between the BIG ACTION SEQUENCES are somehow...transfixing...

I have to admit, though... I liked Temple of Doom. And Last Crusade. Though, of course, neither can hold a candle to the original.
[User Picture]
From:[info]nex0s
Date:May 23rd, 2008 02:24 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I'm just going to call this review: How The Ferrett Got His Groove Back.

N.
From:[info]kasheesty
Date:May 23rd, 2008 02:36 pm (UTC)

Bwahahahaaaaa!!!!!!

(Link)
[User Picture]
From:[info]clothing5
Date:May 23rd, 2008 02:39 pm (UTC)

Re: Bwahahahaaaaa!!!!!!

(Link)
Yes, that was the joke.
[User Picture]
From:[info]clothing5
Date:May 23rd, 2008 02:41 pm (UTC)
(Link)
So was it at least interesting talk? I mean, on a scale of Episode 1 to say, Annie Hall(unless you've got a better example) how entertaining was the dialogue*?

*also, why does firefox insist I misspelled dialogue?
[User Picture]
From:[info]xiphias
Date:May 23rd, 2008 02:43 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Because it wants you to use the American spelling "dialog". For me, though, I can only use "dialog" when I'm talking about computer things, like "dialog box", and, for theater or movies, I need to say "dialogue."

Personally, I'd use "Casablanca" as my example of the top end for dialogue.
[User Picture]
From:[info]xiphias
Date:May 23rd, 2008 02:41 pm (UTC)
(Link)
See, the thing about RAIDERS, which is awesome, is that it's ten ten-minute serials.

It's ten episodes, each ending with a cliffhanger and a hair's-breadth escape, in a row.

My father-in-law claims that he can actually name the serial from which each of the ten cliffhanger/stunt bits is from (I know that the "truck" one was originally a "wagon pulled by horses" one), but that's exactly why it's SO good at sucking you in.

It's ten short movies, each designed to give a nail-biting adrenaline hit. You CAN'T get away from it.

Also -- my wife is really annoyed at one thing about our "Indiana Jones DVD Boxed Set". Each of the movies has been given a uniform look, in which they say "INDIANA JONES AND THE" (Temple of Doom, Last Crusade, Raiders of the Lost Ark).

But, see, the movie ISN'T "Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark." Indy and Belloq ARE the raiders in question.
[User Picture]
From:[info]theferrett
Date:May 23rd, 2008 04:13 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Gini would agree with you. And I think looking at it as "ten stunts" is not a bad way of doing it. I was saying to my sister-in-law that if I was writing the script, I'd think of eight awesome stunt sequences and then find an excuse to string them together. Any excuse.
[User Picture]
From:[info]kmg_365
Date:May 23rd, 2008 02:55 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Raiders showed by showing. Skull shows by telling.

That was one of my main complaints about the prequels - they showed primarily by telling. "Don't say that, Master...I love you like a brother." Really? Where have we seen evidence of that? Hell, where have we seen evidence of most anything?

At least George hasn't lost his newly acquired touch.
[User Picture]
From:[info]sam_lamander
Date:May 23rd, 2008 03:05 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Good to know it's not Temple of Doom all over again.

As far as spoilers go, I don't quite mind. Either I will forget them by the time I see the movie or I won't be able to wait to see the movie and compare it to what anybody who "spoiled" me said.

But I love your similes : cinema-clit ? fucking Matt Damon ? You definitely are a weird guy. :)

And I agree with Xiphias. It's not Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark, but The Raiders of the Lost Ark, period. As far as I'm concerned, at least.

I will have to go see that any time soon.
[User Picture]
From:[info]robyn_ma
Date:May 23rd, 2008 03:23 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Crystal Skull is not Raiders. Raiders is Raiders. Crystal Skull is Crystal Skull. As such, I enjoyed it immensely.
[User Picture]
From:[info]theferrett
Date:May 23rd, 2008 04:11 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Maybe. But as I pointed out, the introductions to the "characters" were sufficiently lame that I had no particular connection to them, nor any especial hatred of them.

If this isn't Raiders, it's still not a particularly good movie.
[User Picture]
From:[info]thehat
Date:May 23rd, 2008 03:48 pm (UTC)
(Link)
"That's right - I'm fucking Matt Damon. "

^Oh, I see what you did thar
[User Picture]
From:[info]babymonkey
Date:May 23rd, 2008 04:07 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Um... I hated it. Because they made it about... that thing they made it about. Which I can't say without spoiling it, but ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME WITH THAT SHIT?! Leave it to George Lucas.

Didn't that bother you? I mean, seriously? That didn't bother you a whole hell of a lot?
[User Picture]
From:[info]theferrett
Date:May 23rd, 2008 04:12 pm (UTC)
(Link)
It bothered me that they didn't set it up. Which they easily could have.

I mean, the man's seen God. The fact that they didn't bother to mention that in the context of this new weirdness irritates me, because it could have been a good plot point.
(no subject) - (Anonymous) Expand
[User Picture]
From:[info]mattador
Date:May 23rd, 2008 05:29 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Highly amused by the last line.
[User Picture]
From:[info]montykins
Date:May 23rd, 2008 05:38 pm (UTC)

Here's Why You're Wrong

(Link)
Your thesis is an attempt to explain why the new movie isn't as good as Raiders of the Lost Ark. I'm not sure that's necessary, because Raiders is a damn near perfect movie. Very, very few movies are anywhere near as good as Raiders of the Lost Ark. The other movies in the Indiana Jones series, for example, are not.

More importantly, however, what's with the focus on George Lucas? Sure, he produced it, but he didn't write the screenplay (David Koepp did, and he knows how to construct a story) or direct it (Steven Spielberg, again, knows what he's doing). Just because fan whipping boy George Lucas was involved doesn't mean he was the only decision-maker.

I think the talky scenes were intended to show that this is a more professorial Indy. It was easy for the bad guys to get him into "lecture" mode, and then it was up to She-Ra LaBeef to instigate an escape. But I might feel that way because I think Crystal Skulls are "neat", and I was pleased to recognize the shout-outs to the skulls that are actually out there fascinating conspiracy nuts.

Also, Skull has these strange CGI boundaries where all the characters instinctively know that the special effects are going on over here and they are over here in greenscreen land, and so they stand as though they don’t have a care in the world while everything on the right-hand side of the screen is exploding.

A lot of those were rear-projection shots, just like in the pulp movies the Indiana Jones movies are an homage to (while at the same time being way better then).

That said, Crystal Skull is not a terrible movie. It’s not as bad as, say, Temple of Doom, where all of the characters were actively annoying. It’s just not really what you’re looking for.

Yes it was. It was exactly what I was looking for. This is a somewhat older Indy (who's still indestructible) but still recognizably Indiana Freaking Jones.

(Also -- Jason Bourne? Really? I like a movie where you can see what the heck is going on. If that jeep-back swordfight had been in a Bourne movie, you'd never be able to figure out which people were involved, let alone who was winning)
[User Picture]
From:[info]theferrett
Date:May 23rd, 2008 05:46 pm (UTC)

Here's Why You're Wrong About Being Wrong

(Link)
Your thesis is an attempt to explain why the new movie isn't as good as Raiders of the Lost Ark. I'm not sure that's necessary, because Raiders is a damn near perfect movie. Very, very few movies are anywhere near as good as Raiders of the Lost Ark. The other movies in the Indiana Jones series, for example, are not.

WRONGNESS #1: Last Crusade comes darned close, and while not as good, it's an entirely rightful heir to the process.

More importantly, however, what's with the focus on George Lucas? Sure, he produced it, but he didn't write the screenplay (David Koepp did, and he knows how to construct a story) or direct it (Steven Spielberg, again, knows what he's doing). Just because fan whipping boy George Lucas was involved doesn't mean he was the only decision-maker.

WRONGNESS #2: If Lucas didn't think this was an awesome story, it wouldn't have gotten made - he was one of three people (Spielberg, Ford, and Lucas) who had to approve it. And he was the one, according to Spielberg, who was pushing for the flying saucers.

And since "story" generally indicates the action beats you're looking for (at least it has in Lucas' past), and Lucas is the one who's proven that he works with poor screenwriters (Spielberg and Ford have both helmed projects with excellent scripts in the past), then it most likely falls to Lucas, who claims the bulk of the credit for the idea of Indy.

A lot of those were rear-projection shots, just like in the pulp movies the Indiana Jones movies are an homage to (while at the same time being way better then).

WRONGNESS #3: Just because something's an homage doesn't make it good, especially if you beef up the CGI to make it more realistic. There are plenty of crappy homages; the question is not, "Hey, does this reference something cool," but rather "Is it good if you take away that coolness?" And the answer is in this case is "No, not really."

Yes it was. It was exactly what I was looking for.

Perhaps you. The 79% reviews on Rotten Tomatoes seem to indicate otherwise, and I'll bet you good, solid cash this falls far short of the studio's hoped-for $400 million domestic rake-in. I'd even wonder about $300 million.

(Note that you're not wrong in this case - perhaps you look for too little. Which is fine. Indy's good comfort watching, and everyone needs methadone.)

(Also -- Jason Bourne? Really? I like a movie where you can see what the heck is going on. If that jeep-back swordfight had been in a Bourne movie, you'd never be able to figure out which people were involved, let alone who was winning)

But I'd also know it was two guys on an actual Jeep as opposed to Shia LeBouef standing on a greenscreened Jeep.
[User Picture]
From:[info]ba1126
Date:May 23rd, 2008 05:44 pm (UTC)
(Link)
While I liked the movies that came after "Raiders", none of them really came close to the first and best.

I remember distinctly turning to my husband after Indy escaped Belloq and his Indians and reached the little plane, and saying, "Thank God he's giving us a minute to breathe!" You are right on the money. I LOVED all the action, and then the bits of humor thrown in were awesome touches that made it so much more than just another action flick.

I agree with a previous commenter, "Ferrett's got his groove back!"
[User Picture]
From:[info]ministry_victim
Date:May 23rd, 2008 05:50 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Great wrap up on this post.
[User Picture]
From:[info]jasonp107
Date:May 23rd, 2008 06:45 pm (UTC)

You are so wrong and yet so right

(Link)
Like any good diehard fan, I caught the midnight show of Indy 4 wearing a Fedora, and I have to say that I came out disappointed.

And just as a precurser to this little rant, I'm kind of surprised, because I always read your movie reviews, and you and I line up almost 99% in opinion almost 99% of the time. I guess this is the 1%.

Here's where you're correct:
1. This movie smells of George Lucas' unique ability to ruin a film through a combination of sub-par CGI, bad lines, and underdeveloped characters
2. The movie falls into the fatal trap of "telling not showing," which kills a lot of it.

Here's where I *hope* you're wrong, because if you're right about what would have made this movie SO MUCH BETTER it means that I am so vastly out of tune with the rest of the moviegoing public that I'm basically screwed going forward:

1. What made Raiders was not the fact that "there were tons of action sequences," but the fact that as a viewer you could INVEST IN THE CHARACTERS throughout the action sequences. As soon as the "stunt regarding a healthy disregard for physics" showed up in the first 20 minutes of this flick, I had a really bad feeling about it. I can't, in any way shape or form, make myself WORRY about the characters in this movie. Which defeats the whole purpose of an action sequence.

2. This movie suffered from being way too nonstop. There's a good bit of setup in the beginning (which should have been done more quickly by SHOWING not by TELLING), but the problem with the rest of the movie is that it is ONE REALLY LONG action sequence. You can't go "oh next is the thing with the flying saucers," because there's no down-time in between them (which it typically where you have that thing called character development. Just because we all know who Indy was doesn't mean that a new experience won't change him at all).

;)
From:[info]eddiehawkins
Date:May 23rd, 2008 06:46 pm (UTC)

one more difference

(Link)
actually, one of the things I was really disappointed by was the lack of coolness in the "indy is smart and figures stuff out" aspects of the movie. There's nothing nearly as cool as the "staff of light" sequence from Raiders or the "penitent man kneels before God" sequence from Last Crusade. There's "he's talking about lines of the ground" and "look, a door, I will wave the skull at it". enh.
[User Picture]
From:[info]kehrli
Date:May 23rd, 2008 07:05 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Too bad I couldn't see any of the stunts in the second Bourne movie. I mean, theoretically they were awesome, but the blurry camera work was a tragedy.

So far the Crystal Skull reviews I've seen have been verifying what I thought from the trailer - the tempo is all OFF. It's just... sloooooow. :(

I guess maybe dusting off 25 year old franchises and trying to recreate the magic by restarting them cold just doesn't work so well...
[User Picture]
From:[info]theferrett
Date:May 23rd, 2008 07:07 pm (UTC)
(Link)
That's my biggest complaint with the Bourne series, m'self. The shake-o-cam isn't particularly encouraging. But the first one is still brilliant.

The Crystal Skull isn't bad - it's just weird. And I think you can do it, but it really takes a lot of analysis of what worked about the first ones. Neither SW or Raiders were that introspective....
[User Picture]
From:[info]bonerici
Date:May 23rd, 2008 11:07 pm (UTC)
(Link)
That's right - I'm fucking Matt Damon.

and so is harrison ford. cute reference
[User Picture]
From:[info]candiedheart
Date:May 23rd, 2008 11:11 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I enjoyed Indiana Jones, I liked that they acknowledged that he's older, and it was still entertaining (at least to me).

With that said, I think there are other ways they could've taken the skulls, and still had a pretty damn good story.
[User Picture]
From:[info]sjwt
Date:May 24th, 2008 12:58 am (UTC)

?

(Link)
I cant rember, was it theFerrett who once said the problem with stephen king and a lot of those top seller writers was they needed an editor who was willing to gamble there job, because as it stands no one is willing to be the editor who stands up and kills a garantied cash cow.

George is in the same boat. There is nothign wrong with any of he latest works that woudlnt have been fixed is an editor ahd of done a decent job.
[User Picture]
From:[info]roniliquidity
Date:May 25th, 2008 03:29 am (UTC)

A vote Against

(Link)
James and i went to see it with my folks today,all of us big fans of the trilogy and we all loved it. You can imagine how rare it is we all agree on anything. I'll grant it dragged a little at some parts* and and some of the dialog was clunky, and the big swirly at the end was poorly done, but overall it was EXACTLY what I was looking for. I think it was more Last Crusade than Raiders**, particularly the puzzley bits, but it's really all about "What does Indiana Jones mean to you?" This may not have been what you were looking for but your criticisms seem rather individualized and a matter of personal taste.

*In the interest of full disclosure, we've been watching a lot of BBC lately so our sense of slow may be warped.

** With regards to Raiders, for all your "Yay action!" there are some pretty slow parts there too. We just re-watched it earlier this week and the scenes at the college, people talking in tents, I don't see the talking/action ratio being ALL that different.
[User Picture]
From:[info]chayatapa
Date:May 25th, 2008 10:42 pm (UTC)

Re: A vote Against

(Link)
The nature of the "puzzles" in Crystal Skull was one of my main problems with it. I just watched the original two good movies with someone who hadn't seen them before. With those movies, the puzzles are ones you figure out with Indy, and they're clever and intricate. Name *anything* in Crystal Skull that came close to, say, the "half an amulet" puzzle in Raiders or the many different religion-related traps in LC? Nope. It was all stupid rhymes, senile madmen, waving the Skull around, and randomly destroying monuments.

Add to that the fact that no one ever seemed to be in danger (the tombs and temples in the movies must have been the only ones Indy has ever been in that don't contain deadly traps), and you have a complete snooze-fest. Slow scenes are just fine if they're a break in the tension. I found myself getting bored in the *action* scenes, particularly from the waterfalls on, and that's a problem.
[User Picture]
From:[info]ladylavinia
Date:June 5th, 2008 10:30 pm (UTC)
(Link)
To understand “Crystal Skull,” you must first fathom why “Raiders of the Lost Ark” vies with “Die Hard” for the title of “Best Action Movie of All Time.”


WHAT THE FUCK????

What on earth are you talking about? Since when does anyone, aside from yourself, have to accept this as fact? Screw this shit!

[User Picture]
From:[info]theferrett
Date:June 5th, 2008 10:32 pm (UTC)
(Link)
A reasoned response. What, if anything, would you say vies with Raiders?
The Ferrett's Domain Powered by LiveJournal.com