hold the aliens, please

note: why anyone would read this in the hopes of actual film criticism makes me chuckle. but i should, in all fairness, say that spoilers do follow.

i'm the first to admit that i have no long-standing relationship with indiana jones. i came to the movies late [watched the trilogy with non-date over three consecutive wednesday nite non-dates, about a year ago] but liked and appreciated them nonetheless. i didn't have the nostalgia factor working for me when the latest film was released three weeks ago, but i did want to see it - if only to once again appreciate harrison ford as an actor. so mom and i headed out to a friday evening show - well stocked with a can of mixed nuts and some gummy worms [we are no movie-going slouches.] [who brings a can of mixed nuts to the movies?] [we do.] so, anyway. the movie. i found the first 2/3rds of the film to be enjoyable, if on the bloated side. cate blanchett is excellent - an observation that would seem to lose it's effect over time, as she's always excellent, but it's hard to argue with such solid evidence. also: i totally wanted her hair/cut. she reminded me of a harder-assed 'edna' from the incredibles. i didn't hate shia, much as i'd anticipated. if anything, i sort of forgot he was there. harrison? well...the hat still fit. i know the parallels between this indy & shia's character alongside last crusade's indy and his father [sean connery.] i get it. son & father figure. newbie and stodgy old guy. but the brilliance and allure of 'indiana jones' - the character - has always been his excitement, his thirst for action. he may have been reluctantly dragged into fistfights and captivity and near-tortuous conditions but he always fought through with an impish glint in his eye, with a smirk on his face, with a whip in his hand. where was that impish glint? where was that smirk? where the HELL was that whip? i'm not sure the flaw lies in how the character was written -- there was nary any verbal acknowledgement of being 'too old' to do something. it was mostly in how ford portrayed indy...which is probably why i was so bothered. if he was supposed to be grumbly, there would have been more narrative indication. there would have been more emphasis on shia's character ("mutt") as the whippersnapper, as the up-and-comer. but there wasn't. there was a direct conflict in how indy's character was written and ford's interpretation.

that actually wasn't my major quibble with the film [tangents!] i was really ok with the movie until...the end. AND THE ALIENS. are you kidding me? ALIENS? not cool. i have nothing against aliens as thematic implements. i appreciate close encounters of the third kind. i love alien. i loathe e.t. but that is for entirely different reasons [i.e. a four-year old's TERROR when e.t. is discovered in the backyard.] [i'm still shuddering.] [still.] but ALIENS with indiana jones? so very far from the realm of acceptibility.

i completely blame george lucas. he tries to put ALIENS everywhere. mostly places where they don't belong. the movie even had me when it entered into the ruins with the crystal alien skeletons. fine. whatever. but when they morph into an "actual" alien andburn cate blanchett's eyes out of her head? ....what?! i'm all for suspension of disbelief, but this seemed to be such a weak wrap-up. even in my non-nostalgic state, it made me sad.

plus: the movie is almost two-and-a-half hours. you want it to be worth your while. and while i didn't hate the film -- and did enjoy/was entertained by a good portion of it -- the last third blew it for me.

boo.