Speed Vs. Indy

“Speed Racer" was a better summer movie than "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" (and easier to say, too). There, I said it. I typically agree with the critics, but they got this wrong. Apparently, so did the rest of the country. Why do I make such a bizarre and seemingly indefensible claim? Glad you asked. Let's compare the two movies.
I’ll start with Speed Racer. I’m not incredibly familiar with the show. I’ve seen it a few times, but wouldn’t consider myself a fan. But from what I have seen of the show, the movie was spot on. It was like watching a live-action version of the cartoon. The casting was perfect, including Spritle and Chim-Chim, who were just as annoying as they were on the show. The fight scenes were perfect, the races were wonderfully outlandish, and the visuals – oh, the visuals. The Wachowski brothers didn’t try to make the movie more serious than the show or try to take it too seriously. They reveled in its campiness, and the movie was that much more enjoyable because of it. The plot gets a little bogged down and overly-complex towards the beginning, but you’re soon back to racing, fighting, and eye-popping color. I walked out of the theater feeling like a kid with a double-dip ice cream cone.
Now, for Indiana Jones and the Blah, Blah, Blah. I love of the Indy movies. They’re among my favorites in the action genre. This one isn’t on par with the first ones. Not even the Temple of Doom. The casting was good: Harrison Ford was in form, Shia Lebeouf was tolerable, and Cate Blanchett was great as the villain. Some of the action sequences were fun, but others were outlandish (and not in a good way). You expect a certain level of un-believability in an action film of this type, but you have to stay within the parameters you set up for yourself. Some of the action sequences in Indy 4 went way out of the range of believability, making them just plain goofy (Mutt as Tarzan, for example). And the plot was ridiculous. It’s not a good sign when you’re saying to yourself, “Really?! That’s where we’re going with this?!” as the plot unravels.
Both Indy 4 and Speed are basically excuses for visual effects and action. Even though Speed’s action sequences are more unrealistic, they’re more believable within the context of the movie than Indy’s. And Indy looked very much like the first three, which was nostalgic and fine. But Speed’s color palette and seamless blending of real world and CGI was ground-breaking. The plot was a little more complex than it needed to be in Speed, but it was downright ridiculous in Indy. Plus, the bogged down plot in Speed takes place earlier on, ending strong with trippy colors and ridiculously fast cars. Indy’s faulty plot elements come into play at the end, leaving them fresh – no, rotten – in your mind. Plus, I’m pretty sure Emile Hirsch could kick Shia LeBeouf’s mutt…er…butt. And Matthew Fox could hand Harrison Ford’s geriatric butt to him on a platter. Then John Goodman would clunk their heads together like Moe.
I’m not sure why critics were much more willing to forgive the flaws of Indy than they were those of Speed. I thought they were much more obvious and obtrusive in Indy, while Speed embraced it’s campiness with a self-awareness of its cheese factor. I was personally much more distracted by the faults in Indy than I was by those of Speed, so I had a much better time watching it. Maybe my expectations were higher going into Indy than Speed, but in the end, I felt it was a far better and enjoyable summer movie.
So if you haven’t seen either, go see Speed Racer – a great popcorn flick, topped with lots of gooey cheese.