re: sound quality, my friend and fellow UFR fan, AJ, shared something with me a while back from a professional voice-over guy (maybe even the late, great “…in a world…” guy) with how he does his recordings on the road. If I find it I’ll send it along. It had some great tips!

DI: Thanks as well…and yeah, that was basically the idea Greg was trying to get across. Silly and non-heavy would definitely fit. :)

T.R.

Anyway, I enjoyed the show.
Thanks!

thanks, again, for taking the time to crank these out!

Will you indulge me with a little plug for your facebook page?

UFR fans, if you use facebook, make sure to join the UFR group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=30520299052

I tried to end the comment hopeful, realizing that you are probably just beginning to explore this shortened form of podcasting, and will embrace the possibilities in subsequent Minis.

But now, as you know, there is a second MiniReview to peruse. Which I shall do so now.

T.R.

I’m not sure your comments on the “feel” of Indiana Jones really went anywhere. You seem undecided. Do you have a concern with “throwbacks” or using film techniques from a prior decade? As far as I knew, the three original movies were ALREADY throwbacks to a previous era or form of story telling (maybe you are suffering from the backlash of a throwback to movies that were already throwbacks?).

Having watched the content on the two-disc DVD edition I would say you are correct when you surmise that Harrison Ford seems to enjoy his role as Indiana Jones.

Not sure what you mean by him not seeming to have aged much. If you compare Raiders and Crystal Skull, he looks ages older. If you meant that he still seems enthusiastic about the role (in contrast to Ol’ Sean as 007), then you may be right, but I’m not sure what that has to do with age?!?! Maybe you mean he still feels like Indiana Jones (almost like we never even left him), not like someone who “was” Indiana Jones and is now trying to figure out how to be him again? In that case, I also think he doesn’t really seem to have changed.

LaBeouf was the addition that I was afraid could really hurt, but he turned out all right in this movie (although nothing really great).

You say that the plot is “ridiculously absurd”, and I wish you would have made a small attempt to elaborate on it, because I don’t know what you thought was the absurd bits that stressed credulity. So I can’t really comment on specifics, but I can say that I found the plot about as believable as Temple of Doom (of the original three, this one was by far the least believable, as far as I was concerned).

On first viewing of the movie, I thought the dialogue was a bit iffy as well. However, on subsequent viewings I have revised my opinion, and although I cannot say the dialogue is brilliant, I can say that it is a bit more solid than I had originally thought. Yeah, I didn’t really feel the “I like Ike” part either. Not sure it actually came off as “incredibly stupid” though, that seems a modicum too strong (simply dumb may have been better). On Blanchett’s character, I think you may have been too harsh on the dialogue and script. She played the comic book-esque villian, and I don’t think the character was meant to be anything other than that.

Anyway, I enjoyed the throwback to the old adventure stories and adventure heroes of the earlier decades of the 20th century that underlie the original films, so we would be irreconcilably divided on this throwback contention (whether it be a perk or a liability).

You gave it a final vote of 5/10. I think it was about the equivalent of Temple of Doom, which, for me, ranks in at about a 7/10.

Also, what is a popcorn movie exactly? My personal image of a popcorn movie is Godzilla from the mid-90′s. Frivolous, but lots of fun to watch (although incredibly improbable). So, Indiana Jones would probably qualify for this. Personally, I refer to it as an Action-Adventure movie, and very rarely use the term “popcorn movie”, as I have a hard time figuring out when to leverage that judgement, and when to avoid it.

My overall rating of this MiniReview, about a 4/10. It was moderately interesting, but certainly nowhere near the standards set in the usual podcast. However, I look forward to more, and I look forward to seeing how you revise the MiniReview concept in the future!