Register  |  Sign In
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:58 am



Reply to topic  [ 282 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 12  Next
 Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull 

What grade would you give this film?
A 32%  32%  [ 23 ]
B 47%  47%  [ 34 ]
C 14%  14%  [ 10 ]
D 5%  5%  [ 4 ]
F 3%  3%  [ 2 ]
Total votes : 73

 Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull 
Author Message
Forum General
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 9:31 pm
Posts: 9998
Location: Australia
Post Re: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Wasn't really a big fan of the Indian Jones franchise.

I give this a B+. Fun adventure but nothing truly entertaining or exciting. In fact, this for me is on the same level as National Treasure. Both the start (waste of time with the car chase) and ending (doesn't really seem like much is at stake) is lame. I did enjoy the jungle fights however.

It's miles away from recent blockbuster franchises such as Pirates.

So for movies i've seen this year:

1) Iron Man = A
2) Juno = A
3) Indiana Jones = B+

Not really anticipating much this year besides The Dark Knight and Harry Potter 6.

Bring on 2009 already....TRANSFORMERS 2 :hahaha:

_________________
Im Archangel. Telin le thaed.
Lasto beth nin, tolo dan nan galad.


I surrender who I've been for who you are
Nothing makes me stronger than your fragile heart
If I had only felt how it feels to be yours
I would have known what I've been living for all along
What I've been living for


Sat May 24, 2008 3:38 am
Profile
You must have big rats
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm
Posts: 92095
Location: Bonn, Germany
Post Re: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
snack wrote:
MG Casey wrote:
Thegun wrote:
Religion was no where near as big in the 50s. It was the beginning of the baby boomer where technology two simple sides. Science fiction was the rage. And theres not many great religious things to go for after the Ark and the Grail. The space and the Nuclear Arms race were the biggest moments of the decade. I mean 1957 was the year of Sputnik. It would have felt odd if they didnt at least corporate the military, educational times of the era. But not griping you, if you didnt like it, you didnt like it. I do recommend a second viewing though, once you see it once the flaws inexplainalbe turn to welcomed changes that work much better the 2nd time.

The thing is, the aliens came out of NOWHERE. There was barely a hint of it after the marks on the prison scene. I feel like they were trying to make the alien part a surprise, but did it horribly. For a film to take that big of a jump, you have to ease the audience into it. PLUS, the movie didn't even cover the culture part of the aliens in the 50's, which made it even more random.


Really?
The giant Area 51 signs in the beginning didn't get to you? What about the Alien mummy that showed up 5 minutes later?

Lol, yes. And all the implications of 1947 in Nevada when Ford and other scientists were forced to do a research on some wrack.

_________________
The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!

Image


Sat May 24, 2008 6:56 am
Profile WWW
We had our time together
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 4:36 am
Posts: 13087
Location: Vienna
Post Re: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
If all goes right, I'm seeing it again today :D


Sat May 24, 2008 7:14 am
Profile WWW
You must have big rats
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm
Posts: 92095
Location: Bonn, Germany
Post Re: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Riggs wrote:
If all goes right, I'm seeing it again today :D


Tomorrow for me.

_________________
The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!

Image


Sat May 24, 2008 7:54 am
Profile WWW
The Wall
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:50 am
Posts: 16163
Location: Croatia
Post Re: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Dr. Lecter wrote:
snack wrote:
MG Casey wrote:
Thegun wrote:
Religion was no where near as big in the 50s. It was the beginning of the baby boomer where technology two simple sides. Science fiction was the rage. And theres not many great religious things to go for after the Ark and the Grail. The space and the Nuclear Arms race were the biggest moments of the decade. I mean 1957 was the year of Sputnik. It would have felt odd if they didnt at least corporate the military, educational times of the era. But not griping you, if you didnt like it, you didnt like it. I do recommend a second viewing though, once you see it once the flaws inexplainalbe turn to welcomed changes that work much better the 2nd time.

The thing is, the aliens came out of NOWHERE. There was barely a hint of it after the marks on the prison scene. I feel like they were trying to make the alien part a surprise, but did it horribly. For a film to take that big of a jump, you have to ease the audience into it. PLUS, the movie didn't even cover the culture part of the aliens in the 50's, which made it even more random.


Really?
The giant Area 51 signs in the beginning didn't get to you? What about the Alien mummy that showed up 5 minutes later?

Lol, yes. And all the implications of 1947 in Nevada when Ford and other scientists were forced to do a research on some wrack.

The sign on the alien coffin also clearly says Roswell. Saying or showing Roswell is practically slapping someone into his face and telling him - yes bitch, this will be about aliens.



As for the movie itself:

8/10 -> B

The movie is fun like hell. I don't have anything bad to say about it, but it doesn't get any raves too... The movie captured the look and the feeling of the old Indy movies quite nicely. If the age of the actors wasn't apparent this would seem like a long lost Indy sequel.

Currently this is the best movie of the year in my opinion.


Sat May 24, 2008 9:58 am
Profile WWW
He didn't look busy?!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 3:59 pm
Posts: 4308
Post Re: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
everything an Indiana Jones sequel/revival film could ever be. There's maybe a scene or two that I'd have dropped (the Tarzan moment comes to mind), but otherwise, Spielberg is still the true master of adventure cinema, just as he was twenty-seven years ago. And Harrison Ford is still the true master of action hero, just as he was twenty-seven years ago.

A

so it now stands:

Raiders - A+
Crystal Skull - A
Last Crusade - A-
Temple of Doom - B

Je suis a happy filmgoer.

_________________
Image
Retroviral Videos
A film-based project created for the purpose of helping raise awareness about HIV/AIDS, specifically in South Africa.


Sat May 24, 2008 12:56 pm
Profile WWW
007
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:43 pm
Posts: 9549
Location: Wouldn't you like to know
Post Re: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
I'm with Billy, Spielberg has a gift for directing action sequences.

_________________
Image


Sat May 24, 2008 12:58 pm
Profile
Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 11, 2005 9:12 am
Posts: 3139
Post Re: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Rogue wrote:

Another problem is that even by Indiana Jones standards, it is very hard to suspend disbelief here. In Raiders Indy slid under a truck and managed to get back on (with a wounded arm no less). In Temple we get the jump from the plane on the raft. Both of those require a willing suspension of disbelief. But surviving a nuke by getting in a fridge? One that is launched hundreds of feet? And he just walks away? No. Just no. As for the monkeys, I don't care what the CGI looked like. The issue was that it was so unbelievable that it drew groans from the audience.

**/****


:funny: :funny: :funny:

Yes, like we know that jumping out of a plane in a raft and landing on a mountain is just SO realistic. Guys criticizing the movie for being unrealistic need to realize that the reason they believed the unrealistic parts of the first three were because they watched it when they were kids. You didn't realize that half of the stuff Indy in the originals was as much if not more ludicrous that he did in this one. The only difference is that you are older now. You realize that it's not possible to do these things anymore. Take a kid into the movie, and he'll believe everything Indy did. That's what childhood does for you, it lets you see things with no bias or prejudice. if you plan on criticizing this movie for unrealistic things, then go back and do the same for the originals. I guarantee you that you can rip those three apart for being unrealistic.

Edit: I completely forgot my favorite part, when he hung onto the back of a submerged submarine. That was SOOO realistic.


Sat May 24, 2008 8:56 pm
Profile WWW
On autopilot for the summer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 10:14 pm
Posts: 20413
Location: Walking around somewhere
Post Re: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Speevy wrote:
Rogue wrote:

Another problem is that even by Indiana Jones standards, it is very hard to suspend disbelief here. In Raiders Indy slid under a truck and managed to get back on (with a wounded arm no less). In Temple we get the jump from the plane on the raft. Both of those require a willing suspension of disbelief. But surviving a nuke by getting in a fridge? One that is launched hundreds of feet? And he just walks away? No. Just no. As for the monkeys, I don't care what the CGI looked like. The issue was that it was so unbelievable that it drew groans from the audience.

**/****


:funny: :funny: :funny:

Yes, like we know that jumping out of a plane in a raft and landing on a mountain is just SO realistic. Guys criticizing the movie for being unrealistic need to realize that the reason they believed the unrealistic parts of the first three were because they watched it when they were kids. You didn't realize that half of the stuff Indy in the originals was as much if not more ludicrous that he did in this one. The only difference is that you are older now. You realize that it's not possible to do these things anymore. Take a kid into the movie, and he'll believe everything Indy did. That's what childhood does for you, it lets you see things with no bias or prejudice. if you plan on criticizing this movie for unrealistic things, then go back and do the same for the originals. I guarantee you that you can rip those three apart for being unrealistic.

Edit: I completely forgot my favorite part, when he hung onto the back of a submerged submarine. That was SOOO realistic.


I think it also adds to the fact that in the 80s they used conventional means. The raft is just as absurd, but its also a real raft (Such a beautiful take if I might add, I wonder how many takes it took them to get it to open up, spin, and fall and land so well.) But just like the fridge, that was just as inventive, clever and part of the fun.

People forget some of the stuff Indy's gotten through (Granted most of the more ridiculous stuff is in TOD like jumping a 50 foot gap with a mine car or outrunning huge flowing water.) It's still awesome though.

_________________
Image

Chippy wrote:
As always, fuck Thegun.


Chippy wrote:
I want to live vicariously through you, Thegun!


Sat May 24, 2008 9:37 pm
Profile
The Lubitsch Touch
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 5:48 pm
Posts: 11019
Post Re: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
It's got serious story and character problems.

That said, they nailed the tone and spirit of the first three (this is where the SW prequels failed). It's a winner. I've seen it twice.

_________________
k


Sat May 24, 2008 10:27 pm
Profile
Is this heaven, or is this hell?
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 2:30 am
Posts: 30775
Post Re: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Thegun wrote:
Speevy wrote:
Rogue wrote:

Another problem is that even by Indiana Jones standards, it is very hard to suspend disbelief here. In Raiders Indy slid under a truck and managed to get back on (with a wounded arm no less). In Temple we get the jump from the plane on the raft. Both of those require a willing suspension of disbelief. But surviving a nuke by getting in a fridge? One that is launched hundreds of feet? And he just walks away? No. Just no. As for the monkeys, I don't care what the CGI looked like. The issue was that it was so unbelievable that it drew groans from the audience.

**/****


:funny: :funny: :funny:

Yes, like we know that jumping out of a plane in a raft and landing on a mountain is just SO realistic. Guys criticizing the movie for being unrealistic need to realize that the reason they believed the unrealistic parts of the first three were because they watched it when they were kids. You didn't realize that half of the stuff Indy in the originals was as much if not more ludicrous that he did in this one. The only difference is that you are older now. You realize that it's not possible to do these things anymore. Take a kid into the movie, and he'll believe everything Indy did. That's what childhood does for you, it lets you see things with no bias or prejudice. if you plan on criticizing this movie for unrealistic things, then go back and do the same for the originals. I guarantee you that you can rip those three apart for being unrealistic.

Edit: I completely forgot my favorite part, when he hung onto the back of a submerged submarine. That was SOOO realistic.


I think it also adds to the fact that in the 80s they used conventional means. The raft is just as absurd, but its also a real raft (Such a beautiful take if I might add, I wonder how many takes it took them to get it to open up, spin, and fall and land so well.) But just like the fridge, that was just as inventive, clever and part of the fun.

People forget some of the stuff Indy's gotten through (Granted most of the more ridiculous stuff is in TOD like jumping a 50 foot gap with a mine car or outrunning huge flowing water.) It's still awesome though.


Yeah, Indy tends to embrace it's suspension of disbelief, and I like it. Realistic Indy wouldn't be half as fun.

_________________
Follow WOKJ's official box office account twitter.com/wokjboxoffice


Sat May 24, 2008 11:03 pm
Profile
Don't Dream It, Be It
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 12:45 pm
Posts: 28517
Location: The Graveyard
Post Re: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
---I really enjoyed the movie, and we had to wait 20 mins extra for the movie to start because it was quite packed, so they decided to wait longer to start the movie. Then add in the 25/30 minutes of previews, the movie didn't start til nearly an hour after it was suppose to. >.< Anyway, I really enjoyed it more than I thought I would. The first 1/3 was....borderline boring, and I'd only grade it like a C+ or so, but once they arrive in Peru :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: . The Jungle Chase/Scene was awesome. Cate Blanchett is awesome, and Shia was better than usual. Oh yeah, the ants were really cool too. :P And why are there "complaints" about aliens or whatever at the end? It's a bit obvious just minutes into the film when they open up that crate that they'd play some part in the overall plot, then the signs just became more obvious after that. I didn't mind it though, and just...it just didn't seem to add or take anything away from the movie for me.

B+

_________________
Japan Box Office

“Gods are great ... but the heart is greater. For it is from our hearts they come, and to our hearts they shall return.”
"Paper is dead without words / Ink idle without a poem / All the world dead without stories."


Sat May 24, 2008 11:27 pm
Profile WWW
Sbil
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:38 pm
Posts: 48349
Location: Multi-tasking
Post Re: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
I enjoyed myself considerably. It's not a great movie (on, say, the level of Raiders of the Lost Ark), but it is a very entertaining one. Ford fits comfortably back into the role of Indy after all these years. Shia LaBeouf was also good, and showed some fun chemistry with Ford. It's nice to see Karen Allen again. And good old Cate Blanchett appears to be having the time of her life vamping it up with a Russian accent. The end got a little...silly and confusing...but, overall, I was pleased. Fun times. B+


Sun May 25, 2008 12:27 am
Profile WWW
Confessing on a Dance Floor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:46 am
Posts: 5548
Location: Celebratin' in Chitown
Post Re: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
A bit of a borefest to be quite honest. Never got that adrenaline rush a movie like this should provide. I like aliens and sorta actually believe in the aliens visited earth a long time ago. but it was just so bland and boring. even blanchet was a bit horrible.

the only thing this movie has going for it is nostalgia.

C-

_________________
ImageImageImage


Sun May 25, 2008 2:22 am
Profile
College Boy Z

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:40 pm
Posts: 36662
Post Re: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
I had zero expectations for this, honestly, so I enjoyed it. It's not better than any of the first three, but it's good entertainment. Harrison Ford managed to bring Indy back to life like I didn't think he could. Shia LaBeouf is also quite good in this. Cate Blanchett is rather average. However, this isn't as exciting as the others were. I felt bored at times, minus the jungle chase scene, which is excellent. And I felt that the "humor" aspect was lacking here, in comparison to the others. The alien aspect might have bothered me more if I didn't know it beforehand, but oh well. But, overall, solid entertainment.

**½


Sun May 25, 2008 3:10 am
Profile
The Wall
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:50 am
Posts: 16163
Location: Croatia
Post Re: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Corpse wrote:
---I really enjoyed the movie, and we had to wait 20 mins extra for the movie to start because it was quite packed, so they decided to wait longer to start the movie. Then add in the 25/30 minutes of previews, the movie didn't start til nearly an hour after it was suppose to. >.<

That's why I love theaters in my city. Most of the time they show only one or two trailers. Lately they rarely show any. Before Indy they only showed some trailer for a new spy/thriller/conspiracy movie with Shia LaBeof. It didn't look good.


Sun May 25, 2008 4:45 am
Profile WWW
Another You
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 5:38 am
Posts: 4543
Post Re: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Best of the series for me but that doesn't say much 'cause I find the whoLe franchise to be quite overrated. Anyways, I reaLLy Liked aLmost aLL of the action scenes except for the sword fight which looked reaLLy fake and the jungLe scene reminded me a bit of King Kong. That shot with the mushroom cLoud and the UFO Looked great and was a PLUS for me. Shia was as great as aLways and Ford of course didn't Look Less than 5 years oLder than what was indicated in the setting of the story. To sum everthing up, nothing truLy engaging that wiLL bLow you away but its one of the most entertaining movies so far this year

B+


Sun May 25, 2008 7:38 am
Profile
Star Trek XI
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:04 pm
Posts: 349
Location: Miami, FL
Post Re: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Speevy wrote:
Rogue wrote:

Another problem is that even by Indiana Jones standards, it is very hard to suspend disbelief here. In Raiders Indy slid under a truck and managed to get back on (with a wounded arm no less). In Temple we get the jump from the plane on the raft. Both of those require a willing suspension of disbelief. But surviving a nuke by getting in a fridge? One that is launched hundreds of feet? And he just walks away? No. Just no. As for the monkeys, I don't care what the CGI looked like. The issue was that it was so unbelievable that it drew groans from the audience.

**/****


:funny: :funny: :funny:

Yes, like we know that jumping out of a plane in a raft and landing on a mountain is just SO realistic. Guys criticizing the movie for being unrealistic need to realize that the reason they believed the unrealistic parts of the first three were because they watched it when they were kids. You didn't realize that half of the stuff Indy in the originals was as much if not more ludicrous that he did in this one. The only difference is that you are older now. You realize that it's not possible to do these things anymore. Take a kid into the movie, and he'll believe everything Indy did. That's what childhood does for you, it lets you see things with no bias or prejudice. if you plan on criticizing this movie for unrealistic things, then go back and do the same for the originals. I guarantee you that you can rip those three apart for being unrealistic.

Edit: I completely forgot my favorite part, when he hung onto the back of a submerged submarine. That was SOOO realistic.



Did you carefully read my review? I conceded that the originals weren't realistic. Hell, I'm conceding that in the very paragraph you are quoting. My point is that even with these types of films there is such a thing as going too far. Try not to be such an ass.

Besides, that isn't my major gripe with the film. Not even close. Those two stars I gave it aren't because of believability problems.

_________________
Trust me.


Sun May 25, 2008 11:33 am
Profile YIM WWW
Star Trek XI
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:04 pm
Posts: 349
Location: Miami, FL
Post Re: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Thegun wrote:
Rogue wrote:
I was very disappointed. And it pains me to say it, because I'm a huge Indy fan and love Spielberg. Raiders is the first non-animated film I saw at the theater (I was 7) and made me fall in love with cinema.

I knew this movie couldn't capture the magic of Raiders. For one, Raiders is in my mind a legitimate masterpiece. And you can only be introduced to a character as iconic as Indiana Jones once. Expecting this film to recreate that experience in 1981 is putting an unreasonable burden on it. But I did want a film that felt like a true Indiana Jones movie. To give me great action sequence after great action sequence. To have that sense of discovery that the other films captured. I know many here are saying this filmed achieved that. I couldn't disagree more.

Oh, there is some fun to be had here. The section of the film from the introduction of Marion until they reach the temple is a blast. The jungle chase is classic Spielberg, monkeys notwithstanding. The ants were terrific. But this is about 20 minutes of run-time in an over 2hr film.

The #1 problem with this movie in my mind is that Dr. Jones talks a hell of a lot more than he acts. After the intro in Nevada and until we get to Marion, I felt like I was sitting in on a lecture. What was being explained wasn't terribly clear nor exciting. And most of it didn't come in the form of dialog between characters. It seemed as if Harrison Ford was monologuing. It was just dull. (Yes, there is some action in between. The college motorcycle chase and those unexplained natives with the blowguns. But in the grand scheme of things, those action sequences are slight.)

Compare this to the setup in Raiders. After the meeting with the government agents you know what the Nazi's are after and why and what they need to find it (the headpiece). Hardly anything else needed to be explained in the film. Elegant and compelling. If you made me explain the ins and outs of the plot of Crystal Skull and how the artifact ended up where it did, I'd honestly have a hard time.

Even in the big action set piece, the aforementioned jungle chase, something felt off. It wasn't until I reflected on it later that I figured out what bothered me: Indy spent alot of time just driving. I have nothing against Shia but Indy was too passive here. Perhaps this is a subtle way for the filmmakers to acknowledge his age. He takes on more of a Sean Connery role. Better than constant one liners about his age for sure, but I miss the old Indy. :(

Another problem is that even by Indiana Jones standards, it is very hard to suspend disbelief here. In Raiders Indy slid under a truck and managed to get back on (with a wounded arm no less). In Temple we get the jump from the plane on the raft. Both of those require a willing suspension of disbelief. But surviving a nuke by getting in a fridge? One that is launched hundreds of feet? And he just walks away? No. Just no. As for the monkeys, I don't care what the CGI looked like. The issue was that it was so unbelievable that it drew groans from the audience.

But the biggest sin this film commits is with its alien plot and the overblown final sequence. Look, I know there are some that will argue that aliens are no less plausible than spirits from the ark or hearts getting ripped out. I concede that. This isn't about the believability of it. It is about tone. When Jones is searching for something Biblical or supernatural there is more of an element of mystery, of the unknown. Sci-fi just doesn't have the same vibe for me.

Whether you believe in God/Jesus or other spirits or not there is some element of reality to it all. Before you jump down my throat, let me explain. Many don't believe that Christ is a divine being. Cool. Agreed. But you can't deny that there was a historical figure named Jesus who was executed by the Romans in the first century. That is fact. So it is plausible that an archaeologist would be looking for some artifact attributed to this individual. Aliens just take the mystery and plausibility away. I'm trying to explain this the best I can but it is about how the film feels.

This felt wrong. That giant saucer felt wrong. That stupid looking alien felt wrong.

In the end, the whole film just felt wrong.

**/****



Religion was no where near as big in the 50s. It was the beginning of the baby boomer where technology two simple sides. Science fiction was the rage. And theres not many great religious things to go for after the Ark and the Grail. The space and the Nuclear Arms race were the biggest moments of the decade. I mean 1957 was the year of Sputnik. It would have felt odd if they didnt at least corporate the military, educational times of the era. But not griping you, if you didnt like it, you didnt like it. I do recommend a second viewing though, once you see it once the flaws inexplainalbe turn to welcomed changes that work much better the 2nd time.



Very interesting observations, but it doesn't really make a difference. They set the film in the '50s because of Harrison Ford's age, not because they insisted on doing aliens.

Besides, these films aren't history lessons. Considering what came before and what we know of this character, the supernatural is a better fit no matter what decade you are in.

I'm glad you liked. I may follow your suggestion and catch it again. Perhaps I'll warm up to it.

_________________
Trust me.


Sun May 25, 2008 11:38 am
Profile YIM WWW
He didn't look busy?!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 3:59 pm
Posts: 4308
Post Re: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
did anyone else catch how when the guy got taken by the ants and slowly eaten/put into their hole, the look on his face was identical to the guy who opened the chest and started screaming at the end of Raiders?

at least, I thought it was a bit of a reference.

but man, this movie had references to everything: the past Indy movies, Star Wars, Marlon Brando, Howdy-Doody, Tarzan (lol), National Treasure 2 (although that was probably unplanned), and a lot more (my dad told me about a few other references, but I wasn't familiar with the sources).

_________________
Image
Retroviral Videos
A film-based project created for the purpose of helping raise awareness about HIV/AIDS, specifically in South Africa.


Sun May 25, 2008 11:39 am
Profile WWW
007
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:43 pm
Posts: 9549
Location: Wouldn't you like to know
Post Re: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Well the past Indy films were refrences to old 30s serials, so it all makes sense.

_________________
Image


Sun May 25, 2008 11:51 am
Profile
On autopilot for the summer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 10:14 pm
Posts: 20413
Location: Walking around somewhere
Post Re: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Rogue wrote:
Thegun wrote:
Rogue wrote:
I was very disappointed. And it pains me to say it, because I'm a huge Indy fan and love Spielberg. Raiders is the first non-animated film I saw at the theater (I was 7) and made me fall in love with cinema.

I knew this movie couldn't capture the magic of Raiders. For one, Raiders is in my mind a legitimate masterpiece. And you can only be introduced to a character as iconic as Indiana Jones once. Expecting this film to recreate that experience in 1981 is putting an unreasonable burden on it. But I did want a film that felt like a true Indiana Jones movie. To give me great action sequence after great action sequence. To have that sense of discovery that the other films captured. I know many here are saying this filmed achieved that. I couldn't disagree more.

Oh, there is some fun to be had here. The section of the film from the introduction of Marion until they reach the temple is a blast. The jungle chase is classic Spielberg, monkeys notwithstanding. The ants were terrific. But this is about 20 minutes of run-time in an over 2hr film.

The #1 problem with this movie in my mind is that Dr. Jones talks a hell of a lot more than he acts. After the intro in Nevada and until we get to Marion, I felt like I was sitting in on a lecture. What was being explained wasn't terribly clear nor exciting. And most of it didn't come in the form of dialog between characters. It seemed as if Harrison Ford was monologuing. It was just dull. (Yes, there is some action in between. The college motorcycle chase and those unexplained natives with the blowguns. But in the grand scheme of things, those action sequences are slight.)

Compare this to the setup in Raiders. After the meeting with the government agents you know what the Nazi's are after and why and what they need to find it (the headpiece). Hardly anything else needed to be explained in the film. Elegant and compelling. If you made me explain the ins and outs of the plot of Crystal Skull and how the artifact ended up where it did, I'd honestly have a hard time.

Even in the big action set piece, the aforementioned jungle chase, something felt off. It wasn't until I reflected on it later that I figured out what bothered me: Indy spent alot of time just driving. I have nothing against Shia but Indy was too passive here. Perhaps this is a subtle way for the filmmakers to acknowledge his age. He takes on more of a Sean Connery role. Better than constant one liners about his age for sure, but I miss the old Indy. :(

Another problem is that even by Indiana Jones standards, it is very hard to suspend disbelief here. In Raiders Indy slid under a truck and managed to get back on (with a wounded arm no less). In Temple we get the jump from the plane on the raft. Both of those require a willing suspension of disbelief. But surviving a nuke by getting in a fridge? One that is launched hundreds of feet? And he just walks away? No. Just no. As for the monkeys, I don't care what the CGI looked like. The issue was that it was so unbelievable that it drew groans from the audience.

But the biggest sin this film commits is with its alien plot and the overblown final sequence. Look, I know there are some that will argue that aliens are no less plausible than spirits from the ark or hearts getting ripped out. I concede that. This isn't about the believability of it. It is about tone. When Jones is searching for something Biblical or supernatural there is more of an element of mystery, of the unknown. Sci-fi just doesn't have the same vibe for me.

Whether you believe in God/Jesus or other spirits or not there is some element of reality to it all. Before you jump down my throat, let me explain. Many don't believe that Christ is a divine being. Cool. Agreed. But you can't deny that there was a historical figure named Jesus who was executed by the Romans in the first century. That is fact. So it is plausible that an archaeologist would be looking for some artifact attributed to this individual. Aliens just take the mystery and plausibility away. I'm trying to explain this the best I can but it is about how the film feels.

This felt wrong. That giant saucer felt wrong. That stupid looking alien felt wrong.

In the end, the whole film just felt wrong.

**/****



Religion was no where near as big in the 50s. It was the beginning of the baby boomer where technology two simple sides. Science fiction was the rage. And theres not many great religious things to go for after the Ark and the Grail. The space and the Nuclear Arms race were the biggest moments of the decade. I mean 1957 was the year of Sputnik. It would have felt odd if they didnt at least corporate the military, educational times of the era. But not griping you, if you didnt like it, you didnt like it. I do recommend a second viewing though, once you see it once the flaws inexplainalbe turn to welcomed changes that work much better the 2nd time.



Very interesting observations, but it doesn't really make a difference. They set the film in the '50s because of Harrison Ford's age, not because they insisted on doing aliens.

Besides, these films aren't history lessons. Considering what came before and what we know of this character, the supernatural is a better fit no matter what decade you are in.

I'm glad you liked. I may follow your suggestion and catch it again. Perhaps I'll warm up to it.


Well from what I heard almost all scripts even from the mid 90s dealt with Aliens, Im sure 1947 was the original date before Ford's years really got to the extreme. The storyline apparently used to deal only with aliens and Ford and Spielberg didnt like that, so it took a long time to get the Crystall Skull into it.

_________________
Image

Chippy wrote:
As always, fuck Thegun.


Chippy wrote:
I want to live vicariously through you, Thegun!


Sun May 25, 2008 12:06 pm
Profile
Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 11, 2005 9:12 am
Posts: 3139
Post Re: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Rogue wrote:

Did you carefully read my review? I conceded that the originals weren't realistic. Hell, I'm conceding that in the very paragraph you are quoting. My point is that even with these types of films there is such a thing as going too far. Try not to be such an ass.

Besides, that isn't my major gripe with the film. Not even close. Those two stars I gave it aren't because of believability problems.


I could care less about your opinion about the movie. It's your opinion, you're entitled to it. But your review clearly states that you found the stuff in this movie to be far less realistic than the stuff in the originals. And that is absolutely ridiculous. The old ones had just as unrealistic if not more unrealistic stunts.


Sun May 25, 2008 12:35 pm
Profile WWW
ef star star kay
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 7:45 pm
Posts: 3016
Location: Cairo, Egypt
Post Re: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
just about going to see it again..

thanks to my damn b/f who thought this was best movie ever made.. :|

_________________
Image


Sun May 25, 2008 1:40 pm
Profile
Is this heaven, or is this hell?
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 2:30 am
Posts: 30775
Post Re: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
billybobwashere wrote:
did anyone else catch how when the guy got taken by the ants and slowly eaten/put into their hole, the look on his face was identical to the guy who opened the chest and started screaming at the end of Raiders?

at least, I thought it was a bit of a reference.


Yeah, I also liked how the scene where he packs his briefcase was filmed identical to the original.

_________________
Follow WOKJ's official box office account twitter.com/wokjboxoffice


Sun May 25, 2008 2:38 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 282 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 12  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.