...and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (spoilers!)

New movies! Old movies! B-movies! Discuss discuss discuss!!!

How awesome is the new Indy film?

10
3
4%
9
9
12%
8
11
15%
7
16
21%
6
13
17%
5
7
9%
4
8
11%
3
2
3%
2
1
1%
1
2
3%
The Last Crusade was the LAST friggin' crusade, I ain't watchin' this!!!
0
No votes
Waiting for the Special Edition DVD with extended Cantina/Jabba's Palace scenes
3
4%
 
Total votes : 75

Postby Bob Samonkey on Fri May 23, 2008 11:15 pm

What can I say that has not already been said. It has its moments but overall I was bored. It seemed to keep building to something and never got there. I probably will see it again but I will not race to the theater...
User avatar
Bob Samonkey
Große Fäuste
 
Posts: 8982
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:49 pm
Location: Samonkey Island

Postby Vegeta on Fri May 23, 2008 11:38 pm

Indian Jones Apologists wrote:"Think of Indy as an escape, which is all he was ever meant to be, and all he was ever really meant to help us do."
Last edited by Vegeta on Sat May 24, 2008 9:12 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Vegeta
PARAGON OF VACUITY
 
Posts: 6274
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:22 am
Location: U.S.S.A.

Postby Seppuku on Sat May 24, 2008 12:07 am

Vegeta wrote:
[size=200]Indian [/size]Jones Apologists wrote:"Think of Indy as an escape, which is all he was ever meant to be, and all he was ever really meant to help us do."


There's no need to bring race into this...

Consider this your first official mod warning!

:wink:
Dale Tremont Presents...

Image
User avatar
Seppuku
SWINGING PLASTIC LION
 
Posts: 7872
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:52 am
Location: Limeyland

Postby magicmonkey on Sat May 24, 2008 3:07 am

Vegeta wrote:
Indian Jones Apologists wrote:"Think of Indy as an escape, which is all he was ever meant to be, and all he was ever really meant to help us do."


Now, I understand that viewpoint... but, out of context like that, it makes me think that watching any old crap is "an escape". Now, if the apologist had said that Indy is all about escaping, as in evading enemies and what not, then that would explain 4/5's of the Indy experience. So the escapism is most literally escapist.

See what I did there?
magicmonkey
I AM fucking Zen
 
Posts: 6032
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 8:26 am
Location: Shanghizzo

Random Movie News

Postby RogueScribner on Sat May 24, 2008 6:29 am

Hey, I made that! :twisted:

Yahoo! News wrote:ST PETERSBURG, Russia (Reuters) - Russian Communist Party members condemned the new "Indiana Jones" film on Friday as crude, anti-Soviet propaganda that distorts history and called for it to be banned from Russian screens.

"Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" stars Harrison Ford as an archeologist in 1957 competing with an evil KGB agent, played by Cate Blanchett, to find a skull endowed with mystic powers.

"What galls is how together with America we defeated Hitler, and how we sympathized when Bin Laden hit them. But they go ahead and scare kids with Communists. These people have no shame," said Viktor Perov, a Communist Party member in Russia's second city of St. Petersburg.

The comments were made at a local Communist party meeting and posted on its Internet site www.kplo.ru.

The film, the fourth in the hugely successful Indiana Jones series, went on release in Russian cinemas on Thursday. Russian media said it was being shown on 808 screens, the widest ever release for a Hollywood movie.

In past episodes Indiana Jones has escaped from Nazi soldiers, an Egyptian snake pit, a Bedouin swordsman and a child-enslaving Indian demigod.

RUNNING DOGS

"Harrison Ford and Cate Blanchett (are) second-rate actors, serving as the running dogs of the CIA. We need to deprive these people of the right of entering the country," said another party member, Andrei Gindos.

Though the ranks of the once all-powerful Communist Party have dwindled since Soviet times, its members see themselves as the defenders of the achievements of the old Soviet Union.

Other communists said the generation born after the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union were being fed revisionist, Hollywood history. They advocated banning the Indiana Jones outright to prevent "ideological sabotage."

"Our movie-goers are teenagers who are completely unaware of what happened in 1957," St Peterburg Communist Party chief Sergei Malinkovich told Reuters.

"They will go to the cinema and will be sure that in 1957 we made trouble for the United States and almost started a nuclear war."

"It's rubbish ... In 1957 the communists did not run with crystal skulls throughout the U.S. Why should we agree to that sort of lie and let the West trick our youth?"

Vladimir Mukhin, another member of the local Communist Party, said in comments posted on the Internet site that he would ask Russia's Culture Ministry to ban the film for its "anti-Soviet propaganda."

The "Indiana Jones" film is not the first Hollywood production to offend Russian sensibilities.

In 1998 the Russian parliament demanded the government explain why the Hollywood film "Armageddon" - which depicted a dilapidated Russian space station that blows apart because of a leaky pipe -- was allowed onto Russian cinema screens.

A government official at the time said the film, starring Bruce Willis as the leader of a team of astronauts sent to deflect an asteroid on a collision course with Earth, "mocked the achievements of Soviet and Russian technology."

Reuters/Nielsen




linky
My eye isn't lazy; it's ambidextrous!
User avatar
RogueScribner
The Dork Avenger
 
Posts: 9609
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, FL

Postby travis-dane on Sat May 24, 2008 6:37 am

RogueScribner wrote:Hey, I made that! :twisted:

Yahoo! News wrote:ST PETERSBURG, Russia (Reuters) - Russian Communist Party members condemned the new "Indiana Jones" film on Friday as crude, anti-Soviet propaganda that distorts history and called for it to be banned from Russian screens.

"Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" stars Harrison Ford as an archeologist in 1957 competing with an evil KGB agent, played by Cate Blanchett, to find a skull endowed with mystic powers.

"What galls is how together with America we defeated Hitler, and how we sympathized when Bin Laden hit them. But they go ahead and scare kids with Communists. These people have no shame," said Viktor Perov, a Com
outright to prevent "ideological sabotage."

"Our movie-goers are teenagers who are completely unaware of what happened in 1957," St Peterburg Communist Party chief Sergei Malinkovich told Reuters.

"They will go to the cinema and will be sure that in 1957 we made trouble for the United States and almost started a nuclear war."

"It's rubbish ... In 1957 the communists did not run with crystal skulls throughout the U.S. Why should we agree to that sort of lie and let the West trick our youth?"

Vladimir Mukhin, another member of the local Communist Party, said in comments posted on the Internet site that he would ask Russia's Culture Ministry to ban the film for its "anti-Soviet propaganda."

The "Indiana Jones" film is not the first Hollywood production to offend Russian sensibilities.

In 1998 the Russian parliament demanded the government explain why the Hollywood film "Armageddon" - which depicted a dilapidated Russian space station that blows apart because of a leaky pipe -- was allowed onto Russian cinema screens.

A government official at the time said the film, starring Bruce Willis as the leader of a team of astronauts sent to deflect an asteroid on a collision course with Earth, "mocked the achievements of Soviet and Russian technology."

Reuters/Nielsen




linky



And I thought I was giving INDY a hard time.....
Idiots....
-
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs!
Image
User avatar
travis-dane
100% OLEG!
 
Posts: 5418
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:19 am
Location: DTVille

Postby Keepcoolbutcare on Sat May 24, 2008 6:54 am

magicmonkey wrote:
Indian Jones Apologists wrote:"Think of Indy as an escape, which is all he was ever meant to be, and all he was ever really meant to help us do."


Now, I understand that viewpoint... but, out of context like that, it makes me think that watching any old crap is "an escape". Now, if the apologist had said that Indy is all about escaping, as in evading enemies and what not, then that would explain 4/5's of the Indy experience. So the escapism is most literally escapist.

See what I did there?


first off, yes, I see what you did there (haha!).

and I would like to officially go on the record as saying, IMHO (obviously), that that particular line of "apologists" reasoning is distressingly anti-intellectual, distressingly anti-critical, borenoyingly banal (how can you intelligently debate with someone who espouses such folderol? You can't. Which, to me, makes it an intellectual dead end - both for the espouser of said maxim and the debater) and reeks of both pitying condescension (oh, poor you, you can't shut off your brain and just enjoy things the way I can - or, even worse, that there's something wrong with someone who doesn't willfully do so) and a lickspittle-esque sucking up to the oh so great and mighty purveyors of such "entertainments".

please, before anyone in particular takes umbrage, please do note that I'm in no way saying anyone who espouses said tenet is anti-intellectual, anti-critical and a boring, banal lickspittle. A lot of what I've read here in the Zone, on the TB's, and other far flung places of the internet has disabused me of that notion right quick, for I know that some people who do drop said reasoning are a fuckton smarter than I can ever hope to be.

but saying it leaves room for no debate, leaves room for no avenue of discourse.

and that doesn't make it an unassailable position to take - far from it.

what it does is cheapen the entire existence of thinking, it cheapens individual thought, and it spits in the face of discourse.

it's the individual thought angle that really raises my hackles - who are you to tell me what MY escapism could and should be? Maybe I "escape" (and, really, how does one escape their own mind?) in different ways than you, maybe I like to think...or, and here's the real kicker, maybe I just have higher standards than you (once again, not necessarily a mark against you) and would like for them to be met.

Escapism doesn't have to equal stupidity, it's not just synonymous with SPLOSIONS! H34DSH0TS! PURTY COLORS IN RAPID FIRE EDITING!

no, it's not. There's, above all else, characters and characterization (I go with Altman on this, plot ain't much but table setting for the important thing, your characters). There's dialog. There's plot and story. There's pacing, framing, editing, composition, text, subtext...there's a heaping helping (and then seconds and then thirds) of other things that can make escapism more than just simple gee-whiz-aw-shucks turn off the brainpan, deaden the 3rd eye spectacle.

there are film spectacles that contain all the hallmarks of your typical escapist fare and those somewhat intangible other qualities. Is it so wrong to demand more of them? To not just accept whatever comes down from the Hollywood poop-shoot?

I hope not.

It's not just me, there are others who find that we can't willfully make ourselves into our booger eatin', dirty both behind the ears and foreskin younger selves at whim, that it takes more than highly complicated, very special effects to send us into a pre-teen reverie of cinematic adulation. Oh, sure, I still get transported, I still, sometimes, see something that reminds me of just why the hell I've made cinema (and music, literature - art, or human expression of emotions, in other words) my proverbial Grail, why I pay for the pleasure of cinema-as-cathedral...

but that's (generally) when I experience something either delightfully new, something unique, something that shuns my jaded consciousness aside...like I'm seeing it (and experiencing it), as EVERYTHING I saw/experienced when I was younger, for the first time.

kinda lost my little engine (that couldn't) trail of thought here, so, um...

/rant over.

random aside: in the 5th or 6th grade, for some reason or other, the class was asked to come up with what was essentially alts, for some such thing or another (some kind of game, mayhaps, or some form of role playing). I submitted mine, only to be pulled aside by our homeroom teacher as class was letting out..."so tell me, who exactly is Indian Jones? Is that some sort of joke?" {paraphrase}
Personally, I'm an atheist in the voting booth and a theist in the movie theatre. I separate the morality of religion with the spirituality and solace of it. There is something boring about atheism.
User avatar
Keepcoolbutcare
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 9407
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 4:14 am
Location: Blacktionville

Postby Seppuku on Sat May 24, 2008 7:19 am

So...did you enjoy Indy IV? :wink:

That agit-proppy "Why can't you just sit back and enjoy the film instead of nitpick it to bits?" argument is emerging more and more in these review threads lately. It almost makes me not want to even bother chiming in at all if I didn't fall head over heels in love with whatever film we're talking about. Why anyone would think I'd dole-out my cash just to get on my high horse is beyond me. All that argument does is generally dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with you as not knowing how to watch a movie or live their lives. That is elitism.
Dale Tremont Presents...

Image
User avatar
Seppuku
SWINGING PLASTIC LION
 
Posts: 7872
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:52 am
Location: Limeyland

Postby RogueScribner on Sat May 24, 2008 7:32 am

Not every movie has to be artsy fartsy, but even with popcorn fare, there should still be an interesting story told with characters who you can empathize with and don't insult your intelligence. It's not all about spectacle and dumb jokes, but lately, that's all that seems to matter to a lot of people.
My eye isn't lazy; it's ambidextrous!
User avatar
RogueScribner
The Dork Avenger
 
Posts: 9609
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, FL

Postby Vegeta on Sat May 24, 2008 8:49 am

Sorry about the Indian Jones misspelling :oops: , it was quite late when I posted that. The post is meant to be a joke, mostly because I felt the comment was meant to disarm criticism. KCBC ran with that to a level that I could never match. Bravo good sir!
Last edited by Vegeta on Sat May 24, 2008 1:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Vegeta
PARAGON OF VACUITY
 
Posts: 6274
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:22 am
Location: U.S.S.A.

Postby Bob Samonkey on Sat May 24, 2008 1:29 pm

I am sad that I did not enjoy it as much as I did. I really wanted to love this movie.
User avatar
Bob Samonkey
Große Fäuste
 
Posts: 8982
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:49 pm
Location: Samonkey Island

Postby Vegeta on Sat May 24, 2008 1:55 pm

Bob Poopflingius Maximus wrote:I am sad that I did not enjoy it as much as I did. I really wanted to love this movie.


I am still crossing my fingers, however the more I am spoiled the more I am worried that this "new" Indy flick isn't for me. Monday I'll know for sure.
User avatar
Vegeta
PARAGON OF VACUITY
 
Posts: 6274
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:22 am
Location: U.S.S.A.

Postby Lord Voldemoo on Sat May 24, 2008 2:29 pm

SPOILERS YOU FOOLS!

I saw it last night. I really could sum up my review in one word, but I wont because i'm more long-winded than that. I will, however, try to avoid repeating what lots of people have already said (though i'm writing this on the lfy so I'll do it anyway). I will start with my one word review:

meh....

That really sums it up for me nicely. I didn't HATE it...there were parts I genuinely liked. Someone (Havoc?) mentioned above that the warehouse scene was the best part of the film and the motorcycle chase was fun. I agree completely. But overall this film really just failed to leave a strong impression with me (at least one day later). I didn't hate it...but I'm not sure that i care about it enough to hate it, which to me might be worse.

At least my childhood didn't get raped.

Those of you fearing that this might somehow take away from your prior Indy love I dont think you have to worry even if you really don't like it. To me it didn't FEEL like part of the Indy series. To those of you who said above that Harrison Ford IS Indy in this...well I just have to disagree. Ford, for a few years now, has for whatever reason lost that spark, that charisma, that propelled his films from merely fun to mind blowing. Those of you who hoped that his putting on the hat again and working with Steven and George would help him find that spark, well, I think you'll be disappointed. At least I was.

He felt old. Which I get is totally unfair. He IS older. And the character is too. For me to expect that a post-war Indy with 20 more years of experience and "mileage" would have the same flair and charisma and motivation as Temple Indy or even Crusade Indy is silly....but I couldnt' help myself. I wanted it to feel like Indy, goddammit, and it didn't. It felt like Harrison Ford trying (sorta) hard to BE Indy...and not quite getting there. That's one of the inherent problems with making a sequel so long after the fact.

It was mentioned above that the chemistry between Ford and Allen was good. Wrong. At best it was non-existent. Where they tried for the old Raiders squabbling it felt forced....but not quite as forced as that last kiss which was just creepy. I like Allen, i think she did the best with what she had, but:

burlivesleftnut wrote: Things would have been about 10% better had you just said once, "Hey Karen Allen stop smiling like you have Down's Syndrome."


HAHAHAHAHA, i'm so glad i'm not the only one who was bugged by that. What the hell was that?? Brilliant review, Burl. I should have just quoted it and said "co-sign".

Now people are gonna hate on Shia...because it's Shia, but he, most definitely, is not what's wrong with this film. His interaction and chemistry with Ford is the key to the picture and I thought it was easily the best chemistry in the movie. If it didn't work I'd be giving this a 3/10 instead of the 6/10 I'm giving it. His intro is kinda laughable, as is the vine-swinging, but that's not Shia, that's shoddy CGI and other typically weird choices by Lucas/Spielberg. I thought Shia was fine.

The CGI kinda sucked alot. There are some very cool CGI shots that are more grand and epic, like the mushroom cloud and the shot as the flying saucer is leaving the valley and aftermath. Both were quite cool on the big screen. But a lot of the more personal action scenes (in particular the stuff with Shia) were just so obviously fake. There were some nice stunts/scenes (particularly in the motorcycle chase) though when I thought "Man is that really Harrison on there?" and then you'd see his face. Granted it could have been CGI'd on or something, but the stunts weren't all bad.

I said before i saw it that i don't know what a crystal skull was and i was really worried that i wouldn't CARE what a crystal skull was when I watched it. I was right. I didn't care. Easily the weakest McGuffin of all the films...so weak it makes the Sankara Stones feel wondrous. The fact that it takes them about 20 minutes to find it didn't help. I know that FINDING the skull wasn't the quest, returning it (and saving Marion) was, but I guess I'm just set in my ways. I like the format of BUILDING up the wonder and mystery of the quest item throughout the film as they learn more about it, put the pieces together...with the final payoff of discovery. They tried to do that with the LOCALE here instead of the item itself...and it just didn't work for me. But maybe that's just because I didn't care about the McGuffin/plot in general in the first place.

A couple of last little nits: he didn't use his whip enough! Like twice in the whole film that i noticed. The snake/quicksand thing was painfully stupid, i wish they'd come up with a slightly more plausible way of re-introducting snakes to Indy's life. Burl was right that the whole sequence with the "Duck" makes the liferaft scene in Temple look downright plausible....and not in a good way. And then one step above that on the craziness scale is the fridge/nuke scene....but i actually kinda liked that one, so whatevs. I'm 31 years old, i'm allowed to be a hypocrite.

Ok, so all of the above makes it sound like i HATED it...i swear i didn't. There were less cringe-worthy moments than there were in the prequels. Many of the humorous moments worked pretty well without being over the top Lucas-stupid (plants to the nuts, monkey scene and snake/quicksand scene notwithstanding). As I said the chemistry between Ford and Shia worked. Unfortunately the chemistry between Ford and INDY was lacking.

I just don't even really think of this right now as an Indy film. As part of the series. It's not because I've decided AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED THIS FILM NEVER HAPPENED (as some have done with the prequels)...it's not that purposeful. It's because it just didn't feel like the same series of films to me.

Anyway...overall a few fun moments. A couple of nice nods back (Ark), but not quite as many as I'd feared (i thought it'd turn into a nostalgia fest). No real lasting power here though...and when I think about watching an Indy marathon with my kids someday I doubt it'll even occur to me to watch 4 movies instead of 3.

5.5/10 (rounded up to 6 in the poll)

edit: oh yeah, had Shia been allowed to put on the hat in the last shot I'd have changed my score to -3000/10
Image
User avatar
Lord Voldemoo
He Who Shall Not Be Milked
 
Posts: 17641
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 1:18 pm
Location: Pasture next to the Red Barn

Postby burlivesleftnut on Sat May 24, 2008 2:51 pm

Good review Voldy. You kind of summed up something that's been bugging me since I saw it. RE: Harrison as Indy. Do you think he would have seem more fully fleshed as the Indy we all know and love had the character not been swallowed whole by the events around him? Or perhaps had he not had to share so much of the action with Shia and Marian?
Image
User avatar
burlivesleftnut
I <3 PACINA
 
Posts: 10626
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 10:28 am
Location: Port Angeles, WA

Postby Lord Voldemoo on Sat May 24, 2008 3:01 pm

burlivesleftnut wrote:Good review Voldy. You kind of summed up something that's been bugging me since I saw it. RE: Harrison as Indy. Do you think he would have seem more fully fleshed as the Indy we all know and love had the character not been swallowed whole by the events around him? Or perhaps had he not had to share so much of the action with Shia and Marian?


I don't know. I don't think it's the latter, anyway. A lot of the interactions (especially the earlier interactions) with Shia were the only times where he DID feel like Indy to me. He had some of that wit and charisma that Harrison used to exude in waves. The scene in the cafe and the motorcycle chase is probably the best example of that, to me.

When they added Marion and Ox to the group it got to be a bit much, though. Indy movies aren't meant to be an ensemble piece. He's best when it's just him or just him and a foil (Marion/Willie/his father). Yeah the more i think about it (and i'm typing this as i think about it so forgive me if it's all over the place) that might have been part of the problem...

I think part of it, though, is just that Harrison doesn't seem to have that charsima anymore. I guess I was expecting him to travel back through time and be 40 again... :lol:
Image
User avatar
Lord Voldemoo
He Who Shall Not Be Milked
 
Posts: 17641
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 1:18 pm
Location: Pasture next to the Red Barn

Postby LeFlambeur on Sat May 24, 2008 3:14 pm

I think the film's real problem had nothing to do with Indy's age. I like the concept of an older Jones, as far as I was concerned the Last Crusade had taken the character as far as it could go, and so now was probably the best time since his age has given the filmmakers a new element to work with. The problem was that they didn't stick with it. The film should have been about Dr. Jones trying to figure out his place in the atomic age, the Close Encounter angle never meshed meaningfully with the character arc. What they really bungled was an opportunity to test Indy against more modern attitudes, to rethink the series imperial and moral overtones, and deepen it. There was some of this early on but by the second half the movie falls back on its old bag of tricks. It was still quite good, but it could have been great.
LeFlambeur
CHEETS ON HIS WIFE
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:28 pm

Postby Retardo_Montalban on Sat May 24, 2008 3:28 pm

I watched this last night as well and I was sorely disappointed at one of the things I look most forward to in an Indiana Jones movie, the big death scenes. Usually there is one huge breath taking death scene in these movies that I can replay ad nauseam. I guess the ants were supposed to be it, but it looked like something out of the Mummy and Cate's cummupance was pretty lame. I really can't rank this much higher than any of the other Indiana Jones ripoff movies like The Mummy, National Treasure and Sahara.
Image
User avatar
Retardo_Montalban
doubleplusungood
 
Posts: 3682
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:28 am

Postby burlivesleftnut on Sat May 24, 2008 4:16 pm

Lord Voldemoo wrote:I don't know. I don't think it's the latter, anyway. A lot of the interactions (especially the earlier interactions) with Shia were the only times where he DID feel like Indy to me. He had some of that wit and charisma that Harrison used to exude in waves. The scene in the cafe and the motorcycle chase is probably the best example of that, to me.

When they added Marion and Ox to the group it got to be a bit much, though. Indy movies aren't meant to be an ensemble piece. He's best when it's just him or just him and a foil (Marion/Willie/his father). Yeah the more i think about it (and i'm typing this as i think about it so forgive me if it's all over the place) that might have been part of the problem...


Think about the jungle race action sequence. There were minutes when Indy just disappeared from the action altogether, but there was no rationale as to what was going on with him. In Crusade, you also had a big multi-character action sequence, but I never felt like "Where is Indy during this thing where Brody is saving Senior?" It just didn't have that clockwork like spectacle because the different action elements weren't handled well, imo.

And yeah, I had already mentioned the ant-eating thing. It had a couple things wrong with it. A) That dude is no Pat Roach, although I like how agile and quick he was. B) The skull making a whole in the swarm was just kind of lame. C) John Hurt was just kind of laying there for several minutes. D) The fight wasn't choreographed with the same energy as the other movies. E) The ant effects on the Non Pat Roach dude when he gets carried away were awful.
Image
User avatar
burlivesleftnut
I <3 PACINA
 
Posts: 10626
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 10:28 am
Location: Port Angeles, WA

Postby Bob Samonkey on Sat May 24, 2008 5:58 pm

Lord Voldemoo wrote:SPOILERS YOU FOOLS!

Ok, so all of the above makes it sound like i HATED it...i swear i didn't. There were less cringe-worthy moments than there were in the prequels. Many of the humorous moments worked pretty well without being over the top Lucas-stupid (plants to the nuts, monkey scene and snake/quicksand scene notwithstanding). As I said the chemistry between Ford and Shia worked. Unfortunately the chemistry between Ford and INDY was lacking.


I think the problem I had with it is the cringe-worthy moments that WERE in it were so cringe-worthy that I cringed into a little ball...

Lord Voldemoo wrote:Anyway...overall a few fun moments. A couple of nice nods back (Ark), but not quite as many as I'd feared (i thought it'd turn into a nostalgia fest). No real lasting power here though...and when I think about watching an Indy marathon with my kids someday I doubt it'll even occur to me to watch 4 movies instead of 3.


I was afraid of that too and was glad that happened, but I did feel that the Ark did not need to be seen. Anyone who is a fan is going to know what that warehouse is.

Lord Voldemoo wrote:edit: oh yeah, had Shia been allowed to put on the hat in the last shot I'd have changed my score to -3000/10


co-sign (see what I did there!)

I liked it overall as well and I did not want to come across as a hater. I think the reason that I was bored is that Harrison has some how lost his charisma that fueled his past movies. (I blame Six Days Seven Nights)


Lastly I cannot wait for the movie with Shia and the monkeys. Ha ha ha. Cause the monkeys had pompadours and he had a pompadour so he was king of the pompadour monkeys...Hahahahahahahahahaha....Oh man. I am writing to Lucas now and pitching the script idea!!
User avatar
Bob Samonkey
Große Fäuste
 
Posts: 8982
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:49 pm
Location: Samonkey Island

Postby Evil Hobbit on Sat May 24, 2008 6:21 pm

The more I think about this film and how it was uninvolving in terms of character arcs and basic plot, the more I believe it would have helped 'a lot' if Indy knew from the get go that Marion was the mother of Mutt. It could have been the finishing touch of the university chase. Now he was journeying to location and location to help out this unknown kid who happend to know an old 'uninteresting' friend and the personal desire wasn't really that engaging. If Mutt's letter would simply tell Indy that it was Marion being captured it would turn in a personal quest. And thus much more engaging. At this point you can still leave it a bit in the middle if he is his son, hell, Mutt doesn't even know, but knowing it is Marion he is gonna save does allow for some more dramatic interaction. You could even cut Ox out, that would have helped a lot as well. Frikkin Ox, stupid mumbling hoopleheaded van Helsing sidekick sucker.
User avatar
Evil Hobbit
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 1248
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2005 6:35 am
Location: the Netherlands

Postby Seppuku on Sat May 24, 2008 6:25 pm

Evil Hobbit wrote:If Mutt's letter would simply tell Indy that it was Marion being captured it would turn in a personal quest. And thus much more engaging. At this point you can still leave it a bit in the middle if he is his son, hell, Mutt doesn't even know, but knowing it is Marion he is gonna save does allow for some more dramatic interaction. You could even cut Ox out, that would have helped a lot as well. Frikkin Ox, stupid mumbling hoopleheaded van Helsing sidekick sucker.


Was it ever explained how this knife-wielding greaser type even hooked up with a dusty old professor (Ox) to begin with?
Dale Tremont Presents...

Image
User avatar
Seppuku
SWINGING PLASTIC LION
 
Posts: 7872
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:52 am
Location: Limeyland

Postby buster00 on Sat May 24, 2008 6:43 pm

Seppuku wrote:
Evil Hobbit wrote:If Mutt's letter would simply tell Indy that it was Marion being captured it would turn in a personal quest. And thus much more engaging. At this point you can still leave it a bit in the middle if he is his son, hell, Mutt doesn't even know, but knowing it is Marion he is gonna save does allow for some more dramatic interaction. You could even cut Ox out, that would have helped a lot as well. Frikkin Ox, stupid mumbling hoopleheaded van Helsing sidekick sucker.


Was it ever explained how this knife-wielding greaser type even hooked up with a dusty old professor (Ox) to begin with?


They did mention that Mutt had been in and out of a few schools. Maybe he met Ox at one of those places.
User avatar
buster00
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 6401
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:12 pm

Postby burlivesleftnut on Sat May 24, 2008 7:05 pm

Ox should have been eliminated. He was obviously some kind of Sean Connery stand in and when Connery said, "NO LOL", they should have written him out.
Image
User avatar
burlivesleftnut
I <3 PACINA
 
Posts: 10626
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 10:28 am
Location: Port Angeles, WA

Postby Nordling on Sat May 24, 2008 7:10 pm

I gave it a 6.

There's a lot I liked. Indy and the nuke. Harrison Ford was good. I liked Shia. But there's some serious plotholes and some phenomenally stupid moments. I doubt I'll see it again.
Image
User avatar
Nordling
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2092
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:39 am
Location: Missouri City, TX

Postby RogueScribner on Sat May 24, 2008 9:25 pm

Zone average review rating: 6.15

Definitely "meh" level and it's getting lower as the weekend progresses.

Yeah, I think I'll wait for DVD.
My eye isn't lazy; it's ambidextrous!
User avatar
RogueScribner
The Dork Avenger
 
Posts: 9609
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, FL

Postby Worst Part's Almost Over on Sat May 24, 2008 9:59 pm

That'll teach me to quote Empire reviews, then.

*skulks away into the shadows*
Image
User avatar
Worst Part's Almost Over
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 1585
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 6:35 am

Postby Nordling on Sat May 24, 2008 10:03 pm

CGI stunts suck. Where's the excitement? There's NOTHING in this like the truck chase in RAIDERS. The bits I liked were mostly imagery, but the chases, with the exception of the motorcycle chase, had no passion in them at all.

The more I think about this movie the angrier I get.
Image
User avatar
Nordling
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2092
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:39 am
Location: Missouri City, TX

Postby burlivesleftnut on Sat May 24, 2008 10:09 pm

Well you should angrily backhand Harrison Ford over and over and over again.
Image
User avatar
burlivesleftnut
I <3 PACINA
 
Posts: 10626
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 10:28 am
Location: Port Angeles, WA

Postby bluebottle on Sat May 24, 2008 10:12 pm

lol
User avatar
bluebottle
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 5354
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:17 pm
Location: Canada

Postby JpPrewitt789 on Sat May 24, 2008 10:40 pm

Saw it today. It scrapes out a 7/10 in my book, there were some very weird moments. A lot of the time it seemed like we were just supposed to be so blown away that we were getting to see Indy in action again, they forgot to add anything else substantial.

I actually liked Shia, and if you say he was the worst part of the movie, then you must have been going to the bathroom every time Marion appeared on screen. She went the entire movie with a blank, ditsy smile on her face. It's like she was wandering through a dream.

I thought it was cool how they navigated through the warehouse with the shotgun shells and gunpowder, and the fight between the greasers and the jocks in the bar was great.

One of the weirdest things to me were the kids who were messing around with the army convoy at the beginning. It seemed like they were going to crash or something and set something up, but they just vanished. Really weird.



Another important thing I learned was that there are apparently Aztec warriors embedded into the walls of every ancient structure in the world...

The ending was ok, but like one reviewer said "The finale was basically everyone standing around and watching stuff happen"
Image
User avatar
JpPrewitt789
REAL DRAGON
 
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 3:41 pm
Location: Behind You! •ll•

Postby Nordling on Sat May 24, 2008 10:42 pm

burlivesleftnut wrote:Well you should angrily backhand Harrison Ford over and over and over again.


Dammit, I will! FOR-EV-ER!
Image
User avatar
Nordling
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2092
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:39 am
Location: Missouri City, TX

Postby Zarles on Sun May 25, 2008 2:25 am

Ya'll are going to think I'm nuts, but I need to see it again to really get a handle on what I saw today. That had to be the weirdest sequel movie I've ever seen. Parts of it felt like its predecessors (the warehouse scene was seven different kinds of AWESOME), and parts of it didn't feel like any kind of Indy movie I'd ever seen or imagined before (watching Indy stagger around the prop house in the nuclear testing facility was the strangest form of cinematic juxtaposition I've ever seen). I didn't hate it. I didn't feel insulted. I'm just kinda... bewildered.

A few observations for this late hour -

The shot of Indy staring out at the nuclear explosion was beautiful. Pure Spielberg. I want it in its entirety airbrushed onto my bedroom wall. An aging relic staring into the face of the insurmountable danger of the future. Very, very cool.

Was it me, or did Indy never fire his revolver once? I LOVE that sound, and I missed it like an old friend. I'm no Spielberg basher, but why does he find the need to family-friendly his action films nowadays?

"Tell me it's a rope, tell me it's a rope!" LOL. Yes, it was silly, but my sister and I were HOWLING at this scene. Um, Indy... your whip?

I liked the concept of portraying Indy as more of the scholarly type in his advanced age, I liked hearing him talk about some of his past adventures, and the too-short scene in his house made me want to curl up in there for about a month and do nothing but read. He'd kinda turned into his father at that point, I think, and I didn't really mind it. I just wished they would've utilized Harrison's stuntman a little more and bridged Indy's two sides a bit better. The transition felt clunky in parts, and seeing Indy whip-swing in the warehouse made me realize that they CERTAINLY would've been able to pull it off. Making Indy's age apparent was a wise choice, but I think they overdid it. It's Indy, for chrissakes. He doesn't HAVE to live in the real world with the rest of us.

Like I said, I didn't hate this movie at all, and I have no doubt that it will enter my DVD collection soon. My main beef (heh) with it is that it felt like they didn't give Indy enough to DO. Sure, he talked a lot about what was going on, and Harrison certainly hasn't forgotten how to play the character, but where were the big setpieces? The chases? The gunfights? The stuff we got was cool enough for me to turn off my brain and enjoy while it lasted, but I was left wanting more.

If I ever grow up and get another girlfriend, I'm buying her an Irina Spalko outfit for her birthday. Or mine. Yum. Bruce the shark didn't chew as much scenery as Cate Blanchett did in this flick.

LS is going to HATE this. I guarantee it.
User avatar
Zarles
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:52 am
Location: Bringing something to the table

Postby travis-dane on Sun May 25, 2008 4:31 am

Hey,two guys of the OLEG crew saw INDY4....
ironic name said:"It's shit!"......

caruso stalker had a little more to say.....

caruso_stalker217 wrote:Okay, I got back a little bit ago. I'll keep it brief. I'll keep it spoiler-free. I'll keep it Caruso.

Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones. That's the first thing. He's older. A little mellower maybe, but he's Indiana Jones. It's so fucking great to see Harrison Ford showing signs of life again. He's got the Indy smirk. The twinkle in his eye. He even screams the same when he's afraid or when he gets hurt. He isn't referred to as Indiana much in this movie, though. Mostly "Dr. Jones" or "Henry" or "Jones" or "Jonesy." He can still throw down and kick ass. There are many shots of him running, jumping and climbing. I'm pretty sure it was really him and not a stuntman with a CGI Harrison Ford face.

There's the Beef. I liked the Beef. I thought he did a very good job. None of that spastic ADD shit like in TRANSFORMERS. He's funny when he needs to be and he has great chemistry with Ford. He also gets to throw down and kick ass. I'm glad he's in the movie.

And that is just about where my love of this movie ends. It makes me sad to say that, but it's the truth. The problems with the film start pretty much at the beginning. I won't say anything about it, except that it involves a gopher. And there are many gophers in the first twenty minutes of this movie. Too many, if you ask me. That's the Lucas factor right there. Of all the Indy movies, this one has the most Lucas stink on it. The Beef gets hit in the balls several times. Monkeys are used as comic relief. There are many gophers. This baby is about one farting bantha away from STAR WARS prequel hell. Luckily it's a pretty big bantha so there is an acceptable distance between this film and said hell, I think. Maybe not. That would depend on the individual.

There's Cate Blanchett. I should mention her. She speaks with a funny Boris and Natasha accent and she's got that cool haircut that we've seen in all the pictures and whatnot. Also, she wears big gloves and carries a sword. As far as Indy villains go, she's not the worst. She's definitely better than Donovan in LAST CRUSADE. But these movies aren't well-known for having very good villains, so if she falls short in that department I won't hold it against her. Anyway, she's sexy. So that counts for something. And anyway, she's not a bad villain. Not really that interesting, but none of Indy's villains are.

There's the action. I thought it was alright. Looks like a lot of stuntmen in this one. There are quite a few long shots where you see a guy who is supposed to be Harrison Ford fighting with a chick who is supposed to be Cate Blanchett, but you can't really see their faces so you assume that they are stunt people. You never see shots like that anymore. So it was nice not to see Harrison Ford strung up on wires and doing MATRIX shit in front of a green screen. In fact, nowhere in this film did I see a CGI Indy. That counts for something, maybe. There is a pretty good jeep chase through the jungle. But this is 2008, so a lot of it IS in front of a green screen. That made me sad. Remember in RAIDERS when Indiana Jones jumped on a truck and beat the fuck out of the driver and threw him out of the truck and the guy climbed back in and threw Indy through the windshield and tried to squash him between the truck and a car and Indy crawled under the truck and then got dragged behind it like in a western and then he climbed back into the truck and beat the fuck out of the driver and threw him out of the truck and it was all done for real like they got some trucks and they drove them and then they had a guy crawl under the truck for real? That's good shit. I miss that stuff. The chase in this movie is fun and all, but I couldn't get as involved because I knew it was all fake. We've seen this shit before. We've seen this green screen shit before. We've seen people throw themselves around a green room before.

Another thing that bugged me was how cheap this movie looks. That's right. I'll say it. It looks fucking cheap. Every location they go to looks like a soundstage. Not just that, it feels claustrophobic. There are lots of scenes where Indy and the Beef explore dark tunnels and cobwebby caves and none of it really looks that great. It's really drab. Bland. Cheap. I expected this movie to have a really big scope or something, but it's mostly set in small dimly-lit rooms. Not very exciting, if you ask me. Even the "kingdom" of the title is less than thrilling. There's nothing to look at because there's NOTHING THERE. Where the fuck did the money go? What the hell did they spend their budget on? Where's the goddamn production design?

My biggest beef with this movie is not with the Beef, or the stunts, or even the lousy sets, or Cate Blanchett's gloves. Although those gloves are ridiculously big. It has to be said. What the hell does she need gloves that big for? No. The real problem here is the script. This thing is a mess. You can tell they've been working on this thing for years. Rewrite after rewrite, slapping this bitch together and hoping it floats. It doesn't. Not very well. The film is mostly a series of scenes that don't really add up to much. Indy rattles off a lot of nonsense about crystal skulls and lost cities. Basically the same shit he said in RAIDERS and LAST CRUSADE. He follows clues, but I never really got the feeling that there was much of a mystery to solve. And I'm not sure what the clues were. He just goes from place to place, finding stuff out and then he keeps getting captured by the Russians.

Then there's a scene where he and the Beef are in a graveyard and they get attacked by a bunch of weirdos in masks with blowguns. It is never explained who the guys are or why they're here or why they're fucking up Indy's shit. And then in the next scene they don't even mention it. The Beef doesn't say anything like, "Who the hell were those guys?" They just don't talk about it. They could've cut that shit out altogether and it wouldn't have made a difference. Sloppy.

Since I'm trying to keep this spoiler-free I won't mention what all this crystal skull business is about or what Indy's quest is. All I will say is that it's completely wrong. I'm not sure why Spielberg and Lucas thought this was a good story to drop Indiana Jones into. It doesn't fit with the previous films. This subject matter and Indiana Jones never should have mixed. It stands out like a sore fucking thumb and I really wish they hadn't gone in this direction. It pretty much sinks the entire film.

I'll end what was supposed to be a brief review on a positive note. I'll say something nice about the movie. I didn't hate it. But I didn't love it. I kind of liked it. It was like bumping into an old friend that you haven't seen in years. It's great to see Indiana Jones again. It's the film itself that doesn't stack up. It's messy. It crosses into a realm of ridiculousness that rivals even TEMPLE OF DOOM. I was unable to suspend my disbelief in quite a few scenes. Namely the one near the beginning involving Indy and a refrigerator. The climax was not very good at all. The movie as a whole kinda reminded me of THE MUMMY RETURNS. Not a good thing. The last scene feels kind of tacked on and borders on cheesy.

This is the most kid-friendly of the Indiana Jones pictures. It is the most Lucas-ified. It has the most crotch hits and monkeys with pompadours.

And too many gophers.

EDIT: I noticed that I failed to mention Ray Winstone, Jim Broadbent and John Hurt. Possibly because they are completely wasted in this movie. Three great actors given absolutely nothing to do. Too bad.

MORE EDITS: John Williams score is nothing to write home about. It's the same HARRY POTTER shit he's been doing for the last ten years or so, with fuckin' glockenspiels all up on the shit and all that nonsense. There isn't much music in this bitch that sounds like it could be in an Indiana Jones movie. I think there was a bit of a reprise from RAIDERS near the beginning, but it was the only piece of music that I recognized aside from the "Raiders march." Mostly it sounded like anything you'd hear in a JURASSIC PARK movie or A.I. or something.

FURTHER EDITS: I don't think this Janusz Kaminski guy should've shot this movie. Most of the time it looks more like MINORITY REPORT or MUNICH rather than an Indiana Jones movie.

Anyway, I don't regret paying to see this bitch on the big screen. I didn't want to scare Spandau away or anything like that. I don't think this movie is anywhere near the level of RAIDERS or TEMPLE OF DOOM. It can't even beat THE LAST CRUSADE. I think they waited too long to make this film. The movies have changed too much in twenty years and this film reflects that. It often feels more like an Indiana Jones imitator than an Indiana Jones film. However, this is just my opinion. I trust you fucks to make up your own minds about Indy's latest. Maybe you'll enjoy yourselves more than I did.

Seacrest out.
-
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs!
Image
User avatar
travis-dane
100% OLEG!
 
Posts: 5418
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:19 am
Location: DTVille

Postby CeeBeeUK on Sun May 25, 2008 7:26 am

SPOILERS CONTAINED WITHIN! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!




I think that overall this was an Indy film. But it has flaws. I came away feeling entertained, but as time has passed, and the more I think of them, the bigger and more irritating the flaws get.

The whole warehouse sequence was good, shame it followed the nonsensical car race. The amount of gunpowder they used, I was expecting Indy to strike a light to escape! The fridge was... extreme, and almost on a level with the lifeboat in ToD for believeability!



Good things
  • The ark theme as the warehouse door opens
  • The hero shot against the cloud
  • The conversation in the coffee shop
  • The shadow of Indy's head against the curtain in the Russian tent.

Bad things
  • The fridge!
  • The Ox. Just... Why?
  • Mac. Just... Why? ;) Did anyone actually care when he kept switching sides? The final one just seemed lame.
  • CGI halo lighting effects at the top of the pyramid. Fine, you're on a set, but was the lighting that bad that you had to outline everyone?
  • The pay-off. The 'knowledge' to be imparted was so good that it would blow your mind. FACT!
  • If the visitors were waiting for the last skull to be returned before they could move on. How come it had been stolen? Why didn't they move on before the skull was taken?
  • If they had an inter dimensional portal, why did the ship have to fly?


Summary.
Entertaining, in parts, film. Let down by a sucky ending. 6/10
User avatar
CeeBeeUK
WAIRWOLF GAME
 
Posts: 2060
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:47 am
Location: nodnoL

Postby RogueScribner on Sun May 25, 2008 7:53 am

Seems like the consensus is: don't expect much and you may have an okay time. Too bad expectations come part and parcel with an Indiana Jones movie.

Yeah, I'll wait for DVD . . .
My eye isn't lazy; it's ambidextrous!
User avatar
RogueScribner
The Dork Avenger
 
Posts: 9609
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, FL

Postby Seppuku on Sun May 25, 2008 8:01 am

travis-dane wrote:Hey,two guys of the OLEG crew saw INDY4....
ironic name said:"It's shit!"......

caruso stalker had a little more to say.....

caruso_stalker217 wrote:Okay, I got back a little bit ago. I'll keep it brief. I'll keep it spoiler-free. I'll keep it Caruso.

Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones. That's the first thing. He's older. A little mellower maybe, but he's Indiana Jones. It's so fucking great to see Harrison Ford showing signs of life again. He's got the Indy smirk. The twinkle in his eye. He even screams the same when he's afraid or when he gets hurt. He isn't referred to as Indiana much in this movie, though. Mostly "Dr. Jones" or "Henry" or "Jones" or "Jonesy." He can still throw down and kick ass. There are many shots of him running, jumping and climbing. I'm pretty sure it was really him and not a stuntman with a CGI Harrison Ford face.

There's the Beef. I liked the Beef. I thought he did a very good job. None of that spastic ADD shit like in TRANSFORMERS. He's funny when he needs to be and he has great chemistry with Ford. He also gets to throw down and kick ass. I'm glad he's in the movie.

And that is just about where my love of this movie ends. It makes me sad to say that, but it's the truth. The problems with the film start pretty much at the beginning. I won't say anything about it, except that it involves a gopher. And there are many gophers in the first twenty minutes of this movie. Too many, if you ask me. That's the Lucas factor right there. Of all the Indy movies, this one has the most Lucas stink on it. The Beef gets hit in the balls several times. Monkeys are used as comic relief. There are many gophers. This baby is about one farting bantha away from STAR WARS prequel hell. Luckily it's a pretty big bantha so there is an acceptable distance between this film and said hell, I think. Maybe not. That would depend on the individual.

There's Cate Blanchett. I should mention her. She speaks with a funny Boris and Natasha accent and she's got that cool haircut that we've seen in all the pictures and whatnot. Also, she wears big gloves and carries a sword. As far as Indy villains go, she's not the worst. She's definitely better than Donovan in LAST CRUSADE. But these movies aren't well-known for having very good villains, so if she falls short in that department I won't hold it against her. Anyway, she's sexy. So that counts for something. And anyway, she's not a bad villain. Not really that interesting, but none of Indy's villains are.

There's the action. I thought it was alright. Looks like a lot of stuntmen in this one. There are quite a few long shots where you see a guy who is supposed to be Harrison Ford fighting with a chick who is supposed to be Cate Blanchett, but you can't really see their faces so you assume that they are stunt people. You never see shots like that anymore. So it was nice not to see Harrison Ford strung up on wires and doing MATRIX shit in front of a green screen. In fact, nowhere in this film did I see a CGI Indy. That counts for something, maybe. There is a pretty good jeep chase through the jungle. But this is 2008, so a lot of it IS in front of a green screen. That made me sad. Remember in RAIDERS when Indiana Jones jumped on a truck and beat the fuck out of the driver and threw him out of the truck and the guy climbed back in and threw Indy through the windshield and tried to squash him between the truck and a car and Indy crawled under the truck and then got dragged behind it like in a western and then he climbed back into the truck and beat the fuck out of the driver and threw him out of the truck and it was all done for real like they got some trucks and they drove them and then they had a guy crawl under the truck for real? That's good shit. I miss that stuff. The chase in this movie is fun and all, but I couldn't get as involved because I knew it was all fake. We've seen this shit before. We've seen this green screen shit before. We've seen people throw themselves around a green room before.

Another thing that bugged me was how cheap this movie looks. That's right. I'll say it. It looks fucking cheap. Every location they go to looks like a soundstage. Not just that, it feels claustrophobic. There are lots of scenes where Indy and the Beef explore dark tunnels and cobwebby caves and none of it really looks that great. It's really drab. Bland. Cheap. I expected this movie to have a really big scope or something, but it's mostly set in small dimly-lit rooms. Not very exciting, if you ask me. Even the "kingdom" of the title is less than thrilling. There's nothing to look at because there's NOTHING THERE. Where the fuck did the money go? What the hell did they spend their budget on? Where's the goddamn production design?

My biggest beef with this movie is not with the Beef, or the stunts, or even the lousy sets, or Cate Blanchett's gloves. Although those gloves are ridiculously big. It has to be said. What the hell does she need gloves that big for? No. The real problem here is the script. This thing is a mess. You can tell they've been working on this thing for years. Rewrite after rewrite, slapping this bitch together and hoping it floats. It doesn't. Not very well. The film is mostly a series of scenes that don't really add up to much. Indy rattles off a lot of nonsense about crystal skulls and lost cities. Basically the same shit he said in RAIDERS and LAST CRUSADE. He follows clues, but I never really got the feeling that there was much of a mystery to solve. And I'm not sure what the clues were. He just goes from place to place, finding stuff out and then he keeps getting captured by the Russians.

Then there's a scene where he and the Beef are in a graveyard and they get attacked by a bunch of weirdos in masks with blowguns. It is never explained who the guys are or why they're here or why they're fucking up Indy's shit. And then in the next scene they don't even mention it. The Beef doesn't say anything like, "Who the hell were those guys?" They just don't talk about it. They could've cut that shit out altogether and it wouldn't have made a difference. Sloppy.

Since I'm trying to keep this spoiler-free I won't mention what all this crystal skull business is about or what Indy's quest is. All I will say is that it's completely wrong. I'm not sure why Spielberg and Lucas thought this was a good story to drop Indiana Jones into. It doesn't fit with the previous films. This subject matter and Indiana Jones never should have mixed. It stands out like a sore fucking thumb and I really wish they hadn't gone in this direction. It pretty much sinks the entire film.

I'll end what was supposed to be a brief review on a positive note. I'll say something nice about the movie. I didn't hate it. But I didn't love it. I kind of liked it. It was like bumping into an old friend that you haven't seen in years. It's great to see Indiana Jones again. It's the film itself that doesn't stack up. It's messy. It crosses into a realm of ridiculousness that rivals even TEMPLE OF DOOM. I was unable to suspend my disbelief in quite a few scenes. Namely the one near the beginning involving Indy and a refrigerator. The climax was not very good at all. The movie as a whole kinda reminded me of THE MUMMY RETURNS. Not a good thing. The last scene feels kind of tacked on and borders on cheesy.

This is the most kid-friendly of the Indiana Jones pictures. It is the most Lucas-ified. It has the most crotch hits and monkeys with pompadours.

And too many gophers.

EDIT: I noticed that I failed to mention Ray Winstone, Jim Broadbent and John Hurt. Possibly because they are completely wasted in this movie. Three great actors given absolutely nothing to do. Too bad.

MORE EDITS: John Williams score is nothing to write home about. It's the same HARRY POTTER shit he's been doing for the last ten years or so, with fuckin' glockenspiels all up on the shit and all that nonsense. There isn't much music in this bitch that sounds like it could be in an Indiana Jones movie. I think there was a bit of a reprise from RAIDERS near the beginning, but it was the only piece of music that I recognized aside from the "Raiders march." Mostly it sounded like anything you'd hear in a JURASSIC PARK movie or A.I. or something.

FURTHER EDITS: I don't think this Janusz Kaminski guy should've shot this movie. Most of the time it looks more like MINORITY REPORT or MUNICH rather than an Indiana Jones movie.

Anyway, I don't regret paying to see this bitch on the big screen. I didn't want to scare Spandau away or anything like that. I don't think this movie is anywhere near the level of RAIDERS or TEMPLE OF DOOM. It can't even beat THE LAST CRUSADE. I think they waited too long to make this film. The movies have changed too much in twenty years and this film reflects that. It often feels more like an Indiana Jones imitator than an Indiana Jones film. However, this is just my opinion. I trust you fucks to make up your own minds about Indy's latest. Maybe you'll enjoy yourselves more than I did.

Seacrest out.


All those years spent reading Vern reviews obviously have had a good influence on you. Nice one, CS.

I don't think I've ever seen such a unanimous review thread.
Last edited by Seppuku on Sun May 25, 2008 8:40 am, edited 2 times in total.
Dale Tremont Presents...

Image
User avatar
Seppuku
SWINGING PLASTIC LION
 
Posts: 7872
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:52 am
Location: Limeyland

Postby Pacino86845 on Sun May 25, 2008 8:01 am

I dunno Rogue, I think if you can afford to you should take the step of seeing the last Indy film on the big screen, regardless of how you ultimately feel about it. According to the poll, you will likely view it as an average adventure romp, but if that ain't enough to warrant the admission price then so be it... but it IS Indiana Jones, after all! :)
User avatar
Pacino86845
EGYPTIAN LOVER
 
Posts: 14064
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:20 am

Postby tapehead on Sun May 25, 2008 8:03 am

Just got back from a screening, it gets a five from me, for fulfilling some of the basic necessary requirements of and Indy instalment, but not much more. I didn't have to wait long for my dissatisfaction to set in, which is some small mercy, I guess.
I’m going to rant, just a little, and then hopefully return with some slightly more even-handed appraisals, but here’s just a couple of things that bothered me, and a few things I liked, despite what is by far the sloppiest plots and staging of any of the Indy movies, the abuse of very talented cast members like Ray Winstone, Cate Blanchett (who certainly looks as though she had a great time and enjoyed all the scenery-chewing) and John Hurt (Shia seemed quite good too).

You'd think that gopher special effects might have advanced since the making of 'Caddyshack', but they haven't, not really - sure, the furry little critters are more limber than Chuck Rodent in his performance as "Mr. Gopher", but there's a reason I didn't go see Alvin & the Chipmunks, and I didn't much appreciate their cameos here, (much less the pompadour monkeys seen later swinging through a cgi jungle with Shia, Lord of the Greaser Apes).

It's true that the Indy movies have a well established practice of including cute furry critters into the cast of characters, but it's only in Crystal Skulls that they have looks on their faces like they really know what's going on. Despite that fact, there's not one of them that has the good sense to die in the aid of establishing a plot point (like the date-poisoned monkey in Raiders) instead they are the kind of Disneyesque eye-candy for kids that we've come to expect from Lucas since, well, since Return of the Jedi, really. As for the ants, which function like stand-ins for the fire on the airstrip in Raiders – a great-looking, but in this case over-whelmingly over-done plot contrivance.
I really dug that Indy was clever enough to avoid a fatal radiation blast by having the wherewithal and ingenuity to jump into a lead-lined fridge when he realised he had stumbled onto an atomic bomb testing site, and the cgi in this scene is very impressive; how he survived the fall is somewhat beyond me, but he's a tough motherfucker who'd dropped out of plane in a rubber dinghy, and could hold his breath underwater for a couple of days strapped to a nazi sub, so even if he's twenty years older, I can dig that he's a pretty durable guy - the Gophers seemed to buy it after all.

But then, right after that, there's one of the most fantastic shots in the whole Indy the hero shots of all these four films, which caused me to try to forgive a lot of what was to follow - Indy and the mushroom cloud is awesome. There’s also some strong hints that this story might be about to delve into 50’s paranoia, Macarthyism, Patriotism and the Red menace, and in a way it does use these historical elements, however unfortunately they’re used in the the service of a pulp sci-fi story that only kind of fits into the Indy Universe of previous films. And already these mood swings from the painfully stupid to the thrillingly good start to wear on the viewer very quickly, and this was still quite early on.
It's called pastiche when a movie 'quotes' or homages another without any particular intent or significance, and that's what Shia's entrance into the film as Marlon Brando in The Wild One - blank parody with no real point, perhaps beyond putting a smile on the elder audience member's faces.

The rest of what passes us for the first half of the film, in my opinion, is all pretty good stuff. The rest of the film drops of markedly, taking some great ideas and fascinating imagery nowhere interesting in particular.

How much of human life is lost in waiting? Hurt as ‘The Ox’ quoting Ralph Waldo Emerson's rhetoric with presumed irony at the Indy/Marion wedding (entirely unnecessary and yet another odd choice, story-wise). As I mentioned above, the gophers turned up quick in a match dissolve from the Paramount logo, so I hadn't have to wait long for my (probably impossibly high) expectations to be crushed. I never really got the impression that Indy was waiting for marion to show up again at all - the mere fact that in Raiders she was the best female protagonist Indy ever got to share the screen with doesn't in and of itself justify a reprise. It's nice of Indy to look after that poor ALF lady though I guess.

Don't wait for the dvd to see it first, see this at the movies - it's only going to be worse confined to the limits of a home entertainment system - go multiplex, somewhere with a massive screen and a big sound system, get blasted beforehand and sit real close, and maybe for a while it will approximate watching an Indy movie… except that they fail at any point to use the signature Indy call-to arms trumpets – so if you’re like me even this will end in disappointment. At my most cynical I tend towards Walter Chaw’s summation of the Indy series – that ‘there was only ever one good film out of the first three (the second is uselessly ugly, the third sentimental bullshit)’, and having sat through the most recent, this is an inadequate attempt to redress that imbalance, especially after the story leaves the United States (an hour into the film).
When I re-watch, I’m sure some of my generous pro-Indy sentiment might allow me a more favourable estimation of this movie, he's long been a sentimental favourite after all, but it still all harks back to Raiders – Temple of Doom wore me down the same way over the years.
Last edited by tapehead on Sun May 25, 2008 8:16 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Postby Seppuku on Sun May 25, 2008 8:04 am

Pacino86845 wrote:I dunno Rogue, I think if you can afford to you should take the step of seeing the last Indy film on the big screen, regardless of how you ultimately feel about it. According to the poll, you will likely view it as an average adventure romp, but if that ain't enough to warrant the admission price then so be it... but it IS Indiana Jones, after all! :)


At the very least, it's nice to see a summer event movie that wasn't shot in digital for once. Kaminski did a fairly good job replicating the '80s-style cinematography of the originals.
Last edited by Seppuku on Sun May 25, 2008 8:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dale Tremont Presents...

Image
User avatar
Seppuku
SWINGING PLASTIC LION
 
Posts: 7872
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:52 am
Location: Limeyland

Postby Nordling on Sun May 25, 2008 8:08 am

The more I think about this movie, the angrier I become. I'm thinking my 6 was way too generous.
Image
User avatar
Nordling
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2092
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:39 am
Location: Missouri City, TX

Postby tapehead on Sun May 25, 2008 8:13 am

I'll mark my five down to a four to take that into account, Nordling.
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Postby RogueScribner on Sun May 25, 2008 8:22 am

I dunno, Pacino. I really adore the original trilogy of films (even if I didn't love TLC, it's still somewhat fun overall) but most of what I'm reading in here and elsewhere either paints this as a lackluster exercise in mediocrity or a nostalgia trip that doesn't quite hit the mark. I'm not sure I want to walk into an Indy movie and walk out of it 2 hours later disappointed. At least on DVD if it gets too ridiculous I can just turn it off and pretend it never happened.

I may change my mind, but right now, this is what I'm feeling.
My eye isn't lazy; it's ambidextrous!
User avatar
RogueScribner
The Dork Avenger
 
Posts: 9609
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, FL

Postby travis-dane on Sun May 25, 2008 8:24 am

Why should I watch a mediocre movie in a theater?
I can have dozens of mediocre movies for free when I turn on my TV.....

Almost every reviewer around here says:"It's not bad,BUT it's not good either.The CGI mostly sucks,almost the whole cast is wasted and the Story sucks.The ending blows,the movie looks cheap and it seems that almost everything is shot on stage."

WHY should I pay good money,if I know it will be a HUGE letdown compared to the other INDY movies.

It will be on Cable in 6 months anyways....
-
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs!
Image
User avatar
travis-dane
100% OLEG!
 
Posts: 5418
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:19 am
Location: DTVille

Postby tapehead on Sun May 25, 2008 8:32 am

If you're referring to my comments, Travis, they weren't aimed at you specifically, and they are followed by a rationale as to why 'you' (anyone who bothers to read my review) might consider catching it in cinema as opposed to waiting for DVD.

If not I'll assume your questions are rhetorical. You can get lots of mediocre movies for free on tv, good point you had there, but not this one. Wait for cable.
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Postby Pacino86845 on Sun May 25, 2008 8:40 am

RogueScribner wrote:I dunno, Pacino. I really adore the original trilogy of films (even if I didn't love TLC, it's still somewhat fun overall) but most of what I'm reading in here and elsewhere either paints this as a lackluster exercise in mediocrity or a nostalgia trip that doesn't quite hit the mark. I'm not sure I want to walk into an Indy movie and walk out of it 2 hours later disappointed. At least on DVD if it gets too ridiculous I can just turn it off and pretend it never happened.

I may change my mind, but right now, this is what I'm feeling.


I hope to have my little Indiana Jones experience finished by this evening, but basically I'll just reiterate what tapehead mentioned toward the end of his review: that the Indiana Jones films have been one outstanding and memorable action-adventure followed by arguably lacklustre sequels (though I have enjoyed all the sequels). Raiders stands way above all the sequels IMO... I watched Raiders again for the first time in years on Friday, and watched Temple of Doom yesterday. Right now Kingdom is on par with Temple of Doom, which for me is a 7/10. I have a feeling that when I watch Last Crusade again this evening it will probably also earn a 7/10 from me.

I don't want to sound too presumptuous here, but I think the one thing that seems to distinguish Kingdom from the other films is that it has little that distinguishes it from the other films. Temple of Doom, warts and all (there are a lot of warts in that film, and monkey brains too), is a "new" Indy adventure. Last Crusade was extremely sentimental, essentially rehashing the Raiders story while providing some backstory to Indy as well as depicting the relationship with his father. Kingdom revisits the father-son type of relationship, sort of rehashes the plot of Raiders and Last Crusade, and seems to recycle ILM's effects work from the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels.

Still, I will again be presumptuous... Kingdom is still on par with the other two sequels in its own way. It definitely benefits from the fact that it hasn't aged yet, it is a very good-looking movie, but on the other hand (here comes the presumptuous part) it doesn't have the distance of criticism beholden to the previous films which most of us grew up with and whose flaws we've looked past and/or forgiven.
User avatar
Pacino86845
EGYPTIAN LOVER
 
Posts: 14064
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:20 am

Postby caruso_stalker217 on Sun May 25, 2008 8:59 am

Seppuku wrote:All those years spent reading Vern reviews obviously have had a good influence on you. Nice one, CS.


I assure you it's purely unintentional. But I have noticed.
Image
User avatar
caruso_stalker217
TOO AGED FOR THIS MALARKEY
 
Posts: 9922
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 6:03 pm
Location: Oregon, US of A

Postby caruso_stalker217 on Sun May 25, 2008 8:59 am

I would also like to say that my absolute favorite part of this movie is when Indy sees Marion for the first time. Ford does things with his face that I thought were impossible at this point.
Image
User avatar
caruso_stalker217
TOO AGED FOR THIS MALARKEY
 
Posts: 9922
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 6:03 pm
Location: Oregon, US of A

Postby Zarles on Sun May 25, 2008 9:49 am

Just read this out in the TBs.

'Mutt and the monkeys are foreshadowed in 'Raiders'.

In Morocco, Indy asks Marion: "Did we have to bring the monkey along?" Marion replies: "I can't believe you're talking about our baby like that. He's got your looks." Indy retorts: "And your brains."'

HA!

Maybe I'm just a sucker, but I really want to see this again. Much like Last Crusade, it feels like a decent Indy mix-tape. It doesn't hold a candle to the holy majesty of Raiders and Temple of Doom, but I'd definitely put it above Last Crusade.
User avatar
Zarles
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:52 am
Location: Bringing something to the table

Postby JpPrewitt789 on Sun May 25, 2008 10:15 am

caruso_stalker217 wrote:Another thing that bugged me was how cheap this movie looks. That's right. I'll say it. It looks fucking cheap. Every location they go to looks like a soundstage. Not just that, it feels claustrophobic.


God I know EXACTLY what you mean. The worst for me was the area they were all standing in before they went into the warehouse, where Indy entered his perpetual bitchslap in Nordling's sig. That area was SO fake. It's like I could almost see people in the background working on other movies.

The thing with the gophers is another gripe I forgot completely about. They served no point but to make it more kid-friendly. The monkeys were cheesy, but at least they helped the Beef get back to the chase. They had a point. Not the monkeys.
Image
User avatar
JpPrewitt789
REAL DRAGON
 
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 3:41 pm
Location: Behind You! •ll•

Postby travis-dane on Sun May 25, 2008 10:44 am

tapehead wrote:If you're referring to my comments, Travis, they weren't aimed at you specifically, and they are followed by a rationale as to why 'you' (anyone who bothers to read my review) might consider catching it in cinema as opposed to waiting for DVD.

If not I'll assume your questions are rhetorical. You can get lots of mediocre movies for free on tv, good point you had there, but not this one. Wait for cable.


No tapehead I was not referring to you.I just wanted to say that almost every review of you guys said what I was expecting of ole' George and his gang.(Which is very sad,I was hoping that Spielberg would make a difference...)

After I survived Episode1&2,I told to myself:"NEVER again pay good money to see a LUCAS shitstorm on the BIGscreen...."
So I skipped Ep3 in theater and I am lucky I did so....

Then George gets Harrison"My career is over"Ford and Steven"I'll do it,just leave me alone"Spielberg to do INDY4 and I was thinking what everybody REALLY thought deep inside:
"DONT FUCK THIS UP GUYS!"....

Then,the first reviews came in and said:
"Yeah,it's kinda ok,but dont expect it to be THE shit....." and much worse....

So,I waited and almost everybody in the ZONE said the same...SAD

But I want INDY to be THE shit and not just mediocre shit!If I want mediocre,I can watch The Scorpion King!

But since everybody PAYS money to see it,GEORGE thinks:"Hey,I can do what I want,the people will watch it!"

BUT not me George!FUCK YOU....
-
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs!
Image
User avatar
travis-dane
100% OLEG!
 
Posts: 5418
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:19 am
Location: DTVille

PreviousNext

Return to Movie Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests

cron