Weeklies

Movie: "Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull"
Year: 2008
Rated: PG-13
Genre: Action / Adventure
Directed by: Steven Spielberg
Writing credits: David Koepp, George Lucas, Jeff Nathanson

Reviewer: Protoclown
Posted: 6/1/2008

Plot: Indiana Jones dusts off his fedora and bullwhip for one last adventure, joined by friends old and new as they track down a Mayan artifact that is also sought after by the Russians.

Review: Well, at least Cate Blanchett was hot.

I had debated making that statement my entire review, but a movie as insanely disappointing as Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull deserves to be knocked around for a while. I went into this film with as few expectations as possible, knowing right off the bat that it couldn't possibly match Raiders of the Lost Ark or The Last Crusade, but I figured if it was at least on par with Temple of Doom in terms of entertainment, I'd walk away happy. I ended up walking out of the theater with an empty feeling inside, the same feeling that I left the Star Wars prequels with. Don't worry, this movie isn't that bad, but they really should've left well enough alone.

The fact of the matter is, when you close out a series not just on a high note, but on a fucking perfect note, as they did with Last Crusade, you'd better not come back to the table if your next script idea isn't so good that Jesus himself doesn't ride down from the clouds on a chariot made of rainbows and give it his blessing, especially if you wait nearly twenty years to do it. If this film had been the third in the series and Last Crusade had been the fourth (story elements making the swap impossible notwithstanding), Crystal Skull would merely have been the low point in an otherwise-excellent series. As it stands, however, the new film is a horrible blemish that absolutely should not exist, and it forever ruins the perfect bookend that once closed out one of my favorite series of all time.

Without getting into spoilers, there's one scene involving a statue of a character from the previous films that the Russians end up defacing, and annoying newcomer Mutt Williams (awful name) laughs as he sees this, to Indy's chagrin. This brief moment in the film is perfectly symbolic of the movie as a whole and what it does to the rest of the series.

Don't get me wrong, the movie does have a few fun moments, but the whole thing feels so utterly lacking for an Indy movie that when you compare it to the original three it doesn't even come close to stacking up. One of the biggest things it falls short on is having any of the wonderful character moments that were so prominent in the older films (particularly the first and last). These characters are so busy rushing around on their wild goose chase that they never have a chance to really be developed at all. We have a new Indy here, with twenty new years of life experience under his belt, and instead of making his age a poignant, moving element of the story touching on themes like loss and regret (which, given one major revelation that everybody had guessed beforehand anyway, you'd think he should be feeling), we get a bunch of cheap age gags instead. What could have had some actual depth (and for all the fact that they are basically fun popcorn adventure films, the original films did have depth) was instead turned into a piece of mere fluff that will be forgotten by next summer, completely devoid of the elements that have made the originals endure for so long.

The film also relies too heavily on CGI, which seems completely out of place in an Indy film, and at the end of the movie, all subtlety is totally thrown out the window, showing us something incredibly inane that would have been far more effective if it had remained (mostly) unseen. The film lacks subtlety early on too: in the opening warehouse chase, there is a completely unnecessary sight gag involving something stored in the warehouse. Anyone who's seen the first film is fully aware of what's in the warehouse--they even play a familiar music cue from Raiders, which made me smile--right up to the point where they hit us over the head with it by showing it, as if to say "we think you're too stupid to figure this out on your own".

There's a scene early on where Indy lives through something that he couldn't possibly survive in the manner that he does, and Spielberg asks us to suspend our disbelief too far for no good reason, as there is a much more logical way they could have gotten him out of the situation, given that secret passages are kind of a staple to the series. It would have changed literally NOTHING in the story save for making it more acceptable and believable, so why they chose to handle it so stupidly is a mystery to me.

Even the most enjoyable parts of the film, like the jungle chase, went out of their way to add strong elements of Suck to them, just in case you might have actually been starting to have a good time. The jungle scene was fine right up until it got a bit too slap-sticky, and then the single dumbest moment of the movie (which I'm betting was George Lucas's idea) happened, which could not have been dumber if Jar Jar Binks jumped in front of the screen doing a song-and-dance number holding a hat and cane. The whole film feels dumbed down for modern audiences, and Mutt Williams, who is supposed to represent the next generation of heroes, with his lack of education and disdain for "smarts" reflects that all too well.

Indy film plots have always centered around McGuffins, but this one is so out of place for an Indy film that I would have known it was Lucas's idea even if it hadn't been confirmed in interviews. Word has it that this version of the story is far more toned down than his original "wackier" idea. I shudder to think what the film could've been if Spielberg and Ford didn't have enough collective weight to throw around to temper some of his worse ideas. I certainly can't blame Lucas for the entirity of the story, because it was a group effort, but there's no denying that the lamest elements of the story have his stink all over them.

I suppose what's most disappointing to me is that Indy himself didn't really do anything that awesome in this movie--he just kind of seems to be going along for the ride, almost bored with the events happening around him. I recently wrote a list of Indy's Top Ten Finest Moments, and I'm disappointed to say that nothing in this new film makes it onto that list. And for an Indiana Jones movie, that is a fucking travesty.

Overall rating: WholeWhole
(Scored on a 0.5 - 5 pickles rating: 0.5 being the worst and 5 being the best)

Reader Comments

Scruffy drunken Brit
Jun 2nd, 2008, 05:14 AM
Went with some friends to see this on Thursday and we quite enjoyed it. (Payed a little extra for the Director lounge as well, which meant huge comfy seats, better access to the bar, and no fucking children, hurrah!)
We tried our hardest to approach it with the same childlike mentality of constant awe and amazement that we had when we saw the old three, even though Indy is now about 389 years old and greying.
Stupid, over the top, completely unreal, cheesy as hell, and action scenes that went on far too long.
Despite this, I had no complaints with it.
That said, I wouldn't rate it as high as the other three.

I don't agree with your review, mate, but I'm not going to challenge it, you didn't like it and you gave a valid case.

I agree with you saying that Indy not really doing too much in the film, just sort of hitching a lift while inane shit happens around him, but I thought that was fine too.

And as for the fridge bit, I'm cynical enough to want to rant about how stupid it was, but too easily amused to challenge that it wasn't fucking awesome.

Proto, just pretend it doesn't exist, and go watch Crusade instead!
Forum Virgin
Jun 2nd, 2008, 05:38 AM
I remain convinced of two things.
1) Indy of any kind kicks all amount of arse.
2) The Crystal Skull is the perfect film to judge whether or not you still have an inner child.

Opinions are always valid though. Or are they?


On a side note am I the only one sick of people bashing the Hell out of a film internetally (actual word?) every chance that they can get. It just becomes fashionable to blast stuff just because general online consensus dictates that it's "bad". See: Star Wars 1-3, Spiderman 3, The Crystal Skull.

I mean you can only take so much before. I GET IT! You didn't care for Spiderman's haircut, shut your cakehole! This phenomenon is worse when it occurs on movie news websites and every second article is filled with opinion as fact.

I don't know maybe it's me? Or maybe it's the fact that generally speaking the internet is populated by certain individuals of a certain gender, in a certain age range, filled with a certain level of cynicism and like to act as though they represent the public as a whole but in fact do not. (As the Snakes on a Plane fiasco proved definitively)

My point is what the world needs now is love. Not just love but sweet love.
So let's give peace a chance by taking a bad song and making it better, where the streets have no name, we'll make a left onto Electric Avenue and then we'll take it higher. Doot Doo Doo Doo Doot Dooh.

Anyways, let's get off of our high horses and remember that not everyone is as far gone as we are.
drifting in the void
Jun 2nd, 2008, 05:49 AM
Even though I DID like the Star-Wars Prequels (not as much as the original trilogy of course an no, a character with the name of Jar Jar does NOT exist, no Sir), I am extremely biased concerning this movie...so much in fact, that I will not watch it at cinema but only on DVD (plus beamer at least). Some things should simply not happen...and a lot of things that should not happen have George Lucas involved...strange.
Clap if you love Dynamo
Jun 2nd, 2008, 05:59 AM
Honestly I think, knowing beforehand that a)Lucas, who has clearly gone insane, was involved. And b)An Indy sequel 20 years later was a bad idea before it was ever hatched, should have made everyone expect this to be much worse than Temple of Doom.

I mean honestly, is anyone REALLY surprised it went this way?
Oozes machismo
Jun 2nd, 2008, 06:32 AM
Gentlemen, gentlemen, you're all missing the point here.

This was a fucking Indiana Jones movie! Not National Treasure. Not The Mummy. Not Tomb Raider. You want mindless summer fare, go see those; Indiana Jones movies are that and more. It's not people of a certain age or of internet forums that govern the quality of these films, it's the film makers. Speilberg, Lucas, and Ford are all responsible for some great movie moments. They should aspire to nothing less.

Yet it seems they were all going through the motions on this one. The movie did have it's thrills, but this is a film series with a pedigree. I'd expect to see set pieces like the fridge or the vines from Brendan Fraser's character in The Mummy, but Ford's Indiana Jones character was more clever than that. Part of the charm of the series was the character's serendipity mixed with intuition. "Making this up as (he) go(es) along," as he said in Raiders. This Indy wasn't improvising, he was a set piece. Defend this CGI-laziness in today's films all you want, but I'll be damned if it wasn't more fun watching Indy and co. fall from the sky in a raft with old school special effects than it was watching Indy and co. survive three waterfalls with today's. It simply never felt like the actors were amidst the action, thus there was no suspense. To paraphrase one reviewer, it's called CGI now because special effects are no longer special.

No one mentions the weakness of this film's dungeon crawls. In the prior three, they were tense and funny. During this one there was no sense of discovery like when Indy found the shield in The Last Crusade. No sense of urgency like when he and Short Round nearly got crushed in Temple. No sense of adventure like the entire opening act of Raiders. This time, he and Mutt found a ruin, got attacked by natives that existed solely to shoot blow darts and throw karate kicks, and eased their way upon the the skull (which is magnetic when it wants to be and serves as an easy out for dangerous circumstances).

Overplayed nostalgia, underplayed sentiment. Overdone CGI, underdone plot/character development. Over the time a sequel should have been made, under the expectations of anyone who loved the originals. Was Crystal Skull entertaining? That depends on the viewer. Was it good? Not by a fucking long shot.
Ba dum dum dum dum
Jun 2nd, 2008, 07:53 AM
I'd pretty much completely agree with this review, and to what pac-man said above about the dungeon crawls.

Indy climbs onto a turntable that shifts with his weight to open the new area? What was up with that? I assumed they'd run into, I dunno, a crushing wall, some spikes, SOMETHING, but other than a flipping out dude he scares off with a gun (who they seem to forget about immediately and who's presence they never even question), there's nothing between them and the skull.

A skull who's powers of magnetism seem to vary wildly. I mean it can change the direction of metals floating in mid air when they first show it off, and then admittedly attracts non magnetic objects (gold) at other times, but sometimes they seem to carry it around with absolutely no trouble at all around things it seems like it should wreck havoc with. It's the worst kind of plot device that just has powers to exist for lazy writing.

Swinging through the trees on vines... was the absolute low point of the movie though. It was so absurd and unnecessary, at least Indy surviving the atomic bomb played to his persona (if a bit hamfistedly) of a very, very lucky guy who by all rights should've died a million times by now, but Mutt learning from the monkeys was just a groaner.

Not to mention the fact that the first three movies were quasi mystical religious, while this one decided to chuck that all out and go sci-fi, completely altering the tone of the series.

Mutt too seemed like a really forced way to make a character, with no subtlety at all. It's like they had to beat into your head that he's a greaser, that he loves Motorcycles, and that he plays with a knife all the time. He doesn't really have much character development beyond that, he just exists so you can point out the similarities between him and Indy.

I have the original Indy Trilogy on DVD, if I ever show them to my children, I'm not going to be including this in that marathon.
Ringmonster
Jun 2nd, 2008, 08:35 AM
Proto, spot on regarding all your observations. I cannot agree more...
Forum Virgin
Jun 2nd, 2008, 09:39 AM
I agreed with some of the things you said, Proto. But about the plot, as a man of science I find the plot of Crystal Skull far more believable and less wacky than magic rocks, a golden box of Jew magic, or a magic Christian cup.
OMNIVORBE
Jun 2nd, 2008, 10:21 AM
No.. no... it wasn't that bad. It wasn't nearly that bad.

I enjoyed the movie, a lot. It was different than the originals three, for sure, and the character development was kept to a minimum, yes...

But the movie was fun. The original three were fun. The fridge thing was the only point in the movie I had any sort of bad thought. If they hadn't sent it flying, it would have been more believable, but hey, it's a movie. It's no more unbelievable than, as kirk2000 said, "a golden box of Jew magic."

Movies are entertaining, and people spend way too much time criticizing things that are completely ignorable, like Jar Jar Binks. So what if he's annoying? The Star Wars prequels weren't masterpieces of film, most people were ok actors (Except, unfortunately, Hayden Christiansen), but why was it bad? Because it's not how you wanted Darth Vader's history to be? You had another vision of it? I can't see any other reason why people would get so annoyed, really.

Same with this. Just because it was different than the originals?

I don't know... I think people just need to enjoy more movies for what they are. There are actual bad movies, but when they're like the Star Wars prequels or Indy 4, I think everyone just needs to chill out and have fun with it.
Forum Virgin
Jun 2nd, 2008, 10:34 AM
An Indiana Jones movie this was not. However, I think people are focusing entirely too much on the negative points (obnoxiously out of place and retarded as they are). There were scenes in th movie that I thought were quite worthy of the franchise. For example; the sink-hole dialogue, the fire-ant scene, the awesome parts of the jungle chase scene (80% of it), every scene involving Auxley.

All other complaints aside, the thing that bothered me most about the movie, is how they could bring back Marion Ravenwood, make her awesome again, and then not give her half the screen time or dialogue that Shia gets.

Also, what is up with here Sigourney Weaver-esque lack of aging?
Guilty grey formaldehyde
Jun 2nd, 2008, 11:07 AM
All of you "this movie wasn't so bad" people completely amaze me with your ability to gloss over the massive cinematic flaws and idiotic writing of this wretched movie. Sure, the first three movies were stupid as well, but at least they were more convincingly stupid. The entire film leans heavily on the success of the first three films and in so doing completely forgets to actually introduce any coherent plot or interesting characters.

Look people, you don't owe anything to the idiots that produced this movie; you may have grown up idolizing Indiana Jones but that doesn't mean you have to pretend like you enjoyed getting your money tricked out of you because you have a sentimental, parasocial relationship with a fictional character. This movie was the Alzheimer-esque ramblings of a sick and dying American pop-culture, nothing more.

Good review, btw.
Forum Virgin
Jun 2nd, 2008, 11:35 AM
I have to say there were very good points made against this film by all, but personally, I still say this movie beats Temple of Doom, granted there were a lot of flaws here, but to me, Temple is almost unwatchable now, save for the few moments listed in the Top Ten here. A lot of people complain that the ending was too unbelievable, but personally, I didn't think the concept was that bad, the execution was lacking, but the general idea could have worked, and seemed pretty perfect given the era this was taking place. But that's just my two cents.
Funky Dynamite
Jun 2nd, 2008, 12:26 PM
Proto, you nailed it. I knew this movie was in trouble as soon as those damn gophers appeared.
なにをみてんだよ
Jun 2nd, 2008, 12:36 PM
No sir, I didn't like it. I felt patronized at every scene change. I know they were trying to movie the serialized story line to match the era with the whole "Sci Fi" edge, but it still felt phoned in. I am appalled at any cute CGI character that is given human attributes in a live action movie, unless that character is magical in any way, and I found the two instances of those (the beginning and the jungle) to be way out of line. The "escaping from an impossible escape" at the beginning was a joke and I was embittered on the movie from that point forward. I'm not saying the movie wasn't fun, it had its moments, but you need to check your brain at the door. I agree with Proto's review 100%. As far as I'm concerned, Indy road off into the sunset and that's where the series ended.

To change the subject, for the month of June I'm watching a Godzilla movie every day and blogging about it. There's no money to be made from this, it's just a stupid and fun project, so check it out if you're interested (hope you i-mockery admins don't mind a little self promotion): http://gojira-otaku.livejournal.com/
Forum Virgin
Jun 2nd, 2008, 02:58 PM
I think if it had been Nazis instead of commies (Nazis are infinitely more hateable than commies) religion instead of fucking aliens, and filmed 20 years ago, it would have had a shot.
Fookin' up planets!
Jun 2nd, 2008, 04:09 PM
I brought my 4 year old son to see this film... and he loved it. And that is all that mattered to me. As long as it has enough magic to capture the imagination of a little guy like my (autistic) 4 year old it's good stuff to me.
Forum Virgin
Jun 2nd, 2008, 04:17 PM
Captain PirateFace, I think you have pointed out something far more important than anything we could say pro or con about the movie. If a movie can do something like that, then who cares what a fanboy says.
Forum Virgin
Jun 2nd, 2008, 04:54 PM
I mean no offense to you or your son, Captain PirateFace, or you, kirk2000, but honestly, it's not that hard to entertain a 4 year old, and I don't think you can honestly say that a movie is really, genuinely good just because it's capable of doing that. Casablanca or Citizen Kane would probably put your son to sleep- does that mean they're bad films? As for not caring what fanboys say- without a strong fan base, Indiana Jones would not have come back for a 4th installment.

Personally, I agree with Protoclown, and especially with what Pac-Man said- this was a great Mummy movie, but a terrible Indiana Jones movie. It's like they took Indiana Jones and removed everything that made the films noteworthy in the first place, reducing it to just another mindless action flick with none of the thrills, depth, emotion, intrigue, or fun of the original trilogy. This is a film made without love or passion, just churned out lazily, and with so many wasted opportunities and obvious flaws that it's impossible for most fans not to be disappointed. Sure, it wasn't as bad as it could have been, at least managing to be entertaining, but we've come to expect more from the name Indiana Jones.
WHAM!
Jun 2nd, 2008, 05:26 PM
I personally felt that as a movie itself, "Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull" was quite good, but as an Indiana Jones film, it didn't quite cut it. The whole movie was full of extremely improbable events, but if you let your common sense go and enjoy the ride it isn't too bad.

I'm happy with thinking of it as a completely different movie, set aside from the first three.
Holy Diver
Jun 2nd, 2008, 05:44 PM
I genuinely expected when the doors blew open that the blue shimmering ghost of Sean Connery would be standing there. And he say something hackneyed like, "Well done, Junior."

Personally I thought the actors were all amazingly good for what they had to work with, it's just a pity that the plot and the dialogue were as bad as they were. And yes, I agree, the gophers were like going to a meal and when you sit down seeing through the doors to the kitchen and watching a chef take a big dump in a pot. You know that whatever comes next is not going to be pretty.

Oddly enough my mom's only complaint was that they weren't playing the appropriate music in the Peruvian scene. That's Mexican music! she yelled at the screen. This from the lady that shushed the seven year olds in Prince Caspian. God I love going home to watch movies with my little sister and parents.
pickled
Jun 2nd, 2008, 08:03 PM
I enjoyed the movie while I was in the theater, but when I actually thought about what I had just seen, I noticed it was a great let down. I cry for Indiana. :C



ps: I miss Sir Sean. :c
Oozes machismo
Jun 3rd, 2008, 02:25 AM
What pisses me off the most is that Proto couldn't give us this review until now. The more I think about it, the more I want my money back.
Pickleman's Uncle
Jun 3rd, 2008, 02:44 AM
Someone should just slap the computers out of Lucas's hand.
"NO! NOOOOO! BAD! BAD LUCAS! GO PLAY WITH YOUR PUPPETS".
Member
Jun 3rd, 2008, 05:58 AM
Bang on review sir, well done!

There's so much about this film which makes my blood boil, so I've had to narrow it down to three big gripes (SPOILER ALERT!)

IF there is one good thing about the film, it was the last scene, and although a bit of a death by CGI, it was simply breathtaking. A triumph of Industrial Light and Magic. Anyway, on with the fun:

Opening Act:
The first scene in the warehouse was a BIG mistake. It totally removes the air of mystery and ambiguity from the end of Raiders. Now when you watch Raiders again, you'll no longer be thinking "where is that warehouse? Is it the Pentagon? Are there others? Just what is in those other crates?" You won't be thinking any of those things anymore, because Cate Blanchett completely ruined the mystery for you in the first five minutes of the film. And besides, Area 51 just isn't that cool any more.

The Jungle Chase:
Apart from the fact it went on for about 45 minutes, it was CGI'd to hell. I got so bored watching Cate Blanchett and Shia LaBeouf trading blows at 100mph I found myself trying to spot the edges where the characters had been shoddily greenscreened in. And yeah, I don't remember Indy doing very much at all in that segment - now compare that to the epic "getting the Ark back from the Nazi truck" scene from Raiders, with the death-defying action sequences, but still much more believable because they were done with stuntmen.

Supporting Cast:
Just too many of them, not enough time to develop their characters. Oh yes, you need to cover your bases (Main villain and tough guy henchman, love interest, action sidekick). But was there any real need for Ray Winstone and the legendary John Hurt? Sounds like Lucas saying "hey, the audience love an English guy. Cool. But wanna know what's better than an English guy? Yeah... TWO English guys! The toughguy Russian was a wasted opportunity, and Cate Blanchetts motivation was confusing - was it for Mother Russia or a personal quest for knowledge?

My Two Cents:
Screw it, they should have made Fate of Atlantis into a film instead. And in 1992, not 2008. You've got all your bases covered - historical myth, exotic locales, love interest and sidekick, villain and henchman, Monte Carlo, Nazis, U-boats, dungeon crawls and an epic ending. Hell, even if they made it in 2008 they could have adapted the plot to Russians searching for Orichalcum to make bigger nukes, far easier to relate to than the whole throwaway mind control plot thing.
Forum Virgin
Jun 3rd, 2008, 07:14 AM
Right on Proto! I couldn't agree more with your review.
I get the feeling that the filmmakers were trying to make fans happy, but the way they tried to just didn't work. I can picture Spielberg and Lucas saying, "Well, we need to show Indy is an old man and vulnerable. Have him trip a little bit in this scene and be afraid of the snake in the sand pit scene. Phew! Glad we took care of that!"
All the interesting character bits seemed tacked on last minute, or in one scene added just to try and please us fans. The other three movies were so great because they showed how human Indy was throughout the entire story. It almost seems like Harrison Ford was playing Indiana Jones like a kid pretends to be Indiana Jones, whip, punch, save the day.

I agree with you Blackjack there was no need for Ray Winstone or John Hurt. Who fucking cares? Mutt was mentored by Hurt's character? So what? Hurt's performance was fine and everything but I found myself just not caring all that much. Even the plot of the skull, once they saved Marion I didn't care anymore. With Last Crusade Hitler was going to try and make an invincible army, and on top of that Indy needed to save his father who was shot. Ok, I'm interested and I care that he NEEDS to find the grail. Maybe I need to give Crystal Skull another viewing but "Russians getting knowledge" isn't a strong enough plot for me to care about.

Also, I read interviews where Lucas said that Kate Blanchett was a super badass and the ultimate villain, so I was pretty disappointed because she wasn't lame completely but showed signs of how good a character she might have been. I love when she gets flung onto the hood of the truck then turns the gun around and tried to blow Marion away. That was cool, show me more of that and I'd be happy.
Look at the Nazi guy from Raiders, he hangs up his coat and Marion shits herself.

Maybe as fans we expect too much, but they had years to work on this and I think it just comes up short. I know others are saying it's a serial movie and should be viewed that way, but I just can't. I think the filmmakers were too worried about how children would see the movie. These are the same guys who replaced guns in E.T. with walkie-talkies. So they added swinging monkeys and prairie dogs and had very little blood and guts. Who else was expecting Spalko's head to explode in a great show of blood and guts? Nope, we get CGI dust.

And I think that's a perfect critique for the film itself. All this wonderful buildup then it just blows away in the wind.
Feel the guilt
Jun 3rd, 2008, 08:47 AM
I think everything bad about this movie that has to be said already has been, and there's precious little good to say, so I'm not going to go into a long rant about this movie, but simply say: yes, it sucks. Fuck Lucas.
Fookin' up planets!
Jun 3rd, 2008, 01:09 PM
Thank you for seeing my point Kirk2000.

One day my boy will be bitching about some crappy re-make or Sequel/prequel to one of his favorite "classics" from when he was growing up too...
It's called aging.

Life moves on brothers and sisters, enjoy the best of the good stuff and toss the bad over the shoulder.

or just stop going to movies alltogether and start reading books.
pickled
Jun 3rd, 2008, 07:46 PM
I just hope that this is a bridge movie, and that hopefully they will think up a whole new trilogy that comes up to par with the first three. I would love to see more of Old Indy, he reminds me of Clint Eastwood.
Vigilante All-Star
Jun 4th, 2008, 12:13 AM
I had meant to see this movie when it came out, but then I remembered that I hadn't seen the original trilogy since I was an extremely little boy (I am 24 now) so I wanted to watch the original three first before watching this one because NONE of the older ones are fresh in my head...I still never got around to it...but now I'm not too sure about seeing the 4th one. Can't tell if it's fanboy bitching or if it's genuine critique I'm seeing in these comments... (NO! I am not starting shit, I'm just sayin' I can usually tell the difference but this time I can't...)


I can probably already say this though...it's better than "WAR" and it's better than the film adaptation of "Jumper"
Member
Jun 4th, 2008, 03:32 AM
Yup. Cemented. Dollar theater.

Is it just me, or should Lucas have, like, a reverse statute of limitations on his movies? "Okay, it's only been 3 years, you can make another one in this series. Twenty? No. Out of the question." It seems like in trying to re-envision his franchises, he seems to distort that vision.

Who knows, I may come out of this liking it yet, but somehow I'm thinking it's not going to happen. In the meantime, I'll be treating my mom to "Journey to the Center of the Earth."
Freak Power
Jun 4th, 2008, 02:27 PM
Nick: I think this was a 'bridge movie' but unfortunately, they are going to use LeBeef as the "new Indy" AKA Indy Jr.

For this I cringe as the majority of 'young hollywood actors' today have the range and emoting ability of a 2 X 4. A fucking wooden plank has more personality than ANY of todays 'young stars'

IMO Ford was just going through the motions on this one to A) Earn a paycheck and B) Pass the Torch onto LeBeef and Co. My hope is that the 'passing of the torch' touches off a HUGE conflagration that leaves nothing but charred bone and dust behind.
Funky Dynamite
Jun 4th, 2008, 04:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear N Loathing View Post
Nick: I think this was a 'bridge movie' but unfortunately, they are going to use LeBeef as the "new Indy" AKA Indy Jr.
Don't even joke aobut that.
Spoilers!
Jason's a Furry! Run!
Jun 4th, 2008, 10:23 PM
Whoa, I'm late to this one.

I've already said I liked this one (couple times at this point). I went into the theater not knowing what to expect, and I had a great time. It was entertaining, it had several scenes I loved and want to watch again, it was enjoyable, and I had a good time. I'm glad I watched it. My friends (some Indy fans, others not so much) enjoyed it as well.

I also happen to suck at arguing my points (in this case, defending the above), so this is basically all I've got left to say. Just my opinion in things, nothing more.
Oozes machismo
Jun 4th, 2008, 10:29 PM
You don't have to defend liking this movie. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution.
Forum Virgin
Jun 5th, 2008, 02:13 AM
I disagree with your review. I thought it was a great film with great acting and a great premise. It exceeded my expectations as did the Star Wars Prequels. But hey c'est la vie right?
The Goddamned Batman
Jun 5th, 2008, 12:41 PM
See that would almost be believable if you didn't include that bit about the Star Wars prequels.
Me vs The World
Jun 5th, 2008, 02:18 PM
I was possibly a bigger fan of Indy than anyone you know. Hell I still have my Indy hat, I rode my bike miles just to play the Indy Arcade game, loved Young Indiana Jones, and i've spent hours trying to figure out The Fate of Atlantis. Having said that, I must say that I was a bit disappointed in the latest Indy film.

Sure, it was fun, it was like an Indy themed roller coaster. It had it's fun parts but interspersed throughout are scenes that made me go "Huh.....I'm not so sure about this". My doubts pretty much increased throughout the movie despite my efforts to quell them. I love Indy soooooo much that I really really really wanted to like this film. I tried really really hard and I had a good time but it left me feeling empty.

My main gripe with this film is it's scope. It's just not epic enough to be an Indy film. There aren't many different locations, we see mostly dessert, warehouse, campus, then South America for the rest of the film. It seemed far too confined, you could tell they were in a soundstage in front of a green screen. Indy needs to be filmed outside with real stunts, he's inspired by the classic pulp adventure heroes and he needs to be treated that way. Indy needs to be gritty, dirty and bloody. It's that same raw pulp action that makes the few comedic scenes work so well, the audience needs a break from fighting nazis on a moving tank tread. Even the PC game Fate of Atlantis had a more epic scope and feel to it than this movie.

The cgi took away from the ending of the movie because most Indy films are entirely believable up until the end. Other than a few things like never getting hit by a bullet, Indy never did anything that couldn't have been done in real life, until the end. That's what always made the end so amazing, here was this guy, brawling with nazis in the dessert who is eventually placed into an unbelievable setting. This is why Crystal Skull has a weak ending despite it's far out subject matter. In the first quarter of the movie we already see Indy survive a nuclear explosion by hiding in a lead lined refrigerator which is then hurled hundreds of miles away. At this point the audience says: "Oh, so Indy is indestructable" which negates any amazment at the other worldly aspect of the ending.

All in all, weakest of all the Indy movies including the Young Indy movies and Tv shows but still not as bad as it could've been given the state of Hollywood today.
Oozes machismo
Jun 6th, 2008, 04:01 AM
Quote:
I genuinely expected when the doors blew open that the blue shimmering ghost of Sean Connery would be standing there. And he say something hackneyed like, "Well done, Junior."
Member
Jun 10th, 2008, 12:19 AM
For those of you who were expecting too much, let me remind you of three things.

1. Lucas's last film was revenge of the sith.

2. Harrison Ford's last film was firewall.

3. Speilberg hasn't done ANYTHING of note aside from producing since the jurassic park films.

This is a simple case of old guys thinking they can still run with the young kids when they can't. They've gotten old, so old that they've lost most of their talent. If you don't use it, you really do lose it.
1.21 Gigawatts!!!
Jun 10th, 2008, 02:04 AM
Indy was a little too sci-fi in this one. It was a little too much "Close Encounters" than what is usually found within the usual material. At least they did not have Harrison Ford make a mountain out of mashed potatoes.
1.21 Gigawatts!!!
Jun 10th, 2008, 02:09 AM
I think one of the funniest things about the movie was the overacting on the part of Cate Blanchett. With the stereotypical accent, she reminded me of Natasha from Rocky & Bullwinkle. I was half expecting her to say "moose and squirrel" at any time!

Sympathizes with the foo'
Jun 29th, 2008, 12:33 AM
"But about the plot, as a man of science I find the plot of Crystal Skull far more believable and less wacky than magic rocks, a golden box of Jew magic, or a magic Christian cup."

An occasionally magnetic crystalline skull that taps into an extraterrestrial collective consciousness is more believable than religious artifacts? No offense, but what you wrote just made a good portion of my drink spray out my nose. Don't get me wrong: you have every right to pull the "man of science" card, but you also have a responsibility to follow it up something less retarded than that.
Member
Jul 1st, 2008, 12:27 AM
I take part in an online survey site and most recently, it was about movies. They'd asked if I'd seen (or wanted to see) various shows and then proceeded to start asking me about box art for the Crystal Skull DVD (despite my having said I hadn't seen it.) I was actually pretty honest in my review of them and then it came down to "Would it make you buy this movie?" and several variations of that same question to which my answer was, always, "No." And then they asked why and I could honestly answer "Because I heard it was a bad movie." (Actual option for one of the answers.)