Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull - Review Thread

[koreyman]

Originally Posted by Mxr5150

Thankfully, did you hear that Lucas wanted this one to be all about aliens at first? The guy is gone!

Lets not forget that the idea of Indy is in itself is a tribute to the 50's era serials so no a alien or a si-fi plot is not that far off the basic idea of the story.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

What's your point? That Crusade was better than Raiders? I know there's no accounting for taste, but please tell me you're joking.

The originality and nostalgia factor is hard to separate out. But Crusade was an amazing flick. I'd definitely NOT rank it at or above Raiders, but it would be close.

If people are accurate putting Skull in the same league as Raiders or Crusade then I'm going to be a happy guy.

The critics seem to like Skull: 78% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Gary

[GORT]

Originally Posted by The Gnome

Its a popcorn movie for christ sakes!! its supposed to be fun and outlandish.... um transformers!!!
Im not looking for a documentry on the history channel. Any ways, if i listed to very critic out there (good or bad) i'd be stuck watching the piano and missing out on batman!

[hughring]

Originally Posted by Mxr5150

Thankfully, did you hear that Lucas wanted this one to be all about aliens at first? The guy is gone!

The movie will be about aliens and I won't fault it for that. Lucas originally wanted to call it Indiana Jones and The Saucermen from Mars. I read the Saucermen script and enjoyed it immensely. To me, it sounds enticing! Indiana Jones has always been over the top. Remember the knight guarding the Holy Grail? I will enjoy this film any way Lucas and Spielberg have sliced it! We all just have to open our minds!

[WriteSimply]

[Show spoiler]At one point, Indy is standing next to a mushroom and IT IS BREATHTAKING!!!

By the way if anybody was wondering, I did an Indy marathon a few days before the press screening just to pump myself up for it. Hence my verdict.


fuad

[BStecke]

Ok, I just got back. I'm not going to write a full review until I see it again, however. Unfortunately that's not because I'm absolutely dying to see it again (which I'm disappointed in), but because I want to review the movie once I've seen it without 19 years worth of anticipation.

But, I will say this: the story is good. Very enjoyable story. Harrison Ford is awesome, even though it was still hard for me to hear new lines coming from Indiana Jones. The story is a departure from any of the previous films, but it's intriguing. It is definitely a fantasy story, but no more implausible than any of the previous films. The ending scene is ALMOST cringe inducing, but gets saved at the last second and turns into a great moment.

The negatives: There are two scenes that actually made me uncomfortable they were so bad. I don't know if it's just me, but occasionally I'll see something in a movie that is just so bad that I actually feel embarrassed, or uncomfortable watching them. I guess to some degree I take a sense of ownership, and I get embarrassed and uncomfortable because I'm actually watching this happen. Like I said, there are two such scenes, fairly close to each other, both involving Shia LaBeouf. I guarantee you'll know the scenes when you see them, and once you see the first and think it's over, the second is even worse.

My main complaint is that Spielberg said they were keeping CGI to a minimum. My ass. Much of the film, especially compared to the originals, feels like you're watching people in front of a green screen. Even the opening scenes in the desert feel like they're shot on a soundstage. The scenes I mentioned above are directly attributable to the presence of CGI, the most laughable one incontrovertibly so. As such, I didn't feel the sense of danger that I felt in any of the action scenes of the originals, and this disappointed me. The action, and therefore the characters, didn't seem as real to me.

One thing I want to clarify is that I have no qualms about the fantastic elements of the storyline, and neither of the scenes I mentioned are a product of that. Indiana Jones has always had a certain amount of fantasy to it, and the story is just as plausible as any of the others. However, Indiana Jones has always had VERY realistic action, and it's always been about a very real guy SURROUNDED by fantasy, but not a fantastical character himself. He (or anybody else) never did anything that takes you out of the movie because he's doing something that is just totally impossible for a human being. Is that stuff likely? No, but Indy always felt like a real guy doing stuff that is difficult, but possible. Again, both the scenes I mentioned are because they're just TOTALLY unbelievable from a human physicality/common sense standpoint.

Sorry this is kind of jumbled . . . it's late, and I'm really just trying to pour my thoughts out before they leave me. Overall, it was great to see Indy back, but I need to see it again in order to determine how much I actually liked it.

[DC_Street]

I'm with you, I'm going to have to see it a second time to form my final opinion of the movie. There was a TON of cgi, I heard to that it was going to be minimum, HA!

edit: Copy and Pasted to keep reviews on 1 thread

"wow, heh....just got home from seeing Indy and right now I'm sorry but I'm going to have to say I'm dissapointed. I'm a huge fan of Raiders and the Last Crusade with Crusade being my most favorite of the 4 and this new Indy film just does not have that "special" spark that my two favs had. It was better than Temple of Doom imho but no where near Crusade or Raiders . The movie was hilarious and had the audience constantly laughing. I usually don't laugh out loud at movies but I did with this one, Indy still had that in him at least. Just at certain times I felt like I was watching Harrison Ford as another character other than Indy. Idk, I guess you could say if you could cut out the last part of the movie but keep the very very end I would easily give this movie a 12/10 rating but the ending really blew it for me.


MAJOR MAJOR SPOILER AHEAD!!!

[Show spoiler]everything was great about the movie except for when the crystal skeletons started spinning and turned into an alien from the close encounters movie and then the space ship takes off, I mean come on Lucas, this is a Indy movie not a Star Wars movie for crying out loud! The wedding at the end was great and everyone laughed when the hat rolled to Shia and Indy grabs it from him very quickly, hahaha

In conclusion, I would reccomend this to others for at least one viewing in theatres just so they can say they saw a Indy movie on the big screen. It was a funny movie and of course I enjoyed seeing Indy on the big screen for the first time (I'm only 22). I just wish they had focused more on the original corny films instead of all this cgi junk. Don't get me wrong, cgi is great in movies like Jurassic Park but with Indy, it doesn't belong there. I'm probably going to have to see it a second time to finally decide on whether I truly liked it or truly hated it. My rating for Dr. Jones back on the big screen 8/10. I'm only being generous because it was fun to see Indy on the big screen for the first time and I laughed throughout the entire movie! Plus that rating is based on all movies, if you were to compare it to other Indy films it would be a 5/10.

p.s. I was blown away by Shia's performance, I was one of the ones dreading seeing him in a Indy film but I was truly shocked at how well he fit into the series. It was funny to see him always trying to start trouble, especially the fight scene in the diner, come on grease heads! LOL"

[Mxr5150]

Originally Posted by koreyman

Lets not forget that the idea of Indy is in itself is a tribute to the 50's era serials so no a alien or a si-fi plot is not that far off the basic idea of the story.

Woops! Big mistake on my part! I guess what I read was damage control for spoiler leaks. I was expecting something else. Though, I did like it, I prefer the Judaeu-Christian related quests or even the mysticsm of Temple of Doom to aliens and UFOs.

[DC_Street]

Originally Posted by Mxr5150

Woops! Big mistake on my part! I guess what I read was damage control for spoiler leaks. I was expecting something else. Though, I did like it, I prefer the Judaeu-Christian related quests or even the mysticsm of Temple of Doom to aliens and UFOs.

haha, one of my friends as we were walking out of the theatre told me it was like this...

First movie was based on Judaism
Second movie was based Hinduism
Third was based on Christianity
Fourth thanks to Lucas was based on Scientology

[Mxr5150]

^

[STARSCREAM]

Just got back from seeing it. I really need to see it one or two more times though before forming a final opinion on it. For now, I liked it alot but not more than the original trilogy,especially Raiders and Crusade (those two are my favorites and rock). Shia was outstanding in it, I don't get the hate. He fit in extremely well and I can definatley see him as Indy's son. There were some great comedy moments throughout the film as well. I will say that it kinda went like this for me : started out as hmmmm ok, then picked up and felt oldschool Indy especially when Mutt was introduced, got just ok again, awesome again and oldschool feel to it at the cemetary (reminded me of Raiders), then towards the end it got just ok again. I'm still not sure what to think about the whole crystal skull plot and having it as the macguffin. I guess it's just hard to beat the search for the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail. I can easily see them making a 5th movie and possibly a 6th to round out a second trilogy. Like I said, I need to see it again to fully absorb it all but it was GREAT to see INDY again!

[HDJK]

Went to see it yesterday (it was even projected digitally ) and I really enjoyed it. I couldn't rank it at the moment, because it's been quite a while since I last seen the other 3, but it's definitely a worthy successor.

It's a fun movie, beautifully shot with another fine score by John Williams and great performances. I was actually surprised how good Shia fit for his role.

It has all the right ingredients for an adventure movie, cooked to my taste, highly recommended

[JadedRaverLA]

Originally Posted by Mxr5150

Thankfully, did you hear that Lucas wanted this one to be all about aliens at first? The guy is gone!

Ha... ha... that would have been absolutely terrible -- a complete abomination to the Indy franchise. Oh, wait a minute...

I had a whole diatribe written about this film, but I don't feel like getting flamed, so I'll just say this: biggest disappointment since the last time Lucas tried to make a new film based on a classic film trilogy -- and if this script isn't nominated for a Razzie then I will be forced to call shenanigans.

[Marcusarilius]

Originally Posted by JadedRaverLA

Ha... ha... that would have been absolutely terrible -- a complete abomination to the Indy franchise. Oh, wait a minute...

I had a whole diatribe written about this film, but I don't feel like getting flamed, so I'll just say this: biggest disappointment since the last time Lucas tried to make a new film based on a classic film trilogy -- and if this script isn't nominated for a Razzie then I will be forced to call shenanigans.

Sounds like he should have gone with the Aliens thing...

[JadedRaverLA]

Originally Posted by Marcusarilius

Sounds like he should have gone with the Aliens thing...

The only redeeming thing about the film is that Spielberg was nice enough to give on-screen roles to the team of monkeys who wrote this drivel.

He also apparently gave a role to his mentally challenged pool boy... wait, what? That Shia guy's an actor? Damn, that's depressing. On the upside, they might not be making him the new Indy... he might just be the new Tarzan.

[WriteSimply]

The problem with watching a movie in advance of the regular audience is that you can't really discuss it without spoiling the discovery of the moment.

Originally Posted by DC_Street

MAJOR MAJOR SPOILER AHEAD!!!

Use the spoiler tag. [ spoiler] [/ spoiler] without the space, of course.

I agree that Shia gives another reason why he should be on everybody's radar in the future. Eagle Eyes teaser looks good.

Originally Posted by BStecke

The negatives: There are two scenes that actually made me uncomfortable they were so bad. I don't know if it's just me, but occasionally I'll see something in a movie that is just so bad that I actually feel embarrassed, or uncomfortable watching them.

Which scenes were these?

My main complaint is that Spielberg said they were keeping CGI to a minimum. My ass.

I think this was during the first few weeks of finalizing the deal prior to prepro. After seeing the first teaser then trailer, I knew that CGI use is going to be more prominent than the trilogy. But that's to be expected considering how much time they have to shoot, the amount of expectations modern audience have and the fact that Ford is in his sixties. On a side note, the ending that befall Walter Donovan in Crusade was achieved through digital composition and of course looked fake.

Much of the film, especially compared to the originals, feels like you're watching people in front of a green screen. Even the opening scenes in the desert feel like they're shot on a soundstage.

The opening sequence right up to the gates are shot for real except for THE BURROWER.

The hangar sequences apart from being augmented by digital set extensions, which is far more dynamic in that it frees the camera to move freely unlike what you can do with matte paintings, were also shot for real. In fact the production notes said that they had to use several studios to shoot the hangar scene because the hangar was supposed to be vast. Why was it so vast? Blame that on the ending shot of Raiders.

The scenes I mentioned above are directly attributable to the presence of CGI, the most laughable one incontrovertibly so. As such, I didn't feel the sense of danger that I felt in any of the action scenes of the originals, and this disappointed me. The action, and therefore the characters, didn't seem as real to me.

It's the good and bad of CGI. If it works, you don't even know it's CGI like for instance, wire removal and cloth simulation that covers the traces of wire removal. When it doesn't, well it sticks out like a sore thumb.

But here's where watching the trilogy first gave me some perspective on the use of CGI for Skull. Some of the SFX and VFX in Raiders, Doom and Crusade show their age. The death of Satipo (Alfred Molina), the burning heart in Mola Ram's (Amrish Puri) hand, and the giant snake that scared Indy are all examples of cheesy SFX. For VFX, mostly it's about sky replacement though in Crusade there is that Leap Of Faith.

However, Indiana Jones has always had VERY realistic action, and it's always been about a very real guy SURROUNDED by fantasy, but not a fantastical character himself. He (or anybody else) never did anything that takes you out of the movie because he's doing something that is just totally impossible for a human being. Is that stuff likely? No, but Indy always felt like a real guy doing stuff that is difficult, but possible. Again, both the scenes I mentioned are because they're just TOTALLY unbelievable from a human physicality/common sense standpoint.

I understand where you're coming from but the stunts in the trilogy is not perfect either. How did Jones travel from Egypt to the German submarine port - which is an unseen stunt that is also a plot hole - aboard the submarine? How did Jones, Short Round and Willie stay on that entire roller coaster ride at that speed? How did the Joneses survived skipping/riding the tank's steel tracks?

The main differences between the stunts and action sequences of the trilogy and Skull is that for Skull, the environment has been enhanced. The stunt work is still for real - I didn't notice digital doubles - except that the environment is augmented. It may have been augmented too fantastically though.

My bone with Skull (ahem) is still about the story arch.


fuad

[moonmonkey]

I just got back and............WOW

Worst movies ever.

1. Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull
2. SPAWN (I thought nothing would dethrone it)

[stockstar1138]

I absolutely loved it. It was a ton of fun.

Though I do have some complaints.

1. The prarie dogs.
2. monkey scene
3.

[Show spoiler] the CGI alien looked awful

other than that it was excellent.

Spoilers Below






i expected the plot to be something along these lines going in. if you read the booklet that came with CEOT3K you would know that Spielberg is obsessed with aliens. This is now his 4th alien project I believe (CEOT3K, ET, Taken, KOTCS). What this movie did that the other alien flicks failed to do, was base the appeance of aliens/interdiminsional beings from a real life theory about UFOs and aliens (ancient astronaut theory), plus mix it in with the nostalgic sci-fi 50s serials. I honestly did not expect it to be so alien and UFO heavy and was pleasently suprised that it was. It worked beautifully, plus the cinematography was great, could have gone with a tad less CGI though.
However, if I had not expected aliens going in, Id probably be shocked and pissed. The basis of this movie and a lot of the stuff in it is based off real life belifs that extraterrestrail enthusists have about ETs (crystal skulls of ET origin, Nazca lines, ETs forwarding human advancement, ETs being worshipped and mistaken as gods, physcic abilities). this wasn't just crap lucas made up. Wonderful movie, must buy on blu-ray. but like i said, i don't blame some of you for being pissed about it, if you were expecting the paranormal parts to be a little less down to earth.

[JadedRaverLA]

Originally Posted by moonmonkey

I just got back and............WOW

Worst movies ever.

1. Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull
2. SPAWN (I thought nothing would dethrone it)

Ouch. That's harsh. I definitely wouldn't go that far. The film was schlock, but it was Spielberg schlock, and I'll take that over a lot of the crap that get made.

As we were walking out we were debating which was the bigger catastrophe... SW: Ep. 1 or Indy 4. The consensus was Ep. 1, but it definitely wasn't unanimous. We did all agree, though, that it was time for Lucas to retire.

[stockstar1138]

and i don't get what is with the heavy critiscm of shia. he fit and played his role very well.