Brown Jenkin
First Post
The Grumpy Celt said:
BUSTED
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull [spoilers]
- Thread starter Goodsport
- Start date
BUSTED
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
Unless brainwashing was involved, I call shenanigans anyway!Relique du Madde said:
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
I saw it last night (no spoilers).
I thought it was good, but not great. Good enough. It was fun. A bit too over the top for me, and the CG was a bit too gratuitous at times, and the cutesy stuff was often unnecessary, but overall I had fun, and that is my main criteria for saying a movie is good.
Now for the spoilers, I'll just post part of Roger Ebert's initial reaction:
I thought it was good, but not great. Good enough. It was fun. A bit too over the top for me, and the CG was a bit too gratuitous at times, and the cutesy stuff was often unnecessary, but overall I had fun, and that is my main criteria for saying a movie is good.
Now for the spoilers, I'll just post part of Roger Ebert's initial reaction:
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." Say it aloud. The very title causes the pulse to quicken, if you, like me, are a lover of pulp fiction. What I want is goofy action--lots of it. I want man-eating ants, swordfights between two people balanced on the backs of speeding jeeps, subterranean caverns of gold, vicious femme fatales, plunges down three waterfalls in a row, and the explanation for flying saucers. And throw in lots of monkeys.
Mouseferatu
Hero
Saw it yesterday. I'll start with the short and completely spoiler-free version reaction:
This really is an Indiana Jones movie! Whereas most of the Star Wars prequels had the name, but didn't really feel the same (to me, anyway), this does. This is very much a continuation of the series. It's a lot of fun, and if it doesn't do anything new with the character, well, did we really expect or even want it to?
It's not Raiders of the Lost Ark. (Every review of this movie is required, by law, to say that.) I'm not sure yet if it's even Last Crusade. I'm not sure if I'm prepared to say it's "better" than Temple of Doom, but it's certainly more fun. If you liked the previous movies in the series, I highly recommend it...
With two very important caveats.
1) The "Oh, come on!" quotient of this movie is higher than the others. I don't mean things like supernatural devices that melt people's faces. I'm talking about scenes that are silly and/or over the top, scenes where you think "Even a star in an action movie shouldn't be getting up after that," or where you think "Okay, that's just dumb."
They're only a few scenes--not nearly enough to ruin the movie--but they'll bother some people.
2) The biggest problem that some people are going to have with this movie--and yes, I include myself--is the underlying conceit. What do I mean by this? Well, the underlying conceit of the prior three movies was, in essence, "Magic and religious mythology are real."
The conceit of this movie is different. I can't go into any further detail without some spoilers.
[sblock]The movie goes a little far in the direction of sci-fi for my tastes. I don't mind the movie implying that aliens exist. But did we need to see them? Did we need to see the flying saucer, or actually have the aliens defined as "interdimensional beings"? It was basically that one step too far that somewhat soured the ending of the movie for me.
I fully understand why they did it. Historically, and in the pulp of the era, the Nazis had a fascination with the supernatural. During the 50s, the fiction was all about aliens, and the Soviets (and the U.S., for that matter) were studying psychic phenomena and the possibility of alien life. So it does fit, especially if you consider the IJ movies as an attempt to recreate the pulp of the eras in which they were set; in fact, in that case, they almost had to. But it still rubs me the wrong way a little.
(Oh, and my "Oh, come on!" moments, mentioned above? Refrigerator, monkeys, Tarzan, waterfalls. If you've seen it, you know what I mean.)[/sblock]
But that said? I can get over it. Because the bottom line is that this was a damn fun action-adventure movie. Because damn if Harrison Ford didn't slip back into the roll like he'd never left it. (And this from someone who feels that all of his performances for the past decade or more have been largely dead inside.)
Because all told, this really is an Indiana Jones movie, and that's really all I asked of it.
This really is an Indiana Jones movie! Whereas most of the Star Wars prequels had the name, but didn't really feel the same (to me, anyway), this does. This is very much a continuation of the series. It's a lot of fun, and if it doesn't do anything new with the character, well, did we really expect or even want it to?
It's not Raiders of the Lost Ark. (Every review of this movie is required, by law, to say that.) I'm not sure yet if it's even Last Crusade. I'm not sure if I'm prepared to say it's "better" than Temple of Doom, but it's certainly more fun. If you liked the previous movies in the series, I highly recommend it...
With two very important caveats.
1) The "Oh, come on!" quotient of this movie is higher than the others. I don't mean things like supernatural devices that melt people's faces. I'm talking about scenes that are silly and/or over the top, scenes where you think "Even a star in an action movie shouldn't be getting up after that," or where you think "Okay, that's just dumb."
They're only a few scenes--not nearly enough to ruin the movie--but they'll bother some people.
2) The biggest problem that some people are going to have with this movie--and yes, I include myself--is the underlying conceit. What do I mean by this? Well, the underlying conceit of the prior three movies was, in essence, "Magic and religious mythology are real."
The conceit of this movie is different. I can't go into any further detail without some spoilers.
[sblock]The movie goes a little far in the direction of sci-fi for my tastes. I don't mind the movie implying that aliens exist. But did we need to see them? Did we need to see the flying saucer, or actually have the aliens defined as "interdimensional beings"? It was basically that one step too far that somewhat soured the ending of the movie for me.
I fully understand why they did it. Historically, and in the pulp of the era, the Nazis had a fascination with the supernatural. During the 50s, the fiction was all about aliens, and the Soviets (and the U.S., for that matter) were studying psychic phenomena and the possibility of alien life. So it does fit, especially if you consider the IJ movies as an attempt to recreate the pulp of the eras in which they were set; in fact, in that case, they almost had to. But it still rubs me the wrong way a little.
(Oh, and my "Oh, come on!" moments, mentioned above? Refrigerator, monkeys, Tarzan, waterfalls. If you've seen it, you know what I mean.)[/sblock]
But that said? I can get over it. Because the bottom line is that this was a damn fun action-adventure movie. Because damn if Harrison Ford didn't slip back into the roll like he'd never left it. (And this from someone who feels that all of his performances for the past decade or more have been largely dead inside.)
Because all told, this really is an Indiana Jones movie, and that's really all I asked of it.
Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
I saw it at today's matinee. Very fun movie, and definitely a worthy addition to the series. I thought it was better than Temple of Doom, on par with, but just a hair behind Last Crusade.
It has the same classic Indy structure -- a short action sequence at the beginning that introduces a villain and at first seems unconnected to the rest of the story (but ties in later), Indy at the university, the arrivial of the messenger with the new quest, travel to a far-off land and transition from professor to adventurer, twists, turns, betrayals, chases, and
.
I thought a few of the chase scenes (the jungle one, particularly) went a little too long, one or two stunts were a bit over the top, there were some special effects that broke suspension (as they first reveal the graveyard I go: "nice model!"), and the probably went just a step to far with the ending ... but I do like how they tied a bunch of ancient history and myths with some '50s pulp and modern urban legends.
And the easter eggs from prior films were just great,
I enjoyed it; I'm just sad that Harrison is getting to oold to continue to do these ... 'cause the hints dropped about OSS missions during WWII would probably make for some great Indy films!
It has the same classic Indy structure -- a short action sequence at the beginning that introduces a villain and at first seems unconnected to the rest of the story (but ties in later), Indy at the university, the arrivial of the messenger with the new quest, travel to a far-off land and transition from professor to adventurer, twists, turns, betrayals, chases, and
eventual triumph
I thought a few of the chase scenes (the jungle one, particularly) went a little too long, one or two stunts were a bit over the top, there were some special effects that broke suspension (as they first reveal the graveyard I go: "nice model!"), and the probably went just a step to far with the ending ... but I do like how they tied a bunch of ancient history and myths with some '50s pulp and modern urban legends.
And the easter eggs from prior films were just great,
as was the Indy-Marion relationship.
I enjoyed it; I'm just sad that Harrison is getting to oold to continue to do these ... 'cause the hints dropped about OSS missions during WWII would probably make for some great Indy films!
Last edited:
delericho
Legend
Saw it this afternoon.
As a consequence of "The Phantom Menace", I absolutely refused to raise my expectations for this film. I was hopeful, but really not expecting much.
I hated it. It was much worse than even the worst elements of "Temple of Doom". (A film I actually quite like, but it is the weakest of the original three by quite some way.)
For me, the biggest problem was the overuse of CGI. Frequently, it seemed like scenes were built merely to show off the pretty pictures they can now build, without pause for building solid characterisation, a sane plot, or any real sense of tension. And every plot twist was obvious a mile away.
Basically, for this film, they should have set the technology aside, and gone back to basics. Anything they couldn't do with a stuntman should have just been left out. Oh, and ditch the goofy elements such as
Still, never mind. Fourth entries in series are rarely any good: "Batman & Robin", "Lethal Weapon IV", "The Phantom Menace", "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace", "Alien Resurrection", "Highlander: Endgame", "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" season 4, "Angel" season 4...
As a consequence of "The Phantom Menace", I absolutely refused to raise my expectations for this film. I was hopeful, but really not expecting much.
I hated it. It was much worse than even the worst elements of "Temple of Doom". (A film I actually quite like, but it is the weakest of the original three by quite some way.)
For me, the biggest problem was the overuse of CGI. Frequently, it seemed like scenes were built merely to show off the pretty pictures they can now build, without pause for building solid characterisation, a sane plot, or any real sense of tension. And every plot twist was obvious a mile away.
(Gosh, it turns out he's Indy's son! I never would have guessed!)
Basically, for this film, they should have set the technology aside, and gone back to basics. Anything they couldn't do with a stuntman should have just been left out. Oh, and ditch the goofy elements such as
the kid's ability to Tarzan his way through the jungle faster than a speeding car. And anything involving aliens.
Still, never mind. Fourth entries in series are rarely any good: "Batman & Robin", "Lethal Weapon IV", "The Phantom Menace", "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace", "Alien Resurrection", "Highlander: Endgame", "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" season 4, "Angel" season 4...
Ankh-Morpork Guard
First Post
I had a ton of fun.
Any other detailed thoughts of mine are actually pretty well summed up in Ari's post.
My ONLY disagreement on that end is...[sblock]I like the alien angle. Yeah, I know...I'm that one guy. But I enjoy that kind of stuff. The whole climax felt like it was made just for someone like me that loves that kind of thing.
[/sblock]
Any other detailed thoughts of mine are actually pretty well summed up in Ari's post.
My ONLY disagreement on that end is...[sblock]I like the alien angle. Yeah, I know...I'm that one guy. But I enjoy that kind of stuff. The whole climax felt like it was made just for someone like me that loves that kind of thing.
[/sblock]Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
Mistwell said:
Really? If you say so. I'm not sure I'm seeing it.
Similar Threads
