Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull REVIEWS Thread
05-22-08, 11:11 PM
#101
Originally Posted by Ranger
What trailers did they have - last batman trailer?
Hellboy 2: I was sold on the film before it was even made.
Hancock: Looks like it will be entertaining to me.
WALL-E: Looks like shit.
Kung Fu Panda: Looks like shit.
Curious Case of Benjamin Button: Looks freaking weird.
Eagle Eye (teaser): No clue what it's about.
05-22-08, 11:21 PM
#102
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Lucas is to blame for any complaints with the script, considering Darabont wrote a script that everyone loved except for Lucas.
05-23-08, 12:06 AM
#103
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
I just got back from seeing it, and I am not sure what to say exactly. There were moments I really enjoyed, but there were a few that made me cringe. The most painful scene for me to watch was Shia swinging through the trees. That was unbearable. I don't know what they were thinking. Other than that, I found the rest to be very entertaining. By no means did it live up to Raiders of the Lost Ark or The Last Crusade, but it was certainly a good movie.
Spoiler:
05-23-08, 12:07 AM
#104
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just got back from seeing it. I liked it overall, some of the scenes, already mentioned, were a bit over the top, but I kinda expected that since this is the last Indy film and they didn't want to go light on anything. I think I'll need to see it at least one more time in theaters to get a better feel for it. I thought the action was great, and the humor was just enough and at just the right times.
Spoiler:
05-23-08, 12:13 AM
#105
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Originally Posted by Terrell
... Now if you have a problem with story element, then that's an area you'd have to blame Lucas. But the director is the boss. It's his film, not the producer's. Once he walks on set, he's the man in charge. Other than story ideas, Lucas was basically nothing more than the money man writing the checks.
Unfortunately, this is Lucas and the fact this movie was made at all is a testament to his tenacity. By every account I've read, nearly everyone else involved was not exactly keen on Lucas's story ideas for a fourth Indy flick.
I doubt that Spielberg or Ford would agree with your assessment that "Lucas was basically nothing more than the money man writing the checks."
05-23-08, 12:17 AM
#106
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Spoiler:
I think I'm gonna go see it again tomorrow. Raiders is obviously the best, Crusade is second for me, but this one just might pull ahead of Temple Of Doom, although I did love Short Round, but maybe I'm in the minority in that regard.
I just hope they end it here and don't turn it over to Shia. He was good in the movie, don't get me wrong, but I want them to just let it be.
05-23-08, 12:19 AM
#107
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Originally Posted by Darknite39
I wondered about this, too. It would certainly go toward explaining
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
I just came back from it and really enjoyed it. It was a lot of fun, and the entire theater screamed "No!!!" as
Spoiler:
Great flick. I guess going in with lowered expectations helped, but I think people need to re-watch the originals. They were never really high-art and the acting was never fantastic.
I rate them...
1. Last Crusade
2. Raiders
3. Crystal Skull
4. Temple of Doom
05-23-08, 12:30 AM
#108
Banned by request
Originally Posted by Jon2
If this were any other production, I'd tend to agree although not completely. The director is the boss... on the set... and even only up to a certain point. Hollywood history is replete with directors who've been canned.
Unfortunately, this is Lucas and the fact this movie was made at all is a testament to his tenacity. By every account I've read, nearly everyone else involved was not exactly keen on Lucas's story ideas for a fourth Indy flick.
I doubt that Spielberg or Ford would agree with your assessment that "Lucas was basically nothing more than the money man writing the checks."
Unfortunately, this is Lucas and the fact this movie was made at all is a testament to his tenacity. By every account I've read, nearly everyone else involved was not exactly keen on Lucas's story ideas for a fourth Indy flick.
I doubt that Spielberg or Ford would agree with your assessment that "Lucas was basically nothing more than the money man writing the checks."
05-23-08, 12:33 AM
#109
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Formerly known as "Jeffy Pop"/Denver
Posts: 3,038
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
I'm amazed at some of the reviews on here.
What an awful, awful film. I see the occasional bad movie, but very rarely do I leave the theatre thinking, "I wish I hadn't seen that." The movie failed on every level.
They could have cast Nick Cage in the lead and called it National Treasure 3. It's that bad.
Am I the only one that thinks computer effects are getting worse as the years go by? I was under the impression that Spielberg was only going to use CGI when it was absolutely necessary. Instead, the movie is wall to wall computer effects.
Look out for the computer generated ants! Careful, don't go near the computer genereted cliff! Oh no, don't get hit by the debris from that computer generated explosion!
What happened to using real bugs, or filming on location, or just blowing shit up for real?
And they're not even good effects. They're about on par with the Mummy movies.
Aside from the lousy effects, the overall look of the film is flat out ugly. I was led to believe that the cinematography was going to match the look of the first three films. Again, not the case whatsoever. As a previous poster mentioned, the film had an odd, unnatural look. It was too glossy and shiny.
Zero chemistry between the actors.
I will always love the first three films, but this movie was utter crap. Anyone that thinks otherwise is not living on the same planet as me.
What an awful, awful film. I see the occasional bad movie, but very rarely do I leave the theatre thinking, "I wish I hadn't seen that." The movie failed on every level.
They could have cast Nick Cage in the lead and called it National Treasure 3. It's that bad.
Am I the only one that thinks computer effects are getting worse as the years go by? I was under the impression that Spielberg was only going to use CGI when it was absolutely necessary. Instead, the movie is wall to wall computer effects.
Look out for the computer generated ants! Careful, don't go near the computer genereted cliff! Oh no, don't get hit by the debris from that computer generated explosion!
What happened to using real bugs, or filming on location, or just blowing shit up for real?
And they're not even good effects. They're about on par with the Mummy movies.
Aside from the lousy effects, the overall look of the film is flat out ugly. I was led to believe that the cinematography was going to match the look of the first three films. Again, not the case whatsoever. As a previous poster mentioned, the film had an odd, unnatural look. It was too glossy and shiny.
Zero chemistry between the actors.
Spoiler:
I will always love the first three films, but this movie was utter crap. Anyone that thinks otherwise is not living on the same planet as me.
Spoiler:
05-23-08, 12:37 AM
#110
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Formerly known as "Jeffy Pop"/Denver
Posts: 3,038
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by CKMorpheus
I guess going in with lowered expectations helped, but I think people need to re-watch the originals. They were never really high-art and the acting was never fantastic.
I'm not trying to single you out or anything, I respect your opinion and all that.
But seriously, Raiders is about as close to perfect as you can get. The acting is fine. It may not be "high art" (whatever that means), but the film holds up remarkably well.
05-23-08, 12:45 AM
#111
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Rainy ass Seattle yes the weather sucks here, so do our sports teams.
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just got back from this as well, and I am still processing everything.
The movie had its ups and downs, had some great scenes and some really bad scenes. Overall for me though, its Indy, I have been waiting 20 years for this movie to come out, and I am just happy that I got Indy back. As a whole the movie worked for me, sure I have my gripes, everybody does, but overall I sat back, kicked up my feet and enjoyed another Indy outing and it was great!!
I would have liked a more serious tone to the movie, like Raiders, I felt some of the scenes were too kiddish, but on the flip side some of the scenes were pretty harsh.
The nuke/refrigerator thing was downright terrible. The monkeys were horrible as well, along with Shia getting hit in the nuts fighting with Irina. The quicksand scene was pretty bad too. I could handle the alien theme, and the other things. I agree that some characters were underused, I would have liked to have seen the tough Marion vs the softer Marion. Indy too, I would have like to have him use his gun at least once (RPG doesn't count) he held it once, never saw it again. Minimal whip action too.
Cate was great, and I even liked her right hand man Dovchenko.
An extended action sequence with the jungle cutter would have been cool.
The action sequences were good, though a little too much CGI, but I was able to not let it bother me.
I liked the smaller elements, nod to the Ark, the Col. Jones back story.
Overall besides my minor gripes, I loved the movie. I will def be getting in a few more showings at the theater before its gone.
The movie had its ups and downs, had some great scenes and some really bad scenes. Overall for me though, its Indy, I have been waiting 20 years for this movie to come out, and I am just happy that I got Indy back. As a whole the movie worked for me, sure I have my gripes, everybody does, but overall I sat back, kicked up my feet and enjoyed another Indy outing and it was great!!
I would have liked a more serious tone to the movie, like Raiders, I felt some of the scenes were too kiddish, but on the flip side some of the scenes were pretty harsh.
The nuke/refrigerator thing was downright terrible. The monkeys were horrible as well, along with Shia getting hit in the nuts fighting with Irina. The quicksand scene was pretty bad too. I could handle the alien theme, and the other things. I agree that some characters were underused, I would have liked to have seen the tough Marion vs the softer Marion. Indy too, I would have like to have him use his gun at least once (RPG doesn't count) he held it once, never saw it again. Minimal whip action too.
Cate was great, and I even liked her right hand man Dovchenko.
An extended action sequence with the jungle cutter would have been cool.
The action sequences were good, though a little too much CGI, but I was able to not let it bother me.
I liked the smaller elements, nod to the Ark, the Col. Jones back story.
Overall besides my minor gripes, I loved the movie. I will def be getting in a few more showings at the theater before its gone.
05-23-08, 12:46 AM
#112
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My wife and I left the theater so underwhelmed...
So much wrong with this, some of which others have mentioned. Most of my issues can all be traced to the structure of the script. I've spoilerized everything, so as not to spill anything for anyone...
I'll stop here, as I've depressed myself. I went in wanting to like it, cheering for its success. I was burned three times by the Star Wars prequels, but still held out hope for Indy IV. I think Spielberg did what he could; imagine someone else trying to do this sequel 20 years after the last one, with this script, Ford's age, etc. I think it is as good as it is because of Spielberg, but as bad as it is because of Lucas' involvement, and to a lesser extent Ford's uneven performance.
So much wrong with this, some of which others have mentioned. Most of my issues can all be traced to the structure of the script. I've spoilerized everything, so as not to spill anything for anyone...
Spoiler:
I'll stop here, as I've depressed myself. I went in wanting to like it, cheering for its success. I was burned three times by the Star Wars prequels, but still held out hope for Indy IV. I think Spielberg did what he could; imagine someone else trying to do this sequel 20 years after the last one, with this script, Ford's age, etc. I think it is as good as it is because of Spielberg, but as bad as it is because of Lucas' involvement, and to a lesser extent Ford's uneven performance.
Last edited by phraseturner; 05-23-08 at 01:30 AM. Reason: spelling and grammar
05-23-08, 12:50 AM
#113
DVD Talk Hero
I think throwing everything and the kitchen sink into this latest installment of the Indy franchise made for a bumpy viewing for me. Some parts were good, some parts were dull, some were cringe-inducing, some were entertaining. But as a whole, it's a bit disjointed in pacing and tone. The film starts out oddly (just off-putting for me), takes a little while to get back on point and labors through the middle section, but if you can embrace the revelation of artifacts at hand, the last act swells for a big finish which will divide the audience. I lean towards the "not enamored with the ending" crowd, as it moved this franchise into an area it didn't need to go, but I guess those involved thought it was the way to go.
I got a little tired of the cinematography, especially the blown out background lighting that produced a washed out look, and soft focus in many daylight scenes, I understand the need for consistency, but it just got too soft and too nostalgic for me.
I'm not really sold on Shia LeBeouf's performance, either. His introduction seemed a little too choppy and underwritten. Harrison Ford has shrunk in physical stature, but being 65 years old will do that to a man, and I did wince many times when Indy was getting slammed around in some of the scenes, I just kept thinking "how can his hips not break from taking all that derring-do punishment from the action sequences?" I didn't really like Cate Blanchette's underwritten character all that much, the blame goes to the screenplay in that department.
All in all, it gets a mild recommendation from me, with reservations.
I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.
I got a little tired of the cinematography, especially the blown out background lighting that produced a washed out look, and soft focus in many daylight scenes, I understand the need for consistency, but it just got too soft and too nostalgic for me.
I'm not really sold on Shia LeBeouf's performance, either. His introduction seemed a little too choppy and underwritten. Harrison Ford has shrunk in physical stature, but being 65 years old will do that to a man, and I did wince many times when Indy was getting slammed around in some of the scenes, I just kept thinking "how can his hips not break from taking all that derring-do punishment from the action sequences?" I didn't really like Cate Blanchette's underwritten character all that much, the blame goes to the screenplay in that department.
All in all, it gets a mild recommendation from me, with reservations.
I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.
Last edited by Patman; 05-23-08 at 07:45 AM.
05-23-08, 01:05 AM
#114
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: H-Town, TX
Posts: 3,662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was a bad movie, people. Right now a lot of folks are hesitant to pile on because it's freaking Indiana Jones. He's an icon. But mark my words. In 10 years.....screw that, in 2 years, this will be widely regarded as a very poor entry in an otherwise classic movie franchise.
I saw it with about a dozen friends. One liked it. ONE!!!
Awful CGI, stupid convoluted plot, a worthless villain, lame action sequences, corny dialogue(Marion's reunion with Indy could've been handled so much better), and aliens. Aliens for chrissakes! And BTW, that shot of the spaceship was right out of the first X-Files movie and the FX were more impressive in that flick 10 years ago.
I don't know if the box office will suffer too much next weekend since it only has Sex and the City to contend with, but word of mouth is going to be brutal.
I saw it with about a dozen friends. One liked it. ONE!!!
Awful CGI, stupid convoluted plot, a worthless villain, lame action sequences, corny dialogue(Marion's reunion with Indy could've been handled so much better), and aliens. Aliens for chrissakes! And BTW, that shot of the spaceship was right out of the first X-Files movie and the FX were more impressive in that flick 10 years ago.
I don't know if the box office will suffer too much next weekend since it only has Sex and the City to contend with, but word of mouth is going to be brutal.
05-23-08, 01:07 AM
#115
Banned by request
Originally Posted by Jeffy Pop
I will always love the first three films, but this movie was utter crap. Anyone that thinks otherwise is not living on the same planet as me.
I come from the planet where people can enjoy fun movies. I also come from the planet where we can respect a difference of opinion.
05-23-08, 01:37 AM
#116
Senior Member
"I come from the planet where people can enjoy fun movies. I also come from the planet where we can respect a difference of opinion."
uh huh...too bad the movie is still a pile of shit. i'm going to treat it like rocky 5 and just pretend it doesn't exist.
uh huh...too bad the movie is still a pile of shit. i'm going to treat it like rocky 5 and just pretend it doesn't exist.
05-23-08, 01:41 AM
#117
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Rainy ass Seattle yes the weather sucks here, so do our sports teams.
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow a lot of super negative reactions to this film.....
IMO I think people went in with too high expectations and it didn't live up to the hype. Lucus went on record numerous times telling people to keep there expectations in check. As it was I thought it was good, not perfect, but good.
IMO I think people went in with too high expectations and it didn't live up to the hype. Lucus went on record numerous times telling people to keep there expectations in check. As it was I thought it was good, not perfect, but good.
05-23-08, 01:45 AM
#118
Banned by request
Originally Posted by jmu878
uh huh...too bad the movie is still a pile of shit. i'm going to treat it like rocky 5 and just pretend it doesn't exist.
05-23-08, 01:47 AM
#119
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: H-Town, TX
Posts: 3,662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mercury&Solace
Wow a lot of super negative reactions to this film.....
IMO I think people went in with too high expectations and it didn't live up to the hype. Lucus went on record numerous times telling people to keep there expectations in check. As it was I thought it was good, not perfect, but good.
IMO I think people went in with too high expectations and it didn't live up to the hype. Lucus went on record numerous times telling people to keep there expectations in check. As it was I thought it was good, not perfect, but good.
I expected a decent Indiana Jones movie. Something on par with Last Crusade(maybe marginally worse). What I got was a hybrid of The Mummy and National Treasure, and a bad one at that.
05-23-08, 03:03 AM
#121
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Down In It
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I caught an advance screening of Indiana Jones on Wednesday around midnight.
The Indiana Jones trilogy is absolutely one of my favorite series and without question, a series of films that is an ultimate example of why people go to the movies. The original series had mystery, surprises, an epic journey, great one-liners, big action sequences, and of course, a perfect lead man in Harrison Ford.
While most of my friends were hesitant and told me to lower my expectations when the film was announced, I ignored them and told them that with all the time put into getting together a worthy script and with the Lucas-Spielberg-Ford term reunited that I did not expect to be disappointed.
Sadly, I was mistaken. I was quite disappointed with the end results;
in no particular order, here are some reasons (some minor, some major):
My main problem was with the sci-fi angle. I love sci-fi..Star Wars, X-Files,
Serenity, Star Trek..etc, but it does not seem to fit in the world of Indiana Jones. With the rest of the series taking on religious/mystical objects, it didn't sit well with me. I love sci-fi/etc but it shouldn't be in Indiana Jones. Secondly, the concept has already been explored with Stargate - an outside world/dimension brought futuristic technology to a primitive world. With so many beliefs/cultures around the world, couldn't some magical item/mystical legendary item be what they were chasing instead of resorting to extraterrestrials?
There were other things that bothered me ---
The nuclear scene/climbing in the refrigerator/interrogation of Indiana's loyalty to the US - this bothered me because it established Indiana as a war
hero (a Colonel) and it seemed to imply that the government would be later causing him trouble down the line -- however, besides the forced resign of the dean at the university -- it served little purpose ; also, if you are going to establish Indy with years of combat/military training -- I would imagine him to be more planned and prepared -- and less the reckless/spontaneous Indy that we saw in the previous films; yet, he acts the same..which I'm glad about, but I rather they just didn't have these scenes
Inconsistency of character - how could a guy that swings on a whip to attack a small force of Russians and gets away and survives a nuclear blast..days earlier...then later speeding on a motorcycle say "slow down!" and "someone is going to get hurt!" ~ it seems strange to me that how he jumped mentally; also, Indy is shown to be clever and wary especially in reference to dealing with his enemies...when he meets Mutt and he explains about the letter--he instantly understands the Russians let his mother escape so that Indy would go after her/aid in their quest--yet after seeing his war buddy turn on him just for money only days ago--he doesn't question/become wary when the guy seems to rejoin their party?
No memorable one-liners, in general, lacking the humor in the other movies
CGI gophers and monkeys - swinging on the vine
One thing that I really enjoyed about the other movies were the puzzles/mystery to get to their ultimate destination; the clues
to point them in the right direction were as interesting as the
object itself--such as finding the X in the library to find the knight's tomb/using the stone and the sun to point on the map/even the puzzles when trying to retrieve the holy grail -- this film, we didn't get any of that but instead just trying to retrace the steps of someone that had already
figured out most of the puzzle; Indy's big contribution was that the skull
shaped indentation in the wall --- needed a skull shaped object to proceed; which luckily just happened to be the only thing they were carrying!
After POTC2 and Apocalypto, the painted face natives with poison darts and spears seems tiresome; also, they didn't seem nowhere as menacing as they did in those movies
While I'm probably in the minority with this one, I didn't think it was necessary to bring to Marion back; if they wanted to make Mutt to be Indy's son..they could have done it some other way; I don't think the actress aged particularly well and she seemed out of place; I didn't feel any chemistry between the two; I missed the varying(though cheesy) love interests from the other films; even some tension with Cate Blanchett's character would have been welcomed
Overall, I was just surprised with the lack of an original concept--between Stargate, Apocalypto, X-Files...even the 4 part Ducktales series in which they search for an ancient city of gold---it seems to all be familiar terrain.
I just hope that The Dark Knight will be that much better to make me forget all about this..
The Indiana Jones trilogy is absolutely one of my favorite series and without question, a series of films that is an ultimate example of why people go to the movies. The original series had mystery, surprises, an epic journey, great one-liners, big action sequences, and of course, a perfect lead man in Harrison Ford.
While most of my friends were hesitant and told me to lower my expectations when the film was announced, I ignored them and told them that with all the time put into getting together a worthy script and with the Lucas-Spielberg-Ford term reunited that I did not expect to be disappointed.
Sadly, I was mistaken. I was quite disappointed with the end results;
in no particular order, here are some reasons (some minor, some major):
My main problem was with the sci-fi angle. I love sci-fi..Star Wars, X-Files,
Serenity, Star Trek..etc, but it does not seem to fit in the world of Indiana Jones. With the rest of the series taking on religious/mystical objects, it didn't sit well with me. I love sci-fi/etc but it shouldn't be in Indiana Jones. Secondly, the concept has already been explored with Stargate - an outside world/dimension brought futuristic technology to a primitive world. With so many beliefs/cultures around the world, couldn't some magical item/mystical legendary item be what they were chasing instead of resorting to extraterrestrials?
There were other things that bothered me ---
The nuclear scene/climbing in the refrigerator/interrogation of Indiana's loyalty to the US - this bothered me because it established Indiana as a war
hero (a Colonel) and it seemed to imply that the government would be later causing him trouble down the line -- however, besides the forced resign of the dean at the university -- it served little purpose ; also, if you are going to establish Indy with years of combat/military training -- I would imagine him to be more planned and prepared -- and less the reckless/spontaneous Indy that we saw in the previous films; yet, he acts the same..which I'm glad about, but I rather they just didn't have these scenes
Inconsistency of character - how could a guy that swings on a whip to attack a small force of Russians and gets away and survives a nuclear blast..days earlier...then later speeding on a motorcycle say "slow down!" and "someone is going to get hurt!" ~ it seems strange to me that how he jumped mentally; also, Indy is shown to be clever and wary especially in reference to dealing with his enemies...when he meets Mutt and he explains about the letter--he instantly understands the Russians let his mother escape so that Indy would go after her/aid in their quest--yet after seeing his war buddy turn on him just for money only days ago--he doesn't question/become wary when the guy seems to rejoin their party?
No memorable one-liners, in general, lacking the humor in the other movies
CGI gophers and monkeys - swinging on the vine
One thing that I really enjoyed about the other movies were the puzzles/mystery to get to their ultimate destination; the clues
to point them in the right direction were as interesting as the
object itself--such as finding the X in the library to find the knight's tomb/using the stone and the sun to point on the map/even the puzzles when trying to retrieve the holy grail -- this film, we didn't get any of that but instead just trying to retrace the steps of someone that had already
figured out most of the puzzle; Indy's big contribution was that the skull
shaped indentation in the wall --- needed a skull shaped object to proceed; which luckily just happened to be the only thing they were carrying!
After POTC2 and Apocalypto, the painted face natives with poison darts and spears seems tiresome; also, they didn't seem nowhere as menacing as they did in those movies
While I'm probably in the minority with this one, I didn't think it was necessary to bring to Marion back; if they wanted to make Mutt to be Indy's son..they could have done it some other way; I don't think the actress aged particularly well and she seemed out of place; I didn't feel any chemistry between the two; I missed the varying(though cheesy) love interests from the other films; even some tension with Cate Blanchett's character would have been welcomed
Overall, I was just surprised with the lack of an original concept--between Stargate, Apocalypto, X-Files...even the 4 part Ducktales series in which they search for an ancient city of gold---it seems to all be familiar terrain.
I just hope that The Dark Knight will be that much better to make me forget all about this..
05-23-08, 04:39 AM
#122
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It sucked.
CGI gophers and monkeys.
Mutt swinging thru the vines.
Mutt sword fighting while doing the splits between two cars.
Indy surviving a nuclear blast with a fridge.
Friggin' aliens.
It just plain sucked.
CGI gophers and monkeys.
Mutt swinging thru the vines.
Mutt sword fighting while doing the splits between two cars.
Indy surviving a nuclear blast with a fridge.
Friggin' aliens.
It just plain sucked.
05-23-08, 04:51 AM
#123
DVD Talk Godfather
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
You described maybe.. 5 minutes of screen time at most of the film.
So... you caught a midnight screening?
I caught an advance screening of Indiana Jones on Wednesday around midnight.
So... you caught a midnight screening?
05-23-08, 05:02 AM
#124
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by NIMH Rat
I have a feeling there's going to be a strong disliking of this movie for anyone under 30.
I enjoyed it a lot, probably because I'm over 30.
I enjoyed it a lot, probably because I'm over 30.
Anyone who thinks Karen Allen is the weak point of the story is really off-the-mark...she's the best thing about the film.
I think a lot of people are disappointed because they wanted another RAIDERS and essentially got another TEMPLE OF DOOM. I disagree with the poster who said this movie will be hated 2 years from now...I think, with time, more people are going to come around to this flick. The biggest 'change' (as Lucas warned us about) is that it's essentially a 1950's Sci-Fi B-Movie take on Indiana Jones, rather than the 1930's Serial take that the first three movies were. I almost got the impression that this is the first of a new planned trilogy that Lucas/Spielberg/Ford are being hush-hush about...the ending (where Indy implies that Shia's not ready for that hat JUST YET) seems to indicate that more is to come....
Last edited by Shannon Nutt; 05-23-08 at 05:19 AM.
05-23-08, 06:01 AM
#125
Based on some of the reviews, there's a lot of "This isn't my Indiana Jones." I say to them, suck it up. This isn't the 80s anymore, and you should've known better than to assume it'd be EXACTLY like the other Indy movies.
I actually thought the CGI was well done, but also kinda funny, which I think was the point. maybe that gave it too much of a cartoon feel for some, I dunno.
I think someone made a good point that this is more in vein with Temple of Doom than Raiders, and that was fine with me. I personally think Raiders and Temple are equals, but just different. Am I saying Crystal Skull is as good as the others? I honestly need to see it again before I can say one way or another, due to 19 year expectations.
I actually thought the CGI was well done, but also kinda funny, which I think was the point. maybe that gave it too much of a cartoon feel for some, I dunno.
I think someone made a good point that this is more in vein with Temple of Doom than Raiders, and that was fine with me. I personally think Raiders and Temple are equals, but just different. Am I saying Crystal Skull is as good as the others? I honestly need to see it again before I can say one way or another, due to 19 year expectations.