*** Official Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull Review Thread (1 Viewer)

[MattFini]

I thought I would just throw my hat into the ring here and echo A LOT of what has already been said about this film.

I really liked it (having seen it twice). The first hour is near perfect ... I loved the opening sequence, the motorcycle chase and most of the mystery around the skull. Heck, I think the storyline is actually the most 'mysterious' since Raiders and that was very cool to me.

The second half is a bit weaker, thanks to those damn monkeys. I'll also agree that Indy was a little too passive after the big jungle fist fight (which was my favorite part).

I really think we could've stood another action sequence at the very end inside the temple to give this one a tighter sense of climax, but the movie still works in my eyes.

Splanko is a cool villain and I loved her line about taking over the US army and government without the country ever realizing it. Very 1950s, red scare paranoia, and it really heightened the already perfect 50s vibe.

After a second viewing, this one might still be the weakest of the Indy films, but I'd only place it a slight notch below Last Crusade (I absolutely adore Temple of Doom). I'd like to catch it again in theaters though just to focus more on the story now that all the hype and expectation is out of the way.

 

[oscar_merkx]

I finally saw the movie last night with a packed audience.

I had no expectations going in simply because I wanted to go in "cold".

I was blown away how good it was and how believable HF is as Indy.

I particularly loved the homages to the trilogy especially with Marcus Brody.

Sometimes I thought I was watching Raiders simply because of the similarities.

 

[Brent M]

Finally saw Indy IV this afternoon. I'll preface my thoughts by saying that Star Wars and Indiana Jones are my two favorite film franchises of all time. I have been a die-hard Lucas and Spielberg apologist for many years now. I've defended Lucas for the SW Special Editions, the prequels and just about everything else he's done. I've also enjoyed a lot of Spielberg's movies that most people didn't like(eg. War of the Worlds).

Also, I purposely stayed away from this thread since the movie opened because I didn't want to let the negative stuff I was starting to read influence my opinion on this flick in any way. I went into it wanting to love the movie and hoping that it was well worth the 19 year wait.

Having said all of that, unfortunately I have to say that I thought this movie was HORRIBLE. I knew it wouldn't be another Raiders and probably not even Last Crusade or Temple of Doom, but this was a complete abomination to the Indiana Jones name. Harrison seemed like he was just phoning it in(which I never thought would happen with this character), Karen Allen was basically useless in her time on screen, Cate Blanchett was laughably bad as a villain and John Hurt was so annoying as a babbling idiot that I literally wanted to throw my soda at the screen. Honestly, the only one who acquitted himself well was Shia which didn't surprise me at all because I've always felt he's a pretty damn good actor.

As for the action sequences, they were very plain and uninspiring which is shocking when you consider that this is a Steven Spielberg/George Lucas project. The only set piece that seemed like it was actually going to be good was the desert chase, but then it developed into a ridiculous CGI-laden sequence with Shia straddling two vehicles and getting whacked in the nuts a few times. Give me a break!!! Then when I thought it couldn't get worse you had more terrible CGI in the form of swinging monkeys and killer ants. I normally don't mind CGI, but in those cases it was very bad and again I couldn't believe this was a Spielberg/Lucas project when watching those scenes.

I never thought I'd say it, but I actually found the first Mummy and first National Treasure films much better than an Indiana Jones flick. And for those people who always have to bring any discussion of the Indy franchise back to Star Wars, all I'll say is that I'd rather watch The Phantom Menace on continuous loop for the rest of my life than having to sit through Indy IV again anytime soon. I'm extremely disappointed because I've been looking forward to this film since it was announced and wanted to enjoy it in the worst way, but as it stands this is the most disappointed I have been by a film in a long time.

I should've just gone to see Iron Man again instead. :frowning:

 

[Derek Faber]

I enjoyed this Indy film, maybe moreso than Last Crusade. Ford I felt, other than a few clunky readings at the start, was great, especially with Lebouf. Marion was weaker compared to Raiders but still had some spunk left. The action didn't bother me, it was all good in the Indy style(especially the sequels). The final resolution was the biggest letdown, as it wasn't as grand as I hoped. Seemed a little rushed. But, I guess after Raiders nothing can measure up.

 

[DaveF]

Saw Crystal Skull tonight, and it was simply a fun movie. Completely ridiculous, really, but a great romp.

Now, to dig through this long thread and see what others thought...

 

[Michael Allred]

Ok so I went to see "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" this afternoon.

If you want a summary, I'll say this........I was sorely disappointed.

If you want a bit more meat, well. I guess the first thing I'd say is that it just didn't feel like an "Indiana Jones" movie. I guess it came across as more of a big budget version of the crappy "Young Indiana Jones" TV series years ago just with Harrison Ford this time. Maybe the picture was too "clean" perhaps? I guess I was used to a grittier "look" to the series but it appeared that Steven Spielberg shot the movie on high definition video (he didn't of course but it looked that way....just too sterile.)

Long gone is the spit and crackle of Indiana Jones with, well, anybody really. If you come in expecting on screen chemistry with any of the secondary characters, you'll be let down. There just isn't any. Indy has no real sidekick to speak of which is a bit of a bummer because you'd think that Shia Labeouf, who plays Indy's son Mutt, would have provided some of that but alas, no. Not even the re-appearance of Marion Ravenwood, his love from the first film (and Mutt's mother) could muster up some fire. It was, much like the brief peek at the Ark in an Army warehouse, just a way of saying "Hey fans! Look who's back!"

"Crystal Skull" also fails to provide us with a decent villain too. Cate Blanchett does her best Natascha (of "Boris & Natascha") impression, vamping it up. You'd almost expect her to keep repeating "Vhat do you vant dahlink?"

The stunt/action scenes often felt like it was filmed in slow motion robbing them of any real excitement and there was one Jar Jar Binks-ian moment of cringing with Shia seemingly turning into Tarzan in front of my very eyes.

There were some great shots however, ones that I must admit I marvelled at, specifically Indy standing in the shadow of a mushroom cloud.

All in all, this is clearly the worst film of the franchise. Russians just don't make compelling (or as compelling) villains as the Nazis but I understand why that had to change (with the film being set in the 1950s and all.) The super happy ending just felt tacked on and doesn't even begin to approach the 'riding off into the sunset' vibe "The Last Crusade" gave us. Of course there's the nod and wink to Shia eventually taking over the franchise as well but I hope that doesn't come to fruition, at least not until he's in his 30s.

I walked out of the theater feeling (again) that this was not the "Indiana Jones" I've come to know and love. It reminded me of the "X-Men" films in a way. One director started and established the series but left for whatever reason and someone else came in and desperately tried to duplicate what worked previously but failed (fuck you Brett Ratner for "X-Men 3" being a turd.) That's what "Crystal Skull" felt like, Spielberg took off and someone else directed it, not knowing how to make it work. It didn't feel "old school," it felt made-for-TV.

If this is the best Spielberg, George Lucas and Ford can come up with then it's time for Indy to hang up the whip. I hate having to say that but alas my first, gut reaction is just that. It doesn't hold up, it doesn't compare. The dialogue was stiff and forced (I didn't buy into the arguing between Indy and Marion at all because again, there was just no spark to speak of which is a shame since "Raiders of the Lost Ark" gave one of the best on screen couples any action/adventure movie has ever seen.) There's no "wow" moment, no single set piece that you could hold up to any action scene from the first three. It felt tame, slow and old.

Both Indy and Mutt are named after dogs and sadly, that's what "Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls" is, a dog.

 

[Wayne_j]

I saw and enjoyed it in DLP today.

For the person asking about audio dropouts, there weren't any.

 

[Brian Borst]

I saw this movie today. It was good, actually. Yes, some bits bothered me a bit. The scenes with the refrigerator or the waterfall scene were a bit over the top (I never liked the inflatable boat scene in ToD either) and I never thought I would see a CG-beaver (Ehmm.. That didn't come out right).
The jungle chase was amazing. So were the actors. It was really great to see Harrison as Indy again. He fell into that part all over the minute I saw him. Bringing back Marion was an excellent idea, too. I wasn't bothered by Mutt at all. It was clear from the beginning he was Marion's son, and ultimately Indiana's. I wasn't bothered by it
.
The ending wasn't a let-down either. Every ending in the series was supernatural. This fit right in. Especially when you think it more of a 50's science-fiction film, instead of a 30's serial. The changing of the period to the 1950s and the Cold War was also a really good idea. Although I don't know how many people will get the jokes about the 'Reds' or the 'I Like Ike' bit. Especially younger people don't know much about the Cold War (at least in Holland).
I think this fits between Temple of Doom and Last Crusade, as very good films, but not nearly as fantastic as Raiders of the Lost Ark. That's good enough for me, at least.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Well this is one man's opinion which I am sure won't be
popular but here it goes....

Lucas ruined the Star Wars franchise with his final
three films.

Spielberg ruined his reputation with War of the Worlds.

Together these two directors collectively created the worst
piece of sequel garbage ever to be put on celluloid with Indiana
Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

This was just horrendous! Badly acted and paced. Total blame
goes to a script that should never have been executed.

 

[Ray_R]

Not to derail the thread but even though I do own the following Spielberg films for awhile now, I've just not gotten around to watching them. Those are DUEL, The Sugarland Express, 1941, The Color Purple, Empire of the Sun, Amistad, War of the Worlds, The Terminal and Munich. So of course I can't give opinions on Spielberg films I own but haven't gotten around the time to watching.

I saw the film earlier today. I enjoyed it but I'm thinking I didn't as fully as I wanted since I didn't get full rest. Of course I'm making an excuse to go see it again and since I'm way more used to Indiana in the mid-late 1930's. I quite liked Shia's character and he didn't come off as a dislikable character.
Only thing I was kinda disappointed about, well this is more trivial since I'm also a fan of the various Indy Jones media, is the film didn't take place during a more colder time of the year. I've been wanting to watch Indy in an extended scene in a cold weather environment. Him trekking through the snow during the middle of Winter would be great. Perhaps something during World War II where he fights alongside the British or even Russians? In the film he got to Colonel rank.
I'm really hoping LucasArts rethinks and reconsiders when the next Indiana Jones game takes place. I want him to be thick in the war and of course finding the occasional artifact. Indiana Jones and the whatever the hell they wanna call it should be HUGE in scope and levels. Perhaps it should also be in the same vein as Fate of Atlantis where you as Indy could travel back and forth to locations. Keep it a fully open sandbox environment of course for the select locations. He could be at point A, then B, over to C, and then D. But wait, to have the fully Indy Quotient to get all 100% of the game completed, you have to talk with certain people at various points and backtrack sometimes. Of course also having an inventory not only for weapons but for minor objects would be great. Say for some piece of information Indiana needs he can either do a favour to a more desirable character to be in more good standing with them. OR in the same scenario, he has a random object which was picked up earlier in the game to be used in conjunction with an item some character gives him. Have NPC's for the game much in the same way Fate of Atlantis has. Either give a guy a newspaper instead of fighting them or something. I just want to feel involved in the game environment.
On the same subject. I'd like to be able to, in the game, be able to sell off the random artifacts Indy finds on his quest. Some might yield better results compared to others depending on contacts. I want to see full reload animations, insanely high detail on the costumes and various objects, a full lived in world where if the particular area is too hot or cold you get the appropriate response from people about you as you travel. Perhaps Indiana would have a set amount of moneys he starts out with for the adventure and you have to budget accordingly. Perhaps that'd be too involved but Indy is also very resourceful. Wait I'd be aiming to see is a more open feel with hard inspiration from Fate of Atlantis, Infernal Machine and Emperor's Tomb. Of course with the current implimentations (sp?) LucasArts is already planning for the upcoming game.
Great to have Indiana Jones return and can't wait for my second viewing! Still slightly dissapointed with the Spring/Summer time of year the new film used though. Was more hoping for a Fall/Winter story. But was glad to finally get another Adventure of Indiana Jones.
Perhaps if it was decided to do a "The Animated Adventures of Indiana Jones" with the same maturity and respect which was taken for BATMAN: TAS, I'd set my DVR for series recording. Meaning it'd have great actors, great stories, great everything and be really worth to watch. As I've previously mentioned in this thread, the series could have adaptations from the Fate of Atlantis and the books to keep that anthology feel of his adventures. Could even have the series jump around in years but of course having singular and multi-part stories where fit.
Can't wait for my second viewing in the cinema.

 

[Robert Crawford]

This thread is now the Official Review Thread for "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull". Please post all HTF member reviews in this thread.

Any other comments, links to other reviews, or discussion items will be deleted from this thread without warning!

If you need to discuss those type of issues then I have designated an Official Discussion Thread.



Crawdaddy

 

[Todd H]

I caught this last Friday with my brother, as we are both movie geeks. I thought it was uneven. There were parts I really enjoyed (the motorcycle chase through the campus) and parts that left me scratching my head (Tarzan-Shia?). In the end, I enjoyed it but doubt I'll be watching it multiple times like the other three films in the series. A disappointment, since Raiders is my favorite movie of all time.

:star::star::star: out of :star::star::star::star::star:

 

[Greg_S_H]

I saw Crystal Skull almost a week ago, and it's still very much on my mind. I liked it when I left the theater, but it continues to grow in my memory.

To me, the most interesting aspect of Crystal Skull was the decision not only to set the film in the '50s--which was dictated by Ford's age--but to move away from the serials and instead base the film on 1950s sci-fi films. The serial influence is still there, but now we get mind control, invaders from . . . somewhere else, and giant man-eating creatures. Trying to be vague to honor the spoiler-free aspect of the review thread. I have to assume this was largely Lucas, because it seems right up his alley, but Spielberg has betrayed an interest in the films of the era as well. In any case, it was a brilliant decision that I think most filmmakers approaching the material would have overlooked. I certainly would have simply reviewed the history of the year in which the picture was set, came up with a suitable MacGuffin, and gone from there. Lucas and Spielberg had a grander plan.

My favorite bit in the movie involved a certain suburban town seen in the beginning of the film. Sure, it was implausible, but it was fun. And, it was something I've never seen in a movie before. That's all I really want from an Indiana Jones movie.

I rage against the desire to rank films in a series, so none of that from me. I'll simply say that I deem it a very worthy addition to the franchise, and one I would like to go back and see in the theater. A DVD purchase is a foregone conclusion.

 

[Tim Glover]

My quick review. More in the discussion thread.

Disappointed. Not horrible...but just didn't excite me. The story is weak and found myself not caring near as much as I hoped too. I was caught caring for the character and for HFord but even that alone wasn't enough.

When you're not getting sucked into it all, then the other stuff that's supposed to be fun, fails to resonate.

Perhaps a second viewing will help?

For now, a generous 6/10.

 

[Brett_M]

The short review: Good but not great.

What I liked: Indy & Mutt, motorcycle chase, hangar/nuke sequence, Nazca lines, the trademark punch

What I didn't like: Mac, Oxley (both unneccessary), female villain and no sex? (Perfect chance for a love triangle when Marion enters the picture), Indy reactive rather than proactive, Oxley's message, alien climax.

Mac served as a plot device. He provided backstory/exposition. I don't want to be told about Indy's exploits n WWII -- I want to see them. Add to that the fact that he's not a well-written character with any charisma (He can't touch Sala). He does nothing to further the plot. He's like Fenster in The Usual Suspects except he didn't mumble his lines.

Oxley is useless. He's along for the ride. Why not have Indy find the "message" in the university archives? Or better yet, in Abner Ravenwood's files in some dusty hall at U of Chicago? Personally, I like Indy as the puzzle-solver and "expert on the occult."

Spalko & Indy is a misfire? He should have banged her and pretended to help her find the skull and El Dorado. Following Indy to the prize -- LAME. Movies like these are only as good as the villain. This is the straw that broke the camel's back. Her mind power should have been awesome and horrifying.

I would love to read Darabont's version. This was a mess. Leave it to Koepp to stich together everyone else's ideas.

Overall, it's a double when it should have been a home run. I'll see it again, though. I'm a fan.

Score: ***.5/*****

Raiders: *****/***** (THE action/adventure gold standard)
Doom: ****.5/***** (great writing & design, darker tone, my favorite title card)
Last Crusade: ****/***** (clever and fun)

PS: I have read Darabont's version. Lucas blew it. That script crackles and it blows KOTCS away in almost every respect. Darabont understands the Indy universe and writes living, breathing characters. His dialog is great, too. They kept a lot of his good bits. Most of all, the VILLAINS are better. No Mutt, no movie, I guess.