Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.


Photo
- - - - -

*** Official Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull Discussion Thread


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
433 replies to this topic

#1 of 434 OFFLINE   Pete-D

Pete-D

    Screenwriter



  • 1,746 posts
  • Join Date: May 30 2000

Posted May 25 2008 - 03:44 PM

The thing is Spielberg really needs to team with better screenwriters. He's been let down by his screenwriters, that's why I don't think he's been able to top Jurassic Park since 1993 in terms of a pure pop corn film. That was 15 years ago (yikes).

#2 of 434 OFFLINE   Brent M

Brent M

    Producer



  • 4,486 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 15 2001

Posted May 25 2008 - 03:50 PM

I think you stole my brain to write that post, Michael, because that's exactly how I felt about the film. A colossal disappointment in my eyes and a film not deserving of the Indiana Jones name. I'm honestly shocked that it's sitting with 79% positive reviews at Rotten Tomatoes because this seems like a film the critics would absolutely blast with no mercy. They're being very charitable giving this film positive marks IMO.
"If you're good at something, never do it for free."

#3 of 434 OFFLINE   Douglas Monce

Douglas Monce

    Producer



  • 5,514 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 16 2006

Posted May 25 2008 - 03:54 PM

Yes Lucas, Spielberg and Ford have all said they would like to do another one. Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers

#4 of 434 OFFLINE   Douglas Monce

Douglas Monce

    Producer



  • 5,514 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 16 2006

Posted May 25 2008 - 03:57 PM

With Raiders,and I assume all the other films, Lucas, Spielberg and Kasdan came up with the set pieces first, then Kasdan went away and came up with a plot that could hold those set pieces. Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers

#5 of 434 OFFLINE   Douglas Monce

Douglas Monce

    Producer



  • 5,514 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 16 2006

Posted May 25 2008 - 04:01 PM

Well as I said before. Most "educated" film goers that I knew at the time, and most reviewers thought that Jurassic Park was a let down and the the story was weak. Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers

#6 of 434 OFFLINE   Douglas Monce

Douglas Monce

    Producer



  • 5,514 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 16 2006

Posted May 25 2008 - 04:05 PM

Honestly I never liked the ride off into the sunset in Crusade. I much preferred the punctuation mark of the Ark being crated up in Raiders to any of the other endings. The possibility of Mutt filling Indy's shoes to me felt a little like the Raiders ending. Almost saying, we haven't seen the end of this. Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers

#7 of 434 OFFLINE   Douglas Monce

Douglas Monce

    Producer



  • 5,514 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 16 2006

Posted May 25 2008 - 04:06 PM

Roger Ebert loved it and gave it 3 1/2 stars. But then he tends to like big silly adventure movies. On the Yahoo listing Critics give the film a B and Users give it a B-. Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers

#8 of 434 OFFLINE   Brent M

Brent M

    Producer



  • 4,486 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 15 2001

Posted May 25 2008 - 04:20 PM

I love big, silly adventure movies. I grew up on them and they're my favorite genre of films to this day. Sadly, I just don't think this one delivers the goods and it's definitely is a dud in my book.
"If you're good at something, never do it for free."

#9 of 434 OFFLINE   Pete-D

Pete-D

    Screenwriter



  • 1,746 posts
  • Join Date: May 30 2000

Posted May 25 2008 - 04:52 PM

Yeah I think the film is benefitting from a lot of good will from people who really loved the series in the 80s. Objectively it's not a very good action-adventure film, the first half of the movie is quite slow, the new characters are weak, the villain is weak, not much chemistry with the cast, nothing in the movie to really make people jump outta their seats or squirm, the final pay off at the end is so-so, and the set pieces are fairly mediocre for a Spielberg movie. Quite honestly the first Mummy film is a stronger "big, silly adventure" film. I think KotCS doesn't do anything as off-putting as Jar Jar Binks or Jake Lloyd's acting or the Hayden-Natalie romance stuff, that sorta has spared it I think from some harsher reviews. It's hard not to like Harrison Ford and he's trying hard in this movie and there aren't that many adventure films being made nowadays anyway ... I think that's playing in its favor big time. KotCS is smart enough to never commit the mortal sin of actually having live aliens interacting with Indy and company as characters. Though I suspect if George had gotten his way, that is the movie he would've wanted to make. If they had done that, I think people would've snapped and hammered the film, ala Jar Jar in Ep. 1.

#10 of 434 OFFLINE   TheBat

TheBat

    Producer



  • 3,050 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 02 1999

Posted May 25 2008 - 05:25 PM

indy 4 is better then anything called the mummy.. the mummy films are not even in the same league as indy. the only one that comes close is romancing the stone back in 1984. Jacob

#11 of 434 OFFLINE   questrider

questrider

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 223 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 07 2003
  • Real Name:Brian

Posted May 25 2008 - 05:28 PM


Metacritic has it at 67/100 and that includes Ebert's review. User reviews are surprising with 335 votes and a 5.3/10. Wow. People are really polarized by this film, as this thread suggests.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008): Reviews

Although their rating system is far from scientific. Very ambiguous.

(Is it just me, or should the last 10-15 pages of this thread be pruned into an "*** Official INDIANA JONES and the KINGDOM of the CRYSTAL SKULL Review/Discussion Thread" ? We're way past discussing NEWS at this point.)

#12 of 434 OFFLINE   Brent M

Brent M

    Producer



  • 4,486 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 15 2001

Posted May 25 2008 - 05:36 PM

Well, that's your opinion, but I agree with Pete that the first Mummy film(1999) was far more enjoyable than Indy IV. Better action set pieces, much better villain and just an overall more well-crafted action/adventure film. I wish I had enjoyed this movie as much as The Mummy or National Treasure, but as it stands I have to put it on par with the sequels to those respective films and that's a bloody shame.
"If you're good at something, never do it for free."

#13 of 434 OFFLINE   Pete-D

Pete-D

    Screenwriter



  • 1,746 posts
  • Join Date: May 30 2000

Posted May 25 2008 - 05:42 PM

Believe me there was no bigger hater of the first Mummy film than me ... before I actually saw it. I even laughed at my friends for going to go see it and refused to go with them. Then many months later I ended up watching it on DVD ... and I had to admit -- it was fun. In fact I hated to admit it, but I had more fun with the Mummy than the Phantom Menace which came out that same summer though I thought Entertainment Weekly was nuts for saying that. I even think I hated myself for liking it more than Phantom Menace, lol. The reason the film works is because of Rachel Weisz. She is a really likable personality, perfect as Evy, and actually has good romantic chemistry with Brendan Fraser which makes him more tolerable. The scene where she's drunk for instance is hilarious. Oded Fehr was cool also. It's a guilty pleasure, but the first Mummy is actually not that bad of a film. It's fun, it's atmospheric, the cast clicks together very well, and the film moves along at a good pace. It captures the spirit of the old Universal monster movies well and uses the Egyptian theme very strongly as well. I didn't care for the sequel though. Van Helsing was a trainwreck also.

#14 of 434 OFFLINE   Michael Allred

Michael Allred

    Screenwriter



  • 1,718 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 13 2000
  • Real Name:Michael
  • LocationMI

Posted May 25 2008 - 05:55 PM

I think a lot of people *want* to like the movie and so their reviews reflect that. To be frank, I think "The Phantom Menace" was afr more entertaining than Indy IV. Yes really.

#15 of 434 OFFLINE   TheBat

TheBat

    Producer



  • 3,050 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 02 1999

Posted May 25 2008 - 05:58 PM

I had heard about it.. I rented it on dvd when it came out.. people were saying that it was like raiders of the lost ark.. I watched it and was not impressed with it at all. not even close to indy. I will say that it was better then van helsing.. that was dog*****. Jacob

#16 of 434 OFFLINE   Pete-D

Pete-D

    Screenwriter



  • 1,746 posts
  • Join Date: May 30 2000

Posted May 25 2008 - 06:00 PM

I dunno Phantom Menace is still an odd movie. Phantom Menace has better action scenes, but the acting, Jar-Jar, and even the overall plot (a trade ... blockade? really?) is duller than KotCS. I dunno, I'd say KotCS is bad more on a "Lost World" level without the ridiculous T-Rex in San Diego bit.

#17 of 434 OFFLINE   Edwin-S

Edwin-S

    Producer



  • 5,807 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 20 2000

Posted May 25 2008 - 06:01 PM

The first MUMMY film certainly was a better flim than this last Indy outing. The second MUMMY film should have had the negative destroyed before it was duplicated. The third outing looks promising but a trailer can be deceiving.
"You bring a horse for me?" "Looks like......looks like we're shy of one horse." "No.......You brought two too many."

#18 of 434 OFFLINE   Pete-D

Pete-D

    Screenwriter



  • 1,746 posts
  • Join Date: May 30 2000

Posted May 25 2008 - 06:03 PM

Raiders is Raiders, but I do think the first Mummy compares favorably to any of the Indy sequels. Rachel Weisz >>> Kate Capshaw, Allison Doody, and a severely underused Karen Allen in KotCS. That's a big part of it. Fraser is tolerable, a lot of the other characters are quite solid. The pace is fun, the locations are exotic, the cinematography rich in color (even at night), there's timely but not annoying comic relief ... The Last Crusade was good but it kinda gets bogged down by the middle act (the final act is strong though) and tries a little too hard to be Raiders 2.

#19 of 434 OFFLINE   Douglas Monce

Douglas Monce

    Producer



  • 5,514 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 16 2006

Posted May 25 2008 - 06:04 PM

I have to disagree with you Pete. This is really now one of my favorite films, and surely my second favorite Indy film. Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers

#20 of 434 OFFLINE   Brent M

Brent M

    Producer



  • 4,486 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 15 2001

Posted May 25 2008 - 06:08 PM

That's the gospel truth. I don't know if I've ever hated two movies as much as The Mummy Returns and Van Helsing. Funny thing is they're both directed by the same guy(Steven Sommers) who did the first Mummy which was actually a good flick. I guess he's the definition of "one hit wonder" and as far as I'm concerned he should have his director's license revoked after making those other two disasters. I watched the trailer for The Mummy 3 tonight and while it looked decent, if he directed it there's no chance in hell I'll go see it. Fool me once.....
"If you're good at something, never do it for free."




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users