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

[zackscott5]

Just got back from a 6:00PM screening. Overall...and I told this to my roommate when I got home... It was a pretty good greatest hits collection of all the previous Indiana Jones movies (except for the Arabian horse from raiders but thats beside the point). Marion's character could have used a rewrite and I felt that Harrison Fords delivery of dialog reminded me of his voice over from Blade Runner. I wished Ford was included in more of the action sequences instead of riding along with Transformers boy. I will see the movie again because, like what was said earlier, there was alot going on in a new environment, I do have to get used to it.

But...I WILL NEVER SEE ANOTHER NEW STEVEN SPIELBERG MOVIE AGAIN. He's a hack. He has lost his magic touch. He forgot how to make an emotional movie or even a fun movie.

Some of the editing was horrible. So many jump cuts in the middle it was like a student editied that part of the movie.

I hated the cinematography. the style was still cole (as I feared) it didn't feel like a Indiana jones film. It felt like "Saving Private Jones" Especially in the first 45 minutes.

But I did like the little jab Spielberg made right at the opening of the movie
to all us internet critics of

making a mountain out of a mole hill
.

Was I the only one who got that?

 

[WillG]

Just got back from seeing it. While certainly not a bad film, I can see why people say it doesn't "feel" like an Indy film and I can see why people were dissapointed by some real fake looking CGI. Take for example the scene with the ants, TOD did a much better job of convincing me that the bugs were real that this film did.

I don't think anyone has mentioned this yet, but I got a kick out of the close up of the guy letting out a Wilhelm scream. (Also is there a name of the electrical explosion sound effect that makes it into alot of Spielberg and Lucas films. Like the one in this movie at the beginning where the electrical panel out the outside of the warehouse is destroyed, or where all the sparks are flying and all the cameras destroyed at the end of Raiders, or in Empire where Luke grapples up onto the imperial walker and cuts open the lower hatch with is lightsaber)


One thing I did notice was in the scene when the gang is knocking off all the stone heads on the temple to drain all the sand, the score is pretty much exactly the same as War of the Worlds when the Tripods are first shown before they attack.

 

[Patrick Sun]

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-.

 

[JohnS]

I saw it right before work last night.

I HATED IT!...HATED IT!

The whole monkey's vine swinging thing, gave me flashbacks to Ewoks.
Like it's been said before, It just didn't feel like an Indiana Jones film.

much of everything thats has been expressed about why people hated has been said. So I will leave it at that.

A very lousy film

 

[Sam Favate]

I went yesterday afternoon with my wife and 5 of our friends. Everyone liked it. I thought it was great - just a hell of a lot of fun. Sure, I wish some things were done differently, like I wish Marion had had more to do, but that's a quibble. Karen Allen was great, BTW, and the way Marion and Indy fell back into their old patterns quickly said plenty about the characters. I also thought Mutt was a pretty good character. Not saying I want to see him take over the franchise, but the kid was believable, and a good addition to the series. Not sure why John Hurt didn't end up playing Abner Ravenwood as rumored, but it was still nice to see him in the movie.

The showing I was at experienced sound problems three separate times in the movie. I went to see the manager after the show and he said that the three drop-outs were intentional, because Paramount was trying to stop bootlegging. I said that was ridiculous and I asked to see the email he claimed to have from the studio about it. I also pointed out that the sound dropped out before the movie, during previews and "emergency exits" notices. He refunded my money for all 7 tickets. One of my friends, who has one of the best home theaters I have ever seen, said to the manager that this is why he doesn't come to the movies much anymore, and it's true. I expect nothing less than perfection in sound and picture, especially for such a high profile film. The notion that Paramount or any studio would intentionally issue prints with three drop-outs (all during the jungle chase sequences -- which of course broken the tension that the movie was establishing) is absurd. I felt a little bad not contributing to the movie's take, but I was not going to reward the theater for a subpar performance.

Anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed it and will be recommending it and seeing it again. When I was 14 and saw Raiders, my father took my to see it about 15 times that summer. It wasn't me asking to go again and again (although I was happy to). It was just his favorite movie and he couldn't get enough. I wish he had been around to see Indy one last time. He would have loved it.

 

[MikeM]

I saw this film last night and headed to this thread expecting to see nothing but doom (no pun intended) and gloom, but shockingly people actually liked this movie? Wow, I thought it was bad. Really bad.

First off, the bad guys. No Nazis? Are you kidding me? I know it's now set in the 1950's, but I don't care if they have to rewrite the film to make this more like The Boys from Brazil where Nazis are alive and well in South America or something but an Indy film without Nazis just isn't an Indy film.

Plus, what was with Kate Blanchette's character? Easily the worst movie villain I've seen in ages. In half the scenes, she and Indy are working together to find things, and there's absolutely no fear/menace coming from her character.

Chemistry? There was none. Everything was forced. Do we really think Indy has been pining for years over Marion when Shia Labeouf's character says her name early on and Indy doesn't even blink? C'mon.

Story. Wow. What made Indy films great in the past was that the "legends" were all based somewhat on biblical themes or truth. So giving this film a sci-fi angle just ruined it. It then meant that the CGI became more "War of the Worlds" than anything Indy related.

Fake scenes. There are so many scenes that took me completely out of the movie.

1. Swinging on vines?
My gf is an Indy fanatic and made me see it on the first day. During that scene, she literally turned to me and said, "What the f*ck is this??" I had no answer.

2. Marion driving and landing on tree scene?
It almost felt like a Shia Labeouf parody on SNL. I've seen more realism on MacGruber!

3. Surviving an Atomic bomb blast in a fridge?
I like how he opens the door with ease FROM THE INSIDE.

4. Sword fight scene stretched out over moving cars?
Totally cartoonish and unbelievable. His legs looked like they were 8 ft long at times.

5. The triple agent character.
He was added for nothing more than a writer's crutch and on top of that he had no depth. Who cared about him? I know I didn't.

Some of the few moments when it actually felt like an Indy film were the exchanges between Indy and the Dean. It's a shame he wasn't his partner in the adventure because all of the other characters suffered from poor lines and bad acting.

There was no real PASSION in this movie. In the past indy films, you really got a sense that Indy was on a true quest to find answers. He'd fight, risk his life, etc., all for HIS quest. This one? It was thrown in his lap, he was phoning it in and just trying to tie up loose ends for someone else. That's why to me it never felt like he was fully connected to this adventure, and neither was I.

It's just a shame this film has to be included with the Indy franchise.
It's definitely the "Rocky 5" of the set. I'll just close my eyes and imagine it was never made.

Oh and my rating for these films would be:

Raiders
Last Crusade
Temple of Doom
Ishtar
Crystal Skull

/rant mode off.

 

[Ed Moroughan]

Saw it late last night. Aside from liking it quite a bit the only thing I can add to the discussion is that I also thought the vine swinging scene was a bit much. Maybe it works as a natural progression of a whip being handy for nearly every situation? LOL

 

[Sam Davatchi]

Just saw it today. Indeed the best way to describe the movie is, meh! It was very average and I think the original trilogy is still better. For the moment I still prefer each of the past movies to this one.

It’s not that I hated anything in this. I had no problem with all the over-the-tops. The problem is simply that it lacked magic, it wasn't a very good movie. I just didn’t care. They didn’t engage us. Everyone including the filmmakers felt being on autopilot!

Maybe the problem is that Spielberg made this for the fans, he tried to imitate someone else (younger himself). He had no passion.

 

[Edwin-S]

I thought the film was entertaining enough in its own way. I disagree that the film's action sequences were at the level of craftsmanship of the earlier films in the series. Many of the action sequences were so over-the-top and fake looking that it tended to take one many times out of "suspension of belief" zone.

Films don't have to be realistic, but they do have to make the implausible or impossible at least look possible. Many of the stunts in IJ4 just didn't meet that test: at least not to me.

 

[Steve...O]

I was mildly disappointed in the film. It was an enjoyable enough popcorn flick but lacked any real sense of danger as well as character development to really allow me to get into it. Agree that the female villain was very bland and it was somewhat puzzling that she and Indy often seemed to be working together without any real tension between them.

I don't mind the bad looking special effects or even the Tarzan scene because it does harken back to those great Republic serials. You know you're watching the impossible being presented badly but it is still fun to watch. I did see this as a DLP presentation so at least the cheesy effects looked great .

I've give it a 6 out of 10 with the score being penalized by the story being subpar in my opinion. I'll catch some flack for saying this but I was a bit put off by the several instances of foul language. It just seemed out of place in what was otherwise a throwback to pure escapist entertainment.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Just came from seeing it and it was a total blast! Every bit a worthy entry into this much loved series and while The Last Crusade remains my favorite of the series this one ranks probably 3rd behind that and Raiders.

Harrison blew me away with his daring-do's at his age, when he got back into the action the Indy of old emerged, he looked great.

Shia seems to have curbed his "No no no no no's" here, he actually managed to get out full sentences without doing that and had great chemistry with Harrison. I also found the nob to Henry Sr. and Marcus touching.

All in all it was a hat-dustin', rope-swingin' and whip-crackin' good time.

4 :star:'s out of 4 :star:'s

 

[David Deeb]

I'm not certain what I thought of it. Harrison Ford was great. I'll give it that.

Here's one thing I'm certain of: I'm sick of CGI.

Is it no longer possible to have an action movie that isn't loaded with CGI?

Whatever happened to acting? To stunt men? To camera men earning their pay? To make-up and costumes?

Hoping The Dark Knight can pull it off.

 

[Nelson Au]

A few quick thoughts-

In some ways, Felt like T3, and Die Hard 4. Familiar territory.

Indy says it himself in the film, Sam old, same old.

Not sure I liked the Macguffin and how it unleashes the ending. While the other films had supernatural elements, this one pushed past that into sci-fi. Didn't feel right for an Indy film. Though I agree, these are the elements from the 50's and it was appropriate to pull in Area 51 stuff, and it was a consistant element through out the film.

The period of the 50's was recreated excellently. Though Indy's son dressed like Marlon Brando on the motorcycle? Did people really dress like that, or was it meant as an homage to that period or Marlon Brando?

It was pretty convenient to find the lead lined refridgerator!

Ford was in his form when he's after the Skull. The fight stuff was good. I agree with earlier comment about Shia, he pulled it off pretty well. Karen Allen was good too.

I was with the film all the way to the end, until the Crystal Skull openned the door into the chamber, then it jumped the shark.

Was that an in-joke with the monkeys? Felt like Ewoks.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Gah!

I wouldn't even mind the CGI/cheesy humor/other issues I have with the film as much if the characters had been handled better. But when you're bored halfway through the film you tend to start seeing things you normally would let slide.

I hate being the outsider and not liking this film. Perhaps I'm the loser older guy now that doesn't "get it" anymore. It's terribly frustrating to not like this film. But I can't react any different. How are people liking this so much?! It's seriously gonna drive me crazy. I might actually lose my mind over this. It's like I'm in a total bizarro world.

I'm positive now: This is God's revenge for me always being able to shrug off the Star Wars prequel complaints and enjoy the films regardless. I'm being owned by fate. It sucks. (Though the movie doesn't; let me be clear on that - a 4/10 does not mean the film sucks.)

:frowning:

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Ehhh. I liked it better than I expected (due to the varying reviews I read on here), but can't muster too much excitement for it. Even for a review.

1) Spielberg sparked here and there with some nice sequences, but it did feel a bit listless. It seemed he might be on auto-pilot for good portions of the film.

2) Karen Allen wasn't very good. At all. I always felt like she was acting. She never felt or looked natural.

3) Winstone was good, as was Blanchett.

4) Score felt recycled. I know it wasn't, but it felt like it was.

5) The huge jungle chase fell pretty flat for me. I preferred the bike chase in the States.

6) Ford was good. The opening bit had me very nervous, but Doomtown saved it and segued very nicely into his history, which felt completely right. That said, those scenes were Ford's strongest, and I never bought his dad material later on.

7) Though Shia was fine.

8) I did enjoy the 50's vibe.

Just not a lot of enthusiasm in general. The film isn't actively bad. It feels like IJ more often than not. It's better than mediocre. But I won't see it again until home, and I'm not in any rush for that. I know it wasn't a paycheck film, but it sorta felt like it.

 

[Patrick H.]

To use a favorite MST3K quote: "You know, there are certain flaws in this film..."

That said, I didn't hate it, although the reaction of other friends ranged from frustrated to horrified. The main source of ire was the screenplay, which was the seed from which all other complaints grew. The digital effects were somewhat of a given, and we actually enjoyed the ridiculous moments others have bashed. Indy getting thrown hundreds of feet in a fridge by a nuclear explosion and walking away a little dishevelled is SUPPOSED to be hilariously outlandish. I was laughing through most of the following scene. It's no more looney than certain scenes in the other films (okay...mostly 'Temple of Doom').

No, the two huge problems we had were the dialogue and the pacing. Any expository scene in this one ground the movie to a DEAD halt. Crucial plot info which could've been communicated simply (and probably on the run) was buried in hackneyed conversations to an extent where you had a hard time weeding out what the point was supposed to be. I still don't have the slightest idea why Oxley took the skull all the way back to that tomb, or what the significance of the other alien remains was. And while I got their general motivations, the details of the Russians' evil master plan remained pretty fuzzy. Indeed, that campground sequence nearly killed the whole movie for me...it had totally STOPPED for exposition, and was still failing to clarify anything!

Character-wise, Indy was generally okay, but seemed a bit long-winded. In certain moments, such as the quicksand scene, he actually came across as a tweedy academic, which was bizzare because the running joke of the previous films was that, while he's this ace adventurer, he's an amusingly lame college professor. Sometimes here you felt as if that had somehow reversed with age.

Shia was surprisingly okay. His character was a little shallow, but he had some emotion to him and I generally bought his rapport with Ford. Marion was just dropped in there, though...she felt like an afterthought, and any sense of her history with Indy was totally missing. John Hurt was his usual distinctive presence, even if his character was somewhat useless. But Ray Winstone's dude...damn, what a waste of space and time! That character should've been killed off in the prologue, big time. (Indeed, a friend pointed out that him being wiped out while screaming "YOU DON"T KNOW HIM! YOU DON'T KNOW HIM!" would've been great.)

Anyway, why Spielberg keeps falling back on Koepp for this genre of movie mystifies me. I'm now convinced 'Jurassic Park' only worked due to whatever survived from Crichton's original draft, as every solo-penned Koepp script Spielberg has done since has been largely a dud. This film definitely suffered from the same lack of cohesiveness, clunky dialogue, and eye-rolling scenarios as 'The Lost World' (the vine-swinging was this movie's version of the infamous "gymnastics" bit from that film...although this time at least Spielberg had the good sense to play it for laughs). However, here I think the fact that it's an Indy story added some default charm which kept it from dropping down to that level of disappointment.

As for what Spielberg does with this material, though, I agree with Chuck that he only seems lukewarm on it. The action scenes display his usual level of craft and visual ingenuity, CGI or no. However, what is totally absent from this film is the WONDER. Even in 'Last Crusade', which also felt a bit ho-hum in its direction to me, there were plenty of moments where Indy and co. paused in amazement at the stuff they were seeing. Here, he finds a bizzare alien skull, and later an entire lost city, and later sees probably THE craziest shit he'll ever witness...and the film doesn't bother to pause, bring up the John Williams music, or even turn the camera around to record any reaction! I think that's the element that's really leaving a lot of people cold on this one.

However...the action scenes were largely great, the more subtle nods to the earlier films felt fine, and the filmmakers did largely pull off the 50s sci-fi pulp vibe they were going for. In the end, I laughed a lot and was fairly entertained while it was going on. And I DID like Blanchett quite a bit. Distinctive villains count for a lot, even if they are one-note, and in that respect she defined this film much like Mola Ram did 'Temple of Doom'...you might not remember their evil plan, but you definitely remember what they looked like when they were explaining it.

 

[Scott Calvert]

Just saw it. Surprised by the lack of wit and energy. Whole thing felt lethargic, and dialogue was flat. Score was either too quiet or maybe was so by-the-numbers it felt too quiet. No moments where you wanted to cheer.

Not terrible but very dissapointing.

 

[Haggai]

Saw this today; I thought it was pretty good. I'd rank it below Last Crusade but a bit above Temple of Doom.

The whole crystal skull business just sort of petered out, as people have been saying, which is lesser in comparison to what was probably the best thing in Last Crusade: the beautifully done resolution of the Grail plotline.

Blanchett is a great movie star, but surely the character could have been less cartoonish. Elsa Schneider was an interesting and well-rounded villainess in Last Crusade: crying at the Nazi book burning, "all I have to do is scream," i.e. some real inner conflict, even if it wasn't that big a part of the story in the end. Some of that for Blanchett in this one would have been well-advised; too bad they didn't take full advantage of the fact that this is the first Indy film where they've had a real movie star playing the villain.

Still, I enjoyed it. Harrison can still really do this character, which is great to see. LaBeouf has a nice screen presence opposite him, and though I might be in the minority here, I actually liked the Indy/Marion stuff.

 

[Tarkin The Ewok]

I tend to share many of Brandon Conway's opinions about this movie (and the SW prequels, for that matter). I give it a 5/10.

I was at the midnight release, and I really wanted to like the film. It's not horrible, but there were plenty of questionable decisions, and it's too far removed from what I loved in the first three films.

90% of the time, I can tell whether I will like a film by how I react to the trailers. The only good trailer was for Kung Fu Panda, and that's not the right tone for a good Indy movie.

 

[Radioman970]

Loved it. Thank you Spielberg and Lucas for bringing good old Indy back after all these years. It's like old seriels once again.

Didn't have any problem with the CGI. The process is still maturing but I'm amazed at what is coming out of Hollywood right now with effects. The military base scene was the only one that brought back the awkwardness of something like Sky Captain, which took several viewings for me to get used to. The rest of Indy was wonderful.

Really folks, I don't mean to judge anyone on their opinions, but this is just good old fun. You just have to sit back and not worry about everything so much. Who cares about monkeys in the movie? Who cares about computer graphics being used? Who cares about this and that? It's Indiana Jones, an older version of him played that way, some favorite characters coming back, nice exciting scenes done quite well with todays movie making technology.

Aw heck, perhaps second viewing you'll all love it. I was lucky on this first one I guess. The audience I saw it with loved it.

Take care.