Whenever you have an eagerly anticipated movie like this, there are always a few critics who feel the need to trash it, just for the sake of raining on everyone's parade; and although the only opinion that matters in the end is your own, I think a lot of these dissenters are just looking for something to complain about.
Absolutely right...oh, sorry, I thought this was a CR thread for a moment
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
The TomatoMeter is now up to 81%, making the reviews better than Narnia but not quite up there with Iron Man. I have a feeling that Paramount is going to be a very, very rich studio this year!
I am not trying to be Mr. Negative, but I have seen several negative reviews including this one. As Tony said, all that really matters is what one thinks themselves.
I'm finding more positive reviews than negative. The positive reviews seem to each contain the same 'theme' - that is, that the movie is nothing new, but still admittedly a lot of fun.
I've been an Indy fan my whole life. I had an Indython with my friends leading up to this release. We watched Temple, Raiders, then Crusade, and even beat the old LucasArts game Fate of Atlantis. I was ridiculously excited for this movie.
I knew about the
'son'
aspect, and about the
'alien'
aspect, and that it would be done in the style of 50s sci-fi camp. I knew all that, I accepted it, and I was still excited.
But this movie was not very good. It was bad. Actually, it was pretty awful. Alright, it has its *moments* of cleverness, and at times reminded me of the charm of the old films. Believe it or not Shia LeBeouf is a very welcome addition.
But the movie ends up being just a big, CGI, silly mess. The suspense is gone, the wry humor feels forced, and by the end you just want to leave because your childhood has been shat on--like the Star Wars prequels, only a little worse...
I thought I'd never say it, but LeBeouf is actually the best part of this movie. If you want to know some things to seal the deal that it is a crap movie, read below:
Indy survives a nuclear blast in a test suburban neighborhood by hiding in a refrigerator. Mutt is indeed Indy's son, and Marion weds Indy at the end. The 'creepy crawlies' in this movie are millions of giant, CGI fire ants. The skull is indeed alien, and yes we do see a CGI alien, and yes there is a spaceship. Mac is a terrible character, and triple crosses Indy to the point of absurdity. The movie is very tame, there is virtually no blood or brute violence which is a staple of the series. The villains are terribly unsinister. Oh yeah, and they ride a boat off of not one, but THREE large waterfalls. In a row. I wanted to leave.
If I could sum up my feelings for the film in one image, it would be this.
The midnight showing at my theater was full of fedora clad fans who all arrived waaay too early (like my friend and I who got there 2 and a half hours early) and made too much noise...people in other theaters complained...;%
yes, I thought it was cheesy in most bits, but over all, I was just throughly glad that Indy was back...I had a stupid grin plastered on my face ALL night long. It didn't really go away until I went to bed at 3 AM. I'll be going to see it again very soon
I saw the midnight showing as well all dressed in my Indy gear, the only applause during the entire showing was during the dark knight trailer, overall i thought the film was pretty awful, it was like like Die Hard 4 in that they thought they had to do much more bigger and crazier CGi-infested stunts and make Indy crack usually bad liners as if its a walk in the park, no point in the movie did i think Indy was in any real danger even during the A-bomb explosion, its definately my least favorite Indy film
Here's the review by Roger Ebert, who I think usually accords action films the respect they deserve: to be reviewed their own terms. It may contain spoilers, so read at your own risk. But I like his sausage analogy. I think it puts the movie in perspective and the "negative" reviews by some critics which I think were practically foretold.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
'Indiana Jones' in universe of its own
Release Date: 2008
Ebert Rating: ***½
// / May 18, 2008
By Roger Ebert
"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.
The Indiana Jones movies were directed by Steven Spielberg and written
by George Lucas and a small army of screenwriters, but they exist in a
universe of their own. Hell, they created it. All you can do is compare one to the other three. And even then, what will it get you? If you eat four pounds of sausage, how do you choose which pound tasted the best? Well, the first one, of course, and then there's a steady drop-off of interest. That's why no Indy adventure can match "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (1981). But if "Crystal Skull" (or "Temple of Doom" from 1984 or "Last Crusade" from, 1989) had come first in the series, who knows how much fresher it might have seemed? True, "Raiders of the Lost Ark" stands alone as an action masterpiece, but after that the series is compelled to be, in the words of Indiana himself, "same old same old." Yes, but that's what I want it to be.
"Crystal Skull" even dusts off the Russians, so severely under- exploited in recent years, as the bad guys. Up against them, Indiana Jones is once again played by Harrison Ford, who is now 65 but looks a lot like he did at 55 or 46, which is how old he was when he made "Last Crusade." He has one of those Robert Mitchum faces that doesn't age, it only frowns more. He and his sidekick Mac McHale (Ray Winstone) are taken by the cool, contemptuous Soviet uber-villainess Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett) to a cavernous warehouse to seek out a crate he saw there years ago. The contents of the crate are hyper- magnetic (lord, I love this stuff) and betray themselves when Indy throws a handful of gunpowder into the air.
In ways too labyrinthine to describe, the crate leads Indy, Mac, Irina and the Russians far up the Amazon. Along the way they've gathered Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen), Indy's girlfriend from the first film, and a young biker named Mutt Williams (Shia LeBeouf), who is always combing his ducktail haircut. They also acquire Professor Oxley (John Hurt), elderly colleague from the University of Chicago, whose function is to read all the necessary languages, know all the necessary background, and explain everything.
What happens in South America is explained by the need to create (1) sensational chase sequences, and (2) awe-inspiring spectacles. We get such sights as two dueling Jeep-like vehicles racing down parallel roads. Not many of the audience members will be as logical as I am, and wonder who went to the trouble of building parallell roads in a rain forest. Most of the major characters eventually find themselves at the wheels of both vehicles; they leap or are thrown from one to another, and the vehicles occasionally leap right over one another. And that Irina, she's something. Her Russian backups are mostly just atmosphere, useful for pointing their rifles at Indy, but she can fight shoot, fence, drive, leap and kick, and keep on all night.
All leads to the discovery of a subterranean chamber beneath an ancient Pyramid, where they find an ancient city made of gold and containing...but wait, I forgot to tell you they found a crystal skull in a crypt. Well sir, it's one of 13 crystal skulls, and the other 12 are in that chamber. When the set is complete, amazing events take place. Prof. Oxley carries the 13th skull for most of the time, and finds it repels man-eating ants. It also represents one-thirteenth of all knowledge about everything, leading Irina to utter the orgasmic words, "I want...to know!" In appearance, the skull is a cross between the aliens of the Special Edition of Spielberg's "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" and the hood ornaments of 1950s Pontiacs.
What is the function of the chamber? "It's a portal--to another dimension!" Oxley says. Indy is sensible: "I don't think we wanna go that way." It is astonishing that the protagonists aren't all killed 20 or 30 times, although Irnia will beome The Women Who Knew Too Much. At his advanced age, Prof.Oxley tirelessly jumps between vehicles, survives fire and flood and falling from great heights, and would win on "American Gladiator." Relationships between certain other characters are of interest, since (a) the odds against them finding themselves together are astronomical, and (b) the odds against them not finding themselves together in this film are incalculable.
Now what else can I tell you, apart from mentioning the blinking red digital countdown, and the moving red line tracing a journey on a map? I can say that if you liked the other Indiana Jones movies, you will like this one, and that if you did not, there is no talking to you. And I can also say that a critic trying to place it into a heirarchy with the others would probably keep a straight face while recommending the second pound of sausage.
INteresting critique there. I have a friend who just started a Facebook group called "WTF was Lucas thinking?" One of the guys on the discussion post says "the minute I saw a CGI prairie dog I knew I was in for a night of childhood spoiling cinema."
I sincerely hope it is not that bad.
Yet, with all the critics reviews, and the individuals disappointment I hold out little hope...but maybe that will make it better for me in the end.
I am going to go see it, but maybe I will have such low expectations that the movie will blow me away.
So thank you to all you naysayers, as you helped me with CR so shall you help me with Indy 4
"We have all the time in the world..."
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited May 2008
Reporting from LA...my brother and I will be seeing it in just over an hour, at the Cineramadome on Sunset Blvd...review to follow B-)
I like Ebert's take---it is what it is. Relax and enjoy it...or not.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Well...I liked it a lot more than jamesbondagent007 did...! (Wouldn't take much )
My brother is a HUGE Indy fan---he was 10 when the first one came out---but, incredibly, we've never seen an Indy film together until today: When Raiders came out, I was in Europe in the military; when Temple came out, I was living in another state, and we never got together to see Crusade. So this was a rare and wonderful treat---especially in opening day in Hollywood, with a sold-out house that applauded when Harrison Ford's name appeared in the credits, and when we see Karen Allen for the first time. And there was applause when the credits ended, so fortunately not everyone's childhood was shat upon today. Thank Goodness.
Ebert was right, I think: This is a genre and universe pretty much unto itself, IMO, so the only meaningful comparisons are made to the other films in the franchise.
Does it have problems? Absolutely. For me, the most cringeworthy was when...
Mutt swings with the monkeys |)
...but there were other times, when IMO the CGI interfered a bit. I'm particularly reminded of the dinosaur stampede from Peter Jackson's King Kong---to me, that film would have benefitted by excising the entire scene.
By the same token, Crystal Skull also features a couple very classic 'Indy' moments---if not a couple of the best ever---so, if you love this kind of movie, you take the good with the bad. One of the truly wonderful aspects of this picture is the obvious joy of performance from Harrison Ford, who certainly knows this phase of his career is coming to an end, and is relishing his time. I'm a real fan of his.
For me, there are two levels of Indy excellence: Raiders Of The Lost Ark---an absolute classic---and the other three, which for me are pretty much on the same level...warts and all.
I wouldn't have missed it for the world---and if you enjoy Indiana Jones, neither should you B-)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
OK. Firstly, know that I LOVED the Star Wars prequels. I loved their complex, layered world, sense of narrative coherence and poetic assonance with the original series. Sure, they were flawed (Jake Lloyd and some of Hayden Christensen's acting) but they did feel true. Hopefully I had evolved in the 20 year gap so they did not hit me like a diamond bullet as the original trilogy (and Superman. And The Spy Who Loved Me. And Star Trek. And The Rescuers [er, that's enough - Ed.]) had. However, for me, they have value and entertain(ed) me thoroughly. I daresay an 8 year old would be smitten with the new prequels as me and my peers were with the originals.
IJATKOTCS falls into similar territory. The best part of the endeavour is the repositioning to the 1950s, the Cold War-Sci-Fi backdrop. Sure, it is a modern film with abundant CGI (ignore Spielberg's press about trying to make it look like the old films - it doesn't). Save Bond and Bourne, nothing feels real for reel these days. However, the combination of intriguing story (with historical liberty) and characters and spectacle make this an enjoyable watch.
Tonally, it had a mellow feel. Connery was wise not to do this film (there's no place for him anyway) and, thematically, it would not have worked, IMO. Harrison Ford was great as was Shia LeBeouf. Cate Blanchett was fun but like John Hurt, was forced to have an immediacy of characterisation which felt less satisfactory. Did John Gardner write Ray Winstone's part? Karen Allen looked like Annie Hall but her spunky heroine in the original film has been reduxed to a mere expositional functionary in this film. Anyway, I like the updating and nods to the past (Connery, Denholm Elliott, the Ark, snakes).
There are some lovely ideas - Hangar 51, the nuclear city, motorbike chase through university town, fire-ants, the leather-jacket generational character costuming, the basic City Of The Gods plot and the McCarthy backdrop (Jim Broadbent was particularly good and moving).
I don't think Spielberg phoned it in. He was consciously trying to surprise. His trademarked mirror shot got a fresh variation, Indy's entrance was fun, I like the imagery of the Soviet villains chopping down the rainforest. While Janusz Kaminiski's photography is less successful than Douglas Slocombe's clean palette, Guy (Superman Returns) Hendrix Dyas' production design improves upon the always fake-looking work of all the previous Indy designers. ILM's work is superb (better looking on the big screen than on TV) as always. The big supernatural finale may be too much but it is in keeping with what has gone before.
At times it felt like there were nods to the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles but not having seen too many of those episodes, I do not know (the Pancho Villa line). I also felt there it was too much of a group adventure (5 principals at the end excluding the villains) - it felt more like Lethal Weapon 4 or a Star Trek film. BTW, George Lucas is not solely responsible for this. Spielberg and to lesser extent, Ford, must share blame (and credit). Notice how little screenwriters David Koepp and Jeff Nathanson feature in the condemnations - this 12-writer-Spy Who-Loved-Me-Bitches-Brew of a script has more finger prints on it than a Tijuana *****.
However, flawed like the Star Wars prequels, this did feel a true Indy film, true the spirit of the originals. At the moment, I place it slightly above Temple which is above Crusade. All are a long way from Raiders though. I did not mind the silliness because I expected it and it was no sillier than parts of Temple or Crusade. I hope Lucas will follow through on his discussed 5th movie with Shia and Harrison (in the Connery role) although it is difficult to see if the biker jacket, comb and flickknife ensemble replacing Indy's iconic paraphernalia. I doubt Spielberg will direct - they'll "Joe Johnston" it.
Please see it and make up your own mind. If you've liked the Indiana Jones films, you'll like (but probably not love) this instalment. I think time will be a big factor of acceptance for this movie. In 5 years, when the hype and expectation has died down, this film will sneak into polite society. And people will enjoy it for what it is, not what they wanted it to be.
The stated aim of Raiders Of The Lost Ark was to make money. It was shot fast and cheap and on time to salve Spielberg's past woes. That doesn't mean there isn't a whole lotta love there but when people talk about this instalment being money-grabbing, twas ever thus for Indy and all film franchises - that's why they're franchises!
Anyway, I'm always out of synch with popular opinion (hated the Pirates movies, thought Batman Begins vastly overrated, loved The Avengers, Die Another Day and X-Men 3!). The last person who should involved in the development and production of films ...is, er, me.
This summer, my favourite film has been Iron Man. I'm looking forward to Prince Caspian (being a Narnia nut) and even The Dark Knight.
Of course, the daddy, for me, will be QUANTUM OF SOLACE but rather like Solitaire, "You knew that. You KNEW that!"
I enjoyed it; big silly grin on my face. I hated the new Star Wars films, they made me slightly angry and very bored. While this new Indy isn't quite as good as the first three, it is still part of the same series and comes nowhere near to being as bad as the new Star Wars were.
Harrison's still more than got it- he really seemed alive in this more than he has in many years (loved his slapstick bits too), had no problem with Mutt (I liked the Last Crusade reversals: Indy not finding the escape on the bike funny; "This is intolerable!"), Marion was a bit weird and mad-looking in places although their two dialogue scenes were corkers, and the rest of the cast certainly turned up.
The look of it was a bit strange- very washed-out, pale and colourless. Didn't really like that. And they didn't seem to actually leave the soundstage for much of it- that Peruvian village didn't feel very exotic.
There was minimal tension in any of the set-pieces, and the CGI-heavy jungle chase was a bit OTT, I thought. Annoying that they abandoned stunt work in this bit when they're obviously still capable (Indy's swing down on the chain to kick the Russian fella in the rocket sled bit was a great stunt) Oh and I thought the bendy tree was much more offensive than the monkeys! There wasn't quite the shivers-down-the-spine spookiness with the macguffin as in Raiders and Crusade which I was sad not to have, but the idea of aliens didn't offend me at all. And by the end I'd seen enough doors opening in mysterious temples- they sort of overdid that aspect. And why would you skip through a face-melting scene in an Indiana Jones movie as quickly as they did here?
I also noticed the odd lack of people calling him Indy. I did like the way his character had moved on a bit, though- he's still Indy but he's an older man now, capable of being a bit boring and intolerant of young people.
But the rest of it I enjoyed- it was funny and the action moved along nicely: it's an Indiana Jones movie.
Not sure if it is up there with the originals, but there's enough in there to make me happy, and that's all I'm looking for in a film like that. I'll see it again.
I'm seeing it tonight, but I guess it's best if we go comparing it to Temple of Doom, so we'll be pleasantly surprised. Actually, Last Crusade would have been very formulaic if it were not for Sean Connery on board, we'll have to see if the young kid can wreak similar magic.
It certainly couldn't be worse than Connery's creaky insult of a comeback Never Say Never Again.
It certainly couldn't be worse than Connery's creaky insult of a comeback Never Say Never Again.
Well oddly I worked out the other day age-wise Ford playing Indy in Crystal Skull would have been the equivalent of Connery coming back to play Bond in GoldenEye in 1995!
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Some actors can certainly 'sell' the action stuff. Ford absolutely can...and so could Connery.
NSNA Forever :v
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
...this 12-writer-Spy Who-Loved-Me-Bitches-Brew of a script has more finger prints on it than a Tijuana *****.
) ) ) )
What an excellently-turned phrase. I doff my hat, sir {[]
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
My brother and I just got back from seeing it. We enjoyed it as well. A lot in fact.
Make no mistake, it is a different kind of Indiana Jones film. Unlike past films, which had a mystical object driving the narrative, the McGuffin here is much more sci-fi in nature. I've always been a sci-fi fan and used to eat stuff like Chariots of the Gods up as a kid, so I had no trouble with that. But I can understand why some others might be disappointed. The fights and other action scenes are all entertaining but also somewhat more modest than in the prior films. Most of the humor and gags in the film also work really well, though I hesitate to elaborate for fear of spoilers.
The cast is very good and I really liked the interplay between characters; Indy and Mutt in particular have a very good chemistry between them. Harrison Ford's delivery was a little stiff at the start but he got better and better as the film wore on. Shia LeBeouf, Karen Allen and John Hurt were all very good; Ray Winstone was a bit two-dimensional but still entertaining. Cate Blanchett was adequate but hardly the menacing villain of past entries. Quite honestly, her biggest problem was that she was so damn beautiful. It's hard to boo someone when you're lusting after her every time she shows up on screen.
I didn't have any issues with the CGI in this movie; its used mostly to extend the sets and while the big climax is effects heavy that's hardly new; Raiders had an effect heavy climax as well, the only difference was that different cinematic techniques were used to put it on film.
Even though Indy does a lot of exploring and fighting, the film is also in great part about him discovering, rediscovering and ultimately connecting with the people who matter most to him. Its very nostalgic and ultimately heartwarming in that way and its hard not to smile when the last scene unfolds. Too bad Sean Connery decided to sit this one out; having him there at the end would have been really nice. At least he and Marcus get a few nice little nods.
In the end, its great to see Indy back in action after all these years. For me the film delivered and I'm looking forward to adding it to my collection down the road.
BTW, as was the case with Iron Man, we saw Indy on a digital projection screen and man, what a difference. It made for an incredibly clear, colorful and vivid experience and Janusz Kaminski's cinematography really shined. Even the darker scenes (which can be murder in a traditional film based movie theater) looked fantastic. From here on out, digital is the only way to go for these "event" films for us.
Mr MartiniThat nice house in the sky.Posts: 2,703MI6 Agent
I'm very excited to see this but will wait until after the holiday weekend to see it. One question, is there anything after the credits (besides the rating and the lights coming and usher asking me to leave)?
Some people would complain even if you hang them with a new rope
I'm very excited to see this but will wait until after the holiday weekend to see it. One question, is there anything after the credits (besides the rating and the lights coming and usher asking me to leave)?
Funny you should ask that; my brother insisted on our staying through the credits just in case there was some bonus scene at the end. Alas there was nothing more. Once the credits roll, the movie is done.
I'm very excited to see this but will wait until after the holiday weekend to see it. One question, is there anything after the credits (besides the rating and the lights coming and usher asking me to leave)?
Funny you should ask that; my brother insisted on our staying through the credits just in case there was some bonus scene at the end. Alas there was nothing more. Once the credits roll, the movie is done.
Quite right too, I'm a bit annoyed at those post-credits things. If it's not good enough to put in the film it shouldn't be there at all, and tricking people out of a scene they've paid to see (because they leave when the film's finished, as per usual) is a bit sly I think. Indy plays it the proper straightforward way, as always.
Mind you, you should stay until the end for this anyway to enjoy the wonderful music!
BTW, as was the case with Iron Man, we saw Indy on a digital projection screen and man, what a difference. It made for an incredibly clear, colorful and vivid experience and Janusz Kaminski's cinematography really shined. Even the darker scenes (which can be murder in a traditional film based movie theater) looked fantastic. From here on out, digital is the only way to go for these "event" films for us.
Funny you should mention Chariot of the Gods. I thought Raiders of the Lost Ark was a movie similar to those kinds of "documentaries," only about Noah's Ark, when I first went to see it.
But my question is: how did you manage to Crystal Skull on a digital projection screen, and what theaters have them? What's the difference? How would one recognize such a screen? I'm technologically challenged, so if my questions are stupid, that's why.
Having just returned from seeing the film, I can't really make up my mind. I don't know, it just felt 'tame'. I'm still young, I can't blame it on having 'grown up' with the series. Most irritating for me was the lack of, besides Indy, interesting characterizations.
Mutt's attempted 'rebelliousness' at the start of the film was awfully contrived, so much that his character really didn't progress through a satisfactory 'arc', he merely stopped stealing beer bottles from trays. But, finding Shia LaBoeuf quite likable, I didn't find Mutt a complete loss.
As for Marion, a very different story. The drunken, feisty character of Raiders was replaced by an irritable woman who just seemed to swoon after Indy. There was so little chemistry between he and her, making the final scene quite tragic for me.
Got to admit, I missed Marcus and Henry (snr) also. I see them as the Indy 'family', and could never warm to the sight of the 5 protagonists traveling through the woods, as though on a family adventure holiday.
Negatives aside, the film WAS fun. On many levels, thats what Indiana Jones is about, and again, this was very much thanks to Ford - his charisma hasn't dwindled.
Overall - enjoyable, but ultimately empty. The first act of the film, as Indy ventured alone, was ironically the most engaging for me. After he picked up the wife and kid, it soon became all too clear that this just wasn't Raiders or Crusade.
Funny you should mention Chariot of the Gods. I thought Raiders of the Lost Ark was a movie similar to those kinds of "documentaries," only about Noah's Ark, when I first went to see it.
*** VERY MINOR SPOILERS BELOW ***
Chariots of the Gods was written by Erik Von Dainekin (spelling?), a confirmed quack. Still the book was a fun read if only for the sake of all his wacky extrapolations between the drawings on the Nazca Plains, the lost Mayan civilization, ancient aliens, and so on. Without going spoilerish, and some of that stuff actually cropped up in the movie, which did bring a smile / chuckle / memory or two to me.
But my question is: how did you manage to Crystal Skull on a digital projection screen, and what theaters have them? What's the difference? How would one recognize such a screen? I'm technologically challenged, so if my questions are stupid, that's why.
In my area the National Amusements / Showcase Cinemas chain has been outfitting more and more of its cineplexes with digital projection equipment; at the cineplex I go to, almost half the screens are now digital.
I'm not an expert by any means but my understanding is that the technology used is similar the the hi-def DLP projection TV's that any consumer can buy, just on a much bigger scale. The picture projected up on the screen is sharper, clearer and more vibrant that any traditional film stadium I've ever been to. Tracking shots where stuff moves quickly across the screen also look much better.
Of course, this is all personal preference, but it looks like this is where a lot of theater chains are putting their time and effort these days. Interestingly, National Amusements / Showcase have also turned some of the theaters within each cineplex into what they like to call "Directors Halls" - premium stadiums with digital projection screens and bigger, more comfy leather seats that recline and even let you lift up the armrests. They charge a premium (usually $2-$3 more per ticket) but the price is well worth it as the image is much clearer, the stadium much cleaner and the seats more comfortable. Given my very narrow taste in movies, I don't mind spending the extra cash.
I got to see Crystal Skull this afternoon and enjoyed it a good deal. It doesn't top Temple of Doom IMO, as the movie seemed a bit unbalanced.
I enjoyed the atom bomb sequence, especially the mushroom cloud visual, since it conveyed so dramatically that Indy's world was changing. I also thought it was nice idea to have Indy as a war veteran which nicely covered Indy's 'absence' in a way. The first half the film was absolutely outstanding, but as the characters began piling on in a big group (Indy, Marion, Mutt, Mac, and Oxley) it became too much and the title character seemed to get shoved into the background. Another aspect that I feel hurt the film was that the quest wasn't personal enough for Indy. In the earlier films, Indy seemed really enthralled by whatever he was chasing. In this case, Indy seemed to be doing it like it was some sort of vacation pasttime.
Comments
Absolutely right...oh, sorry, I thought this was a CR thread for a moment
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
~Pen -{
mountainburdphotography.wordpress.com
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=753429
I've been an Indy fan my whole life. I had an Indython with my friends leading up to this release. We watched Temple, Raiders, then Crusade, and even beat the old LucasArts game Fate of Atlantis. I was ridiculously excited for this movie.
I knew about the
But this movie was not very good. It was bad. Actually, it was pretty awful. Alright, it has its *moments* of cleverness, and at times reminded me of the charm of the old films. Believe it or not Shia LeBeouf is a very welcome addition.
But the movie ends up being just a big, CGI, silly mess. The suspense is gone, the wry humor feels forced, and by the end you just want to leave because your childhood has been shat on--like the Star Wars prequels, only a little worse...
I thought I'd never say it, but LeBeouf is actually the best part of this movie. If you want to know some things to seal the deal that it is a crap movie, read below:
If I could sum up my feelings for the film in one image, it would be this.
And without me!
Can you believe it!
Our Indy trek was a family event!
Ah well, she liked it, therefore I probably will too. -{
yes, I thought it was cheesy in most bits, but over all, I was just throughly glad that Indy was back...I had a stupid grin plastered on my face ALL night long. It didn't really go away until I went to bed at 3 AM. I'll be going to see it again very soon
~Pendragon -{
mountainburdphotography.wordpress.com
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
'Indiana Jones' in universe of its own
Release Date: 2008
Ebert Rating: ***½
// / May 18, 2008
By Roger Ebert
"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.
The Indiana Jones movies were directed by Steven Spielberg and written
by George Lucas and a small army of screenwriters, but they exist in a
universe of their own. Hell, they created it. All you can do is compare one to the other three. And even then, what will it get you? If you eat four pounds of sausage, how do you choose which pound tasted the best? Well, the first one, of course, and then there's a steady drop-off of interest. That's why no Indy adventure can match "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (1981). But if "Crystal Skull" (or "Temple of Doom" from 1984 or "Last Crusade" from, 1989) had come first in the series, who knows how much fresher it might have seemed? True, "Raiders of the Lost Ark" stands alone as an action masterpiece, but after that the series is compelled to be, in the words of Indiana himself, "same old same old." Yes, but that's what I want it to be.
"Crystal Skull" even dusts off the Russians, so severely under- exploited in recent years, as the bad guys. Up against them, Indiana Jones is once again played by Harrison Ford, who is now 65 but looks a lot like he did at 55 or 46, which is how old he was when he made "Last Crusade." He has one of those Robert Mitchum faces that doesn't age, it only frowns more. He and his sidekick Mac McHale (Ray Winstone) are taken by the cool, contemptuous Soviet uber-villainess Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett) to a cavernous warehouse to seek out a crate he saw there years ago. The contents of the crate are hyper- magnetic (lord, I love this stuff) and betray themselves when Indy throws a handful of gunpowder into the air.
In ways too labyrinthine to describe, the crate leads Indy, Mac, Irina and the Russians far up the Amazon. Along the way they've gathered Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen), Indy's girlfriend from the first film, and a young biker named Mutt Williams (Shia LeBeouf), who is always combing his ducktail haircut. They also acquire Professor Oxley (John Hurt), elderly colleague from the University of Chicago, whose function is to read all the necessary languages, know all the necessary background, and explain everything.
What happens in South America is explained by the need to create (1) sensational chase sequences, and (2) awe-inspiring spectacles. We get such sights as two dueling Jeep-like vehicles racing down parallel roads. Not many of the audience members will be as logical as I am, and wonder who went to the trouble of building parallell roads in a rain forest. Most of the major characters eventually find themselves at the wheels of both vehicles; they leap or are thrown from one to another, and the vehicles occasionally leap right over one another. And that Irina, she's something. Her Russian backups are mostly just atmosphere, useful for pointing their rifles at Indy, but she can fight shoot, fence, drive, leap and kick, and keep on all night.
All leads to the discovery of a subterranean chamber beneath an ancient Pyramid, where they find an ancient city made of gold and containing...but wait, I forgot to tell you they found a crystal skull in a crypt. Well sir, it's one of 13 crystal skulls, and the other 12 are in that chamber. When the set is complete, amazing events take place. Prof. Oxley carries the 13th skull for most of the time, and finds it repels man-eating ants. It also represents one-thirteenth of all knowledge about everything, leading Irina to utter the orgasmic words, "I want...to know!" In appearance, the skull is a cross between the aliens of the Special Edition of Spielberg's "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" and the hood ornaments of 1950s Pontiacs.
What is the function of the chamber? "It's a portal--to another dimension!" Oxley says. Indy is sensible: "I don't think we wanna go that way." It is astonishing that the protagonists aren't all killed 20 or 30 times, although Irnia will beome The Women Who Knew Too Much. At his advanced age, Prof.Oxley tirelessly jumps between vehicles, survives fire and flood and falling from great heights, and would win on "American Gladiator." Relationships between certain other characters are of interest, since (a) the odds against them finding themselves together are astronomical, and (b) the odds against them not finding themselves together in this film are incalculable.
Now what else can I tell you, apart from mentioning the blinking red digital countdown, and the moving red line tracing a journey on a map? I can say that if you liked the other Indiana Jones movies, you will like this one, and that if you did not, there is no talking to you. And I can also say that a critic trying to place it into a heirarchy with the others would probably keep a straight face while recommending the second pound of sausage.
I sincerely hope it is not that bad.
Yet, with all the critics reviews, and the individuals disappointment I hold out little hope...but maybe that will make it better for me in the end.
I am going to go see it, but maybe I will have such low expectations that the movie will blow me away.
So thank you to all you naysayers, as you helped me with CR so shall you help me with Indy 4
I like Ebert's take---it is what it is. Relax and enjoy it...or not.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
My brother is a HUGE Indy fan---he was 10 when the first one came out---but, incredibly, we've never seen an Indy film together until today: When Raiders came out, I was in Europe in the military; when Temple came out, I was living in another state, and we never got together to see Crusade. So this was a rare and wonderful treat---especially in opening day in Hollywood, with a sold-out house that applauded when Harrison Ford's name appeared in the credits, and when we see Karen Allen for the first time. And there was applause when the credits ended, so fortunately not everyone's childhood was shat upon today. Thank Goodness.
Ebert was right, I think: This is a genre and universe pretty much unto itself, IMO, so the only meaningful comparisons are made to the other films in the franchise.
Does it have problems? Absolutely. For me, the most cringeworthy was when...
...but there were other times, when IMO the CGI interfered a bit. I'm particularly reminded of the dinosaur stampede from Peter Jackson's King Kong---to me, that film would have benefitted by excising the entire scene.
By the same token, Crystal Skull also features a couple very classic 'Indy' moments---if not a couple of the best ever---so, if you love this kind of movie, you take the good with the bad. One of the truly wonderful aspects of this picture is the obvious joy of performance from Harrison Ford, who certainly knows this phase of his career is coming to an end, and is relishing his time. I'm a real fan of his.
For me, there are two levels of Indy excellence: Raiders Of The Lost Ark---an absolute classic---and the other three, which for me are pretty much on the same level...warts and all.
I wouldn't have missed it for the world---and if you enjoy Indiana Jones, neither should you B-)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
and your big cringeworthy moment was mine as well. my entire row face/palmed and cracked up
~Pen -{
mountainburdphotography.wordpress.com
OK. Firstly, know that I LOVED the Star Wars prequels. I loved their complex, layered world, sense of narrative coherence and poetic assonance with the original series. Sure, they were flawed (Jake Lloyd and some of Hayden Christensen's acting) but they did feel true. Hopefully I had evolved in the 20 year gap so they did not hit me like a diamond bullet as the original trilogy (and Superman. And The Spy Who Loved Me. And Star Trek. And The Rescuers [er, that's enough - Ed.]) had. However, for me, they have value and entertain(ed) me thoroughly. I daresay an 8 year old would be smitten with the new prequels as me and my peers were with the originals.
IJATKOTCS falls into similar territory. The best part of the endeavour is the repositioning to the 1950s, the Cold War-Sci-Fi backdrop. Sure, it is a modern film with abundant CGI (ignore Spielberg's press about trying to make it look like the old films - it doesn't). Save Bond and Bourne, nothing feels real for reel these days. However, the combination of intriguing story (with historical liberty) and characters and spectacle make this an enjoyable watch.
Tonally, it had a mellow feel. Connery was wise not to do this film (there's no place for him anyway) and, thematically, it would not have worked, IMO. Harrison Ford was great as was Shia LeBeouf. Cate Blanchett was fun but like John Hurt, was forced to have an immediacy of characterisation which felt less satisfactory. Did John Gardner write Ray Winstone's part? Karen Allen looked like Annie Hall but her spunky heroine in the original film has been reduxed to a mere expositional functionary in this film. Anyway, I like the updating and nods to the past (Connery, Denholm Elliott, the Ark, snakes).
There are some lovely ideas - Hangar 51, the nuclear city, motorbike chase through university town, fire-ants, the leather-jacket generational character costuming, the basic City Of The Gods plot and the McCarthy backdrop (Jim Broadbent was particularly good and moving).
I don't think Spielberg phoned it in. He was consciously trying to surprise. His trademarked mirror shot got a fresh variation, Indy's entrance was fun, I like the imagery of the Soviet villains chopping down the rainforest. While Janusz Kaminiski's photography is less successful than Douglas Slocombe's clean palette, Guy (Superman Returns) Hendrix Dyas' production design improves upon the always fake-looking work of all the previous Indy designers. ILM's work is superb (better looking on the big screen than on TV) as always. The big supernatural finale may be too much but it is in keeping with what has gone before.
At times it felt like there were nods to the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles but not having seen too many of those episodes, I do not know (the Pancho Villa line). I also felt there it was too much of a group adventure (5 principals at the end excluding the villains) - it felt more like Lethal Weapon 4 or a Star Trek film. BTW, George Lucas is not solely responsible for this. Spielberg and to lesser extent, Ford, must share blame (and credit). Notice how little screenwriters David Koepp and Jeff Nathanson feature in the condemnations - this 12-writer-Spy Who-Loved-Me-Bitches-Brew of a script has more finger prints on it than a Tijuana *****.
However, flawed like the Star Wars prequels, this did feel a true Indy film, true the spirit of the originals. At the moment, I place it slightly above Temple which is above Crusade. All are a long way from Raiders though. I did not mind the silliness because I expected it and it was no sillier than parts of Temple or Crusade. I hope Lucas will follow through on his discussed 5th movie with Shia and Harrison (in the Connery role) although it is difficult to see if the biker jacket, comb and flickknife ensemble replacing Indy's iconic paraphernalia. I doubt Spielberg will direct - they'll "Joe Johnston" it.
Please see it and make up your own mind. If you've liked the Indiana Jones films, you'll like (but probably not love) this instalment. I think time will be a big factor of acceptance for this movie. In 5 years, when the hype and expectation has died down, this film will sneak into polite society. And people will enjoy it for what it is, not what they wanted it to be.
The stated aim of Raiders Of The Lost Ark was to make money. It was shot fast and cheap and on time to salve Spielberg's past woes. That doesn't mean there isn't a whole lotta love there but when people talk about this instalment being money-grabbing, twas ever thus for Indy and all film franchises - that's why they're franchises!
Anyway, I'm always out of synch with popular opinion (hated the Pirates movies, thought Batman Begins vastly overrated, loved The Avengers, Die Another Day and X-Men 3!). The last person who should involved in the development and production of films ...is, er, me.
This summer, my favourite film has been Iron Man. I'm looking forward to Prince Caspian (being a Narnia nut) and even The Dark Knight.
Of course, the daddy, for me, will be QUANTUM OF SOLACE but rather like Solitaire, "You knew that. You KNEW that!"
Arf!
I enjoyed it; big silly grin on my face. I hated the new Star Wars films, they made me slightly angry and very bored. While this new Indy isn't quite as good as the first three, it is still part of the same series and comes nowhere near to being as bad as the new Star Wars were.
The look of it was a bit strange- very washed-out, pale and colourless. Didn't really like that. And they didn't seem to actually leave the soundstage for much of it- that Peruvian village didn't feel very exotic.
There was minimal tension in any of the set-pieces, and the CGI-heavy jungle chase was a bit OTT, I thought. Annoying that they abandoned stunt work in this bit when they're obviously still capable (Indy's swing down on the chain to kick the Russian fella in the rocket sled bit was a great stunt) Oh and I thought the bendy tree was much more offensive than the monkeys! There wasn't quite the shivers-down-the-spine spookiness with the macguffin as in Raiders and Crusade which I was sad not to have, but the idea of aliens didn't offend me at all. And by the end I'd seen enough doors opening in mysterious temples- they sort of overdid that aspect. And why would you skip through a face-melting scene in an Indiana Jones movie as quickly as they did here?
I also noticed the odd lack of people calling him Indy. I did like the way his character had moved on a bit, though- he's still Indy but he's an older man now, capable of being a bit boring and intolerant of young people.
But the rest of it I enjoyed- it was funny and the action moved along nicely: it's an Indiana Jones movie.
Not sure if it is up there with the originals, but there's enough in there to make me happy, and that's all I'm looking for in a film like that. I'll see it again.
It certainly couldn't be worse than Connery's creaky insult of a comeback Never Say Never Again.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Well oddly I worked out the other day age-wise Ford playing Indy in Crystal Skull would have been the equivalent of Connery coming back to play Bond in GoldenEye in 1995!
NSNA Forever :v
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
What an excellently-turned phrase. I doff my hat, sir {[]
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Indy did say 'Same old, Same old' and it kind of was but wasn't at the same time.
Definitley the films were better pre-CGI; had a touch of The Mummy films about it.
Best thing about it, Connerys's role - it was absolute picture.
For me
Raiders 1
Crusade 2
can't work out 3rd and 4th yet
Make no mistake, it is a different kind of Indiana Jones film. Unlike past films, which had a mystical object driving the narrative, the McGuffin here is much more sci-fi in nature. I've always been a sci-fi fan and used to eat stuff like Chariots of the Gods up as a kid, so I had no trouble with that. But I can understand why some others might be disappointed. The fights and other action scenes are all entertaining but also somewhat more modest than in the prior films. Most of the humor and gags in the film also work really well, though I hesitate to elaborate for fear of spoilers.
The cast is very good and I really liked the interplay between characters; Indy and Mutt in particular have a very good chemistry between them. Harrison Ford's delivery was a little stiff at the start but he got better and better as the film wore on. Shia LeBeouf, Karen Allen and John Hurt were all very good; Ray Winstone was a bit two-dimensional but still entertaining. Cate Blanchett was adequate but hardly the menacing villain of past entries. Quite honestly, her biggest problem was that she was so damn beautiful. It's hard to boo someone when you're lusting after her every time she shows up on screen.
I didn't have any issues with the CGI in this movie; its used mostly to extend the sets and while the big climax is effects heavy that's hardly new; Raiders had an effect heavy climax as well, the only difference was that different cinematic techniques were used to put it on film.
Even though Indy does a lot of exploring and fighting, the film is also in great part about him discovering, rediscovering and ultimately connecting with the people who matter most to him. Its very nostalgic and ultimately heartwarming in that way and its hard not to smile when the last scene unfolds. Too bad Sean Connery decided to sit this one out; having him there at the end would have been really nice. At least he and Marcus get a few nice little nods.
In the end, its great to see Indy back in action after all these years. For me the film delivered and I'm looking forward to adding it to my collection down the road.
BTW, as was the case with Iron Man, we saw Indy on a digital projection screen and man, what a difference. It made for an incredibly clear, colorful and vivid experience and Janusz Kaminski's cinematography really shined. Even the darker scenes (which can be murder in a traditional film based movie theater) looked fantastic. From here on out, digital is the only way to go for these "event" films for us.
Funny you should ask that; my brother insisted on our staying through the credits just in case there was some bonus scene at the end. Alas there was nothing more. Once the credits roll, the movie is done.
Quite right too, I'm a bit annoyed at those post-credits things. If it's not good enough to put in the film it shouldn't be there at all, and tricking people out of a scene they've paid to see (because they leave when the film's finished, as per usual) is a bit sly I think. Indy plays it the proper straightforward way, as always.
Mind you, you should stay until the end for this anyway to enjoy the wonderful music!
Funny you should mention Chariot of the Gods. I thought Raiders of the Lost Ark was a movie similar to those kinds of "documentaries," only about Noah's Ark, when I first went to see it.
But my question is: how did you manage to Crystal Skull on a digital projection screen, and what theaters have them? What's the difference? How would one recognize such a screen? I'm technologically challenged, so if my questions are stupid, that's why.
Mutt's attempted 'rebelliousness' at the start of the film was awfully contrived, so much that his character really didn't progress through a satisfactory 'arc', he merely stopped stealing beer bottles from trays. But, finding Shia LaBoeuf quite likable, I didn't find Mutt a complete loss.
As for Marion, a very different story. The drunken, feisty character of Raiders was replaced by an irritable woman who just seemed to swoon after Indy. There was so little chemistry between he and her, making the final scene quite tragic for me.
Got to admit, I missed Marcus and Henry (snr) also. I see them as the Indy 'family', and could never warm to the sight of the 5 protagonists traveling through the woods, as though on a family adventure holiday.
Negatives aside, the film WAS fun. On many levels, thats what Indiana Jones is about, and again, this was very much thanks to Ford - his charisma hasn't dwindled.
Overall - enjoyable, but ultimately empty. The first act of the film, as Indy ventured alone, was ironically the most engaging for me. After he picked up the wife and kid, it soon became all too clear that this just wasn't Raiders or Crusade.
*** VERY MINOR SPOILERS BELOW ***
Chariots of the Gods was written by Erik Von Dainekin (spelling?), a confirmed quack. Still the book was a fun read if only for the sake of all his wacky extrapolations between the drawings on the Nazca Plains, the lost Mayan civilization, ancient aliens, and so on. Without going spoilerish, and some of that stuff actually cropped up in the movie, which did bring a smile / chuckle / memory or two to me.
In my area the National Amusements / Showcase Cinemas chain has been outfitting more and more of its cineplexes with digital projection equipment; at the cineplex I go to, almost half the screens are now digital.
I'm not an expert by any means but my understanding is that the technology used is similar the the hi-def DLP projection TV's that any consumer can buy, just on a much bigger scale. The picture projected up on the screen is sharper, clearer and more vibrant that any traditional film stadium I've ever been to. Tracking shots where stuff moves quickly across the screen also look much better.
Of course, this is all personal preference, but it looks like this is where a lot of theater chains are putting their time and effort these days. Interestingly, National Amusements / Showcase have also turned some of the theaters within each cineplex into what they like to call "Directors Halls" - premium stadiums with digital projection screens and bigger, more comfy leather seats that recline and even let you lift up the armrests. They charge a premium (usually $2-$3 more per ticket) but the price is well worth it as the image is much clearer, the stadium much cleaner and the seats more comfortable. Given my very narrow taste in movies, I don't mind spending the extra cash.
That's my two cents, anyway.