RE: RE: (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews



Message


Rumble Jack -> RE: RE: (21/5/2008 5:17:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: krudler

its insolent you fuckwit, why does the reviews thread always attract these trolling newbies who think the forum owes them a favour[:@]


You called?

I kid. But anyway, good/ bad review or no good/ bad review: I haven't been more excited for a film like this since I can remember. I have tickets booked for tomorrow evening (I wanted to see it tonight at 5 past midnight but exams wouldn't allow it) and I bought that Dr. Jones dairy book thing that looks like a scrapbook in preparation. I've even spent a further 79p on the Raiders March by John Williams on iTunes (talk about pushing the boat out). I can't imagine not enjoying it (although I'm worried about all this CGI talk) and I can't convince my friends it'll be worth the wait.

But what a great review Empire, it's nice to see among the 'mixed reviews' at Cannes etc. that you liked it. Also, there's a member with Dylan Moran as their avatar and I would like to say ridiculously cool they are. And I hope ANTDAVIESUK will die a slow, painful and thoroughly horrible death.

I. CAN'T. WAIT.




pedros -> RE: RE: (21/5/2008 5:49:14 PM)

I saw it last night. I kind of enjoyed it whilst watching it, though there were many bits that grated on me. Since seeing it those bits have grated more and more and now I don't like it that much. There were a couple of cool bits in it, but they were only in the first half hour. I didn't find any of the set pieces particularly exciting, the cgi was on the whole pretty shit, and i'm not going into any other things I didn't like so as not to reveal spoilers. That's just my opinion though, people I watched it with really enjoyed it. I'm not sure whether to give it 2 or 3 stars, i'll give it 2 but it's more like a 2.5.




sanchia -> RE: RE: (21/5/2008 5:54:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Workshed

quote:

ORIGINAL: antdaviesuk

Saw it last night and I couldnt believe what I was watching.

The script is very bad, the acting with the exception of Shia, is very bad. It doesn't make sense, there's UFO's and aliens, random monkeys and beaver things. It's just weird, Reminded me of the phantom menace.

Give me a break at work and wait for batman.


Spoiler warning - you fucking stupid cunt.


It isn't often I say that but that is offensive.  You sir need to wash your mouth out with carbolic.




krudler -> RE: RE: (21/5/2008 6:20:07 PM)

twas harsh but fair, spoilers on a review thread before the movie comes out? should be punishable by death




TheGodfather -> RE: RE: (21/5/2008 6:31:56 PM)

Watched it last night, and I have to say that I was somewhat dissapointed.
This is my review:

Last night:

Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull
Nineteen years we had to wait for the fourth installment in the Indiana Jones films. After a long search from Lucas and Spielberg for the right script, Indy finally goes searching for himself: for the Crystal Skull.
Expectations were high on forehand. Only some of them come true. The end result is A Tale Of Two Halves.

Like we`re used from an Indiana Jones film you`re in the middle of the action right from the start. Harrison Ford is believable from the start. His black sense of humor is still there. Cate Blanchett and (a bit later) Shia LeBeouf are well cast. Blanchett gives an excellent performance and the feared-by-many performance by LeBeouf really isn`t bad at all. He and Ford make a great couple.
The pacing is fairly high, the soundtrack is great again (of course we didn`t expect anything else from John Williams) and the cinematography by the living legend Janusz Kaminski is beautiful. The films breathes the atmosphere of the `50s.
Nothing wrong about it. So far so good...

Then the second part of the movie, the actual search for the Crystal Skull.
From there the film collapses.
To start: the film suffers from CGIties. And not in a good way. A lot of the effects look too fake (like we saw it in King Kong). In the first part of the movie it`s not so obvious, but in the second part of the movie it`s way too obvious that a lot (too much) comes out the ILM computers. That starts to irritate.
Next: the script shakes on all sides. The (pretty decent) story build-up from the first part is almost completely cancelled out.
All kinds of stuff appear and dissapear without any explanation and are useless. They could`ve been left out without a problem and nobody would`ve known the difference. That would`ve reduced the number of plot holes as well.
The characters of Karen Allen and John Hurt look kind of lost. They try really art to make the best of it but the stuff they get to work with just isn`t enough.
The film also never really gets exciting. In a (for an action film) too slow pace the films just moves on bit by bit.

After almost 2 hours we reach the final act. An act about wich a lot has been said in the past few days. And rightfully so.
The things that scenarist Koepp has made up really doesn`t fit into the other parts of the movie. A lot of stuff happens really fast and you think: WTF?!? After wich Spielberg just goes on as if nothing has happened. Unbelievable.
The facts, the legend, the story of the Crystal Skull are good material for an action film of this kind. But it just should`ve been worked out much better, especially in the second part.

Indiana Jones is back. But it hasn`t become a glorious come-back. There was way more in this material than that what got now. A lot of cinema-goers will probably leave the cinema slightly dissapointed...

7,7/10




Mr. Chumba -> (21/5/2008 6:41:00 PM)

I think we all established Total Film is crap a long time ago. Anyway, when will the new cover be revealed??? Fingers crossed for The JOKER!!!




sanchia -> RE: RE: (21/5/2008 6:41:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: krudler

twas harsh but fair, spoilers on a review thread before the movie comes out? should be punishable by death


For a minor spoiler it was a massive, and uncalled for,  over reaction.




Mr. Chumba -> (21/5/2008 6:45:22 PM)

I think we all established Total Film is crap a long time ago. Anyway, when will the new cover be revealed??? Fingers crossed for The JOKER!!!




Mr. Chumba -> (21/5/2008 6:59:06 PM)

I think we all established Total Film is crap a long time ago. Anyway, when will the new cover be revealed??? Fingers crossed for The JOKER!!!




Mr. Chumba -> (21/5/2008 7:07:49 PM)

I think we all established Total Film is crap a long time ago. Anyway, when will the new cover be revealed??? Fingers crossed for The JOKER!!!




bloxham49 -> So close to being great, sooo close (21/5/2008 7:14:26 PM)

I feel the need to try and explain why I'm only giving it 3 star but this is a difficult task when the very reason is a spoiler itself so I will just say that: The film is a very fun ride until the end (even the swinging didn't get to me) but THAT ending.... damn you george!! An Speilberg, I expect better of you. You have already made this mistake before havn't you learnt your lesson?

I must say I do think Shia could carry any further sequals they plan but they might have to think carefully when it comes to the title I just dont think 'Mutt Williams and the...' has the same ring to it.




IsabelB -> (21/5/2008 7:25:19 PM)

stop listening to critics people! do you go see a film because a critic says it's good? no, you see it because YOU want to see it. do you not see a film because a critic says its crap. no, you see it because YOU think its crap. so just ignore the crap that critics say, see a film and enjoy it, or hate it, just do what you want to do.




Mooncalf -> Just Seen it - Disappointed! (22/5/2008 1:47:09 AM)

Just came back from a Midnight showing - and it is very disappointing. Yes, it has some fun moments and thrills, but George has done another Phantom Menace; too much pointless CGI, much of which cheapens the movie (The gophers at the beginning WTF!) and while Indy has always had some ginningly silly bits there were too many so-absurd-I-no-longer-really-care moments here. This also added to a gereral lack of tension - this is a slump in your chair not edge of seat movie. The Skulls just didn't work for me as a McGuffin - exactly why we should be worried by them seemed even more vauge than the Stones in Temple of Doom - and less easy to forgive as the plight of the kids in the mine gave enough reason to care, but the Skulls stand alone and seem weak and out of place in the Indiana Jones world which has always had supernatural elements, but this is something else. Result is it all too often feels clunky and forced, the wrong kind of elements trying to be forced into an Indiana Jones story. Also, although I liked the 50s setting generally, and barely missed the Nazis, it did seem that they got too excited about referencing everything that happened in the 50s in places. Sometimes the fact it's an Indy movie seems to take second place to the fact it's a 50s peroid movie - Better dead than red, McCarthyism, nuclear testing, greasers and jocks, Saturday morning serial hero indestructibility, B-Movie plots and most unforgivably Johnny Weissmuller style Tarzan bit of awfulness. I was going to balance this out by writing the plus side too but as I write this I'm finding it harder to see any - it passed the time, the 50s film processing look was smart.... 




shanyi -> George Lucas- charged on four counts of raping beloved childhood memories. 3 counts of Star Wars. 1 count- Dr. Indiana Jones. (22/5/2008 2:38:30 AM)

The best thing that can be said about this film is that it isn't as bad as the Star Wars prequels. But then, short of being molested through the eyes by two hippos whose skin secretes acid, nothing could be as bad as those Star Wars sequels. The bad news is, this is a very bad film. Compared to the other Indys, it's verging on being an atrocity. It has a couple of redemptive moments, split seconds where that Indy greatness returns and the painfully aged returning cast catch the slightest glimpse of the old magic. Shia LeBoeuf, despite playing a character who (put simply) shouldn't be in the film, comes out with unexpected credit. The limited story is padded with lengthy scenes of interminable exposition and the pacing moves from scene to scene and location to location with no attempts at continuity or fluidity in the transitions. Everyone save Indy himself and Blankett's non-dimensional Spalko are utterly superfluous to the plot, with the possible exception of Professor Oxley (why, John Hurt, why did you take this insultingly nondescript role?!) who essentially acts as a walking plot device. The Crystal Skulls are potentially interesting Macguffins for Indy, but making them alien rather than historical not only removes a huge part of the appeal of the traditional Indy mix, but is played out in an absolutely horrible, watch-through-your-eyes-as-it-all-goes-so-badly-wrong climax. Indy is supposed to be an archaeologist and the success of his adventures is based on our culture's (and other's) love of myth and legend. Lose that, you lose Indy. For what it's worth, please don't pay to see this film. Download it, grit your teeth and wait, anything- don't let Lucas and Spielberg's accounts reap the benefits of another generation of childhoods ruined.




skeletonjack -> Great fun yet disappointing at the same time (22/5/2008 3:03:10 AM)

Spoilers

Having just seen the movie I'm torn over what to write about it.
On one hand I left the cinema with a huge grin on my face, but on the other hand there is no denying that it's the weakest of the Indy movies. Whilst there's a lot right with it there's also a lot wrong, and this is what disapoints most as with a few tweaks it could have been classic.
My main problems lie with the following:
Firstly the sci fi theme doesn't sit comfortably in an Indy movie; supernatural yes, sci fi no. All of the business with the actual crystal skull was a bit too much for me (yes, even for an Indy movie). Secondly, whilst I liked Shia Leboef's character there were times when the action focused too much on him and Indy was relegated to a supporting role: the movie is after all called Indiana Jones and not Mutt.
I also didn't like John Hurts character, the majority of his scenes were all a bit silly.
Talking of silly, there were a few scenes that just played ridiculously, and seemed totally unneccessary (the fridge for example). I'm all for humour, but some of it was a bit too childish, which again killed certain scenes dead for me.
Whereas Raiders and the other sequels had big memorable set pieces, none in this movie really stood out, all of them seemingly variations on the same chase sequence with cars and jeeps. The previous entries all had huge openings and explosive finales, this one seemed to be lacking.
From reading this it probably sounds like I didn't like the film, but that's not the case, I found it thoroughly entertaining, I'm just disappointed as it could so easily have been the classic movie we all hoped rather than the hugely enjoyable flick it is.
It's a close call as to whether it gets 3 or 4 stars, but I will give it the benefit of the doubt: 4 stars!




mattybeeee -> Worst fears realised (22/5/2008 3:20:27 AM)

Just saw a midnight screening and I have to say that I don't recognise this as an Indiana Jones film. The script was abominable, the acting atrocious and the mostly CGI action sequences dull and bereft of danger.

We weren't made to care about any of the characters and the relationship with Marion in particular didn't in any way resemble the feisty, fun partnership of Raiders. Her presence seemed cursory, as if her mere appearance was enough to satisfy fans of the first film.

Some of the 'jokes' and most of the dialogue was wooden and just plain embarrassing, and Ford, I'm afraid to say, seems to have completely forgotten how to act. There was none of the darkness of the original film, and none of the danger. Speilberg and Lucas seem to have entirely misjudged what made the original films so special.

An absolute stinker. Speilberg's worst film by a mile.




nutteronabus -> RE: Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull (22/5/2008 4:11:44 AM)

Basically, a quick summary of my thoughts.

First half, brilliant. Everything you could want from an Indy movie. Second half, not so. Averages out to three stars I reckon, though this may change upon further reflection.

Great atmosphere, though- especially when the audience booed the Sex and the City trailer.




ATTACKMONKEYGO -> Indiana Jones and the Jar Jar Binx Affair. SPOLIERS, both of you Steven and George, Damn spoilers. (22/5/2008 4:46:10 AM)

Why Empire? 4 stars ?? Please explain; PLEASE>? One of maybe many Rants.
This is not Indiana Jones; this is Henry Jones introducing (SPOILER) Mutt Jones. This is a precursor to Young Indiana Jones starring Shia LaBeouf coming out sometime in the future; this is less archaeology and more technology, which if handled well could have been an interesting blessing but unfortunately went for cheap thrills and obvious even repetitive action. No originality. This film is more soap and adventure, thus lacking charm, and is an introduction to Indiana after the death of his father where he has now become just Henry Jones; the soapy pay off is that he now has a son and low and behold can become like his father before him; leading to Young Indiana Jones. We have another Phantom Menace on our hands. Capitalisation over content. There are some nice touches (about three clasical Indie moments; lends itself to be more paying homage to the old films than being a new one.)
1st More Russians please and less Gophers; vine swinging monkey good guys and gusts of breeze through church doors for quirky family jibes at how Young Indiana Jones Sequel is so imminent.
2nd More apt title please, Indiana Jones and the Blingdom of Crystal Dull
Indiana Jones and the Jar Jar Binx Affair.
Henry Jones and the prelude to Young Mutt Jones
Mutt... a name for a dog and Indiana the name of his childhood dog. etc.
It’s almost like they have thought of everything. “Cough.” - Sarcasm

God this film pains; it had some moments but the possibility to be so much better more. What the hell I just remembered his atomic bomb explosion escape. I do like the inclusion of history but somewhat frigging OTT. Apart from the door not coming open maybe he could have left some eggs in the fridge and upon landing opened up it up -a SMEG fridge and reveal himself covered in the eggy contents boosting the ridiculous injoke facterino. I love the overall cheesiness of Indie, but thi




ATTACKMONKEYGO -> Indiana Jones and the Jar Jar Binx Affair. SPOLIERS, both of you Steven and George, Damn spoilers. (22/5/2008 4:46:14 AM)

Why Empire? 4 stars ?? Please explain; PLEASE>? One of maybe many Rants.
This is not Indiana Jones; this is Henry Jones introducing (SPOILER) Mutt Jones. This is a precursor to Young Indiana Jones starring Shia LaBeouf coming out sometime in the future; this is less archaeology and more technology, which if handled well could have been an interesting blessing but unfortunately went for cheap thrills and obvious even repetitive action. No originality. This film is more soap and adventure, thus lacking charm, and is an introduction to Indiana after the death of his father where he has now become just Henry Jones; the soapy pay off is that he now has a son and low and behold can become like his father before him; leading to Young Indiana Jones. We have another Phantom Menace on our hands. Capitalisation over content. There are some nice touches (about three clasical Indie moments; lends itself to be more paying homage to the old films than being a new one.)
1st More Russians please and less Gophers; vine swinging monkey good guys and gusts of breeze through church doors for quirky family jibes at how Young Indiana Jones Sequel is so imminent.
2nd More apt title please, Indiana Jones and the Blingdom of Crystal Dull
Indiana Jones and the Jar Jar Binx Affair.
Henry Jones and the prelude to Young Mutt Jones
Mutt... a name for a dog and Indiana the name of his childhood dog. etc.
It’s almost like they have thought of everything. “Cough.” - Sarcasm

God this film pains; it had some moments but the possibility to be so much better more. What the hell I just remembered his atomic bomb explosion escape. I do like the inclusion of history but somewhat frigging OTT. Apart from the door not coming open maybe he could have left some eggs in the fridge and upon landing opened up it up -a SMEG fridge and reveal himself covered in the eggy contents boosting the ridiculous injoke facterino. I love the overall cheesiness of Indie, but thi




IsabelB -> (22/5/2008 7:38:56 AM)

by the way the reason that the effects are crap is because they're not using much cgi, they're using traditional effects and stunts. traditional effects???




brucechimp -> Crystal Skull is to Indiana Jones, what the prequels are to Star Wars (22/5/2008 8:40:38 AM)

FAIRLY WARNED BE THEE. THERE LIE SPOILERS AHEAD!

Hugely disappointed. I wanted to like this film so bad, but ultimately it didn't feel like an Indiana Jones film to me. It had some good moments. Shia Lebouf was very good, and the university set chase was, fun. As was the 'grave robbing' scene and warehouse escape.

Yet the central premise of the .'interdimensional aliens' - George Lucas's 'Maguffin', if you will - was exceptionally poor. The ending, made me cringe into the back of my seat. The usually excellent Kate Blanchett was awful, as a villan with very little presence much less any menace. Ray Winstone and John Hurt were,as mentioned in the review, lumbered with crude peripheral roles (John Hurt is not, as rumoured, Abner Ravenwood). And one of the lowest points of all was, well, I'll just say 'monkey attack' and leave it there!
For all the talk of using as little CGi as possible it felt like the whole thing was CGI at times, and often felt like it was taking cues from all the pretenders to Indy's throne that have thrown their hats in the ring in the intervening years - The Mummy, National Treasure et al; and perhaps most criminally of all, the theme tune - the Raiders March (if that's what it's still called) - appeared to be almost entirely absent until the final credits!

I should have learned my lesson with Star Wars, and left well alone. But new Indiana Jones was too good to resist. I wanted this to be great. As it stands it's just about watchable, but doesn't feel like an Indiana Jones film to me.




DELLBOY1 -> STOP WINGING! (22/5/2008 9:06:36 AM)

What do people expect? Really. I mean its 20 years on. If people were looking for the same as before they went in blinded to this fact. Its does what it does, it is what it is...an older slower but still got Indiana Jones. As a people we are far to quick to criticise. The first three arent perfect there are holes in plots and weaknesses but its fun and thats what this is. It achieves what it sets out to which is to spin a story and keep you interested. We have become a CGI generation who want the flashy and the fantastic this isnt that and THANK GOODNESS FOR THAT! This is everything I loved about the first three and 20 years on I am a happy fan who wants to see it again! Thank you Spielberg, Lucas, Ford et al....




Workshed -> RE: RE: (22/5/2008 9:35:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

quote:

ORIGINAL: krudler

twas harsh but fair, spoilers on a review thread before the movie comes out? should be punishable by death


For a minor spoiler it was a massive, and uncalled for,  over reaction.


I disagree sanchia. The post I was reacting to wasn't at all constructive and dropped in some major spoilers for a film anticipated by several members of the forum. I think it was posted to provoke some kind of reaction so I geve him just that.




sleepwalker -> 2 Stars Only (22/5/2008 10:20:45 AM)

So disappointing, a cross between a Brosnan Bond film and the Skull Island Scenes from King Kong, It wasnt Harrisons fault though, he felt like Indy again, but the film around him didnt. Harrisons fight scenes were first class, I wish I could say the same for Mutt's who looked unplausible in several key action scenes like with Obi-wan riding the Lizard.




Kit Fisto -> Two Words (22/5/2008 10:28:04 AM)

[Edited for spoilers]

Can everyone please stop posting spoilers without warning? It's completely unfair and inconsiderate to those who haven't seen it yet and don't want anything particularly things from the final act ruined.




Spookygeek101 -> Indiana Jones and The Curse of George Lucas (22/5/2008 10:29:39 AM)

I was disappointed. The scenes at Marshall College were classic Indy, but the rest was a just above average generic adventure movie. parts of it reminded me of the National Treasure movies and The Mummy - don't get me wrong, i really liked the Mummy but the original Indy movies are a class apart. Interdimensional Aliens were a poor choice of a mcguffin...




badassmofo -> RE: Indiana Jones and The Curse of George Lucas (22/5/2008 10:56:38 AM)

SPOILERS




Do you ever have moments when in watching a film you immeadiately know the moment that you get taken out of a film and just can't get back into it? I certainly had that with this.

The beginning is fantastic, in fact I would go so far to say that the Area 51 sequence rivals Raiders' opening for sheer fun. Exciting but strangely plausible, something I have always found with these films, it gets the film off to a great start. While the very first shot of Mutt is a little contrived, his introduction and chemistry with Indy is rather excellent for a long while into the film and the motorcycle chase while not the most memorable action sequence is still very satisfying. Ray Winstone's introduction is also a joy and while he does some good ambiguous stuff throughout, the introduction really is his best section of the film. The main thrust of the plot is also handled while and the threat of the Russians is very much kept in the front of our minds throughout, helped no end by Cate Blanchett's bizarre performance while fits in nicely to the slightly "ooey ooey", as Ford called the film in last months Empire, vibe of the film.

Then things start to go wrong. As soon as the film hits the jungle, things get bad.

Karen Allen, bless her, has not been in a major film for years and it shows. While her feistiness was an integral aspect to Raiders' success, she now feels more like an embarassing mother and it seems fairly obvious to me that Spielberg hoped the nostalgia factor would mask the fact that she can't hold her on against EVERYONE else. Its one of those A for effort D for acheivement deals. John Hurt also pops up and is completely wasted throughout as he is given nothing to do but babble and pull silly faces.

But worse than both of those factors, the film then completely "jumps the shark", off into implausible CGI assisted action for the last 50 minutes or so. Seeing Shia Lebeouf have a sword fight with Cate Blanchett, the both on two moving trucks, actually made me die a little inside. When I told my girlfriend about that part, she said "oh dear" and thats about the size of it. The action becomes completely off the wall and for all the talk of Spielberg saying he wanted to use as little CG as possible, it becomes one of the main elements of the film as it reaches its climax, something you just don't need/want in an Indy film. Also for all the CG on display, that can't fix the fact that much of the film looks obviously stage-bound, the sense of epic scope sorely dulled by this.

The "shark jumping" then reaches its ultimate high with the resolution of just what is going on. The "ooey ooey" factor reaches its nadir, the Lucas infulence sadly clear as day, and the ending, which also retreads Raiders' ark opening quite a bit, is a mix of CG and lunacy and while I understand Spielberg and Lucas were going for a 1950's sci-fi vibe, in my screening people just laughed and with good cause as the "two words" Kit Fisto refers too comes out and you just end up scratching your head. It simply does not work and serves to very much hurt the film.

The very last scene is also rather unneccesary and while it neatly ties off the Indy saga, it rather clumsily tries to point out a new franchise, and one I sincerely hope does not happen as while Shia LeBeouf aquits himself well, I just don't see what worth there would be in it.

While not the "Phantom Menance" some dreaded, this film shows that the man in the hat might be back but its not the years or the mileage that will be Indy's ultimate foe. Instead its CGI.

2/5

EDIT: I just read one of the CHUD reviews of the film and my last line is virtually the same as one of theirs. Call me unoriginal but don't accuse me of stealing material! lol




okayeoiny -> RE: Indiana Jones and The Curse of George Lucas (22/5/2008 10:58:03 AM)

in fairness - the empire review seems to be trying to convince us (and itself) why we shouldnt hate this movie (giving excuses as to the high rating):

"...but, if you're in the right frame of mind, it will change your mood: you might wince, you might groan, you might beg to differ on the big, silly climax. Think of Indy as an escape, which is all he was ever meant to be..."

OUCH! I mean how shit does that sound? So Indy's not meant to be a "good movie" just an escape eh? If you're in the right frame of mind for it of course (and you'll still wince, groan etc)

AND IT STILL GETS 4 STARS

fuck you empire - you dont have the BALLS to give a movie like this its deserved 2 star rating - probably coz you talked it up so much all year to sell magazines with "new indy photos" - eh? Who would buy the mag if you had've used your brain and said "this will be shit, just like the new star wars movies"

why dont you grow a pair and start reporting what's ACTUALLY good - instead of hyping stuff up that will sell you magazines and still give them good reviews even when they obviously suck donkey balls. What about a bit of honesty instead of bullshit marketing ploys?

Can anyone guess what star rating empire will give by the time it comes out on DVD (when they cant hype up the movie when everyone already knows how shit it is?)

I'll bet 2 stars - 3 tops (and even 3 would be way too high for this heap of shite)

All those poor bastards who actually thought this would be the movie of the summer - its them I feel sorry for - imagine the dissapointment! And they have the good people of empire to thank for it.




Honest989 -> carrying on (22/5/2008 10:58:48 AM)

I don't post often but needed to get this off my chest:

I saw the film last night and I'm torn. I was never a Star Wars fan so I wasn't entirely crushed when I learned the prequels were a bit... naff - what I was worried about was whether this would affect Indy 4 when it was announced.
The truth of the matter is no. It's still a rip-roaring yarn with a silly adventure and Harrison himself is in good shape, but his age, not the mileage is now beginning to show. That said he's still on top form though!

The film started well enough and despite some naysayers, I thought the groundhog gag/riff on the paramount mountain was quite funny but the CG disturbed me. It seemed out of place in an Indy movie as the last three had none. The colour pallette worked well too and made the world seem fresh. Those pesky Nazis are gone though, and they make way for the not-quite-so-insidious Commies.

My problem was the way the movie worked though. Usually indy has a bad guy chase at the beginning, followed up by a quick breather in which he discovers some personal danger (Dad disappearing/ Children Disappearing/Someone searching for a terrible weapon) and then he's off on his travels. This one took too long and at the same time reached his first discovery waaaay too early.

The Area 51 and the atomic bomb were fun, as was the chase with Shia on the bike, but the breather just showed indy up as this old retired professor which, while probably the point kind of diminished this character I loved when I saw the first films. That said, when the film picks up pace again, he's back on form but it starts to annoy me as a film when Marion is introduced again.

I personally think she was unecessary as an addition save to have 'the girl' so necessary to adventure films (although she had to be the same age as indy). She was a wee bit hammy to say the least. Moving on - the amazon chase. It's a great and well paced part of the film, but again CGI!!! Most of it probably uses a blue screen but it is used to good effect for most of it. Save the monkeys.

(sorry I got cut off in this post so I'll keep it short now)

The ending annoyed me. The man in the hat seemed completely out of place with fancy inter-stellar tech ripping everything apart. Indy was about myth, legend, lost cities... not aliens. The flying saucer destroying evrything and vanishing... it just wasn't a satisfactory ending. It also begs the question, once the skull was returned and the aliens left... why the heck didn't they do so before the skull was stolen? I genuinely believe that something like the fate of atlantis would have leant itself better as an indy plot rather than this one.

You can rest easy though - Shia will not be the next Indy, there's a great bit at the end that just oozes 'there can only be one'.

(Personaly opinion: NAthan Fillion would be great as an indy, he's hammy enough, pulls the same faces, and besides, makes everything 27% better)

Go out and see it, form your opinion. It's still an Indy tale but just not quite the way you'd expect.




willturland -> RE: Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull (22/5/2008 11:01:01 AM)

I caught this at a midnight screening last night and have to say I was bitterly dissapointed. The "supernatural" element, which was played down in the other movies was shoved right in your face from the get go ... which would have been okay if it hadn't been utterly ridiculous.
Ray Winston had so little to do sometimes it seemed like he was Indy's imaginary friend, none of the other characters seemed to speak to him! None of the action sequences stood out, the CG looked pretty ropy in places, and Indy just looked so very tired.
Don't get me wrong, Harrison Ford was still Indy, and he was easily the best thing in the movie ... but there was just something really depressing about the whole thing.
It was all downhill from the fridge...




Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.046875