I've just totally (Full Version)

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



Message

HarryHavoc -> I've just totally (22/5/2008 11:01:19 AM)

got my tickets to see it tonight!
Cannot wait!
I think the thing is most of you need to realise that your comparing it to the first three. Even if im not impressed that much with it, im still giving it 5stars just for the fact its indiana jones on the big screen again. People should stop being so greedy and expect so much froma film, i mean come on, evryone knew that it wasnt going to be as good as the first three! Jones is a legend, cannot wait!



HarryHavoc -> I've just totally (22/5/2008 11:01:24 AM)

got my tickets to see it tonight!
Cannot wait!
I think the thing is most of you need to realise that your comparing it to the first three. Even if im not impressed that much with it, im still giving it 5stars just for the fact its indiana jones on the big screen again. People should stop being so greedy and expect so much froma film, i mean come on, evryone knew that it wasnt going to be as good as the first three! Jones is a legend, cannot wait!



Evil_Monkey25 -> Hmmm... (Spoilers Ahoy) (22/5/2008 11:10:09 AM)

I went to see the midnight showing last night, and decided to withold my own review until I'd slept on it and mulled it over in the cold light of day.  Unfortunately, this morning, I remain diappointed.

It's a film of two halves, really.  The opening salvo and Marshall college scenes are classic Indy, and even though the jumps to Peru and the Amazon seem disjointed they can be forgiven because the whole thing just seems slick at this point.  I had a big grin on my face, particularly during the discovery of the skull and the sand-pit sequences.  And the majority of the DUKW chase is pretty cool, until... until.... oh Beardfaces, what have you done? Mutt of the Jungle? Monkeys helping out? Man-eating ants?? Okay, they weren't as bad as the GIANT ANTS, ARGH rumoured but still... For me the whole film seemed to fall apart from this moment onward.

Don't get me wrong.  Harrison is spot on once more, but the ensemble element just doesn't work; Indy spends too much time taking a back-seat to Mutt, which is understandable in certain action scenes due to his age, not only off-camera but in the film itself, but large parts of the film could quite easily have been called Mutt Williams and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and, quite frankly, that's not what I stayed up til 3am to see.  Blanchett's Spalko is a good villain (and am I the only one to find her stupidly hot?) but Allen, Winstone and Hurt all seem a little superfluous at times.

Then, of course, there's the MacGuffin itself.  I was excited about the crystal skulls, as I took a great interest in the real-life stories and superstitions some years ago.  There's some lovely little stories surrounding these skulls, many of the down-to-earth, some not, and its a shame that the writers chose to go down the sci-fi route so heavily.  Yes its a fifties-set film, echoing the old sci-fi B movies, but that's not what Indy is about.  Indy is about mythology, the supernatural... Aliens? In an Indy film? Sorry, but passing them off as "trans-dimensional beings" seems like a last-minute panic add-on to justify the ridiculous, but relatively well-handled, flying saucer bit.  We just didn't need to see it.  Send the bad guys off to the other dimension and be done with it.

Okay, so I realise I'm probably rambling now and maybe being a little harsh.  If I'd have gone to see this film without any prior knowledge of the franchise, or if it was just another generic adventure movie, I'd probably be quite impressed.  It is, by all accounts, a GOOD film, a nice comfortable three stars (Four for the first half, Two for the second).  It is not, however, the movie I've been waiting most of my life to see.

I'm reminded of dialogue from Last Crusade, in the scene where Indy brings back the Cross of Coronado to Marcus:
Indy: You know how long I've been looking for this?
Marcus: All your life?
Indy: All my life...

Now imagine if Indy hadn't retrieved the Cross..............................................



Evil_Monkey25 -> RE: Hmmm... (Spoilers Ahoy) (22/5/2008 11:15:00 AM)

Oh, and one final thing.... Henry Jones, Jr... wonderful little idea from Last Crusade, here taken way too far to the point where you wondered if everyone other than Marion had forgotten his "real" name... and the very final thing that annoyed me (that's it, I promise)... all through this production we've been told how everything's being done "old school", just like the originals... all real action stunts, just with better safety precautions.  We were promised something that looked and felt just like Raiders or Crusade... so what was with all the CG?????????



pettsy -> RE: Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull (22/5/2008 11:23:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Larry of Arabia

I was pleasantly suprised to see another reunion of sorts, though, between Ford and Neil "the janitor from Scrubs" Flynn, who starred in a bit part as a cop in The Fugitive. There's an episode of Scrubs all about it - "Kimble!" [:D]


That completely took me out of the film, I did not expect him to be there! [:D]

Harmless fun.  The ending is weak and I think some die-hards will be disappointed but I found it very engaging overall and a good ride for 2 hours.  Poor CG on display though, I'm thinking specifically of the jungle sequences.  I would give it a 3 1/2 but will bump it to four for this thread as it is undeniably entertaining.



JRockwell -> RE: George Lucas- charged on four counts of raping beloved childhood memories. 3 counts of Star Wars (22/5/2008 11:29:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olly Richards Promotion of movie piracy is not tolerated in this forum and repeated promotion will result in banning. If you want to see a film, pay. If you don't want to see it, don't.


I might see the film, late one night in a drunken stupor, three years from now when it's being repeated on TV and then regret waking up with the memory in the morning. But pay MY money, after what Beard did with Star Wars and what Rubberface has been churning out? No way. No way Siree. Bunch of "low-down lyin' Yankees". It's all about principles, other people will choose to do what they feel is best. After my recent experiences with the thicky twins I choose to never pay to see anything they make ever again.



krudler -> RE: George Lucas- charged on four counts of raping beloved childhood memories. 3 counts of Star Wars (22/5/2008 11:38:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JRockwell

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olly Richards Promotion of movie piracy is not tolerated in this forum and repeated promotion will result in banning. If you want to see a film, pay. If you don't want to see it, don't.


I might see the film, late one night in a drunken stupor, three years from now when it's being repeated on TV and then regret waking up with the memory in the morning. But pay MY money, after what Beard did with Star Wars and what Rubberface has been churning out? No way. No way Siree. Bunch of "low-down lyin' Yankees". It's all about principles, other people will choose to do what they feel is best. After my recent experiences with the thicky twins I choose to never pay to see anything they make ever again.



your loss cockbag



Rascal -> RE: George Lucas- charged on four counts of raping beloved childhood memories. 3 counts of Star Wars (22/5/2008 11:45:18 AM)

Saw this at the Odeon West End last night just after midnight.  Great atmosphere, totally right for an Indy film.

SPOILERS (I suppose)

I'm still not sure what I thought now.  I totally get the fact that this film references the 50s schlock sci-fi genre in the same way that the originals reference 30s matinees, but nevertheless, it freqently felt very, very strange.  Aliens in an Indy film were odd -- as were his totally unshocked reaction to them.  Didn't really get the stuff about him being a spy, and found the man-eating ants an odd sort of sub-Mummy device (until the endings, Indy usually exists in the real world).  In a similar vein, the protectors of the grave, and the gold temple thing were completely unexplained -- do they just sit around in walls waiting for people to come anywhere near them, so they can kill them?  In Last Crusade the defenders of the grail are clearly and logically explained.  These guys are never even referenced.

Was well made though, and felt sort of like an Indy film which is something (unlike Die Hard 4 which felt totally removed from the franchise that generated it).  CGI wasn't s good as it should've been -- ideally it shouldn't have been there at all.

Found the little bit at the very beginning with the groundhog very odd -- a bit like saying; "this is going to be really stupid; you should be aware of that now."



Olly Richards -> RE: Two Words (22/5/2008 11:52:12 AM)

I've said this elsewhere in the thread, but please do NOT post spoilers in this thread without clear warning. There are many people who haven't seen the film yet and don't want to have major plot points revealed on a film they've been anticipating for a long time. We'd appreciate everyone showing some consideration on this. I can't check all the posts – I have this whole job thing that gets in the way – but if someone is posting spoilers please report it to a moderator who can then remove it.



Beno -> RE: Two Words (22/5/2008 11:58:21 AM)

So OLLY can we remove Rascals now before anyone else reads it like i did ......not seeing the flick till Saturday .



Rascal -> RE: Two Words (22/5/2008 12:13:27 PM)

Apologies to anyone if I threw some spoilers in.  I've put a warning on it now, but I wasn't aware that I'd posted anything that wasn't either in the Empire review or has been freely discussed previously on this thread already (though I suppose that's Olly's point).  Also, having re-read it, none of the stuff in my thread will spoil much -- I'd read most of it in mainstream reviews before going in to the film.

Apologies nonetheless.  It's an inconsiderate thing to do.



Dave B -> RE: Two Words (22/5/2008 12:27:20 PM)

*****SPOILERS*****


Yesterday I couldn't have been more excited about a new Indiana Jones film. I watched the original trilogy beforehand, loved every minute of it and was eagerly awaiting the fourth instalment. However while it was an inevitable disappointment as it never could have justified the hype, what surprised me most was that it was a very badly made film. Not only that but its Spielberg's worst since Hook. 

Firstly I don't understand all this, "Just ignore the faults and have fun” attitude. I'm sorry but the two aren't mutually exclusive. In fact the first three films are brilliantly structured; maintain consistent tones and all have something to new to offer. Raiders is an action/adventure film, Temple of Doom is a horror film and Crusade is a buddy comedy. Crystal Skull seems like a mess of loads of different elements lacking a consistent tone and pace and worst of all trying to make things too complicated. The beauty of the original three is that they kept things simple. Here we have crystal skulls, Indy being accused of being a communist, Marion returning, Indy having a son, the skull making people mad and that odd and slightly pointless alien storyline.  

For all Lucas' talk of finding the right mcguffin, this one doesn't work at all. While there have always been supernatural elements, they were in tone with the franchise and more importantly involved ideas and themes around faith. Here it's simply aliens with no cause of them to be in it, they don't provide an emotional element to the film like the Grail did and they aren't nearly as mysterious as the Ark.  

However the films main problem is the casting and the characterisation. Indy just doesn't feel like Indy for the sole reason of Mutt Williams. He just takes over all the set pieces and leaves Indy in the background. Talk about not doing what it says on the cover. Indy riding shotgun to Mutt on the motorbike? Mutt sword fighting with the Russian woman? Mutt swinging like Tarzan? Apart from that last one, which I was completely embarrassed by, I want to see Indy do these things. Here he just seems to be in the background the whole time and that is unacceptable. Also Marion is pointless, given nothing to do and introduced far too late in the film meaning the emotional arc that she and Indy go through is totally unconvincing, Ray Winstone is pointless and over the top as usual and John Hurt is wasted in a completely superficial role.  

But the films other problem is the lack of fun. There far too many scenes of people standing around and talking and explaining the plot and it just dull. When the action scenes do come around their two messy, too unconvincing and hampered by tons of bad CGI and blue screen work. The most shocking thing about this CGI was far closely the finale resembled The Mummy Returns. Indy should be inspiring, not taking inspiration from shit sequels. Again the best element of old Indy is the simplicity, the action didn't contain tons of elements but what they did have was fun, believable and created peril for the characters. Indy in a mine cart, hanging of the end of a tank, going under a truck are classic action moments and Crystal Skull contains nothing that touches these. It's not like Spielberg has lost the touch in recent years either as Minority Report and War of the Worlds contain set pieces that are far more interesting than anything in this film.  

It's a shame because Spielberg is one of the best directors of blockbusters around but here instead of simply creating a film, he has tried to please everyone and put everything in, resulting in an unfocused and messy affair with very few redeeming features. Now if only they had used Frank Darabont's script. 2/5



Guchmeister -> RE: Two Words (22/5/2008 12:41:59 PM)

Has anyone who's seen this movie yet really liked it (except from the majority of the critics!)? I'm finding the opinions on here a bit bemusing given the generally positive reaction from the press, and am starting to wonder if it is a poor film or if people are just being deliberately miserable! I guess i'll just have to wait until the weekend and form my own opinion...[:D]



badassmofo -> RE: Two Words (22/5/2008 12:45:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Guchmeister

Has anyone who's seen this movie yet really liked it (except from the majority of the critics!)? I'm finding the opinions on here a bit bemusing given the generally positive reaction from the press, and am starting to wonder if it is a poor film or if people are just being deliberately miserable! I guess i'll just have to wait until the weekend and form my own opinion...[:D]


Like I said in my review, the first hour or so is cracking, its just the second is so so so poor as to really cripple the film, in my view anyway.



aerosmillie -> sadly disappointed (spoilers) (22/5/2008 1:03:59 PM)

Walked out annoyingly disappointed, almost heart broken that i didn't thoroughly enjoy an Indiana Jones movie. It's lost its realistic/suspencfull/emotionall sense of what made the other movies work. It almost seemed that Indy took a back seat almost, made fun of and was simply just along from the ride rather than been taken on the journey by Indy and his book of clues. Confusing opening, 'cant believe there really doing this' CG moments and a McGuffin that just doesn't cut it. I'd put my beliefs in the power of god any day over crystal skull aliens that was just dealt with so unrealisticly! and i think the unrealism of the movie was the main problem for me. There's always been unreal, make believe goings on in past Indy movies, but always dealt with in a real and watchable way. I dont want to watch Mutt swinging so effortlessly through the jungle vines like Tarzan himself......with monkeys by his side, after watching the dodgy (50's looking) CG sword fight between to moving cars!! Then followed by a river of unrealistic ants after the rubber snake scene! Good god!
I first saw the Indy movies when I was 7-10 years old with my Dad. They were and still are my favourite movies to watch EVER!
I have no doubt in my mind that every single kid in the world is going to love this movie.......is that the point, am I, unlike Harrison Ford playing Indiana Jones, just too old!!........ I wish i wasn't! (still gonna see it again though)



Mooncalf -> RE: Two Words (22/5/2008 1:08:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Guchmeister

Has anyone who's seen this movie yet really liked it (except from the majority of the critics!)? I'm finding the opinions on here a bit bemusing given the generally positive reaction from the press, and am starting to wonder if it is a poor film or if people are just being deliberately miserable! I guess i'll just have to wait until the weekend and form my own opinion...[:D]


MINOR SPOILERS

As a lot of people have said the scenes around the college (and to a lesser extent in the warehouse) feel like good old Indy - but elsewhere it's just a total shambolic mess, too many characters with too little to do - and one thing I neglected before, I couldn't agree more with the comment from Rascal 'In a similar vein, the protectors of the grave, and the gold temple thing were completely unexplained -- do they just sit around in walls waiting for people to come anywhere near them, so they can kill them?' - that bugged the heck out of me too!! I know everybody will still think - well I have to see it and make my own mind up, but be warned you are risking ruining your day - Empire was right about one thing it can change your mood I've been scowling and fuming over the good reviews since I saw it (80% on Rotton Tomatoes - and I was with four other people who all thought it sucked too, and didn't see one person coming out of the cinema looking satisfied - go figure; are critics really so different from punters in general?)



hobx -> RE: Two Words (22/5/2008 1:15:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Guchmeister

Has anyone who's seen this movie yet really liked it (except from the majority of the critics!)? I'm finding the opinions on here a bit bemusing given the generally positive reaction from the press, and am starting to wonder if it is a poor film or if people are just being deliberately miserable! I guess i'll just have to wait until the weekend and form my own opinion...[:D]



I thoroughly enjoyed it, as did the three of my mates who aren't indy fans who were with me. I suspect that the general distaste here comes from the hard core geeks (which I count myself one btw...) who just aren't able to shake off their expectations. Take that as you will, but I really hope we get a knew trilogy from this myself...



mattybeeee -> RE: Two Words (22/5/2008 1:23:26 PM)

Totally agree with Dave B's review... You hit the nail on the head mate.

Nobody's just being miserable, everyone wanted it to be great. It's just a bad, bad film.



rayhiggins -> RE: Two Words (22/5/2008 1:23:58 PM)

I had planned to watch this today to celebrate the end of my final year exams, but the last few pages have put me off it entirely. I had thought the movie would work, but with those reports of just how heavily sci-fi it goes, I'm no longer interested. Also, I'm not overly enamoured with the washed-out, soft coloured look of the whole thing.



jrewing1000 -> RE: Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull (22/5/2008 1:50:33 PM)

Speilberg's 'Phantom Menace'

***some small but not major spoilers within***

I have never been so disappoiinted by a Spielberg film in my life. I was very much looking forward to seeing it, had heard mixed reactions but thought 'hey, this is INDY!!! i dont care!' and sure, i had a spine tingling moment when the first 'indy anthem' was played and we saw the big man himself.

But this was by far and away the worst script Speilberg has had to work with. I am beginning to dislike George Lucas REAL bad (it screams of his clumsiness). I mean it was appalling. I was cringing far too regularly and the story they went with was just utter bollocks. It was clearly forced out and clumsily told, didn't have half the charm and adventure that the other three films had. Something was definately missing - or should i put it another way: Too much was there. Every now and then Indy would babble on about some crazy riddle, forcing the plot along like some stubborn mule. It reminded me of 3-2-1 when Ted Rodgers would read out the final riddle to reveal whether or not the couple had won a car. It was all just nonsense. Not the good kind of nonsense we all know and love about in films (like ghosts flying out of Arks, or Knights who are hundreds of years old guarding a Grail), but the kind of nonsense that screams out 'YOU ARE WATCHING A FILM, DONT BELIEVE IT!!'. Nonsense that reminds you that someone sat down and thought this stuff up.

Technically it had some good moments, particularly the visually spectacular ending (this is Spielberg after all), but there was something not quite right. For some reason i just didn't believe anything i was seeing - like it was all totally artificial. Why? Perhaps the cameras they were using? I don't know. One scene in particular near the beginning stood out as a film set far too clearly. When I think back to the old Indy films, i begin to question why this one stood out so badly - i mean, the stop-motion puppet minecar effects had more charm than most of the effects in this film. I read somewhere that Speilberg wanted to make this film the old way, even editing on a Moviola. They should have ditched all the CGI and made the effects old fashioned too - that probably would have forced them to question some of the scenes. I mean come on - swinging monkeys to the rescue?? ants carrying the bad guys away?? MOLES for christs sake?!?!?! what is this some disney film all of a sudden?!

Full credit to the cast for working with such bad material, particularly Harrison who, lets face it, IS Indiana Jones down to the bone. Shia was a good addition and was as good as you would expect. The rest of the cast did the best they could, but their hands were tied.

But at the end of the day it all came down to the script. Utter drivel, the story just didn't do it for me. It took the whole concept away from the gritty frolicking adventure stories that were not THAT far fetched but still carried enough mystery and thrill to please. This film just tries too hard and you want it to win, you so badly want it to work, but when you hear the line 'the skull told me to' you just wanna punch the screen and walk out.

Raiders set the bar for action adventure. Temple perfected it. Other films are doing this stuff better and more exciting. Once again (and someone should tell George Lucas this - not Spielberg, because the problems in this film have George Lucas' name all over them), this was a sequel that just shouldn't have been made.

Watch this if you're a big Indy fan because you'll want to follow Indy's story. But don't expect the magic.

2 / 5




JRockwell -> RE: Two Words (22/5/2008 1:52:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mattybeeee

Totally agree with Dave B's review... You hit the nail on the head mate.

Nobody's just being miserable, everyone wanted it to be great. It's just a bad, bad film.


Not having seen it I'm not in a position to comment on it but as lovers of film (which surely we ALL are) whether you're a geek, Hitchcockian, Western crazy, old school, golden age, silver age, whatever.. what we have to be looking for is good cinema. Cinematic craft that shines through in the writing, the production values (whether they're extreme low budget or million dollar monsters), a film that entertains by moving you, making you laugh, cry, shout for the hero or villain.. but essentially, what it all boils down to is whether a film engages you in a cinemtaic capacity. So that while you're watching it, all your knowledge of films and the way they're produced are put to one side so you're not thinking 'close up, long shot, extreme close up, superimoposed, CGI, fade, wipe, quick cut etc etc' - you're just sucked in. Jaws for me was the last time Rubberface managed this (by accident I might add) and Beard did it with Star Wars. Somewhere they lost their way. They make money, but they have never again made me forget I'm sitting in a theatre thinking "get out of the water!" or "fuck me that's a REALLY big space ship".

So a lot of you might have thought the film was ok, but surely that's judging it from a skewed perspective. Anytime during the experience where you thought "oh dear" and you clicked out of the magic that is a film's ability to make you forget where you are, you should have knocked four stars off your rating. Otherwise you're just cheapening your own opinion. Empire.



Rascal -> RE: Two Words (22/5/2008 2:11:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mattybeeee

Totally agree with Dave B's review... You hit the nail on the head mate.



Seconded! 



MartinBlank76 -> RE: Two Words (22/5/2008 2:12:05 PM)

Well I decided to sneak out of work for a couple of hours and catch the first showing just for the sake of embracing my inner geek, rather than being actually busting to see it. I love Indy and have been looking forward to it, but was keeping my expectations in check.

Here there be spoilers...

It was entertaining in a kinda not-a-bad-way to spend a couple of hours (and it was deffo better than work!) and overall I would give it 6 out of 10. Mostly because its Indy and I have great affection for the character and people involved. If it wasnt Indy it would be a 5 out of 10 film, worth watching but nothing special.

First of all the ending is dire and had the feeling of an ending that was thought up on the way to the set. Indy has always had a fantastical element but they never overdid it and it never feels as out of place as this one did. Did they really spend years rejecting script after script to do this one? The idea or McGuffin as Lucas is constantly bleating about, I remember hearing it being mooted as a possible storyline back in the early nineties. It didnt sound right then and now that I have seen it in action it doesnt work now either. I would be interested in how Frank Darabonts script would of worked for it and had it a different idea at its core? I dunno.

The start of it disappointed me too as usually it is its own self-contained little movie with nothing or very little to connect it to the main story. This was definitely not the case here so they broke tradition with that and it was not for the better. And I know there is the odd ridiculous misstep in the original trilogy were you strech credibility too far (such as the life raft out of the plane in temple) but both the waterfall scene, shia labeoufs swordfight stretched between two cars and most of all the atomic refrigerator blast moment felt like they didnt belong in an Indy film. Oh and the bit with the monkeys. I had almost forgotten about that or tried to forget at least.

Stretch credibility - yes. Break it without thinking twice is not the Indy way. No matter if they push the envelope with the action scenes I always thought they worked in the originals because they kept them somewhat grounded and semi-realistic.

Plus points? Well Harrison still has it. And Ray Winstone is good in anything even when he hasnt much to work with as here. Cat Blanchett tries gamely but she is the weakest villan yet. I think maybe giving her a more memorable henchman or some kind of support may have helped. Finally, Shia LaBeouff as Indys son worked like a charm I thought, especially in the interplay between them earlier.

Overall if you forget its Indy and go and watch it you may be reasonably entertained for an hour or two. But it is Indy and when that thought flows into your brain, you will pick and pick at it and it will all slowly fall apart.

People have been calling this the equivalent of the phantom menance. Personally I think Menance though heavily flawed is better as it at least had some moments (the opening scenes of jedi coolness, and anything involving darth maul) that did blow you away. This lacked any moments of pure blockbuster WOW! which are essential for a film like this.



nucleargibbon -> Very Disappointed (22/5/2008 3:06:46 PM)

So many people, inlcuding even George Lucas, have been telling us not to go into this movie with Raiders-style expectations. I never expected this to even come close to Raiders (which is almost action/adventure perfection in my view) even before anyone said that, so I took my seat in the cinema this morning with a very open mind. And all in all Im feeling rather glum right now. Not only was it not very good compared to the other 3, it wasnt even all that good compared to other adventure films that are out there, and Indy films are supposed to be above those.

WHEN are filmmakers going to realise that CGI, no matter how much time is spent on them, does NOT look realistic enough to trick the human brain into believing a situation is real, especially when the picture is expanded to fill a space the size of a cinema screen. Too many of the action sequences, the jungle vehicle chase in particular, were void of any tension and concern for the good guys on my part, simply because the effects werent convincing enough and so it conveyed no real sense of danger. And I couldnt believe what I was seeing in the very first couple of seconds of the film after the Paramount logo faded out, especially after what Spielberg had apparently said about keeping CGI to a minimum to fit in with the other 3.

Im trying really hard to think of something positive to say to try and strike a balance so I dont get verbally assaulted by some people, but I just cant really. Even the directing seemed really unlike the first 3 films. Theres a scene in War of the Worlds where Cruise and kids are escaping in their stolen car down the motorway after the initial alien attack, and in it Spielberg does this one long continuous shot that rotates and zooms in/out around the car as its driving (as well as incorporating CGI), which I personally think didnt look very good. It seemed to me that he was trying similar swanky stuff in this film, during the jungle chase in particular, and it just doesnt gel to



elzupasmonkey -> RE: Very Disappointed (22/5/2008 3:16:44 PM)

Very hit and miss.

For every smile it puts on your face it slapas you across the kisser with a W.T.F. moment of stupidity.

And, frankly, when an Indiana Jones movie begins, the first word that pops into my head shouldn't be 'Caddyshack'

The best part of the movie for me was the Bike Ride on Campus. The closest the movie came to old school stunts like the previous three.

The whole testing site piece was completely pointless and unneccessary whereas the movie desperately needed a full-on action sequence in the cemetary, to puncture the boredom you start to feel.

While the script is a passionless mess, I actually enjoyed the storyline and liked the way it went and the period in which it is set.

I definitely rate it the least of the Indiana Jones movies and I hope they don't bother with another one.



jrewing1000 -> RE: Very Disappointed (22/5/2008 3:19:38 PM)

i like this quote from Reelviews.net:

"In the end, however, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull can't be seen as anything other than a very minor chapter in the adventures of one of cinema's most beloved action heroes and a disappointment for those who have waited patiently for his return. George Lucas knows a thing of two about disappointing fans when resurrecting long-dormant franchises, but what he does here is a far worse crime than he perpetrated with Star Wars. In that saga, there was still a story to tell. The episodic nature of this trilogy meant no follow-up was needed. And, if this is the best the filmmakers could come up with, the wisest course would have been to leave movie-goers with their memories."

sums it up for me



jrewing1000 -> RE: Very Disappointed (22/5/2008 3:21:14 PM)

also - was it me or did it seem like Indy should definately, without a shadow of doubt, even in a fictional adventure movie, have died several times?!?!?!



Mr Selleck -> Disappointing? (22/5/2008 3:24:54 PM)

I'm having trouble working out if it was a disappointing movie or just a disappointing Indy movie. There was very little sense of dread in the action scenes and even one moment that is truly embarrising for all involved. This felt more like one of those spin-off novels that just doesnt capture the feel of the original movies. Theres even a scene ripped straight from the mummy. Maybe i'll go for a second viewing in a few weeks, without the high expectations this time.



Requiemfordudley -> In the name of God!!! (22/5/2008 3:29:50 PM)

I went to the midnight showing last night as my friends goaded me on to going. I love the original films but from the trailer i just felt that something wasn't right. Lucas has done the impossible with this film; he has made something worse the the star wars prequels. Think of the most idiotic caricature of indiana jones possible, multiply it by infinity and still you wont comprehend just how pathetic this film is. nuclear blasts, aliens and monkeys but to name a few of some of the worst choices in cinematic history. I'm not one for posting hate reviews all over the internet but this film truely deserves it, people need to be told so they don't go out and pay to see this film. Lucas and spielberg don't need any prompting to make another sequel and drag the corpse of this franchise into another terrible husk of a film.

Empire's and other critics praising this film must be being paid to do so, no one can blow this much smoke up someones ass for such a pile of crap. I've never left a film like this with the whole cinema so miserable and bored with what they just saw. Take heed fans, read the message boards of movie goers opinions they will steer you in the right direction.



Fritz Lang -> RE: In the name of God!!! (22/5/2008 3:36:16 PM)

Why you blaming only Lucas for this travesty?The film has a director too...



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.03125