2519 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

Nah, the consensus (from what I gather through friends, contacts, the internet - both fanboy and otherwise) is that the other two Jones films are viewed as pretty classic in their own right. TEMPLE OF DOOM is the most controversial, but the love for that film has grown over the years, and there's oodles of goodwill and affection for LAST CRUSADE.

And Leonard Maltin's hardly indicative of more than Leonard Maltin and the lackeys he hires to produce his guide.

Yes, but Maltin is famously objective, and very reflective of critical consensus. (Witness the ultra-predictable ***1/2 ratings every year for everything you think will get ***1/2 - if you crack open the new edition of his book each year as I do, you'll find you're nearly always right when it comes to how he'll dish out his ratings. I reckon that this year we'll see ATONEMENT, JUNO, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, THERE WILL BE BLOOD, etc. with ***1/2, THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM with ***, LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD with **1/2, RAMBO with *1/2, and so on - it's very rare that Maltin will buck the consensus).

I recall TEMPLE OF DOOM getting plenty of negative reviews on release, although admittedly even the hallowed RAIDERS had its fair share of detractors when it first hit cinemas.

But, anyhoo, I'm fairly sure that TEMPLE and CRUSADE are not held in anything like as high a regard by The World At Large™ as RAIDERS is, and it surely follows from that that if CRYSTAL fails to rival RAIDERS in quality it'll be perceived by many as a disappointment.

Well, I think RAIDERS is the greatest adventure film of all time. The chances of a director equalling that, or besting it, in his lifetime is very, very slim.

I disagree. IMO, CASINO ROYALE and DIE HARD are better "adventure" films than RAIDERS, while T2 is at least as good. Now, by no means is it easy to match RAIDERS, but it's surely doable, especially when you have Spielberg with all the money on earth and many years of development (hell) under his belt.

Neither am I sure that Spielberg is no longer on his "groundbreaking classic" form. Since CRUSADE, he's made some of his best and certainly some of his boldest and most interesting films, with SCHINDLER'S LIST obviously at the top of the list, but there's also JURASSIC PARK, MUNICH, THE TERMINAL, CATCH ME IF YOU CAN, AI and so on. You rightly cite DUEL, JAWS, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, E.T. and RAIDERS as products of his golden age, but it's hardly as though his abilities have nosedived in recent years.

So I still say that - in theory - CRYSTAL could be as good as RAIDERS. And I also maintain that - given all the time and trouble spent on it, as well as the incredible amount of fan anticipation - it should be as good.

[marktmurphy]

Well, I think RAIDERS is the greatest adventure film of all time. The chances of a director equalling that, or besting it, in his lifetime is very, very slim.

I disagree. IMO, CASINO ROYALE and DIE HARD are better "adventure" films than RAIDERS, while T2 is at least as good. Now, by no means is it easy to match RAIDERS, but it's surely doable, especially when you have Spielberg with all the money on earth and many years of development (hell) under his belt.

Blimey- you seem like a nice guy but I can never agree with your taste, sadly! Raiders is probably the ultimate big summer blockbuster adventure movie- I don't think anything's been better. Die Hard is practically perfect too, but that was the first of the action movies for me- a slightly different genre. T2's a cracker and is very much up there, but Raiders is just purer in form and probably a little better in exceution. And Casino Royale? Well it's a very good film, but it is a little flawed in places- certainly doesn't hit the heights of perfection that the other three hit for me.

Neither am I sure that Spielberg is no longer on his "groundbreaking classic" form. Since CRUSADE, he's made some of his best and certainly some of his boldest and most interesting films, with SCHINDLER'S LIST obviously at the top of the list, but there's also JURASSIC PARK, MUNICH, THE TERMINAL, CATCH ME IF YOU CAN, AI and so on. You rightly cite DUEL, JAWS, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, E.T. and RAIDERS as products of his golden age, but it's hardly as though his abilities have nosedived in recent years.

Nah; he's not as good as he was- he seems to have lost the ability to finish a film, for example. AI, Minority Report, Catch Me If You Can, The Terminal: all should have ended at least fifteen minutes before they actually did at the point that the story ended.
That's not to say he's bad- far from it. I'm much less concerned about this than any Star Wars prequel because it's got Steven Spielberg making it! He might make a duff film every now and then, and perhaps he's not quite as edgy or as full of ideas as he was, but he still knows his way around a movie set.

So I still say that - in theory - CRYSTAL could be as good as RAIDERS. And I also maintain that - given all the time and trouble spent on it, as well as the incredible amount of fan anticipation - it should be as good.

Hmm; I think most people are realists- I'm certainly not expecting it to be as good as Raiders; that film was perfection. From the outset we've already got a less steady ground on which to base a movie than Raiders- it has to take an old set of characters and tell us why we're watching them again- Raiders didn't. All sequels are going to be slightly lesser than the movie which started them off because they're just conceptually more messy. If they were going to make an Indiana Jones movie in an ideal world you wouldn't cast a 65-year old man. They didn't the first time, after all. So in this and other ways it's already slightly compromised because it's a sequel- I think everyone knows this and doesn't expect another Raiders. It will be good though- we're pretty much assured that.

[Loomis]

Blimey- you seem like a nice guy but I can never agree with your taste, sadly!

Most of my friends would agree with you.

Die Hard is practically perfect too, but that was the first of the action movies for me- a slightly different genre.

Point taken.

Nah; he's not as good as he was- he seems to have lost the ability to finish a film, for example.

I don't think he ever had it, to be honest. I think his films have almost always had the tendency to start off brilliantly (the first half hour of a Spielberg flick is usually superb) before petering out. I know that you won't agree, but for me this is also true of RAIDERS, which takes rather too long to end.

I'm much less concerned about this than any Star Wars prequel because it's got Steven Spielberg making it! He might make a duff film every now and then, and perhaps he's not quite as edgy or as full of ideas as he was, but he still knows his way around a movie set.

And that's why I say that, on paper, at least, CRYSTAL has (had) the potential to surpass RAIDERS. I don't understand why RAIDERS can't be beaten, unless, of course, one feels that RAIDERS is a film of almost godlike, never-to-be-repeated perfection - which as you'll have gathered is certainly not how I view it.

All sequels are going to be slightly lesser than the movie which started them off because they're just conceptually more messy.

But there have been sequels that are often considered superior to the originals: GODFATHER II, MAD MAX 2, ALIENS, T2, etc.

[marktmurphy]

Nah; he's not as good as he was- he seems to have lost the ability to finish a film, for example.

I don't think he ever had it, to be honest. I think his films have almost always had the tendency to start off brilliantly (the first half hour of a Spielberg flick is usually superb) before petering out. I know that you won't agree, but for me this is also true of RAIDERS, which takes rather too long to end.

Maybe it takes too long to get there for you, but at least it doesn't keep going after it's ended. AI ends when the kid gets trapped at the bottom of the sea, Minority Report should have ended when he realises that he actually is going to kill the guy, Catch Me should have ended when he got caught, Terminal ends when he leaves the terminal etc. They all keep going for an age after that, though, in pointless codas.

I'm much less concerned about this than any Star Wars prequel because it's got Steven Spielberg making it! He might make a duff film every now and then, and perhaps he's not quite as edgy or as full of ideas as he was, but he still knows his way around a movie set.

And that's why I say that, on paper, at least, CRYSTAL has (had) the potential to surpass RAIDERS. I don't understand why RAIDERS can't be beaten, unless, of course, one feels that RAIDERS is a film of almost godlike, never-to-be-repeated perfection - which as you'll have gathered is certainly not how I view it.

It probably can be beaten (I can't see it happening easily because I think it's perfect in every way), but I doubt another Indy film will do it.

All sequels are going to be slightly lesser than the movie which started them off because they're just conceptually more messy.

But there have been sequels that are often considered superior to the originals: GODFATHER II, MAD MAX 2, ALIENS, T2, etc.

Well a lot of those change the concept though- Aliens is an action movie where the original is a horror (not sure that Aliens is regarded as superior, either- it's good, but different); Godfather II is a period thing, T2 is a massive action epic whereas the original is a sci-fi thriller (again, there's no consensus as to which is better); and I'm not convinced that Mad Max 2 is that highly regarded, is it? But they're all good sequels because they aim to do something else- and not all of them can be said to be considered better, anyway.

Although I prefer Spider Man 2 and Bourne Supremacy. There are no hard and fast rules; but I can't see Kingdom surpassing Raiders with all the luggage it has to carry now. Doesn't mean it'll be bad, though.

[sharpshooter]

Beating Raiders was never going to happen. It'll be a good film though I hope.

[Harmsway]

But, anyhoo, I'm fairly sure that TEMPLE and CRUSADE are not held in anything like as high a regard by The World At Large™ as RAIDERS is,

I wouldn't be surprised. Most people I know tend to put CRUSADE on equal footing with RAIDERS.

and it surely follows from that that if CRYSTAL fails to rival RAIDERS in quality it'll be perceived by many as a disappointment.

I think the audience is easier than you are. I'm not talking about the cinema fans. I'm talking about Joe Blo, for whom Indiana Jones just brings back reminders of good ol' fashioned fun.

Well, I think RAIDERS is the greatest adventure film of all time. The chances of a director equalling that, or besting it, in his lifetime is very, very slim.

I disagree. IMO, CASINO ROYALE and DIE HARD are better "adventure" films than RAIDERS, while T2 is at least as good.

All of those are very good films, and it's conceivable that KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL could match them in quality. But to match those films in quality would still, IMO, make it noticably inferior to RAIDERS. RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK is beyond being a very good film. It's a great film, is probably the best piece of cinematic action-adventure entertainment to ever be released.

Neither am I sure that Spielberg is no longer on his "groundbreaking classic" form. Since CRUSADE, he's made some of his best and certainly some of his boldest and most interesting films, with SCHINDLER'S LIST obviously at the top of the list, but there's also JURASSIC PARK, MUNICH, THE TERMINAL, CATCH ME IF YOU CAN, AI and so on.

SCHINDLER'S LIST was the last great film Spielberg made, and it was almost 20 years ago; JURASSIC PARK is forgettable piffle that made a splash because it featured dinosaurs, not anything else; MUNICH is a nice, dark film, but it doesn't touch the perfection of his early work, or the greatness of SCHINDLER'S LIST; THE TERMINAL is poor; CATCH ME IF YOU CAN is good but miles away from great; A.I. is interesting but too flawed to think anything too highly of.

So I still say that - in theory - CRYSTAL could be as good as RAIDERS. And I also maintain that - given all the time and trouble spent on it, as well as the incredible amount of fan anticipation - it should be as good.

Well, I'm glad that the public doesn't really have those levels of expectations. I've yet to see anyone, aside from yourself, demand a film as good as RAIDERS. Lucas and Spielberg would be pretty much cursed before they ever picked up a camera.

It's like asking them, "Give us another CITIZEN KANE!" Well, we can shout and cry all we want, but odds are, our expectations are so sky-high that they're not going to be able to match it.

But there have been sequels that are often considered superior to the originals: GODFATHER II, MAD MAX 2, ALIENS, T2, etc.

GODFATHER part II: granted. The rest? Well, I'd say there's no agreement (and for my money, ALIENS and T2 are markedly inferior to their first installments).

[Loomis]

Well a lot of those change the concept though- Aliens is an action movie where the original is a horror (not sure that Aliens is regarded as superior, either- it's good, but different); Godfather II is a period thing, T2 is a massive action epic whereas the original is a sci-fi thriller (again, there's no consensus as to which is better)

Good points. But they're still sequels. Couldn't CRYSTAL - in theory, on paper, etc. - change the concept and be a better film than RAIDERS? I don't see that such a potential wasn't there, but where you and I part ways is that you think RAIDERS is perfect and I don't.

and I'm not convinced that Mad Max 2 is that highly regarded, is it?

Well, back in the day it certainly was. It's a film that doesn't seem to get talked about all that much these days, but in the '80s and '90s it was held in very high esteem (not by everyone, obviously, but by many people) as a near-flawless action classic with dark dramatic elements. It was a real hit with the Sight & Sound crowd, and even featured in a booklet given away with the mag a few years ago that cited it as the best film of 1981 - it stuck out like a sore thumb among a raft of seriously arty fare. Okay, so that was just one magazine, but I definitely remember MAD MAX 2 getting exactly the kind of critical raves that RAIDERS got/gets. Unlike RAIDERS, its reputation may have dimmed a little, but, yeah, back in the day....

GODFATHER part II: granted. The rest? Well, I'd say there's no agreement (and for my money, ALIENS and T2 are markedly inferior to their first installments).

Well, sure, there's no agreement, as such, but that's why I wrote that they're "sequels that are often considered superior to the originals".

You surely won't deny that there are plenty of people - enough people to constitute a significant strain of opinion, that is (I mean, even though I personally like it, I'd never write "John McTiernan's ROLLERBALL is often considered a good movie", because I know that there just isn't enough backup) - who consider ALIENS better than ALIEN, and T2 better THE TERMINATOR and so on?

[Harmsway]

Well, our first review of the film. Feel free to doubt it's legitimacy (I do). But it's a rave:

A guy who knows a guy who's on the Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull team has passed along #2's impressions of the finished film. I'm not 100% comfortable running them, given the obvious fact that #2 is a coward, cowering like an eight year-old girl behind the creased khaki slacks of #1, as well as a shill and a spinner, but here goes anyway:

"I felt compelled to write, having just read Anne Thompson's 4.17 Variety column which states that 'the advance buzz on Indy 4 is getting damaging enough that Lucas and Spielberg may want to reconsider the current strategy of waiting until May 18 to show the film...that's a long way off.'

Composer John Williams, Guy #2 says, was initially correct on the Indy 4 running time of 140 minutes, but the film "underwent belt tightening and has been receiving customary tweaking for its final mix."

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull "is the best of the Indy sequels," he declares. "Steven Spielberg's helming puts the imitators (The Mummy, National Treasure) to shame. There are many breakneck set pieces, with a protracted jungle chase being particularly memorable. As well as being evocative of the truck chase from the first movie.

Harrison Ford, he claims, "gives his best performance in the role, not only physically belying his age but layering in welcome poignancy. More than before, audiences will be rooting for Indy. Shia LaBeouf makes essential contributions. Chemistry between he and Ford is palpable, yielding some nice character comedy.

"Jones is particularly beleaguered throughout the adventure, making his predicaments all the more entertaining.

"The film has the strongest supporting cast of the sequels. They all raise the bar. Ray Winstone amuses and fascinates, but the strongest impression is left by Cate Blanchett's Agent Spalko, a characterization that achieves instant cult status.

"Hopefully, the surprises in this film can continue to be guarded. Eventually, these spoilers will get out, but it would be shameful for reviewers and bloggers to reveal an ending that any longtime diehard fan of the films could only dream about. Expect a particularly resounding reaction in the theater.

"Kudos to screenwriter David Koepp for pulling all this together on the page. This will easily be the biggest hit of the year."

[Judo chop]

Thanks Harms. I appreciate the spoilessness of that 'review'. I continue to remain optimistic. I aquiesce to the fact that the glory of Raiders will never be matched, by Spielberg, by Ford or by any imitator ever to come. It is the greatest Adventure of all time.

Having said that, if Kingdom manages to unite the better parts of Temple and Crusade, while leaving the obnoxious elements those films had to offer behind, we should be in for a great Indy adventure. Based on this review, it seems like it has taken a step in that direction. I do so want to cheer 'Go Indy!' again.

[marktmurphy]

GODFATHER part II: granted. The rest? Well, I'd say there's no agreement (and for my money, ALIENS and T2 are markedly inferior to their first installments).

Well, sure, there's no agreement, as such, but that's why I wrote that they're "sequels that are often considered superior to the originals".

You surely won't deny that there are plenty of people - enough people to constitute a significant strain of opinion, that is (I mean, even though I personally like it, I'd never write "John McTiernan's ROLLERBALL is often considered a good movie", because I know that there just isn't enough backup) - who consider ALIENS better than ALIEN, and T2 better THE TERMINATOR and so on?

But then there are also plenty of people - enough people to constitute a significant strain of opinion- who'll tell you that Raiders is perfect; if we're going to listen to lots of people about T2 being better than Terminator, shouldn't we listen to them about Raiders being a slice of perfect classic cinema?
Personally I think all three Indys are classics- it's just that Raiders reaches a higher plane. I don't see any reason to be disappointed with it just yet.

Thanks for the review link, Harms.

Sounds like this ending is a cracker- might have to avoid reading any more info about this film.

[sharpshooter]

The film sounds promising if that review is legit.

[jaguar007]

I am very excited for Indy 4 (much easier to type out than "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Krystal Skull"...doh!) - it is my 2nd most anticipated movie of the year (next to QoS). No matter how excited I am, I am under the realistic view that it will not be as good as Raiders. I am okay with that. Raiders is perhaps the best action/adventure movie ever made (one of the few to get a Best Picture Oscar nomination). I enjoyed both of the sequels and I expect Indy 4 to be on par with the those two, I believe most of the movie going public expect the same.

Everyone has different tastes in movies, but I bet that if there were a list compiled of the movies that EVERYONE likes (which is impossible), Raiders would be right at the top of that list. Do you know anyone who does not like Raiders of the Lost Ark?? I don't. I don't think that can be said about too many movies.

Personally I think Indy 4 will be the #1 grossing movie of the year, with Potter at #2.

[HildebrandRarity]

And why would you compare a fantasy period movie catering to all ages (including young children) to a relatively adult-oriented and relatively-realistic action movie?

Well, I think that KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL is every bit as family-friendly and as the current Harry Potter film (the films have gotten pretty dark). Lots of young kids are going to be there in the theater for INDIANA JONES IV, regardless of whether they genuinely belong there or not (ala REVENGE OF THE SITH).

Ha ha! I was referring to the Indy movie being the "fantasy period piece catering to all ages..." and to Quantum of Solace being the "relatively adult-oriented and relatively-realistic action movie" if you were confused by the way I wrote my previous post.

[Harmsway]

Sounds like this ending is a cracker- might have to avoid reading any more info about this film.

I think I know what he's talking about... It's an element I'm unsure about. It's going to depend entirely on how Spielberg directs it.

[Loomis]

But then there are also plenty of people - enough people to constitute a significant strain of opinion- who'll tell you that Raiders is perfect; if we're going to listen to lots of people about T2 being better than Terminator, shouldn't we listen to them about Raiders being a slice of perfect classic cinema?

Hmmm.... can't argue with that.

Might have to give RAIDERS another viewing. I haven't seen it in many years and may be underrating it somewhat.

As for CRYSTAL, I guess that whether or not it will be or ought to be as good as RAIDERS is ultimately beside the point. What matters is: is it a decent flick? We'll find out soon.

Harmsway, I take it that the ending is

Spoiler

the wedding of Indy and Marion

?

And why would you compare a fantasy period movie catering to all ages (including young children) to a relatively adult-oriented and relatively-realistic action movie?

Well, I think that KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL is every bit as family-friendly and as the current Harry Potter film (the films have gotten pretty dark). Lots of young kids are going to be there in the theater for INDIANA JONES IV, regardless of whether they genuinely belong there or not (ala REVENGE OF THE SITH).

Ha ha! I was referring to the Indy movie being the "fantasy period piece catering to all ages..." and to Quantum of Solace being the "relatively adult-oriented and relatively-realistic action movie" if you were confused by the way I wrote my previous post.

Ah. I made the same mistake. Sorry, Rarity.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I still don't get why Ford has that damn strap over the coat ™...I know that sounds like a frivolous fanboy pet peeve but...consistency Harry...so much for 65 is the new 45!

did I hear Lommis compare T2 to Raiders??? T2????

I'll grant Terminator 1 to be in the conversation of great genre films but there's no movie that touches Raiders. No sequel could ever be as good.

[00Twelve]

[quote name='Tarl_Cabot' post='862855' date='21 April 2008 - 14:39']I still don't get why Ford has that damn strap over the coat

[Harmsway]

As for CRYSTAL, I guess that whether or not it will be or ought to be as good as RAIDERS is ultimately beside the point. What matters is: is it a decent flick? We'll find out soon.

Indeed.

Harmsway, I take it that the ending is

Spoiler

the wedding of Indy and Marion

?

That's what I hear, yeah.

[Harmsway]

A second trailer has been classified by the BBFC. 1 min, 49 seconds. So it's on its way.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

[quote name='00Twelve' post='862856' date='22 April 2008 - 05:20'][quote name='Tarl_Cabot' post='862855' date='21 April 2008 - 14:39']I still don't get why Ford has that damn strap over the coat

[Harmsway]

The new trailer debuts in theaters with IRON MAN, and will be online May 4th.

[Thunderfinger]

I\ll skip IM,but will definitely see IJ.

[Harmsway]

A good spoileriffic image:

Spoiler

I give you... one of the alien skeletons in KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL:

[JimmyBond]

That's kinda cool, actually.

[Harmsway]

That's kinda cool, actually.

I think so too. I've grown to really like this film's story. Intriguing, mysterious, and different from what's come before.

[JimmyBond]

That's kinda cool, actually.

I think so too. I've grown to really like this film's story. Intriguing, mysterious, and different from what's come before.

The folks over at theraider.net message boards are having a cow over some of the more "controversial" elements, but I find them interesting actually. I figure if we can believe in the supernatural occuring in the Indy universe what's in this film won't be too out of place.

[Harmsway]

The folks over at theraider.net message boards are having a cow over some of the more "controversial" elements, but I find them interesting actually.

Yeah, I think they work. I would have had trouble swallowing them in the original angle Lucas took them (back with the Jeb Stuart draft), but they've since been recontextualized in a way that makes them compelling and not at all out of place in the Indiana Jones franchise. I think once people see them in context, things will fall into place.

[JimmyBond]

Just found this on youtube:

Harrison Ford interview.

It's from ET, it doesnt reveal anything but it is pretty cool. His response to if Shia plays his son or not is classic.

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

Thought I'd share this with you folks. A better quality version should be out via the widget soon, but until then here's a boothleg of the second TV spot. Enjoy!

[sharpshooter]

It looks pretty good.