2519 replies to this topic

[DamnCoffee]

Ahhh I see, I thought you meant Lucas and Spielberg twisting Connery's arm.... Sorry, I misread it.

[marktmurphy]

Also on the subject of a teen sidekick for the 'demographics': don't forget that this movie also features a rekindled romance between two people in their 50's/60's- not exactly bang on for the teens there, presumably? It's as close to a film version of 'As Time Goes By' as we're going to get (well, if you don't count Tomorrow Never Dies- well Lionel and Jean were both in it ).

[baerrtt]

The impression I get from the negative reviews is that (by and large) reviewers wanted to be 'surprised' (in other words be watching something other than an INDIANA JONES film). That's how the reviews play to me.

Unlike LIVE FREE AND DIE HARD the casting of Shia is an important plot point to the film and as Harry Knowles says in his review thematically makes sense. If there's been a point to the Indy films (as sentimental as it is) it's been about living life with belief and people at your side. I suspect the film complements this.

[Safari Suit]

Well Long's character was fairly important to the plot of LFODH. And whilst I initially groaned at his casting, I thought his character turned out a lot better than it could have done, and was certainly more entertaining and more interesting than Olyphant's character (or performance). That film had its problems, but IMO Long wasn't really one of them.

[jaguar007]

Lucas, Spielberg & co. do not need to have a young guy in to attract the younger crowd. I don't think Shia Lebouf being in the movie will make much difference in the box office results at all. My 17 year old daughter is excited to see it because it is Indiana Jones, not because Shia Lebouf is in it.

[Loomis]

Harry Knowles' review is ludicrous, probably the single most embarrassing and predictable piece he's ever written. It basically boils down to: OMG THIS IS AN INDIANA JONES MOVIE AND THEREFORE IT RULES!!!!!!!! BECAUSE IT'S AN INDIANA JONES MOVIE!!!!!!!! In other words, it's great because, erm, it exists. And, hey, IT'S INDIANA JONES!!!!!!!!

[Safari Suit]

His Superman Returns review was much the same if I remember. Still better than his Blade II review though.

[Scottlee]

I never had a problem with Indy's sidekicks in the first three films. Short Round and Connery were both welcomely entertaining for one film each. I've got to admit though that the best sequences in the first film (when there wasn't always a sidekick) came when Indy was up against the odds purely on his own - the opening sequence and the truck chase spring to mind.

I didn't mind Samuel L Jackson in Die Hard 3, rather the weak climax to the film and the lack of violence throughout. It wasn't a bad film because of Jackson though.

Chris Rock? I didn't mind him in LW4. The worst of the Lethal Weapon films for me is number three when there weren't as many sidekicks (but still more than in the first two).

It's hit and miss in the Bond films. Triple X and Goodhead were both good sidekicks (if you were going to call them more than just 'Bond Women') where as Jinx simply sucked.

All in all, I don't have an aversion to the concept. I just wait and see whether it can be pulled off competently when each different film arrives.

[Loomis]

I quite enjoy Connery's performance, but I think he was miscast as Indy's dad. He's far too big and macho to play someone who's supposed to be an eccentric professor. Someone like Richard Vernon would have been a better choice, IMO.

How was Connery miscast when Lucas based Indiana Jones off of Sean Connery's James Bond? That's perfect casting!

He wasn't based on Connery's James Bond, or any other James Bond for that matter. Lucas was against casting Connery in the role to begin with, anyway. Spielberg had to twist his arm to agree to it.

I would have been absolutely fine with Connery, if they'd made the character an older (and, perhaps, better) version of Indy. They didn't do that. They made him a tweed-wearing fuddy duddy professor. And Connery doesn't convince me as that character, I'm sorry to say.

Absolutely. It's always been a complete mystery to me why they used Connery so perversely. "James Bond as Indiana Jones' father" was a brilliant idea, and casting Connery was a wonderful coup.... but why did they then have to go and totally defeat the purpose of that great idea by making Connery play a tweedy buffoon who was no different to Marcus Brody?

Anyhoo, and not to be even more of a sourpuss on this topic than I am already, but the critical consensus on CRYSTAL SKULL seems to be that it's an(other) occasionally fun but overall mediocre entry in the series that starts off with some great thrills and spills, has a plodding midsection and falls apart almost completely towards the end. Ford is good but nothing amazing, Shia is better than expected, Karen Allen is the highlight of the film (but criminally underused), and the rest of the cast is wasted, with the exception of Cate Blanchett As The Strangest Character Ever In An Indiana Jones Flick™.

Sounds like TWINE meeting DIE HARD 4.0 - a bit of a mess and a mixed bag that has some good moments, and maybe one or two great moments, but never comes even vaguely close to fulfilling its awesome potential.

[marktmurphy]

Anyhoo, and not to be even more of a sourpuss than I am already on this topic,

Yeah, why do you want this film to be bad? You've been going on about it for weeks- I'm not sure what you've got against it. Is it just because you want Stallone to have the sole rights to the 'hexagenarian action hero tag'?

but the critical consensus on CRYSTAL SKULL seems to be that it's an(other) occasionally fun but overall mediocre entry in the series that starts off with some great thrills and spills, has a plodding midsection and falls apart almost completely towards the end. Ford is good but nothing amazing, Shia is better than expected, Karen Allen is the highlight of the film (but criminally underused), and the rest of the cast is wasted, with the exception of Cate Blanchett As The Strangest Character Ever In An Indiana Jones Flick™.

Sounds like TWINE meeting DIE HARD 4.0 - a bit of a mess and a mixed bag that has some good moments, and maybe one or two great moments, but never comes even vaguely close to fulfilling its awesome potential.

If you just read the bad reviews, yes, and focus on the bad bits, that is the consensus. The big ones I've read (BBC, Times, Empire and a few others) just tend to agree that it's a lot of fun and it sits up there with the other sequels- it's not the best film ever, but it's not trying to be. I certainly haven't seen any sort of concensus that says it falls apart at the end. At all. Why are you so down on it?

[bond 16.05.72]

I'm certainly going in not expecting a film the calibre of Raiders, it's just not possibel, if it's the weakest of all the sequels then so be it, I'm sure it will be entertaining.

From the moment it was announced I was thinking oh that will be nice but never reaching any really excited levels, I have no expectations for this, I'm just wanting to be entertained.

Now when it comes to DK or QOS I will be expecting high standards but Indy has had it's pinnacle and I don't expect another film on the Standard of ROTLA again.

Edited by bond 16.05.72, 19 May 2008 - 07:08 PM.

[Loomis]

Yeah, why do you want this film to be bad? You've been going on about it for weeks- I'm not sure what you've got against it. Is it just because you want Stallone to have the sole rights to the 'hexagenarian action hero tag'?

Yes.

I dunno. I freely admit I'm being grumpy about this flick. But might it be because I actually want it to be good and am knocking it down so that when I see it there's a greater chance that I'll be pleasantly surprised?

Not being as pre-sold on Indy as many here, my strategy is to go into it with very low expectations - chances are I'll get a greater return on my buck that way. If not, well, I'll get to play the old "I told you so" card.

That said, though, the bad reviews do give me pause for thought about the quality of this film. Okay, so they're just the bad ones, but a few I've read do strike me as making believably sobering points. And Spielberg does not, let's face it, have a particularly great track record with his sequels (although I'll grant that THE LOST WORLD: JURASSIC PARK is much worse than any of the Indy Joneses).

Still, there's a better than average chance that I'll be walking out of CRYSTAL SKULL with a great big grin on my face and John Williams' rousing score pounding away in my head. We'll see.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Exactly- they've always tried to spice up the relationship by giving him different characters to bounce off. He didn't in Raiders, no; but then that was before they made a sequel- you try to make a sequel different to the original by shaking up the format slightly. I know what people mean; adding the teen sidekick is always a bit of a tiresome technique, but that doesn't mean that it can't work and it doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense in an Indiana Jones sequel.

Good point; and given that the character is supposed to be a professor, always quite surprised they didn't go down the line of making one of his students a sidekick (and killing the student off in a "darker" moment).

Here's a fun thought; age-wise Ford doing this film would be equivalent to Connery starring as Bond in GoldenEye in '95

Arf!

Could have been spectacular. Would have been much more convincing. All that guff about Cold War dinosaurs would have made some sense.

At least the sauna scene would have been handled correctly.

Yeah, why do you want this film to be bad? You've been going on about it for weeks- I'm not sure what you've got against it. Is it just because you want Stallone to have the sole rights to the 'hexagenarian action hero tag'?

Yes.

I dunno. I freely admit I'm being grumpy about this flick. But might it be because I actually want it to be good and am knocking it down so that when I see it there's a greater chance that I'll be pleasantly surprised?

Not being as pre-sold on Indy as many here, my strategy is to go into it with very low expectations - chances are I'll get a greater return on my buck that way. If not, well, I'll get to play the old "I told you so" card.

That said, though, the bad reviews do give me pause for thought about the quality of this film. Okay, so they're just the bad ones, but a few I've read do strike me as making believably sobering points. And Spielberg does not, let's face it, have a particularly great track record with his sequels (although I'll grant that THE LOST WORLD: JURASSIC PARK is much worse than any of the Indy Joneses).

Still, there's a better than average chance that I'll be walking out of CRYSTAL SKULL with a great big grin on my face and John Williams' rousing score pounding away in my head. We'll see.

One more week to go...for Rambo on DVD! !Viva El ultimo macho viejo!

[jaguar007]

Remember the reviews we have been hearing are from professional critics. It is thier job to evaluate and dissect a movie. The average Joe movie goer just wants a good ride and to have fun and they will probably be very happy with what they get with Indy 4.

Most James Bond movies have recieved similar mixed reviews as Indy 4 has been getting, but we love all those, don't we

[Loomis]

Well, I think you'll agree with the following:

http://www.telegraph...5/19/do1906.xml

[Tarl_Cabot]

Reminds me the 'first critic' from History of the world part 1.

It's weird how all over the map the reviews are.

[kneelbeforezod]

I would have been absolutely fine with Connery, if they'd made the character an older (and, perhaps, better) version of Indy. They didn't do that.

But an older version of Indy was what everyone was expecting, it would have been so obvious and predictable. What they actually did was more rewarding because it was so unexpected.

[marktmurphy]

I would have been absolutely fine with Connery, if they'd made the character an older (and, perhaps, better) version of Indy. They didn't do that.

But an older version of Indy was what everyone was expecting, it would have been so obvious and predictable. What they actually did was more rewarding because it was so unexpected.

And where's the drama in watching two versions of the same character agreeing about everything?

[Jeff007]

Few more days untill release. Can't wait.

[Tiin007]

Few more days untill release. Can't wait.

Same here. I've got tickets for the midnight showing on Wednesday night/Thursday morning. I'm so pumped!

[Harmsway]

It's always been a complete mystery to me why they used Connery so perversely. "James Bond as Indiana Jones' father" was a brilliant idea, and casting Connery was a wonderful coup.... but why did they then have to go and totally defeat the purpose of that great idea by making Connery play a tweedy buffoon who was no different to Marcus Brody?

I have no problem with Connery playing against type. I wouldn't really have liked Indy's dad to be the super-cool father. That said, it's one thing to have him be a serious scholar who's not at home in the wild adventures of Dr. Jones, and it's another thing altogether to paint him as a cartoonish buffoon.

But I don't really think Connery is the #1 problem with LAST CRUSADE, or even the abundance of humor (TEMPLE OF DOOM is more slapsticky than CRUSADE is, to be honest). What hurts the most is that LAST CRUSADE suffers from a general blandness, a laziness that just doesn't deliver the thrills one would expect. I can overlook story problems and iffy characterization if the spectacle is well in place (like in TEMPLE OF DOOM), but LAST CRUSADE is so "going through the motions" that it never really gets interesting.

Sounds like TWINE meeting DIE HARD 4.0 - a bit of a mess and a mixed bag that has some good moments, and maybe one or two great moments, but never comes even vaguely close to fulfilling its awesome potential.

I wouldn't bring the absolutely dreadful TWINE into the equation. KINGDOM may be something like LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD, but most reviews I've read have made that comparison only to illustrate how much better KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL fits alongside its predecessors than LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD did.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

Anyhoo, and not to be even more of a sourpuss on this topic than I am already, but the critical consensus on CRYSTAL SKULL seems to be that it's an(other) occasionally fun but overall mediocre entry in the series that starts off with some great thrills and spills, has a plodding midsection and falls apart almost completely towards the end. Ford is good but nothing amazing, Shia is better than expected, Karen Allen is the highlight of the film (but criminally underused), and the rest of the cast is wasted, with the exception of Cate Blanchett As The Strangest Character Ever In An Indiana Jones Flick™.

Sounds like TWINE meeting DIE HARD 4.0 - a bit of a mess and a mixed bag that has some good moments, and maybe one or two great moments, but never comes even vaguely close to fulfilling its awesome potential.

Do we really want to put all faith in (selective!)critic ramblings?

http://au.rottentoma...ndiana_jones_4/

http://au.rottentoma...m/m/john_rambo/

[Shadow Syndicate]

woah, the RT rating went up 13% from Friday...It's rockin' at 81 now

[marktmurphy]

Anyhoo, and not to be even more of a sourpuss on this topic than I am already, but the critical consensus on CRYSTAL SKULL seems to be that it's an(other) occasionally fun but overall mediocre entry in the series that starts off with some great thrills and spills, has a plodding midsection and falls apart almost completely towards the end. Ford is good but nothing amazing, Shia is better than expected, Karen Allen is the highlight of the film (but criminally underused), and the rest of the cast is wasted, with the exception of Cate Blanchett As The Strangest Character Ever In An Indiana Jones Flick™.

Sounds like TWINE meeting DIE HARD 4.0 - a bit of a mess and a mixed bag that has some good moments, and maybe one or two great moments, but never comes even vaguely close to fulfilling its awesome potential.

Do we really want to put all faith in (selective!)critic ramblings?

http://au.rottentoma...ndiana_jones_4/

http://au.rottentoma...m/m/john_rambo/

Haha! 81% for Indy versus 33% for Rambo- yeah Indy must be doing really badly!

[Joe Bond]

All I expect is a fun entertaining adventure movie and I could care less about critics because they rarely get it right, by the way could someone who listened to the soundtrack tell me which track is the best because I wanted to by the best track off of iTunes.

[Blonde Bond]

Ah, this time next night I'll be finally watching this movie. Please don't disappoint... please don't disappoints... or else *waves fist at random direction*

[Johnboy007]

Reserved my tickets for Thursday at 7:45!

[Royal Dalton]

I would have been absolutely fine with Connery, if they'd made the character an older (and, perhaps, better) version of Indy. They didn't do that.

But an older version of Indy was what everyone was expecting, it would have been so obvious and predictable. What they actually did was more rewarding because it was so unexpected.

And where's the drama in watching two versions of the same character agreeing about everything?

Well, I'm not really arguing for that. I think the character in the film is fine, as far as it goes. I just think it would have worked better with a different actor in the role. He could still have been played by somebody famous. John Mills, for example.

But if they were going to cast Connery, they should have written the character so that it fitted him better in the first place. Rather than have him playing a character he's not really suited to.

Having said that, he's still the best thing in the film.

[sharpshooter]

Comingsoon.net gave it 8/10. They usually give a decent, fair review.

http://www.comingsoo...ws.php?id=45198

[jaguar007]

I just got back from an advance screening of Indy 4. It was a good fun summer movie. Ford looked great and pulled off Indy at 65 better than Moore pulled off Bond at 55 (but he was playing an older Indy so he had that advantage). Those who worry about Shia LaBoef as a sidekick need not worry, this is definately an Indiana Jones movie, not an Indiana Jones/Mutt adventure. Some of the movie is a little OTT, but every Indy movie is. Cate Blachet does not have much character development, but she is certainly fun to watch in every scene she is in.

My only real complaint about the movie is the action. Unlike the previous three, there is no "on the edge of your seat" action. THe main set piece is the car chase through the jungle. Too much of that scene is obvious green screen. I guess it really means that the Bond movies are the only action movies to do it for real.

All in all, it was fun, I will go see the movie again. I don't think it is quite as good as the first three (I like Temple of Doom) but still better than much of the summer crap that makes its way to theaters these days.