2519 replies to this topic

[sharpshooter]

Lucky you! That little review sounds pretty promising, can't wait to see it.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

Glad you liked it, jaguar007. All I'm hoping is that it holds its own against the previous three. I'm not too concerned as to what position it takes among the four, as long is it provides the same thrill ride the others do, I'll be happy.

[DamnCoffee]

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.

Jaguar007, tell me. Does the movie include a full blown raiders march? Since it is ever hardly used on the Soundtrack.

[marktmurphy]

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.

Go for 'Finale'- it's got pretty much all of the main themes from the film.

Jaguar007, tell me. Does the movie include a full blown raiders march? Since it is ever hardly used on the Soundtrack.

None of the other three have it featured on the soundtracks more than Skull. And I can't really think of any full blown versions- it gets played for a few seconds and then it's gone.

[jaguar007]

That is pretty much what you get, parts of the theme here and there. They play the full March during the end credits but you hear the theme in most of the scenes you would expect it, just like the other three.

The movie on a whole seems a little more scaled down than the previous three.

[Johnboy007]

I agree with marktmurphy on this one, there's more Raiders March on this soundtrack than any of the other sequels. It even gives you a straight-on arrangement of it for the first track.

[0024]

I agree. It was nice to hear the Raiders March on it's own track. It hasn't been included on a soundtrack in its full form since the first movie. Even then, Marion's theme wasn't in included in the track. I think it is a successful soundtrack. I look forward to seeing it with the film tonight, but on album, it is satisfying.

Midnight can't get here soon enough for me. I can't wait to hear that fanfare again...

[HildebrandRarity]

The movie on a whole seems a little more scaled down than the previous three.

How about the aliens?

Do tell.

[DamnCoffee]

That is pretty much what you get, parts of the theme here and there. They play the full March during the end credits but you hear the theme in most of the scenes you would expect it, just like the other three.

But since the Raiders March was included in the previous three, at least you can hear the... da da da da. da da da. On the KOTCS soundtrack, you cant, only on the 1st track, which I dont think will be included in the film itself, and the finale. when the credits role.

My worry is the lack of the Raders March throughout the soundtrack, on the first three it was used in numerously, but I cannot hear any of the theme in 'jungle chase', which is the main action set piece of the movie. I know the soundtrack has elements of it, but the actual 'da da da da. da da da' isn't used in an action piece at all.

[HildebrandRarity]

But since the Raiders March was included in the previous three, at least you can hear the... da da da da. da da da.

da da da da. da da da?

You Indy fanatics really kill me!

[Tarl_Cabot]

Going to the midnight show...Don't fail me George.

pretty please.

[marktmurphy]

But since the Raiders March was included in the previous three, at least you can hear the... da da da da. da da da. On the KOTCS soundtrack, you cant, only on the 1st track, which I dont think will be included in the film itself, and the finale. when the credits role.

It really does pop up in most of the tracks of the album in some form. Last time I listened to it there's literally a phrase from the Raiders march, in some form, in pretty much all of it. Have a listen to 'Whirl through Academe'- a proper fanfare just before a minute in. And it's quoted in varying forms all through.
And don't forget Journey to Akator- it's all over that.

My worry is the lack of the Raders March throughout the soundtrack, on the first three it was used in numerously, but I cannot hear any of the theme in 'jungle chase', which is the main action set piece of the movie. I know the soundtrack has elements of it, but the actual 'da da da da. da da da' isn't used in an action piece at all.

It's in the jungle chase. In fact, it's even the counter melody as used in Finale; around 2 mins 30 in..

[Tiin007]

I'm all pumped for my midnight showing. I'll be sure to post my thoughts on the film when I get back...

[stromberg]

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.

Spot on.

Just back, happy that I don't have to write a lengthy review, as you already did the basics for me

It's not "the Indy movie we dreaded", but I've seen better ones. Other than you, I rank TOD the lowest (but didn't hate it), KOCS is slightly better. Didn't like the whole alien aspect from the moment I first heard about it, and I wasn't really fond of it while watching the movie, as a result of which I didn't really like the final 20 minutes, when this comes more into focus. The best thing about the movie: Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones.

[jaguar007]

The Alien thing did not bother me at all, no more unrealistic than a 700 year old knight or someone who can rip your heart out while you live.

I love what they did in the last shot of the movie, you think they are going to do something that makes you cringe - and it gets diverted. Stromberg knows what Im talking about.

I'm actually looking forward to seeing it again, I think it might be the kind of movie I enjoy more the second time.

[Shadow Syndicate]

Im loving your reviews, keep me optimistic

Edited by Shadow Syndicate, 22 May 2008 - 05:41 AM.

[JimmyBond]

Just got back, and the one word I can use to summarize it...silly.

But! Silly in a good way, this is far and away the cheesiest of the Indiana Jones films, and I meant that in a good way. Eeach action sequence was silly, Ford's Indy this time out was really silly (not all the time though, but a lot), and yes, the Jungle Chase is really silly, but also (imo) the best action sequence in the movie.

Ok, I think I used the word silly enough But really, this movie is fun, the tone, as promised, is closer to the 1950's scifi pictures than the adventure serials that the first three patterned themselves after, and to be honest it is weird seeing Indy in a new adventure after all these years (I imagine a second viewing will get rid of that weirdness), but all in all I have no complaints.

One thing though, do not expect it to be anything close to 'Raiders, you will be seriously disappointed.

[TheSaint]

Roger is probably the only actor who somehow gets dissed in reviews for a movie he was nowhere in.

I thought it was amazing! My friend who I saw it with thought it was better than Raiders. I won't go that far but it was on par with Last Crusade. Looking forward to seeing it again. I hope it makes a mint.

[sharpshooter]

Excellent. The movie seems to have the guts to go over the top and take risks, and make no excuses about doing so. It will be refreshing to see a film that doesn't take itself all that seriously. Hell, that is why I like the fun nature of The Last Crusade. They may border on the levels of plausibility, but these films are there for our enjoyment.

It was a lazy Saturday afternoon series all along, it is pure escapism. People should not expect another Raiders, they should take the film for what it is, its own beast. As for the alien aspect, I couldn't care less, as we all know Indy has featured out there aspects in the other films. What makes Indy plots great is the seemingly mythical things come to life.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Just back from Indy 4. It's OK, an improvement over TLC but not a spectacular return to form. It could have been alot better.Harrison Ford shows up and looks great and moves well.He was never a distraction for me in terms of looking too old to be doing what he's doing. Kudos to him.He hasn't been this appealing in anything since '89.He was the star and deserved to be treated like the star of his own film.

The problems: *minor spoiler warning*








Too much CGI. Just CGI over kill.When it works it looks great(The ants for instance) but it takes 'Skull into such an entirely different asthetic than the other films and feels like the typical 21st centry summer movie.

Action: No real tension. I remember squirming in my seat when Indy was trying to climb up the cave in Raiders while the wall was closing. None of that here.zip. One good fight scene with encroaching ants...

Too many *&^%$#@! supporting characters: they could just have made Indy's trip to Peru a field trip for his class. Ray winestine serves no purpose and John Hurt should have been playing Avner Ravenwood so we would have at least cared about him.This film is cluttered with side kicks for no apparent reason. Whenever Indy is doing something alone, YOU PAY ATTENTION!This movie felt like an almagamation of a James Bond and scooby doo movie.

Locales: You never get a sense that they're in South America(because they filmed in Hawaii). Not one vista of Lima or any real SA landscape(except Iguazu falls which is famously NOT in Peru!) ah la Cairo or India. So the movie feels inauthentic.

The Alien storyline: Deserved to be much more interesting!!!! I think Alien vs Predator had a more engaging alien mythology plot! Ugh.

So, I give Ford **** for presentation but Skull ** 1/2, dissapointing but I had curbed expectations. They are some fun moments that make it a worthwhile trip to the cinema. It's entertaining. There was some exposition about Indy being a soldier in WWII and having a legendary career. I wish we could have seen that movie (s) during the 90s.

[Harmsway]

Locales: You never get a sense that they're in South America(because they filmed in Hawaii).

They filmed the opening of RAIDERS in Hawaii, and it felt like South America. What's the difference this time out?

[Loomis]

Just back from seeing it. Some initial observations:

Not a disaster, but no work of genius, either. I'd rank it as the third best Indy Jones flick - preferred it to LAST CRUSADE, although that probably says more about how bad I consider LAST CRUSADE.

Ford is great fun to watch. No other Indy outing points up so much our hero's double life between hot-tempered adventurer and mild-mannered academic. Here, Jones is much more Connery in LAST CRUSADE than Connery as Bond, but it's enjoyable to see how he's settled into mellow old age (rather shocking, though, is the sight of him in.... a T-shirt!) - this is the source of some of the movie's funniest lines.

No episode of derring-do is too fast or too furious as to prevent the old boy from passing on some arcane piece of knowledge in an endearing sort of way that recalls Rocky Balboa gently giving some bum the benefit of his homespun wisdom (during a motorcycle chase, he encounters a nerdy student and takes time out to advise him to read "Dawson, page 28, on the subject of Aztec burial mounds", or something like that).

Much of the humour is incredibly goofy - too much so, really (see the abovementioned motorcycle chase). But much of it works very well - my favourite moment came when an exasperated Karen Allen yells at him that they're not in the classroom as he tries to pontificate while they're being sucked under by quicksand.

Now, I had two big problems with CRYSTAL SKULL:

1. The look of the film. Unfortunately, this really marred my enjoyment. For reasons that baffle me, the filmmakers have gone in for an incredibly overlit, ultra-bright, chocolate boxy sheen that reminded me of REVENGE OF THE SITH at its worst. CRYSTAL is on the whole a fine flick, and it's never boring, but it's just tragic that it actually hurts to look at it for most of the time. ROCKY BALBOA and DIE HARD 4.0 also went in for trendy lighting and arty desaturation of colour, and partly suffer from it, but here it's much, much worse. In all seriousness, I'd advise wearing sunglasses for CRYSTAL. It's distracting, it's an eyesore and it's a real shame. Why they couldn't have given it the same lighting style as the other Indy outings absolutely defeats me.

2. The action. I really doubt that this film will have much appeal to younger action junkies. It could and should have had the greatest action scenes ever. The concepts are fine, but the execution is pedestrian. In terms of edge-of-seat excitement, the action is better than that in T3 and just about on a par with that in DIE HARD 4.0, which isn't exactly high praise. Bourne and CASINO ROYALE just shame the action in CRYSTAL.

In terms of storyline (as well as its rather halfhearted, sluggish execution), the film plays more like LAST CRUSADE VOL. 2 than a stand-alone affair. Which is actually more interesting than it sounds. Unfortunately, it also looks and feels more like an Indiana Jones outing directed by George Lucas rather than one directed by Spielberg. "Where the heck was Spielberg?" is a question you may well find yourself asking as you watch this one. (One Spielberg trademark, though, is that the film's first half hour or so is by far its strongest.)

Because I kept my expectations super-low, I had a pretty good time. Overall, it's the second best Incredibly Belated Comeback For An '80s Action Hero effort after ROCKY BALBOA. Still, that it beats the likes of DIE HARD 4.0 and T3 ain't really saying much.

For the movie geek of a certain age, it's impossible to sit down to INDIANA JONES 4 in a "neutral" way and treat it like any other movie. Much of the time, you're not only weighing it up against the other films in the series, but you're also shaking your head in wonder at the fact that you're seeing it at all. It's a strange, bittersweet experience.

Right now, I'd give it a perhaps rather generous 6.5 out of 10. I was entertained - although that was largely for reasons of nostalgia - and I'd certainly like to see it again (I'll wait for DVD, though, for it has Above-Par Rental written all over it), but I do fear the effects on my vision of that diabolical LucasFilm white glare.

[Safari Suit]

Overall, it's the second best Incredibly Belated Comeback For An '80s Action Hero effort after ROCKY BALBOA. Still, that it beats the likes of DIE HARD 4.0 and T3 ain't really saying much.

You enjoyed it more than Rambo (IV) then?

[Loomis]

Overall, it's the second best Incredibly Belated Comeback For An '80s Action Hero effort after ROCKY BALBOA. Still, that it beats the likes of DIE HARD 4.0 and T3 ain't really saying much.

You enjoyed it more than Rambo (IV) then?

Well, I guess I enjoyed RAMBO a little more by virtue of the fact that I'm more of a Rambo fan, but objectively I'd say that CRYSTAL SKULL and RAMBO are roughly equal in quality terms. Both are sequels that pass muster but don't bring anything new to the table.

Certainly, the action in RAMBO is far superior. I know this sounds like a major diss of CRYSTAL, but I don't think I had even one vaguely edge-of-seat moment. There's no "****, yeah!" action, nothing to quicken the blood. There are action scenes, sure, but the execution is nothing special at all. Is it valid or is it irritatingly picky and fanboyish to say that more might have been expected in this department from the return of Indiana Jones?

Still a fun timekiller, though, but, boy, did it hurt my eyes to look at it.

[Judo chop]

Can't say I'm surprised by these reviews.

(Although I'm completely astonished that Loomis didn't mention Rambo in his list of Incredibly Belated Comebacks For '80s Action Hero efforts!)

[Royal Dalton]

The look of the film. Unfortunately, this really marred my enjoyment. For reasons that baffle me, the filmmakers have gone in for an incredibly overlit, ultra-bright, chocolate boxy sheen that reminded me of REVENGE OF THE SITH at its worst. CRYSTAL is on the whole a fine flick, and it's never boring, but it's just tragic that it actually hurts to look at it for most of the time. ROCKY BALBOA and DIE HARD 4.0 also went in for trendy lighting and arty desaturation of colour, and partly suffer from it, but here it's much, much worse. In all seriousness, I'd advise wearing sunglasses for CRYSTAL. It's distracting, it's an eyesore and it's a real shame. Why they couldn't have given it the same lighting style as the other Indy outings absolutely defeats me.

I haven't seen the film yet. But that's something that's bothered me about it since the first trailer appeared.

Obviously Douglas Slocombe couldn't have lit the film. But you'd think they'd try to get it to look much closer to the first three films than they appear to have.

Really, rather than desaturating the image, I would have thought they would have gone the other way, and made the colours bolder. Since they're supposed to be equating this one to things like the George Pal sci-fi films of the 1950s.

[Loomis]

Obviously Douglas Slocombe couldn't have lit the film. But you'd think they'd try to get it to look much closer to the first three films than they appear to have.

Exactly. There's plenty wrong with CRYSTAL SKULL (uninteresting story, bizarrely underwhelming action, etc.), but I'd have enjoyed it a thousand times more had it been the exact same film only without the horrible, horrible overbright lighting.

Really, rather than desaturating the image, I would have thought they would have gone the other way, and made the colours bolder. Since they're supposed to be equating this one to things like the George Pal sci-fi films of the 1950s.

Y'know, watching the South American jungle and temple scenes, it struck me that it would have been really effective in black and white, a la CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON or something. Not even Spielberg (although, like I say, this feels much more like a Lucas-directed flick) would have been as bold as to give us INDY 4 in B&W, but I think it could have worked superbly.

Be that as it may, though, many of the scenes in CRYSTAL SKULL reminded me of Jackson's KING KONG. Why couldn't they have lit it that way?

[Judo chop]

this feels much more like a Lucas-directed flick

many of the scenes in CRYSTAL SKULL reminded me of Jackson's KING KONG.

Have mercy, Loomis. I

[Loomis]

Hmmm.... I actually really liked KING KONG.

[dodge]

Ha! Do you dudes seriously think I won't go into Crystal with at least semi-virgin eyes, despite your (thanks, the bunch of you) warnings about the crap lighting. My fiercely independent review--hopefuly entitled The Dodge Supremacy--will be published next week.

Crap lighting from Spielberg and Lucas? I shall see what I shall see. But the trailer looked just wonderful--at least before I closed my eyes. My confident prediction: the film will rock and make big bugs. For goodness' sake, I meant big BUCKS.